PB96-963812
EPA/ROD/R02-96/279
November 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Syosset Landfill Site
(Operable Unit 2), Nassau County, NY
3/28/1996
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Syosset Landfill Site
Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
March 1996
-------
DECLARATION STATEMENT
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 remedy for the second operable unit (OU2) for the
Syosset Landfill site (the Site), 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 State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) concurs with the
selected remedy. A letter of concurrence from NYSDEC is appended to this document (see Appendix
JV).
An administrative record for the Site contains the documents that form the basis for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency 's (EPA's) selection of the remedial action, the index for which is
attached as Appendix TR.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED NO FURTHER ACTION REMEDY
This operable unit represents the second of two operable units for the Site. It addresses the fate and
transport of the contaminants in the groundwater emanating from the Site. EPA in consultation with
the State of New York has determined that contamination is limited and does not pose a significant
threat to human health or the environment; therefore, remediation is not appropriate. This
determination is based on the OU2 Remedial Investigation and the expected successful implementation
of the OU1 remedy. The major portions of the OU1 remedy include the construction of a landfill cap to
further reduce infiltration and/or leaching of contaminants into the groundwater and the implementation
of a groundwater well monitoring program.
DECLARATION
In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, as amended, and the NCP, it has been determined
that the no further remedial action remedy is protective of human health and the environment at the Site,
complies with federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to
the remedial action, and is cost effective. The principal threats at the Site are being addressed through
-------
the OU1 remedial action, which includes the installation of a landfill cap to further reduce infiltration or
leaching of contaminants into the groundwater and the implementation of an environmental monitoring
program.
A review of the remedial action pursuant to CERCLA 121(c), 42 U.S.C. Section 9621(c), will be
conducted five years after the commencement of the remedial action for OU1 to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection to human health and the environment, since the site remedies
will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based levels.
Jeanne M. Fox/
Regional Ad^unistrato:
Da
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
SYOSSET LANDFILL SITE
TOWN OF OYSTER BAY
NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Syosset Landfill site is located in Syosset, in the Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York.
The Site covers approximately 38 acres and is 50 yards north of the Long Island Expressway. It is
bordered by Miller Place to the southeast, to the southwest by property formerly occupied by Cerro
Conduit Company, and to the northwest by the Long Island Railroad. A residential area and the South
Grove Elementary School borders the Site to the northeast. The entire landfill area 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 (see Figure 1).
Topographically, the landfill is relatively flat and at similar elevation to the surrounding area. Until
recently, the landfill was characterized by barren landscape with clumps of trees. However, the landfill
has since been cleared and reshaped in preparation for capping. There are two recharge basins owned
by Nassau County which border the landfill to the north and northeast. Both basins collect storm water
runoff from the neighboring residential area for recharge to the underlying groundwater aquifers. The
total population of Syosset is estimated to be 10,400. All the residents around the Syosset Landfill get
their drinking water from public water supply wells.
There are four public water supply wells within a 1-mile radius of the landfill; none of these wells is
currently in service. However, there are eight public water supply wells located within 3 miles of the
landfill in the general direction of groundwater flow (northeast). The closest are two public water
supply wells located approximately 2 miles to the northeast of the landfill. These wells are screened in
a deep part of the Magothy Aquifer and are still in service.
The landfill is located in a densely populated residential and industrial area. This area is not known to
contain ecologically significant habitats, agricultural land, historic or landmark sites which are directly
or potentially affected. There are no wetlands on or adjacent to the landfill. However, a low area on
the north side of the landfill supports the growth of the Giant Reed, a common freshwater wetland
species. The occurrence of this species is most likely due to infrequent ponding caused by storms. This
area has since been cleared and regraded.
The landfill is located in Long Island, New York within the glaciated part 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 on the bedrock surface. The unconsolidated deposits are
separated into three formations: the Upper Glacial Formation (top), the Magothy Formation (middle),
and the Raritan Formation (bottom). The upper 60 to 100 feet of unconsolidated sand and gravel
deposits in the vicinity of the landfill comprise the Upper Glacial Formation . Before landfilling began,
up to 90 feet of the formation was removed during sand mining at the Site. The Magothy Formation ,
which is comprised of finer sands, silts and clays is directly beneath the Upper Glacial Formation and is
hydraulically connected with it. Based on published data, the Magothy Formation is approximately 540
feet thick beneath the Site, and may extend as deep as 630 feet below land surface. The Raritan
Formation is the third and deepest unconsolidated formation beneath the Site and rests on the bedrock
surface. At the Site only two of the formation s are saturated: the Magothy and the Raritan. 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.
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 about 1967, no restrictions were imposed on the types of wastes
accepted at the landfill. Waste types included: commercial, industrial, residential, demolition,
agricultural, sludge material and ash. After about 1967, waste disposal at the landfill was more
restricted, though disposal of wastes (including industrial wastes) continued.
Several large companies have been identified as generators of large quantities of waste that were
disposed at the landfill over a period of years. Types of waste disposed included heavy metals,
solvents, organics, oils, placticizers, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
The landfill was closed on January 27, 1975 because of a suspected groundwater pollution problem. In
January 1983, Environmental Resources Management - Northeast (ERM) prepared a report
summarizing the results of a study that they performed for the Nassau County Department of Health
(NCDOH). The report concluded that the groundwater quality was being impacted by landfill leachate.
Elevated heavy metal concentrations including arsenic, cadmium, chromium and lead were detected at
levels exceeding New York State Primary Drinking Water Standards. One public drinking water well
which is downgradient of the Site was closed due to taste and odor problems.
The Site was placed on the Superfimd National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983 as a result of
the ERM investigation. On June 19, 1986, EPA and the Town entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent (Index No. II CERCLA-60203). The Order required the Town to conduct a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site.
From April 1987 until September 1989, the field investigation for the RI was performed, which included
drilling and installing monitoring wells, collecting groundwater and soil samples for laboratory analyses,
a landfill dimension study, and a sub-surface gas study. Since that time, the cleanup of the Site was
separated into phases or operable units (OUs).
In September 1990, EPA signed a Record of Decision for OU1, which included capping of the landfill
pursuant to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) regulations, and
provisions for long-term air and groundwater monitoring of the landfill. In addition, because leachate
indicator chemicals were identified in groundwater underneath and downgradient of the landfill, the
ROD also specified that a supplemental investigation be conducted to study the potential off-site
impacts of the landfill, designated as Operable Unit 2 (OU2).
-------
The OU1 ROD is being implemented pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into by EPA and the Town
of Oyster Bay. This Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
New York on February 20, 1991. The Town hired Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, Inc. (LKB) to
perform the Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) at the Site. As part of the RD activities, a
Preload program was performed. The Preload program consists of grading the landfill site and placing
clean fill material over a portion of the Site to achieve settlement prior to the construction of the Site-
wide cap. Achieving this settlement of the landfill prior to cap construction will protect the integrity of
the geosynthetic (plastic) membrane cap. The Preload program was initiated in November 1994 and is
currently ongoing. Placement of the final cap is expected to be initiated in the Spring of 1996.
The RI for the supplemental groundwater study was prepared by Geraghty and Miller, Inc., a
subcontractor to LKB, and is discussed in subsequent sections of this ROD.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI report and the Proposed Plan for OU2 were released to the public for comment on January 26,
1996. These documents were made available to the public at three information repositories maintained
at the EPA Region n Office in New York City, the Syosset Public Library, Syosset, New York and the
Town of Oyster Bay Town Hall, Oyster Bay, New York. The notice of availability for these
documents was published in Newsday on January 26, 1996. A public comment period was held from
January 26, 1996 through February 25, 1996.
During the public comment period, EPA held a public meeting to present the results of the RI, the risk
assessment report, and the Proposed Plan, to answer questions, and to accept both oral and written
comments. The public meeting was held at the Syosset High School, Syosset, New York on February
15, 1996. At this meeting, representatives from EPA, NYSDEC and the New York State and Nassau
County Departments of Health answered questions about the Site and the proposed no further action
remedy and received comments from the local citizens. Community interest focused 6n ground-water
contamination and EPA's Proposed Plan. Comments and responses to those comments received during
the public meeting and public comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is
attached as Appendix V.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
EPA has divided the remedial work necessary, to mitigate contamination stemming from the Site into
two operable units. The first operable unit addresses the control of the source of contamination at the
Site. The September 1990 ROD for OU1 selected the capping of the landfill as the appropriate source
control response action. The purpose of that action was to minimize the infiltration of precipitation into
the landfill, thus reducing the quantity of water percolating through the landfill materials. This will
minimize the leaching of contaminants and reduce downgradient migration of contaminants. Currently,
the remedial design phase of the cap is nearing completion; the remedial action to construct and install
the cap should begin in the Spring of 1996.
-------
This ROD addresses the Second Operable Unit. OU2 addresses the further characterization of the fate
and transport of the contaminants in the groundwater. Based on the findings of the OU2 RI and EPA's
Risk Assessment, the on- and off-site groundwater does not pose a threat to the public health or the
environment. The selected remedy for OU1 and the OU2 RI, Risk Assessment and Proposed Plan
serve as the basis for the OU2 groundwater remedy.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Between October 1992 and March 1994, various investigations were conducted by Geraghty and
Miller. These investigations included installation of monitoring wells and soil borings; groundwater
monitoring well and subsurface gas monitoring well sampling, collection of water level measurements
and ambient air sampling.
Site Geology and Hydrology
Fine sands, silt and clays were revealed during the soil borings drilled for the field investigation. The
borings were between 192 and 540 feet deep. The Magothy formation consists of fine sand often
containing thin, discontinuous layers of silt and clay. The thickness of the Magothy Aquifer is estimated
at 400 to 500 feet in the Syosset Landfill study area. The Upper Glacial formation overlies the
Magothy Aquifer and the two may act as distinct aquifers, or as one, depending upon the degree of
hydraulic connection between the two. The coarse-grained deposits encountered during the field
investigation, which are typical of the Upper Glacial Formation, are not saturated beneath and around
the landfill. Based on sample/core logs, the thickness of the Upper Glacial formation appears to be
more than 130 feet thick.
Hydrogeological conditions encountered during the OU2 RI are generally consistent with the OU1 RI
except that two low-permeability units were encountered in the deep aquifer formation (Magothy
Aquifer) that appear to be continuous over the study area. The deepest low-permeability unit appears to
have prevented the movement of contaminants into the deep zone except at off-site Well RW-12D. Regional
shallow groundwater flow was documented to be in a north-northeasterly direction near the Site. The off-site
specific horizontal direction of groundwater flow in the shallow, intermediate, and deep zones of the Magothy
formation is generally to the north.
Groundwater Sampling and Analytical Results
As part of the OU1 RI, nine groundwater monitoring wells were installed on-site to supplement six existing
groundwater monitoring wells. Two rounds of groundwater samples were collected from the monitoring
wells.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), metals, and leachate indicator parameters were detected in some of
the on-site wells. The results for metals and VOCs were found to be consistent with regional water quality
data However, the distribution of leachate parameters indicated that groundwater is being impacted by
landfill .leachate, as evidenced by elevated concentrations of dissolved solids, chloride, ammonia, alkalinity,
-------
and hardness (leachate parameters). This suggests the existence of an off-site plume of leachate-impacted
groundwater.
As part of the OU2 RI, nine additional monitoring wells (shallow, intermediate, and deep) were installed at
three locations off-site and one location on-site (see Figure 2). Two rounds of groundwater quality samples
were collected on November 3,1993 and December 2,1993. Samples were collected from the nine new
wells and from 13 of the 15 preexisting on-site wells. On and off-site wells were sampled for VOCs, metals
(total and dissolved), and leachate indicator parameters. In July 1995, an additional round of samples was
collected from seven monitoring wells and analyzed for VOCs.
Volatile Organic Compounds
The VOC data summarized below was derived from the first two rounds of groundwater sampling. The third
round, conducted in July 1995, yielded VOC data that was essentially the same as the data from the first two
rounds.
Of the thirteen on-site wells sampled, federal and/or state Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) were
exceeded in seven monitoring well for at least one of the following eight compounds: vinyl chloride, cis-1,2-
dichloroethene, chloroform, benzene, toluene, tetrachloroethene, chlorobenzene and ortho-xylene. Table 1
contains a list of the compounds detected in on-site wells above MCL values and maximum concentrations
detected. Of the 13 on-site wells sampled, VOCs were not detected during either sampling round in Wells
SY-1 and SY-3DD. Total VOC concentrations were less than 10 micrograms/liter (ug/1) for samples
collected from five on-site wells (SY-2D, SY-2R, SY-6, SY-6D, and SY-9) for both sampling rounds.
Chlorobenzene was detected in four of the on-site wells (SY-3D, SY-4, SY-1D, and SY-3), with
concentrations ranging from 1.3 ug/1 to 9.1 ug/1. Tetrachloroethene was detected in Well SY-8, at a
concentration of 17 ug/1 which is above both the state and federal MCLs of 5 ug/1. The highest total VOC
concentration for the on-site wells from either sampling round was 547.9 ug/1 detected in Well SY-7.
However, this detection is not considered a result of landfill impacts because the well is upgradient of the
landfill. SY-7 is a shallow well that only had trace levels of VOCs detected in it during the OU1 RI. Nearly
all the total VOC concentrations detected in this well during the OU2 RI sampling consisted of benzene, a
gasoline component. Well SY-7 is located adjacent to a pump island where gasoline is dispensed to the Town
of Oyster Bay vehicles. Beneath the pump island are two Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) supplying the
gasoline. These two USTs were replaced in 1980 due to the age of the steel tanks and the potential for
leakage. The steel tanks were replaced with single wall fiberglass tanks which were last tested in 1992,
complying with the requirements of the Nassau County Fire Marshall Article HI regulations. Based on
available information, it would appear that the benzene detected in Well SY-7 is from the UST that may
have leaked in the past. The NYSDEC was advised of the high levels of benzene and they will investigate.
The concentration of benzene detected in the well was 410 ug/1 to 540 ug/1 from the first and second round of
sampling, respectively. Benzene was not detected in any of the off-site wells at concentrations greater than 1
ug/1.
Of the eight off-site wells sampled, the following VOCs were detected in six of these wells above the
federal and/or state MCLs: vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, cis-l,2-dichloroethene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene, toluene, tetrachloroethene, and chlorobenzene (see Table 2 ). Well
RW-12I contained the most exceedances - seven compounds were above federal and/or state MCLs. Well
RW-12D had two compounds (vinyl chloride and toluene) which exceeded the MCLs. The remaining four
off-site wells (PK-10S, PK-10I, PK-10D and RB-1II) contained only one or two compounds which
-------
exceeded federal and/or state MCLs. In Well PK-10S, 1,1-dichloroethane was detected at a maximum
concentration of 6.7 ug/1, which is slightly above the state and federal MCLs of 5 ug/1. Chlorobenzene and
1,1-dichloroethane were also detected in Well PK-101 at maximum concentrations of 20 ug/1 and 5.4 ug/1,
respectively. These levels are above the federal and state MCLs of 5 ug/1 for both compounds. Toluene
was detected in Well PK-10D at a maximum concentration of 5.7 ug/1, which is slightly above the state and
federal MCLs of 5 ug/1. Tetrachloroethene was detected in Well RB-11I at a maximum concentration of 23
ug/1. This value is above both the federal and state MCLs of 5 ug/1. The VOC concentrations detected in
off-site monitoring wells during the OU2 RI ,with the exception of RW-12I, were found to be
consistent with regionally degraded groundwater quality.
The total concentration of VOCs detected in Well RW-12I is several times higher than any total VOC
concentration found on-site or off-site during either the OU1 or OU2 investigations with the exception
of Well SY-7, discussed above. Of the nine compounds detected off-site above both their federal and/
or state MCLs, seven of the compounds (1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, cis-l,2-dichloroethene,
1,1,1 -trichloroethane, trichloroethene, toluene, and tetrachloroethene) were detected in RW-121. For 1,1,-
dichloroethene the values detected off-site ranged in concentrations from not detect to 26 ug/1, while
concentrations found on-site were non-detect. The federal MCL and state MCL is 7 ug/1 and 5 ug/1,
respectively. For trichloroethene the concentrations found off-site ranged from 6.2 ug/1 to 9.8 ug/1, while on-
site samples ranged from 2 ug/1 to 7 ug/1. Both the federal MCL and state MCL is 5 ug/1. For
tetrachloroethene the concentrations found off-site ranged from 68 ug/1 to 110 ug/1, while on-site
concentrations ranged from 3 ug/1 to 19 ug/1. Both the federal MCL and state MCL is 5 ug/. For 1,1-
dichloroethane the values detected off-site ranged in concentration from not detected to 17 ug/1, while
concentrations found on-site ranged from non-detect to 4 ug/l. Both the federal and state MCLs are 5 ug/1.
For cis-l,2-dichloroethane the values detected off-site ranged in concentration from not detected to 5.7 ug/1,
while concentrations found on-site were non-detect. Both the federal and state MCLs are 5 ug/1. For 1,1,1-
trichloroethane the values detected off-site ranged in concentrations from not detected to 75 ug/1, while
concentrations found on-site ranged from non-detect to 2 ug/1. Off-site toluene concentrations ranged from
non-detect to 13 ug/1, while concentrations found on-site ranged from non-detect to 2 ug/1.
Contaminant levels in groundwater would normally be expected to be higher at a source (e.g. a
landfill) and lower at any downgradient location. This was not the case with Well RW-12I. Given the
fact that RW-12I is located near the westernmost edge of the landfill, and adjacent to an industrial area
located west of the Long Island Railroad tracks, the VOCs detected in this well may be derived from a
source other than the landfill. An Industrial Survey was performed to determine if potential sources of
VOCs exist in the vicinity of the landfill. The Industrial Survey identified five off-site properties which
may be potential sources of the VOCs detected in Well RW-12I. These properties are located on
Robbins Lane and Aerial Way, between 1,400 and 2,100 feet southwest of Well RW-12I. Based on the
results from the survey, it was found that each of these properties used one or more of the VOCs
detected in the RW-12I Well. Regional hydrogeologic data suggests that the potential off-site sources
identified in the Industrial Survey are located hydraulically upgradient of Well RW-12I and may have
impacted the well. Additional investigations will be performed by NYSDEC to determine the source of
the VOCs in Well RW-121.
-------
7
Leachate Indicator Parameters
Groundwater samples were also analyzed for leachate indicator parameters as part of the off-site
groundwater _study. The leachate indicator parameters include ammonia, hardness, alkalinity, nitrate,
sulfates and chlorides and are extremely useful in determining landfill leachate impacts to groundwater.
The leachate indicator parameter detected and their corresponding concentration for both sampling
rounds are presented in Table 3.
Results indicate that the highest concentration of leachate parameters are in wells located on the
western portion of the landfill as compared to the eastern portion, with few exceptions. Leachate
indicator parameter concentrations show impacts to groundwater on-site and these impacts extend off-
site to Well PK-1 OS. However, results for leachate parameters detected.in off-site monitoring wells
are significantly less than concentrations detected in on-site wells. Impacts at Well PK-1 OS are
consistent with this well being directly downgradient of the area on-site with the highest leachate
indicator concentrations . The impacts of the leachate in the groundwater do not presently pose a health
concern because the groundwater is not currently being used as a potable source.
Metals
Groundwater samples were also analyzed for metals , filtered and unfiltered, as part of the off-site
groundwater study. The purpose of the two analyses was to determine whether suspended particles in the
samples were contributing to the metals detected. The unfiltered samples were sent to the laboratory for
analysis of total metals and the filtered samples were sent for analysis of dissolved metals.
On-site results indicated that six metals (antimony, arsenic, beryllium, iron, lead, and sodium) were detected
in at least one of the wells at concentrations above the corresponding MCL (see Table 4 A). Antimony was
detected above the MCL (6 ug/1) in non-filtered samples at least once in six on-site wells at concentrations
ranging from 21 ug/1 to 91.8 ug/1. Dissolved antimony was only detected above the MCL'in filtered samples
collected from Wells SY-3 and SY-4. Arsenic was detected above the MCL (50 ug/1) in non-filtered samples
at least once in two on-site wells (SY-3 and SY-3D) with concentrations up to 102 ug/1. Dissolved arsenic
was not detected above the MCL in either well. Total beryllium was detected only once in Well SY-2R in a
non-filtered sample above the MCL (4 ug/1) at a concentration of 7.8 ug/1. Total lead was detected above
the MCL (50 ug/1) in non-filtered samples at least once in four on-site wells with total concentrations up to
128 ug/1. However, none of the dissolved lead concentration detected in on-site wells exceeded the MCL.
Sodium was detected in all on-site wells, except for Well SY-3DD, during both sampling rounds above the
MCL (20,000 ug/1). Concentrations ranged from 20,100 ug/1 to 239,000 ug/1.
Of the metals detected in the off-site wells, only iron and sodium were detected above the federal and state
MCLs (see Table 4B). Total iron was detected above the MCL in seven wells with concentrations ranging
from 342 ug/1 to 5,380 ug/1. Dissolved iron was only detected above the MCL in Well PK-10S at a
concentration of 694 ug/1. Total sodium was detected above the MCL in five wells at concentrations
ranging from 20,500 ug/1 to 235,000 ug/1. Dissolved sodium was also detected above the MCL in five wells
at concentrations ranging from 20,900 ug/1 to 220,000 ug/1. The MCL for iron is 300 ug/1 and for sodium
is 20,000 ug/1.
-------
8
Subsurface Gas Sampling
The off-site subsurface gas study was conducted to determine the extent of off-site subsurface gas migration
from the landfill, since elevated concentrations of methane gas had been detected during the OU1 RI. As
part of the OU2 RI, three new gas monitoring wells were installed. Samples were collected from the three
new gas wells and from four ( G-6, G-7, G-13, and G-14) of the 19 preexisting on-site gas wells. On and
off-site wells were sampled for methane and total organic vapors on three days of low or falling barometric
pressure. A summary of the OU2 landfill gas monitoring results is presented in Table 5.
Results indicate that landfill gases were detected at relatively elevated concentrations in one of the gas
monitoring wells (G-7) in the southwestern part of the landfill. This result is consistent with the
findings of the OU1 RI. A passive gas venting system that will be installed as part of the capping
program will allow the landfill gases to be vented. The levels of the gases will then decrease. Landfill
gases were not detected in the off-site gas monitoring wells and do not appear to be migrating off-site.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the Operable Unit Two Remedial Investigation Report, a Baseline Risk
Assessment was conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and future site conditions. The
baseline risk assessment estimates the human health risks which could result from the contamination at
the site if no remedial action were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable maximum
exposure scenario. Hazard Identification identifies the contaminants of concern at the site based on
several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration. Exposure Assessment
estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and duration of
these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated well-water) by which humans are
potentially exposed. Toxicity Assessment determines the types of adverse health effects associated with
chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse
effects (response). Risk Characterization summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and
toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks.
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of concern which would be
representative of site risks (see Table 6). These contaminants included 1,1-dichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, arsenic and selenium in groundwater. Several of the
contaminants are known to cause cancer in laboratory animals and are suspected or known to be human
carcinogens. A summary of toxicity data (cancer slope factors and Reference Doses) for the chemicals
of concern are provided in Table 7.
-------
Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures are an individual lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in
the range of 10"4 to 10"6' This can be interpreted to mean that an individual may have a one in ten thousand
to a one in a million increased chance of developing cancer as a result of exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-
year lifetime under the specific site exposure conditions.
Based on discussions with the Nassau County Department of Health it was determined that residents
obtain their drinking water from a municipal water supply and that private residential wells are not being
used for potable purposes. Therefore, present use scenarios for groundwater were not evaluated in this
assessment.
Two exposure pathways were evaluated for OU-2 under possible future land use conditions, i.e.,
exposure to groundwater from the aquifer to individuals residing at the perimeter of the landfill (see
Table 8). However, this future exposure scenario is highly unlikely because groundwater withdrawal is
controlled by Nassau County. These exposure pathways were evaluated separately for adults and
children. The exposure pathways considered quantitatively under the future land use included ingestion
of groundwater from the aquifer and inhalation of volatile organic compounds while showering. The
dermal contact with groundwater from the aquifer while showering pathway was qualitatively addressed
in the risk assessment. Risks calculated for these pathways do not take into account any reductions in
groundwater chemical concentrations which are expected to result from installation of the landfill cap
which will reduce infiltration or leaching of contaminants into the groundwater aquifer under OU1.
No unacceptable carcinogenic risks, either for adults or children, were found for exposure to
groundwater. The greatest risk for adults and children would result from groundwater ingestion at 1.5
x 10"4 and 8.5 x 10~s, respectively (see Table 9). Cancer risks from exposure to groundwater are
attributable primarily to vinyl chloride and arsenic through direct ingestion.
No unacceptable, carcinogenic risks, either for adults or children, were found for exposure to
groundwater through inhalation of volatile organic compounds while showering. The greatest risks for
adults and children are 6.7 x 10"5 and 7.8 x 10"5, respectively (see Table 9).
To assess the overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects posed by more than one contaminant, EPA
has developed a Hazard Index (HI). The HI measures the assumed simultaneous subthreshold
exposures to several chemicals which could result in an adverse health effect. When the HI exceeds 1.0,
there may be concern for potential noncarcinogenic health effects.
Noncarcinogenic risks for adults and children are attributable primarily to tetrachloroethene and arsenic
through groundwater ingestion (see Table 10). The non-carcinogenic risk shows a total HI from the
groundwater pathways is 0.45 for an adult and 1.0 for a child. A non-cancer HI was not calculated for
inhalation of volatile organic compounds while showering based on a lack of established inhalation
reference doses.
-------
10
As indicated above, the results of the baseline risk assessment show that, for all exposure pathways
evaluated, the noncarcinogenic risks calculated were 1.0 or below for both adults and children.
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, and
• lexicological data.
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. Also, environmental chemistry analysis error can stem from several sources including the
errors inherent in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainty 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.
Uncertainty in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to
low doses of exposure, as well as from difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals.
These uncertainties are addressed by making conservative assumptions concerning risTc and exposure .
parameters throughout the assessment.
As a result, the baseline risk assessment provides upper bound estimates of the risks to populations near
the landfill and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the Site. More specific
information concerning public health risks, including a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk
associated with various pathways, is presented in the OU-2 Final Human Health Risk Assessment for
the Syosset Landfill site.
SUMMARY OF THE SELECTED NO FURTHER ACTION REMEDY
Based on the findings of the OU1 and OU2 RIs and the Industrial Survey performed for the off-site
area, EPA and NYSDEC have determined that the site related groundwater contamination is very
limited in extent, was not found to be the probable source of contamination in Well RW-12I and does
-------
11
not pose any significant risk to human health and the environment. In addition, although groundwater
sampling results indicate the infrequent occurrence of contaminants exceeding MCLs, the majority of
contaminants do not exceed MCLs or the NYS Drinking Water Standards in the groundwater. The
NYSDEC will further investigate the probable source(s) of the high levels of the VOCs detected in Well
RW-12I and take action as appropriate.
The OU1 remedial action, a landfill cap, will be constructed during 1996. Upon completion of the cap,
the principal threats of the Site will be addressed. The cap will further reduce infiltration or leaching of
contaminants into the groundwater. The landfill is being capped in accordance with New York State
Part 360 requirements. As part of these requirements, an environmental monitoring program must be
implemented. The environmental monitoring program that will be performed as part of the OU1
remedy will take into account sampling for both on-site and off-site groundwater, ambient air, and
landfill gas which will further ensure that the OU1 and OU2 remedies remain protective of human health
and the environment.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Syosset Landfill off-site groundwater study was released to the public on
January 26, 1996. The Proposed Plan identified a no further action remedy. EPA reviewed all
comments submitted. Upon review of the comments, it was determined that no significant changes to
the preferred remedy, as it was originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
JfcfGERAGHTY
4^
& MILLER, INC.
Cmn,4-r*lif OmruUmnli
COtUU)
JT^VINCE GLASSER
KT • ELAINE D«LUCA
10/88
SHOWN
rMTfMD
LOCKWOOD, KESSLERS BARLETT
:i
2000 FT
.SCALE
SITE LOCATION, Syosset Landfill, Syo'sset, New York
FIGURE
1-1
-------
LKRO Y/IRE & CABLE
COMPANY
EXPLANATION
•uroMpOx Of tm «wmc« r\»r *x t°T*^*'u£^
V"4Q COWHTT A k*lO\. K.
,.,... t>»\*VUT>rf BO«
-------
APPENDIX H
TABLES
-------
Table 1. Concentrations of VOCs Detected in On-site Ground water Samples Above MCLs
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Vinyl Chloride
cis 1,2 dichloroethene
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Chlorobenzene
Ortho-xylene
Monitoring
Wells
SY-3
SY-1D
SY-1D
SY-6D
SY-7
SY-7
SY-8
SY-3D
SY-4
SY-7
Maximum
Concentration
(ug/1)
2.4
6.4
9.1
8.5
540
5.2
17
5.5
9.1
5.1
Federal and
or State
Maximum
Contaminant Level
(ug/1)
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
-------
Table 2. Concentrations of VOCs Detected in Off-site Ground water Samples Above MCLs
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Vinyl Chloride
1,1-dichloroethene
1,1-dichloroethane
cis 1,2 dichloroethene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
.Chlorobenzene
Monitoring
Wells
RW-12D
RW-12I
PK-10S
PK-10I
RB-11I
RW-12I
RW-12I
RW-12I
RW-12I
PK-10D
RW-12I
RB-11I
RW-12I
PK-10I
Maximum
Concentration
(ug/1)
17
26
6.7
5.4
13
17
5.7
75
9.9
5.7
13
23
.110
20
Federal and
or State
Maximum
Contaminant Level
(ug/1)
2
5
5
5
5
5
, **
5
5
5
-------
Table 3- . Concentrations o( Leachate Indicator Parameters Detecled In Groundwaler Samples Collected from Monitoring Wells During the Second Operable Unit Remedial Investigation,
Syosvel Landfill. Syosset, New York.'
Samplo ID:
Sample Date:
SY-1
11/3/93
SY-1
11/30/93
SY-1D
11/4/93
SY-1D
12/1/93
SY-2R
11/2/93
SY-2R
12/3/93
SY-2D
11/2/33
Parameter
(concentrations In mg/L)
Ammonia-nitrogen
Bicarbonate alkalinity, as CaC03
Cartxx\alo
Chlorido
Hardness, «s CaCO3
Nrtrate-nlt/OQcn
Sullale
Tolal dissolved solids
0.43
X6.2
<1.0
64.4
87.2
<0.10
20.2
169
O.X6
XX.S
<1.00
S2.X
69.6
0.29
16.0
269
11.8
123
<1.0
286
222
6.21
1X6
7D8
9.90
120
<1.00
287
22X
8.19
<0.04
38.8
<1.0
XX9
138
2.X2
56.0
861
0.26
36.0
<1.00
613
121
2.X 1
68.X
850
X.9X
100
<1.0
108.
88. X
1.20
22.6
282
mj)/L Milligrams per liter.
NR Not requested.
CaCCO Calcium carbonate.
J Estimated value.
MISCLLXLS
GRRAGHTY # Mil .I .[-lit. INC.
-------
Table 3- Concentrations of Leschate Indicator Parameters Detected In Groundwater Samples Collected from Monitoring Wells During the Second Operable Unit Remedial Investigation,
Syoswt Landfill, Syooaet. New York.
Sample ID:
Sample Date:
SY-2D
12/3/93
SY-3
11/2/93
SY-3
12/3/93
SY-3D
11/2/93
SY-3D
12/3/93
SY-3DD
11/1/93
SY-3DD
11/29/93
Parameter
(concentrations In mg/L)
Ammonia-nitrogen
Bicarbonate alkalinity, as CaCO3
Carbonate
Chloride
Hardness, as C«C03
Nitrale-nlt/ogen
Sulfale
TcXal dissolved tdldi
S.98
81.6
<1.00
97.0
S8.4
1.39
16.6
299
67.8
718
1.28
136
382
<0.10
32.9
728
123
727
<1.00
176
348
<0.10
26.9
767
146
1,180
2.72
269
470
0.22
27.2
1,240
83.6
1,020
1.20
265
468
0.46
22.8
1,400
<0.04
14.4
<1.0
4.20
7.6
<0.10
1.8
44.0
<0.(M
9.60
<1.00
4.6
6.8
0.32
11.8
54.0
mo/L Milligrams pec liter.
NR Not requested.
CaCO3 Calcium carbonate.
J Estimated value.
MISCLL.XLS
GERAGHTY & MILI.HR. INC.
-------
3o
Table J Concentrations of Leachata Indicator TParamelers Detected In Groundwater Samples Collected from Monitoring Wells Dining the Second Operable Unit Remedial Investigation.
Syo»*e< Landfill, Sywset, New YorV.
Sample ID:
Sample Data:
SY-4
11/2/93
SY-4
12/3/93
SY-6
11/5/93
SY-6
12/2/93
SY-6D
11/1/93
SY-«D
11/29/93
SY-7
11/4/93
Parameter
(concentraltons In mg/l)
Ammonia-nil;ogen
Bicarbonate alkalln'riy. as CaCO3
Carbonate
Chloride
Hardness, as CaC03
Nitrate-nitrogen
Sulfale
Total disserved solids
33.8
446
<1.0
162
346
5.10
77.8
763
30.6
445
<1.00
165
347
1.85
72.0
7B<
0.06
185
<1.0
43.0
176
2.67
10.3
287
0.09
202
<1.00
3<.3
181
2.26
19.8
323
0.29
19.8
<1.0
77.9
84.0
6.03
71.8
261
0.27
9.80
<1.00
87/4
81.0
6.64
63.0
293
0.97
32.2'j
<1.0 J
399
260
0.31
82.7
794
mg/L Milligrams per liter.
NR Not requested.
CaC03 Calcium carbonate.
J Estimated value.
MISCLL XLS
GERAGHTYtfMll.l.nK.INC.
-------
Table 3 Concentration* of Leachale Indlcalor.Parameters Delected In Groundwater Sample* Collected from Monitoring Wella During lh« Second Operable Unit Remedial Investigation.
Syoetrt Landfill, Syosaet. New York.
Sample ID:
Sample Date:
SY-7
12/2/93
SY-6
11/4/93
SY-6
12/1/93
SY-9
11/1/93
SY-9
11/29/93
PK-10S
11/4/93
PK-10S
12/1/93
Parameter
(concentrations In mg/U
Ammonia-nitrogen
Bicarbonate alkalinity, as CaCO3
Carbonate
Chloride
Hardness, as CiC03
Nrtralfr-nKrogen
Sulfale
Total dissolved tolids
0.36
112
<1.00
808
282
<0.10
58.9
1,080
0.21
69.8
<1.0
32.3
103
<0.10
78.2
218
0.13
62.0
<1.00
32.7
10S
<0.10
80.7
40.0
0.76
180
<1.0
39.3
246
O.10
68.3
3X6
0.61
131
<1.00
47.1
172
0.07
•4,630
312
0.35
23.2
68.8
7.33
39.9
162
0.05
24.2
<1.00
13.7
87.8
8.04
61^4
181
rno'L . Milligrams per liter.
NR Not requested.
CaCO3 Calcium carbonate.
J Estimated value.
MISCLL XLS
GKRAGHTYS'Mll.l.liR.INC.
-------
Page 5 o( 7
Table 3 Concentration* of Leachate IndlcatorParameterB Detected In Groundwater Samples Collected from Monitoring Wells During the Second Operable Unit Remedial Investigation.
Syowet Landfill, Syoseet, New York.
Sample ID:
Simple Dale:
PK-101
11/4/93
(Rep-2)
11/4/93
PK-101
12/1/93
(Rep-2)
12/1/93
PK-10D
11/4/93
Parameter
(concentrations In mg/L)
PK-10D
12/1/93
RB-11S
11/3/93
Ammonia -nH/ogen
Bicarbonate alkalinity, as CaC03
Carbonate
Chloride
Hardness, as CaCO3
Nrtrale-nKfogen
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids
39.1
404
<1.0
291
285
0.38
88.9
918
39.3
400
<1.0
287
286
0.51
109
848
37.9
•419
<1.00
678
31Z
0.21
110
1,020
41.0
419
<1.00
499
310
0.21
113
1,030
<0.04
24.6
<1.0
14.0
12.2
0.90
15.6
87.0
<0.04
17.8
<1.00
14JZ
12.2
0.90
11.5
S5.0
<0.fX
15.6
<1.0
t.O
17X
4.42
<10.0
47.0
mg/L Milligrams per IHer.
NR Not requested.
CaC03 Calcium carbonate.
J Estimated value.
MISCLL.XLS
G!:RAGI-[TYfi'MII.LI;K.INC.
-------
Pafle6o(
Table 3 Concentrations of Leachale Indicator-Parameters Detected In Groundwater Sample* Collected from Monitoring Wells During the Secood Operable Unit Remedial Investigation.
Syosaet Ltndfill, Syosset, New York.
Sample 10:
Sample Dato:
RB-11S
11/30/93
RB-111
11/3/93
(Rep-1)
11/3/93
RB-111
11/3CV93
(Rep-1)
11/3(V03
RB-11D
11/3/93
RB-11D
11/3CV93
Parameter
(concentrations In rng/U)
Ammonia-nit/ ogen
Bicarbonate atoUnrty, as CaCO3
Carbonate
Chloride
Hardntis, as CaC03
Hitrate-nlUooen
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids
O.OB
17.8
<1.00
6^4
19.2
2.15
<10.0
81.0
<0.04
H.O
<1.0
29.7
87.2
13.2
X1.8
186
-------
Tablfl 3 Concentrations of Leachate Indicator Parameter* Delected In Groundwaler Samples Collected from Monitoring Wells During the Second Operable Unit Remedial Investigation,
Syo**<< Landfill, SyoMct, New York'.
Sample ID:
Sample Date:
RW-121
11/S/93
(Rep-3)
11/5/93
RW-121
12/2/93
(Rep-3)
12/2/93
RW-12D
11/5/93
RW-12D
12/2/93
Field Blank
11/3/93
Parameter
(concentrations In mg/l)
Ammonia-nitrogen
Bicarbonate alkalinity, as CaCO3
Carbonate
Chlorldo
Hardness, as C»C03
Nitrate-nitrogen
Sulfale
Total dissolved tolids
16.2
167
<1.0
106
169
2.88
30.6
348
17.6
446
<1.0
106
166
3.47
33.8
348
14.9
162
•O.OO
118
164
4.18
48.2
408
13.4
162
<1.00
117
161
4.04
46.1
422
<0.04
73.8
<1.0
122
132
1.08
31.7
320
0.11
80.4
<1.00
139
144
0.10
54.3
611
NR
NR
NR
NR
<1.0
NR
NR
NR
mg/L Milligrams per liter.
NR Not requested.
CaCO3 Calcium carbonate.
J Estimated value.
MISCLL.XLS
GIIRACHTY & Ml!.!.[;k. INC.
-------
Table 4 A. Concentrations of Metals Detected in On-site Ground water Samples Above MCLs
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Monitoring
Wells
SY-2R
SY-3
SY-3
SY-3DD
SY-4
SY-4
SY-7
SY-7
SY-8
SY-3
SY-3D
SY-2R
Maximum
Concentration
(ug/1)
36.4 B (Total)
9 1.8 (Total)
36.7 B (Dissolved)
25.0 B (Total)
38.3 B (Dissolved)
23.1 B (Total)
34.4 B (Total)
46..8B (Dissolved)
25.5 B (Total)
75.1 (Total)
102 (Total)
7.8
Federal and
or State
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(ug/D
6
50
f
4
Estimated Value
B Analyte concentration between instrument detection Limit and contract required
quantitation limit
-------
Table 4 A. Concentrations of Metals Detected in On-site Ground water Samples Above MCLs
Metals
Iron
Lead
Monitoring
Wells
SY-1
SY-1
SY-2R
SY-3
SY-3
SY-3D
SY-3D
SY-3DD
SY-4
SY-4
SY-6
SY-6
SY-6D
SY-6D
SY-7
SY-7
SY-8
SY-8
SY-9
SY-9
SY-2R
SY-3
SY-4
SY-9
Maximum
Concentration
(ug/1)
80,000 (Total)
23,000 (Dissolved)
20,600 (Total)
295,000 (Total)
7,900 (Dissolved)
34,700 (Total)
1,8 10 (Dissolved)
1,030 (Total)
45,900 (Total)
9,8 10 (Dissolved)
399 (Dissolved)
22,200 (Total)
3,280 (Total)
961 (Dissolved)
77,800 (Dissolved)
18 1,000 (Total)
2,540 (Dissolved)
2,450 (Total)
27,300 (Total)
. 6,480 (Dissolved)
128 (Total)
62.8 (Total)
65.4 J( Total)
58.8 (Total)
Federal and
or State
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(ug/1)
300
. *•
50
J Estimated Value
B Analyte concentration between instrument detection Limit and contract required
quantitation limit
-------
Table 4 A. Concentrations of Metals Detected in On-site Ground water Samples Above MCLs
Metals
Sodium
Monitoring
Wells
SY-1
SY-1
SY-1D
SY-1D
SY-2R
SY-2R
SY-2D
SY-2D
SY-3
SY-3
SY-3D
SY-3D
SY-4
SY-4
SY-6
SY-6
SY-6D
SY-6D
SY-7
SY-7
SY-8
SY-8
SY-9
SY-9
Maximum
Concentration
(ug/1)
23,000 (Total)
23,600 (Dissolved)
192,000 J (Total)
190,000 (Dissolved)
239,000 (Total)
232,000 (Dissolved)
70,500 (Total)
66,600 (Dissolved)
124,000 (Total)
11 6,000 (Dissolved)
2 11, 000 (Total)
198,000 (Dissolved)
1 17,000 (Total)
11 8,000 (Dissolved)
38,900 (Total)
49,100 J (Dissolved)
50,900 (Total)
5 1,200 (Dissolved)
173,000 (Total)
175,000 (Dissolved)
29,300 J (Total)
29, 100 (Dissolved)
27,600 (Total)
32,500 J (Dissolved)
Federal and
or State
Maximum
Contaminant
Level
(ug/1)
20,000
. ,
Estimated Value
B Analyte concentration between instrument detection Limit and contract required
quantitation limit
-------
Table 4B. Concentrations of Metals detected in Off-site Ground water Samples Above MCLs
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Iron
Sodium
Monitoring
Wells
PK-10S
PK-10S
PK-10I
RB-11S
RB-11I
RB-11D
RW-12I
RW-12D
PK-10S
PK-10S
PK-10I
PK-10I
PK-10D
PK-10D
RW-12I
RW-12I
RW-12D
RW-12D
Maximum
Concentration
(ug/1)
694 (Dissolved)
5,380 (Total)
474 (Total)
1,270 (Total)
959 (Total)
975 (Total)
342 (Total)
552 (Total)
20,900 (Dissolved)
20,500 (Total)
235,0001 (Total)
220,000 (Dissolved)
22,900 (Total)
24,600 (Dissolved)
60,800 (Total)
60,900 J (Dissolved)
66,500 (Total)
65,000 (Dissolved)
Federal and
or State
Maximum
Contaminant Level
(ug/1)
300
20,000
. »•
Estimated Value
B Analyte concentration between instrument detection Limit and contract required
quantitation limit
-------
Table ..-5. Summary of Gas Well Monitoring Data. Syossat Landfill, Syo*«t, New York.
Wen No.
G-6
G-7
G-«(d)
G-10(e)
G-13
G-H
CS-20
CS-21
CS-22
February 25,
Barometer (a) Total VOCs (b)
(Inches of mercury) (ppmv)
30.01
20
(d)
(e)
-
-
-
-
-~
1994
M«lhar>«(c) '
(ppmv)
0.6
520
(d)
(e)
-
-
-
-
~~
March 2,
Barometer (a) Barometer (a) Total VOCs (b)
(Inches of mercury) (Inches of mercury) {ppmv)
29.98 30.41
20
(d)
(e)
-
-
-
-
~
1994
M«than« (c)
(ppmv)
_
(d)
(e)
-
-
-
-
—
Barometer (a)
(Inches of mefcur
30.23
March 7, 1994
Barometer (a) Total VOCs (b)
Well No. (Inches of mercury) (ppmv). .'.. .
G-6 30.17
G-7 . 100
G-S(d) . . (d)
G-10(e) (e)
G-13
G-14
CS-20
CS-21
CS-22
Methane (c)
(ppmv)
—
100
(d)
(e)
-
-
-
-
"
Barometer (a) • . .
(Inches of mercury)
30.06
Measurements made In field by Geraghly i Miller, Inc. using a Foxboro Model 128 organic vapor analyzer (OVA). Instrument calibrated using zero gas and methane slandards.
(a) Barometer readings obtained from Newsday Weather Service before and after each measurement round.
(b) Measurements mada using B standard OVA probe.
(c) Measurements made using an activated charcoal-filter OVA probe.
(d) Well desloyed.
(e) Well could not be located.
ppmv Parts per million by volume.
Not delected.
MOU2-39-) XLS
GKRAGHTYtfMII.UiK.INC.
-------
Table 6. Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater
Chemicals of
Concern
VOCs
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Inorganics
Arsenic
Selenium
Frequency
8/18
10/18
10/18
5/18
5/18
2/18
Range
(ug/1)
(0.2 J- 26.5)
(1.30- 110)
(0.5 J- 9.85)
(0.6 J- 17)
(1.5 B- 9.70 J)
(5.4- 8.4 BJ)
Concentration
Used (ug/1)
4.4
60
3.03
3
2.7
2.1
J = Estimated value.
B = Analyte found in associated blank as well as in sample.
-------
Table 7. Toxicity Information for Contaminants (Non-Carcinogens and Carcinogens) of Concern
Groundwater Ingestion
Contaminants of
Concern
VOCs
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Inorganics
Arsenic
Selenium
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg/day)
9xlO'3
IxlO'2
6xlO-3
3xl(T4
5 x 10 '3
Cancer
Potency Factor
(mg/kg/day)
6 x 10 •' (oral)
1.2 (inh.)
5. 2 x 10 "2 (oral)
2 x 10° (inh.)
l.lxlO'2 (oral)
6.0X10'3 (inh.)
1.9 (oral)
3. Ox 10'1 (inh.)
1.5 (oral)
Carcinogen
Intake Estimate
(mg/kg/day)
Children
(0-6)
2.4xlO"5 (oral)
5.4 x 10'5 (inh.)
3.3 x 10 •" (oral)
7.4 x 10 -4 (inh.)
1.7xlO'5 (oral)
3.8x 10 '5 (inh.)
1.6xlO-5(oral)
3.8x 10-5(inh.)
1.5 x 10 '5 (oral)
Adults
(18-70)
4.1 x 10 -5 (oral)
4.6 x 10'5(inh.)
5.6 x 10 -1 (oral)
6.3 x 10 -" (inh.)
2. 8 x 10 '5 (oral)
3. 2 x 10 "5 (inh.)
2.8 x 10 -5 (oral)
3.2x 10-5(inh.)
2.5xlO'5 (oral)
Non-Carcinogen
Intake Estimate
(mg/kg/day)
Children
(0-6)
2.8xlO'4
(oral)
3.8 xlO'3 (oral)
1.9 xlO'4 (oral)
1.7 xlO'4 (oral)
1.3 xlO"4 (oral)
Adults
(18-70)
1.2xlO'4
(oral)
1.6xlO'3
(oral)
8.3 x 10'5
(oral)
7.4 x 10'5
(oral)
5.8x 10'5
(oral)
Inh - inhalation.
-------
Table 8. Exposure Pathways Evaluated.
Media
Groundwater
,* •
Hypothetical Future
Exposure
Groundwater Ingestion
Inhalation of Volatiles while
Showering
Dermal Contact while
Showering
Receptors
Adults (18 -70 years)
Children (0-6 years)
Adults (18 -70 years)
Children (0-6 years)
Addressed qualitatively
-------
Table 9. Risk Estimates for Carcinogens.
Contaminants of
Concern
VOCs
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Inorganics
Arsenic
Selenium
TOTALS
Age Specific
Adult & Child
Ingestion of Groundwater
Children
(0-6 years)
1.4 x 10 "5
1.7xlO'5
1.8xlO'7
S.lxlO'5
2.2 x 10 "5
**
8.5 x 10 "5
Adults
(18-70
years)
2.5xlO'5
2.9xl(T5
S.lxlO'7
5.4xlO'5
3.8xlO'5
**
1.5x10-"
2.3 x 10 •*
Inhalation During
Showering
Children
(0-6 years)
6.5xl(Ts
1.5 x 10 -6
2.3xlO'7
1.1 x 10'5
**
**
7.8 x 10 5
Adults
(18-70
years)
5.6xlO'5
UxlO-6
1.9x 10'7
9.7 x 10 -*
**
**
6.7 x 10 -5
1.5 x 10 -1
** Not calculated since established Reference Doses are not available for chemicals of potential
concern.
-------
Table 10. Risk Estimates for Non-Carcinogens
Contaminants of
Concern
VOCs
1,1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene, .
Inorganics
Arsenic
Selenium
TOTAL HI
Ingestion of Groundwater
Children
(0-6 years)
S.lxlO'2
3.8x10-'
3.2xlO'2
S.SxlO'1
2.7 xlO'2
1.0
Adults
(18 - 70 years)
1.3xlO'2
1.6x10-'
1.4xlO-2
2.5 xlO'1
1.2 x 10 "2
0.45
Inhalation During Showering
Children
(0-6 years)
**
Adults
(18 - 70 years)
**
** Not calculated since established Reference Doses are not available for chemicals of potential
concern.
-------
APPENDIX HI
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
SYOSSET LANDFILL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 300001- Report: Second Operable Unit, Remedial
300582 Investigation Report - Syosset Landfill, Syosset.
New York, prepared for Town of Oyster Bay,
Department of Public Works, prepared by Geraghty &
Miller, Inc., December 1995.
3.3 Work PJLans
P. 300583- Report: Work Plan for the Second Operable Unit
300642 Remedial Investigation at the Syosset Landfill,
Syosset, New York, prepared by Geraghty & Miller,
Inc., prepared for Town of Oyster Bay, April 1991.
P. 300643- Report: Site Operations Plan. Second Operable
301474 Unit. Remedial Investigation, Syosset Landfillf
Syosset. New York, prepared by Geraghty & Miller,
Inc., prepared for Town of Oyster Bay, May 1992.
3.5 Correspondence
P. 301475- Letter to Ms. Sherrel Henry, U.S. EPA, Region II,
301483 from Mr. Vincent J. Glasser, Senior
Scientist/Project Manager, Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
and Mr. Michael F. Wolfert, Vice President/Project
Director, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., re: Second
Operable Unit Remedial Investigation, Syosset
Landfill, Syosset, New York (Contract No. DPW 90-
535), December 3, 1992. (Attached: Tables 1-3).
P. 301484- Letter to Ms. Sherrel Henry, U.S. EPA, Region II,
301500 from Messrs. James M. Byrne, P.E., Deputy
Commissioner, Division of Engineering, and Mr.
Karl J. Leupold, P.E., Commissioner/Public Works,
Town of Oyster Bay, Department of Public Works,
re: Syosset Landfill, Second Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation (OU2 RI) Contract No.
DPW 90-535, January 25, 1993. (Attached: 1.
Letter to Messrs. Karl J. Leupold, P.E.,
-------
Commissioner/Public Works, and James M. Byrne,
P.E., Deputy Commissioner/Division of Engineering,
Town of Oyster Bay, Department of Public Works,
from Mr. John P. Lekstutis, P.E., Vice President,
Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, Inc., re: Syosset
Landfill, Second Operable Unit Remedial
Investigation (OU2 RI) Contract No. DPW 90-535,
January 20, 1993 2. Letter to Mr. John P.
Lekstutis, P.E., Vice President, Lockwood, Kessler
& Bartlett, Inc., from Messrs. Vincent J. Glasser,
Senior Scientist/Project Manager, and
Michael F. Wolfert, Vice President/Project
Director, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., re: Second
Operable Unit Remedial Investigation, Syosset
Landfill, Syosset, New York, January 19, 1993
(Attached: Table 1 & 2) 3. Memorandum to Mr.
John P. Lekstutis, P.E., and Ms. Theresa C.
Heneveld, P.E., Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett,
Inc., from Messrs. Michael F. Wolfert and Vincent
J. Glasser, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., re: Well
Development, January 14, 1993 (Attached: Data).
4. Letter to Mr. John P. Lekstutis, P.E. ,
Vice President, Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett,
Inc., from Messrs. Vincent J. Glasser, Senior
Scientist/Project Manager, and Michael F. Wolfert,
Vice President/Project Director, Geraghty &
Miller, Inc., re: Syosset Landfill - Second
Operable Unit Remedial Investigation, January 19,
1993 (Attached: Tables 1 - 3)).
P. 301501- Letter to Ms. Sherrel Henry, U.S. EPA, Region II,
301504 from Mr. Karl J. Leupold, P.E., Commissioner/
Public Works, Town of Oyster Bay, Department of
Public Works, re: Syosset Landfill Second
Operable Unit Remedial Investigation, Contract No.
DPW 90-535, June 29, 1993 (Attached: Letter to
Mr. John P. Lekstutis, P.E., Vice President,
Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, Inc., from Ms.
Lauren E. Sjogren, Project Scientist/Regional
Data, Quality Assurance Manager, Geraghty &
Miller, Inc., Messrs. Vincent J. Glasser, Senior
Scientist/Project Manager, and Michael F. Wolfert,
Vice President/Project Director, Geraghty &
Miller, Inc., re: Analytical Results for June 2,
1993 Sampling of Well PK-101, Second Operable
Unit Remedial Investigation, Syosset Landfill,
Syosset, New York, June 24, 1993. (Attached:
Table 1)).
-------
P. 301505- Letter to Ms. Sherrel Henry, U.S. EPA, Region II,
301506 from Mr. Karl J. Leupold, P.E., Commissioner/
Public Works, Town of Oyster Bay, Department of
Public Works, re: Syosset Landfill Second
Operable Unit Remedial Investigation, Contract No.
DPW 90-535, October 29, 1993.
P. 301507- Letter to Mr. Karl Leupold, P.E., Commissioner,
301517 Department of Public Works, Town of Oyster Bay,
from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New York/
Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Comments on the Second Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report for the Syosset
Landfill Site, August 23, 1994.
P. 301518- Letter to Mr. Karl Leupold, P.E., Commissioner,
301524 Department of Public Works, Town of Oyster Bay,
from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New York/
Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Comments on the Second Operable Unit
Remedial Investigation Report for the Syosset
Landfill Site, Syosset, New York, March 7, 1995.
P. 301525- Letter to Messrs. Karl J. Leupold, P.E.,
301542 Commissioner/Public Works, and James M.
Byrne, P.E., Deputy Commissioner/Division of
Engineering, Town of Oyster Bay, Department of
Public Works, from Mr. John P. Lekstutis, P.E.,
President, Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, Inc., re:
Syosset Landfill OU2 Remedial Investigation,
Contract No. DPW 90-535, November 9, 1995.
(Attached: Memorandum to Ms. Theresa Heneveld,
P.E., Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, Inc., from Mr.
Michael Wolfert, Geraghty & Miller, Inc., re:
Groundwater Sampling Results from the Syosset
Landfill and Conclusions Regarding Off-Site
Groundwater Conditions, November 9, 1995.
(Attached: Table 1)).
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 Health Assessments
P. 800001- Report: Final Human Health Risk Assessment.
800159 Svosset Landfill Site. Svosset. New York, prepared
for U.S. EPA, prepared by COM Federal Programs
Corporation, January 25, 1996.
-------
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.4 Public Meeting Transcripts
P. 10.00001- Transcript: "Public Meeting for the Syosset
10.00057 Landfill Superfund Site, Syosset, New York",
transcribed by Fink & Carney Computerized
Reporting Services, transcribed on February 15,
1996.
10.9 Proposed Plan
P. 10.00058- Plan: Superfund Proposed Plan - Syosset Landfill
10.00067 Site. Town of Oyster Bay. Nassau County, New York,
prepared by U.S. EPA, Region II, January 1996.
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany. New York 12233-7010
MAR 28 I996
Michael D. Zagata
Commissioner
Ms. Kathleen Callahan
Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region n
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
,*
Dear Ms. Callahan: x
Re: Syosset Landfill (ID #130011) - Record of Decision
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the
EPA's Record of Decision for the second Operable Unit of the Syosset Landfill. We concur
with the conclusion that volatile organic contamination in monitoring well RW-12I was not
caused by contaminants in the Syosset Landfill, and that the selected "no further action"
alternative, in conjunction with the capping and closure of O.U.I, is appropriate for this site.
It is our understanding that the environmental monitoring program implemented for
O.U.I will monitor the off-site groundwater plume. Further, the Department also intends to
investigate the source of the contamination in well RW-12I.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mr. Lawrence Alden, of my
staff, at (518)457-1641.
Sincerely,
Director
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
cc: S. Henry, USEPA
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
SYOSSET LANDFILL SITE
TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, NEW YORK
INTRODUCTION
A Responsiveness Summary is required by Superfund regulations. It provides a summary of
citizens' comments and concerns and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) and
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC's) responses to
those comments and concerns. All comments summarized in this document have been considered
in EPA's and NYSDEC's final decision for the selected remedy for the Syosset Landfill site (the
Site).
This community relations responsiveness summary is divided into the following sections:
* '
I. Overview: This section briefly outlines the EPA's no further action remedy.
n. Background: This section provides a brief history of community concerns and
interests regarding the Syosset Landfill site.
HI. Summary of Public Comments Received During Public Comment Period and
Agency Responses: This section summarizes oral comments received by EPA at
the public meeting for the Syosset Landfill site and the comment written provided
by the Cerro Wire & Cable Corporation.
I. OVERVIEW
EPA has divided the remedial work necessary to mitigate contamination stemming from the
Syosset Landfill site into two operable units. The first operable unit addresses the control of the
source of contamination at the Site. The September 1990 Record of Decision (ROD) for the first
operable unit (OU1) selected the capping of the Landfill as the appropriate source control
response action. The purpose of this action is to minimize the infiltration of precipitation into the
landfill, thus reducing the quantity of water percolating through the Landfill materials which will
minimize the leaching of contaminants and reduce downgradient migration of contaminants.
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.
At the start of the public comment period, EPA published its recommended no further action
remedy for the second operable Unit (OU2). OU2 addresses the further characterization of the
-------
fate and transport of the contaminants in the groundwater. Based on the findings of the OU2 RI
and EPA's Risk Assessment, the site-related groundwater contamination does not pose a threat to
public health or the environment.
H. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community involvement at the Site has been strong, especially with respect to work on the
Landfill. EPA has served as the lead Agency for community relations and remedial activities at
the Site. The Proposed Plan for the OU2 remedy was released to the public for comment on
January 26, 1996. This document, together with the Remedial Investigation report, the baseline
Risk Assessment and other reports, was made available to the public in the Administrative Record
file at three information repositories maintained at the EPA Region II Office in New York City;
the Syosset Public Library, Syosset, New York; and the Town of Oyster Bay Town Hall, Oyster
Bay, New York. The notice of availability for the above referenced documents was published in
Newsday on January 26, 1996. The public comment period on these documents was open from
January 26, 1996^through February 25, 1996.
A public meeting was held on February 15, 1996. The purpose of the public meeting was to
review the Proposed Plan for OU2, to present the EPA's no further action remedy and to solicit,
record, and consider all comments received from interested parties during the course of the public
meeting. Comments submitted in writing have also been considered in this Responsiveness
Summary.
Community interest for OU2 focused on groundwater contamination and EPA's Proposed Plan.
Approximately 35 people attended the meeting. The audience consisted of a representative from
the local environmental citizens' group, local businessmen, residents, and state and local
government officials. EPA was asked to clarify some specifics of the Proposed Plan. A summary
of the questions posed during the meeting are provided in Section III.
m. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC
COMMENT PERIOD AND AGENCY RESPONSES
A. Summary and Response to Local Community Concerns
'All of the comments listed in this section were made orally at the Public Meeting on February 15,
1996. The Agency responses summarize, with some refinement, the oral responses provided at
the meeting by representatives of EPA, NYSDEC, the New York State Department of Health
(NYSDOH), and the Nassau County Department of Health (NCDOH).
-------
1. OU2 Groundwater Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Contamination
a. Two Syosset residents asked whether the VOC-contaminated groundwater plume or off-
site groundwater contamination is near or moving toward the South Grove School.
EPA and NYSDOH Response: The South Grove Elementary school is located just
northeast of the Landfill and groundwater leaving the Landfill is flowing in a northerly
direction. The school is therefore mainly cross-gradient of the landfill, although it may
receive some flow from the easternmost edge of the landfill. However, VOC
concentrations on the eastern side of the Landfill are not very elevated, so there does not
appear to be a VOC plume moving towards the school. It should be noted that even if
groundwater from the Landfill does flow beneath or past the school, no one is drinking or
otherwise exposed to contamination from the Site because the affected groundwater is so
deep; on the order of 540 feet below land surface.
b. A Syosset resident inquired as to the degree of VOC contamination of the groundwater
that was detected in off-site monitoring wells.
EPA Response: In some cases, levels of VOCs exceeded drinking water standards in the
groundwater monitoring wells. Of the eight off-site wells sampled, the following VOCs were
detected in six of these wells above the federal and/or state MCLs: vinyl chloride, 1,1-
dichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane, cis-l,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichloroethene, toluene, tetrachloroethene, and chlorobenzene. One chemical, 1,1-
dichloroethane was detected in four wells in concentrations ranging from 5.4 parts per billion
(ppb) to 17 ppb. To give a point of reference, the public drinking supply standard for most
volatile organic chemicals, per the New York State Department of Health and federal
Maximum Contaminant Levels, is 5 ppb. A more detailed discussion of sampling results
is available in the Remedial Investigation report for the Site.
c. A Syosset resident asked for clarification on why the source of VOC contamination
detected in off-site monitoring wells has not been identified.
EPA Response: The purpose of the OU2 RI was to determine the effect of the Landfill on
off-site groundwater, not to determine all sources impacting off-site groundwater. There
were eight different monitoring wells installed off-site. There was one in particular (RW-
121) that had nigh levels compared to levels found at the Landfill. Because the well is
located next to an industrial area and the levels of contamination were higher than at the
Landfill, it was determined that the Landfill was not the source of the contamination to the
well. NYSDEC will investigate to determine the source of the contamination.
d. Two Syosset residents asked about the extent and direction of plume migration and
potential threats to drinking water supplies posed by the VOC contamination.
-------
NYSDOH and NCDOH Responses: The groundwater for the Landfill is traveling north-
northeast. There are three public water supply wells located approximately two miles
north-northeast from the Landfill. Therefore, the potential does exist for the
contamination from the Landfill to eventually reach these wells. The public supply wells
are monitored on a quarterly basis, and Nassau County checks the wells in the Jericho
Water District monthly. Currently, all of the wells meet New York State and federal
drinking water standards. If compounds in any water supply well are found to exceed
those standards, the well would be shut down. However, once the OU1 remedy is in
place, concentrations in groundwater are expected to decline and residual contamination in
the aquifer is not expected to reach these wells.
2. OU1 Leachate Plume
a. A Syosset resident expressed confusion as to whether the VOC groundwater
contamination detected in well RW-12I was associated with the leachate from the Syosset
Landfill.
>
EPA Response: Groundwater samples were analyzed for leachate indicator parameters as
part of the off-site groundwater study. The leachate indicator parameters include
ammonia, hardness, alkalinity, nitrate, sulfates and chlorides. These leachate indicator
parameters are useful in determining Landfill leachate impacts to groundwater. The
results for leachate parameters detected in off-site monitoring wells are significantly less
than concentrations detected in on-site wells. Although leachate has been detected in two
monitoring wells ( PK-10S and RW-12I) near the Landfill, the VOC contamination
detected in well RW-12I is not believed to be associated with the Landfill. The increase in
VOC concentrations in well RW-12I, compared to other monitoring wells, indicates a
probable off-Landfill source. Several industrial facilities are upgradient of the Well RW-
121.
b. A Syosset resident asked what is being done about the Landfill leachate. Another
commented that the scheduled completion of the Landfill cap in 1998 allows for more than
two years of additional off-site leaching.
EPA Response: The leachate plume is being addressed by capping the landfill. Once the
Landfill is capped, the quantity of water percolating through the Landfill materials will be
minimized. This will reduce the generation of leachate and reduce downgradient
migration of contaminants. Contaminants in the leachate that have migrated off-site will
dilute to lower concentrations.
c. A Syosset resident inquired as to the possible sources of contamination detected in well
RB-11, which is located in a residential area.
-------
EPA Response: The contamination detected in well RB-11 is probably associated with
leachate from the Syosset Landfill. The migration of leachate from the Landfill will be
minimized when the Landfill is capped.
d. A Syosset resident asked whether a well which lies to the east of the Syosset Landfill, and
which was closed over 10 years ago, might have been contaminated by releases from the
landfill. He also asked if any groundwater monitoring was conducted in that area (High
Field Road).
EPA and NCDOH Responses: The well was closed 15 years ago due to an odd taste
that could not be identified at the time. Jericho Water District took the precautionary
measure of shutting down the well. It is not known whether the odor in the water was
related to the landfill.
e. A Syosset resident inquired about the levels at which groundwater samples were taken in
the RB-11 well, about the sampling data, and about the possibility of near-surface
contamination. He also asked whether soil samples were taken in that area.
EPA Response: Groundwater samples were collected from the intermediate level well,
about 350 feet below grade. Shallow zone soil samples were taken at 150 feet below
grade. . All sampling data is available in the Remedial Investigation report. The near-
surface zone is unsaturated; there is no groundwater there to be contaminated.
3. Other Environmental Media
a. A retired environmental engineer living in Syosset expressed concern about the migration
of Landfill gas outside the boundaries of the Syosset Landfill. He pointed out, however,
that the Landfill closed in 1975 and that landfill gas production typically tapers off after 15
years.
EPA Response: Landfill gases do indeed decrease over time. The results of subsurface
gas samples taken off-site indicate that gases are not migrating off the Landfill property.
b. A Syosset resident pointed out that there are two buildings at the South Grove Elementary
School and asked at which building was sampling of surface soil, dust, and ambient air
conducted.
EPA Response: The samples were taken at the building closest to the Landfill. The
concern of the parents was that when the Landfill was being reshaped for cap installation,
soil and dust particles would somehow get on the school property. Therefore, the school
property closest to the Landfill was sampled.
c. A Syosset resident asked whether surface soil, dust, and ambient air sampling indicated
-------
any changes in levels of any compounds between the sampling round conducted before the
Preload Program and the sampling conducted during the Preload Program.
EPA and NYSDOH Responses: The levels did not increase. There were some slight
variations, but nothing that could be related to remedial work at the Syosset Landfill.
4. Health Risks
a. A Syosset resident asked about health risks associated with the contaminants both in the
leachate and in the off-site plume detected at well RW-12I, specifically inquiring about
accumulation of compounds in the body.
NYSDOH Response: Chemicals leaching from the Landfill do not present a health
hazard. Neither do the VOCs detected at well RW-12I, since-they have not been detected
in drinking water wells at levels above state and federal standards. As the VOCs continue
to dissipate, they will volatilize, decompose, and be diluted. VOCs do not bioaccumulate,
so ingestipn of very small concentrations over a long period is not considered a health risk,
even based on standards that take the most sensitive individuals, such as children, into
account.
5. Cost Considerations
a. A Syosset resident asked whether New York State budget cuts would impact the
availability of funding and of qualified staff to perform an investigation of the off-site
groundwater contamination.
NYSDEC Response: The investigation of the contamination in well RW-12I will be done
using State Superfund money. There is money available for this investigation and the state
will have qualified people to perform the work.
b. A Syosset resident quoted from an article downloaded from the Internet: "Some of the
congressional Superfund reauthorization budget would use cost when selecting site
remedies to override other important considerations, such as public health protection and
community acceptance ..." The resident asked whether the decision to install a Landfill
cap for OU1 and the preference for a no action alternative for OU2 are based strictly on
federal budget cuts rather than technical justifications.
EPA Response: The decision to cap the Landfill at OU1 was made in 1990, before the
budget cuts which the article referenced. The selected remedy for OU2, which is to take
no further action with respect to the groundwater contamination, was not based solely on
cost. Rather, the decision reflects the findings of the OU1 and OU2 RIs and the
Industrial Survey performed for the off-site area. EPA and NYSDEC have determined
that the site-related groundwater contamination is very limited in extent and that the Site is
-------
not the likely source of the contamination detected in well RW-12I. Further, the
groundwater associated with the Site does not pose any significant risk to human health
and the environment and no one is currently drinking the groundwater.
c. A Syosset resident asked about the total cost for the remediation and monitoring of the
Syosset Landfill.
EPA and NYSDOH Response: Because the Town of Oyster Bay has performed the
work associated with the investigation, remediation and monitoring of the Syosset
Landfill, the Town is in a better position than EPA to quantify the cost of that work.
However, in the 1990 Record of Decision, the cost for remediation of the Landfill was
estimated to be $26.2 million. The resident was referred to the Town for further cost
information.
d. A Syosset resident expressed the concern that, if the investigation of groundwater
contamination detected in well RW-12I is not completed soon, the party responsible for
the contamination may no longer be around to be held accountable. The resident asked if
a responsible party can be held accountable even if they are no longer operating at the
same site.
NYSDEC response: The State Superfund statute provides funding for remedial work as
well as authority to seek recovery of costs from responsible parties that may no longer be
operating..
6. Community Relations
a. A Syosset resident asked how the public meeting was publicized, other than the notice that
appeared in Newsday (Nassau edition) on January 26, 1996.
EPA Response: EPA maintains a mailing list of individuals who are interested in receiving
information on the Site. This list is generated and updated when meetings are held and
individuals fill in their name and address on the attendance list. The Proposed Plan and
notice of the public meeting were sent to everyone on the most current mailing list.
b. Another Syosset resident commented that she and others who had been to previous Public
Meetings had not received the Proposed Plan and Public Meeting notice mailing from
EPA. This lack of notice by mail, she felt, resulted in a meeting turnout that was not
representative of the community's level of concern.
EPA Response: In a notice that appeared in Newsdav (Nassau edition) on January 26,
1996, EPA announced the availability of the Proposed Plan and related documents, as well
-------
as the scheduled Public Meeting. EPA will continue to update the Site mailing list using
the sign-in sheets from the February 15, 1996 Public Meeting1 and information from other
sources.
c. The Cerro Wire and Cable Corporation commented in writing that they no longer own the
property in question.
EPA Response: The property will be referred to as the former Cerro property in the
Record of Decision.
d. Two Syosset residents asked if sampling and investigation results are available to the
public.
EPA Response: The Remedial Investigation Report is available for review at three
information repositories maintained at the EPA Region II Office in New York City, the
Syosset Public Library, Syosset, New York and the Town of Oyster Bay Town Hall,
Oyster Bay, New York.
e. A Syosset resident asked if the transcript of the Public Meeting would be made available.
EPA Response: All public comments and agency responses will be described in a
Responsiveness Summary that will be part of the Record of Decision for the Syosset
Landfill site. Both the Record of Decision and the transcript will be available in the Site
Information Repository.
7. Other Concerns
a. A Syosset resident wanted to know if the former Cerro property was part of the Syosset
Landfill site. He mentioned plans to build a shopping mall on the former Cerrq property
and expressed concern that such an excavation and construction could result in hazardous
waste contamination problems.
EPA Response: The former Cerro property is separate from the Landfill site. The Cerro
site was a State-lead site that has been remediated. In response to this comment, an Oyster
Bay Town Councilman present at the meeting commented that the former Cerro site has
been remediated and deemed safe. He also pointed out that no application has been filed
for use of the former Cerro site for a shopping mall.
b. A Syosset resident asked whether results of Site investigations conducted by the State of
New York are reported to or shared with EPA.
-------
EPA Response: The Town of Oyster Bay is performing the remedial work at the Syosset
Landfill site, under EPA oversight. EPA and the State do share information, and all
investigation results do come to EPA.
c. A retired environmental engineer living in Syosset inquired about the depth to
groundwater in the area.
EPA Response: The groundwater table is about 150 feet below grade.
-------
ATTACHMENT A
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
FOR THE SYOSSET LANDFILL SITE, SECOND OPERABLE UNIT
10
-------
EPA prepared a Responsiveness Summary addressing community questions and concerns
about the first operable unit as part of the OU1 Record of Decision (September, 1990)
EPA released the OU2 Remedial Investigation report and Proposed Plan in January 1996,
making them available for public review at the Site Information Repository, located at the
Syosset Public Library.
EPA provided the community with the opportunity to make comments on the Remedial
Investigation report and the Proposed Plan during a Public Comment Period that lasted from
January 26, 1996 to February 25, 1996.
EPA mailed copies of the Proposed Plan to all parties on the Site Mailing List.
EPA published in the Nassau County edition ofNewsday on January 26, 1996 a public notice
announcing the availability of the OU2 Remedial Investigation report and Proposed Plan, the
Public Comment Period, and the Public Meeting.
EPA held a Public Meeting at Syosset High School on February 15, 1996, to discuss the OU2
Remedial Investigation and Proposed Plan.
11
-------
2 Legal Notice 7106
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Proposed Plan for the Second Operable Unit
SY6SSET LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
Town of Oyster Bay, Syossel, New York
January 26 - February 25,1996
PUBLIC MEETING
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 7:00 p.m.
Syossel High School Auditorium
South Woods Road
Syosset, New York
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the opening of a thirty-day public
comment period on the Proposed Plan, Remedial Investigation report, and Risk Assessment for the
second operable unit (OU2) at the Syosset Landfill Superfund Site in the Town of Oyster Bay,
Syosset, New York. EPA welcomes the public's written and oral comments on these three key
documents. As part of this comment period, EPA will hold a public meeting on Thursday, February 15,
1996 at 7 p.m. in the Auditorium of Syosset High School. Members of the community are invited to
attend and to express their concerns. EPA will choose the remedy for the Site after the comment
period ends.
EPA is the lead agency^for addressing environmental problems at the Site, with support from the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). EPA has divided the remedial
work necessary to mitigate contamination pt the Site into two operable units (OU1 and OU2).
Previously, EPA issued a Record of Decision which provided for construction of a landfill cap to
address the source of Site contamination. Recently, EPA conducted a Remedial Investigation (Rl) to
assess the nature and extent of the contaminants from the landfill property into the groundwater
(OU2). Using the Rl results, EPA conducted a baseline Risk Assessment to estimate the human
health risk which could result from contamination at the site If no remedial action were taken. The OU2
Rl report and Risk Assessment and all documents related to the investigation of the Syosset Landfill
Site are available in the information repositories for the Site. The information repositories are at the
Syosset Public Library, South Oyster Bay Road, Syosset, NY, (516) 921-7161; the Oyster Bay Town
Hall, Audrey Avenue, Oyster Bay, NY, (516) 624-6100; and EPA's Superfund Record Center, 290
Broadway, 18th Floor, New York. NY, (212) 637-4308.
Based on the results of the OU2 Rl and Risk Assessment, as well as Investigations conducted for
OU1, EPA and NYSDEC have determined that the Site-related groundwater contamination Is very
limited in extent and does not pose any significant risk to human health or the environment. The OU1
landfill cap will be constructed during 1996. EPA and NYSDEC recommend no further action at OU2.
The public may comment orally at the public meeting and/or may submit written comments through
February 25, 1996 to:
Sherrel D. Henry
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway. 20th Floor
New York. New York 10007-1866
(212)637-4273
-------
ATTACHMENT C
FEBRUARY 15, 1996 PUBLIC MEETING
ATTENDANCE SHEET
13
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
Syosset Landfill Buperfund Bite
Byosset, New York
Thursday, February 15, 1996
ATTENDEES
(Please Print Clearly)
ZIP
PHONE
REPRESENTING
f af-
Q\ <
1/777
-,L- ^1/26
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
Syosset Landfill Superfund Site
Syosset, New York
Thursday, February 15, 1996
ATTENDEES
(Please Print Clearly}
NAME
A
s—4-bif>/>
(X '
\ i-v
• i/t 1C
STREET
CITY ZIP PHONE
I ) 7% 747
REPRESENTING
1-Ho 0>>O CQJv>7As
\n
r, ? 7 - s* 7 J23. •
--\ .
' -~J
(or oc A ^ If . f / 7
T.O.
. A
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
Syosset Landfill Superfund Site
Syosset, New York
Thursday, February 15, 1996
ATTENDEES
V
(Please Print Clearly)
NAME STREET CITY ZIP PHONE REPRESENTING
/
??
Vi'rQini'(L fc.S'vo^-h //??/
-------
ATTACHMENT D
LETTER TRANSMITTED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
14
-------
LOWENSTEIN, SANDLER, KOHL, FISHER & BOYLAN
ALAN V. LOWENSTEtN
RICHARD H. SANDLER
ARNOLD FISHER
JOSEPH LEVOW STCiNBERG
MATTHEW P BOYLAN
BRUCE 0. SHOULSON
JOHN R. MACKAY 2ND
MARTIN R GOODMAN
JOHN O. SCHUPPER
STEPHEN N OERMCR
MICHAEL L. RODBURG
ALLEN B. LEVITHAN
R BARRT STIGER
GREGORY B. REILLY
PETER H EHRENBERG
STEVEN B. FUERST
THEODORE V. WELLS. JR
WILLIAM S. KATCHEN
MICHAEL OORE
JOHN L. KRAFT
ASHLEY STEINHART
DOUGLAS S. EAKELEY
RICHARD O. WILKINSON
ALAN WOVSANIKCR
DAVID L. HARRIS
WILLIAM P. ML! NO AY
DANIEL J. BARKIN
GEORGE J. MAZIN
JAMES STEWART
LAURA R. KUNTZ
ROBERT D. CHCSLER
RICHARD r RICCI
JOHN L. BERGCR
OAVIO W. FIELD
MARTHA L. LESTER
LINDA PICKERING
JOHN D. MOGOBOOM
ROBERT G. MINION
JEFFREY J. WILD
LAWRENCE M. RQLNICK
OF COUNSEL
ROBERT L. KRAKOWER HARVEY SMITH
NORMAN W SPINDEL DIANE K WEEKS
STUART S- YUSEM OAVtD E. ALPERT
JEFFREY M. DAVIS RICHARD P. BOEHMER
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
COUNSELLORS AT LAW
65 LIVINGSTON AVENUE
ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY
07068-1791
TELEPHONE (301)993-8700
FACSIMILE (SOU 992-58ZO
SOMERVILLE OFFICE
TELEPHONE I9O81 526-33OO
FACSIMILE I9O8I 526-9173
February 23,1996
GARY M. WINGCNS
PAUL F. KOCH M
. BRUCE 5. ROSEN
SAMUEL S SANTO. JR.
JONATHAN T. K. COHEN
SUSAN YOUOOVIN LEONARD
PAUL F. CAflVCLLI
GARY T. CISEN8ERG
ROSEMARY C. RAMSAY
JEFFREY 8. CRACER
NEALE R. BEDROCK
KARIM G. KASPAR
ROBERT M. LAPINSKY
HCNRY M. PRICE
OAVtO A. THOMAS
ANDREW E. ANSELMI
MICHAEL N. GOOEN
JERI L. ABRAMS
RICHARD c. SZUCH
STEPHEN R. BUCKINGHAM
STEPHANIE WILSON
VIRGINIA A. LAZALA
MICHAEL J. MCDONALD
GEOFFREY A. PRICE
PETER L. SXOLNIK
NESLIHAN S. MONTAG
ALEX MOREAU
WILLIAM J VONDERHEIDE
COWARD T. ARNOLD
THOMAS E MESEVAGC
JOYCE A. DAVIS
MICHAEL DAVID LICHTENSTElN
BRIAN WEEKS
VERONICA SMITH LEWIS
COWARD M. ZIMMERMAN
AMY C. GROSSMAN
RICHARD A. LEVITAN
MAUREEN C. MONTAGUE
GAVIN J. ROONEY
CHRISTOPHER L. WEISS
NELSON D. JOHNSON
DANIEL C. BRAUN
EDWARD T. OARTLCY
ABBY J, AGES
KEVIN G. CORLISS
TINA MARIE NICHOLO
SHERYL A. BERNSTEIN
OAVIO J. BIANCHI
LAUREN M- HOLLENDCR
PATRICK j. WMALEN
SARAH GODFREY HUNT
SARAH B. LEVINSON
COURTNEY A. SCHAEL
DONALD G. HARRINGTON
MAUREEN A. RUANE
FRANK D. STEFANELLl
DANA SADE
MARJORIE A. ADAMS-HANSON
GAIL J. HOWIE
JONATHAN A. WASSERMAN
LYNN L. ABRAHAM
CATHERINE E. BOSTOCK
THOMAS P. COLE
MICHAEL E. GROSSMAN
JAVIER E. R08LES
LOUISE WEINGROO
JOYCE HANAK ROGINA
MELISSA A. RULE
ANDREA B. SCHWARTZ
DAVID M. WISSERT
TIMOTHY G HANSEN
Sherrel D. Henry, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
Re: Syosset Landfill Site
Superfund Proposed Plan
Dear Ms. Henry:
On behalf of Cerro Wire & Cable Corporation, we submit the following
comments to EPA's Proposed Plan for the second operable unit ("OU2") at the Syosset Landfill
Superfund Site ("the Site"), located in the Town on Oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York.
EPA's Proposed Plan for OU2 and supporting documents erroneously describe the
Site as bounded by Cerro Wire & Cable Corporation ("Cerro") to the southwest. See Second
Operable Unit Remedial Investigation Report (December 1995), Executive Summary at E-i;
Introduction at 1-2 (Site Description); Figures 1-1 and 1-2; Appendix O (7/13/95 Industrial Area
Survey Memo at page 3 and attached Figure and Table 1. See alsq Final Human Health Risk
Assessment (1/25/96), Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment, Executive Summary at 1; Data
Collection and Evaluation at 13 (also referred to as Geraghty & Miller Figure 2-1). Cerro does
not own the property adjacent to the Site. Cerro sold its Syosset facility to Sy Associates on
March 29, 1984. Although Cerro continued to lease the Syosset facility from Sy Associates until
June 30, 1987, Cerro ceased its operations at the Syosset facility on November 7,1986.
02/23/960210532.01
-------
Sherrel D. Henry, Project Manager
Page 2
February 23, 1996
Since Cerro has neither owned nor occupied the property adjacent to the Site since
1987, kindly remove Cerro's name from the descriptions of the Site and' supporting
documentation. If you have any questions, please contact me or Richard F. Ricci at (201) 992-
8700.
Very-tally yours,
cc: Richard F. Ricci, Esq.
------- |