EPA/ROD/R02-95/247
August 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Batavia Landfill, NY
6/06/95
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Batavia Landfill Site
Town of Batavia, Genesee County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
June 1995
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Batavia Landfill Site
Town of Batavia
Genesee County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision ("ROD") documents the selection of a
remedial action for the Batavia Landfill Site ("Site") by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in accordance with the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("CERCLA"),
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 has
been consulted on the planned remedial action in accordance with
Section 121(f) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(f), and concurs with the
selected remedy (see Appendix IV).
An administrative record for the Site, established pursuant to the
NCP, 40 CFR 300.800, contains the documents that form the basis for
EPA's selection of the remedial action (see Appendix III).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Site, 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.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy pertains to the last of two operable units for
the Site. On March 31, 1993, EPA signed a ROD selecting a first
operable unit interim remedy for the Site that consists of
extending the local municipal water supply line to residences
adjacent to the Batavia Landfill (the "Landfill"). This operable
unit addresses the entire Site. The major components of the
selected remedy include the following:
1) Excavation of contaminated soil from drum area R and the
approximately 7-acre magnesium fines area in the northern area of
the Landfill and consolidating these materials under the landfill
cap in the southern area of the Landfill. Moving the wastes from
the northern area of the Landfill, where the ground water is
shallow, to the higher terrain of the southern area will also mini-
mize the migration of hazardous constituents to the ground water
and surrounding wetlands.
-------
2) Subsequent grading of the northern area of the Landfill,
filling it with clean topsoil, and seeding it for a vegetative
cover.
3) Excavation of drums from the southern area of the Landfill
containing hazardous substances, which are estimated in number to
be 150. The drums will be transported off-site for treatment and
disposal.
4) Capping of the southern region of the Landfill with a NYS Solid
Waste Standard 'Cap designed and constructed in accordance with the
substantive requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.13(q), which
includes a minimum of 18 inches of compacted clay liner with a
post-compacted maximum remolded coefficient of permeability of 10'7
cm/sec throughout its thickness (a minimum thickness of 40 mil
geomembrane), a 24 inch barrier protection layer of soil and 6
inches of topsoil suitable to maintain vegetative growth, or an
equivalent design as permitted pursuant to the regulations (6 NYCRR
Part 360-2.13(w)). Grading of the Landfill will be based upon the
final capping configuration determined during the remedial design
phase.
5) An explosive gas survey will be performed to determine the need
for constructing a passive gas venting layer or trench system
underlying the low permeability cap material. Any gas venting
system would be situated beneath impermeable clay so as to increase
its effectiveness in controlling horizontal gas migration.
6) Construction of a leachate collection system. The leachate
collection system will be designed to provide a physical barrier to
the migration of leachate from the Landfill, with appropriate
pumping or other forms of leachate collection.
7) Performance of a pre-design ecological assessment to define
impacts of the Landfill on fish, wildlife, and associated habitats
(especially wetlands). This information will be used to determine
whether any wetland excavation is advisable to best protect fish
and wildlife, and if the assessment is determined to be necessary,
the information will be used to determine the extent of appropriate
action. Any sediments excavated as a result of the ecological
assessment will be placed under the cap. The construction of the
cap may impact a portion of the wetlands, and consequently the
information obtained during the ecological assessment will also be
used to assist in the design and construction of the remedy in such
a way as to minimize any adverse impacts to the wetlands caused by
the remedy. The selected remedy also requires that any damage to
wetlands or wetlands function will be mitigated.
8) EPA will recommend to local agencies that institutional
controls be undertaken to ensure that future land use at the Site
is restricted so as to preclude certain uses of the Site, such as
-------
is restricted so as to preclude certain uses of the Site, such as
restricting certain types of access to the Landfill and eliminating
groundwater use for human consumption at the Site.
9) Implementation of long-term operation and maintenance of the
Landfill cap systems to provide for inspections and repairs.
10) An evaluation of Site conditions no less than each five years
to determine if the selected alternative is protective of human
health and the environment.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy meets the requirements for remedial actions as
set forth in Section 121 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621, and
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, given the scope of the action. The remedy will
permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
contaminants by reducing infiltration through the landfilled wastes
and collecting and treating leachate. In addition, the remedy
involves the excavation of on-site buried drums for off-site
treatment and disposal. A review of the remedial action will be
conducted no less than each five years after the commencement of
the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection to human health and the environment because
this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site
above health-based levels.
Jeanne M. Fofc/ '/ /Jfl' ~7 fT
Regional Admi/histratc^ V I/
Date
111
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Batavia Landfill Site
Batavia, Genesee County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region n
New York, New York
June 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . . . 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 11
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 11
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 16
SELECTED REMEDY 21
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 23
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES .... .25
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE KAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Batavia Landfill Site (the "Site") is located approximately
three miles west-northwest of the City of Batavia, Genesee County,
New York (see Figure 1) . The Site includes the 35 acre Batavia
Landfill (the "Landfill"), which is bounded to the north and
portions of the east by the Galloway Swamp, to the east by the
Town's former Sanitary Landfill (now closed), to the south by
Harloff Road (the New York State Thruway, or Interstate Route 90,
is approximately 200 feet south of the Landfill), and to the west
by vacant property. It should be noted that the boundary between
the Landfill and the former sanitary landfill to the east is not
well defined. In fact, portions of the two landfills overlap to
some degree. The Town of Batavia owns the Landfill and the
adjoining sanitary landfill to the east. The Site includes the
areal extent of contamination emanating from the Landfill,
including any contamination impacting the surrounding wetlands.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Landfill was owned by private citizens from 1828 to 1967. The
land was used primarily for agricultural purposes until approx-
imately I960, although during the 1950s,-portions of the property
were mined to provide construction materials for the New York State
Thruway. The Landfill accepted wastes, including industrial
wastes, for on-site disposal from 1968.until 1980, the year the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC")
declared the property an open dump based on noncompliance with the
surface water criteria (40 CFR Part 257). Poor housekeeping
practices and the disposal of industrial and hazardous wastes
resulted in the closure of the Landfill. Most of the wastes at the
Site were disposed in the southern and northern areas (see Figure
2) . Available information indicates that no wastes were buried in
the central area of the Site, however, debris (e.g. tires, wood) is
visible at the ground surface. Industrial wastes known to have
been disposed of at the Site include chromium hydroxide sludge,
magnesium sludges, and sweepings containing barium, inks, spent
solvents, and oils.
In December 1982, Fred C. Hart Associates under contract with EPA
conducted a ground water sampling survey in the area of the Site.
Sampling data from three on-site monitoring wells, installed in
1980 for the NYSDEC, revealed the presence of hazardous organic and
inorganic chemical constituents (including methylene chloride, 1,1
dichloroethane, barium) which exceeded New York State and Federal
Drinking Water Standards.
On December 20, 1982, the Site was proposed for inclusion on the
National Priorities List ("NPL") and the Site was added to the NPL
by publication in the Federal Register on September 8, 1983 (48
Fed. Reg. 40658).
The following have been identified as potentially responsible
parties ("PRPs") for the Site:
-------
a. Town of Batavia
b. City of Batavia
c. Eaton Corporation
d. GTE Products Corporation (successor to GTE-
Sylvania)
e. NL Industries, Inc. (because of activities
associated with its former Doehler-Jarvis
division)
f. R.E. Chapin Manufacturing Works, Inc.
g. Unisys Corporation (successor to Burroughs
Corporation)
EPA first sent notice of potential responsibility in 1982 to the
PRPs listed above or to a predecessor or affiliate of such entity.
These parties were subsequently notified to solicit their
participation at the Site, in 1984 in connection with planned
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") activities,
and in 1988 in connection with the planned removal action.
On August 9, 1984, EPA entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent ("AOC") with NL Industries for the performance of an RI/FS
at the Site.
In August 1985, NL Industries contracted with ERCO to conduct the
RI/FS. ERCO, in turn, contracted with GZA GeoEnvironmental of New
York (formerly GZA Associates, Inc.,) to aid in the study.
GZA, working as a subconsultant to ERCO, completed a preliminary
study entitled "Remedial Investigation Report for Batavia Town
Landfill, Batavia, New York," dated December 1985. The work done
to complete this report included assembly and review of available
data pertaining to waste types and quantities suspected to have
been disposed of at the Site, and a review of regional geologic and
hydrogeologic information and prior reports. The results of the RI
confirmed that groundwater contamination was present at the Site.
Based on the available data base, EPA deemed that additional work
was required to better characterize the chemical and hydrogeologic
conditions at the Site' prior to initiating the FS. NL Industries
thus contracted with GZA to complete an RI/FS. ERCO was also
retained by NL Industries to perform selected sampling and
analyses.
In April 1989, NL Industries submitted a report entitled "Batavia
Landfill Site Draft Remedial Investigation Report", prepared by
GZA, which EPA determined to be insufficient for failing to provide
an adequate data base upon which to develop an FS for an overall
Site remedy. In April 1991, NL Industries conducted a limited re-
sampling of selected project groundwater monitoring wells for total
(unfiltered) metals and hexavalent chromium and resubmitted
"Batavia Landfill Site Remedial Investigation Report Final Draft"
dated May 1992. NL Industries and EPA disagreed on the
interpretation of the RI data. EPA then contracted with Alliance
-------
Technologies, Inc. (subsequently renamed TRC Environmental Corpora-
tion, and hereinafter referred to as "TRC"), an EPA Technical
Enforcement Support ("TES") contractor, which developed a
Conceptual Hydrogeologic Model for the Site based upon EPA's
interpretation of the RI data (the "EPA Groundwater Model"). The
EPA Groundwater Model was incorporated into the final RI Report for
the Site in place of the groundwater model developed by GZA for NL
Industries. The EPA Groundwater model concludes" that the Site
poses a potential threat, via the ingestion of the ground water, to
area residents living in the vicinity of the Landfill.
A residential well sampling/analyses survey conducted by the New
York State Department of Health on homes along Pratt Road, within
close proximity to the Landfill, have revealed the presence of
1,1,1-trichloroethane ("TCA") at 6 parts per billion ("ppb") and
chloroform at 2 ppb in the potable water supply. These levels are
below the federal Maximum Contaminant Level ("MCL") for TCA (200
ppb) and the proposed MCL of for chloroform (100 ppb) . The New
York State MCL for TCA, a principal organic contaminant, is 5 ppb,
and the MCL for trihalomethanes (chloroform) is 100 ppb. EPA's
Conceptual Groundwater Model, developed from accumulated RI data,
concludes that the level of Site contaminants will continue to
increase in the residential wells should the source, the Landfill,
remain unremediated. No contamination was found at the wells
sampled on Kelsey Road.
On March 31, 1993, EPA signed a Record of Decision ("ROD")
selecting an interim remedy for the Site which consists of
extending the local municipal water supply line to potentially
impacted residences in the vicinity of the Landfill. On September
21, 1993, EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to the PRPs
directing them to implement this remedy. The waterline is current-
ly being designed, and the construction is scheduled to begin in
May of 1995.
On July 31, 1990, the following six PRPs entered into an
administrative order on consent with EPA, agreeing to perform a
removal of surface and semi-buried drums from the Site: Unisys
Corporation, GTE-Sylvania, Eaton Corporation, R. E. Chapin Manufac-
turing Works, Inc., the Town of Batavia, and the City of Batavia.
In the Summer of 1991, Blasland & Bouck Engineers, P.C., under
contract with these six PRPs, removed 632 drums from the surface at
the Site which amounted to 35.3 tons of contaminated solid wastes,
1,700 gallons of decontamination water, 27.1 tons of crushed drums,
and 55 gallons of cyanide-bearing oils.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI report, the Feasibility Study report, and the Proposed Plan
for the Site were released to the public for comment on August 8,
1994. These documents were made available to the public at two
local information repositories maintained at the Richmond Library
-------
and Town of Batavia Town Hall, in the Town of Batavia, New York.
A third repository was located at the EPA Region II Office in New
York City. The notice of availability for the above-referenced
documents was published in the Batavia Daily News on August 8,
1994. The 30-day public comment period, originally from August 8,
1994 to September 7, 1994, was extended by an additional sixty days
to November 7, 1994, in response to two written requests, dated
August 25, 1994 and September 30, 1994, respectively, from the City
of Batavia.
On August 18, 1994, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Batavia
High School, in Batavia, New York. The purpose of the meeting was
to inform local officials and interested citizens about the
Superfund process, to present EPA's Proposed Plan for the remedial
action at the Site, and to respond to any questions from area
residents and other attendees. The comments received at the public
meeting generally pertained to the status of the municipal water
supply remedy mandated by the March 1993 ROD, and questions were
raised on the potential of site-contaminants reaching the Village
of Oakfield Wells, a municipal water supply wellfield located 3/4
of a mile to the north from the Landfill. Representatives on
behalf of the Village of Oakfield requested that EPA develop a
contingency plan for implementation in the event that Site
contaminants migrate and impact these wells.
Responses to the comments received . at the public meeting and
written comments received during the public comment period are
included in the attached Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The primary objectives of this action are to control the source of
contamination at the Site and to reduce and minimize the migration
of contaminants into Site media, thereby minimizing any health and
environmental impacts.
In addition to the environmental impacts measured and documented
concerning traditional site media (e.g., ground water, surface
water, sediment, etc.), the RI identified sensitive wetland areas
in and around portions of the Site. These water bodies receive
drainage from the Landfill. As stated above, the Landfill is
bordered on the north and east by the Galloway Swamp. The FS
projected, for cost estimation purposes, that approximately 25,000
cubic yards of wetlands sediment may have to be excavated. This
projection was based on NYSDEC sediment criteria. However,
additional fieldwork is planned to complete an ecological
assessment at the Site. The results of this pre-design ecological
assessment may indicate that the area to be remediated is smaller
or that no remediation of the wetlands is appropriate. The
ecological assessment will also be used to avoid or mitigate
potential impacts that the Landfill capping portion of the selected
remedy may have on fish, wildlife and their habitats, and
-------
especially the wetlands. The remedial design will be guided by the
results of this ecological assessment so that sediment cleanup
goals and implementation of the remedy will be protective of fish
and wildlife. NYSDEC's technical screening guidance for evaluating
sediment contamination at hazardous waste sites will be considered
as cleanup goals.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The RI has confirmed the release of hazardous substances to the
soil, sediment, and groundwater at the Site as a result of past
hazardous waste disposal activities. Generally, the past disposal
of wastes at the Site (see Figure 2) seems to have been haphazard.
The following disposal areas have been identified at the Site
through the RI process: (a) drummed wastes were buried in the
southern area of the Landfill (the "buried drum area"); (b) chromi-
um and magnesium sludges were disposed into a waste pit area in the
southeast corner of the Landfill (the "waste pit area"); (c)
magnesium fines were buried generally in the north-central area of
the Landfill (the "magnesium fines area"); and (d) drums and some
sediment were removed from the northern region of the Landfill
during the 1991 drum removal action by the PRPs (drum area R) ,
however, some contaminated soil may still remain.
Data collected during the RI have confirmed the following regarding
the various media and areas of interest:
1. Groundwater
Sampling and chemical analyses reveal releases of total chromium
(181 ppb) , arsenic (251 ppb) , lead (433 ppb) , TCA (110 ppb) ,
toluene (1,900 ppb), and methylene chloride (181 ppb) to the ground
water at the Site. The levels of contaminants in the groundwater
(see Tables 4 and 5 in Appendix II) can present both a carcinogenic
and a noncarcinogenic risk to future consumers.
2. Soil, Sediments and Surface Water
The contamination to the soil is present but very irregular. This
is attributed primarily to the generally haphazard nature of past
disposal practices at the 35-acre Landfill. Sampling and chemical
analyses results have shown, among many other things, the presence
of total chromium (320,000 ppb), arsenic (83,800 ppb), lead
(359,000 ppb), TCA (380 ppb), methylene chloride (1,100 ppb), and
toluene (2,000 ppb) in the soil and sediment in the wetland areas.
Analytical results from the Buried Drum Area in the southern
portion of the Landfill (see Figure 2) revealed the presence of
both organic and inorganic hazardous chemical constituents in the
sediment. In this locality, toluene was the most frequently
detected chemical constituent at 5,100,000 ppb. Other volatile
organic constituents ("VOCs"), which were all detected at
concentrations exceeding 10,000 ppb include acetone, xylene and
ethylbenzene.
-------
Chromium, copper, and lead were detected in all sediment samples
taken in and around the Landfill during the RI. Lead, with a
maximum detected concentration of 2000 milligram per kilogram
("mg/kg"), or 2,000,000 ppb within the sediment, exceeded EPA's
screening level for residential soils of 400 mg/kg.
The Waste Pit Area sediment (see Figure 2) exhibited low levels of
VOCs. Detected contaminants included methylene chloride, carbon
disulfide, phenol. Several inorganic compounds frequently detected
within the Waste Pit Area included aluminum, arsenic, barium,
chromium, lead', and magnesium. Inorganic compounds with highly
elevated concentrations in this area include aluminum (248,000
mg/kg), chromium (313,000 mg/kg) and magnesium- (410,000 mg/kg).
The Magnesium Fines Area (see Figure 2) exhibited very high levels
of magnesium (195,000 mg/kg) and barium (4,650 mg/kg) within the
sediment. Arsenic (114 mg/kg) was also detected within this area.
The Magnesium Fines Area is estimated to be approximately 7 acres.
The surface waters at the Site also exhibited persistent levels of
heavy metal and volatile organic contamination. A total of eight
different VOCs were detected in surface water samples collected
during the RI. The most frequently detected VOCs within the
surface waters were chloroethane and methylene chloride, both of
which exceed the New York State ground water standards.
A total of 21 inorganic chemical constituents were detected in
every surface water sample. Aluminum, barium, magnesium, and iron
where among the metals detected within this medium. Concentrations
of several inorganics greatly exceeded current ambient water
quality criteria ("AWQC") .
3. EPA Monitors Northernmost Wells at the Site
In response to concerns from the citizens, EPA is periodically
monitoring the northernmost bedrock wells at the Site. Sampling
results from November 1992 and February 1994 have confirmed that no
contaminant plumes are migrating from the Landfill towards the
Village of Oakfield wells located 3/4 of a mile to the north.
Site Hydrology
A preliminary conceptual model, based upon EPA's interpretation of
the RI data gathered by GZA GeoEnvironmental of New York, was
developed by EPA in August 1991. The following statements in this
section summarize the hydrogeology of the Site:
• The upper 10 feet of bedrock is highly fractured, and
hydraulic conductivity in the bedrock ranged from 1 to 70
feet/day. In the northern portion of the Landfill, the
Onondaga limestone is overlain by a thick glaciolacustrine
sequence of silt and clay, but this sequence is not continuous
-------
across the Site. In other portions of the Landfill, the
bedrock is overlain by the water bearing lower soil unit
characterized by fine sands, silts, and gravels. The bedrock
is likely to be highly permeable and is hydraulically
connected to the unconsolidated overburden. The hydraulic
connection between bedrock and overburden is evidenced by the
discontinuity of the low permeability lenses and the fact that
Site related contaminants have been detected in all
hydrogeologic units on-site.
The geometry of the low permeability layer is not well
understood, especially in the central portion of the Landfill
where it does not appear to be present based on well logs (see
Figure 3). Discontinuous layers of silt and clay, varying in
thickness between 1 and 30 feet, are present in the northern
and southern portions of the Landfill. Because of the
discontinuity of the low permeability lenses, the upper soil
zones, the low soils zone, and the lower (bedrock) soils zone
should be considered as one heterogeneous aquifer. The
interconnectedness of the aquifer is demonstrated by the
detection of Site contaminants in samples from wells screened
at all depths.
During the RI, data on vertical hydraulic gradients have been
amassed from well clusters with screens in the shallow,
intermediate, and deep portions of the aquifer. Review .of
water level elevation data indicates that in the western
portion of the Landfill, vertical gradients are predominantly
downward. In the eastern portion of the Landfill, they vary
and may be downward to horizontal to slightly upward, as
evidenced by the presence of water bodies (ponds) in and
around the Landfill. The overburden ground water bearing zone
is also hydraulically connected with the surface water bodies
surrounding the Landfill.
Based on the data provided for wells screened at or very near
the water table, shallow ground water flow is generally to the
south in the southern portion of the Landfill, to the east-
northeast in the southern central portion of the Landfill,
toward the east-southeast in the northern central portion of
the Landfill. EPA estimates that flow is to the north in the
northern part of the Landfill, towards the Galloway Swamp.
Based upon vertical gradients observed in the well clusters,
there is a strong component of downward ground water flow at
most locations in the Landfill. Ground water flow is slightly
upward on the east side of the Landfill and south of the
adjacent former municipal landfill. This observation is
consistent with the detection of VOCs in the shallow,
intermediate, and bedrock aquifers at the Landfill. The fact
that VOCs were detected in the bedrock wells on the eastern
side of the Landfill supports the theory that contamination
-------
is moving downward under the Landfill mound and laterally
(eastward) towards Galloway Swamp.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the RI, specifically the ground water
data, 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 risk which
could result from the contamination at the Site if no remedial
action were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
To perform a Human Health Risk Assessment, the reasonable maximum
human exposure is evaluated. A four-step process is then utilized
for assessing site related human health risks for a reasonable
maximum exposure scenario:
Hazard Identification— identifies the contaminants of concern
("COCs") 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 output of the
exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative assess-
ment of site-related risks (e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer
risk).
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of
concern which would be representative of site-related risks.
Results from the RI sampling at the Site indicate that ground
water, soil, surface waters, and sediments are contaminated with a
combination of VOCs, base neutral acids, and inorganic compounds.
As part of the RI, air quality monitoring was performed with field
instruments during test pit boring activities. In general, the
results of the explosimeter and organic vapor testing revealed
explosivity that was below 1 percent of the Lower Explosivity
Limit, and the organic vapors measured at the Site during test pit
drilling activities exceeded background by less than 0.5 parts per
million. Therefore, no evidence of significant air impacts have
been noted.
-------
The human health risk assessment evaluated current and potential
future exposure to contaminants in the ground water, soil/waste,
surface water, sediments, and leachate seeps (see tables in
Appendix II) . Ground water risks were evaluated in a risk
assessment conducted in 1992 by TRC, an EPA contractor, to address
ground water quality in the immediate vicinity of the Landfill.
This risk assessment resulted in EPA signing an interim action
Record of Decision for the groundwater in 1993. " TRC conducted
another risk assessment in 1994 that addressed contaminated soil,
surface water/leachate, and sediments.
On the basis of current and future land use information,
residential development of areas adjacent to the Landfill is
possible. In addition, contaminated ground water at the Site may
reach residential areas to the south of the Landfill in the future.
The risk assessment evaluated exposures to residents and workers
who may come on the Site. Exposure pathways included in the
overall quantitative risk assessment effort include:
Ingestion of ground water;
Ingestion of soil/waste and sediment; and,
Dermal contact with soil/waste and sediment.
Risks attributable to dermal contact with soil/waste and sediments
were assessed for current and future residents and future
excavation workers. In accordance with current OSWER and EPA
Region II guidance, the quantitative risk assessment for dermal
contact was limited. The high degree of uncertainty in the input
parameters for this pathway forces us to limit the quantification
of dermal risks to the following three contaminant types: cadmium,
PCBs, and dioxins. Only cadmium was detected at the site and the
noncarcinogenic risks were found to be below an HI of 1.0. In
addition risks associated with exposure to surface water and liquid
leachate seeps were addressed qualitatively.
Results of the health risk assessment reveal that significant
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks would exist in the future
should contaminants detected in the ground water at the Site reach
private drinking water supplies downgradient of the Landfill. The
total carcinogenic risk associated with the ingestion of ground
water, 1.2 x 10'3, exceeds EPA's target risk range of 10^ to 10"*,
which means that approximately one in a thousand adults or children
could potentially develop cancer over a 30-year exposure period
from ingesting ground water at the Site.
The two chemicals present at the Site which drive the carcinogenic
risk are:
-------
vinyl chloride (maximum concentration = 7.2 ppb in well MW
01), and;
arsenic (maximum concentration = 167 ppb in well MW 04).
Both vinyl chloride and arsenic are classified by EPA as human
Class A carcinogens. Vinyl chloride was detected in 3 of 21 ground
water samples for which results were available"; arsenic was
detected in 11 of 15 ground water samples. Thirteen other
contaminants produced carcinogenic risks greater than 10"6 but less
than 10-4.
To assess the overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects posed
by one or more than one contaminant, EPA has developed a hazard
index ("HI") . This index measures the assumed exposures to several
chemicals simultaneously at low concentrations which could result
in an adverse health effect. When the HI exceeds one (1.0) , there
may be concern for potential noncarcinogenic effects.
The acute noncarcinogenic HI associated with on-site ground water
ingestion was 5.4 and the chronic HI was 26.8, indicating the
potential for significant noncarcinogenic effects.
Because no toxicity value is currently available for lead, ground
water concentrations were compared with the EPA action level for
drinking water. For the wells evaluated in this risk assessment,
the maximum concentration for lead in the ground water (433 ppb) ,
the upper 95 percent confidence limit concentration (196 ppb), and
the geometric mean concentration (23 ppb) all exceed EPA's action
level of 15 ppb.
Significant carcinogenic risks (2 x 10"4) are also associated with
the ingestion of site sediment. The risk value is driven by a
combination of poly-aromatic hydrocarbons, although chrysene
produces the highest risk value (1 x 10^). The highest
concentrations of chrysene and other poly-aromatic hydrocarbons
were detected along the mid-western side of the Landfill.
Ingestion of sediment resulted in a noncarcinogenic HI of one
(1.0). Sediment lead concentrations, with a maximum concentration
of 1220 mg/kg, exceeded EPA's screening level for residential soils
of 400 mg/kg.
Carcinogenic risks associated with incidental ingestion of
subsurface soils during future excavation at the Waste Pit Area
were within EPA's acceptable risk range. .The total ingestion risk
was 5 x 10"6. The noncarcinogenic HI of 6.0 exceeded 1.0.
Other risks associated with exposure to contaminants in soils,
sediments, surface waters, and leachate seeps were deemed
insignificant.
10
-------
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:
Degree of characterization of contamination in all media;
Process used to select COCs;
Availability of toxicity data of certain COCs;
Future land use;
Exposure parameter values; and,
Availability of sufficient background data.
In general, the risks presented herein are likely to be
conservative estimates of true risks. The ground water scenario
conservatively assumes that contaminants detected in the ground
water under the Landfill will migrate without any attenuation. In
addition, the exposure parameters used to characterize the
reasonable maximum exposure in this assessment are health
protective values.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human
health and the environment. These objectives are based on
available information and standards such as applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements ("ARARs") and risk-based levels
established in the risk assessment. The primary objectives of this
action are to control the source of contamination at the Landfill
and to reduce and minimize the migration of contaminants into Site
media, thereby minimizing any health and ecological impacts.
The following remedial action objectives were established for the
Site:
* Preventing direct contact with Landfill contents;
* Controlling surface water runoff and erosion;
* Collecting and treating any Landfill leachate;
* Controlling Landfill gas;
* Preventing the infiltration of contaminants into ground water;
and
* Remediating contaminated wetland areas, as appropriate.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA mandates that a remedial action must be protective of human
health and the environment, be cost effective, and utilize
11
-------
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
It also establishes a preference for remedial actions which employ,
as a principal element, treatment to permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants at a site. CERCLA further
specifies that a remedial action must attain a level or standard of
control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, an'd contaminants,
which at least attains ARARs under federal and state laws, unless
a waiver can be justified. The FS Report evaluated in detail ten
remedial alternatives for addressing the contamination associated
with the Site. Estimates for the various construction times
include only the time needed to construct or implement the remedy.
It does not include any time required for the design of the remedy,
negotiations with the responsible parties, or award of contracts,
all of which, depending upon the selected remedy, may involve up to
two years. Additionally, the alternative costs are based upon
researched construction costs for the Western New York/Niagara
area. In accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA, EPA must review
any remedial action that results in hazardous substances remaining
at the Site above health based limits at least once every five
years to assure that the remedy selected continues to be protective
of human health and the environment. All of the alternatives set
forth below will require such a review every five years. The
remedial alternatives are:
Alternative l: No Action
The Superfund program requires, that the "No Action" alternative be
considered as a baseline for comparison of other alternatives.
Under this Alternative, no clean-up or mitigation measures would be
taken at the Site, and the Landfill would be left in its current
state. An annual ground water monitoring program utilizing
existing and proposed wells at the Site would be implemented to
monitor the potential migration of ground water. Sediment sampling
(annually) would also be included with the ground water monitoring
program. Ground water and sediment samples would be collected for
30 years, or until it is determined to be no longer necessary
during the 5-year review process. Under the no-action alternative,
the potential for off-site migration of contaminated ground water
would continue.
Capital Cost: $52,198
O & M Cost: $46,040/yr (30 yrs)
Present Worth Cost: $759,946
Construction Time: 6 months
Alternative 2: Sediment Cover
This Alternative (see Figure 4) includes all the components of
Alternative l (i.e., monitoring of sediment and ground water
quality etc.,) plus perimeter fencing, institutional controls, a
12
-------
soil cover over selected areas (such as drainage ditches and
portions of the surrounding wetlands) , the construction of drainage
swales and retention basins. The soil cover in designated areas
would include 18 inches of clean fill followed by six inches of
seeded topsoil.
Capital Costs: $1,675,218
0 & M Costs: $57,460/yr
Present Worth: $2,525,390
Construction Time: 6 months
Alternative 3 - Sediment Cover and In-situ Treatment of Buried
Drum Area and Waste Pit Area Soils
Alternative 3 includes in-situ stabilization of the buried drum
area (in the southern portion of the Site) and waste pit area
soils, in addition to all the components of Alternative 2.
Capital Costs: $3,887,218
0 & M : $57,460/yr (30 yrs)
Present Worth: $4,737,390
Construction Time: 1 year
Alternative 4: Landfill Soil Cap
This Alternative (see Figure 5) includes all the components of
Alternative 2. Contaminated wetland sediment, currently estimated
at 25,000 cubic yards, would be consolidated on-site, and the
entire Landfill would be covered with 12 inches of low permeability
soil fill and six inches of seeded topsoil. The amount of wetland
sediment to be excavated would be determined at the conclusion of
a pre-design ecological assessment. In addition to the Landfill
cover, a Landfill gas monitoring system would be instituted, and
additional groundwater monitoring wells would be installed to track
potential contaminant migration.
Capital Costs: $3,902,842
0 & M : $136,560/yr (30 yrs)
Present Worth: $5,095,476
Construction Time : approximately 2 years
Alternative 5: Sediment Cover, Excavation and Treatment of Buried
Drum Area and Waste Pit Area Soils
This Alternative is similar to Alternative 3 except that the buried
drum area and waste pit area soils would be excavated prior to
treatment on-site. Treatment of the buried drum area (in the
southern portion of the Landfill) and waste pit area soils includes
low temperature thermal stripping to remove VOCs and base neutral
acids, followed by cement-based stabilization to immobilize the
inorganic constituents (metals/ionic compounds). A treatability
13
-------
study would be performed to determine both the optimum operating
conditions and reagents for the low temperature thermal stripping
and waste stabilization processes, respectively. Following
treatment, the waste would be returned to its original location and
covered with one foot of soil fill and six inches of seeded
topsoil.
Capital Cost: $11,320,854
O & M: $57,460/yr (30 yrs)
Present Worth: $12,171,130
Construction Time: 2 years
Alternative 6 - Sediment and Waste Consolidation and New York
State Part 360 Landfill Cap
This Alternative contains the components of Alternative 2 (i.e.,
monitoring, fencing, institutional controls, and the construction
of drainage swales and retention basins), and in addition it
requires the construction of a landfill capping system consistent
with the requirements of New York State Regulations set forth at 6
NYCRR Part 360 in an effort to prevent or minimize the migration of
contaminants from.the Site.
Common to all of the following three sub-alternatives under
Alternative 6 is the requirement that the buried drums containing
hazardous substances in the southern area of the Landfill
(estimated in number at approximately 150) be excavated and
transported off-site for treatment and disposal prior to
construction of the 6 NYCRR Part 360 landfill capping system.
Also, for purposes of estimating the cost of the various sub-
alternatives, it was assumed based on NYSDEC sediment/soil criteria
that as much as 25,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments would
be excavated from the wetlands for disposal under a landfill cap in
the southern area. However, as stated above, one of the objectives
of the planned pre-design ecological assessment is to determine the
impact of the Landfill on the wetlands. The results of the
ecological assessment may indicate that the area to be remediated
is smaller, larger, or that remediation of the wetlands is not
appropriate. Information obtained during the ecological assessment
will also be used to avoid or mitigate any impacts that remedial
action may have on the fish, wildlife, and their habitats.
Alternative 6 also includes the construction of a passive gas
venting system as part of the Landfill design requirements. For
purposes of this evaluation, it is anticipated that any leachate
disposal would occur off-site. However, the exact disposal option
would be determined during the remedial design, based upon such
factors as technical practicability of leachate treatment by the
POTW and cost. The following are the three sub-alternatives of
Alternative 6:
Alternative 6A - Consolidation of Central Areas into Northern and
14
-------
Southern Areas with 6 NYCRR Part 360 Landfill Cap
This Alternative (see Figure 6) includes consolidating approxi-
mately 125,000 cubic yards of soil from the central area of the
Landfill into the northern and southern areas where two landfill
caps will be constructed in accordance with the requirements of 6
NYCRR Part 360. A wetlands mitigation area would be constructed in
the central area of the Site to replace the wetlands that would be
destroyed by capping the northern area. It is estimated that
approximately 4,500 gallons per day of leachate will be' generated
as a result. Under this Alternative, the northern area of the
Landfill would be dewatered to facilitate the construction of the
landfill cap in that area.
Capital Cost: $11,240,689
0 & M Cost: $385,960/yr (30 yrs)
Present Worth: $17,140,731
Construction Time: 2 years
Alternative 6B - Consolidation of Magnesium Fines Area and Drum
Area R into Southern Area with 6 NYCRR Part 360 Cap
This Alternative includes removing the magnesium fines area and the
drum area R (estimated to contain approximately 50,000 cubic yards
of material) , located in the northern area of the Landfill, and
consolidating these wastes into the southern area of the Landfill.
After consolidation, a landfill cap satisfying the requirements of
6 NYCRR Part 360 would be constructed (see Figure 7) over the
southern area of the Landfill. The northern area of the Landfill
would be graded, filled with topsoil, and seeded for a vegetative
cover. It is estimated that approximately 3,400 gallons per day of
leachate will to be generated under this Alternative.
Capital Cost: $8,129,084
0 & M Costs: $305,660/yr. (30 yrs)
Present Worth $12,370,514
Construction Time: 2 years
Alternative 6C - Consolidation of All Northern Waste and Central
Areas into the Southern Area with 6 NYCRR Part 360 Landfill Cap
Alternative 6C is similar to Alternative 6B. However, this
Alternative includes excavating the central area of the Landfill as
well as the northern areas of the Landfill (in total, estimated to
contain approximately 250,000 cubic yards of material) and
consolidating these materials into the southern area of a Landfill
where a landfill cap satisfying the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part
360 would be constructed. A wetlands mitigation area would be
constructed in the central area of the Site to replace the wetlands
that would be destroyed by excavating such an extensive amount of
material in the northern area. Under this Alternative, the
15
-------
northern area would be dewatered to facilitate excavation.
Capital Cost: $11,267,184
O & M Costs : $305,660/yr (30 yrs)
Present Worth: $15,932,814
Construction Time : 2 years
Alternative 7 - Landfill Soil Cap with Excavation and Treatment of
the Buried Drum Area Soils and In-Situ Stabilization of Waste Pit
Area Soils
Alternative 7 retains all the aspects of Alternative 4 in addition
to including the excavation and treatment of the buried drum area
soils and the in-situ stabilization of the waste pit area soils.
Possible technologies for the treatment of the buried drum area
soils, which primarily contain volatile and semi-volatile organic
constituents, include low temperature thermal stripping or off-site
incineration. A treatability study would be performed during the
remedial design phase to determine the optimal thermal treatment.
The in-situ stabilization process for the waste pit area would
involve the in-place mixing of the wastes into a cement-like matrix
so as to immobilize the heavy metal constituents therein (i.e.
chromium, magnesium, etc.).
Capital Cost: $13,104,958
O & M Costs: $139,260
Present Worth: $14,309,287
Construction Time 2 years
Alternative 8 - Sediment and Waste Consolidation/ Landfill Cap with
the Excavation and Treatment of Buried Drum Area Soils and In-Situ
Stabilization of Waste Pit Area Soils.
This Alternative includes all the components of Alternative 6A in
addition to including the treatment technologies of Alternative 7.
Under this Alternative, contaminated soil and sediment from the
central portion of the Landfill would be excavated and consolidated
into the northern and southern areas and covered with two landfill
caps which satisfy the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360. The
buried drum area in the south would be excavated and treated, and
the waste pit area soils in the south would be stabilized in-situ.
Capital Cost: $20,443,205
O & M Cost: $385,960/yr (30 yrs)
Present Worth: $26,343,247
Construction Time: 2 years
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each alternative
is required. The detailed analysis consists of an assessment of
the individual alternatives against each of nine evaluation
16
-------
criteria and a comparative analysis focusing upon the relative
performance of each alternative against those criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria must be satisfied by any
alternative in order to be eligible for selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment, which
addresses whether a remedy provides adequate protection and
describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway (based
on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs, which addresses whether or not a remedy
would attain the applicable (legally enforceable) , or relevant
and appropriate federal and state environmental statutes and
requirements (requirements that pertain to situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at a Superfund site
such that they are well suited to the Site) , or provide
sufficient grounds for invoking a waiver.
The following five "primary balancing" criteria are used to make
comparisons and to identify the major trade-offs between
alternatives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence, which addresses the
ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals of
the selected remedy have been met. It also addresses the
magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that may be
required to manage the risk posed by treatment residuals
and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume via treatment,
which addresses the ability of a remedial technology to reduce
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants at the Site.
5. Short-term effectiveness, which addresses the period of time
needed to achieve protection and any potential adverse impacts
on human health and the environment during the construction
and implementation periods, until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability, which addresses the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed.
7. Cost, which estimates the capital and operation and
maintenance costs, as well as the present-worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered after the formal
17
-------
public comment period on a proposed plan is complete:
8. State acceptance, which considers whether, based on its review
of the RI/FS and the proposed remedy, the State supports,
opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with the
preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance, which considers the public's general
response to the alternatives described in a proposed remedy
and the RI/FS reports. Factors of community acceptance to be
discussed'include support, reservation, and opposition by the
community at large.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives follows, based
upon the evaluation criteria noted above.
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
With the exception of Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, all
of the alternatives provide some degree of protection of human
health and the environment. However, Alternatives 6A, 6B, and 6C
and 8 provide the highest level of protection because they include
a more protective landfill cap consistent with the requirements of
the New York State landfill closure regulations set forth at 6
NYCRR Part 360, as well as providing some level of treatment for
various hot spot areas. Of the remaining alternatives other than
Alternative 1 (Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7), Alternative 2 is the
least protective because it does not include any treatment, nor
does it include any type of Landfill capping.
o Compliance with ARARs
There are a number of types of Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements: action-specific, chemical-specific, and
location-specific. Action-specific ARARs are technology or
activity-based requirements or limitations related to various
activities. Chemical-specific ARARs are usually numerical values
which establish the amount or concentrations of a chemical that may
be found in, or discharged to, the ambient environment. Location-
specific ARARs are restrictions placed on the concentrations of
hazardous substances or the participation in certain activities
solely because of the location of the substances or activities.
The principal action-specific ARARs for the Site include the New
York State landfill closure requirements set forth at 6 NYCRR Part
360, the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements
for the discharge of treatment system effluent, federal Guidelines
and Standards for effluent discharge to a POTW, and State
regulations for the control of surface water runoff. Alternatives
6A, 6B, 6C and 8 will require the installation of a cap consistent
with the 6 NYCRR Part 360 requirements, and thus comply with this
ARAR. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 do not require the
18
-------
installation of a landfill cap consistent with 6 NYCRR Part 360,
and thus they do not comply with this ARAR and are therefore
inconsistent with this requirement of the NCP.
Chemical specific ARARs at the Site include State and Federal MCLs.
None of the Alternatives will immediately restore the on-site
groundwater to MCLs. However, the Alternatives are ranked in
accordance with how effective each would be in preventing further
groundwater contamination and migration which relates to the type
of cap that is installed. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not
effectively reduce the likelihood of contaminant migration from the
Landfill and, as such, rank low in attaining chemical specific
ARARs. Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7, although treating on-site
wastes in various capacities, rank as medium because of the absence
of the possibility of a leachate control system; also the absence
of a 6 NYCRR Part 360 landfill cap will not as effectively reduce
the infiltration of precipitation, and a greater potential exists
for the migration of Site contaminants to the surrounding environ-
ment. Alternatives 6A, 6B, 6C and 8 include landfill caps consis-
tent with 6 NYCRR Part 360 and any necessary leachate controls, and
therefore they meet this criterion the best. By constructing a
proper cap and collecting and treating leachate, the Landfill will
no longer be acting as a source of contamination to the ground
water and the remaining contaminated ground water will naturally
attenuate over time.
Principal location' specific ARARs, with which all alternatives
would have to satisfy, include the Federal Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11990, New York Code of Rules and Regulations
Wetlands Permit (6 NYCRR Part 663) , Fish and Wild Life Coordination
Act regulations (40 CFR 6.302), the Protection of Floodplains (40
CFR 6, Appendix A) and the Floodplain Disaster Act of 1973. Con-
struction of a 6 NYCRR Part 360 landfill cap would result in the
net loss of surrounding wetlands that would require mitigation; any
action taken at the Site would require compliance with Executive
Order 11990 and 6 NYCRR Part 663.
o Lonq-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
A landfill cap satisfying the 6 NYCRR Part 360 requirements is a
reliable remedial measure that, when properly designed and
installed, is highly effective in the long term. Provided that
they are properly maintained, Alternatives 6A, 6B, 6C and 8 would
rank highest in this category. Direct contact with landfill
contents would be eliminated, and leachate.generation and migration
would be significantly reduced, thus minimizing the potential for
continued surface water and sediment contamination. Alternatives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 would rank low in long-term effectiveness
primarily because these Alternatives do no not employ a proper
landfill cap, and thus would not effectively protect human health
or the environment in the long term.
19
-------
o Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
Alternative 8 would rank the highest in reducing the toxicity,
mobility and volume of wastes at the Site because it involves both
treatment of "hot spots", which reduces toxicity and mobility, and
construction pf a cap consistent with 6 NYCRR Part 360, which
limits mobility. Alternative 6B and Alternative 6C would be
effective in limiting mobility by the excavation of the magnesium
fines area and drum area R for disposal under a 6 NYCRR Part 360
cap in the southern area of Landfill where the surface elevation is
high and significantly above the water table. All of the
Alternative 6 remedies also include the off-site disposal of buried
drums, which will reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
contaminants at the Site. Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 include
treatment of "hot spots" and therefore reduce the toxicity and
mobility of these "hot spots". However, these alternatives do not
include provisions for the remaining waste at the Landfill, there-
fore they would not rank as high with respect to this criterion.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 rank the lowest with respect to this
criterion because they include no treatment nor would they be
effective in limiting the mobility of the waste over time.
o Short-Term Effectiveness
The installation of a cap or soil cover in Alternatives 3, 4, 5,
6A, 6B, 6C, 7 or 8 would not result in any short term impacts which
can not be readily mitigated and controlled. There would, however,
be an increase in traffic flow along local roads with these
Alternatives.
Short-term risks to workers would exist from fugitive emissions
during the excavation and treatment of on-site "hotspots", such as
the Magnesium Fines Area, Buried Drum Area, and Waste Pit Area.
However, these risks could be properly mitigated through the
implementation of a Site-specific Health and Safety Plan for all
workers.
Alternatives 1 and 2 have the highest short-term effectiveness as
they would not require the movement of any waste and would take the
least amount of time to implement. Alternatives 3, 4 and 6A would
not rank as high with respect to this criterion primarily because
these alternatives involve comparatively limited excavation of on-
site wastes. Alternatives 5, 6B, 6C, 7, and 8 would rank low be-
cause of the length of construction time (2 years) and the greater
degree of excavation of Site wastes during the remedial
construction phase.
o Implementability
All of the Alternatives are implementable from an engineering
perspective. Each Alternative utilizes commercially available
products, technologies, and services.
20
-------
The No Action Alternative and Alternative 2 would not present
implementation difficulties and would thus rank the highest in this
category. Alternatives 3, 4, 5 and 7 do not involve the
installation of 6 NYCRR Part 360 landfill capping system and, as
such, would not rank as high with respect to this criterion.
Alternatives 6A, 6B, 6C and 8, which involve the construction of a
6 NYCRR Part 360 capping system, would rank the lowest in this
category.
Alternatives 6A and 8, which would require the dewatering of the
nearby surface water bodies during remedial construction, are the
most difficult Alternatives to implement because a cap would be
constructed in the northern area of the Site where the groundwater
table is high.
o Cost
In comparing estimates of present worth costs, Alternatives 1, 2
and 3 represent the lowest projected costs at $759,946, $2,525,390
and $4,737,390, respectively. Alternatives 4 and 5 are projected
at $5,095,476 and $12,171,030, respectively. Alternatives 6A, 6B,
6C, 7 and 8 represent the highest projected costs at $17,140,731,
$12,370,514, $15,932,814, $14,309,287 and $26,343,247, respec-
tively.
o State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the remedy selected in this
Record of Decision.
o Community Acceptance
As state above, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Batavia High
School in Batavia on August 18, 1994. The purpose of the meeting
was to inform local officials and interested citizens about the
Superfund process, to present EPA's Proposed Plan for the remedial
action at the Site, and to respond to any questions from area
residents and other attendees. The comments received at the public
meeting generally pertained to the status of the municipal water
supply remedy mandated by the March 1993 ROD, and questions were
raised on the potential of site-contaminants reaching the Village
of Oakfield Wells, a municipal water supply wellfield located 3/4
of a mile to the north from the Landfill. Representatives on
behalf of the Village of Oakfield requested that EPA develop a
contingency plan for implementation in the event that Site
contaminants migrate and impact these wells.
Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and
written comments received during the public comment period are
included in the attached Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
SELECTED REMEDY
21
-------
Based upon the results of the RI and FS Reports, and after careful
consideration of the alternatives in the FS, EPA and NYSDEC select
Alternative 6B (Consolidation of Magnesium Fines Area and Drum Area
R into the Southern Area with 6 NYCRR Part 360 Landfill Cap) as the
preferred remedy for the Site. Specifically, the selected remedy
includes the following:
1) Excavation of contaminated soil from drum area R, and the
magnesium fines area (estimated to be approximately 7-acres in
area) in the northern portion of the Landfill, and consolidating
these materials under a landfill cap in the southern area of the
Landfill. Moving the wastes from the northern area of the
Landfill, where the ground water is shallow, to the higher terrain
of the southern area will also help to minimize the migration of
hazardous constituents to the ground water and surrounding
wetlands.
2) Subsequent grading of the northern area of the Landfill,
filling it with clean topsoil, and seeding it for a vegetative
cover.
3) Excavation of the drums of hazardous substances from the
southern area of the Landfill, which are estimated in number to
include approximately 150 drums, and the transportation of these
materials off-site for treatment and disposal.
4) Capping the southern region of the Landfill with a NYS Solid
Waste Standard Cap designed and constructed in accordance with the
substantive requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.13(q), which
includes a minimum of 18 inches of compacted clay liner with a
post-compacted maximum remolded coefficient of permeability of 10"7
cm/sec throughout its thickness (a minimum thickness of 40 mil
geomembrane), a 24 inch barrier protection layer of soil, and 6
inches of topsoil suitable .to maintain vegetative growth, or an
equivalent design as permitted pursuant to the regulations (6 NYCRR
Part 360-2.13(w)). Grading of the Landfill will be based upon the
final capping configuration determined during the remedial design
phase.
5) An explosive gas survey will be performed to determine the need
for constructing a passive gas venting layer or trench system
underlying the low permeability cap material. The gas venting
system would be located beneath impermeable clay so as to increase
its effectiveness in controlling horizontal gas migration.
6) Construction of a leachate collection system. The leachate
collection system will be designed consistent with the requirements
of 6 NYCRR Part 360 to provide a physical barrier to the migration
of leachate from the Landfill, with appropriate pumping or other
forms of leachate collection. It has been estimated that approxim-
ately 3,400 gallons per day of landfill leachate may be generated
22
-------
and collected for transportation and eventual off-site disposal.
7) Performance of a pre-design ecological assessment to define
impacts of the Landfill and the proposed cap on fish, wildlife, and
associated habitats (especially wetlands). This information will
be used to determine whether any wetland excavation is advisable to
best protect fish and wildlife, and if the assessment is determined
to be necessary, the information will be used to determine the
extent of appropriate action. Any sediments excavated as a result
of ecological considerations will be placed under the cap. In
constructing the cap, a portion of the wetlands may be impacted.
The ecological assessment will also be used to design and to
construct the remedy in such a way as to minimize any adverse
impacts to the wetlands caused by the remedy. The selected remedy
also requires that any damage to wetlands or wetlands function will
be mitigated.
8) EPA will recommend to local agencies that institutional
controls be undertaken to ensure that future land use at the Site
is restricted so as to preclude certain uses of the Site, such as
restricting certain types of access to the Landfill and eliminating
groundwater use for human consumption at the Site.
9) Implementation of long-term operation and maintenance of the
Landfill cap systems, including providing for inspections and
repairs.
10) An evaluation of Site conditions no less than each five years
to determine if the selected alternative is protective of human
health and the environment.
EPA believes that the selected remedy provides the best balance
among the alternatives considered according to the evaluation
criteria. Alternative 6B will be highly protective of both human
health and the environment and will comply with ARARs. The remedy
is cost effective and will permanently reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contaminants by reducing infiltration
through the landfilled wastes and address any leachate. In
addition, it involves treating the hazardous substances excavated
from the buried drum area.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, CERCLA mandates that a remedial action must be
protective of human health and the environment, cost effective, and
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. CERCLA also establishes a preference for remedial
actions which employ treatment to permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants at a site. CERCLA further
specifies that a remedial action must attain a degree of cleanup
23
-------
that satisfies ARARs under Federal and state laws, unless a waiver
can be justified.
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the
selected remedy meets the requirements of CERCLA.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. Contact with landfilled wastes will be eliminated
through capping, any landfill gases will be controlled through
venting, and potential contaminant migration through surface water
and ground water to the surrounding environment will be effectively
addressed by the collection and treatment of leachate.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy complies with all ARARs identified. Action-
specific ARARs for the selected remedy include 6 NYCRR Part 360
requirements, federal requirements for effluent discharge to a POTW
(40 CFR Part 403), state regulations for the control of surface-
water runoff, federal and state air ARARs (40 CFR 50 and 6 NYCRR
Part 373, respectively). Landfill closure will also comply with
all provisions of RCRA hazardous waste landfill closure regulations
which are relevant and appropriate to the Site. Location-specific
ARARs for the selected remedy include Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, as amended, New York Code of Rules and Regulations
Wetlands Permit (6 NYCRR Part 663), the Coastal Zone Management
Act, the Protection of Floodplains (40 CFR 6, Appendix A) , the
Floodplain Disaster Act of 1973, Fish and Wild Life Coordination
Act, and the Farmland Protection Policy Act. While construction of
a landfill satisfying the substantive requirements of 6 NYCRR Part
360 will result in the net loss of surrounding wetlands, any action
taken at the Site will include mitigating these effects as required
by Executive Order 11990 and the regulations set forth in 6 NYCRR
Part 663.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective because it has been
demonstrated to provide the best overall effectiveness proportional
to its cost.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected
remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
24
-------
The selected remedy does satisfy the statutory preference for
remedies that use treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at
a site. Buried on-site drums will be excavated and removed for
off-site treatment and disposal.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels, a review of the remedial action
will be conducted no less than each five years after the
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection to human health and the
environment.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
25
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
~~ * - \
—• ~.-r^ •- I TRAILER
BASE MAP IS A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING 7J U.S.OJ. QUADRANGLES:
1ATAV1A NORTH, NY. 1950, PHOTOREVJSED1171; OAKRELB. NY. 1850, ^HOTOREVBED IBTt
********* mjpfty
1000 tOOO SOOOtMt
OUAMUNOUE LOMTVM
FIGURE 1
-------
SITE PUN AND WASTE DISPOSAL AREAS
fl
5
c
3D
HI
ro
r
o
3
fc
o
u
I
o
\
\
SOUTHERN AREA
\
tOM Of MTAVW
•» IMT.
Of
I
c
"0
m
o
01
-------
BL toll Boring
MW Mentoring Well
WP Ta« Pit
Approx. Boundaries of
Clay and Sit: Layer
Pond
Saiaonal Pond
• Location of Explosion
_
H
U
Thickness cf
Clay and Silt Layer
Town
Landfill
MMftfctt
DISTRIBUTION ANP THICKNESS OP CLAY
AND SILT LAYER THROUGHOUT
•ATAVIA LANDFILL SITE
BATAVIA, NEW YORK
FIGURES
-------
ALTERNATIVE 2: SEDIMENT COVER
o
c
31
m
I
o
•B
§
o
o
s
o
I
1
LCCCNO
Ono •
,SO> 9
FENCE
DRAINAGE SWALE
SEDIMENT SAMPLE
MITIGATED WETLAND AREA
SEDIMENT COVER AREA
-------
ALTERNATIVE 4: LANDFILL SOIL CAP AND SEDIMENT COVER
Q
C
3J
m
-------
o
c
31
m
o>
I
AfrtOIMATt MUNOMT Of
IATAVIA suptftrimo sire
SIOIHtNl CONIROIS
SfdlitNt CONSOIIOA1ION
• NtCM 1(0 LtWntlU
UACH»!t COUICIION
CAS VtNTING
NOTES:
i. set rwunt i row ctNtMi sirt NOTCS.
2. CHOUMOWATC* AND StDIMCNT UOHITOKINC
LOCATIONS SHOWN ON riGURC S.
IUOWAT
LEGEND
-•40-
CXCAVATCO StOtUtNT ARCA
RtStORCD to CRAOC
WtTLAMO MITIGATION ARCA
PtOPOStO CAP CLCVATION CONTOUR
00
1
I
o
m
O)
O
O
>
•D
V)
m
73
m
O)
>
•
o>
O
DO
-------
*W«0»IIIATt ROUNOARV Of
6»I»VI» SUPlBrUND SITt
*> ' 'JUtl
\ • ^"™~
CtNtRAl COMPONtNTS TO
AlttRMATIVt 4
rtNcmc
StOIMtMt MOHITODIMG
CBOUMOW»tf» UONItOtING
OttO RtS1»ICflOMS
H«tivt son covtn or stoiutNt *»t»s
COMIROIS
uoNifo»mc roil ATTCNUATION
SHIOY or AirtNiiAiioN trrtcis
CAS MONIIORIHC
SOU CAP
CXCAVATCD SCOIMCNT ARCA
RtSTORtO TO GRADE
MOTES:
i. set ncunt t ro» ctMtnAi site Notts.
POTfNTWl WtTUNO
MITIGATION ARCA
t. GROUNDWAHR AHO StOIUfNt UONITOP1MC
IOC*TION5 SHOWN ON HGURt 5.
PPOPOStO ANOil CAP
tUVATION COMIOUR
rtNCING SHOWN ON flCURt C
Note: ARC A
'O KtlSt» ROAD
m
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
TOXICITY VALUES FOR ALL CONTAMINANTS
DETECTED AT THE BATAVIA LANDFIL SITE
-------
TOXICITY VALUES FOR ALL CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE.
Chemical
Volatile*
Acetone
2-Buianone (MEK)
Carbon disulflde
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
Chloromcthane (methyl chloride)
1,2 Dichlorobenzcnc (ortho)
I.l-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanone (MBK)
Methylene chloride
4-Methyl-2-penianone
Tetrachloroeihylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethanc
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes
BNAs
Accnaphthcnc
Accnaphlhylcnc
Anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
CARCINOGENIC
Weight
of Evidence
Classification
D a
D a
a
D a
B2 d
C b
D a
C a
B2 a
D a
a
B2 a
.-
B2 b
D a
D a
B2 b
D a
a
D a
D a
B2 a
Oral Slope
Factor
(mgAg/day)- 1
2.90E-03d
I.30E025
9.IOE-02a
.
7.50E-03 a
5.IOE-02b
I.IOE-02 b
5.79E-KX)e
CHRONIC
Chronic
Oral RID
(mg/kg/day)
I.OOE-OI a
5.00E-02b
I.OOE-01 a
2.00E-02a
4.00E-OI d
9.00E-02a
I.OOE-OI b
I.OOE-01 a
4.00E-02d
6.00E-02 a
5.00E-02b
I.OOE-02a
2.00E-OI b
9.000 02 b
6.00E-03d
2.00E+OOa
6.00E-028
3.00E-01 a
SUBCHRON1C
Subchronic
OralRfD
(mg/ke/day)
I.OOE+OOb
5.00E-OI b
I.OOE-OI b
2.00E 01 b
4.00E-01J
9.00E-OI b
I.OOEtOOb
I.OOE+OOb
4.00E-02J
6.00E-02b
S.OOE-OI b
I.OOE-01 b
2.00EtOOb
9.00E-01 b
6.00E-03J
4.00E+OOb
6.00E-OI b
3.00B+OOb
ACUTE
Acute Oral
"RfD"
(IDy HA/10]
(mgAg/day)
S.OOE+OOc
2.00E-OI c
9.00E-OI c
9.00E-OI c
7.40E-02a
3.20E+OOa
l.33E^OOa
2.00E-OI a
2.00E+OOc
I.OOE+Ola
4.00E+OOc
-------
TOXICITY VALUES FOR ALL CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT THE BATA VIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
Chemical
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranihene
Benzyl alcohol
Benzylbutylphthalate
Bis(2-elhylhexyl)phthalate
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
Chryscne
Dibenzofuran
Dibcnz(a,h)anihracene
3.3'-Dichlorobenzidinc
Diethylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-ociyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno( 1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
2-Mclhylnaphlhalcnc
4-Mcihylphenol (p-crcsol)
Naphthalene
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Pentachlorophenol
CARCINOGENIC
Weight
of Evidence
Classification
B2 a
B2 a
D a
B2 a
.-
C a
B2 a
-.
B2 a
D a
B2 a
B2 a
D a
D a
D a
• V
D a
D a
B2 a
..
C a
D a
B2 a
B2 a
Oral Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/duy)- 1
5.79E+OOa
3.79E+OOC
5.79E+OOe
1.40E-02a
S.79E+OOe
5.79E+OOe
4.50E-OI a
*
5.79E+OOe
4.90E-03a
I.20E 01 a
CHRONIC
Chronic
Oral RfD
(mg/kg/day)
3.00E-OI b
2.00E-OI a
2.00E-02a
2.00E+OOb,l
4.00E-03d
8.00E-OI a
I.OOE+OOb
I.OOE-OI a
2.00E-02 b
4.UOE-02 a
4.00E-02a
5.00E 02 b
4.00E-03 b
3.0UE-02a
SUBCHRONIC
Subchronic
Oral RfD
(mg/kg/day)
I.OOE+OOb
2.00E+OOb
2.00E-025
2.00E+OOb
4.00E-03J
8.00E+OOb
I.OOE^OOb
I.OOE^OOb
2.00E-02J
4.0UE-OI b
4.0UE-OI b
S.UOE-OI b
4.0UE-02 b
3.00E-02 b
ACUTE
Acute Oral
"RfD"
U-Dy HA/IOJ
(mg/kg/day)
5.00E-02 c
I.OOE-OI a
-------
TOXICITY VALUES FOR ALL CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
Chemical
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrenc
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
* Chromium, III
Chromium, total
* Chromium, VI
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
CARCINOGENIC
Weight
of Evidence
Classification
D a
D a
D a
D d
a
A a
a
B2 a
Bl a
a
.
A a
—
D a
D d
B2 a
'—
D a
D a
A a
~
D a
Oral Slope
Factor
(mg/kg/dayH
l.75E+OOf
4.30E+OOa
CHRONIC
Chronic
Oral RfD
(mg/kg/day)
6.00E-OI a
3.00E-02 a
I.OOE+OOd
4.00E-04a
3.00E-04a
S.OOE-02 b
5.00E-03a
3.00E-04 a,g
l.OOE+OOa
8.76E-OI i
S.OOE-03 a
d
4.00E-02d
5.00E-OI d
I.OOE-Ola
3.00E-04 b
2.00E-02a,h
5.00E-03 a
SUBCHRONIC
Subchronic
Oral RfD
(mg/kg/day)
6.00E-OI b
3.00E-OI b
I.OOE+OOj
4.00E-04b
I.OOE-035
S.OOE-02 b
S.OOE-03 b
S.OOE04J
l.OOE+01 b
8.75E+OOJ
2.00E-02b
4.00E-02J
S.OOE-Olj
l.OOE-OI b
3.00E-04b
2.00E-02 b
S.OOE-03 i
ACUTE
Acute Oral
"RfD"
|t-Dy HA/10)
(mg/kg/day)
6.00E-OI c
I.SOE-03c
3.00E+OOC
4.00E-03c
I.40E-OI a
I.OOE-Olc
-------
TOX1CITY VALUES FOR ALL CONTAMINANTS DETECTED AT THE BATAV1A LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
Chemical
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
CARCINOGENIC
Weight
of Evidence
Classification
D a
•
—
C d
D c
D a
Oral Slope
Factor
(me/kg/day )-l
CHRONIC
Chronic
Oral RfD
(mg/kg/day)
S.OOE-03a
7.0GE-05 b
6.40E+OOd,k
7.00E-03 b
2.00E-OI b
SUBCHRON1C
Subchronic
Oral RfD
(mg/kg/day)
3.00E-03 b
7.00E-04 b
6.40E+OOJ
7.00E-03 b
2.00E-OI b
ACUTE
Acute Oral
"RfD"
1 l-Dy HA/101
(mg/kg/day)
2.00E-02c
7.0UE-04c
8.00E-03 c
4.00E-OI c
* Not analyzed for. Used in the derivation of toxicity values for total chromium.
a. U.S EPA, Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). April 1,1992.
b. U.S. EPA, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). FY1991.
c. U.S. EPA. Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories. November, 1991.
d. Interim value from ECAO. (see text for specific references).
e. Oral slope factor for B(a)P used for PAHs classified as B2 carcinogens.
f. Arsenic oral slope factor derived from unit risk in IRIS.
g. Cadmium RfD is for water; I .OE-03 mg/kg/day is RfD for food.
h. Value is for nickel, soluble salts.
i. Value is weighted-average value of the hexavalent chromium and trivalent chromium RIDs availablein IRIS assuming 7
parts bivalent to 1 part hexavalent.
j. Chronic RfD used as Subchronic RfD if no Subchronic value is available per RAGS.
k. Value is for TiO2. Values as Ti is 3.8 mg/kg-day.
I. Subchronic RfD used as Chronic RfD if no Chronic value is available.
-------
TABLE 2
TOXICITY VALUES FOR BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN (COCs)
-------
TABLE 2. TOXJCITY VALUES FOR BATAVU LANDFILL SITE GROUND WATER COCs.
Chemical
VOCs
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodjchlorome thane
2-Butanone (MEK)
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
ChJoroform
Chloromeihane (methyl chlor.)
MDicWorobenzene (para)
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-DJchloroethane
1,1-DichloToethylene
trans- 1,2-Dichloroethylene
1.2-Dichloiopropane
Ethylbenzene
2-Hexanonc (MBK)
Methylenc chJoride
4-MethyJ-2-pen:anone
Toluene
1,1,1-TrichJoToe thane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chJoride (chloroethylene)
Xylenes
B.N'As
Benzole acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl )ph thai ate
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-burylj>hthalate
Dimethylphthalate
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol ft>-cre$ol)
Naphthalene .
S'-Nitrosodiphenylamine
Phenol
Carcinogenic
Weifht
of Evidence
Oasslfi cation
D
A
B2
D
D
B2
B2
C
C
C
B2
C
—
B2
D
—
B2
—
D
D
B2
A
D
D
B2
D
D
D
~
C
D
B2
D
Oral Slope
Factor
(mtlcE/davVl
2.90E-02 a
1 JOE-01 a
2.90E-03 d
6.10E-03 a
1.30E-02 b
2.40E-02 b
9.10E-02 a
6.00E-01 a
6.80E-02 b
•
730E-03 a
1.10E-02 b
1.90E+00 b
1.40E-02 a
4.9X)E-03 a
Chronic
OralRJD
fn»ŁflcE/d»v)
l.OOE-01 a
2.00E-02 a
5.00E-02 b
2.00E-02a
' 4.00E-01 d
l.OOE-02 a
•
l.OOE-01 d
l.OOE-01 b
9.00E-03 a
2.00E-02 a
l.OOE-01 a
4.00E-02 d
6.00E-02 a
3.00E-02 b
2.00E-01 b
9.00E-02 b
6.00E-03 d
2.00E400 a
4.00E400 a
2.00E-02 a
8.00E-01 a .
l.OOE-01 a
1.00E400 b
5.00E-02 b
4.00E-03 b
6.00E-01 a
Acute Oral
"RfD"
[1-Dy HA/10]
fmiTc^dav)
2.00E-02 c
7.00E-01 c
I.OOEtOO c
2.00E-01 c
4.0QE-01 c
9.00E-01 c
J.OOE*00 c
7.40E-02 a
2.00E-01 c
•2.00E400C
3.20E*00 a
1.33E«^OOa
2.00E+00 c
1.00E*01 a
3.00E-01 c
4.00E400 c
5.00E-02 c
6.00E-01 c
-------
TABLE 2. TOX3C1TY VALUES FOR BATAV1A LANDFILL SITE GROUND WATER COCs.
(CONTINUED)
Chemical
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Vanadium
Zinc
Carcinogenic
Weight
of Evidence
Classification
— .
-
A
*»
B2
— •
..
—
D
D
B2
~
D
D
A
-.
D
D
Oral Slope
Factor
(maflcEftJayVl
1.75E400 e
4.30E400 a
Chronic
OnlRfD
(mtflcg/day)
4.00E-04 a
3.00E-04 a
5.00E-02 b
S.OOE-03 a
8.76E-01 Ł
4.00E-02 d
5.00E-01 d
l.OOE-01 a
3.00E^4 b
2.00E-02 a,f
7.00E-03 b
2.00E-01 b
Acute Oral
•RfD"
[1-Dy HA/10]
(mEAfi/dav1)
1.50E-03 c
S.OOEtOOc
1.40E-01 a
l.OOE-01 c
8.00E-03 c
4.00Z-01 c
LEGEND
a. From IRIS 2/1/92.
b. From HEASTFY 1991.
e. From MOJHA listing, Office of Drinking Water, November 1991.
d. Interim value from ECAO (s« text for complete reference).
e. Arsenic oraJ slope factor derived from unit risk in IRIS.
f. Value is for nickel, soluble salts.
|. Value is weighted-average value of the Hex and Tri RfDs assuming 7 pans Tri to 1 pan Hex,
-------
TABLE 3
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE.
aamJUBT STATISTICS fOB SIT*, BY OOHICAL AMD KBDIOH/ARfA
mil la' ppb, except laorguticm which »re in ppm
Clmee Antiyte
Inor. Aluminum
Burium
Beryllium
Cmlcium
chromium, totml
Copper
Iron
m»an..ivm
Hmogmneee
Zlac
Tltmnlum
Hum.
rimee
Mum. Lovemt ttigbeet Blgbmft
ammplmf D»t»ct»d D»t»ct»d Code.
Detected Aamlyred Cone.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
30900. 00
30900.00
13.00
33800. 00
It. 00
130.00
10600. 00
300000. 00
1300.00
1030.00
HO. 00
Cone.
30900.
38800.
13.
33800.
36.
130.
10SOO.
300000.
1300.
1030.
HO.
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
Locft.
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
«,
BL
BL
BL
BL
BL
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
9
a
a
8
a
8 '
a
a
8
a
M»mn
Cone.
10900
39800
13
33800
3S
130
10(00
300000
1300
1030
HO
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
95 Pet. tUa. mm*.
trpp. Coat. Detect. Detmct.
Limit Limit Limit
30900.0000
38800. 0000
13. 0000
33900. 0000
it. 0000
130. 0000
lOfOO.OOOO
300000. 0000
1300.0000
1030.0000
HO. 0000
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITS. Bf CHOTTCAt, AND MBDIDNXAMA
all in ppb, axcapt inorganic* which ara in ppa
NUB.
claa* Analyt* Patactad
VOCa Acatpaa
Carbon Divttlfida
2-8utanona (tax)
4-Natbyl-2-PaBt*aon*
Itoluana
Stbyl banian*
Total Xylaoa*
BH»8 4-Cbloro-)-m»tbylpb»aol
3-JratbylD*pbtbal*D*
Pbanantbraaa
bi*f2-BtbyJb*xyl)pnebalat*
Total Pbanol*
Jnor. Araaaic
Beryllium
Chromium, total
Coppar
taad
Narcury
Niekal
Silvar
Zinc
,
3
2
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
4
1
4
Mum. Low»mt Rigbaat Higbaat
Sfmplf* Dataetad . Daeactad Cone.
Analyxad Cone. Cone. Loc»t.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
6
6
6
f
6
6
6
f
6
310000.00
2000. 00
45000.00
28000. 00
4400. 00
190000.00
830000.00
48000.00
130000.00
56000.00
9200,00
15000.00
2.10
0.46
42.00
31.00
77.00
0.06
16.00
0.55
150.00
210000. OOOO
100000.0000
1700000.0000
28000.0000
5100000.0000
$00000.0000
2100000.0000
48000.0000
130000.0000
56000.0000
9200.0000
31000.0000
2. 8000
0.5300
3200. OOOO
410.0000
3000.0000
0.0600
57.0000
0.5500
370.0000
TP 2 3 3
TP a s i
TP 2 a 5
TP 2 3 3
TP a a i
TP a a i
TP i 3 1
TP a a a
ft 2 3 4
TP 2 5 4
TP 1 a 1
TP 2 3 2
TP a a a
TP 2 a 2
TP 3 a 5
TP 3 a 3
TP 3 3 5
TP 3 3 2
TP 3 S 3
TP 2 SI
TP 3 S 1
O»om.
Maan
Cone.
6)6433.
14142.
175850.
64678.
245546.
32675.
Ł4(1).
21252.
23371.
21193.
14588.
7747.
5.
0.
152.
140.
388.
0.
55.
0.
520.
4738
13S6
1982
4364
9063
7988
6607
3785
3368
9700
8334
3109
8189
4557
5474
6589
6473
1693
9815
9358
0055
95 Pet.
Opp. Coat.
Limit
375603877.24
1142153164.5
45428236508
3102096.3731
3.416109*30
1.1396542*20
1.6603195*39
3.135613*31
1.7336137*33
4.1435635*63
171379.0201
5.5686931*17
3311405.0116
1913.8193
103379.8836
1464.0330
36836.0786
843406.2603
1844.6831
3079538.0290
19274.2703
Win.
Pataee.
Limit
500000.0000
20000.0000
100000.0000
100000.0000
•
2000.0000
2000.0000
480.0000
*80. OOOO
480.0000,
27000.0000
2000. OOOO
1.3000
0.0250
•
•
•
0.0500
500.0000
0.2500
5000. OOOO
Max.
Datact.
Limit
5000000.
20000.
500000.
500000.
•
30000.
20000.
1000000.
1000000.
1000000.
50000.
2000.
350.
S.
•
•
.
10.
500.
50.
5000.
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
OOOO
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
STATISTICS TO* SITS, BY CHEMICAL AND HSDIOH/AJtMA
•11 Jo ppb. ejtcept inorganic* which are In ppa
Mi*.
Timif
NUM.
Smmpl»w
Clm** Aoelyte Detected Analy«ed
VOC* CbloroeebeUe
N*tbyl*D« cbJorlde
Acetone
J, l-DlchJoro«tb*D«
1, a-DlcbloroeCoue
1, 1. l-rrlcbloroetb*ne
Itolueoe
Tot ft Xylenee
SNA* a-Metfaylo«pbtb«l«o«
DlnetbylpbthaJete
Acexupbtbeae
Dlb»atofuimn
PleCbylpbebaleee
rluorene
N-Mi t rotodlpamylmmint
pbta*atttTma*
Dl-n-bueylphthel«t«
blfl ra-f Cbylbejiyl ;|>atl>e Jete
rot el FbenoJe
Inor. Aluminum
Aatittoay
Arcenlo
5
15
3
a •
i
a
i
i
i
5
1
1
1
1
0
3
3
i»
3
14
S
4
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
14
It
It
14
It
14
14
It
"14
14
13
14
It
It
Lovttt
Cone.
ao.oo
1.10
9. SO
1.00
a. oo
JS.OO
J.40
a. so
9.30
1.00
I.JO
1.10
(.40
3.00
1. 00
7.00
3.30
1.30
10. OO
0.04
o.oa
0.01
(r**>7uci«cr«
Higbtft
Detected
Cone.
50.0000
37.0000
11.0000
3.3000
3.0000
340.0000
3.4000
3.5000
9.3000
t.tooo
1.3000
1.1000
f.4000
3.0000
1.0000
1 OO.O000
39.0000
J40.0000
00.0000
37.3000
0.0430
0.043S
fllgbeet Oeoa.
Cone . Ifeeji
Locmt.
5W
SW
m>A
5M
S*
SK
sx
sit
SX
SW
sx
s*
sit
S*
5N
9 A
4 A
3 H
5
9 8
4 A
4 *
9 B
4 A
J
4 A
4 A
3
4 A
3
KDA 3 *
m* 3 H
KDA 3 H
SH
S*
sit
Stt
S
f
3
S
Cone.
0.
4.
5.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
f.
J.
5.
5.
5.
5.
3.
t.
i.
9.
S.
0.
0.
0.
7193
531S
4167
5755
6993
6535
7(54
7310
1563
tfi3
3533
3997
9997
5304
(005
34 3 f
5031
5)98
4743
ft 34
0171
OOJJ
95 Pet.
Opp. Conf.
Limit
30. 9693
0.072)
6.1693
3.4639
J.4147
14.30S9
3.5004
3.4356
11.0191
It. 9903
11.4339
11.9039
10.5744
10.7454
11.9669
15.1097
9.3391
173.0379
17.3381
701.1(19
0.0393
0. 0403
Hia.
Detect .
Limit
10.0000
5.0000
10.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
5.0000
10. 0000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
10.0000
10. 0000
10.0000
10.0000
.
0.0140
o.ooao
K*Jt.
Detect.
Limit
50.0000
5.0000
10.0000
as. oooo
as. oooo
5.0000
as. oooo
as. oooo
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
100.0000
10.0000
10,0000
10.0000
10.0000
•
0.1400
0.030O
-------
LIMMAR Y STATISTICS FOR THE DATA VIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
OTMMftr STATISTICS PDR SITS, BT CUfMIC/U, AND MTDrOM/ARKA
•11 in ppb, except Inorganics which are in ppm
1m** Anmlyte
Bmrlum
Beryl Horn
Celclum
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
toad
mmgrtemlum
ttmngmneme
Mercury
Ulckel
Potmimlom
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vmamdlum
tine
Hum.
rlmem
Detected
19
1
It
13
t
11
It
17
19
14
2
f
It
1
f
14
7
19
tram.
Smmple*
Analyzed
19
14
14
19
14
14
14
19
19
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
19
(continued)
Lowest Highest Highest
Detected Detected Cone.
Cone.
0.01
0.00
33. tO
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.4»
0.00
lff.50
0.0)
0.00
0.01
2.52
0.00
0.00
4.4*
0.01
0.01
Cone.
21.7000
0.001)
450.0000
0.2120
0.07)7
0.09)0
1570.0000
3.7300
Jit. 0000
3.3000
0.0004
0.029*.
115.0000
0.00)4
0.0)97
221.0000
0.1(00
19.0000
toeat.
on
S*
s*
Sn
an
s*
s*
an
sn
5«r
an
an
an
SM
an
sn
an
an
e
i
t
t B
(
f
S
t B
9 B
7
7
1
7
5
(
9
S
t B
Oeom.
Keen
Cone.
0.
0.
78.
0.
0.
0.
t.
0.
50.
0.
0.
0.
1).
0.
0.
25.
0.
0.
t9tt
ooos
30ft
0104
004(
013 f
)«)5
029(
2)9)
2719
0001
0070
9(65
0017
0029
7070
00*5
1401
95 Pet. Mia.
Opp. Conf. Detect.
Limit Limit
lit.
0.
2)9.
0.
0.
0.
•2)».
4.
122.
4.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
274.
0.
11.
274)
0012 0.0010
4195
07(5 0.00)0
02)9 0.0020
1025 0.00)0
•452
S»l( 0.0020
7220
2240
0002 0.0002
0201 0.0050
)(44
00)4 0.0020
0077 0.00)0
1179
14«» 0.0050
4510
Kax.
Detect.
Ll*lt
.
0.0100
.
O.OOfO
0.00(0
0.00*0
•
0.0020
•
.
0. 0002
0.0500
.
0.0)00
0.0040
•
0.0050
•
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
amaunr STATISTICS ran SITS, or CHSMICAL turn MBDIDM/AIUM
• U in ppb, «c«pt inorffanlee which «r» in pp»
mm.
riaee
dec* Aoelyte Detected
VOCe Wetbylene Chloride
Acetone
3-ffajcaBone fMBKJ
Blue ble(3-ftbylbejiyjjphtbalate
Toor. Jllumioum
Areenlc
Bmrlum
Beryllium
CedalUB
Celciiui
CbroaUua, total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
teed
•te0neeiiui
Kamreaeee
Nickel
PotaeeiuM
ffJJrer
nmlllum
Vej)«diui
Bine
1
1
1
1
J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
mm. Low* ft
5a»plee Detected
Analyced Cone.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
1
13. SO
51.00
4.10
99.00
103000.00
9). 90
4(70.00
39.40
13.40
10900.00
117.00
1.90
3400.00
7(90.00
139.50
301SOO.OO
9(9.00
to. 20
513.00
3.JS
0.90
K.OO
19)0.00
uvf*w(.l.wtl IM0U
Higbeet
Cone.
D.5000
SI. 0000
4.1000
99. 0000
103000.0000
93.1000
4(70.0000
39.4000
D.4000
10900.0000
117.0000
1.9000
3400.0000
7(90.0000
139.SOOO
301500.0000
9(9.0000
S0.300O
513.0000
3.3SOO
0.9000
IS. 0000
1930.0000
Higbeet
Cone.
Locat.
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
-)
-)
-)
-)
-)
-)
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
O*om.
Cone.
1).
51.
4.
99.
103000.
9).
4S70.
29.
13.
10900.
117.
1.
3400.
7(90.
139.
201500.
9(9.
to.
513.
3.
0.
IS.
3.930.
5000
0000
1000
0000
0000
•000
0000
4000
4000
0000
0000
9000
0000
0000
5000
0000
0000
3000
0000
3SOO
9000
0000
0000
95 Pet. Win. Kax.
Opp. Coat. Detect. Detect.
LiBlt LiUlt tlBit
1J.5000
51.0000
4.1000
99.0000
103000. 0000
91.9000
4f 70. 0000
29.4000
13.4000
10900.0000
117.0000
1.9000
3400.0000
7(90.0000
139.SOOO
301500.0000
9(9.0000
to. 3000
513.0000
3.3500
0.9000
IS. 0000
1930.0000
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
50NKAHr STATISTICS FOR SIT*. BY CtHHlCAL AND MSDIUM/AHKA
mil in ppb, except Inorganic* which are in ppm
Cla*> Aaalyte
VOCi chloroaietbane
•tetbylene chloride
Acetone
1, I'Dichloroetbane
3-Butanone (***)
1,1.1 -Trlcbloroethaa*
Tricbloroethylene
1V>luene '
CbJorobentaoe
BUM* Phenol
Bentyl alcohol
1, 3-DlchJorobeniaD*
4 -Wetbylpbenol
. Naphthalene
J-Metbylnepbtbalan*
Dlaethylpbtbalate
Acenapbtbyl ene
Acenapbtbene
CJbentofuran
Pluorene
l»-Wi trocodiphenyluine
Pent ecbl oropbenol
Ham.
Tlmtu
Mlia. Loireet
Sample* Detected
Detected Analysed Cone.
3
38
13
1
3
1
3
5
3
5
3
4
4
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
1
1
„
38
34
38
31
39
39
38
38
15
11
14
13
14
13
15
14
14
11
14
14
1
13.00
4. JO
7.(0
JO. 00
190.00
J80.00
3.00
33.00
7.10
49.00
41.00
34.00
63.00
140.00
J5000.00
70.00
330.00
360.00
84.00
3JO.OO
110.00
480000.00
Highlit Hipfaeet
Detected Cone.
Cone.
C 1.0000
1100.0000
3JOO.OOOO
30.0000
1300.0000
380. 0000
J.OOOO
((.0000
16.0000
190.0000
310.0000
130.0000
3300.0000
140.0000
35000.0000
4 JO. 0000
1300.0000
as o.oooo
390.0000
900.0000
110.0000
480000.0000
Locat.
55 10 A
WDA 03 5
WDA 04 5
55 13
WDA 04 5
WDA 03 5
55 04 B
L 7 COUPS
55 10 A
55 09
8S 04 A
55 03
WDA 04 3
aa 03
WDA 03 5
55 05
55 03
59 03
55 03
55 03
as 08 A
WDA 03 5
Oeoa).
Nean
Cone.
17.
J5.
66.
13.
33.
14.
13.
13.
13.
300.
333.
193.
J19.
358.
433.
3J9.
397.
370.
353.
391.
353.
480000.
9353
4543
5735
5149
8183
3184
4513
3085
5509
5J1J
3914
5913
0193
S33(
7117
9037
9690
3103
5S9J
9086
4334
0000
•5 Pet.
0PP. COOl.
Limit
39.759C
138.3394
1(39.0351
33.3476
101.6434
J5.J99C
34.4463
2 f. 1)03
33.490*
343.1(81
533.8315
378.770(
950.8993
337.09(8
(039.0848
396.9603
459.8158
337.3309
411.97«(
430.3100
337.8464
480000. 0000
Ma.
Detect.
M»lt
10. 0000
. '
10.0000
5.0000
10.0000
5.0000
5.0000
s.oooo
5. 0000
310.0000
3(0. 0000
3(0.0000
310.0000
310.0000
310. 0000
310.0000
310.0000
310. 0000
310.0000
310.0000
310.0000
•
Max.
Detect.
Limit
93.
.
93.
75.
93.
80.
80.
75.
80.
1000.
1000.
1000.
900.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
•
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
satomnr STATISTICS ran am, er cnmicAL Am moimt/AivgA
•11 la ppb, «xc«pt inorganic* which «r« in ppm
mm.
fcontinuwf)
SmMplef Łtot«et«pyr.n.
JodcDO (1,2,3- ctf ;pyr»n»
nib.n.of«.hj.ntbrac«i.
gtatoig, b, 1 Ipirylta*
Tot ml Pb«nol«
loor. AluMlntui
Antl-ony
*r..n^
Mrliu
,
2
5
7
7
1
1
4
5
17
1
0
0
5
4
2
2
15
22
J
34
JO
17
14
15
10
10
It
9
It
IS
30
IS
15
15
15
15
14
14
20
22
JO
JO
JO
Cone.
30.00
200. 00
320.00
93.00
37.00
170.00
0700.00
170.00
150.00
00. 00
1100.00
52.00
52.00
140.00
09.00
100.00
500.00
140.00
3.11
9.10
1. 30
34.20
Cone.
50000.0000
1200.0000
1000.0000
21000.0000
140000.0000
170.0000
0700.0000
100000.0000
200000.0000
130000.0000
1100.0000
00000. OOOO
00000.0000
210000.0000
20000.0000
990.0000
3200.0000
5300.0000
1*400. OOOO
9.9000
110.0000
5220.0000
Locat.
WDA 02 a
39 02
as 04 A
WDA 03 a
HVA 03 a
as 04 A
33 OS
9fDA 03 8
*DA 03 a
HVA 02 a
L 2 SOIL
mA 03 a
MM 03 5
WDA 0) a
WDA 03 a
aa 02
aa 02
SS 12
aa O4 A
L 1 SOtt
L f SOIL
t, t SOIL
Otem.
Man
Cone.
595.
300.
403.
491.
501.
227.
590.
550.
522.
200.
305.
503.
503.
515.
420.
294.
341.
439.
4121.
11.
5.
379.
3204
5099
0452
2*P5
5017
7109
0419
0415
2757
2507
0000
0004
0004
1337
5105
2122
4311
3274
5092
0910
0071
ff97
95 Pet.
Opp. Coat.
Limit
30921.4034
401.0909
000.1509
7900. 0049
77503.0499
520.3553
3709. 074*
31091.7002
41303.3001
3590.3905
447.3470
23407. 4000
23407. 4000
34750.2399
4349.1059
420.0257
743.0900
2092.0199
110950.4197
21.2923
14.2305
7010.7237
Mia.
Dtttet.
Limit
300.0000
310.0000
300. OOOO
310.0000
3*0.0000
39.0000
490.0000
310.0000
310.0000
450.0000
310.0000
300. OOOO
300.0000
310.0000
310.0000
J10.0000
310.0000
110.0000
.'
4.3000
1.2000
•
MUC.
Dttmct.
Limit
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
500.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
1000.
.
113.
13.
•
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
oooo
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
aovuAitr STATISTICS ran sin, BY CHOIICAL urn KSDIVU/ARXA
mil la ppb, «xc«pt loorgutlcf which fit la ft*
Clmff . Anflyt*
Beryllium
Ctdmium
Calcium
chromium, totul
Cobalt
copper
Iron
&••g»o»»»
H»rcvry
Mlckil
Pot nit urn
a»l»alum
allvur
Vtnmdlum
Zinc
Hum.
rimtf
Dutuctud
S
2
aa
31
it
37
33
37
32
33
9
34
33
3
3
30
30
Hum.
Simple*
Anflytfd
30
30
32
33
33
30
33
30
23
31
30
30
33
39
30
22
30
Lovtft
D»t»ct»d
Cone.
0. 30
4.80
5370. 00
6.40
3.00
11.00
5)40.00
9.70
1800.00
103.00
0.03
1.49
367.00
3.30
1.50
0.00
34.10
tcootiaufd)
Ulgb»»t Higb**t
D«t«ctttJ Cone.
Coac.
0.9300
14.0000
131000.0000
330.0000
13. 6000
770.0000
361000.0000
1330.0000
39000.0000
2410.0000
0.9000
67.SOOO
3390.0000
4.4000
50.0000
39.9000
1460.0000
Locmt.
t J
L 1
*UA
L 1
as
L 1
as
HDA
MM
aa
aa
SOIL
aoiL
01 a
SOIL
07
aoiL
05
01 a
01 a
11
13
WDA 03 a
aa
L 1
L 1
aa
aa
10 A
SOIL
son
16
13
OfOH.
Jf««D
Cone.
0.
1.
31993.
15.
4.
31.
23611.
SO.
9775.
381.
0.
14.
1363.
1.
1.
13.
164.
5277
9991
6906
5383
5997
9749
3459
1)33
6363
3055
1421
3034
9316
JUS
3768
8939
0586
95 tct.
Ppp. Con/.
Limit
0. 9486
14.6371
80635. 7660
31.4990
6. 7691
81.4036
53574.1070
279.210S
34860.3418
738. 8645
0.3078
24.7695
1879.3104
3.1536
3.4389
24.7269
494.3935
MID.
D»t»ct.
Limit
0.1300
0. 4300
•
4.3000
3.4000
13.0000
-
9.1000
•
•
0.1000
12.0000'
•
0.6100
0. 6300
3.1000
•
Jtax.
D»t»ct.
Limit
6.1000
2300.0000
•
4.3000
13.1000
30.3000
•
64.0000
•
'
1.5000
SI. 0000
•
11.3000
13.1000
7.5000
•
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
stnotonr STATISTICS ron SITS, BY CHKHICAI, Am MBDIOM/ARKA
all in ppb, except inorganic* which are in ppm
fnjjH. JAi»). Lotreet ffipheat Higheet
Cle»e
VDC»
Inor.
Analyte
chloroetbane
Trlchloroetnylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Bar iua
Copper
Zinc
Tl»*e
Detected .
4
1
1
7
1
7
Suple* Detected
Analysed • cone.
7 11.00
7 l.«0
7 7.50
7 0.74
7 0.01
7 0.01
Detected
Cone.
39.
I.
7.
1.
0.
0.
0000
tooa
5000
6000
0140
1600
Cone.
Locat.
L
t.
L
V
L
L
2
1
1
3
1
4
LIQUID
LIQUID
LIQUID
LIOOID
LIQUID
Oeoa.
ffean
Cone.
•.7551
1.0960
1.3335
0.5709
O.OOJ7
0.0104
95
Pet. Win. JCur.
0pp. Coat. Detect. Detect.
LlBit LiBit Malt
177.
1.
4.
1.
0.
0.
7999 5.0000 5.0000
J97J 7.0000 7.0000
«099 7.0000 7.0000
7505
00*J O.OOCO 0.00*0
2036
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
amaaur STATISTICS ron SITS, er CHSMICAL AND
•11 la ppb, ejreept loorgtaict vbich ere la ppm
Cleee Anelyte
VOCm Acetone
Carbon Dleolflde
7-Vutajione daft
4 -M*tbyl-2-r*nt*aoo»
Toluene
ttbylb*n**o»
Total lyJenM
BW* 4-Cbloro-)-m*thylpb*DOl
3-H»tbylompbtb»l*Bf
Pttcotoetirene
bl*(3-*tbylb»xyl>r>btb»l*t»
Totml Phenol e
loor. AreenJc
Beryllium
Chromium, total
Copper
Lead
Mercury
(Mckel
SlJvtr
fioc
Hum.
Tlm»f
Detected
1
3
3
1
t
7
a
i
i
i
i
a
a
t
t
t
t
i
' • 4
1
4
num.
S*mpl»f
Lowftt
Petected
Analysed Cone.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
t
S
f
S
t
«
6
i
f
310000.00
3000. 00
45000.00
29000.00
gfOO.OO
190000.00
930000. 00
49000. 00
130000.00
56000.00
9300. 00
15000.00
3.10
0.46
43.00
31.00
77.00
O.O*
16.00
0.55
ISO. 00
\mm\. rM t •* rvav
Higb»tt
Detected
Cone.
310000.
JOOOOO.
1700000.
29000.
5100000.
tooooo.
2100000.
49000.
130000.
56000.
9300.
31000.
3.
0.
3300.
410.
2000.
0.
57.
0.
370.
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
9000
S300
0000
0000
0000
0600
0000
5500
0000
Hiofteet
CODC.
Locit.
Tf 2 a 3
TP 3 9 1
TP 2 9 S
re 3 a 3
TP 2 8 1
TP 3 a t
TP 3 S 1
TP 2 S 3
TP 3 a 4
TP 2 a 4
TP 1' a l
TP 2 a 2
TP 2 a 2
TP 2 a 2
TP 2 a 5
TP 2 a 3
TP 2 a 5
TP 2 a 3
TP 3 a 2
TP 3 a i
TP 2 a i
Ooem.
*eej>
Cone.
636432.
14143.
175950.
64679.
245f46.
32675.
64613.
21252.
33371.
21193.
14599.
7747.
5.
0.
152.
140.
399
0.
55.
0.
530
4739
1356
1992
4364
9063
7999
6607
379S
2269
9700
9334
3109
8199
4557
5474
6599
6473
1692
9915
9359
0055
•5 Pet.
Dpp. Coat.
Limit
375602977.24
1142153164.5
45439236509
3102096.2721
3.414109930
1.1396542*30
1.4603195139
3.135613831
1.7336137123
4.1435435963
171379.0301
5.5696931117
3)11405. 011S
1913.9192
103379.9936
1444.0320
36936. 0796
942406.2603
1944.4931
3079539. 0290
19374.3703
Mia.
Detect.
ti«lt
500000. 0000
20000.0000
100000.0000
100000.0000
.
3000.0000
3000.0000
690.0000
(10. 0000
690. 0000
27000.0000
7000. 0000
l.JOOO
0. 0750
•
•
•
0.0500
500.0000
0.7500
5000.0000
Mejr.
Detect.
Limit
5000000.0000
70000.0000
500000. 0000
500000.0000
•
70000.0000
70000.0000
1000000.0000
1000000. 0000
1000000.0000
50000.0000
2000.0000
750.0000
5.0000
•
•
•
10.0000
500.0000
50.0000
5000.0000
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
SOMMRr STATISTICS FOR SIT», BT CHtUICAL AND MBDHW/AIUA
all in ppb, axcapt inorganic* which ara in pp»
Hum.
Tiaaa
Claaa Analyta Datactad
VOCa Mathylana Cblorida
Carbon Diaulflda
1, 1-Diehloroatbajia
BtUt Pbaool
Plaatbylpbtbalata
biar2-«thylhajryl)phtlialata
Inor. Aluminum
Antimony
Araaoic
Bariiui
BaryllluB
Cadmium
calcium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Coppar
Iron
I>aad
M.ffn..lu.
•anpanaaa
irickal
PotaaaltiB
3
1
1
1
a
a
7
1
6
e
i
3
7
7
1
7
7
6
7
7
S
5
Analysad
J
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7-
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Lovaat ffiohaat
Pataetad OaCactad
Cone. Cone.
1J.OO
11.00
2.40
250.00
420.00
44.00
1JJ.OO
339.00
20.20
1.60
0.71
4.20
264.00
11.90
2.80
8.70
303.00
8.60
773.00
(.00
2. JO
44.90
72.0000
11.0000
2.4000
250.0000
740.0000
450.0000
248000.0000
3)9.0000
164.0000
237.0000
0.7100
17.3000
75100.0000
313000.0000
2.8000
1010.0000
8770.0000
94.7000
410000. 00OO
1050.0000
25.5000
79 J. 0000
Rignaat
Cone.
Locat.
HP If
HP 19
HP 36
HP 16
HP 19
HP 16
HP 19
HP 16
HP 19
HP 26
HP 21
HP 3t
HP 2f
HP If
HP 26
HP 19
HP 19
HP 19
MP 2S
HP 19
HP 36
HP 26
4 -9
4 -11
10 -13
4 -8
4 -11
4 -8
4 -11
4 -8
4 -11
10 -12
3.5 -4.5
3.5 -4
10 -12
4 -9
10 -12
4 -11
4 -11
4 -11
J.S -4
4 -11
10 -13
6 -7
Oaom.
Haao
Cone.
33.5759
9.3789
8.9S39
478.0505
389.4140
357.1064
20462.4799
13.7084
18.3926
31.1019
0.4754
5.3355
6354.5266
3055.1695
3.8157
171.8138
1983. S606
15.0157
SJS69.1120
383.7193
13.0113
170.7798
95 Pet.
Opp. Conf.
ti.it
313371.5978
210.3683
3500334.1736
38671295242
36106.5637
1.9037393*19
1176284816.8
3155.1344
65336. 0701
919600. 5886
12. 6604
184.5940
6697388. 5999
1.5309906*14
56. 1002
17313.6818
373033.1436
78053.3120
11O99O993. 67
314270.2288
65.6332
3836. 6353
Hln.
Cat act.
Limit
m
10.0000
30. 0000
380. 0000
380.0000
4600.0000
.
5.6000
0.4000
1.5000
0.2000
1.0000
.
.
1.2000
.
•
0.4000
-
J1.9000
93.7000
Hut.
Da tact.
Limit
t
30.
40.
4600.
380.
4600.
.
173.
0.
1.
5.
39.
.
35.
.
•
0.
•
•
47.
502.
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0000
4000
5000
9000
4000
5000
4000
JOOO
0000
-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE, (continued).
Analyt*
NUB. NUB.
Tlm»* Sample* Dft»ct»d
Detected Aoaly 19 4 -11
Iff 19 4 -11
Wf 26 3.5 -t
Of cm.
Mean
Cone.
1.0511
1.8257
0.5592
8.3«lg
S74.8720
95 Pet.
Upp. Coat.
Limit
96.493i
37.3443
7.6359
37. 6093
409089.9924
Mia.
Detect.
Limit
0.2000
0.8000
0.4000
3. 7000
.
Max.
Dttmct.
Limit
7.4000
23. 7000
1 . 6000
29. 6000
.
-------
TABLE 4
ONSITE GROUNDWATER (INGESTION) CARCINOGENIC RISK
-------
TAULls
I?NV. M1:I)IUM
liXfOSUKl-TYll:
RISK TVI'C
•. IIATAVIA
: 0
350
350
BO
350
Kipuuire
Uurnllim
(veais)
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
w
Ml
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
. Ill
30
311
30
30
30
30
30
Uudy
W(lKhi
(M
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Amngiiig
Tin*
(ibvi)
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
15550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
lulikt
(iiU!As/KI-:u2
1.901-04
4.991:04
2.781! 04
6.541-01
9.«l!04
S.4UI-U4
Of »l Slop*
Kntlur-1
(mg/Wiby)
190K02
I.30E-OI
2.90I-:03
6. 101:' 03
I.30li02
2.401! 02
9.101:02
6.00tOI
6JOE-02
7.50U03
1. 101- 02
l.WlitOO
1.401! 02
4.90H03
I.75U.OO
locrtasml
CABbfc
24W-:06
IJ3E-06
2.021:06
3.63E07
1 Nl!06
2.76E06
1601-06
XISE-OS
2.79E06
IJ2E06
I.52E-06
I.6IE04
I.95EOS
2.44B06
9.44I--O4
-------
sins
I:NV. MiilJIUM
liXroSUKI'TYH-
KISK TVM-
.4.
: U ATA VIA
: liKOUNO WATUt
: INCiliS IION/IOJ IXWli KliSIUUNTIAL SCUNAKHMi
: CAKCINOGBNIC
ttmlmiiiuiil of
Cooctrm
Uuium
Itcrylliuni
Cklcitun
Chiunutun, lolil
CuUlt
Cufftt
lion
U*J
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
>><**» lium
V«n*d«im
Zinc
Cooctolrullua
(IIUE/U
7.67E-OI
I.38E-03
6.69E»02
I.UK-OI
6.5 Ili 02
1.I9EOI
I.1IC«02
I.V6t:-OI
2.27E«02
2.WE*00
3.30E04
I.55EOI
6.49E«OI
8351-02
4.87E«OI
Indian
Mult
(IV'r«|ucucy
(ibvi/vui)
150
150
150
150
350
350
150 -
.150
350
350
350
350
350
150
150
Ktptnurt
. Uurmlua
lycait)
10
10
10
10
10
30
W
.10
lu
30
10
10
10
10
10
Uwly
Wflclil
(kK»
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
VO
70
70
70
70
70
70
Avenging
Tune
liUvi)
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
Oral Slti|x • latrtutd
loliiki K»rtor -I CA Hlik
(iiikAit/Jivl (nuAit/ibvl
9.001:03
1621-05 4.301i«00 *97t05
7.85E*«0
I.18E03
7.641:04
4.57E01
I.54R«00
2.10I--03
266K.OO
2.451! 02
. J.I7E-06
I.«2I:03
7.62E-OI
9.801:04
S.72E4!
TOTAL RISK: I24K03
-------
TABLE 5
ONSITE GROUND WATER (INGESTION) NONCARCINOGENIC RISK
-------
TAULE : 5
SHI: : DATA VIA
l-NV. MEDIUM : GROUND WATER
EXWJSURl-TYW: : INUESTION/raillJRE RESIDENTIAL SCENARIOS
RISK TYfE : NUNCARCINUU-NIC
CooUoitUQl «f
Conrtm
Acetone
Bcnuiie
Biamadicnlurameihine
2UuUnonc(MiiK)
ChlMobcnunc
ChliMocOwnc (clhyl dtlotidc)
Ctilmnlmni
Uikwwnctfune (methyl dilat idej
1.4 Duhlorabenzeae |j>m)
I.l-Didilufocihme
1.2-UichWuedune
1,1-Dichkvaelhylene
inni-l,2-UichtafoeUiylcno
l.2-DidilufU|iopMW
Eiliylbeiuene
2-lleimone(MHK)
MelhylenecUandc
4-Mttfiyl-2-f>eaUaane
Toluene
I.l.l-Trichlaroelhm
TiKhtaroeihylcnc
Vinyl chlande (cMorodhykne)
Xyknei
Ucnzoic Kid
Bii(2-cUiylheiyl)nhlhabte
l>KUiyl|>liilul»ie
Di-n-buiyl philuliue
Uuiiclliyl|iliilulaie
2-MelhyliU|ilillultne
4-Medtyl|inenul (p-eniol)
^c
N-Nitia»mli|iheny|Mnino
IlKltuI
Aluminum
Antimony
IngtsUua Kipuvurt
Coat. N*l* Kretfueocy
tmtA.\ 4tt
I.69E04
4.44E04
l.761-!03
4.26E05
6.161-04
I.78E04
9.231--03
1 I3t01
1.501- too
Uiruole
Hiurd
quolltal
2.29EOI
1.641: 01
2.37E-02
l.20tM)J
4071:0)
I.39E02
2.6KE-03
2.2IE-02
9.2IE43
7.54E^>3
5. 171-03
I.24E-03
9.451:01
I.IOE-02
I.6IE-02
4^4E-03
5.3IE42
3.4IE04
2.261:04
I.63EOI
4.V1I-.O4
6J5I-04
J.59E04
7.I6I-:OI
I.IIUOI
I.O»4iO)
S.40E»00
-------
IAIIU:
SHU
liNV. MHJIUM
l-XrUSUW-TVH:
KJSKTYPI;
5
U ATA VIA
(JKOUNDWATIH
INca-STION/I-Ull/W-IU-SIUl-NIIALSCliNAKIOS
NONCAKCINOGENIC
C'uoUiuluuil of
L'ooctra
Caut.
Km*
KijxiMirt
|>'rci|ucucjr
K>|ii»urt
Uurallun
Uudy
TlB
Arult
Hull
Dux
I'briMtlt
Bud/
HUM
Acult
PrrtMllv*
BudyUwc
Cbruult
Afiile
lUtvd
tody DOM
Chtwac
lUurd
Aitcnic
ll« iwn
Beryllium
Ctkiuin
Chionuua^ toul
CuUk
Copper
lion
U*l
Mjtuciium
fcbngueie
Mactuy
Nickel
fnuiium
Vanadium
/inc
4.601:02
7.67li 01
I.38B-03
6.69E«02
I.I8E-OI
6.511: 01
3J9UOI
l.3ll-«02
1.961:01
2.27L:«02
i(Nl:tOO
3.301! 04
I.55E-OI
6.49I:«OI
8.35U-02
4.87U»OI
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
150
350
350
350
350
150
150
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30 '
30
30
10
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
7u
70
70
70
70
70
70
10950
umo
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
ID9MI
MM5U
1 11950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
1. Hi: 03 1.261:03
2.191:02 2.101:02
3.94H-05 3.78E-05
1911^01 l.83E«til
3 361 : 03 3.21I--01
1.861:03 I.78E03
1. Ill: 02 I.07E02
3.74IUOU 359fc«00
S.59IMM 5.36l:.03
b.-KI-iUU b.2ll:«OU
5.97i:02 5.73I502
9.43I-1-06 9.04I--06
4.43I--03 4.25E-03
IH5i;<00 U8P.OO
2.391:03 2.291:01
I.J9L.OO 1.331-100
3.00I--04
5.00I-:02
1.00E«00 SJUOŁ4n
I.40E4I I.76E4I
4.00E02
5.00E-OI
I.OOI--OI
3.00I-: O4
I.OOU 01 2UJOH02
8.001:01 7.001:03
4.0lHiOI 2.001:01
HAZARD INDEX:
I3IU05
2.40I--02
4.43E-02
2.98LOI
1.481i*00
5.37C»00
4.20I:«00
4.20I:-OI
7.ME-03
lAUs-03
2.66EOI
7.IIE«OU
J.73I-:OI
3.011:02
2.I2H^I
1.271:01
6.67E*00
Z68E«OI
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT SPREADSHEETS
FOR THE
BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE
-------
TABU;
SHli
F.NV. MI2DIUM
RXPOSUKRTYPli
KISKTYPli
Contaminant of
Concern
Aluminum
Harium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium, total
Copper
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Titanium
/,inc
: 1
: BATAVIA
: BORING WASTRSAMPLK
: ACirili INGKSTION/KI-SIDRNT/CIIILD
: NONCAKC1NOC.KNIC
Concentration
(nig/kg)
30900
28800
12
32800
36
120
10600
200000
1200
140
1020
Ingcstion
Kate
Conversion Body
Factor Fraction Weight
(nig/day) kg/mg Ingested (kg)
200
200
200
200.
200
2(X)
200
200
200
20f)
200
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01
:.-or, 15
;.-06 15
•-or, 15
•-or, 15
•-06 15
•:-or, 15
•-06 15
•-or. 15
•-or, 15
•-or. 15
i-05 15
Acute Acute Protective
Body Dose Body Dose
(mg/kR/day) (mR/kfi/day)
4.I2R-OI O.OOF.-KK)
3.84R-OI O.OOF.+OO
I.60R-04 3.00F+00
4.37R-OI O.OOF.+OO
4.80R-04 I.40R-OI
I.60R-03 O.OOF.+OO
1.4IK-01 0.fX)l-:+00
2/,7K+00 0.001 i+00
1.60K-02 O.OOfi+00
I.87R-03 O.OOR+00
1..V,t-:-02 4.00F.-01
HAZARD INDRX:
Acute
Hazard
Quotient
5F.-05
3R-03
3R-02
4R-02
-------
TAHIJi
SMI-
I:NV. MEDIUM
I-XPOSURI- TYPE
RISK TYPE
HATAVIA
TI-STPITWASTE SOUS
ACU1F. INGl-SIION/1U-SIDI-NI/CIIII.1)
NONCARCINOGI-NIC
Contaminant of Concentration
Concern
2-Hutanonc (MI-IK)
4-Mclhyl-2-Pcntanonc
Acetone
Carbon Disulfidc
Ethyl bcn/cnc
Toluene
Total Xylcncs
Tolal Phenols
2— Melhytnaphtlialcne
4-Chloro-3-mcthylplicnol
his(2-lŁthylhcxyl)phthalatc
Phcnanlhrcnc
Arsenic
Heryllium
Chromium, total
Copper
Ixud
Nickel
Silver
7.inc
(ms/kK)
1700
•28
210
100
600
5100
2100
.11
1.10
48
9.2
56
2.8
0.5.1
3200
410
2000
57
0.55
.170
Ingcslion
Rate
(mg/Uay)
200
2(X)
2(lf)
2(K)
20(1
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Conversion
I'aclnr Traction
kg/mi; Invested
I.OI->06
I.OI--06
i.oi-:-or»
i.oi-:-of>
LOI-XW
1.0lv-06
I.OK-Ort
i.oi-:-ofj
i.oi-:-ofi
I.OI--06
l.0l;.-0f)
1.01 --06
I.OI--06
I.OI--06
I.OI--06
I.OIi-06
I.OI--06
I.OI--06
i.or:-oT)
I.OI--06
Hody Acute
Weight Body Dose
(kK) (f»fi/kfi/day)
15 2.27E-02
15 3.73E-04
15 2.80E-03
15 1.33E-0.1
15 8.00E-03
15 6.80E-02
15 2.80E-02
15 4.13E-04
15 I.73E-03
15 6.40E-04
15 1. 231- -04
15 7.47E-04
15 3.73E-05
15 7.07E-06
15 4.27E^02
15 5.47E-0.1
1 5 2.67E-02
15 7.60E-04
15 7..1.1E-06
1 5 4.93E-0.1
Acute Protective
Body Dose
(niR/kfi/day)
8.00E+00
O.OOE-KK)
0.001- 4-00
O.OOE-KK)
3.20E+00
2.00E+00
4.001- +00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
3.00E+00
1.40E-01
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
l.OOE-01
2.00E-02
4.00E-OI
HAZARD INDEX:
Acute
Hazard
Quotient
.1F.-0.1
3E-03
3E-02
7IZ-0.1
2E-06
.1I--01
8E-0.1
4E-04
1E-02
4E-01
-------
TARIJ-
snv.
F.NV. MF.IMUM
l-XI'OSURF.TYn:
RISK lYI'lv
RATAVIA
suspiicmD MAC.NI:.SIUM FINF.S
AcuiiiiNc.i-srioN/Ri-sim-NT/cini.n
NONCARCINOC.F.NIC
Contaminant of
Concern
2-llcxanonc(MBK)
Acetone
Mclhylcnc Chloride
bis(2 - Flhylhcxyl )phthalalc
Aluminum
Arsenic
Rarium
Rcryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Uad
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
niallium
Vanadium
7,inc
Concentration
(niR/kc)
0.0041
0.051
0.0135
0.088
102000
83.8
4670
29.4
13.4
10900
117
1.9
2400
7690
12R.5
201. MX)
969
60.2
513
2.35
0.9
16
1930
Inpcslion
Hale
(me/day)
- 200
2(XI
200
2(XI
2(X1
200
2(XI
2(X1
200
2fX)
200
200
2(X)
200
2fK)
200
200
200
200
200
200
2fX1
200
Conversion
Factor Fraction
kR/i«R InRcslco
.01.1-06
..OF-06
.OF-OT.
.OF-06
.OF-06
.OF-06
.OF-06
.OF, -06
.OF-06
.OF-or.
.OF-or.
.OF-06
.OF-06
.OF-06
.OF-06
.oF.-or.
.OF.-06
.OF. -06
.OF-or,
.OF-06
.01-: -or.
.oF.-or.
.OF-06
Rody
Wciqhl
_(kfi)__.
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Acute
Rody Dose
(nig/kg/day)
5.47E-08
6.80F-07
I.80F.-07
I.I 71- -06
1.361-400
I.I2E-03
6.23F-02
3.92F-04
I.79F-04
1.45F-OI
I.56F-03
2.53F-05
3.20F-02
1.031- -01
I.71F.-03
2.69F400
1.29li-02
.R.03F-04
6.R4F-03
3.13li-05
1.201 --05
2.13F.-04
2.57F.-02
Acute Protective
Body Dose
(niR/kR/day)
O.OOE400
O.OOE400
1.33E400
O.OOF.400
O.OOF400
O.OOE4-00
O.OOF.400
3.00F400
4.00F-03
O.OOE400
I.40F-01
O.OOE400
O.OOH400
O.OOF400
O.OOF.400
O.OOF.400
O.OOF400
l.OOE-01
O.OOF.400
2.00F-02
7.00F-04
8.00F.-03
4.00F-OI
HAZARD INDEX:
Acute
1 Irrard
Quotient
1F.-07
1E-04
4F.-02
IE-02
8F-03
2E-03
2F.-02
3F-02
6I--02
2E-OI
-------
TAHIJ-:
sin-
I-NV. MI-.DtUM
1-XroSURUTVM-
RISK TVTU
HATAVIA
SUHSUR1:ACT, SOIL (WASTV. I'l'l ARI \A)
INOlSTIlON/IVlXWIi/IiXCAVA'nON WORKIIR
CARCINOC5KNIC
Contaminant of Concern
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Hcrylliunl
Cadmium
Chromium, lolal
Coball
Copper
Iron
Ijcad
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
'thallium
Vanadium
X.inc
1,
ConccnlrDlion
(mg/ltg) (
24«000
B9
lf>4
Z37
0.71
17.3
313000
2.8
1010
8770
94.7 '
410000
1850
25.5
4.1
1.6
6
14.2
3670
Vcslion
Kale
ng/day)
480
4WI
48(1
481)
480
4RO
4RO
4KO
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
480
4WI
Conversion Tji|Ktsiirc tapoMirc Ifcidy
l-iiclnr l-r.iclion r'rcqiicncy Dur.ilion Weigh)
kg/mg Ingcslctl (thysfyr) (years) (kg)
UM'.-W
\M\-W,
1. (»•-«»
l.rti-«6
l.0l--0f,
I.Mi-05
!.(»•- 06
i.«-:-06
I.OH-OS
I.OI:.'-(I5
KK-:-or,
!.«•-«
l.rti-06
J.OH-06
I.(N:.-06
I.W--OS
l.(»;-06
l(H-:-06
I.OH-OT,
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Averaging
•lime
(days)
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
. 25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
Chronic
llody IJose
(mp/kgAlay)
4.3JE-Q3
4.1711-06
2.86I=-06
4.IM2-06
I.24H-08
3.021--07
J.46K-03
4.88E-08
I.76I--05
I.53K-04
1.65K-06
7.I5I--03
3.23li-05
4.45R-07
7. 151- -08
2.WE-08
I.05E-07
2.48I--07
6.40H-05
Oral Slope
Factor -1
(me/kgMay)
O.OOE+00
o.onr:+(io
I.75E+00
O.OOE+00
4.3011+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOF.+OO
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOI-+00
O.OOI-+00
Increased
CA Risk
5E-06
5H-08
TOTAL RISK: M:.-06
-------
TABI.F.
SITF.
r.NV. MEDIUM
F.XPOSURF.TYPE
RISK TYPF.
BATAVIA
SUBSURFACE SOIL (WASTF. PtT ARF.A)
INGfi-VnoN/nrniRE/r-XCAVATION WORKER
NONCARCINOGCM1C
Contaminant of Concern
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Caornium
Chromium, (odl
Cobalt
Copper
Imo
U*d
Magnetium
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Z«ie
Concentration
(mgftg)
241000
239
164
237
0.71
17.3
113000
2.«
into
8770
94.7
410000
1150
25.5
4.1
1.6
6
14.2
3670
Inge*! ion
Rale
(mf/day)
4(0
480
400
4(10
480
410
4*0
480
4X0
480
4 DO
400
4RO
480
480
480
480
480
480
Conversion Exposure Bxposure Bodv
Factor Fraction Frequency Duration Weight
tg/mg Ingested (days/yr) (years) (kg)
l.flF.-Ofi
I.OF.-Ofi
l.flF.-nfi
1 .OF..06
I.OF.-OR
I.OF.-05
I.OF.06
I.OF.-Ofi
1 .nn-06
I.OF.-Ofi
I.OF.-Ofi
I.OF.-06
I.OF.-OA
i.nr.-ofi
1 .OE-OR
i.on-06
I.OF.-06
l.flF.-Ofi
IOF.06
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
f.5
65
65
65
65
M
65
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Averaging
Time
(Hay,)
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
Subchronk
Body DDK
(nig/kg/day)
I.2IE*00
I.I7F,-03
8.03E44
I.I6E-03
3.48F.-06
147F.-05
I.53E«00
I.37E-05
4.95E-03
4.WF.-02
4.64E-04
20IE*00
9.06E-03
I.25E-04
2.0IF.-05
7.84F.-06
2.94E-OJ
6.96E-05
I.80E-02
Suhchronic
Protective
BodyDme
(mg/kg/day)
I.OOE«00
4.00F-04
l.OOE-03
J.OOE-02
5.00E-03
l.OOE-03
».75E»00
OOOE»00
4.00E-02
5.00F.-OI
O.OOE«00
O.OOE*00
1. OOF, 41
200E-02
5.00F.-03-
3.00E-03
7.00E-04
7.00E-03
2.0DE-OI
HAZARD INDEX:
Subchfnnic
llauM
Quotient
IF,*00
3E«00
8E-OI
2E-02
7E-04
8F.-02
2E-OI
IE-01
9E-02
9E-02
6E-03
4E-03
3E-03
4E-02
IE-02
9F.-02
6E»00
-------
TAIII.I; : 6
SHI- : IIATAVIA
liNV. MPmUM ; SUIISUR]:ACI-:SOIL(WASTIiPrTARI:.A)
I-XPOSUKI'.IYPP. : WiRMAIXtWIACr/TiniiRiyi-XCAVATIONWORKI-K
RISK TYI'I: : NONCARCINOOI-NIC
Contaminant of
Concern
CADMIUM
Concent* don
(ing/kg) kf/mg
17.300 I.OP.-06
.Skin .Soil .Skin
Surface Are*' Adherence Ahsorplinn Exposure llxpmurc Ihtdy
Contacted l:acloc Factoi I:reqiirncy Dnraluwi Weight
(cm2/il>y) (nig/cin2) (d'ys'yr) (y««) (kf)
3120 0.6 0.005 65 1 70
Subehrook
Averaging Body
1'inte Dose
Subchronk
Protective
llodyDosc
Suhehronic
llaurd
Quolirnl
(days) (mf/kg/day) (mg/kf/day)
91 I.ME -06
.l.OOE-05
3E-02
-------
TABLE
srrn
HNV. MRDHIM
EXPOSURE TYPE
RISK TYPE
: BATAVIA
; SEDIMENTS
: INCESTION/PRF,SF,MT* rTmiRE/RESIDF.NT/Cllli.r>
: CARCINOOF.NIC
Coniarninanl of Concern
2-Butanone OMEK)
Acetone
Methylem Chloride
Toluene
1 .2 •Diehlnrobenttne
2-MeUiylnaphthalene
4-Melhylphenol
Aornaphihylem
Anthracene
leruo(a)an!hracenc
leiuo)nuoranthene
leruo(gji.i)perylene
ienzo(k)nuoranlhene
leiuyl alcohol
h«(2.Elhylhe»yl)rjhihalate
Chrysene
M-n-hulylphthaiate
Mbeiuo(aji)anihracene
rihentofuran
Hmethylptnhalaie
luoranthene
luorene
ndeno(l.2.3-cd)pyiene
'enUchloropheool
tienanlhrene
•henol
'yrene
luminum
Artenic
arium
Ifryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, loul
Cofiall
.opper
ron
Lead
•gnnhin
anganene
eroiry
Nickel
.Selenium
Iver
'anadium
Zinc
—
Concentration
1. OF.-Ofi
I.OF.-Ofi
I.OK.06
I.OE-06
I.OE-06
I.OF.-06
I.OE-06
I.OF.-Ofi
— — — — — - — — ^ — . — .
Exposure
Frequency
(days/yr)
143
143
14.1
141
143
143
143
143
14)
143
143
14)
141
143
141
143
141
14)
141
14)
141
143
141
143
143
143
143
143
143
14)
143
143
143
143
143
14)
143
143
143
14)
143
141
14)
143
143
143
Exposure
Duration
(yem)
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
«
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
A
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
• — -
Body
Weight
Otj)
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
IS
15
15
IS
IS
15
15
15
15
IS
15
15
IS
IS
IS
15
15
IS
15
IS
IS
15
IS
15
15
IS
IS
IS
Averaging
Time
(day,)
25550 '
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
35550
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
— -^— — — *— ____
Chronk
Body DOM
_On«A|/dajr)__
455F.-OI
7.34F.-07
5.74E-0»
I.I7F.-OI
S.X2E-OI
2.70E-06
4.26E-07
206E-07
2.07E-07
I.39E-05
I.56E05
I.OSE-05
3.33E-07
I.05E-OS
940F.OS
I.60F..06
USE-OS
35HE-07
I.ME 07
I.30E-07
I.7HP.-07
3.5HK-06
l.inE-07
I.95E-06
2.I5E-04
I.74E-OS
I.SIE-OI
I.23F.-05
7.34F.-03
6.3IE-06
9.03F.-04
4.I2E-07
6.27E-06
I4IF.-05
3.0)6.06
3.64E-05
2.40F.-02
I.25E-04
I.IIE-02
3.26F.-04
I.3DF.-07
II IE-05
I.4IE-06
I.62E-06
I.I IE-05
2.22E-04
Oral Slope
Factor -I
_(rniAgMaj!)
OOOEtflO
O.OOEtOO
7.50E-03
O.OOF.tflO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
o.noEtoo
5.79F.tOO
3.79F.tOO
5.79EtOO
O.OOEtOO
S.TOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
I.40E-02
5.79F.tOO
O.OOEtOO
5.79F.tOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
S.79EtOO
I.20E-OI
OOOEtOO
O.OOF.tOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOF.tflO
USF.tQO
O.OOF.tOO
4..10F.tOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOF.tOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOEtOO
o.noEtoo
O.OOF.lflO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOF.tOO
O.OOF.tOO
O.OOEtOO
O.OOF.tfKI
1
Increased
CA Risk
4E-IO
IE-OS
9E-05
6E-05
6E-05
2E-OI
IE- 04
IE- 06
IE-05
3E-05
IE-OS
2E-06
-------
SITE
F.MV. MEDIUM
EXPOSURE TYPE
RISK TYPE
ttATAVIA
SF.DIMF.NrS
: NONCARCINOOF.NIC
r-
^onuminint of Concern
2-BuUnone (MF.K)
Acetone
MeuNylene Chloride
Toluene
1 .2-Dichlorohenzene
2-Methylnaphlhalene
4-Methylphenol
AcenaphUiylene
1 Anthracene
Henzo(a)anthricene
Renro(a)pyrene
Renzorbinuoranlhene
Renzo(gJi.i)perylene .
RenzoOt lOuoranlhene
Renzyl alt-nhnl
nii(2-F.lhylhe«yl)phthalale
Cnry«ene
Di-n-hutylphlhalale
Dihnuo(a.h)anthracene
nihmzofuran
DimcOiylphtrialale
I'luoraoUSrne
Fluorene
|lndeno(l.2.3-cd)pymK
[PenUchlornphenol
[Phenanlhrene
[Phenol
[Pyrene
Aluminum
Arsenic
Rarium
Heryllium
Cadmium
1 Chromium. loUl
Cobalt
Copper
(Iron
Lead
I Magnetium
1 Manganeu
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
•
Concentration
(mgftg)
010
1.64
0.13
0.03
0.13
6.04
0.95
0.4A
04A
3109
34.76
23.41
0.74
23.41
0.21
3.58
41.30
0.80
0.42
0.29
0.4Q
7.99
0.42
4.35
480
38.92
0.19
27.50
16400
14.24
2016.72
0.92 '
14
31.50
6.77
8140
53574.11
279.21
24860.34
728.R6
0.11
24.77
3.15
163
247J
496.29
IngMtion
Rale
(mgMay)_
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
' 200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Conversion
Factor. Fraction
*(/"« Ingested
I.OF.06
I.OF.-OA
1. 011-06
I.OF.06
I.OF.-06
I.OF.-06
I.OE-06
I.OF.-OA
I.OF..OA
I.OE-OA
I.OE-OA
I.OE-OA
I.OF..OA
I.OF.-OA
I.OEOA
I.OF.-06
I.OE-06
I.OF.-OA
I.OF.-OA
I.OE-nA
I.OF.OA
I.OE-06
I.OE-06
I.OF.06
I.OF.-06
I.OE-06
I.OF.-OA
I.OE-06
I.OE-OA
I.OE-06
I.OE-06
I.OF.-OA
1 .OF. 06
1 .OE-OA
I.OE-OA
I.OF.-OA
I.OE-06
I.OF.-06
I.OF.-06
I.OE-06
I.OF.-OA
I.OE-OA
1 011.06
1 OR Oft
l.nn.flA
I.OF.-OA
— —
Exposure
Frequency
(rfays/yt)
143
143
143
143
143
143
143
143
143
143
143
143
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
14.1
143
141
143
14.1
141
143
143
141
143
143
•141
143
143
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
141
~ . —
Eipnjure
Duration
(years)
6
6
6
6
6
A
A
A
A
6
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
6
A
A
6
• A
A
A
A
6
A
6
6
6
6
6
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
6
6
6
6
Indy Averaging
Weight Time
'kg) (days)
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
'5 2190
'5 2190
'5 2190
'5 2190
15 2190
'5 2190
15 2190
15 2190
'5 2190
'5 2190
'5 2190
'5 2190
15 2190
'5 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
'5 2190
'5 2190
15 2190
15 2190
IS 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
'5 2190
'5 2190
'5 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
15 2190
•5 2190
15 2190
Chronic Dose
(.nigAg/rtjy)
5.3IF.-07
8.56F.-06
6.70E-07
I.36E-07
6.79E-07
3.I5E-05
4.97F.-06
2.40E-06
2.4IF.-06
I.A2F.-04
I.82F.-04
I.22F.-04
3.88E-06
I.22F.-04
I.IOE-06
I.87F.-05
2.IAF.-04
4.I8F.-OA
2.I9F.-OA
I.5IF.-06
2.07E-OA
4.I7F.-OS
220F.-06
2.27E-05
2.5IF.-03
2.03F.-04
9.93E-07
I.44E-04
8.57E-02
7.44E-05
I.05F.-02
4.8IE-06
7.3IF.05
I.A5F.-04
3.54E-05
4.25E04
2.80F.-OI
I.46E-03
I.30F.-OI
3.8IF.-03
I.6IF.-06
I.29F.-04
1.6511-05
I.90F.-OJ
I.29E-04
J.50F.-03
-
HA
— — . —
Chronic
Protective
BmlyDoee
(mg/kgAby)
5.00E-02
I.OOE-OI
6 OOF. 02
2.00E-OI
9.00E-02
O.OOE»00
J.OOF.-02
O.OOF.«00
3.00F.-OI
O.OOE»00
O.OOE»00
o.noEtno
OOOEtOO
O.OOE»00
3.00F.-OI
2.00E-02
O.OOP.»00
I.OOE-OI
O.OOE«00
4.00F.-03
1 .OOF,»00
4.00F..02
4.00E-02
O.OOF.«00
3.00E-02
O.OOF.+OO
6.00E-OI
3.00E-02
1.00E»00
3.00F.-04
5.00E-02
5.00E-03
I.OOF.-03
».7AE-OI
O.OOF.400
4.00E-02
5.00F.-OI
ooor.400
OOOP.40D
I.OOF.-OI
3.00F.-04
2.00F.-02 -
J.OOE-03
J.Oflfi-03
7.00F.-03
2.001:. 01
7>RD INDEX:
— — __
1
Chronic
llaurd
Quotient 1
IE-0)
9E-05
IE-05
7E-07
8F.-06
IE-04
8E-06
.
W.-OK\
9E-04
4F.-05
4F.-04
2E-06
IE-OS
5E-05
8E-02
2E-06
5E-03
9E-02
2E-OI
2E-OI
IE-03
7E-02
2E-04
IE 02
6E-OI
4E-02
5E-03|
6E-03
3F.0.1J
4F.-01
2F.02
IE-02,
IF.400J
)
-------
TAnU- : 9
-Sill- : IIATAVIA
I-NV.MF.IWIM : SI:.niMI-:KTS
HXrOSllKHTVH1. : OURMA1. CONTACT/PI ITURP./RP.SIOP.Nr
KISK'IYPP. : NONCARCINOOI:.NIC
.Skin .Soil .Skin
Contaminant of St*fanr Arm Adherence
Concern Crmornfrtlinn OnnUelrd l:>cl«
(nif/Vf) kf/n^ (cm2/d»v) (tnf/rni2|
Child
CADMIUM 14.000 l.flr,-08 JftSO 06
Adult
CADMIUM u.nro i.or.-w iiy> 0.6
Owonic Oironie Chronic
Atanrplinn llx|xnwr HxpnuR Hody Avrr»|tinf Kody Ptolcclive \\tltrt
Pxln • Frrqurnry Duration Wcifhl Time Dose Oody f)ax Ouolirnt
(days/yr) (r»") (^) (
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
BATAVIA LANDFILL CITE
OPERABLE UNIT ONE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. - 300001 - Letter to Mr. Michael Walters, Work Assignment
300007 Manager, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Conrad Leszkiewicz,
*f P.E., Project Manager, TRC Environmental
Corporation, re: Summary of the Validated
Analytical from TRC's Groundwater Sampling Event
Conducted at the Batavia Landfill Site on February
8-10, 1994, April 15, 1994. (Attached: U.S.
EPA - CLP Inorganic Analyses Data Package)
P.. 300008 - Letter to Mr, Michael Walters, Work Assignment
300032 Manager, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Conrad Leszkiewicz,
P.E., Project Manager, TRC Environmental
Corporation, re: Groundwater Sampling Results
(Volatile Organics, Semi-Volatile Organics), April
13, 1994. (Attached: Sample Data Package,
prepared by Ms. Jean M. Zimmerman, Technical
Reviewer, CompuChem Environmental Corporation,
February, 24, 1994.)
P. 300033 - Letter to Mr. Erwin Smieszek, Regional Project
300037 Officer, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Douglas Sullivan,
Regional Manager, TRC Environmental Corporation,
re: Supplemental Ground Water Sampling Addendum,
February 4; 1994. (Attached: 1. Table 1-1,
Batavia Landfill Field Sampling and QA Summary,
(undated); 2. Letter to Mr. Jeff Healey, Project
Manager, TRC Environmental Corporation, from Mr.
Michael Walters, Project Manager, Western New York
Section II, Region II, U.S. EPA, re: Approval of
"the Revised Addendum to the 1990 Field Oversight
Workplan for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site,
Genesee County, New York, November 3, 1992.)
-------
3.5 Correspondence
P. 300038 - Memorandum to Ms. Laura Scalise, Chemist, Toxic
300038 and Hazardous Waste Section, Region II, U.S. EPA,
from Mr. Michael Walters, Remedial Project
Manager, Western New York Section II, Region II,
U.S. EPA, re: Review of Revised Draft Work Plan
for Supplemental Sediment and Surface Water
Sampling at the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site,
Genesee County, New York, June 3, 1994.
P. 300039 - Memorandum to Mr. Daniel Montella, Chief, Wetlands
300039 Protection Section/ Region II, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Kevin Lynch, Chief, Western New York Section II,
Region II, U.S. EPA, re: Technical Review of
Draft Sediment and Surface Water Sampling Plan for
the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, June 1, 1994.
P. 300040 - Memorandum to Mr. John Filippelli, Chief,
"300040 Environmental Analysis Section, Region II, U.S.
EPA, from Mr. Kevin Lynch, Chief, Western New York
Section II, Region II, U.S. EPA, re: Technical
Review of Draft Sediment and Surface Water
Sampling Plan for the Batavia Landfill Superfund
Site, June 1, 1994.
P. 300041 - Memorandum to Ms. Amelia Jackson, Chemist, Toxic
300041 and Hazardous Waste Section, Region II, U.S. EPA,
from Mr. Michael Walters, Remedial Project
Manager, Western New York Section II, Region II,
U.S. EPA, re: Review of Draft Work Plan for
Supplemental Sediment and Surface Water Sampling
at the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, Genesee
County, New York, April 29, 1994.
P. 300042 - Letter to Mr. Conrad Leszkiewicz, Project Manager,
300042 TRC Environmental Corporation, from Mr. Michael
Walters, Remedial Project Manager, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, Region II, U.S. EPA,
re: Approval of Batavia Landfill Superfund Site
Supplementary Groundwater Sampling Addendum,
February 8, 1994. (Fax transmittal attached.)
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Sudy Reports
P. 400001 - Report: Batavia Landfill Site. Operable Unit 1.
400348 Draft Feasibility Study. Batavia. New York.
prepared for NL Industries, Inc., prepared by GZA
GeoEnvironmental of New York, March 1994.
-------
P. 400349 - Report: Technical Review of the Feasibility Study
400380 Report for the Batavia Landfill Site. Batavia, New
York, prepared for U.S. EPA, prepared by TRC
Environmental Corporation, December 15, 1993.
P. 400381 - Report: Stage 1A Cultural Resource Investigations
400433 for the -Batavia Landfill Superfund Site. Town of
Batavia. Genesee County, New York, prepared for
GZA GeoEnvironmental of New York, prepared by
Pratt & Huth Associates/ September 20, 1993.
4.6 Correspondence
P. 400434 - Letter to Mr. Michael Walters, Project Manager,
400436 New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, .
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Mr. Jay F. Young, Principal
Environmental Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., re:
ML Response to EPA Comments dated January 15,
1994, March 30, 1994.
P. 400437 - Letter to Mr. Jay F. Young, Principal
400439 Environmental Engineer, NL Industries, Inc.,
from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA,
Region II, re: Technical Review of Draft
Feasibility Study Report for the Batavia Landfill
Superfund Site, Genesee County, New York, March
17, 1994.
P. 400440 - Letter to Mr. Michael Walters, Work Assignment
400442 Manager, U.S. EPA, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, from Mr. Conrad Leszkiewiez, P.E.,
Project Manager, TRC Environmental Corporation,
re: Review of Batavia Landfill Draft Feasibility
Study, Operable Unit One, March 1994, April 6,
1994. ...
P. 400443 - Letter to Mr. Jay F. Young, Principal
400443 Environmental Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., from
Mr. Michael Walters, Project Manager, New
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA,
Region II, re: November 1992 New York State
Department of Health Ground Water Sampling Results
for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, Genessee
County, New York, February 17, 1994.
-------
P. 400444 - Letter to Mr. Jay F. Young, Principal
400467 Environmental Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., from
Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean
Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:
Technical Review of Draft Feasibility Study ("FS")
Report for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site,
Genesee County, New York, January 19, 1994.
P. 400468 - Letter to Mr. Jay Young, Principal Environmental
400468 Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Stage 1A
Cultural Resources Survey for the Batavia Landfill
Superfund Site, Genesee County, New York, December
27, 1993.
P. 400469 - Memorandum to Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
400471 York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Dore LaPosta, Chief, Ground Water
Management Section, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:
Batavia Landfill Site, Operable Unit One, Batavia,
New York, Draft Feasibility Study (FS) Report, •
December 7, 1993.
P. 400472 - Memorandum to Mr. Michael Walters, Project
400473 Manager, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from M.A. Mustafa, Air-Superfund..
Coordinator, Air Programs Branch, AWM, re: Batavia
Landfill Operable Unit One, Draft Feasibility
Study: Air Programs Branch Review, November 30,
1993.
P. 400474 - Memorandum to Mr. Kevin Lynch, Chief, Western New
400475 York Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
John Filippelli, Chief, Environmental Analysis
Section, re: Batavia Landfill, Feasibility Study
for Operable Unit One, November 30, 1993.
P. 400476 - Letter to Mr. Jay Young, Principal Environmental
400476 Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Stage 1A
Cultural Resources Survey for the Batavia Landfill
Superfund Site, Genesee County, New York, November
29, 1993.
-------
p.
400477 - Memorandum to Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
400478 York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Mr. Andrew Bellina, P. E.,-Chief,.
Hazardous Waste Facilities Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region II, re: Review of the Operable Unit One
Draft Feasibility Study Report for the Batavia
Landfill Superfund Site, Genesee, New York,
November 24, 1993.
400479 - Memorandum to Mr. Kevin Lynch, Chief, Western New
400479 York, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. John
Filippelli, Chief, Environmental Analysis Section,
re: Batavia Landfill, Stage IA Cultural Resources
Survey, November 16, 1993.
400480 - Letter to Mr. Michael Walters, Project
400492 Manager, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Mr. Jay F. Young, Principle
Environmental Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., re:
Batavia Landfill Superfund Site Feasibility Study,
March 1, 1993. Attached Report: Work Plan.
Batavia Landfill Site Feasibility Study, prepared
by GZA GeoEnvironmental of New York, prepared for
NL Industries, Inc., March 1993.
4Q0493.- Letter to Mr. Jay Young, Principal Environmental .
400494 Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:
Finalization of .the Feasibility Study Workplan for
the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, June 10,
1993.
400495 - Letter to Mr. Michael Walters, Project Manager,
400495 New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Mr. Jay F. Young, Principal
Environmental Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., re:
Batavia Landfill Site (BLS), Revised Feasibility
Study Work Plan, May 24, 1993.
400496 - Letter to Mr. Jay Young, Principal Environmental
400500 Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Draft
Feasibility Study Workplan, April 16, 1993."
-------
6.0 STATE COORDINATION
6.3 correspondence
P. 600001 - Letter to Mr. Steve Scharf, P.E., Bureau of
600002 Western Remedial Action, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, from Mr. Michael
Walters, Project Manager, New York/Caribbean
Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, re: Revised Draft
Sediment and Surface Water Sampling Plan for the
Ecological Assessment of the Batavia Landfill
Superfund Site, Genesee County, New York, June 1,
1994.
P. 600003 - Letter to Mr. Michael Walters, Region II, U.S.
600005 EPA, from Mr. Steven M. Scharf, P.E., Project
Engineer, Bureau of Western Remedial Action,
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation,
r«Ł: Comments on the Draft Final Feasibility Study
Prepared by GZA Geoenvironmental of New York on
Behalf of NL Industries Inc., and to Offer Input
on the Impending Proposed Remedial Action Plan
(PRAP) for Operable Unit One (OU1), May 19, 1994.
P. 600006 - Transmittal slip to Mr. Michael Walters, Remedial
600009 Project Manager, Region II, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Steve Scharf, P.E., Project Engineer, Bureau of
Western Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous
Waste Remediation, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, re: A Copy of the
Memo to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation,.Division of Fish and
Wildlife, Detailing Items Which Need to be
Incorporated into the Proposed Remedial Action
Plan, May 16, 1994. (Attached: Memorandum to Ms.
Emmy Thomee, Hazardous Waste Site Evaluation Unit,
Department.of Fish and Wildlife, New York State
Department; of Environmental Conservation, from Mr.
Steven M. Scharf, P.E., Project Engineer, Bureau
of Western Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous
Waste Remediation, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, re: Summary of
Discussions Between Department of Fish and
Wildlife and the Division of Hazardous Waste
Remediation with Respect to the DFW's Concerns on
the Batavia Landfill Feasibility Study and the
Upcoming Proposed Remedial Action Plan, May 10,
1994.)
-------
600010 -" Letter to Mr. Michael Walters, Region II, U.S.
600013 EPA, from Mr. Steven Scharf, P.E., Project
Engineer, Bureau of Western Remedial Action,
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation,
re: Comments on the Batavia Landfill Site
Feasibility Study Prepared by GZA Associates on
Behalf of NL Industries, Inc., from the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation,
December 13, 1993. (Attached: Letter to Mr.
Steven Scharf, Bureau of Western Remedial Action,
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, from Mr. Charles J. Amento,
Environmental Health Specialist II, Bureau of
'"" Environmental Exposure Investigation, Center for
Environmental Health, State of New York Department
• of Health, re: Review of the Draft Feasibility
Study for the Batavia Landfill Site, November 30,
1993.)
*'
600014 - Letter to Mr. Kevin Lynch, Section Chief,
600015 Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, from Mr. Robert W. Schick, P.E., Chief,
Remedial Section A, Bureau of Western Remedial
Action, Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation,
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, re: Comments on the Wetlands
Assessment Report for the Batavia Landfill Site
Prepared by GZA Associates on Behalf of NL
Industries, Inc., by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, November 29, 1993.
600016 - Memorandum to Mr. Steven Scharf, Bureau of
600016 Western Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous
Waste Remediation, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, from Mr. Paul Carella,
Bureau of Environmental Protection, Division of
Fish and Wildlife, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, re: Failure to
Complete Various Reports for the Batavia Landfill
Site has Jeopardized the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation's Concurrence with a
Final Site Remedy, November 4, 1993. (Fax
transmittal attached.)
-------
600017 - Memorandum to Mr. Steven Scharf, Bureau of
600017 Western Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous
Waste Remediation, New York State Department of .
Environmental Conservation, from Mr. Paul Carella,
Bureau of Environmental Protection, Division of
Fish and Wildlife, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, re: Request for
Additional Documentation Needed by the Division of
Fish and Wildlife to Completely Evaluate
Ecological Impacts Resulting from Site
Contamination, October 26, 1993.
600018 - Letter to Mr. Michael Walters, Region II, U.S.
600018 EPA, from Mr. Steven M. Scharf, P.E., Remedial
Action Section A, Bureau of Western Remedial
Action, Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation,
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, re: New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation's Position on the
Status of the Batavia .Landfill Site, July 19,
1993.
600019 - Letter to Mr. Michael Walters., Region II, U.S.
600020 EPA, from Mr. Steven Scharf, Environmental
Engineer 2, Bureau of Western Remedial Action,
. Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, New York.
State Department of Environmental Conservation,
re: Comments on the Batavia Landfill Feasibility
Study Scope of Work Prepared by GZA Associates on
Behalf of NL Industries Inc., from the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation and
the New York Department of Health, March 18, 1993.
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.2 Endangennent Assessments
P. 700001 - Letter to Mr. Michael Walters, Project Manager,
700004 New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Mr. David Fratt, Manager, Health &
Environmental Sciences Department, TRC
Environmental Corporation, re: Attached Summary
and Conclusions for Batavia Landfill Risk
Assessment, April 26, 1994.
P. 700005 - Report: Final Risk Assessment. Batavia Landfill.
700388 Batavia. New York - Work Assignment: C02061.
prepared for U.S. EPA, prepared by TRC
Environmental Corporation, April 11, 1994.
-------
700389
700420
700421
700435
700436
700466
Report: Ecological Assessment Work Plan. Batavia
Landfill. Batavia. New York - Work Assignment;
700467
700496
700497
700504
C02061. prepared for U.S. EPA, prepared by TRC
Environmental Corporation, April 1, 1994.
Bulletin: ECO Update - Developing a. Work Scope
for Ecological Assessments/ prepared by U.S. EPA,
Intermittent Bulletin, Volume 1, Number 4, May
1992. - • • •
Transmittal Slip to Michael Walters, Project
Manager, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Mr. Steven Scharf, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation,
re: enclosed Habitat Based Assessment report and
Aquatic Sediment Criteria ARAR, March 13, 1992.
Attached are: Report: Habitat Based Assessment.
(undated), and Appendix B: Sediment Criteria -
Report of the Sediment Medium Committee,
(undated).
Draft Report: Understanding Wetlands Evaluations
for Hazardous Waste Sites; A Reference Document
for Region II Remedial Project Managers.
prepared by the Region II Biological Technical
Assistance Group (BTAG), January 14, 1992.
Bulletin: ECO Update - Ecological"Assessment of
Superfund Sites: An Overview, prepared by U.S.
EPA, Intermittent Bulletin, Volume 1, Number 2,
December 1991.
7.6 Documentation of Technical Discussions with PRP's
P. 700505 - Letter to Mr. Jay Young, Principal Environmental
700506 Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch II, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Ecological
Assessment Work Plan for the Batavia Landfill
Superfund site, Genesee County, New York, May 6,
1994.
-------
7.8 Correspondence
P. 700507 - Letter to Mr. Michael Walters, Project Manager,
700508 New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
•Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Mr. Jay F. Young, Principal
Environmental Engineer, NL Industries, Inc., re:
Performance of Ecological Risk Assessment,
Wetlands Delineation, and Sediment Sampling, April
26, 1994.
P. 700509 - Memorandum to Mr. Michael Walters, Project
700510 Manager, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Ms. Shari Stevens,
Coordinator, Biological Technical Assistance
Group, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Batavia
Landfill - Draft Ecological Assessment Work Plan,
Aj>ril 1, 1994.
P. 700511 - Memorandum to Dore LaPosta, Chief, Ground Water
700511 Management Section, U.S. EPA, Region II, from
Mr. Mario Del Vicario, Chief, Marine and Wetlands
Protection Branch, re: Draft Ecological
Assessment Workplan, Batavia Landfill Site, Town
of Batavia, Gcnesee County, New York, March 17,
199.4.
P. 700512 - Memorandum to Mr. Michael Walters, Project
700512 Manager, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
Emergency and Remedial Response -Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Ms. Shari Stevens,
Coordinator, Biological Technical Assistance
Group, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Biological
Technical Assistance Group (BTAG) Review of Draft
Ecological Assessment Workplan for the Batavia
Landfill Superfund Site, March 9, 1994.
Note: The documents listed on the attached index for the Batavia
Landfill Administrative Record file for Operable Unit 2 (OU2) are
hereby incorporated into this Administrative Record file for
.Operable Unit 1 (OU1) by reference.
10
-------
01/31/94 Indtx Chronological Ordtr Page: 1
BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Docuaants
Bnnaant Muaber: MT-002-1902 To 1902 Date: / /
Title: (Letter recaaaending consideration of Plan a fro* tit* Batevia Landfill site Proposed rim)
Typt: COtXESPQNDEieE
Category: 10.1.0.0.0 Caaaanes and Responses
Author: Peterson, Janet: none
teeipfent: Halters. Michael A.: US EPA
r: iAT-002-1903 To 1903 Date: / /
Title: (Letter providing COM** on the tatevle Lendflll Propoeed Plan end iiiiepanJIng extenelon
of the Mter line on KelMV >oed)
Type: COMESPONDENCE
Cttegory: 10.1.0.0.0 Caeaent* end Recpome*
Author: Betters, Peul 0.: reeident
teciplent: Hellers, Nicheel A.: US EPA
Doa»ent Muter: MT-002-1925 To 1926 Oete: / /
Title: (Public Notice:) The united Stitet EnvironMnUl Protection Agency Invites Public
on the Proposed Plen for the •etevieLendfill Superfund Site in latevie. New York
Type: COKRESPOMDENCE
Category: 10.3.0.0.0 Public Notlce(s)
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
DocuHnt MuBfaer: IAT-002-1927 To 1932 Oete: / /
Title: letevie Landfill, Batavia, New York, Fact Sheet
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 10.6.0.0.0 Fact Sheets and Press Releases
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
01/31/94 - Indtx Chronological Ordtr tag*: 2
•ATAVJA UUBF1U SITE OoeUBtnta
r: 1AT-OG2-1W9 To 1944 pat*: / /
Title: (Llat of (mm* and addrMM*)
Type: OTHER
Cattgory: 10.9.0.0.9 fettle Corraapondanc*
Author: nont: nan*
taclplant: mt: nont
Oocwant ftflbtr: MT-001-0615 To 0654 Date: 09/26/90
Titlt: Haw York Stat* Dapcrtaant of Environaantal Cona«rvat1on Ra*oure« Conaarvitlon Raeowry Act
O.C.I.A.) Opan Dtap Invantory Grotftd Wattr Quality Evaluation
1?
Typa: REPORT
Category: 2.2.0.0.0 Saoplfne and Analyslt Data/Chain of Custody
Author: Clark, Thacdor* D.: Own Gao«elanc« Corporation
tacipltnt: Mosanehuek, Nonaan M.: Otnn Gaoacianc* Corporation
Deeuacnt Mvater: MT-001-0316 To 0341 Data: 02/17/83
Tltlt: Rtvim of Analytical Data fraai tha latavla Landfill. Satavia, Mm York
Typ*: PLAN
Cattgory: 1.6.0.0.0 Sit* Idanttftcatlen torraapondanca
Author: none: Frad C. Hart AssoeiatM
•aelpiant: nona: non*
OoeuMRt H\*t*r: MT-001-1890 To 1904 Data: 08/01/84
Tftla: taaadlal InvMtlgation at tatavia Tour, Landfill, tatavi*, tew York
Typ*: REPORT
Cattgory: 5.5.0.0.0 Mr* Plan
Author: kodaan, Slam I.: W. Jnductrits, Inc.
Raclpitnt: nont: nan*
-------
01/31/9* Index Chronological Order Page: 3
•ATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Docuaenta
r: MT-002-T397 To 1*27 Date: 06/09/8*
Title: Adainiatratiwe Order. Index Ho. CCTCtA-40201, In the Hatter of ML IndUatriea, Inc.
Typt: LEGAL DOCUMEWT
Category: 7.3.0.0.0 Adiinfatrattve Order*
Author: Owl ing, 11 chard T.: US EPA
•eciptant: Nontanari, Fred V.t ML Induatriea. Inc.
Oocuaant Nueber: 1AT-OC2-H51 To U51 Data: 06/30/8*
Tftle: (Chock for S42.973.00)
Type: OTHER
Category: 7.8.0.0.0 Enforceaent Correspondence
Author: Uatt. John A.: ML Induatriaa, Inc.
laeipiant: none: US EPA
Oocuaant Mufeer: 1AT-001-1M9 To 1608 Data: 01/18/85
Title: Evaluation of laafdamial yell Saapling Oata from Satavia Landfill, latavia. New Tort
Type: PLAN
Category: 3.2.0.0.0 Saapling and Analyai* Data/Chain of Cuatedy Fonaa
Author: Capuano, Hicholaa W.: HJS Corporation
•aeipient: none: US EPA
• *•••»•»•••*•••»••••••••••••••• •••**••*•••*••••** ••••••••••••••*i> ••••*»•**•**•• w •»•* •* ••*•»**•••• •••>
Ooeuajant Huabar: BAT-001-1609 To 1628 Date: 03/U/85
Title: Evaluation of teeidantial Well Saapling Data fro* Mtavia Landfill. Satavfa, Hew York
Type: PLAN
Category: 3.2.0.0.0 SaapUng and Analyaia Data/Chain of Cuatody Form
Author: Capuano. •Icholaa W.: MUS Corporation
laeipiant: none: US EPA
-------
01/31/94 Infcx Chronological Ordar rag*: 4
8ATAVIA UUCF1LL SITE Docuaanta
r: IAT-002-1904 To 1924 Data: 04/01/85
Tftl*: Cevuilty lalatlona Man, ftatavia Landfill Site, Aanaaaa Cowrty. km York
Typ»: KM
Otagory: 10.2.0.0.0 Cnaauiity talatlont Plan
Author: Nayar, «flt»rt. J. rfr.j •« Cerperatfen
•aeipiant: nont: III EM
BAT-002-1883 To 1883 Parent: MT-002-1882 Data: 06/20/86
Titla: (Meus Article:) Ona Tast Chous Excess Mater Contaarfnation
Typa: CORRESPONOENCE
Catagory: 10.1.0.0.0 Coenwits and Rtaponaa*
Author: Pfalxar, Marilyn: ftatavtt Daily Hewa
lac {plant: nont: none
Doctaent Nuaber: IAT-001-1874 To 1889 Data: 07/01/86
Titla: Uorfc Han for Additional Studies at tha tatavia Towi Landfill, tatavia. Net* York
Typa: PLAN
Catagory: 3.3.0.0.0 Work Plan
Author: E1CO: ENSECO
Recipient: none: IL Industries, Inc.
Docuavit Muater: •AT-001-1629 To 1643 Date: 04/28/88
Title: Caa« Harrative (and Project Marrativaa from April 28, 1988, to Auguat 25, 1968, for the ftatcvia
Landfill site)
Typa: OTHER
Catagory: 3.2.0.0.0 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Fora*
Author: McCarthy, Elizabeth J.: BSECO
Recipient:
-------
01/31/94 Index Chronological Order
MTAV1A LAWFUL SITE
r: BAT-002-1U5 To 1160 Oat*: 02/15/89
Title: Quarterly tasting and Analysis of Surfaca and Oroundaeter at tiw Toan of Batavia Sanitary
landfill
Type: KKKT
Category: 6.3.0.0.0 State Coordination Carraapondance
Authors Klearen, Donovan l.i Advanced titrtrr>a»u»l Scrvlew, Inc.
KiAtU. Kw«n E.i OoVw^^d tmlron^ntal S*rv
-------
01/31/94 Index Chronological Order tag*: 6
•ATAVIA LANDFIU. SITE Documenta
t BAT-001-0027 To 0027 . Date: OJ/17/89
Tltl«: (Letter forwarding the attached copy of the Town of latavla Sanitary Landfill aroundwtar
Monitoring ••port)
Type: CORtESraOEllCE
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 Background - KM and other Information
Author: Vutaan. June C.: Tow of Batavia
Nctpfent: Kteda, Edward D.: KT Dept of Environment*! Coneervation
Attached: UT-001-0028
Huaber: IAT-001-0043 To 0058 Parent: IAT-001-0042 Date: 06/09/89
tS
Title: Ouirterly Saapling and Analyaia of Surface and Ground Uater at the TOMR of latavia Landfill
Type: tEPORT
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 laekground - tOU and other information
Author: NcMahon. Paul T.: Advanced Environaantal Service*. Inc.
Sfapcon, •onnie J.: Advanced Environaanul Services, Inc.
Recipient: none: TOM of Satavia
nt auabtr: IAT-001-0042 To 0042 Date: 06/16/89
Title: (Letter forwarding the attached Tom of Batavia Sanitary Landfill Groundwater Monitoring leport)
Type: COtUSKMOENCE
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 tockground • KOU and other Information
Author: vuka*n, June C.: Tom of latavia
Recipient: Ciedt, EdMrd 0.: NT Oept of Environmental Comervation
Attached: 1*7-001-00*3
Doeuaant Number: IAT-002-1793 To 1801 Parent: IAT-002-1792 Date: 06/50/89
Title: Preliminary Baalth Aiataammit for Satavia Landfill
Type: MJU
Category: 8,1.0.0.0 ATSM Health Hiaiaamanta
Author: none: n Dept of teelth
•acipiant: none: Agent, for Toxic Subatancea I Diaaaaa taoiatry UTSDR)
-------
.11/31/94 Index Chronological Order fage: 7
BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Oecuaant*
r: 1AT-002-17V2 To 1792 Oat*: 07/12/89
TltUt CNeas forwarding the ceapleted PrattBinery Maelt* Aaaaaaaant for the latavfa Landfill afte)
Type: COME
Category: 8.1.0.0.0 ATSBt Health Ajiaiaaant*
Author: Johnson, Danfe*? Agaric j for Tcxic Sktetwcw ft BitMM t^istry (ATSX)
••Isen, IKllfM: *>^r-/ for Toxic feixUncw & DfsMM i^Utry (ATSM)
tecfplvit: Bonulu, 6*»rdo: US EPA
Attached: IAT-002-1793
OocuMnt Muter: BAT-001-0060 To 0079 Parent: IAT-001-0059 Oat«: 09/13/89
«/"
Title: Ouerterty faapllno end Anelycls of turfeee and OromdMeter et the Tom of tetevia Sanitary
Landfill
Type: tEPOKT
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 iacksroird • IOU and other inforaation
Author: Klaeran, Donovan L.: Advanced Environaantal Service*, Inc.
McMahon, »aul T.: Advanced Envtronaantal Service*, Inc.
lacipient: none: loan of tetavia - .
: BAT-001-0059 To 0059 Cat*: 09/18/89
Title: (Latter forwardtng the attached copy of the Tow* of Satavfa Sanitary Landfill SroundMter
Nonitoring leport)
Type: COKRESI>ONDENCE
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 tackgrowd - ROtA and other Inforaation
Author: Vutaaan, Jme C.: Town of Batavie
lacipient: rieda, Edward 0.: «T »apt of Environacntal Comarvation
Attached: MT-001-0060
Ntiaber: IAT-002-2242 To 2250 Data: 09/24/89
Title: Ml tret Jon of firaund yatar Saapla* for Natal* Analysi*
Type: riMKIAL/TECailOU.
Category: 11.4.0.0.0 Technical Source*
Author: Barcelona, Michael J.: Illinoi* State Mter Survey
•uU, lobert W.: US EPA
•aeipient: none: none
-------
01/31/94 Index Chronological Order Pag,. 8
MTAVU UUDFILL SITE Docuaenta
r: RAT-002-0659 To 0661 Bate: 09/27/89
Tltl*: (Letter coaaanttng en tfee Draft laaedial Inveattgatlen Rapart for tha iatavia Landfill alta)
Type: COM!
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 •••dial Investigation O
Author: Khali I, «.: «T Dapt of EnvfronMntal Conaervatton
taeiplant: Sehick, lobart U.s IT 0«pt of Environmental conaervatfon
Ooeuaent Number: SAT-OOI-OCei To 0098 Parant: IAT-001-0080 Datt: 12/04/89
Titla: Quarterly Saapling and Analytia of Surface and CroundMatar at tha Tow of latavla Sanitary
Landfill ,
i?
Typa: KFORT
Catagory: 1.1.0.0.0 lackoromd - tOU and other information
Author: Klaaran, Donovan L.: Advanced Environaantal Service*, Inc.
HeHahon. Paul T.: Advanced Environmental Sarviea*, Inc.
none: Tom of ftatavia
Ooaawit Ikater: IAT-001-0060 To 0080 • Oate: 12/06/89
Titla: (Letter forwarding the attached copy of tha Towi of iatavia Sanitary Landfill CromdMeter
Monitoring laport)
Type: OOUtESPOaDEMCE
Catagory: 1.1.0.0.0 lackflramd • KM and other information
Author: VUkaan, June C.: Town of iatavia
Kacipiant: Kieda. EdMard 0.: IT Dapt of Environmental Canaarvation
Attached: IAT-001-0081
Oocuaant IMtoir; MT-002-0662 To 0667 , Data: 12/26/89
Titla: {Letter containing BTSOEC'a egarnirta on tha Draft Raaadial Invaatigation laport for tha tatavia
Landfill aita)
Typa:
Catagory: 3.5.0.0.0 Raaadial Invaatigation Corraapondanea
Author: Sehick. Robert W.t aTT Dapt of Environmantal Comarvatlen
taeiplant: ttaltera, Miehaal A.: US E*A
-------
01/31/94 Indue Chronological Order Peg*: 9
•ATAVIA LAJBFILL SITE Docuaent*
: MT-001-0099 To 0101 Oat*: 12/26/W
Title: (Letter forwarding BTSDEC'* coement* en the latavii Landfill Draft Remedial Inveatigatton
Import)
Typ*: CORRESPOJDEMCE
Category! 1.1.0.0.0 Background • tOU and other Information
Recipient: Schick, tebart W.: «T D«pt of Environmental Contervetion
Uiltart. Niehaal A.: US EPA
Docwant Milter: IAT-001-0102 To 0102 Data: 01/03/90
*/
Titla: (Latter fowarding tha attaehad copy of tha TOMI of latavfa Sanitary Landfill GrowdMtar Won it or ing
laport)
Typa: CMUSPOIOEIICE
Catagory: 1.1.0.0.0 Sackgrowd • ICXA and other information
•acipiant: Kiada, Edward 0.: NT Dapt of Environvantal Canaarvation
Vukaan, *r* C.: Town of Satavia
Attaehad: SAT-001-0103
Oocuatnt *M*r: IAT-001-0118 To 0129 Parant: SAT-001-0117 Data: 09/15/90
Titla: Quarterly Saapling and Analycia of Surface and Crounduater at th* Town of Batavia Sanitary
Landfill
Typa: REPORT
Catagory: 1.1.0.0.0 Background • RCRA and other inforvetion
Author: Klaaren, Donovan I.: Advanced Environmental Services, Inc.
NeMahon, Paul T.: Advanced Environmental Service*, Inc.
tec < pi em: none: Tom of Satevia
: SAT-001-0117 To 0117 Date: 03/19/90
Title: (Letter forMarding the attached copy of the Teen of Satavia Sanitary Landfill
Nonitaring Report)
Type: CORRESPQHDE1ICE
. Catagory: 1.1.0.0.0 Background - ROW and other inf oration
Author: Vitaen, June C.: TOMH of Satevia
Recipient: Kiada, Edward D.: VT Dcpt of Environaantal ContenrBtien
Attached: BAT-001-0118
-------
01/31/9* Into Chronological Order - Pag*: 10
•ATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Docueants
: IAT-001-0130 To 0135 Date: 03/22/90
Title: (Letter forwarding • copy of ffeld net** edited fro* Advanced EnvfranBontel Service*' lurch
15. 1990, report)
Type: COtRESPONDEMtt
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 leckground - ROW end other information
Author: Vufcaan, June C.J: TOM> of Bativi*
Melplcnt: K<«eh. EdMrd O.I KT 0«pt of Emriromwital ConMrvvtfen
IAT-001-01J7 To 0153 Porwrt: IAT-001-01M 0«t«: 04/04/90
S
Titlt: Am*l S«*pUno and Anoly«<« of Surface and CroundMttr at th« Totn of Batavla Sanitary Landfill
Typa: IEPORT
Cattgory: 1.1.0.0.0 tackgrowd • tou and other Information
Author: Klaaren, Donovan L.: Advanced Environaantal Services, Inc.
MeKahcn, Paul T.t Advanced Envlronaentil Servicee, Inc.
Recipient: rant: TOMI of latayia
Document Mueber: iAT-001-0136 To 01S6 Date: 04/06/90
Title: (Letter forwarding the attached copy of the TOOT of latavi* Sanitary. Landfill Sroundwater
Monitoring Raport)
Type: CORKESPOHDENCE
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 lackground • ROW and other information
Author: Vukaan, June C.: TOM of latevia
Recipient: Kieda, Edward D.: IT Oept of Environaanul Comervation
Attached: IAT-001-0137
Docuaent Muafaer: IAT-001-0553 To 0614 Date: 05/01/90
Title: Advanced Enylronaent Services, Laboratory Quality Assurance and Ouility Control Manual
Type: PLAM
Citeooryt 2.1.0.0.0 Sailing and AnelyaU Plane
Author: NeMenon,.Paul T.:: Advanced Environaantal Services, Inc.
Recipient: none: none
-------
01/31/94 Index Chronological Ordtr Peg*: 11
•AT AVI A LAWFUL SITE Docuaanta
r: BAT-OK-Ua To 1450 Date: 06/25/90
Titlt: Adainiatrative Ordtr on Cement, Index Me. II, CEKLA • 90226, In the (latter of Betevta Landfill
Type: LEGAL DOCUOT , /
Category: 7.3.0.0.0 Administrative Orders <~^
Author: Sidaaon-Ertstoff. Ct US EPA
Recipient: various: vvrieu* partiM aMociatcd iritit the sttc
DeexMnt HuriMr: MT-002-066B To 0700 D«t«: Oft/OS/90
T(tt«: (L«tt*r forward!no coHMnVoutlining taehnieat dtficianeiat and dfterapaneiat in tha taaadlal
Invaattgatian Itport datad April 1969)
Type: COMESPONDEHCE
. Catagory: 3.5.0.0.0 laacdial Investigation CornMpendanc*
Author: Nttrccn. Carolt: US EPA
taeiptcnt: Tovog. Jay F.: ML Induatria*. Inc.
: IAT-002-0701 To 0707 Dat*: 09/20/90
Titla: (Lattar forwarding tha latavia Landfill taapllng Plan, 62A'« raapenM to couwnts on Targ«t
Co*pnnd», a achadula of aetivitiaa and Wall II-* Propoaad AtaataHnt Procaduraa)
Typa: CORIESPOMDEMCE
Catagory: 3.5.0.0.0 laaadial Investigation Corraapondanea
Author: Toung, Jay F.: ML Industries, Inc.
Kaelpiant: Halters, Michael A.: US EPA
Doojaent Mabar: IAT-001-0155 To 0173 Parent: BAT-001-0154 0«te: 09/26/90
Title: Ouerterly Saapling and Analysis of Surface end CroundMter at the TOM of latavia Landfill
Type: REPORT
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 Background • BOA and other infometian
Author: Let tin. Sera Id Ł.: Advanced Emriranaantal tanrtcaa. Inc.
HcMahon; Paul T.: Advanced Enrf mental Servicea, Inc.
•eelpiant: none: Toon of Batavia
-------
01/31/9* Index Chronological Ordtr P*g«: 12
MTAVIA LANDFILL SITE
: RAT-001-Om To 015* . Date: 09/28/90
Title: (Letter fxTMerdtna tfce attached copy of the Teen of latavis Sanitary Landfill CreundMeter
Monitoring Report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 tackground - tatA and other Inforaation
Author: Vutasen, Ana C.: Town of tatavia
toeipiant: Klada, EdMard D.t NT Mpt of Environaamal Conaw^ation
Attadiad: BAT-001-0155
OoriJMnt Mtfter: •AT-002-0708 To 0708 Data: 10/05/90
Titlt: (Lattar atatina that EPA HilUnot raviaw HL Induttrias' Work Plan for Total and Solubla Natala
Ctudiaa and Surface S*d
-------
01/31/9* Indue Chronological Order Page: 13
BATAVIA LAIOFILL SITE Docuaants
: BAT-002-1161 To 1162 Date: 11/16/90
Tftlt: (Letter HBMirlrlng tiaannu by irSDEC and mm on tfce totavia Landfill eite draft Saapling
•Ian)
Type:
Category: 6.3.0.0.0 Statt Coordination
Author: Seherf. Stavw N.: NT 0«pt of EnvironMntal ConMrvation
lacipfcnt: yaltars, Michael A.: us EPA
Oocwnt Nuat»r: iAT-002-0711 To 0716 Oatt: 11/26/90
«'
Title: (Letter containlne EPA's coownts en ttt« Saaplina end Hetilt Anelycea Wort Plan for the latevia
Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 taMdial Investioatien Correspondent*
Author: Peterson. Carole: US EPA
lecipient: Young, Jay f.: ML Industries, Inc.
DocUBent Nuaber: MT-001-1905 To 199* Date: 12/01/90
title: Work Plan, Suppleaental GroundMter and Surface Sediavrt Saapltng. latavia Landfill Site,
Batavia, Haw fork
Type: PLAN
Category: 3.3.0.0.0 Wort Plan
Author: none: fioldberg-Zoino & Associate*
lecipient: none: H. Industries, Inc.
DocuBint «u*er: SAT-002-0717 To 0717 Date: 12/27/90
Title: (Letter ferMerdina revised copies of the Sampling and Metal Analysis Work Plan for the Batavia
Landfill site)
Type: CORXESPQBDE1ICE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 teawdial Investigation
Condition: MISSING ATTACMNEirr
Author: Young, Jay F.I H. Industries, Inc.
tacipiant: Walters, Michael A.: US EPA
-------
01/31/9* Index Chronological Order • Page: 14
•ATAVIA UUBF1LL SITE Docuaant*
OeeuHnt Mater: BAT-001-0103 To 0116 tarant: IAT-001-0102 Data: 12/31/90
Title: Quarterly Saapline and Analyaia of Surfaca and SroundMater at the Toon of tatavia Sanitary
Undfill
Typt: KPOIT
CKtgory: 1.1.0.0.0 tockgrowd • tOU wri otiw Inforwmtten
lutbort Uttfn. tentd E.: tAnnutA tnvlrorwrrul Scrvfeas. Inc.
HeMahcn, taut T.: Advanced EnvlrflnMntal IwvieM. Inc.
••cfpicnt: nent: lam of Batavia
OocuHnt Htater: IAT-002-U52 loJ7U Date: 01/01/91
TftU: HMlth Effects A»*M*Mnt Ummmiy Tab It* - Annual FT/1991
Typt: REPORT
Catagory: 8.0.0.0.0 Ntatth Aaaaaaawna
Author: nena: US EPA
tocipiant: nena: US EPA
Ooojant lluafaar: EAT-001-1559 To 1588 Data: 02/01/91
TitU: Clatter forwarding th« Addenda to tte laboratory Quality Asaurarca Project *lan for analyafa
of caaplM fro« tha Satavia Landfill site)
Type: COtUSPONDENCE
Category: 3.1.0.0.0 Sampling and Analyait Plan (SAP)
Author: Sta«rm, Karan N.: OW( Corporation
toctpiant: Haint, Thoiaa *.: SZA Gaoanrfronaantal of Haw Tork
Mnaent Mutter: MT-002-0718 To 0722 Data: 02/M/91
Title: (Latter forwarding EPA'c caa*anta on a«±Blttad ravUlom to Sacttona 2, 3, 4. and 5 of tha
Draft ftatavta Landfill taaadlal InwMtigation taport)
Type: OOUESKHDEKE
Catagory: 5.S.0.0,0 laaadlal Invwtfgatten Corraapondanca
Author: P«ter»«n, Carola: US EPA
•aclpiant: Teung. Jay F.: IL tnduatrfaa. Inc.
-------
01/31/9* Indue Chronological Order Pege: 15
•ATAV1A LAHDFILL SITE Document*
: BAT-002-0773 To 0724 tat*:.02/12/91
Titlt: (Letter discussing Issues to be resolved before til* revised draft Satavie Landft It Supplemental
firoundueter and Sediment Saapl ing Uorfc Plan can be approved)
Type:
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 leBadial tnvMtfoatten Corr«ipcr*<»ic»
Author: "wttrMn, Carol*: U* EPA
toelpiant: Totf«, Jay F.: It Induttrfca, Inc.
Document Nuaber: SAT-002-0725 To 0727 Date: 02/28/91
Title: (Letter forMarding coaaents on the Satavia Sampling and Metals Analysis Wort Plan)
Type: COUESPONDEMCE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 ftasadial Investigation Correspondence
Author: Heine, Thoaes «.: 6ZA Ceoenvironaental of Hew York
lecipient: Young, Jay F.i Ml Industries, Inc.
Oocueent Muter: SAT-002-0729 To 0730 Parent: SAT-002-0728 Date: 02/28/91
Title: (Letter responding to EPA's consents on the Satevla Saepling and Metals Analysts Work Plan)
Type: COMESPOWENCE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 leeedial Investigstion Correspondence
Author: Heine, Thorns ».: 6ZA GeoenvironMntel of Hew Tort
Ka^ff, Rcyaend L.: GZA GeoenvironsenMl of HeM York
Recipient: Young, Jay F.: ML Industries, Inc.
Document Ikaber: IAT-002-0731 To 0732 Parent: IAT-002-0728 0«te: 02/28/91
Title: (Letter forMarding ETC's EPA Quarterly OP Feifueeme Evaluttion Study Scores fuHery)
Type: COtltESPOHDEJICE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 teaadial Inwestigation Correspondence
Condition: MSSIH6 ATTACNNEin
Author: leduker,'Stephen 0.: Eiw1rons«nt«l Testing t Certification Corporation (ETC)
lecipient: Helm. TKOMS l.t GZA fieosnvtrenaental of Hew York
-------
01/31/94
Indue Chronological Order
BATAV1A LANDFILL SITE
F»«e: 16
: MT-008-0728 To 0728
Title: (Letter for»er*nj responses to EPA's Mcond Mt of
the latavia Landfill SaapUng Metals Analysis Work Plan)
Oete: 03/05/91
ditid February 12. 1991, for
Type:
Category; 3.5.0.0.0 taasdial Investigation
Author: Toung, iff F.: ML Industries, Inc.
Recipient: Walters. Michael A.: US EPA
Attached: UT-002-0729 IAT-002-0731
OocuHnt Htfter: SAT-001-16U
Title: iMidential Wells Svplina tor tatavia Landfill Site
Type: DATA
Category: 3.2.0.0.0 Sailing and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Pens
Author: none: CessMCheai
Date: 03/21/91
Docuaant fcaber: IAT-002-1955 To 2241
Title: title OniiSMnt Guidance for Superfund-Voluae It Nuaen Health Evaluation
guidance • ntandard Default Exposure Factors11 Interi* Final
Type: REPORT
Category: 11.0.0.0.0 Technical Sources and Guidance Docuatnts
Author: none: US EPA
tecipient: none: US EM
Oate: 03/25/91
I SuppleMntil
: IAT-002-2251 To 2253
Health Evaluation Manual. Suppt
Title: (Letter concerning
Factors*
Type: CamUfODOKX.
Category: 11.5.0.0.0 Technical Sources and Guidance Oecuasnt
Author: Fields. Tfsothy Jr.: US EPA
Recipient: varioui: US EPA
Attached: IAT-002-2254
•I Gui
Oate: 03/25/91
: •Standard Default
-------
01/31/94 index Chronological Ordtr Page: 17
RATAVIA LANDFILL SITE
nnrument number: SAT-002-Z254 To 2278 Parent: SAT-002-2251 Date: 03/25/91
Title: Risk AJUlament guidance For Superfund Volume 1: Ruaan Health Evaluation Manual - Supplemental
guidance, •Standard Default Exposure Factors" - Interim Final
Type: REPORT
Category: 11.5.0.0.0 Technical Sources and fiuidanp* tlniiiaMnt Corraapandann
Author: nor*: US EPA
Recipient: none: US EPA
: iAT-002-0753 To 0734 Datt: 03/29/91
title: (Letter approving the St^pleMntal Brounduater and Surface Sediment Stapling ttork Plan for
the latevia Landfill cite)
Typi: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 Reaedtal Investigation Correapendence
Author: Peteraan. Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Young, Jay F.: ML Indu»trie». Inc.
Document Miaber: tAT-002-0735 To 0736 Date: 04/02/91
Title: (Letter ditcuaalng laauaa to be reaolved regarding the reviaed Batevla Landfill Remedial Investigation
Report)
Type: CORRESPOMDEIICE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 Remedial Investigation Correspondence
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Young. Jay F.: IL Industries, Inc.
fiocuaent Muster: RAT-001-0175 To 0227 Parent: RAT-001-017* Date: 04/10/91
Title: Annual Sampling and Analysis of Surface and SroundMater Sanitary Landfill
Type: REPORT
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 lackground • RCRA and other information
Author: Lattin, Qerald E.t Advanced Environamntal Services, Inc.
HcNahen, Paul T.: Advanced Environmental Services, Inc.
Recipient: none: Town of Satevla
-------
01/31/94 Index Chronological Order Peg*: 18
•ATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Docuaents
: MT-001-0174 To 0174 * Data: 04/12/91
Title: Uetter fonavdfng a copy of the Tom of latavia Sanitary Landfill Oroundtfoter Hani tor ing
leport)
Typt: COKRESPCMDEXC
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 Background - KXA and other fnfonaetion
Author: Vutaaan, June C.: Town of latavia
tecipiant: Kieds, Edward 0.: MY Oapt of Environaantal Conservation
Attached: BAT-001-0175
Pocuaant Muaber: BAT-002-0653 To 0658 Oat*: 04/18/91
Title: (Letter aufaaritting raaponaea to EPA'i cosMents on the Batavia Landfill loaadial Invaatigation
teport)
Typt: COKKESPCNDENCE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 taeadlil Investigation Correapondanee
Author: Heine. Those* «.: 6ZA Stotnvironaental of New York
Kaapff, tvfmoni 1.: 62A 6eo*nvironaant«l of B«w York
Recipient: Young. Jay F.: W. Industries. Inc.
Oocuaent Kuaber: IAT-002-0737 To 0738 Date: 04/26/91
Title: (Letter requesting clarification of an unclear phone atingi and discussing HL Industries'
at the latavia Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPOHDEHCE
Catagory: 3.5.0.0.0 loaadial Investigation Corraapondaneo
Author: Youne, Jay F.: ML Indumiaa, Inc.
laeipiant: Walttrt. Niehaal A.: US EPA
Pnriawit Ihjaber: BAT-001-065$ To 0658 Date: 05/09/91
Title: (Letter serving as the first bi-Meekly progress report for the Batavia Landfill site)
Type: COUESPOMDENCE
Category: 2.7.0.0.6 Reejovel leaponea Correapandance
Condition: MISS IK ATTACMCMT
Author: Popha*. Willie* •.: •laaland i Bouck Engineers
Becipient: Henaon. Jack O.t US EPA
-------
01/31/94 Index Chronological Order Paoc: 19
BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Document*
r: •AT-001-0659 To 0662 Oatt: 05/13/91
Tltlt: (Letter serving M t*» ascend bl-Meekly progrtM import for the Batavia Landfill site)
Type: COttESWWEBCE
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 teaevsl IssponM Correspondence
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: PaphaB, Williw I.r flaslcnd 4 Bouck Engineers
Bacipiant: Baraen. Jack 0.: 18 EPA
: BAT-002-1163 To 1184 Date: 05/16/91
«"
Title: (Letter forwarding attached results of analysis of aqueous saaples received April 16 and 17.
1991)
Type: CCMESPONDENCE
Category: 6.3.0.0.0 Stete Coordination Correspondence
Author: Ctnecki. Deborah J.: Becra Envtronaental
tec1plant: ftyan, John: NT Dept of Enviruraajntal Conservation .
Docuscnt Nuaber: BAT-001-0663 To 0663 Date: 05/17/91
Title: (Handwritten letter forwarding a aap to help delineate the boundaries for area "A" at the
Batavia Landfill site)
Type: COUESPONDENCE
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 Beaovsl Besponse Correspondence
Condition: MISSING ATTACNNENT
Author: Anderson, Michael 6.: Blasland t Bouck Engineers
teclpient: Walters, Michael A.: US EPA
Becuaant Buster: BAT-001-0664 To 0691 Date: 05/30/91
Title: (Letter serving as the third bi-Meekly progress report for the Batevia Landfill site)
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 teaovel Besponse Correspondence
Author: rophs*,, William B.: Blasland « Bouck Engineers
teeipient: Bsraan, Jack D.t US EPA
-------
01/31/9* . Indax Chronologic*! Ordtr Pio«: 20
MTAVIA LANDFILL SITE
: MT-002-0739 To 0741 Data: 05/30/91
Titla: (Lattar raapondtng to laauaa MMch atill naad raaolutien aftar a raviaM of Soldbarg-Zotno
and Aaaociataa' raaponaa to EPA coaaanta dated April 2. 1991)
Typa: CORRESPONDENCE
Catagory: 3.9.0.0.0 Raavdial -Invntifatifln Cerrwpendwie*
Author: ^•t«r««t. Cvel*: US EPA
l«cipi«rrt: Touig, Jay P.I BL Induttrln, Inc.
Oeoawit Kwber: IAT-002-0742 To 0742 Oat*: 06/03/91
Titta: (Lattar aecapting a naw adMdula for tha §»*•!•»fan dit* of tha Kaiadial InvMtigation Kaport)
Typa: CORRESPONDENCE
Catagery: 3.5.0.0.0 laavdial Invaatfgatian Cerraipondanea
Author: Pataraan, Carela: US EPA
lacipiant: Tow. Jay F.: ML Induttriaa, Inc.
nnriawit Neater: SAT-CC2-1185 To 1217 Data: 06/03/91
Titla: H.T.t. OapartMnt of Enyfronaantat Conaarvatien, Oayaiiaant of Hazardous Uaata RaMdtatlon,
•uraau of Sita Control. Analytical Kaport (for tha Batavia Landfill aita)
Typa: REPORT
Catagory: 6.3.0.0.0 Stata Coordination Corraapondmea
Author: Scharf, Stavan N.: HT Oapt of Envirenaantal Comarvation
Woodward, F.: VI Oapt of Environaantal Cenaarvation
•aeipiant: nona: nona .
Oocuaant Nuafaar; 1AT-CO2-121S To 12*0 Data: 06/07/91
Titla: (Lattar forwarding tfca attaehad raaulta of aaapling parforaad in April 1991, at tha latavla
Landfill aita)
Typa:
Catagory: 6.3.0.0.0 Stata Coordination Corraapondanea
Author: Scharf, Stavan N.: IT Oapt of tnvironaantal Comarvatlon
tacipiant: Waltara, Nlehaal A.t US EPA
-------
01/31/94 Index Chronological Order Page: 21
•ATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Document*
Document Number: mM-001-0228 To 0241 Pate: 06/17/91
Title: Quarterly Sampling and Anelyii* of Surface •roundMSter • Sanitary Landfill
Type: REPORT
Category: 1.1.0.0.0 Background - RCRA and other information
Author: verlou*: Advanced Environmental Services, Inc.
Recipient: none: City of Batavia
Document Number: SAT-001-0692 To 0695 Datt: 06/21/91
Titlt: (Lttter serving a* the fourth b1-weekly progress report for the Batavia Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Cattgory: 2.7.0.0.0 Removal Response Correspondence
Condition: KISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Popham. William I.: Bla*land I Bouck Engineers
Recipient: Harmon. Jack B.: US EPA
document Number: BAT-001-1647 To 1651 Date: 06/24/91
Tltlt:
-------
01/31/94
Index Chronological Order
•ATAVIA LAJBFILL SITE
r: BAT-001-OM6 To 0767
Title: (Letter earring as the fifth bi-Meekly
Type: COttESPCaDEMCE
Category; 2.7.0.0.0 Removal Icsponsa
Author: Pcphaa, VilltaB •.: aUasland ft Bouck
tecipient: Karaon, 4ack P.: UK EM
Date: 07/15/91
for the Batavia Landfill site)
tr: BAT-001>0768 To 0768 0«t«: 07/15/91
Title: (Lttur-forMrding th« •pproved Modification to the Work Plan for th* Batavia Landfill aita)
Typ«: CORKESPaNDENCE
Catagory: 2.7.0.0.0 laaeval Kasponca Corraspendanct
Condition: MISSING ATTACtMEKT
Author: ••tarsan, Carola: US EPA
tacipiant: Earlay, Kavin N.: Unisys torporstion
PnriJMnt Mu*»r: MT-001-1652 To 1738
Titla: latavis Landfill feperfund Sita/Projact «o. 60*.03
Tyaa: DATA
Category: 3.2.0.0.0 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Form
Author: various: Advanced Environments! Services, Inc.
tacipient: none: Unisys Corporation
Date: 07/17/91
Pocuasm •usbtr: IAT-001-0769 To 0788 Date: 07/29/91
Title: (Letter serving aa th* sixth bi-weekly progress report for the latavia Landfill site)
Type: COUESraOENCE
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 lemnal leepons* Correapondanea
Author: Fophssi, Villlae I.: tlaalsnd A teuct engineer*
lecipiant: Bamon. Jack O.s US EM
-------
01/317*4
Index Chronological Order
•ATAVIA UUBMLL SITE Docuaants
: 23
r: MT-001-0789 To 0790
Tftlei (Letter serving aa the seventh bi
Bate: OB/02/91
ly progress report for the eetevia Landfill eft*)
Type:
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 taaovel taper** Correspondence
Condition: NISSINC ATTACHMENT
Author: Pophaa, VilUa* •.: Slasland t leuek
locipiont: (taraon, Jack 0.: IS EPA
r: IAT-001-0791 To 0793
0«t«: 08/29/91
Tltl«: (L«tt»r Mrvfng at th« eighth bi-weekly pragreM report for the tatevia Landfill site)
Type: COmESKHDENCE
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 leeoval Retponee Correapandenee
Condition: MISSING ATTACtWENT
Author: »opha«, Willie* I.: llesland t louek Engineers
leeipient: Hanaan, Jack D.: US EPA
Oocuaent Nuaber: SAT-001-0794 To 0795
Title: (Letter diacuufng the current *tetu» of the di»po«ition of aateriels
Landfill site acctarding to the On* teaoval Action)
Type: COUESPONDEHCE
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 lea mil teeponee Corre*pondence
Author: Earley, levin M.: Unleye Corporation
•acipient: welter*, Michael A.: US EPA
Oetc: 09/06/91
fro* th* Mtevi*
r: IAT-002-0745 To 0777
Title: (Letter forwarding EPA'e draft
Report, dated June 1991)
on the reviaed letavte Landfill
Type: CORIESPONOEXCE
Category: 3.5.0.OU> teaedial Instigation Correapondence
Author: Welters. Michael A.: US EPA
•selpient: Toung, Jay F.s ML Industries. Inc.
Date: 09/06/91
lial Investigation
-------
01/31/94 Indtx Chronological Order Paoe: 24
•ATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Deoaant*
luuaam Muter: MT-001-0796 To 0802 Date: 09/20/91
Title: (Letter earvtna as tha nfnth bl-aaakly progress report for the latavia Landfill aite)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category; 2.7.0.0.0 laaoval Reapome Corraseondance
Author: Pophaa. iHltlaa §.: Bias I and t louck Engineers
Recipient: taraon, Jack D.: US EPA
Oocuaant Nuaber: IAT-002-1113 To 1118 P»ram: IAT-002-1112 Date: 10/02/91
Title: (Letter forwarding analytical raaulta for tha laboratory analyses callacted on Auguat 28,
1991, froa two Mils at Ridgewood Village)
Type:
Cattoory: 6.3.0.0.0 State Coordination CorrMpondanee
Condition: MISSING AnACWCIIT
Author: Aaanto, Charlee J.: KT Dapt of Naalth
leeipient: verfout: iT *«tt •
Deetaant hater: IA7-OOV0603 To 0604 Date: 10/04/91
Title: (Letter announcing the Intended thipaant of iatavia Landfill tita Maataa to a aaste
facility ouuide .of aeH Tort (tata)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 Raaoval taapona* Corratponoanee
Condition: KISSING AnACttenT
Author: Pophaa, Williaa l.s Biasland C louck Eng
-------
01/31/9* Indue Chronological Ordtr Page: 25
MTAVIA LANDFILL SITE Docueants
i SAT-OG2-1112 To 1112 Date: 10/15/91
Title: (Letter forwarding (Moling result* of Mil Mrter testing conducted on August 28, 1991. notification
letters to individual haaaoMnsn attached)
Type:
Category: 6.3.0.0.0 State Coordination Correspondence
Condition: NISSJK ATTAOMENT
Author: Slock. Arthur: Agency for Toxic Substances ft Oiaeaae legiatry (ATSDK)
lecipient: Witters, Michael A.: US EM
Attached: SAT-002-1113 iAT-002-11t9 MT-002-1120
Decuaent Nuiber: 1*1-002-12*1 To *2** Date: 10/22/91
Title: (Letter fonajrding the attached analytical reaults of private net I aaaplirv perfonaad in the
vicinity of the latevia Landfill site) .
Type: COMESPOMDEHCE
Category: 6.3.0.0.0 State Coordination Correspondence
Author: Schicfc, lobert W.: «T Oept of Environaental Cenaervation
Recipient: Lynch, Kevin: US EPA •
Pocuiant Mater: UT-002-1837 To 1857 Parent: SAT-002-1836 Date: 10/22/91
Title: (Letter di*cuB*ing private nell saapling, erounofceter eontaaiination, and supplying water to
south of the letavia Landfill site)
Type: COdtESfOkDEMCE
Category: 8.3.0.0.0 Health Ansiaaiiir Correspondence
Author: Aaento. Charles J.: iT Oept of Health
teeipient: Scharf . Steven H.t NT bept of Enviromantal Conservation
Oocuaent Muabrr: UT-002-0858 To 086* Bate: 10/23/91
Title: (Letter clarifying the Interpretation of hydrcgeologic conditions In the southern portion
of the latavia.Landfill site discussed at an October 8, 1991, Meting)
Type: COJdtESPOMDEVCE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 teaedial Investigation Correspondence
Author: Mains, Those* I.: gZA Geoenvironaantal of MOM York
Kaapff, layaand L.: 6ZA Seoanvircmental of MOM York
tecipiant: Young, Jay F.: ML Industries, Inc.
-------
01/31/9* . ltd** Chronological Ordar Pagt:
MTAVIA LANDFILL SITE Oocuaants
r: SAT-001-0805 To 0807 Date: 10/28/91
Tltltt Clatttr aanrfno aa tlM tanth bl-MMkly program report for tha latavla Landfill atta)
Category; 2.7.0.0.0 ftaaoval laapona* Corraapondava
Authors Pophaa. Villta* t.t llMland t iouck
Iran. JwkP.t US EPA
Oecuwtt Htfter: IAT-001-1739 To 1806 0«tt: 10/30/91
*/
Tltlt: (Lttttr fon«rd»tr1««, Inc.
Bocuaant fcafear: IAT-001-0808 To 0809 Data: 11/01/91
Titla: (Lrttar tarvfng aa tha alavanth bl-ttaakly prograa* raport for tha Batavta Landfill alta)
Typa: COKKSraOEMCE
Catagory: 2.7.0:0.0 laaoval laaponaa Corraapondanea
Author: taphaa, tHIUaa 8.: Blaaland I Bouck Eng
-------
01/31/94
Index Chronological Order
•ATAVIA LANDFILL SITE
•age: 27
r: UT-001-Oen To 0911 Parent: •AT-001-0670 Date: 11/01/91
Title: Final Report. Batavia Landfill fcverfund Sit*, •atevia, MM York. Voluae 1 of 5
Type: REPORT
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 Reaoval Response Correspondence
Author: none: llwland t Roue* Enginaara
toeiptant: nona: vsrioua PKP*
er: IAT-001-0912 To 1231 Parant: IAT-001-0870 Data: 11/01/91
Titla: Final Rtport, latavia Lapdflll tupcrftnd Sita. tatavia. H«w York, Voluaw 2 of 5
Typa: IEPORT
Catagory: 2.7.0.0.0 Raaoval Response Correspondence
Author: none: Has I end ft louck Engineers
Recipient: none: various FUPs
r: IAT-001-1232 To 1539 Cerent: •AT-001-08TO 0«te: 11/01/91
Title: Final Report. Batavia Landfill Superfund Site, •atavia. New York. Voli«e 3 of 5
Type: REPORT
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 Raooval Response Correspondence
Author: none: •lasland ft louck Engineers
Recipient: none: various PRPs
DccuMnt Kuter: MT-001-1995 To 2011
Data: 11/01/91
Title: (Letter detailing a disagreement about the conceptual Model for groundMtar flow at the latavia
Landfill site and forwarding a copy of the »reliarfnary Conceptual Nodal of ttydrogeeloglc Conditions.
•atavia Landfill)
Typa: CORRE
Category: 3.4.0.0.0 RI Reports
Author: •etersen. Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Young« Jay F.s ML Industries. Inc.
-------
01/31/94 Index Chronoloiical Order " . Page: 28
•ATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Docuaante
: MT-002-1836 To 1836 Data: 11/01/91
Title: (Haao forwarding the irsDOM ataesaaant and recoBaandetiom to canaidar applying tartar to
toutii of the Betavia Landfill ait«>
Type:
Category: 8.3.0.0.0 aaalth >na*aa*nt Corraapondanee
Author: Block, Arthur: Agency for Toxic Subatancee ft Diaaaaa tegietry (ATSM)
Beciptant: Walter*. Michael A.: US EPA
Attached: MT-002-1837
Docuacnt auabtr: IAT-001-0810 To 0611 Date: 11/04/91
Title: (Letter serving aa the twelfth bi-M*ekly progress report for the Satavia Landfill aite)
Type: COtRESPONDEHCE
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 taaeval leaponat Correapendence
Author: Pophaa, Williaa I.: BiasIend ft Bouck Enginaera
lacipiant: aarajon. Jack D.: US EPA
: BAT-002-1245 To 1247 Date: 11/06/91
Title: (Letter dlscuasing Baapling result* for drinking eater Maple* taken October 1991, fro» raaidenca*
on Pratt toad ju*t aouth of the totevla Landfill *ite)
Type: COttESPONDEHCE
Catagory: 6.3.0.0.0 State Coordination Correapondcnca
Author: Scharf. Steven N.: NT Dapt of Environaantal Cemervation
•acipiant: Walter*, Michael A.: US EPA
Docwant auaber: BAT-001-0812 To 0845 Date: 11/08/91
Title: (Latterserving a* the thirteenth bf-Meekly prograaa report for the Satavia Landfill »ite)
Type: COttESPONDEttCE
Catagory: 2.7.0.0.0 laaovat laapona* Correapondanca
Author: •ophaa. Williaa B.t Slaaland ft Bauck Enginaara
lacipiant: toraon, Jack D.i US EPA
-------
01/31/9* Index Chronologfeal Ordtr Past:. 29
•ATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Docuaants
rt SAT-001-0846 To 0163 . tote: .11/13/91
Tltlti (Letter aervfng as the fourteenth bt-Meekly progress report for the Batsvia Landfill Bite)
Type: COmSPONDEICE
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 taaoval taaponee Correeponoanca
Author: topttM, VltllM I.: BlMlvci & leuek
taclptvit: toraen. Jack O.t US EPA
nt Muter: IAT-001-0864 To 0865 0«tt: 11/20/91
TltU: (Letter Mndng M th« flftMnth bl>MMkly progrvm import for t*w tatavlt Landfill sit*)
Typa: COKtESPONDEMCE
Category: 2.7.0.0.0 laaoval taspena* Correspondence
Author: Pophaa, Vtlliaa S.: •tacland & Souek Engifwers
leeipient: Nanaon, Jack O.t US EPA
Pwiaant Kuaber: IAT-OOe-0665 To 0669 Date: 11/M/91
Title: (Letter addraaaina EPA'a cofBerna reoardina growiduater flow directione at the Batavfa Landfill
aita and other unreaolved technical iaauea)
Type: COUESPOHDENCE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 Kaaadial Inveatlgatien Cerrwpondenee
Author: Neint, Tboaa* I.: 6ZA Geoanvironaantal of Men York
Kaapff. layaond L.t SZA fieocnvironaental of Mew York
•oners. Michael A.t 6ZA fieoenvironaental of MM York
•aciplant: Toung, Jay F.: ML Industries, Inc.
Docuaant Muter: IAT-002-1120 To 11U •want: IAT-002-1112 Date: 11/25/91
Title: (Letter forwarding t*e analytical results of saaplrt collected on October 29. 1991, fro* rwidantlat
wlla near the tatavla Landfill aite)
Type: COMESPOHDEMCE
Category: 6.3.0.0.0 State Coordination
Condition: Ml SSI IK ATTACWCNT
Author: Aavno. Our lea J.t MY Dept of Health
tacipient: various: MY Post
-------
01/31/9* Index Chronological Order »e0e: 30
BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE
r: MT-001-0866 To 0867 Bate: 11/26/91
Title: CLatter eerving aa tha sixteenth bi-Mekly prograas roport for the Batavla Landfill aita)
Typt:
Category; 2.7.0.0.0 Raaovel Response Corraapondence
Author: Pophaa, WiUiaa B.t Bias lard i Bouck Enginaers
Recipient: Barean. Jack O.J US EPA
Bocusant Bustier: BAT-002-1119 To 1119 . Parent: BAT-002-1112 Date: 11/29/91
Title: CNeao discussing the October 29, 1991. private Mil aaapling of raaidencas naar the Batavia
Landfill sit*)
Type: COUESPONDEHCE
Category: 6.3.0.0.0 State Coordination Correspondence
Author: Block. Arthur: Agency for Toxic Substances * Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Recipient: Welters. Michael A.t US EPA
Docuaant Buaber: BAT-001-1807 To 1807 Bate: 12/02/91
Title: (letter discussing eontaaination in the Mils of hoae* in tha vicinity of the Batavia Landfill
aite)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 3.2.0.0.0 Saapling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Foraa
Author: Aaento, Charles J.: HT Dapt of Health
Recipient: Scherf. Steven M.: BY Dept of Environmentel Conservation
Bocuaent Buaber: BAT-002-1835 To 1835 Parent: BAT-002-1834 Bate: 12/02/91
Title: (letter discussing grcundMter esnta»1neticn and public health concatna to residents naar
tha Batavia Landfill aite)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 8.3.0.0.0 Bealtti Aisissaant Corraapcndsre*
Author: Aaanto,'Charlas J.: BT Dapt of Baalth
Raclplent: Scharf, Steven N.: IT Dept of Environasntel Conservation
-------
01/31/9* Indue Chronological Order Page: 31
tATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Docuaants
Bocuaant Muster: MT-001-OB68 To 0669 Mte: 12/04/91
Title: (Letter serving m tfce aevanteenth bi-neekly progress report far the iatavia Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category? 2.7.0.0.0 •••owl taper** CerrMpendvw*
Author: toftum. IrtlUa* I.: SlMland ft leuek
•wlpiant: iarann. Jack 0.: IK EPA
OocuHnt Muter: BAT-002-1248 To 1250 Data: 12/10/91
«/
Tltla: (Letter discuuing trietilorotthana (TCE) contamination fomd in privata nails located south
of the iatevia Landfill site)
Type: CDKRESPONDENCE
Cateaory: 6.3.0.0.0 State Coordination Correspondence
Author: O'Toole. Michael J. Jr.: «T Oept of Environaental Conservation
Kacipient: Callahan. Kathleen C.: US EPA
: 8AT-OC2-183* To 1834 Date: 12/20/91
Title: (New forwarding NTSOOH's casMnts on p^lic health ceneerns to the res I dams near the tatavia
Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 6.3.0.0.0 Health Aimeajirit Correspondence
Author: Slock, Arthur: Agency for Toxic Substances ft Disease tegistry (ATSM)
Recipient: Walters, Michael A.: US EPA
Attached: SAT-002-1835
Oocuaant Muaber: IAT-002-1933 To 1935 Date: 12/20/91
Title:. (New Releese:) DEC: Tow Wella Contaminated (with Facsimile cevw sheets •ttached)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 10.6.0.0.0 Fact Stteeta and PTMS RelasMS
Author: Seville, Kevin: Daily
Recipient: none: none
-------
01/31/94 Index Chronological Order - tog*: 52
SATAV1A LANDFILL Sin
r: iAT-002-1251 To 1268 Bate: 01/03/92
Title: (Latter forwarding tha attached analytical raaulta for staples collected fro* 3385 Pratt load)
Type: COUECTCNDENCE
Catagory: 6.3.0.0.0 State Coordination Correspondence
Author: Seharf, Steven M.t IT Oept of Envtronaantal Conservation
tsctplant: Miters, Michael A.x US EPA
Docuaant Nuaoer: BAT-002-0870 To 0873 Data: 02/28/92
Title: (Latter providing EPA'a f{pal technical eeaaanta en tha draft Satavla Landfill laaadlal Investigation
leport)
Type: CORRESPOMDEMCE
Catagory: 3.5.0.0.0 laaadlal Investigation Correspondence
Author: Peteraan, Carole: US EPA
leciplent: Teung. Jay F.* ML Industries, Inc.
Oecuaant Muaber: BAT-002-0876 To 0878 Date: 03/24/92
.Title: (Letter detailing t*at MS* dlacusaed during a March 20, 1992. conference cell regarding the
Satavia Landfill site taaadial Invaatigatien)
Typa: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 laaadial Investigation Correspondence
Author: Young, J«Y F.: HL Industrie*. Inc.
tactpiant: Halters. Michael A.: US EPA
Detuaant Muter: BAT-001-2012 To 2037 . S«te: 03/27/92
Title: Draft Final Interia Crowd Water Itsk Oaiaiaaarir, Satavia Landfill, •atavta. Maw York. Work
Ass lament: C02061
Type: PUM
Catagory: 3.4.0.0.0 II laporta
Condition: OKAFT .
Author: Fratt. David: Alliance Technologies Corporation
tacipiant: Halters. Michael A.* US EPA
-------
01/31/94 Indtx Chronological Ordtr Paoe: 53
BATAVIA LAMDFIU SITE Docuaanta
DofuaanT Mater: MT-002-1269 To 1272 Oata: OS/27/92
Tftla: (Letter responding to a request for an fntoria> raMriial •aaour* to addraaa tha need to provide
potable tartar to reaidants In tha araa of tha tat art a Landfill »1ta>
Typa: COUESPOaPEKCE
Category: 6.3.0.0.0 Stata Coordination Corraapondanea
Author: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
lacipiant: O'Toole, Michael J. Jr.: KT Oapt of Environmental Conaarvation
Miater: MT-002-1065 To 1088 Data: 04/01/92
«/
Tttla: Nap, Plan and ftaport for Propoaad Comoliditod Watar Oiatrlct Extamfon CfialloMay
load)
Typa: PLAN
Catagory: 4.5.0.0.0 Foasfbflfty Study Corraapondanea
Author: iwna: Huufaauvr ft Clark, Inc.
licipicnt: none: Tom of latavia
DocuMnt toflter: •AT-002-1273 To 1396 Data: 04/03/92
Titta: (Analytical raaulta froa aaaplfng parforaad in January 1992. for th« Batavta LandfUl aitt)
Typt: DATA
Cataoory: 6.3.0.0.0 Stata Coordination Corraapondanea
Author: Scharf, Stavon «.: HT Oapt of Envfrofmantal Conaarvatien
laeipiant: yaltara. Nidiaal A.: US EPA
•uabar; IAT-001-087D To 0870 Data: 04/09/92
Titla: uattar forMarding tha ancloaad t>n» laapval taport datad Hovwter 1991)
Typa: COMESPOHDEIICE
Cataoory: 2.7.0.0.0 taHowai taaponaa Corraapondanea
Author: Earlay, Kavin ».s Unlay> Corporation
•acipiant: Ualtart, Jllchaal A.: US EPA
Attachad: IAT-001-0871 tAT-001-0912 IAT-001-1232
-------
01/31/9* Index Chronological Order 'tag*: 34
MTAVIA LANDFILL SITE
: BAT-002-0879 To 0880 Pete: 04/20/92
Title: (Letter outlining deadline* for deliverabtea prepared by BL Induatriea for the Batavia Landfill
site)
Type: COttESPCNDOKE
Category: 3.S.O.O.O taeaditl Investigation Correspondence
Condition: HISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Peterson, Carole: US EPA
Becipient: Yeung, Jay F.: BL Induatriea, Inc.
OaoMent Muter: BAT-002-1945 To Y946 Beta: 04/21/92
Title: (Letter di«cue*ing oroundMeter contaaiination in the area of private Malls eouth and seat of
the tatavfa Landfill aite)
Type: COKBESPON9ENCE
Category: 10.9.0.0.0 Public Correspondence
Author: Vutoam, June C.: Totn of Batavia
Becipient: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Oooiatnt Muter: IAT-001-1809 To 1871 Oat«: 04/28/92
Titla: (Latter forMarding the Quality Aaauranet/fluality Control data for private well applet eolleeted
near the tatavia Landfill site)
Type: COUtESPONKHCE
Category: 3.2.0.0.0 Sevpling and Analyaia Data/Chain of CuatodV form
Author: Aeento, Charlea J.: MY Dept of Health
tacipiant: Ccharf, Steven H.: NT Dept of Environeantal Conwrvation
Bonaem Ma*er: MT-001-2M3 To 2375 Bete: 05/01/92
Title: Batavia Undfill Sfta. Hawlial tmeatieatton Nport. flnel Orrft, Volua* I of V
Type: BEFOtT
Catagory: 3.4.0.0.0 It Baporta
Condition: DtATT
Author: rant: 8ZA fieoanvfronaMital of MM York
Beelpient: non»: ML Induatriea, Inc.
Attached: BAT-001-2376 BAT-001-2403 BAT-002-0001 tAT-002-0338
-------
01/31/94 Index Chronological Order rig*: 35
MTAV1A UUDFILL SITE DecUHntt
rt IAT-001-Z376 To 2402 Parwit: i*T-001-2045 Data:-0/01/92
TitU: tatavla landfill Site, Mondial Invwtfaatian taport. Final Draft. Volua* IT of V
Typ*: REPORT
Category: 3.4.0.0.0 II taporta
Condition: DRAFT
Author: nont: CZA 6*oanvirom»ntil of NON York
Recipient: none: HL InduttriM, Inc.
r: MT-001-2403 To 2419 P*r«nt: IAT-001-2043 Oat«: 05/01/92
TitU: totavi* Landfill Sit*, KcMdial Irwwtioatlon laport. Final Draft. VotuM III of V
Type: REPORT
Cattgory: 3.4.0.0.0 tl kaporta
'Condition: WUFT
Author: nom: CZA CaocnvironHntal of MOM York
lacipiant: nona: M. Induatri**, Inc.
Document «u*ar: IAT-002-0001 To 0337 Parant: IAT-001-2043 Oat*: OS/01/92
Tltla: latavia Landfill fit*. Mawlial InvMtiBttion ••port. Final Draft, VoluM IV of V
Typ*: IEPORT
Catagery: 3.4.0.0.0 RI Raporu
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: GZA fiaoanviromantal of MM York
tacipiant: nom: ML Induttriw. Inc.
Dncuant fcJ*»r: IAT-002-0338 To 0652 Parant: IAT-001-2043 Dat*: 05/01/92
Titla: tatavia Landfill Sit*, tavdial Imwtigation Raport. Final Draft, VoluH V of V
Typ*: REPORT
tetagory: 3.4.0.0.0 II Raporu
Condition: DRAFT
Author: nom: fiZA CaoanvireraHntal of MM York
•aciplant: nom: R, Inductria*. Inc.
-------
01/31/9* Indtx Chronological Order Page: 36
BATAVIA LMDFILL SITE Oocuaants
ir: BAT-001-1006 To 1808 ' Data: .05/05/92
Title: (Letter forwarding the Quality Assurance/Qua I ity Control reports from private Mall saaples
and the teechete data froa the latavia Landfill site)
Typt:
ttt«»onr5 3.2.0.0.0 Sapling and Analytic tata/Chafn of Custody Ferns
Author: Sdurf, ttavwi «.: RT D^t of Cnvfreraviul CenMTMtien
toelplvit: l*jlt*r«, MfehMl A.I US EPA
DecuMnt lhater: IAT-002-1060 To 1061 D«tt: 05/11/92
,r
Titlt: (Letter r«*pand
-------
01/31/9* . Index Chronological Ordtr Page: 37
SATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Docuaents
•uafeer: MT-002-0874 To 0875 Oat*: -05/22/92
Title: (Letter stating that 8ZA AMociatn hM coapleted the Final Draft taaadial Inveetigatton Report
and Mould lite to conduct additional studies near the tatavte Landfill site)
Typa: eOBttSPOBOKS
Category: 3.5.0.0.0 taaedlal Investigation
Author: Toung, Jay f.s al Induatrlat, Inc.
•aelpiant: Waltara, Michael A.t US EPA
Docuaant auaber: SAT-002-1802 To. 1833 Oata: 05/29/92
Title: (Naao fornardlng the attached information on toxicity and carcinoganiclty value* for aeverd
dMailcaU fowd at the tatavia Landfill cite)
Type: COMESPONDENCE
Category: 8.2.0.0.0 Toxiceloglcal Profile*
Author: Poirier. Kenneth A.: US EPA
leciplent: Ualtera, Michael A.t US EPA
tacuaant Huaber: BAT-002-1062 To 1064 Oate: 07/27/92
Title: (Letter Mating the VTSDEC and HTSDOH r it eaanrd Alternative 21 aa the preferred raaadial alternative
at the latavia Landfill aite)
Type: OXRESKMDEMCE
Category: 4.5.0.0.0 Feasibility Study Correspondence
Author: Scherf. Steven M.: NT Oept of Envlronaantal Conservation
Recipient: Walters. Michael A.: US EPA
•ocuaant auaber: IAT-002-1046 To 1058 Date: 08/01/92
Title: Superhrd Prepeaad Plan, latavta Landfill Superfund Site, latavia, Beneiae County. Neu Tort
Type: PLAN
Category: 4.3.Q.O.O Proposed Plan
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
01/31/9* Index Chronological Order Pagt: 38
1ATAVIA LAJCFUL SITE
: iAT-001-2038 To 20(2 Date: 08/01/92
TttU: Batavta Landfill Site teaadfat Imwetigetien teport. United States Environmental Protection
Agency* Preface
Type: KPOKT
Cttigory: 3.4.0.0.0 If taperts
Author: new: US ETA
tectplmt:
Ikater: IAT-001-1872 To 4^73 D«tt: 08/06/92
Tltl«: (Tnn«1tt«l Slip for • mf of ttw MtavU Landfill sltt)
Type: COUUSPOHDEMCE
Cattgery: 3.2.0.0.0 Sapling and Analytla Bata/Chain of Cuatody Form
Author: Nam. Urn: MM York Statt Cantar for Environaantal Htalth
toeipiant: Wattara, Nldiaal A.: US EPA
fiocuaant Htfbtr: iAT-001-0242 To 0315 Data: 08/21/92
Titla: (Latter forwarding the attachad aaaplina reaultt fro* amitorinB nalla taating at the. Batevia
landfill aita)
Typa: COUESraeENCE
Catagoiy: 1.1.0.0.0 tackgrewd • KM and ethar Infonaition
Condition: NMCIHALIA
Author: Bepicci, Francis C.t Tow of tatevia . '
teciptant: Ualtara, Niehaal A.: U» ffA
Doruaant luabar: iAT-002-1059 To 1059 Bate: 08/26/72
Title: (Letter stating that mOEC and VTBCM JM«V rrrtmart t*»e fropeMd >aai«al Action »tan and
In 2A In that potable water ia applied to the Muth)
Type:
Category: 4J.O.O.O *r8poaad »lan
Author: O'Taole, Nlchael J. Jr.: IT Bept of fnvironaantal Ccnaarvation
tecipient: Callahan. Kathleen C.: US C»A
-------
01/31 A* Index Chronological Order Paot: 39
•ATAVIA LANDFILL SITE Document*
ir: MT-002-0681 To IMS late: 08/28/92
Title Focused Feasibility Study, tatavia Landfill, tatavia. MM Tort. Work Assignment: C02040
Type: PLAN
Category: 4.2.0.0.0 FS Imports
Author: waiters, Michael A.: US EPA
Recipient: Sullivan, Douglas: TtC Environmental Consultants. Inc.
Document Number: 1AT-002-1952 To 1952 Oatt: 08/28/92
Title: (Letter forwarding copies*of the Proposed Plan and Focused Feasibility Study leport for the
katavia Landfill site and stating that a public awttlng is scheduled for September 10, 1992)
Type: CORKESPONDENCE
Category: 10.9.0.0.0 Public Correspondence
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: toilers. Michael A.: US EPA
Recipient: various: distribution list
Oocuasnt Muster: •AT-002-1953 To 1954 Date: 06/28/92
Title: (Letter forwarding docuaants to be kept at the public information repositories for the tatavia
Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPOHDEHCE
Category: 10.9.0.0.0 Public Correspondence
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Walters, Michael A.: US EPA
Recipient: Facer, Kathleen: Richmond Library
levins, tubie K.: Town of Batsvis
Drnsamt Muster: IAT-002-188S To 1885 Parent: IAT-002-1884 Dme: 06/29/92
Title: (Public Notice:) The United States Environavntat Protection Agency Invite* Public Coajaant
on the Proposed Plan for the tatavia Landfill Superfund Site in tatavia. Man York
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Category: 10.1.0.0.0 Comments and Responses
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: tatavia Daily News
-------
01/31/9* Indax Chronological Ordar Past: 40
MTAVIA LANDFILL «IH pocuaanta
•: BAT-002-19S6 To 1936 DM*: 08/29/92
Tltlt: (Public aotlca:) The Unttad Stataa EnvtronBantat Protection Aaancy Inrltea Public
an the Propoaed Plan for the latevia Landfill tuferhg* Sit* In tatavlt, Han York
typt:
Catagory: 10.6.0.0.0 Fact BtMta and rraaa tal
Author: nont: Dally ftaiai
•aciplant: nont: nana
Muter: IAT-002-1937 To
-------
01/31/94 Indn Chronological Order ft*: 41
BATAVIA LANDFILL SITE DocuMnta
Buater: BAT-002-1840 To 1840 ftatt: 09/15/92
Titl*: (Utttr forwarding th* Bttachad Villat* of Oakflaid, BOM Torfc. ••solution outlining th* Board
of Trwatoa*' stand en th* roaadlal plan* for tha cleanup of th* Mt«vl« Landfill «it«)
Typ*: OOtttSTODEKE
tot^ory: 10.1.0.0.0
Author: RoblnMn, J«M I.: Village of OrtfUld. HT
Mclplant: Lynch. K^fn: US EPA
AttadMd: MT-OOZ-M41
OoetMnt lha*rr: IAT-002-1089 To 1105 D«t«: 09/15/72
S
Titlt: (L*tt«r offtrina e«Mcnt» en the Draft FocuMd Foocibflfty Study for tiw latavia Landfill
Type: COKXECKMDEMCE
Cattgory: 4.5.0.0.0 FoaaibiKty Study Corrwpondanc*
Author: O'Mirm, Ctvin N.t *Mtb*m*r I Clark, Inc.
•«rry. B«an T.: l>«i»h«»»r t Clark, Inc.
taclpiant: lapleci. Franc!* C.: Tow of iatavla
Ooeuaant «vj*tr: SAT-002-1846 To 1548 *«rant: MT-002-1845 D«t«; 09/16/92
Tltlt: Adoption of tht TOOT loard •osition Rtlativ* to tht Inttri* k«a>dial Action Man for CrotndMttr
Contaainatlon Adjacant to tht Satavia Landfill Sqwrfund Sit* M Prepotad by th* U.S. EPA
Typa: LE6AL MOMENT
Category: 10.1.0.0.0 CoaManta tn
Author: Tow Board: TOOT of Batavia
Bocipfant: nona: nont
Boriaant Bator: BAT-002-1746 To 1791 *wvit: BAT-002-1745 Bat*: 09/16/92
Tftlt: Public Baaltfi IHiiiaaarit for Batavia Landfill. Batavia, fiana*** County, BM Tork. CEtCUS
Bo. BTD9B050769S - Initial ttlatt* (3 copit* • Initial tel*a*«>
Typa: »LAM
Cattaury; 8.1.0.0.0 ATSDt Baalth Aiiiiaaanta
Author: nona: BT Oapt of EnvironBantal Conaarvation
Bocipfant: non*: Ajancy for Toxic Subatanca* I Oiaooa* togittry (ATSOt)
-------
01/31/9* Indtx Chronological Order
MTAVIA LANDFILL SITE Oocuasnts
n BAT-002-1843 To 1844 Data: 09/18/92
Title: (Letter recjjastim an extension of the public ceaaant period for the Batevia Landfill site)
Type: COUESPOMDCNCE
Category: 10.1.0.0.0 Cnaairts and Beaponses
Author: Broenbsua. Lealie Nerfc: Braes. Sbtaien, Srtzdle ( BHfHlan. f.t.
teelpfent: Kilters, Michael A.: US EPA
: IAT-002-1M5 To IMS Date: 09/18/92
Title: (Letter forMerdlng the attached reaolutfen reeoHaend
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233
.t*-g4»-
Ms. Kathleen Callahan
Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
290 Broadway
New York, New York 10007-1866
Dear Ms. Callahan:
Re: Batavia Landfill Site, Town of Batavia, Genesee County
New York, Site No. 9-19-001
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the
New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) have reviewed the draft Record of
Decision (ROD) for Operable Unit No. 1 (OU1), the landfill closure and final ROD for the
Batavia. Landfill site. Alternative 6B is selected by the ROD as the preferred remedial
action. .•••••
Alternative 6B includes a 6 NYCRR Part 360 cap, gas venting, leachate collection,
removal of buried drums from in the central portion and consolidation of the northern area
under the cap of .the southern area. Mitigation of wetland areas will be included dependent
on the final design of the landfill cap and the final approved Ecological Assessment Report.
Alternative 6B was identified by USEPA as being protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate requirements (ARARs)
and Standards, Criteria and Guidance (SCGs) and is the best proposal for reducing
contamination in the groundwater.
The NYSDEC and NYSDOH concur with this ROD.
cc: C. Petersen, USEPA
K. Lynch, USEPA
M. Walters, USEPA
A. Carlson, NYSDOH
Sincerely,
Michael J. O'Toole, Jr.
Director
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW 1
II. BACKGROUND OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS 2
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .3
A. COMMENTS AT PUBLIC MEETING 3
B. SUMMARY OF EPA RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
FROM THE POTENTIALLY RESPONSIBLE PARTIES 4
1. Comments from the City of Batavia, dated Nov. 1994 . 4
2. Comments from NL Industries Inc, dated Nov. 1994,
prepared by ELM Inc 8
3. Comments from the PRP Group, dated Nov. 1994 . . 20
4. Comments from Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc,
on Behalf of the PRP Group, dated May. 1992. . . .25
5. Comments from ENVIRON, dated May 1993
prepared on Behalf of the PRP Group . . . . . ..'.. 25
6. Comments from C & E Consultants, dated Nov. 1994,
on Behalf of the Potentially Responsible Parties . 29
-------
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of citizen's
comments and concerns and the responses by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") to those comments regarding the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") Reports and
Proposed Plan for the Batavia Landfill Superfund Site (the
"Site"). All comments summarized in this document have been
considered in EPA's final decision for selection of a remedial
alternative for the Site.
EPA initially published notice of a public comment period from
August 8, 1994 through September 7, 1994 to provide interested
parties with the opportunity to comment on the RI/FS and Proposed
Plan for the Site. The public comment period, originally thirty
days, was extended an additional sixty days after EPA received a
request for such an extension. A public meeting was held to
discuss the remedial alternatives described in the FS and to
present EPA's preferred remedial alternative for the remediation
of the Site. The meeting was held at the Batavia High School, in
Batavia, New York on August 18, 1994 at 7:00 p.m.
At the time of the public comment period, EPA published its
preferred alternative for the Site, specifically the excavation
of contaminated sediment and soils from the northern portion of
the Batavia landfill (the "Landfill") for consolidation in the
southern portion of the Landfill under a landfill cap to be
designed and constructed pursuant to New York State Part 360
regulations, including a leachate collection system and
provisions for off-site leachate treatment. The preferred
alternative also included the removal of all buried drums found
at the Site during remedial construction for off-site treatment
and disposal.
During the public meeting, the local community reaction to the
preferred alternative was, for the most part, favorable.
However, there was a general concern on the status of the
waterline construction, which was mandated by a March 1993 Record
of Decision. Also, representatives from the Village of Oakfield
expressed concern that contamination from the Landfill,
irrespective of which alternative would be chosen, could impact
the Village of Oakfield Wells which are located approximately 3/4
of mile away from the Landfill. On this accord, the Village of
Oakfield requested that EPA develop a 'contingency* plan which
could be immediately implemented in the event that contamination
is detected in the northernmost bedrock wells at the Landfill.
Prior to proposing a remedial alternative, EPA screened the
alternatives in the FS, giving consideration to the first eight
of the following nine key criteria as set forth in the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"):
-------
Threshold Criteria, which must be satisfied, which include:
• overall protection of human health and the environment; and
• compliance with Federal, State, and local environmental and
health laws.
Balancing Criteria, which include:
long-term effectiveness;
short-term effectiveness;
reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume;
ability to implement; and
cost
Modifying Criteria, which include:
• State acceptance; and
• community acceptance.
Since the close of the public comment period, EPA has weighed
community acceptance of the proposed remedy prior to reaching the
final decision regarding the selected remedy for the Site. The
selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs from
among the alternatives with respect to the nine criteria that EPA
must use for evaluation.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
EPA's community relations efforts included a Community Relations
Plan, which was formulated in May 1985 and included an outline of
community concerns, required and suggested community relations
activities, and provided a comprehensive list of federal, state,
and local contacts. Site information repositories were
established, one located at EPA's Region II office in New York
City and others located at the Richmond Library and the Batavia
Town Hall in the Town of Batavia, New York.
To obtain public input on the RI/FS and the proposed remedy, a
public comment period was established from August 8, 1994 to
September 7, 1994. A public notice appeared in the August 8,
1994 Batavia Daily News, and a public meeting was held on August
18, 1994. A representative of the City of Batavia requested
extensions of the public comment period on two occasions to allow
adequate time for the City, as well as other interested parties,
to comment on EPA's Proposed Plan. EPA granted two thirty day
extensions. A second public notice appeared in the Batavia Daily
News on August 31, 1994, where EPA announced the extension of the
public comment period.
Approximately 25 people attended the meeting. The audience
consisted of local businessmen, residents, and state and local
government officials. A summary of the questions posed during
the meeting is included in the following section.
-------
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Public comments on the Proposed Plan submitted between August 8,
1994 and November 7, 1994 are summarized and addressed below.
Section A summarizes those comments received at the public
meeting held on August 18, 1994. Section B summarizes the
written comments received during the public comment period.
A. Comments Received at Public Meeting
Village of Oakfield:
Representatives from the Village of Oakfield wanted to know why
the municipal water line project (selected in the March 1993
Record of Decision) included supplying municipal water to Batavia
residences as far as a mile away from the Site while no
provisions were being made for the Village of Oakfield where the
municipal wells are only 3/4 of mile away from the Landfill. The
representatives also requested that EPA develop a contingency
plan that could be activated if the northernmost monitoring wells
at the Landfill detect contaminant plumes possibly migrating
toward the Village of Oakfield Wells.
EPA Response:
The March 1993 Record of Decision requires that the municipal
waterline be extended to include certain residences in the
vicinity of the Landfill. This action was required by EPA
primarily because remedial investigation studies have revealed
that these nearby residents, who rely solely on the local ground
water for consumptive and domestic needs, were at risk because of
the potential threat posed by the contamination at the Site.
Furthermore, groundwater samples collected by the New York State
Department of Health ("NYSDOH") in 1991 and 1992 confirmed the
presence of trace amounts of Site contaminants in a few
residential wells adjacent to the Site, particularly in private
wells to the south on Pratt Road. A portion of the municipal
waterline extension in the Town of Batavia is primarily a civil
project independently initiated by the Town and is not required
by the Record of Decision ("ROD") issued in 1993.
EPA maintains that the Village of Oakfield Wells, located 3/4 of
a mile from the Site, are not threatened by the migration of
contamination from the Landfill. EPA has periodically monitored
the northernmost project wells at the Site. Sampling results
from November 1992 and February 1994 have confirmed that no
contamination is migrating from the Landfill in the direction of
the Village of Oakfield Wells. In addition, because of the
immensity of the Galloway Swamp, which lies between the Site and
the Village of Oakfield Wells, dilution and dispersal factors
render the possibility of a contaminant plume ever reaching these
wells highly unlikely.
-------
However, EPA will continue groundwater monitoring activities
under the final Site remedy, as mandated by this Record of
Decision, and EPA will, take appropriate measures to protect the
Village of Oakfield Wells should they become at risk.
B. SUMMARY OF EPA'S RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
I. Comments from the City of Batavia, dated November 3. 1994
COMMENT 1.
The City of Batavia Commented that the cost of leachate
treatment/disposal under the proposed remedy may be high on
account of the "derived from" rule (under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, or "RCRA").
EPA Response:
It is the position of EPA that unless there is documentation of
the disposal at the Landfill of hazardous wastes which are
regulated under the RCRA, the leachate at the Site will not fall
within the "derived from" rule. Any leachate which is collected
should be disposed of based on their waste characteristic, in
accordance with RCRA and/or the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
("CERCLA").
COMMENT 2:
Barton & Loguidice, P.C., a contractor for the City of Batavia,
recollects EPA asserting/ at the August 18, 1994 public meeting,
the possibility of examining the use of a system of cutoff
(slurry) vails at the Landfill, reaching slightly into the
groundwater table but not to the underlying till below, as part
of the Site remedy. The comment further states that removing
leachate from the inside of this barrier will draw a constant
recharge from the groundwater outside the barrier, thus resulting
in groundwater remediation which is not required at the Site by
either Federal or State Policy.
EPA Response:
A cutoff wall is not part of the selected remedy. A properly
constructed landfill cap, in conjunction with a leachate
collection system, are cumulatively sufficient containment
technologies in abating the migration of hazardous substances at
the Site. A properly designed leachate collection system will
not collect "clean" groundwater. The details of a leachate
collection system will be determined during the design phase of
the project.
-------
COMMENT 3.
The Town reiterated the concerns residents expressed about the
potential impact the Site could have on the Village of Oakfield
municipal water supply wells, 3/4 of mile to the north of the
Site. The comment recommends an array of technological options
that could abate the potential flow of contaminants away from the
Landfill in the direction of the Village of Oakfield Wells.
EPA Response:
EPA's position is that the Village of Oakfield Wells are not
threatened by the Landfill. EPA feels that the same would be
true even if the Landfill is left unremediated. The groundwater
flow at the Landfill has a northern gradient in the north of the
Site, but natural groundwater processes such as dilution and
adsorption, coupled with the fact that most of the shallow
groundwater discharges into the immense Galloway Swamp, act as an
hydraulic barrier. Based on the data collected at the Site EPA
does not anticipate contaminants impacting the Village of
Oakfield Wells. In addition, EPA's last testing of groundwater
samples from the northernmost bedrock wells at the Site, in
February 1994, reveals no contaminant plumes migrating towards
the Village of Oakfield wells.
EPA will give thorough considerations to the technical
suggestions (i.e, exploring the possibility of the surface water
run off being collected and diverted to the south, etc.) during
the design phase of the project so as to enhance the final Site
remedy, if such is determined to be necessary during the 5-year
review.
COMMENT 4.
A Commenter stated that the Present Worth Cost for the operation
and maintenance of the Site remedy/ for a duration of 30 years,
did not account for inflation.
EPA Response:
A present worth analysis was performed for each alternative using
the assumed discount rate of 5% as per Agency policy at the time
of the Feasibility Study.
COMMENT 5:
A Commenter questions the necessity of the leachate collection
system as part of the final Site remedy, especially if the
affected residents will be connected to the municipal water
supply system mandated by the March 1993 Record of Decision and
thus will no longer be at risk from consuming contaminated
groundwater from the Landfill. The Commenter further states that
-------
the leachate collection system, if instituted, will in actuality
collect mostly fresh or very mildly contaminated groundwater,
much like the leachate collection system at the adjacent former
sanitary landfill. As such, the commenter recommends the
construction of a leachate barrier (slurry wall) in the north of
the Site, in lieu of constructing a leachate collection system,
to prevent fresh recharge groundwater from entering the Landfill
and consequently reducing operation and maintenance cost of the
Site remedy. The Commenter also questions EPA's projected 30-
year operation and maintenance costs for the site remedy.
EPA Response:
EPA's objective is to protect both human health and the
environment. Data accumulated during the remedial investigation
of the Landfill clearly confirms that Site contaminants have
migrated into the surrounding surface waters and sediment,
therefore leachate at the Site must be addressed, and EPA
beelieves some form of leachate collection system is necessary.
A properly designed leachate collection system will not collect
"clean" groundwater, however the details of a leachate collection
system will be developed in the Remedial Design phase of the
project.
In addition, a slurry wall constructed along the northern end of
the Landfill without some system to address leachate at the Site,
will not be an adequate barrier to site contaminants migrating
into the Galloway Swamp.
Lastly, in reference to the projected operation and maintenance
costs for the site remedy, it is within the EPA guidance and
policy requirement that the projected cost for a site remedy have
an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent.
COMMENT 6:
A Commenter states that the proposed gas venting layer in the
Site remedy's NYCRR Part 360 landfill cap should be deleted in
favor of four gas vents per acre. The Commenter refers to the
currently low gas production at the Landfill as the main reason
why the proposed gas venting layer should be waived.
EPA Response:
Volatile organic compounds were detected on-Site during a gas
monitoring survey in 1987 by GZA Associates of New York, the
technical consultant for the potentially responsible parties
("PRPs"). The gas venting layer, a substantive requirement of
the 6 NYCRR Part 360 landfill cap design, cannot be waived unless
it can be successfully demonstrated that such a system is not
needed. Specifically, an explosive gas investigation must be
performed to determine if the gas venting layer can be waived.
-------
This determination can be made during the remedial design phase
of the selected remedy. However, New York State regulations
governing closure of municipal landfills and proper engineering
practices dictate that provision of such system should be made.
COMMENT 7:
A Commenter states that the selected Site remedy should be
divided into two phases. The capping of the Landfill and the
groundwater monitoring should comprise Phase I. Phase II, which
should include the installation of a perimeter leachate
collection system, should be deferred until after the 5-year
review.
EPA Response:
As stated in previous response to comment number 5, the issue of
leachate generated at the Site must be addressed. If, during the
design phase, it can be demonstrated that an alternative approach
can be implemented sufficiently to address the leachate, a
modification may be made.
COMMENT 8:
A Commenter states that leachate storage capacity of 40,000
gallons will be insufficient, especially during late winter and
early spring when leachate generation is expected to be a at
maximum. The Commenter recommends that the leachate tank storage
capacity be 500,000 gallons.
EPA Response:
The storage capacity of 40,000 gallons was calculated during the
RI/FS, and it is based on an estimate of 3,400 gallons per day
rate of leachate generation which was calculated using the
Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance model. However,
the final storage capacity of the leachate storage tanks will be
re-evaluated during the remedial design phase of the Site remedy.
COMMENT 9:
A Commenter cites the health and safety hazards which the
excavation of the Magnesium Fines Area would pose to workers and
adjacent residents. Commenter recommends capping the northern
area of the Landfill, leaving the Magnesium Fines Area
undisturbed.
EPA Response:
EPA is aware of the hazards associated with the excavation of the
Magnesium Fines Area. Special health and safety guidelines will
be followed in the excavation of the Magnesium Fines Area.
-------
Measures will be taken to eliminate fugitive dust migration, and
special field equipment will be used to prevent sparks from
igniting the magnesium.
2. Comments from NL Industries, Inc., dated November 7, 1994
prepared by ELM Environmental Liability. Inc.
COMMENT l:
A Commenter asserts that EPA's proposed remedy for the Site is
not based upon sound technical, scientific, and engineering
analysis and therefore is arbitrary and capricious.
EPA Response:
EPA's proposed remedy for the Site is based upon the mandates of
CERCLA, and the NCP. Specifically, the proposed Site remedy is
based upon the administrative record, including the following
studies and technical documents:
GZA. April 1989. Batavia Landfill Site, Draft Remedial
Investigation Report. Prepared by Goldberg-Ziono Associates
of New York for NL Industries, Inc., Hightown, New Jersey.
GZA. 1991. Batavia Landfill Site, Draft Remedial
Investigation Report. Prepared by GZA GeoEnvironmental of
New York for NL Industries, Inc., Hightown, New Jersey.
June 1991
Addendum to the Remedial Investigation Report prepared by
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alliance Technologies Corporation (renamed TRC Environmental
Corporation, or "TRC"). Final Risk Assessment, Batavia
Landfill, New York. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. April 11, 1994.
Alliance Technologies Corporation (now TRC), Draft Final
Interim Ground Water Risk Assessment, Batavia Landfill,
Batavia, New York. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, March 1992.
GZA. 1994. Batavia Landfill Site, Operable Unit 1 Draft
Feasibility Study, Batavia, New York. Prepared by GZA
GeoEnvironmental of New York for NL Industries, Inc.,
Hightown, New Jersey. June 1994.
Addendum to the Feasibility Study prepared by the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
U.S. EPA. 1988. Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.
Interim Final. Report No. EPA/540/G-89/004, OSWER Directive
9355.3-01 (October 1988). U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, Washington, D.C. 20460.
COMMENT 2:
The Commenter asserts that the selected remedy for the Site is
unjustified ,for the following reasons: (1) The EPA and NYSDOH
human health risk assessments do not justify the remedy; (2)
EPA's Human Health Risk Assessments are invalid and flawed; (3)
An ecological risk assessment of the Site is not completed, and
yet EPA proposes remedial activities to address hypothetical
ecological risks; and, (4) the proposed remedy will cause
substantial environmental injury in order to reduce undocumented
risks.
EPA Response:
EPA does not agree.
1) The Public Health Assessment for the Site, dated January 11,
1994 and prepared by the NYSDOH, concludes that all three water
bearing aquifers at the Landfill have been contaminated with
metals and volatile organic compounds to levels which in exceed
drinking water and health based standards. The report further
concludes that the Landfill is a public health hazard, and public
access to the premises should be restricted.
2) The EPA Human Health Risk Assessment was performed in
accordance with EPA guidance and policies. The risk was
calculated to be 1.2 x 10"3 , and exceeds the acceptable risk
range established by the NCP.
3) As part of the Site remedy, a. pre-design ecological
assessment to define impacts of the Landfill on fish, wildlife, .
and associated habitats (especially wetlands) will be performed.
This information will be used to determine whether .any wetland
excavation is advisable consistent with the goal to protect the
fish and wildlife, and if excavation is determined to be
necessary and advisable, the information obtained will be used to
determine the extent of work to be performed. Any sediments
excavated as a result of ecological considerations will be placed
under the cap. In constructing the cap, a portion of the
wetlands may be impacted. The ecological assessment will also
assist in designing and constructing the remedy in such a way as
to minimize any adverse impacts to the wetlands caused by the
remedy. The remedy will require mitigation to any damage to
wetlands or wetlands function.
-------
4) In February 1994, representatives from NL Industries
requested that EPA allow for the performance of an ecological
assessment of the Site prior to, rather than after, the selection
of a remedy for the Site. EPA guidance clearly states that an
ecological assessment may be performed before, during, or after
remedial action. EPA, however, nevertheless provided NL
Industries with the opportunity to perform the ecological
assessment, with the provision that EPA's Ecological Assessment
Workplan, dated April 7, 1994 and prepared by TRC Environmental
Corporation, be followed. On July 26, 1994, EPA reviewed and
approved a Sediment and Surface Water Sampling Work Plan, dated
May 24, 1994, prepared by GZA (for NL) in conjunction with the
ecological assessment which they proposed be performed. EPA
confirmed, in a letter dated July 26, 1994, its understanding
that the fieldwork for the ecological assessment would commence
on August 1, 1994. EPA agreed to consider the ecological
assessment conducted by NL Industries if it was received in a
timely manner, and NL projected its completion by late September
1994. EPA eventually received the Ecological Risk Assessment
report in mid-December 1994. The report has been reviewed by EPA
and determined to be incomplete. The document is not
representative of a complete Ecological Risk assessment, but
rather it is more applicable as a thorough -screening analysis for
which contaminants of concern are identified for the wetlands
areas, which is traditionally the first step in the ecological
risk analysis process. Consequently, the ecological risk
assessment for the Site will be completed during the remedial
design phase of the selected remedy. The results of the
completed ecological assessment will be used to design and
construct the remedy in a way to minimize any adverse impacts to
the wetlands.
COMMENT 3:
A comment on page 6 of the submittal asserts that metals in the
Site's ground water were generally detected below Maximum
Contaminant Levels ("MCLs").
EPA Response:
The above comment is inaccurate: arsenic was detected in 11 of 15
groundwater samples with a maximum concentration of 167 parts per
billion ("ppb"); barium was detected in 23 of 23 groundwater
samples with a maximum concentration of 2220 ppb; total chromium
was detected in 20 of 23 groundwater samples with a maximum
concentration of 181 ppb,- lead was detected in 21 of 23
groundwater samples with a maximum concentration of 433 pbb;
nickel was detected in 14 of 15 groundwater samples with a high
concentration of 155 pbb. All referenced maximum metal
concentrations in the groundwater exceed the federal and State
MCLs. Considering that the monitoring wells system is
essentially configured around the periphery of the Landfill,
10
-------
there is a reasonable possibility that the ground water under the
Site may be more severely impacted than as indicated by the
remedial investigation results of 1988.
COMMENT 4:
«
A Commenter questions the necessity for a Site remedy because
NYSDOH in April 1993, after reviewing a site assessment performed
by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry/ only
recommended that an alternate public water supply be provided for
residents living adjacent to the Landfill.
EPA Response:
The provision of an alternate water supply was identified as an
interim measure to address one of the problems associated with
the Site. The objective of this action is to control the source
of contamination at the Site and to reduce and minimize the
migration of contaminants into the site media.
The Health assessment is only one of the documents that form the
basis for the selection of a remedy. The Administrative Record
containing the supporting documents is available and has been
maintained at the Richmond Library and the Batavia Town Hall.
COMMENT 5:
A Commenter asserts that both of EPA's human health risk
assessments are flawed because they:
1. are exceedingly simplistic, resulting in implausible
assumptions;
2. ignore the importance of environmental processes that have
been generally recognized by the scientific community for
years;
3. fail to follow relevant EPA guidance documents, thereby
disregarding good technical and scientific protocols; and,
4. are based on data that are deficient in quantity, quality,
and are not representative of potential exposure point
concentrations.
EPA Response:
As stated previously in EPA's response to comment number 1 on
page 8, the risk assessments at the Site, have been completed in
accordance with applicable EPA technical guidances and policies
under CERCLA and the NCP. The ecological assessment notwith-
standing, EPA has acquired sufficient data on the Site conditions
to support and justify the need for remedial action at the Site
to protect both human health and the environment.
11
-------
COMMENT 6:
A Commenter questions the impact of that EPA's conclusion in its
Risk Assessment Report which states that the local groundwater
background conditions have not been characterized.
EPA Response:
Most monitoring wells used, as stated in earlier responses, are
generally situated in and around the property boundary line of
the Landfill. While more background monitoring well locations
could have been selected during the remedial investigation, EPA
has sufficient background characterization of the local
groundwater through data collected from the periodic testing of
groundwater samples from the adjacent former sanitary landfill
(now closed), the wells to the north of the Site, and NYSDOH's
sampling of nearby private residential wells.
COMMENT 7:
A Commenter asserts that the EPA Risk Assessment is flawed
because background chemical concentrations were not determined
during the RI. Furthermore, the commenter continues to speculate
that the chemical concentrations found on Site may actually
represent 'natural1 background chemical conditions.
EPA Response:
According to EPA's current policy on conducting risk assessments
at Superfund sites, background sampling is not required.
Furthermore, data collected during the RI have confirmed on-site
sediment and soil contamination, which includes heavy metals and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs") well in excess of
federal and State soil/sediment cleanup criteria. The ground
water beneath the Site has also been impacted by contaminants at
levels which exceed federal and State.health-based levels.
COMMENT 8:
A Commenter asserts that all groundwater data used in EPA's risk
assessment was from unfiltered samples and that EPA failed to
follow its guidance which recommends collecting and evaluating
both filtered and unfiltered groundwater samples.
EPA Response:
Although EPA guidance suggests the chemical testing of both
filtered and unfiltered groundwater samples during a remedial
investigation, it also requires that any unfiltered samples be
chemically analyzed so as to not under-represent the
concentrations of hazardous constituents in the groundwater
medium. Note that the 1989 EPA Risk Assessment Guidance (page 6-
12
-------
27) states that, "data from unfiltered samples should be used to
estimate exposure concentrations." The chemical analysis of
filtered groundwater samples tends to under-represent the
mobility and concentrations of contaminants in the groundwater.
COMMENT 9:
A Commenter states that EPA failed to follow its own Risk
Assessment guidance (EPA 1989; EPA 1990) for the proper sampling
depth of the sediment during the remedial investigation of the
Site.
EPA Response:
The sediment samples were collected during the remedial
investigation fieldwork activities in 1988, a year prior to the
release of the referenced EPA guidance. The sediment sampling
depths (6") were approved by the NYSDOH prior to the 1988
sediment sample collection. EPA attempts to sample sediment and
soil from depths that will be available for potential direct
exposure to human and ecological receptors. The upper six inches
of soil and sediment are potentially exposure pathways for dermal
contact and incidental ingestion.
COMMENT 10:
A Commenter asserts that EPA's Risk Assessment was based upon a
small number of on-site samples taken in 1987-88. The Commenter
further states that no additional sampling was taken to delineate
the extent of contamination and establish gradients of
contamination attenuation.
EPA Response:
Although EPA does acknowledge that more analytical sampling of
the wetlands sediment and surface waters are needed to further
delineate the exact area and volume to be remediated in the
wetlands, we do not share the opinion that insufficient field
data was used to select the remedy for the Site. As stated in an
earlier response, the design of the selected remedy will include
an ecological assessment and additional sampling of the wetlands
sediment and surface waters to determine whether any wetland
excavation is advisable consistent with the goal to protect the
fish and wildlife, and if excavation is determined to be
necessary and advisable, the information obtained will be used to
determine the extent of work to be performed.
COMMENT 11:
A Commenter asserts that EPA's Risk Assessment did not include an
assessment of the data useability as required in EPA Guidance
(EPA 1990). The Commenter also continues to further state that
13
-------
metals were analyzed during the remedial investigation (RI) using
inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy. As a
result, arsenic and antimony were subjected to significant
positive interferences when analyzed by this method; as such,
arsenic and antimony may not be chemicals of concern at the Site.
EPA Response:
The risk assumptions used by TRC, EPA's contractor, regarding
arsenic and antimony are consistent with EPA policy and with risk
assessments for other sites in EPA Region II. EPA acknowledges
that there are uncertainties in the toxicity values for arsenic
and antimony. These type of uncertainties are discussed in the
"Discussion of Uncertainties" section of the EPA Risk Assessment
Report.
COMMENT 12:
A Commenter asserts that EPA's projected future land use
scenarios in the vicinity the Landfill and the Site are
unreasonable and unrealistic.
EPA Response:
EPA's Risk Assessment's exposure scenarios are based on the
proximity of nearby residents and the future potential that
residential development of the area adjacent to the Landfill is
possible. The exposure scenarios are considered reasonable
maximum exposure scenarios and are consistent with the NCP.
COMMENT 13:
A Commenter asserts that the scenario TRC used to estimate
potential risks to future excavation workers is unrealistic.
EPA Response:
The use of an excavation worker scenario is performed according
to EPA guidance and is based on the potential for future utility
maintenance/repair/installation activities at the Site.
COMMENT 14:
A Commenter asserts that/ "EPA estimated carcinogenic risks posed
by the PAHs in sediment to hypothetical resident are based upon
implausible assumptions."
EPA Response:
The risk assessment for the Site was developed during a period of
evolving EPA policy regarding PAH carcinogenic potency.
Specifically, the risk assessment report was prepared before EPA
14
-------
Region II adopted the Toxicity Equivalency Factor ("TEF")
approach. EPA recalculated the PAH risks using the TEF approach.
These results indicate that the sediment risk decreased from 6 x
10^ to 2 x 10"*. This revised risk estimate is largely
attributable to benzo(a)pyrene. However, the cancer risk related
to the potential ingestion of on-site groundwater, 1.2 x 10'3, is
not altered by the adopted TEF approach.
COMMENT 15:
A commenter asserts that EPA overestimated the carcinogenic risks
posed by the PAHs.
EPA Response:
The risk assessment was prepared before EPA Region II began using
the TEF approach. As stated above, an addendum to the .risk
assessment recalculating PAH risks using the TEF approach reduced
the sediment carcinogenic risk from 6 x 10"4 to 2 x 10"4.
COMMENT 16:
A Commenter asserts that the EPA Risk Assessment of the ground
water improperly assumes no natural soil attenuation of site-
contaminants as ground water flows beneath the Site.
EPA Response:
The approach of not assuming any natural soil attenuation of
site-wide contaminants as groundwater flows beneath a site is
common practice in risk assessments. It is considered especially
relevant at this Site given the contaminants of concern and the
fact that current or potential future receptors are located in
relatively close proximity to the contamination source.
COMMENT 17:
A Commenter asserts that currently, as well as in the future/
residents will not be at threat from contaminant plumes at the
Site/ especially with the nearby residents being connected to the
municipal waterline. The Commenter further speculates that
contaminants will remain at the Site and/or attenuate to
concentrations below health-based criteria.
EPA Response:
The purpose of EPA's remedial action at the Batavia Landfill Site
is to protect both human health and the environment. Providing
the nearby residents with a safe and dependable alternate water
supply does not alleviate the Agency's responsibility to
remediate the Site. Furthermore, EPA's assessment of the Site
15
-------
hydrogeology does not support the hypothesis that contaminants at
the Landfill, if unremediated, will not continue to negatively
impact the local environment. Therefore, some action to prevent
the Landfill from acting as a source of contamination to the
groundwater is necessary. However, by constructing a proper cap
and collecting and treating leachate, the Landfill will no longer
be acting as a source of contamination to the groundwater and the
remaining contaminated groundwater should naturally attenuate
over time.
COMMENT 18:
A commenter asserts that the EPA Risk Assessment failed to take
into account the possibility that vinyl chloride, one of the two
major contributors to the ground water ingestion risk, was not
detected in any bedrock well samples.
EPA Response:
Vinyl chloride was detected in the upper groundwater bearing
zones which are hydraulically connected to the bedrock, therefore
there is a possibility that vinyl chloride could reach the
bedrock aquifer in the future. Using vinyl chloride in the Risk
Assessment is consistent with EPA policy.
COMMENT 19:
A Commenter asserts that EPA's risk assessment failed to take
into account the biodegradation of organic chemicals in the
sediment and ground water. The Commenter continues that EPA's
risk assessment estimates, which assume concentrations remain
constant over the lifetime of an individual, are inherently
flawed.
EPA Response:
It is a common practice in risk assessments not to address
attenuation of contaminants. This is considered especially
relevant where current or potential future receptors are located
in relatively close proximity to the contaminant source. The use
of numerical models to evaluate contaminant transport in ground
water may be the source of great uncertainty. In most cases,
inputs to the model (i.e., degradation, retardation, etc.) can
provide a source of great uncertainty.
COMMENT 20:
A Commenter asserts that an ecological assessment was not
completed and also that a comparison to Site-specific background
concentrations cannot be made because the appropriate (i.e.
background) data were not collected by EPA.
16
-------
EPA Response:
In implementing the Site remedy, an ecological risk assessment
will be conducted which will include the additional sampling of
the surrounding wetland sediment and surface waters. Also, see
EPA's Response to comment number 2 on page 9.
COMMENT 21: '
A Conmenter contends that the excavation of the sediment is not
necessary to protect human health or the environment.
EPA Response:
As part of the Site remedy, a pre-design ecological assessment
will be performed to define impacts of the Landfill on fish,
wildlife, and associated habitats (especially wetlands). This
information will be used to determine whether any wetland
excavation is advisable consistent with the goal to protect the
fish and wildlife, and if excavation is determined to be
necessary and advisable, the information obtained will be used to
determine the extent of work to be performed. Any sediments
excavated as a result of ecological considerations will be placed
under the cap. In constructing the cap a portion of the wetlands
may be impacted. The ecological assessment will also assist in
designing and constructing the remedy in such a way as to
minimize any adverse impacts to the wetlands caused by the
remedy. The remedy will require mitigation to any damage to
wetlands or wetlands function.
COMMENT 22:
A Commenter asserts dissatisfaction that EPA is not utilizing
more modern statistical approaches (i.e. Monte Carlo simulations)
in its Risk Assessment.
EPA Response:
EPA recognizes that although Monte Carlo analysis ("MCA") has
been available since the 1940's, the widespread application of
MCA in health and environmental risk assessments did not really
begin until relatively recently. EPA acknowledged the utility of
MCA in its 1992 Guidelines for Exposure Assessment, however, the
use of MCA within the Agency has been limited, primarily because
of insufficient Agency guidance and the need to fully evaluate
the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. The Agency is
working to develop a training program, conduct a needs assessment
of software and computer requirements, and develop a final policy
statement in July, 1996.
17
-------
COMMENT 23:
A Commenter asserts that the excavation of the Magnesium Fines
Area and Area R soils would be a health risk to workers.
EPA Response:
See EPA Response to comment number 9 submitted by the City of
Batavia on page 7.
COMMENT 24:
A Commenter asserts that the excavation of the Magnesium Fines
Area and Area R soils are not necessary to protect human health
or the environment.
EPA Response:
The Magnesium Fines Area and Drum Area R constitute the northern
area of the Landfill. The wastes in these areas are a continuing
source of contamination to the groundwater. The groundwater from
the Site has been contaminated by metals and volatile organic
compounds at levels which exceed drinking water standards. The
carcinogenic risk related to ingestion of groundwater, 1.2 x 10~3,
is outside the acceptable risk range established by the NCP.
Therefore the remediation of the northern area is necessary to
protect human health.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's
1994 Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum ("TAGM")
will be used as a goal in determining the amount of soil to be
excavated from the northern area of the Landfill for consoli-
dation under a NYCRR Part 360 cap.
COMMENT 25:
A Commenter .asserts that the excavation of the buried drums in
the southern area of the Landfill is not.necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
EPA Response:
Sampling results from the area of the buried drums detected the
highest concentration of volatile organic compounds.found at the
Site, identifying this area as a hot spot. Because the soils are
surrounding and in contact with the drums, it is a natural
assumption that the drums would contain similar types of
contaminants. Therefore, the removal of the buried drums from
the southern portion of the Landfill, estimated to be 150 in
number, would be consistent with the mandates of the NCP to treat
hot spots. This is also consistent with Agency RI/FS guidance
18
-------
and presumptive remedy guidance. As stated before, the
protection of the groundwater is relevant to the protection of
the environment and, as such, the removal of any buried drums,
will enhance the effectiveness of the Site remedy.
COMMENT 26:
A Commenter asserts that the Risk Assessment concludes that
wastes at the Site do not pose a significant risk to human health
under any realistic exposure scenarios.
EPA Response:
EPA's Groundwater Risk Assessment, dated March 27, 1992,
concludes that the groundwater has been contaminated with
hazardous constituents at levels which exceed federal and State
MCLs as a result of past disposal practices at the Site. These
levels present an unacceptable carcinogenic risk of 1.2 x 10~3.
The Risk Assessment also concludes that significant carcinogenic
risks (2 x 10"4) exist via incidental ingestion of on-site
sediment.
To assess the overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects posed
by one or more than one contaminant, EPA has developed a hazard
index ("HI") that measures the assumed simultaneous exposures to
several chemicals at low concentrations which could result in an .
adverse health effect. When the HI exceeds one (1.0), there may
be concern for potential noncarcinogenic effects. The acute
noncarcinogenic HI associated with groundwater ingestion at the
Site was 5.4 and the chronic HI was 26.4, indicating the
potential for significant noncarcinogenic effects if the Site
remains unremediated.
COMMENT 27:
A commenter expresses opposition to the inclusion of a leachate
collection system as part of the proposed Site remedy.
EPA Response:
See EPA responses to comments number 5 and 7 from the City of
Batavia on pages 5 and 7, respectively.
COMMENT 28:
A Commenter expresses opposition to performing an ecological
assessment after (as opposed to before) the Record of Decision is
issued.
19
-------
EPA Response:
See EPA's response to comment number 2 on page 9.
COMMENT 29:
A Commenter expresses disappointment, for economic' reasons/ in
EPA's failure to perform the ecological assessment prior to
selecting the site remedy.
EPA Response:
See EPA's Response to comment number 2 on page 9.
3. Comments submitted by NL Industries, Inc., GTE Operations
Support Inc., Eaton Corporation, Unisys Corporation and R.
E. Chapin Manufacturing Works dated November 5, 1994
COMMENT 1:
The Commenter requests tbat their submitted comments become part
of the Administrative Record.
EPA Response: "
In accordance with the NCP, all significant comments submitted by
the public in a timely fashion will become part of the
Administrative Record. Accordingly, these comments will be
included in the Administrative Record for this remedy.
COMMENT 2:
The Commenter states that EPA's Ground Water Risk Assessment and
Baseline .Risk Assessment are based upon inadequate and out-dated
data.
EPA Response:
Because conditions at the Landfill have not significantly
changed, i.e. no remedial actions have been taken, EPA views the
data collected as representative of current Site conditions.
COMMENT 3:
The Commenter asserts that the Risk Assessments, performed by
TRC, did not consider the drum removal actions which were
performed after 1987-88, the period in which the bulk of the RI
information was accumulated.
20
-------
EPA Response:
The "Uncertainty" section of the TRC Risk Assessment discusses
the drum removal actions performed after 1987. The drum removal
actions did not remove the soil in those areas, therefore
contamination remains in those areas and the removal action would
not contradict the results of the risk assessment.
COMMENT 4:
The Commenter asserts that the EPA Risk Assessment did not factor
into its analysis a statistically significant number of
groundwater samples to establish background conditions.
EPA Response:
EPA has collected sufficient data and performed the necessary
environmental studies at the Site to substantiate undertaking a
response action pursuant to the mandates of CERCLA and the NCP.
The selected Site remedy also requires the completion of an
ecological assessment to determine the extent of remediation
necessary concerning the wetlands sediment and to collect
additional background samples to define the extent of
environmental contamination.
COMMENT 5:
The Commenter asserts that the Ground Water Risk Assessment is
flawed and inconsistent with the NCP because TRC failed to
present a true "no action" baseline risk assessment.
EPA Response:
The Interim Groundwater Risk Assessment was intended to evaluate
potential future risks to public health associated with
contaminants measured in ground water during RI field activities.
The results of the Assessment were used to conduct a Focused
Feasibility Study, the goal of which was the protection of the
health of those found to be at risk. Evaluation of the potential
future risks associated with ingestion of contaminated ground
water is not contrary to the development of a "no action"
baseline risk assessment. Furthermore, the interim Risk
Assessment was supplemented by an additional Risk Assessment.
COMMENT 6:
The Commenter asserts that the interim Groundwater Risk
Assessment only evaluated hypothetical future risks to users of
existing domestic ground water wells.
21
-------
EPA Response:
A risk assessment must evaluate whether drinking water exposures
could potentially occur in the future. Conservatively, the risk
assessment conducted at the Site assumed that contaminants would
reach nearby receptors without attenuation. This approach is
often adopted by EPA in the absence of detailed site-specific
information on contaminant transport. Time of travel
calculations are typically made during the remedial investigation
and are not considered part of a risk assessment.
COMMENT 7:
The Commenter asserts that the following assumptions, upon which
the groundwater risk assessment is based/ are insupportable: (1)
that the overburden and bedrock aquifers are hydraulically
connected, and (2) that the ground water in the southern portion
of the Site flows toward the south.
EPA Response:
Data accumulated during the RI have confirmed that the three
water-bearing aquifers at the Site are interconnected and, as
such, they could all be considered as being one heterogeneous
aquifer. Although EPA's interpretation of the Site's
hydrogeology does support the existence of a silt/clay layer
underlying most of the Site, this sub-layer is not present in the
north-central location of the Site and, therefore, some of the
Site contaminants have been detected in all three water-bearing
zones. For instance, barium, magnesium, and chromium have all
been detected in descending concentrations in the upper soil
zone, lower soil zone, and bedrock aquifers, respectively.
EPA's interpretation of the Site's hydrology is that shallow
groundwater flow appears to be to the south in the southern
portion of the Landfill and to the east-northeast in the southern
central portiton of the Landfill, based upon information amassed
during the RI and specifically on data provided for wells
screened at or very near the water table.
COMMENT 8:
The Commenter asserts that TRC included vinyl chloride in the
ground water risk assessment, despite the lack of statistically
significant detections.
EPA Response:
Vinyl chloride was included in the groundwater risk assessment
because it is a Group A carcinogen. The Risk Assessment for
Superfund Guidance ("RAGS") document states on page 5-21 that
"...the weight-of-evidence classification should be considered in
22
-------
conjunction with the concentrations detected at the site. It may
be practical and conservative to retain a chemical that was
detected at low concentrations if that chemical is a Group A
carcinogen."
Frequency of detection is an optional criterion that may be used
to eliminate contaminants from the risk assessment. The EPA RAGS
document recommends including all chemicals in the" risk
assessment, regardless of frequency of detection, if it is not
unwieldy to do so. This is the approach that was used in this
risk assessment.
EPA generally uses a 5% frequency of detection limit in order to
eliminate chemicals from the risk assessment. If a contaminant
is found in 5% or less of the media samples, it may be eliminated
from the risk assessment. Vinyl chloride was found in 3 out of
21 groundwater samples, or 14% of the samples. Therefore, vinyl
chloride was considered a contaminant of concern in the risk
assessment.
COMMENT 9:
The Commenter asserts that TRC used only unfiltered ground water
samples in the risk assessment.
EPA Response:
In general, EPA calls for evaluating risk associated with
unfiltered groundwater sampling results. RAGS p. 6-27 states
that "data from unfiltered samples should be used to estimate
exposure concentrations." RAGS further states that data from
filtered samples "may underestimate chemical concentrations in
water from an unfiltered tap."
COMMENT 10:
The Commenter asserts that TRC's assumptions regarding the child
receptors are "beyond the bounds of reality in many ways."
EPA Response:
The assumptions regarding the child receptor are based on the
proximity of residences to the Landfill and the land use
information that residential development of area adjacent to the
Landfill is possible. The exposure parameters used in the risk
assessment are meant to be conservative and protective of this
sensitive subpopulatiom
COMMENT 11:
The Commenter asserts that TRC's exposure scenario for the
excavation workers is unrealistic and unsupportable.
23
-------
EPA Response:
The excavation worker scenario is based on the potential for
future excavation activities at the Site, such as future utility
workers, not on the potential for future excavation activities
related to the remedial activities selected at the Site.
COMMENT 12:
The Commenter asserts that TRC derived the oral ingestion risk
for soil from a Taiwanese study of arsenic in drinking water and
that data from similar studies in the United States fail to
confirm these findings.
EPA Response:
The assumptions used in the risk assessment regarding arsenic are
consistent with EPA policy and risk assessments for other sites
in EPA Region II. While EPA recognizes that results of studies
have not observed similar results in U.S. populations, the
results of the U.S. studies are not necessarily inconsistent with
the existing findings from foreign populations.
COMMENT 13:
The Commenter states that the Proposed Plan does not adequately
address the short-term risk associated with the implementation of
the preferred remedy.
EPA Response:
Although the Proposed Plan did present a summary of the short-
term risks to workers and nearby residents, the referenced
document does refer the public to the local EPA repositories for
a more detailed technical, scientific, regulatory, and legal
basis for the selection of the Site remedy. Chapters 4 - 7 of
the TRC Risk Assessment as well the feasibility study, both which
can be reviewed at either of the local repositories, provide
lengthy discussions on the short term risks that the Site would
pose to excavation workers and nearby residents.
COMMENT 14:
The Commenter asserts that the Proposed Plan does not accurately
determine the cost effectiveness of the Preferred Remedy.
EPA Response:
See EPA Response to comment number 4 submitted by the City of
Batavia on page 5. Furthermore, all Alternatives were evaluated
for cost effectiveness and overall protectiveness to human health
and the environment.
24
-------
COMMENT 15:
The Commenter asserts that the Proposed Flan does not accurately
determine the long-term effectiveness of the leachate collection
system as part of the Preferred Remedy.
EPA Response:
See EPA response to comment number 5 submitted by the City of
Batavia on page 5.
4. The following comments are from the document entitled
"Batavia Landfill Superfund Site Review of Remedial
Investigation Completed by GZA GeoEnvironmental of New
York", dated October 1992, prepared by Leggette, Brashears t
Graham, Inc.
COMMENT 1:
A Commenter states that Environ (a technical consultant) found
EPA's groundwater risk assessment to be flawed. The Commenter
further states that data developed by GZA and interpreted by the
commenter, the consultant firm of Leggette, Brashears & Graham/
indicate that contaminants could not reach domestic wells from
the bedrock aquifer.
EPA Response:
EPA has already responded to the above referenced document by
Leggette, Brashears & Graham, Inc., in the March 1993 ROD.
Please refer to EPA's Responsiveness Summary (pages 8-16) in the
March 1993 ROD.
5. The following comments are from the document entitled,
"Comments on the TRC Environmental Corporation's 'Draft
Final Risk Assessment, Batavia Landfill, Batavia. New
York1," prepared for the Batavia Landfill PRP Group by
ENVIRON Corporation dated May 24, 1993
COMMENT 1:
The Commenter states that the TRC risk assessment was based on a
small number of samples and that there is no indication that this
data adequately depicts current Site conditions.
EPA Response:
The TRC risk assessment takes this fact into account in the
"Uncertainty" section. See also responses to comment 2,
submitted by NL.Industries, et al., on page 20.
25
-------
COMMENT 2:
The Commenter asserts that the TRC risk assessment's excavation
worker scenario is unrealistic and unsupportable.
EPA Response: '
The excavation worker scenario was developed in accordance with
current EPA guidelines to be protective of human health. This
scenario is based on the assumption that, in the future,
excavation work (i.e. underground utility repair/maintenance/
installation) may occur at the Site.
COMMENT 3:
The Commenter asserts that the carcinogenic risk from arsenic
calculated for the excavation worker scenario is too
conservative.
EPA Response:
The assumptions used in the risk assessment regarding arsenic are
consistent with EPA policy and risk assessments for other sites
in EPA Region II.
COMMENT 4:
The Commenter states that the noncarcinogenic risk to excavation
workers are artificially elevated by unrealistic assumptions.
EPA Response:
Assumptions concerning the occurrence of excavation activities
were based on the potential for future underground utility
repair/maintenance/installation work at the Site, not considering
future remedial actions. The use of a 3 month exposure duration
for the excavation worker in limited areas of contamination is
intended to be conservative. The subchronic reference doses used
in the risk assessment were derived in accordance with current
EPA guidelines. Specifically, when subchronic toxicity data are
unavailable for a particular chemical, the chronic reference
doses are adopted as the subchronic reference doses without any
adjustments.
COMMENT 5:
The Commenter states that the carcinogenic risks presented for
the hypothetical off-site resident exposure to sediment are
elevated by implausible assumptions regarding exposure frequency.
26
-------
EPA Response:
The exposure frequency parameters for the off-site residential
exposure to sediments are based on professional judgement and are
intended to be conservative. The risk assessment for the Site
was developed during a period of evolving EPA policy regarding
PAH carcinogenic potency. Specifically, the risk assessment
report was prepared before EPA Region II adopted the TEF
approach. As an addendum to the risk assessment, TRC
recalculated PAH risks using the TEF approach. These results
indicated that the sediment risk decreased from 6 x 10"4 to 2 x
10"4. The revised risk estimate is largely attributable to
benzo(a)pyrene.
COMMENT 6:
The Commenter states that most of the risk to the excavation
worker was from the ingestion of arsenic, based upon a maximum
detected concentration of 164 parts per million ("ppm") in
subsurface soil. The Commenter refers to a Shacklette and
Boerngen study of background eastern U.S. data that acknowledges
a natural background concentration of up to 73 ppm for arsenic.
EPA Response:
The referenced background level of 73 ppm for arsenic is too high
for New York. A more realistic range, as referenced in the
TAGM, is 3 - 12 ppm. Arsenic was found at the Site an order of
magnitude greater than that referenced and cannot be considered
background. According to the RAGS document, chemicals present at
the Site at levels which exceed background levels are carried
through the risk assessment, and carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
risks are calculated.
COMMENT 7:
The Commenter states that the risk to the excavation worker from
exposure to arsenic was characterized using an oral cancer slope
factor of 1.75. This slope, the comment asserts, was developed
from studies of the ingestion of arsenic in drinking water. The
TRC risk assessment, on the other hand, addressed the ingestion
of arsenic bound in a soil matrix.
EPA Response:
As indicated in the comment, data on ingestion of arsenic in soil
is not available in the scientific literature. In the absence of
this information, we have assessed this potential risk using the
oral slope factor that is protective of public health. The
assumptions used in the risk assessment are consistent with EPA
policy and risk assessments for other sites in Region II.
27
-------
COMMENT 8:
The Commenter states that the EPA Science Advisory Board
recommended, based upon studies, that EPA revise its arsenic risk
assessment in establishing a drinking water standard.
EPA Response:
The recommendation in question, which resulted from the
negotiation of a settlement of a law suit, allowed EPA the option
of pursuing a research program that would address risk assessment
issues'surrounding arsenic-induced cancer. It did not
specifically recommend that EPA revise its arsenic risk
assessment in establishing a drinking water standard.
COMMENT 9:
The Commenter states that the maximum concentration for aluminum
used to calculate the Hazard Quotient ("HQ") of 1.0 for an
excavation worker is questionable because specific background
data on this metal is unavailable for the Site.
EPA Response:
Aluminum was found at levels which significantly exceeded what
would be considered background; notwithstanding, if aluminum were
eliminated from the calculation of the HI (into which the HQ is
added), the current HI of 6 for excavation workers would only be
reduced to an HI of 5, which remains well above the acceptable HI
level of 1.
COMMENT 10:
The Commenter is opposed to the exposure assumptions for adults
(ages 7 to 70) used in the TRC Risk Assessment, which they assert
is overly broad because there are sufficient differences in
exposure parameters among these age groups to warrant separate
exposure evaluations.
EPA Response:
As stated above, the exposure frequencies used in the sediment
exposure scenario are based on the current proximity of
residences to the Landfill and the adjacent land use information
that residential development of area adjacent to the Landfill is
possible. In addition, they comply with EPA guidance and
methodologies. As stated in the RAGS document, 100 milligrams
per kilogram is used as a soil/sediment ingestion rate for all
age groups greater than 6 years old.
28
-------
COMMENT 11:
The Commenter is critical of EPA for not using the TEF in the
Risk Assessment while such was done for the Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation Site and at a metals company in Massena, New York.
EPA Response:
As stated previously, the risk assessment for the Site was
prepared before EPA Region II adopted the TEF approach. In an
addendum to the risk assessment, TRC recalculated PAH risks using
the TEF approach. The results showed that the sediment risk
decreased from 6 x 10"4 to 2 x 10^*.
COMMENT 12:
The Commenter asserts that the young child (1-6 years of age)
exposure risk scenario (i.e. ingestion of soil/waste and
sediment) is unrealistic.
EPA Response:
As stated above, this risk scenario is based on the proximity of
residences to the Landfill. The Site is uncontrolled and
unfenced with nothing to prevent children from playing at the
Landfill. The presence of ponds make parts of the Site
attractive to nearby youngsters.
COMMENT 13:
The Commenter asserts that the data used in the risk assessment
are from 1987-88 and that it is uncertain whether this reflects
current site conditions.
EPA Response:
As stated above in comment 2 on page 20, the Landfill conditions
have not significantly changed, and no remedial actions have been
taken; therefore EPA views the data collected as representative
of current Site conditions.
6. The following comments are from the document entitled
"Batavia Landfill Superfund Site Evaluation of EPA Preferred
Remedy and Proposed Alternative Remedy", dated November 4,
1994, prepared by C&E Consultants, Inc.
COMMENT 1:
The Commenter states that the wastes in the southern area do net
appear to be significantly different than in the northern area of
the Landfill.
29
-------
EPA response:
EPA disagrees. The RI and the FS both discuss the differences
among the wastes, both in topography and in the type and
distribution of waste.
COMMENT 2:
Tbe Commenter discusses the cap and the gas and leachate
collection systems described in the Proposed Plan and states that
modifications to the system could be handled using the variance
request procedure included in the State regulations.
EPA response:
EPA agrees. The ARAR identified for the capping of the Site, New
York regulations setting forth closure requirements (6 NYCRR Part
360), allows for variances to the cap described in the
regulations, and EPA would accept a proper variance if it can be
demonstrated to be equally effective and achieve the performance
standards.
COMMENT 3:
The Commenter discusses the remedy in the Proposed Plan and
proposes the selection of an alternative remedy/ a variation from
those evaluated in the FS/ namely covering the landfill with a
variation of a 6 NYCRR Part 360 cap. The proposed alternative
discusses capping both the northern and southern area/ without
any waste consolidation and without treatment of the buried drum
area. In addition/ the proposed alternative would eliminate the
leachate collection system.
EPA response:
As a result of the Site geology and the proximity of the
wetlands, a cap in the northern portion of the Landfill would be
techincally more difficult to engineer and the estimated cost
associated with such an action (e.g., actual construction costs,
operation and maintenance, additional leachate treatment)
resulted in EPA proposing an alternative remedy. As to the
components of the capping system, sampling performed in the RI
was intended to collect data to adequately characterize the Site
for the purpose of developing and evaluating effective remedial
alternatives. It was not necessarily intended to provide the
level of detail sufficient to design the remedy. The capping
system that was evaluated in the FS is the one specified in the 6
NYCRR Part 360 regulations. However, the regulations do allow
for the installation of an equivalent design. After the
collection of additional data during the design phase, the
components of the cap, including any gas and leachate collection
systems, will be further defined and designed.
30
-------
COMMENT 4:
The Commenter asserts that the substitution of a new set of
remedial action objectives ("RAOs") set forth by EPA in the
Proposed Plan/ when compared with the RAOs for the first Record
of Decision mandating the alternate water supply/ is inconsistent
with the NCP requirements because they are dissimilar.
EPA Response:
The purpose of the March 1993 Record of Decision, an interim
remedial action, was to ensure that the nearby residents who rely
solely on well water for potable domestic and consumptive needs
would have a safe drinking water supply. Their private wells
could potentially be impacted by hazardous constituents from the
Site and, the March 1993 ROD had a different objective from this
ROD; therefore, the two RODs are not dissimilar or inconsistent
with the NCP.
COMMENT 5:
The Commenter states that EPA's interpretation of the groundwater
flow directions and contaminant pathways are incorrect. The
Commenter further asserts that contaminants could not reach
domestic wells extracting water from the bedrock aquifer south of
the Site, and thus the Landfill could not pose a risk to
residents.
EPA Response:
As stated in the Preface to the RI report, EPA believes that
EPA's Conceptual Groundwater Model best represents hydogeological
conditions at the Site and that the groundwater from the Site
does pose a risk to the private wells.
COMMENT 6:
The Commenter reiterates Environ1s October 1992 and May 1993
comments on the EPA risk assessments for the Site.
EPA Response:
EPA has already responded to the issues raised by Environ's
comments. See EPA responses in Section 5 of this Responsiveness
Summary. Also see pages 8-12 of the March 1993 Record of
Decision Responsiveness Summary.
COMMENT 7:
The Commenter asserts that the RAOs in the Proposed Plan differ
from those in the FS and are not supported by the risk
assessment.
31
-------
EPA Response:
The RAOs, while not identical to those in the FS, are similar.
The NCP states that Final remediation goals will be determined
when the remedy is selected. RAOs in the remedy selection
process are not solely or completely developed based on the human
health risk assessment; RAOs are also developed to protect the
environment and local ecology as well. For instance, the
protection of the groundwater beneath the Site is a RAO. Federal
and New York State soil/sediment cleanup criteria are also RAOs
that have evolved from environmental protection concerns as well
as from the potential risks to which an unremediated site could
subject nearby residents.
COMMENT 8:
The Commenter asserts that the gas venting layer for the Landfill
cap is unnecessary because the Site it is not anticipated that
the Landfill will produce any significant amount of gas.
EPA Response:
See EPA's response to comment number 6 from the City of Batavia,
on page 6.
COMMENT 9:
The Commenter expresses skepticism concerning the effectiveness
of the leachate collection system required under the proposed
Site remedy.
EPA Response:
See EPA's response to comment number 5 from the City of Batavia
on page 5.
COMMENT 10:
The Commenter states that there is no basis for excavating the
estimated 45,000 cubic yards of material from the Magnesium Fines
Area.
EPA Response:
The estimated volume of soils (45,000 cubic yards) to be
excavated is based upon results of the soil borings taken during
the RI. The determination that it is necessary to excavate the
materials from the Magnesium Fines Area, on the other hand, is
based upon NYSDEC soil cleanup criteria. NYSDEC soil cleanup
standards, developed to protect the ground water quality, require
that these metals be remediated to at least a level of 5000
milligrams per kilogram. Some soil samples from the Magnesium
32
-------
Fines Area have revealed magnesium concentrations as high as
400,000 milligrams per kilogram. Also other metals, such as
barium and chromium, are included in the estimated 45,000 cubic
yards of material to be excavated from the Magnesium Fines Area.
Additional soil samples will be collected during the remedial
design phase to determine more accurately the volume amount of
material which must be excaveted from the Magnesium Fines Area.
COMMENT 11:
The Commenter argues that NYSDEC's TAGM, dated January 24, 1994,
is not appropriate for establishing cleanup levels in the
Magnesium Fines Area because the levels may not be achievable.
EPA Response:
EPA is using the TAGM to set cleanup goals, rather than cleanup
levels.
33
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name :
Location/State :
EPA Region :
HRS Score (date):
Site ID # :
Batavia Landfill Site
Genesee County, New York
02
44.16
NYD980507693
ROD
Date Signed: 06/06/95
Remedy : drum removal/containment
Operating Unit No.: OU-1
Construction Completion: 12/1998
Capital cost:
O & M :
Present worth:
$8,129,084 (in 1995 dollars)
$ 305,660/year
$12,370,514 (5%, 30 years of O&M))
LEAD
EPA Enforcement
Primary contact: Michael Walters (212) 637-4279
Secondary contact: Kevin Lynch (212) 637-4287
Main PRP(s): NL Industries, Unisys Corporation
PRP Contacts: Jay Young, NL Industries (609) 443-2407
Tom Seery, Unisys Corp. (610) 993-3048
WASTE
Type: metals, PAHs, VOCs, municipal garbage
Medium: soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater
Origin: Industrial, municipal
Est. c[uantity: 200,000 cu.yd.
------- |