United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-92/183
September 1992
f/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Islip Municipal Sanitary Land
fill, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT Na
EPA/ROD/R02-92/183
3. RecipienTe Acc**«lon No.
4. TMeendSubWe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Deto
09/30/92
7. Autfiort*)
8. Performing Orgtnlnflon Rept No.
9. Performing Orgemlzrton Neme end Addreu
10. Pro|ect/TMk/Work Unit No.
11. Contrac«(C) or Gr*nt
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/1-83
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued) '
the Town purchased two houses adjacent to the site because of high concentrations of
methane detected in their basements. An active gas-collection system was installed to
control migration of explosive gases beyond the site boundary. Ground water
investigations, which were conducted in 1980, revealed VOC contamination in private
wells. Public water mains or alternative water supplies were extended to affected
residents. During 1987, the unlined area was capped, and a liner/leachate collection
system was installed over the cell for vertical expansion of landfilling operations. In
1990, the state required the site to stop receiving municipal waste and begin
implementing a complete closure program of the entire landfilled area. This ROD
addresses a final remedy for the contaminated soil, debris, and ground water at the site.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are
VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE, and toluene; other organics; and metals, including
arsenic, chromium and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes installing a modified geosynthetic
membrane cap over 52 acres of the landfill; constructing a stormwater system to direct
and control runoff from the site to recharge basins; allowing ground water with total VOC
concentrations less than 50 ug/1 to naturally attenuate; extracting and onsite treatment
of ground water with total VOC concentrations greater than 50 ug/1 using aeration, with
discharge of the treated water onsite to a recharge basin; determining if carbon
absorption will be required as a polishing treatment step to ensure compliance with state
discharge limits; conducting a treatability study to determine the effectiveness of
aeration in precipitating metals from the ground water, and providing for a contingency
remedy that treats ground water using chemical precipitation and air stripping;
evaluating the ground water treatment system to determine whether an air pollution
control device is necessary; monitoring ground water and air; and implementing
institutional controls including deed and ground water restrictions to prevent the
installation of drinking water wells in impacted areas. The estimated present worth cost
for this remedial action is $17,942,025, which includes a present worth O&M cost of
$4,588,875 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals, which are based on SDWA MCLs and state
standards, include benzene 5 ug/1 (MCL); PCE 5 ug/1 (MCL); TCE 5 ug/1 (MCL); toluene 5
ug/1 (MCL); arsenic 0.025 mg/1 (state); chromium 50 ug/1; and lead 0.02 mg/1 (state).
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Site name: Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
(a.k.a. The Blydenburgh Road Landfill)
Site location: Town of Islip
HRS score: 33.39
ROD
Date Signed: September 30, 1992
Selected remedy: Landfill Cap/Pump groundwater above
50 ppb total VOCs and Treat via
aeration/Discharge to on-site recharge
basin
Capital cost: $13,353,150
0 & M COSt: $ 4,588,875
Present worth cost: $17,942,025
NYSDEC
NYSDEC Primary Contact: George Heitzman (518) 457-1641
NYSDEC Secondary Contact: Bob Cozzy (518) 457-1641
EPA Primary Contact: Sharon Trocher (212) 264-0722
EPA Secondary Contact: Doug Garbarini (212) 264-0109
Main PRPs: Town of Islip (Islip Resource Recovery
Agency)
Waste type: Volatile Organic Compounds
Inorganic Compounds
Waste origin: Municipal and Hazardous Wastes
Estimated waste quantity: Municipal Landfill Size: 52 acres
Hazardous Wastes: 60-70 fifty-five
gallon drums
Contaminated medium: Soil, Groundwater
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
(also known as Blydenburgh Road Landfill)
Town of Islip, Suffolk County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill Site (the Site), which was
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
amended, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This
decision document explains the factual and legal bases for
selecting the remedy for this Site. The information supporting
this remedial action decision is contained in the administrative
record for this.Site. The administrative record index is
attached (Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) concurs with the selected remedy as per the attached
letter (Appendix IV). NYSDEC also concurs with the contingency
remedy, should a treatability study determine that the
contingency remedy is appropriate.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision.(ROD), may present a
significant and substantial endangerment to public health,
welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This decision represents the entire remedial action for the Site.
It addresses the principal threats to human health and the
environment at the Site by controlling the source of
contamination and the generation of contaminated leachate, as
well as by treating contaminated groundwater.
The major components of the selected remedy include the .
following:
o Installation of a modified geosynthetic membrane cap on
the landfill which is designed in compliance with Part
360 of Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations (6 NYCRR Part 360), Solid Waste Management
-------
Facilities. The areal extent of the cap is approximately
52 acres. The synthetic membrane cap includes layers of
fill material, drainage layers, an impermeable membrane,
and a gas-venting system that utilizes Rolite-
treated incinerator ash;
Construction of a stormwater system that will direct and
control runoff from the Site to on-site recharge basins;
Development and implementation of an on-site groundwater
extraction and treatment system. Groundwater
contaminated with approximately 50 parts per billion
(ppb) of total volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or more
will be extracted, treated via aeration, and discharged
to an on-site recharge basin;
Implementation of a groundwater-monitoring system to
monitor the groundwater contamination plume and to
evaluate the effectiveness of the groundwater treatment
system, including natural attenuation processes;
Performance of a treatability study to determine the
effectiveness of aeration in precipitating inorganic
compounds from the groundwater. If the study
demonstrates that this technology is not effective in
removing inorganic compounds, then a contingency remedy
which utilizes chemical precipitation and air stripping
to treat groundwater will be implemented. The
contingency remedy is identical to the selected remedy in
all other aspects;
Determination of whether carbon adsorption will be
required as a polishing treatment step to ensure
compliance with New York State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System standards;
Evaluation of the groundwater treatment system to
determine whether an air pollution control device is
necessary to comply with air emission requirements;
Collection of ambient air samples to determine whether
modifications to the landfill gas control system are
necessary. If ambient air samples indicate that landfill
gas emissions from the three existing flares are
unacceptable, and operation of the current flare system
cannot be modified to reduce VOC emissions while
maintaining perimeter subsurface control of explosive
gas, then supplemental fuel will be provided to sustain
combustion in the flares;
Completion and evaluation of the supplemental groundwater
investigation begun in June 1992 to determine whether the
groundwater contamination detected at well cluster 7
2
-------
(well 7M-1) is Site-related. If the contamination in
well 7M-1 is determined to be attributable to the Site,
then the selected remedy will be appropriately modified
during the design stage to accommodate this additional
volume of contaminated groundwater;
o Development of an air-monitoring system to ensure
compliance with ambient air standards; and
o Recommendations that deed and well restrictions be
imposed to prevent the installation of drinking water
wells in impacted areas.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy and the contingency remedy are protective of
human health and the environment, comply with federal and state
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action and are cost-effective.
However, because treatment of the principal threats of the Site .
was not found to be practicable, this remedy and the contingency
remedy do not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element for the source control portion of the remedy.
The size of the landfill, the location of hazardous waste beneath
an intermediate cap/liner system, and the fact that the remedial
investigation did not identify on-site hot spots that represent
the major sources of contamination, preclude a remedy in which
contaminants could be excavated and.treated effectively.
However, the selected remedy and contingency remedy do call for
the treatment of contaminated groundwater at the Site and hence
satisfy the preference for treatment for this portion of the
remedy.
The selected and contingency remedies include a groundwater
extraction and treatment system which reduces the toxicity and
mobility of contaminated groundwater. The permanence of
reduction in contaminated groundwater toxicity will be monitored
upon discontinuation of the pump and treat system.
Since either remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted no
later than five years after commencement of the remedial action,
and every five years thereafter, to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
^
Cainstantine Siaamon-Erist6ff Dae
Regional Administrator / /
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
Islip Municipal Sanitary Landfill
(also known as Blydenburgh Road Landfill)
Town of Islip
Suffolk County, New York
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region II
New York, New York
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION .1
SITE HISTORY AND, ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 5
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS .... 5
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES .11
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 12
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES . . .19
SELECTED REMEDY 25
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 29
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 33
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Islip Municipal Sanitary. Landfill (also known as Blydenburgh
Road Landfill) complex is a 107.5-acre facility located in
Hauppauge, Town of Islip, Suffolk County, New York. The
property, which is located on the Central Islip, New York, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle (see Figure 1),
is bordered on the east by Blydenburgh Road. To the south is a
Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) transmission line and right-
of-way, and approximately 200 feet beyond this right-of-way is
Motor Parkway. The western boundary of the landfill property
consists of privately owned lots on Hoffman Lane and Woods Edge
Court. The northern end of the landfill lies adjacent to the
Whiporwil School and the Town House Village North Apartments (see
Figure 2).
Most of the surrounding areas immediately adjacent to the
landfill are residentially zoned. The closest residence is on
Blydenburgh Road, approximately 80 feet east of the landfill
property boundary. The nearest residence to the western boundary
of the landfill property is on Woods Edge Court and is about 150
feet from the landfill. Light industry is located southeast of
the landfill on Motor Parkway, east of Blydenburgh Road. The
landfill property is completely surrounded by a fence, and access
is controlled by a gate and guardhouse.
The topography in the area of the landfill is hilly due to the
presence of the Ronkonkoma Terminal Moraine. The top of the
landfill is approximately 250 feet above mean sea level (msl),
which is the highest elevation in the area. The elevation drops
off rapidly in a northerly direction to approximately 50 to 60
feet above msl at Town Line Road. The land surface elevation
toward the southern end of the landfill drops off more gradually
than to the north. The southern boundary of the study area (at
the Andrew Morrow School) is at an elevation of approximately 50
feet above msl.
Four major unconsolidated units underlie the landfill. The
unconsolidated deposits, from land surface downward, include the
Glacial Formation, the Magothy Formation, and the Clay and Lloyd
Sand members of the Raritan Formation. The uppermost two
formations (Glacial and Magothy) are of primary interest as they
are hydraulically interconnected, and are sole source (Class Ila)
aquifers in the region. The Glacial Formation in the landfill
area ranges in thickness from 120 to 350 feet and the Magothy
Formation is estimated to be about 600 feet thick. The Site is
located in the deep flow recharge zone of the Long Island aquifer
system, and vertical hydraulic gradients in the study area are
primarily downward. The prevailing groundwater flow direction in
both the Glacial and Magothy Formations is to the southeast in
the vicinity of the landfill. In the area of the Site, the
groundwater flow patterns converge toward the Connetquot River
drainage basin.
-------
The closest wetland south or southeast of the landfill (in the
direction of groundwater flow) is a recharge basin located-
adjacent to and south of the eastbound service road of the Long
Expressway and about 750 feet west of the well cluster at site
10. This basin is located about 4,000 feet from the center of
the Site. The data generated during the Remedial Investigation
(RI) indicated that wetlands are not affected by the Site.
The Connetquot Brook and the North Branch of the Nissequogue
River are the two most significant perennial surface-water bodies
closest to the landfill; both are used for recreational purposes.
The Connetquot River which discharges into the Nicoll Bay, is
located approximately 2 miles southeast of the Site and is
hydraulically downgradient of the landfill; its drainage area is
approximately 24 square miles. The nearest perennial surface-
water body is a tributary to the northeast branch of the
Nissequogue River and is located approximately 0.8 miles
northeast of the landfill. The Nissequogue River discharges into
the Smithtown Bay and has a drainage area of about 27 square
miles.
Five public supply well fields, currently owned and maintained by
the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA), are located within a
2-mile radius of the Site. The SCWA Liberty Street Well Field is
located approximately 3,500 feet east of the landfill; the SCWA
Nicholls Road Well Field is located about 6,000 feet southeast of
the landfill; the SCWA Oval Drive Well Field is located about
3,500 feet south of the landfill; the SCWA Wheeler Road Well
Field is located about 5,500 feet west of the landfill; and the
Dolores Place Well Field is located about 9,750 feet southwest of
the landfill.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Landfilling operations began in 1963 when an incinerator was
constructed on-site. Prior to construction of the incinerator,
sand mining was carried out on the property. In 1968, the
incinerator was closed. By 1978, the landfill was the only
operating public landfill in the Town of Islip.
Landfill activity at the Site has occurred in phases (cells)
since 1963. Although the landfill property encompasses 107
acres, only 55.4 acres were filled during Phases I and II. As
depicted in Figure 3, Phase I and Phase II reflect the unlined
and lined area of the landfill, respectively. The 13.4 acres
planned for Phase III will be used for disposal of clean fill.
Clean fill refers to nonputrecible waste and includes concrete,
steel, wood, sand, soil, glass construction demolition debris and
other inert material designated by NYSDEC. The remainder of the
property is used for temporary storage of ash fill, sand storage
and borrow areas, setback/buffer zones, vehicle storage, and
-------
other support uses. Most of the landfilling activities in the
unlined portion of the landfill were carried out from the late
1960s through the early 1980s. A schematic cross section
depicting the various landfilling phases, including the unlined
disposal area is shown on Figure 4. In June 1978, 60 to 70
fifty-five gallon drums containing waste dry cleaning solvent
were allegedly disposed of at the Site.
In 1979, two houses on the eastern end of Woods Edge Court were
purchased by the Town of Islip because high concentrations of
methane suspected to have originated from the landfill were
detected in their basements. In 1980, the Whiporwil School was
closed due to suspected vinyl chloride contamination in the air. .
Subsequent air samples did not confirm this contamination, and
the school was re-opened as a day care center. In 1983, an
active gas-collection system was installed to control migration
of explosive gases beyond the Site boundary. The gases,
primarily methane and carbon dioxide, are collected in extraction
wells and directed to generators, where the gas is burned to
generate electricity, or to flares.
In 1980, groundwater investigations were conducted in the
vicinity of the landfill. After private wells in the vicinity of
the Site were found to be contaminated with vinyl chloride and
tetrachloroethylene, public water mains were extended to
residences in the vicinity of the Site. With the exception of a
single house that is receiving bottled water, all residences in
the area are served by public water. The Town of Islip intends
to provide a permanent connection to public water for this
residence.
The Site was proposed for listing on the National Priorities List
(NPL) in January 1987. During 1987, the unlined area was capped,
and a liner/leachate collection system was installed over this
cell for vertical expansion of solid waste landfilling operations
(see Figure 4). On September 1, 1987, the Town of Islip and
NYSDEC entered into an Order on Consent to conduct a remedial
program at the Site. The RI for the Site began in September 1988
and was completed in May 1991. The Feasibility Study (FS) for
the Site was completed in June 1992. The Site achieved final
listing status on the NPL in March 1989.
In December 1990, the Site stopped receiving municipal solid
waste, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360 and the Long Island Landfill
Law. A complete closure program of the entire landfilled area,
including capping, methane recovery, and landfill gas-monitoring
activities is being implemented, as required by a NYSDEC Consent
Order dated December 18, 1990. The closure plan and landfill cap
design were submitted by the Town of Islip and approved by NYSDEC
in March 1992. In May 1992, a contract was awarded by the Town
of Islip to begin construction of the cap. Due to concerns
regarding the contractor, this contract was terminated and will
-------
be re-bid in October 1992. Pursuant to the approved closure
plan, clean fill and Rolite-treated ash1 from the resource'
recovery facility will be placed at the Site to achieve design
grades.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
NYSDEC held a public meeting in July 1988 to present the Remedial
RI/FS Work Plan and in October 1991 to present the results of the
RI and cap selected for the landfill.
The FS report and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released to
the public for comment on July 21, 1992. These documents were
made available to the public at the following locations: 1)
Central Islip Public Library, 33 Hawthorne Avenue, Central Islip,
New York, 2) Town Clerk's Office, 655 Main Street, Islip, New
York, 3) Islip Resource Recovery Agency, 40 Nassau Avenue, Islip,
New York, and 4) NYSDEC Region 1 Office, Building 40 SUNY, Stony
Brook, New York. In addition, the administrative record for this
Site is available to the public in the administrative record file
in the EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York and the information
repository at the Islip Resource Recovery Agency, 40 Nassau
Avenue, Islip, New York. The notice of availability for the
above-referenced documents was published in Newsday on July 28,
1992 and on August 4, 1992. The public comment period on these
documents was held from July 22, 1992 to August 21, 1992.
During the public comment period, NYSDEC and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a public meeting
at the Islip Town Hall on August 11, 1992, to inform local
officials and interested citizens about the Superfund process, to
review current and planned remedial activities at the Site, and
to respond to any questions from area residents and other
attendees. At this meeting, representatives from the NYSDEC, EPA
and the New York State Department of Health answered questions
about concerns related to the Site and the remedial alternatives
under consideration. Responses to the comments received at the
public meeting are included in the Responsiveness Summary (see
Appendix V). No written comments were received during the public
comment period.
'Rolite-treated ash refers to a proprietary process
developed by Rolite, Inc. to treat incinerator bottom and fly ash
with cement and other proprietary ingredients to form an
aggregate material.
-------
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
This response action applies a comprehensive approach and,
therefore, only one operable unit is required to remediate the
Site.
This remedial action.will utilize permanent solutions to the
maximum extent practicable. Because the treatment of the
principal threats at the Site is not practicable, this remedial
action does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as
a principal element of the source control portion of the remedy.
The size of the landfill, the location of the hazardous waste
beneath an intermediate cap/liner system, and the fact that the
RI did not identify on-site hot spots that represent major
sources of contamination, preclude a remedy in which contaminants
could be excavated and treated effectively. However, the
selected remedy and the contingency remedy call for the treatment
of contaminated groundwater at the Site, and hence, satisfy the
preference for treatment for this portion of the remedy.
NYSDEC is the lead agency for this project; EPA is the support
agency.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The RI field investigation was initiated in September 1988 and
completed in May 1991. It included sampling and analysis of
groundwater, landfill gases and ambient air. The RI began by
drilling four borings, in which water samples were collected at
10 or 20 foot intervals and analyzed in a field laboratory. This
provided a vertical profile of contamination in the aquifer
system. Based on the contaminated zones identified by the water-
quality borings and the local groundwater flow patterns, a
network of 44 monitoring wells was installed. The 44 monitoring
wells included 32 monitoring wells that were installed between
October 1988 and March 1990, and well clusters at sites 1, 2, and
3, and P-l, P-3, and P-4 which were installed prior to conducting
the RI. The 32 monitoring wells that were installed for this RI
are located in clusters at sites 4 through 16 as shown in Figure
2. Most of the wells were clustered in groups of two or three.
The well clusters consist of at least one "shallow" well in the
Upper Glacial aquifer and one "intermediate" well in the upper
part of the Magothy aquifer. Well clusters at sites 17 through
21 were installed to monitor the clean fill disposal area, and
are not part of the RI analytical data base. Three rounds of
groundwater samples were taken during the RI from the 44
monitoring wells. The groundwater samples were analyzed for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic
compounds (SVOCs), pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), inorganics and landfill leachate indicators during the
-------
first two rounds of groundwater sampling. During the third
sampling round, VOCs, inorganics and leachate indicators were
analyzed.
The investigation delineated a plume of contaminated groundwater
migrating in a southeasterly direction from the landfill
boundary. This groundwater plume contaminated with organic
compounds is approximately 3700 feet long and 1,600 feet wide.
The maximum vertical extent of the plume has been estimated to be
250 feet below the water table and is localized in the vicinity
of the wells located at sites 4, 6 and 14. The groundwater
contamination plume does not impact any public well fields and
was defined based on levels of contaminants above applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for groundwater.
Chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater at the Site are state and
federal drinking water standards and include EPA's Safe Drinking
Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), Part 5 of Title 10
of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (10 NYCRR Part 5),
and 6 NYCRR Part 703 standards. The chemical-specific ARARs are
provided in Table 1. A summary of the compounds detected in the
groundwater above ARARs is provided in Table 2.
Chemical components of the plume include both typical solid waste
leachate constituents and hazardous waste constituents and
degradation products. The groundwater contaminants that are
attributed to hazardous waste disposal are VOCs, primarily
chlorinated solvents such as tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, dichloroethylene, trichloroethane and vinyl
chloride. The highest levels of VOCs, totalling 343 ppb, were
found in well cluster 6, located approximately 700 feet southeast
of the landfill boundary at the radio tower off Blydenburgh Road.
The New York State MCLs for individual organic compounds are 5
ppb for Principal Organic Contaminants (POCs), 50 ppb for
Unspecified Organic Contaminants (UOCs), and 100 ppb for combined
POCs and UOCs (total organic compounds).
At well cluster 6, contaminants were detected down to the upper
portion of the Magothy aquifer. The Magothy and the overlying
Glacial aquifer are separated by a less permeable clayey sand
zone, that was found in varying thicknesses throughout the study
area. A deeper well, 6M-1, drilled 545 feet below ground
surface, did not have detectable levels of VOCs, indicating that
contamination does not appear to penetrate deep into the Magothy
aquifer.
High levels of VOCs were also found in the deep monitoring well
located at well cluster 7. It is uncertain whether this
contamination is attributable to the landfill, since the
groundwater samples from well cluster 7 did not contain the
inorganic contaminants typical of landfill leachate. In
addition, the shallow well at this location did not contain high
levels of VOCs, suggesting that the source lies upgradient. A
-------
supplemental investigation was begun in June 1992 to provide
additional information as to the source and extent of this
contamination.
Two SVOCs, phenols and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were detected
in only the first round of groundwater sampling at concentration
levels higher than ARARs. The highest concentration of bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, 110 ppb, was detected in the upgradient
well at site 3. The highest level of total phenols was 40 ppb
and was detected in a well at cluster 6. PCBs and pesticides
were not detected in groundwater samples. The predominant
inorganic compounds detected during the three groundwater
sampling rounds were iron, lead, manganese and zinc. Inorganics
compounds were usually detected at levels exceeding ARARs in both
the upgradient and downgradient wells. However, with the
exception of zinc, higher concentration levels of inorganic
compounds were detected in downgradient wells when compared to
the upgradient well.
Between 1988 and 1991, an air-quality study at the landfill was
conducted. On-site sources of landfill gases were sampled during
the RI to estimate baseline emissions and potential airborne
exposure to hazardous constituents. Landfill gas samples were
taken on-site from the feed to the two existing flares and four
uncontrolled vents located along Blydenburgh Road. During the
sampling, these vents emitted landfill gas directly to the
atmosphere. .The results of this sampling indicated that the
landfill was releasing organic vapors to the surrounding
atmosphere (benzene, vinyl chloride, 1,1-dichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene).
In order to evaluate the air impacts from the Site, an air
dispersion model was used to predict the on-site and off-site VOC
concentrations from the landfill gas emissions measured on-site.
The modelling results indicated that concentrations of vinyl
chloride and 1,1-dichloroethylene would exceed New York State Air
Guide 1 concentrations (AGC) at modelled receptor locations. The
receptor located directly across Blydenburgh Road from the four
uncontrolled gas vents exceeded the AGC by the greatest amount.
Table 3 lists the ambient air concentrations predicted by the
dispersion model, and Figure 5 provides the location of the air
modelling receptor locations.
The four vents along the eastern edge of the landfill were
discharging directly to the atmosphere at the time when the air
modelling was conducted. Since that time, the four vents have
been connected to a third flare, which should result in a
reduction in landfill gases released to the atmosphere. These
flares only burn when ehough landfill gas (methane) is present to
support combustion.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the
potential risks to human health and the environment associated
with the Site. The Risk Assessment focused on contaminants in
the groundwater and air which are likely to pose significant
risks to human health and the environment. To evaluate the
impacts from the groundwater, the groundwater sampling depths
were separated into the following three zones: 1) the shallow
groundwater zone which corresponds to the Upper Glacial (water-
table) aquifer (40 to 45 feet above msl); 2) the intermediate
groundwater zone corresponds to the lower Glacial/upper Magothy
(83 to 167 feet below msl); and 3) the deep groundwater zone
which is deeper in the Magothy (228 to 368 feet below msl). A
summary of the contaminants present in the groundwater, along
with their frequency-of-detection, range of concentration, and
95% Upper Confidence Limit concentration, are presented in Tables
4 through 6. The VOC concentrations predicted from the air
dispersion model were used to evaluate the potential risks to
human health from the air. The summary of the contaminants of
concern (COC) in the sampled matrices is presented in Table 7.
The COC in the air are those that were detected in the flare feed
and the four vents.
The baseline risk assessment addressed the potential risk to
human health by identifying several potential exposure pathways
by which the public may be exposed to contaminant releases at the
Site under current and future land-use conditions. The
inhalation of impacted air by on-site landfill employees and by
off-site adult and child residents was the only exposure pathway
considered under the current land-use condition. Since the
landfill waste is buried and public well fields are not impacted,
exposure to groundwater or contaminated soil has not been
identified under the current land-use condition. Under the
future land.use condition, the exposure pathways included the air
pathway identified under the current land-use condition, and the
ingestion of, dermal contact with, and inhalation of vapors from
impacted groundwater by adult and child residents. Since this is
a sole source aquifer from which all residents on Long Island
obtain their water, the future residential exposure considered
the potential for a well to be installed in either the shallow
(Upper Glacial) or the deeper (Magothy) aquifer. The potential
pathways of exposure to the COC are presented in Table 8. The
reasonable maximum exposure scenario was evaluated.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
Site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that
the toxic effects of the Site-related chemicals would be
additive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
-------
associated with exposures to individual compounds of co.ncern were
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures
of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
slope factors developed by EPA for the COC. Cancer slope factors
(SFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Verification Endeavor for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks
associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals.
SFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)"1, are multiplied
by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day,
to generate an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer
risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake
level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate
of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes
the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the
COC are presented in Table 9.
The risk calculations were based on the contaminants detected in
the monitoring wells. It was assumed that in the future, a
public supply well would be installed within the impacted
groundwater in either the shallow or intermediate zone. Risk
estimates were developed by taking into account various
conservative assumptions about the likelihood of a person being
exposed to the various contaminated media.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-
bound individual lifetime ,cancer risks of between 10"4 to 10* to
be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has
approximately a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance-of
developing cancer as a result of Site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure
conditions at the Site. The New York State Department of Health
considers a risk exceeding 10"6 to be unacceptable. The sum of
the future cancer risks for. the groundwater exposure pathways for
adult and child residents ranged from 1 x 10"4 to 4 x 10"4. Vinyl
chloride, arsenic and beryllium are the major chemicals
responsible for the carcinogenic risks from groundwater exposure
pathways. The concentrations, exposure doses and the
carcinogenic risks for the COC are provided in Tables 10 through
15 for the groundwater pathway and in Tables 16 through 18 for
the air pathway. A summary of the carcinogenic risks evaluated
across the various exposure pathways is provided in Table 19.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of mg/kg-day, are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans
which are thought to be safe over a'lifetime (including sensitive
individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental
-------
media (e.g.. the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) are compared to the RfD to derive the hazard
quotient for the contaminant in the particular medium. The
reference doses for the COC at the landfill are presented in
Table 9.
The HI is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all
compounds across all media that impact a particular receptor
population. An HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential
exists for noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of
Site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point
for gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media. The
concentrations, exposure doses and the noncarcinogenic risks for
the COC are provided in Tables 10 through 15 for the groundwater
pathway and in Tables 16 through 18 for the air pathway. A
summary of the noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic risks evaluated
for the various exposure pathways is provided in Table 19.
It can be seen from Table 19 that the His for noncarcinogenic
effects from the inhalation of impacted air by workers or
residents was below 1. The His for the shallow (Upper Glacial)
and intermediate (Magothy) groundwater exposure pathway were 5
and 3 for child resident, and 12 and 6 for adult resident,
respectively. Therefore, noncarcinogenic risk may occur from the
ingestion of groundwater under the future land-use condition.
The noncarcinogenic risk was attributable to several compounds,
the most significant of which were antimony, thallium and VOCs
(benzene, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethene, and vinyl
chloride).
More specific information concerning public health risks,
including a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk
associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the
Risk Assessment Report.
Data generated during the RI indicated that wetlands,
cultural/historical properties and significant agricultural lands
are not affected by the Site. Several designated wetlands were
identified in the surrounding area, but groundwater data
indicated that the landfill contaminant plume is not impacting
them.
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:
10
-------
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data.
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry-analysis
error can stem from several sources including the errors inherent
in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being
sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with
the COC, the period of time over which such exposure would occur,
and in the models used to estimate the concentrations of the
chemicals of concern at the point'of exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by
making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure
parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk
Assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to
underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in the Record of Decision (ROD), may present a
significant and substantial endangerment to the public health,
welfare, or the environment.
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 ARARs and risk-based
levels established in the risk assessment.
The purpose of the response action is to: 1) minimize the
infiltration of rainfall or snow melt into the landfill, thus
reducing the quantity of water percolating through the landfill
materials and leaching out contaminants; 2) prevent inhalation of
vapors from the landfill; 3) reduce the movement and toxicity of
the contaminated landfill leachate into groundwater, and
11
-------
subsequent downgradient migration of contaminants; 4) reduce the
movement and toxicity of contaminants in the groundwater; and 5)
restore the aquifer to drinking-water quality.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that each selected Site
remedy be protective of human health and the environment, be
cost-effective, comply with other ARARs, and utilize permanent
solutions, alternative treatment technologies and resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the statute includes a preference for the use of
treatment as a principal element for the reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.
As described below, this ROD evaluates in detail 8 remedial
alternatives for addressing the contamination associated with the
Site. The time to construct and the time to implement reflect
only the time required to construct or implement the remedy,
respectively, and do not include the time required to design the
remedy or procure contracts for design and construction.
Alternative l: No Further Action
Capital Cost: $0
Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Cost: $0
Present Worth Cost: $0
Time to Implement: 0
The Superfund program requires that the "no action" alternative
be considered as a baseline for comparison with the other
alternatives. However, since an intermediate cap and
liner/leachate collection system have already been installed in
the northern section of the landfill, it would be inappropriate
to term this a "no action" alternative. Therefore from this
point on a "no further action" alternative is being considered as
a baseline for comparison. The "no further action" alternative
does not include any additional physical remedial measures that
address the contamination at the Site.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site
be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the
wastes.
12
-------
Alternative 2: Landfill Cap, Monitoring and Institutional
Actions
Capital Cost: $11,755,800
Present Worth 0 & M Cost: $ 3,470,400
Present Worth Total Cost: $15,226,200
Time to construct: 30 months
Time to implement: 0
This alternative consists of capping 52 acres of the lar
groundwater- and air-monitoring programs, institutional
and installation of an early detection mechanism to serv
warning system should contaminated groundwater migrate I
existing monitoring well network and toward the Nicholls
dfill,
controls,
e as a
eyond the
Road
Well Field. The institutional actions include the
recommendations for deed and well restrictions and the
contingency to provide potable water to any well determined to be
impacted by the plume. The deed restriction would prohibit
access to the Site. The well restrictions would prohibit the
installation of wells on the Site or in the area of impacted
groundwater. As part of the monitoring program, groundwater and
air would be sampled annually to monitor the migration of
contaminated groundwater and evaluate compliance with ambient air
standards.
The cap would be a modified geosynthetic membrane cap designed in
compliance with 6 NYCRR Part 360. The modified design includes
supplemental elements to a conventional Part 360 cap, and is
designed to improve drainage above the cap, ensure stability on
slopes exceeding 3:1, and incorporate the use of Rolite-treated
ash in the gas-venting layer.
Rolite-treated ash is part of a NYSDEC approved research and
development program being implemented by the Town of Islip to
evaluate the potential uses for ash residue. Rolite-treated ash
would be obtained from the treatment of bottom and fly ash
residue from the Islip Resource Recovery Facility (IRRF). The
ash is currently mixed with cement in a rotary mill to form an
aggregate material. The Rolite-treated ash demonstration project
will evaluate the leachability and the long-term performance of
the material as a gas-venting layer. The Rolite-treated ash
aggregate would be utilized only in the portion of the landfill
which has a double liner and leachate-collection system (northern
section of the landfill) to ensure protection of the groundwater
in the event that contaminants leach out of the ash. In case the
Rolite gas-venting layer deteriorates, a redundant gas-venting
layer would be included in the area containing the Rolite-treated
ash. The redundant gas-venting layer would consist of sand.
The sections of the cap are presented in Figure 6, and include
the following layers from top to bottom:
13
-------
o An 18-inch sand/compost mix to support vegetation;.
o A 12-inch sand layer to provide additional protection f,or
the cap membrane and drainage;
o A drainage composite layer to enhance runoff directly
above the membrane;
o A 60-mil High Density Polyethylene membrane;
o A Geotextile filter fabric to provide additional gas-
venting capacity;
o A 12-inch layer of sand (southern section) or Rolite^-
treated incinerator ash (northern section) as the
primary gas-venting layer;
o A Geotextile filter fabric to separate the primary gas-
venting layer from the intermediate cover. The
intermediate cover is also designed to function as the
secondary gas-venting layer; and
o A 12-inch layer of intermediate cover which would
be the redundant sand gas-venting layer for the area
where Rolite-treated ash would be utilized.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site
be reviewed every five years (five year review) to ensure that
the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment. If justified by the review,
additional remedial actions may be implemented.
ALTERNATIVE 3A: Cap, Pump and Treat All Groundwater Contaminated
Above ARARs (Treatment by Aeration/Activated
Carbon)
Treatment Capital Cost: $ 1,893,900
Landfill Capital Cost: $11,676,000
Present Worth O & M Cost: $ 7,644,410
Present Worth Total Cost: $21,214,310
Time to Construct: 30 months
Time to Implement: 30+ years
This alternative consists of Alternative 2 (less the early
detection mechanism), extracting all impacted groundwater above
drinking water standards, treating extracted groundwater by
aeration, and discharging treated groundwater to an on-site
recharge basin. The groundwater-monitoring program would consist
of utilizing existing downgradient monitoring wells to monitor
the groundwater with a contingency to add additional monitoring
wells, if necessary. In addition, activated carbon would be
used, if necessary, to ensure that New York State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) standards would be met. Air
pollution control equipment would be used, if necessary, to
ensure compliance with air emissions standards.
14
-------
In order to capture the entire plume of contaminated groundwater,
it is estimated that four extraction wells pumping a combined 300
gallons per minute would be required. Two wells would be located
at the downgradient edge of the known contaminant plume in each
of the two hydrogeologic zones. It is estimated that at least 30
years of pumping would be required to reduce contaminant
concentrations to drinking water standards. The well locations
and pumping rates would be refined based on an aquifer pump test
conducted during the design phase.
The groundwater treatment facility would be located over the
contaminated aquifer on property owned by the Town. Treated
groundwater would be discharged to an on-site recharge basin.
Site-specific discharge standards would be determined in
compliance with SPDES discharge standards. Treatment of
extracted groundwater by aeration was demonstrated in a
treatability study to be effective in removing VOCs from
groundwater. It is not known at this time whether aeration alone
would reduce inorganic contaminants to levels that meet discharge
standards. Additional treatability studies would be required
during the design phase to determine whether these standards
could be met. Any residual sludge generated by this treatment
process would be disposed of in accordance with applicable
regulations. If activated carbon were required to achieve SPDES
standards, it would either be regenerated or disposed of in
accordance with applicable regulations.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site above health-based levels, five year reviews would be
required. If justified by the review, additional remedial
actions may be implemented.
ALTERNATIVE 3B: Cap, Pump and Treat All Groundwater Contaminated
Above ARARs (Treatment by Chemical
Precipitation/Air Stripping)
Treatment Capital Cost: $ 2,135,400
Landfill Capital Cost: $11,676,000
Present Worth O & M Cost: $12,500,310
Present Worth Total Cost: $26,311,710
Time to Construct: 30 months
Time to Implement: 30+ years
This alternative is identical to Alternative 3A, except that
extracted groundwater would be treated by chemical precipitation
for removal of metals, and VOCs would be removed by air stripping
and activated carbon, as necessary.
15
-------
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site above health-based levels, five year reviews would be
required. If justified by the review, additional remedial
actions may be implemented.
ALTERNATIVE 3C: Cap, Pump and Treat All Groundvater Contaminated
Above ARARs (Treatment by Ultraviolet
(DV)/Peroxidation)
Treatment Capital Cost: $ 3,857,400
Landfill Capital Cost: $11,676,000
Present Worth 0 & M Cost: $24,612,173
Present Worth Total Cost: $40,145,570
Time to Construct: 30 months
Time to Implement: 30+ years
This alternative is identical to Alternative 3A, except that
extracted groundwater would be treated by UV/Peroxidation. In
addition, pretreatment of groundwater to remove inorganic
compounds would.be implemented, if necessary, to meet SPDES
discharge standards.
UV/Peroxidation is an innovative treatment technology that breaks
apart organic compounds by exposing them to UV light in the
presence of peroxide with ozone and proprietary catalysts, if
necessary. The chlorinated organic contaminants of concern at
this Site would be broken down to carbon dioxide and hydrochloric
acid. A treatability study conducted during the FS showed that
the UV/Peroxidation could effectively treat contaminated
groundwater at the Site, but would require the use of a
proprietary catalyst to destroy certain constituents (1,1-
dichloroethane). As a result, treatment costs would be
significantly higher than for conventional treatment.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site above health-based levels, five year reviews would be
required. If justified by the review, additional remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
ALTERNATIVE 4A: Cap, Pump and Treat All Groundvater Contaminated
Above 50 ppb of Total VOCs (Treatment by
Aeration/Activated Carbon)
Treatment Capital Cost: $ 1,677,150
Landfill Capital Cost: $11,676,000
Present Worth 0 & M Cost: $ 4,588,875
Present Worth Total Cost: $17,942,025
Time to Construct: 30 months
Time to Implement: 10 years
16
-------
This alternative consists of Alternative 2 (less the early
detection mechanism), pumping all groundwater contaminated above
50 ppb of total VOCs, treating extracted groundwater by aeration,
and discharging treated groundwater to an on-site recharge basin.
The groundwater-monitoring program would consist of utilizing
existing downgradient monitoring wells to monitor the groundwater
with a contingency to add additional monitoring wells, if
necessary. It is expected that this action, in conjunction with
natural attenuation processes, would restore the aquifer to
drinking water quality in the long term. During the operation of
the pump and treat system, the effectiveness of the system in
achieving restoration of the aquifer to drinking-water quality
would be evaluated to determine whether modifications to the
system would be required to achieve this goal. Activated carbon
would be used, if necessary, to ensure that SPDES discharge
standards would be met. Air pollution control equipment would be
used, if necessary, to ensure compliance with air emissions
standards.
In order to capture the portion of the contaminant plume where
the concentration of total VOCs exceeds 50 ppb, it is estimated
that four extraction wells pumping a combined rate of 200 gallons
per minute would be required. Two wells would be located at the
downgradient edge of the 50 ppb contour in each of the two
contaminated hydrogeologic zones. It is estimated that 6.5 years
of pumping would be required to remove one pore volume of water
from the portion of the aquifer contaminated above 50 ppb.
Although it is difficult to estimate the number of extracted pore
volumes required to restore the aquifer to drinking-water .
quality, EPA and NYSDEC believe that significant contaminant
reduction would be achieved in 10 years (1 1/2 pore volumes) .
The well locations and pumping rates would be refined based on an
aquifer pump test conducted during the design phase.
The groundwater treatment facility would be located over the
contaminated 'aquifer on property owned by the Town. Treated
groundwater would be discharged to an on-site recharge basin.
Site-specific discharge standards would be determined in
compliance with SPDES discharge standards. Treatment of
extracted groundwater by aeration was demonstrated in a
treatability study to be effective in removing VOCs from
groundwater. It is not known at this time whether aeration alone
would reduce inorganic contaminants to a level that meets
discharge standards. Additional treatability studies would be
required during the design phase to determine whether these
standards could be met. Any residual sludge generated by this
treatment process would be disposed of in accordance with
applicable regulations.
17
-------
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site above health-based levels, five year reviews would' be
required. If justified by the review, additional remedial
actions may be implemented.
ALTERNATIVE 4B: Cap, Pump and Treat Groundvater Contaminated
Above 50 ppb Total VOCs (Treatment by Chemical
Precipitation/Air stripping)
Treatment Capital Cost: $ 1,986,150
Landfill Capital Cost: $11,676,000
Present Worth O & M Cost: $ 6,639,230
Present Worth Total Cost: $20,301,400
Time to Construct: 30 months
Time to Implement: 10 years
This alternative is identical to Alternative 4A, except that
extracted groundwater would be treated by chemical precipitation
of metals and air stripping of VOCs and activated carbon, as
necessary. Sludge generated by the chemical precipitation
process would be disposed of in accordance with applicable
regulations. If activated carbon were required to achieve SPDES
standards, it would either be regenerated or disposed of in
accordance with applicable regulations.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site above health-based levels, five year reviews would be
required. If justified by the review, additional remedial
actions may be implemented.
ALTERNATIVE 4C: Cap, Pump and Treat Groundwater Contaminated
Above 50 ppb Total VOCs (Treatment by
UV/Peroxidation)
Treatment Capital Cost: $ 3,279,900
Landfill Capital Cost: $11,676,000
Present Worth 0 & M Cost: $10,487,690
Present Worth Total Cost: $25,443,590
Time to Construct: 30 months
Time to Implement: 10 years
This alternative is identical to Alternative 4A, except that
extracted groundwater would be treated by UV/Peroxidation.
Pretreatment of groundwater to remove inorganics would be
implemented, if necessary, to meet SPDES discharge standards.
18
-------
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site above health-based levels, five year reviews would be
required. If justified by the review, additional remedial
actions may be implemented.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each
alternative was assessed utilizing nine evaluation criteria as
set forth in the NCP and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) Directive 9355.3-01. These criteria were
developed to address the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA to
ensure all important considerations are factored into remedy
selection decisions.
The following "threshold" criteria are the most important, and
must be satisfied by any alternative in order to be eligible for
selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not 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 addresses whether or not a remedy
would meet all of the applicable, or relevant and
appropriate requirements of federal and state environmental
statutes and requirements or provide grounds for invoking a
waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make
comparisons and to identify the major trade-offs between
alternatives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time, once cleanup goals 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 through treatment
is the anticipated performance of a remedial technology,
with respect to these parameters, that a remedy may employ.
19
-------
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation periods until cleanup goals
are achieved.
6. Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and
maintenance costs, and the present worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of
the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports,
opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with the
preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the
RI/FS reports. Factors of community acceptance to be
discussed include support, reservation, and opposition by
the community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon
the above evaluation criteria follows.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 (No Action) would be the least protective
alternative in terms of both human health and the environment.
Alternative 2 (Capping, Monitoring and Institutional Actions)
would protect human health by restricting access to contaminated
groundwater and thus eliminate exposure pathways. However, EPA
prefers not to substitute institutional controls for active
response measures (e.g.. treatment for restoration of the
groundwater). The landfill cap would provide additional
protection to human health by reducing the generation of landfill
leachate. Continued monitoring of air emissions with a
contingency for additional controls would ensure acceptable
ambient air concentrations. Alternative 2 would not be
protective of the environment, because the contaminants would
remain in the aquifer.
Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C would provide the greatest degree of
human health and environmental protection. By pumping and
treating all contaminated groundwater, the aquifer could be
restored in the long term (more than 30 years). Human health
20
-------
would be protected in similar fashion as for Alternative 2. The
different treatment methods in Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C would
all provide the same degree of health and environmental
protection. Alternatives 3A and 3B would generate some air
emissions that may require control measures to meet air quality
criteria.
Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C would provide a slightly lesser degree
of environmental protection than Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C
because a portion of the contaminant plume would not be captured.
These areas of contamination would degrade and dilute in the long
term, and environmental protection would be achieved after a
longer period of time than for Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C. Human
health would be protected to the same degree as for Alternatives
2, 3A, 3B and 3C. The different treatment methods in
Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C would all provide the same degree of
human health and environmental protection. Alternatives 4A and
4B would generate some air emissions that may require control
measures to meet air quality criteria.
Compliance"with ARARs
An action-specific ARAR for this Site is the landfill
capping/closure requirement of 6 NYCRR Part 360. Alternatives 2,
3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B, and 4C would all fulfill the provisions of
this regulation. Alternative 1 would not meet this ARAR.
Chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater at the Site are state and
federal drinking water standards, including EPA MCLs, 10 NYCRR
Part 5, and 6 NYCRR Part 703 standards. Alternative 2 would rely
entirely on natural attenuation processes to attain chemical-
specific ARARs in the aquifer and would not be expected to
achieve ARARs in a reasonable amount of time. Alternatives 3A,
3B and 3C would be expected to meet groundwater ARARs in the long
term (at least 30 years). Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C would
require a longer period of time to meet groundwater ARARs because
it relies, in part, upon natural attenuation processes. The time
frame for meeting ARARs by this alternative would be longer than
Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C, but much less than Alternative 2.
Chemical-specific discharge standards established by SPDES would
be met by all treatment alternatives. ARARs associated with air
emissions would be met to an equal degree by Alternatives 2, 3A,
3B, 3C, 4A, 4B and 4C. Re-sampling and annual monitoring of
landfill gas emissions would ensure that adequate control of
methane and VOCs is maintained. Aeration and air stripping
processes under Alternatives 3A, 3B, 4A and 4B would be designed
to comply with applicable air emissions criteria.
21
-------
Location-specific ARARs would be met for all alternatives.- Based
on data generated during the RI, wetlands, cultural/ historical
properties and significant agricultural lands are not affected by
the Site and would not be expected to be affected by any remedial
actions.
Lona-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
None of the alternatives provide for treatment of contamination
present .in the landfill as a permanent means of eliminating or
reducing the source of contamination. Alternatives 2, 3A, 3B,
3C, 4A, 4B and 4C would provide containment of the waste by
capping. The cap and stormwater collection system would reduce
the migration of contaminants from the landfill by reducing the
amount of leachate generated. The landfill cap would require
annual maintenance to ensure the impermeability of the membrane
and proper functioning of the stormwater collection structures.
Based on the groundwater flow model prepared as part of the FS,
Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C would require an estimated 6.5 years
to extract one pore volume of contaminated groundwater. Although
it is difficult to estimate the number of extracted pore volumes
required to achieve the remedial goal, EPA and DEC believe that
significant contaminant reduction would be achieved in 10 years
(1 1/2 pore volumes). Contaminant removal for any of the pump
and treat alternatives may be enhanced during operation of the
system by varying extraction rates, instituting a pulsed pumping
schedule and installing additional extraction wells. The
operation of the selected extraction system and the goals of the
groundwater remediation may be periodically re-evaluated based on
monitoring the performance of the system, including the natural
attenuation of uncaptured, low-level contaminants. This approach
is consistent with recent EPA and DEC groundwater remediation
strategy documents.
Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C would differ from Alternatives 3A, 3B
and 3C in the location of extraction wells and the amount of
contaminated groundwater extracted. Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C
would rely on natural attenuation processes to reduce the
concentration of the low-level contamination left in the aquifer
over time. The advantage of this approach is that a greater mass
of contaminants are removed from the aquifer in the short term
and not allowed to sink deeper into the Magothy Aquifer due to
the location of the extraction wells. However, in the long run,
it is anticipated that Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C would remove a
greater mass of contaminants.
Treatment of extracted contaminants by three options (aeration,
air stripping and UV/Peroxidation) would offer differing degrees
of permanence when all media are considered. UV/Peroxidation is
destructive of all organic COC at this Site. Aeration and air
22
-------
stripping are potentially destructive technologies, if air
emissions were controlled by carbon adsorption and the spent
carbon were regenerated through incineration. The specific need
for carbon adsorption would be determined during the design of
the selected alternative.
Because waste would remain on Site under each alternative, a
five-year review would be required to ensure that the selected
remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
Long-term monitoring would be required to track the spread of
contamination under Alternatives 1 and 2, and to monitor the
effectiveness of Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B and 4C.
Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
Alternatives 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B and 4C would reduce the
mobility of contaminants by capping and thereby minimizing
leachate generation. Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B and 4C
would also achieve a reduction in toxicity, mobility and volume
of contaminants in the aquifer via extraction and treatment of
the groundwater. Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C would differ from
Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C in the mass of contaminants
potentially removed from the aquifer. Of the estimated 700
pounds of contaminants present in the groundwater plume,
Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C would remove approximately 425 pounds.
Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C would remove a greater mass of
contaminants and could theoretically remove most of the estimated
700 pounds of total VOCs.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Construction of the landfill cap may generate fugitive dust
during placement of the sand and Rolite gas venting layers.
Strict fugitive dust standards would be enforced during
construction to ensure the safety of on-site workers and off-site
receptors.
Because Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C would have pumping wells
located in more heavily contaminated areas than Alternatives 3A,
3B and 3C, Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C would remove contaminants
more effectively in the short term. It is estimated that
Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C would require 5 years to begin
capturing the high levels of contamination that would be captured
immediately by Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C. Alternative 1 is the
least effective in the short term.
23
-------
Implementabilitv
Alternatives 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B and 4C all specify
construction of a landfill cap, which involves well established
construction methods. However, a 52-acre cap is a relatively
large construction project, and some technical problems may be
encountered.
Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A, 4B and 4C would also require
installation of extraction wells, piping and treatment systems.
These technologies are well developed and of moderate complexity
to construct. Consequently, these alternatives would be more
difficult to implement than Alternative 2. Alternatives 3A and
4A would require additional treatability testing to determine
whether aeration can successfully remove inorganic constituents
to levels that meet discharge requirements. Alternatives 3C and
4C involve an innovative treatment technology (UV/Peroxidation)
that could potentially delay start-up times and increase cost.
The technologies utilized in Alternatives 3B and 4B therefore
would be easier to implement than the technologies utilized in
Alternatives 3A, 3C, 4A, and 4C.
All of the alternatives would require some degree of
institutional management. Long-term monitoring would be required
to track the spread of contamination under Alternatives 1 and 2
and to monitor the effectiveness of Alternatives 3A, 3B, 3C, 4A,
4B and 4C. Alternatives 1 and 2 would require more coordination
with state and county public health officials to ensure that the
uncontrolled groundwater plume would not impact public or private
water supplies. Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C would require a
lesser degree of coordination to monitor the areas of the plume
that would not be captured by the extraction system.
Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C would require the least degree of
institutional management.
Cost
Present worth cost estimates consider a 5 percent discount rate
and a 30-year operational period. The present worth costs are as
follows:
Alternative 1 $ 0
Alternative 2 $ 15,226,200
Alternative 3A $ 21,214,310
Alternative 3B $ 26,311,710
Alternative 3C $ 40,145,570
Alternative 4A $ 17,942,025
Alternative 4B $ 20,301,400
Alternative 4C $ 25,443,590
24
-------
When compared respectively to Alternatives 4A, 4B and 4C, the
higher present worth cost for Alternatives 3A, 3B and 3C reflect
a higher present worth 0 & M cost. When comparing similar
extraction rates, Alternatives 3C and 4C would have the highest
present worth cost and reflect utilizing UV/Peroxidation as a
treatment technology to remove VOCs.
State Acceptance
NYSDEC has been the lead for this Site and concurs with the
selected remedy. NYSDEC also concurs with the contingency
remedy, should it be determined that the contingency remedy,
Alternative 4B, is appropriate. The NYSDEC's letter of
concurrence is in Appendix IV.
Community Acceptance
In general, the community supports the selected remedy. The
community's comments and concerns received during the public
comment period are identified and addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary which is attached as Appendix V to this document.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of
the alternatives, and public comments, both NYSDEC and EPA have
determined that Alternative 4A, capping and extraction of
groundwater contaminated above 50 ppb with treatment by aeration,
is the appropriate remedy for the Site. The present worth cost
of this alternative is $17,942,025 which represents a capital
cost of $13,353,150 and a present worth 0 & M cost of $4,588,875.
A breakdown o£ the cost items for Alternative 4A is presented in
Table 20.
Capping the landfill will effectively isolate the source from
generating leachate that would spread additional contamination
into the aquifer. The alternative of extracting groundwater
contaminated above 50 ppb will effectively remove contaminant
mass from the aquifer, and is a practical, cost-effective
approach to achieving the remedial goal of restoring the aquifer
to drinking water standards. Extracting and treating the areas
of highest contamination in the aquifer will provide short-term
effectiveness in extracting contaminants, and, in combination
with natural attenuation processes, will reduce pollutant levels
to ARARs in the long term. The effectiveness of this approach
will be evaluated throughout the operation of the system to
determine whether any modification to the system is necessary to
25
-------
achieve the remedial goal. Periodic monitoring will also be used
to reassess the time frame and technical practicability of
achieving cleanup standards.
Deed restrictions for the Site and restrictions on the use or
installation of wells within the contaminant groundwater plume
will be recommended to eliminate potential human exposure to
wastes and contaminated groundwater. The groundwater monitoring
program will be designed to provide an early warning mechanism
should contamination migrate toward the Nicholls Road Well Field.
Because the pilot treatability study did not conclusively
demonstrate whether aeration would precipitate metals out of
solution sufficiently to meet discharge requirements, Alternative
4B (treatment by chemical precipitation and air stripping) will
be retained as a contingent remedy. Additional treatability
testing will be conducted during the design of the extraction
system to verify whether aeration is an acceptable treatment
method for inorganics. In addition, the air emissions from the
aeration process will be evaluated to determine whether an air
pollution control device will be necessary to meet regulatory
requirements.
In June 1992, a supplemental groundwater investigation was
initiated to determine if the groundwater contamination detected
in well 7M-1 were Site-related. If the contamination in well
7M-1 is attributable to the Site, the selected remedy will be
appropriately modified during the design stage to accommodate
this additional volume of contaminated groundwater. In addition,
a supplemental ambient air investigation and evaluation of the
landfill gas flares will be conducted to determine whether
additional gas-control measures are necessary. If the operating
schedule of the flares cannot be modified to provide adequate
periods of VOC destruction, supplemental fuel to sustain
continuous combustion in the flares will be provided.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
o Installation of a modified geosynthetic membrane cap on
the landfill in accordance with the closure
requirements for New York State solid waste landfills
contained in 6 NYCRR Part 360. The areal extent of the
cap is approximately 52 acres. The modified geosynthetic
membrane cap includes layers of fill material, drainage
layers, an impermeable membrane, and a gas venting system
that utilizes Rolite-treated incinerator ash;
o Construction of a stormwater system that will direct and
control runoff from the Site to on-site recharge basins;
26
-------
o Development and implementation of an on-site groundwater
extraction and treatment system. Groundwater
contaminated with approximately 50 parts per billion
(ppb) of total volatile VOCs or more will be extracted,
treated via aeration, and discharged to an on-site
recharge basin. Groundwater with a concentration of
total VOCs below 50 ppb will be reduced to drinking-water
standards through natural attenuation;
o Implementation of a groundwater-monitoring system to
monitor the groundwater contamination plume and to
evaluate the effectiveness of the selected remedy;
o Performance of a treatability study to demonstrate that
aeration is effective in precipitating inorganic
compounds from the groundwater. If the study
demonstrates that this technology is not effective in
removing inorganic compounds, then a contingency remedy
which utilizes chemical precipitation and air stripping
to treat groundwater will be implemented. The
contingency remedy is identical to the selected remedy in
all other aspects;
o Determination of whether carbon adsorption will be
required as a polishing treatment step to ensure
compliance with SPDES discharge standards during
treatability testing;
o Evaluation of the groundwater treatment system to
determine whether an air pollution control device will be
necessary to comply with air emission requirements;
o Collection of ambient air samples to determine whether
additional landfill gas control measures will be
necessary. If ambient air samples indicate that landfill
gas emissions from the three existing flares are
unacceptable, and operation of the current flare system
cannot be modified to reduce VOC emissions while
maintaining perimeter subsurface control of explosive
gas, then supplemental fuel will be provided to sustain
combustion in the flares;
o Completion and evaluation of the supplemental groundwater
investigation begun in June 1992, to determine whether
the groundwater contamination detected at well cluster 7
(well 7M-1) is Site-related. If the contamination in
well 7M-1 is attributable to the Site, then the design
of the proposed remedy will be modified to address it;
o Development of an air-monitoring system to ensure
compliance with ambient air standards; and
27
-------
o Recommendations that deed and well restrictions be •
imposed to prevent the installation of drinking water
wells in impacted areas.
The selected remedy and the contingency remedy represent the best
balance of trade-offs among alternatives with respect to the
evaluating criteria. NYSDEC and EPA believe that the selected
remedy and the contingency remedy will be protective of human
health and the environment, will comply with ARARs, will be cost-
effective, and will utilize permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Because
treatment of the principal threats of the Site was not found to
be practicable, this remedy and contingency remedy do not satisfy
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of
the source control portion of the remedy. However, the selected
and contingency remedy do call for the treatment of contaminated
groundwater at the Site and hence satisfy the preference for
treatment for this portion of the remedy.
Remediation Goals
The purpose of this response action is to reduce the present risk
to human health and the environment due to contaminants leaching
from the landfill. The capping of the landfill will minimize the
infiltration of rainfall and snow melt into the landfill, thereby
reducing the potential for contaminants leaching from the
landfill and negatively impacting groundwater quality.
The goal of the groundwater portion of the selected remedy is to
restore the groundwater to drinking water quality. Based on
information obtained during the RI and on a careful analysis of
remedial alternatives, NYSDEC and EPA believe that the selected
remedy will achieve this goal. It may become apparent, during
implementation or operation of the groundwater extraction system,
that contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are remaining
constant at levels higher than the drinking-water standards over
some portion of the contaminated plume. It may also become
apparent that natural attenuation processes are effective at
reducing a certain level of contamination in the aquifer, in a
similar time frame and lower cost than pumping and treating. In
these cases, the system performance standards and/or the remedy
may be re-evaluated.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for a
period which is presently estimated to be 10 years (but which,
depending upon the degree of contaminant reduction achieved, may
ultimately be a longer or shorter period), during which the
system's performance will be carefully monitored on a regular
basis and adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected
during operation. Modifications may include any or all of the
following:
28
-------
o Discontinuing pumping at individual wells where
cleanup goals have been attained.
o Alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation.
o Pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to
allow adsorbed contaminants to partition into
groundwater.
o Installing additional extraction wells to facilitate
or accelerate cleanup of the contaminated plume.
During the performance of the long-term monitoring, NYSDEC and
EPA may determine that the remedial action objective has been
met. Periodic monitoring will be used to re-assess the time
frame and the technical practicability of achieving cleanup
standards. Upon meeting all remedial objectives, or determining
that the Site has been sufficiently purged of contaminants so
that public health is no longer threatened by exposure to the
Site, EPA will initiate proceedings to delete the Site from the
NPL.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that are
protective of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory
requirements and preferences. These specify that when complete,
the selected remedial action for this Site must comply with
applicable, or relevant and appropriate environmental standards
established under federal and state environmental laws unless a
statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be
cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource-recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a
preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous wastes, as available. The following sections discuss
how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements. The
contingency remedy will also meet these requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 4A and the contingency remedy (Alternative 4B) are
fully responsive to this criterion and to the identified remedial
response objectives. Capping the landfill protects human health
and the environment by reducing the mobility of contaminated
materials and the leaching of contaminants into the aquifers.
The extraction and treatment of contaminants in groundwater in
29
-------
conjunction with natural attenuation will restore the aquifer to
state and federal drinking water standards in the long term and
concurrently reduce the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
posed by potential exposure to the groundwater.
Compliance with ARARs
Attainment of chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater will be
hastened due to reduced leaching following construction of the
cap and the extraction and treatment of leachate and groundwater.
The cap will comply with the action-specific ARAR for landfill
capping/closure requirements. Action- and location-specific
ARARs will be complied with during implementation. The specific
ARARs for the selected remedy are listed below.
Action-specific ARARs:
o Federal Hazardous Waste Management Requirements (capping
requirements, on-site containment, dust control, tank
storage, and general closure standards) (Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 262))
o 6 NYCRR 360: Solid Waste Management Facilities
o Federal Hazardous Waste Manifest Requirements for Off-
Site Waste Transport (40 CFR 262)
o Department of Transportation (DOT) Rules for Hazardous
Materials Transport (49 CFR 171).
o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Land
Disposal Restrictions (40 CFR 268)
o Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
Standards for Hazardous Material Response (29 CFR 1904,
1910, 1926).
o Standards for Hazardous Waste Transporters (40 CFR 263)
o USEPA Clean Air Act (CAA)
o 6 NYCRR 370: Hazardous Waste Management System - General
o 6 NYCRR 371: Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste
o 6 NYCRR 372: Hazardous Waste Manifest System and Related
Standards for Generators, Transporters, and Facilities
o 6 NYCRR 373: Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
30
-------
o 6 NYCRR 373-1: Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facility Permitting Requirements
o 6 NYCRR Part 200 - General Air Provisions
o 6 NYCRR Part 201 - Air Permits and Certificates
o 6 NYCRR Part 211 - General Prohibitions
o 6 NYCRR Part 212 - General Process Emission Sources
o 6 NYCRR Part 257 - Air Quality Standards
o 6 NYCRR Part 50 - National Primary and Secondary Ambient
Air Quality Standards
o National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470-470 et
seq.)
o Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
o Farmland Protection Policy Act
Chemical-specific ARARs:
o USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), MCLs and MCL Goals
(40 CFR Part 141)
o NYSDEC Groundwater Quality Regulations (6 NYCRR Parts
700-705)
o NYSDOH Maximum Contaminant Levels, Public Water Supplies
(10 NYCRR Subpart 5-1)
o USEPA National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (40 CFR Part 61)
Location-Specific ARARs
o Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands
o Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Section 404
Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance to be Considered
o NYSDEC Air Guide-1 (draft, 1991 Edition)
o NYSDEC Technical and Operational Guidance Series (TOGS)
o Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management)
31
-------
o EPA Statement of Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands
Assessments for CERCLA Actions
o New York State Air Cleanup Criteria, January 1990
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportional
to its cost. The estimated present worth cost of the selected
remedy is $17,942,025, which represents capital and present worth
0 & M costs of $13,353,150 and $4,588,875, respectively. The
estimated present worth cost of the contingency remedy is
$20,301,400, which represents capital and present worth costs of
$13,662,150 and $6,639,230, respectively.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy and the contingency remedy utilize permanent
solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. The selected remedy represents the best balance of
trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation
criteria.
The extraction and subsequent treatment of groundwater will
permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of contaminants in the groundwater. A treatability study
will be performed to demonstrate whether the selected remedy will
also be effective in treating inorganic contaminants in the
groundwater. If the treatability study indicates that this
technology is not effective, then the contingency remedy,
Alternative 4B, shall be implemented.
The construction of the landfill cap will reduce the mobility of
contaminated material and the leaching of contaminants into the
aquifer. No major technological problems should arise since the
technologies for capping the landfill are readily available.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element cannot be satisfied for the landfill itself,
since treatment of the landfill material is not practicable. The
size of the landfill, the location of the hazardous waste beneath
an intermediate landfill cap and leachate collection system,- and
the fact that there are no identified on-site hot spots that
represent the major sources of contamination preclude a remedy in
which contaminants could be excavated and treated effectively.
However, the selected remedy and the contingency remedy call for
32
-------
the treatment of contaminated groundwater at the Site and, hence,
satisfy the preference for treatment for this portion of the
remedy.
DOCUMEKTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
33
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Location of the Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New
York
Figure 2 - Site Plan for the Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New
York
Figure 3 - Landfilling Phases and Acreage, Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York
Figure 4 - Schematic Cross Section of Landfilling Phases,
Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Figure 5 - Location of Air Modeling Receptor Points
Figure 6 - Modified Part 360 Cap
-------
'.--,*•' f.Vl^silii^riJs
:.... .• ., .
:.=» • v^ •
H ' "^•A.'Tf^fc. .
J ' • .-->•-
BLYDENBURGH
LANDRLL
• - '. '•• r'iX:>.fc AU, . ••:
; r*^- ^-X^r^- -
'' '•' -' :• • / j *-1 . Ls •• ".
'=» - • ^-v^i, .- . • .«. .
_
l n I -INttRCHANGE
>.' ^- 57 • •
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Strvieta
LOCATION OF THE BLYDENBURGH
LANDFILL, HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK
TOWN OF ISUP
ISUP. NEW YORK
POORQUAUIY
-------
Sit IS
FIGURE 2
SITE PLAN FOR THE BLYDENBURGH
LANDFILL, HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK
TOWN OF ISUP
ISUP, NEW YORK
-------
o
o
Q
I
K
8:
*
o
I
TOWN HOUSE
VILLAGE NORTH
APARTMENTS
WHIPORWIL
SCHOOL
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
LANDFTLLED
SINGLE-UNER
14.5 ACRES
PHASE HI
(Clean Fill)
SAND STORAGE
9.6 ACRES
EXPANSION
DOUBLE-LINER
13.4 ACRES
PROPOSED LEACHATE
IMPOUNDMENT BASINS
i
o
ee
a.
MOTOR PARKWAY
r
600 FT
SOURCE IRRA (1985)
EXPLANATION
Rl STUDY SITE
I
o
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Services
LANDFILLING PHASES AND ACREAGE .
BLYDENBURGH LANDFILL,. HAUPPAUGE,
NEW YORK
TOWN OF ISLIP
ISLIP, NEW YORK
FIGURE
-------
I OWC DATE: 9-6-91 [ PRJCT NO.: NY16405 I RLE NO.: MOO I DRAWING: BLY-X I CHECKED: MW
(APPROVED: BB
IDRAFTCR: CS
PROPERTY
UNE
c!
250
200
150
100
50
MOTOR
PARKWAY
N
PROPERTY
UNE
UNERS
APPROXIMATE
GERAGHTY
& MILLER, INC.
Environmental Sarvices
SCHEMATIC CROSS SECTION OF LANDFILLING PHASES,
BLYDENBURGH LANDFILL, HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK
TOWN OF ISLIP
ISLIP. NEW YORK
FIGURE
4
-------
•'*•• 'JN£ 3CAO
Town at IB*
Proo«vr un« lor «<•
81«a*nourqn worofW
LEGEND
RECEPTOR POINT
SOURCE OF MAP: GERAGHTY 4 MILLER. IHC.
DRAWING FILE * 1019
MAlCOtM
PIRNIE
Figure 5 Location of Air Modeling Receptor Points
(adapted from Malcolm Pirnie, 1990).
•AI.COi.ll »•••. MC.
-------
DRAINAGE
COMPOSITE
FINISHED GRADE
V-6M MIN COMPOST/
GENERAL BACKFILL
60 MIL TEXTURED
HOPE GEOMEMBRANE
1-0 MIN GENERAL BACKFILL
--VEGETATION
GEOTEXT1LE
FILTER FABRIC
12" SAND OR
ROUTE FILL
/— EXISTING LANDFILL
COVER MATERIAL
AND REFUSE
MAlCOUVt
PIRNIE
BLYDENBURGH SANITARY LANDFILL CLOSURE
ISLIP. NEW YORK
ALTERNATIVE 3
MODIFIED PART 360 CAP
UAI.COI.M riMJIL. IUi:.
FIGURE
6
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLES
Table 1 -
Table 2 -
Table 3 -*
Table 4 -
Table 5 -
Table 6 -
Table 7 -
Table 8 -
Table 9 -
Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements Identified for the
Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Summary of Compounds/Analytes Detected above ARARs at
the Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Constituent Air Concentrations Predicted at Discrete
Receptors in the Area of the Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York
Occurrence of Constituents in the Shallow Groundwater
Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Occurrence of Constituents in the Intermediate
Groundwater Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New
York
Occurrence of Constituents in the Deep Groundwater
Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Constituents of Concern at the Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York
Potential Pathways of Exposure to Constituents of
Concern, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Reference Doses (RfDs), Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs),
and Cancer Classifications for Constituents of
Concern, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Table 10 - Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and
Child Residents, Ingestion of Groundwater from the
Shallow Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New
York
Table 11 - Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and
Child Residents, Dermal Contact (Shower or Bath) with
Groundwater from the Shallow Zone, Blydenburgh
Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Table 12 - Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and
Child Residents, Inhalation Exposure to Constituents
detected in the Shallow Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York
Table 13 - Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and
Child Residents, Ingestion of Groundwater from the
Intermediate Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge,
New York
-------
Table 14 - Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and
Child Residents, Dermal Contact (Shower or Bath) with
Groundwater from the Intermediate Zone,
Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Table 15 - Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and
Child Residents, Inhalation Exposure to Constituents
detected from the Intermediate Zone, Blydenburgh
Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Table 16 - Air Concentrations, Air Pathway Inhalation Exposure
Doses, and Risks for Landfill Employee, Blydenburgh
Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Table 17 --Air Concentration, Air Pathway Inhalation Exposure
Doses, and Risks for Adult Residents, Blydenburgh
Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Table 18 - Air Concentration, Air Pathway Inhalation Exposure
Doses, and Risks for Child Residents, Blydenburgh
Landfill, Hauppauge, New York
Table 19 - Risk Assessment Summary, Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York
Table 20 - Cost Estimate - Alternative 4a—Extraction, Aeration,
[With Off-Gas Treatment], Polishing, Discharge to
Recharge Basin, Site Cap, and Air Monitoring),
Feasibility Study for the Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York
-------
Page 1 of 7
• Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Identified for the Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, Hev York, (a)
A. Preliminary Ground-Water ARARs
Revised
USEPA 10NYCRR 6KYCRR
Parameters MCL Subpt 3-1 Part 703
Inorganics:
Aluminum
Antimony 0.006 ~ ™
Araenic 0.05 0.05 0.023
Barium - 2.0 1.0 1.0
Beryllium 0.004
.Cadmium 0.005 0.01 . 0.01
Calcium
Chromium ' 0.10 0.03
Chromium (VI) — — 0.03
Cobalt
Copper* • AL 1.0 1.0
Iron* —. 0.3 (c) 0.3 (c)
Lead AL 0.05 0.023
Magnesium
Manganese* — 0.3 (c) 0.3 (c)
Mercury 0.002 0.002 0.002
Hickel 0.10
Potassium
Selenium 0.01 0.01 0.02
Sliver 0.10 0.05 0.03
Sodium
Thallium 0.002
Vanadium
Zinc* — 5.0 3
Cyanide 0.2 — °-2
All ARARs are given in milligrams per liter unless indicated (og/L).
AL - The action level is 1.3 mg/L for copper and 0.015 mg/L for lead.
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements.
MCL ""'•--• Contaminant Levels.
TOGS Hcv York State, Department of Environmental Conservation Technical and
Operational Guidance Series.
PCBs Polychlorinated blpheayls.
SPOES State Pollutant'Discharge Elimination System.
NO Hot detected.
Ho standard available.
(a) Currently there are no federal or New York State standards for soil or
sediment samples.
(c) Combined concentration tff iron and manganese must not exceed 0.3 mg/L.
(d) Total trihalomethaaes must not exceed 0.1 mg/L.
(e) Total phenolic compounds.
(f) Applies to total of para (i.e., 1.*-) and ortho (i.e., 1,2-} isomers only.
(g) MC. for styrene will be set after public comment period.
C3B1S7SC.XLS
-------
TABLE 1 Pa9'2°f7
Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Indentified for the Blydenburgh LandfiH,
Hauppauge, New York, (a) ,
Ground-Water ARARs
Revised
USEPA 10NYCRR 6NYCRR
Parameters MCL SubptS-1 Part 703
Volatile Qroanics
Chloromethane - 0.005 -
Bromomethane - 0.005 -
Vinyl chloride 0.002 0.002 0.005
Chloroethane - 0.005 -
Methylene chloride - O.OC5
Acetone - 0.05 -
Carbon disulfide - 0.05 -
1.1-Dichloroethene 0.007 0.005
1.1-Oichloroethane - 0.005
1,2-Dichloroethene - 0.005
Chloroform 0.1 (c) 0.1 (c) 0.1
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 . 0.005
2-Butanone - 0.05
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 0.005
Carbon tetrachloride aOGS 0.005 0.005
Vinyl acetate - 0.05
Bromodichloromethane 0.1 (c) 0.1 (c) -
1,1Z2-Tetrachloroethane - 0.005
1,2-Oichloropropane - 0.005 -
trans-1.2-0ichlaroprapene - 0.005 -
Trichloroethene 0.005 0.005 0.010
Oibromechloramethane 0.1 (c) 0.1 (c) . -
All ARARs are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless indicated.
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ARARs Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
MCL Maximum contaminant levels.
TOGS New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical and
Operational Guidance Series.
PCSs Polycnlorinated biphenyts.
NO Not detected.
No standard available.
(a) Currently, there are no Federal or New York State standards for soil or sediment
(b) Combined concentration of iron and manganese must not exceed 0.5 mg/L
(c) Total trihalomethanes most not exceed 0.1 mg/L
(d) Total phenolic compounds. (b)
(e) Applies to total of para (I.e., 1,4-} and ortho (i.e-. 1.2-) isomers only.
if) MO. for styrene win be set after public comment period.
-------
TABLE 1 Page 3 of 7
Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Indentified for the Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York, (a)
Ground-Water ARARs
Revised
USEPA 10NYCRR 6NYCRR
Parameters MCL Subpt5-1 Part 703
Volatile Qroanics (continuedl
1,1.2-Trichloroethane 0.005 0.005
Benzene 0.005 0.005 NO
tis-1,3-Dichloropropene - 0.005 -
Bfomoform 0.1 (cj 0.1 (c) - .
2-Hexanone - 0.05 -
4-Methyl-2-pentanone - 0.05
Tetraehloroethene 0.005 0.005
Toluene 1.0 rj.005
Chlorobenzene - Q.005
Ethylbenzene 0.. 7 0.005 -
Styrene(c) 0.1 0.005 0.931
Total Xylenes 10 0.005
Pesticides/PCBs
alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamm*-BHC(Lindane)
Heptacfilor
Aldrin
Heptacfilor epoxide
Endosulfan 1
Dieldrin
4.4--ODE
-
_
-
0.004
-
-
-
—
-
•k
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-
NO
NO
All ARARs are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless indicated.
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ARARs Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
MCL Maximum contaminant levels.
TOGS New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical and
Operational Guidance Series.
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls.
NO Not detected.
No standard available.
(a) Currently, there are no Federal or New York State standards for soil or sediment
(b) Combined concentration of iron and manganese must not exceed 0.5 mg/L
(c) Total trihalomethanes must not exceed 0.1 mg/L
(d) Total phenolic compounds.
(e) Applies to total of para (i.e., 1.4-) and ortho (i.e., 12-) isomers only.
(f) MCL for styrene will be set after public comment period.
-------
TABLE 1
Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Indentified for the Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge. New York, (a)
Page 4 at 7
Ground-Water ARARs
Revised
USEPA 10NYCRR
Parameters MCL Subpt 5-1
Pestieides/PCBs (continued)
Endrin 0.002 0.0002
Endosuttan n - 0.005
4,4'-DOO - 0.005
Endosutfan sulfate . - 0.005
4.4'-DDT _ 0.005
Methoxychlor 0.04 0.05
Chtordane(alpha and/or gamma) - 0.005
Toxaphene 0.003 0.005
Arodor 1016 - 0.001
Arodor 1221 - 0.001
Aroclorl232 - 0.001
Arodor 1242 - 0.001
Arodor 1248 - 0.001
Arodor 1254 - 0.001
Arodor 1260 - 0.001
Endrin ketone - 0.005
Ail ARARs are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless indicated.
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ARARs Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
MCL Maximum contaminant levels.
TOGS New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical and
Operational Guidance Series..
PCBs Porychlorinated biphenyis.
NO Not detected.
No standard available.
(a) Currently, there are no Federal or New York State standards tar soil or sediment
(b) Combined concentration of Iron and manganese must not exceed 0.5 mg/L
(c) Total trihalometfianes must not exceed 0.1 mg/L
(d) Total phenolic compounds.
(e) Applies to total of para (i.e.. 1,4-) and ortho fl.e., 1,2-) isomers only.
(fl MCL for srvrene will be sat after oublic comment oeriod.
6NYCRR
Part 703
NO
-
NO
_
NO
0.035
0.0001
NO
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
-
-------
TABLE 1 . Pa9850<7
Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Indentified for the Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York, (a)
Ground-Water ARARs
Revised
USEPA 10NYCRR 6NYCRR
Parameters MCL Subpt5-1 Part 703
Semivolatlles
Phenol(s) - 0.05 0.001 (d)
bis(-2-Chloroethyl)ether - 0.005 0.001
2-Chlorophenol - 0.005 0.001 (d)
1,3-Oichlorobenzene - 0.005
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.075 0.005 4.7 (e)
Benzyl alcohol - 0.05 -
1.2-Dichlorobenzene - 0.005 4.7 (e)
2-Methyfphenol - 0.05 0.001 (d)
bis(2-Chloroisopropv1)ether - .. 0.005
4-Methylphenol - 0.05 0.001 (d)
N-Nitrosc-di-propytamine - 0.05
Hexachloroethane - 0.005 -
Nitrobenzene - 0.005 -
Isophorone - 0.05 -
2-Nitrophenol - 0.005 0.001 (d)
2.4-Oimethytphenol - 0.05 0.001 (d)
Benzoicatid - 0.05
bis(-2-Chloroethoxy)methana - 0.005
2,4-Oichlorophenol - 0.005 0.001 (d)
1,2.4-Trichlorobenzene 0.07 o.OOS
Napnthalene - 0.05
4-ChloroanilIne - 0.005
All ARARs are given in milligrams per (Her (mg/l) unless indicated.
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ARARs Applicable Hi relevant and appropriate requirements.
MCI. Maximum contaminant levels.
TOGS New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical and
Operational Guidance Series.
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyts.
NO Not detected.
No standard available.
(a) Currently, there are no federal or New York State standards for soil or sediment
(b) Combined concentration of iron and manganese must not exceed 0.5 mg/L
(c) Total trihalomethanes must not exceed 0.1 mg/L
(e) Applies to total of pan (Lev 1,4-) and ortfio (I.e^ 1^-)lsomers only.
(f) MCL for styrene wifl be set after public comment period.
-------
TABLE 1 Page 6 of 7
. Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ^identified for the Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge. New York, (a)
Ground-Water ARARs
Revised .
USEPA 10NYCRR 6NYCRR
Parameters MCL Subpt5-1 Part 703
Samivolatileg (continued!
Hexachlorobutadiene - 0.005 -
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol - 0.005 0.001 (d)
2-Methylnaphthalene - 0.05
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene - 0.005 -
2,4.6-Tricnlorophenol - 0.005 0.001 (d)
2,4.5-Trichloropheno! - 0.005 0.001 (d)
2-Chloronaphthalene - 0.005 -
2-Nitroaniline - 0.005 -
Oimethylphtnalate - 0.05 -
Acenaphthylene • - 0.05 -
3-Nitroaniline - 0.005
Acenaphthene - 0.05 -
2,4-Oinitrophenol - 0.005 0.001 (d)
4-Nitrophenol - 0.005 0.001 (d)
Oibenzofuran - 0.05
2.4-Oinrtrotoluene - 0.005
2.5-Oinrtrotoluene - 0.005 -
Dietnvfphthalate - a05
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether - • 0.005 ~
Ruorene - 0.05 ~
4-NitroaniUne - . 0.005 -
4.6-Oinitro-2-methytphenol - 0.005 0.001 (d)
All ARARs are given in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless indicated.
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
ARARs Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
MCI. Maximum contaminant levels.
TOGS New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Technical and
Operational Guidance Series.
PCBs Polycnlorinated biphenyts.
NO Not detected.
No standard available.
(a) Currently, there are no Federal or New York State standards for soil or sediment
(b) Combined concentration of iron and manganese must not exceed 0 J mg/L.
(c) Total trihalomethanes must not exceed 0.1 mg/L
(d) Total phenolic compounds.
(e) Applies to total of parafl.e., 1,4-) andortno (Le., 1j-)isomen only.
(f) MCL for styrene will be set after public comment period.
-------
TABLE 1 Page 7 of 7
Chemical-Specific Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements Indentified for the Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge. New York, (a)
Ground-Water ARARs
Parameters
USEPA
MCL
Revised
10NYCRR
Subpt 5-1
6NYCRH
Part 703
Samivotatiles (continued')'
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine - 0.005
4-Bromophenyi-phenyiether _ 0.005 -
Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 0.005 0.00035
Penta-chlorophenol . - 0.005 0.021
Phenanthrane - 0.05 -
Anthracene - o.OS
Di-n-butylphthalate - 0.05 0.77
Ruoranthene - 0.05 -
Pyrene - 0.05
Butylbenzylphthalate - 0.05 -
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine - 0.005
Benzo(a)anthracene - Q.OS -
bis(2-Bhylhexyl)phthaIate - 0.05 4.2
Chrysene - 0.05 -
Di-n-octyl phthaUte - 0.05
Benzo(b)fluoranthene - 0.05 -
Benzo(k)fluoranthene - 0.05 -
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 0.05 N°
bideno(1.2J
-------
Pagel of 8
T»bU 2. Summary of Compounds/Analytes Detected above ARARs at the Blydenburgh Landfill. Hauppauge, Hev York.
Well
Parameter ASM. (ug/L) Designation
Volatile Organic Comoour.ds
6C-1
Vlnrl chloride 2 6C-2
6C-3
?-:
Methylene chloride 5 4G-1
4M-2
6G-1
6C-2
Acetone SO 6G-3
1.1-Oichloroethene 5 6C-3
7M-1
1,1-Dlehloroechane 5 4G-1
iM-l
6C-1
6C-2
6C-3
7M-1
P-l
l,2-0lchloro«thcne(tocal) 5 'C-l
4C-2
4M-1
6G-1
6C-2
6C-3
liM-1
?-l
1.2-OLchloroechane 5 *C-i
W90
»
—
--
7
--
--
8
92 [100J]
__
~ —
9
'
—
• —
10 UOJ1
--
3
12
12
—
—
6
1* (14JJ
—
••"
8
Concentration
(ug/L)
7/90
21
' J(3.'i
3 J
11
6 3
—
51 J
--
7
7 J
6
12
80
23 [22]
8 J
10
23
11
6
11
110
23 [22]
6 J
12
9
10/90
J
17
i-'[4Jl
~ ""
13
--
3J
27
--
7(6]
10
7
SJ
17
70
27(22!
11
3
23
12
—
24
130
40(33)
9
12
10
[ ] Replicate jaople.
Concentration below ARAft Limits.
* Sample waj filtered in Che field throuth a 0.43 urn membrane.
u(/L Mlerograoa par liter.
3 Compound also found In laboratory method blank.
r Compound concencratiooi exceeded the tnairsli calibration rant*.
J Estimated value.
A8AIU Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
3LYCOHP.XLS
-------
Page 2 of 8
Table 2. Summary of Compounds/Analytes Detected above A&ARs at the Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, Hev York.
Well
Paraowter ARAR (ug/L) Designation
Volatile Orsanic Comoounds
2-Butanone 20 6C-3
1.1.1-Trlchloroethane 5 4C-1
6C-1
6C-2
6G-3
7M-1
13C-1
Trlchloroethene 5 4C-1
6C-1
6G-2
6C-3
7M-1
Benzene 5 6C-2
6G-3
Tetrachloroethene 5 GM-1I
4G-1
4G-2
6G-1
6C-2
12M-1
14G-1
14G-2
4/90
250 EJ[190J]
11
~
'
12 [12J]
6
15
14
—
—
20 [18J1
23
__
28 [27J]
5 J
23
18
13
4 J
-_
S J
6
Concentration
(ug/L)'
7/90
—
..
6
9
24 [24]
87
8
9
6
15
39 [37]
66
8
5 [6]
21 J
19
20
22
39
3 J
3
7
13/90
--.
6
6
26(21!
120
7
, ,
10
13
50(57]
71
7
*•
25
22
20
23
30
..
3J
3J
[ ] Replicate sample.
Concentration below ARAR Limits.
• Sample w«j filtered in the field through a 0.45 urn membrane.
ug/L Mlcrofrains) per liter.
B Compound also found in laboratory awehod blank.
£ Coopound concentrations exceeded the analysis calibration range.
J Ejtlaated value.
ARARa Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
3LTCCMP.XLS
-------
?»g« 3 of 8
Table 2. Summary of Compounds/Analytes Detected above ARARs at the Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, Hev York.
Parameter
' . Well
ARAR (ug/L) Designation
Concentration .
(ug/L)
4/90
7/90
10/90
Volatile Organic Compounds
Toluene
Semlvolatlle Organic Comoouns
4C-1
6G-2
6G-3
10C-1
10M-1
10M-2
29 [23J]
[ ] Replicate sample.
Concentration below ARAR Limits.
• Sample was filtered In the field through * 0.43 urn membrane.
ug/L Mlcrogram per liter.
3 Compound also found In laboratory method blank.
£ Compound concentrations exceeded the analysis calibration range.
J Eatlasted value.
ARARj Applicable or reLevant and appropriate requirements
8
5 J
10 [10]
6
11
6
J
16(13]
Phenols (total) 1 CM-IS
iM-1
4M-2
6C-3
IBM- 1
12C-1
12M-1
P-l
bls(2-Ethylaexyl)phchalate 30 GM-3D
6C-3
20
(20)
20
40 [30]
20
20
20
30
no
S3 3(323]
3LYCOHP.XLS
-------
Psg»4 of 8
Table 2 . Summary of Compounda/Analytea Detected above ARARt at the Blydenburgh Lindfin. Hauopauge, New York.
Parameter
Inoroanic Comoound«/Analvte«
Antimony
BeryUium
Cadmium
Ouamium
ben
Well
ARAR (ug/U Deaigrutian
6 *•*'
6G-3
8G-1
SM-2
10G-1
10M-2
13G-1
UG-2
•4 P-»
5 6M-2I
7M-1
8M-2
9M-1
10G-1
11M-1
12G-1
13M-1
15G-1
50 6G-3
P-4
80-1
300 QM-1S
GM-11
GM-10
GM-2S
GM-21
GM-2D
GM-3S
GM-ai
GM-3O
4O-1
4G-2
4M-1
Caneentraaon
(ug/U
4/90 7/90
10.S BJI9.68JI 12
11 1.41 BJ
13.6 BJ'
12.28*
11.6BJ'
11.68'
12.0 BJ'
10.6 BJ'
S.O 8
6.0J
6.2
6. OBJ
12.0
8.0*
5.0*
6.2
6.2*
58.8 (62.51
61.2
-
1260 J
708J 532
920 J
2110J 1320
2940 J 643
830 J 1550
3180 525
441
399
1150 459
2210 699
2380 (23SOI 2600
10/90
_
_
_
_
. _
—
12
76.0
_
-
-
-
-
-
921
-
-
4S3
356
1.700
1 1 Reelicate eempta.
- Concentration below ARAR Lirmta.
' Sempto WM fittend in OM field ttwough e 0.45 urn membrane.
ug/L Mierogrema per liter.
8 The reported value wee obtained from e reading that wee leee than the Contract Required Detection Limit (CHOU. but
greater than or «qu«l to the Initrument Detection Limit (DU.
E Compound concemraoona exceeded the anerymta eaiibretion <
J Eatimetad vmkje.
ARARa Applicable or relevant and appropriate reouirementa
-------
Page J of
Table 2. Summary of Compounds/Analytes Detected above ARARs at Che Blyder.burgh Landfill, Eauppauge, Nev York.
Well
Parameter ARAR (ug/L) Designation
Inorganic Compounds /Ar.alTtes
Iron (eon't) 300 4M-2
3C-1
6C-1
6G-2
6G-3
6M-1
7M-1
8G-1
8M-1
8M-2
9G-1
9M-1
10G-1
10M-1
10M-2
11G-1
11M-1
12G-1
12H-1
13C-1
13M-1
14G-1
14G-2
14M-1
13G-1
13M-1
16G-1
4/90
1260
3220 [8420]
20200
976
1590 [1710]
2340
390
2290
334
3200
3040
—
1690
499 J
2340
12800 J
1690 J
3110 B
1000
669
2820
980 J
4340 J
2260 J
16900 [16400]
1070
349
Concentration
(ug/L)
7/90
2100
10300 [6820]
8310 301*
—
689 (873][334]«
773
--
837
—
6330
336
1780
388 J*
—
761
2830
623
1130
319
333
. 1030
--
2490
470
8000
334
317
10/90
411
2,130(2.140]
1.390
.-
383(72*]
; --
--
6,4-70
--
1,260
—
—
• --
--
—
2.160
934
6.020
—
--
307
—
823
321
1,220
643
1,040
[ ] RoplicaC* JampLe.
Canccntracion b«lov ARAR Limits.
* Sample waj filtered la th« field through a 0.43 urn membrane.
ug/L Hlerograou pec liter.
£ Compound concentrations exceeded th» analfsis calibration range.
J Sstiaated value.
ARA&i Applicable or relevant and appropriate reouirements (from Table 101.
3 The reported value was.obtained from a. reading that was less than the Contract
Required Detection Limit (CRDL), but greater Chan or equal to the Instrument
Detection Limit (IDL).
-------
Table Summary oi Compounds /Analytes Detected above ARARs at the Biydenburgh Landfill, Bauppauge. H«v York.
6 of 8
Well
Parameter ARAR (ug/L) Designation
-
Iron (con't) ' 300 16M-1
P-l
P-3
P-4
Lead 25 CM-2I
CM-3S
4M-2
7M-1
15G-1
16G-1
P-4
9M-1
16M-1
Manganese 300 4G-1
5G-1
6G-1
9C-1
11G-1
15G-1
P-l
P-3
Concentration
4/90 7/90
1010 [876] 1050
21500[20600J 610* 21000
20000 J 16400
181000 J 95700
168 *
135 J 187 J
84
31.6 •
34.5 J[33.8J]
1410 J
262 J 123 J
—
.. __
604
586 •
18100 [17100] 15500 J[14600J]
15200 •[14800]« 12700 •(1200]*
2090 2300
1540 • 2050 •
310
458
618 [615] 395
496 [485] 748
448 '*[3391» 518 •
759 489
1850 846
10/90
31,500
6.380
65,900
..
-178
29.4
--
—
51.7
193.0
39.2
39.2
562
—
11, £00
[12.200]
1,980
—
--
645
315
712
( ] Replicate sample.
Concentration below ARAR Limits.
• Sample vas filtered in the field through a 0.45 urn membrane.
ue/L Hicrograms per liter.
Z Compound concentrations exceeded the analysis calibration ranee.
J Estimated value.
ARARs Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
B The reported value was obtained from a reading that was less than the Contract
Required Detection Limit (CRDL), but greater than or equal to the Instrument
Detection Limit (IDL).
-------
p«o«7 of 8
2 . Summary of Compoundt/Analytaa Datactad above AHARt at the Slydenburgh Landfill. Hauppauga. New York.
Concentration
Wall (ug/U
Parameter ARAR lug/L) Designation
4/90 7/90 1Q/90
Inomanie Comeeunda/Anatvte»
Selenium '0 GM-30 16.2 BJ
7G-1 17.5BJ'
14MM 13.8 BJ'
16G-1 17.5 BJ
Thallium 2 GM-3D — 3.8BJ
5G-I — 10.OBJ*
6G-1 — 2.4BJ
6G-2 20.OJ 2.2BJ
8M-2 — 2.2BJ
9G-1 — 3.4BJ
10G-1 — 4.4BJ
13G-1 — 7.OBJ
14G-2 — 2.2BJ
15G-1 — 6.8BJ
16G-1 — 4.4BJ
P-4 — 2.2BJ
Zinc 500 GM-3S 6870 29OO 5.250
3250 • 2070 J'
4G-1 1030
756 •
i ) Raofficat* tampto.
- Cancantrabon b«Mw ARAB (Jiratt.
' SampM waa fiKand in th« fiaW threugn a 0.45 urn mamerana.
ug/L Mcregrama p«r Out.
a Th« roooiTM vaio»W«« oMainad from a reading that waa laaa than tha Contract Raguirad Oataeoon Limit (CROU. but
graaur man or aqual to tha Inatnmwm Oataetion Limit (IOU.
£ Compound concantraoon* axeaadad tna analyaia calibration ranga.
J Eitunatad valua.
ARARa Applicable or ralavant and appropriata nouiramanu (from Tatala 101.
-------
Page 8. of 8
Table 2. Summary of Compounds/Analjrtes Detected above ARARs at th« Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, Mev York.
Parameter
Uell
ARAR (ug/L) Designation
ConcentricIon
(ug/L)
4/90
7/90
10/90
Inornanle Compoundj/AnalTtes
Zinc (eon't)
500
UG-2
15C-1
P-4
938
1390 [1420]
[330] •
ill
[ ] IUpllcat« saoplc.
Conc«ncraelon b«lov ARAS Llales.
• Sample vai filtered la the field through a 0.45 urn membrane.
ug/L Hlerogramj per liter.
E Compound concentratlotu exceeded the analysis calibration range.
J Estimated value.
ARARs Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
B The reported value was obtained from a reading that was less than the Contract
Required Detection Limit (CRDL), but greater than or equal to the Instrument
Detection Limit (IDL).
-------
iable 3. Constituent Air Concentrations.Predicted at Discrete Receptors in the Area of the Blydenburgh Landfill
• CONSTITUENTS
Dlacrete
Reoeplort
WnlPOfwII
1-NWwlng
2-NE wring
3-SWwlng
4-6E wring
Wooda Edge Court
5-South aid*
6-North aide
7-South aid*
Townhouaea
8-North aide
9-Weat aide
10-Soulh eld*
11-Southalde
Vlclnltv ot Riding Stable
Receptor* 12
Receptor* 13
Receptor *14
Receptor* 16
Receptor* 16
Receptor* 17
Andrew Morrow School
Receptor* 18
On-Slte
ItOfflo*
20-Scale Houe*
21-Oarage
22-Rare Pump Bldg.
AQC (ug/m3)
Benzene
0.004593
0.005572
0.006255
0.008535
0.007749
0.010048
0.014799
0.012063
0.013273
0.022966
0.020321
0.072736
0.043714
0.072971
0.050572
0.063285
0.046400
0.002195
0.009502
0.017010
0.060199
0.017635
1
0.12
Toluene
0.017537
0.021374
0.023982
0.033116
0.030501
0.040195
0.061818
0.045408
0.050766
0.088192
0.075103
0.244126
0.150282
0.241587
0.173628
0.214433
0.159697
0.008113
0.037170
0.070156
0.206650
0.070062
2,000
Ethyl
Benzene
0.033639
0.040160
0.045376
0.060749
0.056798
0.072753
0.105796
0.086303
0.089610
0.155304
0.165245
0.702092
0.404261
0.688262
0.471034
0.592297
0.427410
0.017797
0.075147
0.129009
0.564090
0.124803
1,000
Vinyl
Chloride
0.008385
0.009885
0.011249
0.015024
0.014896
0.019382
0.030096
0.020176
0.019650
0.034597
0.045418
0.209143
0.115427
0.160960
0.134300
0.161871
0.117489
0.004760
0.021525
0.038860
0.169195
0.032250
0.02
1.1-DCE
0.003206
0.003978
0.004444
0.006336
0.005895
0.008009
0.013142
0.008191
0.009763
0.017036
0.011812
0.022191
0.016973
0.025342
0.019590
0.024152
0.019272
0.001311
0.006860
0.014518
0.021423
0.013962
0.02
1.2-DCE
0.006081
0.007129
0.008162
0.010870
0.010929
0.014192
0.021676
0.014399
0.013817
0.024149
0.033029
0.156444
0.068812
0.153030
0.104977
0.132320
0.095068
0.003600
0.016052
0.026510
0.122735
0.023348
1.900
1.1-DCA Ctilorobenzene Xylene (m,p)
0.003866
0.004493
0.005192
0.006875
0.007891
0.010227
0.016115
0.008676
0.008558
0.014655
0.017751
0.105154
0.059803
0.136138
0.083628
0.117279
0.082261
0.002646
0.012063
0.021675
0042407
0.014740
500
0.001550
0.001770
0.002065
0.002683
0.003273
0.004210
0.006633
0.003320
0.003051
0.005195
0.007513
0.050187
0.028060
0.065399
0.039734
0.056125
0.039110
0.001 174
0.005298
0.009324
0.018881
0.005752
20
0.018849
0.022502
0.025470
0.034162
0.031737
0.040592
0.058491
0.048840
0.051450
0.088896
0.089814
0.368882
0.217578
0.386073
0.254568
0.327590
0.235935
0.009850
0.041153
0.070248
0.294642
0.069731
700
Xylane (o)
0.009020
0.010811
0.012209
0.016479
0.015495
0.020020
0.029721
0.023059
0.024385
0.042253
0.042797
0.171308
0.101216
0.175332
0.118348
0.150708
0.109217
0.004674
0.020241
0.035781
0.138094
0.034225
.300
Adapted from Malcolm Plrnle. bio. (1991).
All oonoanUatlona In mlcrograma par cubic malar (ug/m3).
AQC Air guideline concentration from NYS Air Guide-1 (1991 Edition).
1.1-DCE 1.1-Dichloioethene.
1.2-DCE 1.2-Dlchloroethene.
1.1-DCA 1.1-Olchlofoethana.
RECEPTOR.XLS
-------
Page I of 2
Table 4 Occurrence of Constituents in the Shallow Ground-Water Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge,
New York.
Constituent
Inorganics
Aluminum ~
Ammonia (NH3)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate (NO,)
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfates
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Volatile*
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
1 , 1 -Dichloroetnane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Methyleae chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Frequency of
Detection
29/33
4/33
1/33
6/32
29/33
2/33 •
30/33
2/33
33/33
16/33
5/33
15/33
2/33
32/33
31/33
33/33
30/33
2/33
2/33
26/33
30/33
1/33
33/33
33/33
6/31
11/33
27/33
1/33
4/12
1/33
3/33
11/33
5/11
6/14
12/33
1/33
8/33
20/24
4/33
39
80
4.0
1.9
1.0
1.0
17
4.0
5,800
4.0
21
7.0
10
140
2.3
2,100
8.0
0.20
24
50
620
9.0
6,000
640
2.2
5.0
17
8.0
0.80
3.0
1.0
4.0
0.60
1.1
4.0
1.0
4.0
0.50
2.0
Range.
- 13,000
410
4.0
8.8
110
2.5
760
12
- 100,000
30
71
63
10
- 20,000
24
- 22,000
- 18.000
0.30
33
- 27,000'
- 12,000
9.0
- 50,000
- 76,000
20
28
- 1,000
8.0
8.0
3.0
2.0
80
2.9
14
130
1.0
51
39
8.0
Mean
2,200
179
3.4
1.3
38
0.80
97
2.4
29,000
9.1
14
17
5.3
3,000
12
9,000
1,700
0.11
13
2.400
3,400
4.6
16,000
21,000
4.5
8.2
130
5.1
1.8
3.0
1.9
8.3
0.85
2.8
13
1.0
5.8
12
2.8
95% UCL
3,300
210
3.7
1.8
46
0.94
140
3.0
36,000
12
19
21
5.7
4,400
13
11.000
3,000
0.12
15
4,100
4,400
5.1
20,000
27,000
6.0
10
200
5.2
3.3
3.0
2.0
13
1.4
4.9
22
1.0
8.5
16
3.1
Background
95% UCL'
1.500
-
.
-
30
.
23
-
6,800
15
17
9.5
.
2,500
160
2,000
170
0.15
-
3,000
2,200
-
10,000
20,000
3.0
-
5,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
• -
-
-
-
•
All footnotes appear on page 2.
-------
• Page 2 of 2
Table 4 Occurrence of Constituents in the Shallow Ground-Water Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge,
New York.
Constituent
Frequency of
Detection
Range
Mean
95% UCL
Background
95% UCL1
Volatile (continued)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 11/33
Trichloroethene . 12/19
Vinyl chloride 4/13
Xylenes (total) 1/33
3.0 -
2.0 -
2.0 -
3.0 -
15
15
21
3.0
4.1
5.0
3.6
2.5
4.9
7.1
7.1
2.5
Semivolatiles
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
n-Nitrosodiphenylamine*
1/19
1/22
1/22
1/22
6.0 -
9.0 -
5.0 -
2.0 -
6.0
9.0
5.0
2.0
5.1
5.5
5.0
2.0
5.2
5.8
5.0
2.0
-
-
-
™
All concentrations are reported in micrograms per liter
95% UCL 95 percent upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean.
a 95 percent upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean or the maximum detected value, whichever
is less.
* Detected at estimated value once; value reported is less than one-half the detection limit.
Background concentrations not available.
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 5. Occurrence of Constituents in the Intermediate Ground-Water Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill Hauppauge
New York.
Constituent
Inorganics
Aluminum —
Ammonia (NH,)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
L*ad
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Nitrate (NO,)
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfates
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Volatile;
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon disuifide
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 . 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1.2-Dicnloroethene (total)
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Frequency of
Detection
31/39
. 6/39
4/39
11/39
33/39
3/39
34/39
4/39
39/39
23/39
6/39
17/39
1/39
38/39
36/39
39/39
35/39
7/39
26/39
37/39
1/39
39/39
39/39
2/36
15/39
34/39
1/39
3/15
1/27
1/39
1/39
16/39
5/16
5/13
12739
1/39
18/23
5/39
6/39
39
70
4.1
1.2
2.0
1.0
10
4.0
8,200
4.0
49
5.0
15
82
3.3
2,900
6.0
27
30
750
9.0
4,600
2,700
1.8
5.0
8.0
100
1.3
250
5.0
0.80
2.0
3.0
0.5
1.0
3.0
0.5
2.0
6.0
Range
- 3,900
- 20,000
12
11
62
5.0
- 1,100
6.2
- 96,000
63
740
200
15
- 180,000
260
- 60,000
- 1,900
85
- 21,000
- 130,000
9.0
- 270,000
- 160,000
2.2
34
510
100
28
250
5.0
- 0.80
27
29
2.0
40
3.0
25
29
120
Mean
570
1,300
4.3
1.4
15
0.91
160
2.4
36,000
12
41
20
5.3
12,000
25
19,000
220
19
1,900
9,000
4.7
57,000
25,000
1.4
9.4
100
7.4
2.6
14
2.6
0.80
4.9
3.5
0.58
5.1
3.0
4.6
3.7
9.2
9596 UCL
790
2,400
5.0
1.9
18
1.1
230
2.7
44.000
16
75
28
5.7
22,000
39
24,000
320
23
2,800
15.000
5.2
78,000
33,000
1.6
11
130
12
5.8
30
2.7
0.80
6.3
6.7
0.85
7.1
3.0
7.2
5.0
15
Background
95% UCL'
400
200
.
.
30
.
24
7.1
14,000
11
18
17
-
1,000
25
5,000
33
41
2,200
1,300
-
10.000
22,000
- •
-
100
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
•
All footnotes appear on page 2.
-------
Table 5. Occurrence of Constituents in the
Hauppauge, New York.
Intermediate Ground-Water Zone,
Page 2 of 2
Blydenburgh Landfill,
Constituent
Volatiles (continued)
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Saniyolatiles
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene*
1,4-Dichlorobenzene*
Fluoranthene*
Phenol*
Pyrene*
Frequency of
Detection
18/23
6/15
4/26
5/25
1/25
1/25 -
1/25
1/25
Range
0.70
0.60
2.0 - 4.0
2.0 - 53
0.90 - 0.90
2.0 - 2.0
1.0 - 1.0
1/26 3.0 -
0.70 - 0.70
Mean
-
-
3.9
9.0
0.90
2.0
1.0
3.0
0.70
95% UCL
71
4.0
4.1
12.8
0.90
2.0
1.0
3.0
0.70
Background
95% UCL1
1422-
1.21.8-
-
-
-
-
-
3.0-
All concentrations are reported in micrograms per liter Qig/L).
95% UCL 95 percent upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean.
a 95 percent upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean or the maximum detected value, whichever
is less.
* Detected at estimated value once; value reported is less than one-half the detection limit.
Background concentrations not available.
-------
Table 6. Occurrence of Constituents in the Deep Ground-Water Zone, Blydenburgh
Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Constituent
Inorganics
Aluminum
Ammonia (NH3)
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide*
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Nitrate (NO3)
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfates
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Frequency of
Detection
11/12
1/12
7/12
11/12
10/12
1/12
12/12
7/12
1/12
7/12
1/11
12/12
11/12
12/12
12/12
2/12
6/12
8/12
1/12
12/12
12/12
1/11
5/12
11/12
120
50
1.5
1.0
10
6.0
5,900
4.0
19
10
18
98
4.4
2,700
2
22
170
630
9.0
4,300
1,500
2.2
5.0
24
Range
- 14,000
50
- " 14
31
- 240
6.0
- 12,000
25
19
55
18
- 6,400
83
- 4,000
150
34
- 3,100
- 5,100
9.0
- 94,000
- 32,000
2.2
23
- 380
Mean
2,600
40
3.6
10
39
2.5
7,700
9.5
10
23
18
1,800
20
3,300
62
15
1,100
1,700
5.1
16,000
7,900
1.5
10
130
95% UCL
4,800
50
5.5
15
73
3.2
8,600
14
14
32
18
2,800
31
3,500
90
19
1,700
2,600
6.3
30,000
12,000
1.9
13
190
Background
95% UCL1
320
90
-
3.8
13
- -
5,700
11
22
5*
-
400
17
1,500
39
-
2,200
1,200
-
6,000
11,000
3.8
-
120
All concentrations are reported in micrograms per liter C*g/L).
95% UCL 95 percent upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean.
a 95 percent upper confidence limit on the arithmetic mean or the maximum detected
value, whichever is less.
* Detected at estimated value once; value reported is less than one-half the detection
limit.
Background concentrations not available.
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 7. Constituents of Concern at the Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York.
Constituent ' Ground Water Air
Inorganics
Antimony x
Arsenic x
Beryllium x
Boron x
Cadmium x
Chromium x
Copper x
Lead x
Manganese x,
Mercury x
Nickel x
Nitrate x
Thallium x
Vanadium x
Zinc x
x Constituent of concern.
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 7. Constituents of Concern at the Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge,
New York.
Constituent Ground Water Air
Volatile;
Acetone x
Benzene x x
Chlorobenzene x
Chloroform x
1,1-Dichloroethane x x
1,2-Dichloroethane x x
1,1-Dichloroethene x x
1,2-Dichloroethene x x
Ethyl benzene x
Methylene chloride x
Tetrachloroethene x
Toluene x x
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane x
Trichloroethene x
Vinyl chloride x x
Xylenes x
Semivolatiles
Benzoic Acid x
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate x
x Constituent of concern.
-------
Table 8. Potential Pathways of Exposure to Constituents of Concern, Blydenhurgh Landfill, Iliiuppauge. New York.
Medium
Pathway/Route
Potentially Exposed Population
Comments
Ground Water
Soil
Ingestion of, dermal contact with, and
inhalation of vapors from impacted ground
water.
Ingestion of, and dermal contact with,
affected soils and inhalation of affected
dusts.
None currently identified. Potable and non-potable
water for the Site and immediate local area is
provided by public supply wells. Bottled water is
currently provided to one residence. Hypothetical
future residential exposure considers the potential
for a well to be installed at the property boundary
in the Glacial or Magolhy aquifer.
None currently identified.
foreseeable future.
None identified for
The nearest public supply wells (Suffolk
County Water Authority, Liberty Street Station)
are located approximately 3,500 feet to the east
of the landfill and are not in the ground-water
flow path. The -Nicholls Road well Held (the
closest downgradient well field) is located more
than a mile from the site.
The site is capped and buried below another
landfill cell.
Surface Water/
Sediment
Ingeslion of, dermal contact with, and
inhalation of vapors from affected surface
water/sediments.
None identified. Runoff at the Site does not contact
the source material. The closest downgradient
drainage systems (the Connetquol Brook and the
Northeast Branch of the Nisseqogue River) are
located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the
landfill.
The site is capped and buried below another
landfill cell.
Air
Inhalation of airborne (vapor phase)
chemicals.
Current and future potential for worker (on-sile) and
surrounding populations (off-site) to inhale (I)
vapors emitted from the General Energy
Development, Inc. (GED), facility; (2) vapors from
flares; (3) vapors released from wells along the
eastern perimeter of the landfill; and (4) vapors
released from soils.
Off-site receptor locations potentially affected
by vapors released from the landfill include the
Whiporwil School, the Andrew Morrow
School, the riding stables on Blydenhurgh
Road, the Ipwnhouses to the north of the
landfill, and Woods Edge Court residences.
-------
Page 1 of 3
Table 9. Reference Doses (RfDs), Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs), and Cancer Classifications for
Constituents of Concern, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Constituent
RfD Cmg/kg/dav^
Oral
Inhalation
CSF fmg/kg/davV1
Oral Inhalation
EPA
Cancer Class.*
Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
4.0E-04*
1.0E-03b
5.0E-031
9.0E-02*
5.0E-041
5.0E-03'
3.7E-02b
2.0E-02*
ND
l.OE-011
3.0E-04"
2.0E-021
l.OE+O"
8.0E-05*-6
7.0E-03b
2.0E-01"
(4.0E-04)
(l.OE-03)
(5.0E-03)
(9.0E-02)
(5.0E-04)
(5.0E-03)
(3.7E-02)
(2.0E-02)
ND
3.0E-04"
8.6E-05"
(2.0E-02)
(l.OE+0)
(8.0E-05)
(7.0E-03)
(2.0E-01)
NA
1.75e
4.9d
NA
NA.
NA
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
501
8.4*
NA
6.1'
41'
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA
0.84*
NA
NA
NA
NA
D
A
B2
D
Bl
A
D
D
B2
D
D
A
D
D
D
D
Value in parentheses indicates inhalation value not available; oral value was used as a surrogate.
a IRIS (1990).
b USEPA (1990).
c ATSDR (1989a) (arsenic).
d ATSDR (1988a) (beryllium).
e Value shown is for thallium chloride.
f Oral RfD for nitrate was recently withdrawn.
g ATSDR (1987) (benzene).
h ATSDR (1989b) (1,2-DCA).
i USEPA (1987).
j ATSDR (1988b) (vinyl chloride).
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram.
NA Not applicable.
ND Not determined.
*EPA Cancer Class
A - Human carcinogen
Bl- Probable human carcinogen —
limited evidence in humans
B2- Probable human carcinogen —
inadequate evidence in humans
C - Possible human carcinogen
D - Inadequate evidence to classify
E - No evidence of carcinogenicity
-------
Page 2 of 3
Table 9. Reference Doses (RfDs), Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs), and Cancer Classifications for
Constituents of Concern, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Constituent
RfD fmg/kg/daV)
Oral
Inhalation
CSF fmg/kg/davV
Oral Inhalation
EPA
Cancer Class
Volatlles
Acetone
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroethene .
1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethyl benzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes
l.OE-01'
7.0E-04*
2.0E-02'
l.OE-02*
l.OE-01"
2.5E-01"
9.0E-03'
2.0E-02*
l.OE-01'
6.0E-02*
l.OE-02*
2.0E-01b
9.0E-02*
7.4E-03'
1.3E-03*
2.0E+00*
(l.OE-01)
(7.0E-04)
5.0E-03"
(l.OE-02)
1.0E-01b
2.5E-02"
(9.0E-03)
(2.0E-02)
(l.OE-01)
9.0E-01b
(l.OE-02)
5.7E-01"
3.0E-01"
(7.4E-03)
(1.3E-03)
9.0E-02"
NA
0.029*
NA
0.00611
ND
0.0911
0.6*
NA
NA
0.00751
0.05 le
NA
NA
0.011"
1.9b
NA
NA
0.0291
NA
0.081*
ND
0.091*
1.2*
NA
NA
0.014*
0.0018C
NA
NA
0.017"
0.29"
NA
D
A
D
B2
C
B2
C
D
D
B2
B2
D
D
B2
A
D
Value in parentheses indicates inhalation value not available; oral value was used as a surrogate.
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
IRIS (1990).
USEPA (1990).
ATSDR (1989a) (arsenic).
ATSDR (1988a) (beryllium).
Value shown is for thallium chloride.
Oral RfD for nitrate was recently withdrawn.
ATSDR (1987) (benzene).
ATSDR (1989b) (1,2-DCA).
USEPA (1987).
ATSDR (1988b) (vinyl chloride).
rng/kg Milligrams per kilogram.
NA Not applicable.
ND Not determined.
-------
Page 3 of 3
Table 9. Reference Doses (RfDs), Cancer Slope Factors (CSFs), and Cancer Classifications for
Constituents of Concern, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Constituent
RfD (mcr/ko/dav)
Oral Inhalation
CSF fm?/kj/davVl
Oral Inhalation
EPA
Cancer Class
Semivolatiles
Beiuoic Acid 4.0E+0* (4.0E+0) NA NA D
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) 2.0E-021 9.0E-02" 0.014' (0.014) B2
phthalate
Phenols 6.0E-01' (6.0E-01) NA NA D
Value in parentheses indicates inhalation value not available; oral value was used as a surrogate.
a IRIS (1990).
b USEPA (1990).
c ATSDR (1989a) (arsenic).
d ATSDR (1988a) (beryllium).
e Value shown is for thallium chloride.
f Oral RfD for nitrate was recently withdrawn.
g ATSDR (1987) (benzene).
h ATSDR (19895) (1,2-DCA).
i USEPA (1987).
j ATSDR (1988b) (vinyl chloride).
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram.
NA Not applicable.
ND Not determined.
-------
Table
10
Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and Child Residents, Ingestion of Ground
Water from the Shallow Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill. Hauppauge, New York.
Page 1 of 2
Constituent
CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Benzene
Chloroform
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1.1-Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Benzene
Chloroform
1. 1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 . 1 -Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene .
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1.1. 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Cgw Upper 95 percen
Cgw
(ug/L)
3.3
2
13
4.9
1.4
8.5
16
7.1
7.1
1.8
0.94
3.3
2
13
4.9
1.4
22
8.5
16
3.1
4.9
7.1
7.1
.t confidence
OED (mg/kg-day)
Child
1.81E-05
1.10E-05
7.12E-05
2.68E-05
7.67E-06
4.66E-05
8.77E-05
3.89E-05
3.89E-05
9.86E-06
5.15E-06
2.11E-04
1.28E-04
8.31E-04
3.13E-04
8.95E-05
1.41E-03
5.43E-04
1.02E-03
1.98E-04
3.13E-04
4.54E-04
4.54E-04
limit of the mea
Adult
3.87E-05
2.35E-05
1.53E-04
5.75E-05
1.64E-05
9.98E-05
1.88E-04
8.34E-05
8.34E-05
2.11E-05
1.10E-05
9.04E-05
5.48E-05
3.56E-04
1.34E-04
3.84E-05
6.03E-04
2.33E-04
4.38E-04
8.49E-05
1.34E-04
1.95E-04
1.95E-04
Toxicity
Value
CSF
(kg-day/mg)
0.029
0.0061
ND
0.091
0.6
0.0075
0.051
0.011
1.9
1.8
4.3
|iiM.CBte||:|i
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
0.0007
0.01
0.1
0.25
0.009
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.2
0.09
0.0075
0.0013
Risk Estimate
Child
ELCR
5E-07
7E-08
-
2E-06
5E-06
3E-07
4E-06
4E-07
7E-05
2E-05
2E-05
Hazard
3E-01
1E-02
8E-03
1E-03
1E-02
1E-01 .
9E-03
1E-01
1E-03
3E-03
6E-02
3E-01
Adult
IE-06
1E-07
-
5E-06
IE-OS
7E-07
IE-OS
9E-07
2E-04
4E-05
5E-05
iS'aE-w ;•;•,.
Quotients
1E-01
5E-03
4E-03
5E-04
4E-03
6E-02
4E-03
4E-02
4E-04
1E-03
3E-02
1E-01
in ground-water concentration.
CSF Cancer slope factor.
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk (OWED x SF).
HI Hazard index (sum of hazard
quotients).
mg/kg-day Milligrams per kilogram per day.
OED Average daily oral exposure dose.
RfD Reference dose.
ug/L Micrograms per
liter.
-------
Table 10 Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and Child Residents, Ingestion of Ground
Water from the Shallow Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
.Page 2 of 2
Cgw OED (mg/kg-day)
Constituent
NON-CANCER
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Cyanide
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cgw
CSF
ELCR
HI
mg/kg-day
OED
RfD
ug/L
(ug/L) Child
EFFECTS (continued)
1.8 1.15E-04
0.94 6.01E-05
142 9.08E-03
3 1.92E-04
21 1.34E-03
5.7 3.64E-01
2,990 1.91E-01
0.12 7.67E-06
15 9.59E-04
4,100 2.62E-01
6 3.84E-04
10 6.39E-04
197 1.26E-02
Upper 95 percent confidence limit of the mean
Cancer slope factor.
Excess lifetime cancer risk (DWED x SF).
Hazard index (sum of hazard quotients).
Milligrams per kilogram per day.
Average daily oral exposure dose.
Reference dose.
Micrognms per liter.
Adult
4.93E-05
2.58E-05
3.89E-03
8.22E-05
5.75E-04
1.56E-01
8.19E-02
3.29E-06
4.11E-04
1.12E-01
1.64E-04
2.74E-04
5.40E-03
Toxicity
Value
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
0.001
0.005
0.09
0.0005
0.037
0.02
0.1
0.0003
0.02
1
0.00007
0.007
0.2
m
Risk Estimate
Child
Hazard
1E-01
1E-02
1E-01
4E-01
4E-02
2E-01
2E+00
3E-02
5E-02
3E-01
5E+00
9E-02
6E-02
~ 10E+00
Adult
Quotients
5E-02
5E-03
4E-02
2E-01
2E-02
8E-03
8E-01
1E-02
2E-02
1E-01
2E+00
4E-02
3E-02
- ^°°s
ground-water concentration.
-------
Table 11 Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and Quid Residents, Dermal Contact
(Shower or Bath) with Ground Water from the Shallow Zone, Blydenburgh
Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Cgw
Constituent (ug/L)
CANCER EFFECTS
Volatile*
Benzene 3.3
Chloroform 2.0
1,1-Dichloroethaae 13.0
1,2-Dichloroethane 4.9
1.1-Dichloroethene 1.4
Methylene chloride • 8.5
Tetrachloroethene 16.0
Trichloroethene 7.1
Vinyl chloride 7.1
Inorganics
Arsenic 1.8
Beryllium 0.9
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Benzene 3.3
Chloroform 2.0
1,1-Dichloroethane 13.0
1.2-Dichloroethane 4.9
1,1-Dichloroethene 1.4
1,2-Dichloroethene 22.0
Methylene chloride 8.5
Tetrachloroethene 16.0
Toluene 3.1
1,1,1-Trichloroe thane 4.9
Trichloroethene 7. 1
Vinyl chloride 7.1 -
PC
(cm/hr)
0.024
0.021
0.015
0.0098
0.015
0.015
0.074
0.034
0.0084
0.0008
0.0008
0.024
0.021
0.015
0.0098
0.015
0.018
0.015
0.074
0.048
0.039
0.034
0.0084
Cgw Upper 95 percent confidence limit of the
cm/hr Centimeters per hour.
CSF Cancer slope factor.
DAED (mg/kg/day)
Child
1.49E-06
7.92E-07
3.68E-06
9.05E-07
3.96E-07
2.40E-06
2.23E-05
4.55E-06
1.12E-06
2.71E-08
1.42E-08
1.74E-05
9.24E-06
4.29E-05
1.06E-05
4.62E-06
8.71E-05
2.80E-05
2.60E-04
3.27E-05
4.20E-OS
5.31E-05
1.31E-05
Adult
1.69E-06
8.95E-07
4.16E-06
1.02E-06
4.48E-07
2.72E-06
2.52E-05
5.14E-06
1.27E-06
3.07E-08
1.60E-08
3.94E-06
2.09E-06
9.70E-06
2.39E-06
1.04E-06
1.97E-05
6.34E-06
5.89E-05
7.40E-06
9.50E-06
1.20E-05
2.97E-06
Toxicity
Value
CSF
(kg-day/mg)
0.029
0.0061
ND
0.091
0.6
0.0075
0.051
0.011
1.9
1.8
4.3
ELCR
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
0.0007
0.01
O.I
0.25
0.009
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.2
0.09
0,0075
0.0013
Risk Estimate
Child
Adult
ELCR
4E-08
5E-09
-
8E-08
2E-07
2E-08
1E-06
5E-08
2E-06
5E-08
6E-08
4E-06
Hazard
2E-02
9E-04
4E-04
4E-05
5E-04
9E-03
5E-04
3E-02
2E-04
5E-04
7E-03
1E-02
5E-08
5E-09
.
9E-08
3E-07
2E-08
1E-06
6E-08
2E-06
6E-08
7E-08
4E-46
Quotients
6E-03
2E-04
1E-04
IE-OS
1E-04
2E-03
1E-04
6E-03
4E-05
1E-04
2E-03
2E-03
mean ground-water concentration.
DAED Average daily dermal exposure dose.
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk
(DAED x SF).
HI Hazard index (sum of hazard quotients).
mg/kg-day Milligrams per kilogram per day.
PC Permeability constant.
RfD Reference dose.
ug/L Micrograms per liter.
-------
Table 11 Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and Child Residents, Dermal Contact
(Shower or Bath) with Ground Water from the Shallow Zone, Blydenburgh
Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Page 2 of 2
Constituent
NON-CANCER
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Cyanide
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cgw
cm/or
CSF
DAED
ELCR
HI
mg/kg-day
PC
RfD
ug/L
Cgw PC
(ug/L) (cm/hr)
EFFECTS (continued)
1.8 0.0008
0.9 0.0008
142 0.0008
3.0 0.0008
21.0 0.0008
5.7 0.0008
2,990 0.0008
0.1 0.0008
15.0 0.0008
4,100 0.0008
6.0 0.0008
10.0 0.0008
197 0.0008
Upper 95 percent confidence limit of the
Centimeters per hour.
Cancer slope factor.
Avenge daily dermal exposure dose.
DAED (mg/kg/day)
Child
3.17E-07
1.65E-07
2.50E-05
5.28E-07
3.69E-06
l.OOE-03
5.26E-04
2.11E-08
2.64E-06
7.21E-04
1.06E-06
1.76E-06
3.47E-05
Adult
7.16E-08
3.74E-08
5.65E-06
1.19E-07
8.35E-07
2.27E-04
1.19E-04
4.77E-09
5.97E-07
1.63E-04
2.39E-07
3.98E-07
7.84E-06
Toxicity
Value
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
0.001
0.005
0.09
0.0005
0.037
0.02
0.1
0.0003
0.02
1
0.00007
0.007
0.2
HI
Risk Estimate
Child
Hazard
3E-04
3E-05
3E-04
1E-03
1E-04
5E-Q5
5E-03
7E-05
1E-04
7E-04
2E-02
3E-04
2E-04
1E-01 .
Adult
Quotients
7E-05
7E-06
6E-05
. 2E-04
2E-05
IE-OS
1E-03
2E-05
3E-05
2E-04
3E-03
6E-05
4E-05
2E-Qll
mean ground-water concentration.
Excess lifetime cancer risk (DAED x SF).
Hazard index (sum of hazard quotients).
Milligrams per kilogram per day.
Permeability constant
Reference dose.
Micrograms per liter.
-------
Table 12 Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and Child Residents, Inhalation Exposure
to Constituents detected in the Shallow Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill,
• Hauppauge, New York.
Constituent
CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Benzene
Chloroform
1 . 1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroe thane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Benzene
Chloroform
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroe thane
1,1 -Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroe thene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1.1-Trichloroe thane
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Cgw
(ug/L)
3.3
2
13
4.9
1.4
8.5
16
7.1
7.1
3.3
2
13
4.9
1.4
22
8.5
16
3.1
4.9
7.1
7.1
Cgw Upper 95 percent confidence
IED (mg/kg-day)
Child
3.62E-05
2.19E-05
1.42E-04
5.37E-05
1.53E-05
9.32E-05
1.75E-04
7.78E-05
7.78E-05
4.22E-04
2.56E-04
1.66E-03
6.26E-04
1.79E-04
2.81E-03
1.09E-03
2.05E-03
3.96E-04
6.26E-04
9.08E-04
9.08E-04
limit of the mei
Adult
7.75E-05
4.70E-05
3.05E-04
1.15E-04
3.29E-05
2.00E-04
3.76E-04
1.67E-04
1.67E-04
1.81E-04
1.10E-04
7.12E-04
2.68E-04
7.67E-05
1.21E-03
4.66E-04
8.77E-04
1.70E-04
2.68E-04
3.39E-04
3.89E-04
Toxicity
Value
CSFi
(kg-day/mg)
0.029
0.081
ND
0.091
0.6
0.014
0.0018
0.017
0.29
ELCR
RfDi
(mg/kg-day)
0.0007
0.01
0.1
0.025
0.009
0.01
0.9
0.01
0.6
0.3
0.0075
0.0013
HI
Risk Estimate
Child
ELCR
1E-06
2E-06
.
5E-06
9E-06
1E-06
3E-07
1E-06
2E-05
4E-05
Hazard
6E-01
3E-02
2E-02
3E-02
2E-02
3E-01
1E-03
2E-01
7E-04
2E-03
1E-01
7E-01
2E+00
Adult
2E-06
4E-06
.'
IE-OS
2E-05
3E-06
7E-07
3E-06
5E-05
9E*5"::.^\
Quotients
3E-01
1E-02
7E-03
1E-02
9E-03
1E-01
5E-04
9E-02
3E-04
9E-04
5E-02
3E-01
9E-OI;::'f
in ground-water concentration.
CSFi Inhalation cancer slope factor.
ELCR Excess lifetim
HI Hazard index
IED Average daily
e cancer risk (IED x SFi).
(sum of hazard quotients).
inhalation exposure dose.
mg/lcg-day Milligrams per kilogram per day.
RfDi Inhalation reference dose.
ug/L Micrograms per liter.
-------
Table
13
Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and Child Residents, Ingestion of Ground
Water from the Intermediate Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Page 1 of 2
Constituent
CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroe thane
1 ,2-Oichloroethane
1 . 1 -Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene *
Trichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Semivotatiles
Bis(2-ethylhexyi)phthalate
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Acetone
Benzene
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
. 1,1 -Dichloroethene
1,2-Dtchloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1.1.1 -Trichloroethane
Tnchloroethene
Vinyl chloride
Cgw
(ug/L)
5.8
6.3
0.85
6.7
7.2
22
1.8
12.8
1.9
1.1
12
5.8
6.3
0.85
6.7
7.1
7.2
5
15
22
1.8
OED (mg/kg-day)
Child
3.18E-05
3.45E-05
4.66E-06
3.67E-05
3.95E-05
1.21E-04
9.86E-06
7.01E-05
1.04E-05
6.03E-06
7.67E-04
3.71E-04
4.03E-04
5.43E-05
4.28E-04
4.54E-04
4.60E-04
3.20E-04
9.59E-04
1.41E-03
1.15E-04
Cgw Upper 95 percent confidence limit of the mean
CSF Cancer slope factor.
£T rw PT»»C.« lifetime cancer
risk (OWED
xSFl.
Adult
6.81E-05
7.40E-05
9.98E-06
7.87E-05
8.45E-05
2.58E-04
2.11E-05
1.50E-04
2.23E-05
1.29E-05
3.29E-04
1.59E-04
1.73E-04
2.33E-05
1.84E-04
1.95E-04
1.97E-04
1.37E-04
4.11E-04
6.03E-04
4.93E-05
ground-water
. Toxicity
Value
CSF
(kg-day/mg)
0.029
ND
0.091
0.6
0.051
0.011
1.9
0.014
1.75
4.3
ELCR "
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
0.1
0.0007
0.1
0.25
0.00?
0.01
0.01
0.2
0.09
0.0075
0.0013
concentration.
Risk Estimate
Child
ELCR
9E-07
-
4E-07
2E-05
2E-06
1E-06-
2E-05
1E-06
2E-05
3E-05
5E-05
Hazard
8E-03
5E-01
4E-03
2E-04
5E-02
5E-02
5E-02
2E-03
1E-02
2E-01
9E-02
Adult
2E^D6
.
9E-07
5E-05
4E-06
3E-06
4E-05
2E-06
4E-05
6E-05
2E4M *:;'•'
Quotients
3E-03
2E-01
2E-03
9E-05
2E-02
2E-02
2E-02
7E-04
5E-03
8E-02
4E-02
HI Hazard index (sum of hazard quotients).
mg/kg-day Milligrams per kilogram per day.
OED Avenge daily oral exposure dose.
RfD Reference dose.
ug/L Micrograms per liter.
-------
Table *3 Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and Child Residents, Ingestion of Ground
Water from the Intermediate Zone, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Page 2 of 2
Cgw OED (mg/kg-day)
Constituent
(ug/L) Child
Adult
NON-CANCER EFFECTS (continued)
Semivolatiles
Benzoic acid
4.1 2.62E-04
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 12.8 8.18E-04
Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nitrate
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cgw
CSF
ELCR
HI
mg/kg-day
OED
RfD
ug/L
-
5 3.20E-04
1.9 1.21E-04
1.1 7.03E-05
231 1.48E-02
16 1.02E-03
28 1.79E-03
39 2.49E-03
315 2.01E-02
2,800 1.79E-01
1.6 1.02E-04
11 7.03E-04
133 8.50E-03
Upper 95 percent confidence limit of the mean
Cancer slope factor.
Excess lifetime cancer risk (OWED x SF).
Hazard index (sum of hazard quotients).
Milligrams per kilogram per day.
Average daily oral exposure dose.
Reference dose.
Micrograms per liter.
1.12E-04
3.51E-04
1.37E-04
5.21E-05
3.01E-05
6.33E-03
4.38E-04
7.67E-04
1.07E-03
8.63E-03
7.67E-02
4.38E-05
3.01E-04
3.64E-03
ground-water
Toxicity
Value
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
4
0.02
0.0004
0.001
0.005
0.09
0.005
0.037
ND
0.1
1
0.00007
0.007
0.2
HI
concentration.
Risk Estimate
Child
Hazard
7E-05
4E-02
8E-01
1E-01
1E-02
2E-01
2E-01
5E-02
-
2E-01
2E-01
IE +00
1E-01
4E-02
4E+00
Adult
Quotients
3E-05
2E-02
3E-01
5E-02
6E-03
7E-02
9E-02
2E-02
-
9E-02
8E-02
6E-01
4E-02
2E-02
2E+or;:;-
-------
Table
Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and Child Residents, Dermal Contact
(Shower or Bath) with Ground Water from the Intermediate Zone. Blydenburgh
Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Page 1 of :
Cgw PC
Constituent (ug/L) (cm/hr)
CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Benzene 5.8 0.024
1,1-Dichloroethane 6.3 0.015
1.2-Oichloroethane 0.85 0.0098
1,1-Oichloroethene 6.7 0.015
Tetrachloroethene 7.2 0.074
Trichloroethene 22 0.034
Vinyl chloride 1.8 0.0084
Semivolatiles
Bis(2-«thylhexyl)phthalate 12.8 0.098
Inorganics
Arsenic 1.9 0.0008
Beryllium 1.1 0.0008
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Acetone 12 0.00055
Benzene 5.8 0.024
1.1-Dichloroethane 6.3 0.015
1,2-Dichloroethane 0.85 0.0098
1.1-Dichloroethene ' 6.7 0.015
1,2-Dichloroethene 7.1 0.018
Tetrachloroethene 7.2 0.074
Toluene . 5 0.048
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 15 0.039
Trichloroethene 22 0.034
Vinyl chloride 1.8 0.0084
r*cni/ Tinner Q5 nercent e*rm fi rl^nr^ limit of the
V»|fW WW^wl yj fcrPI V^ili ^ V/ll i IM^I 1 Viii lUiUh Wt Ulw
cm/or Centimeters per hour.
CSF Cancer slope factor.
DAJED Average daily dermal exposure dose.
DAED (mg/kg/day)
Child
2.62E-06
1.78E-06
1.57E-07
L89E-06
l.OOE-05
1.41E-05
2.85E-07
2.36E-05
2.87E-08
1.66E-08
1.45E-06
3.06E-05
2.08E-05
1.83E-06
2.21E-05
2.81E-05
1.17E-04
5.28E-05
1.29E-04
1.64E-04
3.33E-06
Adult
2.97E-06
2.01E-06
1.78E-07
2.14E-06
1.14E-05
1.59E-05
3.22E-07
2.67E-05
3.24E-08
1.88E-08
3.28E-07
6.92E-06
4.70E-06
4.14E-07
5.00E-06
6.35E-06
2.65E-05
1.19E-05
2.91E-05
3.72E-05
7.52E-07
Toxicity
Value
CSF
(kg-day/mg)
0.029
ND
0.091
0.6
0.051
0.011
1.9
0.014
1.75
4.3
ELCR
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
0.1
0.0007
0.1
0.25
0.009
0.01
0.01
0.2
0.09
0.0075
0.0013
Risk Estimate
Child
Adult
ELCR
8E-08
.
IE-OS
1E-06
5E-07 '
2E-07
5E-07
3E-07
5E-08
7E-08
3E-06
Hazard
1E-05
4E-02
2E-04
7E-06
2E-03
3E-03
1E-02
3E-04
1E-03
2E-02
3E-03
9E-08
.
2E-08
1E-06
6E-07
2E-07
6E-07
4E-07
6E-08
8E-08
3E-06
Quotients
3E-06
1E-02
5E-05
2E-06
6E-04
6E-04
3E-03
6E-05
3E-04
5E-03
6E-04
mean ground-water concentration.
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk (DAED x SF).
HI Hazard index (sum of hazard quotients).
mg/kg-day Milligrams per kilogram per day.
PC Permeability constant.
RfO Reference dose.
ug/L . Micrograms per liter.
-------
Table
14
Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and Child Residents, Dermal Contact
(Shower or Bath) with Ground Water from the Intermediate Zone, Blydenburgh
Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Pag« I of:
Constituent
NON-CANCER
Semivoiatiles
Benzoic acid
Cgw PC
(ug/L) (cm/hr)
EFFECTS (continued)
4.1 0.018
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 12.8 0.098
Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Boron
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Nitrate
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cgw
cm/hr
CSF
.DAED
ELCR
HI
mg/lcg-day
PC
RfD
ug/L
-
5 0.0008
1.9 0.0008
1.1 0.0008
231 0.0008
16 0.0008
28 0.0008
39 0.0008
315 0.0008
2,800 0.0008
1.6 0.0008
11 0.0008
133 0.0008
DAED
Child
1.62E-05
2.76E-04
8.80E-07
3.34E-07
1.94E-07
4.06E-05
2.81E-06
4.93E-06
6.86E-06
5.54E-05
4.93E-04
2.81E-07
1.94E-06
2.34E-05
(mg/kg/day)
Adult
3.67E-06
6.24E-05
1.99E-07
7.56E-08
4.38E-08
9.19E-06
6.36E-07
1.11E-06
1.55E-06
1.25E-05
1.11E-04
6.36E-08
4.38E-07
5.29E-06
Toxicity
Value
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
4
0.02
0.0004
0.001
0.005
0.09
0.005
0.037
ND
0.1
1
0.00007
0.007
0.2
HI
Rislc
Child
Estimate
Adult
Hazard Quotients
4E-06
1E-02
2E-03
3E-04
4E-05
5E-04
6E-04
1E-04
-
6E-04
5E-04
4E-03
3E-04
1E-04
1E4I
9E-07
3E-03
5E^04
8E-05
9E-06
1E-04
1E-04
3E-05
-
1E-04
1E-04
9E-04
6E-05
3E-05
;' 2E42
Upper 95 percent confidence limit of the mean ground-water concentration.
Centimeters per hour.
Cancer slope, factor.
Average daily dermal exposure dose.
Ex«*« lifetime cancer risk (PAED * SF).
Hazard index (sum of hazard quotients).
Milligrams per kilogram per day.
Permeability constant.
Reference dose.
Micrograms per liter.
-------
Table . 15 Risk Assessment for Hypothetical Future Adult and Child Residents. Inhalation Exposure to
Ground Water from the Intermediate Zone, BIydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Constituent
CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Benzene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroe thane
1 , 1-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Tricbioroethene
Vinyl chloride
Cgw
(ug/L)
5.8
6.3
0.85
6.7
7.2
22
1.8
IED (mg/kg-day)
Child
6.36E-05
6.90E-05
9.32E-06
7.34E-05
7.89E-05
2.41E-04
1.97E-05
Adult
1.36E-04
1.48E-04
2.00E-05
1.57E-04
1.69E-04
5.17E-04
4.23E-05
Toxicity
Value
CSFi
(kg-day/mg)
0.029
ND
0.091
1.2
0.0018
0.017
0.29
Risk Estimate
Child
ELCR
2E-06
.
8E-07
9E-05
IE-07
4E-06
6E-06
Adult
4E-06
.
2E-06
. 2E-04
3E-07
' 9E-06
IE-OS
Semivolatiles
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
NON-CANCER EFFECTS
Volatiles
Acetone
Benzene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroe thane
1 . 1-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Tnchloroethene
Vinyl chloride
12.8
12
5.3
6.3
0.85
6.7
7.1
7.2
5
15
22
1.8
1.40E-04
1.53E-03
7.42E-04
8.05E-04
1.09E-04
8.57E-04
9.08E-04
9.21E-04
6.39E-04
1.92E-03
2.81E-03
2.30E-04
3.01E-04'
6.58E-04
3.18E-04
3.45E-04
4.66E-05
3.67E-04
3.89E-04
3.95E-04
2.74E-04
8.22E-04
1.21E-03
9.86E-05
0.014
ELCR
RfDi
(mg/kg-day)
0.1
0.0007
0.1
0.025
0.009
0.01
0.01
0.6
0.3
0.0075
0.0013
2E-06
1E-04
Hazard
2E-02
IE+&.
8E-03
4E-03
1E-01
9E-02
9E-02
1E-03
6E-03
4E-01
2E-01
4E-06
SSI2E-M. '..
Quotients
7E-03
) 5E-01
3E-03
2E-03
4E-02
4E-02
4E-02
5E-04
3E-03
2E-01
8E-02
Semivolatiles
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
,4.1
12.8
5.24E-04
1.64E-03
2.25E-04
7.01E-04
4
0.02
ffl
1E-04
8E-02
2E-KW
6E-05
4E-02
9E41
Cgw
CSFi
ELCR
HI
IED
mg/kg-day
RfDi
ug/L
Upper 95 percent confidence limit of the mean ground-water concentration.
Inhalation cancer slope factor.
Excess lifetime cancer risk (IED x SFi).
Hazard index (sum of hazard quotients).
Average daily inhalation exposure dose.
Milligrams per kilogram per day.
Inhalation reference dose.
Micrograms per liter.
-------
Table
Air Concentrations, Air Pathway Inhalation Exposure Doses, and Risks for landfill Employee, Rlydenhurgh Landfill,
llauppauge, New York.
Constituent
Cancer Effects
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
^oil-Cancer Effects
Denzene
Chlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroelhene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Vinyl chloride
*
Air concentration
0«g/mJ)
0.06
0.02
0.17
0.06
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.12
0.56
0.21
0.43
0.17
AExD
(mg/kg/day)
5.4E-06
I.8E-06
I.5E-05
ELCR
9.4E-06
3.IE-06
6.3E-06
3.IE-06
1.9E-05
8.8E-05
3.3E-05
6.7E-05
2.7E-05
III
Cancer Risk
and Hazard Quotient
2E-07
2E-06
5E-06
7E-06
0.01
0.0006
0.00006
0.0003
0.0009
0.0009
0.00006
0.0007
0.02
0.04
AExD Air pathway inhalation exposure dose.
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk.
Ill Hazard index.
ing/kg Milligrams per kilogram.
/tg/m1 Micrograms per cubic meter
.
-------
Table . 17 Air Concentrations, Air Pathway Inhalation Exposure Doses, anil Risks for Adult Resident, Rlydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York.
Constituent
Cancer Effects
Benzene
I.l-Dichloroelhene
Vinyl chloride
Non-Cancer Effects
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroelhane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Vinyl Chloride
Air concentration
0«g/mJ)
0.07
0.03
O.L8
0.07
0.07
0.14
0.03
0.15
0.69
0.24
0.57
0.18
AExD
(mg/kg/day)
I.5E-05
6.2E-06
3.7E-05
ELCR
3.4E-05
3.4E-05
6.8E-05
I.5E-05
7.3E-05
3.3E-04
I.IE-04
2.7E-04
8.7E-05
HI
Cancer Risk
and Hazard Quotient
4E-07
7E-06
IE-OS
2E-05
0.05
0.007
0.0007
0.002
0.004
0.003
0.0002
0.003
0.07
0.1
AExD Air pathway inhalation exposure dose.
ELCK Excess lifetime cancer risk.
HI Hazard index.
ing/kg Milligrams per kilogram.
/ig/mj Micrograms per cubic meter
.
IIHAI-T
II, IW1
-------
Table lfl Air Concentrations, Air Pathway Inhalation Exposure Doses, and Risks for Child Resident, Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York.
' Air
Constituent (
Cancer Effects
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethene
Vinyl chloride
INoii-Cqiicer Effects
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
I.l-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloroelhene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Vinyl chloride
AExD Air pathway inhalation exposure
ELCR Excess lifetime cancer risk.
HI Hazard index.
mg/kg Milligrams per kilogram.
/ig/m1 Micrograms per cubic meter.
concentration
>g/mj)
0.07
0.03
0.18
0.07
0.07
0.14
0.03
0.15
0.69
0.24
0.57
0.18
dose.
AExD
(mg/kg/day)
1.3E-05
5.8E-06
3.4E-05
EjLCR
I.6E-04
I.6E-04
3.IH-04
6. in 05
3.3E-04
I.5E-03
5.3E-04
I.3E-03
4.0E-04
HI
Cancer Risk
and Hazard Quotient
4E-07
7E-06
IE-05
2E«|
0.2
0.03
0.003
0.007
0.02
0.02
0.0009
0.01
0.3
O.fi
•
IIHAKI s<|4c
u.
-------
Table - 1? Risk Assessment Summary, Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
Pathway*
Ajr
Shallow Ground Water
Ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation
Intermediate Ground Water
Ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal contact
Inhalation
Receptor
Landfill employee
Adult resident
Child resident
Adult resident
Adult resident
Adult resident
f WVWA.S..'. ,t
Child resident
Child resident
Child resident
Adult resident
Adult resident
Adult resident
TbW^l
Child resident
Child resident
Child resident
% -. \-T-XN x
HI
0.04
0.1
0.6
4
0.02
0.9
7""" 1 '£nr
10
0.1
2
2
0.02
0.9
IZ2II!lEiF^
4
0.1
2
™^«1f^!
* %W>->O
ELCR
2 x 10-5
2 x 10-'
3x10"
4x10^
9 x Iff5
:ZIT23^
4x 10*
4xlO-5
SxlO4
2x10"
^^Si^^6l^
9X105
3x10^
1x10"
3Bg&yS&g&
* Air pathway represents current and future risk estimates; ground-water pathways
represent hypothetical future risk estimates. No current exposure pathways were
identified for ground water.
ECLR Excess lifetime cancer risk.
HI Hazard index.
-------
Page 1 of 2
Table 20 Cost Estimate - Alternative 4a Extraction. Aeration. (With Off-Gas Treatment], Polishing, Discharge to Recharge Basin,
Site Cap, and Air Monitoring), Feasibility Study for the Blydenburgh Landfill, Hauppauge, New York.
A. CAPITAL COSTS
ITEMS
Ground-Water Extraction System
Equaliztion Tank
Aeration Unit
Vapor Phasa Carbon Treatment(a)
Oarifier
Liquid Phase Carbon Treatment
Backwash Tank
Sludge Holding Tank
Filter Press
Transfer Pumps
Discharge Pumps
Treatment Building
Foundation
Site Preparation
Discharge System to Recharge Basin
Pavement Restoration
Electric Work
Modified Part 360 Cap(b)
TOTAL CAPITAL COST • ALTERNATIVE -4a
QUANTITY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
. 1
8
2
1700
140
1
1
1
1
1
UNIT
LS.
LS.
LS.
LS.
LS.
LS.
LS.
LS.
LS.
EA.
EA,
S.F.
C.Y.
LS.
LS.
LS.
LS.
Subtotal
Engineering Design 10%
Construction Supervisor 10%
Subtotal
Contingency 25%
TOTAL CAPITAL COST • TREATMENT
LS.
UNIT COST
$195,000
$18.000
$35,000
$33,000
$150,000
$100,000
$8,000
$6,000
$100.000
$1.250
$7,000
$75
$150
$50,000
$115.600
$15,000
$120,000
$11.676.000
TOTAL COST
$195.000
$18,000
$35,000
$33.000
$150,000
$100,000
$8,000
$6,000
$100,000
$10,000
$14,000
$127,500
$21,000
$50,000
$115,600
$15.000
$120,000
$1,118,100
$111310
$111.810
$1.341,720
$335.430
$1,677,150
$11.676.000
$13,353.150
(a) If needed.
(b) Baaed on information provided by Malcolm Pimie, Inc.
(Administration, engineering and contingency costs, not included for the Modified Part 360 Cap).
-• a: ALT-6CC JCLS
-------
Page 2 of 2
Table 20 - Cost Estimate - Alternative 4a (Extraction, Aeration,
[With Off-Gas Treatment], Polishing, Discharge to
Recharge.Basin, Site Cap, and Air Monitoring),
Feasibility Study for the Blydenburgh Landfill,
Hauppauge, New York.
B. O&MCost
Monitoring Costs (years 1-30)
Annual Pump & Treat Cost
Administration (15%)
Subtotal
Contingency (25%)
Total
$
$
$
$
$
114
17
131
32
164
,205
,131
,336
,834
,170
$ 3,321,200
Present Value, Years 1-10 (5% discount rate) $ 1,267,675
GRAND TOTAL - ALTERNATIVE 4a $ 17,942,025
------- |