PB94-963836
EPA/ROD/R02-94/231
January 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Cortese Landfill Site,
Narrowsburg, NY
9/30/1994
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Cortese Landfill Site
Narrowsburg, Sullivan County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September 1994
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Cortese Landfill Site
Town of Narrowsburg
Sullivan County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision ("ROD") documents the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) selection of the remedial action for
the Cortese Landfill Site in accordance with the requirements of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, and the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This
decision document summarizes the factual and legal basis for
selecting the remedy for this Site.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix IV).
An administrative record for the Site contains the documents that
form the basis for EPA's selection of the remedial action, the
index for which is attached as Appendix III.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The primary objectives of this remedy is to control the source of
contamination at the Site and to reduce and minimize the migration
of contaminants into Site media thereby minimizing any health and
environmental impacts.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
A low permeability cover system meeting the requirements of
Title 6, NYCRR Part 360-2.15.b for the landfill. This
landfill cap, along with storm-water management improvements,
will further reduce infiltration of storm water into the
landfill and reduce leachate generation thus mitigating
impacts to ground water.
* The removal and off-site treatment and/or disposal of the
intact-drum disposal areas on the landfill property. Any
contaminated soil beneath these drum disposal areas may poten-
tially be removed at this time as well. Refuse overlying the
-------
drums would be placed back into the landfill. Drum removal
reduces the volume of contaminated material at the Site, thus
further decreasing the potential for future impacts to ground
water.
Extraction of contaminated ground water from the landfill
through a series of wells aligned along the western
(downgradient) perimeter of the landfill. The conceptual
treatment process for ground water includes aeration,
clarification/filtration, and air stripping. Contaminated
ground water will be pumped from the extraction wells at rates
that will allow for coordinating an expeditious ground-water
remediation. The exact number, depth, pumping rates, and
location of extraction wells will be determined during RD.
The pumping will continue until MCLs are achieved in the
aquifer downgradient of the landfill or until technical
impracticability is demonstrated.
4 Discharge of treated ground water to the existing Town of
Tusten wastewater treatment plant outfall or to the Delaware
River, or reinjection to ground water. The specific discharge
point will be determined during RD.
* Regrading and storm-water management improvements at the
landfill. This component of the remedial action will reduce
infiltration of storm water into the landfill and reduce
leachate generation, thus reducing impacts of landfill-related
contamination to ground water.
4 Institutional controls recommended to appropriate authorities.
Institutional controls will be recommended in order to protect
the integrity of the landfill cover system, to reduce
potential exposure to landfill contents, and to reduce the
potential future use of ground water within the plume area.
Institutional controls may include deed restrictions or other
recommendations as appropriate.
4 Long-term ground water and surface water monitoring to
evaluate the alternative's effectiveness. It is anticipated
that monitoring will be conducted on a quarterly basis for the
first five years, and then on an annual basis for the duration
of the alternative. Monitoring will include several surface
water sampling stations west of the embankment, a network of
ground-water monitoring wells, and the treated ground-water
effluent discharge, all sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and
municipal solid waste leachate indicator parameters. The
exact long-term ground-water monitoring program will be
determined during remedial design.
4 Implementation of long-term maintenance and operation of the
landfill cap and ground-water extraction/treatment system to
provide for inspections and repairs.
ii
-------
4 Devaluation of Site conditions at least once every five years
to determine if a modification of the selected alternative is
necessary.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable, given the scope of the action. The remedy
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at a site.
Despite this, hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
will remain on-site above health-based levels because the entire
landfill mass itself cannot be effectively excavated and treated
because of its size. Hence, a review of the remedial action will
be conducted at least once every five years after the initiation of
the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
M. Fox Date
1 Administrator
111
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Cortese Landfill Site
Narrowsburg, Sullivan County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September 1994
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 3
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES . 12
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 12
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 18
SELECTED REMEDY 23
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 24
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 27
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 Cortese Landfill Site (the "Site") is located within the Town
of Tusten, Sullivan County, New York. The former Cortese Landfill
property (the "Landfill") is bounded to the northeast by a steep
bedrock escarpment and to the southwest by the Conrail railroad
embankment. The northern edge of the Site lies approximately 70
feet south of the Narrowsburg Waste Water Treatment Plant. A small
borrow pit (White's Pond) and a small backwater area (the
embayment) along the eastern shoreline of the Delaware River are
located about 800 feet southwest of the Landfill. The Landfill
property boundary encompasses approximately 3.75 acres of land
owned by the John Cortese Construction Corp. and another 1.53 acre
parcel along the northern margin of the Cortese property owned by
the Town of Tusten, which purchased the property from Mr. Cortese
in 1973. A Site location map is provided on Figure 1.
On the Landfill side of the railroad embankment, areas to the
southeast, east, and northeast are wooded and used for hunting.
Areas on and south of the Landfill are seasonally flooded as a
result of perched water conditions. In addition, there are several
small wetland parcels in the immediate area of the Landfill. An
unpaved road between the Landfill and the embankment is used by
Conrail employees for access to the railroad tracks.
Six residences and the Narrowsburg Diesel Garage are located
between the embankment and the Delaware River. These properties
are accessed by Delaware Drive, a paved road which dead ends toward
the south at a cul-de-sac. Beyond the residences, and
approximately 250 feet southwest of the railroad embankment, lies
the Delaware River. The National Park Service classifies the
Delaware River in the vicinity of the Site as a Wild and Scenic
River. The river in this area is used primarily for recreational
boating and fishing. A Site layout map is provided on Figure 2.
The Narrowsburg public water supply is currently provided by a well
installed in April 1994 (Town Well #3). This well is located
approximately one mile east of the Landfill. Two secondary wells
in this system are located approximately 750 feet northwest and
approximately one-half mile north-northwest of the Landfill (Town
Wells #1 and #2, respectively). Town Well #1 is currently used to
supplement the public water supply provided by Well #3. Town Well
#2 was removed from service in 1994 due to contamination from an
unrelated source. All three wells are hydraulically upgradient of
the Site and are thus not affected by site-related contamination.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Landfill portion of the Site, which was initially called the
Tusten Landfill, received municipal waste at an estimated rate of
3,000 cubic yards per year, from approximately July 1970 to July
1981. Disposal practices at the Landfill were poorly documented,
hence records regarding the types and volume of waste received are
-------
essentially non-existent. For a six month period in 1973, however,
drummed industrial wastes were apparently received at the Site,
roost of which were transported by Gaess Environmental Services,
Inc. (purchased thereafter by SCA Services, Inc. or "SCA"). These
wastes apparently included drums containing paint thinners and
sludge, solvents, dyes, waste oil, and other petroleum waste
products. Disposal is believed to have included the burial and/or
emptying of drums in trenches and the emptying of tanker trucks
into one of two septage lagoons. The other lagoon was allegedly
used exclusively for the disposal of residential septage sludge.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Tusten Landfill
(Fink, 1979) was submitted to the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") in order to fulfill part of
the data requirements necessary to complete a permit filed by the
John Cortese Construction Corp. in order to continue to operate the
Landfill. The report concluded that a need existed for the
continued operation of the Landfill, and it recommended.ground-
water monitoring to determine potential adverse effects from
previous disposal practices. Subsequent ground-water monitoring
revealed elevated concentrations of volatile and semi-volatile
compounds. Based on the results of this monitoring, the Site was
placed on the National Priorities List ("NPL") in June 1986.
In 1985, New York State and the Town of Tusten filed an action in
Federal Court against John Cortese and SCA. As a result of this
action, SCA voluntarily entered into a stipulation agreement with
NYSDEC to conduct a remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") at the Site. Colder Associates was retained by SCA to
implement activities stipulated in the agreement. A Phase I RI
report was completed in July 1987, followed by a Phase II RI report
completed in August 1988.
In April of 1990, after NYSDEC and SCA were unable to agree upon
appropriate investigative actions, NYSDEC formally transferred the
lead regulatory role to EPA. SCA entered into an Administrative
Order on Consent ("AOC") to complete an RI/FS with EPA in September
1990. Completed under this AOC were the following: a test pit
program (March 1991); an ecological assessment (May 1992); field
sampling, including the sampling of surface soil, subsurface soil,
sediment, surface water and ground water (June 1993); a final RI
report (March 1994); and a baseline human health and ecological
risk assessment (June 1994). A draft FS was received in June 1994.
Sampling at the Site has revealed numerous volatile organic
compounds ("VOCs"), most notably toluene, semi-volatile organic
compounds ("SVOCs"), primarily polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
("PAHs"), and metals detected at varying concentrations in Site
media.
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI report, FS report, Risk Assessment and the Proposed Plan for
the Site were released to the public for comment on July 29, 1994.
These documents were made available to the public at two
information repositories maintained at the Tusten-Cochecton Library
in Narrowsburg, New York and at the EPA Region II Office in New
York City. The notice of availability for the above-referenced
documents was published in the Sullivan County Democrat on July 29,
1994. The public comment period on these documents was held from
July 29 to August 27, 1994. In addition, over the last four years
EPA has conducted numerous public meetings and maintained contact
with local concerned groups as well as the community at large.
On August 16, 1994, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Tusten
Town Hall to inform local officials and interested citizens about
the Superfund process, to present the Proposed Plan for the Site,
including the preferred alternative for remediation of the Site,
and to respond to any questions from area residents and other
attendees. The comments received at the public meeting generally
focused on drinking water contamination, implementation schedule,
and Site-related risks. Responses to the comments received at the
public meeting and in writing during the public comment period are
included in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The primary objectives of the selected action are to remove the
intact-drum disposal areas, control the source of contamination at
the Site, and reduce and minimize the migration of contaminants
into Site media thereby minimizing any health and ecological
impacts.
For the aquifer beneath the Site, the final remediation goals will
be to restore the groundwater to drinking water standards. EPA
does not expect that the ground water beneath the Landfill will
ever achieve these standards. The aquifer downgradient of the
Landfill, however, may achieve drinking water standards upon
implementation of one of the alternatives described below. It is
also recognized, however, that the final selected remedy may not
achieve these standards because of potential technical difficulties
associated with removing contaminants from ground water in order to
clean that ground water to drinking water standards. The results
of the selected remedy will be monitored carefully to determine the
feasibility of achieving the remediation goals. The remedial
action may require continuous pumping, pulsed pumping, and
flexibility in placing pumping wells at strategic locations.
In addition, the Town of Tusten has agreed to conduct a removal
action at the Site pursuant to an EPA Administrative Order on
Consent signed July 25, 1994. This removal action will address two
-------
septage lagoons as well as require the construction of a drainage
swale. Levels of contamination in the soil, sediment, and sludge
materials within the septage lagoons were found to be significant
enough to warrant expedited removal. Additionally, construction of
a drainage swale between the Landfill and the escarpment will
divert storm water run-off away from the Landfill in order both to
aid in the drying of the waste mass and to reduce leachate
generation.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This section summarizes the findings of the RI. A summary of the
analytical data collected for the Site, listed by chemical and
medium, can be found in Appendix II.
The RI was conducted in three phases. RI sampling was conducted on
and around the Site in the following media: surface water,
sediment, surface and subsurface soils, soil gas, and ground water.
Twenty-one (21) surface soil samples were collected during the RI.
VOCs were not detected in surface soils. Trace concentrations of
SVOCs (including benzoic acid, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, pyrene,
di-n-butylphthalate, and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate) were randomly
detected. Elevated concentrations of SVOCs were detected in only
one sample at the north end of the Landfill. This location is
associated with surface disposal of building debris resulting from
a local fire. Several pesticides (heptachlor epoxide, dieldrin,
and endosulfan II) were detected at trace concentrations in the
vicinity of the septage lagoons. Several metals were detected at
concentrations above background levels. Background levels were
determined by taking samples at off-site locations. Surface soil
sampling data is summarized in Table 1.
Fifteen (15) subsurface soil and waste samples were collected,
three during the Phase II RI, nine from the March 1991 test pit
investigation, and three from borings in the two septage lagoons
during the Phase III RI. Elevated concentrations of VOCs, SVOCs,
and metals were detected in subsurface soil samples during the test
pit program around buried drums under municipal solid waste within
the Landfill and in subsurface soil samples collected from the
septage lagoons. The highest concentrations of VOCs (including
trichloroethene ("TCE"), perchloroethene ("PCE"), toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene) and SVOCs (predominantly PAHs) were
detected in the eastern septage lagoon (sample SL-01). Total VOCs
in the eastern septage lagoon were detected at 1,190,000 micrograms
per kilogram (ug/kg) and total SVOCs were detected at 725,000
ug/kg. Low levels of pesticides (dieldrin, beta-BHC, 4,4'-DDE,
4,4'-DDD, endrin ketone and gamma chlordane) were also detected in
subsurface soils in the septage lagoons. Polychlorinated biphenyls
("PCBs") were not detected in any subsurface soil samples. Several
metals were detected at concentrations which were higher in
-------
concentration than those detected in surface soil background
samples, especially those samples collected from the septage
lagoons. Subsurface soil sampling data is summarized in Table 2.
Subsurface soil data indicate that the Landfill is the source of
contaminants detected in downgradient ground water because
subsurface soil samples and ground-water samples contain many of
the same constituents.
Water table contour maps were generated to interpret the direction
of ground-water flow. The predominant ground-water flow direction
is to the southwest, toward (but oblique to) the Delaware River.
The direction of ground-water flow is consistent with the
topography in the western and southern directions.
It is important in understanding contaminant migration mechanisms
to note that the railroad embankment forms a north-south physical
barrier approximately 15 feet high between the area of the Landfill
and the land and river area to the west. For this reason the sole
transport mechanism between the Landfill and downgradient areas of
concern across the embankment (i.e., White's Pond, the embayment,
and the Delaware River) is by ground water.
A conceptual groundwater flow system was developed for the area of
the Site. The Site lies on alluvial deposits within the Delaware
River valley. These alluvial deposits are predominantly sand and
gravel overlain by fine-grained floodplain deposits which cause
perched groundwater conditions and surficial ponding of water in
areas of poor drainage. Throughout the entire thickness of
unconsolidated sediments, water occurs under water table
conditions. The saturated aquifer thickness is approximately 80
feet. Discontinuous lenses of fine-grained deposits occur locally
in the sand and gravel, but the sequence of overburden sediments
can be considered to be one unconfined hydrogeologic unit.
Bedrock forms a second, deeper hydrogeologic unit. Bedrock
escarpments rise approximately 400 feet above both sides of the
river. Groundwater flows through fractures in the bedrock from
these topographic highs to the topographic low (the river) through
the overburden sediments. The Delaware River is, therefore, the
discharge boundary for the valley. Groundwater flow in the
overburden sediments in the Site vicinity is predominantly
horizontal to the southwest (i.e., toward the river) at an average
velocity of about 25 feet per year (maximum 75 feet per year), but
can have a significant vertical component at some locations during
the wet season (winter and spring).
The upper sand and gravel unit is a preferential pathway for
groundwater flow from the Site to the Delaware. River because it is
located just below the water table and has a hydraulic conductivity
seven times higher than geometric mean for the entire aquifer as a
whole, yielding a calculated flow velocity of 167 feet per year
(500 feet per year maximum).
-------
Sixty-two (62) ground-water samples from seventeen (17) monitoring
wells and Tusten Well #1 (one of the three public water supply
wells for the Town) were collected over the three phases of the RI.
Eleven (11) wells at six (6) locations both on and downgradient of
the Landfill revealed levels of VOCs, SVOCs, and metals exceeding
the current Federal Safe Drinking Water Act and/or New York State
Public Water Supply Maximum Contaminant Levels ("MCLs"), the
majority of contamination being in the MW-1 area. Monitoring well
MW-1B exhibited the highest concentration of contaminants with
levels of total VOCs detected at 16,840 micrograms per liter (ug/1)
and total SVOCs at 1,990 ug/1 in the July 1989 sampling event.
More recent data shows MW-10 to be the most heavily contaminated
with levels of 2,050 ug/1 total VOCs and 142 ug/1 of total SVOCs.
Ground water total organic contaminant levels from all sampling
events are summarized on Figure 3. VOCs include aromatic hydro-
carbons, chlorinated aromatic hydrocarbons, trihalomethanes,
chlorinated alkanes/alkenes, ketones, and sulfides; SVOCs include
phenols, chlorinated aromatic compounds, PAHs, phthalates and
miscellaneous compounds; and metals include arsenic, chromium,
cobalt, lead, and zinc. Cyanide, pesticides, and PCBs were not
detected above background concentrations. Note that no Site-
related contaminants were found in Tusten Well #1 during any round
of sampling. Ground-water sampling data for all parameters is
summarized in Table 3.
Ground-water data indicate that Site-related contaminants occur in
a plume approximately 1,300-feet wide. The Landfill is
approximately 400 feet from the river. Ground-water impacts are
found in shallow zones adjacent to the western edge of the Landfill
and in both shallow and deeper zones downgradient. The majority of
contamination was detected in monitoring wells immediately adjacent
to the Landfill (i.e., east of the embankment). By comparison,
levels in monitoring wells located within the plume area, approxi-
mately 200 feet downgradient (west of the embankment), were
generally one-tenth or less of those in the monitoring wells east
of the embankment. Significantly lower contaminant levels in the
downgradient wells indicate that natural attenuation and/or
dilution affects the degree of contamination over relatively short
distances.
Twenty-four (24) surface water samples were analyzed. Samples were
collected from surface water on the Landfill side of the railroad
embankment and from White's Pond, the embayment, and the Delaware
River west of the railroad embankment. Note that no elevated
concentrations of pesticides or PCBs have been detected in any
surface water samples. Of all surface water samples collected from
the Landfill side of the railroad embankment, elevated
concentrations of contaminants were detected only near the septage
lagoons. Contaminants include the VOCs 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-
DCA), TCE, and xylene; the SVOCs phenol and 4-methylphenol; and the
metals iron and manganese. As no elevated concentrations were
detected anywhere other than this area, it is concluded that the
-------
Landfill does not affect surface water on this side of the railroad
embankment and that the septage lagoons comprise a localized
impact.
All three areas sampled west of the railroad embankment reported
the presence of Site-related contaminants. In White's Pond, no
VOCs, low levels of SVOCs (isophorone, phenol, and
pentachlorophenol, none above state and federal standards) and
elevated levels of two metals (iron and manganese) were present.
In the embayment, VOCs (including 1,1-DCA and TCE, slightly over
state standards), low levels of several SVOCs (only
dichlorobenzenes were slightly above state standards), and metals
(including manganese, iron, and arsenic above state and federal
standards) were detected. In the Delaware River, VOCs (including
1,1-DCA, TCE, and benzene, slightly over state standards), SVOCs
(only dichlorobenzenes were slightly above state standards), and
select metals (including antimony and arsenic above state and
federal standards) were detected. Surface water sampling data is
summarized in Table 4.
Thirty (30) sediment samples were collected from 25 locations,
including White's Pond, the embayment, and the Delaware River.
Twenty-six (26) of these samples were collected during Phase III.
Note also that no federal or state standards exist for contaminants
in sediment. In White's Pond, no VOCs, low levels of SVOCs (1,4-
dichlorobenzene and 4-methylphenol) and metals (including antimony
and cadmium) were present. In the embayment, VOCs (including 1,1-
DCA and TCE), low levels of several SVOCs (including
dichlorobenzenes and 4-methylphenol), and metals (including
antimony and cadmium) were detected. In the Delaware River, VOCs
(including 1,1-DCA and benzene), SVOCs (dicblorobenzenes and 4-
methylphenol), and metals (including antimony, arsenic, cadmium,
and mercury) were detected. Sediment sampling data is summarized
in Table 5.
Note that White's Pond, the embayment, and the Delaware River are
all subject to both seasonal and periodic flooding, hence the most
representative surface water and sediment data is probably
reflected in samples collected during the most recent sampling
rounds.
One hundred seventy-four (174) soil gas samples were analyzed from
fifty-four (54) locations on the eastern and western sides of the
embankment. In general, higher total VOC concentrations were
reported at the sample locations at or adjacent to the Landfill.
This data was used in an EPA-generated model to determine the
significance of potential residential indoor air concentrations of
Landfill-related soil gas. Results of this modelling effort
indicate that the calculated levels of potential residential indoor
air were 1000 times lower than a concentration that would be of
concern. Soil gas sampling data and the calculated indoor air
values from this model are summarized in Table 6.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the potential
risks to human health and the environment associated with the Site
in its current state. The Risk Assessment focused on contaminants
in the surface soil, subsurface soil, ground water, surface water,
and sediments which are likely to pose significant risks to human
health and the environment. A summary of the contaminants of
concern in sampled matrices is listed in Table 7.
Human Health Risk Assessment
EPA's baseline risk assessment addressed the potential risks 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. Exposures were
assessed for both potential present and future land use scenarios.
The health effects which could result from exposure to
contamination as a result of current land use were assessed for
incidental ingestion of on-site surface soil and sediment, dermal
contact with sediment and surface water, and inhalation of VOCs
associated with soil gas and surface water. Trespassers,
residents, children, and recreationists were considered under
current land use conditions. For future land use scenarios, the
following exposure routes were considered for hypothetical
residents: ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact with ground
water; ingestion and dermal contact with surface soil and sediment;
and inhalation of ambient air. While ingestion of groundwater was
assessed under future land use, this medium was not assessed under
the current land use scenario as all residences potentially
affected by site contaminants are connected to the public water
supply. A summary of exposure pathways is presented in Table 8.
Reasonable maximum exposures were evaluated for all scenarios. The
data used to calculate reasonable maximum exposures is listed in
Table 9.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects as a result of
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 concern were
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures of
potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
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
milligrams/kilogram-day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of daily
8
-------
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 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 reference
doses for the compounds of concern at the Site are presented in
Table 10. A summary of the noncarcinogenic risks associated with
exposure to these chemicals across various exposure pathways is
found in Table 11.
It can be seen from Table 11 that the HI for noncarcinogenic
effects from the future potential ingestion of Site ground water by
area residents is 100, therefore, noncarcinogenic effects may occur
under this scenario. The potential noncarcinogenic risk is
attributable primarily to manganese, arsenic, and TCE.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer slope
factors developed by EPA for the contaminants of concern. 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 SF for the compounds of concern are presented in
Table 12. Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures are
an individual lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in the range of 10"*
to 10"6 (a one-in-ten-thousand to a one-in-one-million excess cancer
risk).
The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that the
ground water at the Site poses an unacceptable carcinogenic risk to
human health. The risk for hypothetical future residents was
estimated to be 2 x 10*3, which is above the EPA's acceptable risk
range. This risk number means that 2 additional persons out of
1000 are at risk of developing cancer if the Site is not
remediated. This risk is primarily attributable to vinyl chloride
and arsenic.
Under a current land use scenario, the risk for exposure to surface
water and sediment by children playing in various areas of the Site
-------
was determined to be within EPA's acceptable risk range. The
potential carcinogenic risk from the inhalation of Site-related
VOCs from ground water emitted into basements was estimated to be
2.4 x 10'10. The potential carcinogenic risk from direct contact
with on-site surface soil/sediments by future hypothetical
residents was estimated to be 4.9 x 10*. For these exposure path-
ways, the His for noncarcinogenic risks were all below 1.0.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation,
as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide variety of
uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
environmental chemistry sampling and analysis;
environmental parameter measurement;
fate and transport modeling;
exposure parameter estimation; and
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
chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such exposure
would occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations
of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.
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.
An estimate of central tendency risk can be obtained by
substituting average or median values for upper bound values. This
is most useful for the exposure pathway which results in the
highest estimated carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic risk, i.e..
ground-water ingestion.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including
a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk associated with
10
-------
various exposure pathways, is presented in the Risk Assessment
Report.
The greatest potential future carcinogenic risk attributable to the
Site is associated with the ingestion of ground water. The cancer
risk is based on current levels of ground-water contaminants. If
no action is taken with respect to the Landfill, the continued
release of contaminants into Site ground water could result in a
greater cancer risk at some point in the future. Additionally,
significant noncarcinogenic effects from the potential future
ingestion of Site ground water by area residents has also been
established in the Risk Assessment. Therefore, based on the
results of the Risk Assessment, EPA has determined that actual or
threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not
addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD,
may present a potential threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Potential risks to environmental receptors associated with the Site
were identified in the ecological risk assessment. The media for
which relevant ecological exposure pathways were analyzed included
sediment, surface soil, and surface water. The ecological risk
assessment identified several small, isolated areas of surface
water and sediments as the primary exposure points that may
potentially impact local species and sensitive environments. These
areas include White's Pond, the embayment, and the shoreline of the
Delaware River.
The results of the ecological risk assessment indicate that
exposure of ecological receptors to Site-related contaminants is
limited to these small areas, and that there has been no apparent
effect from Site-related contamination on those potential receptors
or their respective habitats. In addition, results of extensive
bioassessment studies conducted in the Delaware River and embayment
area have revealed no impact on aquatic life. However, surface
water and sediment concentrations of metals (primarily arsenic,
aluminum, iron, and zinc) and SVOCs (primarily 1,4-dichlorobenzene
and pentachlorophenol) could result in adverse acute and/or chronic
effects in ecological receptors within these areas. Hence, future
exposure to ecological receptors remains a possibility if the Site
is not remediated.
In accordance with the New York State Natural Heritage Program, no
threatened or endangered species or threatened or endangered
species habitats are located on the Site. Additionally, no
threatened or endangered species or critical habitats were found
within a 1/2 mile radius of the Site. The Bald Eagle is the only
federally listed endangered or threatened species known to occur in
the vicinity of the Site.
11
-------
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human
health and the environment. The primary objectives of this action
are to control the source of contamination at the Site and to
reduce and minimize the migration of contaminants into Site media
thereby minimizing any health and ecological impacts.
The following remedial action objectives were established for the
Site:
o to restore the aquifer as a potential source of
drinking water by reducing contaminant levels
downgradient of the Landfill to the federal and
state MCLs;
o to reduce or eliminate the potential for migration
of contaminants downgradient of the Landfill;
o to reduce or eliminate the potential for source
areas to release hazardous compounds to ground-
water;
o to reduce or eliminate any Site-related contaminant
load on the Delaware River, the embayment, and
White's Pond; and
o to reduce or eliminate Site-related contaminant
seeps along the eastern bank of the Delaware River.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended, mandates that a
remedial action must be protective of human health and the
environment, cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. It also
establishes a preference for remedial actions which employ, as a
principal element, treatment to permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous
substances, pollutants and contaminants at a site. CERCLA further
specifies that a remedial action must attain a level or standard of
control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants,
which at least attains applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) under federal and state laws, unless a waiver
can be justified.
The time to implement a remedial alternative reflects only the time
required to construct or implement the remedy and does not include
12
-------
the time required to design the remedy, negotiate with the
responsible parties, procure contracts for design and construction,
or conduct operation and maintenance ("O&M") at the Site.
A common element in each remedial alternative outlined below (with
the exception of the "No Action" alternative) is long-term ground
water and surface water monitoring to evaluate the alternative's
effectiveness. It is anticipated that monitoring will be conducted
on a quarterly basis for the first five years, and then on an
annual basis for the duration of the alternative. Monitoring will
include several surface water sampling stations west of the
embankment, a network of ground-water wells, and any treated
ground-water effluent discharge, all sampled for VOCs, SVOCs,
metals, and municipal solid waste leachate indicator parameters.
The exact long-term ground-water monitoring program will be
determined during remedial design ("RD"). In addition, in
accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA, EPA must review any remedial
action that leaves hazardous substances above health based levels
at a site at least once every five years to assure that the remedy
selected continues to be protective of human health and the
environment. All of the alternatives presented will require such
a five year review. If justified by the review, remedial actions
may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes, or to otherwise
change the remedial action selected in this ROD.
Another common element (again, with the exception of the "No
Action" alternative) is regrading of and storm-water management
improvements at the Landfill. This component of the remedial
action will reduce infiltration of storm water into the Landfill
and reduce leachate generation, thus reducing impacts of Landfill-
related contamination on ground water.
For all of the alternatives, institutional controls will be recom-
mended to appropriate authorities in order to restrict any other
ground-water withdrawal. Institutional controls (such as deed
restrictions) are required to protect the integrity of any Landfill
cover system, to reduce potential exposure to Landfill contents,
and to reduce the potential future use of ground water on the
Landfill property. Institutional controls should also be required
to prohibit future use of ground water downgradient of the Site
until cleanup goals are attained.
Regarding potential air emissions, New York State Regulation Part
212 states that if the contaminants are less than 1 Ib/hr, air
emission controls are not mandatory. The application of controls
will be determined during RD in accordance with Part 212.
For ground-water extraction alternatives, treated ground water may
be discharged to the existing Town of Tusten wastewater treatment
13
-------
plant outfall, discharged to the Delaware River, or reinjected to
ground water. EPA will determine the most appropriate discharge
option during the design process based on such factors as technical
practicability and cost.
The ultimate goal of EPA's Superfund Program approach to
groundwater remediation as stated in the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300) is to
return usable groundwater to beneficial uses within a reasonable
time frame.
EPA's Superfund Program uses EPA's Ground Water Protection Strategy
as guidance when determining the appropriate remediation for
contaminated groundwater at CERCLA sites. The Ground Water
Protection Strategy establishes different degrees of protection for
groundwaters based on their vulnerability, use, and value. For the
aquifer beneath the Site the final remediation goals will be
drinking water standards. However, EPA recognizes that the final
selected remedy may not achieve this goal because of potential
technical difficulties associated with removing contaminants to
ground water cleanup levels. The results of this preferred action
will be monitored carefully to determine the feasibility of
achieving this final goal. The remedial action may require
continuous pumping, pulsed pumping, and flexibility in placing
pumping wells at strategic locations.
Recent studies have indicated that pumping technologies may contain
uncertainties in achieving the parts per billion (ppb)
concentrations required by ARARs within a reasonable period. For
this reason, the following ground-water extraction alternatives may
include contingency measures, whereby the ground-water extraction
system's performance will be 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:
a) at individual wells where cleanup goals have been
attained, pumping may be discontinued;
b) alternating pumping at wells to eliminate
stagnation points;
c) pulsed pumping to allow for aquifer equilibration
and to allow adsorbed contaminants to partition
into ground water; and
d) installation of additional extraction wells to
facilitate or accelerate cleanup of the contaminant
plume.
If it is determined that certain portions of the aquifer cannot be
restored to their beneficial uses in a reasonable time frame on the
basis of the preceding criteria and the system performance data,
14
-------
all or some of the following measures involving long-term
management may occur, for an indefinite period, as a modification
of the existing system:
a) engineering controls such as physical barriers,
source control measures, or long-term gradient
control provided by low level pumping may be
utilized as containment measures;
b) chemical-specific ARARs may be waived for the
cleanup of those portions of the aquifer based on
the technical impracticability of achieving further
contaminant reduction;
c) future institutional controls, in the form of local
zoning ordinances, may be recommended to be
implemented and maintained to restrict access to
those portions of the aquifer which remain above
remediation goals;
d) continued monitoring of specified wells may be
required; and
e) periodic reevaluation of remedial technologies for
ground-water restoration may be performed.
The decision to invoke any or all of these measures may be made
during a periodic review of the remedial action, which will occur
at intervals of no less often than every five years.
Of ten remedial alternatives considered in the FS, eight were
retained for further evaluation and comparison in the detailed
analysis for addressing the contamination at the Site.
Alternatives 7 and 10 were eliminated from further consideration
because they combined two ground-water treatment technologies
without providing a significant improvement in effectiveness or
remediation time frame. The retained alternatives are:
Alternative 1: No Action
The Superfund program requires that the "No Action" alternative be
considered as a baseline for comparison of other alternatives.
This alternative assumes that no additional activity will occur
beyond the current activities at the Site. In accordance with
Section 121 of CERCLA, remedial actions that leave hazardous
substances at a site are to be reviewed at least once every five
years to assure that the remedial action is protective of human
health and the environment.
Cost Capital Cost: $0
Annual O&M: $0
15
-------
Present Worth: $0
Time to Implement: None
Alternative 2: Landfill Cap
In this alternative, a low permeability cover system (a "landfill
cap") meeting the requirements of Title 6, NYCRR Part 360-2.15.b
would be placed over the Landfill. This cover, along with storm-
water management improvements (which will divert precipitation-
related surface water runoff away from and off of the cover) will
reduce infiltration of storm water into the Landfill and reduce
leachate generation, thus mitigating impacts to ground water. This
alternative provides for reduction of surface water impacts to the
Delaware River, the embayment, and White's Pond through source
controls and natural attenuation of downgradient ground water.
Cost Capital Cost: $1,253,690
Annual O&M: $ 1,364
Present Worth: $3,798,657
Time to Implement: 1 year
Alternative 3; Landfill Cap. Drum Removal
The cover system in this alternative is identical to that described
in Alternative 2. In addition, this alternative provides for the
removal and off-site treatment and/or disposal of the intact-drum
disposal areas on the Landfill property (considered to be the
principal threat at the Site). Intact drum disposal areas are
outlined in Figure 4. Any contaminated soil beneath these drum
disposal areas may potentially be removed at this time as well.
Refuse overlying the drums would be placed back into the Landfill.
Drum removal reduces the volume of contaminated material at the
Site, thus further decreasing the potential for future impacts to
ground water.
Cost Capital Cost: $3,664,538
Annual O&M: $ 1,364
Present Worth: $7,009,907
Time to Implement: 1 year
16
-------
Alternative 4; Landfill Cap. Drum Removal. In-Situ Vapor
Extraction
The cover system and drum removal components in this alternative
are identical to those described in Alternative 3. In addition,
this alternative provides for aggressive extraction of Landfill
vapors. This vapor extraction process would further reduce the
impact of Landfill-related VOC contamination on ground water. In-
situ vapor extraction reduces the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
residual VOCs and offers an alternative to the ground-water
extraction/treatment systems outlined in Alternatives 5 through 9.
Cost Capital Cost: $4,203,883
Annual O&M: $ 42,864
Present Worth: $8,053,953
Time to Implement: 1% years
Alternative 5: Landfill Cap. GroundWater Extraction
The cover system in this alternative is identical to that described
in Alternative 2. In addition, this alternative provides for
contaminated ground water from the Landfill to be extracted through
a series of wells aligned along the western (downgradient)
perimeter of the Landfill. The conceptual treatment process for
ground water includes aeration, clarification/filtration, and air
stripping. Treated ground water may be discharged to the existing
Town of Tusten wastewater treatment plant outfall, discharged to
the Delaware River, or reinjected to ground water. The purpose of
the ground-water extraction system is to prevent the migration of
impacted ground water from the Landfill. This alternative also
provides further reduction of surface water impacts to the Delaware
River, the embayment, and White's Pond through both ground-water
source controls and ground-water extraction and treatment. The
effectiveness of the treatment system would be assessed through
long-term ground water and surface water monitoring.
Cost Capital Cost: $1,723,505
Annual O&M: $ 284,944
Present Worth: $7,231,270
Time to Implement: 1% years
Alternative 6; Landfill Cap. Drum Removal. Ground-Water Extraction
The cover system and ground-water extraction components in this
alternative are identical to those described in Alternative 5. In
addition, this alternative provides further reduction of toxicity,
mobility, and volume via the drum removal component described in
Alternative 3.
17
-------
Cost Capital Cost: $ 4,134,353
Annual O&M: $ 284,944
Present Worth: $10,442,520
Time to Implement: 1% years
Alternative 8; Landfill Cap. Ground-Water Extraction with Vertical
Barrier
The cover system and ground-water extraction components in this
alternative are identical to those described in Alternative 5,
except that in this alternative a 40-feet deep continuous vertical
wall (either a slurry wall, grout curtain, or sheet piling) would
be constructed slightly downgradient of the extraction well
network, thereby further containing contaminated ground water and
effectively reducing the volume of ground water which must be
extracted.
Cost Capital Cost: $1,875,975
Annual O&M: $ 274,204
Present Worth: $8,372,709
Time to Implement: 2 years
Alternative 9; Landfill Cap. Drum Removal. Ground~Water Extraction
with Vertical Barrier.
The cover system and ground-water extraction components in this
alternative are identical to those described in Alternative 8. In
addition, this alternative provides further reduction of toxicity,
mobility, and volume by incorporating the drum removal component
described in Alternative 3.
Cost Capital Cost: $ 4,286,823
Annual O&M: $ 274,204
Present Worth: $11,583,958
Time to Implement: 2 years
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), a detailed analysis of each
alternative is required. The detailed analysis consists of an
assessment of the individual alternatives against each of nine
evaluation criteria and a comparative analysis focusing upon the
relative performance of each alternative against those criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria must be satisfied by any
alternative in order to be eligible for selection:
18
-------
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 (legally enforceable), or relevant
and appropriate (requirements that pertain to situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at a Superfund site
such that their use is well suited to the Site) 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 via treatment
refers to a remedial technology's expected ability to reduce
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants at the Site.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period 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. Implementabilitv refers to 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.
19
-------
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
evaluation criteria noted above follows.
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives except Alternative l (No Action) provide
general protection of human health and the environment since they
all provide for a Landfill cover system. Alternatives 1 through 4,
however, rely on natural attenuation and dilution with respect to
ground water and, hence, allow for the continued release of
contamination from the Landfill to ground water for an indefinite
time frame. By contrast, Alternatives 6 through 9, which include
the ground-water extraction/treatment component, allow for
accelerated and predictable ground-water cleanup time frames.
Besides restoring ground water to drinking water standards in an
accelerated and predictable time frame, by reducing contaminant
release to ground water, potential ecological exposure to areas
downgradient of the Landfill (including the Delaware River) would
be reduced and, ultimately, eliminated. Of the alternatives
including this component, Alternatives 5 and 6 have been shown to
provide the shortest remediation time frame for ground water.
The "No-Action" alternative is not protective of human health and
the environment; therefore, it was eliminated from consideration
and will not be discussed further.
o Compliance with ARARs
The principal action-specific ARAR for this Site includes 6 NYCRR
Part 360 requirements, which requires the installation of a cover
system. All of the alternatives with the exception of no action
meet this ARAR.
Since the ground water underlying the Site is a potential future
potable water supply source, federal and state MCLs (whichever are
more stringent) are ARARs. Both federal and state MCLs are
relevant and appropriate for the cleanup of the aquifer. While
Alternatives 2 and 3, with no ground-water treatment, may
potentially reach ARARs over an extended and indefinite period of
time, Alternatives 5, 6, 8, 9, and to a lesser extent, Alternative
4, are designed to actively address these ARARs. Substantive
discharge permit requirements (e.g., New York State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System or "SPDES") are applicable only for
Alternatives 5, 6, 8, and 9.
20
-------
Other location-specific ARARs relevant to all of the alternatives
include the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (36 CFR Section 297.4),
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), Executive Order
11988 (Floodplain Management), the Delaware River Basin Water Code,
the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation
Act.
o Loncr-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 6 and 9, which include both the drum removal and
ground-water treatment components, would provide superior long-term
effectiveness through removal of potential future sources of
ground-water contamination and active ground-water treatment.
There would be no long-term threat to the environment or human
health as it is the intent of these proposed remedial actions to
restore the aquifer to drinking water standards. Alternative 4,
which includes drum removal with active Landfill gas collection,
would be less effective in that only VOC compounds would be removed
and only to a limited extent from ground water. Alternatives 5 and
8, with no drum removal component, would be somewhat less
effective. Alternatives 2 and 3 involve a passive approach to
ground water and are thus considered the least effective in the
long term.
The time frame to reach ground-water ARARs was modelled for each of
the alternatives. Based upon the results of this modelling effort,
it is estimated that Alternatives 5 and 6 would accomplish this
goal in approximately 16 years, Alternatives 8 and 9 in 28 years.
For Alternatives 2, 3 and 4, which rely to varying degrees on
natural attenuation, it is estimated that it would take 43 years.
o Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Alternatives 6 and 9, which both include drum removal and ground-
water treatment, would reduce the toxicity, mobility and volume
permanently. Reduction of these parameters would be accomplished
to a lesser degree by Alternative 4 (which does not include ground-
water extraction/treatment, by Alternatives 5 and 8 (which do not
include drum removal), and by Alternative 3 (which includes drum
removal but not ground-water extraction). Alternative 2 reduces
mobility through containment only and, hence, does not reduce the
toxicity or volume of contamination.
o Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 2 would have the lowest potential for impact to the
surrounding community because it does not include excavation of
materials from the drum disposal areas or operation of any
mechanical treatment systems. Alternatives 5 and 8 would have a
slightly higher impact because of the potential impacts associated
with construction and operation of the ground-water extraction/
treatment components. The potential for short-term effects
21
-------
associated with drum removal is considered to be greater than those
associated with ground-water extraction/treatment, hence Alterna-
tives 3 and 4 would have a slightly higher impact because of the
potential for short-term effects during excavation and off-site
transport of materials from the drum disposal areas. Alternative
6, adding the ground-water extraction/treatment components to rum
removal would have a higher impact. Alternative 9 would have the
highest short-term impact because it includes installation of a
vertical barrier in addition to all of the above-mentioned
considerations.
o Implementability
All of the alternatives involve the use of commercially available
products and accessible technology. The need for long-term O&M
makes Alternatives 5 through 9 more difficult to implement than
Alternatives 2 through 4. Alternatives 5 and 8 are more easily
implemented than Alternatives 6 and 9 because of the absence of the
drum removal component. Alternatives 5 and 6 are more easily
implemented than Alternatives 8 and 9 because of difficulties and
space constraints associated with installation of the vertical
barrier system between the Landfill and the railroad embankment.
o Cost
Following are the alternatives in increasing order of total cost:
2, 3, 5, 4, 8, 6, and 9. The combination of drum removal and in-
situ vapor extraction in Alternative 4 is more costly than the
ground-water extraction/treatment systems included in Alternatives
5 through 9. The vertical barrier included in Alternatives 8 and
9 does not provide overall cost reduction in comparison to
Alternatives 5 and 6, respectively, because, in addition to the
cost associated with the installation of the vertical barrier, the
lower associated ground-water extraction rates lead to a longer
ground-water response time and greater O&M costs. Alternatives 2
and 3 represent the lowest total cost because of their not
including the ground-water treatment component.
o State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the selected alternative. The
letter outlining this concurrence is attached to this ROD as
Appendix IV.
o Community Acceptance
All significant submitted during the public comment period were
evaluated and are addressed in the attached Responsiveness Summary
(Appendix V).
22
-------
SELECTED REMEDY
EPA has determined, after reviewing the alternatives and public
comments, that Alternative 6 (Landfill cap/drum removal/ground-wa-
ter extraction) is the appropriate remedy for the Site, because it
best satisfies the requirements of CERCLA and the NCP's nine
evaluation criteria for remedial alternatives.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
4 A low permeability cover system meeting the requirements of
Title 6, NYCRR Part 360-2.15.b for the landfill. This
landfill cap, along with storm-water management improvements,
will further reduce infiltration of storm water into the
landfill and reduce leachate generation thus mitigating
impacts to ground water.
* The removal and off-site treatment and/or disposal of the
intact-drum disposal areas on the landfill property. Any
contaminated soil beneath these drum disposal areas may poten-
tially be removed at this time as well. Refuse overlying the
drums would be placed back into the landfill. Drum removal
reduces the volume of contaminated material at the Site, thus
further decreasing the potential for future impacts to ground
water.
Extraction of contaminated ground water from the landfill
through a series of wells aligned along the western
(downgradient) perimeter of the landfill. The conceptual
treatment process for ground water includes aeration,
clarification/filtration, and air stripping. Contaminated
ground water will be pumped from the extraction wells at rates
that will allow for coordinating an expeditious ground-water
remediation. The exact number, depth, pumping rates, and
location of extraction wells will be determined during RD.
The pumping will continue until MCLs are achieved in the
aquifer downgradient of the landfill or until technical
impracticability is demonstrated.
* Discharge of treated ground water to the existing Town of
Tusten wastewater treatment plant outfall or to the Delaware
River, or reinjection to ground water. The specific discharge
point will be determined during RD.
* Regrading and storm-water management improvements at the
landfill. This component of the remedial action will reduce
infiltration of storm water into the landfill and reduce
leachate generation, thus reducing impacts of landfill-related
contamination to ground water.
4 Institutional controls recommended to appropriate authorities.
Institutional controls will be recommended in order to protect
23
-------
the integrity of the landfill cover system, to reduce
potential exposure to landfill contents, and to reduce the
potential future use of ground water within the plume area.
Institutional controls may include deed restrictions or other
recommendations as appropriate.
* Long-term ground water and surface water monitoring to
evaluate the alternative's effectiveness. It is anticipated
that monitoring will be conducted on a quarterly basis for the
first five years, and then on an annual basis for the duration
of the alternative. Monitoring will include several surface
water sampling stations west of the embankment, a network of
ground-water monitoring wells, and the treated ground-water
effluent discharge, all sampled for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and
municipal solid waste leachate indicator parameters. The
exact long-term ground-water monitoring program will be
determined during remedial design.
4 Implementation of long-term maintenance and operation of the
landfill cap and ground-water extraction/treatment system to
provide for inspections and repairs.
* Reevaluation of Site conditions at least once every five years
to determine if a modification of the selected alternative is
necessary.
After the selected remedy is in place, it is estimated that ground
water in the aquifer will meet the remediation goals in
approximately 16 years. As noted above, the pumping will continue
until MCLs are achieved in the aquifer downgradient of the Landfill
or until technical impracticability is demonstrated. This
alternative includes contingency measures, as necessary (outlined
in the Description of Remedial Alternatives section of this ROD),
whereby the ground-water extraction and treatment system's
performance will be monitored on a regular basis and adjusted as
warranted by the performance data collected during operation. If
it is determined, in spite of any contingency measures that may be
taken, that portions of the aquifer cannot be restored to its
beneficial use, ARARs may be waived based on the impracticability,
from an engineering perspective, of achieving further contaminant
reduction. The decision to invoke a contingency measure may be
made during periodic review of the remedy, which will occur at
intervals of no less often than every five years. EPA may invoke
a technical waiver of ground-water ARARs if the remediation program
indicates that reaching MCLs in the aquifer downgradient of the
Landfill is technically impracticable.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, CERCLA mandates that a remedial action must be
protective of human health and the environment, be cost effective,
24
-------
and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. CERCLA also establishes a preference for
remedial actions which employ treatment to permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at a site.
CERCLA further specifies that a remedial action must attain a
degree of cleanup that satisfies ARARs under federal and state
laws, unless a waiver can be justified.
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the
selected remedy meets the requirements of CERCLA and provides the
best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with respect to the
evaluation criteria.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. Contact with Landfill wastes would be eliminated
through capping; drum removal eliminates an identifiable source
area and principal threat; and potential contaminant migration
through ground water and surface water to the surrounding
environment would be prevented through the ground-water extraction/
treatment system.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will be in compliance with all ARARs. Action-
specific ARARs for the selected remedy include 6 NYCRR Part 360
requirements, state regulations for the control of surface-water
runoff, federal air ARARs (40 CFR Part 61) and state air ARARs (6
NYCRR Parts 200-221, and 257). Federal requirements for effluent
discharge to a POTW (40 CFR Part 403) will need to be considered
should that discharge option be selected during RD. The federal
(40 CFR Parts 261 and 268) and state (6 NYCRR Parts 371) Hazardous
Waste Regulations are action-specific ARARs for the drum removal.
The federal air ARAR 40 CFR Part 50 (including the standard for
particulate matter less than 10 microns in size) and state
transport permit regulations (6 NYCRR Part 364) are also action-
specific ARARs for the drum removal.
Location-specific ARARs for the selected remedy include the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act (36 CFR Section 297.4), the Delaware River
Basin Water Code, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC
661), the Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531), the National
Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order 11990 (Protection of
Wetlands), Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management). The Site
is not located within a coastal zone, coastal barrier, wilderness
area, or wildlife refuge, so the Coastal Zone Management Act, the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and the Wilderness Act are not ARARs
for the Site.
25
-------
Chemical-specific ARARs for ground water include the MCLs
promulgated under 40 CFR Part 141.11-141.16 and Part 141.60-141.63,
the New York Public Water Supply Regulations MCLs (NYCRR, Title 10,
Part 5-1), and New York Water Classifications and Quality Standards
for Class GA Ground Water (NYCRR, Title 6, Parts 701-703). For
surface water, chemical-specific ARARs include MCLs, the New York
State Public Water Supply Regulations, and the State of New York
surface water quality standards (NYCRR, Title 10, Part 5-1 and
NYCRR, Title 6, Parts 701-703). In addition, the Delaware River
Basin Commission has developed Water Quality Standards for the
Delaware River Basin (Delaware River Basin Water Code, Article 3,
July 1993). Article 3.10, Basinwide Surface Water Quality
Standards, applies to all surface waters of the Delaware River
Basin. According to Article 3.10.3.A.2.g, the Upper Delaware
Scenic and Recreational River, along which the Site is located, is
classified as an Outstanding Basin Water. In addition, because
this portion of the Delaware River is classified as an Outstanding
Basin Water, Section 3.10.3.A.2 of the code establishes a surface
water policy that there be "no measurable change in existing water
quality except toward natural conditions," and Section 3.40.4.B
establishes a policy to prevent degradation which "may be injurious
to any designated present or future ground or surface water use."
Although these requirements are location-specific, these standards
have been tabulated with chemical-specific ARARs because they
invoke water quality standards. There are no chemical-specific
ARARs for soil, sediment, or air.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been
demonstrated to provide overall effectiveness proportional to its
costs. Although the selected remedy is more expensive than most of
the alternatives analyzed, these alternatives did not include both
drum removal and groundwater extraction/treatment, which in
addition to capping are critical components in meeting the remedial
action objectives and satisfying the statutory criteria.
Alternative 9, which is more expensive than the selected remedy,
includes the installation of a vertical barrier, an element that
does not provide any additional protection. The present worth of
the selected alternative is $10,442,520.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected
remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
26
-------
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for remedies
that employ treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume
of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at a site.
The selected remedy treats hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants at the Site through both the drum removal and ground-
water extraction components of the selected remedy. Despite this,
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants will remain on-
site above health-based levels as the entire Landfill mass itself
cannot be effectively excavated and treated because of its size.
Hence, a review of the remedial action will be conducted five years
after the commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection to human health and
the environment.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
27
-------
APPENDIX I-FIGURES
FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 3.
SITE LOCATION MAP
SITE SKETCH WITH MONITORING WELL
LOCATIONS
DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN
SITE MONITORING WELLS
FIGURE 4. INTACT DRUM DISPOSAL AREAS
-------
Figure 1.
Location of the Cortese Landfill Superfund Site
Souice: The bas« map is portion of tht toUowing U.S.Q.S 7 J1 wrtM quadmngto:
Narrowsburg NY- PA. 1968; PhetonviMd 1983
0 1000 8000 MOO
SCALE -iMt
OU>DMNBIFinG*TBN
-------
Cortese Landfill Site Sketch
Narrowaburg
Wastawattf
Treatment
Plant
s
to Route 97
MndNamwsturg
Town Center
*
Narrowaburg
Diesel
Oarage
Not to Scale
legend
m Residence
9 Town Wen
Wooded Area
Proper^ Boundary
Uaehate Mgrafion Boundary
'" -. Paved Road
DttAcceKRoad
Railroad Tracks
Momtoring Wen Where Bevated
Concentrations of Organic and
Inorganic Parameters Defected
Monitoring Well Where Elevated
Concentrations of Organic and
Inorganic Parameters Not OetactBd
-------
-------
-------
APPENDIX H-TABLES
TABLE 1.
TABLE 2.
TABLE 3.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 5.
TABLE 6.
TABLE 7.
TABLE 8.
TABLE 9.
SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING DATA
SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING DATA
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING DATA
SURFACE WATER SAMPLING DATA
SEDIMENT SAMPLING DATA
SOIL GAS SAMPLING DATA AND THE
CALCULATED INDOOR AIR VALUES
SUMMARY OF CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
REASONABLE MAXIMUM EXPOSURES
TABLE 10. NONCARCINOGENIC REFERENCE DOSES
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC RISKS
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS
TABLES 13.
THRU 17.
TABLE 18.
NEW YORK STATE MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT
LEVELS FOR DRINKING WATER
FEDERAL MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
FOR DRINKING WATER
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 1
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE SAMPLED
VOLATILES
TOTAL VOLATILES
SEMIVOLATILES
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzole acid
Acenaphlhylene
Fluorene
Phenanlhrene
Di-n-bulylphihalate
Anthracene
Carbazole
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-E(hylhexyl)phihalate
Benzo(b)lluoranthene +
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES :
". -' - ,. SAMPLE POINT ; "..:.
SS-01
10/29/67
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
NO
SS-02
10729/87
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
127 J
81.5 J
NA
563
771.5
SS-03
10/29/87
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
ND
SS-04
10/29/87
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
38.6 J
58.3 J
NA
126 J
222.9
SS-05
10729/87
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
ND
SS-06
10/29/87
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
ND
SS-07
10/29/87
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
ND
SS-08
10729/87
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
. ND*:;;*:
\ \ ,:' "
\.:$8-Q9u->
10/30787
(ug/kg)
NO
(ug/kg)
NA
*NDS?;};:;
'' ?''. ^' ':
SS-10
11/24/87,
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
93.7 J
89.7 J
NA
21.3 J
29.4 J
:;,234i1».;.
<" -- \ , '] , -:\& s
«s«i'i ,
,04/13/93,
(ugfl«g)
ND
(ugflcg)
47 J
V:v; x-47?*<
ss»ia
04/13/93,
(ug/kg)
NO
(ugfltg);;:;
47 J
130 J
150 J
51 J
420
99 J
46 J
1800
1900
2000
1300
3100 JN
1500
840
260 J
900
:::-l4,543;;.V<.::
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed; ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquantilative) Data. N - Tetative Identification, R - Unusable Data.
4) SS-23 and SS-24 were analyzed for Pestlcldes/PCBs only.
5) SS-26 Is the Held duplicate of SS-18.
Z\RIREV2YTABLES\TAB5-2.wk1
Colder Associates
Page 1 of 6
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 1
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
PARAMETER >"'- '-' -
DATE SAMPLED ^^
PESTICIDES/PCBs
Heplachlor Epoxide
Dieldrin
4.4'-DDE
Endosullan II
4.4'-DDT
gamma-Chlordane
Aroclor-1254
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBS
,-" : , , - , ' SAMPLEPOlNT -'.->. "/.<< " ', '-' '- .. ""-
SS-01
10/29/87,
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-02
10/29/87
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-03
10/29/67
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-04
10/29/87,
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-05
10/29/87
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-08
10/29/87
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-07
10/29/87
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-08-
10/29/87
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
. NA.i»
SS-09
10730/67^
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
X:P:NA:#M
SS-10-
,11/24/87
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
:||NA;:g«
SS"1i
04/13W3
; (ug/kg)
R
WND^/v-.
SS-1?
,04/13^3,^
(ug/kg)
^:.'ND^-V:".
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed; ND « Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantltatlve) Data. N - Tetatlve Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) SS-23 and SS-24 were analyzed lor Pestteides/PCBs only.
5) SS-26 Is the field duplicate olSS-18.
Z\RIREV2\TABLES\TAB5-2.wk1
Golder Associates
Page 2 0(6.
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 1
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
PARAMETER -'>- , s,"\.-
DATE SAMPLED
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
, '
ss-ot
10/29/87
(mg/kg)
8870
2.7 J
73
0.54
0.4 J
670
8.3
8.1
19
16800
9
3340
516
0.048 J
16
900
23
6.6
9.6
63
NA
SS-02
10/29/87
(mg/kg)
12500
0.48 J
5.4
73
0.56
740
12
9.7
15
21600
12
3600
1190
0.048 J
19
860
25
0.59 J
15
65
NA
SS-03
10729/87
(mg/kg)
6450
0.69 J
4.7 J
54
0.4
980
6
6.4
10
13100
9.1
2710
366
0.04 J
12
610
16 J
0.59 J
6.4
41
NA
SS-04
10/29/87
(mg/kg)
9200
4.7 J
46
0.4
0.36 J
330
9.1
7.5
14
17000
11
2840
705
0.056 J
15
770
19 J
1 J
11
50
NA
SAMPLE POINT
SS-05
10/29/87
(mg/kg)
10700
1.1 J
3.4
81
0.54
670
8.5
8.1
30
19600
23
3270
710
0.056 J
16
1000
29
0.76 J
12
74
NA
SS-06
10/29/87
(mg/kg)
8160
0.71 J
4.5 J
45
0.34
550
7
9.3
12
15000
13
2830
606
0.04 J
14
570
16 J
0.67 J
7.8
49
NA
SS-07
- 10/29/87
(mg/kg)
14200
9.8
49
0.52
220
11
8.2
5.7
25100
32
2600
446
0.076 J
12
520
31
22
63
NA
^ '"- '", ' '-}'
SS-085
10/29/87,
(mg/kg)
9420
2
3.7
51
0.33
450
6.1
3.7 J
7.9
17100
62
1440
165
0.076 J
8
400
11 J
0.87 J
16
42
NA
SS-09 "
10/30/87
SS-iO
11/24/87
(mo/kg)
11300
1.8 J
139
0.63
1.3 J
650
9
5.5
10
15200
13
2640
975
0.055 J
15
1500
12
61
NA
SS-11
04/13/93
(mg/kg)
11100
5.8
48.1
0.6
259
11.6 J
8.6
11.2 J
18100
11.6 J
2670
511 J
14.8
1430
75.9
12.2
48.8
f f C
SS-1S>\
04/13/93,-
(mg/kg)
8200
4.4
53.2
448
9.4 J
5.9
12.4 J
13900
19.1 J
2120
441 J
8.7
1130
74.7
9.7
48
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed; ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantitatlve) Data. N - Tetatlve Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) SS-23 and SS-24 were analyzed for Peslfcldes/PCBs only.
5) SS-26 Is the field duplicate ol SS-16.
Z\RIREV2\TABLESVTAB5-2.wtc1
Colder Associates
Page 3 of 6
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 1
CORTESE LANDFILL HI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE SAMPLED - ,
VOLATILES
TOTAL VOLATILES
SEMIVOLATILES
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Benzole acid
Acenaphthylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Anthracene
Carbazole
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anlhracene
Chrysene
bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phlhalale
Benzo(b)fluoranthene +
Benzo(k)lluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a.h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
SAMPLE POINT ": - - .-- 'l'' ' - - -(-: i\: *''
SS-13
04/13/93
(ug/kg)
NO
(ug/kg)
NO
SS-14
04/13/93
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
ND
SS-15
04/15/93
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
ND
$8-16
04/15/93
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
NO
SS-17
04/15/93
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
110 J
110
SS-18
04/15/93
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
ND
SS-13 .
04/15/93
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
110 J
110
^^ 8fr&<
04/13/93
(ug/kg)
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-24
04/13/93
(ug/kg)
. ND :,,fe{;;;,
(ug/kg) |i
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-26
04/15/93
(ug/kg)
ffi^ND :,-;;:;::.
(ug/fcg)
ND ?
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed; ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquantltative) Data. N - Tetatlve Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) SS-23 and SS-24 were analyzed lor Peslteldes/PCBs only.
5) SS-26 Is the field duplicate of SS-18.
Z\RIREV2VTABLES\TAB5-2.wk1
Colder Associates
Page 4 of 6
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE SAMPLED
PESTICIDES/PCBs
Heplachlor Epoxide
Dieldrln
4.4'-DDE
Endosullan II
4.4'-DDT
gamma-Chlordane
Aroclor-1254
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
v -- ' ' '- , ' ' - ' SAMPLE POINT ~ > ' - ^V^^/".-^ ' ""- ' > - ,
s£.i3
04/13/93
(ug/kg)
4.3 J
;:* 4.3 ,:?;;
SS-14
04/13/93
(ug/kg)
feND vv,r
SS-15
04/15/93
(ug/kg)
15 J
", -' 15 .:
SS-16
04/15W
(ug/kg)
1.7 J
- -;.1.7:':?f.-
SS-17
04/15/93
(ug/kg)
2.6 J
2.6
SS-18
04/15/93
(ug/kg)
2.2 J
2.2
SS«19
04/15/93;
(ug/kg)
5.8 J
8.9 JN
R
2.6 J
0.88 J
18i18
, «S-2d
04/13«3
(ug/kg)
ND
, 8ft>«4^'
04/13/93
(ug/kg)
6.0 J
5.9 J
20 JN
31.9
SS-26
04/15/93 -
(ug/kg)
2.0 J
2
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA Not Analyzed: ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquanlltalive) Data. N - Tetatlve Identllicallon. R - Unusable Data.
4) SS-23 and SS-24 were analyzed lor Pestlcldes/PCBs only.
5) SS-26 Is the Held duplicate ol SS-18.
Z\RIREV2\TABLES\TAB5-2.wk1
Gokter Associates
Page 5 of 6
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE l
COHTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE SAMPLED f\
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
, , , SAMPLEPOINT , ' ,/ -f-* < -I'--'" '«'>'- % ,
ss-ia
04/13/93
(mg/kg)
5880
4.9
52.7
939
9.2 J
6.9
12.3 J
13400
11.3 J
2190
423 J
11.1
1450
83.9
7
44.9
SS-14
04/13/93
(mg/kg)
7040
3.9
38.3
699
8.4 J
6.9
9.6 J
14800
6.4 J
2510
419 J
10.1
1090
71.8
6.8
51.8
SS-15
04/15/93
(mg/kg)
6900
4.5
41.3
573
10.2 J
5.4
14.0 J
13900
13.7 J
2060
346 J
11.7
737
87.5
7.8
67
0.75
SS-16
04/15/93
(mg/kg)
17600
6.3
94.6
0.78
1170
18.0
8.0
36.6
21100
26.1 J
2810
647 J
12
2060
116
21.6
91.9
SS-17
, 04/15/93,
(mg/kg)
19000 J
9.3 J
145 J
0.89 J
1800 J
17.2 J
8.8 J
17.3 J
24500 J
31.8 J
3120 J
1200 J
1650 J
134
23.1 J
86.2 J
SS-18
04/15/93
(mg/kg)
16000
8.9
86.7
0.82
1170
16.2 J
10.8
19.7 J
23500
18.9 J
3310
721 J
16.7
1690
124
19.8
85.4
SS-19 >',
04/15/93^5
(mg/kg)
17100
5.9
107
0.78
479
15.6 J
7.1
57.6 J
20400
21.3 J
3010
297 J
15.7
2170
137
19.1
128
,$$-*$
04/13/93^
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-24-
*04/t3KB>v
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
SS-26
{04/15/93
(mg/kg)
14400
7.9
86.5
1350
14.3 J
9.1
16 J
20200
18.1 J
2900
728 J
18.3
1970
120
16.1
78.7
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed; ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantitative) Data. N - Tetatlve Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) SS-23 and SS-24 were analyzed for Peslicldes/PCBs only.
5) SS-26 is the Held duplicate of SS-18.
Z\RIREV2\TABLES\TAB5-2.wk1
Colder Associates
Page 6 of 6
-------
January 1094
923-6K
TABLE 2
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE SAMPLED - -
OKPTH SAMPLED (FT) '-,
Methytene Chloride
Chloroform
2-Butanone
1.1.1-Trlchloroethane
1 . 1 -Dlchloroelhane
Tola) 1.2-Dichloroethene
Trlchloroethene
Benzene
4-Melhyl-2-Pentanone
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethene
TolueiM
Chlorobenzene
1 .1 .2.2-Tetrachloroelhane
Ethyl benzene
m-Xylene
o+p-Xylenes
Tola! Xylenes
TOTAL VOLATILES
,v- ,- -> ,- ' ~r<,',s, ' , SAMPLE POINT ,
SS-OA
,11/20/87^
..20-34'
7.84
NA
7.84
65-08
11/24/87
X *.1 ,,
NA
-V..ND ;/;..-:/:
ss-oc
11/24/87,
' vl-
NA
NO
TP11-S1
03/01/91
11
NA
NO
TP12-S1
03M8/91-
<4> ,
NA
: NO
TP«2-S2
03/08/91
"(* ,
NA
ND
TP22-S1
03/OS/B1
: «
6.07
144
14.2
26.2
'11.0
2.0S J
53.6
6.81 J
28.3
93.4
79.9
NA
465.73
TP22-S2
03/05/91
1S
1320
389
110
NA
1819
TP22-S3
03/OSWt
»'.'.....
8120
3540
2038
1682
1632
NA
17010
"
TP31-8t
03AKVB1
...1«^<
NA
NO
-'.
rPSi-eK
03W7n»l'
\>«2-:,u
NA
NO
- '< '',
TP92-SJ:,
03/07/91 '
i x#:.i
-------
January 1094
023-603
TABLE 2
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/F8
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
PARAMETER '- "\-
DATE SAMPLED ' - . .,
DEPTH SAMPLED (FT) :..-..
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
1 ,3-Olchlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene
2-Methytphenol
4-Melhylphenol
Benzole acid
t ,2.4-Trlchlorobenzene
Naphthalene
Hexaehlorobutadlene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
4-Nilrophenol
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Haxachlor obenzene
Phenanlhrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphlhalate
Fluotanlhene
Pyrene
bis(2-Elhylhexyi)phlhalat»
Dl-n-Oclylphlhalate
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBs
beia-BHC
Dieldtin
4.4--DDE
4.4'-ODD
Endrln Ketone
gamma-Chlordane
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
''>,
SflM>A:.
iitto«7
..20-34
(ug/kg)
NA
70.5 J
2S2 J
921
1243.6 V
(ug/kg)
NO
i ~
6SVOB
11/W/B7
-*>1 '
(ug/kg) .
NA
100 J
308 J
406
(ug/kg)
31
31
SSiOC
11/24/87
;. SAMPLE POINT
TP12-S1
03/08/01
-..«
(ug/kg)
NA
848 J
: 848
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TPl2-SSt
03/08/01
8
(uo/kg)
NA
882 J
882
(ug/Ug)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TP22-S1
03/OSrtM
12
(ug/kg)
187 J
354
301 J
1180
NA
1050 J
176 J
3248
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
TP22-S2
03/05/Bt
is.
(ug/kg)
2490
307
NA
2797
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
TP22-63
03/05/91
W .-,
(ug/kg)
1360
1730
1500
2291
5480
1810
495
733
NA
2000
18310
35709
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
ND
TW1-81-
Q3/D6VQ1'
V-'.--
(ug/kg)
216 J
NA
706 J
922
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
, f
T1P32-8i
MW7/IH
../.!«..r..>
(ug/kg)
9630
226 J
NA
1890
253 J
1580
3949
<"0*0)
.ND.V;::\
* 1' /
TP3SWS4
03/07AM-
,.. ,\$.}/
(ugAg)
NA
1140
968 J
2108
(uo*g)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
,"".NA-:;:;;v
; -.
^y8tH»il ft"
09/OW03-.;
'
(ug*g)
260000
48000 J
61000 J
37000 J
40000 J
140000 J
26000 J
17000 J
65000 J
41000 J
725.000;
(ug/kg) :
3.2 J
3.6 J
R
R
R
R
.;.!..;:/; .;6.8
; ' ' ^ ;
, BL-XKS
OWWW3;,
,.r.OA-*,,^.
(ugAg)
2600 J
7300 J
5200 J
5900 J
:": 21.000 ::-
(U8*0)
13 J
33
44
16 J
106
-SU43 ,
OWOWW:.:
V»* '
(ugftg)
3200 J
4800 J
4600 .J
2300 J
9400 J
24.200
(ug/kg)
46
4.7 J
60.7
Motet:
1) Blank epacea Indicate the parameter wa« not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed; ND Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquanlllalive) Data. B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL. R - Unusable Data.
4) Sample TP12-S1 taken from spoilt pile: Sample TP22-S3 taken from coil Inside a drum.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES/TABS-4A.«rfc1
Colder AsaoclatM
Page 2 of
-------
January 1904
923-6036
TABLE 2
CORTESE LANDFILL HI/F8
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE SAMPLED
DEPTH SAMPLED (FT)
INORGANICS
Aluminum
ArMniC
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
,(
SS^OA
11/20/87,
20-34
(mg/kg)
9730
4.9
70.2
0.67
900
9.1
8.3
12
19800
6.6
3580
472
18
1100
63
9.4
62
s£bfl
11/24/87
vl
(mg/kg)
9090
3.2
76.4
0.41
1.9
860
10
0.4
18
14500
0.23 J
2890
614
0.1
16
990
11 J
10
70
}
S&4C
11/24/87
*1
(mg/kg)
3560
2
21
0.24
0.74 J
580
3.4
4.9
8
9620
7
1740
180
8.4
660
4
340
mi-si'
03/01/9)
11
(mg/kg)
13200
4.3
71
0.61
480
11
9.8
12
22300
11
2740
1650
15
1100
15
54
TP12-S1
03/08/91
...H>
(mg/kg)
8610
2.4
32
0.29
280
7.6
6.8
11
16900
5.1
2280
637
0.041 J
12
830
52 J
9.7
40
-
TP12-S2
03/08/91
8 ,
(mg/kg)
7900
4.5
44
490
7
5.8
12
13900
It
1800
513
11
830
0.2 J
0.33 J
47 J
8.6
46
SAMPLE
TP22-S1
03/05/91
12
(mg/kg)
10500
4.4
58
0.4
320
8.7
8
19
18600
11
2390
621
15
920
40 J
11
49
POINT
TP22-S2
03/05/91
IS
(mg/kg)
8530
5.3
27
0.33
220
7.9
7.4
12
16700
8.2
2540
795
13
760
63
9.9
38
-
TP22-S3
03/05/91
<«)
(rng/kg)
11100
3.3
77
0.48
370
9.1
7.4
14
16800
11
2280
923
0.19
14
820
71
11
5.1
fps'iVs't
03AHWB1
11
(mg/kg)
5890
2.4
17
0.25
440
5
4.8
11
10500
6.9
1770
210
9.7
520
19 J
6
38
TP32-81
03/07/91
*»* ,"
(mg/kg)
700
11400
100
0.95 J
1.9
1300
0.83
210
34
1.6 J
71
75
0.93 J
16
iiimn'i'ii
TP32-S4
03/07/91
w. .<
(mg/kg)
4980
2.2
18
0.17
340
4.2
3.5
6.7
9470
4.4
1520
133
7.7
680
32 J
4.7
37
._, f _,
stntf
.'ttWWWH
- ,*** - '
(mg/kg)
12800
8.1
88.6 J
0.85 B
1040 B
15.7
12.9 B
42.5 J
22000
4.6 J
3610
R
R
22.9 J
2020
232 B
13.9 B
202
, - '
BL-02
oe/ooflo
, 0.5-1 ,
(mg/kg)
17000 J
8.6 J
203 J
3680 J
20.7 J
10.9 J
277 J
33200 J
104 J
6020 J
R
R
34.9 J
2060 J
113 J
19.1 J
466 J
,
stHoa ,
MMKftW*
OJS-1 :
(mg/kg)
8240 J
6.6 J
179 J
0.92 J
2890 J
9.3 J
5.7 J
203 J
15200 J
78.1 J
2660 J
R
R
1160 J
85.7 J
15.8 J
428 J
1.2 J
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA Not Analyzed; NO - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquantilallve) Data. B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL. R - Unusable Data.
4) Sample TP12-S1 taken from spoils pile; Sample TP22-S3 taken from soil Inside a drum.
Z:RIREV2:TA8LES/TAB5-4A.wk1
OoMer Associates
Page Sol 3
-------
January 1994
923-6031
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER \ *', -'
DATE ^
VOLATILES
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Acetone
Carbon Dlsulflde
1,1-Dlchloroethane
cls-1 ,2-Dlchloroethene
Total 1.2-Dtehloroethene
Chlorolorm
2-Bulanone
1,2-Dlchloroethane
1,1,1-Tflchloroelhane
1 ,2-Dlchloropropane
Trlchloroethene
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
2-Methyt-3-hexanone
m-Xylene
o*p-Xylenes
Total Xylenes
1 ,3- Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
TOTAL VOLATILES
SAMPLEPOINT ^5 " *'"' / !> ' '- "' /
M\AM)1A
01/30/87,
(U9/0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO :
MW-01A
11/04/87
(UQ/I)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
MW~01A
07/13/89 ,
(ug/l)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
MW-01A
04/14/93
(ug/i)
R
NA
R
R
NA
NA
NA
4
ND
MW-01B
01/30787
(ug/i)
NA
803
5690
NA
NA
NA
NA
6493
MW-01B
11/04/87
(ug/0
556
NA
36.5 J
1630
68.9
42.8
72.1
4200
33.8 J
133
242
241
NA
NA
NA
NA
7256.1
MW-OtB
07/13/89
(ug/i)
1340
898
NA
4500
119
635
54.8
79.5
1490
6980
25.0 J
175
NA
276
269
NA
NA
NA
NA
16841.3
MWMJNB
04/14/93
)
R
NA
R
R
610
14 J
24 J
NA
NA
NA
79
22 J
..-.,.;.749,,,
MW^OIC;,
,01/30/87
(ug/i)
11.5
NA
13.5
76.7
7.37
9.18
9.74
NA
NA
NA
NA
127.99
^MW-OIC^
, t1/04/87
(ug/i)
7.00
10.6
NA
21.7
2.58
3030
98.6
4.48
23.9
23.6
28.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
3250.46
Mvy-otc
07/13/89
(UO/I)
NA
29.7
8.68
15.5
NA
6.14
15.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
75.52
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantltalive) Data, B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL. R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES\TAB5-5.WK1
Colder Associates
Page 1 of 2-
-------
January 1994
923-60
TABLE 3
COHTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE - - ." >;" V ,
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
1 ,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Isophorone
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Benzole acid
1 ,2.4-Trlchlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Melhylnaphlhalene
4-Nilrophenol
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylelher
bls-(2-Ethylhexyl)phihalate
Di-n-Octylphlhalate
Dielhylphthalale
CH-n-butylphthalate
Bulylbenzylphihalate
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES :
PESTICIDES/PCBs : '-:
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
SAMPLE POINT - ;' ^ ,
MW-01A
01/30/B7
(ug/i) :
ND
(ug/l)
ND
MW-01A
11/04/87
(ug/i)
ND
(ug/i)
ND :
MW-01A
07/13/89
(ug/l)
ND
(ug/l)
NA
MW-01A
04/14/93
(ug/l)
NA
ND
(ug/l)
NA
MW-01B
01/30/87
(ug/l)
4.58 J
62.3
20.6
8.02 J
530
36.0
36.1
13.4
2.68 J
713.68
(ug/l)
ND
MW-01B
11/04/87
(ug/l)
70.2
22.2
32.8
43.9
10.6 J
179.7
(ug/l)
ND
MW-01B
07/13/89
(ug/i)
97.6
34.8
13.4
28.7
84.4
35.5
37.1
1570
27.1
35.7
7.24 J
13.7
1985.24
(ug/l)
NAV
MVV-01B
CW14/93
(ug/i);;
2 J
15
NA
4 J
9 J
14
6 J
2 J
6 J
10
3 J
4 J
3 J
1 J
79
(ug/l)
NA
MW~01C
, 01/30/87 ,s
;(ug/l);f:
10.1 J
13.5 J
2.6
4.38 J
30.58
(ug/i)
ND
MW-01C
'Vl/04/87'?
:
-------
January 1994
023-6036
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER ^ '
DATE
INORGANICS (UNFIUTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
SAMPLE POINT , '" '-'
MW-01A
01/30/87-
,'< -
MW-01C
01/30/87
(ug/i)
83300
130
1040
40200
62
97
119
170000
17200
9830
65
40800
11500
212
MW-01C
,t1/04/87
,«>::(ug/i);:b.;
94
540
54300
11 J
110000
5880
5240
8.1 J
14100
8400
9.8 J
16 J
MVM>1C
JD7/13W9;
;:.(ug/l) .
19 J
66
240
35900
8.3 J
63100
2.6 J
3400 .
2640
11000
4100
9.4 J
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. NO - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquantitative) Data. B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL. R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES\TAB5-5.WK1
Golder Associates
Page 3 rt 24
-------
January 1994
923-6031
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RWFS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER - Z
DATE ,i
INORGANICS (FILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
SAMPLE POINT j>
MW-01A
01/30767
(ug/l)
2.2
39700
22
202
16600
1860
3530
12600
44
MW-01A
11/04/87
(ug/l)
110
1.1 J
44200
1.9 J
1.6 J
480
16000
1370
2900
12000
MW-01A
07/13/89
(ug/i)
120
47800
690
2.1 J
16700
1300
2100
12000
16 J
MW-01A
04/14/93
(ug/i)
41.3 B
144 B
51100 J
305
18100 J
2040 J
1590 B
9790 J
MW-01B
01/30/87
(ug/i)
76
1700
39200
64200
13900
23200
24800
33200
56
MW-01B
11/04/87
(U9/I)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-018
07/13/89
(ug/i)
11
1400
53800
3.2 J
3.1 J
13300
4.0 J
21000
5.2 J
31000
23
MWvQIB
04/14/93
(ug/i) ,
92.3 B
60.4 J
930
42700
13.3 B
58500
8580
14700
16200
10700
5.4 B
, - , ; ' - " '" > , -/ - '-,-
...MW-PIC-:
OT/30/87
(ug/l) ;;
85
580
4920
50
30
161000
6130
5400
11700
9420
52
MW-01C
,11/04/87;
; (ug/l)
72 J
542
1.1 J
54700
12 J
2.5 J
109000
5950
5420
8.4 J
14000
8500
12
14 J
MVYV01C
07/13/89,
-,: (ug/l)
30 J
110
250
35700
6.8 J
88000
3300
2640
5.8 J
10000
3700
55
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantilative) Data. B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL. R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLESYTAB5-5.WK1
GoMer Associates
Page 4 of 2
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RWFS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNOWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE ,
VOLATILES
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Acetone
Carbon Dlsulllde
1.1-Dlchloroelhane
els- 1 ,2-Dtehloroelhene
Total 1,2-Dlchloroelhene
Chloroform
2-Bulanone
1 ,2-Dlchloroethane
1 . 1 .1 -Trtehloroethane
1 ,2-Dtehloropropane
Trlchloroethene
Benzene
4-Melhy)-2-Pentanone
Tetrachloroelhene
Toluene
Chtorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
2-Methyl-3-hexanone
m-Xylene
o+p-Xylenes
Total Xylenes
1.3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
TOTAL VOLATILES
"' .--, ; - 'x - ; - SAMPLEPOINT - ' * , i- ' - % "" /- " *'<"" ; -
MW-01C
04/14/93
(ug/i)
93 J
NA
R
R
0.7 J
9
2
NA
NA
NA
8
5
117:7
MW-02A
[Jn/29/87
(ug/1)
14.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; ;I4.8
MW-02A
11/03/87
(U9/I)
19.9
NA
5.31
1.08 J
29.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
55.39
MW-02A
07/12/89
(ug/i)
20.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
20.4
MW-02A
04/13/93
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER ' . ' Y'~' ^
DATE -/' v '-,:<''"
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
1 ,3-Oichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Melhylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Isophorone
2,4-Dimelhylphenol
Benzole acid
1 ,2.4-Tf Ichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Nltrophenol
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylelher
bls-(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalate
Dl-n-Octylphthalate
Dlelhylphlhalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalale
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBS ;^
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
- SAMPLEPOINT , ,-,.'-'*',-, ',";, i> , " - ,-'* -
MW.01C
04/14/93
(U9/D
4 J
NA
2 J
11
2 J
1 J
20
(ug/i)
NA
MW-02A
; 01/29/87
(ug/i)
' ND : ';
(ug/l)
. ' ND-M
MWi02A
11/03/87
(ug/l)
? NO
(ug/l)
ND
MW-02A
07/12/89
(ug/i)
ND
(ug/l)
NA
MW-02A
04/13/93
(ug/i)
NA
2
. /' ,.- 2
(ug/i)
NA
MW-02B
01/29/87
(ug/l)
2.78 . J
21.8 J
4.61
4.51 J
33.7
(ug/l)
ND
MW-026
11/03/87
(ug/i)
2.49 J
19.2 J
3.91 J
1.17 J
3.26 J
30.03
(ug/i)
ND
MW-02B
,07/12/89^,
Jug/0
7 J
7
-------
January 1994
923-60
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER \ ,-; * :
DATE
INORGANICS (UNFILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
(Jopper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
SAMPLEPOiNT ' ,; ;< ; , % ?
MW-01C
04/14/93,
(ug/l)
86.1 B
49.8
161
22800
11.8 B
45400
1910 B
1830
4460 B
2100 B
11.7 B
MW-02A
01/29/87
(ug/i)
850
21500
1550
7320
. 1060
2540
5380
26
MW-02A
t1/03/87
(ug/i)
67 J
71
21700
180
6020
791
4.6 J
1100
3700
5.8 J
MW-02A
07/12/89
(ug/i)
59
20800
81 J
1.9 J
6000
410
600
3900
12 J
MVW02A
04/13/93
(ug/i)
104 B
74.8 B
18900
42 B
5180
125
3840 B
MW-02B
01/29/87
(ug/l)
2230
12
440
22700
8160
9840
12800
4520
37200
12
MW-02B
11/03/87
(ug/l)
9.0 J
392
34700
4500
9220
11700
4.1 J
5400
46900
MW-020
07/12/89
; (ug/i)
120
4.5 J
12000
1300
2900
2440
2600
37000
50
MW-028
04/15/93
(ug/1);
93.1 B
134 B
13000
108
2 J
2970 B
1500
3870 B
32200
MW-03A
,01/28/87,
(ug/l)
3370
2.8
120
13600
12
6440
6630
883
4730
10800
145
MW-03A
11/03/87,
(ug/l)
610
82
15200
2.5 J
890
4700
120
2200
7600
5.9 J
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. NO - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantilalive) Data. B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL, R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLESYTAB5-5.WK1
Colder Associates
Page 7 of
-------
January 1994
923-60;
TABLE
CORTESE LANDFILL RWFS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER "';/ ,}
INORGANICS (FILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
"'-'" ' ,;-r'-' r -"-'''" , , , ' SAMPLE POINT ' f<- s^,"^"*?'1"?* <-/;-<--,;- -^
MW-01C
04/14/93
(ug/i)
56.2 B
52.2 J
179 B
24500
11.9 B
49400
2080 B
2000
4600 B
2200 B
MW-02A
01/29/87
(ug/i)
39000
6700
1030
1700
5660
33
MW-02A
11/03/87 -
(ug/i)
29 J
73
22400
2.2 J
130 J
6200
819
2.6 J
1100
3900
10 J
MW-02A
07/12/89
(ug/i)
19 J
62
21500
67 J
6200
430
600
4600
MW-02A
.. 04/13/93
(ug/l)
54.6 B
80.9 B
20200
5540
122
3980 B
MW-02B
01/29/87
(ug/l)
5.0
210
17300
2150
9250
11800
4080
45200
54
MW-02B
11/03/87,
(ug/l)
210
7.9 J
390
1.9 J
34500
4.2 J
6.4 J
4700
9240
11600
5400
2.7 J
46600
4.0 J
nMW:02Biii;.
07/12/89
(ug/l)
2.9 J
110
12000
1100
2800
2300
2700
41000
13 J
MW-02B
04/1S/9S
. (ug/9
74.9 B
144 B
13300
3070 B
1580
3260 B
34000
MW-03A
01/28/87 ,
(ug/l)
4880
718
2400
12200
85
MW-03A
finaier,-'-.
("9/1)
160
78
1.2 J
15600
*
4600 '
140
2.3 J
2200
7900
3.3 J
6.9 J
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. NO - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquanlilatlve) Data, B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL, R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLESVTAB5-5.WK1
Colder Associates
Page 8 of 2
-------
January 1994
923-61
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER . "-
DATE-
VOLATILES
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Acetone
Carbon Disullide
1.1-Dichloroethane
cls-1 ,2-Dlchloroethene
Tola) 1.2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
2-Butanone
1.2-Dlchloroelhane
1.1,1-Trlchloroethane
1 ,2-Dlchloropropane
Trichloroelhene
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
2-Methyl-3-hexanone
m-Xylene
o+p-Xylenes
Total Xylenes
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
TOTAL VOLATILES
, ^ , , , - - , .. SAMPLE POINT - * ,, , ^^^"tf *';;-, , * *<
MW-03A
07/11/69
(Ufl/l)
NA
6.82 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.82
MW-03A
04/19/93
(ug/D
R
NA
R
NA
NA
NA
ND
MW-03B
01/29/87
(ug/i)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
MW-03B
11/03/87
(ug/i)
NA
127
NA
NA
NA
NA
127
MW-03B
07/11/89
(UQ/I)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
MW-038
04/19/93
(ug/l)
R
NA
R
NA
NA
NA
NO
MW-04B
12714/87
(ug/i)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
MWV04ET
07/12/89
(U9/0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
MW-04B
04/15/93
(ug/l)
R
NA
R
NA
NA
NA
-..'-JNO^g
MW-05
12/14/87-
(UQfl)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
; ND
MW-05
67/11/89
(UO/I)
NA
«
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquantilative) Data. B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL. R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES\TAB5-5.WK1
QoWer Associates
Page 9 ol
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER - ^r,'-
DATE
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
1,3-Dtehlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlor obenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dtehlorobenzene
2-Methylphenol
4-Melhylphenol
Isophorone
2.4-Dlmethylphenol
Benzoic acid
1 ,2,4-Trtohlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4~Chtoro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthatene
4-Nilrophenol
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylelher
bis-(2-Elhylhexyl)phlhalale
Di-n-Oclylphthalale
Diethylphlhalate
Dl-n-butylphthalate
Bulylbenzylphthalale
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBs
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
"- - " ' SAMPLE POINT - , ',,>, ,T' ;XV-^ ">' ' ' * ,'" "'₯,'?,
MW-03A
07/11/09
(ug/l)
NO
(ug/l)
NA
MW-.03A
04M9/93
(ug/l)
NA
NO
(ug/l)
NA
MW-03B
01/29/87
(ug/l)
ND
(ug/l)
ND
MW-03B
11/03/87
(ug/l)
ND
(ug/l)
ND
MW-03B
07/11/89
(ug/l)
ND
(ug/i)
NA
MW-03B
04/19/93 -:
(ug/l)
NA
ND
(ug/l)
NA
MW-04B
12/14/87,
(ug/l)
ND
(ugfl)
ND
MW~04B
;
(ugfl) *
ND;;-a:-
, MW-05 ..
07/11/89
(ugfl)
10.2 J
1tt2
;;(ugfl)
^NA
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquantilatlve) Data, B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL, R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLESYTAB5-5.WK1
Colder Associates
Page 10 of 24
-------
January 1994
923-601
TABLE 3
COHTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER >y ' '..> > - - .. '*,
DATE
INORGANICS (UNFILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
-TT,-^T>v '", { '-"' '""-':'' ' ;\ - '' SAMPLE POINT x ;, " ' li" ,-:'
MWV03A,
07/11/89
(ug/i)
260
60
15000
430
3.8 J
4100
45
2300
7800
5.0 J
MW-03A
04/19/93
(ug/l)
98.1 B
79.7 B
17600
49.5 B
4880 B
5.5 B
1860 B
8980 J
6.4 B
MW-03B
01/29/87
(ug/l)
9130
7.4
770
33800
18
27
18000
10
17500
1020
11200
42400
55
MW-03B
11/03/87
(ug/0
43 J
562
U.2*» J
35000
3.8 J
58 J
10900
170
7.4 J
2900
33300
3.9 J
6.6 J
MW-03B
07/11/69
(ug/l)
110
850
51000
3.0 J
170
2.7 J
13500
140
5.2 J
2900
68500
67
MW.-03B
04/19/93
(ug/l)
444
88.2 B
10200
124
1770 B
51.3 J
1820 B
28100 J
10 B
MVW04B
12/14/87
(ug/0
41 J
53
13200
4.2 J
43 J
5580
1770
4.4 J
3400
3500
9.6 J
MW-04B
07/12/89
(ug/l)
50
0.61 J
11000
140 J
1.3 J
4000
711
4.3 J
1500
6700
30
'A' j|'"'»-xr-;"---;«;5-",; ^'-'-, >";>
MW-04B
04/15/93
(ug/i)
128 B
53.4 B
10700
96.1 B
3870 B
81.5
1470 B
4220 B
13.7 B
MWwOS
;ia/14/B7 -
... (ug/i)
210
170
14100
250
3200
81
1500
7600
5.4 J
MW-05
^ 07/11/89
(ug/i)
110
110
9700
4.5 J
200
2100
36
1100
6300
9.6 J
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquantitative) Data. B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL. R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES\TAB5-5.WK1
Golder Associates
Page 11 of 2
-------
January 1994
923-603C
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER {
DATE ,, .. -,',«' < <.'>
INORGANICS (FILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
'-"-' ;i'- -" ' SAMPLE POINT , , - ', ' " - -;'?''' f'v't" ""
MW-03A
07/11/69
(ug/l)
55
14000
35 J
2.5 J
3900
22
2100
7600
34
MW-03A
O4/19/93
(ug/l)
62.4 B
B6 B
19100
5350
1.2 B
1950 B
9750
5.6 B
MW-03B
01/29/87
(ug/l)
500
36900
13600
247
3080
41200
42
MW-03B
11/03/67.
(ug/l)
65 J
549
1.7 J
34600
1.9 J
1.6 J
73 J
11000
160
7.7 J
560
33300
3.3 J
11 J
MW-03B
> 07/11/69
(ug/l)
98 J
750
48300
5.9 J
53 J
4.6 J
13600
130
6.0 J
2700
67200
28
MW-03B
04/19/93
(ug/l)
129 B
89.6 B
10700
1890 B
40.4
1630 B
30500
8.6 B
MW-04B
% 12/14/87
(ug/i)
so
12500
4.5 J
45 J
5270
3120
6.8 J
3000
3500
14 J
MW-04B
07/12/89;
(ugfl):
49
11000
2.8 J
91 J
2.6 J
3900
722
4.9 J
1500
5600
2.6 J
43
MW-04B ..
04/15/93
(ugfl)
59.1 B
56.6 B
11100
4040 B
60.9
4370 B
12.3 B
WW
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER -
DATE
VOLATILES
Vinyl Chloride
Chlofoelhane
Acetone
Carbon Dlsulflde
1.1-Dichloroelhane
els- 1 ,2-Dichloroelhene
Total 1.2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
2-Bulanone
1.2-Dlchloroethane
1.1.1-Trtehloroethane
1.2-Dtehloropropane
Trlchloroethene
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Elhylbenzene
2-Methyl-3-hexanone
m-Xylene
o+p-Xylenes
Total Xylenes
1 ,3-Dtehlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dtehlorobenzene
TOTAL VOLATILES
- - :,' - - SAMPLE POINT - , - : " ""''V'^r ->' " ' -'
MW-OS
04/16/93
(ug«)
R
NA
R
NA
NA
NA
ND
MW-06A
12/15/87
(ug/i)
19
6.95
84.3
NA
146
5.4
8.44
9.47
2.97 J
3.49 J
3.69 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
289.71
MW-06A
07/12/89
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER ,
DATE -" ' >" '" vi '
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
1 ,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dlchlof obenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dichtorobenzene
2-Melhylphenol
4-Melhylphenol
Isophorone
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Benzole acid
1 ,2,4-Tr Ichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthatene
4-Nllrophenol
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylelher
bls-(2-Elhylhexyl)phlhalate
Di-n-Oclylphlhalale
Dlelhylphthalale
CN-n-bulylphlhalale
Bulylbenzylphthalate
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBs
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBS
-' ' < ' ',' ' - ,'" SAMPLE POINT- - - - >< >- v*vC-^~^, ;^;» , -- ,-/>.,'
MW-05
04/16/93
(ug/l)
NA
ND V
(ug/l)
NA
MW-06A
12/15/87
(ug/l)
4.39 J
3.7 J
8.09
(ug/l)
NO
MW-06A
07/12/89
(ug/l)
11.8
8.73 J
2.33 J
22.86
(ug/l)
NA
MW-06A
04/15/93
(ug/l)
1 J
10
NA
6 J
2 J
19
(ug/l)
NA
MW-06B
12/15/87
(ug/l)
6.3 J
6.3
(ug/l)
ND
MW~06B
07/12/89
(ug/l)
9 J
2 J
3 J
20
34
(ug/l)
NA
MW-068
04/15/93
(ug/l)
4 J
NA
1 J
2 J
': 7
(ug/l)
NA
JWWrP?A^
12MS/87'
(ug/i)
ND
(ug/l)
NA
JMMMPAr
07/12/89 '
(ug/l)
27.3
27.3
(ug/l)
NA
MW-07A
04/19/93
(ug/l)
NA
1 J
1
(ug/D
NA
MW-07B
iaisfl>r
(ug/l)
1.9 J
11.1
2.6 J
*
*
1S.6
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/F3
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE - < - , - > *
INORGANICS (UNFILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Stiver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
- , , ,< ^ SAMPLE POINT ' - , ~ ^ >< , - -,
MW-05
04/16/93,
(ug/l)
120 B
157 B
14100
102
3090 B
17.7
1620 B
15900
6.6 B
MW-06A
t2/15/87
(ug/i)
290
86
24400
1.6 J
420
8320
300
910
3.5 J
7900
2.6 J
5.3 J
MW-06A
07/12/89
(ug/D
120
0.47 J
40000
99 J
1.3 J
13200
110
1100
3.0 J
10000
43
MW-06A
04/15/93
(ug/i)
167 B
118 B
41600
180
13800
63.4
10800
MW-06B
12/15/87
(ug/i)
500
38
384
29300
8.1 J
4.7 J
2.9 J
7800
6750
19900
6.3 J
2400
4.7 J
9700
9.8 J
JrtW-06B
07/12/89
(ug/i)
31 J
55
690
39200
6.5 J
4.8 J
19300
1.4 J
8300
32100
6.1 J
2600
2.4 J
9800
22
MW-06B
04/15/93
(ug/l)
730
32.7
214
17000
4880
3.4
3300 B
13200
2040 B
12100
25.1
MW-07A
12/15/87^
(ug/l)
210
55
19700
290
7730
558
2100
6200
20
MW-07A
07/12/89
-------
January 1994
923-60:
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER , " -, "V -
DATE
INORGANICS (FILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
' *
MWV05
O4/16/93
(ug/l)
80.2 B
170 B
14900
3310 B
18.5
1710 B
16800
.'' ' - SAMPLE POINT
MW-06A
12/15/87
(ugfl)
83
24300
. 3.3 J
35 J
1.8 J
8160
285
860
8000
20
MW-06A
07/12/89
(ug/l)
120
40300
43 J
1.6 J
13300
110
1100
10000
30
MW-06A
04/15/93
(ug/l)
51 B
127 B
44000
14700
58.6
1470 B
11500
MW-06B
12/15/87
(ug/i)
50
382
26900
7700
6140
18000
4 J
2200
3.2 J
9100
8.7 J
MW-06B
07/12/89
(ugfl)
18 J
72
720
39600
4.8 J
5.5 J
19500
3.2 J
8500
32900
5.0 J
3000
4.4 J
11000
110
MW-068
04/15/93
(ug/l)
68.3 B
32.7 J
253 J
19700 J
4580
3680 B
15500 J
2070 B
14200 J
- ,--.%.-"-,"''< ' ' '/ .
MW^07A
12/15/87,
(ug/l)
260
34300
3.7 J
3 J
26 J
7590
24800
4.2 J
4200
13000
12 J
MW-07A
07/12/89 <
; :(ugfl)
28
16000
52 J
5900
150
500
4500
8.7 J
MW-07A
04/19/93
(ugfl)
62.7 B
39.5 B
17000
6400
22.1
4810 B
10.10 B
MW-07B
12/15/87
(ugfl)
54
19600
4 J
7680
541
1000
6100
14 J
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. NO - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantltatlve) Data, B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL, R Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES\TAB5-5.WK1
Golder Associates
Page 16 of:
-------
January 1994
923-603*
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER ^_£l_
DAffelil , ^*, ..
VOLATILES
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Acetone
Carbon Dlsullide
1.1-Dichloroethane
els- 1 ,2-Dlchloroelhene
Total 1.2-Dtahloroethene
Chlorolorm
2-Butanone
1.2-Dlchloroethane
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
1 ,2-Dlchloropropane
Trtehloroethene
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Elhylbenzene
2-Methyl-3-hexanone
m-Xylene
o+p-Xylenes
Total Xylenes
1,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
TOTAL VOLATILES
A "" \
MW-07B
- 04/13/93 ..
24.7
2.63 J
NA
53.5
3.28 J
6.54
357
11.5
3910
22.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4391.55! f
MW-09
04/16/93 ..
-------
January 1994
923-60
TABLE 3
COHTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER , ^ »'/ - '* <<,"
DATE
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Melhylphenol
4-Melhylphenol
Isophorone
2,4-Dlmethytphenol
Benzole acid
1 ,2.4-Trichtorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Melhylnaphlhalene
4-Nllrophenol
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether
bis-(2-Eihylhexyl)phlhalate
Di-n-Oclylphthalate
Diethylphlhalale
Dl-n-butylphthalate
Bulylbenzylphthalate
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBs :
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
SAMPLE POINT / ""' ,
MW-07B
04/13/93 ,
(ugfl)
2 J
9 J
NA
2 J
2 J
;.. -15. ::-
(ug/i)
NA ;
MW-08A
12/16/87
(ugfl)
ND
(ugfl)
ND
MW-08A
07/13/69
(ug/i)
ND
(ug/l)
NA
MW08A
04/20/93
(ug/i)
NA
1 J
1
(ugfl)
NA
MW-08B
12/16/67
(ug/0
ND
(og/D
NA
MW-08B
07/19/89
(ugfl)
ND
(ugfl)
NA
MW-088
04/20^3
(ugfl)
NA
.
ND
(ug/l)
NA
MW-09
12/16/67
(ug/i)
4.02 J
4.02
(ug/i)
ND
MW-09
07/12ffl9
(ugfl)
4 J
4 J
8
(Ugfl)
NA
MW-09
O4/16/93
(ugfl)
3 J
NA
1 J
4
(ugfl)
NA
MW~10
12/16/87:
(ugfl)
10.7
4.84
8.68
24.227.;;.
(ugfl):*?
ND;St:;
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed, ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantitative) Data. B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL. R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLESYTAB5-5.WK1
Golder Associates
Page 18 o
-------
January 1994
923-6C
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER ,':',,
DATE ,
INORGANICS (UNFILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
uopper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
MWV078
04/13/93
(ug/l)
61.4 B
264
23800
157
4410 B
21600
4010 B
R
MW-08A
12/16/87
(ug/l)
180
15
7200
200
2400
. 140
950
1100
11 J
MW-08A
07/13/69
(ug/l)
8.1 J
7500
5.5 J
93 J
2.1 J
2500
480 J
1400
53
MW08A
04/20/93
(ug/l)
114 B
14.8 B
5060
74.2 B
1620 B
6.5 B
1550 B
SAMPLE POINT
MW-08B
12/16/87
(ug/l)
230
18
7500
290
2500
347
1300
1500
5.4 J
MW-08B
07/19/89
(ug/l)
100
14 J
0.41 J
7300
240
1.2 J
2400
14
13 J
410 J
1500
5.9 J
, > ,
MVW08B
04/20/93,
(ug/i)
173 B
21.1 8
7140
4.5 B
130
2290 B
21 J
1530 B
5.4 B
12.8
-
MW-09 ..
12/16/87
(ug/i)
4 J
38
691
41800
5.3 J
2.5 J
30200
8160
20500
9600
7900
8 J
- f^,,^ s - ; ' .- ,<
MW-09 "
07/12/89,,
(ug/0
31 J
44
380
0.86 J
19000
4.1 J
22000
4400
12000
4600
4.1 J
3700
2.6 J
9.3 J
MW-09
04/16/93
(ug/i)
191 B
34.4
244
12000
12400
2520 B
6560
2790 B
3820 B
5.9 B
MW-10 ..
12/16/87 ;
(ug/0
61 J
31 J
1000
44900
4.9 J
2.5 J
61400
9790
21400
3.4 J
19300
4.1 J
11000
3.3 J
36
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. NO - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Sefnlquantilative) Data. B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL, R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES\TAB5-5.WK1
Qotder Associates
Page 19 ol
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE; .. , ; > v <& £%>*; ' v
INORGANICS (FILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
r, , ^-'! ' ' ' SAMPLE POINT s ', *$,' '>;-' << ^~o ,y,' -'- '-' "'
MW-O/B
'04/13/93-
(ug/i)
44.5 B
3 J
282
25000
98.3 B
4650 B
22900
4780 B
R
6.1 B
MW-OflA
' 12/16/87 a
(ug/i)
41 J
15
8100
6 J
2700
140
2.7 J
660
1300
7.8 J
MW-08A
07/13/69,
(ug/l)
15 J
8.1 J
0.63
7600
2.3 J
2500
480 J
1300
26
MW08A
04/20/93
(ug/l)
75.1 B
13.1 B
5390
1730 B
1.1 B
1650 B
MW-088
- 12/16/67 v
(ug/i)
53 J
15
7300
9.4 J
4 J
41 J
2400
302
660
1400
10 J
MW-08B
- 07/19/89
(ug/l)
10 J
7500
3.0 J
2400
350
1300
MW-08B
04/20/93
(ug/i)
76.70 B
16.50 B
7380
2370 B
3.90 B
1590 B
MW-09
a#tew>.
(W9/0 :
64 J
39
691
41200
3.3 J
30100
8100
20600
9600
4.1 J
7600
22
MW-09
*tw/i»w&.
(ug/i) s
53
380
0.91 J
19000
21700
2.5 J
4400
12000
4900
3.5 J
3500
19 J
MW-09
04/16/93
(ug/l)
64.20 B
35.8 J
268
12600
13200
2610 B
6940
3050 B
4000 B
5.60 B
MW~10
12/16/87^,
(ug/i)
31
1050
47700
6.8 J
1.6 J
72100
1.1 J
10400 '
22100
19900
4.4 J
12100
5.4 J
9.7 J
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed, ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantitatlve) Data, B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL, R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES\TAB5-5.WK1
Colder Associates
Page 20 of 24
-------
January 1994
923-60!
TABLE 3
COHTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER - , ; '- , ". -_
DATE /
VOLATILES
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Acetone
Carbon DisullkJe
1,1-Dtehloroelhane
cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroelhene
Total 1.2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
2-Butanone
1 ,2-Dlchloroethane
1 ,1 .1 -Trlchloroethane
1 ,2-Dlchloropropane
Trlchloroethene
Benzene
4-Melhyl-2-Pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
2-Methyl-3-hexanone
m-Xylene
o*p-Xylenes
Total Xytenes
1 ,3-Dtehlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene
TOTAL VOLATILES :
Of'^^'V' " "' " . SAMPLEPOINT - < ' ; '- " >-V*^ - ;
MWUio.
07/12/69
-------
January 1994
923-6031
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER ; 2" ', .-"
OATB '-, - "^""^'^ff^"'
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Melhylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Isophorone
2.4-Dlmelhytphenol
Benzole acid
1 ,2.4-Tr tehlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphlhalene
4-Nltrophenol
4-Chlorophenyl-phenytethef
bls-(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dl-n-Oclylphthalate
Diethyrlphthalate
Di-n-bulylphthalate
Butylbenzytphlhalate
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBs
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
' ;;- -, - SAMPLE POINT ' ~-> -w "> ,T'"
-------
January 1994
923-6031
TABLE
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER -,- "
DATE , -" - -.< *
INORGANICS (UNFILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
" " ", SAMPLE POINT v " - '" '\ "
MW-10
07/12/69
(ug/l) ,.!
33 J
27 J
16
1200
56200
6.1
67000
11300
21600
5.6 J
17000
16000
11 J
MIAMO ,
04/14/93
(ug/i)
82 B
46.3 J
847
40600
11.8 B
68200
7740
16700
14100
12200
9.8 B
MW~12
04/19/93
(ug/i)
107 B
79.5 B
17600
4890 B
5.8 B
2410 B
8910 J
6.6 B
MW-13 ,
04/20793
(ug/0
285
15.4 B
5020
1620 B
9.6 B
1490 B
1610 B
TTW-01
01/30/87
(ug/0
18300
6330
70
1180
5530
10
TTW-01
11/18/87
(ug/i)
58
0.91 J
21500
3.8 J
73 J
6100
78
1200
5800
28
nw-oi
07/13/89
(ug/i)
28 J
57
III
1.1 J
23500
7.1 J
130
1.4 J
6300
74
1000
5800
53
TTVM>i
,04/1093
(ug/i)
105 B
55.9 B
20700
366
5790
70.9
1520 B
6540
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquantitative) Data, B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL,
R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2.TABLES\TAB5-5.WK1
Odder Associates
Page 23ot:
-------
January 1994
923-60:
TABLE 3
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER ;,;*:»', ,,,,.,,.., ,
DATE , '
INORGANICS (FILTERED)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
, SAMPLEPOINT ^ <<*.->
MVMO
07/12/89
(ug/i)
40 J
64
1300
57700
4.4 J
112000
3.1 J
11200
22100
18000
3.5 J
15000
25
MW-10 ,
04/14/93
(ug/l)
36.50 B
61.9 J
905
41500
13.3 B
70900
7950
17400
14800 J
12200
5.60 B
MWV12 ,
04/19/93
(ug/l)
73.4 B
85.7 B
19000
4.7 B
5330
1.8 B
2160 B
9770
7.4 B
MW-13
04/20/93
(ug/i)
49 B
13 B
5360
1720 B
1.4 B
1550 B
TTW-01
01/30/87
(ug/i)
17500
58
5970
83
1240
5970
18
TTVIMM
tl/18/87
(ug/l)
18 J
58
1.1 J
21300
5.1 J
70 J
6090
78
1200
5900
9.8 J
TTW-0*
07/13/89
(ug/l) :
TTW*Of
O4/1S/93 >
(ug/l) ,
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed, NO - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantitative) Data. B - Acceptable (Quantitative) Data between IDL and CRDL,
R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES\TAB5-5.WK1
Golder Associates
Page 24 ol!
-------
January 1994
923-6031
TABLE 4
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER , .. ,
DATE SAMPLED ^ ,,
VOLATILES
Chloroethane
Acetone
Carbon Disullide
1,1-Dtehloroethane
els- 1 .2- Dichloroethene
Total 1.2-Dlchloroethene
2-Bulanone
1,1,1 -Tr tchloroelhane
Trlchloroethene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrahydroturan
m-Xylene
o+p-Xylenes
1.4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
TOTAL VOLATILES :
'- ;"-<"'<. "-'-^ [""'-': ^ -'- '." ;.'.;;*.;' ' ' - SAMPLB POINT ' - ' - ' ;'-/"
DR-Ot
10/27/88
("9/0
12.1
31.5
NA
3 J
0.59 J
0.666 J
23.1
4.82 J
NA
NA
75.78
DR.02
10/27/88
(ug/i)
18.7
NA
4.08 J
31.6
3.63 J
3.91 J
8.96 J
10
16
NA
NA
96.88
DR-03
10/27/88
(U9/I)
NA
NA
NA
ND
SW-01
10/27/87
(UQ/I)
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
SW-02
10/27/87
(ug/l)
NA
4.67
NA
NA
NA
4.67
SW-03
10/27/87
(ug/i)
25.3
NA
45.5
13.1
1.85 J
1.72 J
NA
5.49
NA
NA
92.96
SW-04
10/27/87
(ug/i)
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
SW-05 ,
10/27/87,
(ug/i)
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
y??*-f'*X'#5 £ j*-s* j/
.. $ .. "*" .f X ^.r
SW-06
10/27/87
(ug/l)
NA
NA
NA
NA
ND
''*%'f.'''?^''
SW-07
,04/15/93
(ugfl)
11
NA
R
NA
NA
NA
11
>?,--!., '"";,/"\"", ; - f
sw-oft
04/15/93
(ug/l)
34 J
NA
R
NA
NA
NA
34
SW-09
04/13/93,
SW-10
06/08/93
(ug/i)
R
NA
R
NA
NA
NA
:::.i:ND,;;;;&i;-.-
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed, ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantilatlve) Data, R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES/TAB5-8.wk1
Colder Associates
PageloM
-------
January 1994
923-6031
TABLE 4
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE SAMPLED ,
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
1 ,3-Dlchlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
4-Melhylphenol
Isophorone
Benzole acid
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Nitroanlline
Pentachlorophenol
Dl-n-butylphthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phihalale
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBs
beta-BHC
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
; -" , - - SAMPLE POINT ' '"" -/'- ->- ':» -'',' ''"- ' v > "- >- ' t.
DR-oi
10/27/88
(ug/i)
6.81 J
51.7
10 J
2.17 J
11.8
3.55 J
86.03
(ug/l)
ND
00-02
10/27/88
(U9/I)
6.31 J
6.31 :
(ug/i)
.ND^H
DH-03
10/27/88
(ug/i)
2.67 J
2.67
(ug/i)
ND
SW-01
10/27/87
(ug/i)
ND
-------
January 1994
923-603
TABLE A
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER - ..
DATESAMPLEO
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
-
DR-01
10/27/88
(ug/l)
200
76
1100
0.86 J
38900
14
51700
1.9 J
10100
31000
7700
4.4 J
14000
9.3 J
OR-02
10/27/88
(ug/l)
41 J
14 J
4.9 J
130
12000
5 J
3300
2.1 J
2800
3980
1500
6100
DR-03
10/27/88
(ug/l)
58 J
16 J
4 J
130
13000
4.3 J
5.3 J
1800
1.4 J
3100
4690
1500
6300
SW-01
10/27/87
(ug/0
260
23
7500
5.2 J
690
1.7 J
1800
220
0.10 J
5400
900
34
SAMPLE POINT
SW-02
10/27/87
(ug/l)
730
130
15400
7.1 Jl
10 J
41800
9.0
2300
2090
16500
350
47
SW-03
10/27/87
(ug/l)
110 J
40
11000
5.2 J
6.3 J
8300
1.7 J
1900
1970
0.10 J
10500
1500
54
SW-04
10/27/87
(ug/l)
140 J
25
12000
4300
2.7 J
2000
110
0.10 J
5.0 J
7500
1400
26
'
SW-05
10/27/87>
(ug/l)
62 J
24
110
12000
7400
1.7 J
2700
2640
0.10 J
5900
3300
21
/ ' f "
,SV\M)6
10/27/87
(ug/l)
2.4 J
74
62300
60
400
5160
1890
0.10 J
5.9 J
6000
40200
25
' f
SW-07
04/15/93
(ug/l)
3900
68.5
11300
7.4
3870
8.4
3440
220
3660
1310
40.5
' #>*; '
SW-08
04/15/93,
(ug/l)
767
25.3
7880
12.8
1260
1540
150
2850
2060
72.9
, '"
SW-09
04/13/93
(ug/l)
69.4
32.2
12.8
4630
42
1460
1.5
1300
" ' ,
sw-io
06/08/93
Jug/I) .
8100 J
173 J
557
15300
8.3
19.10
16.5
77400
20.5
4310
R
17.1
8510
7530
107 J
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantitative) Data, R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES/TAB5-8.wk1
Colder Associates
Page 3 of
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE *
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE WATER SAMF1£S
PARAMETER ..-< <
DATE SAMPLED
VOLATILES
Chloroelhane
Acetone
Carbon Dlsulllde
1.1-Dlchloroethane
cis-1.2-Dichloroethene
Total 1,2-Dlcnloroethene
2-Butanone
1 ,1 ,1 -Trlchloroelhane
Trlchloroethene
Benzene
Tetrachtoroethene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrahydrofuran
m-Xylene
o+p-Xylenes
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichtorobenzene
TOTAL VOLATILES
'' , - '- ' SAMFUEPOINT - ' ~'\',>,'- '-: ' >' '< '"' ' ':"',
sWiii ^
06/08/93
(ug/i)
R
NA
R
NA
NA
NA
1
1 }'
SW-12
06/09/93
(ufl/l)
R
3
NA
R
5
1
0.6 J
0.9 J
NA
NA
NA
3
0.6 J
14.1
SW-13
06/09/93
(ug/0
R
3
0.5 J
NA
R
NA
NA
NA
0.5 J
4
SW-15
06/09/93
(ug/0
R
4
0.5 J
NA
R
7
2
0.9 J
1
NA
NA
NA
3
0.7 J
19.1
SW-DBD
01/31/87
(ug/i)
NA
NA
NA
NO
SW-DRD
10/30/87
(ug/i)
NA
NA
NA
ND
SW-DRD
07/11/89
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE *
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER ',:.; rf^l
DATE SAMPLED >:fv,<
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene
4-Melhylphenol
Isophorone
Benzole acid
1 ,2,4-Trlchlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Nltroanillne
Pentachlorophenol
Di-n-butyiphthalate
Butyfbenzylphthalate
bis(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalale
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBs
beta-BHC
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCB4
",'"-',, , -- '-,'-."- " "-- s^MPLEPoiNT - .;...::' t--^\
SW»t1,
06/08/93
(ug/i)
2 J
NA
7 J
2 J
11
(ug/i);
ND
sw-iit
06/09/93
(ugfl)
3 J
NA
' Y: 3:v-
(ugfl)
ND
SW~13
06/09/93
(ug/0
2 J
NA
::...'. 2;V:
(ug/i)
NO ;
SW-15
06/09/93
(ugfl)
1 J
3 J
NA
4
(ug/l)
ND
SW.DRD
01/31/67
(ug/l)
ND
(ug/l)
NO
SW-DR0
10/30/67
(ug/i)
ND
(ugfl)
ND :
SW~DRD
07/11/69
(ug/l)
ND
(ug/l)
NA
SW-OftD
06/06/93
(ug/0
2 J
NA
2
(ug/l)
ND
4",> H"' -^ s'< c [.'' r '/ - '' , < -?; J 6
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SURFACE WATER SAMPLES
PARAMETER , - - >5 :.<
DATE SAMPLED - ^v/ -
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
NteKel
Potassium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
' '' - -.''"*,
SW-11
06/08/93
(ug/i)
14700 J
90.6 J
662
15400
15.7
18.6
27
61000
38.4
5700
R
28.1
9320
7500
8
171 J
SW~12 .
06/09/93
(ug/l)
215 J
36.6 J
326
8860
11000
2.9 J
2090
R
5040
4850
68.6
SW-13
06/09/93
(ug/l)
88.8 J
80.5
7360
1260
1600
R
1810
5840
18.10 J
SW-15
06/09/93
(ug/l)
150 J
268
7500
6290
2.4 J
1770
R
4320
4400
21 J
SAMPLE POINT
SW-DRD
01/31/87 ..
(ug/l)
6870
669
1840
798
1040
4980
SW-DRD
,,,10/30/87
(ug/l)
79 J
30
5100
110 J
1100
27
0.10 J
950
2100
9.1 J
SW-DRD
07/11/69
(ug/l)
28
6600
430
3.8 J
1400
450
750
4300
10 J
' *;'~*'s
SW-DRit)'
06/08/93>
(ug/1)
6.6 J
230
8930
4680
2060
R
4300
4780
24.4 J
" '-,/' 6't',
SW-DRU
>-Ot/31/87><
(ug/i)
6410
1650
30
850
4810
14
i,^;;r/:V",,-
JSW-PRU''
? tO/30/87 ,
(ug/0
62 J
29
5000
77 J
1100
15
0.10 J
920
2000
5.7 J
^ '/, - ',
SW-DRU
07/11/89;
(ug/l)
45 J
17 J
6600
120 J
5.6
1400
41
600
5000
37
'-- '";, V^:
sw-wu.
O6/08/93
(ug/i)
4 J
30.2
7360
79.6
1620
13
6030
12.8 J
Notes:
1) Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) NA - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantitatlve) Data, R - Unusable Data.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES/rAB5-8.wtc1
Colder Associates
Page 6 of 6
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 5
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES
PARAMETER . »\i ',? '*$ "' .
DATE SAMPLED % -> "^
VOLATILES
Chloroethane
1.1-Dichloroelhane
Trlchloroethene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1 , 1 ,2,2-Tetrachlor oethane
Chlorobenzene
Elhylbenzene
Tetrahydrofuran
m-Xylene
o+p-Xylenes
TOTAL VOLATILES
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
4-Melhylphenol
Benzole acid
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
' ' . , SAMPLE POINT- ' 5 7, C - >'"', *t ' "V"< - ?' ', - : -X
flB-91v
10/27/88
(ug/kg)
15.8
35
9.56
178
3.14 J
24.1
57.8
140
148
611.4
(ug/kg)
85.9 J
1590
s HB^O*
,10/27/88
(ug/kg)
6.31 J
22.3
6.83 J
20.2
43.5
99.14
(ug/kg)
71.7 J
92.3 J
31.7 J
1660
200 J
58.2 J
46.6 J
RB-03
10/27/88
(ug/kg)
147
41 J
189
208
335
920
(ug/kg)
3890 J
FiB-04
10/27/88
(ug/kg)
36.3
8.27 J
4.77 J
31.2
80.54
(ug/kg)
607 J
5000
329 J
WPBS
10/30/87
(ug/kg)
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
R1-01
06/10/93
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
m-02
06/10/93
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
NO
(ug/kg)
NA
JW-«h^
,06/10/93 -'
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
40 J
-, «a-O4 ,
06/1CTO3.
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
; ft***-,,
06/KV93 :
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
MM*:*
06/10/93
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
Notes:
1)Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) N/A - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquantltative) Data. N - Tentative Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) R7-24 is the field duplicate of R3-07. and SS-27 is the field duplicate of SS-22.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES/TAB5-10.wk1
GoMer Associates
Page 1 of 9
-------
January 1994
923-6031
TABLE 5
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES
PARAMETER <"'
DATE SAMPLED < , - '
2-Methylnaphihalene
Fluorene
Phenanlhrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Dl-n-bulylphlhalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Bulylbenzylphthalate
3.3'-Dlchlorobenzldlne
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bls(2-Ethylhexyl)phlhalate
Benzo(b)lluoranthene +
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h.i)perylene
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBs
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
' , - SAMPLE PoiNt - , ^^ < ,, *,";>;/; ?-?, v, ,,--*
RB-01
10/27/88
80 J
NA
146 J
133 J
90.7 J
2125.6
(ug/kg)
ND
RB-02
10/27/86
27.1 J
51.8 J
NA
156 J
100 J
95.1 J
2590.5
(ug/kg)
ND
RB-03
10/27/88
NA
1230 J
5120
(ug/kg)
ND
RB-04 ,
10/27/88
NA
5329
(ug/kg)
ND
WPBS
10/30/87
521 J
NA
504 J
361 J
1386
(ug/kg)
NA
R1~01
06/10/93
ND
(ug/kg)
ND
fll-02 -
06/10/93
45 J
\^:: 45 ;
(ug/kg)
ND
Rt-03
O6/KW93 .v
42 J
60 J
66 J
180 JN
52 J
:;::P:460
(ug/kg)
-:&ND
1 flfrOty
oanoraa
ND
(ugfltg)
ND
«2-
-------
January 1994
923-60!
TABLE 5
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SEDIMENT SAMPLES
PARAMETER ; ""
DATE SAMPLED
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
'-> ' ' , ' SAMPLEPOINT ' -' , ' "/* ^ - '" - :' *
RB-01
10/27/88
(mg/kg)
3040
3.6 J
4.9
40
0.28 J
0.15 J
260
4.6
3.7 J
5.1
6460
5.7
1300
160
6.1
280
67 J
2.9 J
33
1.2
RB-02
10/27/88
(mg/kg)
5250
5.6 J
16
86
0.44
0.28 J
530
7.2
5.1 J
7
18800
5.7
2000
468
0.046 J
11
940
160 J
5.7 J
62
0.89
RB-03
10/27/88
(mg/kg)
4780
4.6 J
28 J
68
0.36
480
6.2
5.1 J
6.2
17800
5.4
2100
533
9.8
700
74 J
4.8 J
41
8.7
RB-04
10/27/88
(mg/kg)
3000
78
200
0.46 J
1900
4.8 J
2.4 J
5.4 J
47800
6.1
1100
2140
0.048 J
9.7 J
600
150 J
7.5 J
120
2.2
WPBS
10/30/87
(mg/kg)
8370
0.94 J
2.3
131
0.41
0.67 J
980
7.9
7.8
11
15300
17
2530
635
0.058 J
13
680
50
1 J
11
66
NA
R1-01
06/10/93
(mg/kg)
2620
0.85 J
20.9
258
2.4
3.5
2.7
5370
2.5
1100
R
5.3
442
1.7
R
,R1-02
06/1003
(mg/kg)
3.5 J
17.4
2.9
42.6
5.5
R
1960
4
R
Rl-<»' '
06/10/93 \
: (mg/kg) , .
4530
2 J
33.6
0.27
499
4.8
6.8
4.2
10300
6.4
2080
R
11.6
584
2
R
* m-04 ,
06/10/93
(mg/kg);
2870
1.3
23.8
278
2.5
3.7
3.1
5770
3.9
1180
R
6.3
455
1.9
R
'f*W*'.' -
06/10/93 ::
(mg/kg);
4350
1.8
33.4 J
442
2.9
3.3
9170
5.3 J
1720
R
693
49.2
3.6
R
RSM*
06/10/93
(mg/kg)
4320
2.3
29 J
429
3.4
3.7
10300
3.5 J
1780
R
9.3 J
600
50.3
3.1
R
Notes:
1)Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) N/A - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantltative) Data, N - Tentative Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) R7-24 Is the Held duplicate ol R3-07. and SS-27 Is the Held duplicate of SS-22.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES/TAB5-10.wk1
Colder Associates
Page 3 c
-------
January 1994
923-60!
TABLE 5
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SEDIMENTS SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE SAMPLED , ,;
VOLATILES
Chloroethane
1.1-Dichloroelhane
Tflchloroethene
Benzene
Telrachloroethene
Toluene
1 ,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Elhylbenzene
Telrahydroluran
m-Xytene
o+p-Xylenes
TOTAL VOLATILES ; :
SEMIVOLATILES ; : ;
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2-Dlchlorobenzene
4-Melhylphenol
Benzole acid
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
, SAMPLE POINT / ; '..:..
.R3-07
06/10/93 ,
(ug/kg)
6 J
3 J
NA
NA
NA
-/ . -9.- ':.
(ug/kg)
NA
R3~08
06/10/93
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
H3-09
,06/10/93
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
; NO
(ug/kg)
NA
R4-10
06/10/93
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
BO J
NA
R4-11
06/10/93
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
55 J
NA
R4-12
08/10/93
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
45 J
NA
m-13 ;:
08/1 0793 ^_
(ug*g)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
','/: %'<.''', ,*''', ''' \ '"'',' " ' ' -, '/*"
(ft4-.14'>.
06/10W3)
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
*as-i$
06/09/93
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND«:p:;:i;
(ugrtcg)Mk
73 J
NA
W-16
08rt»«3
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
.wND-m:'
;; (ug/kg) :
190 J
NA
63 J
^ttS-17"
06A)9»3 .:.,
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
:i::;-ND.-;:::₯;:..
< (ug/Kg)
210 J
NA
69 J
Notes:
IJBIank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) N/A - Not Analyzed, ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquanlilative) Data. N - Tentative Identification, R - Unusable Data.
4) R7-24 is the field duplicate of R3-07, and SS-27 is the field duplicate of SS-22.
Z:RIREV2:TABLESn-AB5-10.wk1
Colder Associates
Page 4 of
-------
January 1994
923-60
TABLE 5
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SEDIMENTS SAMPLES
PARAMETER
DATE SAMPLED - >
2-Methylnaphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranlhene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphlhatale
3.3'-Dichlorobenzldlne
Benzo(a)anlhracene
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethy1hexyl)phthalate
Benzo(b)lluoranthene »
Benzo(k)lluoranthene
Benzp(a)pyrene
IndenoO ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g.h.l)perylene
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBs
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
' > SAMPLE POINT ' ',',-<-< /";< 'i.^..J"'«<>^^>,f, ' "- K'^/^/-'
R3-0/
06/10/93;
62 J
110 J
110 J
53 J
99 JN
;:;.; 434 'V:'-.
(ug/kg) ::
NO /,-;:;
H3-08
06/10/93
ND
(ug/kg)
ND
R3-09
06/KV93
ND
(ug/kg)
ND
R4-10
06/10/93
80 J
100 J
93 J
57 J
92 JN
502
(ug/kg)
ND
R4~11
06/10/93
55
(ug/kg)
ND
R4-12
06/10/93
47 J
60 J
54 J
43 J
249
(ug/kg)
ND
fw-13
06/10/93 >,..
67 J
98 J
71 J
52 J
56 JN
344
(ug/kg)
ND
- R4«U
06/10/93
ND
(ugfltg)
ND
- ftS-15
,06/09/93^,
54 J
130 J
130 J
72 J
60 J
130 JN
649
(ug/kg)
ND
R5-16
08/09/93
160 J
210 J
210 J
120 J
74 J
160 J
70 J
1257
(ug/kg)
ND
«5-t7 ,
osmmd
60 J
88 J
87 J
52 J .
47 J
110 JN
723
(ug/kg)
ND
Notes:
1)Blank spaces Indicate (he parameter was not detected.
2) N/A - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquaniltalive) Data, N - Tentative Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) R7-24 Is the Held duplicate ol R3-07. and SS-27 Is the Held duplicate ol SS-22.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES/TAB5-10.wk1
Colder Associates
Page 5 c
-------
January 1994
923-60!
TABLE 5
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SEDIMENTS SAMPLES
PARAMETER >«;*? ** -
DATE SAMPLED ; ^V
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
, f , '*
R3-07
08/10/93,
(mg/kg)
3990
9.2
53.9
451
4.5
5
5.7
10100
7.4
1570
R
8.1
641
2.7
R
,,
03-08
06/10/93,
(mg/kg)
4880
56.2
77
0.31
407
5.5
8.3
7.5
30900
7.4
1850
R
10
590
R
R3-09
06/10/93
(mg/kg)
3660
17.6
63.7
0.37
893
3.8
6.9
6.3
14400
7.1
1580
R
9
416
R
'
04-10
06/10/93
(mg/kg)
5030
7.7
70.1 J
419
4.9
4.4
9700
26.7 J
1760
R
707
64.4
4.9
R
SAMPLE POINT
R4-11
06/10/93
(mg/kg)
5050
3
38.8 J
400
5.1
5.5
9 J
9530
5.9 J
1940
R
11.4 J
552
46.5
4.2
R
R4-12
06/10/93
(rng/kg)
4240
3.8
47
0.24
300
5
6.1
5.8
9580
6.3
1570
R
7.6
527
2.6
R
i;..i:.j1.i.^;j
R4-13 ,/
06/10/93^
(mg/kg) :
3500
12.5
42.8
318
3.2
4.8
4.8
9480
7.2
1480
R
8.2
434
R
t^.i'.^
. .W"1*>?:
06/10/934
(mg/kg) s
3250
16.4
45.7
341
2.9
5.3
9
11100
5.5
1400
R
7.9
454
R
.?'.''. V.<<'-%"':-'
- "**5>«15 -
. 06/09/93
,i;Xmg/kg)
3810
5.9
43.3 J
231
2.6
3.1
7530
7.3 J
1450
R
785
42.7
3.4
R
'- ' ,fx\
'R$ll8 ,->
-,6/09/93
(mg/kg)
4760
4.7
46.3 J
227
3.7
3
7750
4.6 J
1480
R
10.8 J
1160
55.1
4.6
R
1V; '"-Vf"
fsV&'ifa',,,'
06/09/93, '
;i (mg/kg)
7350
5.5
89 J
372
6.2
4.9
12300
7.2 J
2250
R
9.9 J
1140
59.7
8.3
R
3.4
Notes:
1)Blank spaces indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) N/A - Not Analyzed. NO - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantitatlve) Data. N - Tentative Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) R7-24 Is the Held duplicate of R3-07, and SS-27 Is the field duplicate of SS-22.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES/TAB5-10.wX1
Odder Associates
Page6ol
-------
January 1994
923-60
TABLE 5
CORTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SEDIMENTS SAMPLES
PARAMETER ; .
DATE SAMPLED >^> ;, . --^,
VOLATILES
Chloroelhane
1,1-Dlchloroethane
Trlchloroethene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1 ,1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Elhylbenzene
Tetrahydroluran
m-Xylene
o»p-Xytenes
TOTAL VOLATILES
SEMIVOLATILES
Phenol
2-Chlorophenol
1 ,4-Dlchlorobenzene
Benzyl alcohol
1 ,2'Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Benzole acid
1 ,2.4-Trichlorobenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloro-3-methytphenol
"'-.. " SAMPLEPOINT ~, - ..V- - - '/" '- ,: ". :.;,''fv.'^ ",.,', ?"\A
R5-18
06/09/93.
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
K5-19
06/09/93 ,-
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
L_ R6-20
06/08/93 ,
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
R6-21
06/08/93
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
R6-22
06108193
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ugfl«g)
NA
R6-23,
O6AW/93
(ug/kg);
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ugftg)
NA
^W»24_^
06/10/93 <;:
(ug/kg)
4 J
1 J
NA
NA
NA
5
(ug«cg)
NA
'^ SS-20 .',
:iO6/ua/9a»
(ugflcg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
96 J
, SS-«-,r,
;S06/08«3^
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
320 J
NA
-,-88-22..
i06/09/9&
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
59 J
- SS-fc? ,J
06/09«3;J
(ug/kg)
NA
NA
NA
ND
(ug/kg)
NA
Notes:
1)Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) N/A - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantllalive) Data, N - Tentative Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) R7-24 Is the Held duplicate ol R3-07. and SS-27 Is the field duplicate ol SS-22.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES/TAB5-10.wk1
Colder Associates
Page 7o
-------
January 1994
923-603
TABLE 5
COHTESE LANDFILL RI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SEDIMENTS SAMPLES
PARAMETER , \*,st&.t '
DATE SAMPLED \ -> ^
2-Melhylnaphlhalene
Fluorene
Phenanlhrene
Anthracene
Carbazote
Dl-n-bulylphihalate
Fluoranlhene
Pyrene
Butylbenzytphlhalate
3.3'-Dichlorobenzldlne
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bls(2-Etrtylhexyl)phthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene *
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,l)perylene
TOTAL SEMIVOLATILES
PESTICIDES/PCBs
TOTAL PESTICIDES/PCBs
SAMPLE POINT V^x'-'
R5-1B
06/09/93
ND .:jj
(ug/Kg)
ND
^«5~19
06/09/93
ND
(ug/kg)
ND
XH6-20,'
06/08/93
62 J
460
470
360 J
150 J
100 J
210 JN
110 J
2013
(ug/kg)
ND
,R8-21
06/08/93
ND
(ug/kg)
ND
- H6-22.-"
06/08/93
130 J
220 J
180 J
120 J
67 J
210 JN
90 J
1017
(ug/kg)
.; -ND .?..;;,
-«6»23
06/09/93
ND
(ug/kg)
NO
W7«Z4^ ,><-
06/10/93 i
56 J
87 J
65 J
51 J
40 J
71 JN
:'-370lv«i
(ug/kg) :
. ND,>;:::-:: M
-'" " ' ' '''" ' .'!* '-* '. '< ,-v ? '/ '
,-ss-20',;f
06/08«3
120 J
590 J
130 J
82 J
720 J
580 J
460 J
210 J
530 JN
270 J
:»3788;;:;%.;
!i(ug/kg) ;
.teNDv.:. A:.-,
#«Mrt"<^
06rtW«3;
200 J
540 J
600 J
470 J
260 J
510 JN
260 J
220 J
290 J
W3670 '
(ug/kg)
ND
-, SS-82'?:
06/09/93;
59
(ug/kg)
ND
;,;$&&<,
06TO9W3
*
ND 'y:
(ugfltg)
ND
Notes:
1 )Blank spaces Indicate the parameter was not detected.
2) N/A - Not Analyzed. ND - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semlquantitatlve) Data, N - Tentative Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) R7-24 Is the Held duplicate ol R3-07. and SS-27 Is the Held duplicate ol SS-22.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES^AB5-10.wk1
OoWer Associates
Page 8 of
-------
January 1994
923-6036
TABLE 5
COHTESE LANDFILL HI/FS
SUMMARY OF DETECTIONS FOR SEDIMENTS SAMPLES
PARAMETER " iifT V'*',
DATE SAMPLED : - <>- - ? ;- * '-
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
;/ * * , SAMPLE POINT .,"-"*%>'. ,',>,,""<.'-",- *..i,-*,»s^
R5-1B
06/09/93
(mg/kg)
3600
4.3
37 J
274
3.2
3
9530
3.8 J
1460
R
10.1 J
665
48.6
3.1
R
W5-19
06/09/93 "
(mg/kg)
7070
74.8
49 J
541
6.4
6.5
17500
5.5 J
2860
R
1100
50.7
5.9
R
R6-20
06/08/93
(mg/kg)
4440
2.6
32.3 J
414
3.7
3
8200
5.4 J
1530
R
10.2 J
.851
52.3
4.6
R
R6-21 f
06/08/93 -
(mg/kg)
6620
4.5
43
0.57
574
5.4
6.6
14100
3.8 J
2590
R
12.9
710
45.6
4.2
R
R6«22
06/08/93:
(mg/kg)
5680
5.1
44.5 J
535
4.5
4.9
18 J
15400
6 J
2070
R
14.9 J
881
49.1
5.2
R
1.7 J
R6-23
06/09/93
(mg/kg)
5890
30.2
65.1 J
723
7.2
8.5
16400
8.1 J
3070
R
16.3 J
725
49.8
4.4
R
L_«7-a*^
06/10/93 '-;
(mg/kg)
3400
12.4
57.2
409
3.4
4.7
5.2
9570
7.4
1270
R
7.2
531
2
R
, ..SS-20..^.
06/08/93;
(mg/kg)
8400 J
8.4 J
132 J
1220 J
8.2 J
5.9 J
16100 J
21.6 J
2150 J
R
1450 J
111 J
9.9 J
R
;>*8»«t *
06/08/93 ,
(mg/kg)
7590 J
9.9 J
126 J
1.7 J
1060 J
5 J
14000 J
20.2 J
2040 J
R
1820 J
89.5
8.8 J
R
14.4 J
* SS-22 ;
06/09/93,
(mg/kg)
5720
2.5 J
108 J
1.2
18600 J
4.1
3.2
10700*
1.9 J
1690
R
1080
131
4.5
R
*8s-8r.
O6/D9/93
(mg/kg) f;
3900
2.5
54.5 J
0.59
420 J
4.1
. 4.1
9540
8.7 J
1770
R
13.2 J
570
54.7
3.7
Notes:
1)Blank spaces Indicate (he parameter was not detected.
2) N/A - Not Analyzed. NO - Not Detected.
3) J - Estimated (Semiquantitatlve) Data, N - Tentative Identification. R - Unusable Data.
4) R7-24 Is the Held duplicate of R3-07. and SS-27 Is the field duplicate of SS-22.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES/TAB5-10.wk1
Colder Associates
Page 9 of 9
-------
January 1994
923-6036
Table 6
Summary of Detections for Soil Gas Samples
Cortese Landfill RI/FS
Volatile Organic
Compound
trans- 1 ,2-dichloroethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethene
Total Xylenes
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Methylethylketone
Methylene chloride
Acetone
Vinyl chloride
: East of Conrail Embankment
Range of Detected
Concentrations;
(ppmv)
ND - 13.6
ND - 18.00
ND- 11.00
ND-1.8
ND - 3.5
ND- 25.00
ND - 49.00
ND-1.2
ND - 12.00
ND - 3.00
ND - 18.00
ND - 340
ND-1.8
Frequency
of Detections
26/77
15/77
11/77
7/77
11/77
19/77
15/77
2/77
7/77
8/77
9/77
28/77
9/77
West of Conrail Embankment
Range of Detected
Concentrations
(ppmv)
ND-1.0
ND - 0.94
ND - 0.22
ND - 0.01
ND-1.7
ND - 0.43
ND - 2.8
ND
ND - 0.32
ND - 0.67
ND - 7.9
ND - 4.00
ND - 0.03
Frequency wi;;
of Detections §
36/122
15/122
3/122
1/122
18/122
15/122
8/122
2/122
16/122
26/122
64/122
5/122
Note: Frequency of detection includes multiple depths at a given soil gas probe
location as well as results for split samples sent to an off-site laboratory.
Z:RIREV2:TABLES\TAB5-13.wk1
Colder Associates
page 1 of 1
-------
January 1994
923-9038
TABLE 6
CALCULATED VOC FLUX AND CALCULATED INDOOR AIR CONCENTRATIONS
USING THE FARMER MODEL AND JULY 1999 GROUNDWATER DATA
VOC ^ }
- */
1.1-dfchloroethane
1.1.1-trfchloroethane
trtchloroethene
benzene
toluene
chtorobenzene
ethylbenzene
xylenes
1 ,2-dfchlorobenzene
1 ,4-dlchlorobenzene
TOTAL
, °*
42900
6990
3440
5290
17200
79600
4700
9490
23200
2000
9000
202.790
Depth
...«4
5
S
S
5
5
5
5
S
S
S
5
Kh ..
0.00554
0.0319
0.0172
0.0091
0.0055
0.0069
0.0039
0.00644
0.00527
0.00194
0.0016
> Dalr ,
.fminwe)
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000078
0.0000079
0.0000088
0.0000087
0.0000073
0.0000075
0.000008
0.0000069
0.0000069
Ft
fa^Hff* finni^f^
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Pair
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
VOC
Flux
'Are* '
".?..«)..:.
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
Bufldtoo
Volume
!***.,.
840
940
940
840
840
840
840
840
840
840
840
BirtWtfHJ
Vent. Rate
-------
January 1994
K3-40M
TABLE 6
CALCULATED VOC FLUX AND CALCULATED INDOOR AIR CONCENTRATIONS
USING THE FARMER MODEL AND APRIL 1993 OROUNDWATER DATA
, - VOC ;'- \
< ,f , ₯
, .. . '...-'.".-.' ''?-'.!^..
1.1-dtehloroemane
1,2-dtehloroemene
fi,i ~incniorO8iiNUW
trfchloroethene
benzene
toluene
chlorobenzene
elhylbenzene
xylenes
1 ,2-dkihlor obonzeno
1 ,4-dtenlorobenzene
TOTAL ,
0*
(i0
0.00554
0.0319
0.0172
0.0091
0.0055
0.0068
0.0039
0.00644
0.00527
0.00194
0.0018
.. Oalr
'"-
i jml/*«e)
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000078
0.0000079
0.0000088
0.0000087
0.0000073
0.0000075
0.000006
0.0000069
0.0000069
Pt
IdtmMfcriMflMift
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
Pair
4fttlMMe^f>MlaMB&
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
^voc
Flux
(ugftittftNtt)
3.05E-04
0.006400
O.OOE400
&59E-05
1.45E-05
£876-04
0.006400
0.006400
£746-05
6.69E-07
^76E-06
6.73E-0*
DttSBtnent
> Anjtf i
*4.f«(|.^.
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
BUlkflrtfl
Vdurf*
?.^IP<.\
840
840
840
840
840
840
840
840
840
840
840
Bufldtoa
V«nt.R«M
-. W*4 ,
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
Ctttcu1«*d
tndoor Air Cone.
(MflMwMo IMM)
3.666-04
0.006400
O.OOE400
4.316-05
1.74E-05
3.44E-04
O.OOE400
0.006400
3.29E-05
8.03E-07
3.31E-06
', 8,096-04
Notes: 1. Cw-groundwtter concentration In MW-6B, Depth -dtetance from water table to basement floor, Kh »Henn/« Law constant, Dalr* dttfueMty
In air, Pi - total porosity, Pair - air-filled porosity.
2. Kh and Dak from USEPA (1990), PI and building ventilation rate from USEPA (1992).
3. Pair calculated using sKe-spedflc grain size and moisture content data (or surface soil samples.
4. See text for equations to calculate VOC flux and Indoor air concentrations.
5. Building area measured for typical resMencedowmgradlent from the site. Building volume estimated assuming sbt vertical meters of basement,
attic, and main floors. Fraction of basement area which Is cracked (F)- 0.001.
TaMesYTab6-&«*1
GoMer Associates
Page 1 of 1
-------
Table
Sinnary of Chemicals of Potential Concern
for the Cortese Landfill Site
Chemicals
Organic* :
Acetone
Benzene
beta-BHC
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)f luoranthene
Benzo(g,h, i )perylene
Oibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(1,2,3-c.d)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Oichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
A-ttethylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Tetrach I oroethene
Toluene
Triehloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Grounduater
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Inorganics:
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
.Cobalt
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
X
X
X
On- site
Surface Soil/
Sediment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface Hater
Delaware
River
X
fc -i--j
ronoeo
Surface
Water
South of
Landfill
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Enbayment
Area/
White's
Pond
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sediment
Embaynent
Area/
White's
Pond
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
Delaware
River
X
X
-------
table 8
Potential Hunan Exposure Pathways lor the Cortese landfill Site
under Current land-Use Conditions
Exposure Medium
Grounduater
(Residents
and Industrial)
Groundwater
(Municipal)
Surface
soil/sediment
on-site
Subsurface soil
Surface
water /sediments
along Delaware
River
Ponded Surface
Water South of
landfill
Air
Biota
Exposure Point
No active
residential or
industrial
wells near the
site.
Municipal
water used as
a water
source.
Inactive
municipal welt
near the site.
Surface
soil /sediment
on-site.
Subsurface
soil
Delaware
River,
Embayment. and
White's Pond
Surface water
on-site
On-site and
nearby
residential
area
Fish caught In
Delaware River
Potential
Receptor
None.
None
(currently).
Trespassers.
None. No
excavation
activities
expected in a
landfill.
Children
playing along
Delaware River.
Trespassers.
Trespassers and
nearby
residents.
Recreational -
anglers.
Primary Exposure Routes
None.
None. No CPCs detected
in municipal well and
well Is not doungradfent
of the site.
Incidental Ingest Ion and
dermal contact.
None. No direct contact
with subsurface soil
(evaluated as a potential
source to groundwater
contamination).
Dermal absorption and
incidental ingest ion of
sediments and dermal
absorption of chemicals
in surface water.
Dermal contact with CPCs
in surface water.
Inhalation of VOCs
released, from ponded
surface water south of
landfill and VOCs
diffusing into basements.
None. No CPCs were
selected for fish tissue.
Exposure Pathway Complete?
No. Residences and Industrial plants
use municipal water supply.
No. No CPCs detected In municipal well
and well is not downgradient of the site.
Tes.
.No. No ground- intrusive activities
expected on-site (other than for
remediation).
Tes. Children may play along the banks
of the Delaware River and White's Pond.
Tes. Trespassers may come in direct
contact, with surface water in on-site
trenches.
Tes. Off -site residents may be exposed
to VOCs potentially released to
basements. On- site trespassers also may
be exposed to VOCs released from on-site
trenches.
No. No CPCs were selected for fish
tissue.
Pathway Selected
for Quantitative
Evaluation?
No. (Evaluated
under future
land-use
conditions)
No. (Evaluated
under future
land- use
conditions)
Tes.
No.
Tes.
Tes.
Tes.
No.
-------
Table 8
Potential NuMan Exposure Pathways for the Cortese Landfill Site
Under Future Land-Use Conditions
Exposure Nedlui
GroundMater
On-site
Soils/SediaNnts
Air
Exposure Point
Groundwater in
the Vicinity
of the alte.
Surface
soii/sediawit.
On-site
blent air.
Potential
Receptor
Hypothetical
residents.
Hypothetical
residents.
Hypothetical
residents.
PriMry Exposure Routes
Ingest ion of drinking
water end inhalation
and denail absorption
of CPCs Mhile showering.
Incidental ingest Ion
and denaal contact.
Inhalation of safcient
air.
Exposure Pathway Complete?
Tes (hypothetical ly). However,
grounduater unlikely to be used as a
drinking water source given the
availability of Municipal water.
Yes (hypothetically). However, landfill
unlikely to be developed.
Yes (hypothetically). However, landfill
. unlikely to be developed.
Pathway Selected
for Quantitative
Evaluation?
Ves.
Ves.
Yes.
Surface water/sediawnts
iota
SIM as current land use at the Cortese Landfill site
SM as current land use at the Cortese Landfill site
-------
Table 9
Chronic Daily Intake* (CDIt) Estimated for Children'a Direct Contact ulth Surface Water In the Vicinity of tha Slta
and for Inhalation of VOCa Emitted fro* Surface Water In the Vicinity of tha Site
Area/Cheatcal (a)
ME
Exposure
Point
Concentration
(ug/L)
(ME EK
EatlMted
for Air
(b)
Derail
Penwablllty
Conatant
(c»/hr)(c)
ME COIa
for Denait Contact
(g/kg/dey) (c)
Cere I noQvns Boncflrc f nooons
ME COIa
for Inhalation
(ev/kg/day) (d)
Carcinogens Honcarclnogena
Delaware River
Manganese
Eefceyawnt Area and White's Pond
4690.0
0.001
4.6E-OS
Organica:
Trlchloroathena
Inorganlca:
Areenlc
SariuM
6.0
160.0
662.0
51000.0
0.062
0.23
0.001
0.001
0.001
9.7E-07
1.1E-07
1.4E-05
1.6E-06
6.SE-06
3.1E-04
5.6E-08
7.8E-07
Ponded Surface Water South of the Landfill
Organic*:
Acetone
beta-BNC
1,2-Dlchl
4-Nethylphenol
Tetrachloroathana
Trlchloroathena
Inorganlca:
arlua
Nanganeaa
Mercury
ithana(total)
34.0
0.012
4S.5
16.0
1.9
13.1
130.0
2090.0
0.1
0.075
0.00005
0.69
0.12
0.018
0.14
0.0025
0.031
0.01
0.051
0.37
0.23
0.001
0.001
0.001
2.6E-10
5.0E-07
2.1E-06
8.4E-07
4.5E-06
8.1E-06
7.0E-06
3.0E-05
1.3E-06
2.1E-05
9.9E-10
4.SE-11
1.6E-OB
1.3E-07
9.4E-07
8.76-06
1.SE-06
2.3E-07
1.8E-06
(a) Ho toxiclty criteria Mara available for aluainua, cobalt, and lead; therefore. CDIa Mara not eat lasted for these chaarfcale.
(b) Sea Appendix A.
(c) Denaal permeability conatanta uaad are presented In USEPA <1992c). For Inorganica. tha recoMaadad default value of 0.001 cai/hr nee used.
No penatabillty conatant MM available for cie-1,2-dlchloroethene; therefore, the permeability constant for trana-1(2-dichloroethene uaa used
to evaluate a CDI for denaal absorption of 1,2-dichloroethene (total).
(d) Only VOCa with available toxiclty criteria Mara evaluated for tha inhalation exposure pathway.
-------
Table "
Exposure Parameter Values Used to Estimate Potential Exposure of
Children via Inhalation of VOCs Released from
Ponded Surface Water South of the Landfill
Parameter
Inhalation Kate (IR)
Time Spent Playing On-site (ET)
Exposure Frequency (EF)
Exposure Duration (ED)
Body Weight (BU)
Averaging Time (AT)
Carcinogens
Noncarcinogens
Value
2.1 nvVhrs (a)
2 hrs (b)
35 days/year (c)
5 years (d)
32 kg (e)
365 days/year x 70 years
365 days/year x 5 years
Reference
USEPA 1989b
USEPA 1989b
Assumed Value
USEPA 1989a
USEPA 1985a
USEPA 1989a
USEPA 1989a
(a) Average inhalation rate for 10-year-old child engaged in light and moderate activities (USEPA 1989b).
(b) Mean hours per week spent outdoors playing by children between the ages of 3 to 11 (USEPA 1989b).
(c) Children assured to play in on-site trenches 2 days per week during the summer months and 1 day per week
during early fall and late spring.
(d) Children assumed to play in on-site trenches between the ages of 7 and 12 (i.e., 5 years). Children
younger than 7 and older than 12 would be unlikely to engage in this type of activity to a significant
degree-(USEPA 1989b).
(e) 50th percentile body weight for children between the ages of 7 and 12.
-------
Table 9
Exposure Parameter Values Used to Estimate Potential Exposure of
Children via Incidental Ingestion of On-Site Surface
Soil/Sediment and Off-Site Sediments from the Delaware Riv. r,
Enbayment Area, and Unite's Pond
Parameter
Ingest ion Rate (IR)
Fraction ingested from Study Area (FI)
Exposure Frequency (EF)
Exposure Duration (ED)
Body Weight (BW)
Averaging Time (AT)
Carcinogens
Noncarcinogens
value
100 mg/day(a)
Kb)
35 days/year(c)
5 years(d)
32 kg(e)
365 days/year x 70 years
365 days/year x 5 years
Reference
USEPA 1989a
USEPA 1989a
Assumed Value
USEPA 1989b
USEPA 1989b
USEPA 1989a
USEPA 1989a
(a) USEPA (1989i) recommends a soil ingestion rate of 100 mg/day for the RHE case for children over the age
of 6. This soil ingestion rate value was used for this pathway since no sediment ingest ion rate data were
available.
(b) All sediment ingestion activities were assumed to occur within the study area along the bank of the
Delaware River. Therefore, the fraction ingestion from the study area was conservatively assumed to be
1 (i.e., 100X).
(c) Children assumed to play in sediments 2 days per week during the stumer months and 1 day per week during
early fall and late spring.
(d) Children assumed to play in sediments between the ages of 7 and 12 (i.e., 5 years). Children younger than
7 and older than 12 would be unlikely to engage in this type of activity to a significant degree (USEPA
1989b).
(e) 50th percentile body weight for children between the ages of 7 and 12.
-------
Table
^
Chronic Daily Intakes (COU) Estitated for Incidental Ingeation
of On-Site Soil/Sadicent and Off-Sitt Sedinent by Childran (a)
Aree/theaical
RNE
Exposure
Point
Concentration
(Organic*: ug/kg; Inorganics: ag/kg)
IME COU
(g/kg/day)
Carcinogana
Honcarci
On-Site Surface Soil/Sediewit Cb)
tolycyclic AroMtic Mydrocarbom
tenzo(a)anthracene
enzo(a)pyrene
enze(b)fluoranthene
fiibinz(a,h)antliracene
IndenM 1,2.3-c,d)pyrene
Aelauare fiver
490.0
4*0.0
630.0
220.0
340.0
1.0E-08
9.4E-09
1.3E-08
4.7E-09
7.3E-09
Araenic
ManganMe
t*»ymm Area and White'* font
29.0
2140.0
6.2E-07
8.7E-06
6.4E-04
Organica
Polycyclic Aromatic Nydrc
Senzo(a)anthracene
Bcnzo(a)pyrene
f luoranthene
Inorganica
Araenic
Serin*
erylliu*
ChroniuB
Hanganeee
470.0
270.0
S30.0
9.9
132.0
1.7
8.2
160.0
1.06-08
5.8E-09
1.1E-08
2.1C-07
3.6E-08
3.0E-06
4.0E-05
S.1E-07
2.5E-06
4.8E-05
U) «o oerMl perMabillty cenatanta are currently eveilable for the CPCa in aoil and aediaent; therefore, CBIa for absorption
could not be eatiMted.
(b) No toxieity criteria Here available for banzo(g,h,i)perylene or phenanthrene; therefore, COIa were not Mtiaated for theae
chenicale.
-------
Table 9
Exposure Parameter Values Used to Estimate Potential Exposure of
Off-Site Residents Via inhalation of Indoor Air
Parameter
Inhalation Rate (IR)
Exposure Time at Home (ET)
Exposure Frequency (EF)
Exposure Duration (ED)
Body Weight (BW)
Averaging Time (AT)
Carcinogens
Noncarcinogens
Value
0.83 m"/hr (a)
15 hrs/day (b)
350 days/year (c)
30 years (d)
70 kg (e)
365 days/year x 70 years
365 days/year x 30 years
Reference
USEPA 1991
USEPA 1989b
USEPA 1991
USEPA 1991
USEPA 1989
USEPA 1989
USEPA 1989
(a) RHE inhalation rate for residents (20 nrVday) converted to mVhour (USEPA 1991).
(b) Estimated average time spent at home (USEPA 19896).
(c) RME exposure frequency value (assumes 15 days spent away from home per year) (USEPA 1991).
(d) RME exposure duration value (90th percentite of time spent in one residential location) (USEPA 1991).
Ce) 50th percent He body weight for adults (USEPA 1991).
-------
Table 9
Chronic Daily Intakes (GDIs) Estimated fpr Potential Uorst Case VOC Emissions from
Crounduater into Orr-Site Basements
Chemical
t rat i
(Ufl/L)
ter
?ME
at
(ug/
, ^
Estimated for
Air (ug/m3)
f RME ttls.
for inhalation
(mg/kg/day)
Carcinogens
Noncarcinogens
-Djchlorobenzene
4-p i cnorobenzene
-OicnIoroetnane
..v.J-Tnchlorobenzene
frjchloroethene
Xylenes (total)
9-09
-------
Table 9
Exposure Parameter values Used to Estimate Potential Exposure of
Future Hypothetical Residents via
Ingestion of Grounduater
Parameter
Ingestion Rate (1R)
Exposure Frequency (EF)
Exposure Duration (ED)
ody Height (Bit)
Averaging TiM (AT)
Carcinogens
Noncareinogens
Value
2 I/day (a)
350 days/year (b)
30 years (c)
70kg (d)
36S days/year x 70 years
365 days/year x 30 years
Reference
USEPA 1991
USEPA 1991
USEPA 1991
USEPA 1991
USEPA 1989a
USEPA 1989a
(a) RNE Mater ingestion rate for adults (90th percentUe of water consumption rate) (USEPA 1991).
(b) RNE exposure frequency (assuws 15 days spent away fro* hc*e per year) (USEPA 1991).
(c) RME exposure duration (90th percent!It of tine spent in one residential location) (USEPA 1991).
(d) 50th percentile body weight for adults (USEPA 1991).
-------
Table 9
Chronic Daily Intake* (COIs) Estimated for the Ingestion. Denwl Absorption
While Showering and Inhalation of VOCa while Showering Using
Grounduater from Hypothetical Residential Wella Located at the Cortese Landfill Site
Chemical
ME
Exposure
Point
Concentration
(ug/L)
Dermal
Permeability
Constant
-------
Table 9
Exposure Parameter values UMd to Estimate Potential Exposure of
Future Hypothetical Residents While Showering
Parameter Value Reference
Inhalation Rate (IR) O.OU «V«in (a) USEPA 1991
Exposure Tine in the Shower (ET) 12 min (b) USEPA 1989a
Body Surface Area 18,000 of (c) USEPA 1989a
Permeability Constant (PC) chaaical-specific (caShr) (d) USEPA 1992b
Exposure Frequency (EF) 350 days/year (e) USEPA 1991
Exposure Duration (ED) 30 years (f) USEPA 1991
lody Height (BW) 70 kg (g) USEPA 1991
Averaging Tie* (AT)
Carcinogens 365 days/year x 70 years USEPA 1989a
«lonearcino9ens 365 days/year x 30 years USEPA 1989a
(a) RNE inhalation rate for residents (i.e., 20 aiVday) converted to '/in (USEPA 1991).
(b) 90th percentile of time spent showering by adults (USEPA 1989a,b).
(c) 50th percentile of total body surface area of adults (USEPA 1989a,b). The 50th percentile body surface
area was used to correspond to the 50th percentile body weight.
(d) Chewiest-spec) fie dermal permeability constants (PC) obtained from Dermal Exposure Assessment; Principles
and Applications (USEPA 1992b).
(e) RME exposure frequency (assunes 15 days spent sway from home per year) (USEPA 1991).
(f) RNE exposure duration (90th percentile of time spent in one residential location) (USEPA 1991).
(g) 50th percentile body weight for adults (USEPA 1991).
-------
Tabla 9
Chronic Daily Intakat (CDU) Estiaatad for Inhalation by Futurt
Hypothetical Raaidanta of VOC» Ralaaaad fro* Surfact Wattr
Chart cal
Aettont
beta-BNC
1,2-Dichloroathana< total)
4-Hethylphanol
Tatrachloroathana
Triehloroathana
RM
Exposura
Point
Concent ration
(ug/L)
34.0
0.012
45.5
16.0
1.9
13.1
RME EPC
EstiMtad for
Air
-------
Table 9
Exposure Parameter Values Used to EstiMte Potential Exposure of
Future Hypothetical Residents via Incidental Ingestion
of On-Site Surface Soil/Sediaant
Parameter
Value
Reference
Ingestion Rate (IR)
Fraction Ingested from study Area (FI)
Exposure Frequency (EF)
Exposure Duration (ED)
Body Weight (BW)
Averaging Tie* (AT)
Carcinogens
Noncereinogens
120 B8/day(a)
Kb)
350 days/year(c)
SO years(d)
59 kg(e)
365 days/year x 70 years
365 days/year x 30 years
USEPA 1991
USEPA 1989a
USEPA 1991
USEPA 1991, USEPA 1989a
USEPA 1991, 1989a
USEPA 1989a
USEPA 19898
(a) Age adjusted soil ingestion rste assuring combined exposure of a child and adult (USEPA 1991. 1989a).
(b) All »oil/Mdiamt fngestion activities were essuasd to occur en-site. Therefore, the fraction ingestion
froa the site MSS eonservstively essuaed to be 1 (i.e., 100X).
(c) RNE exposure frequency value (assines 15 days spent anay fro* hone per year) (USEPA 1991).
(d) RME exposure duration value (90th percentile of tie* spent in one residential location) (USEPA 1991).
(e) Age adjusted body weight assuring coabined exposure of a child and adult (USEPA 1991, 1989a).
-------
Table 9
Chronic Daily Intakes (CDIsV Estimated for Incidental Ingestion
ef On-Site Soil/Sedioent by Future Hypothetical Residents
Chemical
RME
Exposure
Point
Concentration
(ug/kg)
RNE CO Is
(ag/kg/day)
Carcinogens
Nonearcinogens
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
tndeno(1.2,3-efd)pyrene
490.0
440.0
630.0
220.0
340.0
4.1E-07
3.7E-07
5.3E-07
1.8E-07
2.8E-07
(a) No toxicity criteria Mere available for benzotg.h,i)perylene and phenanthrene; therefore, GDIs Mere not
estimated for theae chemicals.
-------
Table 10
Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Criteria (RfDs) for Chemicals of
Potential Concern at the Cortese Landfill Site
Route/Chemical
Oral Route:
Organ ics:
Acetone
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
T r i ch I oroethene
Inorganics:
Arsenic
Bariun
Beryl 1 inn
Chromium (VI)
Manganese
Mercury
Inhalation Route:
Organics:
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
1 . 2 -0 i ch 1 orobenzene
1 .A -0 i ch 1 orobenzene
1 , 1 -Di chloroethane
Toluene
1. 2, 4-Tri Chlorobenzene
Chronic RfO
(mg/kg/day)
1.0E-1
2.0E-2
9.0E-3
5.0E-3
4.0E-2
1.0E-2
2.0E-1
6.0E-3
3.0E-4
7.0E-2
5.0E-3
5.0E-3
5.0E-3 (water)
1.4E-1 (food)
3.0E-4
5.71E-5
5.0E-3
5.71E-2
2.29E-1
1.43E-1
1.HE-1
2.57E-3
Confidence
LeveUa)
LOU
Medium
...
...
Medium
Medium
Medium
---
Lou
Medium
...
...
...
...
Medium
...
Target
Organ
Liver
Kidney
Liver
Liver
...
...
Liver
Liver
Kidney
Skin
Blood
CMS
CMS
CNS
...
Liver
Kidney
...
Liver
...
Liver
Kidney
Adrena 1
Uncertainties(b)
and Modifying
Factors
UF=1000;
MF=1
UF=1000;
MF=1
UF=1000;
MF=1
UF=100
...
UF=1000;
MF=1
UF=1000;
MF=1
...
UF=1;
HF=1
UF=3;
MF=1
UF=100;
MF=1
UF=500;
MF=1
UF=1;
MF=1
UF=1000
...
UF=10,000;
MF=1
...
UF=100;
MF=1
UF=1000
UF=300;
MF=1
...
Source(c)
IRIS
IRIS
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
(withdrawn)
IRIS
IRIS
ECAO
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRJS
IRIS
HEAST
ECAO
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
No data available
(a) Confidence level, as given by IRIS, which specifies the confidence in the laboratory test used to derive
the toxicity criteria.
(b> Uncertainty factors include adjustments for human sensitivity (10); animal-to-human extrapolation (10);
extrapolation from subchronic to chronic NOAEL; and/or extrapolation from a LOAEL to a NOAEL. Modifying
factors (MFs) are used to adjust the toxicity criteria based on a semi quantitative evaluation of the
quality of the toxicity study.
(c) IRIS (USEPA 1993O; HEAST (USEPA 1993d); ECAO (USEPA 1993b).
-------
Table il
Potential Noncarcinogentc Hazards Associated with Children's Direct
Contact Hith Ponded Surface Uater South of the Landfill, Embayment .Area,
and White's Pond and for Inhalation of VOCs Emitted from Surface Water
Area/Chemical
Delaware River
Manganese
Embayment Area and White's Pond
Organ I cs:
Trichloroethene
Inorganics:
Arsenic
Barium
Manganese
Ponded Surface Water South of the
Organ! cs:
Acetone
1,Z-Dichloroethene (total)
4-Nethylphenol
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Inorganics:
Barium
Manganese
Mercury
RME CDI for
Dermal Absorption
(mg/kg/day)
4.6E-05
1.4E-05
RfD for
Dermal Absorption
(mg/kg/day)
5.0E-03
6.0E-03
1.6E-06 3.0E-04
6.5E-06 7.0E-02
3.1E-04 5.0E-03
Hazard Index:
Total Hazard Index
Landfill
8.4E-07
4.5E-06
8.1E-06
7.0E-06
3.0E-05
for Pathway:
1.0E-01
9.0E-03
S.OE-03
1.0E-OZ
6.0E-03
1.3E-06 7.0E-02
2.1E-05 5.0E-03
9.9E-10 3.0E-M
Hazard Index by Route:
Total Hazard Index
for Pathway:
Hazard Quotient
for Dermal
Absorption
9E-03
2E-03
5E-03
9E-OS
6E-02
7E-02
7E-02
8E-06
5E-04
2E-03
7E-04
5E-03
2E-OS
4E-03
3E-06
1E-02
1E-02
RME CDI for RfD for
Inhalation Inhalation
(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)(a)
... ...
7.8E-07 6.0E-03
Hazard Index by Route:
9.4E-07 1.0E-01
8.7E-06 9.0E-03
1.5E-06 S.OE-03
2.3E-07 1.0E-02
1.8E-06 6.0E-03
Hazard Index by Route:
Hazard
Quotient for
Inhalation
...
1E-04
...
1E-04
9E-06
IE-OS
3E-M
2E-OS
3E-04
...
2E-03
(a) Inhalation RfDs were not available for acetone. 1,2-dlchloroethene, 4-methyIphenol, tetrachloroethene, or trichloroethene; therefore, oral RfDs were used
as surrogates to estimate risks associated with these chemicals.
-------
Table
Potential Noncarcinogenic Hazards Associated uith Incidental Ingestien
of On-Site Soil/Sedinent and Off-Site Sediaant by Children
Area/Cheerical
RME Chronic
Daily Intake
(g/kg/day)
RfO
(g/kg/day)
RfO
Uncertainty
Factor
Hazard
Quotient
On-Site Surface Soil/Sediaent
Toxicity criteria not available for CPCs
Oelanare River
Arsenic
Manganese
8.7E-06
6.4E-04
3.0E-04
1.4E-01
1
1
Hazard Index:
3E-02
SE-03
3E-02
EobavMent Aree and Uhite's Pond
Arsenic
Barim
Berylliu*
Chromiua
Manganese
3.06-06
4.0E-05
5.1E-07
2.5E-06
4.8E-OS
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
5.0E-03
5.0E-03
1.4E-01
1
3
100
500
1
Hazard Index:
1E-02
6E-04
1E-04
SE-Oi
3E-04
1E-02
-------
Table 11
Potential Noncarcinogenfc Hazards Associated with Potential Worst Case VOC Emissions from
Grounduater into Off-Site Basements
Area/Chemical
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichorobenzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Toluene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (total)
ME Chronic
Daily Intake
(a/kg/day)
1.0E-08
2.2E-08
2.4E-09
2.2E-08
2.2E-08
2.9E-09
3.2E-09
Inhalation
RfO
(«g/kg/day)(a)
5.7E-02
2.3E-01
1.4E-01
1.1E-01
2.6E-03
6.0E-03
2.0E+00
Hazard Index:
Hazard
Quotient
2E-07
1E-07
2E-08
2E-07
9E-06
5E-07
2E-09
1E-OS
(a) Inhalation RfDs were not available for trichloroethene or xylenes (total); therefore, oral RfDs uere used
as surrogates for estimating hazards associated with these chemicals.
-------
Table
11
Potential Noncarclnogenlc Hazards Associated with Ingest!on of Grounduater, Dermal
Absorption while Showering and Inhalation of VOCs while Showering Using
Oroundwater from Hypothetical Residential Wells Located at the Cortese Landfill Site
Chemical
Organ! cs:
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
cfs-1,2-Dichloroethene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Inorganics:
Arsenic
Barium
Manganese
RHE COI for
Ingest I on
(mg/kg/day)
9.0E-04
3.0E-03
2.06-04
7.1E-M
3.0E-02
6.6E-03
1.6E-03
1.4E-02
5.9E-01
RHE COI for
Dermal
Absorption
(mg/kg/day)
6.7E-05
5.4E-05
2.5E-05
4.7E-04
S.4E-02
2.7E-03
2.9E-06
2.5E-05
1.1E-03
Haz
RfD for
Ingest ion
ft Derm I Absorption
(mg/kg/day)
2.0E-02
9.0E-03
4.0E-02
1.0E-02
2.0E-01
6.0E-03
3.0E-04
7.0E-02
5.0E-03
ard Index by Route:
Total Hazard Index:
Hazard
Quotient
for
Ingest ion
5E-02
3E-01
5E-03
7E-02
2E-01
1E+00
5E+00
2E-01
1E+02
1E+02
1E+02
Hazard
Quotient
for Dermal
Absorption
3E-03
6E-03
6E-04
5E-02
3E-01
5E-01
1E-02
4E-04
2E-01
1E+00
RNE COI for
Inhalation
(Mg/kg/day)
4.3E-04
6.8E-04
2.4E-03
1.2E-04
4.8E-04
2.4E-02
4.8E-03
*.
RfD
for
Inhalation
(Mg/kg/day)(a)
S.7E-05
S.OE-03
9.0E-03
4.0E-02
1.0E-02
1.1E-01
6.0E-03
*_
Hazard
Quotient
for
Inhalation
.
8E+00
1E-01
3E-01
3E-03
5E-02
2E-01
8E-01
- .
9E+00
(a) No inhalation RfDs Mere available for cls-1,2-dlchloroethene, naphthalene, tetradtloroethene, or trichloroethene; therefor* oral RfOs were used as surrogates
to estimate hazards associated with these chemicals.
-------
Tablall
Potential Moncarcinoganic Hazard* Aaaociatad with Inhalation by Futura
Hypothetical Restdanta <>1 VOCa Ralaaaad from Surfaea watar
Chanicat
Acetone
4-ttethytphenol
Tatrach 1 ore* than*
Trichloroethene
RNE Chronic
Sally Intaka
(«g/fc9/day)
1. 36-05
.tt'Wt
2.0E-05
3.1E-06
2.*£-05
«fO
(B/k0/day)(a)
1.0E-01
.OE-03
5.0E-03
1.0E-02
6.0E-03
RfD
Uneartainty
Factor
1000
1000
1000
1000
Hazard
Quotlant
1E-04
02
4E-03
3E-04
4E-03
Hazard Indax: 2E-02
«to inhalation KfOa war* cvailabla for acatona, 1,2-dichloroathana, 4-«tthanol, tatrachloroathana, or trichloroathana;
tbaraforc, oral KfOs Mar* uud w BurrogatM to astinata hazards associatad with thaaa chanicals.
-------
Table J2
Potential Carcinogenic Risks Associated with Children's Direct
Contact with Ponded Surface Hater South of the landfill, Embayment Area,
and White's Pond and for Inhalation of VOCs Emitted from Surface Water
Chemical
Embayment Area and White's
Organ! cs:
Trichloroethene
Inorganics:
Arsenic
Ponded Surface Water South
Organ! cs:
beta-BHC
Tetrachtoroethene
Trichloroethene
RHE COI
for Dermal
Absorption
(mg/kg/day)
Pond
9.7E-07
1.1E-07
Total Carcinogenic
Total Carcinogenic R
of the Landfill
2.6E-10
5.0E-07
2.1E-06
Total Carcinogenic
Total Carcinogenic R
Slope
Factor
(ing/kg/day)- 1
1.1E-02
1.8E+00
Risk for Route:
sk for Pathway:
1.8E+00
5.2E-02
1.1E-02
Risk for Route:
sk for Pathway:
Potential
Cancer Risk
for Dermal
Absorption
IE-OS
2E-07
2E-07
2E-07
5E-10
3E-08
2E-08
5E-08
SE-08
RHE COI
for
Inhalation
(ing/kg/clay)
S.6E-08
...
Total Carcinogenic
4.SE-11
1.6E-08
1.3E-07
Total Carcinogenic
Slope
Factor for
Inhalation
(mg/kg/day)-1(a)
6.0E-03
...
Risk for Route:
1.8E+00
2.0E-03
6.0E-03
Risk for Route:
Potential
Cancer Risk
for
Inhalation
3E-10
3E-10
8E-11
3E-11
BE- 10
BE- 10
(a) No Inhalation slope factor was available for beta-BHC; therefore, the oral slope factor was used as a surrogate to estimate risk for this chemical.
-------
Table 12
Potential Carcinogenic liska Associated tilth Incidental Ingeation
of On-Site Soi1/SediMsnt and Off-Site Sediaant by Children
CheatcaI
ME Chronic
Daily Intake
Slope
Factor
(ag/kg/day)-1
Height-
of-
Evidence
Potential
Cancer
lick
On-Site Surface Soil/Scdiaant
Polycyclic Aronatic Hydrocarbon*
cnzo
-------
Table 12
Potential Carcinogenic Rick* Associated with Potential Worst Case VOC Emissions from
Grounduater into Off-Site Basements
Chemical
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
Trichloroethene
RME Chronic Slope
Daily Intake Factor
(g/kg/day) (og/kg/day)-1(a)
9.SE-09 2.4E-02
1.2E-09 6.0E-03
Total Carcinogenic Risk:
Potential
Cancer
Risk
2E-10
7E-12
2E-10
(a) No inhalation slope factor was available for 1,4-dichlorobenzene; therefore, the oral slope factor
was used as a surrogate to estimate risk associated with this chemical.
-------
Table 12
Potential Carcinogenic Risks Associated with IngestIon of Groundwater, Dermal
Absorption while Showering and Inhalation of VOCs while Showering Using
Groundwater from Hypothetical Residential Wells Located at the Cortese Landfill Site
Chemical
Organics:
Benzene
1 ,4-Oiehlorobeniene
1.2-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Inorganics:
Arsenic
RNE CDI for
Ingest Ion
(ng/kg/day)
2. 16-04
4.3E-0*
8.2E-06
3.1E-04
2.8E-03
2.1E-0*
6.8E-M
RME CDI for
Dermal
Absorption
( (ng/kg/day)
4.2E-OS
4.8E-05
7.8E-08
2.0E-04
1.2E-03
2.8E-06
1.2E-06
Total Carcinogenic
Total Carcinogenic Rl
Slope Factor
for Ingest Ion
I Dermal Absorption
(mg/kg/day)-1
2.9E-02
2.4E-02
9.1E-02
5.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.9E+00
1.8E+00
Risk by Route:
sk for Pathway:
Potential
Cancer
Risk for
Ingest I on
6E-06
1E-05
7E-07
2E-05
3E-05
4E-04
1E-03
2E-03
2E-03
Potential
Cancer Risk
for Dermal
Absorption
1E-06
1E-06
7E-09
IE-OS
1E-05
5E-06
2E-06
3E-05
RME CDI for
Inhalation
(mg/kg/day)
1.9E-M
2.8E-04
5.9E-06
1.9E-M
2.1E-03
2.1E-04
...
Slope Factor
for
Inhalation
(nig/kg/day)-1(a)
2.9E-02
2.4E-02
9.1E-02
2.0E-03
6.0E-03
3.0E-01
...
Potential
Cancer
Risk for
Inhalation
6E-06
7E-06
SE-07
4E-07
IE-OS
6E-OS
...
9E-05
(a) No inhalation slope factor was available for 1,4-dichlorobenzene; therefore, the oral slope factor was used as a surrogate to estimate risk
associated with this chemical.
-------
Trt.lt 12
Potential Carcinogenic lisk Associated with Inhalation by Future
Hypothetical Resident* of VDCa Released fro* Surface Hater
thcnical (a)
fceta-BKC
Tatrach loroethene
Trichloroethcne
RNE Chronic
Daily intake
(as/kg/day)
3.7E-09
1.JE-06
1.K-05
Slope
Factor
(g/kg/day)-1(a)
1.8E+00
2.0E-03
6.0E-03
Height-
of-
Evidence
C
2/C
82
Potential
Cancer
Risk
7E-09
3E-09
6E-08
Total Carcinogenic Risk: 7E-08
Ca> No Inhalation slope factor Mas available for beta-IHC; therefore, the oral slope factor KM used as a surrogate
to AStinate risk associated itith this chemical.
-------
Table 12
Potential Carcinogenic Risks Associated with Incidental Inge ition
of On-Site Soil/Sediment by Future Hypothetical Residents
Chemical
BenzoC a ) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
BenzoC b) f I uoranthene
Oibenz(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(1,2.3-c,d)pyrene
RUE Chronic
Daily Intake
(mg/kg/day)
4.1E-07
3.7E-07
5.3E-07
1.8E-07
2.8E-07
Slope
Factor
(ng/kg/day)-1
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
7.3E-01
7.3E+00
7.3E-01
Height-
of-
Evidence
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2
Potential
Cancer
Risk
3E-07
3E-06
4E-07
1E-06
2E-07
Total Carcinogenic Risk: SE-06
-------
NEW YORK DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
(10 NYCRR Part 5, Mibpart 8-1,1W2)
tttORGANIC CHEMICALS
AB unto art mliugmim p«r ttv (rag/0
CHEMICAL ' " - -^- v^f^vvxv^-^
Arsenic
Asbestos (Longer than 10 microns)
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrite (as N)
Total Nltrate/Nltrhe
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
^4BASIlb?>^l
7440-38-2
1332-21-4
7440-39-3
7440-43-9 .
744047.3
*
.
14797-65-8
743942-1
743947-6
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
v>Si -i v. '" /" v "" Vh". % /
\ S- '*"w'x>1*v'i>syiCLi^ "
-------
NEW YORK DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
(10 NYCRR Part 6, eubpert 1-1,1M2)
MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS A TURBIDITY
CONTAMINANT
MCL
DETERMINATION OF MCL VIOLATION v
COLIFORM
BACTERIA
Any positive ample
A violation occurs at aystems collecting 40
or more aamplet per month when more than
54) percent of the total coOform aarnpiat are
positive.
A violation occurs at ayatama ooBacUng lass
tnaji 40 samples per month whan two or
more aamplet are total conform positive.
Any positive sample
A violation occurs whan a total conform
positive sample Is positive for Eschariehia
coll (E edl) and a repeat total conform
sample is positive or whan a total conform
positive sample Is negative for Eachanchla
coll (E. coll) but a repeat total conform
aample Is positive and the aampte Is also
positive for Escherlda coll.
Glardia tomb I la.
Viruses, .
Leolonefla. &
Heterotrophic
plats count bacteria:
Treatment technique
requirements In lieu of
MCLs. New York State
filtration rule in effect
3/31/81.
Entry point turbidity
(surface water only)
1 Nephelometnc Turbidity
Units (NTUs)
(Monthly average)
5 NTUs
(Two-consecutive-day
average)
A violation occurs when the average of all
dally entry point analyses for the month
exceeds the MCL rounded off to the nearest
whole number.
A violation occurs when the aberage of two
consecutive dafly entry point analyses
exceeds the MCL rounded off to the nearest
whole number.
Distribution System
Turbidity
5 NTUs
(Monthly average)
A violation occurs when the monthly
average of the results of all distribution
samples collected in any calendar month
exceeds the MCL rounded off to the nearest
whole number.
24-
-------
(10 NYCRR Part 8, tubpart 1-1,1M2)
An units are mmgmira per Bter (mg/0, unless noted otherwise
CHEMICAL ' % "'T'^ ~' "' ' ' %t-^-"^^f
Chloride
Copper
CorrosMty
Iron
Manganese*
Sodium*
SuHate
Zinc
Color
Odor
"^^>7-S^t^V%yif^^₯t:CK >'"< - ':'~
250.0
14)
Nonoonosrve
0.3
0.3
No Designated Umtts
250.0
5.0
15 units
3 units
*H iron and manganese are present, the total concentration of both should not exceed &5 mg/L Higher
levels may be allowed when Justffied by the supplier of water.
*Water containing more than 20 mg/l of sodium should not be used for drinking by people on severely
restricted sodium diets. Water containing more than 270 mg/l of sodium should not be used for
drinking by people on moderately restricted sodium diets.
-25-
-------
TABLE 17
NYSDEC CLASS GA GROUND WATER QUALITY AND EFFLUENT STANDARDS
(6 NYCRR Part 703.6 and 703.6,1991)
AD unKa art mg/l unJeaa atatad otharwfae
PARAMETER
AJachlor
Aldiearfa & Methomyl
Aldrfn
Aluminum
Ametryn
A ^mj»Mui rJr
Arrunocresois
Ammonia and Ammonium
(NH,+NH44 as N)
Arsenic
Atrazine
Azfnphosmethyl
Barium
Benefin
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis(2-cNoroethyl)ether
Bis(2-ethyhexyf)phthalate
Boron
BromacH
Butachlor
Butylate
Cadmium
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon tetrachloride
Carboxin
Chloramben
Chlordane
'>a«ASIIo;V
15972-eo-e
116464;
16752-77*
30*00-2
742&-90-5
834-12-8
95-64-1; 2835-
85-2:2835-0*6
7664-41-7;
12125-02^
7440-38-2
1812-24-9
86-50-0
7440-39-3
1861-40-1
71-43-2
50-32-8
111-44-4
11741-7
7440-424
314-40-9
23184-66-9
2008-41-5
7440-434
13346-2
83-25-2
66-23-5
523448-4
NA
67-744
WATER QUALITY STD.
0.035
00003?
ND
*
0.050
0.001
2,0
0.025
0.0075
0.0044
1J»
0.035
0.0007
ND
0.001
0.050
1.0
0.0044
0.0035
04)50
0.010
0.018
0.029
0.005
0.050
0.0501
0.0001
AFFLUENT STD.
0.035
040035
ND
2.0
*
0450
0.0075
0.0044
2.0
0435
0.0007
ND
0.001
42
0.0044
0.0035
0.020
0.018
0429
0-005
. .
0.0881
0.0001
-26-
-------
TABLE 17 (CONTINUED)
PARAMETER *^~ ~'^>^
Chloride
Chloroform
Chromium
Chromium (hexavalent)
Copper
Cyanide
Dalapon
DDT. DDD, DDE
Diazinon
Dkvbutylphthalate
Dlcamba
(l,4-)«nd(1.2-)
DichJorobenzenes
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyaeetic acid
DieJdrin
Dimethyl tetrachloro-
terephthatate
Diphenamid
Diphenylhydrazines
Endrin
Ethylenethiourea
Ferbam
Ruometuron
Ruoride
Foaming Agents
Folpet
Gross Alpha Radiation
">-**MWb.A*£*
7647-144
67464
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
60-294; 72444;
72-554
833-41-5
64-74-2
1918404
106-46-7;
641-73-1
94-75-1
60-57-1
1661-32-1
95741-7
122-66-7;
530-50-7
72-204
96-45-7
1446444-1
2164-17-2
NA
NA
13347-3
NA
WATER QUAUTYSm
250.0
0.007
0.050
0.050
0.2
0.1
0.050
NO
04007
0.050
0.00044
04047
0.0044
ND
0.050
0.050
ND
ND '
ND
0.0042
0.050
1.5
05
0.050
15pO/l
liFRjilENf 8TD.1
600.0
0.007
*
0.1
1.0
0.4 .
*
ND
04007
0.770
0.00044
04047
0.0044
ND
'
ND
ND
ND
0.0042
3.0
14*
0.056
-
-27-
-------
TABLE 17 (CONTINUED)
PARAMETER C i-^^^
Gross Beta Radiation
Heptachlorand HtptaeNor
epoodde
Hexaehlorobenzene
Hexachlorocydohexanes
Ltm^em nKI ju JuiJuL n_n.
nexBcnioropnene
Hexazlnone
Iran
Iron and Manganese
Kepone
Lead
MaJathion
Mancozeb
Maneb
Manganese
Mercury
Methoxychlor
2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic acid
Methyl methacrylate
Metribuzin
Nabam
Nickel
Nttralin
Nitrate (expressed as N)
Nitrate and Nitrite (expressed
asN)
NkrBotriacetic add
Nitrite
01 and Grease *=:"
^^Ottlte.*^
NA
76-44^; 102447^
118-74-1
68«*, S1»64-6;
81M5-7; 319-86-
fl; 6106-10-7^08-
73-1
70^30-4
61235-04-2
NA
NA
143-50O
NA
121-75-5
801841-7
12427-38-2
NA
NA
72-43-5
»4-7+6
80-62-6
21087-64-9
142-594
NA
4726-14-1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
WATER OUALTTYSTD.
1000 pQ/l
NO
0.00035
ND
.
0.050
0.300
QJSOO
NO
0.025
0.0070
0.0018
0.0018
0.300
0.002
0.035
0.00044
0.050
0.050
0.0018
0.035
10,0
0.003*
10.0
CFFUIENT8TD.
ND
0.00035
ND
0.007
.
0.6
.
ND
0.050
0.007
0.0018
0.0018
0.6"
0.004
0435
0.00044
0.7
.
0.0018
2.0
0.035
20.0
0.003*
.
15.0
-------
TABLE 17 (CONTINUED)
PARAMETER '""'- AV
Oxamyl
Paraquat
Parathton and Methyl
parathton
Pantachloronltrobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
PH
Phenol
Phenolic compounds
(total phenols)
Phenols, total chlorinated
Phorate and Disulfoton
Pidoram .
Polychlorinated blphenyls
Principal organic contaminant
Prometon
Propachlor
Propanfl
Propazine
Propham
Radium 226
Radium 226 & 226
Selenium
Silver
Simazine
Sodium
Styrene
Sutfate
Suffide
Tebuthluron*
^fcAStibV;N:
23135-22-0
4685-14-7
66-38-2; 298-004
82-68-8
8746-5
NA
108-95-2 '
NA
NA
298-02-2; 298-04-4
NA
NA
NA
1610-184
1918-16-7
709-984
139-40-2
122-42-9
NA
NA
NA
NA
122-344
NA
10042-5
NA
NA
84014-18-1 '*
WATER QUALITY STD?I
0.050
6.0030
0.0015
ND
04)01
0.001
04)01
0.001
ND
0.0501
0.0001
0.005
0.050
0.035
0.007
0.016
0.050
apci/i
5 pa/i
0.010
0.050
0.050
20.0
04)50 .
250.0
-B>
0.050
limjlNTSTO^
0.003
04)015
ND
6«eNote6
-
0.002
-
ND
.
0.0001
0.035
0.007
0.016
* .
0.040
0.1
0.075
0.930
500.0
1.0
29-
-------
TABLE 17 (CONTINUED)
tlABAUC^ED s ;:..' ,' , t /-'<&,
PAnAMcl crl ,*.- ' ~\««>
TerbacH
2^,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-
p-dtodn
Tttrachlorotere-
phthatic acid
Thlram
Toxaphene
Trlehloroethylene
2,4,5-
Trfchlorophenoxyaeetic acid
2,4,5-
Tfchlorophenoxypropionic
old
Trtfiuralin
Uranyl ton
Vinyl chloride
Zinc
Zneb
Ziram
v&.w1"' '.»//'/ .
"** ^."Wlo rlO. ^ "**;
8902-51-2
174641-6
2136-7W)
1374&8
8001*35-2
7M1-6
83-764
83-72-1
1582-OM
NA
7501-4
NA
12122-67-7
137-30-4
^ttf AWB 'JP^JIAI VW AVff% ^
-------
Me* 1994
Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
Pegel
Slenderdt
MCLQ
(mgA)
MCL
(ma/Q
StMlM
HA
- *-: . flA il ci ! *
tiMnn Aoviton**
10*9 CMM
On*-«t*y
(mo/It
Longer*.
70*9 AduH
longer*
term
MD
(rtigAig/
OWEt
Ufetlme
Cancer Mtfc
Center
Qroup
OROANICS
Acmuorten
Acrytomide
Adlpate (tfiethyttwxvl)
AMfcarb
AM^rfitforl*
AMteerb suHoxide
Atritiitt'
Bayoon
..
Ben>(e)»ntrv»cene (PAH)
Bentene ,-
Ben»(e)pyrene (PAH)
Bento(9.h.ilpefvtefW (PAH)
bfe-2-Chtoroisopropyl ether
Bromoberaene
F
'T
r
*»*
tero
TT
0.4
0.4
0.002
0.007 0.007
O.O07V 0.007
0.007 0.007
S&f VVJV ' % ' %*$*? V
' y * ' ' t
0.003 0.003
tero 0.0001
jero O.OOS
nro 0.0002
tern 0.0002
0.0002
r
F
F
b
o
o
F
F
F
F
F
D
2
0.2
*
20
0.1
2
0.2
20
i
0.001
Wft
0.009
s.2d,
0.3
fijM
0.004
13 0.04
0.04
;>/-
20 0.4
0.001
3
B2
0.035 0.007
0.035 0.007 -
Wl^?^
0.3 ' 0.08
0.1 0.003
0.1
0.3
c
0 ^j
82'
Ar-
B2*
B2,;
D
B2
D
Under review.
MOTcs AnttVeMvOno 9fto U6fttofQ«fi«l
InPhMeV.
NOTE: Changes from the tost version an noted In Hade and BoM Face print
-------
Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
May 1994
I»«0t2
ChemJcatt
Standard*
Stctut
Rag.
MCLG
tmg/ll
MCL
Status
HA
MflMth AovMoriM
10-ho CMM
fmg/ll
Tarnlar
fmg/ll
Longar-
tarm
(rng/0
70-lig AduH
Longar-
tarm
RID
mgAg
dayl
OWtt
Ufattn*
(mgt)
mart at id4
CaricarRfek
Canear
Gnw0
IrornocMoroacetonitrile
Bronx
Bromomethane
Butyl bftttyi phHttltie 1t>m
Butytote
*$ - -. >A«
CaYDavyt
Carbon
ChtonJanB
a**oo*»i#**«im* trm
CMoroethane
CMoiomethaoe
CMdiopnUnrjl
suHMe/MJHonefeuMoxkto
Oi
CnibnnolMtMi 6-
Chtarotokiene p-
CI4oi|iy i if os
Chrysene (PAHI
t
f
T
nro 0.1*10.08*
tm 0.1
0.64 O.tf*
tere 0.005
>Vi ° *
O.002
iwo
ZCfO
0001
0.0002
D
f
0
D
F
0
0
F
#
F
r
D
D
0
F
f
*.s
.-f ..
F
60
7
5
0.1
6.0S
4
1
7
^
0.06
7
4
9
0,0*
0.2
'I--
2
0 03
7
i-Vv-
0.1
..^..V
2
0.2
I,*
1.4
3, ;"
0.06
4
0.4
4
2
0.1
1
2 ''
2 2
0.63 0.0ft
13
6
0.5
0.3
4'
O.6
0.5
f
7
0.1
0.02
0.0*
0.001
0.7
' ftf
0.04
.06
>» -0.4 -
0.05
0.01
JO* *
0.35
0.0007 03
^W^^^
0.0002 O.07 O.O8
^.dts; ' &:wv
0.00006 0.002
0.004
0.1
6.003
0.016 0.5
04OJ-' ^ «f
0.02 ' * 0.7 0.1
82
vKi
O
T
D
0.003
D
ts
2
j(*
'lf
C
tt
B2
OJ5
0
A,
B2
f
0
e ?
B2
Current MCI * 7M*Ar«W7Jl
A HA will not bed
Ifa toiia^iM^ coaaaf ajrtaaW l»» OLOg
-------
May 1994
Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
Pag* 3
Standards
Status
ft*.
MCtO
Statin
HA
10-kgChM
Tefrday
Img/ll
longar-
tarm
70-hgAduK
LongaN
tarm
Imgff)
HID
ntffto
day)
Uadrn*
Ctacarftlsfc
Group
Cyanogen cMorkte
Cyrnentfp- - ..
2.40
Oiazinon
Mw
tonitrla
IMbrornomettiina
DicHonMOMic add
OicNoratwraene o-
OtoMorobenzene p-
DteMoToettune fl.1-1
Dtchteroethytene 11.1-1
fcSt^^
DicMonxthylenB (trara-1,2-|
OicMorohernl 12.4-1
CNcMorc
w II .2-1
DicMdrbpropane (1.3-t
t
F 0.07
f " 0.2 "
0.07
-
0.2
0.4
TI'
f * nro OL«T»
^T^-r - ';
F 0.6 0.6
?J'0.«%VJ'0,6
F 0.075 0.076
U
L
F .007 0.007
r mot, 0.0*
F 0.1 0.1
/F ;,-.:^r^ 0.00$
F
I
nro 0.005
..'... :-?..
6
F
F
it
F
D
r
t
F
F
f '
F
'F
O
D
F
1
*r;/
3
20' * ''
0.02
0.3
eo
3
0.3
;,>v
1
V* £>
9
9
10
20
10
0.03
2
O.OS
O.3
9
'-9
10
0.7
1
3
2
2
0.03
O.O9
0.1
6
0.3
20 20
0.02 0.005
0.4
20 {'
0.9
so , '
0.02
0.3
1
oi
9
9
10
9
1
3
2
0.03
4
11
6
O.1
0.01
0.4 0.07
-O.B-', ,iO'^f4^
0.026 0.9 0.2
0.6.^ r, : to '-m W
0.00009 0.003 0.0006
0.02
0.8
S
0.02
0.009
0.02
«4I§,,
0.003
0.4
0.4
0.6
J
0.1
₯?!(?&
0.007
0.1
y/
0.02
0.06
k-
o
E
82
C
M
D
0
O
»
B2
fr
D
D
C
D
B2
C
0
D
82
D
*
82
The values for nvdicMorobert
'Total for i
based on data for o-dfchtorobenzene.
10.06 ami.
-------
Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
May 1994
Cnemteatt
StiHit
Reg.
MCLG
(mg/l)
JMCl
Img/l)
Statin
HA
104tg CMM
Longw-
term
70-hoAduH
Longw-
mo
mo
dayl
OWO.
(mgfll;
(mgffl
Canctir Rtsfc
Group
DfcMoropropane (2.2-1
|)9itli0tot6 fPAcI
DfeiMhexyl phthalate (PAQ
DhiMthiin
***.*. ...4.** :&M«mae&MSiisasgjaeMitMt±
iMneinyi iiwiirf QJIIUSIJIMHIB
Dknethvl phth»Ut» (PAEI
DMtrotohnne 12.4
to 2.6 A 2.4 dWtrotoluene
DtntfSet - ',.
Dtoxanep-
DiphenylBmlne
Disuffoton
Diuron
OTOfifl
epJcr*jrrJlirJfoM^^^
Ethylbenzene
Eibywoft i
Ethytene otycol
Fenamiphot
L
L
T
F nro 0.006
* ** > W.
F 0.002 0.002
r ierd , TT
F 0.7 O.7
F vM O.OOObS
O
d
F
'FV
0
0
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
«
F
F
F
F
F
t
r
t
F
F
F
0.03 0.03 0.03
O.OOOS 0.0008 0.0006
8 ? '" V *
10 10 10
2 ', 2^ 2
0.04
0.30
0.40
. >v ^vyy ;
0.09 0.0003 0.01
0.002 * 0.00005
0.8 30
Mr
«o
0.50
0.40
OJ f
4
0.8
1
f
0.01
0.4
1
0.50
0.40
0.02
0.1
30
0.4
0.3
1
t
0.01
.4
1
»:«
0.02
0.1
3
o.btfS o.ddfi
20
0.3
6
0.3
0.3
0.003
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.003
0.07
1
k ' '
6
0.1
O.O09 O.OO9 O.OOS
0.2 r
0.01
0.07
3
* **
20
0.4
O.02
0.02
0.0002"
0.02
o:o
'0.3
0.7
rva -
10
0.3
0.002
0.1
0.03
1
0.2
0.009 0.00004 0.001 0.0003
0.$ 0.002 0.07 0.01
0.008
^,{. ^
0.7"
'0.7 - ?*
0.0003 o.oi
«K002 ' * - '
0.1 3
0.62
, ,; *'
"" 6.7
40 7
o.ooar /^7
0.00025 0.009 0.002
B2
B2
O
i
B2
b
B2
D
D
e
E
0
D
0
D
02
0
02
D
02
O
Under review. * * A HA win not be developed due to Insufficient data; a 'Database Deficiency Report' has been published.
tg technical grade
-------
Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
May 1994
Standard!
StBtUfl
Reo.
MCLQ
MCL
StMin
MA
Health AdvltoHo
10-kBChHd
OfM-day
Longer*
term
|mg/H
70-kgAduH
Longer*
term:
MD
owa
(rngfl)
Cancer Wife
Cinew
Group
Fluometron
Fluorene (PAH)
Fog Oil
Fonbfos
(tow***!
GlyphoMte
HeptacMor epoxWe
, f. ^
I toxacNorobutadiena
HexacNoroetttam
ttoxane(n>) ,;-,
Hexarinone
HMX »' »*x i"'NV|^*>",<" >v
lndeno(1.2.3.-c.d|pyrane (PAH)
Undane
Maiathtort ..
MaMc hytfruMe
MCPA
Methoxychtof ;'". '^
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl parathkNl "
F 0.7
F
F
0.7
0.0004
0.0002
0.001
T 0.001
?* fS'p.o6/
i "'"-
P tero 0.0004
I :
0.0002 0.0002
0.04 , 0.04
F
0
F
D
D
O
F
D
D
F
F
'F
0.02
10
6
10
3
B
16
30
»
1
0.2
10
0.1
0.3
0.0$
0.3
S
it *
20
0.01
20
0.01
0.01
0.06 0.06
0.3 0.3
7 3
0.02, 0.02
6
* ..
1
0.006
0.0001
0.06
0.1
0.1
3
6
16
30
0.03
0.2
6
0.1
0.3
0.06
0.03
B
«
3
1* "
30
1
0,2
10
0.1
0.3
0.06
5
10
0.013
0.04
b.s
0.4
'0,0*
o.or
ZO 0.16
100
0.1
as
ZO
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 4.0
- o :<%:^ ',>>
0.0003 6.01
o-.Oit-^'oJ
0.6 20
'JMKW4.MI4W
0.026 0.9
0.7
---'f '
0.0002
.a,* jj
4
0.2
81
'- V
- \
«
82
c
c
82
-t -
D
J" '< ,
C '
«*>\
D
=-*i
o
i
nder review.
-------
Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
May 1994
CtMmfcflb
StMdanfs
Sfatw
MCIG
Img/ll
MCt
StMlM
HA
10*g ChM
ImgKI
(rngfll
LiMgw-
7040 A«Mt
term
(rngfl)
urn
Mcttvyl twt Duty* clfwf
iAJk^^^^a-^ ' '
MQlOUIClPQf - .. .
NitroccMuiOM fnonJ
NUrophenot p-
ttanttfl IVWifir
PeirtatKurophenot
I
r»
t
F Oil 0.1
0.2
f nro 0.001
(PCBsl
F tero 0.0005
Pnxumtde
Pnip^Mof, *^'-v-!
Prt
mzene n-
ROX
SMrf
Styfcno
..*
2.3.7.i-ttOO
,«-/ '^ /:( - -1-
F OOM OOO4
F 6.1 0.1
'V'''^-"'" .-.'.;."
F nro 3E-O8
b
F
?1>
F
"i
O
3
2
5
3 O.S
j -**'"2
6 0.3
A % *
2 2 2
0.8
0.2
0.1
v. *
1
' "**
*
8
0.8
«,!*
0.1
V*
0.3
-x f
« ;
8
0.8
0,2'
0.05
. -
0.3
'\ .,<
' *
6
0.8 0.8
n.r.""'d.« *;s
1 1
6 '*'-
if f *
* ^ s
0.1 0.1
o.or owv
20 2
OJ , OJ f
1E-08 1E-07
0.8
-w
0.5
»'
^ * ,
0.1
2
0
0.9
0.005
6.025
7 0.02
f ff^ voi
3
o
0.2
»
1
zo
0.008
wn»?
0.0045
^:>'
0.03
e; v
b.e"
O.3
o;»
0.2
r
1
3 0.075
0.8";'
2 0.02
3
U
0.7
0.003
0.4
0.07!,
7 '6.2
0.04
0.2
0.2
6.9
< ,' ,' > \ X'
0.7 0.1
' >AS 0:1 "
0.08
nBi:i
0.03
IE-OS
4E-08 1E-09
.1
O
7
4E-08
0.05
lWi
0.01
j > ^
0.002
0.1
0.03
0.0005
< - *
0
t
e
2
:«
D
R
B2
*s'
c
B>
c
;03
2E-O8
C
*J
C
-------
Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
May 1994
Page?
Chart**.
Tebuthiuron
Terbacfl
Terbufos
T^tiAuwMMUxane 11,1,1.2 1 ,
retracMwoetliane (1,1,2,2-1
reujciaoroetnyieoB , ,,
1 6lf MM VOfTMinBIIQ
Toluene -t> -;*,* ,.
rox49pn6n0
2.4,6-tl»
1.1.2.TricWoro-1.2.2
trifluoroethane
ilaHOCoacenc MM __ . -..?,,,
TncNoroacetonitnle
TtfWvwHHHttew d,Z<44 ^
-------
Mar 1994
Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
Standards
Reg.
MCtO
Met
JStatus
HA
...
On»-d*y
term
(mg/l)
t«rm
(mo/It
RfO
trtvd.
iftetin*
Wtfc
Cttber
Group
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Ammonia/
Antimony
Arsenic ' - *. -~ -
Asbestos (fibers/I >1Qpm
Vonpth)
Barium «, '** <**<*"
BeryWum
Cnlorino
Chlorite
mm
Copper
Fluoride*
Hy
ROTOUS Ado
Le«d tot tap)
Manganese
Nickel
Nitrate las N)
I
* 4 ""*/-
F 0.006 0.006
- 0.05
F 7MFL 7MFL
F
F
L
T
t
L
F
F
P
F
T
T
F
L
0.004 0.004
fc" - ^ ''*''"
% 'O.OOST5 0.008
; 4
0.09
0.1
1.3
0,2
4
4'
4'
F
L
F 0;
F 10
OJB8I"
10
0
0
F
D
O
O
0
D
F
D
F
0.01
30
4
0.01 0.01
30
o.r
0.2
4
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.08 0.01
io» '""".
0.015 0.0004
. < :-
20
0.005
0.12
0.141
0.005
O.(»r 0.6003
0.05 0.005
1.6
0.01 0.003
0.2
1 0.1 3.3
0.08
. '^'ft»f
0.003 0.9
OJ -
0.2
700MFL
0.0008
O
A
B2
O.O8
0
6
o
0.04
Under revtew. Copper - action level 1.3 moA; te«d- action level 0.015 moA. Measured as free chlorine. ' Reoutatad as cMorina.
-------
Prinking Water Standards and Health Advisories
May 1994
Page 9
, -
Nitrite (as N)
NitratO 4 NrtfiW{b6ttia$N)
Selenium
Stiver ^->-r ,
Sodium
Strontium ' ', , , ,
SuHate
Thallium >" * Z^>- - '
Vanadium
White pholpnotffui '\ !'"i"'-- ' "
Zinc
Zinc tMoritfe (measured a$ fttcl
RAOIONUCLIDES
it*** tuwtifti* ttftri «Khftwt -.-'
DQio parnci£ am fjfNpHnv
activity (formerly
man-made radkktutfid**}
Gross alpha particle activity
Radium 226
Radium 228
Radon
Uranium
Startdardt
Statin MC
Reg. |m
F 1
F 10
LG MCL
0/11 (mg/«
1
10 -"
F 0.05 0.05
.
i
P
-
.
F 0,000$ 0.002
L
*
L
t
P 7«
.
.
-
i ' '
4
!"'
0.005
:0.00B x"
.
x'o'.C f/"1'
*
\ ijjflQooy*
.
owa
, fmg/l)
-
f-V- ^^V-
^dJ'" ' ' -
20
^^0 . '»
*
£*$flfl$j9
.
Ufatlm*
CmflflJ
^ S ?^ * ^% '
b;t?r"-
.
l# ''* ;
.
0,0004
.
man « to"
oancar nnR
.
"' :-- \\"C"
.
- " ^-' ,
.
x - » "">->'
.
' '* --^ ^ ""^ %
.
ro.ot)o«r--
-------
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels
May 1994 Page 10
Chemicals
Aluminum
Chloride
Color
Copper
Corrosivlty
Fluoride*
Foaming agents
Irori
Manganese
Odor '::SSiH-%',-
PH
Sliver '-:'y ^M^^- :: .
Sulfate
Total dissolved solids (IDS)
Zinc
Status
F
F
F
.F '
F
F
F
F
F
.-.'.'' F >
F
F
F
"F ':::;
F
y il^MCbi (mga)
0.05 to 0.2
250 \ // -;'
1 5 color units
1*0 -A^''.
non-corrosive
2.0 :-/':~r\''"r
0.5
°'3 Vl'.
0.05
3 threshold odor numbers
6.5 - 8.5
0,1
250
;):::o'v"; 500 ^:"1§
5
Status Codes: P proposed, F final
* Under review.
-------
Microbiology
May 1994
Page 11
: i ':: ' ' ' '. :- '..
Cryptosporidium
Gfardfa lamblia
Legtonella
Standard Plate Count
Total Conforms (after 12/31/90)
Turbidity (after 1 2/31/90)
Viruses
Status
L
::;||i^|lg;.
F»
F*
F
F
F*
MCLG
-
^.ffzerb '
zero
NA
zero
NA
zero
iSwdti,
-
TT
TT
:' TT'
-V IPS" :-"
TT
Key: PS, TT, F, defined as previously stated.
Final for systems using surface water; also being considered for
regulation under groundwater disinfection rule.
-------
APPENDIX HI
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
CORTESE LANDFILL SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.1 Background - RCRA and other information
P. 100001 - Guidance Document: Air/Suoerfund National
100067 Technical Guidance Study Series. Assessing
Potential Indoor Air Impacts for Superfund
Sites, prepared by Office of Air Quality
Standards, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, September 1992.
P. 100068 - Report: Potential Hazardous Waste Site Tentative
100069 Disposition. Cortese Landfill. Hamlet of
Narrovsburg. Town of Tusten. New York, prepared by
Ms. Margery Jacobs, U.S. EPA, June 30, 1981.
P. 100070 - Report: Potential Hazardous Waste Site Tentative
100071 Disposition. Cortese (Tusteni Sanitary Landfill.
Hamlet of Narrovsburg. Town of Tusten. Sullivan
County. New York, prepared by Mr. George B. Radan,
U.S. EPA, May 20, 1980.
P. 100072 - Log Sheet: Potential Hazardous Waste Site Log.
100085 prepared by Mr. George B. Radan, U.S. EPA,
February 26, 1980. Attached Report:
Potential Hazardous Waste Site Site Inspection
Report. prepared by U.S. EPA, December 17, 1979.
P. 100086 - Report: Hazardous Waste Site Status. Tusten
100087 Landfill (Cortese). Hamlet of Narrowsburg. Town of
Tusten. New York, prepared by Mr. George B. Radan,
December 17, 1979.
P. 100088 - Report: Cortese Landfill. April 11, 1979.
100089
1.2 Notification/Sit* Inspection Reports
P. 100090 - Report: Site Identification. Tusten Landfill
100092 (Cortese). Hamlet of Narrovsburg. Town of
Tusten. New York, undated.
-------
1.3 Preliminary Assessment Reports
P. 100093 - Report: Potential Hazardous Waste Site
100100 Identification and Preliminary Assessment. Tusten
Landfill f Cortese) . Hamlet of Narrowsburo. Town of
Tusten. New York, prepared by U.S. EPA, December
17, 1979.
1.4 Site Investigation Reports
P. 100101 - Report: Site Analysis. Cortese Landfill.
100116 Narrowsburcr . New York, prepared by U.S. EPA,
December 1990.
P.
P.
100117 - Report: Hazardous Waste Site Investigation
100159 Report. Tusten f Cortese 1 Landfill. Hamlet of
Karrowsburcr. Sullivan County. New York, prepared
by Emergency Response and Hazardous Materials
Inspection Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, Edison,
Mew Jersey, December 17, 1979.
100160 - Report: Cortese Landfill Site Visit. Tuesday &
100163 Wednesday. July 16-17. 1991. prepared by Mr. Mark
Granger, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA,
undated.
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
P. 300001 - Letter to Mr. Mark Granger, Remedial Project
300004 Manager, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
U.S. EPA, from Mr. Stephen T. Joyce, Group
Remedial Projects Manager, Haste Management of
North America - East, re: Administrative Order on
Consent, Index ill CERCLA-00217, Cortese Landfill
Superfund Site: Sampling of Subsurface Soils in
the Vicinity of the Septage Lagoons, May 21, 1993.
Attached: Letter to Mr. Stephen Joyce, SCA
Services, Inc., from Mr. Robert M. Glazier, Senior
Geochemist, and Mr. P. Stephen Finn, C. Eng.,
Associate, Colder Associates Inc., re: Sampling
of Subsurface Soils in the Septage Lagoons,
Cortese Landfill Site, Narrowsburg, New York, May
14, 1993.
-------
300005 - Letter to Mr. Stephen Joyce, Waste Management of
300007 North America, Inc., from Ms. Carole Peterson,
Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
U.S. EPA, re: Comments on Cortese Landfill SAP
(FSP and QAPjP), Revision I, February 12, 1993.
300008 - Report: Field Sampling Plan. Health and Safety
300227 Plan, and Quality Assurance Project Plan. Cortese
Landfill. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study. Revision l. prepared by Colder Associates
Inc., prepared for SCA Services, Inc., December
1992.
/
300228 - Report: Quality Assurance Project Plan.
300801 Appendices. Cortese Landfill. Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study. Revision 1.
prepared by Colder Associates Inc., prepared for
SCA Services, Inc., December 1992.
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 300802 - Report: Comparative Review of Split Sample Data.
300837 Remedial Investigation. Cortese Landfill, prepared
by TRC Environmental Corporation, prepared for
U.S. EPA, January 7, 1994.
3.3 Work Plans
P. 300838 - Report: RI/FS Work Plan. Cortese Landfill Site.
300945 Narrowsbura. New York. Revision 2. prepared by
Colder Associates Inc., prepared for SCA Services,
Inc., August 1992.
P. 300946 - Report: Phase II RI Workplan. Cortese Site.
301069 Narrowsburo. New York, prepared by Colder
Associates Inc., prepared for Waste Management of
North America, Inc., October 1987.
3.4 Remedial investigation Reports
P. 301070 - Report: Environmental Evaluation Report for the
301192 Cortese Landfill Site. Sullivan County. New York.
prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., prepared for Colder
Associates Inc., May 16, 1994.
P. 301193 - Report: Transport of Soil Gas into Residential
' 301284 Structures Adjacent to the Cortese Landfill and
Associated Maximum Potential Human Health Risks.
prepared by Colder Associates Inc., prepared for
SCA Services, Inc., February 1994.
-------
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
301285
302288
302289
302382
302383
302523
302524
302823
302824
302931
302932
303333
Report : Revised Phase III. Remedial Investigation
Report. Cortese Landfill Site. Narrovsbura. New
prepared by Colder Associates Inc., prepared
for SCA Services Inc., January 1994. (Attached:
Appendices A - I)
Report : Field Oversight Summary Report. Cortese
Landfill. Sullivan County. New York. RI/FS
Compliance Oversight, prepared by TRC
Environmental Corporation, prepared for U.S. EPA,
July 2, 1993.
Report:
Program.
Field Oversight Summary Report. Test Pit
Cortese Landfill. Sullivan County. New
York. RI/FS Compliance Oversight, prepared by
Alliance Technologies Corporation, prepared for
U.S. EPA, April 23, 1992.
Report: Final Report on Test Pit Program. Cortese
Landfill Site. Narrowsbura. New York, prepared by
Colder Associates Inc., prepared for SCA Services,
Inc., June 1991.
Report: Soil Gas Survey Phase I. Cortese
Landfill. Narrovsbura. New York. Volume I of II.
prepared by Colder Associates Inc., prepared for
SCA Services, Inc., March 1990.
Report: Final Report on Phase II Remedial
Investigation. Cortese Landfill Site. Narrovsbura.
New York. Volume l of 2. prepared by Colder
Associates Inc., prepared for Waste Management of
North America, Inc., August 1988.
P. 303334
303703
Report: Final Report on Phase II Remedial
Investigation. Cortese Landfill Site. Narrovsbura.
New York. Volume 2 of 2. prepared by Colder
Associates Inc., prepared for Waste Management of
North America, Inc., August 1988.
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.3 Administrative Orders
P. 700001- Administrative Order on Consent, Index No. II
700031 CERCLA-00217, September 28, 1990.
-------
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 Health Assessments
P. 800001 Report: Human Health Baseline Risk Assessment for
800111 the Cortese Landfill Site. Sullivan County. New
York, prepared by Tetra Tech, Inc., prepared for
Colder Associates Inc., May 16, 1994.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 Community Relations Plan
P. 1000001 - Report: Community Relations Plan. Community
1000036 Relations Support. Cortese Landfill. Narrowsbura.
New York, prepared by TRC Environmental
Corporation, prepared for U.S. EPA, October 4,
1993.
10.9 Proposed Plan
P. 1000037 - Plan: Suoerfund Proposed Plan. Cortese Landfill
1000050 Site. Narrowsbura. Sullivan County. New York.
prepared by U.S. EPA, Region II, July 1994.
-------
APPENDIX IV
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
3EP-27-1994 13:32 FROM NYS.ENUIR.CONSERUftTION
TO
88549262122647611
P. 02
New York State Jepartrrwnt of Environmental Conservation
SO Wolf Hoed. Albany, W»w York 12233-7010
rSEP 2 7 199%
. Ms. Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 1O278
Re: Cortese Landfill Site ID No. 353001
Dear Ms. Fox:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the
draft final Record of Decision (ROD) for the Cortese Landfill site and concurs with the
remedy outlined in the Declaration for the ROD.
if you have any questions, please contact Jonathan Greco, of my staff, at (518)
457-3976.
Sincerely,
cc: A. Carlson, NYSDOH
bee: A. DeBarbieri (2)
M. OToole (2)
C. Goddard
S. Ervolina
M. Chen/File
J. Greco
Arm HOI DeBarbieri
Deputy Commissioner
Office of Environmental Remediation
TOTftL P.02
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE REMEDIAL ACTION
AT THE
CORTESE LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
NARROWSBURG, NEW YORK
Section Page
INTRODUCTION 1
I. OVERVIEW 2
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS 3
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS AND
RESPONSES 4
A. SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FROM THE
PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING THE CORTESE LANDFILL
SUPERFUND SITE 4
B. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CONCERNING THE CORTESE LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE 7
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
CORTESE LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
TOWN OF NARROWSBURG, NEW YORK
INTRODUCTION
This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of citizen's
comments and concerns and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's ("EPA") responses to those comments regarding the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") Reports and
Proposed Plan for the Cortese Landfill Site ("Site"). EPA, in
consultation with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation ("NYSDEC"), will select a final cleanup remedy for
the Cortese Landfill Site only after reviewing and considering
all public comments received during the public comment period.
EPA held a public comment period from July 29, 1994 through
August 27, 1994 to provide interested parties with the
opportunity to comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan for the
Site. A public meeting was held to discuss the remedial
alternatives described in the FS and to present EPA's preferred
remedial alternative for controlling contamination at the Site.
The meeting was held at the Tusten Town Hall, Narrowsburg, New
York on August 16, 1994 at 7:00 p.m.
This community relations responsiveness summary is divided into
the following sections:
I. OVERVIEW: This section briefly outlines the EPA's
preferred remedial alternative.
II. BACKGROUND: This section provides a brief history of
community concerns and interests regarding the Site.
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
CONCERNS AND RESPONSES: This section summarizes oral
and written comments received by EPA at the public
meeting for the Site.
-------
I. OVERVIEW
At the time of the public comment period, EPA published its
preferred alternative for the Site located in the Town of
Narrowsburg, New York. EPA generally prefers treatment or
removal technologies which reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of waste contaminants.
EPA screened possible alternatives, giving consideration to the
following nine key criteria:
Threshold Criteria, including:
overall protection of human health and the environment;
and
compliance with Federal, State, and local environmental
and health laws.
Balancing Criteria, including:
long-term effectiveness;
short-term effectiveness;
reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume;
ability to implement; and
cost.
Modifying Criteria, including;
state acceptance; and
local acceptance.
EPA weighed State and local acceptance of the remedy prior to
reaching the final decision regarding the remedy for the Site.
The Agency's selected alternative for cleaning up contaminated
ground water at the Site is Alternative 6 (landfill cap, drum
removal, ground-water extraction/treatment). Based on current
information, the preferred alternative provides the best balance
of trade-offs from among the alternatives with respect to the
nine criteria that EPA uses for evaluation.
-------
II. BACKGROUND
Community concern regarding the Site appears to be relatively
high. In general, key concerns are related to the effects of
ground-water contamination on drinking water and the Delaware
River, the economic effects of site cleanup, and the length and
complexity of the Superfund process.
EPA's community relations efforts included the following. On
March 22 and 23, 1993, EPA met with local officials and
interested citizens to initiate community involvement and discuss
their concerns regarding the Site. A community relations plan
(CRP) was formulated, including an outline of community concerns,
required and suggested community relations activities, and a
comprehensive list of federal, state, and local contacts. A
written CRP was finalized in October 1993 and Site information
repositories were established, one located at the EPA Region II
office in New York City and the other located at the Tusten-
Cochecton Library in Narrowsburg, New York. The information
repositories, which contain the RI/FS Report and other relevant
documents, were updated periodically. Additionally, the EPA
Proposed Plan, describing the Agency's proposed remedial action
for the Site, was sent to the information repositories and
distributed to citizens and officials on EPA's Site mailing list
for review.
To obtain public input on the RI/FS and the proposed remedy, EPA
held a public comment period from July 29, 1994 to August 27,
1994. A public meeting notice appeared in the July 29, 1994
edition of the Sullivan County Democrat, and a public meeting was
held on August 16, 1994. Approximately 40 people attended the
meeting. The audience consisted of local business people,
residents, and state and local government officials. The
question and answer session lasted approximately 35 minutes,
during which time comments/questions were presented pertaining to
the following issues: drinking water contamination, cleanup
schedule, remedy implementation, and Site-related risks. A
summary of these comments/questions is provided in Section III-A.
-------
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS. COMMENTS. CONCERNS
AND RESPONSES
This section addresses written and verbal comments received by
EPA during the public comment period (July 29, 1994 to August 27,
1994).
A. SUMMARY OF QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FROM THE
PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING THE CORTESE LANDFILL
SUPERFUND SITE
The following verbal comments, from the public meeting held
at Tusten Town Hall in Narrowsburg, New York on August 16,
1994, are categorized by topic.
Drinking Water Supply Contamination
1. A Narrowsburg Town resident asked if contamination
identified in the Town's drinking water supply, identified
as 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), was linked to
contamination found at the Site. The resident was also
concerned about how extensively the direction of ground-
water flow at the landfill was studied by EPA, specifically
whether ground-water flow was toward the Town wells or the
river. The resident asked whether the monitoring well north
of the landfill and adjacent to the Narrowsburg Waste Water
Treatment Plant (Monitoring Well No. 4) was contaminated.
EPA Response: The Narrowsburg public water supply is
currently provided by a well installed in April 1994 (Town
Well #3). This well is located approximately one mile east
of the landfill. Two secondary wells in this system are
located approximately 750 feet northwest and approximately
one-half mile north-northwest of the landfill (Town Well #1
and #2, respectively). Town Well #1 is currently used to
supplement the public water supply provided by Well #3.
Town Well #2 was removed from service in 1994 as a result of
contamination from an unrelated source. As ground-water
flow is to the southwest, all three wells are hydraulically
upgradient of the Site. Thus, none of these public supply
wells are affected by site-related contamination, including
the compound 1,1,1-TCA. In addition, 1,1,1-TCA is not a
major contaminant of concern at the Site. Regarding
Monitoring Well No. 4, no contamination was found in this
well in any sampling round.
Schedule
1. A representative from the News Eagle newspaper asked about
the time table on the remediation.
-------
EPA Response: The time to construct the remedy is estimated
at two years. It will be approximately 1% to 2 years before
construction will begin. EPA must first negotiate with the
potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") to determine if
they are willing to perform the remedy. Negotiations can
take up to 6 months. In addition, the remedial design needs
to be performed which can take 1% to 2 years.
2. The Tusten Town Supervisor wanted confirmation that the work
to be conducted by the Town of Tusten as required by the
Administrative Order, will begin sooner than the remedy
being selected in this ROD.
EPA Response: The construction of the drainage swale and
excavation of the septage lagoons, which is being conducted
by the Town of Tusten under an Administrative Order with
EPA, is on a separate time frame than the remedial
activities selected in the ROD. The Town's work may begin
as early as this year, well before the other work is likely
to begin. Currently, the work plan for the Town's work is
due to EPA by November 1994. While both construction and
excavation are somewhat climate and season dependent, it is
anticipated that all work to be performed by the Town will
be completed, at the latest, by Autumn 1995.
Implementation of the Preferred Remedial Alternative
1. A Narrowsburg Town Councilman asked if the materials (e.g.,
soil) surrounding the drums would be removed if they were
found to be contaminated by drum contents.
EPA Response: The purpose of the drum removal is to
eliminate a known source or "hot spot" of contamination from
within the landfill, thereby eliminating the potential for a
future release of contamination to ground water as well as
to potentially shorten the duration of the ground-water
extraction process. Inasmuch as residual subsurface soil
contaminants may migrate to ground water, the purpose of
ground-water extraction is to remove these contaminants so
that they do not move downgradient. The soil deep below the
landfill does not pose a direct health risk and does not
constitute a known source of contamination. Removal of any
soils grossly contaminated by drum contents, however, may be
warranted and this will be determined in the field as the
drum removal progresses.
2. A Narrowsburg Town resident asked if the drums located at
the Site would be able to be taken out after all these
years.
EPA Response: Yes. There are companies who specialize in
contaminated drum removal. Standard procedure is to remove
-------
the drums and seal them in another drum for subsequent
disposal or treatment.
3. A representative from the Cornell Cooperative Extension,
Sullivan County, asked what ground-water extraction entails.
The Tusten Town Supervisor asked if the ground water,
following extraction, would be running through the
Narrowsburg Wastewater Treatment Plant.
EPA Response: Ground-water extraction is implemented by
installing a series of wells along the western perimeter
(downgradient perimeter) of the Site between the landfill
and the railroad embankment. Contaminated ground water will
be extracted through the wells. Extracted water is pumped
to a treatment system on Site. The treatment system will
strip the ground water of volatiles and polish it to remove
semi-volatiles and metals. Discharge options for the
treated ground water include discharging the treated ground
water into the effluent end of the Narrowsburg Wastewater
Treatment Plant; provision of a separate outfall underneath
the railroad embankment for discharge into the Delaware
River; or reinjection of the treated ground water back into
the aquifer. One of these-options will be selected during
the upcoming remedial design phase. The Narrowsburg
Wastewater Treatment Plant will not be used to treat Site-
related ground water.
Responsible Parties
1. A representative from the News Eagle newspaper asked who
would be funding the remedial activities.
EPA Response: It is premature to say at this time. EPA
will conduct discussions with the PRPs and determine if they
are willing to volunteer in implementing and funding the
remedy that has been chosen by EPA. If the PRPs do not
agree to implement the remedy, EPA may unilaterally order
them to implement it, EPA can compel compliance with such an
order through judicial action, or EPA can implement it and
attempt to recover the costs at a later time.
2. A representative from the News Eagle newspaper asked how
many responsible parties had been identified.
EPA Response: Approximately twenty-five (25) "potentially"
responsible parties have been identified.
Risk Assessment
1. Two Narrowsburg Town residents asked if the EPA Project
Manager could describe the risk assessment findings.
-------
EPA Response: The risk assessment takes the data from the
RI and, using standard formulas, identifies those
contaminants which may present a risk. Both cancer and
noncancer health effects are evaluated. EPA has established
for the Superfund program an acceptable risk range, which is
conservative. For the risk assessment for the Site, very
conservative exposure assumptions were used in calculating a
potential risk. For example, EPA assumed that individuals
may presently be exposed to contaminants in surface soil,
sediment, or surface water. The exposure scenarios yielded
risks which were within or below EPA's acceptable risk
range. For ground water, the risk assessment only evaluated
future ground-water use because no one is presently drinking
contaminated ground water downgradient of the landfill
(e.g., between the landfill and the river) as all residences
are provided with drinking water via public supply. If, in
the future, wells were developed downgradient of the
landfill and water was consumed, unacceptable risks would be
expected. The remedy selected by EPA is intended to reduce
ground-water risks.
B. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES CONCERNING
THE CORTESE LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
The following written comment was received by EPA from Thomas L.
Brand, P.E. of the Delaware River Basin Commission:
Please be advised that remedial measures proposed for the
Cortese Landfill would be subject to review and approval by
the Delaware River Basin Commission ("DRBC"), if the
construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or
alterations or additions to existing facilities results in a
discharge of 10,000 gallons per day or more to surface
waters or ground waters in the drainage area to Outstanding
Basin Waters or Significant Basin Waters. DRBC regulations
specify that the applicable state environmental agency
require compliance with the policies prescribed, unless it
can be demonstrated that these requirements are not
necessary for the protection of existing water quality.
Further, if the Cortese Landfill project involves a
withdrawal of 100,000 gallons per day or more during any 30-
day period from ground water or from impoundments or running
streams (for any purpose), that aspect also would be subject
to DRBC review and approval.
EPA Response. Mr. Brand and Mr. Al Bromberg of the NYSDEC
SPDES program have both indicated that the proper procedure
for determining SPDES parameters in the relevant portion of
the Delaware River basin is for DEC to present draft
discharge parameters for review and approval to DRBC. EPA
-------
will provide support to DEC and DRBC to ensure all proper
procedures are followed when setting SPDES discharge
parameters for the Site.
The following written comments were received by EPA from Mr. Alan
Bowers, of the Upper Delaware Council:
While the Upper Delaware Council ("UDC") supports
Alternative 6 and the prompt and thorough cleanup of the
Cortese Landfill Site, we offer the following comments and
concerns about the preferred alternative:
1. Regarding long-term ground water and surface water
monitoring, Alternative 6 indicates that "Monitoring will be
conducted on a quarterly basis for the duration of the
alternative." Based on the known toxic materials at the
Site, we question if this frequency of testing is adequate.
The National Park Service ("NPS"), DRBC, New York, and
Pennsylvania should be consulted on testing procedures and
scheduling.
EPA Response. While EPA acknowledges the toxicity of
certain contaminants migrating from the Site in ground water
and discharging to the Delaware River, toxicity alone does
not formulate a significant factor in determining the
frequency or method of sampling. The purpose of long-term
monitoring is to track the effectiveness of the selected
remedial action in order to determine if adjustments or
changes are necessary. Note that levels of contaminants in
surface water samples from downgradient areas were below or
quite close to relevant surface water standard's. Note
further that the long-term monitoring as presented in the
Proposed Plan was stated to be conceptual in nature and that
the final plan will be determined during remedial design of
the selected remedy.
EPA has maintained and will continue to maintain open
communication on all aspects of the Site with NPS, UDC,
DRBC, and NYSDEC, including providing the opportunity to
review and comment on Site-related plans and reports. As
lead agency for the Site, however, EPA will make the final
determination as to the long-term monitoring.
2. Alternative 6 mentions regrading and stormwater management
improvements at the Site, including the construction of a
drainage swale between the landfill and the escarpment.
Will the Conrail railroad grade be affected? Will
stormwater be held on-site or directed somewhere else (such
as adjoining properties and/or the Delaware River)? Perhaps
wetlands could be incorporated into the drainage plans.
-------
EPA Response. It is not anticipated that the Conrail
railroad grade will be affected by on-site surface water
management activities. It is anticipated that surface water
will be diverted to an infiltration area away from the
landfill mass (but within the Site property boundary) and
allowed to naturally drain to ground water. Drainage of
surface water to adjoining properties or the Delaware River
is not anticipated. Incorporating wetlands into drainage
plans is an option that will be considered.
3. Alternative 6 indicates that "institutional controls" may
include fencing, deed restrictions, or other recommendations
as appropriate. Can these controls be more specifically
defined as to exactly what will be necessary?
EPA Response. It is not possible to provide more detail
about institutional controls at this time. Institutional
controls will be addressed on an ongoing basis during
implementation of the selected remedial action and will
likely be determined by future use activities related to the
landfill.
4. Alternative 6 mentions the removal and off-site treatment of
the intact-drum disposal areas on the landfill property plus
two feet of soil beneath them. Because it is likely that
any remaining drums, will be in poor condition, what measures
will be taken to ensure that the contents do not further
pollute the land, water, and air? How was the two feet of
soil to be removed determined, and is it adequate? Where
will the material be removed to and treated, and by what
means?
EPA Response. Drum removal is one of three components of
the proposed remedy. Any contamination remaining after
completion of the drum removal will be either contained via
the landfill cap or collected via ground-water extraction/
treatment. After the testing of contents, the drummed
materials will be disposed of in a landfill licensed to
accept that type of waste or treated, as appropriate, to
"ensure that the contents do not further pollute the land,
water, and air." Drums in poor condition should
nevertheless be able to be containerized and disposed of
properly. Drums that are disintegrated would have to be
assessed for proper handling during removal operations. In
this instance it is unlikely that the original contents
would still be present. The reference to the removal of
"two feet of soil" from beneath the drums was intended as an
estimate. The decision as to the actual volume of soil
removed from beneath the drums will be determined during the
drum removal based on field conditions and observations. It
is anticipated that the majority of contamination associated
with drums will be removed with the drums. The drum removal
-------
in concert with the landfill cap and ground-water
extraction/treatment provides protection of human health and
the environment. The overall effectiveness of Alternative 6
will not be dependent on the volume of soil removed from
beneath the drums, therefore whatever volume of soil is
removed will be more than adequate. The location and means
of off-site disposal and/or treatment will be determined
during remedial design.
5. Under Alternative 6, the contaminated ground water will be
extracted from the Site and treated, and as the Proposed
Plan indicates, the treated ground water "may be discharged
to the Delaware River, or reinjected to ground water."
Regardless of which method is used, the treated ground water
should meet the new non-degradation water quality standards
established by the Delaware River Basin Commission for the
Upper Delaware River Basin for Special Protection Waters as
of January 1, 1993. The National Park Service, both States,
the DRBC, and the Town of Tusten should be consulted on this
issue. Who will be responsible for maintenance and daily
operation of the ground-water treatment facility for the
duration of the project and what guarantees are there?
EPA Response. Discharge parameters will be set by NYSDEC
and EPA in consultation with DRBC. EPA will keep the Town,
UDC, and NPS informed on these matters as the SPDES process
progresses (see also written comment regarding SPDES from
DRBC, and EPA response, above). The specification of exact
operation and maintenance ("O&M") personnel will be
addressed at the time of submitta.1 of the draft Cortese Site
O&M plan. Note that if the PRPs agree to implement the
remedy, they are responsible for O&M for the duration of the
cleanup. "Guarantees" are specified in administrative,
consent, or unilateral orders entered into between PRPs and
EPA.
6. We agree that there should be a periodic reporting procedure
to update all involved parties about the status of the
project and a reevaluation process, should the need arise.
There should also be a response capability for floods or
non-natural disasters, such as train derailments, at this
Site.
EPA Response. A health and safety plan, including
notification and response plans, are a standard component in
the implementation of Superfund remedial actions. Regarding
floods, the remedial design must take into consideration the
500-year floodplain per Executive Order 11990 (Floodplain
Management. The 100-year floodplain is not applicable to
the Site. Regarding train derailments, this possibility
will be considered in the Site health and safety plan and
remedial design in response to this concern and the
10
-------
appropriate planning and contingencies will be provided
therein.
The following written comments were received by EPA from Mr.
Vincent Lehotsky, a private citizen from Linden, New Jersey:
1. Soil washing is fairly new. Has this been considered?
EPA Response. This technology is not applicable to the
conditions present at the Site as there are no contaminated
soils present aside from those beneath or within the large
volume of waste material. Landfill units are not typically
considered candidates for soil washing and it is not
practical or necessary to wash only the soils beneath the
Landfill mass.
2. Are diversion and/or collection systems being applied to
catch surface waters.
EPA Response. Yes.
3. Will "incineration" be used?
EPA Response. Incineration may be considered in the off-
site disposal/treatment of drummed wastes and associated
contaminated soils, but it will not occur at the Site.
4. Have the polluters been footed the bill and not me and the
rest of the taxpayers.
EPA Response. PRPs have conducted the entire RI/FS process
and will be given the opportunity to implement the selected
remedy. Should the PRPs decline to implement the selected
remedy, EPA may unilaterally order them to implement it or
EPA can implement it and attempt to recover the costs at a
later time.
5. What is the plan for the future for putting this land back
on the tax base (land reclamation).
EPA Response. Landfills, in contrast to the possibilities
inherent in other types of hazardous waste sites, are not
typically considered for future land use. While certainly
there is no prohibition on the property generating tax
revenue in the future, there are limitations because the
purpose of the institutional controls cited are intended to
ensure that the integrity of the landfill cap is not
compromised.
11
------- |