EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PB97-963804
EPA/541/R-97/055
November 1997
Jones Sanitation,
Hyde Park, NY
3/31/1997
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Jones Sanitation Site
Town of Hyde Park
Dutchess County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
Jones Sanitation oite, which was chosen in accordance with the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), ana to
the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan. This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this site.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
concurs with the selected remedy. A letter of concurrence from the
NYSDEC is attached to this document (Appendix IV).
The information supporting this remedial action decision is
contained in the administrative record for this site. The index fcr
the administrative record is attached to this document (Appendix
III) .
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Jones
Sanitation Site, if not addressed by implementing the response
actions selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare, or tr
the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The remedial actions described in this document address the
contaminated soil and groundwater at the site and on-site strea-s
and wetlands.
-------
The selected remedy includes capping of the central disposal area
and placement of outlying soils under the cap (Alternative S-3) and
minimal action for groundwater (Alternative G-2) . Both of these
alternatives include the implementation of institutional controls.
No remedial action is planned for the on-site streams and wetlands.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
Soil
Construction of a 4.8-acre cap over the central disposal area
in conformance with the major elements described in 6 New York
Code or Rules and Regulations Part 360 for solid waste landfill
caps. Conceptually, the cap will be comprised of: 18 inches of
clay or a suitable material to ensure a permeability of 10 °
cm/sec, 6 inches of porous material serving as a drainage
layer, 18 inches of backfill, and 6 inches of topsoil and grass
cover.
Surface water controls consisting of concrete culverts will be
installed around the perimeter of the cap and at other
locations as necessary to ensure that runoff water does not
erode the topsoil layer.
Long-term maintenance program to ensure cap integrity.
To facilitate the construction of the cap, the existing asphalt
and concrete pads, frame building and shed will be removed and
disposed of off-site. Also, tanks will be cleaned and recycled
off-site.
Contaminated soils above cleanup goals in the outlying areas
(TU-1,6,7, and 8) wall be excavated and moved to the centi 1
disposal area, where they will be graded with the material
.there in preparation for'placement of the cap.
Confirmatory samples will be collected from the bottom and
sidewalls of the excavations. Following excavation and
confirmatory sampling, the trench units will be backfilled with
clean fill and overlain with a 6-inch layer of clean topsoil
and grass cover.
Implementation of institutional controls, such as deed
restrictions, to limit access and to prohibit interference with
the cap.
-------
Groundwater
• Implementation of a long-term groundwater monitoring program.
As part of this effort, a series of monitoring wells will be
installed between the site and the closest residences. During
the first five years of the monitoring program, sampling will
be conducted of both on and off-site wells. Such wells will be
monitored on an annual basis for metals and Volatile organic
compounds. In the event that contaminant levels remain below
groundwater standards in the off-site wells during the five-
year monitoring period, the monitoring program would be
reevaluated. It is expected that once the cap has been
constructed, groundwater quality should improve and, hence, a
reduction in the srope and/or frequency of groundwater
monitoring may be appropriate. This monitoring effort will
include the investigation of possible pockets of contamination
where anomalies in the data indicate the potential for
groundwater contamination. If future monitoring indicates that
groundwater contamination is not attenuating and may migrate
off-site, additional groundwater remedial measures may be
considered.
• Institutional controls, such as deed restrictions and well
permitting restrictions, will be implemented to prevent human
contact with contaminated groundwater. These restrictions will
be applied to both the shallow and bedrock aquifers at the
site due 'to the detection of contaminants at levels exceeding
New York State Department of Health drinking water standards
and Federal maximum contaminant levels in both aquifers and
will prohibit the installation of new wells at the site
intended for potable use. Nonpotable uses of site groundwater
(e.g., watering) may be allowed.
Streams and Wetlands
No remedial action is presently planned for the streams and wetlands
since no adverse impacts were observed. However, during the
Remedial Design, further ecological risk assessment activities will
be performed, including sampling and analysis of the streams and
sediments to confirm that the surrounding streams and wetlands have
not been impacted.
• Perform a pre-design phase wetlands delineation and assessment
of the delineated area in accordance with the State and Federal
guidance which will include additional surface water ar.c
sediment samples to adequately quantify any chemical impacts on
-------
the streams and wetlands that may exist and, based on sampling
results, perform a supplemental ecological risk analysis.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy meets the requirements for remedial actions set
forth in CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621. It 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. The selected remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
to the maximum extent practicable, given the scope of the action.
However, the remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume of contaminants as their principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on
the site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of the remedial action, and
every five years thereafter, to ensure that the' remedy continues to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Y
Jeanne M. Fox ^t^ \/ J>ate
Regional Administrator
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Jones Sanitation Site
Town of Hyde Park, Dutchess County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
March 1997
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE.HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES . 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION . ' 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS .' 10
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES . 13
SELECTED REMEDY 28
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS .' 31
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 33
*
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Jones Sanitation site consists of a 57-acre parcel of land
located approximately one-half mile northeast of the intersection
of Crum Elbow Road and Cardinal Road in Hyde Park, New York. The
Maritje Kill flows from northeast to southeast across the eastern
side of the site. Another unnamed stream enters the northern side
of the site, flows into wetlands on the northwestern side of the
property, and flows off-site to the west. Freshwater wetlands
surround the northern, southern, and western portions of the site
(see Figure I). The Hudson River is located approximately 2.1
miles west of the site.
The majority of the property is heavily wooded, but a large cleared
area exists in the western-central portion of the site and extends
to the northeast. A two-story concrete building is located on the
western side of the clearing and houses a filter press on the first
floor and has office space on the second floor. In addition to the
building, several holding tanks and piping (associated with the
wastewater treatment system) remain on site. A concrete pad and a
bituminous-paved compost area are located to the east of the filter
press building. The remainder of the central cleared area consists
of a gravel access road and several depressions with bermed sides
indicating the former locations of sand filter beds.
The site is zoned residential but the existing commercial use has
been grandfathered in. Adjacent land use consists primarily of
residential and undeveloped land. Single-family homes are located
along Matuk Drive and Thurston Lane to the south, and along
Cardinal Road to the west. Val-Kill trailer park, containing
approximately 100 residences, is located to the southwest.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Ihe wastes that were treated and disposed of at the site during its
approximately 30 years of operation include septage wastes,
primarily liquid, from residential, commercial, institutional, and
industrial facilities. During approximately a 17-year period,
industrial wastewater was also disposed of at the site. In the
early years of operation, solids were separated out as liquid
wastes filtered through the soil media. After 1980, solids were
separated in lined sand filtration pits, mechanically dewatered
using a filter press and then composted with wood chips. The
compost was used for cover and regrading in some areas of the site.
-------
Septage operations began at the site in approximately 1956 by Mr.
'William Jones, Sr., under the name of William Jones Sanitation
Service (Jones Sanitation). Mr. Jones collected domestic septage
from residential properties and disposed of it in trenches on the
property. In 1972, the Dutchess County Health Department (DCHD)
issued a permit to Jones Sanitation to collect and transport
sanitary wastes to the Jones site.
Based on DCHD inspection reports from the 1970s, septage and
industrial wastewater were disposed of together in approximately 30
to 40 shallow, randomly oriented trenches located mostly within the
central area of the site. Trenches were reportedly three to five
feet deep, with lime applied to septage disposed of in the trenches
•to reduce odors. After the trenches were full and the liquids had
leached out into the ground, the trenches were covered with sand
and gravel.
Mr. Theodore Losee took over operations at the site in 1977 and
reportedly ended random disposal by constructing parallel trenches.
In a 1980 aerial photograph, 10 trenches were identified in a
central bermed area; however, the presence of several other
trenches in peripheral areas was still noted. During Mr. Losee's
ownership, the facility was operated under the name of Jones Septic
Services. When Mr. Losee took over operations, septage
solidification ponds (SSPs) were constructed in the central area
and used to separate solids and liquids. In 1987, a filter press
was installed and the use of the SSPs was discontinued.
The DeLaval Separator Company (DeLaval) , which changed its name to
Alfa-Lavl in 1980, operated a facility in Poughkeepsie from 1963
to 1990. Untreated industrial wastewater from DeLaval's operations
was disposed of at the site until approximately 1975. The sources
of DeLaval's industrial wastewater are described as: the Tin Roor.,
which generated acid, alkali, and metals waste from plating; the
Tumbling Area, which generated metal wastes and grit in the form cf
sludge; Customer Service, which generated wastes contaminated with
"Zyglo" chemicals and alkali; the Pilot Plant, which produced
wastes contaminated with oil, solvents, organic chemicals, and
metals; the-Rubber Area, which generated wastes contaminated with
hydraulic oil, lube oil, and steam condensate; and Salvage, which
generated wastes contaminated with water-soluble oils, lube oil,
solvents, and pigments. In 1975, DeLaval began treating the
industrial wastewater using a centrifugal separator and sent the
-------
treated wastewater to the site. Effluent generated at DeLaval's
facility that was transported to the site contained hazardous
substances, including, but not limited to trichloroethylene,
methylene chloride, chloroform, 1,1,1,-trichloroethane, napthalene,
chromium, copper, lead and zinc. In approximately 1979, DeLaval
ceased sending the treated wastewater to the site.
Beginning in 1970, the site became the focus of several
investigations by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation {NYSDEC} and DCHD. The investigations were comprised
of limited sampling of on-site soils, groundwater, surface water,
and sediment from the streams on site. Some off-site private and
public wells were also sampled. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds, polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) and
metals were detected at varying concentrations in site media. Based
on the results of these investigations, the site was placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) in July 1987, at which time EPA
became the lead agency for the site with support from the NYSDEC.
The- DCHD and NYSDOH have sampled off-site private and community
drinking water supply wells on seven different occasions since
1988. Contaminants related to the site were not detected in the
drinking water supply wells.
In March 1991, Theodore Losee and Alfa-Laval, Inc., signed an
Administrative Order on Consent with EPA in which they agreed to
perform the RI/FS for the site. The RI Report was completed in
1995; the FS Report in July 1996.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI report, FS report, and the Proposed Plan for the site were
released to the public for comment on February 21, 1997. These
documents, as well as other documents in the administrative record
were made available to the public at two information repositories
maintained at the EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York and the
Hyde Park Free Public Library, located at 2 Main Street, Hyde Park,
New York. A notice of availability for the above-referenced
documents was published in the Poughkeepsie Journal on February 21,
1997 and in the Hvde Park Townsman on February 27, 1997. The
public comment period established in these documents was from
February 21, 1997 to March 22, 1997.
-------
On March 13, 1997, EPA held a public meeting at the Roosevelt
Engine Co.ttl on Cardinal Road, Hyde Park to present the Proposed
Plan to local officials and interested citizens and to answer any
questions concerning the Plan and other details related to the RI
and FS reports. Responses to the comments and questions received
at the public meeting, along with other written comments received
during the public comment period, are included in the
Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This is the first and only planned action for the site. The
primary objectives of this action are to control the source
contamination at the site and to reduce and minimize the migration
of contaminants into the site media thereby minimizing any human
health and ecological impacts. The response actions specified in
this ROD address two contaminated media at the site, namely, soil
(central disposal area and the outlying areas), and the
groundwater. No remedial action presently planned for on-site
streams and wetlands although a further ecological risk assessment
will be conducted as discussed on page 13 of this decision summary.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The RI included a soil investigation consisting of a soil gas
survey, seismic survey, and soil boring program; a hydrogeologic
investigation consisting of aquifer testing, well installation, and
groundwater sampling; a surface water and sediment investigation;
and an ambient air monitoring program. Environmental sampling
activities at the site included collection and analysis of 179 soil
gas samples, 120 subsurface soil samples, 11 surface water and 11
sediment samples. Also, groundwater samples were obtained from 13
overburden monitoring wells, 15 bedrock monitoring wells, and 10
off-site potable wells. Results of the soil gas survey were used tc
aid in the selection of soil boring locations.
The DCHD and NYSDOH have sampled off-site private and community
drinking water supply wells on seven different occasions since
1988. Contaminants related to the site were not detected in the
drinking water supply wells.
Physical Site Conditions
-------
The physical site conditions are characterized• by shallow soil
deposits (0 to 15 feet) underlain by bedrock consisting of
sandstone and shale. Several bedrock ridges with numerous surface
outcropping are present at the site. Extensive wetlands are located
among the north and south sides of the site, associated with two
small streams that drain from northeast to southwest. Overburden
groundwater appears to flow from the central disposal area to the
wetlands and surface water streams to the north and east.
Soil Contamination
Areas of septage disposal were characterized by the presence of
black to dark brown septic sludge materials mixed with soils as
observed in soil samples from borings drilled through these areas.
Forty trenches (TRs), many overlapping others, septage
solidification ponds (SSPs), sand filter (SFs) beds, stained areas,
mounded materials, and pits were identified on the aerial
photographs performed by the EPA's Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Center. During the remedial investigation, the 40
trenches were grouped into 10 trench units (TUs) based upon their
lateral distribution on the site.
Trench units 2,3,4,5,9, and 10 and the SSP/SF, are located in the
central open area of the site in relative proximity to each other,
whereas trench units 1,6,7 and 8 are in more outlying areas (see
Figure 1).
A description of the physical nature and contamination of these
areas is provided below.
Central Disposal Area
Trench Unit 2 (TR5,TR7,TR9,TRIO,TR24-TR34): This trench unit
consists of 15 iormer trenches covering a large portion on the
north side of the central open area. Septic waste material was
observed in the majority of the borings drilled in this area and up
to two feet of black sludge was encountered. Approximately 13,500
cubic yards of septic sludge are estimated to be present in TU-2.
High concentrations of toluene (110,000 parts per billion or ppb)
and acetone (530 ppb) were detected in this trench unit. Several
semivolatile organics were identified; the highest detection
observed was phenanthrene (510,000 ppb'; . Copper (408 parts per
million or ppm) , lead (324 ppm) , zinc '765 ppm) and manganese
-------
(4,640 ppm) were the highest inorganic concentrations detected in
this trench unit.
Trench Unit 3 (TR11-TR18, TR36): This trench unit consists of nine
former trenches located in the central open area. This trench unit,
approximately 20,000 square feet, is now covered in part by the
concrete and bituminous paved driveways. A five-foot thick layer of
undisturbed septic waste was encountered within this area.
Approximately 4,000 cubic yards of septic material are estimated tc
be present in TU-3. High concentrations of toluene (120,000 ppb;
and metals such as cadmium (9.5 ppm), chromium (58.4 ppm), copper
(925 ppm), lead (152 ppm), zinc (1,960 ppm), and manganese (896
ppm) were detected in this trench unit.
Trench Unit. 4 (TR1,TR19,TR38,TR39): This trench unit consists of
four former trenches located on the southwest side of the central
open area. It was confirmed as a disposal area by the observation
of septic waste material in most of the borings drilled in the
area. Approximately 1,800 cubic yards of septic waste are
estimated to be present in TU-4. This trench unit has high volatile
organic contamination as indicated by the presence of toluene
(51,c;0 ppb), chlorobenzene (26,0~0 ppb), and acetone (3,600 ppb).
A total PCB concentration of 4,900 ppb was also detected. Arsenic
(13.2 ppm), copper (1,480 ppm), lead (677 ppm), zinc (5740 ppir.) ,
and manganese (1,290 ppm) were some of the highest metals
concentrations detected in this trench unit. Also, cyanide
contamination was detected (14.3 ppm).
Trench Unit 5 (TR20 and TR21) : This trench unit consists of two
former trenches located in the southwest side of the central open
area, to the east of TU-4. Septic waste and black stained sand were
observed in the boring soil samples. Approximately 1,100 cubic
yards cf sludge are estimated to be present in TU-5. Manganese (796
ppm) and other low concentrations of metals defined the
contamination in this trench unit.
Trench Unit 9 (TR8): This trench unit consists of one former trench
located on the eastern side of the central open area, to the east
of TU-2. A concrete block settling tank was constructed on the
northern end of this trench. On the southern end, an approximately
2.5-foot-thick sludge layer was observed. Approximately 450 cubic
yards of sludge material are estimated to be present in TU-9.
Contaminants detected in this trench unit are PCBs (2,500 ppb),
cyanide (1.3 ppm), and tr.etals such as arsenic (10 ppm), bariur. (8C7
-------
ppm) , cadmiun (9.3 ppm) , chromium (53.9 ppm) , copper (2190 ppm; ,
manganese (1020 ppm), mercury (9.8 ppm), and zinc (4210 ppm).
Trench Unit 10 (TR37) : This trench unit consists of one former
trench approximately 70 feet long, located along-side a wooded
area, southwest of the central open area. No septic sludge or other
indication of waste disposal was found in the borings drilled in
this trench unit.
Septage Solidification Ponds (SSPs) and Sand Filter (SF) Beds: This
area consists of four SSPs, and the effluent from the SSPs was
discharged to the SFs. The SSP area covered ah approximately
400-by-150-foot area in the west central portion of the site. A
septic waste layer was observed from one to seven feet thick.
Approximately 12,800 cubic yards of septic waste are estimated to
be present in this area. Acetone (240 ppb) and chlorobenzene (3,2CC
ppb) were the two volatile organics detected in this trench unit in
addition to heavy metals including cadmium (4.3 ppm), copper (387
ppm), lead (71.2 ppm), mercury (2 ppm), manganese (1,010 ppm), and
zinc (431 ppm).
Outlying Disposal Areas
Trench Unit 1 (TR2, TR3, TR4, TR22): This trench unit consists of
four former trenches that were identified on the northeastern side
of the site. The location of these former trenches is now partly
covered by a large mound of moderately composted septic waste
material. This waste material mound is probably former trench
material that was regraded and bulldozed into the pile after
disposal activities had ceased. The total volume of septic waste
material associated with TU-1 is estimated to be approximately
2,300 cubic yards. The highest detection of PCB (11,000 i.pb) was
detected in this trench unit. There were also high concentrations
of arsenic (22.2 ppm), copper (3,220 ppm), mercury (7.4 ppm), and
manganese (742 ppm).
Trench Unit 6 (TR40) : This trench unit consists of one isolated
trench located in the southwest corner of the property. No evidence
of waste disposal was noted during field sampling. However, levels
of phenols (1,200 ppb), cadmium (4.5 ppm), and manganese (1,C3C
ppm) were detected in samples collected from this trench unit.
Trench Unit 7 (TR35) : This trench unit consists of one isolated
former trench located at the edge of a wooded area to the east cf
-------
the central open area. Borings drilled in this trench unit
identified the presence of a four-to-twelve-inch thick, dark brown
organic layer that is believed to be highly weathered septic waste
material lying directly upon a shallow weathered bedrock surface.
Approximately 500 cubic yards of septic waste material are
estimated to be present in TU-7. Acetone (200 ppb), PCBs (2,600
ppb) , cyanide (4.4 ppm) and metals including arsenic (22.8 ppm),
barium (668 ppm), cadmium (11.7 ppm), chromium (44.2 ppm), copper
(2,480 ppm), lead (307 ppm), manganese (2,310 ppm), and zinc (2,580
ppm) were detected in samples collected from this trench unit.
Trench Unit 8 (TR-23) .- This trench unit .consists of one trench
located on the eastern side of the site, south of TU-1. A
three-feet-thick layer of r-eptic waste was observed in the northern
end of this t-rench unit, but no distinct waste layers were observed
in the middle or southern end of this trench unit. It is estimated
that approximately 50 to 100 cubic yards of waste material remain
in TU-8. Contaminants detected were PCBs (800 ppb), cyanide (0.35
ppm), and several metals including arsenic (9.4 ppm), cadmium (1.2
ppm), chromium (25.9 ppm), copper (299 ppm), lead (259 ppm),
manganese (821 ppm), mercury (1.3 ppm), and zinc (510 ppm).
Groundwater Contamination
A total of 13 overburden monitoring wells, 15 bedrock monitoring
wells, and 10 off-site potable wells were sampled for analysis.
Groundwater quality is judged by standards such as those in the New
York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Title 6, Chapter X, Part
703, Surface Water, Groundwater, and Groundwater Effluent
Standards, and Federal Primary Drinking Water Standards, Maximum
Contaminants Levels (MCLs).
The primary area where groundwater contamination was detected at
levels exceeding water quality standards is crescent shaped (see
Figure 2) and lies to the north, south, and east of the central
disposal area. The overburden groundwater is bounded by several
hydraulic boundaries, including the unnamed stream located
northwest and the Maritje Kill to the east and southwest where
overburden groundwater flow most likely discharges. It is believed
that these hydraulic boundaries act to prevent contaminated
groundwater from migrating from this area of the site.
The following VOCs were detected in the overburden aquifer at
concentrations exceeding regulatory standards: benzene (!-•£ 5
8
-------
micrograms per liter (^g/1)), chlorobenzene (5-11^9/1),
1,3-dichlorobenzene (ll^g/i), and 1,2- and l, 4-dichlorobenzene
(8-15 A*g/l) and (10-12 M9/D , respectively. Total concentrations of
several metals, including iron (90,400-540,000 jzg/1) , lead
(43.7-395 yug/D and manganese (5,480-88,300 /zg/1) , were detected in
a number of overburden monitoring wells at concentrations exceeding
primary and secondary drinking water standards. Most of the
overburden groundwater contamination was detected beneath the
central disposal area.
There are three isolated areas within the facility boundaries but
outside of the central disposal area where overburden groundwater
contamination was identified. The results of the analysis indicate
that there may have been a problem associated with the construction
or development or sampling of the monitoring wells in those areas.
There is a large difference in the values for the total and
dissolved levels for manganese (e.g., Well OB-11 is reported as
having the highest level of total manganese reported at the site,
88,000 ppb, but the dissolved manganese level reported for the well
is 5 ppb) .
Contaminant concentrations were typically much lower and in a much
smaller area in the bedrock aquifer as compared with the overburden
aquifer. VOCs in bedrock monitoring wells include benzene (24
Atg/D , vinyl chloride (2-5 /^g/1) , cis-1,2-dichloroethene (11-37
, 1,2-dichloroethene (7,ug/l) , and tetrachloroethylene (7
• Manganese (6,360 ng/I) was also detected above the
regulatory standard in one bedrock well.
Surface Water- and Sediment Contamination
Contaminants detected in surface water samples from the site at
concentrations exceeding New York State Surface Water Standards
were cadmium (3 ng/1) and iron (707 fj.g/1) . No VOC or SVOC
contaminants were detected in site surface waters at concentrations
exceeding the regulatory standards.
Sediment standards were based on the 1993 NYSDEC Technical Guidance
for Screening Contaminated Sediments. No VOCs were detected in the
site sediment samples at concentrations exceeding guidance values.
Metals, primary arsenic, cadmium, and lead were detected at
concentrations slightly exceeding the regulatory standards in
several of the sediment samples.
-------
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives (RAOs)(see Table 2) are specific goals
to protect human health and the environment; they specify the
contaminant(s) of concern, the exposure route(s), receptor(s) and
acceptable contaminants level(s) for each exposure route. These
objectives are based on available information and standards such as
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and
risk-based levels established in the risk assessment.
Based on available information and ARARs, RAOs for soils and
groundwater were developed. RAOs for soil are designed, in part,
to mitigate the health threat posed by ingestion, dermal contact or
inhalation of particulates where these soils are contacted or
disturbed. Such objectives are also designed to prevent further
leaching of contaminants from the soil to the groundwater.
The RAOs for soil are the NYSDEC recommended soil cleanup
objectives identified in the Technical and Administrative Guidance
Memorandum (TAGM HWR-94-4046) . Due to the fact that arsenic and
manganese pose the greatest potential risk at the site, the most
significant RAOs for soil are arsenic at 7.5 ppm and manganese at
the site background (the manganese levels in New York State are
typically in the range of 400-600 ppm) .
Groundwater RAOs were based on NYSDEC Class GA groundwater
standards and/or the EPA primary drinking water standards (MCLs:,
whichever were more stringent. The most significant RAOs fcr
groundwater are arsenic at 25 ng/I and manganese at 300 Atg/1-
Substantial contaminant concentrations were not detected in surface
water or sediments at the site. Therefore, remedial acticr.
objectives were not developed for site surface waters or sediments.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related hurr.ar.
health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard
Identification—identifies the contaminants of concern at the site
based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence,
10
-------
and concentration. Exposure Assessment-estimates the magnitude of
actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and duration
of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated
well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed. Toxicity
Assessment—determines the types of adverse health effects
associated with chemical exposures, and the relationship between
magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects
(response). Risk Characterization—summarizes and combines outputs
of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative
assessment of site-related risks.
Based upon the results of the RI, human health and ecological
baseline risk assessments were conducted to estimate the risks
associated with contamination at the site, assuming no remedial
action is taken in the future.
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of
concern (COCs)(See Table 5). COCs were identified for site soils,
groundwater, surface water, and sediments based on the frequency of
detection in RI samples, the magnitude of the concentrations
detected, and the relative toxicity of the contaminants. COCs
included those contaminants that are most representative of risks
at the site.
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects that
could result from exposure to contaminated site media through
ingestion, dermal contact or inhalation. The assessment evaluated
risks to potential current trespassers and potential future site
residents. Current trespassers were evaluated for ingestion and
dermal contact with contaminants in soil, and ingestion of
contaminants in sediments and surface water at the site. Potential
future residents were evaluated for ingestion and dermal contact
with contaminants in soil and groundwater, inhalation of
contaminants in groundwater, and ingestioi' of chemicals present in
sediment and surface water at the site.
Current regulations under CERCLA establish acceptable individual
cancer risk levels of 10-4 to 10-6 (e.g., an excess cancer risk of
1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000) and a maximum noncancer Hazard Index
(HI) of 1. An HI greater than 1.0 indicates a potential for
noncarcinogenic health effects.
The results of the baseline risk assessment are contained in the
Baseline Risk Assessment, Jones Sanitation Site, Hyde Park, New
11
-------
York, dated August 1994, which was prepared by Gradient
Corporation. The risk assessment concluded that current trespassers
were not at risk from contact with contamination in site media.
For trespassers, cancer risks for both adults and children are less
than 1x10-4. For both adults and children, the total risk is
7.7x10-6. The noncancer His for both adults and children were well
below l (7.0x10-6 for adults and 5.4x10-2 for children).
For potential future residents, the carcinogenic risks are greater
than 1x10-4 for ingestion of groundwater and soil at the site. For
both adults and children, the total risk is 7.3x10-4. For adults,
the greatest single contributor to risk is ingestion of arsenic in
groundwatfr. For children, ingestion of arsenic in groundwater and
ingestion of PCBs and PAHs in soil contribute equally to the cancer
risk. The noncarcinogenic His for ingestion of groundwater by
potential future child and adult residents are well above the
acceptable level of 1. For adults, the HI is 85 and for children,
the HI is 200. Most of this risk is associated with ingestion of
manganese in groundwater. Noncarcinogenic risks, associated with
contact with soils, sediments and surface water by potential future
residents are within acceptable levels at the site.
Based on the results of the baseline risk assessment, the EPA has
determined that actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from the site, if not addressed may present a current or
potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Ecological Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related
ecological risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario:
Problem Formulation—a qualitative evaluation of contaminant
release, migration, and fate; identification of contaminants of
concern, receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological effects
of the contaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study.
Exposure Assessment-a quantitative evaluation of contaminant
release, migration, and fate; characterization of exposure, pathways
and receptors; and measurement or estimation of exposure point
concentrations. Ecological Effects Assessment—literature reviews,
field studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant
concentrations to effects on ecological receptors. Risk
Characterization—measurement or estimation of both current and
future adverse effects.
12
-------
The ecological risk assessment began with evaluating the
contaminants associated with the site in conjunction with the
site-specific biological species/habitat information.
The site contains two intermittent streams (Maritje Kill and an
unnamed stream) and several wetlands. The two streams are capable
of supporting only limited numbers of transit warmwater fishes.
However, wetlands and wildlife (e.g., birds and mammals) indigenous
to the site are abundant and diverse. Site-related biological
stress has not been reported or observed at or near the site.
Of the contaminants of concern identified, eight metals were found
to present a potential ecological risk to receptors indigenous to
the site based on the risk assessment conducted. Three metals
(cadmium, iron, and manganese) are believed to pose a risk to
benthic receptors inhabiting one or both streams at the site due to
their sediments exceeding the NYSDEC's sediment quality criteria
for freshwater aquatic life. The cadmium, iron, and manganese
concentrations detected in the sediments are, however, within the
range of background concentrations for these metals based on the
levels detected in upstream samples.
Although no distressed vegetation was detected at the site, and no
threatened or endangered species were observed that may be impacted
by the metal contaminant levels present, EPA and NYSDEC protocols
were not strictly followed and the potential ecological risk may
have been underestimated. Therefore, during the Remedial Design
further field investigations are warranted to better assess the
environmental impacts to this area.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of
human health and the environment, be cost-effective, comply with
other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions, alternative
treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the
maximum extent practicable. In addition, the statute includes a
preference for the use of treatment as a principal element for the
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous
substances.
13
-------
Five soil alternatives and three groundwater alternatives, for
addressing the contamination associated with the Jones Sanitation
Site were evaluated in detail in the proposed Plan and in the
Record of Decision.
Construction time refers to the time required to physically
construct the remedial alternative. This does not include the time
required to negotiate with the responsible parties for the remedial
design and remedial action, or design the remedy or to obtain
institutional controls.
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each
alternative was assessed against nine evaluation criteria, namely,
overall protection of human health and the environment, compliance
with ARARs (See Table 1), long-term effectiveness and permanence,
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment,
short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, and State ana
community acceptance.
Soil Remedial Alternatives
Alternative S-l: No Action
Capital Cost: $0
0 Sc M, Cost: $0
Present Worth Cost: $0
Time to Implement: None
CERCLA requires that the "No Action" alternative be considered as
a baseline for comparison with other alternatives. The no action
alternative assumes no additional actions would be taken at the
Jones Sanitation site to address the soil and groun ,*ater
contamination. This would allow contaminants to contribute to the
degradation of the groundwater quality by leaching from the soils.
No institutional controls would be implemented to provide controls
for the groundwater use in the area or well restrictions. The no
action alternative would be easily implemented as no effort would
be required.
This alternative, if selected, would result in contaminants
remaining on-site with concentrations above health-based levels.
Therefore, under CERCLA, the site would have to be reviewed every
five years.
14
-------
Alternative S-2: Minimal Action
Capital Cost: $286,000
O&M Cost: $2,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $317,000
Time to Implement: 2 Months
This alternative would• consist of institutional controls to
minimize human contact with the contamination, which may include
deed restrictions and fencing. Deed restrictions would limit future
uses of the site as a whole or in specific areas of identified
contamination, as appropriate, both as to the present owner and in
the event of transfer of the property to other ownership. Fencing
of the site would deter unauthorized access and potential contact
of trespassers with remaining contamination.
This alternative, if selected, would result in contaminants
remaining on-site with concentrations above health-based levels.
Therefore, under CERCLA, the site would have to be reviewed
every five years.
Alternative S-3: Capping of Central Disposal Area and Placement of
Outlying Soils Beneath Central Disposal Area
Capital Cost: $1,043,000
O&M: $27,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $1,458,000
Time to Implement: 8 months
This alternative would include the following remedial measures:
* Construction of a 4.8-acre cap over the central disposal area in
conformance with the major elements described in 6 NYCRR Part 360
for solid waste landfill caps. Conceptually, the cap would be
comprised of: 18 inches of clay or a suitable material to ensure a
permeability of 10 "7 cm/sec, 6 inches of porous material serving
as a drainage layer, 18 inches of backfill, and 6 inches of topsoil
and grass cover.
* Surface water controls consisting of concrete culverts would be
installed around the perimeter of the cap and at other locations as
necessary to ensure that runoff water does not erode the topsoil
layer. Long-term maintenance of the cap would be required to
ensure cap integrity. In addition, this alternative would include
15
-------
the institutional controls described in Alternative S-2 to prevent
interference with the cap.
* To facilitate the construction of the cap, the existing asphalt
and concrete pads, frame building and shed would be removed and
disposed of off-site. Tanks remaining on-site would be cleaned and
recycled off-site.
* Contaminated soils in outlying areas (TU-1,6,7, and 8) would be
excavated and moved directly to the central disposal area, where
they would be graded with the material there in preparation for
placement of the cap.
* Institutional controls such as deed restrictions to restrict
'construction on top of treated areas and fencing of the central
disposal area (as discussed in Alternative S-2) would be included
in this alternative, due to the remaining presence of the
contaminants at the site.
This alternative, if selected, would result in contaminants
remaining on-site with concentrations above health-based levels.
Therefore, under CE'RCLA, the site would have to be reviewed
every five years.
Alternative S-4: In-Situ Treatment of Central Disposal Area and
Outlying Soils
Capital Cost: $4,997,000
O&M Cost: $2,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $5,028,000
Time to Implement: 7 months
This alternative would include in-situ treatment of the central
disposal area and- outlying areas (TU-1,-6,-7,-8) soils using
solidification/stabilization. This treatment process would
immobilize these contaminants which would remain in the soils.
The outlying areas would be excavated and the soils combined with
the central disposal area soils prior to in-situ treatment.
Following the treatment, the central disposal area would be
regraded as needed.
16
-------
Institutional controls such as deed restrictions to restrict
construction on top of treated areas and fencing of the central
disposal area (as discussed in Alternative S-2) would be included
in this alternative due to the remaining .presence of the
contaminants at the site.
This alternative, if selected, would result in contaminants
remaining on-site with concentrations above health-based levels.
Therefore, under CERCLA, the site would have to be reviewed every
five years.
Alternative S-5: Excavate All Areas
Capital Cost : $ 7,142,000
O&M Cost: $ 0
Present Worth Cost: $ 7,142,000
Time to Implement: 8 to 9 months
This alternative would include excavation of all identified soils
in the central area and outlying areas with contaminant concentra-
tions exceeding RAOs. The excavated soils would.be disposed of as
nonhazardous or hazardous waste soils at an off-site disposal
facility, as appropriate, based on characterization of the waste
piles.
The cost of this alternative was based on off-site disposal of
36,500 cubic yards of contaminated soils. During the remedial
design of this alternative, the cost of treating the contaminated
soils on-site prior to off-site disposal may be evaluated to
determine if any cost savings may be realized.
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Alternative 6-1: No Action
Capital Cost: $0
O&M Cost: $0
Present Worth Cost: $0
Time to Implement: None
CERCLA requires that the "No Action" alternative be considered as
a baseline for comparison with other alternatives. The No Action
alternative does not include implementation of any institutional
17
-------
controls or active remedial measures for on-site contaminated
groundwater.
This alternative does not require any action to be taken for
implementation. However, site RAOs may be achieved over time
through natural attenuation and degradation processes.
Alternative G-2: Minimal Action
Capital Cost: $50,000
O&M Cost: Year 1-5 $52,000/Year
Year 6-30 $15,000/Year
Present Worth Cost: $383,000
Monitoring Time: 30 Years
This alternative would include institutional controls such as use
restrictions to prevent human contact with contaminated groundwater
at the site while the contaminants naturally attenuate. These re-
strictions would be applied to both the shallow and bedrock
aquifers at the site due to the detection of contaminants at levels
exceeding NYSDOH drinking water standards for both aquifers and
would prohibit the installation of new wells at the site intended
for potable use.
This alternative would also include monitoring of the groundwater
to assess migration and natural attenuation of contaminant levels
over time. The monitoring program would include a total of 10 off-
site wells and a total of 15 on-site monitoring wells, which would
be annually sampled and analyzed for Target Analyte List (TAL!
metals and Target Compound List (TCL) VOC; . In the event that
contaminant levels remain below groundwater standards in the off-
site wells during the first five years of monitoring, the
monitoring program would be reevaluated to determine if any
modification of it would be appropriate.
This alternative, if selected, would result in contaminants
remaining on-site with concentrations above health-based levels.
Therefore, under CERCLA, the site would have to be reviewed every
five years.
18
-------
Alternative G-3: Groundwater Collection and Treatment
Capital Cost: $1,678,000
O&M Cost: Year 1 $379,000/year
Year 2-5 $364,000/year
Year 6-30 $323,000/year
Present Worth Cost: $6,607,000
Time to Implement: 4 Months
Monitoring Time: 30 Years
This alternative would include installation of a system of trenches
and wells to collect contaminated groundwater at the site and
construction of a treatment system designed to meet discharge
criteria. Based on the primary contaminants present in grcundwater
at the site, i.e., organics (benzene and vinyl chloride) and metals
(arsenic, beryllium, and manganese), the treatment train would
consist of chemical precipitation with clarification to remove the
metals followed by activated carbon treatment to remove organic
constituents. The treated groundwater effluent would be transported
via a pipeline to a discharge point in the unnamed stream at the
site. The treated groundwater would meet discharge limits based
on the NYSDEC Class B surface water standards. The groundwater
collection and pumping may alter the existing wetlands patterns,
particularly those to the north near the collection drains and to
the south near the pumping well. The exact nature of these impacts
and measures to mitigate them would need to be evaluated as part'of
the remedial design of this alternative.
A groundwater monitoring program would be needed to assess the
effectiveness of groundwater extraction on contaminant levels in
the c uifer over time. Groundwater monitoring data would be used
to evaluate the continuing operation of the collection and
treatment system. The monitoring program would include a total of
10 off-site wells and a total of 15 on-site monitoring wells, which
would be monitoring sampled and analyzed for TAL metals and TCL
VOCs. In the event that contaminant levels remain below
groundwater standards in the off-site wells during the first five
years of monitoring, the monitoring program would be reevaluated
to determine if any modification of it would be appropriate.
This alternative, if selected, would result in contaminants
remaining on-site with concentrations above health-based levels.
19
-------
Therefore, under CERCLA, the site would have to be reviewed
every five years.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each
alternative was assessed utilizing nine evaluation criteria as set
forth in the NCP and OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. These criteria
were developed to address the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA
to ensure all important considerations are factored into remedy
selection decisions.
The following "threshold" criteria are the most important, and must
be satisfied by any alternative in, order to be eligible for
selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway
(based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would
meet all of the applicable, or relevant and appropriate
requirements of Federal and State environmental statutes and
requirements or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to rr.ake
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 beer.
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. Seduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment
is the anticipated performance of a remedial technology, with
respect to these parameters, that a remedy may employ.
20
-------
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health
and the environment that may be posed during the construction
and implementation periods-until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance
costs, and the present-worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the
RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports, opposes,
and/or has identified any reservations with the preferred
alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the
RI/FS reports. Factors of community acceptance to be
discussed include support, reservation, and opposition by the
community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the
evaluation criteria noted above follows. The discussion is divided
in separate sections for comparison of soil (Alternatives S-l
through S-5) -and groundwater (Alternatives G-l through G-3)
alternatives; however, it is recognized that soil alternatives may
impact groundwater remedial options and time frames.
Soil Remedial Alternatives
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative S-l. would not provide any protection of human health
and the environment as no active remedial measures are included in
this alternative. Alternative S-2, minimal action, would provide
some degree of protection of human health through the use of
institutional controls that would include deed restrictions and
fencing; however, no protection of the environment is provided as
contaminants, would remain or. the site and may continue to migrate
21
-------
through the environment. Alternatives S-3 and S-4 would be
protective as they would prevent human contact with wastes and
would reduce migration of contaminants to the groundwater by
containing wastes with a cap in the central disposal area
(Alternative S-3), or in-situ solidification/stabilization
treatment (Alternative S-4). Alternative S-5 would, prevent
environmental degradation and eliminate potential health risks
posed by human contact with disposal area soils through excavation
of contaminated soils and disposal off-site. This excavation
alternative would provide a greater degree of protection of human
health and the environment than Alternatives S-3 and S-4, as the
contaminants would be removed permanently from the site.
• Compliance with ARARs
Action-specific ARARs for the site include Federal and State
regulations for treatment, temporary storage, and disposal of
wastes (40 CFR Part 256-268 and 6 NYCRR Part 360). No action-
specific ARARs are applicable to Alternatives S-l and S-2 as no
remedial activities would be conducted at the site.-Alternative S-3
would comply with ARARs through capping of the central disposal
area and excavation of the outlying areas and placement of these
soils under the cap. Alternatives S-4 and S-5 would comply with
ARARs by in-situ treatment and/or excavation of all contaminated
wastes at the site. Excavated soils would be disposed cf
appropriately; hazardous soils would be treated on site or at a
licensed facility using stabilization followed by disposal as non-
hazardous, wastes . Any off-site transportation of hazardous wastes
would be conducted in accordance with all applicable hazardous
waste manifest and transportation requirements.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative S-l would noi provide for long-term effectiveness and
permanence as contaminants would remain in site soils with r.c
institutional controls to prevent human contact with the wastes.
Alternative S-2 provides marginal long-term effectiveness in that
it deters inadvertent access, but does not eliminate the potential
for trespassers, future residential exposure or preclude further
migration of contaminants. The degree cf long-term effectiveness
of the central disposal area cap (Alternative S-3) is dependent on
its continued integrity andr maintenance. The in-situ
solidification/stabilization .of contaminated soils (Alternative
S-4) would significantly reduce cr eliminate the leaching cf
22
-------
contaminants to the groundwater. Long-term monitoring and
maintenance would be required for all remedial alternatives, with
the exception of Alternative S-5, which would provide long-term
effectiveness and permanence by removing the contaminants from the
site.
• Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives S-l and S-2 would not provide reduction in toxicity,
mobility, or volume of contaminants. Alternative S-3 would reduce
the mobility of the contaminants by placing these soils under the
cap, but would not reduce the toxicity or volume of the
contaminants. In-situ treatment (Alternative S-4) would further
reduce the mobility of contaminants present in treated so\Is
through solidification/stabilization treatment to prevent
contaminant leaching. Alternative S-5 would result in a reduction
in the toxicity, mobility and volume of contamination present at
the site through excavation and ultimate off-site disposal of the
wastes.
• Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives S-l and S-2 would not result in any adverse short-term
impacts. Potential short-term impacts would be associated with the
other alternatives due to the direct contact with soils by workers
and/or the generation of vapor and particulate air emissions. Such
impacts would be addressed through worker health and safety
controls, air pollution controls such as water spraying, dust
suppressants, and tarps for covering waste during loading,
transporting and waste feeding preparation. Site and community air
monitoring programs '"ould be implemented when conducting such
activities, to ensure protection of workers and the nearby
community. It is estimated that all the alternatives could be
completed as follows: Alternative S-l in zero months, Alternative
S-2 in 2 months, Alternative S-3 in 8 months, Alternative S-4 in 7
months and Alternative S-5 in 8 months. These time estimates do
not include the1time needed for remedial design.
• Implementability
All of the alternatives are itnplementable from an engineering
standpoint. Each alternative would utilize commercially available
products and accessible technology. Alternatives S-3 (capping) and
S-4 (in-situ treatment) would be easier to implement than
23
-------
Alternative S-5, which includes more extensive excavation of
contaminated site areas. Excavation of outlying areas is included
in Alternatives S-3, S-4 and S-5, but disposal of these soils would
be most easily handled in Alternative S-3, where they would be
placed under the on-site cap. Capping of the central disposal area
would present fewer difficulties in implementation than in-situ
treatment (Alternative S-4). Cap construction is a common
technology that has been frequently applied at hazardous wastes
sites. Although solidification/stabilization is an established
technology, in-situ application of this process has had only
limited application at hazardous wastes sites and implementation
may also be limited by the heterogenous nature of the soils in the
waste disposal areas and the variety of contaminants present. In
addition, the institutional controls contemplated under
Alternatives S-2,S-3 and S-4 are expected to be implementable.
• Cost
The capital, present worth, and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs for the soil Alternatives S-l to S-5 are summarized in Table
8. Alternative S-3 has a present worth cost of $1,458,000 that
includes an annual O&M cost associated with maintenance of the cap.
Alternative S-4 is substantially more expensive with a present
worth cost of $5,028,000 associated with in-situ treatment of the
waste material. Alternative S-5 has a present worth cost of
$7,142,000, due to the high capital cost of excavation and off-site
disposal.
• State Acceptance
After review of all .Bailable information the NYSDEC has indicated
that it concurs wi._n the selected alternative for the soils.
NYSDEC's letter of concurrence is presented in Appendix IV of this
document.
• Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the soil preferred alternative has beer.
assessed in the Responsiveness Summary portion of this ROD
following review of the public comments received on the RI/FS
report and Proposed Plan. All comments submitted during the public
comment period were evaluated and are addressed in the attached
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix V). In general, the public was
supportive of EPA's proposed remedy for the contaminated soils.
24
-------
Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative G-l does not include institutional controls or active
remediation and is not protective of human health in that potential
future residents could be exposed to contaminated groundwater at
the site. Alternative G-2 would provide protection of human health
through the implementation of institutional controls, such as use
restrictions, to prevent potable use of contaminated site
groundwater. Currently, there is no plume of contaminants
migrating from the site; however, Alternative G-3 would provide the
greatest degree of protection of human health and the environment
of the three groundwater alternatives as it includes collection and
treatment of contaminated groundwater to remove the contaminants
present throughout the area of groundwater contamination.
Treatment cf the extracted groundwater prior to on-site discharge
to the unnamed stream would ensure that the discharge water does
not pose an environmental or human health risk.
• Compliance with ARARs
Principal location-specific and chemical-specific ARARs for the
site include the Federal Protection of Wetlands Executive Order
(E.O. 11990), NYCRR Wetland Permit (6 NYCRR Part 633), the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) promulgated National Primary Drinking
Water standards including both Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCL) and
the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), and the New York State
Groundwater and Surface Water Standards promulgated by NYSDEC.
Current EFA policy states that groundwater remediation levels be
generally attained throughout the contamination plume, or at and
beyond the waste management a.-ea: when wastes are left in place.
At this site, essentially all of the detected groundwater
contamination is located beneath the waste management area. As
discussed earlier, there are three isolated areas outside of the
central disposal area where overburden groundwater contamination
was initially identified; however, EPA believes that further
sampling (to be conducted during the design stage) will likely show
that there is actually no overburden contamination in those areas.
Accordingly, EPA believes that all three groundwater alternatives
'The waste management area is defined as the area comprising the cap in
addition to an adjacent buffer area necessary to preserve the integrity of the
cap and to provide access to perform mainter.ar.ee en the cap.
25
-------
would likely achieve site remedial action objectives at and beyond
the edge of the waste management area, as the area of contamination
does not extend beyond the waste'management area. Alternative
G-2 would include institutional controls to prevent use of
contaminated groundwater and long-term monitoring to ensure
migration does not occur and to assess the rate of attenuation.
Alternative G-3 is intended to achieve compliance with the site
remedial action objectives throughout the area of groundwater
contamination (i.e., including beneath the waste management area)
through collection and treatment of groundwater. Discharge of
treated groundwater to the unnamed stream would be conducted in
accordance with all applicable regulations, including NYSDEC Class
B surface water standards as appropriate for the receiving water
body. In addition, this stream flows into a NYSDFC-regulated
wetland, thereby requiring compliance with NYSDEC wetland permit
requirements.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
All three groundwater alternatives would likely achieve site
remedial action objectives at or beyond the edge of the waste
management area, as the area of groundwater contamination does not
extend beyond the waste management area. Alternatives G-l and G-2
would rely only on natural attenuation for the groundwater
contamination beneath the waste management area. Alternative G-3
is intended to achieve site remedial action objectives throughout
the area of groundwater contamination more quickly than
Alternatives G-l and G-2 through active remediation of the
groundwater. However, under Alternative G-3, while some contaminant
concentrations are expected to reach cleanup levels in a reasonable
amount of ti~e (approximately 10 years), modeling estimates that
other contaminants would take considerably longer to reach cleanup
levels.
• Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
No reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination
present at the site through active remediation would occur for
Alternatives G-l and G-2; however, natural attenuation and
degradation would reduce toxicity of the contaminants present over
time particularly when soil source control measures are instituted.
Alternative G-3 is intended to reduce the volume of contamination
present at the site through extraction of contaminated groundwater
using combination of pumping wells and collection trenches. In
26
-------
addition, the toxicity of the extracted groundwater would be
reduced through treatment (metals precipitation and carbon
adsorption) prior to on-site discharge of the water.
• Short-Term Effectiveness
No significant short-term health or environmental impacts would
result from implementation of the no action and minimal action
alternatives. The long-term groundwater monitoring program included
in Alternative G-2 would pose only minimal health risks to workers
performing the groundwater sampling and would be mitigated through
use of appropriate personal protective equipment. Alternative G-3
would result in increased noise and traffic at the site during the
four to six months required for installation of the groundwater
collection and treatment systems. The small potential for adverse
health effects to workers during installation of the pumping well
and potential trenches would also be minimized through the use of
personal protective equipment.
• Implementability
Both Alternatives G-2 and G-3 require implementation cf
institutional controls at the site and implementation of a
long-term groundwater monitoring program. The institutional
controls and groundwater monitoring program are implementable.
Alternative G-3, collection and treatment of groundwater, would be
more difficult to implement due to the need to install the
collection system (pumping well and trenches), piping, and
treatment system, but it is implementable from an engineering
prospective.
• Cost
The capital, present-worth, and O&M costs for the ground water
alternatives are summarized in Table 8. The present worth cost c:
$383,000 for Alternative G-2 is associated with the groundwater
monitoring program over 30 years. The significantly greater cost cf
$6,607,000 for Alternative G-3 is associated with the constructicr.
of the groundwater collection and treatment system and it-
operation, including groundwater monitoring, over 30 years.
27
-------
• State Acceptance
After review of all available information, the NYSDEC has indicated
that it concurs with the selected alternative for the groundwater.
NYSDEC's letter of concurrence is presented in Appendix IV of this
document.
• Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the groundwater preferred alternative has
been assessed in the Responsiveness Summary portion of this ROD
following review. of the public comments received on the RI/FS
report and Proposed Plan. All comments submitted during the public
comment period were evaluated and are addressed in the attached
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix V). Many of the public's concerns
were related to potential contamination of their private wells. In
general, the public was supportive of EPA's proposed remedy for the
contaminated groundwater.
SELECTED REMEDY
The EPA has determined, upon consideration of the requirements cf
CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the various alternatives, and
public comments, that Alternative S-3 (see Figure 3) for the soil
in combination with Alternative G-2 for the groundwater is the
appropriate remedy for the site.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
Soil
• A 4.8-acre cap will be constructed over the central disposal
area in conformance with the major elements described in 6 NYCR?.
Part 360 for solid waste landfill caps. Conceptually, the cap will
be comprised of: 18 inches of clay or a suitable material to ensure
a permeability of 10-7 cm/sec, 6 inches of porous material serving
as a drainage layer, 18 inches of backfill, and 6 inches of topsoil
and grass cover.
• Surface water controls consisting of concrete culverts will be
installed around the perimeter of the cap and at other locations as
necessary to ensure that runoff water does not erode.the topsoil
layer.
28
-------
• Long-term maintenance program for the cap will to ensure cap
integrity.
• To facilitate the construction of the cap, the existing asphalt
and concrete pads, frame building, and shed will be removed and
disposed of off site. Also, tanks will be cleaned and recycled off
site .
• Contaminated soils above the RAOs in outlying areas (TU-1,6,7,
and 8) will be excavated and moved to the central disposal area,
where they will be graded with the material there in preparation
for placement of the cap.
• Confirmatory samples will be collected from the bottom and
sidewalls of the excavation. Following excavation and confirmatory
sampling, the trench units will be backfilled with a clean fill and
overlain with a 6-inch layer of clean topsoil and grass cover.
• Institutional controls such as deed restrictions will be
implemented, to limit access and to prohibit interference with the
cap.
/
Groundwater
• Implementation of a long-term groundwater monitoring program.
As part of this effort, a series of monitoring wells will be
installed between the site and the closest residences. During the
first five years of the monitoring program, sampling will be
conducted on both on- and off-site wells, including off-site
private drinking water wells. Such wells will be monitored on an
annual basis for metals and VOCs. In the ever.t that contaminant
levels remain below groundwater standards in the off-site wells
during the five-year monitoring period, the monitoring program will
be reevaluated. It is expected that once the cap has been
constructed, groundwater quality should improve and, hence, a
reduction in the scope and/or frequency of groundwater monitoring
may be appropriate. The monitoring effort will include the
investigation of possible pockets of contamination where anomalies •
in the data indicate the potential of groundwater contamination.
If future monitoring indicates that groundwater contamination is
not attenuating and may migrate off-site, additional groundwater
remedial measures may be considered.
29
-------
• Institutional controls such as deed restrictions, and/or well
permitting restrictions, will be implemented to prevent human
contact with contaminated groundwater at the site. These
restrictions will be applied to both the shallow and bedrock
aquifers at the site due to the detection of contaminants at levels
exceeding NYSDOH drinking water standards and Federal MCLs in both
aquifers and would prohibit the installation of new wells at the
site intended for potable use. Nonpotable uses of site groundwater
(e.g., watering) may be allowed.
Streams and Wetlands
No remedial action ie presently planned for the streams and
wetlands as there were no adverse impacts observed. During the
Remedial Design, further ecological risk assessment will be
performed as discussed below to confirm that the surroundings
streams and wetlands have not been impacted.
• Perform a pre-design phase wetlands delineation and assessment
of the delineated area in accordance with the State and
Federal guidance which will include additional surface water
and sediment samples to adequately quantify any chemical
impacts on the streams and wetlands that may exist and, based
on sampling results, perform a supplemental ecological risk
analysis.
The goal of the remedial action is to contain the source area and
to prevent further migration of contaminants to the groundwater tc
.the extent practicable. Based on information obtained during the
investigation, and the analysis of the alternatives, the selected
alternatives will provide the best balance of trade-offs amcr.g
alternatives with respect to the evaluating criteria. The EPA and
the NYSDEC believe that the selected alternatives will be
protective of human health and the environment, will comply witr.
ARARs, will be cost-effective, and will reduce mobility c:
contaminants permanently by utilizing permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
30
-------
Capital Cost: Soil - $ 1,043,000
Groundwater - $ 50,000
Annual O&M Costs: Soil -'$2,000
Groundwater -Year 1-5: $52,000
Year 6-30: $15,000
Present Worth Cost: Soil - $ 1,458,000
Groundwater - $440,000
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that are
protective of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory
requirements and preferences. These specify that when complete the
selected remedial action for this site must comply with applicable,
or relevant and appropriate environmental standards established
under Federal and. State environmental laws unless a statutory
waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be cost-
effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource-recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for
remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances,
as available. The following sections discuss how the selectee
remedy meets these statutory requirements.
Protection of jjuman Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human healcn and the
environment. Capping of soils in the central disposal area is
expected to be effective in preventing human contact with the
wastes and contamination migration in surface water runoff.
Contaminants will remain in soils. However, the cap would
eliminate or reduce infiltration of precipitation, therefore
minimizing the potential for migration of contaminants to
groundwater. The excavation of the contaminated soils in
outlying areas and placement under the central disposal area cap,
will provide protection of both human and health and the
environment for these areas by preventing leaching of such
contaminants to groundwater. The institutional controls will help
31
-------
protect human health by preventing access to the contamination and
future exposure of individuals to it.
The long-term monitoring of the groundwater will assess the rate of
contamination migration and any natural attenuation of contaminant
levels over time.
Compliance with ARARs
Action-specific ARARs for the site include Federal and State
regulations for treatment, temporary storage, and disposal of
wastes (40 CFR Part 256-268 and 6 NYCRR Part 360). The selected
remedy will comply with these standards through capping of the
central disposal area. In t'ie outlying areas, remedial action
objectives will be met through excavation and placement of these
soils in the central disposal area. For groundwater, the principal
ARARs include the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) promulgated
National Primary Drinking Water standards, including both the
Maximum Contaminant Limits .(MCLs) and the non-zero Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs), and the New York State Groundwater
and Surface Water Standards promulgated by NYSDEC. EPA believes
that the selected groundwater alternative will comply with these
ARARs at or beyond the edge of the waste management area.
Cost-Effectiveness
Each of the alternatives underwent a detailed cost analysis. Ir.
that analysis, capital ccsts and O&M costs have been estimated and
used to develop present worth costs. In the present-worth cost
analysis, annual costs were calculated for thirty years (estimated
life of an alternative) using a five percent discount rate and
based on 1956 costs. The selected soil alternative has -the lowest
cost that will achieve the goals of the response actions.
Alternatives S-l and S-2 are less expensive but not deemed to be
protective. Alternative G-l is also not protective. Alternative
G-2 through natural attenuation will meet the same goals as
Alternative G-3 but at much lower cost.
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it will provide the
best overall effectiveness proportional to its cost.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Prarticable
32
-------
By excavating the outlying areas and capping the contaminated
soils in the central disposal area, and by implementing a long-term
groundwater monitoring program, the selected remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable.
Overall, the selected remedy (Alternatives S-3 and G-2) is
considered to include the most appropriate solutions to
contamination at the site because it provides the best balance of
trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the nine
evaluative criteria.
Preference for Treatment as 3 Princial Element
z statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element is not satisfied by the selected remedy.
However, the selected remedy is nevertheless, protective of public
health and the environment.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
33
-------
APPED X
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Approximate Boundary of Groundwater Contamination
Figure 3 - Areas of soils to be addressed
Figure 4 - Waste Disposal Location and Wetlands
Figure 5 - Waste Disposal Location and Floodplain
-------
— l'i u|>i:i ty Line
axmito Stone W.tll
\ili/ Sw.)li\|i
,'ji Woodi
Solirlilicanon Ponds
S.nuJ Filters
Figure I
Site Location Map
-------
Approximate Boundary of
Groundwater Contamination
-------
OOOLUCOTD
^li^
Siic.ui>
Piopcriy Line
Stone Wall
Swamp
Woods
I Areas
Kigure 3
EPA's Preferred
Alternative
Propoied Area
to be Capped
Central Disposal
Area to be'Capped
-------
LEGEND
'liciu.lt unil Inc.ation
lTlf1 Woll.-Jiids I -AXKll 11 AIM* .
( 7^v-^
) I IHENCII --T~~~^-^,
/ UHlt S "• • .
7> I .iwln M.iiniky A Sliolly EnglnraM n r
Approximate Wasto Disposal Locations ard Wetlands
JOMC3 SAHII AtlON • HYDE PARK. NEW YORK
Flgur*
-------
Zone A Ait-.'is of 100-yenr flood
- nml 500-vcnr ffaod
/.one 0 Auins between 100- nnti ouu-ycnr
Zone C: Atens ol minimal flooding
CtrilKAL OISPOSAL AREA V
o t
^:^^^'
Appruxiin.itc Waste Disposal Locations and Floodplalns
JONES SAIIIIAIION • HYDE PAHK. NCW YORK
Figure
-------
APPENDIX TT
TABLES
Table I - List of Potential ARARs
Table 2 - Site Remedial Action Objectives
Table 3 - Summary of Remedial Action Objectives Exceedances in
Overburden Wells
Table 4 - Summary of Remedial Action Objectives Exceedances in
Bedrock Wells
Table 5 - Risk Assessment: Contaminants of Concern
Table 6 - Risk Assessment: Summary of Exposure Pathways
Table 7 - Risk Assessment: Noncarcinogenic and Carcinogenic
Toxicity Values
Table 8 - Cost Comparission of Soil and Groundwater Remedial
Alternatives
-------
TABLE 1 (Pagft 1 of 5)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS.
CRITERIA, AND ADVISORIES FOR COCs EXCEEDING PSALs
Jones Sanitation Site
•^^^^4i^^^l^B^ '•
- V^T^^^^^- ihlo'^^;^v?n"
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIA TE REQUIREMENTS:
Natural Ambient Air Quality
Standards (mg/m*)
Federal Drinking Water Standards
MCL/MCLG (pg/1)
NYS Class GA Groundwater
Standards (pg/1)
NYS Class B Surface Water
Standards (ug/I)
OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS,
NYS Recommended Soil Cleanup . __
Objectives (mg/kg)
NYS Sediment Criteria (pg/gOC) C.£*
Federal Ambient Water Quality . .
Critena. Human Hearth Onry (pg/l) °
EPA Drinking Water Health
Advnory-DWEL (ug/1)
NIOSH IDLH (mg/m') SOQ'
OSHA PEL-TWA (mg/m5) 1
a Total pnvnoii
I Catcinoocmc compound
NS NS NS NS
0.2/0 0.2/0 0.2/0 0.3VO.O
0.002 GV ,ND 0.002 GV NS
NS NS NS NS
i
CRrTERIA AND ADVISORIES:
0.224 or MDL 0.061 or MDL 1.1 O.OU \
NA 1.03'' 'NA NA
0.0026 0.0028 0.0028 0.0026
NA NA NA NA
80" 80:e B0:a . 60:e
0.2° 0.2e 0.2" 0.2e :
• OLH Baa^d on roncAccinoQdn^ eflccta oftty.
' vaiu* lor coal ur om»nu (NYSOEC 19931
3v Cuioancr value
••A Not avaiUbic
•O NotdelKied
'•'S No (landard
IS Sle Background
M3L Metnod dcoetion Mnr;.
-------
Table 1 (Page 2 of 5)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS,
CRITERIA. AND ADVISORIES FOR COCs EXCEEDING PSALs
Jones Sanitation Site
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS:
Natural Ambient Air Quality . Ng Ng NS NS NS
Standards (mg/m7)
Federal Dnnlung Water .Standards- Q2JQ NA 0.5/0 5/0 2/0
MCUMCLG (pg/1)
NYS Class GA Groundwater o 002 GV 10* 0.1 5 2
Standards (pg/l)
NYS Class B Surface Water NS , Q. 00oi i.o-' NS
Standards (pg/1)
OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS, CRfTERIA AND ADVISORIES:
NYS Recommended Soii Cleanup 32 09 10* 1-* °2
Objectives (mg/kg)
NYS Sediment Critena (pg/gOC) NA NA 0.0006' ' 0.6* 0 07*
Feoeral Ambien', Water Quality 0.0026 NA 0.000079 0.8 I
Cmena. Human HeatTi Only (pg/I).
£3AOrinlonC Water Heafin NA NA NA 50o *:
Affvtsory-OWEL (pgifl)
NIOSHIDLH (mg.'m>) 80:e NA 5e ' 1.034°. NA
OSHA PEL-TWA (mg/m') 0.2s NA 0.5' 689 25
» • Tout pncnoit
c • C"onogenic comoound
: • O.H bated or. noneai^negtn< •ff*el> onfy
: • Viiu* lar coal u> txttn votaiiw*
g • Total uncMonnai« ffitneti
r. • Recommended tod cleanup object** lor tuMurf act »oii».
• • dat«eon Aroelor 1254
I • Gu>flan» V«IVM: »•*•« on protection el human neann from tixnumot«xi o' r«n
NS • NO mnatre
-------
Table 1 (Page 3 of 5)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS.
CRITERIA, AND ADVISORIES FOR COCs EXCEEDING PSALs
Jones Sanitation Site
.
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS:
Natural Ambient Air Quality
Standards (mg/m7)
Federal Dnnigng Water Standaras-
MCL/MCLG (pg/1)
NYS Class GA GrouncNvater
Standards (pg/1)
NYS Class B Surface Water
Standards (pg/1)
NS
50/NA
25
190
NS
2.000/2.OCO
1.000
NS
NS
4/4
NS
II1
OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS, CRKERIA AND ADVISORIES:
NYS Recommended Soil Cleanup
Objectives (mg/k;)
NYS Sediment Criteria (pg/gCC)
Federal Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Human Health Onty (pgrt):
EPA Drinking Water Hearth
Advisory-OWEL (pg/1)
NIOSH IDLH (mg/m1)
OSHA PEL-TWA (mg/m3)
7.5 or S3
6'
200 or SB
NA
0.16 or S3
NA
0.0022
NA
5"
0.0'.
1.000
NA
SO
0.5
0.0068
NA
4°
0.002
NS
5/5
10
1
0.6m
10
18
9
O.OCS
NS
100: iCC
53
10 or S3
25
50
170
250
i - CAfcinooen< compound.
t - Human rxcarin Daaecmuuoon xaiment craena l»om Technical Guidance lor Screening ConianvnaiM Se*me«u«NYSDEC 19931
k • Aa«um«a a ro/0n««a ol *«a VMM 79 pern. . ...
I • SUndard Ma«4 on natonm* o< turfac* wu«f aooy at d«cnn»i«d trr eouation to (07&.''(in (pom h*idnmi)|-3.490^
m • Lo«m EKtcl L«v«l MMncnt crtena from TecfvMcal Gu«J»nct lot Screening Contaminated Sediment* (NYSOtC *
n . SUnOarrj baud on naioneu ol %uft»t»wtler sooy at determined By equ»t*nei*(0.8l9(ln (ppm nardnett)) • '5
NS - No tlandard
SB • Sue background.
-------
Table 1 '(Page i of 5)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS,
CRITERIA, AND ADVISORIES FOR COCs EXCEEDING PSALs
Jones Sanitation Site
........... .... >.,.;.,, ..- .
.ITEH.V. ,....,. ,,. • ./vC:'...- . -
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
Natural Amoient Air Quality
Standards (mg/m1)
Federal Dnnking Water Standards-
MCL/MCLG (ugfl)
NYS Class GA Groundwater
Standards (pg/l)
NYS Class 3 Surface Water
Siancarcs (yg/1)
-
. Coppar
.' **i% ' t
Wang am »« Mercury Nickel :
• . • I
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS:
NS
rr/i,30o
2CO
0
OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS.
NYS Pecommendec Soil Cleanup
Objectives (mg/kg)
NYS Sedimeni Cntena (pg/gOC)
Federal Ambient Water Quality
Cntena, Human Health Only (pg/l):
EPA Dnnking Water Health
Advisory-DWEL (pg/l)
NIOSH ICLH (mg/m')
OSKA PEL-TWA (mg/m')
a • Carc*ng*n< eampouna
t . Human !>%>lUt NO«tCmV^VCf« f«4««4«4 V*'
25 or S9
16"1
NA
NA
100
t
NS NS NS
NS 2i2 lOCilOO
300' .2 NS
NS 0.2 GV -' !
CR/TER'A AND ADV7SOR/ES:
S3 0." .3 or S3
4fo" 0.5 "6.
100 0.114 13.4
NA 10 580
500 10 10"
5s 0.1
na Horn T«eft~cal Gu«ttne« l (0 »5*5 |lr.( epm r»»rqnet»)l • i
"
UOM« Efl«d
St»rx»»fd M*
p " • Comonao «undai« Iw >en «nd mvtgann* ot 500 ugA
* Ga^nQ vi^ja fid to M tiCGaovd ttfim.
. Sandart M**4 on r^rdncM ol »url»e« wmlet body »• aeUfmin^ ey ««u»tion tin (0.76 (ln{ pom n»t«ne»»)| - i 06)
NA • Not
NS - No uaraaio
SB • S«« oacJiground.
7T . Tiiaunent
•• COVE ::c*'«vx>
-------
Table 1 (page 5 of 5)
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS,
CRITERIA, AND ADVISORIES FOR COCs EXCEEDING PSALs
Jones Sanitation Site
HEW '"..'., ,:-.V -'-.'' •.'./.".. S3v»r Zinc Cyanide
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS:
Natural Amcient Air Quality N- Nc ^5
Standards (mg/'m')
Federal Dnniur.g Water Standards- , . QOQl 20C.70C
MCUMCLG (ug/1)
NYS Class GA Groundwater ,Q -jQO 100
Standards (pg/l)
NYS Class 3 Surface Water Q . 30 ' 5 2
Slandaros (pg/1)
OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS. CRITERIA AND ADVISORIES:
NA
NS
SB
NYS Recommended Soil Cleanup
Objectives (mg/'kg)
NYS Sediment Criteria (ug/gOC)
Federal Ambient Water Quality
Criteria. Human Health Onry (ugA):
EPA Drinking Water Healtti Advisory
DWEL (ug/1)
NIOSH IDLH (mg/mj)
CSHA PEL-TWA (mg/mj)
SS 20 or SB
120 NA |
5C NA 52
NA NA NA
10 NA NA ..
001 NA NA |
- Secondary Uajormnn Contaminant Level (SMCU: n« i*»a»f «nlorc*abie
- Some !omi» of Cyanide »r« eomptex and uabK while *** ' «»>*" ruaotuPiing toil cleanup cbiee'iv. A
- NM avaa»»e.
• Site Background.
iM us '•"• :
-------
Table 2
SITE REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES'
Jones Sanitation Site
ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA
Soil
Groundwater
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Organics:
Tetrachloroethylene < 1.400 pg/kg* .
4-Methylphenol < 900 pg/kg* •
Fluoranthene < 50.000 pg/kg
Pyrene < 50.000 pg/kg '
3enzo(a)anthracene < 220 pg/kg
Benzo(b)fluoranthene < 1.100 pg/kg
Benzo(a)pyrene < 61 pg/kg*
lndeno(1,2.3-cd)pyrene < 3.200 pg/kg
Dibenzo(a.h)amhracene < 14 pg/kg'.
PCBs< 10 mg/kg*
Inorganics:
Antimony < 9.6 mg/kgs
Arsenic < 7.5 mg/kg' -
Barium < 300 mg/kg
Beryllium < 1.3 mg/kg5
Cadmium < 1 mg/kg*
Cnromium < 25.9 mg/kg
Copper < 35.1 mg/kg* -.
Manganese < 2.240 mg/kg1
Mercury < 0.1 mg/kg
Nickel < 41.1 mg/kg
Silver < 1.9 mg/kg
Vanadium < 150 mg/kg9
Zinc < 141 mg/kg
Cyanide < 0.06 mg/kge
Organics:
Benzene < 0.7 pg/l*
Vinyl cnloride < 2 pg/l*
Inorganics:
Arsenic < 25 pg/l*
Banum < .1,000 mg/kg
Beryllium < 4 pg/l*
Manganese < 300 pg/l*
•O»i -«
• AU COC» eenuried n b*Mbne rax t&tAtsnent included: rwwwcf . a smaller
o( 9w«e oencrwd VMVI *•' •ocouniM (or 90% or more of Uw ulcutaled rnk.
• TS«s« COCt *i«3enor«dr ba*ean« r«* auoumert did noi exceed PSAL*.
• The remedial action object** for cy»rio* » b*Md on the method detection tun*.
s "IBM r > V*«6 J il U AW
-------
Table 3
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVE
EXCEEDANCES IN OVERBURDEN WELLS
Jones Sanitation Site
CONTAMINANT
VOCs(ugyi):
i Benzene
j Chlorpoenzene
' ^-Dic.'iloroDenzene
.4-Dichlorob€nzene
.2-Dichlorobenzene
METALS (pg/!)s:
i Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Berylli-jrr.
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Z;nc
a • Number of overburden welts with
'.he 1 3 overtxjf den welts sampled
0 • Total (unfiHered) metals concents
. PSAL
07
5
5
4 7
4.7
37.6GO
25
1.000
4
85.200
167
49.5
200
90,400
43.7
14.000
5.480
132
5.490
1C .
20.000
42.2
1.350
NUMBER OF
WELLS
EXCEEDING
PSAL'
5
4
1
2
2
4
i
2
2
6
2
4
4
4
6
7
3
3
5
«,
s
4
4
concentrations °! ihe contaminant ei&eetiing the
during the Rl.
items
RANGE OF
CONCENTRATIONS
DETECTED
1
1
1-65 !
14-110
11
8-15 :
10-12 ;
!
52. 900-1 94. QOC '
33 '.
1,370-3.120
7.5-9.9
100.000-21S.CCO
197-351
60. 8-311
295-778
95. 500-548. OCO ;
45.3-395 :
15,000-66.200 !
18.900-88.300
237-399
6. 520-16. 7CO
27.1
51.400-90,000
53.7-166
1.390-10. SCC
PSAL OlA 0(
lH US "•
-------
Table 4
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVE
EXCEEDANCES IN BEDROCK WELLS
Jones Sanitation Site
CONTAMINANT PSAL
VCCs (pg/1):
Vinyl cMonde 2
C4S-l.2-Dichloroethane 5
Benzene 0.7
Tetrachloroethylene 5
NUMBER OF
WELLS
EXCEEDING
PSAL*
4
1
2
I
1
1
RANGE
CONCENTRATIONS
DETECTED
5
11-37
24
7
METALS (ijg/l) :
Calciu-n
Magnesium
Manganese
Potassium
Sodium
85.200
U.OOO
5.480
5.490
20.000
9
9
1
2
11
96.60C-175.0CO
15. 200-36. 9CO
6.360
7. 060-26. 4CC
22.000-92.300
- Number of DeOroc* weits witn concentrations of trx contaminant e*ce«cing 'Tie PSAL out of
tto 15 beorocx w«U« tampteo during the Rl.
- Total (unfiltarod) irwtat* oorc«nmtion*.
-------
Table 5
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN EVALUATED IN THE
BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT
Jones Sanitation Site
SOIL
GROUNDWATER
Antimony*
Arsenic
Barium
5enzo(a)3nthracene
3enzo(b)fluoranthene
5enzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium'
Cadmium
C.iromiun
Cc-pper
Cyanide
Ditenzc(a.h)anihracene
Fluoranthene
lndeno(1.2.3-cd)pyrene
Manganese
Mercury
4-Methylpnenoi
Nickel
PCBs
Pyrene
Silver
Tetrachloroethyiene
Vanadium*
Zinc
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Beryllium
Manganese
Vinyl cnlonCe
SURFACE WATER
SEDIMENT
Manganese
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Cnromium
Copper
Manganese
Vanadium
a • Concentrations Old not exceed PSAt.
-C».£S»*> JU.S 't
' J V«.
-------
Tilblef. (|>;I('L- l.il/)
Siiiiini;ny nl I'ukiili.il ltcic|iti>is and l'i>\sdilr l:.»|u>Miie. Pathways
Junes .S.iiiilalum Sili-
lly,Ic I'.iik. New Yoik
Potential
Receptor
r.>l>ostiic
Mciliiiiu
I'.ipiiMJie. 1'alliway
ly|>c ii(
Evaluation
Reason fur
(.'urn-ill :mil
I'lllne Keciea
Adnli/l Inld
Soil
Incidental ingcsliim n(
MM I.nc soil
Quanliiaiivc Site is not fenced nml is iicccssililc to ncutby
icsidciils
Dei in. il cunliii l willi -
snil
Qii:uilil;ilivc Silc is not fenced :nul is accessible li> ncailiy
Inlialuliiiil nl va|Hiis viilalili/.iug
limn soil inlu .iiiilneiil an
Niil liv.iln.iU-d
I'alliway cmisnlcicd insignificant; only I volatile
niganic COC (leliacldiuiiclliene); e»|nisine |iiuiit
ct)neciilr:tli>m is low (I d ing/kg) _
lull.il.iliiui ul lii|: . dn\t dcnved
limn Liiiilaiiiiiialeil Mill
Niil livalnalfil
I'alliway cousitlcicd Misigiiifitam ilue In
covet, nn c»[ii>scil snil
SuiLuc Wain liiciilciilal iiij:e\lniii nl
lKiiii.il v«nil:iil wild Miil.ne wulei
'I wti smnll siicanK inn lliniii|i|i llit site; site is
iltlc In iicailiy levulcnls _
Inn \liiin ul lisli
Niil I v.ilu.ited C'oiisidcieil nisiginlicant due In negligible ilciin.il
.tliMu|iliiin i >f iiuilgaint. ('()('>; nil iiig.Mue
COCs in Mii(:ke \valci _
Mill r.valualed Oil site [MUM! is IIHI Oi.illnw In \>n)|iii(l 1'isli __
Srdinienl
liu iilenlal III|MA|HIM nl
III MlllllRlll
iK'iinal cnnlacl with sii
(Juaniil.ilive. Two small slieains inn tliroii)',li ilic sue. site is
aeccssililu to iicailiy icsiilcii
liipcslinn nl hsli
Nnl livaln.iled (.'onsidiricil insignilit'aul due In ncglij;ililc dfiin.il
al)Miij)linn nl inoi|>:iiiic C'O( s; noiuganic
('PCs in soliincnl
Mul livalnalcil Off-site [Miiiil is Ion shallow lit supporl lisli
I All! I I I M N
-------
Table 6 (page 2oU)
Suinfiiaiy til I'ulciiii.il Kcfcplois mill I'uwible l-ipmme 1'iiiliway*
Junes Sanitation Site
llydcl'aik.NcwYoik
I'uleniial |:*|N>SIIIC
KixciMnr Medium lUjMisuic Pathway
-'uiiMc KcNidcni Sail Incidental ingcslhtn nf si til
/VllllllA hllll
Dcllttall'INllaX-l WllllMlil . .
Inhalation ul' vapor ••• °;iiili/.iii|!
from soil inlu iiuliNW air
Inhalation nf lti|;itivc iliisl dciivtil
limit riMiluniinalctl sml
(icouiMlwulcr Ingc^lHuiitf |;tiHiiHlwalcr
IK-iiuul cimCtcl with tjimimlwalcr
lliti;il;iliiin ul v;t|Mii% vnl.ilili/iii|:
limn ^iiiinul\v:ilci liming \linwn ni('.
Ililiahllinn id V;I|MIIS vii|.ilili/ni|;
limn |;ii>iinil\valci inlii iniliHM :iii
(liaM'inciil iiililllalinii)
Sinf;nc Wain hiciik-iilal iii|>,c.\liun nl
Miil;ice xvalcr
iX'inialciNilM:! wild suitxc walci
liigfMjuit ul IIN!)
Ty|* «f
UvultialiiMi
Qiiantilalivc
. Quanliliilivc
Nui l-vnlniMcd
N(rt livalnalcil
(jiianlitalive
Quaniiiaiive
(Jiianiil.uive
Nut livalu HI nl
(juuniiiaiivc
Nnl evaluated
Nill livalualcd
KcaMtii f«H luvlusiun/IUcluiiun
I'liijicf ly Mined icswlcniial
I'ntlKi.ly /imcd icsidcniial
I'alhway tmiiitlcicil insignilicMil; wily 1 vululilc
uigaiiit COC (leliacliliiittcilienc); ex|>oMiie piiiiu
conccnlialion is low (1 .6 ing/kg)
I'aihway c«iniideicd ii»igni(kanl diic lo
vegetative covet; mi c«ixMcd soil
l'ru|icily /lined rcsitlenlial; asiunied water Mtpjily
well intercepts contaminated gruundwatcr
Piitpetty rimed reiiikntial; assumed water mi|i|ily
well inleiccpls contaminated grnundwaier
I'rujieily /.lined texidcnlial; assumed water supply
well inleacpts coiilaniinaled gruundw.iicf
Pathway cuniiilcicil iii^ignilkanr. imly 1 vidalilc
iHganit: I'iK.'s (lien/rite, vinyl cliliifide): ei|Mi>urc
(Miini tiHnciUi;Miwp««lti.t
-------
Table (> (I'nge Jof6)
Siimiii.il) til I'lilciiliM KciTplin* .mil I'ossililc l:»|>inmc I'.illuvay*
Junes N.iiiiMliiin .Site
lly.li- hulc. New Yuik
I'lilciihal
Hl'CT|'lof
|-*|K).\llfC
McJiiini
Ty|>c til
HC.IIOM fin Ini-limim/lixtliisiiill
I'nliiic KcMilcnl
Ailiili/Cliilil
Sediment
ImiilcnCil iii|;i-l llll.ll I lllll.ll I Will)
v.ilu.ilnl r'lihnc iCMilcnl Mrotilil h:ivc liiglu-f ei|HHnic ilnr lo
ii«iuiici> ilvr of Mlc gioiimlw;iici liy Inline K-MI!I in
I ul nit icsnU nl V(|(Mlit4tivc higlici c»|iusiiu- iliu- in
so of )lhJBilJ>fr»iilet liy fnlinc icMilmt
liili.ihiliun ol v.ijnns tul.ilili/nij:
IIIIIH yiiHMHlx.ik'l iliiini|; slum fi ni|;
l uf v;i|Niis vol;ilj|i/
limn ciininiltv.iifi iiilu iiuluui an
l iiililli.ihiiii)
Mill liv.llllMll'll
Nol l-v.ilii.ilcil
iCMilcnl wiHifiltiilrc higher OJHUIIIC tint- in
< silc |;roiiiiil\v.ilcf liy fnlinc rc
-------
T;ible
Siiimicny nl 1'iiknli.il Urir|il»is anil |'IISM|I|C l:.n|Mistuc l'aili\v;iys
luncs Saiiilalinii Silc
llyilcl'.uk. New Yi.il
INilennal
Cmiciil Itcsitloil
Ailnh/( mlil
Meilium liipiistuc I'ailiway
Surface Walcf Incidental iiii>csii(m ol
sin fate waler
Dcmial finilacl with \nil.iic wain
|ii|;csliiiii nl li\l>
Scilimviil Intiilenlal iiiLcsluui
nl Sitliiiirnl
Dcimiil i niil.nl \viili sciliiiicnl
lnj;i"-liiiii nl lisli
'1 y|ie of
Not livalualcd
Nul l:v;ilu;ilcil
Nut r.viilualeil
Nul 1 Asiliialcil
Niil livatnaleil
Nul l!valii.ilcsnic as Inline icsiilcnl
.Same ci|Misurc as (mine lesiitcnl
.Same ei|M)Miie as fiiline icsiilcnl
I .III I I I \l •
I',,.
Innt
-------
T.iblc 7
( '.IK
r ;iinl Noiu .in iiio);cmi. Toxicily V.ilucs
III) ( liemic.lls III ('(iniCIII
liiiics Saniialion Nile
llydc I'.uk.Ni-w Yi.ik
( 'lii-mii al
Aiiliiiumv
AlM'IIU'
ll.n nun
llfii/i-iii-
Hi ii /i i(,i l.inl In. acne
llcn/ii(.i)|iyicnc
llcn/o(li)lliiui.iiillicitc
Hi i ylliinil
(.illinium
i llMllllllllll
Cii|i|io
1 )llu II /.ll.l.ll J.lllllll.ll CMC
Hiini.iiillii-iic
Imli IKI( 1 .?. \ i il)|iyiciic
M.UI|'.llll'M' (Illllll)
M.iii)-.iiif,c (walri )
MCI. in y
MclltYl|'liciml.'-r
Miikcl
I'ulyi III. in nl lupin nyK (l'( 'llv)
I'yicnc
Silv.i
1 I'll. II lllillliClllCIIC
V. 111. iiliuiii
Vniyl i lilui ilk'
/tin
(Sl'XiH
Nl- (a)
A (a)
NT. (.1)
A (a)
1)2 (a)
112 (a)
112 (a)
112 (a)
112 (a)
A(u)
I) (a)
112 (a)
1) (a)
H7(a)
1) (a)
l>(a)
Dial
('(a)
Nl.(a)
Ii; (a)
1) (a)
l> (a)
( IU(li)
Nl- (a)
A (i )
J.)(.;i)
( aiuiiitgciuc
Oi.il Inhalation
Sln|ii- l;auin Slope l-'aclur
1.75 (a) I.VI(c)
0.02'Ma) 0.0 ZV (H)
0.73 (.1)
7.3 (a)
0.731.1)
•\..\ (a) K.4 (c)
- -•• fi.l (c)
41 (a)
7.3 (il)
0.73 (tl)
7.7 (a)
0.052 (|,) ()0(|2 (h)
l.'Mi) 0.3 (t)
Cliiniiii; NiniL-arLiiiogciin.
Oi.il Inhalai
RclcR-mc Dose Kcfcrcucc
O.OflO,.l!< |M,,>l,l,.l III I'I'l.1 U S II'A HcglUII IV
I All! I *• I M
-------
Table a
Cost Comparison of the Soil Remedial Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE
S-1: No Action
S-2: Minimal Action
S-3: Capping of Central Disposal Area & Placement
of Outlying Soils Beneath Central Disposal Area
S-4: In-Silu Treatment of Central Disposal Area 1
S-5: Excavate All Areas
Capital
Cost1
0
286,000
1,043,000
4,997,000
7,142,000
Annual
04M Cast1
0
2,000
27,000
2,000
0
Total Present
Worth Cost1
0
317,000
1,458,000
5,028,000
7,142,000
Cost Comparison of the Groundwater Remedial Alternatives
Capital Annual Total Present
ALTERNATIVE Cost' O&MCist1 Worth Cwt1
C-1: No Action
G-2: Minimal Action
C-1: Groundwater Collection A Treatment
0
0
1,678,000
0
Year 1-5 52,000
Year 6-30 15,000
Year 1 379,000
Year 2-5 364,000
Year 6-J0 323,000
0
383,000
6,607,000
I ( .ipii.il COM Ini luilrv (itM^ .mm i.ili'd willi <><|tii|>mi-Hi silr prrp.ii.ilitiri. ,111(1 Kr.ilmrnl ol the ConlMl Pispos.il Area
.' ( I\M rur.tnv ' ( >|iff .lliitit*. .litil rvVliittcn.lrit ('
I lnl.il I'IIACIII \\Milli ( ml MIC .iiiuiiiiil (ii IIHKIOV lli.il I I'A \Miiild II.HC lu ni\TSI novi ,1| "•",,. inlorcSI in oidc' lo h.ivr llic
.i|i|n«|iii.Mi- iiniiK .i\ .nl.ihlf .ii (In .H lu.il linn- llic ii-iiic(li.il .illi'in.iiivr n iinplrmcnlcd
I In Mhi Hi' .1' I- ' i' i fit.Ii r
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
JONES SANITATION SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 BITE IDENTIFICATION
l.l Background - RCRA and other Information
100001-
100176
100177-
100223
Report: Engineering Investigations at Inactive
Hazardous Waste ffi^es in the State of Key york,
Phase I - Preliminary Tnvest^p-ation,. Jones
Sanitation, prepared for NYSDEC, prepared by
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc., September 30,
1983. (Note: Pages 100070 - 100074 of this
document axe CONFIDENTIAL. They are located at
U.S. EPA ,Superfund Fecords Center, 290 Broadway,
18th floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866).
Report:
Stage IA - SEOR FORM. Cultural Resource
Investigation for the Jones Sanitation. Dutchess
County. N.Y.,. prepared for Mr. Brian Kilcoyne,
Field Operations Manager, ChemCycle Corporation,
prepared by Collamer £ Associates, inc., April 10,
1992.
P.
100224-
100252
Report: Site Analysis. Jones Sanitation, Hyde
Park. New York, prepared by U.S. EPA, July 1991.
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
P.
P.
300001-
300179
300180-
300358
Plan:
Saitmlino and Analysis Plan For Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study for tine Jones
Sanitation Siter Hyde Parkr New Vorkr prepared for
Al fa-Laval, Inc., prepared by ChemCycle
Corporation, September 1991.
Plan: Revised Sairplingr and AnalysJM Plan for
Remedial Investiyatien/Fqasibility Study for the
Jones Sanitation Site. Hde Park. New
prepared for Al fa-Laval, Inc., prepared by
ChemCycle Corporation, June 1992.
-------
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 300359- Data Package: Results of Examination for Samples
300422 taken on June 13, 1995, Final Report, prepared by
New York State Department of Health, Wadsworth
Center, July 13, 1995. (Note: This data package
is CONFIDENTIAL. It is located at U.S. EPA,
Superfund Records Center, 290 Broadway, 18th
floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866).
3.3 Work Plans
P. 300422A- Plan: Final Revised RT/FS Work Plan. Jones
300535 Sanitation Siter Hyde Park. New York. Volume I -
RT/FS Work Planr prepared for Alfa-Laval, Inc.,
prepared by ChemCycle Corporation, September 1991.
P. 300536- Plan: Health and Safety Plan. Jones Sanitation
300658 Site. Hyde Park. New York, prepared for Alfa-
Laval, Inc., prepared by ChemCycle Corporation,
June 1992.
P. 300659- Plan: Quality Assurance Project Plan. Jones
300755 Sanitation Sitef Hyde Parkf New York, prepared for
Alfa-Laval, Inc., prepared by ChemCycle
Corporation, September 1993.
3.4 Remedial investigation Reports
P. 300756— Report: Soil Gas Survey,. Jones Sanitation
300989 Site. Hvde Park. New York, prepared for Alfa-
Laval, Inc.
June 1992.
prepared by ChemCycle Corporation,
P.
300990-
301103
P.
301104-
301361
Report: Monthly Prepress Report 14; May 1
•through Mav 31. 1992. Jones Sanitation Site.
Hvdi
Park, New Yorkf prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II,
prepared by ChemCycle Corporation, June 12, 1992.
(Note: This document is CONFIDENTIAL. 3A. is
located at U.S. EPA ,Superfund Records Center, 290
Broadway, 18th floor, New York, New York, 10007-
1866).
Report: Revised Preliminary Site
Characterization Sunnrary, Jones Sanitation Site.
ftyde Park, New York. Volume II - Appendix,
prepared for Alfa-Laval, Inc., prepared by
ChemCycle Corporation, May 1993.
-------
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
301362-
301458
301459-
301588
301589-
301796
301797-
302171
302172-
302361
302362-
302697
Report: Revised Preliminary Site
Characterization Sumirary. Jones Sanitation Site.
Hyde Park. New York. Volume I - Report, prepared
for Alfa-Laval, Inc., prepared by ChemCycle
Corporation, November 1993.
Report: Ecological Risk Assessment for Jones
Sanitation Site. Including NYSDEC Fish and
Wildlife Impact Analysis, prepared for ChemCycle
Corporation, prepared by CDR Environmental
Specialists Incorporated, March 1994.
Report: Baseline Risk Assessment; Jones
Sanitation Sitef Hyde Parkf New Yorkr prepared for
ChemCycle Corporation, prepared by Gradient
Corporation, August 1994.
Report: Baseline kisk Assessment; Jones
Sanitation Site. Hyde Parkf New York,. Appendix E,
IRIS Files and Toxieity Profiles,, prepared for
ChemCycle Corporation, prepared by Gradient
Corporation, August 1994.
Report: Remedial Investigation. Jones Sanitation
Site. Hyde Park. New York. Volume T - Report.
prepared for Alfa-Laval, Inc., prepared by
ChemCycle Corporation, April 1995.
Report:
Site. Hvd
Remedial Investigation. Jones Sanitation
Park. New Yorkf Volume IT - Appendices,.
prepared for Alfa-Laval, Inc., prepared by
ChemCycle Corporation, April 1995.
3.5 Correspondence
P. 302698- Letter to Ms. Linda Wood, Project Manager, U.S.
302700 EPA, Region II, from Mr. James B. Lister, Bureau
of Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous Waste
Remediation, NYSDEC, re: Draft Remedial
Investigation, Jones Sanitation ID No. 314012,
October 5, 1994.
P. 302701- Letter to Ms. Linda Wood, Project Manager, U.S.
302702 EPA, Region II, from Mr. James B. Lister, Bureau
of Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous Waste
Remediation, NYSDEC, re: Remedial Investigation
Report, Jones Sanitation ID No. 314012, May 10,
1995.
-------
302703- Letter to Ms. Linda VJood, Project Manager, U.S.
302705 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Janes B. Lister, Bureau
of Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous Haste
Remediation, NYSDEC, re: Ecological Risk
Assessment, Jones Sanitation ID No. 314012, August
15, 1994.
302706- Memorandum to list of addressees, from Mr. Stephen
302708 D. Luftig, Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, U.S. EPA, re: Revised Policy on
Performance of Risk Assessments During Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Studies (RI/FS)
Conducted by Potentially Responsible Parties,
January 26, 1996.
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400001- Report: Feasibility Study, Jones Sanitation
400186 site. Hyde Park. Kew York, prepared by Lawler,
Matusky & Skelly Engineers LLP, March 1996.
4.6 Correspondence
P. 400187- Memorandum to list of addressees, from Mr. Elliot
400197 P. Laws, Assistant Administrator, U.S. EPA, re:
Land Use in the CERCIA Remedy Selection Process,
May 25, 1995.
P. 400198- Letter to Ms. Linda Viood, Project Manager, U.S.
400199 EPA, Region II, from Mr. James B. Lister, Bureau
of Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous Waste
Remediation, NYSDEC, re: Draft Feasibility Study,
Jones Sanitation DEC ID No. 314012, August 15,
1995.
P. 400200- Letter to Ms. Isabel Rodrigues, Project Manager,
400200 U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Janes B. Lister,
Bureau of Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous
Waste Remediation, NYSDEC, re: Draft Final
Feasibility Study, Jcnes Sanitation DEC ID No.
314012, April 5, 1996.
-------
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.4 Consent Decrees
P. 700001- Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial
700034 Investigation/Feasibility Study In The Matter of
The Jones Sanitation Site, March 26, 1991.
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 ATBDR Health Assessments
P. 800001- Report: Preliminary Health Assessment for Jones
800005 Sanitation Landfill fjonesSeptic site). Hyde
Park,. Dutchess County r New York, prepared by
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), U.S. Public Health Service, July 7, 1988.
P. 800006- Report: Site Review anc^ Update,. Jones
800020 Sanitation Site. Town of Hyde Park. Dutchess
County. New York, prepared by New York State
Department of Health under a cooperative agreement
with the ATSDR, August 15, 1996.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 Community Relations Plans
P. 1000001- Plan: Draft Community Relations Planr Jones
1000032 Sanitation. Hyde Park. New York. Community
Relations Support, prepared for U.S. EPA, Region
II, prepared by Alliance Technologies Corporation,
May 7, 1992.
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
John P. Cahlll
Acting CommlMloncr
New York State Department Of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-7010
Ms. Jeanne Fox
Regional Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dear Ms. Fox:
Re: Dra A Record of Decision
Jones Sanitation ID No. 314012
In response to the draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the Jones Sanitation site. ID No. 314012,
submitted by your office, 1 wish lx> concur with the remedial action plan as put forth in the ROD. This
remedy includes:
-Construction of a Van 360 cup over the central area, after the contaminated soils from the
ouUying areas arc excavated and graded over the central area;
-Removal of any tanks, to he cleaned and recycled offsite;
-Removal of concrete and asphalt pads and an existing structure and disposal of all as C&D
waste offcife;
-Implementation of a groundwater monitoring program that includes annual monitoring of on-
sitc monitoring wells and off-site homeowner wells for VOC's and metals for a minimum of
five (5) years after which a revaluation of the monitoring program will be conducted;
-Installation of several additional monitoring wells:
-Implementation of institutional controls through deed restrictions, to prevent the
development of the capped area and to prohibit the installation of new wells for potable
use.
If you have any questions please contact Mr. Lister at (518) 457-3976.
Sincerely,
Director
Division of Environmental Remediation
c:
K. Lynch/1. Rodrigucs
Poet-It* Fax Note
7671
To
Ct^OtfK.
PhOnM
^
*of
pagos
M
Co.
Phona*
ftx*
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
JONES SANITATION SITE
1. INTRODUCTION
A responsiveness summary is required by the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) at 40 CFR
300.430(f) (3) (F). It provides a summary of comments and concerns
received during the public comment period, and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC's) responses
to those comments and concerns. All comments summarized in this
document have been considered in EPA and NYSDEC's final decision
for selecting a remedial alternative for the Jones Sanitation
site.
This Responsiveness Summary is organized into the following
sections.-
t
2.0 SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
This section summarizes the involvement of EPA as the
lead agency for community relations at the Site.
3.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC MEETING AND
EPA'S RESPONSES
This section summarizes both verbal and written
comments submitted to EPA by local residents at the
public meeting and provides EPA's responses to these
comments.
4.0 SUMMARY OF PRP COMMENTS AND EPA's RESPONSES
This section summarizes written comments submitted to
EPA by the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) during
the public comment period and EPA's response to these
comments.
5.0 APPENDICES
There are four appendices attached to this document.
They are as follows:
-------
APPENDIX A: Proposed Plan
APPENDIX B: Public Notices that were printed in
the Poughkeepsie. Journal, and the
Hyde Park Townsman to announce the
public meeting.
APPENDIX C: Sign-in sheets of attendees at the
March 13, 1997 public meeting.
APPENDIX D: Written comments received by EPA
during the public comment period
which are summarized in Sections 3.0
of the Responsiveness Summary.
2 . 0 SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES .
EPA held a public comment period from February 21 through March
22, 1997 for interested citizens to comment on EPA's Proposed
Plan for the Jones Sanitation Site in the Town of Hyde Park,
Dutchess County, New York.
EPA's Proposed Plan described the remedial alternatives that the
Agency considered to remediate contaminated soil and groundwater
at the Jones Sanitation Site and identified EPA's preferred
remedial alternatives with the rationale for these preferences..
The Proposed Plan was developed by EPA in consultation with
NYSDEC.
EPA held a public meeting on Thursday, March 13, 1997, at the
Roosevelt Engine Co. #1, 9 Cardinal Road, Hyde Park, New York.
During the meeting, representatives from EPA, NYSDEC, and the New
York State Department of Health (NYSDCH) answered questions and
received verbal and written comments on the Proposed Plan and the
other remedial alternatives under consideration.
In addition to comments received at the public meeting, EPA
received written comments during the public comment period
regarding its Proposed Plan. EPA's responses to these comments
are included in this Responsiveness Sur.rr.ary which is appended tc,
and a part of, the Record of Decisicr., the document which
-------
describes the selected remedy for cleaning up the site. All
comments summarized in this Responsiveness Summary were
considered prior to EPA's final determination of the selected
remedy.
There was little public interest in the Site prior to the release
of EPA's Proposed Plan in February 1997. The notice of
availability of the final Proposed Plan for the Jones Sanitation
Site was published in the Poughkeepsie Journal on Friday,
February 21, 1997, and in the Hyde Park Townsman on Thursday,
February 27, 1997. A copy of the public notice is attached as
Appendix B.
A transcript of the March 13, 1997 public meeting is available at
the information repository at the Hyde Park Free Public Library.
The sign-in sheets from the public meeting are attached as
Appendix C.
This" Responsiveness Summary and Record of Decision, along with
the Administrative Record for the site, are available at the
information repository referenced above.
3 . 0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC MEETING AND
EPA'S RESPONSES
Comments and questions expressed at the March 13, 1997 public
meeting are summarized below according to the following topics:
3.1 Remedial Alternative Preferences
3.2 Surface Water Contamination
3 3 Groundwater Contamination
3.4 Health Concerns
3.5 Remedial Construction
3.6 Financial Responsibility
3.1 Remedial Alternative Preferences
3.1.1 Comment: A resident asked how remediation at the Jones
Sanitation Site compares to the remediation taking place at the
Hudson River Psychiatric Center. He commented that $1 million is
being spent at the Psychiatric Center to remove soils containing
-------
[polychlorinated biphenyls] PCBs. He noted that a similar amount
of money will be spent to remediate the Jones Sanitation Site,
yet the Jones Sanitation Site appears to be more complex because
of the variety of chemicals present in soil and groundwater.
Also, the contamination at the Psychiatric Center does not appear
to be affecting any potable wells, whereas contamination at the
Jones Sanitation Site could potentially affect many potable
wells. He asked whether the sites are comparable.
Response: The contamination associated with the Hudson River
Psychiatric Center was caused by a spill of fluid containing PCBs
from a transformer. The contamination at the Jones Sanitation
Site resulted from operation of a septage facility over a long
period of time which also received industrial wastes.
After characterizing the nature and extent of contamination of
the Jones Sanitation Site, EPA determined that the most
appropriate and cost-effective remedy is to consolidate the
outlying disposal areas within the central area and cap the site.
Because groundwater contamination was also found primarily under
the central disposal area and was not detected beyond the
facility, long-term groundwater monitoring is also included as
part of the remedy to ensure no adverse impact occurs to off-site
potable wells.
PCBs are contaminants specifically regulated under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). A typical approach for
remediating PCB-related spills such as occurred at the
Psychiatric Center is to excavate these materials and associated
< ntaminated soils for treatment and/or disposal at an off-site
facility in compliance with the requirements of TSCA. While the
cost to remediate the sites appear to be comparable, because the
contaminants are different, the remedial approaches for the sites
are not similar or equivalent.
Also, while the commentor correctly notes that the contamination
at the Jones Sanitation Site could potentially affect potable
wells, there is no indication that any potable wells near the
site have been impacted. The creeks provide a natural, hydraulic
barrier between the site and the potable wells.
3.1.2 Comment: A resident recommended that EPA modify its
proposed remedy and extend the sides of the cap down to the
-------
bedrock. Specifically, he recommended digging a trench around
the central disposal area and filling it with clay to encapsulate
the area. This would prevent movement of contaminants in the
groundwater. He stated that this idea would not require a
significant increase in cost. It would, however, prevent
contaminated groundwater from entering the streams and provide
the community with greater peace of mind.
Response: Installing a vertical barrier (which would function
similarly to a slurry wall) to encapsulate a disposal area is a
technology generally employed to prevent the movement of
groundwater through waste when the.waste exists below the
groundwater table. This is not the case at the Jones Sanitation
Site, as the waste does not extend to a depth that the
groundwater would be moving through it.
Capping landfills and other disposal areas is a recognized
effective means of containing wastes and preventing the migration
of contaminants. The cap creates a highly impermeable cover that
will keep precipitation from draining through the contaminated
soils and leaching contaminants into the groundwater. Although
the RI data indicate that the overburden groundwater discharges
to on-site streams, generally no contaminants were detected in
surface waters.
The cost of extending the cap down to the bedrock would be
significantly greater than the cost of capping the surface of the
disposal area because it would require a significant amount of
soil to be excavated and, given the proximity of the nearby
streams to the disposal area, would require dewa* r-ring of the
soils prior to excavation. The water generated trom the
dewatering process would also need to be treated before
discharge. These measures would substantially increase the cost
of the remedy and would not be deemed cost-effective.
3.1.3 Comment: A representative from the Hyde Park
Conservation Advisory Committee stated that the site is located
over a major aquifer which flows generally to the south. EPA's
proposed remedy must assure that contaminants do not enter the
aquifer. The trailer park to the south is in the path of any
migrating contamination plume. Also, further to the south (less
than a mile) are the emergency wells cf the Hyde Park Fire and
Water District. While the district is net now using these wells,
-------
they should be protected for possible emergency use.
Response: No contaminants that are attributable to the Jones
Sanitation Site have been detected in any of the off-site potable
wells that were sampled as part of the Remedial Investigation.
Also, it is believed that the creeks surrounding the disposal
areas provide a hydraulic barrier preventing contaminated
groundwater from moving off-site. The selected remedy calls for
the construction of a cap which will create a highly impermeable
cover that will keep precipitation from draining through the
contaminated soils, and installation of additional monitoring
wells, along the downgradient portion of the site to ensure that
no contaminants migrate from the -ite and impact private public
supply wells.
3.1.4 Comment: A representative from the Hyde Park
Conservation Advisory Committee and several residents expressed
concern about the site's location in a 100-year floodplain and
stated that EPA's proposed remedy must consider flooding effects
which would wash away the cap. A resident asked whether the
proposed cap would maintain its integrity during the 100-year
flood cycle. Another resident expressed concern that during a
flood event, the ground could become saturated forcing
contaminated materials from beneath the cap.
Response: Most of the area to be capped is outside the 100-year
flood plain and is not expected to be affected by a flood of such
magnitude. A small portion of the cap (less than one percent)
along the southeastern border is expected to lie within the 100-
year floodplain of the Maritje Kill. As a result, flood
prevention measures will be incorporated as appropriate during
the Remedial Design. Such measures may include building a levee
around that portion, building up the area to remove it frop the
flood plain, or excavating this area and consolidating it within
the central portion of the disposal area. There will also be an
operation and maintenance plan in place to maintain the integrety
of the cap over time.
3.1.5 Comment: A resident asked whether other factors, such as
road construction, heavy rain, and snow, could affect the
off-flow of groundwater contamination from the site.
-------
Response: Unusual precipitation (unusually high or low annual
precipitation) may have an impact on the surficial aquifer, but
in terms of the contaminants on the site, the impact on the
contaminants would be limited to the site. Further, the impact
to the deeper aquifer would be minimal. The overall direction of
groundwater flow in the deeper aquifer would not change
noticeably, and the rate of groundwater flow might increase, or
decrease, a small amount.
3.1.6 Comment: A resident from Matuk Drive expressed
disappointment with the EPA's proposed remedy to leave the soil
contaminants on the site under a cap. He expressed concern about
potential negative effects on real estate values in the area, the
potential for future problems, and the loss of peace-of-mind for
neighboring residents if the contaminated soil is not disposed of
off-site. He stated that the cost to permanently remove the
contaminated soil would be small compared to the potential
litigation costs that EPA would have to endure if the proposed
capping remedy fails.
Response: Once the remedy is implemented, the eventual deletion
of the site from the National Priorities List should alleviate
the stigma that a Superfund site may create in communities with
the resulting negative effect on property values. The results of
EPA's investigation with respect to the groundwater should also
help to alleviate concerns. As mentioned previously, a cap is an
effective means to create a highly impermeable cover that will
keep precipitation from draining through the contaminated soils
and leaching contaminants into the groundwater. The cost of
excavating all of the contamination and disposing of it crf-site
was estimated to be $7,142,000 and was determined not to oe cost-
effective. Upon completion of construction of the cap, a long-
term maintenance program will be implemented to ensure that the
cap does not fail. In addition, EPA will be reviewing the Site
at five-year intervals to ensure that the remedy remains
protective of the public health and the environment.
3.2 Surface Water Contamination
3.2.1 Comment: A resident expressed concern that in the past,
contaminated surface water may have affected other surface waters
in the Hyde Park area, in particular, what used to be Hyde Park's
alternative water supply.
-------
Response: EPA is unaware of any data that characterize the
quality of the surface water during the time that Jones
Sanitation was operating as an active septage facility. However,
data collected during the RI indicate that the surface water
quality of the on.-site streams generally meets or exceeds federal
and State ambient water quality standards. During the Remedial
Design, additional samples will be taken in the streams and
surrounding wetlands to ensure that these areas have not been
impacted.
3.2.2 Comment: A resident asked about the behavior of volatile
crganic compounds (VOCs) and metals in soil. While it appears
that many of the VOCs would volatilize, he expects that the
metals would remain in place because they are bound tc the soil.
He asked about the behavior of the contaminants over the period
of time the site has been monitored, as well as what would be
expected after the proposed cap is complete. He asked if the
characteristics of metals in soil would enhance the proposed
cap's effectiveness.
Response: During the period of time that the site has been
monitored, no contamination has been observed migrating off-site.
The metal contaminants detected at the site and which will be
contained beneath the cap have an affinity to attach to the soil
particles. The cap will keep precipitation from potentially
leaching the metals and VOCs into the groundwater.
3.2.3 Comment: A resident on Matuk Drive stated that one of
the on-site streams flows through a man-made pond on his
property. He expressed concern that the stream may have carried
contaminants from the site to his pond. He expressed concern
about potential health risks to children and pets u.^ing the pond.
He asked whether the EPA has ever tested the pond.
Response: Limited surface water and sediment sampling was
conducted in the streams surrounding the central disposal area of
the site. While generally no contaminants were detected in the
surface waters, low levels of contaminants were detected in
stream sediments. As a result, a supplemental surface
water/sediment sampling program will be conducted during the
Remedial Design phase and the pond in question will be sampled as
-------
part of this effort.
3.2.4 Comment: A resident on Cardinal Road expressed concern
that surface water contamination may be affecting shallow wells
(15 to 20 feet deep) of residences in her neighborhood.
Response: The shallow groundwater data collected as part of
the Remedial Investigation indicate that the overburden
groundwater discharges to the shallow streams in the immediate
area. Based on the data collected as part of the Remedial
Investigation, the surface water quality of the on-site streams
generally meets or exceeds federal and State ambient water
quality standards. Also, sampling data indicate no contamination
in nearby downgradient residential wells.
3.3 Groundwater Contamination
3.3.1 Comment: Several residents expressed concern over the
process in which off-site potable wells were selected to be
monitored. A couple of residents living in close proximity to
the site asked when their particular wells had been tested.
Another resident asked what percentage of potentially affected
off-site wells were tested.
Response: In order to identify private drinking water sources
in the site area, a questionnaire was developed and distributed
to residences within a one-mile radius of the site. Based on the
results of this survey, wells located on properties adjacent to
the site were given highest priority and have been sampled by the
NYSDOH since 1988. Approximately 10 wells (10% percent of the
potable wells in the area) were sampled by NYSDOH in November
1996. All residents were given the results of the tests on their
wells as soon as they were available. EPA is aware however that
some residents are new owners and may not be aware of past well
sampling. At the public meeting, the NYSDOH representative
stated that the NYSDOH would discuss and provide well sampling
data upon request by the resident. For information concerning
the sampling of private wells, residents should call Joe Crua, of
the NYSDOH at (518) 458-6305 or Isabel Rodrigues, EPA's Project
Manager, at (212)637-4248.
-------
10
3.3.2 .Comment: A citizen asked when was the last time the
wells surrounding the site were tested, and were those wells
located in the direction the groundwater was flowing. The Hyde
Park Conservation Advisory Committee stated that since the
aquifers and surface water flow to the south, testing should be
performed downstream to ensure that contaminants have not
migrated outside the present test area. This will also provide a
baseline for later tests.
Response: The last off-site sampling event included a total of
10 potable wells which were located directly downgradient and
sampled in November 1996. Additional monitoring wells will be
installed as part of the Remedial Design along the downgradient
property boundary. These wells will be monitored, along with the
10 off-site residential wells, as part of a long-term groundwater
monitoring program.
3.3.3 Comment: Several residents asked about the depth of
groundwater contamination.
Response: The number of contaminants and concentrations in the
deeper aquifer (bedrock) were considerably less than the shallow
(overburden) aquifer. Eleven of the 15 bedrock monitoring wells
contained no compounds above the Preliminary Site Action Levels.
Conversely, three of the 14 overburden monitoring wells, contained
no compounds which exceeded Preliminary Site Action Levels. The
depth of groundwater contamination in the overburden is from 5 to
30 feet below ground surface.
3.3.4 Comment: Several residents asked how long homeowners'
private wells will be tested after remedial construction is
complete.
Response: At least ten off-site potable (residential) wells
will be sampled for a minimum of five years after remedial
construction is complete. At the conclusion of this initial
five-year period, after analyzing all of the groundwater data
collected, including on-site groundwater data, a determination
will be made as to the need for continued residential well
monitoring.
3.3.5 Comment: A citizen asked how many wells in Hyde Park
-------
11
have been or potentially could be affected by the site.
Response: Based on all available data collected to date, no
off-site wells have been affected by the site. The
implementation of the remedy will minimize the potential for any
off-site well to become contaminated. In addition, the future
monitoring program will ensure that contamination from the site
would be detected before it could impact off-site wells.
3.3.6 Comment: A resident stated that there is an underground
lake beneath the site. He asked whether EPA surveyed the area
and has information about the site's underlying structure.
Response: Fifteen monitoring wells were drilled into the
bedrock to a depth of 2?0 feet below grade, and no underground
lake was found. The geologic nature of the bedrock is that it is
solid except where fractures and joints (i.e., narrow openings,
generally less than 1/4 inch wide running vertically or
horizontally) exist. The groundwater in the bedrock aquifer flows
through these narrow openings.
3.4 Health Concerns
3.4.1 Comment: A resident expressed concern about possible
latent health effects due to odors that occurred near her
residence in 1985 and after.
Response: No air quality data exists for the period that Jones
Sanitation was operating. Therefore, a quantitative evaluation
of the possible health effects cannot be made. However, as the
odor threshold for many chemicals is much lower than the toxicity
threshold, it should not be assumed that since odors were
observed, that there would be an adverse health affect.
3.4.2 Comment: A resident from the nearby trailer park
expressed concern about elevated levels of manganese that have
been found in the common well used by the trailer park.
Response: The NYSDOH has indicated that the manganese detected
in this well resulted from a malfunctioning of the well's
treatment system which has subsequently been corrected.
-------
12
3.4.3 Comment: A resident expressed concern about airborne
chemicals that may be released during remedial construction and
could affect the health of her children. She asked if the
residents will be notified when construction begins and whether
they will need to take precautionary measures, such as keeping
the children inside and closing windows.
Another resident asked whether the time of year would have any
impact on the potential release of airborne chemicals during
remedial construction.
Response: The' remedial design.will incorporate construction
methods and monitoring programs that will ensure that no unsafe
levels of chemical emissions reach off-site receptors. Exposure
routes will be assessed early in the design process so that
precautions such as wetting dirt roads (to reduce the amount of
dust generated) and using certain types of foams that cover
exposed excavations (to minimize volatilization of chemical
constituents) can be implemented. The time of year does have an
impact on the potential release of contaminants. The greatest
potential for release of contaminants occurs during the hot, dry
summer months. To the extent possible, remedial activities,
particularly excavations, will be scheduled for late spring or
early summer.
As part of its continuing community relations program, EPA will
inform the community about upcoming site-related activities
through periodic mailings and community meetings. EPA
anticipates holding a public meeting or availability session to
present information about the Remedial Design and to inform the
community about planned construction activities. At that time,
EPA will explain the safeguards and monitoring systems that will
be implemented during construction.
3.5 Remedial Construction
3.5.1 Comment: A resident asked when construction on the cap
will be complete.
Response: After the Record of Decision is signed, EPA will
negotiate a consent decree with the PRPs providing for their
design and construction of the selected remedy. This period
-------
13
usually takes 4 to 6 months. Subsequently, 12 to 18 months are
required to prepare the Remedial Design. EPA anticipates the
remedial construction period at this Site will take approximately
eight months. Based on these time periods, it is estimated that
the remedial construction will be completed in late 1999.
3.5.2 Comment: A resident asked about the composition of the
proposed cap.
Response: The cap will be designed in accordance with the
major elements described in 6 New York Code of Rules and
Regulations Part 360 for landfill caps. Conceptually, the cap
will consist of (from Bottom to top) 18 inches of clay, six
inches of porous material as a drainage layer, 18 inches of
backfill, and six inches of topsoil. The specifications of the
depth and nature of the materials will be determined as part of
the remedial design.
3.5-.3 Comment: A citizen asked how the addition of the cap
will prevent the movement of groundwater.
Response: The cap will not prevent the movement of the
groundwater. The purpose of the cap is to prevent contamination
from entering the groundwater. The 18 inches of clay will divert
precipitation to the edges of the cap so that virtually no
precipitation will flow through the contaminated soils beneath
the cap. It is the precipitation moving through the contaminated
soils which leaches the contaminants from the soil into the
groundwater. If the precipitation which would flow through the
contaminated soil is virtually eliminated, essentially no
contaminated leachate will enter the groundwater.
3.5.4 Comment: A resident expressed concern that the cap will
not prevent lateral leaching of contaminants into a nearby creek.
Response: The movement of precipitation through the
unsaturated soils has very little lateral movement. The cap will
extend sufficiently beyond the contaminated soils so that
virtually no contamination will be leached into the groundwater.
Contaminated groundwater already existing beneath the cap will
slowly discharge into the nearby streams. No remedial action is
presently planned for the streams and wetlands as there were no
-------
14
adverse impacts observed. However, during the remedial design,
further ecological risk assessment will be performed, including
sampling and analysis of the streams and sediments to confirm
that the surrounding streams and wetlands have not been impacted.
3.5.5 Comment: A resident recommended that fencing be
constructed around the proposed cap to prevent access to children
who may walk through or play in the area.
Response: There will be security fencing around the capped
area. The area to be fenced will be finalized as part of the
remedial design.
3.6 Financial Responsibility
3.6.1 Comment: Several residents asked who will pay for the
remediation.
Response: After the Record of Decision is issued, EPA will
negotiate with the PRPs, including Alfa-Laval, to conduct the
design and construction of the selected remedy. Alfa-Laval has
expressed its intent to enter into an agreement with EPA to
conduct the Remedial Design and Remedial Action. However, if an
agreement cannot be reached, EPA may order the PRPs to perform
the work or EPA may conduct the remedial design and remedial
construction using money from the Superfund Program's trust fund.
If the latter occurs, EPA would seek reimbursement from the PRPs.
During the public meeting, a representative from Alfa-Laval
expressed that Alfa-Laval would perform the remedy. All w_rk
performed by the PRPs will be overseen by EPA.
3.6.2 Comment: A resident asked who will pay for an alternate
drinking water source if his potable well becomes contaminated
after the remedial construction is complete.
Response: The NYSDOH representative stated that New York State
has a program that will provide drinking water to people that may
be affected if their potable wells become contaminated. The
counsel for Alfa-Laval also stated that this company would pay
for an alternate drinking water source for anyone whose well
becomes contaminated..
-------
15
4.0 SUMMARY OF PRP COMMENTS AND THE EPA'8 RESPONSES
These comments summarized below were received from the consultant
for Alfa-Laval.
4.1.1 Comment: EPA's Proposed Plan states that "further field
investigations are warranted to better assess the environmental
impacts to this area." However, as described in the Proposed
Plan, an ecological risk assessment was conducted to define site
risks and no site-related biological stresses were noted.
Although a potential ecological risk was identified for on-site
receptors, these risks will be addressed by the proposed remedial
action. Further definition of a "no-action" baseline risk also
appears unwarranted assuming that the proposed remedial measures
are undertaken. Additionally, since the Feasibility Study [FS]
showed that construction activities for the proposed remediation
could avoid identified wetlands, further evaluation of
construction impacts to wetlands appears unwarranted (although
additional topographic surveying may need to be conducted to
accurately locate the wetlands for design purposes). Therefore,
we recommend that any further ecological work be limited to
wetlands mapping for design purposes.
Response: Although an ecological risk assessment was
conducted, it did not strictly follow EPA and NYSDEC protocols.
Review of the document has indicated that the potential
ecological risk may have been underestimated. Therefore, EPA
believes that a further ecological risk assessment is necessary.
Further definition of risk will concentrate on the stream and
wetlands areas. If it is determined that they have been
adversely impacted and pose a risk, a focused feasibility study
will be conducted to evaluate appropriate remedial alternatives.
While the FS stated that construction activities for the selected
remedy could avoid identified wetlands, the Remedial Design must
evaluate the impacts of construction to ensure that the remedy is
constructed in a way to minimize any adverse impacts.
4.1.2 Comment: On page 9 of the EPA's Proposed Plan,
Alternative S-3 is described as requiring long-term cap
maintenance, however, in Table 2 it appears that the maintenance
costs ($8,000 per year) for the cap were omitted in the
-------
16
calculation of annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. By
eliminating these cap O&M costs, the calculated present worth has
been reduced by approximately $123,000. What is EPA's position
regarding cap maintenance in light of this discrepancy?
Response: Table 2 of the Proposed Plan shows an O&M of
$27,000/year for Alternative S-3 which includes the cost for cap
maintenance. However, the reviewer may have been referring to
the difference in O&M cost between the FS and the Proposed Plan
for Alternative S-4 which includes an asphalt cap. Successful
treatment of the central disposal area under Alternative S-4
would eliminate the potential for contamination to leach from
this area. Therefore, there is no need for"the installation and
maintenance of an asphalt cap under this alternative.
4.1.3 Comment: For the selected groundwater alternative, EPA's
Proposed Plan indicates that additional monitoring wells will be
installed. Considering the number and duration of overburden and
bedrock wells already installed on the site, it does not appear
necessary to install new wells.
Response: In considering what has been learned about the
contamination at the site and groundwater flow from the Remedial
Investigation, EPA believes that it is prudent to install
additional monitoring wells along the downgradient property
boundary to help ensure that if contamination is detected
migrating off-site, there is adequate time to implement a
Remedial Action before it can impact off-site receptors.
-------
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED PLAN
(Issued by EPA in February 1997)
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Region 2
Jones Sanitation Superfund Site
Town of Hyde Park, Dutchess County, New York
Febnian 1997
Mark Your Calendar
February 21-March 22,1997:
Public comment period on the
Proposed Plan for the Jones
Sanitation Superfund Site
Thursday, March 13,1997
7:00pm: Public Meeting at
Roosevelt Engine Co. #1 on
Cardinal Road in Hyde Park
Community Role in
the Selection Process
The EPA and NYSDEC rely on
public input to ensure that the
concerns of the community are con-
sidered in selecting an effective rem-
edy for each Superfund site. To this
end. the RJ/FS reports, the Proposed
Plan, and supporting documentation
have been made ivailable to the pub-
lic for a public comment period that
begins on February 21 and concludes
on March 22, 1997.
A public meeting will be held during
the public comment period at Roose-
velt Engine Co. #1.9 Cardinal Road.
Hyde Park, on Thursday. March 13,
1997 at 7:00 p.m. to present the con-
clusions of the RI/FS. to elaborate fur-
ther on the reasons for recommending
the preferred remedial alternatives, and
to receive public comments.
Comments received at the public
meeting, as well as written comments.
will be documented in the Responsive-
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes the remedial alternatives that the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) considered to remediate contaminated
soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediments at the Jones Sanitation
Superfund Site. The Proposed Plan also identifies the EPA's preferred remedial
alternatives with the rationale for these preferences. This document was devel-
oped by the EPA in consultation with the New York State Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The alternatives summarized here are
described in greater detail in the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) reports, which are now available at the Hyde Park Free Public Library.
The EPA's preferred remedial alternatives would involve installing a cap
over contaminated soil in the center of the site to minimize the infiltration of
rainwater into the soil, which, in turn, would minimize movement of contami-
nants through the soil. Contaminated soil from outlying areas of the site would
be moved under the cap. Groundwater at the site would be monitored to assess
movement and natural attenuation of contaminant concentrations over time.
Deed restrictions will be sought to prevent future residential use of the site
The EPA encourages the public to review and comment on all alternatives
considered by the EPA. and this Proposed Plan. The remedy described in this
Proposed Plan is the EPA's preferred remedy for the site. Changes to the pre-
ferred remedy or a change from the preferred remedy to another remedy may be
made if public comments or additional data indicate that such a change will
result in a more appropriate remedial action. The remedy will be selected after
the EPA has taken into consideration all public comments. &
ness Summary section of the Record
of Decision (ROD), the document that
formalizes the selection of the remedy.
All written comments should be
addressed to:
Isabel R. Rodrigues. Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Projection Agency
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York. NY 10007-1866
Copies of the RI/FS. this Proposed
Plan, and other documents relating to
the site are available at the following
locations:
Hyde Park Free Public Library
2 Main Street
Hyde Park. NY 12538
Hours:
Mon, Tues 9am-8pm;
Wed.Thurs. 12-8pm:
Sat. 9am-2pm: Fri. Sun
closed
\
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway. 18th Floor
New York. NY 10007-1866
ByAppt: 212-637-4215
CONTISL ED O FOLLO1* AC P»CES
-------
Super/art J Proposed Plan
The EPA. after consultation with the NYSDEC. will
select a remedy for the site only after the public comment
period has ended and the information submitted by the
public during that time has been reviewed and considered.
The EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its public
participation responsibilities under Section 117(a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation.
and Liability Act (CERCLA). as amended, and Section
300.430(0 of the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
Site Background
The Jones Sanitation site consists of a 57-acre parcel of
land located approximately one-half mile northeast of
the intersection of Crum Elbow Road and Cardinal Road
in Hyde Park. New York (see Site Location - Figure 1).
The Maritje Kill flows from northeast to southeast across
the eastern side of the site. Another unnamed stream
enters the northern side of the site, flows into wetlands on
the northwestern side of the property, and flows off-site
to the west. Freshwater wetlands surround the northern.
southern, and western portions of the site (see Figure J).
The Hudson River is located approximately 2.1 miles
west of the site.
The majority of the site property is heavj|\ wooded, but a
large cleared area exists in the western-central portion of
the site and extends to the northeast. A two-story concre
building is located on the western side of the clearing an
houses a filter press on the first floor and has office space
on the second floor. In addition to the building, several
holding tanks and piping (associated with the wastew ater
treatment system) remain on site. A concrete pad and a
bituminous-paved compost area are located to the east of
the filter press building. The remainder of the central
cleared area consists of a gravel access road and several
depressions with bermed sides indicating the former loca-
tions of sand filter beds.
The site is zoned residential but the existing commercial
use has been grandfathered. Adjacent land use consists
primarily of residential and undeveloped land. Single-
family homes are located along Matuk Drive and Thurs-
ton Lane to the south, and along Cardinal Road to the
west. Val-Kill trailer park, containing approximate!)
100 residences, is located to the southwest.
The wastes that were treated and disposed of at the site
during its approximately 30 years of operation include
septage wastes, primarily liquid, from residential, com-
mercial, institutional, and industrial facilities. Dunng a
17-year period, industrial waste water was also disposed
of at the site. In the early years of operation, solids
Figure 1
Site Location Map
&Ol<0
-------
Jones Sanitation Superfund Site. H\dc Pari. .\e\\ )i->ri
separated out as liquid wastes filtered through the soil
media. After 1980. solids were separated in lined sand
filtration pits mechanically using a filter press and then
composted with wood chips. The compost was used for
cover and regrading in some areas of the site.
Septage operations began at the site in approximately
1956 by Mr. William Jones. Sr.. under the name of Wil-
liam Jones Sanitation Service (Jones Sanitation). Mr.
Jones collected domestic septage from residential proper-
ties and disposed of it in trenches on the property. In
1972. the Dutchess County Health Department (DCHD)
issued a permit to Jones Sanitation to collect and transport
sanitary wastes to the Jones site.
Based on DCHD inspection reports from the 1970s, sep-
tage and industrial wastewater were disposed of together
in approximately 30 to 40 shallow, randomly oriented
trenches located mostly within the central area of the site.
Trenches were reportedly three to five feet deep, with
lime applied to septage disposed of in the trenches to
reduce odors. After the trenches were full and the liquids
had leached out into the ground, the trenches were cov-
ered with sand and gravel.
Mr. Theodore Losee took over operations at the site in
1977 and reportedly ended random disposal by con-
structing parallel trenches. In a 1980 aerial photograph.
10 trenches were identified in a central bermed area:
however, the presence of several other trenches in periph-
eral areas was still noted. Under Mr. Losee. the facility
was operated under the name of Jones Septic Services.
When Mr. Losee took over operations of Jones Septic
Services, septage solidification ponds (SSPs) were con-
structed in the central area and used to separate solids and
liquids. In 1987. a filter press was installed and the use of
the SSPs was discontinued.
The DeLaval Separator Company (DeLaval). which
changed its name to Alfa-Laval in 1980. operated a facil-
ity in Poughkeepsie from 1963 to 1990. Untreated indus-
trial wastewater from DeLaval's operations was disposed
of at the site until 1975. The sources of DeLaval's indus-
trial wastewater are described as: the Tin Room, which
generated acid, alkali, and metals waste from plating: the
Tumbling Area, which generated metal wastes and grit in
the form of sludge: Customer Service, which generated
wastes contaminated with "Zyglo" chemicals and alkali;
the Pilot Plant, which produced wastes contaminated with
oil. solvents, organic chemicals, and metals: the Rubber
Area, which generated wastes contaminated w ith hydrau-
lic oil. lube oil. and steam condensate: and Salvage.
which generated wastes contaminated with water-soluble
oils, lube oil. solvents, and pigments. In 1975. DeLaval
began treating the industrial wastewater using a centrifu-
gal separator and sent the treated wastewater to the site.
Effluent generated at DeLaval that was transported to the
site contained hazardous substances, including, but not
limited to trichloroethylene. methylene chloride, chloro-
form, l.l.l.-trichloroethane. napthalene. chromium, cop-
per, lead and zinc. In 1979, DeLaval ceased sending the
treated wastewater to the site.
Beginning in 1970. the site became the focus of several
investigations by the NYSDEC and DCHD. The investi-
gations were comprised of limited sampling of on-site
soils, groundwater, surface water, and sediment from the
streams on site. Some off-site private and public wells
were also sampled. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
serruvolatile organic compounds '.SVOQ, polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds, polychlonnated
biphenols (PCBs) and metals were detected at varying
concentrations in site media. Based on the results of these
investigations, the site was placed on the National Priori-
ties List (NPL) in July 1987. The DCHD and NYSDOH
have sampled off-site private and community drinking
water supply wells on seven different occasions since
1988. Contaminants related to the site were not detected
in the drinking water supply wells.
In March 1991, Theodore Losee and Alfa-Laval. Inc.. signed
an Administrative Order on Consent with the EPA in which
they agreed to perform the RI/FS for the site. The RJ Report
was completed in 1995; the FS Report in July 1996.
Remedial Investigation Summary
The RI included a soil investigation consisting of a soil
gas survey, seismic survey, and soil boring program:
a hydrogeologic investigation consisting of aquifer test-
ing, well installation, and groundwater sampling; a sur-
face water and sediment investigation: and an ambient air
monitoring program. Environmental sampling activities
at the site included collection and analysis of 179 soil gas
samples. 120 subsurface soil samples, 11 surface water
and 11 sediment samples. Also, groundwater samples
were obtained from 13 overburden monitoring wells,
15 bedrock monitoring wells, and 10 off-site potable
wells. Results of the soil gas survey were used to aid in
the selection of soil boring locations.
The purpose of the RI was to determine the nature and
extent of contamination at the site. The results are sum-
marized below.
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Findings of the Remedial Investigation
> Physical Site Conditions
The physical site conditions are characterized by shallow
soil deposits (0 to 15 feet) underlain by bedrock consist-
ing of sandstone and shale. Several bedrock ridges with
numerous surface outcropping are present at the site.
Extensive wetlands are located among the north and south
sides of the site, associated with two small streams that
drain from northeast to southwest. Overburden ground
water appears to flow from the central disposal area to the
wetlands and surface water streams to the north and east.
> Soil Contamination
Areas of septage disposal were characterized by the pres-
ence of black to dark brown septic sludge materials mixed
with soils as observed in soil samples from borings drilled
through these areas. Forty trenches (TRs), many overlap-
ping others, septage solidification ponds (SSPs), sand filter
(SFs) beds, stained areas, mounded materials, and pits were
identified on the aerial photographs performed by the
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center.
The 40 trenches were grouped into 10 trench units (TUs)
based upon their lateral distribution on the site.
As shown on Figure 1. trench units 2.3.4.5,9. and 10 and
the SSP/SF are located in the central open area of the site
in relative proximity to each other, whereas trench units
1.6.7 and 8 are in more outlying areas.
A description of the physical nature and contamination of
these areas is provided below:
Centra/ D/sposo/Areo
Trench Unit 2 (TR5,TR7,TR9,TR10,TR24-TR 34):
Thi. trench unit consists of 15 former trenches covering
a large portion on the north side of the central open area.
Septic waste material was observed in the majority of the
borings drilled in this area and up to two feet of black
sludge was encountered. Approximately 4,000 cubic yards
of septic sludge are estimated to be present in TU-2. High
concentrations of toluene (110,000 pans per billion or ppbj
and acetone (530 ppb) were detected in this trench unit.
Several semivolatile organics were identified: the highest
detection observed was phenanthrene (510.000 ppb). Cop-
per (408 parts per million or ppm). lead (324 ppm). zinc
(765 ppm) and manganese (4.640 ppm) were the highest
inorganic concentrations detected in this trench unit.
Trench Unit 3 (TR11-TR18, TR36): This trench unit
consists of nine former trenches located in the central
open area. This trench unit, approximately 20.000 square,,
feet, is now covered in part by the concrete and bitumi-1
nous paved driveways. A five-foot thick layer of undis-
turbed septic waste was encountered within this area.
Approximately 2,500 cubic yards of septic material are
estimated to be present in TU-3. High concentrations of
toluene (120.000 ppb) and metals such as cadmium (9.5
ppm), chromium (58.4 ppm), copper (925 ppm). lead
(152 ppm). zinc (1,960 ppm). and manganese (896 ppm)
were detected in this trench unit.
Trench Unit 4 (TR1,TR19,TR38,TR39): This trench
unit consists of four former trenches located on the south-
west side of the central open area. It was confirmed as a
disposal area by the observation of septic waste material
in most of the borings drilled in the area. Approximately
250 cubic yards of septic waste are estimated to be
present in TU-4. This trench unit has high volatile organic
contamination as indicated by the presence of toluene
(51.000 ppb), chlorobenzene (26.000 ppb). and acetone
(3.600 ppb). A total PCBs concentration of 4.900 ppb was
also detected. Arsenic (13.2 ppm). copper (1.480 ppm).
lead (677 ppm). zinc (5740 ppm), and manganese (1.290
ppm i were some of the highest metals concentrations
detected in this trench unit. Also, cyanide contamination^
was detected (14.3 ppm).
Trench Unit 5 (TR20 and TR21): This trench unit con-
sists of two former trenches located in the southwest side
of the central open area, to the east of TU-4. Septic waste
and black stained sand were observed in the bonng soil
samples. Approximately 100 cubic yards of sludge are
estimated to be present in TU-5. Manganese (796 ppm)
and other low concentrations of metals defined the con-
tamination in this trench unit.
Trench Unit 9 (TRS): This trench unit consists of one
former trench located on the eastern side of the central
open area, to the east of TU-2. A concrete block settling
tank was constructed on the northern end of this trench.
On the southern end. an approximately 2.5-foot-thick
sludge layer was observed. Approximately 100 to 150
cubic yards of sludge material are estimated to be present
in TU-9 Contaminants detected in this trench unit are
PCS (2.500 ppb), cyanide (1.3 ppm), and metals such as
arsenic (10 ppm). barium (807 ppm). cadmium (9.3 ppm).
chromium (53.9 ppm). copper (2190 ppm). manganese
(1020 ppmi. mercury (9.8 ppm). and zinc (4210 ppm).
-------
Jones Sanitation Supert'und Si.'t. H-.Jf P^ri. .'•<•» h>ri
Trench Unit 10 Groundwater Contamination
A total of 13 overburden monitoring wells. 15 bedrock
monitoring wells, and 10 off-site potable wells were
sampled for analysis. Ground water quality is judged by
standards such as those in the New York Code of Rules
and Regulations (NYCRR) Title 6. Chapter X. Pan 703.
Surface Water and Groundwater Standards and Ground-
water Effluent Standards and Federal Primary Drinking
Water Standards Maximum Contaminants Levels (MCLs).
The primary area where groundwater contamination was
detected at levels exceeding water quality standards is
crescent shape (see Figure 2) and lies to the north, south,
and east of the central disposal area. The overburden
groundwater is bounded by several hydraulic boundaries.
including the unnamed stream located northwest and the
Mantje Kill to the east and southwest where overburden
groundwater flow most likely discharges. It is believed
that these hydraulic boundaries act to prevent contamina-
ted groundwater from migrating from this area of the site.
The following VOCs were detected in the overburden
aquifer at concentrations exceeding regulatory standards:
benzene (1-65 micrograms per liter (Jig/I)), chlorobenzene
(5-llng/l). 1.3-dichlorobenzene (1 lug/1), and 1.2-and
I.4-dichlorobenzene (8-15 \igf\) and (10-12 p.g/1). respec-
tively. Total concentrations of several metals, including
iron (90.400-540.000 ng/l). lead (43.7-395 Mg/l> and man-
ganese (5.480-88.300 u.g/1) were detected in a number of
overburden monitoring wells at concentrations exceeding
primary and secondary drinking water standards.
-------
Super-fund Proposed Piar.
Contaminant concentrations were typically much lower
and in a much smaller area in the bedrock aquifer as com-
pared with the overburden aquifer. VOCs in bedrock
monitoring wells include benzene (24 ng/1). vinyl chloride
(2-5 Mg/0. cis-1.2-dichloroethene (11-37 ug/1). 1.2-
dichloroethene (7pg/l). and tetrachloroethylene (7 u.g/1).
Manganese (6.360 pg/1) was also detected above the regu-
latory' standard in one bedrock well.
> Surface Water and Sediment Contamination
Contaminants detected in surface water samples from the
site at concentrations exceeding New York State Surface
Water Standards were barium (21.3 Mg/1). cadmium
(3 Hg/1), iron (707 pg/1). manganese (1,760 ug/1), potas-
sium (2.830 ug/1). and sodium (21.800 ug/1). No VOC or
SVOC contaminants were detected in site surface waters
at concentrations exceeding the regulatory standards.
Sediment standards were based on the 1993 NYSDEC
Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sedi-
ments. No VOCs were detected in the site sediment
samples at concentrations exceeding guidance values.
Metals, primary arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead
were detected at concentrations slightly exceeding the
.regulatory standards in several of the sediment samples.
Summary of Site Risk
Based upon the results of the Rl, human health and eco-,,
logical baseline risk assessments were conducted to
estimate the risks associated with contamination at the
site, assuming no remedial action is taken in the future.
> Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related
human health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario: Hazard Identification—identifies the contami-
nants of concern at the site based on several factors such
as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration.
Exposure Assessment—estimates the magnitude of act-
ual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency
and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g..
ingesting contaminated well-water) by which humans are
potentially exposed. Toxicity Ajje5.jmem—determines the
types of adverse health effects associated with chemical
exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of
exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects (response).
Risk Characterization—summarizes and combines out-
puts of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide
a quantitative assessment of site-related risks.
Approximate Boundary of
Groundwater Contamination
-&^&r
-------
Jones Sanitation Superfund Sue. H\df Par*.. .Nf
The baseline nsk assessment began with selecting con-
taminants of concern (COCs). COCs were identified for
site soils, groundwater. surface water, and sediments
based on the frequency of detection in RI samples, the
magnitude of the concentrations detected, and the relative
toxicity of the contaminants. COCs included those con-
taminants that are most representative of risks at the site.
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects
that could result from exposure to contaminated site
media through ingestion. dermal contact or inhalation.
The assessment evaluated nsks to potential current tres-
passers and potential future site residents. Current tres-
passers were evaluated for ingestion and dermal contact
with contaminants in soil, and ingestion of contaminants
in sediments and surface water at the site. Potential future
residents were evaluated for ingestion and dermal contact
with contaminants in soil and groundwater, inhalation of
contaminants in groundwater. and ingestion of chemicals
present in sediment and surface water at the site.
Current regulations under CERCLA establish acceptable
individual cancer risk levels of 10"1 to 10e (e.g.. an excess
cancer risk of 1 in 10.000 to 1 in 1.000.000) and a maxi-
mum noncancer Hazard Index (HI) of 1. An HI greater
than 1.0 indicates a potential for noncarcinogenic health
effects.
The results of the baseline risk assessment are contained
in the Baseline Risk Assessment. Jones Sanitation Site.
Hyde Park, Ne\\ York, dated August 1994. which was pre-
pared by Gradient Corporation. The risk assessment con-
cluded that current trespassers were not at risk from con-
tact with contamination in site media. Also, potential
future residents could be at risk at the site, particularly
from ingestion of metals in groundwater. Risks to resi-
dents from contact with soils, sediments, and surface
w ater at the site are within the upper end of the EPA's
acceptable risk range.
For recreaters/trespassers. cancer risks for both adults and
children are less than IxlO4. For both adults and children,
the total risk is 7.7x10''. The noncancer His for both
adults and children were well below 1 (7.0x10* for adults
and 5.4xlO: for children).
For potential future residents, the carcinogenic risks are
greater than 1 x 104 for ingestion of groundwater and soil
at the site. For both adults and children the total risk is
7.3xl04. For adults, the greatest single contributor to
nsk is ingestion of arsenic in groundwater. For children.
ingestion of arsenic in groundwater and ingestion of PCBs
and PAHs in soil contribute equally to the cancer risk.
The noncarcinogenic His for ingestion of groundwater by
potential future child and adult residents are well above
the acceptable level of 1. For adults, the HI is 85 and for
children the HI is 200. Most of this risk is associated with
ingestion of manganese in groundwater. Noncarcinogenic
risks associated with contact with soils, sediments and
surface water by potential future residents are within
acceptable levels at the site.
Based on the results of the baseline risk assessment, the
EPA has determined that actual or threatened releases of
hazardous substances from the Site, if not addressed by
the preferred alternative or one of the other active mea-
sures considered, may present a current or potential threat
to public health, welfare, or the environment.
> Ecological Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related
ecological nsks for a reasonable maximum exposure sce-
nario: Problem Formulation—a qualitative evaluation of
contaminant release, migration, and fate: identification of
contaminants of concern, receptors, exposure pathways.
and known ecological effects of the contaminants: and
selection of endpoints for further study. Exposure Assess-
ment—a quantitative evaluation of contaminant release.
migration, and fate: characterization of exposure path-
ways and receptors: and measurement or estimation of
exposure point concentrations. Ecological Effects Assess-
ment—literature reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests.
linking contaminant concentrations to effects on ecologi-
cal receptors. Risk Characterization—measurement or
estimation of both current and future adverse effects.
The ecological risk assessment began with evaluating the
contaminants associated with the site in conjunction with .
the site-specific biological species/habitat information
The site contains two intermittent streams (Maritje Kill
and an unnamed stream) and several wetlands. The two
streams are capable of supporting only limited numbers of
transit <* arm water fishes. However, wetlands and wildlife
(eg. birds and mammals) indigenous to the site are abun-
dant and diverse. Site-related biological stress has not
been reported or observed at or near the site.
Of the contaminants of concern identified, eight metaJs
were found to present a potential ecological risk to recep-
tors indigenous to the site based on the risk assessment
conducted Three metals (cadmium, iron, and manganese)
are believed 10 pose a risk to benthic receptors inhabiting
one or both streams at the site due to their sediments
-------
Super-fund Proposed Plan
exceeding the NYSDEC's sediment quality criteria for
freshwater aquatic life. The cadmium, iron, and manga-
nese concentrations detected in the sediments are. how-
ever, within the range of background concentrations for
these metals based on the levels detected in upstream
samples.
Although no distressed vegetation was detected at the site.
and no threatened or endangered species were observed
that may be impacted by the metal contaminant levels
present, the EPA has determined that during the remedial
design further field investigations are warranted to better
assess the environmental impacts to this area.
Summary of Remedial Alternatives
Remedial Action Objectives
Remedial action objectives (RAOs) are specific goals
to protect human health and the environment: they
specify the contaminant(s) of concern, the exposure
route(s). receptor(s) and acceptable contaminants level(s)
for each exposure route. These objectives are based on
available information and standards such as applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and risk-
based levels established in the risk assessment.
Based on available information and ARARs. remedial
action objectives for soils and groundwater were devel-
oped. Remedial action objectives for soil are designed, in
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of human health and the environment, be cost-effeciive. comply with
other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the
maximum extent practicable In addition, the statute includes a preference for the use of treatment as a principal element for the reduc-
tion of toxicity. mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.
This Proposed Plan presents five soil remedial alternatives and three groundwater remedial alternatives for addressing the contamination
associated with the site While the Feasibility Study evaluated six alternatives and various subalternatives for remediation of site soils.
the EPA has consolidated these and combined alternatives that included similar elements. Those subalternatives that were identified and
distinguished by a minor variation that resulted in a significant increase in cost are not presented in this Proposed Plan. The EPA has
screened such subahematives out on the basis of cost. Also, those subalternatives that were identified to distinguish between on-sue and
off-site treatment options were consolidated into one treatment alternative, as the EPA believes that the treatment approach should be ,
determined dunng remedial design. The "Construction Time" for each alternative reflects only the time required to construct or imple- '
ment the remedy and does not include the time required to design the remedy, negotiate the performance of the remedy with the respon-
sible parties, or procure contracts for design and construction.
SOIL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative S-/: No Action
O&M Cost
SO
Capital Cost
SO
Present Worth Cost
SO
Time to Implement
None
CERCLA requires that the "No Action" alternative be considered
as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives. The No Action
alternative does not include implementation of any institutional
controls or active remedial measures for on-site contaminated soils.
This alternative, if selected, would result in contaminants remaining
on site w-jth concentrations above health-based levels. Therefore, under
CERCLA. the sue will have to be reviewed every five years.
Alternative S-2: Minimal Action
Capital Cost
$286.000
Present Worth Cost
S? 17.000
O&M Cost
S2.000/year
Time to Implement
2 Months
This alternative would consist of institutional controls to minimize
human contact with the contamination, which may include deed
restrictions and fencinc Deed restrictions would limit future uses of
the site as a whole or in specific areas of identified contamination, as
appropriate, in the event of transfer of the property toother ownership.
Deed restrictions would be intended to notify prospective owners of
the existence of remaining contamination and the limitations such
contamination has on site uses prior to transfer of the property Fencing
of the site would deter unauthorized access and potential contact of
trespassers with remaining contamination.
This alternative, if selected, would result in contaminants remaining
on-sue with concentrations above health-based levels. Therefore, under
CERCLA. the site would have to be reviewed even five years
Alternative S-3: Capping of Central Disposal Area and
Placement of Outlying Soils Beneath Central Disposal Area
Capital Cost . O&M
Si.043.000 $27.000/vear
Present Worth Cost
$1.458.000
Time to Implement
8 months
This alternative would include the following remedial measures:
Construction of a 4.8-acre cap in conformance with the major
elements described in 6 NYCRR Pan 360 for solid waste landfill
caps. Conceptually, the cap would be comprised of: 18 inches of
clay or a suitable material to ensure a permeability of 10" cm/sec.
6 inches of porous material serving as a drainage layer. 18 inches
of backfill, and 6 inches of lopsoil and grass cover
-------
Jones Sanitation Supenund Siu H\je Park. .\f» Yori
pan. to mitigate the health threat posed by ingestion.
dermal contact or inhalation of particulars where these
soils are contacted or disturbed. Such objectives are also
designed to prevent further leaching of contaminants
from the soil to the groundwater.
The RAOs for soil are the NYSDEC recommended soil
cleanup objectives identified in the Technical and Admin-
istrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM 1994). The
most significant RAOs for soil are arsenic at 7.5 ppm
and manganese at the site background (the manganese
levels in New York State are typically in the range of
400-600 ppm).
Groundwater RAOs were based on NYSDEC Class GA
groundwater standards and/or the EPA primary drinking
water standards (MCLs), whichever were more stringent.
The most significant RAOs for groundwater are arsenic at
25 ng/1 and manganese at 300
Substantial contaminant concentrations were not detected
in surface water or sediments at the site, therefore, reme-
dial action objectives were not developed for site surface
waters or sediments.
Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives.
each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation
criteria, namely, overall protection of human health and
the environment, compliance with ARARs. long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicitv.
mobility, or volume, short-term effectiveness, implement-
ability, cost, and state and community acceptance. The
evaluation criteria are described in Table I (see page ///.
A comparative analysis of these alternatives based upon
the nine evaluation criteria follows. The discussion is
divided in separate sections for comparison of soil < Alter-
natives S-l through S-5) and groundwater (Alternatives
G-l through G-3) alternatives: however, it is recognized
that soil alternatives may impact groundwater remedial
options and time frames.
• Surface water controls consisting of concrete culverts would be
installed around the perimeter of (he cap and at other locations as
necessary 10 ensure that runoff water does not erode (he lopsoil
layer. Long-teim maintenance of the cap would be required to ensure
cap integrity. In addition, (his alternative would include (he
institutional controls describe in Alternative S-2 to prevent
interference with the cap
• To facilitate the construction of (he cap. (he existing asphalt and
concrete pads, frame building, and shed would be removed and
disposed of off sue. Tanks remaining on site, will be cleaned and
recycled off site.
• Contaminated soils in outlying areas fTl'-1.6.7. and 8> would be
excavated and moved directly to the central disposal areas, where
they would be graded with (he maierial there in preparation for
placemeni of the cap.
This alternative if selected, would resuli in contaminants remaining
on site with concentrations above health-based levels. Therefore, under
CERCLA. the sue would have to be reviewed every five years.
Alternative S~4: In-Situ Treatment of Central Disposal Area
Capital Cost O&M Cost
S4.997.000 S2.000/year
Present Worth Cost Time to Implement
$5.028.000 7 months
This alternative would include in-siiu treatment of the central
disposal area and outlying areas rflJ-l.-6.-7.-8i soils using solidifi-
cation/stabilization This treatment process would immobilize the
contaminants (hat would remain in the soils.
The outlying areas would be excavated and the soils combined » nh
the central disposal area soils prior to in-situ treatment
Following the treatment, the central disposal area would be regraded
as needed
Institutional controls such as deed restrictions to limn construction
on lop of treated areas and fencing of the centra) disposal jrej . j-.
discussed in Alternative S-2) would be included in (his alternative
due to the remaining presence of the contaminants at the site
This alternative, if selected, would result in contaminants remaining
on sue with concentrations above health-based levels Therefore unJer
CERC'.A. (he site would have (0 be reviewed every five years
Alternative S-5: Excavate All Areas
Capital Cost O&M
57.142.000 $0
Present Worth Cost
$7.142.000
This alternative would include excavation of all identified soils in
(he central area and outlying areas with contaminant concentration*.
exceeding remedial action objectives.
The excavated soils would be disposed of as nonhazardous or hu-
ardous waste soils ai an off-site landfill, as appropriate, based on char-
acterization of the waste piles.
The cost of this alternative was based on off-site disposal of 36.300
cubic yards contaminated soils. During the remedial design oi irii-
alternative, the cost of treating the contaminated soils on sue prior to
off-site disposal may be evaluated
-------
Suptrfund Proposed Plan
> Soil Remedial Alternatives
Overall Protect/on of Human Hea/th and the Environment
Alternative S-l (please see the table on pages 8 and 9 for
a discussion of the soil remedial alternatives) would not
provide any protection of human health and the environ-
ment as no active remedial measures are included in this
alternative. Alternative S-2. minimal action, would pro-
vide some degree of protection of human health through
the use of institutional controls that would include deed
restrictions and fencing: however, no protection of the '
environment is provided as contaminants would remain
on site and may continue to migrate through the environ-
ment. Alternatives S-3 and S-4 would be protective as
they would prevent human contact with wastes and would
Summary of Remedial Alternatives, continued
GROUNDWATER REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative G-I: No Action
Capital Cost
$0
Present Worth Cost
SO
O&M Cost
so
Time to Implement
None
CERCLA requires that the "No Action" alternative be considered
as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives. The No Action
alternative does not include implementation of any institutional
controls or active remedial measures for on-site contaminated
ground water
This alternative does not require any action to be taken for
implementation: however site remedial action objectives may be
achieved over time through natural attenuation and degradation
processes.
Alternative G-2: Minimal Action
Capital Cost
$0
Present Worth Cost
S383.000
O&M Cost
Year 1-5: $52.000/Year
Year 6-30.S15.000/Year
Monitoring Time
30 Years
This alternative would include institutional controls such as use
restrictions to pa . m human contact with contaminated ground* ater
at the site while the contaminants naturally attenuate. These restrictions
would be applied to both the shallow and bedrock aquifers at (he sue
due to the detection of contaminants at levels exceeding NYSDOH
drinking water standards for both aquifers and would prohibit the
installation of new wells at the site intended for potable use.
This alternative would also include monitoring of the groundwater
to assess migration and natural attenuation of contaminant levels
over time. The monitoring program would consjst of an initial
comprehensive five-year program, followed by a more limned program
for an additional 25 years. The five-year monitonng program would
include a total of 10 off-site wells and a total of 15 on-site monitonng
wells, which would be monitoring sampled and analyzed for Target
Analyte List (TAL) metals and Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs.
In the event that contaminant levels remain below groundwater
standards in the off-site wells during the first five years of monitoring.
the monitoring program would be reevaluated to determine if an\
modification of it would be appropnate.
This alternative, if selected, would result in contaminants remaining
on site with concentrations above health-based levels. Therefore, under
CERCLA. the site would have to be reviewed every five years.
Alternative G-3: Groundwater Collection and Treatment
Capital Cost
$1.678.000
Present Worth Cost
$6.607.000 ,
Monitoring Time
30 Years
O&M Cost
Year I: $379.000/year
Year 2-5: $364.000/year
Year 6-30.$323.000/year
Time to Implement
4 Months
This alternative would include installation of a system of trenches
and wells to collect contaminated groundwater at the sue and
construction of treatment system design to meet discharge criteria
Based on the primary contaminants present in groundwater at the sue
(e.g.. organics (benzene and vinyl chloride) and metals (arsenic.
beryllium, and manganese)), the treatment train would consist of
chemical precipitation with clarification to remove the metals followed
by activated carbon treatment to remove organic constituents. The
treated groundwater effluent would be transported via a pipeline to a
discharge point in the unnamed stream at the site. The treated
groundwater would meet discharge limits based on the NYSDEC Class
B surface water standards. The groundwater collection and pumping
may alter the existing wetlands patterns, particularly those to the north
near the collection drams and to the south near the pumping well The
exact nature of these impacts and measures to mitigate them would
need to be evaluated as pan of the remedial design of this alternative.
A Groundwater Monitoring Program would be needed to assess
the effectiveness of groundwater extraction on contaminant levels in
the aquifer over time. Croundwater monitoring data would be used to
evaluate the continuing operation of the collection and treatment
system The monitoring program would consist of an initial
comprehensive five-year program, followed by a more limited program
for an additional 25 years. The five-year monitonng program would
include a total of 10 off-site wells and a total of 15 on-site monitonng
wells, which would be monitoring sampled and analysed lor 1AL
metals and TCL VOCs. In the event that contaminant levels remain
below groundwater standards in the off-site wells during the first five
years of monitoring, the monitonng program will be reevaluated to
determine if any modification of it would be appropriate.
This alternative, if selecied. would result in contaminants remaining,
on sue with concentrations above health-based levels. Therefore, unde
CERCLA. the sue would have to be reviewed every five vears
10
-------
Jones Sanitation Snperlund Stif H\de Park \?H York
reduce migration of contaminants to the groundwater by
containing wastes with a cap in the central disposal area
(Alternative S-3). or in-situ solidification/stabilization
treatment (Alternative S-4). Alternative S-5 would prevent
environmental degradation and eliminate potential health
risks posed by human contact with disposal area soils
through excavation of contaminated disposal off-site. This
excavation alternative would provide a greater degree of
protection of human health and the environment than
Alternatives S-3 and S-4. as the contaminants would be
removed permanently from the site.
Compliance w/t/) ARARs
Action-specific ARARs for the site include Federal and
NYCRR for treatment, temporary storage, and disposal of
wastes (40 CFR Pan 256-268 and 6 NYCRR Part 360).
Alternatives S-3. S-4. and S-5. would comply with
ARARs through capping of the central disposal area.
in-situ treatment and/or excavation of all contaminated
wastes at the site. Excavated soils would be disposed of
appropriately: hazardous soils would be treated on site or
at a licensed facility using stabilization followed by dis-
posal as nonhazardous wastes. Any off-site transportation
of hazardous wastes would be conducted in accordance
kwith all applicable hazardous waste manifest and trans-
portation requirements.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative S-l would not provide for long-term effective-
ness and permanence as contaminants would remain in
site soils with no institutional controls to prevent human
contact with the wastes. Alternative S-2 provides marginal
lone-term effectiveness in that it deters inadvertent
access, but does not eliminate the potential for trespass-
ers. The degree of long-term effectiveness of the central
disposal area cap (Alternative S-3) is dependent on its
continued integrity and maintenance. The in-situ solidifi-
cation/stabilization of contaminated soils(Altemative S-4)
would significantly reduce or eliminate the leaching of a
contaminant to the groundwater. Long-term monitoring
and maintenance would be required for all remedial alter-
natives. Alternative S-5 would provide long-term effec-
tiveness and permanence by removing the contaminants
from the site.
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility,
or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives S-l and S-2 would not provide reduction in
toxicity. mobility, or volume of contaminants. Alternative
S-3 would reduce the mobility of the contaminants b>
placing these soils under the cap. In-situ treatment (Alter-
native S-4) would reduce the mobility of contaminants
present in treated soils through solidification/stabilization
treatment to prevent contaminant leaching. Alternative
S-5 would result in a reduction in the volume of contami-
nation present at the site through excavation and ultimate
off-site disposal of the wastes.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative S-l would not result in any adverse short-term
impacts. Potential short-term impacts would be associated
with the other alternatives due to the direct contact with
soils by workers and/or the generation of vapor and par-
ticulate air emissions. Such impacts would be addressed
through worker health and safety controls, air pollution
Table I • Evaluation Criteria
Overall protection of human health and the environment ad-
dresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and
describes how risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will
meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
of other federal and state environmental statutes and requirements
or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of
a remedy to maintain protection of human health and the environ-
ment once cleanup goals have been met.
Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume through treatment is
the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a rem-
edy may employ.
• Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to
achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health and
the environment that may be posed during the construction anJ
implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved
• Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of
a remedy, including the availability of materials and sen ices neeJcJ
to implement a particular option.
• Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs.
and net present uonh costs.
• Slate acceptance indicates whether, based on Us review of the RI'
FS reports and Proposed Plan, the state concurs, opposes, or has no
comment on the preferred alternative
• Community acceptance will be assessed in the ROD following a
review of the public comments received on the RI/FS reports and
the Proposed Plan
11
-------
Propcsed Plan
controls such as water spraying, dust suppressants, and
tarps for covering waste during loading, transporting and
waste feeding preparation. Site and community air moni-
toring programs would be implemented when conducting
such activities, to ensure protection of workers and the
nearby community. It is estimated that all the alternatives
could be completed as follows: Alternative S-l in zero
months. Alternative S-2 in 2 months. Alternative S-3 in
8 months. Alternative 'S-4 in 7 months and Alternative S-5
in 8 months.
/mpfementabi/rty
All of the alternatives are implementable from an engi-
neering standpoint. Each alternative would utilize com-
mercially available products and accessible technology.
Alternatives S-3 (capping) and S-4 (in-situ treatment)
would be easier to implement than Alternative S-5. which
includes more extensive excavation of contaminated site
areas. Excavation of outlying areas is included in all alter-
natives but disposal of these soils would be most easily
handled in Alternative S-3. where they would be placed
under the on-site cap. Capping of the central disposal area
would present fewer difficulties in implementation than
in-situ treatment (Alternative S-4). Cap construction is a
common technology that has been frequently applied at
hazardous wastes sites. Although solidification/stabiliza-
tion is an established technology, in-situ application of
this process has had only limited application at hazardous
wastes sites and implementation may also be limited by
the heterogenous nature of the soils in the waste disposal
areas and the variety of contaminants present.
Cost
The capital, present worth.-and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs for the soil Alternatives S-l to S-5 are sum-
marized in Table 2. Alternative S-3 has a present worth
cost of SI .458.000 that includes an annual O&M cost
associated with maintenance of the cap. Alternative S-4 is
substantially more expensive with a present worth cost of
S5.028.000 associated with in-situ treatment of the waste
material. Alternative S-5 has a present worth cost of
57.142,000, due to the high capital cost of excavation.
State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the preferred remedy.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the soil preferred alternative A
will be assessed in the ROD following review of the pubf
lie comments received on the Rl/FS reports and the Pro-
posed Plan.
> Groundwoter Remedial Alternatives
Overall Protect/on of Human Heo'/th and the Environment
Alternative G-l (please see the table on page 10 for a
description of the groundwater remedial aliernatn cs >
does not include institutional controls or active remedia-
tion and is not protective of human health and the envi-
ronmet.i. Alternative G-2 would provide protection of
human health through the implementation of institutional
controls such as use restrictions to prevent potable use of
contaminated or potentially contaminated site ground-
water. Alternative G-2. through natural attenuation of con-
taminants levels present over time, would provide protec-
tion to the environment. Currently, the site does not con-
tain a plume of contaminants migrating from the site.
however. Alternative G-3 would provide the greatest
degree of protection of human health and the environment
of the three groundwater alternatives as it include> col-
lection and treatment of contaminated eroundwater to
remove the contaminants present. Treaiment of the
extracted groundwater prior to on-site discharge to the
unnamed stream will ensure that the discharge water does
not pose an environmental or human health risk.
Compliance
Principal location-specific ARARs for the site include
the Federal Protection of Wetlands Executive Order iE O.
11990). NYCRR Wetland Permit (6 NYCRR Pan 6.VM.
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) promulga'-J
National Primary Drinking Water standards including
both the Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLi and the
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGsi. and the
New York State Groundwater and Surface Water Stan-
dards promulgated by NYSDEC. All three ground* aier
alternatives would achieve site remedial action objectives
over time: Alternatives G-l and G-2 through natural
attenuation and degradation of the contamination present,
and G-3 through active remediation. Alternative G-2
would include institutional controls to present u^e 01"
contaminated groundwater and long-term monitmnc to^
assess the rate of attenuation. Alternative G-3 is miendcfl
to achieve compliance with the site remedial acnon objec-
12
-------
Jones Sanitation Superfund Site. H\de Park. .
lives through collection and treatment of groundwater.
Discharge of treated groundwater to the unnamed stream
would be conducted in accordance with all applicable
regulations, including NYSDEC Class B surface water
standards as appropriate for the receiving water body.
In addition.this stream flows into a NYSDEC-regulated
wetland, thereby requiring compliance with NYSDEC
wetland permit requirements.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative G-3 is intended to achieve site remedial action
objectives more quickly than Alternatives G-l and G-2
through active remediation of the groundwater. However,
while some contaminant concentrations are expected to
reach cleanup levels in a reasonable amount of time
(-.pproximately 10 years), modeling estimates that other
contaminants would take considerably longer to reach
cleanup levels.
Reduction ofToxicity, Mobility,
or Volume through Treatment
No reduction in toxicity. mobility, or volume of contami-
nation present at the site through active remediation
(Alternative G- 3) would occur for Alternative G-2: how-
ever, natural attenuation and degradation would reduce
'toxicity of the contaminants present over time particularly
when soil source control measures are instituted. Alterna-
tive G-3 is intended to reduce the volume of contamina-
tion present at the site through extraction of contaminated
groundwater using combination of pumping well and col-
lection trenches. In addition, the toxicity of the extracted
groundwater would be reduced through treatment (metals
precipitation and carbon adsorption) prior to on-site dis-
charge of the w ater.
Short-Term Effectiveness
No significant short-term health or environmental impacts
would result from implementation of the no action and
minimal action alternatives. The long-term groundwater
monitoring program included in Alternative G-2 would
pose only minimal health risks to workers performing the
groundwater sampling and would be mitigated through
use of appropriate personal protective equipment. Alterna-
tive G-3 would result in increase noise and traffic at the
site during the four to six months required for installation
of the groundwater collection and treatment systems. The
small potential for adverse health effects to workers dur-
ing installation of the pumping well and potential trenches
would also be minimized through the use of personal pro-
tective equipment.
Imp/ementobi/ity
Both Alternatives G-2 and G-3 require implementation of
institutional controls at the site and implementation of a
long-term groundwater monitoring program. Alternative
G-3, collection and treatment of groundwater. would be
more difficult to implement due to the need to install the
collection system (pumping well and trenches), piping.
and treatment system.
Cost
The capital, present-worth.and O&M costs for the ground-
water alternatives are summarized in Table 3. The present
worth cost of S383.000 for Alternative G-2 is associated
with the groundwater monitoring program over 30 years.
The significantly greater cost of $6.607,000 for Alterna-
tive G-3 is associated with the construction of the ground-
water collection and treatment system and its operation.
including groundwater monitoring over 30 years.
Stole Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the preferred remedy.
Community Acceptonce
Community acceptance of the groundwater preferred
alternative would be assessed in the ROD following
review of the public comments received on the RI and FS
Reports and on the Proposed Plan.
Preferred Alternatives
Based upon the results of the RI/FS and after careful
consideration on of the various alternatives, the EPA
recommends Alternative S-3 (Capping of Central Dis-
posal Area and Placement of Outlying Soils under Cap)
and G-2 (Minimal Action for Groundwater) as the pre-
ferred alternatives for the site remedy (see Figure 3) .In
addition, institutional controls, i.e., deed restrictions, for
both Alternatives S-3 and G-2 would be implemented.
Specifically, the preferred alternatives would involve the
following:
13
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
> Soil Remedial Alternative
• A 4.8-acre cap would be constructed in conformance
with the major elements described in 6 NYCRR Pan
360 for solid waste landfill caps. Conceptually, the
cap would be comprised of: 18 inches of clay or a suit-
able material to ensure a permeability of 10: cm/sec.
6 inches of porous material serving as a drainage layer.
18 inches of backfill, and 6 inches of topsoil and grass
cover.
• Surface water controls consisting of concrete culverts
would be installed around the perimeter of the cap and
at other locations as necessary' to ensure that runoff
water does not erode the topsoil layer. Long-term main-
tenance of the cap would be required to ensure cap
integrity. In addition, this alternative would include
the institutional controls describe in Alternative S-2 to
prevent interference with the cap.
• To facilitate the construction of the cap, the existing
asphalt and concrete pads, frame building, and shed
would be removed and disposed of off site. Also, tanks
will be cleaned and recvcled off site.
• Contaminated soils above the RAOs in outlying areas
(TU-1.6.7. and 8) would be excavated and moved to
the central disposal areas, where they would be graded-
with the material there in preparation for placement ofl
the cap.
• Confirmatory sampling would be collected from the
bottom and sidewalls of the excavation. Following
excavation and confirmatory sampling, the trench units
will be backfilled with a clean fill and overlain a 6-inch
layer of clean topsoil and grass cover.
• Institutional controls would be implemented, including
new deed restrictions to limit access and to prohibit
interference with the cap.
> Groundwcter Remedial Alternative
Because there is no current risk to human health due to
groundwater contamination and. after construction of the
cap. groundwater quality is expected to improve, the EPA
is proposing Alternative G-2 as its preferred groundwater
remedy. Alternative G-2 would provide for groundwater
monitoring while allowing for natural attenuation of the
contaminants in the groundwater.
Stom w»:i
Swimp
WOOOI
P'OOOlCd Arttl
10 C* t*Clvl!tC
Figure 3
EPA's Preferred Alternative
/' -v> f •'
<• •<«••
. , _ .'^*. -^
Xi . "V"*- •'
/ .' .-•• '• *'J
14
-------
Jones Sanitation SupenunJ Stir H-.JI P*:~\. NV
fable 2
Cost Comparison of the Soil Remedial Alternatives
Capital Auial fetal PmHt
ALTERNITIVE test' lUICMt* WtrthCatt'
S-1: No Action
S-2: Minimal Action
S-3: Capping of Central Disposal Area & Placement
of Outlying Soils Beneath Central Disposal Area
S-4: In-Situ Treatment of Central Disposal Area 1
S-5: Excavate All Areas
0
286,000
1,043,000
4,997,000
7,142,000
0
2,000
27,000
2,000
0
0
317,000
1,458,000
5.028,000
7,142,000
Cost Comparison of the firoundwater Remedial Alternatives
Capitol taMl fetal hunt
AiniNinn Cast' MM Cut1 WarthCair1
C-1: No Action
C-2: Minimal Action
C-3: Croundwater Collection & Treatment
0 i 0
0
1,678,000
Year 1-5 52,000
Year 6-30 15,000
Year 1 379,000
Year 2-5 364,000
Year 6-30 323,000
0
383,000
6,607,000
Capital Cost includes costs associated with equipment sue preparation and treatment 01 the Central Disposal Area
O&M means 'Operation? ant) Maintenance"
Total Present v\onn Cost The amount 01 monev that EPA nould nave 10 invest now at 5"«. interest in order to have the
appropriate tunas availacle at the anual time me remedial alternative- is implemented
In situ mean* * in place
The preferred alternative would involve implementa-
tion of a groundwater monitoring program that would
include an initial intensive five-year program, followed
by a more limited program for an additional 25 years.
As pan of this effort a series of monitoring wells would
be installed between the site and the closest residences.
During the first five years of the monitoring program.
sampling would be conducted on both on- and off-si:°
wells, including off-site private drinking wells, and
would be monitored on an annual basis for metals and
VOCs. In the event that contaminant levels remain
below groundwater standards in the off-site wells dur-
ing the five-year monitoring period, the monitoring
program would be reevaluated. It is expected that once
the cap has been constructed, groundwater quality
should improve and, hence, a reduction in the scope
and/or frequency of groundwater monitoring may be
appropriate. If future monitoring indicates that ground-
water contamination is not attenuating and may migrate
off site, additional groundwater remedial measures ma>
be considered.
• Institutional controls would be implemented, including
new deed restrictions to prevent human contact w ith
contaminated groundwater at the site and/or well per-
mitting restrictions. .These restrictions would be
applied to both the shallow and bedrock >• jifers at the
site due to the detection of contaminants at lesel>
exceeding NYSDOH drinking water standards in both
aquifers and would prohibit the installation of new wells
at the site intended for potable use. Nonpotable uses of
site groundwater (e.g.. watering) may be allowed.
The preferred alternatives would provide the best balance
of trade-offs among alternatives with respect to the evalu-
ating criteria. The EPA and the NYSDEC believe that the
preferred alternatives would be protective of human
health and the environment, would comply with ARARs.
would be cost-effective, and would reduce toxicity. mobil-
ity, and volume of contaminants permanently by utilizing
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technolo-
gies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable.&
15
-------
Mailing List Additions
If you or someone you know would like to be placed
on the Jones Sanitation Superfund Site Mailing List.
please fill out and mail this form to:
Ann Rychlenski
Community Relations Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Name
Address
Telephone
Affiliation
Tliif is pruned an recycle
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway. 26th Floor
New York. NY 10007-1866
Official Business
Penaliv lor Pnvale Use S?00
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC NOTICES*
'The public notice announcing the availability of ihe Proposed Plan, the opening of the
public comment period, and the public meeting, was published in the Poughkeeosie
Journal on Friday, February 21,1997, and in the Hyde Park Townsman on Thursday,
February 27,1997,
-------
/EFA
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
unites Public Comment on the
Proposed Cleanup of the Jones Sanitation Superfund Site
Town of Hyde Park, New York
PUBLIC MEETING
Thursday. Mircb 13.1997 at 7:00 pm
Rooscvell Engine Company II, Cardinal Road, Town of Hyde Park. NY
The IS Environmental Pioteciion Ageno (EPA) invites the public 10 comment on its proposed plan for
remediating contaminated soil and groundwater at (he Jones Sanitation Superfund Sue in die Town of
H>dc Park. New Yori The EPA will accept public comment! during a public comment period that begins
on February 21 and ends on March 22. 1997. EPA will consider all comments received at the public
meeting and during the public comment penod before selecting a final remedy Written commenu may be
submitted to the following address
Isabel Rodhgues. Remdiai Project Manager. US. Envinmrnenul Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 20lh Floor. New York. NT 10007-11*6
The EPA and the New Yort. Suit Deparuneni of Environmental Conservation IN YSDECi evaluated the
foHo*mg altemauves for addressing soils contamination
S-1—No Action S-2—Minimal Actiofl
S-.V-Capping of Central Disposal Area & Placement of toliying Soils under iht Cap
S-t—ln-Sihi Treatment of Central Disposal Area S-5—Eionait All Areas
The EPA and NYSDEC evaluated the following alitmanves for addressing ground*ater cuntaminaiinn
C-l—Mo Action C-2—Minimal Action GO—Groundwater Cofcction & Treatment
Based on available information, the EPA and NYSDEC prefer a combination of Alternatives S-3 Capping
of Centnl DtsposaJ Area and Placement of OuOying Soils under the Cap. and G-2 Minimal Action for
Groundwaicr This action would involve containing materials in the central disposal area with a cap to
minimize infiltration of rainwater which, in turn, would reduce movement of contaminants through the
soil Contaminated soils from outside the central disposal area would be moved under the cap. Concrete
culverts «ould be instilled atound the cap to control surface »aier runoff
The gjound«atei monnunng program would include an initial intensive ftvt.ycaj program, followed by a
more limned program for an atkliiional 25 years Deed restrictions to prevent future residential use of the
Die would be implemented to limn exposure to contaminants that remain on site ano »the groundwaiei
FtrMtn lufarmttien—Complete analysis of the alternatives listed above are presented in die Feasibility
Study and Proposed Plan These and related documents can be reviewed at the following locations
Hyde Park Fret Public Library. 2 Main Sired. Hydt Part. NT 12531
Houn: Mon. Tuts 9am-tpm. Wed. Than IJ-Jpm, Sal. 9am-Jpm. Fri. Sun ctotcd
VS. Emiranmtnlal Protection Aftnc), 290 Broad*a>, lllh Floor
New York. NT 10007-1166 fly Afpl: 212-637421?
-------
APPENDIX C
SIGN-IN SHEETS FROM
MARCH 13,1997
PUBLIC MEETING
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMbi*rACTROTECTION
AGENCY
PUBLIC MEETING
for the
JONES SANITATION SUPERFUND SITE
Hyde Park. New Yorfc
March 13,1997
MEETING ATTENDEES
(Please Print)
NAME
STREET
CITY
ZIP
PHONE
REPRESENTING
17-2.33
/•' x/y
Or
**
//.P.
9'
Pflu.O ^.
Rcn'
6.77) -
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC MEETING
forth*
JONES SANITATION SUPERFUND SITE
Hyde Park, New York
March 13,1997
MEETING ATTENDEES
Print)
NAME
STREET
CITY
ZIP
PHONE
REPRESENTING
r
73
fr
1-1
.*,/ RJL
u
n
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC MEETING
for the
JONES SANITATION SUPERFUND SITE
Hyde Park. New York
March 13.1997
MEETING ATTENDEES
IPteate Print)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC MEETING
for the
JONES SANITATION SUPERFUND SITE
Hyde Park, New York
March 13.1997
MEETING ATTENDEES
(Pteait Print)
NAME
STREET
CITY
ZIP
PHONE
REPRESENTING
VCR
UU V
0*030
1TCF Katecr ETA
-------
APPENDIX D
WRITTEN COMMENTS
-------
HYDE PARK
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
HYDE PARK TOWN HALL RT 9
HvdePark. NY 12538
March 12, 1997
Ms. Isabel R. Rodrigues, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dear Ms. Rodrigues:
Re: Superfund Proposed Plan: Jones Sanitation Superfund Site, Town of Hyde
Park, Dutchess County, New York
The Hyde Park Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC) has reviewed the
referenced plan and offers the following comments and suggestions:
1) Since the Aquifers and the surface water flow to the south, testing should be
performed downstream to ensure that contaminants have not migrated outside
the present test area. This will also provide a base line for later tests.
2) The site is over a major Aquifers, which flows to generally to the south. The
"Alternative" must assure that contaminants do not enter the Aquifers. The
trailer park to the south is in path of any migrating plume. Also, further to the
south (less than a mile) are the emergency use wells of the Hyde Park Fire and
Water District. While the district is not now using these wells they should be
protected for possible emergency use.
3) Long term town residents have told us that this site is also in the "100 year
flood plane". The "Alternative" must consider flooding effects which would
wash away the cap.
Thank you for the cpportunity to review this plan. We will be happy to address
any questions you have.
Sincerely yours,
P. N. Prentice
Chairman Hyde Park CAC
cc: Robert L. Brown. Hyde Park CAC
Town of Hyde Park Tom Spence Supervisor
Hyde Park Fire and Water District
-------
Memo tc; : ...I.S. *:r>«/iron sv.bject site -'we
at S9 fia-;...iV. D'ive). I have review-Sd the prc wi-.ic-> t cccimmend
3-3: pcrthei1 ir.i; ^i-.d capping the contaminated acil.
: (r>u.st. s ay ti;-. '• 1 »f! very ciis5f«.Opc« inted with *.hi=. rece'*rnT.e-nd*i » :•'••' .
f
F-BI-CC^T : -"in xs (..-ve:- yt'iiTi^, *n(j my pe-*cep t iori is tt ?+•- e* long »«•• th^t s*
ic i>-- r.y i-.feiahiii'.'rtooc: i it mil poce * potent:. al disaster to ce-of-mi od (•.«?--c--..
I " i;i t All-, ing v'b:a;t t:ht' w-Iui? of OUT homea. one tr.F quc.lity of
•_--.T ". c.-t-*. ]";f, te-'Il-'ing abo'jl revriovin^ sr v po-;ent •. .-. 1 Tor •f'.if.i.iT «• prr.t ". :ters:-^e and per fomiad wifc:-i
c -•.-& i-.' :i c..' c< f ession*.! isfft. Vet i;he" e will wlw*.-*? te 9r.n-.«? \ in-jcr i
j -f' *-h« i-i&d E tL-f •? xsr.'t hAu3e>ri ».
P'c. \- T.«B . the c-nly sc-lution th*t i c'?r, tsll s solution is !?•-"; re-novc-.
of «;..!. i.f't tri-r.:. ,-.*r:6c soil. A-'-/~hino els? wv 1 j le*ve us woiTiP»'iric: *:>r t..icr
of C".u- J-. v»». c .- uvi-wii s'.'nieti"'inq h*pip-?ns . Ar-.d if something dc-^s: hr-H'«-* '
t-c=wit o*1 «--!.-••••« xo.-. QT the S-3 plan. *"?h will &efer< sm*ll ccmps'ed f.o "^f
1 1 1 ig«t ..••.••..•? Ti-ti £°A Mould hnvp tt- enccff. '?o ^l^^se r&conside<" Sfvi- v ef < -
P J «> r-. .
•Ti-.^riK ••:•!. i fc-f the opportunity to h*ve ny opinion r^cord^o.
And t.hcin^:s To- tt«of.. -.09 us irif ornied . F'Jea«>€ continue to !'
-------
Lawler,
T^f ft til Sit V Environmental Sciancc & Engineering
~" Skelly
.*•* vow
. J. Miu.cV 1 1. IBM) TtMflOO
AMCC * E MkCSIMtkf HM4J 796.7466
j. •.•V»L*«. • e ___
. titular P e 19 March 1997
»rrt =» M MrGKO«v. P i. ft
TMOMA» c. vt«*i. * i. Fik No, 442-178
• VMXOINMI*. * t
•JBAN 3. MC-T«.r». PKO
Ma. lubel
US Eovironneatal PiottctiM AgMcy
lUgton 2
290 B«*dw»>, 2
-------
UntU Wood 19 Mirth 1997
and Remadjil RtspoMe Divition Faje....2
For tbe selected (Mundwttw alternative, tot PRAP mdtotiM >b* additional monitoring «oU* will be
iaitftilfid. Csukteriof Ae ounbcr tod duration of overburden and bedrock wtlh tlnady iniuUcd on-
, ft doei not tppear atcetury us io&ttll v*» \vtHs.
We would LUCK to discuss tbJM eommeau with you Bl your eiiiliett co&v«aienee and at the itmc nree
review tbe project atatot and ech«dnte for dttign a&d renaSlstlon. Plewe c&U if you have any
quettions.
Vwy truly yours,
Rath M. Frittcb. Director
SUe /ascumnt Section
ScotlH. Fein.tsq. (WOH)
Ouxilc B«nu, E>q. (USCTA)
Jimts Lister (NYSDEC)
Lawler, Mvtuaky ** Skelly £n?ine«ra UP
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
AS 3 > W
DATE:
SUBJECT: Record of Decision for the Jones Sanitation Superfund
Site
FROM: Richard L. Caspe, Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
TO: Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator
Attached for your approval is the Record of Decision (ROD) for
the' Jones Sanitation Site, loca'ted in the Town of Hyde Park,
Dutchess County, New York. The selected remedial action
addresses soils and groundwater containing volatile organic,
semi-volatile organic, PCB and inorganic contaminants. No
remedial action is presently planned for the on-site streams and
wetlands as no adverse impacts were observed.
The selected remedy calls for the excavation of contaminated
soils above the cleanup goals in the outlying areas and placement
of these soils in the central disposal area, construction of a
cap over the central disposal area and implementation of a
groundwater monitoring program. As part of this monitoring, a
series of wells will be installed between the site and the
closest residences.
The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study reports and the
Proposed Plan were released to the public for comment on February
21, 1997. A public comment period on these documents was held
from February 21, 1997 through March 22, 1997. Comments
received during the public commen- period generally supported the
preferred remedial alternative and are addressed in the attached
Responsiveness Summary.
The estimated present worth cost of the selected remedy
Alternatives S-3 and G-2) mentioned above is $1,841,000. The
remedy is the same as the preferred alternatives presented in the
Proposed Plan.
The ROD has been reviewed by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, and the appropriate program offices
within Region II. Their input and comments are reflected in this
document. The New York State Department of Environmental
-------
Conservation has concurred with the selected remedy for the Jones
Sanitation Site, as indicated in the attached letter.
If you have questions or comments on this document, I would be
happy to discuss them with you at your convenience.
Attachments
bcc: C. Berns, ORC
S. Clark, EPA-HQ
-------
.vieo srv
•* *v UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 2 .
,^. **M.
•<
0 290 BROADWAY
t^KlaV^ NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866
EXPRESS MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Jim Lister
Division of Environmental Remediation
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-7010
Re: Record of Decision for Jones Sanitation Site
Dear Mr. Lister:
Enclosed is a copy of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Jones
Sanitation Site in Hyde Park, New York, signed March 31, 1997.
Please note that this ROD is consistent with the approach agreed
upon by the EPA and NYSDEC to address the Jones Sanitation Site
which is; the excavation of contaminated soils in the outlying
areas, construction of a Part 360 cap over the central disposal
area, implementation of a groundwater monitoring program and
implementation of institutional controls.
If you have any questions regarding this document please contact
me at (212) 637-4248.
Sincerely yours,
Isabel Rodrigues, Project Manager
New York Remediation Superfund Branch
Enclosure
cc: M. Chen, NYSDEC - Albany w/out enclosure
G. Anders Carlson, NYSDOH w/out enclosure
bcc: C. Berns - EPA, ORC
I. Rodrigues- EPA, WNYRS
P. Moss- EPA-ERRD ''
S. Clark-EPA, HQ
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Ol Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Site name: Jones Sanitation Site
Site location: Town of Hyde Park, Dutchess County, New York
HRS score: 52.52 (Jan. 1987)
EPA ID #: NYD980534556
ROD
Selected Remedy:
Soils - Capping of central disposal area and placement of
outlying soils beneath central disposal area. Groundwater -
Monitoring program for 30 years. In addition, institutional
controls to prevent interference with the cap and human
contact with contaminated groundwater.
Capital Cost: Soil - $1,043,000
Groundwater $50,000
O & M cost: Soil - $2,000/year
Groundwater - Year 1-5: $52,000/Year
Year 6-30: $15,000/Year
Present-Worth Cost: Soil - $1,458,000
Groundwater - $440,000
Total $1,898,000
LEAD
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Primary Contact: Isabel R. Rodrigues, (212) 637 - 4248
Secondary Contact: Kevin M. Lynch (212) 637 - 4287
Main PRPs: Alfa-Laval Separator Company
Jones Septic services
WASTE
Waste type: Various volatiles, semi-volatiles, PCBs, PAHs and
inorganics.
Waste origin: Septage waste and industrial wastewater.
Estimated waste quantity: Soils from central disposal area:
11,450 cubic yds. Soils from outlying areas : 2,070 cubic yds.
Contaminated medium: Groundwater and soils.
------- |