United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-92/184
September 1992
PB93-963821
v°/EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Endicott Village Well Field,
NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-92/184
4. TNeendSUMMe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Endicott Village Well Field, NY
Third Remedial Action - Final
7. Author<«)
«. Performing Orgelnlzrion Nun* end Addmu
12. Sponeoring Orgeniatlon Hunt «nd Addree*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.w.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient* Accoeeion No.
5. Report D*t*
09/30/92
6.
8. Performing Orgenlzrfon Root No.
10. ProiecVTeek/Work Unit No.
11. ContncKC) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(Q)
13. Type of Report ft Period Conrad
800/000
14.
15. Su
rrteryNole
PB93-963821
16. Abetract (Limit: 200 worde)
The 16-acre Endicott Village Well Field site is an inactive landfill in the Village of
Endicott, Broome County, New York. The site includes a municipal drinking water
supply well, known as the Ranney well, that provides 47 percent of the total water
supply to the Village, and lies on the boundaries of En-Joie Golf Course and
Tri-Cities Airport. The portion of the site adjacent to the Tri-Cities Airport
extends into an 8-acre area designated by the Federal Aviation Administration as a
controlled activity area (CAA). Land use in the area is primarily industrial. A
wetlands area is located along the east and west banks of Nanticoke Creek, north of
the Susquehanna River. In addition, part of the site lies within the 100-year
floodplain of the Susquehanna River. From the late 1950's to 1977, Endicott Village
used the site for storing municipal solid waste, as well as residential, and
industrial refuse. In May 1981, EPA detected vinyl chloride and other VOCs in the
Ranney well discharge. Subsequently, the state closed the supply lines to the well
and installed diffused air aeration equipment to reduce VOCs levels in the soil and
ground water. As a result of additional onsite investigations, the state installed 9
monitoring wells in 1983, and in 1984, installed a purge well and additional
(See Attached Page)
17. Do
•lyrnte a. Descriptor*
NY
Record of Decision - Endicott Village Well Field,
Third Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, 1,2-DCE, PCE, TCE, toluene, vinyl chloride,
xylenes), other organics (PAHs, PCBs, pesticides), metals (lead)
-cnoMi TMTVM
c. COSATI FMd/Group
18. AveiufeUty SUtoment
It. Security Clue (Thie Report)
None
20. Security CUu (Thle Page)
None
21. Mo.ofP.oee
71
22. Price
(See ANSWM.18)
See Instruction* on R* wme
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NT1S-35)
Depeilnieiit of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/184
Endicott Village Well Field, NY
Third Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
monitoring wells. Onsite contamination was determined to be the result of a plume of
contaminated ground water emanating from the onsite Landfill fl. Two prior RODs signed
in 1987 and 1991, addressed ground water contamination at the Ranney public supply well,
and provided for additional ground water control and treatment measures using a purge
well, as OU1 and OU3, respectively. This ROD addresses the Endicott Village landfill #1,
the source of the site contamination, as OU2. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs including 1,2-DCE, benzene, PCE,
TCE, toluene, vinyl chloride, and xylenes; other organics including PAHs, PCBs, and
pesticides; and metals,, including lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes capping the majority of landfill #1
with a low permeability soil cap; covering the Tri-Cities Airport Controlled Activity
Area and the compost facility area with a bituminous (asphalt) cap; backfilling or
mitigating any affected wetlands; performing an explosive gas investigation, and
installing a passive gas venting system; collecting and treating the ground water and
leachate seep using an air stripper, with onsite discharge of the treated water and
leachate to the Susquehana River or transporting the ground water and leachate offsite to
a local POTW; maintaining the landfill cap and venting system; conducting long-term air
and ground water monitoring; and implementing institutional controls including deed
restrictions, and site access restrictions such as fencing. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action ranges from $16,684,200 to $16,889,400, which includes an
annual O&M cost ranging from $248,000 to $258,900.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific goals for ground water are based on TCE 5 ug/1; chromium 5 ug/1; and
lead 5 ug/1. Leachate collection, treatment, and disposal will be designed to comply
with SPDES discharge requirements and air emission standards will be adhered to for the
air stripper.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Site name: Endicott Hell Field
Site location: Village of Endicott, Broome County, New York
HRS score: 35.57
ROD
ROD signed: September 30, 1992
Selected remedy: Low permeability landfill cap; gas venting system; leachate seep
collection, treatment and discharge; access restrictions; 5-year review
Capital cost: $12,710,300 to 12,833,100
O & M cost: $248,000 to 258,900/yr
Present-worth cost: $16.7.to 16.9 million
LEAD
Lead: PRP (IBM Corporation)
Primary Contact: Alison A. Hess, (212) 264-6040
Secondary Contact: Melvin Hauptman, (212) 264-7681
Main PRPs: Endicott Johnson Corp.
George Industries, Inc.
International Business Machines Corp.
Midstate Litho
Town of Union
Village of Endicott
PRP Contact: Tom Morris (203) 973-7944
WASTE
Waste type: residential and industrial trash containing VOCs
Waste origin: municipal solid waste disposal, industrial disposal
Estimated waste quantity: avg. depth of waste is 15-20 feet over approximately
60 acres
Contaminated media: ground water, soil
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Endicott Well Field
Village of Endicott, Broome County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September 1992
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCA TION
Endicott Well -Field Site
Village of Endicott, Broome County, New York
STA TEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Endicott Well Field
Site (the "Site"), which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended
("CERGLA"), and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
("NCR"). 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 NYSDEC is attached to this document
(Appendix IV).
The information supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the Administrative
Record file for this Site. The index to the Administrative Record file is attached (Appendix
III),
A SSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected by this Record of Decision ("ROD"), may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This operable unit ("OU") is OU #2, the third and final OU planned for the Site. EPA issued
RODs for OU #1 and OU #3 in September 1987 and March 1991, respectively. The ROD
for OU #1 addressed ground water contamination at the ranney well public water supply
system, which was the immediate threat to human health posed by the Site, by requiring
the installation of an air stripper on the ranney well and continued extraction and treatment
of contaminated ground water using the existing purge well on the En-Joie Golf Course.
The ROD for OU #3 provided additional ground water control and treatment by requiring
the use of a supplemental purge well. This OU #2 ROD addresses the source of ground
water contamination, identified as the Endicott Landfill ("Landfill #1" or the "Landfill"),
-------
through landfill capping, gas venting, and control and treatment of the leachate seep. Long
term management will be required to maintain these systems.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
* Capping the majority of the surface of Landfill #1 with a low permeability soil barrier cap,
with a variance of 6NYCRR Part 360 requirements, to allow for a minimum of 12 inches of
protective barrier fill with a permeability of 10's cm/sec or less; in a ridge and swale
configuration, with ridges having slopes of 4 percent and synthetic liner in the swales;
* Capping with bituminous (asphalt) caps the 6-acre parcel of Landfill #1 where the Village
of Endicott has a permitted yard waste composting facility and the 8-acre Controlled
Activity Area (CAA) of the Tri-Cities Airport regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration;
* Pe ming an explosive gas investigation and installing a gas venting system, as
necessary, based on the results of a landfill gas investigation. A passive system with one
vent per acre is envisioned, but this will be further evaluated during the remedial design
phase;
* Collecting, treating, and disposing the leachate seep into the Susquehanna River or to.
a publicly owned treatment works. If installation of the cap reduces leachate generation
to the extent that the seep no longer exists, this may not be warranted. The specific
treatment and disposal option will be further evaluated during the remedial design phase,
based on implementability;
* Recommending that institutional controls be established in the form of deed restrictions
on future uses of Landfill #1;
* Fencing or other acceptable access restrictions to ensure protection of the Landfill #1
cap;
* Performing long term operation and maintenance of the Landfill #1 cap, gas venting, and
leachate systems to provide for inspections and repairs;
* Performing long term air and water quality monitoring;
* Evaluating Site conditions at least once every five years to determine if a modification to
the selected remedy is necessary.
Remediation of ground water is expected to be achieved by continued operation and
maintenance of the ground water collection and treatment remedial measures already
selected for the Site, which are the air stripper at the ranney well, the existing purge well,
and the supplemental purge well.
-------
DECLARA TION OF STA TUTORY DETERMINA TIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to
the remedial action and is cost effective. The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions
and alternative treatment (or resource recovery) technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. Due to the large size of Landfill #1 and the absence of hot spots representing
major sources of contamination, Landfill #1 could not practicably be excavated and treated.
Therefore, the selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as
a principal element of the remedy with respect to source control.
Because the selected remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above
health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of
the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment.
u€bnstantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
4*
15Ie|
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT . . 3
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 8
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 11
SELECTED REMEDY 17
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS '. 18
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES . .' 20
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: Endicott Landfill
Figure 3: Wetlands (east bank of Nanticoke Creek and north bank of
Susquehanna River east of Nanticoke Creek)
Figure 4: Wetlands (west bank of Nanticoke Creek and north bank of
Susquehanna River west of Nanticoke Creek)
-------
APPENDIX II. TABLES
Table [a]: Indicator Contaminants of Potential Concern
Table [b]: Summary of Chemical Compounds (Detects and Undetects)
Table [c]: Exposure Pathway Analysis
Table [d]: Toxicity Data for Noncarcinogenic and Potential Carcinogenic
Effects Dose Response Evaluation
Table [e]: Risk Levels and HI Values, Summary Across Exposure
Pathways, Present/Future Use, Resident Adults
Table [f]: Risk Levels and HI Values, Summary Across Exposure
Pathways, Present/Future Use, Resident Children
Table [g]: Risk Levels and HI Values, Future Use, Construction Workers
Table [hj: Sources of Uncertainty in Endicott Risk Assessment
Table [i]: Maximum Contaminant Levels (Federal and more stringent State
standards)
APPENDIX III. INDEX TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Endicott Well Reid Superfund Site (the "Site") is located on South Grippen Street
at the western end of the Village of Endicott, New York (Rgure 1). The Site consists
of the ranney well, which is a municipal drinking water supply well, and its zone of
influence on area ground water. The boundaries of this area have been generally
delineated by Main Street to the north, the eastern boundary of the En-Joie Golf
Course to the east, the Susquehanna River to the south, and the Tri-Cities Airport and
Airport Road to the west. The Site is composed primarily of flat to gently rolling open
land associated with the En-Joie Golf Course, facilities of the Village of Endicott
Sewage Treatment Plant ("STP"), and the Endicott Landfill ("Landfill #1'). A portion of
Landfill #1 adjacent to the Tri-Cities Airport extends into an approximately 8-acre area
designated by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") as the Controlled Activity
Area ("CAA"), which includes the Runway Object Free Area ("ROFA") (Figure 2). A 6-
acre parcel on Landfill #1 near the entrance to the STP is currently permitted for use
by the Village of Endicott to compost yard waste (Figure 2); approximately 2 acres of
the composting area are paved. There are two inactive landfills (Landfill #2 and
Landfill #3) and a few industrial tracts north of the Site. Private homes are not located
within the Site.
The Susquehanna River flows to the west along the southern boundary of the Site.
The southerly flowing Nanticoke Creek is a tributary to the Susquehanna River and
generally bisects the Site. Dead Creek, an intermittent stream, originally flowed across
Landfill #1 into the Susquehanna River. In the early 1970's, Dead Creek was rerouted
by the Village of Endicott to flow into Nanticoke Creek and the abandoned portion of
the creek bed was filled in. Several man-made ponds on the En-Joie Golf Course are
kept filled by water treated and discharged from the existing purge well, golf course
irrigation, and precipitation. Excess water is ultimately discharged into Nanticoke
Creek under a New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES")
permit, which requires monthly sampling and analysis of water from the existing purge
well, the pond discharge, and three monitoring wells.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Landfill #1 accepted municipal refuse and industrial waste from approximately the late
1950's until 1977. During a routine inspection in May 1981, EPA detected vinyl
chloride and trace amounts of other volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") in the
discharge from the ranney well, which provides approximately 47 percent of the total
water supply to the Village of Endicott Municipal system. Subsequent sampling by
EPA and the New York State Department of Health confirmed EPA's initial findings
and, as a result, four of the lateral supply lines to the well were closed and diffused air
aeration equipment was installed to reduce the levels of VOCs.
Beginning in April 1983, additional studies were undertaken by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") Division of Water. The first
study included the installation of nine monitoring wells and the sampling and analysis
of ground water from selected wells. A pump test was also performed in September
1983 by turning off the ranney well for a period of 24 hours and measuring recovery
rates in nearby monitoring wells, the results of this study indicated that the source of
contamination was located either west or northwest of the ranney well.
-------
Based on the results of these investigations, in July 1984, a purge well designed to
pump approximately 600 gallons per minute ("gpm") and three additional monitoring
wells were installed on the En-Joie Golf Course to intercept and monitor ground water
contamination before it reached the ranney well. Water from this purge well is
pumped to the golf course pond system where it is aerated before it is ultimately
discharged to Nanticoke Creek.
The Site was proposed on the EPA's National Priorities List ("NPL") on October 15,
1984 and final NPL listing occurred on June 10, 1986. Since that time, the Site has
been divided into three smaller units called operable units ("OUs"). In July 1987,
contractors for NYSDEC, pursuant to a cooperative agreement with EPA, completed a
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") at the Site that investigated the
nature and extent of contamination at the ranney well (OU #1). On September 25,
1987, EPA issued a Record of Decision ("ROD") that selected air stripping at the
ranney well and the continued use of the existing purge well system to ensure that the
community is prevented from drinking contaminated ground water, which is the
immediate risk that was posed by the Site. Construction of the air stripping tower at
the ranney well was completed by the Village of Endicott in the Fall of 1991. This
remedial action is being implemented pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into by
EPA, the Town of Union, and the Village of Endicott, which was entered by the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York on January 10, 1989.
The RI/FS concluded that the information obtained then was inadequate to confirm the
source(s) of the VOCs in the ground water at the ranney well. Therefore, in the 1987
ROD, EPA also required that a supplemental RI/FS be initiated to further investigate
the nature and extent of contamination in suspected source areas and to evaluate
possible source control measures. The supplemental RI/FS work and the subsequent
source control measures, which are the subject of this ROD, constitute OU #2.
On September 19, 1988, EPA, International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"),
the Village of Endicott, and the Town of Union entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent for implementation of the supplemental RI/FS. The RI/FS activities were
undertaken in two phases and were performed by IBM through its consultants,
Lozier/Groundwater Associates, Inc.
The Rl Report for the Phase I study was approved by EPA in November 1990. The
results of Phase I indicated that additional remedial measures were needed, to control
the plume of contaminated ground water emanating from Landfill #1. Therefore, EPA
established OU #3 and in March 1991 issued a ROD for interim action, selecting
extraction through a supplemental purge well and treatment of contaminated ground
water. The OU #3 work is being performed by the Village of Endicott, through Its
consultant Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., pursuant to a Consent Decree entered into by EPA,
Endicott Johnson Corp., the Village of Endicott, the Town of Union, and George
Industries, Inc. This Consent Decree was entered by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of New York on March 25, 1992. EPA approved the preliminary
design for the supplemental purge well in July 1992 and expects to approve the final
design by March 1993.
-------
3
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The Rl Report, FS Report, the Risk Assessment Report, and the Proposed Plan for OU
#2 for the Site were released to the public for comment on August 28,1992. These
documents were made available to the public in the Administrative Record file at the
EPA Region II Records Center, New York and the local information repository at the
Village of Endicott Clerk's Office, Municipal Building, 1009 East Main Street, Endicott,
New York 13760. The notice of availability for the above-referenced documents was
published in the Binahampton Press & Sun Bulletin on August 28, 1992. The public
comment period on these documents was held from August 28,1992 to September
26, 1992. .
On September 15, 1992, EPA conducted a public meeting for OU #2 at the Village of
Endicott Municipal Building to inform local officials and interested citizens about the
Superfund process, to review current and planned remedial activities at the Site, and
to respond to any questions from area residents and other attendees.
Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in writing during the
public comment period are contained in the Responsiveness Summary, which is
included as Appendix V of this ROD.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
EPA has separated the response actions at the Site into three distinct OUs. This ROD
is for OU #2, the third and final OU planned for the Site.. OU #1 provided the
community with a safe and reliable supply of drinking water by requiring the installation
of an air stripper at the ranney well to prevent ingestion of contaminated ground water.
OU #1 also addressed control and treatment of contaminated ground water through
continued use of a purge well. OU #3 addressed remediation of the contaminated
ground water by requiring extraction and treatment through a supplemental purge well.
This OU #2 ROD addresses the source of the contaminated ground water, which is
Landfill #1.
The lead agency for this operable unit is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The support agency is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the
environment. These objectives are based on available information and standards such
as applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements ("ARARs") and risk-based
levels established in the Risk Assessment.
The following remedial action objectives were established for OU #2:
* Ground water control to prevent migration of the VOC-contaminated plume;
-------
* Remediation of contaminated ground water emanating from Landfill #1 to drinkable
levels;
•* Landfill waste containment and control of associated landfill gas;
* Control and treatment of the leachate seep to levels acceptable for proper disposal.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Rl was conducted in two phases. EPA issued the ROD for OU #3 upon
completion of Phase I, which included air sampling, a surface geophysical
investigation, a soil gas survey, drilling and installation of monitoring wells, and
sampling and analysis of leachate, surface water, sediments, and ground water. The
field activities for Phase II were conducted following approval of the final Phase II
scope of work in May 1991 and included the drilling of eight (8) soil borings, the
installation of 12 additional monitoring wells and five (5) monitoring points, excavation
of six (6) test pits, drum sampling, and leachate and ground water sampling. This
ROD is based upon data presented in the Rl Report, which incorporated both Phase I
and Phase II data.
The Rl Report identified Landfill #1, which accepted municipal refuse and industrial
wastes from approximately the late 1950's to 1977, as the source of contaminants.
Landfills #2 and #3 reportedly accepted conduction and demolition debris and were
not identified as sources of contaminants. A summary of the results of the Rl follows.
A. Geology and Hydrology
The Site is located in the Susquehanna River Valley. Valley walls of bedrock have
been filled up with unconsolidated sediments. The bedrock consists primarily of
Upper Devonian interbedded shales and siltstones. A bedrock knob, known locally as
Round Top Hill, crops out to the east of the Site. Ground water flow within the
bedrock is restricted by the fine-grained nature of the siltstones and shales; fractures
and joints would be expected to yield a limited quantity of poor quality ground water.
The bedrock is overlain by more than 100 feet of unconsolidated glacial and alluvial
deposits. The glacial sediments consist of a dense heterogeneous till and fine-grained
lacustrine sediments overlain by coarse-grained outwash and ice contact deposits.
Recent alluvial sediments at the Site consist of interbedded sands, silts, and clays
deposited by the Susquehanna River, Nanticoke Creek, and Dead Creek.
The base of the aquifer has been defined as the top of the till and, where present, the
lacustrine sediments. The ice contact and outwash deposits make up the aquifer,
which serves as an abundant source of ground water. At the Site, the thickness of the
aquifer ranges from less than 40 to more than 140 feet. Under non-pumping
conditions the ground water flow in the aquifer is from the northeast to the southwest.
However, ground water flow at the Site has been locally reversed to a southeastern
direction under the combined influence of the ranney well and existing purge well,
which have pumping rates of 3,700 gpm and 600 gpm, respectively.
-------
Landfills #1, #2, and #3 were originally swampy, floodplain areas that have since
been built up by landfilling activities. The surface of Landfill #1 has been built up by
as much as 15 to 20 feet of residential and industrial trash, sidewalk sections, and
other chunks of concrete. Landfills #2 and #3 apparently received only construction
and demolition debris and are built up as much as 15 and 20 to 25 feet, respectively.
B. Chemical Characteristics
A ground water plume containing VOCs is migrating from Landfill #1 eastward under
the combined pumping influence of the ranney well and existing purge well. The
primary VOCs identified are chloroethane (up to 2.9 parts per million ["ppm"]), 1,2-
dichloroethene (up to 2.7 ppm), and vinyl chloride (up to 130 parts per billion ["ppb"]).
A leachate seep at location LF-1-5 emanates from Landfill #1 in the vicinity of the
former Dead Creek channel, on the southeastern edge of Landfill #1. Flow ranges
from approximately 5 gpm to no flow during dry periods. The leachate seep is
contaminated primarily with VOCs, mostly chloroethane and chlorobenzene, up to
almost 1 ppm.
Air sampling results showed no significant concentrations of VOCs emanating from
Landfill #1. Landfill gas sampling results indicated the presence of VOCs, primarily
benzene, toluene, and xylene, in the soil gas at several locations across Landfill #1.
Methane is passively dissipating from the entire Landfill #1.
Subsurface soil samples were collected from soil borings, test pits, and monitoring well
borings collected from Landfills #1 and #2. The results of these samples showed that
VOCs, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (the "BTEX" compounds),
are present in the wastes of Landfill #1. The highest level of total BTEX detected was
20 ppm • V-4 at a depth of 4 feet), but most waste samples had total BTEX
concent-. ons of less than 1 ppm. Chlorinated VOCs were detected in waste
samples from Landfill #1 in concentrations of up to 110 ppm of trichloroethene and 15
ppm of 1,2-dichloroethene (SB-3 at 12 feet). The VOC contamination occurs at
various depths and locations within Landfill #1 and no specific areas of contamination
(hot spots) were identified.
Surface water samples were collected from the Susquehanna River, Nanticoke Creek
and Dead Creek, and the golf course pond. VOCs were detected above detection
limits only in samples taken from the golf course pond, which receives discharge from
the existing purge well. The discharge from the pond to Nanticoke Creek is currently
permitted by NYSDEC.
Sediment samples were collected concurrently with the surface water samples, at the
same locations. No significant VOC concentrations were detected in the sediment
samples.
C. Sensitive Environments
Wetlands were identified at the Site on the floodplains along the east and west banks
of Nanticoke Creek and on the north bank of the Susquehanna River (Figures 3 and
4). A small area (0.6 acre) of man-made wetlands, developing in an abandoned
-------
Borrow pit, was identified on Landfill #1 just south of the STP. The majority of Landfill
#1 is within the 100-year floodplain (± 829 feet elevation) and in the floodway of the
Susquehanna River.
An endangered species evaluation was completed to assess the potential existence of
endangered species or their critical habitats at the Site. No State or Federal-
designated endangered species of plants or animals are known to exist at the Site.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EPA conducted a baseline Risk Assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human
health and the environment associated with the Endicott Well Field Site in its current
state. The baseline Risk Assessment began with selecting contaminants of concern
that would be representative of Site risks. Contaminants of concern for human health
receptors included VOCs, semi-volatile organic compounds, and metals in various
media, and are listed in Table [a]. Information of concentration levels detected for
each contaminant is listed in Table [b]. Several of the contaminants, such as vinyl
chloride, carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs") and arsenic are
known to cause cancer in laboratory animals and are suspected or known to be
human carcinogens.
The baseline Risk Assessment evaluated the health effects that could result from
exposure to contamination as a result of inhalation, ingestion, or dermal contact.
Current use and future use, based on proposed construction at the Site, were
considered. The reasonable maximum exposure was evaluated. The baseline Risk
Assessment evaluated a total of 20 exposure pathways, which are listed in Table [c].
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic (cancer-causing) and
noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to Site-related chemicals are considered
separately. It was assumed that the toxic effects of the Site-related chemicals would
be additive. Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks associated with exposures
to individual compounds of concern were summed to indicate the potential risks
associated with mixtures of potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Potential carcinogenic risks are evaluated using the cancer slope factors developed by
EPA for the contaminants of concern. Cancer slope factors ("SFs") have been
developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for
estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially
carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)"1, are
multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate
an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure
to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative
estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes the
underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the compounds of concern at
the Site are presented in Table [d].
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-bound individual
lifetime cancer risks of between 10"* to 10"6 to be acceptable. This range indicates that
an individual has approximately a one in ten thousand to one in one million chance of
-------
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year
period under specific exposure conditions at a site.
The results of the baseline Risk Assessment are contained in the Final Risk
Assessment Report. RI/FS Oversight. Endicott Well Reid Site. Endicott. New York.
dated June 1992, which was prepared by Ebasco Services, Inc. under contract to
EPA. These results indicate that ingestion of contaminated ground water at the Site is
the primary pathway of concern. Excess carcinogenic risks of 1 x 10"3 for resident
adults and 4x10"* for children were calculated for the present and future use scenari-
o. These risk numbers mean that 1 additional adult in 1000 and 4 additional children
in 10,000 who drink ground water from the Site would be at risk of developing cancer
if the Site is not remediated. The carcinogenic risk to adult residents from ingestion of
contaminated ground water is greater than EPA's acceptable risk range. The excess
risk at the Site is primarily due to vinyl chloride, carcinogenic PAHs, total
polychlorinated biphenyls ("PCBs"), and the metals arsenic and beryllium. Of these
compounds, the presence of PCBs was not confirmed by subsequent ground water
sampling, the carcinogenic PAHs were detected in subsurface soils and sediment but
not in ground water samples, and beryllium was detected in unfiltered but not in
filtered ground water samples. The risk calculations used various conservative
assumptions about the likelihood of a person being exposed to contaminants, such as
drinking untreated ground water from the Site. A complete listing of excess cancer
risk for each exposure pathway considered is presented in Tables [e], [f], and [g].
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index ("HI") approach. EPA has
developed reference doses ("RfDs"), expressed in units of mg/kg-day, which are
estimates of daily exposure levels for humans (including sensitive individuals) that are
thought to be safe over a lifetime. Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental
media (e.r . the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are
cr-nparec the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the contaminant in the particular
medium, .e HI is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across
all media tnat could impact a particular receptor population.
An HI greater than 1 indicates the potential for noncarcinogenic health effects to occur
as a result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful means of assessing the
potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or
across media. The RfDs for the compounds of concern at the Site are presented in
Tat,a [d]. A summary of the noncarcinogenic risks associated with these chemicals
across various exposure pathways is found in Table [e] for resident adults, Table [f]
for resident children, and Table [g] for construction workers.
The HI for noncarcinogenic effects from ingestion of ground water (reasonable
maximum exposure) is 14 for adult residents, 28 for children, and 5 for future
construction workers (see Tables [e], [f]. and [g], respectively). Therefore,
noncarcinogenic effects may occur from the exposure routes evaluated in the Risk
Assessment. The noncarcinogenic risk was attributable to several compounds,
including the metals manganese, vanadium, and antimony. Of these metals, only
manganese w-.-s detected in filtered samples and its water quality standard is based
on aesthetic rather than health-basidy considerations.
-------
8
Ecological Risk Assessment
Ecological assessments of the adverse effects of contaminants on ecosystems are
conducted using exposure and toxicity data to estimate the potential impact on the
ecosystem. Surface water and sediment samples collected from the Susquehanna
River, Nanticoke Creek, and Dead Creek showed no significant concentrations of
VOCs. Therefore, it appears that the Site is not adversely impacting ecological
receptors.
Uncertainties
The quantitative assessment of health effects at Superfund sites is inherently uncertain.
The uncertainty arises from the need to predict potential future health impacts in the
absence of observed health effects and on the basis of limited data concerning
contaminant levels, transport mechanisms, receptor behavior, and the toxicological
behavior of the chemicals present. The major sources of uncertainty are listed in
Table [h]. However, it is highly unlikely that risks related to the Site would be
underestimated because EPA uses conservative assumptions in its Risk Assessments.
Based on the results of the Risk Assessment, EPA has determined that actual or
threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, if not addressed by the
selected remedy or one of the other active measures considered, may present a
current or potential threat to public health, welfare or the environment.
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.
This ROD evaluates in detail five (5) remedial alternatives for addressing the
contamination associated with the Site. The construction time provided for each
alternative is the time that would be required to construct or implement the remedy
and does not include the time required to design the remedy, negotiate with the
potentially responsible parties ("PRPs"), or procure contracts for design and
construction.
These alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION
CERCLA requires that the "no-action" alternative be considered as a baseline for
comparison with other alternatives. Under this alternative, no action would be taken to
contain wastes, reduce infiltration into Landfill #1, eliminate areas of exposed waste, or
control and treat leachate discharging from Landfill #1. Because this alternative would
-------
9
result in contaminants remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site conditions be
reviewed at least once every five years.
Capital Cost: $ 0
O & M Cost: $ 0/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 0
Construction Time: None
ALTERNATIVE 2: INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
This alternative would consist of deed and access restrictions. The deed restrictions
would be designed to prevent direct contact with the subsurface waste material in
Landfill #1 by limiting future Site use. Access would be restricted by the construction
of a six-foot high chain link fence, approximately 8,000 feet long, around most of
Landfill #1. A six-foot frangible (break-away) wooden fence would be constructed
around the Tri-Cities Airport ROFA, in coordination with the FAA and airport manage-
ment. Access to the Landfill by authorized personnel would be through one or more
20-foot wide lockable gates. No remedial action would be taken with regard to the
leachate seep. Five-year site reviews would again be required.
Capital Cost: . $214,700
O & M Cost: $ 7,800/yr
Present Worth Cost: $ 390,900
Construction Time: 6 months
ALTERNATIVE 3: NATIVE SOIL CAP
This alternative wou!r iclude the deed restrictions and fencing described in Alternative
2 above with the ack on of the following remedial measures:
* Riling of depressions with an estimated 50,000 cubic yards ("CY") of suitable off-site
clean fill;
* Landfill gas migration monitoring;
* Addition of soil to cover exposed areas; and
* One of three leachate options:
Option B - Collection and treatment by air stripper and SPDES-permitted
discharge to the Susquehanna River
Option C - Collection and trucking to publicly owned treatment works ("POTW")
for treatment and disposal, or
Option D - Collection and piping to POTW for treatment and disposal.
This alternative would require the backfilling of approximately 0.6 acre of the man-
made wetlands area within the limits of Landfill #1 waste. The native soil cap would
not extend into the CAA of the Tri-Cities Airport. Leachate Options C and D may
require treatment prior to acceptance by the POTW. Five-year site reviews and deed
and access restrictions would also be included. Fencing is included in this alternative
to prevent unauthorized access to Landfill #1 to protect the cap.
Capital Cost: 3/B $ 2,968,600
3/C 2,845,800
-------
10
3/D 2,882,700
0 & M Cost: 3/B $ 132,500/yr
3/C 139,300
3/D 121,600
Present Worth Cost: 3/B $ 5,080,900
3/C 5,062,500
3/D 4,875,700
Construction Time: 1 year
ALTERNATIVE 4: LOW PERMEABILITY BARRIER CAP CONSISTENT WITH
6NYCRR PART 360
For this alternative, a low permeability barrier cap and gas venting system would be
constructed over Landfill #1 consistent with NYSDEC regulations for municipal landfills
(6NYCRR Part 360 Section 360-2.15). The cap would cover the limits of Landfill #1
waste, including the compost area but not the CAA. Landfill #1 would be regraded to
a 4 percent slope by the addition of suitable off-site clean fill. This would elevate the
middle of Landfill #1 to about 25 feet higher than the adjacent Tri-Cities Airport
runway. Approximately 0.6 acre of man-made wetlands would be backfilled. Deed
restrictions, fencing, landfill gas venting, five year site reviews, and one of the tree
leachate seep collection, treatment, and disposal options described in Alternative 3
would be included. The cap system would consist of the following:
6 inches of top soil (estimated 55,000 CY)
24 inches of protective barrier fill (estimated 219,000 CY)
40-mil thick geosynthetic membrane liner
2 layers of filter fabric
a gas venting layer (1 foot of gravel with a minimum permeability of 1 x 10"3 cm/sec)
and gas venting risers (minimum one vent per acre)
soil fill of varying thickness to establish a 4 percent slope (estimated 970,000 CY)
Capital Cost: 4/B $ 39,384,600
4/C 39,261,800
4/D 39,298,700
0 & M Cost: 4/B $ 381,300/yr
4/C 388,100
4/D 370,400
Present Worth Cost: 4/B $ 45,202,600
4/C 45,184,200
4/D 44,997,400
Construction Time: 11/2 years
-------
11
ALTERNATIVE 5A: LOW PERMEABILITY BARRIER CAP WITH 6NYCRR PART 360
VARIANCE
This alternative would consist of a low permeability soil cap on Landfill #1, placed over
a series of ridges and swales in a terraced or "washboard" design. The ridges would
have a 4 percent slope to promote drainage. The Tri-Cities Airport CAA and the
compost area would be covered by bituminous (asphalt) caps, having 2 percent and 1
percent slopes, respectively. Deed restrictions, fencing, landfill gas venting, five year
site reviews, and one of the three leachate seep collection, treatment, and disposal
options described in Alternative 3 would be included. The cap would consist of the
following components:
* 6 inches topsoil •
* 12 inches protective barrier fill with a permeability of 10"9 cm/sec or lower
* synthetic liner in swales
* passive gas venting system (gas venting layer and a minimum of one vent per acre)
Capital Cost: 5A/B $ 12,833,100
5A/C ' 12,710,300
5A/D 12,747,200
0 & M Cost: 5A/B $ 258,900/yr
5A/C 265,700
5A/D 248,000
Present Worth Cost: 5A/B $ 16,889,400
5A/C 16,871,000
5A/D 16,684,200
Construction Time: 11/2 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 the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response Directive 9355.3-01. These criteria were developed to
address the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA to ensure that a range of
important factors are considered in 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
-------
12
scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering
controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of
the applicable, or relevant and appropriate requirements of Federal and State
environmental statutes and requirements or provide grounds for invoking a
waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make comparisons and to
identify the major trade-offs between alternatives:
3. Long term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to
maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time,
once cleanup goals have been met. It also addresses the magnitude and
effectiveness of the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed
by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated
performance of a remedial technology, with respect to these parameters, that a
remedy may employ.
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 regarding the preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the alterna-
tives 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.
Following is a comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the
evaluation criteria noted above.
-------
13
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5A would provide permanent overall protection of human health
and the environment by containing waste with a landfill cap; controlling landfill gas
through monitoring or venting, as appropriate; and controlling and treating the
leachate seep. Alternatives 4 and 5A, which include low permeability barrier caps, are
more effective than Alternative 3 because they require a thicker cap of low permeability
material and a 4 percent slope to reduce infiltration and promote runoff, thereby
reducing the generation of leachate, which mobilizes contaminants into the ground
water.
Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2 (Institutional Controls) are not protective of
human health and the environment because they do not minimize infiltration into the
Landfill #1, thereby preventing further leaching of contaminants into the aquifer. In
addition, Alternatives 1 and 2 do not provide control or treatment of the leachate seep.
Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 2 were eliminated from consideration and will not be
discussed further.
0 Compliance with ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs identified for ground water include the more stringent of
Federal and State Maximum Contaminant Levels ("MCLs") or non-zero Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals ("MCLGs") (Table [i]). Examples of these levels are 5 ppb
for chloroethane, 5 ppb for 1,2-dichloroethene, 2 ppb for vinyl chloride, and 50 ppb for
arsenic. Chemical-specific ARARs for ground water are expected to be met by
continued operation and maintenance of the ground water collection and treatment
remedial measures already selected for the Site, which are the air stripper at the
ranney well, the existing purge well, and the supplemental purge well.
Action-specific ARARs include 6NYCRR Part 360 requirements for closure and post-
closure of municipal landfills and the NYSDEC SPDES program. The Part 360
regulations require that the landfill cap promote runoff, minimize infiltration, and
maintain vegetative growth for slope stability. Typically, this is accomplished through a
final cover system consisting of a 12-inch thick gas venting layer overlain by an 18-
inch thick low permeability barrier layer or geosynthetic membrane layer placed on a
slope of 4 percent, a 24-inch thick barrier protection layer, and a 6-inch thick topsoil
layer. Alternative 4 is consistent with the cap design and slope requirements as
specified in 6NYCRR Part 360. Alternative 5A complies with 6NYCRR Part 360
requirements because NYSDEC has determined it would promote runoff and reduce
infiltration sufficiently, while minimizing to the maximum extent practicable the cover
material to be brought on-srte, to justify invoking the variance provisions set forth in
Section 360-1.7 (c). The variance provisions are justified based on site-specific
conditions that exist at Landfill #1, including the location of the majority of Landfill #1
in the floodway and floodplain of the Susquehanna River and location of the CAA in an
area that falls under strict FAA regulations. Alternative 5A contains a variance to Sec-
tion 360-2.15(b): Landfill closure and post-closure criteria, which specifies that the final
cover system must meet the requirements of Section 360-2.13(p): Gas venting layer,
Section 360-2.13 (q): Low permeability barrier soil cover or Section 360-2.13(r):
Geomembrane cover, and Section 360-2.13(s): Topsoil. Specifically, Alternative 5A
invokes a variance to Sections 360-2.13(q) (2) (i) and (Hi) to allow the low permeability
-------
14
soil barrier cap over the majority of Landfill #1 and a variance to Sections 360-
2.13(p),(q), and (s) to allow the bituminous (asphalt) caps in the CAA and yard waste
composting portions of Landfill #1. Alternative 3 does not comply with 6NYCRR Part
360 because it would not promote runoff or minimize infiltration sufficiently to justify a
variance. Section 360-2.15(a)(1)(i), regarding a hydrogeologic investigation, and
Section 360-2.15 (c), regarding a surface leachate investigation, have already been
complied with as part of the OU #2 RI/FS.
Location-specific ARARs include the New York State Floodplain Management Criteria
for State Projects (6NYCRR Part 502 Section 16), the Federal Aviation Regulations for
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (49 C.F.R. Part 77), and the National Historic
Preservation Act. The FAA regulates construction within the CAA and requires notice
of proposed construction having a slope greater than 1 percent within 20,000 feet of
an airport that has a runway longer than 3,200 feet, such as the Tri-Cities Airport.
Policies to be considered are Executive Order 11990 (Federal Protection of Wetlands),
which requires an evaluation of possible measures to mitigate wetlands loss and
Executive Order 11988 (Federal Floodplains Management), which requires evaluation
of modifications to 100-year and 500-year floodplains. An hydraulic evaluation to be
performed during the remedial design phase, to assess the modification of the
Susquehanna River floodway caused by the landfill cap, will fulfill the requirements of
the 6NYCRR Part 502 regulations and Executive Order 11988. Alternatives 3, 4 and
5A would result in the backfilling of approximately 0.6 acre of man-made wetlands and
modification of the Susquehanna River floodway and the navigable airspace of the Tri-
Cities Airport; mitigation measures for these wetlands would be evaluated during
remedial design. Compliance with the location-specific ARARs is expected to be
achievable for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5A.
The options for leachate collection, treatment and disposal considered under Alterna-
tives 3, 4, and 5A would be designed to ensure compliance with their associated
ARARs, including SPDES limits for discharge to surface water and air emission
standards for an air stripper.
o Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
A landfill cap is considered a reliable remedial measure that, when properly designed
and installed, provides a high level of protection. Of the three alternatives considered
in detail, Alternative 3 would be the least reliable in protecting human health and the
environment, because it allows precipitation to infiltrate through Landfill #1. Alternative
5A would be much more reliable, because it utilizes a low permeability soil barrier layer
to restrict infiltration. Alternative 4 is expected to be slightly more effective in the long
term than Alternative 5A, because it meets the most stringent standards for a low
permeability cap.
Post-closure operation and maintenance requirements would ensure the continued
effectiveness of the landfill cap, landfill gas control system, and any of the three
leachate system options.
-------
15
o Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
None of the alternatives proposed reduces the toxicity or volume of waste in Landfill
#1. Compared to Alternative 3, Alternatives 4 and 5A provide greater reduction in
mobility and volume of contaminants by restricting infiltration through a low
permeability landfill cap, which would reduce the further leaching of contaminants to
ground water (leachate would still be generated when the Susquehanna River rises
during flooding). Alternative 3 would allow, rather than restrict, the mobility of contami-
nants by allowing precipitation to infiltrate through Landfill #1 and flush contaminants
into the ground water, which would then be intercepted by the ranney well, the existing
purge well, and the supplemental purge well.
Options B, C, and D for leachate seep collection, treatment, and discharge considered
for Alternatives 3, 4, and 5A would all effectively reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of contaminants in the leachate seep.
0 Short Term Effectiveness
There are limited short term risks associated with Alternatives 3, 4, and 5A. These
alternatives include caps, which would involve clearing, grubbing, and regrading of
Landfill #1. Increase in traffic flow along local roads would be the greatest for
Alternative 4, because it requires transportation of a total of 66,100 truckloads of soil,
as compared to 11,710 truckloads for Alternative 5A and 3,700 for Alternative 3. This
traffic would raise dust and increase noise levels locally. However, this activity is
expected to be of short duration and proper construction techniques and operational
procedures would minimize these impacts.
Short term risks to workers could be increased to the extent that surficial wastes are
encountered during landfill capping activities. However, these risks are not expected
to be significant based on EPA's risk assessment, which calculated an acceptable risk
for dermal contact to wastes in Landfill #1. In addition, this risk would be minimized
through the use of personal protection equipment. Once the surface of Landfill #1 ias
completely covered, these short term impacts to the community, workers, and the
environment would no longer be present.
Alternatives 4 and 5A are more effective in the short term than Alternative 3 because
they limit leachate production, allowing more effective clean-up of ground water.
Alternative 3 does not limit leachate production and is therefore not as protective of
human health and the environment over the short term. Alternative 3 can be
implemented the most quickly, in 1 year, while Alternatives 4 and 5A are estimated to
each take 1 1/2 years.
0 Implementabilitv
Alternatives 3, 4, and 5A are implementable from an engineering standpoint and utilize
commercially available products and accessible technology. Construction methods for
capping are well established, although some technical problems may be encountered
at particularly large construction projects such as this. The potential for design and
construction problems would be reduced under Alternative 3, because the native soil
cap would not require installation of a synthetic impermeable barrier. The synthetic
-------
16
liner specified in Alternatives 4 and 5A requires special handling during installation to
ensure integrity. Alternatives 4 and 5A are technically and administratively feasible.
Alternative 3 is technically, but not administratively, feasible because NYSDEC does
not consider it an acceptable variance to its 6NYCRR Part 360 landfill closure require-
ments.
The treatment of the leachate seep under Options B, C, or D is implementable. Dis-
charge of the treated leachate to the Susquehanna River (Option B) would require a
SPDES permit, which is considered feasible based on the existing permit for purge well
discharge to Nanticoke Creek. Discharge of the leachate to a local POTW, either by
trucking (Option C) or piping (Option D), would require revision of the existing SPDES
permit or pretreatment of the leachate to remove inorganics prior to discharge.
However, Options C and D may present implementability problems if the local POTW
chooses not to accept the leachate.
Alternative 3 would be easier to implement than Alternatives 4 and 5A, because it
requires the least amount of cover brought on-site and may not require more than a 1
percent slope to the Landfill cap. A slope greater than 1 percent would require
coordination with the FAA and airport management, as well as formal notice of
construction affecting navigable airspace.
o Cost
Alternative 3 has the lowest capital and 0 & M costs, resulting in a net present worth
of $4.9 to 5.1 million, because it uses the existing vegetative cover and minimal fill.
Alternative 5A has an intermediate cost with a net present worth ranging from $16.7 to
16.9 million, because it utilizes a low permeability soil barrier cap placed over soils in a
terraced or "washboard" design to attain the 4 percent slope. Alternative 4 has the
highest cost, with a net present worth ranging from $45.1 to $45.3 million, because it
would use an estimated 970,000 CY to create a base for the landfill cap that has a 4
percent slope.
The costs noted above include the costs to implement leachate Options B, C, and D,
which have net present worths ranging from $1.4 to $1.6 million.
o State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix IV).
o Community Acceptance
The majority of comments submitted during the public comment period were from
state and local officials and PRPs, and indicated support for Alternative 3. EPA's
response to all written comments submitted during the public comment period, as well
as all questions and concerns raised during the public meeting, are provided in the
Responsiveness Summary (Appendix V).
-------
17
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the
alternatives, and public comments, EPA has determined, in consultation with NYSDEC,
that Alternative 5A is the appropriate remedy for the Site.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
* Capping the majority of the surface of Landfill #1 with a low permeability barrier cap,
with a variance of 6NYCRR Part 360 requirements, to allow for a minimum of 12 inches
of protective barrier fill with a permeability of 10"5 cm/sec or less; in a ridge and swale
configuration, with ridges having slopes of 4 percent and synthetic liner in the swales;
* Capping with bituminous (asphalt) caps the 6-acre parcel of Landfill #1 where the
Village of Endicott has a permitted yard waste composting facility and the 8-acre CAA
of the Tri-Cities Airport regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration;
* Performing an explosive gas investigation and installing a gas venting system, as
necessary, based on the results of the landfill gas investigation. A passive system with
one vent per acre is envisioned, but this will be further evaluated during remedial
design;
* Collecting, treating, and disposing of the leachate seep by treating at an air stripper
and discharging to the Susquehanna River or piping or trucking to a POTW for
treatment and disposal. If installation of the cap reduces leachate generation to the
extent that the seep no longer exists, this may not be warranted. The specific
treatment and disposal option will be further evaluated during the remedial design
phase, based on implementibility;
* Recommending that institutional itrols be established in the form of deed
restrictions on future uses of Landfill #1;
* Fencing or other acceptable access restrictions to ensure protection of the landfill
cap;
* Performing long term operation and maintenance of the landfill cap, gas venting, and
leachate systems to provide for inspections and repairs;
* Performing long term air and water quality monitoring;
* Evaluating Site conditions at least once every five years to determine if a modification
to the selected alternative is necessary.
Remediation of ground water is expected to be achieved by continued operation and
maintenance of the ground water collection and treatment remedial measures already
selected for the Site, which are the air stripper at the ranney well, the purge well, and
the supplemental purge well. _
-------
18
The selected alternative provides the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives
with respect to the evaluating criteria. EPA and NYSDEC believe that the selected
alternative will be protective of human health and the environment, comply with
ARARs, be cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Due to the large size of Landfill #1 and the absence of hot spots representing major
sources of contamination, Landfill #1 could not practicably be excavated and treated.
Therefore, this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedy with respect to source control.
Because the selected remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within five years after
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
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 ARARs 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 reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous wastes, as available. The following sections discuss how the selected
remedy meets these statutory requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy will provide permanent overall protection of human health and
the environment by containing waste with a landfill cap, by controlling landfill gas
through monitoring and venting, and by controlling and treating the leachate seep. By
reducing leachate production, the remedy limits further contamination of the ground
water and thereby builds upon the RODs for OU #1 and OU #3, which required use
of the air stripper at the ranney well, treatment at the existing purge well, and
treatment at the supplemental purge well to remediate ground water.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all Federal and State ARARs. Chemical-specific
ARARs identified for ground water include the more stringent of Federal and State
MCLs and non-zero MCLGs. These ARARs are expected .to be met by the continued
operation and maintenance of the ground water collection and treatment remedial
measures already selected for the Site, which are the air stripper at the ranney well,
the purge well, and the supplemental purge well.
Action-specific ARARs include 6NYCRR Part 360 requirements for closure and post-
closure of municipal landfills and the NYSDEC SPDES. The 6NYCRR Part 360
-------
19
regulations require that the cap for Landfill #1 promote runoff, minimize I Oration, and
intain vegetative growth for slope stability. The selected remedy conv.es with
t. -iYCRR Part 360 by invoking the variance provisions set forth in Section 360-1. 7(c),
based on site-specific conditions. The selected remedy invokes a variance to Section
360-2. 1 5 (b): Landfill closure and post-closure criteria, which requires that the final
cover system comply with Sections 360-2.13(p), (q) or (r), and (s). Specifically, the
selected remedy invokes a variance to Sections 360-2.13(q)(2)(i) and (iii) for the
majority of Landfill #1 and a variance to Sections 360-2.13(p),(q), and (s) for the CAA
and yard waste composting portions of Landfill #1. Leachate seep collection, treat-
ment and disposal will be designed to ensure compliance with their associated ARARs,
including SPDES for discharge to surface water and air emission standards for an air
Lcx^on-specific ARARs include the New York State Floodplain Management Criteria
for State Projects (6NYCRR Part 502 Section 16), the Federal Aviation Regulations for
Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (49 C.F.R. Part 77), and the National Historic
Preservation Act. The FAA regulates construction within the CAA and requires notice
of proposed construction having a slope greater than 1 percent within 20,000 feet of
the Tri-Cities Airport. Policies to be considered include Executive Order 11990
(Federal Protection of Wetlands), which requires an evaluation of possible measures to
mitigate wetlands loss and Executive Order 11988 (Federal Floodplains Management
Executive Order), which requires evaluation of modification to the 100-year and 500-
year floodplains. An hydraulic evaluation to be performed during the remedial design
phase, to assess the modification of the Susquehanna River floodway caused by the
landfill cap, will fulfill the requirements of the 6NYRCC Part 502 regulations and
Executive Order 11988. The selected remedy will result in the backfilling of
approximately 0.6 acre of man-made wetlands and modification of the Susquehanna
River floodway and the navigable airspace of the Tri-Cities Airport. The selected
remed1, /ill achieve compliance with these ARARs.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy affords overall effectiveness proportionate to its costs because,
among other things, it uses a terraced or "washboard" design to attain a 4 percent
slope to promote runoff, thereby reducing infiltration and leachate generation.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable through collection, treatment, and
proper disposal of the leachate seep.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element
cannot be satisfied for Landfill #1 itself, because treatment of the Landfill #1 waste is
not practicable. The size of Landfill #1 and the fact that there are no identified hot
spots that represent major sources of contamination preclude a remedy in which
contaminants could be excavated and treated effectively. The remedies selected for
-------
20
the two previous OUs include treatment of contaminated ground water and, therefore,
satisfy the preference for treatment. In addition, this selected remedy calls for
treatment of the leachate seep at the Site and, hence, satisfies the preference for
treatment for this portion of the remedy.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative presented in the
Proposed Plan.
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
figures
Figure 1 - Site Location
Figure 2 - Endicott Landfill
Figure 3 - Wetlands identified on east bank of Nanticoke Creek and north bank of
Susquehanna River east of Nanticoke Creek
Figure 4 - Wetlands identified on west bank of Nanticoke Creek and north bank of
Susquehanna River west of Nanticoke Creek
-------
Figure 1: Site Location
VE SEWEX LINE
NNEY.
2000
4000
OUAOUNGLE LOCATION
PIOUME 1
LOCATION MAP
,NEW YOH<
-------
Figure 2: Endicott Landfill
FIGURE tA-
IITC ALTERNATIVE 5A
HYBRID CAP
-------
Figure 3: Wetlands (east bank of Nanticoke Creek and north
bank of Susquehanna River east of Nanticoke Creek)
OvTl
*•'•'• .
-------
Figure 4: Wetlands (west bank of Nanticoke Creek and north
bank of Susquehanna River west of Nanticoke Creek)
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
Tables
Table [a]: Indicator Contaminants of Potential Concern
Table [b]: Summary of Chemical Compounds (Detects and Undetects)
Table [c]: Exposure Pathway Analysis
Table [d]: Toxicity Data for Noncarcinogenic and Potential Carcinogenic
Effects Dose Response Evaluation
Table [e]: Risk Levels and HI Values, Summary Across Exposure
Pathways, Present/Future Use, Resident Adults
Table [fj: Risk Levels and HI Values, Summary Across Exposure
Pathways, Present/Future Use, Resident Children
Table [gj: Risk Levels and HI Values, Future Use, Construction Workers
Table [h]: Sources of Uncertainty in Endicott Risk Assessment
Table [i]: Maximum Contaminant Levels (Federal and more stringent State
standards)
-------
TABLE 2-1
ENDKX5TT WELLFTELD SITE
INDICATOR CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
BY MATRIX
CfWfnCBB '
VoMtes:
Acetone
Banian*
2-ButHnone
Cartoon DtsurWe
CMorobanzww
CMarotorm
1.1 DfcntoroetMne
4 M r^«4^k«hAM»^MbA
I »C~ UIU MMUWIViV
1.1 Dkntoroetwne
«m-1.2-achtoroetNm
fram-l.a-Ochtoropropen
EViytonzww
2UAW^MUM»A
*nvMvmfiv
MatiylarwCntorU*
4-Matiyl-2-PimlMiam
Tatr
Tokim
ToMXytonw
1.1.1 TrlcHoRMtMra
1.1.2-TrkMonMtMrw
Subsurface Sol
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
Pond Water
Surface Water
Sediments
Vinyl CtNOfM0
Ground Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Contaminant
V
V
V
N
V
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
•No'
Jusflftcaflon
1.3.4
1.3.4
•Yes'
Justification
8
5.6.8
8
8
8
8
8.7.8
7.8
D)
1.3.4
1.3.4
8.8
8
8
8.7.8
6
8
8
8
8.8
S.8
(D
ciT
-------
• -I
TABIEM
ENDICOTT WELLFIELD SITE
INDICATOR CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Swri-VoMlM:
BenrafcAcU
Butyl bvniyl phtfwnto
2-CMonfitNnal
1.2-OfcMorotNnnm
1.:M)lchtorotNmz«r»
Subsurface Sol
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pond Water
BY MATRIX
Surface? Water Sodbnonts
WirtBf
X
X
X
X
X
X
•-
X
-
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
X
.
-
-
-
X
.
tvuttaufefeu
inOICCROf
Contaminant
Y
V
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
V
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
V
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
•No"
Jusflflcaflon
'.
-
-
2
2
2
2
-
-
-
-
•
-
•
-
2
2
-
-
2
-
-
-
-
2
•Yes'
Jusflflcaflon
8
6.7.8
8
-
-
-
"
6.8
6.7
8
7
8
8
7.8
6
-
-
8
8
-
6.7
6.8
6.8
8
-------
Carcinogenic PAHs .
Banzo(a)anf»acww
Benzo
-------
I I
TABLE 21
ENOICOTT WELLFIELD SITE
INDICATOR CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Cfwvnlcflti
PCBsAndPesfckte:
AMrtn
AlphfrBHC
Beta-BHC
Mt»BHC
GammfrBHC
AMwCMordm
OvnmCMontan
4.4- OOO
4.4'DOE
4.4--DOT
Dtahfnn
Endosuttanl
EndosuKmN
EndosuHmSuRato
EncMn
Endrin Ktotow
IteutaU** Cpujtlite
Subsurface Sol
X
X
X
-X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Pond Water
BY MATRJX
Surface Water Sediments
Ground Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Indicator
Contaminant
Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
•No'
Justification
.
2
2
2
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
.
1.3.4
2
'
2
.
-
.
"Yes'
Justification
6.8
.
6.8
-
.
6.8
8
8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7.8
8
8
-
.
8
.
6.8
6.8
8
ToMPCBs(3)
Arock»i242
Am** 1248
Arectori254
Arodort260
X
X
X
X
X
X
Y
Y
Y
Y
6
6
6.8
6
-------
TABLE 2 I
ENDICOTT WELLFIELO SITE
INDICATOR CONTAMINANTS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
BY MATRIX
Chamfcats Subsurface Sol Pond Water Surface Water Sediments Ground Water
•WdKAKAB^MA'
nVOnjWWCS.
Aluminum X
Aak^auuBU If
^nornuny A •
Arsenic X
Barium X X -
Omyluiii X
Cadmium X
CaMum XXX
Ctwoffllufn . X
Cobati X
Cofjpar X
Iran X XX
LMd X
ft^BMMM^k^M V V
MBrjnaaum A • A
Manganas* X X
Mercury
Mctol(l) X
Potassium X
Stmr
SorJum X -
Vanadhm X - -
Zinc X XX
X ••*»..._ - • . • _ _ * * ^ _.
(1): CanlMilnart (low not contribute OJ% to
«K* .K _ - . . * _ * •__ m, . . _ _•
W^ ~ * " * IBirf • ft* • •'•• A • • il
(9): Contaminant tea Group A carcinujaii.
«4 >M«Jkj« f^^Ffte^^M ^^Ji — -J.-...J, , , ^^Bj^B ^.MBdl ^^kJ&BB^M^F^ n • !• • • llll •!
1 urjmfj |wnoo0 son w suDsurtaoa sons •no saovnarni • orrjarNcs|.
ixjmBUMiflHi comnuuiesu. 1^0? morv n via miai mn ror wia maviji usvig wio vyxNiiy
(8): Coiifaniiliunit exceeds a 5% fceojuency of detection In one or more iiurtlces.
-
X
-
-
X
-
•
.
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
X
-
- .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Indicator -No-
Contaminant Justification
N 2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N 2
Y
N 2
N 2
N 2
N 2
N 2
Y
Y
Y
N 2
V
N 2
Y
Y
•Yes*
Justification
7
6.7.8
7.8
6.7.8
6.7.8
.
7.8
^
.
.
.
7.8
7.8
5.7.8
_
8
.
7.8
7.8
1 7 rafw to haxavalant dwomlum only.
screening analysis.
and surtao* water) or 1 mpyfcg (subsuifaut sol .surfaoa sofa and sedfciteiib-lnorganlc)
' screen* iy analysis.
(9): A> Aroctor ooncentafloiB are summed and evaluated as total PCBs. • • •
(10): EssenBa) and nonessenM elements (aluminum, catetom, magnesium, potassium, and sodrum) are nol evaluated.
-------
IMStO f III
06/17/92
tnicoit writ MCI B sin
MWIIT of CM MI nil crHpauo* i MUCH • urn ircts/7 »
will
(•• mo
Ml 10 OCtW DtllCt CSI HJfCf MUCI
MINIMI
WllClfO
cowriiMim
I ID
HFOIM GfnMIIIIC MM inull
s«nf ID concfiiMttM HTM cnttliiMtirai auwiiu
urn*
a mint
stm
M*.
9ST
uw
II VoUtll* I «M I U|/l
tataomttd VoUtlln )
.1.1 UlCMOratMM
,1-OICMOMKIMMt
.1-8ICMOMHMIE
.2 OICmOKItMUK
CM.OMK8tt«
CMOMCIMU* • .
(•limit cmaiiM
tft**mamt««
TMM-1.2-*ICMOMXt*nt
IIM1-1.1 »ICMOMMOmC
IIICmoraiMK
•IB»I cmaiBt .
204 U
20* *2
M7 ti
M7 2
122 1
m u
187 W
Mf 18*
!M T
118 18
lot f
MI 41
Ml »7
in n
1M »
m 8
MI 2
171 1
»* U
181 8
n i»
If* 8
108 11
MI 8
nr n
1M »
.16
.41
.8*
.81
.81
.22
.44
.8*
.81
.»
.88
.22
.11
8.400 ni-116
8. no mi*
8.VM m 1 5
e.rao m 27-4
74.800 W-7-t
0*00 IU 11 2
8.«00 «l 10. 2
O.MO IU 4 1
1.000 MM-1
e.«n m-n-4
1.008 IV-8-1
8.MO I»-J *
8.WO MI-M-4
710.000 W 21-6
200.000 HI 9*6
I4.000 Hll-VS
1.000 IU •»•!
74.000 MI-7-A
1*0.000 KI-71
2*00.000 mi r t
. 270.000 mi n t
11.000 IU 11-1
8*. 000 IU-11-1
i.ooo iwii
1188.000 MM-!-*
110.000 IM-tM-2
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
O.V10
1. 000
1.000
1.000
1.000
O.HO ,.
O.MO
1.000
i.ooo
1.724
1.***
I.OB4
1.M2
o.*e? .
1.1S8
1.477
2.«»
1.096
1.112
0.717
I.J71
1.761
tl.«B7
».UJ
4.760
4.0B6
6.016
7.990
75.481
I.9M
4.284
7.6M
1.184
10.761
7.171
o.soo
0.900
O.SOO
O.SOO
o.soo
o.soo
0.9SO
I.OOO
o.soo
o.soo
o.soo
o.soo
0.600
1.000 .474
S.OOO .116
1.000 .718
1.000 .611
1. 000 .271
1.000 .621
18.SOO .788
4.000 .471
1.000 .7S4
1.000 .914
O.SOO .720
2.000 .S07
l.SOO .916
torn
81.480
5674.000
•4 (MMllM »
28OTMOBE y
2-MMMOH
4 Mttni 2-n«MB8I
•CftOK
mnam
tAtm 8imrt8t
ttmwiTfj*
tai*«
101*1 mtvs
M7
288
288
287
»6
M7
2*6
288
201
S
1
2
M
61
f
11
17
n
284 8
281 8
284 8
178 7
141 M
282 1
1*1 8
16* 11
170 7
8.81 <
8.88 1
8.81
8.14
8.11
8.82
8.87
8.18 1
8.17 <
(.881 W-12-1
1.808 W-61-1
.800 NH-2-1
.800 (Hit 2
.10* (Ml 4
.600 NI-2M 4
.100 M-ta-2
1.600 mi 21-4
I.SOO IM-11-2
71888.808 W 12 1
11.008 W-te-1
I.OOO W-6d-l
178.000 mi lit I
18.000 NU-24-4
7.000 Mf-M-4
10.800 MM-7-1
27.000 Ntf-fe-l
1*0.000 mi r t
7.50*
2.SOO
l.SOO
2.SOO
1.00*
l.SOO
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.68*
1.4S2
2.111
4.162
1.18*
1.1 J7
1.091
I.2J1
1.IS1
1M.*66
11.847
10.141
18.71*
1.018
6.411
4.414
4.622
7.992
2.100
2.SOO .
1.000
2.SOO
0.600
O.SOO
O.SOO
o.soo
o.soo
2.100 2.981
2.100 2.BS9
2.100 .242
4. 7SO .999
2.000 .072
l.SOO .817
I.OOO .810
1.000 .908
l.SOO .617
•Oil: I • I, 18 VII Cl COUM. I8HCAKS VMUt If OMAII* 1WHI NMIMW COMXIIMIIOI; ( • I. ftSIMIKS. IIDIUtl IMI 1« UWI W OCOJMtKt* IS IOO «WU ID MIOU CMCW*IIOI
CD
-------
C8MCO r-IM
06/IF/V7
iwicnii unifinn sur
IT o» CWHUM cnvnmt i wncis •
noun Mil*
NUIMM MMINM
a* uro orimro DIIICIID MTOIM covuic
VttlO OCCUI MIICI tSI KJftf Of IICI COW.tllMflOB SMVtf ID CmtlNIMIlOB SMVtl ID COKIMMMIOM »M
WM 10*1
concmiMiin awinii
UlTfl
OUMIIK
SI«DtC.
MV.
*lMl KflAK
170
2 0 0.01
fOIAl ••••>
3.000 IW T I
76.000 NUM-t
?.B41
It.171
ir.no
7UK.OOO
7.4
z
4-cmam-s
4 WtntM
R
n
n
n
n
4
1
t
•
IS
a
n
n
M
it
4 4
1 »
1 1
T 1
11 1
1 8.9*
» 9.91
1 8.81
1 9.11
1 9.1*
1.801
7.901
1.801
1.0*
1.001
) NU-21-4
i mi 1 1
i w r 2
l m j 4
1 W76-4
8.000 MI-7-2
2.000 mi T I
5.000 MU.f-2
10.000 NP-V4
6.000 HU ??d 5
4.810
4.958
4.9f2
4.VI7
,000
1.000
5.000
vooo
1.000
i.ooo
t.aoo
i.ooo
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.171
I IK
1.067
1.774
1.414
I0t«l
7V.OOO
*m I
R 1 •» > * 9.94
R I 71 t 9 9.91
R 1 ft I 9 9.91
R J 61 » 9 9.19
101A1 ••••»
w-n-4
wit
m-Ti-4
W-71-4
4.1
4.1
•.I
16.1
M-r-2
W-I-1
Ml 71 4
Mi-r-2
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
4.849
4.«81
1.011
1.0(0
4.TCI
4.986
1.014
1.167
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.771
1.07F
1.077
1.771
14.1
JO.OOO
1.7-OICKi
t 8.81
1.8
181-771 4
l.i
M r-2
1.000
4.818
4.861
1.000
1.0
i.m
-------
(IMCO » III
06/17/92
rwiron uriiiuto siu
or cwmc«i ciM-rams i DIIICIS • iMWicm/7
MflMO IMII*
MIDIMII
Ui mo ofiitifo Dfiir.ifo MOIM
MllO otcwi MIICI itl tTJKi Of ltd cmtmiMim sw»it 10 cnnctmonm SMVtf ID co>cf«it*ii« MM
1.4-OICKOMKIItlt
n
« 0.10
1.000 Ml 77v4
1.000
6.000 «U 71 4
11.000
5.000
4.6»7
t-1-4 0.011 MI-21-4 0.025
.011 Ml 21-6-1 O.015 Ml 26 4 0.050
.002 M> 1-4 O.028 W 5 4 0.025
1.051 Ml 26-4 0.055 Ml 26 4 0.050
1.004 » 5 4 0.004 W-5-4 0.050 1
1.005 Ml 21 61 0.00* Ml 77i 4 0.075 1
1.052 0.051 1
I.Mt 0.050
1.0*9 0.050
.025 0.025
.174 0.181
.024 0.025
.049 0.050
.024 ' 0.075
.051 0.051
1.049 0.050 (
).024 0.025 (
1.050 <
.050 I
.050 I
.075
.077
.075
.050
.075
.050
.050
1.075
1.050
1.050
1.050
.075
.750
.075
.050
.075
.050
.050
.075
.170
.792
.186
.718
.978
.114
.746
.711
.057
.155
.760
-------
I
IWSCO I III
86/1 7/97
f«tir.nii uriiiirio siif
SIMIUf M CMNICM tnmMOS < Of lltIS • UWIICIS/? >
GtOIMI Wilt
NlttlMM WHIM
UM- llfO Of lit 110 OfllClfO
OCCU8 OttfCI ISt KJtCI MttCI COKCIliMIIOI MWtllD COKIIIMIIM
MflMMOU
Kf IKM« INNIM
KtoncMoi
Monoi 12U
MOCIO* 1IM
II lmr««ile ( IMM » «*A
72 8 44 T
n 2 n 2
n 4 M 4
n
n
n
4*
0 0.11
0 0.01
* 8.06
torn •—>
• t.W
0.001 Ml 74-4
0.004 Ml 71-4
0.011 Ml 26 4
0.100 Mind*
0.014 Ml 77l 4
0.017 Ml-71 4
o.m
r.JM Ml f-2
1.100 Ml-21 4
7.MO Ml 7 2
4.700 Ml 7 2
14.0
ft M t
78 t rr
» • n
MM •
51 I M
n 4 »t
n n •
n n a
2* W t*
•t W U
MM •
M 2* r
•2 87 •
n rr •
82 12 »•
t.vr
8.81
0.21
1.M
8.82
t.M
•.M
8.M
8.8t
1.M
0.81
•.»
IIS.t
W-M
. IN n-4-1
-1
11.2
206.008
1.10* MI744 I
5 TOO Ml 70 4 I
14400 000 Ml » 4-1
10.4M Ml*. 1
11.500 Id* 1
115.000 tU-lt-1
i.foe wife i
1140.000 l»l 4 1
78.50* Ml M t
•4.4M
if.?**
•218.000
5.188
1*5.000
171.000
422.0M
MMOO.MO
*2.0M
24HO.OM
1.400
Ml t*S-2
tU 7 1
W-12-1
tW-12-4-?
Ml 74-4-1
fW-11-1
Ml W. 1
Ml to* 2
Ml 10i 2
Ml 11 7
NI-10*-2
Ml 19 1
Ml 271 4 t
Ml 1* 2
Ml f 1
WOIM cfiMtiiic mut n
MI um*
SHOW. *5« t
COKCMIIMIOI MM COKIHIMIIOH OUMIIK OUUIIII WV.. UPft*
o.on
o.on
o.no
0.258
0.500
87*0.000
10.5M
1.5M
ttl.500
8.5M
2.5M
187000. MO
14.100
l.OM
50.700
22550.000
11.400
2HM.OM
2740.000
0.10*
0.071
o.on
0.7M
0.12*
0.511
177! W
11.41*
1.011
ltt.686
0.572
2.518
*5S72.24}
12.760
7.111
18.007
14424.428
11.111
21174.91*
27*4.111
0.126
o.on
o.on
0.741
0.411
0.669
14.621
4.1*7
•71. 724
8.5M
2.5*4
112*44.706
12.205
14.124
87.671
!1«2*.U1
24.514
24877.41*
4*06.875
0.172
o.on
o.on
o.no
0.250
0.500
1 1SO. 000
10.500
1.500
180.000
0.500
2.500
40150.000
2.500
1.500
76.400
2510.000
5.500
14*00.000
im.ooo
0.100
o.on
o.on
o.no
0.500
0.500
285M.OOO
14.500
2.750
744.000
0.5M
2.500
145000.000
59.050
74.150
112.000
8BOOO.OOO
w. mo
17600.000
5150.000
0.100
1.676
1.761
1.077
1.661
1.571
8.261 1-
1.411
2.976
2.082
1.168
1.740
1.845 1
4.41*
6.417
5.018
7.178 7
4.452
1.758
4.101
1.814
-------
I I
CIMCO I III
06/1r/9?
mntcoii umiitto sue
t w cMHiut coHmms ( oinris • IMOHICIS/? >
MIUMM
ur ftto MHCIIO
OfMUB Wttli ORM OtlfCT ISt KJCCI OfHCf COW «l«»l IO»
•icm
FOIISS II*
fCDIUH
WMMDIIM
UK
n 42
M 4}
•' •'
It 11
11 n
net «.M
II t • «.8»
• • 0 I.N
• • • t.tt
• • • 1.00
41.000
1 IV). 000
1190.000
11.700
21.000
MNPlt 10
MI-9V6-!
IU-11-]
HU-9t 6-1
HU-74-4-1
PU lOd 1
MICC'IO
COKtBIM1l«
S17.000
77100.000
677OOO.OOO
149.000
I7MM.OOO
•FDIM Crn«IIIC NTM 1 OUtl . WPII
MWtl ID
•u tOi-7
NU-1M 1
HU 6< 1
MU-711-4-T
MF-I-4-I
SIMMO.
CO»ailMtlOil HIM COKtllMIIOI OUUMlt OUMIIII OfV.
11.100
10711.000
7MOO.OOO
19.100
190.000
41.701
7951.114
7im.846
77.148
191.971
66.899 14. MO
11917.171 6160. ODD
17776. M6 16600.000
17.700 7. no
881.800 76.000
90.600
1*900.000
TKlo.ono
67. IV)
110.100
7.774
1.474
1.971
1.896
4.100
IOIM
159*747.'
-------
iinto r ifi
»1/t*/9J
(•icon warm* tin
or tvwirw cnvaum i w licit « i
n»« sMirt rant
IIICIS/I I
it VOUHU « VIM »
IIIKIMM
W flfO MlfCIIB
VMIB oca* etirci isi «*jtci MKCI cmrriiMiin* ur»u ID
MlfetfD
tmtriiMiin
•TDIM
cmrriimiai
aawtiic
ICWt
•uunii
CUMtltt
m ti
UP*fl IIKM
n )
«.i-»it«ianrtiMi
vim cmanoc
21 t t
4 t 11
t.Mt
n.ooo
•.600
fUNI A
rurar-l
rura-I
• .OM
n.ooo
*.«oo
PMCI-2
raw
nva-1
*.v»
n ooo
1.000
4.949
».91»
*.«•
37 294
l.OM
M. OM
If SIS
i.ona
0.000
1.000
• OM
• .DM 1.111
0 000 1 *54
O.OM U.m
1.000 1.291
0 OM 1 OM
4.SH1
31 497
zMnm.air
41 091
torn ••••>
lit. wo
MIIt
ratM
O.fN
•.MB
•.MO
1.1*1
< II
•MION
CMtllM
ttnm
swim
t <
t i
i t
i i
i.*
i.*
i.*
1.0
1.(
*MO».<
1110.(
mw.i
I29*.l
24*00.1
•in*.
MIC.
194W.
2uoo.fD* ram
nt.w*
•.**•
*.M*
*.M*
*.00»
*1M*.I
1JI9.I
111*.I
194M.I
1ITC.
I4400.
ON M400.0N
IOTM.
IJMOt.MO
•.W*
•.000
*.oo*
•.000
•loo*
•.00*
•Ottt C I I. N MS Cl COUNi. IMIMtt* «MK It MMf* fMI HUIMH OWntMtlOl; « • >, Mttimi. I*IOHI tMt t« MMt* Of OUimtlfCH I* TOO WM.I to MIOW CM.CU.MIOI
-------
I '
IMSCO • III
imcoit vrimii* «it(
SUMXT W CIVDItM UH'Uaul I KICC1S • UMtftM/7 >
win i unmii end tnasi n*» IWPIIS t
•IIIMII milMM
i* tif« ofirciio ofiicno
VMIO oca* o»im «i itjfci oiuti coKf»it«iiai SJM»II 10
II Volltllr I VM I u«/l
¥olitlln I
II Inorflnlt ( l»
HIOIU an* ii ic
smm 10 crarriiMim KM
iv w tour*
caKHiMtta aiuiitiii
IMM
jo u tit o.ra
IQtM •••»
70 1 If 1 0 O.tl
toti* •••«»
10 10 0 0 t 1.M
« • tot •.•*
It 10 t t.M
o.vn w HH ? ti.ooo w-or i t.v»
o.vn 11.000
J.OOO W HI J 1.000 M -It-I t.OOO
1.000 1. 000
tnoo.oot B»»II i 71000.000 SM M. imo.ooo
70. MO W-010-1 t]*.00t »••!• il.«00
M.rao wii-t M.mt «!••!• u.nw
I.«M
I.MB
7.KO
J.m
um* fiin«a. rs» ci
ooMitif . w». urm tinit
4.000 t.&7f 1.M2
i.uo
i.»u
m.«H
1«7ft.fOO
ior.M*
l.«18
t»*ra.too
170.7M
. «.r77
7».600
in.ooo
tnoo.ooo
in.via
TO.ow
o.oao
wi.ooo t.in
ttmo.ooo 1.711
f (9.000 1.4S7
o.ooo Tt.on
nr.M« *
ttrtt.Mi
rM.toi
tOtN
1KW.OOO
?nv.no
•nt: 1 1 i. it m ti muw.
«MW 11 (M»m I«M MIMII arnxMiMtiai; « • >. Mttims. intutt IMI i* MM* a? occunnat I* too WMI to mow tMcw.*tioi
-------
fMtoni urn mi* tin
WMMT Of CWNICU COWOWDf < BtltCI* • MMIKTS/2 )
not
W-
COVOMB mi IB OCCW M tftl Ml
II VoUtll* 1 W» > ut/l
1 ««l«omr*Mtlc ( I«M I «*A
emit* tl M • •
' NMCMitl t* * 1 •
l\*C I * 1 •
IfJttl
•
•
•
•
torn
•
toi«i
•
•
•
HIIIIUI
>no wircirB
Mirct tmct«iMH« uwti IB
».*» 7. on ww 7
O.B* V.OOO tll:M 1
B.M 0.500 Mill 7
*.** 4.000 WM1
«n.» 15.50*
•.M 3.0BB W«l 7
••••» 1.08*
.*• tKW.OM W-llt-1
•.*• TO.]** WBM 1
B.4r u.no WIM
wi inn
of irrtrB
tmfl*IMtlOI SMMI IB
7.000 IWM-1
11.000 91 M 7
11.000 wer 7
7.000 W »8 7
11.000
I.BOB SM-I1-I
1.000
*r4to.ow W-M-
I1M.OBB W-M-
43.10* MM
WBIU aacitic . MTM tow* u
cnKiiiMitm I*M tOHcriiMiiai OIMIIIU •
7500 IMA ISM 1.000
5.000 7.«5* I.7B1 1.000
3.000 7.113 3.000 1.000
1.000 7.4*» 1.104 1.000
LOW l.llt 1.M7 7.500
inw.oM win.n* n*i*.w uno.oo*
4$.OW 38.174 tir.lM 73.700
43.300 I2.I*] 40.O3 0.00*
mB ttHMO. «
UUtltl Of». U
7. MO 1.170
1.000 7.1M
4.000 7.544
1.000 2. Ml
l.OM 1.4ir
inao.oao .rtt
•1.*M .M
B.OOO W.B14 •
HI CI
pft* i mil
7.7*7
«.145
1.447
i.ira
4.2*7
14511.4*0
ru*.Mi
•~""«««-
torn
nno.o
wim.i
•on: !•>. u *n ci OBIIMI. i»iaiitt «M« it omit* t«i mximtt eoNnrMtrai; < • j. Mtntm. iviutt IMI t»
W UUJMfWIt If tOO MMl TO MIW CMCMMIOi
-------
rMHO 'III
OJ/H/W
tIBIfOM VfllfIfl* fltl
Mown or npiicM ivnutn i otficu • uacitctt/i >
suiincr wirt ( cmi consc rao UNPU: on
i.a
f.OOO WWII
1000 sum t
t.ooo $y ra-i
11.
v
/.
w-n J
SVM-Z
SUM-i
2.114
I.Mt
ooo
i.wr
t.OM
4.000
f.lll
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.1 JS
«.»!! I
».?4f I
18.000
IKM » u»A
CMCIUN
MOHilOH
c
Ml
IH.000 OI-M-I
•noo.ooo W-M i
Ml.OOt W H 1
ZI4M.OOO SUM-t
MM.000 lU-M-l
tl.JOO SM-M-I
I11.MO M-M
moo.ooo
MJ.OOO
luoo.ooo tun
1IM.OOO SU-M-
M.MO SM-fB-
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.000
m.m
tnn.oM
4)1.000
21400.000
1144.000
4J.JOO
tnoe.i
431.1
fUOO.I
11W.I
.000
.ODD
.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
tOtM •»•»
17MM.I
•on: (i>.i* «n ci niuoi. I»ICMCS *»« it OK*m raw mximm coKtinutIOB; t • i. Mtnim. wmn >Mt m MMN or occuMmn I* too 1
tO MUM CM.CWHIO1
-------
•MttO f III
(•torn teuriri* »iw
o? cwmcM COWMM « Ktictt • amitcts/z i
SIDIWII
•miMH
w mo wiitiio
VMIO OCCW OttlCI 151 *fJfCI MIICI CWTIIIMMO*
HMIWM
WtftlfD
rnwriiMiiai
aoWIIIC
ID . COKIIIMIIOli MM
<**• IOM
cmtfiiMiia OUMIIK
II VoUlIU I VD* I .Uf/t«
Sim
MV.
ci
' in om nm
cmmioc
M
II
I
»
»»
«
1.000
11.000
HB «l I
ste •; .-*
l.ooo snii-i
ra.ooo WB M ?
t ooo
n.aoo
j.ru
i.wa
tr.om
4.VW
K.aao
1.M1
IOIH ••••>
I?. OOO
4.MO
M.«M
MX toe
n >i
t • • t.fl
tOIM. •—>
*.om tn-tw-t
IM.M* n* n t
JJ.OO*
M.fW
«t.w
tr.o
«i.o
•.O
I8B.009
41.0
II taM Rtutrcl «cld ( IM > u«Af
< Mwwli I
II
n i • rot
torn
IM.ON •*•«•!
IM.M*
m.ui
IU.MO 1.W4
m.i
2M.1K
*r«aMlc RHk-arirtara J
•tnoi«iMi«*cm
M>raiM>iu
wiratc.i. i mini*
II
it
it
it
II
11
t.n
*.M
•.41
t.M
».•»
•.M
«».
I*.
IM.
fi.
ir.
m-M-
••!•
M
tc» u
*t» M
ti.w* »••»•
««•.«• »» t«
IW.Mt K» «
IM.«M Kt M-
«1.M* «• U
IW.OM H» «*
nt.mt
in.
m.*ii
tn.na
in.wr
m.nr
m.ni
1*1. n*
iw.m
»«.«•»
iw.«5i
»t.*«i
m.m
m.on
IM.OO*
it r. vie
nr.iw
m.m
tn OM
w.vw
.»«»
.**»
.MI
.M*
.«»
m.wi i
IJ».114
Ml. M4
«».Jf» I
•otti < « ». in «n ci CDHIM. micMtt «MW i*
IMM mint* cammi i«; c • i. Mttiiart. i»it«tt tMt nc mmu w etewifMSf it too MMI to «tw CMCWMIOI
-------
IWKCO f-III
"1/18/V
MBICOU wurmt r« i
7M.OOO
14?. MF
7M.40I
1010.000
1O.FIF
IFF.1FJ
in.i
7M.I
i.nt
M».4;
m.v
( Otlm* I
• ••llt010BIMt«n«llli
wit t.t*
tOIM.
in-M-1
IM.tM flt.tM
•*.
-------
I »
IMfCO » III
NDteott Miirmo tttt
MOMT o» mrncu ONMMBS i ottici*
SIOIMHI SMVtIS
incit/f
IfW
aw wito occw
> 11
HSIW 11
M(W It
III 11
it* 10
c »«
11
11
11
11
1
11
M 'IfO
OttlCI ISI HJCCI Otlftl
0 (
0 <
0 I
0 t
* (
0 1
1 (
) 1
> I
1 1
1 I
1 1
I 1.00
» 1.00
1 1.00
1 1.00
1 0.10
1 1.00
HIIIIMM
MIICIIO
ct*a«i»n« UM
7.
TWO
IM
ir
11.
71
.mo
.000
000
.500
.100
.MO
wo
WO
wo
wo
wo
MO
tf 10
IV 1
W 1
« 1
••>•!
•S«-l
•n-i
MIIMH
Of irctfo
tmtiitMttoi
W V)0
un.ooo
vm.ono
S4.«00
It. MO
117.000
SMVtl 10
we M 1
we o» i
no 010 i
no o« I
SIO-M-1
no i« t
I*M IOWI
cmcfifMMOB ouMtiit
time.
otv.
«M ci
wn« i mit
IV. TOO
40SO.OOO
490.000
70.400
0.4W
104.000
nsr.tat
W.2I2
is.vn
j«« ««
i.wr
u.oao
M10.000
nt.ooo
JO.VW
0.100
W.700
tt.MO
4OVO.OOO
1.4W
1.770
i.mo
104.000 1.140
71.f41
tIM.IM
706.1M
».on
}.61«
tm.4«i
totM ••••>
tmv.im
•:*-"*•.
'..••••"I J.Vil
mil*.
-------
• •MC* t III
tmiani wurm* tin
*u*wnr or cmncn covawt I Mficfi • MBtifit»/2 >
MSMtKf Mil
•KIWI
w- rm Mticire
WHO OCCW HltCI 111 tfJKt MtfCt COKtRIMIIOH
ortfciro
COKMIIMIOB
tllC
I*
taw*
ouMiut
• I III
fit Cl
urn* unit
nitmiMIMIAIt
42
4 o 4.12 4i.ooo
torn ~..» 254. om
i 2F-I2
too.ooo ir-i-5
205.000
2J4.W5
455.441
JH.
9MU.OOO
.!• »IC«
III
ItKI
42 1 44 1 4 4.41 2W0.404 MM 22-
42 1 44 I 4 4.42 41.000 M 2-14
42 2 41 2 4 4.44 42.0no 14214
42 1 44 I 4 4.44 22.000 H-2-14
tOlM ••*•• 1145.400
41.004
400.O04
610.400
W» 14
F 14
•••14
« 14
sn.i
110.0M
205.000
IW.Mf
K4.M4
1IM.VM
4U.M4
MO.
m.
215.0
1.10*
*.•!»
15U.M4 I
4/4.201 •
4io.nr
wn.t
f FCtf/Kt
4-4-t
4-4-M
4 4-W
HMI«
•IM*
•IMH-OIK
Ml* MC
OIIIMI*
IIMMWfM II
fWOM'M MMIf
l«tl« IftOK
42
42
U
44
44
4F 1
42
44
44
42
41
41
44
42
I*
44
I*
42
N
12 n
44
44
Jt
41
44
1*
41
41
4.12
4.11
4.11
4.4*
4.12
4.11
4.44
4.44
4.11
4.4*
4.41
4.11
4.11
4.11
«.2M
2M
,254)
DM
,2»»
IW
.201
.40*
.22*
4.244
l 24 14
Mf-24-14
-l-14
•••!«
MM 24 14
» 1 14
W-I-J
IF-2-5
M-a-H
F-l*
M-2«-U
-2 14
1-14
MI-2I-M
14.4
12.4
M 14
-«
-21-14
14
4
.05*
1.444 tr
2.444 If
•.444 t»
4.2W 44-4-14
1.444 «4M(-24 14
2.544 4M-24-M
2.204 4MM-24-14
2.504 (4HM22-14
ru
1.424
4.414
1.441
r.in
1.4M
f.4M
2.F7J
n.M2
2.544
2.W
2.WI
t.m
i.tin
f.4»»
J.5W
1.554
».24f
121
,054
•n
•n
.•n
.OM
.404
.50*
.50*
.no
.50*
.425
.425
.no
.540
.425
.500
*.5M
•.500
•.500
2.447 W.42*
2.454 •.•22
2.W *.4»4
t.M* 1.42» I
4.5W 112.0B4 1
2.415
i.ew
2.241
2.4*4
2.U2
2. IF*
2.4*2
2.4M
.•44 I
.5*5 1
.2*4 I
.505
.224 1
.2521
.III 1
.144 1
2.51* 2.811 I
-------
r in
(•lent mmno tin
eovoMM « wnn« • Mtncn/2»
MOMrMX Mil
won* VMIO
MM-ONC 44
rflMMO* 47
(PltCMOt tfOIIM 44
IIKXTOHOI 47
octw
0
7
1
7
4
l»
OttlCI
M
17
44
1*
41
moimi
rtio oftrctr*
tst ofjftt Mtici cowniiutiai t«mt 10
•
7
1
4
4
0.10
O.M I
0.11 <
0.11 1
1.140 tr-4-1
I.7M $0 7-14
I.MO <0 4-t4
.•DO JO 7 14
WIIMI
ortictn
cnctitMtioi
*.on
0.740
1.000
1.100
IV.OOO
«OVtf 10
N-4-14
M-7-14
IMf-M-14
IP 1-4
W 4 14
t »to« t
•Man I
oi IMO
«»
«'
*f
I 44
» n
' «•
0 0.07
• O.M
00.01
«.MO ir 5 to
11.000 MM4
W.I
OM.OOO W-l-4
21.000 012 14
ravttic mm
7. m
t.ori
1.700
I.1W
17.000
n.m
nw«.
urvtt
auutut
tn
•€».
Cl
irnit
4.40f
i.rw
2.014
1.0*4
iron
««.l*l
22.014
2.«*4
2. MO
24.744
n.on
tM.OIt
1.100
row
I.OTV
t.ow
10.100
«.«
**-no
tM.OM
4.VIO
S.M1
LOW
4o.»n
M.MO
21.000
W-000
IM.4M
n.ou i
II taronlc t 10000 I
•UMIMI
OlintllM
cwmtH
CWCIIM
42 42
M 21
12 17
to i
4* t
20 2*
44) 44)
11 11
44 44
» It
r T
«1 41
.
1.00
0.01
1.00
0.20
0.20
.00
.00
.00
•oo
.00
.00
.00
1410.000 01-1 -14
2.000 M-t-14
10.000 Ml »
o.no MM 20
«-xw mm ti .M
tMo.ooo wi-n
MM M* IM-N
11.700 •* M.
11.000 W 12-21
2420.000 M t 14
1.100 MMM-M
1140.100 Ml 14
*WO».000 OBOJ24 14
21.200 If t-1
2000.000 w-I-4
1.100 M 14 20
4.000 »-|-»
•1100.000 OJM2-M
MM ^M ••_- «_
»*0.00» OBM-22 14
21.400 W-2-41
201.000 r» 1 1
MMOO.OOO OBW-22-M
11.200 « Otf-20
""•••OO HM-IU-tO
12MO.OOO
1.000
•2.200
0.140
0.400
4W3.000
20.110
W.400
21.000
24000.000
12.200
1210.000
twn.nt
V400
00.101
0.221
0.704
4040.112
12.012
n.oti
20.IM
24410.411
11. 1M
I202.200
1201*. MO
1.400
H4.40J
0.110
1.140
1H02.MO
tit. in
11.201
41.141
11.0OO
1042.174
1.000
2MOO
0.110
0.100
MM MM
"OO.OBO
to. m
11.700
M.200
imo.ooo
4. 110
1200.000
14200.000 I.JQ
1-000 2.041
iti.ioo i.*n
«.2ii i.on
•«W 2.00*
10200.000 i.on
n.ooo 1.201
".000 t.tfl
»-100 2.142
M2M.OOO 1.4*1
11.400 MOf
4120.000 1.44}
U010.24*
2.024
H7.IM
1.402
1.114
M171.0M
01.112
14.00*
44.700
12422.204
42.110
4407.011
-------
I • III
IM/CVW
(•icon muttw fin
1 nmtM covouet « etttctt • UMKCH/I i
M9*IKt SOU
COVOM
HMCMCH
•inn
romtnm
tOtlUH
VMHCIUH
fl«C
*MIO
to
t*
it
11
M
l»
• IIIIUI
i» mo ottfcire
OCO» Bf IICI lit If JlCt OIIKI OMCfllMIIOI
to o
4A 0
* 1
» 11
M •
I* •
i.oo in. ooo
1.00 10. MO
O.ftt 1090.000
O.li IIM.OOO
1.10 1*.«00
1.00 M.«M
SMVtt 10
a I w
•H IM 10
am /t it
m ? o
m IR n
•M trio
•IIIIUN
aiiictn
cntfuiHiioi
mo.ooo
It?. OOO
tuo.ooo
mo.ooo
JO. 000
itM.oao
1MMC l»
am 7? u
am ?? u
m IM H
a I i«
am M it
tr-i-»
Mniw
coKr«i»tia
4«r.v»
?t.rao
ItM.OOO
ise vn
1MOO
01.000
BOVIIIC
mum
tn.tii
.«n
ioi.n« tfa.no I.M*
tt.Mo tf.«oo i.m
M.tM) 1*1.000 2.1M
*n ct
wni unit
M1.1M
M.wr
Mti.trt
483.M7
to.jrt
Mf.OM
torn
1It)0.6M
2WHI.MO
-------
TABLE 3-1
Endicott Weflfield Exposure Pathway Analysis
Pathway
GROUND WATER
digestion
»_lknlnflu-tn
nnatatnn
Dermal Contact
SURFACE WATEH
digestion
Inhalation
Dermal Contact
CL.k /r__.__*L*~»
Receptor
Adult/child resident
Construction Worker
Aduft/cMd resident
Construction Worker
AdurVchikt resident
Construction Worker
Aduft/chiM recreation
Adult recreaiiorHgorrers)
Other adult recreation
CNM recreation
• .k.hfnlill.l nnjuinnflnn
Adun/cnnd recreation
Cl lft«^WMM lAa/tlr*^
Timeframe
Evaluated
Present
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Vae
Future
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Voo
Degree of
Assessment
Quant.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Qual.
X
X
Y
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Affected aquifer is public water supply source.
Private weds are in use. Construction workers
expected to drink local water during time on job s
Volatile organics are present in water supply aqui
Exposure to workers expected to be minimal.
Contaminants are present in water supply aquifer
Exposure to workers expected to be minimal.
Incidental (ngestion during swimming/wading.
VOCs detected only in golf course ponds.
No significant levels of VOCs detected hi other
surface water bodies.
Direct contact during swimming/wading.
No biota sampling. Evaluated potential for
Die-accumulation.
D>
J7
(D
O
-------
i i i t i i i r
1 I
8 * « '. f
I « I
Table 3-1
Endicotl Wellfiek) Exposure Pathway Analysis
Pathway
|B*«HMM^IMM>
ingesuon
Inhalation
Dermal Contact
Ingestion
Inhalation
Receptor
AduH/CNId Recreation
AdufWCNM Recreation
Adiift/chM resident
AMkafcfnKMfi •mjunnAlnM
AouR/cnM recreation
AduR worker
AduH/chM resident
AML>kfnl»tt«l -M*»MM»XMM
AOun/cnmi recreation
Adult worker
Timeframe
Evaluated
Present
M«
NO
No
Yes
No
VMM
Yes
No
No
v-__
Yes
No
Degree of
Assessment
Future Quant. Qua).
MM
NO
No
Yes X
No
V«Mk V
Yes x
Yes X
No
VMM V
Yes x
Yes X
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
Sediment mgestnn assumed not to occur.
Not included in scope of work.
No volatile contaminants detected in sediment.
Dermal contact assumed to occur.
No surface soil samples taken. Future
residential development unlikely.
See above. Contact with surface soil at
proposed goM course unfikery.
No surface soil samples taken. Future
residential development unlikely.
See above, contact with surface son at
landfill or proposed golf course unlikely.
-------
I t I
Table 3-1
Endicott WelHield Exposure Pathway Analysis
Pathway
Dermal Contact
Ingestion
lilhalalion
Dermal contact
Receptor
Adult/child resident
A -± -fc«_fc-M-A m—.*—** MBlnn
AduwcnM recreation
Adult worker
Adutt/chM resident
(trespasser)
Construction Worker
AduH/child resident
(trespasser)
AOUM/CTMO reSJQvTM
(trespasser)
Construction Worker
Timeframe
Evaluated
Present
No
VA»
yes
No
No
No
No
Mn
NO
*•-
No
No
Degree of
Assessment
Future Quant. Qual.
No
Vae V
T6S A
Yes X
No
Yes X
No
Voa y
TVS /\
fclfl«
NO
Yes X
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
No surface soil samples taken. Future
residential development unlfcety.
oot» dUUVts. 1/QnioCI WHI 1 SUI Idu0 SOU al
proposed golf course unfikely.
Occupational incidental digestion of soft during
proposed highway construction.
Occupational inhalation of dusts/VOCs during
proposed highway construction.
Occupational direct contact with subsurface sofl
during proposed highway construction.
-------
L .j
TABLE 4-1
EHWCOTT WELLFtELD SITE
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOOENIC
AND POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION
Ej»jT*r.«' ?••• •' . " •
ttMitalMMW
VoMtes:
Acwto-w
Benzene
2-Butanon*
CMbonDbuMhte
UfworQ-Mnzcnv
Chtarotoim
1.1 tNcNonwtwn**
1.2 DkttMoeffwe
,i*incnHNO0wi0nv
inro -i,z- uyctiorovVMnv
i m- i .3-iwcnwiu|>fopons
Mrtiytafw Cntorido
JiytnT2"^""101"
1.1.2.2 T«tacNoRMtww
TolWM
ToWXytanw
.1,1-TnCnKMTWVMra
1.1.2-TrichtonMtww*
TftoMMOTtiMM*
Vh-ytCMofM*
Vinyl A-D-Btnto
RfD(orel)
1.00E-01
NA
5.00E-02
1 OOE 01
2 OOE 02
MA
rIM
100E-02
f.OOE-Ot
NA
O MC-fM
V.UUC-Q9
2.00E-02
« ivtfr nj
J.UUC-V4
100E-01
8.00E-02
ft nnc^A4
3.OOc*OZ
200E01
i tmejty
l.lATC^fC
NA
200E01
200E400
A ****** A9
V.uuc-OZ
400E03
NA
NA
1.00E«00
RnHlnhfltathm)
NA
NA
9.00E-02
1 OOE 02
500E 03
•» /Wl
3.UUCWU
NA
NA
NA
2 OOE 01
C
OralSF
NA
290E02
NA
NA
NA
MA
nn
610E03
NA
910E02
ft nnPJil
D.IWC-VI
NA
1 .WtP-AI
I.OUC-V1
NA
7.50E-03
MA
NA
3 OOE 02
• incjM
9. IUC^f£
200E01
NA
NA
MA
NA
S.70E-02
1.10E-02
1.90E400
NA
iarutnogun
Weight
D
A
D
NA
D
MA
rin
B2
C
B2
NA
D
B2
MA
NA
B2
R9
DC
C
D
D
C
B2
A
NA
Step* Factor
InHdlftflofi Sr
|fny/K0"u9y)' 1
NA
290E02
NA
NA
NA
MA
nn
810E02
NA
9.10E02
IoncwM
.tUt4-OU
NA
<2
1.70E02
2.90E01
NA
Weight Compoun-t
W/bCrdari
D 2-Hexanon
A
D
NA
D
MA
NA
B2
C
B2
NA
D
B2
MA
NA
B2
R9
VC.
C
O
D
C
B2
A
NA
O
(5
-------
TABLE 4-1
ENDKXCT WELIF1ELD SITE
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOOEN1C
AND POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION
Semi VotaHtes;
BwtzofcAcM
1.4-DloMarobwvww
3.3 DleWorobwufcfhw
2.4 Dhiwtiylphwwr
DWvbutyl phtfMtato
Phwwl
CwdnooOTloPAHt
NoncvdnoQMfePAHt
Fkianntranii
Fkmww
"Mmiu^dhuuiMtUhttikxbo^
RID(orel) RIDpntalaton)
(mg^g day)
NA
NA
NO
200EOI
NA
NO
NO
NA
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
NO
NA NA
&OOE-02 NA
3 OOE-Ot NA
4.00E-02 NA
400E-02 NA
4.00E-03 NA
300E-02 NA
400E4OO
200E-02
200E-O1
NA
NA
•.OOE-01
2.00E-02
1.00E-01
2.00E-02
1.00E-03
8.00E-O2
S.OOE-02
NA
NA
3.00E-02
•.OOE-01
Buoenrorao ranopc
RIO (oral sub)
(mg/Ka-day)
4.00E400
200E02
2.00E«00
NA
NA
0.00E400
200EOI
tOOE+00
2.00E02
1.00E 02
NA
NA
NA
NA
300E02
6.00E-OI
NA
•.OOE-01
3.00E+00
400E-01
4.00E-01
4.00E02
300EOI
RfD(lnhala»on. sub)
(mg/K0day)
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cl
OralSF
(mg/K0-day)-1
NA
1.40E02
MA
nn
2.40E02
450E41
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.40E-02
NA
NA
700E*OO
4.90E-03
1.20E4M
NA
115E401
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ramnprt
D
B2
C
82
O
NA
O
NA
C
C
C
82
82
82
D
82
D
D
NA
O
D
0
ismMFOcnr
tnhotatton SF
(ma/Kg-dayM
NA
NA
MA
nn
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.40E42
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
NA
610E4OO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Weight
0
B2
C
B2
0
NA
D
NA
C
C
C
82
B2
82
0
82
0
D
NA
O
D
D
Compouft
wtoCrfter
Acenaphtiy
Bwub(fl.hJ)Pf
* r*Hi • c
4-Chtoro-3-MBth
DtMnzolUi
1.3 Dtchtorot*
2- MBtfiylnflphf
3-NltoanV
4-NlkMnV
PhenaifM.
2.2.4-Trtehlororj
-------
TABLE 41
ENOICOTT WELLFIELO SITE
TOXICITY DATA FOH NONCARCINOOENIC
AND POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION
PCBs And Pesfckte.
AWrtn
Beta-BHC
CNonfano^l)
4.4--DDD
4.4--DDE
M'-OOT
EndosuMn(2)
Endrtn
Total PCBs (3)
RftHoraf)
(me/Kg-dafl
300E05
NA
600E 09
NA
NA
900E04
9.00E-09
900E45
300E04
9.00E-04
130E09
9.00E03
Rrt)(lnh*iBon)
(ing/Kg day)
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NA
NO
SubdhranloNancMcfci
RID (arid sub)
(mg/Kfrdar)
300E05
NA
6.00E-09
NA
NA
900E04
9.00E05
100E04
900E04
9.00E04
9.00E04
500E03
NA NO NA
agon R«fcrano* DOM
RIDpnhalalkm. sub)
(moyKgday)
NA
NA
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•_a •
I9\ CntnxdlM 1 and Caxtmdfan U mr~ *- " a* mbtnffn
CanJ»mttrt Stop* Factor
OralSF
(mgm^dayjl
1 70E4O1
180E*00
1.30E+00
240E01
340E01
340E01
160E+01
NA
NA
450E«00
910E+00
NA
7.70E400
Wolght
I
82
C
B2
B2
B2
B2
82
NA
0
82
82
O
82
InhabtonSF
(mg/Kg-day)-1
1 70E*O1
1.80E400
130E+00
NA
NA
3.40E-01
1.60E«O1
NA
NA
4SOE«00
910E+OO
NA
NA
Weight
82
C
B2
82
82
82
82
NA
0
82
82
D
B2
Cunipouii
EndoduffanSi
Endrtn Kali
Gamma- Bi
(3) A* PCB9 on awakMtKl as Afoctor 1260
-------
I I
TABLE 4-1
ENWCOTT WELLFIELD SITE
TOXICITY DATA FOR NONCARCINOOENIC
AND POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
DOSE RESPONSE EVALUATION
jju^Jiypwrti.,-. . v
3j- 'V'iil
•\_a^Muu«u
ninmony
Arsanks
Barium
BaryMum
Cadmium
Chromium (It!)
Chromium (VI)
lUhnjaiMaa
Marcufy
NtoM(1)
Stm
VanarJum
flnc
Group A:-
Oraup Bit-
Group B2:-
QroupC:-
GroupD:-
NutiuMtinoOBO nafamioi Pw» Subchronte Nuiicaitlnopan Hntoranca Doaa Cardnoom Sfc
RID(aral) RfDOnhatotton) RID (oral sub) RfDpnnatatloo. sub) OralSF
(rng/Kg-day) (mg/Kgdny)
400E-04 NA
1.00E-03 NA
7.00E02 1.00E04
SOOE 03 ND
1oOE03tood NA
tOOEtOO 2.00E-06
S.OOE-Oa 200E4)6
1.00E-01 4.00E-04
3.00E-04 8.60E-05
2.00E-02 NA
300E-03 NA
7.00E-09 NA
2.00E-01 NA
j— • •• •« « •• _-
(mg/Kg-dai
400E04
1 DOE 03
500E02
SOOE -03
NA
100E401
200E02
1.00E-01
300E-04
200E02
0003*
700E03
2.00E-01
• A • >
•^ » • * • «. fi • i 1 • • ••• 1 fti^Ja^ul ^•^La^H^i^ *A tf^a«^
Piuuua Human Cajtbiogan. UnRM awhlaiiut of carol
PiobaM* Human Caidrwyan. Suflktanl avh" *
PussMa Human Caruiiogan. untiBd avMerKv <• u>t^
f) (mg/Kgd»y)
NA
NA
1.00E03
NA
NA
200E05
2.00E05
1.10E04
860E05
ND
NA
NA
NA
Wolght
HM Factor
Inhateflon SF
Wetghl
(mg/Kg-day)-1 (mg/Kg-day)-1
NA
1.75E400
NA
4.30E400
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A
NA
B2
B1
NA
NA
D
D
A
D
NA
D
NA
150E*01
NA
B40E400
630E+00
NA
420E+O1
NA
NA
840E01
NA
NA
NA
NA
A
NA
B2
B1
NA
A
D
D
A
D
NA
D
ial aasoclafcn banvaan axpoaun) and oanoar.
rcmoo^Mvcny m •ranws. iraooojuaiv 9viooncv 01 CVUIHI
logenteMy In animals.
•. • -
gammy wt numara.
Not dassMwI. InadaqiMM abadanoa of caicknganklly HI vMina.
Compounds
wAo Criteria
Aluminium
Catcrum
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
MBgnosluni
Polasslurn
Sodium
I m ftwn MsgmM I** Mbrmaton Systam (IRIS) Jim 1991 Mntons.
•mrt Summary Tabtes (HEAST>1991 Annual (USEPA, 1991).
• Tmdcny wriws am from HMlti Eltecte As
NA i
NO'
(^Thgofai RID i^nm»Ut»» soiubto sa> tenn of nkfcM. ftw Wnfafon SF rapmmla tw nloM reir*
iy olust Ibffn of Cw ctwmlcfll top i
rvBfcni
-------
Table 5-25
Endfcofl WellliekJ Site
Risk Levels and Hazard Index Values
Summary Across Exposure Pathways
Present/Future Use Scenarios - Resident Adults
Present/Future Use Scenarios:
Adult Residents
1) Exposure to Ground Water
Inhalation
Ingest ion
Dermal Contact
2) Exposure to Creek/River Water
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
4) Exposure to Sediment
Dermal Contact
Carcinogenic Risk Levels
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
7.90E-05
1.11E-03
3.74E-06
2.66E-08
2.69E-10
9.70E-07
Noncarcinogenic Hazard Index Values
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
1.00E-01
1.36E401
5.20E-02
260E03
489E06
104E02
Total health Risk - Ground water Ingestton 4 Ground water volatile inhalation 4 Ground water dermal contact +
River/Creek water ingestkm 4 River/Creek water dermal contact 4 Golf Course Pond volatile inhalation 4
River/Creek sediment dermal contact
SUMMATION RESULTS
Carcinogens
Reasonable Maximum Exposure -
Noncarcinogens
Reasonable Maximum Exposure *
1.19E-03
1.38E+01
QJ
C
ft
-------
Table 5-26
Endicott WelHteld Site
Risk Levels and Hazard Index Values
Summary Across Exposure Pathways
Present/Future Use Scenarios - Resident Children
Present/Future Use Scenarios:
r< M Residents
1) Exposure to Ground Water
Inhalation
Ingest ion
Dermal Contact .
2) Exposure to Creek/River Water
Ingest ion
Dermal Contact
3) Exposure to Sediment
Dermal Contact
Carcinogenic Risk Levels
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
1.69E-05
444E04
1.03E-06
1.48E-08
2.36E-11
1.80E-07
Noncarrinogenic Hazard Index Values
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
2.15E-01
2.83E+Q1
6.86E-02
7.24E-03
6.45E-06
9.72E-03
Total health risk • Ground water ingestion + Ground water volatile inhalation 4 Ground water dermal Contact +
River/Creek water ingestion + River/Creek water dermal contact +
SUMMATION RESULTS
Carcinogens
Reasonable Maximum Exposure -
Noncartinogens
Reasonable Maximum Exposure «
4.62E-04
2.86E+01
Q>
CT
(D
-------
1 I
I I
I I I
Table 5-27
Endicott WelH.ekJ Site
Risk Levels and Hazard Index Values
Summary Across Exposure Pathways
Future Use Scenario - Construction Workers
Future Use Scenario:
Construction Workers
Carcinogenic Risk Levels
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
Noncarcinogenic Hazard Index Values
Reasonable Maximum Exposure
1) Exposure to Ground Water
Ingestion
3.97E-05
4.79E+00
2) Exposure to Subsurface SoiVWaste
Ingestion
Inhalation
Dermal Contact
264E06
5.52E-09
236E06
330E-03
2.29E-02
850E-04
Total heath risk •Ground water Ingestion + subsurface soHingestton +
subsurface soil inhalation + subsurface soil dermal contact
SUMMATION RESULTS
Carcinogens
Reasonable Maximum Exposure - 4.47E-05
Noncarclnogem
Reasonable Maximum Exposure - 4.82E+00
Q)
CT
(D
5"
-------
TABLE 61
Endicott Wellfield Site
Sources of Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment
Source of Uncertainty
1. Sampling/Analytical Procedures
Reasonable maximum case exposure
point concentrations calculated using
95% UCLs on the geometric mean
of all analyses.
Highest contaminant levels used to
develop reasonable maximum
case exposure estimates when exceeded
by95%UCL
Contaminant levels from borings into
landfill materials used to develop
subsurface sol pathways.
2. Exposure/Intake Assessment Methods
Potential for varying future land use.
rtate generation and transport
Likely Magnitude of Uncertainty
Low to moderate
Low
Low
Moderate to high; estimates of hard to
quantify conditions, processes and
parameters are required.
Level of Bias Introduced
Slight downward bias.
Gives realistic contaminant level for calcu-
lation of reasonable maximum risk.
Moderate upward bias of exposure
estimates.
Slight upward bias, highway construction
would fikety result in greater exposures
than golf course development. No
residential use expected.
Moderate upward bias of exposure
estimates.
0
c
-------
Table 61
Erxficon WeflfieM Site
Sources of Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment
Exposure estimates assume contam-
inants are conservative over time
Estimates of physiological, behavioral
parameters for receptors
Estimates of exposure frequency/duration
Estimates of contaminant contact rates,
intake factors.
Use of model to calculate goffer exposure
to volatile contaminants.
3. Toxtoologic/Risk Characterization Methods
RfD/CDI.rattos to characterize
non-cancer health effects.
Lack of toxidly criteria for lead.
chtoroethane. and other chemicals.
Moderate for future use scenario
exposures
Low • parameters are defined for special
populations
Low to moderate • scenarios incorporate
ranges of uncertainties concerning likely
exposures
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate to high - data supporting RfD
developments are highly variable;
uncertainty factors vary by orders of
magnitude.
Low to moderate;
((rations and
Slight to moderate upward bias for future
scenarios; landfill contaminant output may
Slight, if any.
Slight upward bias.
Moderate upward bias for soH ingestion
and inhalation, dermal contact likely
conservative.
Moderate upward bias.
distribution of chemicals in site matrices vary;
potential health effects vary.
RfDs are ffcefy to be defined conserva-
tively for most pollutants.
Calculated risks for media may be
understated.
-------
i I
Table 61
Endicott Wellfiek) Site
Sources of Uncertainly in the Risk Assessment
Spectation of Chromium - 95% Cr III
to 5% Cr VI ratio.
SFs. finear low-dose model to assess
cancer risks.
Assumption that effects of multiple contam-
inant exposures are additive.
Moderate
Moderate to high - most SFs are derived
from animal bioassay data.
Low to moderate.
Unknown - inadequate data on speciatkm
of chromium on-srte.
Ukety upward bias; SFs are 95% UCLs
of cancer risk slopes.
Unknown If synergies or antagonisms
exist among contaminants.
-------
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARABS
«••*! W 1.1 J
Chemical
VOUTILES:
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
Dibromochtorornethane
1.2-Dichtoroethane
1,1-Dichtoroethene
trans- 1 ,2-Dchtoroetnene
Inns- 1 ,3-Dchloropropene
Ethytoenzene
Methytone Chloride
4.Methyl-2-Pentanone
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
. Total Xylenes
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
SCUIVOLAIUCS:
Benzole Acid
Bis(2-ethylhexy1)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate(k)
1,4-Dichtoro6en2«ne
Oiethytphthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dimethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Hexachloroethane
4-Methylphenol
3-Nitroaniline
Phenol
Carcinogenic PAHs(k)
Anthracene
PCBs AND PMTJCCC*:
Aldrin
Chtordane
4,4-DDE
OMdrin
Endowffan
Endrin
Haptachtor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Total PCBs
SDWAW
MCLs
tngn
-(•)
0.005
—
—
-
0.005
0.007
0.1
-
0.7
0.005
-
0.005
1
10
0.005
0.002
~
-
0.1
0.075
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0002
—
-
0.002
-
-
—
0.002
0.0004
0.0002
0.0005
SDWA«
MCLGs
mg/l
—
0
_
—
-
0
0.007
0.1
-
0.7
0
—
0
1
10
0
0
-
-
0
0.075
—
-
-
-
-
-
—
-
0
—
. —
0
—
-
-
0.002
0
0
0
N.Y.
N.Y. Surface
N.Y.M Ground W«Ur Water")
MCLs Quality Criteria Quality Criteria
tntf
0.05(f)
O.OOS(fl)
0.05(0 .
0.005(fl)
0.10)
0.005(g)
0.005(g)
0.005(g)
O.OOS(g)
0.005(g)
0.005(9)
0.05(0
0.005(g)
0.005(g)
0.005{9)
0.005(g)
0.002
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.005(g)
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.005(g)
0.05(0
0,005(g)
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.0002
0.05(0
0.05(0
0.05(0
ug/l
-
0-7.
—
6(h)
0.1(j)
6(h)
6
-------
Chemical
N.Y.
SDWAW SDWAW N.Y.W GroundWater*')
MCLs MCLGs MCLt Quality Criteria
N.Y.
Surface
Water**)
Quality Criteria
INORGANICS:
Antimony .
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Laad(t)
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Sitver
mo/i
0.006
0.05
2(q)
0.004-
0.005
0.1
0.05
0.05(v)
0.002
0.1
0.05 (0.7152 [b (ppm hardness)] • 3.490)
human health criterion is 10 ug/1.
t Effective December 8,1992, a treatment technique win be used in lieu of an MCL. and the MCLG will be
v. The criterion based on toxicity to aquatic life (•) is exp (1366 (In (ppm hardness)] • 4.661). The criterion for
human toxiciry is 50 ug/1.
v. Secondary MCL based on aesthetic qualities instead of hearth-based considerations; not promulgated
w. The groundwater criterion for iron and manganese combined is 500 ug/1.
x. The surface water criterion for nickel is exp (0.76 [b (ppm hardness)] + 1.06).
y. Applies to ionic silver.
The
O-106952
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
SEP-29-1992 16=20 FROM NYS.ENUIR.CONSERUftTION
TO
EPS NYC
P.01
York State Department of Environmental Conservation
WWf Ne*tf, Albany, New Y»rk 12233
SEP 29
Them** C. Jotting
CommlMiomr
Mi. K«yi>ra C. Callahan
Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region B
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
Dear Ms. Callahan:
He: Endicott Wellfield Site, Village of Endicott, Broome County,
New York, Site No. 7-04-008
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and toe New
York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) have reviewed the Draft Record of Decision (ROD).
This ROD is for operable Unit 2 (OU2), the final ROD for mis she. Alternative 5A is selected by
the ROD as the preferred remedial action.
Alternative 5 offers protection of human health and the environment, compliance with
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), and is the best proposal for reducing
contamiaarion in the groundwater. Alternative 3 as listed hi the Proposed Remedial Action Plan is
unacceptable to the State of New York.
The NYSDEC and the NYSDOH concur with this ROD.
Sincerely,
Michael J. OTooe, Jr.
Director
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
cc: C. Petersen, USEPA
M. Hauptman, USEPA
A. Hess, USEPA
A. Carlson, NYSDOH
:* brand tax trantmittal memo 7671
001
Fwt
f
TOTAL P.01
------- |