United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/197
March 1993
PB94-963822
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Johnstown City Landfill, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/RO2-93/197
3. Recipient's Accession No.
Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Johnstown City Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
03/31/93
7. Author(t)
8. Performing Organization Rept. No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Addreaa
10 Project Taak/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Addreaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
IS. Supplementary Notes
PB94-963822
16 Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 68-acre Johnstown City Landfill site is a municipally-operated, unlined landfill
situated in the LaGrange Gravel pit located in Johnstown, Fulton County, New York.
Land use in the area is predominately mixed residential, agricultural, and
recreational. The site overlies both an overburdened and bedrock aquifer, which appear
to be hydraulically connected downgradient from the site. The primary surface water in
the immediate vicinity of the landfill is Mathews Creek, which along with the
associated wetlands, appears to be affected by contamination from the site. The
estimated 1,000 people who reside within one mile of the site use private wells to
obtain their drinking water supply. The site consists of two flat terraces filled into
former borrow pits, and a remnant of a pit along the western side of the landfill,
which was used previously to dispose of demolition debris and metals. From 1947 until
1960, 34 acres of the site were used as an open refuse disposal facility, which
subsequently was converted into a sanitary landfill. Until 1979, the landfill accepted
industrial wastes, which included chromium-treated hides, trimmings, and other
materials from local tanneries and textile plants. From 1973 to 1979, sewage sludge
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Johnstown City Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs,
PCBs, pesticides, phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead),
inorganics (cyanide)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
66
22. Price
(SMANSI-Z39.18)
SM Instructions on Rtvtrte
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/197
Johnstown City Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
containing concentrations of chromium, iron, and lead was accepted from the nearby
treatment plant and disposed of onsite in open piles. All onsite landfilling operations
ceased in 1989. Routine storm water runoff and drainage have created ponded areas on the
landfill surface, which have eventually infiltrated into landfill wastes. The associated
leachate seeps and occasional ephemeral runoff from the landfill then flowed into, and
contaminated, the adjacent LaGrange Gravel pit. This ROD addresses both onsite source and
ground water contamination, as the first and final remedial action for this site. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and ground water are
VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including PAHs,
PCBs, pesticides, and phenols; metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead; and
inorganics, including cyanide.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating contaminated LaGrange Pit
sediment, and placing the excavated material on the existing landfill; regrading and
constructing a multi-layer cap over the landfill and excavated sediment; filling any
excavated areas with clean fill; allowing ground water to naturally attenuate; expanding
the city's municipal water supply to provide potable water to all residences potentially
affected by the site; performing a cultural resource survey for onsite and offsite areas
to determine sensitivity of the site for cultural resources; monitoring ground water,
surface water, and air; .maintaining the cap and monitoring and controlling landfill gas
emissions, as needed; implementing institutional controls, including deed restrictions,
and site access restrictions, including fencing; and providing for a contingency in the
event that monitoring indicates that the ground water is not being restored to acceptable
levels through natural attenuation. The contingency remedy involves extraction and onsite
treatment of ground water using physical/chemical processes such as pH adjustment/
chemical precipitation, and carbon adsorption, with discharge of the treated water to the
aquifer through percolation ponds, injection wells, or direct discharge to surface water.
The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $16,454,000, which includes
an estimated annual O&M cost of $174,000 for 30 years. The estimated present worth cost
for the contingency remedy is $32,580,000, which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of
$936,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not provided.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
Name:
Location:
HRS Score:
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy:
Capital Cost:
0 & M Cost:
Present Worth Cost:
LEAD
Agency:
Primary Contact:
Secondary Contact:
Main PRPs:
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. Quantity:
Johnstown City Landfill
Town of Johnstown, New York
48.36
March 31, 1993
Landfill Cap/Extension of City
Water Supply Line/ and if needed,
GW Collection/Treatment/Disposal
$13,763,000 - $16,454,000
$174,000 - $936,000
$18,174,000 - $32,580,000
NYSDEC
Robert Nunes (212) 264-2723
Joel Singerman (212) 264-1132
City of Johnstown
Volatiles, Semi-Volatiles,
Inorganics
Soil, groundwater, surface water
Municipal and hazardous wastes
Municipal Landfill Size: 68 acres
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
I
Site Name and Location
Town of Johnstown, Johnstown City Landfill, Fulton County, New York
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Johnstown City Landfill site (the "Site"), located in the City
of Johnstown, Fulton County, New York, which was chosen in
accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675,
as amended (CERCLA), and to the extent practicable, the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40
CFR Part 300. This decision document explains the factual and
legal basis for selecting the remedy for the Site. The information
supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the
administrative record for the Site. The administrative record
index is attached (Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) concurs with the selected remedy. NYSDEC will also concur
with the contingent remedy, should future water quality data
indicate that the ground-water remediation component of the
contingent remedy is appropriate. (See Appendix IV.)
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present a significant and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This operable unit represents the entire remedial action for the
Site. It addresses the principal threats to human health and the
environment at the Site by controlling the source of contamination
and the generation of leachate.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Excavation of the LaGrange Gravel Pit sediments and
placing the excavated materials on the existing landfill.
The pit will be filled with clean fill, so that it may be
used as an infiltration basin and/or stormwater collec-
tion basin;
-------
• Regrading and compacting the landfill mound to provide a
stable foundation for placement of the various layers of
the cap and to promote rapid runoff;
Construction of a multi-layer closure cap over the
landfill mound and excavated sediments as per New York
State 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations. The cap, by reducing
leachate generation, will act to improve the ground-water
quality in the upper (overburden) and lower (bedrock)
aquifers and surface-water quality in Mathew Creek
through natural attenuation of contaminants;
• Expansion of the Johnstown City water-supply system to
provide potable water to all private water supplies
potentially impacted by the landfill. Providing city
water will require the extension of the City's water
lines and construction of a booster pump station; and
• Erection of approximately 6,800 feet of conventional
chain-link fencing surrounding the entire landfill mound,
with placement of appropriate warning signs.
The effectiveness of the landfill cap will be evaluated through
post-construction monitoring of ground-water and surface-water
quality. The evaluation will be conducted within 5 years following
initiation of construction of the landfill cap, and at any time as
needed thereafter, during the long-term monitoring of the Site.
Should the monitoring results indicate that either ground-water
quality in the upper (overburden) aquifer or the lower (bedrock)
aquifer, or surface-water quality in Mathew Creek, is not being
restored to acceptable levels through natural attenuation as a
result of reduced leachate generation, the following will be
implemented:
Extraction of contaminated ground water from either of
the aquifers, as necessary. The extraction system would
utilize extraction wells which would induce flow to the
wells through drawdown of the ground-water table.
Operation of the ground-water extraction system would
reduce the migration of contaminants away from the Site;
• Treatment of ground water by a treatment system located
permanently on-Site that would use physical/chemical
processes such as pH adjustment, chemical precipitation,
and carbon adsorption, to remove inorganic and volatile
organic contaminants; and
Discharge of treated ground water by returning it to the
aquifer via percolation ponds or injection wells, or by
discharging it to a stream, the nearest being Mathew
Creek. The discharge standards would be established by
NYSDEC.
ii
-------
Declaration
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environ-
ment, complies with federal and state requirements that are legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and
is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practica-
ble. In keeping with the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedy, the contaminated ground water will
be collected and treated, if necessary. The landfill material,
however, cannot be excavated and treated effectively, because of
the size of the landfill and because there are no on-Site "hot
spots" that represent the major sources of contamination.
A review of the Site will be conducted no later than five years
after commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment, because this remedy will result in hazardous substanc-
es remaining on-Site above health-based levels.
William J.^uszyns]£K P.E. Date
Acting Regional Administrator
iii
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
Johnstown City Landfill SITE
City of Johnstown
Fulton County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
March 1993
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION .... 2
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 3
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 12
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 17
SELECTED REMEDY 24
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 27
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 31
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Johnstown City Landfill is a municipally operated, unlined
landfill, situated in a 68-acre gravel pit in the Town of Johns-
town, Fulton County, New York. The Site is located approximately
1.5 miles northwest of the City of Johnstown and 1.75 miles west of
the City of Gloversville. (See Figure 1.)
The landfill consists of two, generally flat terraces filled into
former borrow pits. A remnant of a pit once used as a demolition
debris and metals disposal area, approximately 30 feet deep, exists
on the westward side of the landfill at the base of a steep ridge.
(See.Figure 2.)
The surrounding area has a mixed residential, agricultural, and
recreational land use. Approximately 10 homes are located within
1,000 feet of the Site, and an estimated 80 homes are located
within one mile downgradient of the Site. (See Figure 3.) All of
these homes have private wells with depths ranging from 10 to 208
feet. The population within a one-mile radius of the Site is
approximately 1,000 persons.
The surface-water drainage in the vicinity of the landfill flows
generally to the southeast. Surface waters flow from the upland
areas, north of the Site, via intermittent drainage ways towards
the south-southeast. The primary surface-water feature in the
immediate vicinity of the landfill is Mathew Creek. The headwaters
of the creek (LaGrange Springs) are located approximately 1,000
feet southeast of the Site. The creek flows southeasterly until it
converges with Hall Creek prior to discharging into Cayadutta
Creek. The flow of Mathew Creek is interrupted by a manmade pond
(Hulbert's Pond) before it converges with Hall Creek. Cayadutta
Creek ultimately discharges to the Mohawk River.
Due to differences in surface elevation, storm-water runoff and
drainage from West Fulton Street Extension flow onto the surface of
the landfill creating ponded water near its northeast corner. The
water in this approximately one-acre pond either evaporates or
infiltrates into the landfilled wastes. LaGrange Gravel Pit,
located approximately 100 feet east of the eastern margin of the
landfill, receives surface runoff from hill slopes in its immediate
vicinity, minor flows from leachate seeps and occasional ephemeral
runoff from the landfill surface. (See Figure 2.) Except for
short-lived discharges to LaGrange Gravel Pit, there is no surface
water runoff from the landfill. There is no surface water runoff
from LaGrange Gravel Pit.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Site History
Thirty-four acres of the 68-acre Johnstown City Landfill were used
as an open refuse disposal facility from 1947 to 1960 before being
-------
converted to a sanitary landfill. The landfill accepted industrial
wastes from local tanneries and textile plants until April 1979,
and sludge from the Gloversville-Johnstown Joint Sewage Treatment
Plant from 1973 to April 1979. Landfill operations ceased in June
1989. Much of the tannery wastes were disposed of as chromium-
treated hide trimmings and other materials. Sewage sludge was
disposed of in open piles at a rate of approximately 20,000 cubic
yards per year. The sludge contained concentrations of chromium,
iron, and lead. There are no records available which detail the
amounts of industrial wastes accepted by the landfill.
On June 10, 1986, the Johnstown City Landfill site was placed on
the Superfund National Priorities List.
Enforcement Activities
On June 5, 1987, the state of New York filed suit under CERCLA and
state common law against the City of Johnstown, the
Gloversville/Johnstown Joint Sewer Board, Bruce Miller Trucking
Company, and about a dozen waste generators. Several of the
defendants subsequently impleaded approximately 52 third-party
defendants, including additional generators, transporters and a
number of area municipalities. When the defendants declined to
fund an RI/FS, the State and the City of Johnstown entered into an
interim consent order, which was approved by Federal Judge Con. G.
Cholakis on October 4, 1988.
Under the interim order, the City agreed to conduct an RI/FS of the
Site consistent with the NCP and state guidance, and agreed to
close the Site by June 1, 1990, or within thirty days of the date
a new solid waste management facility in Fulton County (the Mud
Road Facility) was to accept refuse, whichever was sooner.
On February 12, 1988, EPA issued Special Notice Letters to 15
parties potentially responsible for contamination at the Site.
During the implementation of the RI/FS, the parties involved in the
litigation have conducted extensive document discovery and the
defendants have made initial attempts to allocate responsibility.
It is NYSDEC's intention to have the responsible parties for the
site undertake any remedial activities.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
On May 17, 1989, the City of Johnstown and NYSDEC conducted a
public meeting in Johnstown, New York, to inform local officials
and interested citizens of the upcoming RI and to respond to any
questions from area residents and other attendees. A follow-up
public meeting was held on June 13, 1990 to describe the results of
the first phase of the RI and to present plans for the second phase
of field work.
-------
T?he~RI report, FS report, and the Proposed Plan for the Site were
released to the public for comment on January 21, 1993. These
documents were made available to the public in the administrative
record repositories at the EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York
and at the Johnstown Public Library, Johnstown, New York. The
documents were also made available at the information repositories
at NYSDEC's Albany, New York office, at NYSDEC's Ray Brook, New
York office, and at the City of Johnstown Attorney's Office. The
public comment period on these documents ended on February 19,
1993.
During the public comment period, a public meeting was held at the
Johnstown High School, Johnstown, New York on February 10, 1993 to
present the RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan, to answer
questions, and to accept oral comments. At this meeting, represen-
tatives from the NYSDEC, the New York State Department of Health
(NYSDOH), and EPA answered questions about problems at the Site and
the remedial alternatives under consideration. A summary of the
comments presented at the public meeting and their responses, as
well as written comments received during the public comment period
and their responses, are included in the Responsiveness Summary
(see Appendix V.)
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
This response action applies a comprehensive approach, therefore
only one operable unit is required to remediate the Site.
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: 1)
prevent human and animal contact with contaminated soil from the
landfill surface; 2) prevent erosion of contaminated surface soil
through surface-water runoff; 3) minimize the infiltration of
rainfall or snow melt into the landfill, thus reducing the quantity
of water percolating through the landfill materials and leaching
out contaminants; 4) mitigate the off-Site migration of contaminat-
ed ground water; 5) prevent unacceptable exposure to off-Site
contaminated ground water; 6) restore ground-water quality to
levels which . do not exceed state or federal drinking-water
standards; 7) prevent ingestion of on-Site ground water; 8) control
generation and prevent migration of subsurface landfill gas; and 9)
prevent unacceptable exposure to vapors from the landfill.
NYSDEC is the lead agency for this project; EPA is the support
agency.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The RI field work was carried out in two phases: Phase I, between
June 1989 and June 1990; and Phase II, between July 1990 and March
1992. Media sampled during the RI included subsurface soil, ground
water, surface water, sediments, and air. The frequency of
detection, lowest and highest concentrations detected, and location
of highest concentrations detected, are shown for all sampled on-
Site and off-Site ground water, surface water, subsurface soils,
and sediments in Tables la, Ib, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b. The RI also
included ground-water flow studies to evaluate the hydrogeologic
conditions at and in the vicinity of the landfill, a wetlands
delineation in the vicinity of the Mathew Creek area, and ecologi-
cal studies in Mathew Creek and Halls Brook.
Subsurface soil samples were collected for all ground-water
monitoring wells shown on Figure 4, except for MW-15 and MW-19.
Soils located directly beneath the landfill exhibited the majority
of the soil contamination. Eight volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) , acetone, methylene chloride, xylene, benzene, ethylbenzene,
2-butanone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, and toluene were detected in
landfill subsurface soil samples (MW-16 through MW-18) at concen-
trations ranging from 3 micrograms per kilogram (M9/kg) to 440
jig/kg. Benzoic acid, phthalate, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bon (PAH) compounds comprised most of the semi-volatile organic
compound (SVOC) contamination detected in landfill soil zones, with
phthalate esters observed to have the highest range of concentra-
tions (42 /ig/kg to 1,100 ^tg/kg) . Eighteen metals were detected in
subsurface soil samples collected within the landfill ranging in
concentrations from 0.43 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 72,000
mg/kg. Eight of these (antimony, calcium, chromium, lead,
magnesium, sodium, aluminum, and zinc) exceeded background values.
Eleven pesticides were also detected in landfill subsurface soil
samples at concentrations between 4.1 M9/kg and 37 /xg/kg.
Downgradient inorganic substances found in all of the 4 subsurface
soil samples (MW-9 through MW-12) included aluminum, arsenic,
barium, beryllium, calcium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead,
magnesium, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, vanadium, and
zinc, at concentrations ranging from 0.31 mg/kg to 39,000 mg/kg.
Organic contaminants that were found in more than half of the 9
downgradient subsurface soil samples (MW-1 through MW-4, MW-8
through MW-12) included acetone, methylene chloride, toluene, and
tetrachloroethylene at concentrations between 0.6 Mg/kg and 75
The volatile contamination detected in the shallow downgradient
aquifer (MW-1 through MW-4, MW-8 through MW-12, and MW-15) included
13 VOCs. Concentrations of these contaminants ranged from 0.2
micrograms per liter (/xg/L) to 62.0 pg/L, with the highest being
toluene detected at MW-3S, which is located near the LaGrange
Gravel Pit. Semi-volatile contamination in downgradient monitoring
wells included phthalate ester compounds, polycyclic aromatics,
methylphenol , and benzoic acid at concentrations between 0.3 ng/"L
and 150 M9/L- Twenty metals .were detected in shallow wells
downgradient of the landfill at levels often exceeding background
-------
revels. Eight metals (iron, manganese, sodium, arsenic, lead,
chromium, copper, and zinc) exceeded EPA and/or NYSDEC standards in
downgradient monitoring wells. Two pesticides were detected in
downgradient. monitoring wells, MW-9S and MW-11D, at 0.04 /*g/L
(delta-BHC) and 0.05 /ig/L (Endosulfan 1), respectively.
Acetone and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were the primary contami-
nants detected within the bedrock ground-water aquifer at concen-
trations generally much greater than those found at the source
(landfill) wells. The highest concentration of acetone (2,900
/ig/L) was detected at MW-7D located northwest of the landfill. The
highest concentration of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (150 M9/L) was
detected at MW-3D located near the LaGrange Gravel Pit.
Five VOCs, acetone, methylene chloride, xylene, benzene, and
ethylbenzene were detected in the ground-water sample collected
from landfill well MW-16, at concentrations ranging from 9 Mg/L
(benzene) to 230 ng/I* (xylene). Generally, the highest concentra-
tions of inorganic contaminants in ground water were also detected
at MW-16. Six pesticide compounds, none of which were found in
downgradient ground-water samples, were detected at MW-16 at
concentrations ranging from 0.01 ng/L (4,4'-DDE) to 0.35 /xg/L
(4,4*-ODD). Based on water-level data, these results may be
characteristic of leachate. Benzene and ethylbenzene were detected
in landfill well MW-19, at 0.9 /ig/L and 7 pg/l>, respectively.
Eleven SVOCs were detected in landfill wells MW-16, MW-18, and MW-
19 at concentrations ranging from 0.6 ng/L (di-n-octylphthalate) to
24 pg/L (bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate). No VOCs or pesticides were
detected in landfill monitoring well MW-18. No polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in any of the three sampled landfill
monitoring wells.
No inorganic contaminants found in residential well samples
exceeded New York State or EPA primary drinking water standards.
Some compounds, such as iron, manganese, zinc, and total dissolved
solids (TDS), were detected at concentrations which may affect
aesthetic qualities of drinking water (e.g., taste, odor, and
staining of fixtures). VOC compounds detected in residential well
samples included acetone, carbon disulfide, methylene chloride,
trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and toluene, but were
found at concentrations below state and federal drinking water
standards. Acetone was detected in 6 of the 52 samples collected,
at concentrations ranging from 3 to 6 fig/I>. Carbon disulfide was
detected in 4 of the 52 samples, at concentrations ranging from 0.3
to 3 M9/L. Methylene chloride was detected in 3 of the 52 samples
at concentrations up to 2 M9/L. Trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichlor-
oethane, and toluene were each detected in one of the 52 samples
collected, at 2, 3, and 2 /ig/L, respectively. Three phthalate
esters were detected in residential well samples. Bis(2-ethylhex-
yl) phthalate was detected in 34 of the 39 residential wells
sampled, at concentrations ranging from 2 to 66 Mg/L. In 4 of
these samples, concentrations of bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
exceeded the NYSDEC ground-water standard of 50 ng/l>. (In all
three sampling rounds, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was also detected
in laboratory samples, indicating that its presence in collected
-------
residential well samples may be attributed to contamination in the
laboratory, and may not be representative of actual water quality.)
Di-n-butylphthalate was detected in 6 of the 52 samples collected
at concentrations ranging from 0.8 to 2 M9/L. N-nitrosodiphenyl-
amine was detected in one of the 52 samples at a concentration of
2 ng/L. No pesticide or PCB compounds were detected in residential
well samples.
Surface-water quality and sediment sampling locations are shown on
Figures 5a and 5b. Inorganic compounds found in surface-water
samples collected from Mathew Creek included aluminum, antimony,
barium, 'chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, magnesium, mercury,
nickel, potassium, selenium, sodium, zinc, cyanide, sulfate,
chloride, bicarbonate, and ammonia-nitrogen at concentrations
ranging from 1.2 Aig/L (selenium) to 111,000 pig/L (calcium).
Concentrations were generally higher at the headwater springs than
at other locations. However, several metals, including chromium,
lead, iron, and zinc, were detected at the highest concentration at
the furthest downstream sampling location (Station #4). Six VOCs,
acetone, methylene chloride, toluene, trichloroethylene, tetrachlo-
roethylene, and chlorobenzene were also detected in Mathew Creek
samples at concentrations ranging from 0.7 pq/L (chlorobenzene) to
24 M9/L (acetone). Acetone, methylene chloride, and toluene were
detected in more than one sample. Three phthalate ester com-
pounds, diethylphthalate, di-n-butylphthalate, and bis(2-ethylhex-
yl)phthalate, were detected in Mathew Creek samples at concentra-
tions ranging from 0.4 M9/L (diethylphthalate) to 16 M9/L (bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate). Seven of the 8 surface water samples
collected in Mathew Creek had detectable concentrations of bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate that exceeded the NYSDEC surface water
standard of 0.6 M9/L. No pesticides or PCBs were detected in any
surface-water samples from Mathew Creek.
Surface-water samples were collected from the LaGrange Gravel Pit
(Sta #5 on Figure 5a) during the second and third rounds of on-Site
water-quality sampling. The concentrations of inorganic compounds
in the LaGrange Pit were typically consistent with those detected
in the ground water around the landfill. The sample collected
during Round 2 had detectable concentrations of 6 VOCs, namely,
acetone, methylene chloride, benzene, 2-butanone, 4-methyl-2-
pentanone, and toluene, at concentrations ranging from 2 /ig/L
(benzene) to 250 nq/L (2-butanone). The Round 2 water-quality
sample also indicated the presence of 9 SVOCs from the LaGrange
Gravel Pit at concentrations between 0.2 Mg/L (di-n-octylphthalate)
and 190 ng/L (benzoic acid). Five of these compounds are phthalate
esters and were prevalent in both soil and ground-water samples.
No pesticides or PCBs were detected in any surface-water samples
from LaGrange Pit.
Sediment contamination in Mathew Creek included metals, ammonia-ni-
trogen, VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides. Concentrations for arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, and
nickel exceeded NYSDEC Sediment Criteria Guidance Values in one or
more sediment samples from Mathew Creek. Eight VOCs, acetone,
methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, chloroform, benzene, 2-
-------
b'utanone, carbon disulfide, and toluene, were detected at concen-
trations ranging from 2 M9/kg to 380 /xg/kg (acetone) . Twenty-two
SVOCs were detected in sediment samples at concentrations ranging
from 4 Mg/kg .(benzo(g,h,i)perylene) to 4,500 /xg/kg (benzoic acid).
Two pesticides, delta-BHC and 4,4'-DDE, were detected at concentra-
tions ranging from 2.1 M9/kg (4,4'-DDE) to 13 M9/kg (delta-BHC).
Sediment contamination in the LaGrange Gravel Pit also included
inorganic compounds, VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides. Twenty-one
metals were detected at concentrations ranging from 0.14 mg/kg
(mercury) to 106,000 mg/kg (calcium). Six VOCs, acetone, methylene
chloride, benzene, 2-butanone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, and toluene at
concentrations ranging from 2 M9/kg (benzene) to 99 ^g/kg (acetone)
were detected. Nineteen SVOCs were detected at concentrations
ranging from 11 /itg/kg (fluorene) to 1,400 M9/kg (naphthalene).
Four pesticides, 4,4'-DDE, 4,4'-ODD, heptachlor, and aldrin were
detected at concentrations ranging from 1.8 /xg/kg (aldrin) to 170
Atg/kg (4,4'-DDE) .
Ambient air in the vicinity of the landfill was measured for VOCs
and particulate chromium. Acetone, benzene, toluene, 2-butanone,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride were detected at
concentrations ranging from 0.47 micrograms per cubic meter (/ig/m3)
(carbon tetrachloride) to 20.6 /xg/m3 (acetone). The highest total
concentration of VOCs for any one sample was 23.2 /^g/m3. Airborne
chromium was detected at concentrations ranging from 0.002 to 0.005
Mg/m3. All of the airborne VOCs and chromium detected during the
RI are within the guideline values for both occupational values and
New York State guidance criteria. (See Tables 4 and 5.)
The hydrogeological investigation determined that two aquifers
exist beneath the Johnstown City Landfill. The upper (overburden)
aquifer flows through till, sand and gravel, and flows generally
towards the southeast and south from the landfill following surface
drainage patterns. A geologic cross section from the northeastern
boundary of the landfill to the LaGrange Springs area is shown in
Figure 6. Ground water in the overburden and shallow bedrock
aquifers appears to be hydraulically connected downgradient from
the Site and to discharge into the wetlands area of LaGrange
Springs and Mathew Creek located southeast of the Site. In
contrast to the ground-water flow pattern in the shallow water
- table, deep (bedrock) ground water generally flows from west to
east across the Site.
The immediate area of the landfill is underlain by the Canojoharie
Shale, a mid-Ordovician age, calcarious shale with occasional
pyrite lobes. The bedrock was found to be mildly fractured in the
upper 20 feet of the unit. Depth to bedrock ranges across the site
from about 30 feet to 120 feet.
Wetland areas associated with Mathew Creek were identified using
aerial photography, the NYSDEC wetland map on the Johnstown area,
and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service draft soils map of the area.
Wetland boundaries were verified in the field in May 1990 by
viewing vegetation and hydrology. (See Figure 7.) Wetland types
-------
fhcrude palustrine forest, scrub-shrub, emergent, and open water.
A wetland assessment using the Hollands and Magee (1985) method
indicated above-average scores for the biological, hydrological,
and socio-economic functions of the wetlands.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Human Health Risk Assessment
A baseline risk assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential
risks to human health and the environment associated with the Site
in its current state. The baseline risk assessment focused on
contaminants in the soil, ground water, and air which are likely to
pose significant risks to human health and the environment. A list
of the contaminants of potential concern in ground water, soil, and
air is found in Table 6.
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects which
could result from exposure to contamination as a result of ten
basic exposure pathways. These pathways included: 1) ingestion of
soil; 2) dermal contact with soil; 3) inhalation of fugitive dust
from the landfill; 4) ingestion of Mathew Creek surface water; 5)
dermal contact with Mathew Creek surface water; 6) ingestion of
Mathew Creek sediments; 7) dermal contact with Mathew Creek
sediments; 8) ingestion of ground water; 9) inhalation of outdoor
air; and 10) inhalation of ground-water contaminants while
showering. The exposure pathways were evaluated under both current
and potential future land-use conditions, except for exposures to
landfill soil, for which only current conditions were considered.
Three potential receptors were identified: young (ages 6-18)
trespassers; adult, young (ages 6-18) and child (ages 0-6)
residents living downgradient and off-Site; and young (ages 6-18)
and adult users of Mathew Creek. These exposure pathways were
evaluated separately for adults and children and are listed in
Table 7. Exposure intakes (doses) were calculated for each
receptor for all exposure pathways considered.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that the
toxic effects of the Site-related chemicals would be additive.
Thus, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks associated with
exposures to individual compounds of concern were summed to
indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures of potential
carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes and
safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses (RfDs)
have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse
health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day,
are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are thought
to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals).
Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the
-------
amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are
compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the
contaminant in the particular medium. The reference doses for the
compounds of concern at the Site are presented in Table 8.
The hazard index is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all
compounds across all media. A hazard index greater than 1
indicates that the potential exists for noncarcinogenic health
effects to occur as a result of Site-related exposures. The HI
provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single
medium or across media.
The HI was significant (i.e., greater than 1.0) for all age groups
ingesting ground water under current land use. The HI for
ingesting ground water was estimated to be 6.5, 3.3, and 2.5 for
children, youths, and adults, respectively. In the case of
residents ingesting ground water, the major contribution to
noncancer health risk is attributable to ingestion of antimony and
thallium in drinking water by nearby residents. A summary of the
noncarcinogenic risks associated with the chemicals evaluated
across various exposure pathways is found in Table 9. It should be
noted that antimony was not detected in any of the 51 water quality
samples collected in downgradient ground-water monitoring wells,
and thallium was detected in only 2 of the 51 monitoring well
samples. Among the 52 residential wells sampled, antimony and
thallium were detected in 8 and 6 of the water-quality samples,
respectively. Therefore, these compounds may originate from the
native soils and not from the landfill waste mass. Without
antimony and thallium, the HI for residents ingesting ground water
for current land use is below 1.0 for all age groups. Under future
land use conditions, which assumes that the contaminated ground
water beneath the landfill migrates to a residential receptor, the
HI for adults and children ingesting ground water was estimated to
be 1.5 and 1.0, respectively. The major contributor to these risks
is arsenic.
The HI was also significant for youths and adults wading and
fishing in Mathew Creek. The HI was 1.2 and 1.1 for youths and
adults, respectively. The major contributors to these risks are
lead and mercury.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer slope
factors developed by EPA for the contaminants of concern. Cancer
slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)"1, are
multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in
mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound at
that intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conserva-
tive estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this
approach makes the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely.
The SF for the compounds of concern are presented in Table 10.
-------
10
Foreknown or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10~* to 10* to be
acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has not
greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure conditions
at the Site. Under the current land-use conditions, the cumulative
cancer risk for all receptors evaluated (i.e., adults, youths,
children) was 6 X 10"5. The overwhelming contribution to this risk
is attributable to residents ingesting contaminated ground water.
This risk is within EPA's acceptable cancer risk range of 10"4 to
10"6. However, under future land-use conditions, which assumes that
the contaminated ground water beneath the landfill migrates to a
residential receptor, a cancer risk of 2 X 10"1 was found for the
adult receptor. This risk, which slightly exceeds the acceptable
cancer range, is attributable to the ingestion of ground water,
with beryllium accounting for most of the risk. A summary of the
carcinogenic risks for the chemicals evaluated across various
current exposure pathways is found on Table 11.
The calculations were based on the contaminants detected in soils,
on-Site monitoring wells, and air. It was assumed that in the
future case, on-Site monitoring wells would be used for residential
purposes. Risk estimates were developed by taking into account
various conservative assumptions about the likelihood of a person
being exposed to the various contaminated media. It should be
noted too, that the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
attributable to lead, which was detected in 44 of 54 on-Site
samples at an average concentration of 38.6 /ig/L, cannot be
quantified because cancer and noncancer toxicity factors have not
been developed for this compound. However, EPA considers lead to
be a probable carcinogen, and is known to interfere with the
central nervous system as a noncarcinogen. An action level of 15
Mg/L was established by EPA for this compound, meaning that some
remedial measures should be implemented, if the concentration of
lead in drinking water exceeds this level.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation,
as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide variety of
uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media sampled.
Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the actual
levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis error can stem
from several sources including the errors inherent in" the analyti-
-------
11
cal "methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with the
chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such exposure
would occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations
of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making
conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters
throughout the assessment. As a result, the baseline risk
assessment provides upper bound estimates of the risks to popula-
tions near the Landfill, and is highly unlikely to underestimate
actual risks related to the Site.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including
a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk associated with
various exposure pathways, is presented in the RI report.
Ecological Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related
ecological risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario:
Problem Formulation — a qualitative evaluation of contaminant
release, migration, and fate; identification of contaminants of
concern, receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological effects
of the contaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study.
Exposure Assessment — a quantitative evaluation of contaminant
release, migration, and fate; characterization of exposure pathways
and receptors; and measurement or estimation of exposure point
concentrations. Ecological Effects Assessment — literature
reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant
concentrations to effects on ecological receptors. Risk Character-
ization — measurement or estimation of both current and future
adverse effects.
Sediment, surface water, vegetation, wildlife, fish, and macroin-
vertebrates were assessed along Mathew Creek and a nearby reference
stream, Halls Brook. Fish tissue was collected and analyzed for
the presence of heavy metals and pesticides. In-situ and laborato-
ry bioassays were performed to evaluate the toxicity of Mathew
Creek surface water to aquatic life.
The contaminants in Mathew Creek sediments appear to be adversely
affecting the aquatic communities, and may potentially affect
wildlife species such as beaver, muskrat, and waterfowl, which are
dependent on food resources from the stream. Arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, and nickel were
all present in stream sediments at concentrations that exceeded
criteria established by NYSDEC. Exceeding these criteria suggests
that a given metal has reached a concentration that can possibly
result in chronic, sublethal effects that can include inhibition of
-------
12
reproduction, inefficient metabolism of food items, alteration of
an organism's ability to compete, etc. The Mathew Creek biota most
likely at risk of exposure to metal contaminated sediments (other
than mercury) are benthic macroinvertebrates such as worms,
beetles, and midges.
Free-swimming aquatic organisms in Mathew Creek may also be
adversely affected by creek contamination, particularly high
ammonia concentrations in surface water. Water quality samples
collected in Mathew Creek, over three sampling rounds, indicated
the presence of 8 inorganic substances, namely, aluminum, iron,
lead, manganese, selenium, cyanide, zinc, and ammonia-nitrogen, at
concentrations above NYSDEC surface-water standards and/or EPA
Ambient Water Quality freshwater toxicity criteria. Concentrations
of aluminum, iron, and cyanide were also above EPA acute freshwater
toxicity criteria. Aluminum and cyanide exceeded the EPA acute
fresh water toxicity criteria at downstream stations in Mathew
Creek. Ammonia-nitrogen exceeded the EPA acute fresh water
toxicity criterion at the headwater springs and just downstream of
Hulbert pond. Vegetation does not appear to be adversely affected
by contaminants in Mathew Creek.
In summary, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances
from the Site, if not addressed by the preferred alternative 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 Record of Decision evaluates in detail, 7 remedial alterna-
tives for addressing the contamination associated with the Site.
The time to implement reflects only the time required to construct
or implement the remedy and does not include the time required to
design the remedy, negotiate with the responsible parties, or
procure contracts for design and construction. These alternatives
are described below.
Alternative SC-l: No Action
Capital Cost: $14,000
Operation and Maintenance Cost: $119,000
Present-Worth Cost: $1,860,000
Time to" Implement: 3 months
-------
13
The "Superfund program requires that the "no-action" alternative be
considered as a baseline for comparison with the other alterna-
tives. The no-action remedial alternative does not include any
physical remedial measures that address the problem of contamina-
tion at the Site. However, this response action does include the
implementation of a long-term ground-water, surface-water and
sediment-monitoring program. Water quality samples would be
collected on a quarterly basis from upgradient, on-Site and
downgradient ground-water monitoring wells and from locations on
Mathew Creek. Sediment samples would be collected from the creek
bed. Parameters to be sampled and analyzed would be in accordance
with 6 NYCRR Part 360 baseline and routine parameters.
The no-action response also includes the development and implemen-
tation of a public awareness and education program for the
residents in the area surrounding the Site. This program would
include the preparation and distribution of informational press
releases and circulars and convening public meetings. These
activities would serve to enhance the public's knowledge of the
conditions existing at the Site. The capital cost for the public
awareness program is approximately $14,000. This alternative would
also require the involvement of local government, various health
departments and environmental agencies.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
Site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative sc-2: Limited Action, Residential Water Replacement
Capital Cost: $8,343,000
Operation and Maintenance Cost: $174,000
Present-Worth Cost: $11,034,000
Time to Implement: 3 years
This alternative includes a Site access restriction which would
consist of surrounding the entire landfill mound with approximately
6,800 feet of conventional chain-link fencing and placing appropri-
ate warning signs. In addition to the access restriction,
institutional controls would be implemented to restrict the use of
the land because of the threat of contamination. This may occur in
the form of local ordinances or deed restrictions. As part of the
limited action alternative, the landfill would be regraded to
prevent stormwater from ponding on the landfill mound, and to allow
rapid runoff from the Site, while minimizing soil erosion. The
regrading would include excavation of the LaGrange • Gravel Pit
sediments, placing the excavated material on the existing landfill,
and covering them. The pit would then be filled with clean fill so
that it may be used as an infiltration basin, and/or an area to
collect stormwater.
The limited-action alternative also calls for the expansion of the
Johnstown City water supply system to provide potable water to all
-------
14
dbwngradient private water supplies potentially impacted by the
landfill. Providing city water would require the extension of the
City's water lines and a booster pump station requiring major
construction. Under this alternative, at least 24,600 feet of
water line would be constructed.
Similar to Alternative SC-1, this alternative would also include
long-term monitoring of ground water, surface water and sediments,
and the implementation of. a public awareness program to ensure that
the nearby residents are familiar with all aspects of this response
action.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
Site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative SC-3: Installation of 6 NYCRR Part 360 Landfill Cap,
Residential Water Replacement
capital Cost: $13,763,000
Operation and Maintenance Cost: $174,000
Present-Worth Cost: $16,454,000
Time to Implement: 3 years
The major features of this alternative include constructing a
multi-layer closure cap over the landfill mound, supplying city
water to replace existing private wells, and erecting a security
fence. The replacement of private water sources with Johnstown
City water, land use restrictions, and fencing components are
identical to those described in Alternative SC-2. Prior to the
construction of the cap, the landfill mound would have to be
regraded and compacted to provide a stable foundation for placement
of the various layers of the cap and to provide rapid runoff as
described in Alternative SC-2. The landfill cap would be designed
and constructed as per New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations.
A landfill cap meeting these requirements would consist of a filter
fabric, 12 inches for a gas venting layer, a 40 mil geomembrane (or
18 inches of clay), 24 inches of drainage material and six inches
of topsoil. Capping the landfill would minimize the release of the
additional leachate into ground water and would be expected to
allow reduction of ground-water contaminants by processes of
natural attenuation which may include dilution, biodegradation and
sorption. Landfill gases would be monitored and vented into the
atmosphere or controlled as needed.
Similar to Alternative SC-1, this alternative would also include
long-term monitoring of ground water, surface water, and sediments,
and the implementation of a public awareness program to ensure that
the nearby residents are familiar with all aspects of this response
action.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
Site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be
-------
15
Reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative SC-4: Installation of RCRA Landfill Cap, Residential
Water Replacement
Capital Cost: $19,729,000
Operation and Maintenance Cost: $174,000
Present-Worth Cost: $22,420,000
Time to Implement: 3 years
The major features of this alternative include constructing a
multi-layer closure cap over the landfill mound, supplying city
water to residences, and erecting a security fence. This alterna-
tive is identical to Alternative SC-3 except that a RCRA capping
system would be used instead of the 6 NYCRR Part 360 cap that would
be implemented under Alternative SC-3. The RCRA cap system differs
from the NYCRR cap by requiring a 24-inch thick soil barrier layer
(NYCRR requires 18 inches, if soil is used) and a 40 mil geomem-
brane (NYCRR requires either the membrane or the soil barrier
layer), a 12-inch thick drainage layer (NYCRR requires 24 inches)
and a 24-inch thick topsoil layer (NYCRR requires 6-inch thick
topsoil). Capping the landfill would minimize the release of the
additional leachate into ground water and would be expected to
allow reduction of ground-water contaminants by processes of
natural attenuation which may include dilution, biodegradation and
sorption. Landfill gases would be vented into the atmosphere or
controlled, as needed.
Similar to Alternative SC-1, this alternative would also include
long-term monitoring of ground water, surface water, and sediments,
and the implementation of a public awareness program to ensure that
the nearby residents are familiar with all aspects of this response
action.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
Site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative SC-5: Ground Water Collection/Treatment/Discharge,
Residential Water Replacement
Capital Cost: $12,754,000
Operation and Maintenance Cost: $936,000
Present-Worth Cost: $27,160,000
Time to Implement: 3 years
This remedial alternative includes the collection of contaminated
ground water in the upper (overburden) aquifer and/or the lower
(bedrock) aquifer, followed by its treatment and discharge via
percolation ponds or injection wells. Ground water would be
extracted utilizing extraction wells which would induce ground-
-------
16
Water flow to the wells by drawdown development. Ground-water flow
leaving the Site would be collected by the creation of overlapping
zones of influence of the extraction wells. The ground-water
treatment system would be located permanently at the Johnstown City
Landfill site and would utilize physical-chemical processes, such
as pH adjustment, chemical precipitation, and carbon adsorption, to
remove inorganic and volatile organic contaminants. Treated ground
water would be discharged by returning it to the aquifer, or by
discharging to a stream, the nearest being Mathew Creek. The
discharge standards would be established by NYSOEC.
The other major features of this alternative include regrading with
a two-foot soil cover, residential water replacement with Johnstown
City public water, security fencing, and deed restrictions as
described in Alternative SC-2.
Similar to Alternative SC-1, this alternative would also include
long-term monitoring of ground water, surface water, and sediments,
and the implementation of a public awareness program to ensure that
the nearby residents are familiar with all aspects of this response
action.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
Site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative SC-6: 6 NYCRR part 360 Cap, Residential Water Replace-
ment, Ground Water Collection/Treatment/Discharge
Capital Cost: $18,174,000
Operation and Maintenance Cost: $936,000
Present-Worth Cost: $32,580,000
Time to Implement: 3 years
This alternative consists of the following: constructing a multi-
layer NYCRR closure cap over the landfill mound as in Alternative
SC-3; treating extracted ground water with discharge to the aquifer
or surface water as in Alternative SC-5; supplying city water to
local residents; erecting a security fence around the landfill; and
implementing institutional controls as in Alternative SC-2.
Similar to Alternative SC-1, this alternative would also include
long-term monitoring of the ground water, surface water, and
sediments, and the implementation of a public awareness program to
ensure that the nearby residents are familiar with all aspects of
this response action.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
Site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
-------
17
Alternative SC-7: RCRA Cap, Residential Water Replacement, Ground
Water Collection/Treatment/Discharge
Capital Cost: $24,139,000
Operation and Maintenance Cost: $936,000
Present-Worth Cost: $38,545,000
Time to Implement: 3 years
This alternative consists of the construction of a multi-layer RCRA
closure cap over the landfill mound as in Alternative SC-4;
treatment of extracted ground water followed by discharge to
surface water, as in Alternative SC-5; supplying city water to
local residents; implementing ground water and landfill gas
monitoring programs; erecting a security fence around the landfill;
and implementing institutional controls, as in Alternative SC-2.
Similar to Alternative SC-1, this alternative would also include
long-term monitoring of ground water, surface water and sediments,
and the implementation of a public awareness program to ensure that
the nearby residents are familiar with all aspects of this response
action.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
Site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each
alternative was assessed utilizing nine evaluation criteria as set
forth in the NCP and OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. These criteria
were developed to address the requirements of Section 121 of CERCLA
to ensure all important considerations are factored into remedy
selection decisions.
The following "threshold" criteria are the most important, and must
be satisfied by any alternative in order to be eligible for
selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment address-
es whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and
describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway (based
on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineering controls,
or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would
meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate require-
ments of federal and state environmental statutes and require-
ments 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 alterna-
-------
18
t"ive~s:
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. Implementabilitv is the technical and administrative feasibili-
ty of a remedy, including the availability of materials and
services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance
costs, and the present worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the
RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports, opposes,
and/or has identified any reservations . with the preferred
alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to
the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS
reports. Factors of community acceptance to be discussed
include support, reservation, and opposition by the community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the
evaluation criteria noted above follows.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The no-action alternative, Alternative SC-1, would be the least
protective of human health and the environment since it does not
address any of the remedial action objectives established for the
Site. Alternative SC-2 would be more effective than Alternative
SC-1 in protecting human health and the environment by reducing
risks attributed to direct exposure and from ingestion of contami-
nated drinking water. Direct exposure would be reduced somewhat by
constructing fences, posting signs, and implementing institutional
controls which would limit access to the Site by trespassers and
children. Risks from ingestion of contaminated ground water would
be reduced since the landfill would be regraded to prevent
-------
19
stormwater from ponding on the landfill mound and to allow for
rapid runoff from the Site while minimizing soil erosion. It is
estimated that this would limit infiltration of precipitation into
the landfill and reduce the generation of landfill leachate by 36
percent. Also, extension of city water services proposed in
Alternative SC-2 would reduce the risk associated with ingestion
and exposure to contaminated ground water.
The closure cap systems of Alternatives SC-3 and SC-4, which
include an impermeable layer, would further reduce run-on and
infiltration of rainfall and snow melt into the landfill, thus
reducing the quantity of water percolating through the landfill
materials and leaching out contaminants. It is estimated that
Alternative SC-3 (NYCRR impermeable cap) would provide a 94 to 99
percent reduction in leachate production and Alternative SC-4 (RCRA
impermeable cap) would provide greater than 99 percent reduction in
leachate production. Alternative SC-4 would therefore be more
protective than Alternative SC-3. But both Alternatives SC-3 and
SC-4 would be significantly more protective than Alternative SC-2.
None of these alternatives include any direct ground-water control
or remediation measures; therefore, the contaminated ground water
would remain unaffected except for reduced leachate production
allowing ground-water contaminant levels to decline. Although the
rate of contaminant decrease cannot be predicted with certainty,
mathematical modelling results indicate that Site ground-water
contamination levels may continue to exceed ARARs for a period of
about 3 to 12 years following installation of the cap, if there is
no control or direct remediation of ground water.
The extraction and treatment system of Alternative SC-5 would
reduce the movement and toxicity of the contaminated landfill
leachate and ground water by pumping and treating this water and
preventing its downgradient migration. Under Alternative SC-5 the
landfill would be regraded and a soil cover would be placed as
described under Alternative SC-2. Alternative SC-5 would be more
protective in remediating contaminated ground water than Alterna-
tive SC-2. However, Alternative SC-5 would be less effective in
limiting leachate production than Alternatives SC-3 and SC-4.
Alternatives SC-6 and SC-7 include the closure cap systems of
Alternatives SC-3 and SC-4 respectively, ground water extraction
and treatment as in Alternative SC-5, and city water service as in
Alternative SC-2. Alternatives SC-6 and SC-7 would thereby further
reduce the volume of ground water coming into contact with the
contaminant source, reducing the remediation time in comparison
with Alternative SC-5. Alternatives SC-7 and SC-6 would be the
most protective and second most protective alternatives, respec-
tively, of human health and the environment.
Compliance with ARARs
The New York State Part 360 landfill cap is an action-specific ARAR
for landfill closure. Alternatives SC-1, SC-2, and SC-5 would not
meet this ARAR, since they do not include any provisions for a
-------
20
landfill cap. Alternatives SC-3, SC-4, SC-6, and SC-7 include
provisions for a landfill cap which would meet or exceed the Part
360 requirement for an impermeable cap.
Alternatives SC-6 and SC-7 would be the most effective in reducing
ground water contaminant concentrations below maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs), because of the lower infiltration rate of precipita-
tion associated with placing an impermeable cap over the landfill,
and because they include collection and on-Site treatment of
contaminated ground water. Alternative SC-5 may be nearly as
effective as Alternatives SC-6 and SC-7 in reducing ground water
contamination, provided that the collection system was designed and
operated to capture all the contaminated ground water. However,
without an impermeable cap there would be more leachate generated
and additional contaminated ground water requiring collection and
treatment under Alternative SC-5 than under Alternatives SC-6 and
SC-7. Alternatives SC-1, SC-2, SC-3, and SC-4 do not provide for
any direct remediation of ground water. However, under Alterna-
tives SC-2, SC-3, and SC-4 less leachate would be generated and
introduced into the ground water. This would facilitate the
reduction of contaminant levels in ground water to ARARs by natural
attenuation.
Lonq-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative SC-1 provides no long-term controls for handling the
on-Site contamination or the ground-water contamination. Alterna-
tive SC-2 would minimally reduce the rate of leachate production,
thereby limiting direct contact with the contamination. Under
Alternative SC-2, the replacement of residential water supplies and
the erection of a security fence would be permanent actions which
would reduce potential exposure to contaminated ground water and to
contaminated waste. However, it is doubtful that ground-water
quality would be restored to acceptable levels, since significant
quantities of leachate would be generated as a result of continued
infiltration of precipitation through the soil cover. Alternatives
SC-3 and SC-4 would provide much greater reduction of leachate
production than Alternative SC-2, resulting in ground-water
remediation by natural attenuation. Alternative SC-5 would provide
an equivalent reduction in leachate generation as would Alternative
SC-2 due to the soil cover. In addition, ground-water contaminants
would be contained by the ground-water collection and treatment
system proposed under Alternative SC-5. The collection and
treatment system would be operated until contaminant concentration
levels in ground water are reduced to acceptable levels. Alterna-
tive SC-6 would combine the capping and ground-water remediation
components of Alternatives SC-3 and SC-5, and Alternative SC-7
would combine the capping and ground-water remediation components
of Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5, thus reducing the period of
treatment necessary. The closure cap is a permanent technology
that must be maintained at regular intervals to ensure its
structural integrity and impermeability.
-------
21
Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
The no-action alternative (Alternative SOI) does not contain any
remedial measures which would reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the ground-water contamination. The limited action
alternative (Alternative SC-2) provides some limited reduction of
leachate and leachate seeps through regrading.
Alternatives SC-3 and SC-4 provide further reduction of the volume
of contaminated ground water by further reducing the amount of
water infiltrating the landfill. These alternatives also eliminate
the formation of contaminated leachate seeps.
Implementation of Alternative SC-5, SC-6, or SC-7 would reduce the
toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contaminated ground water by
extracting and treating the ground water. These alternatives would
remove the contaminated ground water from the aquifer and reduce
contaminant concentrations in ground water to acceptable levels,
which would reduce downgradient migration of the contaminated
ground water.
Alternative SC-5 would reduce the leachate production using a soil
cover. Alternatives SC-6 and SC-7 would further reduce leachate
generation with an impermeable cap. Alternative SC-5 would leach
some contaminants from the landfill mound but at a rate slower than
is occurring now. Therefore, dilution would be achieved and
treatment could probably end after a relatively short period.
Alternatives SC-6 and SC-7 would result in the elimination of the
production of almost all leachate and, thereby, provide the
shortest treatment period. However, leachate production would
restart, if the impermeable cap were to fail. Data is not
presently available concerning the effective life of a landfill
cap.
None of the alternatives proposed reduces the toxicity or volume of
waste present in the landfill.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative SC-1 does not include any physical construction
measures and, therefore, does not present a risk to the community
as a result of its implementation.
The remaining alternatives involve major construction activities at
the Site and the use of heavy earth-moving equipment. All of the
potential impacts associated with implementation of Alternatives
SC-2, SC-3, SC-4, SC-5, SC-6, and SC-7 could be mitigated in part
by using proper construction techniques and operational procedures.
The potential for on-Site accidents and worker exposure to
contaminated media would increase as the number of construction
activities increases. These risks would be minimized with proper
health and safety training and personal protective equipment.
Potential hazards to the surrounding community and environment
would include adverse traffic conditions, airborne dust and
-------
22
particulate emissions, an increase in noise levels, and adverse
impacts to the wetlands area. Mitigative measures would be
implemented to minimize the impacts from these hazards.
The ground-water treatment systems of Alternatives SC-5, SC-6 and
SC-7 would require storage and handling of possibly dangerous
materials, such as process reagents and residuals. These activi-
ties may be accomplished with minimal risks to workers, by the
development and implementation of safe operating and maintenance
practices. Compliance with applicable regulations would ensure
proper hazardous waste transportation and disposal of drummed
process sludge at an appropriate off-Site treatment and disposal
facility.
Implementability
Alternative SC-1, the no-action alternative, would be the easiest
of the alternatives to implement because it requires only minimal
on-Site activity. Public information programs and ground-water
monitoring are easily implemented.
The construction procedures, materials and earth-moving equipment
required for the implementation of Alternatives SC-2, SC-3, SC-4,
SC-5, SC-6, and SC-7 are conventional and are used extensively in
standard commercial and industrial applications. Supplying city
water to nearby residents is readily achievable.
Alternatives SC-3, SC-4, SC-6, and SC-7, which involve capping the
landfill, may be somewhat more difficult to implement. Construc-
tion methods for capping are well established, although some
technical problems, such as those attributed to meeting the
required specifications for the impermeable layer, may be encoun-
tered. The treatment systems of Alternatives SC-5, SC-6 and SC-7
utilize standard unit operations and water treatment equipment that
are well suited for this application and are technically reliable.
Transportation and disposal of the dewatered process sludge
involves easily implementable practices and the use of commercially
available facilities.
All of the alternatives involve some degree of institutional
management. Alternative SC-1 requires administrative coordination
of the ground-water monitoring program and the five-year site
status reviews, along with the development of the public education
program. Alternative SC-2 requires a similar level of control for
those activities and also for maintenance of the security fence and
administrative issues related to extension of the city water system
to residents.
The administrative requirements of Alternatives SC-3, SC-4, SC-5,
SC-6, and SC-7 include the ground-water, surface-water and sediment
monitoring programs, the extension of the city water system, and
the security fence inspection. In addition to these activities,
the structural integrity and impermeability of the closure cap and
cover must be maintained through a program of periodic surveillance
-------
23
efnd~necessary repairs. Because of the large land area of the
landfill, this item could be fairly substantial.
Alternatives SC-5, SC-6, and SC-7 also require an extensive
monitoring program for the operation and maintenance of the ground-
water treatment facility. The administrative elements of this
program are extensive because they include equipment maintenance
schedules and transportation and disposal of hazardous process
residuals in compliance with regulations. Also, should treated
leachate and ground water be discharged to surface water, system
effluent monitoring to meet surface-water discharge standards would
be necessary.
Most services and materials required for implementation of any of
these potential remedial alternatives are readily available.
Standard construction equipment and practices can be employed for
the fence installation and the extensive Site work activities of
Alternatives SC-2, SC-3, SC-4, SC-5, SC-6, and SC-7. Most of the
materials and equipment required for these alternatives may be
obtained locally.
Contractors to provide the construction services are also available
in the Fulton County area. Because the work will be taking place
at a Superfund site, all on-Site personnel must have approved
health and safety training. Many companies are available to
provide this training to contractors. The engineering and design
services required for implementation of Alternatives SC-2, SC-3,
SC-4, SC-5, SC-6 and SC-7 may be obtained from many companies.
Hazardous waste transportation and disposal for treatment residuals
required for Alternatives SC-5, SC-6, and SC-7 are also commercial-
ly available.
Cost estimates were developed for each of the potential remedial
alternatives. The present-worth costs are calculated using a
discount rate of 5 percent and a 30-year time interval. The
estimated capital, annual operation and maintenance, and present
worth costs for each of the alternatives are as follows:
Alternative Capital Cost Annual Cost Present Worth Cost
SC-1 $14,000 $119,000 $1,859,000
SC-2 $8,343,000 $174,000 $11,034,000
SC-3 $13,763,000 $174,000 $16,454,000
SC-4 $19,729,000 $174,000 $22,420,000
SC-5 $12,754,000 $936,000 $27,160,000
SC-6 $18,174,000 $936,000 $32,580,000
SC-7 $24,139,000 $936,000 $38,545,000
The capital cost and annual cost for Alternative SC-1, the no-
action alternative, includes the cost for the public awareness
program and for long-term monitoring, respectively. The capital
cost for Alternative SC-2 includes costs for clearing and regrading
-------
24
the "landfill and for construction of the water-line extension. The
capital cost for Alternatives SC-3 and SC-4 are for. construction of
the 6 NYCRR Part 360 cap and RCRA cap, respectively, in addition to
necessary clearing and regrading of the landfill and construction
of the water-line extension. The annual cost for Alternatives
SC-2, SC-3, and SC-4 includes operation and maintenance of the
landfill cover and surface-water drainage systems, in addition to
long-term monitoring. The capital costs for Alternatives SC-5,
SC-6, and SC-7 includes the construction of the ground-water
collection, treatment, and discharge system, in addition to those
capital costs specified for Alternatives SC-2, SC-3, and SC-4,
respectively. The annual cost for Alternatives SC-5, SC-6, and
SC-7 include operation and maintenance of the ground-water
extraction, treatment, and discharge system, in addition to
operation and maintenance of the landfill cover and surface-water
drainage systems, and for long-term monitoring.
State Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the selected alternative. NYSDEC also concurs
with the contingent remedy, should future water-quality data
indicate that the ground-water remediation component of the
contingent remedy is appropriate.
Community Acceptance
The community's comments and concerns identified during the public
comment period are summarized and addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary, which is attached as Appendix V to this document. While
several residents expressed concerns at the February 10, 1993
public meeting related to the costs of water use and water district
taxes associated with extending the Johnstown City water-supply
system, it appears that the majority of the community is supportive
of the water line. This is evidenced from Resolution No. 110
adopted by the Town Board of Johnstown at its meeting on October
19, 1992 and from statements made at a Town Board meeting on March
4, 1993.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of the alternatives, and public comments, both
NYSDEC and EPA have determined that Alternative SC-3 is the
appropriate remedy, with Alternative SC-6 as a contingent remedy
for the Site.
Alternative SC-3, as the selected remedy, and Alternative SC-6, as
the contingent remedy, are effective in protecting human health and
the environment and in meeting ARARs for landfill closure and
ground-water quality, since they include an impermeable landfill
cap and ground-water remediation, if it is needed. Although
Alternative SC-6 would be more protective in that it includes
-------
25
cfolTection and treatment of contaminated ground water, NYSDEC and
EPA believe that Alternative SOS is more cost-effective than
Alternative SC-6. Under Alternative SC-6, ground-water collection
and treatment would raise the capital cost of the remedy by more
than $4 million and would raise the present-worth cost of the
remedy by about $16 million. Given that the levels of ground-water
contamination are generally only slightly above ARARs, that the
cancerous risk is only slightly above the acceptable risk range,
and that the noncancerous risk posed by ground-water ingestion is
only slightly above the significant level, ground water remediation
does not appear to be warranted unless ground-water contamination
levels and surface-water contamination in Mathew Creek do not
improve through natural attenuation. It is estimated that as a
result of reduced leachate generation, ground-water and surface-
water contamination would begin to naturally attenuate within 5
years following initiation of construction of the cap.
NYSDEC and EPA consider Alternative SC-3 (with Alternative SC-6 as
the contingent alternative) to be preferable to Alternative SC-4
(with Alternative SC-7 as the contingent alternative), since
Alternative SC-3 provides a comparable degree of protection as
Alternative SC-4, but is more cost-effective. The RCRA cap
required under Alternative SC-4 (and Alternative SC-7) would cost
approximately $6 million more to construct than the NYSDEC Part 360
cap under Alternative SC-3 (and Alternative SC-6), but would only,
at most, marginally reduce infiltration of precipitation through
the cap. Unlike Alternatives SC-2 and SC-5, which do not include
an impermeable cap, Alternatives SC-3 and SC-6 will be designed to
meet New York State landfill closure ARARs and thereby reduce the
volume of contaminated ground water. Although Alternative SC-1 is
significantly lower in cost than the other alternatives, including
the preferred alternative, it would not attain remedial action
objectives for this site, since it would not reduce leachate
generation, prevent human and animal contact with contaminated soil
from the landfill surface, prevent erosion of contaminated surface
soil, nor provide a means of treating landfill gas emissions.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
• Excavation of the LaGrange Gravel Pit sediments and placing
the excavated materials on the existing landfill. The pit
will then be filled with clean fill, so that it may be used
as an infiltration basin and/or stormwater collection basin;
Regrading and compacting the landfill mound to provide a
stable foundation for placement of the various layers of the
cap and to promote rapid runoff;
• Construction of a multi-layer closure cap over the landfill
mound and excavated sediments as per New York State 6 NYCRR
Part 360 regulations. The cap, by reducing leachate
generation, will act to improve the ground-water quality in
the upper (overburden) and lower (bedrock) aquifers and
surface-water quality in Mathew Creek through natural
attenuation of contaminants;
-------
26
"• Expansion of the Johnstown City water-supply system to
provide potable water to all private water supplies poten-
tially impacted by the landfill. Providing city water will
require the extension of the City's water lines and con-
struction of a booster pump station;
Erection of approximately 6,800 feet of conventional chain-
link fencing surrounding the entire landfill mound, with
placement of appropriate warning signs;
• Performance of air monitoring prior to, during, and follow-
ing construction at the Site to ensure that air emissions
resulting from the cap construction meet applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements. Perimeter subsurface
gas monitoring between the landfill and the adjacent
properties will be performed. The gas-monitoring wells will
be monitored quarterly for explosive gas concentrations;
• Performance of air dispersion modeling to estimate ambient
air concentrations of contaminants. Landfill gas emissions
will be vented into the atmosphere, or if necessary,
controlled;
• Imposition of property deed restrictions by the appropriate
state or local authorities. The deed restrictions will
include measures to prevent the installation of drinking
water wells at the Site, and restrict activities which could
affect the integrity of the cap;
• Performance of a maintenance and sampling program upon
completion of closure activities. The monitoring program
will fulfill the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360 for post-
closure landfill monitoring in addition to monitoring
parameters of concern found at the Site;
• Development and implementation of a dust control plan. The
plan will contain all possible sources of fugitive dust
emissions which exceed action levels including intrusive
field activities such as excavation or regrading of waste.
Normal dust suppression techniques for handling of soils and
road materials will be addressed in the plan. The plan will
also include how each of these potential dust sources will
be controlled by addressing the control methods that will be
conducted. The plan will prohibit the use of environmental-
ly unacceptable products such as halides or petroleum
products;
Performance of a Stage IA cultural resources survey (CRS) as
early as possible in the Remedial Design phase for both on-
Site and off-Site areas to evaluate the sensitivity of the
site for cultural resources. The results of the Stage IA
survey will be used to assist in determining if additional
CRS work will be required.
The effectiveness of the landfill cap will be evaluated through
-------
27
post-construction monitoring of ground-water and surface-water
quality. The evaluation will be conducted within 5 years following
initiation of construction of the landfill cap, and at any time as
needed thereafter, during the long-term monitoring of the Site.
Should the monitoring results indicate that either ground-water
quality in the upper (overburden) aquifer or the lower (bedrock)
aquifer, or surface-water quality in Mathew Creek, is not being
restored to acceptable levels through natural attenuation as a
result of reduced leachate generation, the ground-water remediation
component of the contingent remedy, Alternative SC-6, will be
implemented. This would include:
• Extraction of contaminated ground water from either of the
aquifers as necessary. The extraction system would utilize
extraction wells which would induce flow to the wells
through drawdown of the ground-water table. Operation of
the ground-water extraction system would reduce the migra-
tion of contaminants away from the Site;
Treatment of ground water by a treatment system located
permanently on-Site that would use physical/chemical
processes such as pH adjustment, chemical precipitation, and
carbon adsorption, to remove inorganic and volatile organic
contaminants; and
Discharge of treated ground water by returning it to the
aquifer via percolation ponds or injection wells, or by
discharging it to a stream, the nearest being Mathew Creek.
The discharge standards would be established by NYSDEC.
The purpose of this response action is to reduce the present risk
to human health and the environment due to contaminants leaching
from the landfill mound. The capping of the landfill will minimize
the infiltration of rainfall and snow melt into the landfill,
thereby reducing the potential for contaminants leaching from the
landfill and negatively impacting the wetlands habitat and ground-
water quality. Capping will prevent direct contact exposure to
contaminated soils, and as such, will result in risks which- are
less than EPA's target levels of 10"8 and 1 for carcinogenic risks
and the noncarcinogenic HI, respectively. The extension of the
City of Johnstown's municipal water lines supply to residents
living near the landfill will ensure that the residents have a
potable supply of drinking water. The goal of pumping and treating
the ground water, if implemented, would be to facilitate the
natural attenuation processes in restoring ground water and Mathew
Creek surface water to applicable or relevant and appropriate state
and federal standards.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibilities at
Superfund sites are to undertake remedial actions that achieve
protection of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory require-
-------
28
nfents and preferences. These specify that when complete, the
selected remedial action for the Site must comply with applicable
or relevant and appropriate environmental standards established
under federal and state environmental laws unless a statutory
waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be cost-
effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for
remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly
reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes, as
available. The following sections discuss how the selected remedy
meets these statutory requirements. The contingent remedy will
also meet these requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative SC-3 and Alternative SC-6 are fully responsive to this
criterion and to the remedial response objectives. Capping the
landfill will protect human health and the environment by reducing
the mobility of contaminated materials, in that the leaching of
contaminants into the aquifers will be significantly reduced. In
addition, capping the landfill will eliminate threats posed to
adults, children, trespassers, and wildlife who come in contact
with the Site. The extension of the Johnstown City water supply
system to all private water supplies potentially impacted by the
Site, will ensure that the community continues to have a potable
supply of drinking water.
Compliance with ARARs
The multi-layer closure cap over the landfill mound will be
designed and constructed as per New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360
regulations.
Attainment of chemical-specific ARARs for ground water and surface
water will be hastened due to reduced leaching following construc-
tion of the cap. Should monitoring results show that ground-water
quality or surface-water quality in Mathew Creek is not being
restored to acceptable levels through natural attenuation as a
result of reduced leaching, ground water will be extracted and
treated as described in the contingent alternative. Action- and
location-specific ARARs will be complied with during implementa-
tion.
Action-specific ARARs:
• New York State Solid Waste Management Facilities 6 NYCRR
Part 360
National Emissions standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAPs)
• 6 NYCRR Part 257 Air Quality Standards
-------
29
-" -'• 6 NYCRR Part 212 Air Emission Standards
• 6 NYCRR Part 373 Fugitive Dusts
40 CFR 50 Air Quality Standards
SPDES - Discharge
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Chemical-specific ARARs:
• SDWA MCLs
6 NYCRR Parts 700-705 Ground Water and Surface Water Quality
Regulations
10 NYCRR Part 5 State Sanitary Code
Location-spec!fie ARARs:
• Clean Water Act Section 404, 33 USC 1344
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 USC 661
National Historic Preservation Act, 16 USC 470
• New York State Freshwater Wetlands Law ECL, Article 24, 71
in Title 23
New York State Freshwater Wetlands Permit Requirements and
Classification, 6 NYCRR 663 and 664
New York State Endangered and Threatened Species of Fish and
Wildlife Requirements, 6 NYCRR 182
other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance To Be considered:
Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands)
Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management)
• EPA Statement of Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands Assess-
ments for CERCLA Actions
• New York Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
New York State Sediment Criteria, December 1989
New York State Air Cleanup Criteria, January 1990
• SDWA Proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels (PMCLs) and
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs)
• NYSDEC Technical and Operational Guidance Series 1.1.1,
-------
30
November 1991
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy and the contingent remedy provide overall
effectiveness proportional to their costs. The total capital and
present-worth costs for the selected remedy are estimated to be
$13,763,000, and $16,454,000, respectively. For the contingent
remedy, which includes active ground-water remediation, the total
capital and present-worth costs are $18,174,000 and $32,580,000,
respectively.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Given the size of the landfill and the absence of isolated hot
spots, containment of the waste mass is the only practical means to
remediate the Site. By constructing a multi-media cap over the
landfill in accordance with New York State's 6 NYCKR Part 360 for
landfill closure, hazardous wastes in the landfill will be isolated
from the environment and their mobility will be minimized. The
closure cap is a permanent technology that must be maintained at
regular intervals to ensure its structural integrity and imperme-
ability. The installation of a water line to supply potable water
to affected residents is a permanent solution to meeting their
drinking water needs. If needed, ground water will be collected
via ground-water extraction wells, and treated using a ground-water
treatment system located permanently at the Site. Thus, the
selected remedy and contingent remedy which require the construc-
tion of the Part 360 cap, installation of a water to supply
residents with municipal water, and if needed, ground-water
collection and treatment, utilize permanent solutions and alterna-
tive treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The
selected remedy and the contingent remedy represent the best
balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the
evaluation criteria.
Ground-water and surface-water monitoring will be performed to
demonstrate that the selected remedy meets all remedial action
objectives. If the monitoring results indicate that the selected
remedy is not effective in meeting remedial action objectives, then
the contingent remedy will be implemented. The extraction and
subsequent treatment of ground water, if implemented, will
permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of contaminants in the ground water.
The selected remedy will require construction of a landfill cap.
No technological problems should arise since the technologies and
materials needed for capping the landfill are readily available.
With the construction of the landfill cap, the direct contact risk
to the landfill surface will be eliminated.
-------
31
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element cannot be satisfied for the landfill itself,
since treatment of the landfill material is not practicable. The
size of the landfill and the fact that there are no identified on-
Site hot spots that represent the major sources of contamination
preclude a remedy in which contaminants could be excavated and
treated effectively. However, the contingent remedy calls for the
treatment of contaminated ground water at the Site and, hence,
would satisfy the preference for treatment for this portion of the
remedy, if needed.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
JOHNSTOWN LANDFILL
JOHNSTOWN LANDF1LL
JOHNSTOWN, NEW YORK
Thermo Consulting Engineers
(formerly Nbrmandeou Engineers)
FIGURE 1 -•-••
GENERAL LOCATION MAP SHOWING SURFACE WATER FEATURES
LaGRANGE SPRINGS, HULBERTS POND. MATHEW CREEK,
HALL CREEK AND CAYADUTTA CREEK.
NOVEMBER 1991
-------
0 250 MO
APPROXIUATE SCAl£ H FEET
LEGEND
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
UONfTORWC WELL LOCATION
CRAVD. ACCESS ROAD
FENCE
TREELJNE
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS DISPOSAL
APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF
WASTE DISPOSAL
LaGRANGE
GRAVEL PIT
JOHNSTOWN LANDFILL '•
JOHNSTOWN. NEW YORK
RGURE 2
Site Plan
NOVEMBER 1991
I Thermo Consulting Engineers
(formerly Normandaou Englnoero)
(-
LoGRANGE
SPRINGS
-------
APPROXIMATE SCALE T - 1000'
JOHNSTOWN LANDFILL
JOHNSTOWN. NEW YORK
FIGURE 3
APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF RESIDENCES
CANVASSED DURING DOMESTIC WEU INVENTORY.
NOVEMBER 1991
I Thermo Consulting Engineers
(formerly Normandoau Engine era)
-------
JOHNSTOWN LANDFILL .
JOHNSTOWN. NEW YORK
FIGURE 4 I
GROONOWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
NOVEMBER 1991
Thermo Consulting Engineers
(formerly Normandoau Engineers)
APPROXIUTE SCALE M FEET
0 MW-JS
SA
A
PROPtRlY BOUNDARY
MONITORINC WELL LOCATION '
CR*Va ACCESS ROAO
FENCE
TREEUNE
SEDIMENT SAUPUNC
LOCATIONS ON LoGKANCC PIT
LaGRANGE
SPRINGS
mw-ns
> IW-IID
-------
LoGRANGE
GRAVEL P/T
JOHNSTOWN LANDFILL
LAGRANGE SPRINGS
INSET - SEE
FIGURE 2-208
•HULBERT
STA J3 \ POND
UPSTREAM
REPRESENTS APPROXIMATE LOCAT70N
OF SAMPUNG STATION
CAXADUTTA
CREEK
OC34.220A
PLOT DATE 9/10/92
NOT TO SCALE
JOHNSTOWN LANDFILL
JOHNSTOWN. NEW YORK
Thermo Consulting Engineers
(formerly Normandeou Engineers)
FIGURE 5a
APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF SAMPLING STATIONS
ON LoGRANGE SPRINGS AND MATHEW CREEK
NOVEMBER 1991
-------
SCALE: 1 Inch - 200
-------
z
o
920
900 •
OUTWASH-ICE CONTACT DEPOSITS
STRATIFIED SAND. FINE SAND
AND SILT
*.' .'.°| SAND AND GRAVEL
LODGEMENT TILL
SILT. SAND AND GRAVEL
BEDROCK
CANAJOHARIE SHALE
UW-8
860 • :
840 •
820 •
800 -
780 -
:- —_ MW-2 X" • •
• • ' ' . .~~-~-. S.M.D .,-». •
. CAkin . ^^ ~~~ i —• ~^
. . TILL-
•\i^*"^ ' »' SILT. SAND
4 "' . AND GRAVEL.
BEDROCK-CANAJOHARIE SHALE—.
NO TOPOGRAPHIC
DATA AVAILABLE
SOIL/BEDROCK BORING
AND MONITORING WELL
IDENTIFICATION WITH SLOTTED
SCREEN SECTION SHOWN
GROUNDWATER TABLE
aEVATION RECORDED
APRIL 1. 1991
A"
MW-15
S.D
WEATHERED BEDROCK
200
600
800
1000
1200
14OO
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET
JOHNSTOWN LANDFILL
JOHNSTOWN. NEW YORK
FIGURE 6 '
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION OF SURFICIAL DEPOSITS
AND BEDROCK ALONG TRANSECT A' - A"
LOCATED EAST OF THE JOHNSTOWN LANDFILL
FEBRUARY 1992
I Thermo Consulting Engineers
(form*rly Normandeau Engineers)
-------
STTE LOCATION
KEY
or.oiuvn.HT
0 • DISTURBED
II
H'B HARDWOOD FOREST
FOREST
• • SOP IWUOO FOREST
MOTE «EiumE»rannuiioFTWKMr«an
A*. ABANDONED HELD
SI.SHRU8UNO
WSL . •Cm»««U« SWAMP
WFH • FORESTED HARDWOOD SWAMP
NMK RttoooHmnc* tarel never bouatata m
ooi {omul wetbod bonadify defiaeul
JOHNSTOWN LANOFIU.
JOHNSTOim. NEW YORK
RCURE- 7. -
WEUANDS IN THE VICtNITY OF MATHEW CREEK. JOHNSTOWN.
NY. BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS (5-12-88). DRAFT
SOILS MAP (FULTON COUNTY SCS. 1992). THE NYS DEC
WETLANDS MAP. AND HELD VERIFICATION.
Thermo Consulting Engineers
(fomwfy NormondMu Cngbww*)
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
Tables
Table la -
Table Ib -
Table 2a -
Table 2b -
Table 3a -
Table 3b -
Table 4 -
Table 5 -
Table 6 -
Table 7 -
Table 8 -
Table 9 -
Table 10 -
Table 11 -
Summary of Inorganic Ground Water and Surface Water Data
Summary of Inorganic Soil Boring and Sediment Data
Summary of TCL VOC Ground Water and Surface Water Data
Summary of TCL VOC Soil Boring and Sediment Data
Summary of TCL SVOC Ground Water and Surface Water Data
Summary of TCL SVOC Soil Boring and Sediment Data
Summary of 3-Hour Air Quality Data for VOCs
Summary of Airborne Chromium Data
Chemicals of Potential Concern
Potential Exposure Pathways
Noncarcinogenic Toxicity Values
Summary of Noncancer Risks
Carcinogenic Toxicity Values
Summary of Cancer Risks
-------
Table 1A: Nature and Source of Contaminants Profile
Metals and Miscellaneous Inorganics
Groundwater and Surface Water
Johnstown Landfill, Johnstown, New York
Parameter
METALS (w/L)
Aluminum
Antimony
ArMnlc
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
ChromlumfT)
Cohan
Copper
Iron
Lead
MagneeJum
Mangan***
Mercury
Nick*)
PoUadum
Solonlum
Sflvw
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
ZIno
Cyanlda
Htxchrom*
Sulfat*
Cfuorld*
COO
IDS
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
TOO
Hardnaa*
Ammonla-N
GROUND WATER
UPQRADIENT WELLS
FREQ
27/27
2/27
an?
26/87
7/27
18/27
27/27
26/27
13/27
IS/27
87/27
2607
27/27
27/27
2/27
18/27
27/27
0/27
0/27
27/27
0/27
21/27
27/27
0/27
2/27
ill
20/27
28/27
14/27
27/27
27/27
0/11
11/11
11/11
10/11
LOW
^s8§i!ip
87
16.*
1.1
1M
0.23
1.3
42.700
3.8
2.4
3.8
851
1.0
6.210
24
0.20
e.e
701
1.880
3.7
10.8
30
siaEaSisgaB
7.41
8.30
11.2
101
84.4
1.4
(1.0
0.08
HIGH
SSBiUP
43.200
28.3
18.0
426
3.3
63.0
788.000
187
68
268
124.000
6S.3
88,600
4.830
0.40
247
13.100
88.800
163
788
30
103
112
668
834
622
105
650
158
MW
63
140
68
130
130
70
13O
19O
63
130
68
65
63
68
6S
130
68
60
ISO
130
6S.M
6M
8O
130
68
6S
TO
68
6M
QROUND WATER
LANDFILL WELLS
FHEO
Karate
PSS
3/3
0/3
3/3
3/3
3/1
3/3
30
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
0/3
0/3
3/3
1/3
2O
3/3
1/3
on
nn
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
on
3/1
3/3
3/3
LOW
13,300
11.9
17.7
2.4
2.6
327.000
14S
20.6
104
46.800
S4.0
36.800
1.360
0.21
61.7
7.100
13.300
,48.8
216
11.6
26.3
10.3
286
411
16.1
261
33.6
HIGH
66.600
36.7
1.0*0
6.0
77.6
1.430.000
2.330
81.2
250
130.000
487
82.800
2.670
10.6
446
206.000
423.000
1.8
131
2.730
73
13J!
688
852
2.100
2,880
176
700
472
MW
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
18
16
16
18
16
1*
16
16
16
16
16
GROUND WATER
DOWNGRADIENT WELLS
FHEO
61/61
0/61
44/61
61/61
61/61
22/61
61/61
46/51
20/61
38/61
61/61
48/51
61/61
61/81
Ml
48/51
60/61
0/61
0/61
61/51
2/51
SVS1
50/51
1(91
Ml
36/61
46/51
28/61
61/61
61/61
0/23
22/23
23/23
23/23
LOW
imP^S
83.8
0.6
41.6
0.37
1.1
36.300
2.6
2.2
6.8
68.0
1.0
4.860
7.8
0.26
7.8
1.070
1.780
1.0
4
3.6
20
Bslgj8gejjj88i
11.8
3.17
10.3
134
74.4
0.64
108
0.08
HIGH
104.000
48.6
684
8.2
11.4
1.610.000
228
121
286
202.000
464
80.400
67.300
0.48
332
18.600
166.0OO
27
270
470
10.2
40
61.3
216
672
1.330
780
68.7
448
64.5
MW
118
38
. 168
118
30
38
168
18
38
38
28
28
18
18
38
38
18
18
168
18.38
10
18
30
38
10B
38
38
160
48
15S.9D
GROUND WATER
RESIDENTIAL WELLS
FREQ
34/62
6/52
11/52
41/62
4/52
0/52
61/52
1/62
0/62
22/52
43/62
18/62
61/62
40/52
0/52
6/62
43/62
10/62
1/62
62/52
C/62
2/62
38/62
2/64
0/82
46/62
34/52
6/62
62/52
62/62
12/35
17/17
8/8
LOW
&£&K%H£&&1
BSBwfssSyiBS
16.0
13.6
0.30
2.1
0.21
67.6
3.1
63.0
0.4
33.8
0.72
5.8
618
0.6
2,200
0.7
6.6
4.2
16.0
10.3
3.1
12.7
82.0
67.6
0.02
74
0.010
HIGH
sMiHiHI
1.410
21.4
1.6
666
0.46
121,000
3.4
30.6
6,840
6.6
26.100
7.880
13.6
13.600
1.4
2.6
258,000
1.6
73
780
28.2
67.0
164
36.7
1.160
680
2.4
328
6.5
RESIDENT
iMK^H
Gunnlnn
PalmatMr
LaQrange
QunnlMn
Hulbert
Pln*Tr**
Blank*
Gunnlaon
Gunnlaon
Pint Tree
LaGrattg*
Gunnlaon
Pin* Tr**
Blanket
Fomater
WlnMrmuu
Hannon
Sehwppel
Wheeler
Pin* Tr**
Wagar
Wagar
Pln*Tr**
Hulbert
Whetltr
Pin* Tr«*
LaQrange
Pin* Tr»*
Pin* Trw
SURFACE WATER
MATHEW CREEK
FREQ
s§»!S
11/12
1/12
0/12
12/12
0/12
0/12
12/12
4/12
1/12
0/12
12/12
1/12
12/12
12/12
0/12
3/12
12/12
2/12
0/12
12/12
0/12
0/12
3/12
2/12
0/12
ijPPl
10/12
12/12
6/12
12/12
12/12
0/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
LOW
ilililllP
34.8
27
48.800
3.7
63.7
6.480
28.3
0.2
2.860
1.2
14,700
3.8
34.8
11.1
22.2
10.4
202
140
4.70
188
2.72
NIGH
impum
383
13.0
72.6
111.000
13
3.7
4,840
6.6
16.000
667
12
6.420
1.4
70,000
20.4
41.0
^S^te
68.0
88.8
41
483
400
11.2
278
33.5
8TAT»
MR
«1
l\
l\
M
ft
14
14
K
ft
14
m
«R
K
14
n
fsplPis
•i
n
n
i\
*t
»3
l\
i\
SURFACE WATER
UGRANGEPIT
FREQ
^PiiifiS*
2/2
1/2
1/2
2/2
M
0/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
0/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
1/2
2/2
0/2
0/2
2/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
0/2
R£p
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
0/1
1/1
1/1
1/t
LOW
Annuls
182
22.8
64.000
34
1.410
6,070
03.0
0.700
33.000
5.0
16.8
^SS^:
18.0
40.3
26.2
322
245
HIGH
357
17
1.6
32.4
88,200
40.6
6.330
2.2
11.100
044
12.6
23,000
07.300
8
283
^KMSis
20.2
136
210
738
315
8.15
187
11.2
Nola*:
FREQ - Fr»qu«noy of analyt* d*t*ct*d abov* aampl* d«t*ctlon limit*
LOW • Lowatt concentration detected In each aampllng calagory
HIGH - Hlghert concentration delected In each aampllng oatagory
MW.RESIDENCE.STATf • Sample location where highest concentration of analyt* wat detected
UPGRADIENT WELLS:
OOWNGRADIENT WELLS:
LANDFILL WELLS:
CLUSTER MW* 6.6.7.13,14
CLUSTER MWt 1,2,3.4.8.9.10.11.12.16
MW* 16,18,10
-------
Table 1B: Nature and Source of Contaminants Profile
Metals and Miscellaneous Inorganics
Soil Boring and Sediment Samples
Johnstown Landfill, Johnstown, New York
Parameter
METALS(mg/Kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
ChrofnlumfT)
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
LMd
Magnesium
Manganese
M«roury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Ttiallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Hexchroma
INORQ. (ma/Kg)
Sullate
COO
TOC
Ammonla-N
SOIL SAMPLES
UPQRADIENT BORINGS
FflEQ
»VH1
2/2
0/2
in
2/2
2/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
0/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
a/2
NT
0/2
;SQ
NT
NT
NT
NT
LOW
^S'O^
3.860
07
14.4
0.3»
12.100
6.9
10
4.5
4.UO
1.7
3,100
10«
4.4
1,080
340
7.1
12.5
;^titn-|
HIGH
"*-\?m
6.710
1.4
21.3
0.53
63,400
11.«
3.0
10.1
B.710
3.S
6.780
188
10.9
1.<10
365
0.21
17.3
18.9
*$.< f ,,%
MW
140
140
140
140
130
140
14O
140
140
14O
140
140
14O
140
14O
14O
140
14O
SOIL SAMPLES
LANDFILL BORINGS
FREQ
3/3
1/3
3/3
an
313
on
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
3/3
0/3
3/3
3/3
0/3
0/3
3/3
0/3
a/3
3/3
0/3
0/3
«i
1/3
3/3
NT
NT
LOW
4.000
0.43
19.0
0.23
11,000
0.3
2.2
6.0
6.200
2.e
1,600
120
4.6
804
343
10.3
13.6
jumps?
5.420
HIGH
nnnis
«.480
4.2
1.1
23.9
0.30
72.000
30.0
3.0
7.1
9,2M
7.8
e.oeo
168
7.1
1.030
607
15.1
32.0
250
80.800
MW
Wl
16
17
16
10
17
IS
10
10
17
IB
16
17
17
16
18
17
10
10
f*t
17
17
SOIL SAMPLES
DOWNGRADIENT BORINGS
FREO
fe$
4/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
4/4
0/4
4/4
4/4
0/4
0/4
4/4
2/4
4/4
4/4
NT
0/4
lsf&
0/4
4/4
LOW
$$t%&
3.050
0.6
11.3
0.31
1.230
6.2
1.6
4.3
4.690
1.7
704
78.6
4.0
303
239
0.23
6.6
11.3
vKj$&?
2,810
HIGH
11.200
1.0
21.0
0.43
39.200
11.6
4.0
9.1
11.100
3.6
2.060
224
6.6
786
365
0.26
16.2
22.3
11,000
MW
110
120
90
90
too
110
110
100
00
120
100
120
90
110
100
too
110
90
tfftf*
120
FREO
16/10
0/16
16/16
16/16
13/16
3/16
16/16
16/16
14/16
15/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/10
0/16
14/16
16/16
6/16
0/16
16/16
1/16
16/16
16/16
3/16
2/16
P*
12/16
16/16
NT
NT
SEDIMENT-ROUNDS 1 & 2
MATHEW CREEK
LOW
»»
1,940
0.58
12
0.06
0.93
1.740
1.9
2.6
1.4
6.100
2.7
602
41.6
1.6
279
0.43
105
7.1
13.1
1.1
0.06
81.8
8.360
HIGH
16.100
12.2
316
0.83
3.7
66.300
33.8
39.3
43.2
121.000
17.8
3.910 •
4.220
60.6
1.790
1.8
666
0.3
45.7
95.7
1.4
0.66
x^jtie
677
347.000
STATION
ssiis
»1,0-6'
11,6-12'
*1,0-6'
I3INLET
»1.0-6'
»1.0-6'
11.0-9-
»1.0-6'
MINUET
f 1.0-6'
1 1.0-6'
f1.0-«'
11.6-12'
f 1.0-6'
ti.o-e'
11.9-12'
fl.0-6'
• 1.6-12'
»1.0-6'
fl.0-6'
f2,0-«'
fl.0-6'
12.6-12'
#1.0-9'
SEDIMENT-ROUNDS
MATHEW CREEK
FREO
16/16
0/16
16/16
16/16
6/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
16/16
6/16
16/16
16/16
1/16
2/16
16/16
0/16
16/16
16/16
1/16
1/16
$**%?
0/16
19/16
11/19
16/16
LOW
/S!§»
1,680
0.76
19.3
0.17
0.60
3,020
2.6
1.7
0.61
6.290
2.6
638
79.4
0.10
3.0
160
0.86
63.4
4.9
12
5pyj?pH
.!!..%eo.ooo
987
STATION
••r
-------
Table 2A: Nature and Source ol Contaminants Profile
TCL Volatile Organic Compounds
Groundwater and Surface Water
Johnstown Landfill, Johnstown, New York
Parameter
VOC'e (,/g/L)
Acetone
Methylene Chloride
Tilchloroethytene
1.1.1 Trichloroethane
Chloroform
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene
Benzene
Elhylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
2-fiuttnone
4-Mathyt-2-Pentanonc
Vinyl Acetite
1,1-Olchloroethui»
Styrene
C«rtx>n DltulNde
Toluene
'etrachloroethytene
1.1-DichloroMhylen*
1.2-Olchloroethytene
GROUND WATER
UPQRADIENT WELLS
FREO
12/27(8)
8/27g?3
120
8
2
250
40
18
Nolet:
FREO - Frequency of analyte detected above (ample detection llmltt
LOW - Lowert concentration detected In each umpllng calegoiy
HIGH • Highest concentration detected In each tampllng category
MW.RESIDENCE.STAT* - Sample location where highest concentration ol analyte wa> detected
(B) - Flag Indicate! analyte wai detected In method blanka (or one or more ol the eamplei
UPQRADIENT WELLS:
DOWNQRADIENT WELLS:
LANDFILL WELLS:
CLUSTER MWa 5.6.7.13.14
CLUSTER MWa 1.2.3.4.8.9.10.11.12.15
MWa 18.18.19
-------
Table ' 2B: Nature and Source ol Contaminants Profile
TCL Volatile Organic Compounds
Soil and Sediment Samples
Johnstown Landfill. Johnstown, New York
Parameter
VOC'e (j/g/Kg)
Acetone
Melhylene Chloride
Trichloroethylene
I.I.ITrichloroettane
Chloroform
Vinyl Chloride
Xylene
Benzene
Elhylbenzene
Chlorobenzene
2-Butanone
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Vinyl Acetate
1.1-OIchl»oelhane
Styrene
Cuban DJeulfide
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylena
1 , 1 -Olchloroethyfene
1 ,2-Olchloroelhylene
SOIL BORINGS
UPaRAOIENT WELLS
FREQ
6/5(8)
3/5(B)
0/5
0/5
3/5
0/5
0/5
0/6
0/5
0/5
3IS(B)
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
0/5
3/S(B)
1/5
•0/5
0/5
LOW
6
2
1
2
0.6
HIQH
HUmi
180
e
i
4
2
3
MW
mHI
78
130
«.6.7
5O
140
78
GOILBORINQS
LANDFILL WELLS
FREQ
l#tt
a«(B)
3/3(B)
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
2/3
1/3
2/3
0/3
2/3(8)
1«(B)
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
2/3
on
0/3
0/3
LOW
13
4
to
3
7
10
HIQH
440
7
16
13
6
360
14
61
MW
*ff
16
ie
16
10
17
te
it
16
SOILBORINQS
OOWNQRADIENT WELLS
FREQ
0/9(B)
7/9(8)
2/»
2/8
1/0
019
2/9
lit
2/9
0/9
3fl(B)
W9
0/0
M
0/»
0/»
6«
6/B
2«
0/9
LOW
7
2
7
4
3
1
2
0.6
0.7
HIGH
mum
75
6
0
6
1
0
o.e
2
3
2
2
0.0
MW
M
10
20
12O
100
ID
120
12O
120
120
3D
10.30
30.1 1O
SEDIMENT
MATHEW CREEK
ROUNDS 1&2
FREQ
16/16(8)
18/16(8)
0/16
0/16
4/16(8)
0/16
0/16
1/16
0/16
0/16
*/16
0/16
0/16
0/18
0/16
i/te
3/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
LOW
14
2
o.s
6
2
HIGH
3*0
28
2
3
100
3t
3
STATION
ll.O-«'
f 1.0-6'
»1.6-12'
f2.0-6'
*3 INLET
13 INLET
f1S3IN.
SEDIMENT
MATHEW CREEK
ROUNDS
FREQ
16/16(8)
15/16(8)
1/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
o/ie
0/16
11/16(8)
0/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
1/16
2/16
0/16
0/16
0/16
.LOW
16
6
2
4
HIGH .
130
23
18
32
6
STATION
MINLET
I3INLET
SO(B).0-12-
I3INLET
14.0-6'
SEDIMENT
UQRANGE PIT
ROUNDS 2 ft 3
FREO
6/8(8)
6/6(8)
0/6
0/6
0/B
o/e
0/6
0/6
0/6
on
3/6(8)
i/a
0/6
0/6
0/0
on
2/6
0/6
0/6
0/6
LOW
16
4
3
3
HIGH
mill
90
*
2
96
16
23
Not«:
FHEQ • Frequency of «n«lyt» d«l«cttd ibov* umpl« dglKtlon llmlll
LOW - Lowatt oonctnlntlon detected In each eampllng category
HIGH - HlgheM concentr
-------
Table 3A: Nature and Source pi Contaminants Profile
TCL Semi-Volatile Organlcs and Pesticides
Groundwater and Surface Water
Johnstown Landfill, Johnstown, New York
Parameter
SVOC'a ((/9/L)
Phenol
Benzyl alcohol
1.2-Oichlorobenzene
4-Melhylphenol
Benzole acid
Naphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
DimethylphlhalaU
Olethylphthalate
N-Nitro*od!phenylanilne(1)
Phenanlhren*
Anthracene
Di-n-butylphthalite
Fluor anthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphtiialate
3.3'-Olchlorobenzbfine
Benzo(a)anlhracene
Chryeena
btt(2-EUiylhe
0/1 9
0/19
0/18
0/19
0/19
1/19
0/19
1/1*
6/19(B)
0/19
0/1*
0/19
8/19(8)
0/19
0/19
2/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
18/19(B)
4/19
0/19
O/19
0/19
0/19
T('!-?!-X!?S;<
0/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
0/19
LOW
•*-
0.4
0.4
0.7
£&£&&
HIGH
»= /^
1
0.7
18
'-:,s>",.
STATt
^-«-a
'1.3
f4
fl
' •"->'>«•••
SURFACE WATER
UGRANGE PIT
FREO
S,%>«:
HIGH
<&:$tpr
41
4
10
190
21
2
0.2
9
0.2
\>; ,
Notei:
FREQ - Frequtncy of analyte delected above iample detection llmltl
LOW - Lowell concentration detected In each sampling categonr
HIGH • Highest concentration detected In each aampllng category
MW.HESIOENCE.STAT* - Sample location where highest concentration of analyte was detected
(B) • Flag indicate* analyte wae detected in method blankt (or one or more of the aamplea
UPGRADIENT WELLS:
DOWNGRAOIENT WELLS:
LANDFILL WELLS:
CLUSTER MWe 5.8.7.13.14
CLUSTER MWa 1.2,3.4.8.9.10.11.12.15
MWe 18.18.19
-------
Table 3B: Nature and Source ol Contaminants Prolila
TCL Seml-Volallle Organlcs and Pesticides
Soil and Sediment Samples
Johnstown Landllll, Johnstown, New York
Parameter
SVOC'a (/ig/Kg)
Acenaphtnene
Olbenzofuran
Fluorene
Acenaphthylene
Benzole acid
Naphthalene
2-*tethylnaprithalene
Dlmelhytphlhalale
Dlethyfphlhalate
N-Nitroaodiphenylamlne(1)
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Dl-n-butylphthalate
Fluorantfiene
Pyrerw
Butyl benzyiphthalate
S.S'-Oichlorobenzldlne
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrywne
bls(2-Ettiylhexyl)phlhalaIe
Dl-n-octytphthaJale
Benzoflijfluorantnene
Benzo0c)fluoranthene
Benzo(«)pyrene
lndeno(1 ,2.3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g,h.l)perylene
IMO nor one
PESTICIDES <«/Kfl)
gamma-BHC
della-BHC
Endoeulfan 1
Dieldrin
4.4'-ODE
4.4--ODD
4.4--ODT
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
toptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor Epoxkle
Endrln
SOIL BORINGS
LANDFIU WELLS
FREQ
§i>w*SS$t^ll*
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
2/3
1/3
0/3
0/3
1/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
1/3
0/3
0/3
1/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
3/3(8)
1/3
00
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
0/3
t*&W&'*'«
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
2/3
1/3
2/3
0/3
0/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
1/3
LOW
120
400
-?¥
13
•.8
STAT
•1.0-8
•4.8-12
•1.0-8
•4.8-12
• 1.0-8
•1,0-«
•1.0-8
•1.0-8
•4,6-12
•4.8-12
•1,0-6
•4.6-12
•4.6-12
•
sSsf^>^*
•3.IN
•1.0-4
SEDIMENT SAMPLES
MATHEW CREEK
ROUND 2
FREO
0/3
0/3
on
1/8
7/8
1/8
1/8
1/8
C/8(B)
0/3
4/8
3/B
1/8(8)
1/8
6/8(8)
3/8(8)
0/8
4/8
4/8
1/8(8)
8/8
3/8
2/8
3/8
0/8
1/8
2/8
«»!"»»
0/8
0/8
on
0/1
4/8
0/8
on
on
on
on
on
on
0/8
LOW
s?8l^i^il^s
28
19
37
20
23
IS
10
•
22
• 22
M
12
41
66
48
7
f,4tfe&-«js.l£
2.5
HIQH
^mts&s&'&'fs ,
12
480
16
a
18
68
220
61
M
260
210
36
B3
110
140
180
76
60
70
4
•
12
STAT
VM!^ti-;/'!
•4.6-12
•1.8-12
•4,6-12
•4.6-12
•3.OUT
•1.0-6
•4.6-12
•4,6-12
•1,0-6
•4.0-12
•4.0-12
•3.IN
•4.6-12
•4,0-12
•3,IN
•3,IN
•4.0-0
•3.OUT
•4.0-12
•4,6-12
•3.OUT
«BJ.«i<-"
• 1.0-0
SEDIMENT SAMPLES
UGRANGE PIT
ROUNDS 1&2
FREO
* >* '", -\ ^'i ^
1/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
on
2/2
2/2
0/2
2/2(8)
on
2/2
2/2
1/2(8)
2/2
2/2
OK
0/2
2/2
2/2
2H(B)
2/2(8)
2/2
1/2
1/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
*J<' ?'-,V>-vV
0/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
2/2
2/2
0/2
0/2
0/2
1/2
1/2
0/2
0/2
LOW
•iJ-'^^IPPPi
IS
It
170
40
62
66
16
09
71
46
45
430
45
43
'•if ;'"» "
38
13
HIGH
slWPS£WS
44
48
•1
42
1.400
320
71
170
61
41
160
ISO
84
M
850
270
240
160
43
! ,»<»~>»4y
170
69
3.7
1.8
Notei:
FREQ - Frequency of analyte detected above «ample detection limit*
LOW • Lowett concentration detected In each sampling category
HIGH - Highest concentration detected In each tempting category
MW.STAT* • Sample location where highect concentration ol anaJyte wat detected
UPQRAOIENT BORING : MWl 6.6.7.13,14
DOWNQRADIENT BORING : MW. 1,2.3.4.8.9.10.11.12
LANDFILL BORINQ: MWt 18.17.18
(B) - Flag Indicates analyte wai detected In method blanks tor one or more of the samples
-------
Table ,4 : Summary Results of 3-Hour Air Quality Sampling For VOCs
Johnstown Landfill, Johnstown, New York, September, 1989.
Date Sampled
Sample Number
Pump Flow Rate (L/mln)
Parameter
Acetone
Benzene
Toluene
2-Butanone
1,1,1 -Trlchloroethane
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Totals
Station
No. ST-1
9/13
T-2
0.104
3.05
1.84
1.26
NO
1.05
ND
7.20
9/13
T-3
0.251
2.44
1.02
1.00
NO
0.64
ND
6.30
9/21
T-8
0.100
6.11
1.11
NO
ND
ND
ND
7.22
9/21
T-9
0.251
•illT
ND
0.64
0.49
ND
0.69
0.47
2.29
Station
No. ST-2 ,
9/13
T-4
0.100
&P$HH
ND
1.89
1.17
1.61
1.39
ND
6.08
9/13
T-5
0.253
P*J$7
1.00
0.74
0.61
0.63
0.83
ND
3.81
9/21
T-10
0.102
1.22
ND
1.22
ND
1.60
ND
3.94
9/21
T-11
0.253
«^
ND
ND
0.57
ND
0.98
ND
1.67
Station
No. ST-3
9/13
T-6
0.102
I^W
4.44
0.69
0.62
ND
0.69
ND
6.44
9/13
T-7
0.252
*3*5&
20.66
1.44
ND
ND
1.22
ND
23.22
9/21
T-12
0.104
:%&$t
ND
1.63
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.63
9/21
T-13
0.252
^*t J
ND
0.62
0.62
ND
0.62
ND
1.86
Occupat.
Value*
(24-HR)
t
AGO"
(annual)
>y v-^^\£****&:
1.78E6
30.000
375.000
690,000
1.00E6
30,000
35.600(0)
100(a)
7,600(0)
1.967(b)
38.000(c)
100(a)
y >. v"* % s»' * =-^
-{'4\.+' vnV";y\<
s ' ''- ';«w** ., ?
Notes :
All concentration values expressed In micrograms per cubic meter (ug/cu. m)
(a) = High Toxicity Air Contaminants
(b) = Moderate Toxicity Air Contaminants
(c) = Low Toxicity Air Contaminants
* = Short Term 1989 ACGIH TWA-TLV
* * = Long Term Ambient Guideline Concentration - (derived from ACGIH TWA-TLV)
ND = Not Detectable
-------
Table 5 : Summary Results of Airborne Chromium Sampling
Johnstown Landfill, Johnstown, New York
September and October, 1989.
Station
Number
HV-1-P
HV-1-C
HV-2
HV-3
Date
9/14/89
10/1/89
10/6/89
9/14/89
10/1/89
10/6/89
9/14/89
10/1/89
10/6/89
9/14/89
10/1/89
10/6/89
Filter
Number
2872
2881
2885
2873
2882
2886
2875
2883
2887
2874
2884
2889
Total
Chromium
(MJ)
6.0
9.9
6.9
5.9
9.2
6.4
4.6
4.6
5.5
5.3
3.5
6.8
Total
Flow
(cu. m)
1,898.9
1,929.3
1,937.6
1,815.1
1,875.4
1,821.3
1,592.3
1,672.2
1,670.7
1,569.9
1,705.3
1,692.7
Chromium
Concentration
(jjglcu. m)
0.003
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.005
0:004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.004
Average
Chromium
Concentration
Ct/g/cu. m)
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
AGC*
fo/g/cu. m)
0.167
0.167
0.167
0.167
Ocbupational
Value**
(/yg/cu. m)
50
50
50
50
Notes:
* = Ambient Guideline Concentration - Annual Average - derived from 1989 ACGIH TWA-TLV
** a 1989 ACGIH Short Term TWA-TLV
-------
Table 6 •:
Study chemicals, with Abbreviations and common Synonyms
Johnstown Landfill, Johnstown, NY
Chemical
Metals aad Cyaaido
aluminum
antimony
arsenic
barium .
beryllium
cadmium
chromium
chromium VI
cobalt
copper
lead
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
strontium
thallium
titanium
vanadium
zinc
cyanide
Volatil* Organic Compound*
methylene chloride
chloroform
carbon tetrachloride
carbon disulfide
1,1,1-trichloroethane
vinyl chloride
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
acetone
2'butanone
4-methyl-2-pentanone
benzene
ethylbenzene
toluene
xylenes (total)
styrene
Saai-Volatil* Organic Compound*
benzole acid
phenol
4 -methy Iphenol
di-n-butylphthalate
di-n-octylphthalate
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate DEHP
butylbenzylphthalate
naphthalene
Pesticides and PCBs
IDDTR
Abbreviation Synonym 1
Synonym 2
Al
sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Cr (III)
cr (VI)
Co
Cu
Pb
Hg
Ni
Se
Ag
Sr
Tl
Ti
V
Zn
DCM
1,1,1-TCA
TCE
PCE
MEK
MIBK
chloroethylene
perchloroethylene
CAS
Number
7429-90-S
7440-36-0
7440-38-2
7440-39-3
7440-41-7
7440-43-9
18S40-
7440-
7440-
7439-
7439-
7440-
7782-
.7440-
7440-
7440'
• 7440
7440
7440
57
dichloromethane
trichloromethane
perchloromethane
methyl chloroform
chloroetbene
trichloroethene
tetrachloroethene
dimethyl ketone 2-propanone
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl isobutyl ketone
benzol
phenylethane
methylbenzene
xylene, mixed xylenes [total]
vinylbenzene
benzene carboxylic acid
carbolic acid
p-cresol 4-cresol
di (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Total DDT Residue (sum of DDT,-ODD, DDE)
29-9
48-4
50-8
92-1
•97-6
•02-0
•49-2
•22-4
•24-6
•28-0
-32-6
-62-2
-66-6
12-5
75-09-2
67-66-3
56-23-5
75-15-0
71-55-6
75-01-4
79-01-6
127-18-4
108-10-1
71-43-2
100-41-4
108-88-3
1330-20-7
100-42-5
65-85-0
108-95-2
106-44-5
84-74-2
117-84-0
117-81-7
85-68-7
91-20-3
-------
Table 7
Summary of Exposure Scenarios
Johnstown Landfill. Johnstown, NY
Scenario 1: Nearby Residents
current Conditions
(Landfill Closed and Unremediated)
Exposures to Soil froa the Landfill
Incidental Ingestion of Soil on Landfill
Dermal Contact with Soil on Landfill
Inhalation of Fugitive Dust on Landfill
Bxpocur** to tUtthcw Cr**k
Incidental Ingestion of Sediments
Dermal Contact with Sediments
Incidental Ingestion of surface Water
Dermal Contact with Surface Water
Ingestion of Fish
Bxpo«ur»»/ to Oround Water
Use of Ground Water as Household Water
Bxpo«ur*« to Outdoor Air
Inhalation of Outdoor Air
Scenario 2i Nearby Residents
Future Conditions
(Landfill Capped and Fenced,
with no Ground Water
Interception and Treatment)
Scenario 3i Nearby Residents
Future Conditions
(Landfill Capped and Fenced,
with Ground Water
Interception and Treatment)
la Ib
Trespassing Wading/
on the Fishing in
Landfill Matthew Creek
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes I
Ic 2a 2b , 2c 3a 3b 3c
Trespassing Wading/ Trespassing Wading/
Living on the Fishing 'in Living on the Fishing in Living
at Home Landfill Matthew Creek at Home Landllll Matthew Creek at Home
No No
No No
No No
No No
No No
1
No No
No No
No No
Yes | No
Yes | | Yes
No No No
No No No
No No No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No No
No No
No No
No No
No No
Yes | . No
Yes | | Yes
No No
No No
No No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes |
Yes |
-------
Table
Summary of Key Toxicotogical Properties of Study Chemicals
Johnstown Landffl, Johnstown, UY.
Chemical
Species Tested
Reference Dose Confidence in Critical
{RfD) inRfD Study
(mcy(ko«day))
Metals and Cyanide
aluminum .
antimony
arsenic
barium •'•'•-.' . ••
berytDum ••-• • -
cadmium
chromium III .
chromium VI
cobalt : • '•
copper
lead
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
strontium
thaffium
titanium
vanadum
zinc
cyanide
Volatll* Organic Compounds
methylena chloride
chloroform
carbon telrachtorida
carbon dtsdfide
1.1,1-trichloroetriane
vinyl chloride
trichloroathytene
tetrachtoroethylene
acetone
2-butanqne
4-methyt-2-pentanone
benzene
ethylbenzene
toluene
xytenes (total)
styrene
Seml-Volatfle Organic Compounds
benzole acid
phenol
4-methyIphenol
dHVbutylphthalate
di-n-octylphlhalate
bis(2-etnylhexyl)phthalate
butylbenzylphthaJate
naphthalene
Pesticides and PCBs
ZDDTR
4,4'-DDD
4.4--DDE
4,4'-DDT
Reference Reference
Concentration Dose Confidence in Critical
(RfC) (RfD)
.(mcyrrQ)
4E-04
3E-04
7E-02
5E-03
5E-04
1E+00
5E-03
5E-04
3E-04
2E-02
5E-03
5E-C3
7E-05
7E-03
2E-01
2E-02
6E-02
1E-02
7E-04
1E-01
9E-02
1E-02
1E-01
1E-01
2E-01
2E+00
2E-01
tow
med
mad
tow
high
tow
tow
med
high
tow
6E-01
1E-01
2E-02
2E-01
4E-03
5E-04
5E-04
med
med
med
med
med
med
tow
tow
med
med
med
med
tow
tow
med
rat
human
human
rat
human
rat
rat
human
rat
rat
human
human
rat
rat
human
rat
rat
dog
rat
rabbit
guinea pig
mouse; rat
rat
rat
rat
rat
human
rat
rat
guinea pig
rat
rat
:5E-04
2E-06
2E-06
3E-04
• • 1E-04
human
human
9E-OS
3E+00
1E-02
1E400
1E+00
2E400
3E-01
9E-01
1E-02
7E-04
3E-03
3E-°1
1E-02
1E-01
3E-01
rat
rat
guinea pig
bw
med
rat
9E-°2
2E-01
4E+00
6E-01
1E-01
2E-02
2E-01
4E-03
5E-04
5E-04
rat, rabbit
human
human
-------
Table 9
Summary of Noncancer Risks
Current Land Use Scenario
Chemical
Metal* and Cyanld*
• aluminum
antimony
arsenic
barium
beryllium
cadnuum
chromium
chromium VI
cobalt
copper
lead
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
strontium
thallium
titanium
vanadium
zinc
cyanide
Volatile Organic Compound*
mettiytene chloride
'chloroform
carbon tetrachloride
carbon dtsutfide
' 1,1,1-tichloroetnane
vinyl chloride
tnchloroelriytene ._.•
tetrachloroethytene
acetone
2-butanone
4-methyl-2-pentanone
benzene
ettrylbenzene
toluene
xytenes (total)
styrene
S«mi-Volattl« Organic Compound*
benzoicacid
phenol
4-methylphenol
dkvbutyiphlhalate
di-n-octylphthalate
bfe(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
butylbenzylphthalate
naphthalene
PasUcides and PCBs
2DDTR
Total HI •
as a Child i
Living at Home!
(ratio) |
Total HI as a Youth !
Trespassing Wading / Fishing
(ratio) (ratio)
Total HI a* an Adult
Living at Home [Wading /Fishing Living at Home
(ratio) j (ratio) (ratio)
.1 ' 1
2.4E+00
2.1E-01
1.6E-01
4.3E-03
1.1E-04
1.5E-02
2.2E-01
1.5E-02
1.2E-02
2.3E-02
•
|
|
1
|
|
•
|
}
:
•
:
:
I
32E-M
6.0E-05
1.8E-06
6.2E-05
7.3E-01
1.6E-05
2.8E-03
^OE-05
1.6E-05
25E-06
4.5E-04
2.1E-03
5.1E-02
7.1E-06
23E-04
6.7E-04
1.1E-02
8.6E-01
1.3E-01
6.4E-OS
1JE-05
1.2E+00
. 1.1E-01 *
75E-02
5.3E-05
7.6E-03
1.1E-01
7.3E-03
6.0E-03
|
|
|
{
I
2.7E-04
1JE-03
45E-02
4.3E-C6
15E-04
6.0E-04
2.4E-05
1.0E-02
7.7E-01
12E-01
3.9E-05
8.1E-06
95E-01
8.6E-02
6JE-02
1.7E-03
43E-05
6.1E-03
8.7E-02
55E-03
4.8E-03
9.4&03
2JE+00
1.3E+00
2.8E-02 i 5.1E-05
4.0E-02 1 1SE-05
4.4E-02
1.4E-02 i
2.0E-02 i
1.1E-02 !
1.7E-04
3.9E-02
1.6E-05
1.0E400
1.1E-02
1.6E-02
85E-03
6.8E-01
5.3E-02
33E-03
3.0E-02
6.0E-02
|
:
!
j
i
I
:
15E-07
2.9E-03
15E-05
--
2.6E-04
3.7E-07
1.3E-04
1.7E-07
6.9E-07
9.3E-06
1.3E-05
3.8E-01
2.6E-02
1.9E-03
15E-02
3.3E-02
|
:
I
:
i
j
!
2.6E-07
6.7E-05
1^E-07
3.5E-07
6.1E-06
7.0E-06
15E-01
2.1E-02
9.7E-04
1J2E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-03
63E-06
5.0E-05
6.6E-05
3.8E-07
15E-07
3.9E-04
1.4E-01
8.7E-04
!
2.1E-07
1.0E-07
2.7E-04
12E-01
4JE-04
6.5E+00
7JE-01
1.2E+00
3.3E+00 i 1.1E+00
25E+00
-------
Table 10
Carcinogenic Toxicity. Values
Weight-of-
Evidence
Classification
Chemical
Metals and Cyanide
aluminum
antimony
arsenic
barium
' -beryllium
• cadmium
chromium 111
chromium VI
cobalt
copper
lead
mercury
rirkal
IKMn
selenium
silver
strontium
thallium
titanium
vanadium
Zinc
cyanide . ..
Volatile Organic Compounds
methylene chloride
chloroform
carbon tetrachtoride
carbon dteuffide
1.1.1-trichloroelhane
vinyl chloride
tnohloroethylene
tetrachJoroethytena
acetone
2-butamne
4-metrryI-2-parrtarcre
benzene
etnylbenzenB
toluene
xylenes (total)
styrene
Samt-Yolatltai Organic Compounds
benzoicacjd
phenol
4-methytphenol
dK)-butylphthalate
dHvoctylphtnalala
bis(2-«tnylhexyl)phthalate
butylbenzylphthalate
naphthalene
PestlcldM and PCBs
ZDDTR
4.4-DDD
4.4--DDE
4,4'-DDT
A
82
D
B2
D
D
D
D
D
82
82
82
D
A
82
82
D
A
D
D
D
82
D
D
C
D
82
C
D
82
82
82
82
Drinking Water Cancer Potency
Unit Risk Factor
(CPF)
((ug/0-1) (mo/w\49* MV«IV Wf HI
Weightxrf- InhalaBon
Evidence Unit Risk
Classification
• fuo/m3V1
A
82
81
A
D
B2
D
A
0
D
D
0
82
82
82
D
A
82
82
D
A
D
D
D
82
, D
D
C
D
82
0
82
82
82
4.3E-03
2.4E^»
1.8E-03
12E-02
2.4E-04
4.7E-07
2.3E-05
1.SEXJ5
8.4E-05
1.7E-06
S^E-07
8.3E-06
S.7E-07
9.7E-05
9.7E-05
Cancer Potency
Factor
(CPF)
/rryi/flf r^fiu u\\_ 1
5.0E+01
8.4E400
6.3E+00
4.1E+01
• ' '•
8.4E-01
1.6E-03
8.1E-02
1.3E-01
2.9E-01 ;
1.7E-02
1.8E-03
2.9E-02
2.0E-03
1.4E-02
3.4E-01
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
3.4E-01
-------
Table 11
Summary of Cancer Risks
Current Land Use Scenario
Total ILCR
Chemical
Trespassing Wading / Fishing Living at Home AH Activities Percent of
Summary
ILCR
(prob) (prob) (prob) (prob) (%)
• Itotals and Cyanide
aluminum '
antimony • • -.. - •
arsenic
barium
beryffium
• caflOTum
• chromium
chromium VI
cobalt
copper
lead
mercury
nickel
selenium
silver
strontium
thaffium
titanium
vanadium
zinc :
cyankte.......
Volatile Organic Compounds
me thytene chloride
chloroform
-' carbon tetracHoride
carbon disuJfide
1,1,1-trichloroethane
vinyl crdonde
trichforoethytene
tetrachtoroethytene
acetone
2-butanone
4-methyl-2-pentanone
benzene
ethylbenzene
toluene
xytenes (total)
styrene
S«nl-Volatil« Organic Compounds
benzole acid
phenol
4-methylphenol
o5-n-butylphthaJate
di-n-octylphtnalate
b's(2-ethythexyOphlnalate
butylbenzylphthalate
naphthalene
Pesticides and PCBs
ZDDTR
23E-09
: 4£E-09
1.1E-10
4.2E-Q8
22E-05
2JE-09
22E-05
1.1E-10
0.0%
40.7%
0.0%
15E-10
15E-10
0.0%
7.6E-12 45E-11
3.0E-08 3.1E-09
5.6E-11 0.0%
1.4E-05 1.4E-OS 25.9%
4.9E-11 4J9E-11 0.0%
1.3E-09 Z1E-06 2.1E-06 3.9%
1.8E-O8
1.9E-09
8.4E-06
8.4E-06 15.4%
1JE-09
32E-08
7.7E-06
32E-08
7.7E-06
0.1%
14.1%
5.7E-08
0.1%
7.7E-06
14^54
4.7E-05
85.7%
5.5E-05
100.0%
100.0%
-------
APPENDIX IV
NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
New'York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233
MAR 2 3 1993
Thomas C. Joriing
Commissioner
8:
f
CO
co -o
Mr. William J. Muszynski
Acting Regional Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza -fT •*"
New York, New York 10278 f\>
Dear Mr. Muszynski:
RE: Johnstown City Landfill - Site No. 518002
Record of Decision
Concerning the draft Record of Decision at the Johnstown
City Landfill Site, the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) concurs with the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) selection of
Alternative SC-3, which will include the following major
components:
1. Excavation of the LaGrange Gravel Pit sediments,
placing the excavated materials on the existing
landfill. The pit would then be filled with clean fill
to eliminate any standing water.
2. Construction of a multi-layer closure cap over the
landfill mound and excavated sediments per New York
State 6NYCRR Part 360 regulations.
3. Expansion of the Johnstown City water supply system to
provide potable water to all private water supplies
potentially impacted by the landfill.
4. Erection of approximately 6800 feet of conventional
chain link fencing surrounding the entire landfill
mound, with placement of appropriate warning signs.
5. Performance of air monitoring prior to, during, and
following construction at the site. Perimeter
subsurface gas monitoring between the landfilled area
and adjacent properties will be conducted and landfill
gas emissions controlled as needed.
-------
Mr. William J. Muszynski Page 2
6. Performance of a maintenance and monitoring program
which at a minimum will fulfill the requirements of
6NYCRR Part 360 for post closure monitoring.
7. Performance of a Stage 1A cultural resources survey in
on-site and in off-site areas where there is a
potential impact to cultural resources.
8. Imposition of property deed restrictions which will
include measures to prevent the installation of
drinking water wells at the site and restrict
activities which could affect the integrity of the cap.
The NYSDEC also concurs with the contingent remedy,
Alternative SC-6, which may be implemented should monitoring
results show that groundwater and/or surface water quality is not
being restored to acceptable levels through natural attenuation
after construction of the landfill cap required in Alternative
SC-3. Alternative SC-6 would include all of the major components
of Alternative SC-3 described above, and in addition groundwater
extraction, treatment and discharge.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Robert Cozzy
at 518-457-1641.
Sincerely,
Ann Hill DeBarbieri
Deputy Commissioner
Office of Environmental
Remediation
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
------- |