United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROO/R02-89/085
September 1989
SEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
North Sea Municipal Landfill, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-89/085
X Rccipiwira AcoMcton No.
4. Tide and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Sea Municipal Landfill, NY
Remedial Action
5. Report Dat*
09/29/89
7. Author(a)
8. Performing Organization R*pt No.
». Performing Organization Nun* and Address
10. Pro|ectfTaek/Work Unit No.
11. ContracHC) or Grarrt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nun* and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report ft Period Conrad
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary NotM
18. Abstract (Umtt: 200 word*)
The 131-acre North Sea Municipal Landfill site is on eastern Long Island in
Southampton, Suffolk County, New York. The site is south of Little Peconic Bay, in an
area of extensive ponds, coves, and wetlands. The 131-acre active landfill overlies two
aquifers and neighbors private homes that obtain their drinking water from private
domestic wells. Two landfill cells, a proposed cell and a series of 14 lagoons are also
kthe site. Municipal solid waste, refuse, debris, and septic system waste from
dential, industrial, and commercial sources have been disposed of at the site since
. From the early 1960s to 1985 Cell #1 received approximately 1.3 million cubic
yards of municipal waste and septic sludges. Subsequent ground water monitoring
revealed a contaminated plume migrating from cell #1 toward a nearby cove. Cell #1 was
closed and partially capped in 1985, and a storm water diversion system was also
installed to collect storm water and recharge it. Cell #2, which was equipped with a
leachate collection system and accepted approximately 80,000 tons of municipal waste
annually, has been closed since October 1989. The town has constructed Cell #3, which
is now in operation. From the late 1960s to 1986, 14 lagoons were used to dispose of
approximately 11 million gallons of septic waste. The lagoons were subsequently
excavated and backfilled. This is the first of two planned operable units and addresses
source control through remediation of Cell #1 and the former sludge lagoons. A
subsequent Record of Decision will address around and (Continued on next pacre>
17. Documnt Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - North Sea Municipal Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, sludge
Key Contaminants: VOCs, other organics (PAHs), metals (arsenic,
inorganics
b. Identmsrs/Open-Endsd Terms
lead), other
e. COSATI FWd/Grau>
ttabilty Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (Thie Pegs)
None
21. No. o< Pages
99
22. Prlc*
(See ANSI-ZW.1S)
See •Mfructfon* M AtwafW
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly MT1S-3S)
DtpMnsot o* CofTvwrov
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-89/085
North Sea Municipal Landfill, NY
16. Abstract (Continued)
Iface water contamination. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and
sludge are VOCs, other organics including PAHs, metals including arsenic and lead, and
other inorganics.
The selected remedial action for this site includes covering Cell #1 with a low
permeability cap; implementing site security and deed restrictions; sampling sludge/soil
in the former sludge lagoons; and long-term air, surface water and ground water quality
monitoring. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action ranges from
$7,700,000 to $8,300,000, depending on the type of landfill cap selected. These figures
include an estimated annual OSM cost ranging between $190,000 and $200,000.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
North Sea Municipal Landfill
Town of Southampton
Suffolk County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the North Sea Municipal Landfill in the Town of Southampton,
Suffolk County, New York, developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Section 9601, et. sea.. as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
1986 (SARA) and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This
decision is based on the administrative record for this site.
The attached index identifies the items that comprise the
administrative record upon which the selection of the remedial
action is based.
The State of New York has concurred with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedial alternative for the North Sea Municipal
Landfill site, which includes the North Sea Landfill and those
areas affected by the contamination, is a source control remedy.
It consists of a) covering Cell #1 with a low permeability cap,
while undertaking actions consistent with state sanitary landfill
closure requirements, and b) confirmatory sampling on the former
sludge lagoons. These source control activities constitute the
first Operable Unit at this site; the second Operable Unit will
deal with off-site ground water and its impact on Fish Cove. The
"no action" alternative for the sludge lagoon area is contingent
upon findings of both the confirmatory sludge/soil sampling and
the second Operable Unit study. The alternative will be reviewed
if either of the aforementioned studies indicate the presence of
hazardous wastes or substances that may pose a health or
environmental threat.
-------
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) are not applicable for this
site because the landfill will be capped in place.
The major components of the selected remedial alternatives are:
A. For the low permeability cap on Cell II:
1. Six inches of vegetated topsoil
2. Twenty-four inches of silty sand protective
barrier
3. A 40 millimeter thick geosynthetic membrane
(permeability 1 x 10"u cm/sec) or 18 inches of low
permeability soil (permeability 1 x 107 cm/sec)
4. Twelve inches of sand for gas control
(permeability 1 x 10'J cm/sec)
5. Two layers of filter fabric
6. Soil fill of varying thickness to construct a cap
system foundation with a minimum 4.0 percent slope
7. Gas venting risers (maximum separation of one vent
per acre)
8. Crushed stone backfill around gas venting risers
B." Installation of a six foot high chain link fence around
the perimeter of the landfill property to restrict
access to the site
C. Institutional control in the form of a deed restriction
on future uses of the landfill and the former sludge
lagoons
D. Sludge/soil sampling of the former sludge lagoons to
confirm that no hazardous waste and/or substances that
may pose a health or environmental threat are present
in the area. Such sampling shall be conducted by
drilling a minimum of one, and a maximum of three,
borings into each of the fourteen identified sludge
lagoons. Sludge/soil samples taken from the borings
will be analyzed for EPA's and NYSDEC's full Target
Compound List (TCL) parameters. Sludge samples will
also undergo an EP Toxicity Test to determine the
leaching potential of any hazardous constituents that
may be present in the wastes.
E. Implementation of closure requirements of New York
State Regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 360, Solid Waste
Management Facilities for Cell fl
-------
F. Long-term operation and maintenance to provide
inspections and repairs to the landfill cap
G. Long-term air and water quality monitoring pursuant to
the New York State closure requirements for Cell II,
and long-term air and water quality monitoring for the
former sludge lagoons. Parameters to be monitored will
include the EPA's and NYSDEC's Target Compound List
(TCL). The TCL includes over 125 hazardous chemical
parameters to be analyzed during the monitoring
program.
The following action will be evaluated during the remedial
design:
o Determination as to whether a flexible, synthetic
membrane liner or a low permeability material (soil) is
best suited for use as the barrier layer in the capping
of Cell II
The actions.being taken are consistent with Section 121 of CERCLA
42 U.S.C. Section 9601. The State of New York has been consulted
and concurs with the selected remedy.
DECLARATION
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
40 CFR part 300, I have determined that the selected remedy is
protective of human health and the environment, attains Federal
and State requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to these remedial actions and is cost-effective.
This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this
site. Because treatment of the principal threats at the site was
not found to be practicable, this remedy does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
remedy. Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site, a review will be conducted within five years
after commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the
remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health
and the environment.
Date William J.
Acting Regional Administrator
Region II
-------
SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The North Sea Municipal Landfill site, (the Landfill), which
includes the North Sea Landfill and those areas affected by the
contamination is located on eastern Long Island at the
intersection of Majors Path and Old Fish Cove Road in the
Township of Southampton, Suffolk County, New York (see Figure 1).
The 131 acre Landfill is currently active landfill and it is
owned and operated by the Town of Southampton (the Town).
The area between the Landfill and the nearest point of surface
water (Fish Cove, about 1500 feet northwest of the Landfill) is
moderately populated. There are approximately 15 homes within a
one-quarter mile radius from the landfill and approximately 100
homes within a one-half mile radius. Most of the residents are
located north, northwest and west of the Landfill and are thus
hydrologically downgradient of it.
The Town of Southampton lies 2.4 miles to the south of the
Landfill. There are no major population centers to the east.
This area is predominantly wooded. Land use within a one-half
mile radius .of the Landfill generally consists of private homes.
A junkyard is located on the east side of Majors Path,
approximately 0.6 miles south of the landfill entrance. A
sand/gravel borrow pit is located west of Majors Path, between
the landfill and Fish Cove.
The Landfill is located' in glacial till deposits north of the
Ronkonkoma moraine. North of the moraine are kame deposits.
These deposits reach a maximum altitude of about 100 feet and
mark areas of disintegrated, stagnant ice from the last glacial
period.
The Landfill is south of the southern shore of Little Peconic
Bay, in an area with extensive ponds, coves and wetlands. The
terrain is generally flat with elevations less than 100 feet
above mean sea level. Slopes drop north to the bay. Soils in
the area are sands and gravels, and ponds are surface expressions
of ground water. The landfill cells and lagoons are unlined and
the sandy soil allows rapid movement of contaminants through the
soil to the ground water.
The landfill is situated above fresh water aquifers which overlie
deeper salt water aquifers. The unconsolidated deposits of
Cretaceous and Quaternary Age rest unconformably on the
Precambrian-Upper Paleozoic basement complexes. The Upper
Cretaceous deposits include, in ascending order: (1) the Raritan
Formation consisting of the Lloyd sand member and an overlying
clay member; (2) the Magothy Formation-Matawan Group,
undifferentiated; and (3) the Monmouth Group. Except for the
Monmouth Group, these units are continuous throughout the
Landfill study area. The Cretaceous deposits are overlain by
Pleistocene and Holocene (recent) deposits. The Pleistocene
-------
FIGURE 1
SCALE: 1'- 2000
ft
f LITTLE
PECONIC
NORTH SEA LANDFILL LOCATION MAP
SOURCE: USQS SOUTHAMPTON QUADRANGLE. 1956
.
H2MGROUP
6NC1NCERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
WC.VUX. N.T
I. M.Y.
- 2 -
-------
deposits consist of glaciofluvial deposits of the Upper Glacial
aquifer. The North Sea Municipal Landfill is situated above two
fresh water aquifers: the Cretaceous Magothy aquifer and the
Uppe:: Glacial aquifer.
The Magothy aquifer is the deepest fresh water bearing zone. The
top of the Magothy occurs at a depth of about 150 to 180 feet
below mean sea level at the study area. The Magothy is a water
transmitting aquifer consisting of sand, fine to medium, clayey
in part, interbedded with lenses and layers of coarse sand and
sandy and solid clay.
The Upper Glacial fresh water aquifer (water table) is estimated
to be about 200 to 300 feet thick in the area of the landfill.
It directly overlies the Magothy aquifer. This aquifer primarily
composed of Pleistocene sands and gravels. Like the Magothy
aquifer, it also contains numerous silt and clay units. Most
wells in the area are completed in this aquifer.
Ground water is replenished primarily from recharge via
precipitation and lateral underground flow of fresh water. The
precipitation which reaches the main aquifer continues to flow
vertically through the zone of saturated gravel of the Upper
Glacial aquifer at a rate of movement proportional to the slope
of the water table and the permeability of the soils.
Most of the homes in the Southampton area obtain their drinking
water from private domestic wells tapping the highly permeable
Pleistocene deposits of the Upper Glacial aquifer. A plume of
contaminated ground water in this aquifer, moving northwest from
the Landfill, has resulted in the closure of several drinking
water wells. Public water supplies have been extended to serve
residence in the affected area. Ground water in this area
ultimately discharges to Fish Cove, an arm of Peconic Bay.
Surficial soil associations within and surrounding the landfill
are the Plymouth-Carver Association Sands and "made" land. The
soils of Suffolk County were deposited as a result of glaciation
during the Wisconsin Age. The glacial outwash consists of sorted
sand and gravels. The Plymouth-Carver Association soils are
found on rolling moraines and side slopes of drainage channels of
outwash plains. These soils consist of deep, excessively
drained, coarse textured soils that are not suitable as a source
of topsoil. "Made" land consists of concrete, bricks, trash and
wire; anything but natural soil. This defines the Landfill area.
Fish Cove is a body of saltwater with marshes connected via a
tidal inlet to the North Sea Harbor. The low marshes are
relatively stable and productive, supporting a variety of marine
invertebrates, juvenile fish species, and water fowl. The
intertidal marsh is dominated by salt marsh cord grass (spartina
alterniflora). The marsh area is about 45,000 square feet
consisting of both intertidal and high marsh.
-------
The Landfill itself is located in the general vegetative biome
referred to as an oak-dominated forest. Oaks are the dominant
species. No surface water bodies (except puddles created by rain
water accumulation) exist on the landfill property. Tbe landfill
is located near several naturally occurring surface water bodies.
These are Fish Cove, Big Fresh Pond and Little Fresh Pond. The
latter two are fresh surface waters. The following rare,
threatened, and endangered species are identified by the by New
York State for the North Sea area: 1) bird species: least tern
and piping plover, 2) rare plant species: Bushy Rockrose, Hairy
Woodrush and Lespedeza stueri 3) rare butterfly: Hessel's
Hairstreak. Floral and faunal species which are present are
typical of the respective habitats.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The North Sea Municipal Landfill, owned and operated by the Town
of Southampton, was initially constructed in 1963 for the
disposal of municipal solid wastes, refuse, debris and septic
system wastes from residential, industrial and commercial
sources. Significant features of the site include landfill Cell
f1 (inactive, partially capped, unlined); excavated/filled
scavenger lagoons; landfill Cell #2 (soon to be capped and
closed); and proposed Cell f3 (soon to be completed and receive
materials). See Figure 2 for relative locations of these cells.
A ground water monitoring program, conducted by the Town of
Southampton since 1979, revealed a plume containing lead, cadmium
and manganese migrating from Cell fl toward Fish Cove. As a
result, the site was investigated and placed on the EPA's list of
priority hazardous waste sites known as the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) in June 1986.
Cell #1 consists of two earlier landfill areas and totals
approximately 13 acres. It received septic system sludges in the
early 1960's in addition to municipal solid wastes. The total
quantity of wastes in Cell fl is estimated to be 1.3 million
cubic yards.
As a result of the site being placed on the NPL list, Cell #1 was
subsequently closed in 1985. Closure of the cell consisted of
capping the top flat portion (about eight acres) with a 20
milli-inch polyvinyl chloride membrane to minimize infiltration
into the mound and covering it with a thick protective layer
(approximately two feet thick) of silty sand on top of the
geomembrane. A layer of topsoil was placed over this to maintain
vegetative growth over the landfill.
The Town of Southampton also installed a storm water diversion
and collection system to aid drainage. Manholes and a piping
collection system along the haul road were installed before the
recharge basin. The manholes, as provided for, were utilized as
collection inlets with the runoff being transported into a
-------
NORTH SEA LANDFILL Rl
STUDY AREA
LANDFILL
PROPERTY UNE
SCXtfc 1'-600'
.H2/HGROUP
ARCHITECTS • PUANNCAS • SCIENTISTS
-------
separate recharge basin, located west of the landfill in virgin
ground. This system is currently still in operation and actively)
collecting storm water and recharging it. As a result of the
steepness of the side slope of Cell II, the sides v«r« not
capped, infiltration of rainwe.ter into the landfill is minimized
due to the steepness of the side slopes. Also, vegetation has
taken root along a good portion of the landfill side slopes.
Since the collection inlets were installed above a synthetic
membrane which is secured by a clean sand blanket, rain water
falling on the top surface of Cell II is directed and recharged
into virgin ground as noted above. Surface runoff from the
relatively steep slopes is conveyed to the adjoining land
surrounding the cell where it then follows existing contours and
eventually recharges into the ground.
In the late 1960's, a series of 14 scavenger lagoons,
approximately 50 feet long, 10 feet deep, 25 feet wide and 50
feet above the water table were constructed at the southern
portion of the landfill property. The lagoons accepted septic
system wastes from both commercial and residential sources.
Sludge was allowed to drain and dry, and it was subsequently
disposed of in landfill Cell II. Throughout the active life of
these lagoons, it is estimated that they received a total of 11
million gallons of septic waste.
The sludge lagoons were decommissioned in 1986 and most of their
liquid and solid contents was removed. After this removal, an
additional two feet of soil was excavated. The excavated
material was dried out then mixed with sand. The dried mixture
was then placed in landfill Cell 12 where it was used as a daily
cover for the walls of the cell. The sludge lagoons were
refilled to grade with sandy loam.
The remaining active landfill cell (Cell 12) is approximately
seven acres in size and constructed approximately 20 feet above
the water table with a leachate collection system. An
underground fire destroyed the cell's leachate pumping system in
1987. However, a new well and pump has been installed to receive
leachate. The new system is designed to pump leachate to a truck
for off-site treatment. The cell currently accepts approximately
80,000 tons of municipal wastes annually. Seasonal disposal
rates are approximately 400 tons per day in the summer months and
100 tons per day in the winter. Upon reaching capacity, the
landfill cell will be closed pursuant to an administrative order
on consent executed between the Town and New York State
Department Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). The Town is
currently constructing Cell 13, pursuant to the NYSDEC Part 360
permit, which will serve the Town subsequent to the closure of
Cell 12.
In December 1985, EPA sent a letter to the Town informing it that
it was considered a potentially responsible party (PRP) for
contamination occurring at the North Sea Municipal Landfill site
and, as such, may be liable for funds spent by the EPA for
-------
cleaning up the Landfill. The letter explained to the Town that
it nay participate in or undertake the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) if they wished.
EPA presented an Administrative Order or Consent to the Town of
Southampton in February 1987. The Town consented to the issuance
and the Order was signed on March 31, 1987. Under this order,
the Town took responsibility for conducting the RI/FS, which
began on August 18, 1987.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI and FS Reports, prepared by Holzmacher, McLendon and
Murrell, P.C. (H2M), and the Proposed Remedial Action Plan for
the North Sea Municipal Landfill site were released to the public
in September 1989. These documents were made available to the
public at two information repositories: Southampton College
Library located at Montauk Highway, Southampton, New York and
Southampton Village Library located at Nine Job's Lane,
Southampton, New York. Additional documentation regarding the
remedy selection is available within the administrative record
for the site, which was placed in the Southampton College
Library. The notice of availability for these documents was
published in Newsdav on September 2, 1989. A public comment
period was held from September 2, 1989 through September 22,
1989. In addition, a public meeting was held on September 11,
1989. At this meeting, representatives from the EPA answered
questions about the problems at the site and the remedial
alternatives under consideration. A response to comments
received during the public comment period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is a part of this Record of
Decision. This decision document presents the selected remedial
action for the North Sea Municipal Landfill site in the Town of
Southampton, Suffolk County, New York, chosen in accordance with
CERCLA and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan. The decision regarding
the selection of a particular remedy for this Landfill is based
on the administrative record.
SCOPE AFP P°I-F QF "PERABLE UNIT
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the North Sea
Municipal Landfill site are complex. As a result, EPA and NYSDEC
have divided the work into two operable units (OUs). The
operable units are:
o OU One: Source control of Cell II and the former
sludge lagoons
o OU Two: Off-site ground water and Fish Cove Study
-------
The operable unit presently under consideration at the North Sea
Municipal Landfill is Operable Unit One. Source control
management of the landfill will address the closure of Cell #1
and the former sludge lagoons.
Additional RI data (the Phase II RI) includes, but i* not limited
to, resampling of all monitoring wells, sediment and surface
water sampling of Fish Cove and flesh sampling of shellfish. The
data are under review by state and federal agencies and upon
completion of this review, an FS will be undertaken to address
the ground water adjacent to the landfill as well as Fish Cove.
This will comprise Operable Unit Two.
The alternatives considered for source control are presented
under the section "Description of Alternatives" and were analyzed
using the EPA's nine criteria for effective Superfund actions
which are listed later in this document. The FS report presents
a complete description and evaluation of the alternatives. The
remedial alternatives recommended for implementation, namely
confirmatory sludge/soil sampling for the filled scavenger
lagoons and a low permeability cap (either a geosynthetic or a
soil cover) on Cell II, will control the sources of contamination
and reduce contaminant migration from these sources. The
preferred alternative for the sludge lagoon area is contingent
upon the findings of both the confirmatory sludge/soil sampling
and the Operable Unit Two study. This portion of the selected
remedy will be reviewed if the above-referenced findings of the
aforementioned studies indicate the presence of hazardous wastes
or substances that may pose a health or environmental threat.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
As part of the scoping for the remedial investigation, two
suspected sources of contamination were identified for
investigation. These two suspect source areas were the landfill
Cell #1 (Source 1) and the former septic sludge lagoon areas
(Source 2). Ground water flows to the northwest with localized
discharge at Fish Cove. The key release mechanisms of site
contaminants are via precipitation and infiltration of leachate
to ground water at the source areas. Receptor areas are thus
downgradient from these source areas. The key receptor areas are
downgradient ground water and surface water (Fish Cove).
Contaminants from Source 1 travel via the ground water
environmental pathway northwest from the source area. The
contaminant plume discharges (locally) at Fish Cove. It is
expected that the contaminant plume from Source 2 runs parallel
to the Source 1 plume and has the same receptor areas.
One plume, originating from Cell II on the North Sea Municipal
Landfill, consists primarily of leachate constituents, such as
ammonia, iron, manganese and total organic carbon. These
parameters were used to identify the plume. At the Landfill, the
- 8 -
-------
LOCATION ^ \ I
or MHO DATA \«
STATION
SCALE: 1"=500'
\ LAN or ILL
PROPERTY LINE 1
NORTH SEA PHASE I Rl
STUDY AREA AND
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
LEGEND
• = STAINLESS STEEL MONITORING WELL
© = EXISTING PVC WELL
T = LAGOON BORING
X = SURFACE WA TER
A = SHALLOW SUHt-ACE WATER AND SEDME*
* = AIR SAMPLE STATION
© = SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING POINT
+ = RESiD^TIAL AND SUPPLY WELL
H2/HGROUP STS
ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SOI
RIVtRxCAD. NT.
- 9 -
-------
highest concentration of the leachate plume was evident in a
mid-depth well just northwest of Cell #1 on the landfill
property.
A second plume emanates from the filled septic lagoon at the
Landfill. The presence of nitrate/nitrite (as nitrogen) in
ground water from a monitoring well in the source arsa confirmed
the presence of septics. A monitoring well installed
downgradient from this area also indicated levels of
nitrate/nitrite. It is expected that this plume will travel
northwest with the ground water flow. Figure 3 shows the general
study area for the site and sampling locations. Additional
ground water data has been collected during the Phase II RI. The
data will be evaluated and a FS will be generated.
In addition to the typical sanitary landfill leachate parameters
mentioned above, these plumes contain heavy metals such as
cadmium, chromium, lead, iron and manganese as well as volatile
organics such as 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane,
tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene. These constituents were
detected at concentrations above the Safe Drinking Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and New York State Ground Water
Class GA Standards (NYSDEC GA). The concentrations of chromium,
lead, iron and manganese in the plume are considered significant
(i.e., five times the background level). Concentrations of
chromium and cadmium were detected above the MCLs and NYSDEC GA
Standards in the filtered samples. Refer to Attachment 3 for
ground water tables.
The concentrations of these constituents are not decreasing over
time, and thus the leachate is still impacting the ground water.
Therefore, it is evident that the present cap is inadequate to
prevent infiltration into Cell 11 and prevent leachate
generation. Cell 11 was capped with a 20 milli-inch polyvinyl
chloride membrane and approximately two feet of sand. NYS Part
360 Regulations for closure require a geomembrane with greater
than a 40 milli-inch thickness. In addition, the side slopes
were never capped. Therefore, the EPA and NYSDEC believe that
closure of Cell 11 pursuant to NYS Part 360 requirements is
necessary to prevent further infiltration.
The objective of collecting surface water and sediment samples
from Fish Cove was to determine whether the ground water
contamination plume had any adverse impact on water and sediment
quality in the Cove. Surface water samples were collected at
different stations in Fish Cove during low tide and high tide.
Sediment was collected at stations during low tide.
Ammonia, iron, and manganese were detected consistently at all
surface water sampling locations. These are leachate indicators.
Ammonia in particular was evident in other enclosed bay areas in
the South Fork. These levels were similar to Fish Cove and of
the same order of magnitude. Additional data has been collected
- 10 -
-------
during the Phase II RI. The results will be analyzed and a
separate FS report will be generated.
Soil samples were collected from the Landfill and Fish Cove and
were tested to identify the nature, magnitude and extent of
contamination from the possible disposal of industrial waste.
The four types of soil samples obtained during the Phase I RI
were: (1) surface soils at various locations throughout the
landfill; (2) subsurface unsaturated soils from the filled lagoon
area; (3) subsurface soils from the saturated zone in the well
boreholes; and (4) sediment from Fish Cove.
None of the soil samples exceeded the recommended EP Toxicity
concentration levels for metals. Mercury and silver were
detected but the leachable metal concentrations were below EP
Toxicity levels.
The key organic contaminants in soils were the phthaiate esters
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Phthalates were
evident in most soils. The source may be common plastic
materials. PAHs were evident in greatest variety at a surface
soil location north of the inactive Cell II. Otherwise, PAHs
were not that common in soils.
Lagoon soils were analyzed for priority pollutant pesticides,
PCBs, and volatile organics. Pesticides and PCBs were not
detected at all in lagoon soils. Chloroform is the only
positively detected priority pollutant volatile organic.
An air monitoring program was conducted at the site to monitor
for airborne organic constituents that may pose a health hazard
to the public. The air sampling program consisted of a general
landfill soil gas survey at all proposed sampling/work area
locations; collection of ambient air samples; and collection of
on-site wind data.
The ambient air survey indicated acceptable air quality in the
work zones at the landfill. Soil gas samples were taken during
the Phase II RI and the results of the analysis have not been
reported.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The media of concern at Landfill include ground water, soil, and
surface water. There is a ground-water plume containing heavy
metals (e.g., chromium, iron, lead, and manganese) and leachate
indicator parameters (e.g., ammonia and total organic carbon).
Soil samples collected from surface soil, subsoil, and sludge
lagoon borings show metals (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, igon, lead,
and magnesium). Surface water samples show elevated levels of
inorganics (e.g., ammonia, chromium, iron, manganese).
H2M, the Town's consultant, and the EPA each conducted an
Endangerment Assessment for the Landfill. The Endangerment
-------
Assessment conducted by the EPA identified the most dangerous
site contaminants through a screening process. The contaminants
selected represent chemicals posing the most significant risk of
adverse effect to human health or the environment. fiMse
"indicator" chemicals were selected based on the following
properties: intrinsic toxicity, quantity present, mad properties
affecting the chemical's mobility in the environment.
The selection process conducted by the EPA for the Landfill
identified seven metals and one inorganic compound upon which the
assessment was based. The seven metals are: arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, iron, lead, manganese and nickel. Ammonia was
identified as an inorganic compound of interest.
The indicator chemical selection process focused on inorganic
metals. This is supported by the fact that the Landfill is
operated as a landfill and is the type of site where metal
contamination is common. The RI for the Landfill also identified
several metals as potential contaminants of concern.
Two of the metals identified in the RI were iron and manganese.
Further study of the analysis results showed that the applicable
standards or criteria for iron, manganese, cadmium and lead have
been exceeded. Based on their high concentrations and prevalence
at the site, their high toxicity and the previous concern
expressed over them, these five metals were chosen to be
indicator chemicals. Arsenic, nickel and ammonia were also
chosen due to their concentration, prevalence and toxicity.
Although, at the concentrations found at the Landfill, ammonia is
not generally considered a high toxicity concern to humans when
compared to other chemicals, its toxicity to fish and other
aquatic life merits consideration. Therefore, ammonia was chosen
as an indicator chemical.
Environmental fate and transport mechanisms were evaluated for
each chemical found during the RI. Seven exposure routes were
identified: (1) ingestion of contaminated surface water, (2)
ingestion of contaminated fish and shellfish, (3) ingestion of
contaminated soil, (4) direct contact (dermal) exposure to
contaminated surface water, (5) direct contact (dermal) exposure
to contaminated soil, (6) ingestion of ground water, and (7)
inhalation of dust from the Landfill.
For the purpose of evaluating risk from the sludge lagoons, the
significant exposure routes are ingestion of contaminated soil
and direct contact (dermal) exposure to contaminated surface
soil. Direct contact with contaminated soils at the Landfill may
lead to exposure to metals primarily through accidental
ingestion. Oral exposure may occur from inadvertent transfer of
contaminated soil from fingers and hands to the mouths of
children and young adults trespassing onto the site or by poor
hygiene habits of site workers. Most of the contaminants are
generally adsorbed onto sediment particles and are not expected
- 12 -
-------
to be highly available for uptake through the skin. For the
purpose of evaluating risk from Cell #1, the significant exposure
routes include ground-water ingestion, direct contact (dermal)
exposure to contaminated surface water, ingestion of contaminated
surface water, ingestion of contaminated fish and shellfish, and
inhalation of dust from the site. ,
Exposed populations generally include site workers, visitors to
the site, and residents of the Town in the area of the site.
Individuals who may play, swim, or wade in Fish Cove near or
topographically downgradient from the Landfill and neighborhood
children venturing onto the site are also included.
Total body burden rates were computed based on all potential
exposure routes using an average body mass of 70 kilograms
(adults) or 20 kilograms (child), and an average 70 year
lifetime. It was assumed that dermal exposures would occur in 20
out of the 70-year average lifetime, ingestion exposures would
occur in 40 out of an average 70-year lifetime, and inhalation
would occur in a 30 year working lifetime.
Toxicity profiles were developed for each of the indicator
chemicals based on current U.S. EPA accepted health effects
documents. Toxicological evaluation included pharmacokinetics,
human and environmental health effects, and a dose-response
assessment. Toxicity information is dependent to a large extent
on animal models upon which any potential adverse human health
effects must be extrapolated.
Cancer"potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)'1,
are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential lifetime
cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level. The
term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the
risks calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes
underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely.
Cancer potency factors are derived from the results of human
epidemiological studies of chronic animal bioassays to which
animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been
applied. Tables 1 and 2 in Attachment 5 list the available
carcinogenic potency factors for the selected chemicals at the
Landfill.
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating
the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to
chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals.
Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g.,
the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking
water) can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human
epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncertainty
-------
factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of anima:
data to predict effects on humans). These uncertainty factors
help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential
for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur. The Acceptable
Intake for Subchronic Exposure (MS) is the highest IUBUUI intake
of a chemical that does not cause adverse effects when exposure
is short term (i.e., for an interval which does not constitute a
significant portion of the life span). The Acceptable Intake for
Chronic Exposure (AIC) is the highest human intake of a chemical
that does not cause adverse effects when exposure is long tern
(i.e., for a lifetime). The AIS and AIC for the selected
chemicals are listed in Attachment 5, Tables 1 and 2.
Risk characterization included an assessment of risk associated
with exposures to noncarcinogens and carcinogens. Excess
lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the intake
level with the cancer potency factor. These risks are
probabilities that are generally expressed in scientific notation
(e.g., 1 x 10"* or 1E-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of
IxlO4 indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual
has a one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result
of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime
under the specific exposure conditions at a site. Acceptable
target risks for carcinogens generally range from 10** to 107.
Table 3 in Attachment 5 shows the calculation of the total upper-
bound carcinogenic risk for exposure to the indicator chemical.
The cumulative upper bound risk for all carcinogens was 2.9x10"*.
This was derived predominantly from oral exposures, with a minor
contribution from inhalation exposures. This value is within the
acceptable range.
Potential concern for noncarcinogehic effects of a single
contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard
quotient (HQ) (or the ratio of the estimated intake derived from
the contaminant concentration in a given medium to the
contaminant's reference dose). By adding the HQs for all
contaminants within a medium or across all media to which a given
population may reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can
be generated. The HI provides a useful reference point for
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media. Hazard indices
for total oral and total inhalation exposures for the Landfill
are presented in Attachment 5, Tables 4 and 5. In addition,
Tables 6 and 7 in Attachment 5 present the hazard indices for
soil ingestion and dermal adsorption. Both hazard indices for
subchronic exposure are less than one, as is the hazard index for
chronic inhalation. The hazard index for chronic oral exposure,
however, is greater than one. The major contributor to this
exceedance is the GDI:AIC ratio for iron at 34.9. This high
ratio results primarily from the high iron intake in the ground-
water ingestion exposure pathway.
For the sludge lagoons, the risk associated with exposure from
soil ingestion and dermal adsorption is minimal; therefore, soil
-------
remediation is not necessary. For source control from Cell fl,
the risk is above acceptable levels; therefore, source
remediation is necessary to alleviate risk from exposure to
ground water and surface water.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives presented in the proposed plan were developed
based upon a screening of possible remedial technologies and
compliance of the alternatives with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) of environmental statutes.
Considerations at the North Sea Municipal Landfill site which
entered into the screening process are as follows:
A. The ground water was utilized by private well owners as
a drinking water source. Most residents have been provided
with an alternative water supply.
B. An estimated 1.3 million cubic yards of waste are
present in landfill Cell fl, some of which may be in direct
contact with the water table.
Excavation of the landfill, including the destruction of the
wastes by incineration and other treatment technologies, and its
disposal off-site in a secure commercial landfill, (or
re-disposal on-site in a lined landfill), was eliminated in the
screening process as a result of the excessive cost and
short-term impacts on human health. The contents of the
landfill, approximately 1.3 million cubic yards, would require
excavation and removal. In addition, the excavation, removal and
transportation of the waste would cause significant impacts to
the air quality and to the health and safety of the site workers.
In-place closure of the landfilled waste consisting of
alternative cover systems was developed for detailed evaluation.
The source control alternatives for Cell fl and the former sludge
lagoons are as follows:
ALTERNATIVE 1A: No Action - Cell fl
Capital Cost: $ 20,000
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $ 91,000
Estimated Present Worth: $ 1.4 million
CERCLA requires that the "no action" alternative be considered at
every site. At the North Sea Municipal Landfill site, the no
action alternative would consist of leaving the cover on the
landfill as it currently exists and continue monitoring the water
and air quality at the landfill. A six-foot high fance would be
placed around the entire perimeter of the landfill property to
prohibit unauthorized access. Institutional controls in the form
of a deed restriction would also be placed on the North Sea
Municipal Landfill property to prohibit future development and
- 15 -
-------
use of property which nay increase the potential for public
exposure.
ALTERNATIVE IB: No Action - Slud'/e Scavenger Lagoon*
Capital Cost: $ 20,000
Annual Operation & Maintenance: $ 91,000
Estimated Present Worth: $ 1.4 million
The no action alternative for the sludge lagoons consists of
leaving the scavenger lagoons as they currently exist. The
lagoons were mostly emptied of their liquid and solid contents in
1986. Institutional controls, in the form of a deed restriction,
as well as fencing and air and water quality monitoring would
also be implemented under this alternative.
The "no action" alternative for the sludge lagoon area is
contingent upon the findings of both the confirmatory sludge/soil
sampling and the Operable Unit Two study. The alternative will
be reviewed if either of the aforementioned studies indicate the
presence of hazardous wastes or substances that may pose a health
or environmental threat.
ALTERNATIVE 2A: New York State Rules for Closure Pursuant of
Part 360 Regulations of a Municipal Landfill Using a Low
Permeability Soil for Cell fl
Capital Cost: $ 3.2 million
Annual Operation &
Maintenance: $ 200,000 (includes Cells #1, 2, 3)
Estimated Present Worth: $ 6.3 million
Time to Implement Remedial Action: nine months to one year
Alternative 2A consists of a cover system which will comply with
the New York State regulations for closure of an existing
municipal landfill. The cover system consists of the following
components (see Figure 4):
o Six inches of vegetated topsoil
o Twenty-four inches of silty sand protective barrier
o Eighteen inches of low permeability soil (permeability
1 x 10'7 cm/sec)
o Twelve inches of sand for gas control (permeability 1 x
10"5 cm/sec)
o Two layers of filter fabric
o Soil fill of varying thickness to construct a cap
system foundation with a minimum 4.0 percent slope
-------
Gas venting risers (maximum separation of one vent per
acre)
Crushed stone backfill around gas venting risers
As part of the NYSDEC closure requirements, post-cloovre
operation and maintenance would be required to operate and
maintain the vegetated cover, drainage structures, and gas
venting systems. A gas monitoring program would be required.
Activities, such as perimeter fencing and a deed restriction
would be implemented.
ALTERNATIVE 2B: Hew York State Rules for Closure Pursuant of
Part 360 Regulations of a Municipal Landfill Using a Geosynthetic
Cover for Cell fl
Capital Cost: $ 2.9 million
Annual Operation &
Maintenance: $ 190,000 (includes Cells #1, 2, 3)
Estimated Present Worth: $ 5.8 million
Time to Implement
Remedial Action: nine months to one year
Alternative "2B consists of a cover system which will comply with
New York State regulations for closure of an existing municipal
landfill. This alternative is similar to Alternative 2A, except
a geosynthetic membrane is substituted for the low permeability
soil. The cover system consists of the following components (see
Figure 5):
o " Six inches of vegetated topsoil
o Twenty-four inches of silty sand protective barrier
o A 40 mil thick geosynthetic membrane (permeability 1 x
10"n cm/sec)
o Twelve inches of sand for gas control (permeability 1 x
10"* cm/sec)
o Two layers of filter fabric
o Soil fill of varying thickness to construct a cap
system foundation with a minimum 4.0 percent slope
o Gas venting risers (maximum separation of one vent per
acre)
o Crushed stone backfill around gas venting risers
As part of the NYSDEC closure requirements, post-closure
operation and maintenance would be required to operate and
maintain the vegetated cover, drainage structures and gas venting
systems. A gas monitoring program would be required. Activities
- 17 -
-------
such as perimeter fencing, institutional controls (i.e. deed
restriction) would be implemented.
ALTERNATIVE 3A: Excavation/Backfill of Former 81u<>g« fcavenger
Lagoons
Capital Cost: $ 1.1 million
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $ 175,000 (includes Cells II, 2, 3)
Estimated Present Worth: $ 3.8 million
Time to Implement
Remedial Action: six to nine months
Alternative 3A consists of excavation of the existing material in
the scavenger lagoons. The scavenger lagoons were closed for
operation in the Summer of 1986. After most of the liquid and
the solid contents of the lagoons were removed, an additional two
feet of soil was excavated from the lagoons. All of the
excavated material was placed in Cell I2 (active cell). The area
of the former lagoons consisted of a series of 14 lagoons
approximately 50 feet long, 10 feet deep and 25 feet wide. The
total surface area which would be required to be removed,
including the access road and lagoon cell dividers, is
approximately 500 feet by 200 feet to a total depth of 15 feet
below the bottom elevation of the scavenger lagoons.
Approximately 56,000 cubic yards of material would have to be
removed. The area would then be backfilled with clean material.
MMARY' OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 2A or 2B will provide the greatest overall
protection of human health and the environment with respect
to the existing conditions. Installation of the multi-layer
impermeable cap will effectively prevent public exposure to
the landfill materials. Such a cap will also prevent
infiltration of precipitation into Cell |1 which is
considered a major contributing source of leachate to the
ground water.
Most of the identified sludge in the lagoons was excavated
in 1986. Based on current information available to the EPA,
a significant portion of the source has been eliminated, and
according to the EPA's endangerment assessment, the former
sludge lagoons will not contribute contaminants to the
ground water which will have any significant impact to
public health and the environment. However, additional
confirmatory sampling should be conducted to confirm that no
hazardous constituents are leaching from this area.
The no action alternative 1A provides no protection. It is
not protective because contaminants may continue to leach
-------
Figure 4
3'MJn
6" Top Sell
24
3«nd
3Hty
Protective Btrrltr
GM V«nt RJur
4%MIn
33% Iftx
Gts Yifitfitff Layvr
NORTH SPA LANDFILL
FEASIBfLITY STUDY '-
PROPOSED FINAL COVER
WITH LOW PgRMgABfLITY SOIL
H2A4GROUP
socxiuts
B.T.
- 19 -
-------
Figure 5
G«« Ytnt RJa«r
6- Top Soil
33% Max
SUty
Protactlw Barrlar
Q«osynth«t!c Mtmbfant
(Win 40-Mil Thick)
Filter
Fabric
Porous
Material
12* Gaa Ysntlug Lay«r
NORTH SEA LANDFILL
FgASIBILiTY STUDY
PROPOSED FINAL COVER
WITH GEOSYNTHETiC MEMBRANE
H2MGROUP
tNClHCOtS • AACMVCTS • PLAMMCKS ' SCVMHSim
- 20 -
-------
into ground water and surface water. Since, most of the
sludge was excavated in 1986, alternative IB with
confirmatory sludge/soil sampling will be protective of
human health and environment.
The degrees of protection provided by the alternatives and
magnitude of risk resulting from use of surface or ground
water as drinking water, is unknown. Exposure point
contaminant concentrations may not exceed drinking water
quality standards under any of the cover system
alternatives, including no action.
B. Compliance with ARARs
CERCLA requires that remedial actions meet legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of other
environmental laws. These laws may include: the Toxic
Substances Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal
Act (RCRA), and any state law which has stricter
requirements than the corresponding federal law.
Applicable requirements are cleanup standards, standards of
controls, and other substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria or limitations promulgated under
federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location
or other circumstance at a site. A requirement is
"applicable" if the remedial action or circumstances at the
site satisfy all of the jurisdictional prerequisites of the
requirement.
Relevant and appropriate requirements are cleanup standards,
standards of control, and other environmental protection
requirements, criteria or limitations promulgated under
federal or state law that, while not legally "applicable1 to
a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial
action, location or other circumstance at a site, address
problems or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the site that their use is well-suited to
that site.
"A requirement that is judged to be relevant and appropriate
must be complied with to the same degree as if it were
applicable. However, there is more discretion in this
determination: it is possible for only part of a
requirement to be considered relevant and appropriate, the
rest being dismissed if judged not to be relevant and
appropriate in a given case" (Interim Guidance on Compliance
with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements, 52
FR 32496, August 27, 1989).
Cell #1 will be closed in accordance with New York State
Regulation, 6 NYCRR Part 360. Alternative 2A and 2B will
-------
meet and exceed the New York State requirements for closure
of an existing municipal solid waste facility. The closure
of Cell II will also comply with the New York State
Pollution Control Regulations (6 NYCRR Parts 201, 202 and
219) with regard to air emissions as well.
C. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Landfill capping (Alternatives 2A and 2B) is considered a
reliable option, and if properly installed, a cap system is
expected to continue to provide a high level of protection.
Cap systems are effective in achieving their objective of
isolating landfilled wastes and reducing the risk of
contaminant migration as a result of leachate generated by
surface precipitation.
The no action alternative 1A is not effective in controlling
precipitation and corresponding leachate production. Since
most of the sludge were excavated in 1986, the no action
alternative with confirmatory sludge/soil sampling will be
effective in protecting human health and environment.
The long-term adequacy of land disposal cover systems is
unknown. Differential settling of the landfill wastes and
subsequent detrimental effects on any cover system should be
expected. Differential settling will place stress on i
Alternative 2B resulting in the possible damage of the
geosynthetic membrane. This would result in free flow of
water through any resulting holes and a decrease in the
efficiency of this alternative. Decreased efficiency may
also occur in the other cover system alternative as a result
of differential settlement. The design life of the
geosynthetic membrane has not been substantiated by
long-term usage and may have to be replaced sometime in the
future.
Surface erosion, burrowing animals and vegetation may all
penetrate the barriers resulting in a localized failure of
the barrier. The single geosynthetic layer, Alternative 2B,
is the most likely to be fully penetrated by the above
failure modes. Alternative 2A is the least likely to be
fully penetrated based on the overall depth, but can also be
damaged by these failure modes.
Frost action can damage the barrier layer and reduce its
effectiveness. Alternative 2A has the greatest potential
for frost damage because it is not protected by additional
cover or a geosynthetic membrane. Alternative 2B should be
the least affected by frost because it includes geosynthetic
materials.
D. Reduction of Tozicity, Nobility or Volume of the Contaminants
- 22 -
-------
None of the alternatives utilize treatment to reduce
toxicity, mobility or volume. However, Alternatives 2A and
2B will reduce the volume of leachate being generated in the
landfill by preventing infiltration of rain watar into the
waste. Alternative 3A will reduce any remaining sludge
residuals once excavated.
E. Short-Term Effectiveness
Both cover system alternatives (2A and 2B) will have minimal
potential impact on human health because construction
activities should not disturb in-place wastes. The major
impact on the nearby residents will be a substantial
increase in truck traffic required to transport the large
quantities of soil comprising the cover system components
and drill rigs for installation of the passive venting
system. This traffic will raise dust and increase noise
levels locally. However, they will be of short duration,
and measures can be taken to minimize these impacts. The
cover system for both alternatives will require nine months
to one year to design and construct, depending on the
allowed bid period and seasonal weather conditions.
Alternative 3A will also pose minimal risks to the public.
This alternative will generate truck traffic solely on-site.
Fugitive emissions are also a concern, but can be minimized
by construction restraints such as water sprays. The
required time for design and construction is three to six
months.
Workers may be exposed to air emissions of volatile organic
compounds and methane during site grading and placement of
initial layers. However, all cover systems share these
activities. Air monitoring will be necessary and
respiratory protection utilized if needed based upon the
monitoring results.
F. Implementability
Both cover systems are technically feasible, and materials
and required services are readily available in the New York
State area. Competitive bidding by qualified contractors is
expected for all alternatives with a number of national
membrane liner manufacturers expected to bid as the
manufacturer and installer of the geosynthetic membrane.
Both cover systems are administratively feasible, with
minimal requirements for NYSDEC approvals or permits because
no off-site actions are included.
Alternative 3A poses administrative and technical problems
because additional sampling would be required to decide the
disposal site of the excavated materials.
-------
6. Cost
Alternatives 1A and IB have minimal estimated construction
costs ($20,000). The estimated construction costs for each
of the remaining alternatives are as follows:
- Alternative 2A - $3,200,000
- Alternative 2B - $2,900,000
- Alternative 3A - $1,100,000
The estimated construction costs are sensitive to the unit
costs for soil, topsoil and clay fill. Alternatives which
require greater quantities of fill, such as 2A, are more
sensitive to costs than alternatives which require lesser
quantities, such as 2B. Alternative 3A has a high capital
cost in relation to Alternative IB for the scavenger lagoon
source control evaluation.
The annual operation and maintenance costs for each
alternative are estimated as follows:
- Alternative 1A - $ 91,000
- Alternative IB - $ 91,000
- Alternative 2A - $200,000 (includes Cells #1, 2 and 3)
- Alternative 2B - $190,000 (includes Cells #1, 2 and 3)
- Alternative 3A - $175,000 (includes Cells #1, 2 and 3)
Detailed cost figures for each alternative are included in
Attachment 1.
H. State Acceptance
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
concurs with the selected remedy.
I. Community Acceptance
Representatives from the Town of Southampton believed
that No-Action alternative for Cell #1 should be selected
because 1) Cell #1 was capped with a 20 milli-inch PVC in
1985, although side slopes were never capped, 2) no
hazardous waste were detected in the Landfill, therefore,
DEC may be withholding Environmental Quality Bond Act
funding to the Town for remediation and 3) since most of the
homes are connected to the public water supply downgradient
of the Landfill, no homes are being affected by the
"alleged" plume.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the results of the Phase I RI/FS reports, and after
careful consideration of all reasonable alternatives, EPA selects
Alternative IB and either Alternative 2A or 2B as the preferred
choice for addressing source control management at the North Sea
-24-
-------
Municipal Landfill. The selection of alternative IB, or the "no
action" alternative, for the sludge lagoon area is contingent
upon the findings of both the confirmatory sludge/soil sampling
and the Operable Unit Two study. Alternative IB will be reviewed
if either of the aforementioned studies indicate the presence of
hazardous wastes or substances that may pose a health or
environmental threat. A determination will be made during the
remedial design phase as to whether a low permeability material
(soil) or a flexible, synthetic membrane liner is best suited for
use as the barrier layer. This determination will be made based
upon performance criteria in the New York State regulations.
Alternative IB and 2A or 2B include:
A. Complete site fencing and posting to restrict access to
the site.
B. The filing of a deed restriction designating the
landfill and former sludge lagoons as a restricted use
property.
C. Sludge/soil sampling of the former scavenger lagoons to
confirm that no hazardous waste and/or substances that
may pose a health or environmental threat are present
in the area. Such sampling shall be conducted by
drilling a minimum of one, and a maximum of three,
borings into each of the fourteen identified sludge
lagoons. Sludge/soil samples taken from the borings
will be analyzed for EPA's and NYSDEC's full Target
Compound List (TCL) parameters. Sludge samples will
also undergo an EP Toxicity Test to determine the
leaching potential of hazardous constituents that may
be present in the wastes.
D. Implementation of closure requirements of New York
State Regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 360, Solid Waste
Management Facilities for Cell #1.
E. Long-term operation and maintenance to provide
inspections and repairs to the landfill cap.
F. Long-term air and water quality monitoring pursuant to
the New York State closure requirements for Cell #1 and
long-term air and water quality monitoring for the
former sludge lagoons. Parameters to be monitored
would include EPA's and NYSDEC's Target Compound List
(TCL). The TCL includes over 125 hazardous chemical
parameters to be analyzed during the monitoring
program.
The selected combination of alternatives provides the best
balance among the nine criteria used by the EPA in evaluating
remedial action alternatives. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
afce not applicable for this site because the Landfill will be
capped in place.
- '25 -
-------
Both variations of Alternative 2 use proven containment
techniques and will minimize future contaminant migration by
reducing the volume of precipitation which percolates through the
landfilled wastes. The effectiveness of the selected cover
system in protecting ground water quality will be verified by a
monitoring network installed as part of the Operable Unit Two
study which will be focusing on ground water at the site.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
A. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. The fencing, deed restrictions, and capping all
provide protection from direct contact with contaminated
materials. Capping of the landfill also reduces the emissions of
methane and VOCs, and it reduces percolation of precipitation
through the landfill and thus the migration of hazardous
substances into ground water. Monitoring of the ground water
will identify any failures of the containment system.
The chosen alternative will only cause minimal potential impact
on human health or cross-media impacts to the environment because
in-place waste should not be disturbed during construction
activities.
The former sludge lagoons were decommissioned in 1986. The area
was then backfilled with clean soil. During the Phase I RI, soil
borings at the former sludge lagoons were collected from
locations identified by the landfill operator as "hot spots".
Based on the RI soil boring results, contaminant levels detected
in the soil were below the EP Toxicity levels specified in
federal regulations, as set forth at 40 CFR 261. As a result of
the previous excavation of the former sludge lagoons, the EPA
believes that there is no significant impact to public health and
the environment posed by the decommissioned lagoons. However,
confirmatory sampling will be conducted to confirm that no
hazardous wastes or substances that may pose a health or
environmental threat are present in the area. The "no action"
alternative for the sludge lagoon area is contingent upon the
findings of both the confirmatory sludge/soil sampling and the
Operable Unit Two study. The alternative will be reviewed if
either of the aforementioned studies indicate the presence of
hazardous wastes or substances that may pose a health or
environmental threat.
B. Attainment of ARARs
The selected remedy will attain all applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal and State requirements.
-------
The landfill capping and the long-term monitoring will meet and
exceed the New York State requirements for closure of a solid
waste facility.
Cell #1 will be closed in accordance with New York State
Regulation, 6 NYCRR Part 360.
New York State Pollution Control Regulations, 6 NYCRR Parts 201,
202 and 219, with regard to air emissions will be complied with
as well.
C. Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy is prescribed by compliance with applicable
state and federal solid waste landfill closure ARARs. The chosen
alternative will provide an overall effectiveness proportional to
its cost such that it represents a cost effective remedy.
The proposed plan presents an estimated range of costs for
construction and annual operation and maintenance. The range of
estimated costs considers whether the cover materials are readily
available in. the landfill vicinity. The final construction cost
is expected to fall within the range of costs provided.
D. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative
Treatment Technologies or Resource Recovery Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA and the State of New York have determined that the selected
remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions
and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost effective
manner for the Operable Unit One at the Landfill. Of those
alternatives that are protective of human health and the
environment and comply with ARARs, EPA and the State of New York
have determined that the selected remedy provides the best
balance of trade off in terms of long-term effectives and
permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved
through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability,
cost and considering State and community acceptance.
The chosen remedy, either Alternative 2A or 2B, represents the
most appropriate solution for this site. Based upon the
information presented, the State of New York and EPA believe the
selected remedy will protect ground water quality by reducing
infiltration and leachate production. It provides the best
balance among all nine evaluation criteria, with the following
being the most important considerations for the site:
1. Compliance with state and federal ARARs for solid waste
landfill closure.
2. Availability of equipment and materials.
3. Cost of construction, operation and maintenance.
- 27 -
-------
4. Elimination of rain water infiltration and thus a
reduction in the volume of leachate released to the
ground water.
E. Preference for Treatment As A Principal Element
The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment because it is impractical. The exact location of any
hazardous waste that may have been disposed of at the Landfill is
unknown. Therefore, the entire Landfill volume, approximately
1.3 million cubic yards, would require excavation and removal for
the remedial technologies indicated below. These technologies
were screened and eliminated from further development and
analysis as being impractical for the reasons indicated.
1. Removal is cost-prohibitive for this site as a result
of the excessive large volume which would need to be
excavated. In addition, there is limited available
space at the site to stage the waste during the
excavation phase.
2. Treatment (on-site and off-site) methods such as
incineration, solidification/stabilization, in-situ,
biological and chemical treatment are costly options
which would not necessarily provide for any added
benefit in protecting the public from potential future
exposure.
3. . Off-site disposal would be cost-prohibitive and
increase human exposure during transportation.
4. On-site disposal is impractical because sufficient area
is not available for simultaneous excavation and waste
staging. It is also cost-prohibitive.
-------
ATTACHMENT 1 - COST SUMMARIES
-------
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON
NORTH SEA LANDFILL
COST SUMMARY
Alternative 1A - No Action - Cell II
Vorlc Activity Quantity Unit Price^1^ Total
Site Fencing 800 lin. ft. $ 20.00 $ 16,000
SUBTOTAL $ 16,000
Say $ 16,000
Contingencies^ ' $ 4,QQQ
TOTAL COST $ 20,000
(1)
(2)
-Installed unit price
- Includes administration, legal and engineering - 25 percent
-------
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON
NORTH SEA LANDFILL
COST SUMMARY
Alternative IB - No Action - Scavenger Lagoons
Work Activity
Site Fencing
SUBTOTAL
Contingencies
TOTAL COST
Quantity Unit Price
800 lin. ft. $ 20.00
*1*
Say
Total
$ 16,000
$ 16,000
$ 16,000
$ 4,000
$ 20,000
- Installed unit price
- Includes administration, legal and engineering - 25 percent
-------
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON
NORTH SEA LANDFILL
COST SUMMARY
Operation & Maintenance Costs for Alternative 1A and IB
A. Ground Water Monitoring Cost (rounded to nearest $100)
Assume sampling event occurs tvice a year
Assume Full Target Compound List (TCL)
analysis 2 times a year and leachate
parameters 3 times a year
Assume 12 monitoring veils to be sampled $ 58,300
Assume (3 person)(8 hrs/day)(3 days)
($35/hr)(3 times a year) 7,600
Assume (1 cooler/day)(3 days)($100/cooler
Fed Ex)(3 times a year) 900
Travel ($Ul/day)(3 person)(3 days)
(2 times a year) 2,500
Safety and sampling equipment 1,200
$ 70,500
B. Air Monitoring, Gas Monitoring
-. N
Assume sampling event occurs times a year
Assume Full TCL Volatile Organic Compound
analysis
Assume equipment such as explosimeter, OVA
and HNu are leased
Assume gas emissions are tested at passive
landfill gas vents and landfill gas
monitoring veils $ 3,700
Assume (2 person)(8 hrs/day)(l day)($35/hr)
(2 times a year) 1,100
Travel ($141/day)(2 person)(1 day)
(2 times a year) 600
$ 5,400
C. Report Preparation $ 7,000
$ 82,900
D. Contingency 10X $ 8,300
Total $ 91,200
Capital Cost: $ 20,000
Annual 04M Cost: $ 91,200
Estimated Present Worth: $1.4 Billion
-------
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON
NORTH SEA LANDFILL
COST SUMMARY
Alternative 2A - New York State Rules for Closure of Municipal Landfill vith Low
Permeability Soil - Cell II
Work Activity Quantity
0.5' of topsoil & sand 10,500
2.0' of silty sand 42,000
1.5' of lov permeability soil 31,500
Filter fabric (2 layers) 1,132,600
1.0' of sand ,,. 21,000
Soil foundation flliS 21,000
Gas venting'risers' ' 25
Crushed stone backfill 400
Site fencing ... 800
Methane monitoring veils* ' 1,800
Methane venting veils* ' 3,000
(1)
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
sq. ft.
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
units
cu. yd.
lin. ft.
lin. ft.
lin. ft.
Unit Price
$ 7.00
12.00
28.00
0.40
12.00
7.00
750.00
13.00
20.00
54.00
40.00
(2)
Total
74,000
504,000
882,000
453,000
252,000
147,000
19,000
5,000
16,000
97,000
120,000
SUBTOTAL
$ 2,569,000
Say $ 2,570,000
Contingencies
TOTAL COST
(7)
640,000
$ 3,210,000
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Closure area • 13 acres - 566,280 square feet
Installed unit price
Assume one foot average depth
Minimum one vent per acre
Assume methane monitoring veils to be spaced 100 feet on centers at
perimeter of landfill site
Assume methane venting veils to be spaced 200 feet on centers at perimeter
of Cells tl and 12
Includes administration, legal and engineering - 25 percent
-------
TOWN OP SOUTHAMPTON
NORTH SEA LANDFILL
COST SUMMARY
Alternative 2B - Nev York State Rules for Closure of Municipal Landfill vith
Geosynthetic Membrane - Cell 11
Work Activity Quantity
0.5' of topsoil 6 sand 10,500
2.0' of silty sand 42,000
1.5' of lov permeability soil 650,000
Pilter fabric (2 layers) 1,132,600
1.0' of sand ,,. 21,000
Soil foundation filljJ' 21,000
Gas venting 'risers* ' 25
Crushed stone backfill 400
Site fencing ... 800
Methane monitoring veils* ; 1,800
Methane venting veils1 ' 3,000
(1)
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
sq. ft.
sq. ft.
cu. yd.
cu. yd.
units
cu. yd.
lin. ft.
lin. ft,
lin. ft.
Unit Price
$ 7.00
12.00
0.95
0.40
12.00
7.00
750.00
13.00
20.00
54.00
40.00
(2)
Total
74,000
504,000
618,000
453,000
252,000
147,000
19,000
5,000
16,000
97,rf
SUBTOTAL
$ 2,305,000
Say $ 2,305,000
Contingencies
TOTAL COST
(7)
575,000
$ 2,880,000
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Closure area - 13 acres - 566,280 square feet
Installed unit price
Assume one foot average depth
Minimum one vent per acre
Assume methane monitoring veils to be spaced 100 feet on centers at
perimeter of landfill site
Assume methane venting veils to be spaced 200 feet on centers at perimeter
of Cells tl and 12
Includes administration, legal and engineering - 25 percent
-------
TOW OP SOUTHAMPTON
NORTH SEA LANDFILL
COST SUMMARY
Alternative 3A - Excavation/Backfill of Scavenger Lagoons
Work Activity Quantity*1* Unit Price(2) Total
Excavation 56,000 cu. yd. $ 7.25 $ 406,000
Backfill 62,000 cu. yd. 3.25 202,000
Site fencing 800 lin. ft. 20.00 16,000
SUBTOTAL $ 624,000
Say $ 625,000
Contingencies* ' 95,000
TOTAL COST $ 720,000
- Excavation area - 500' x 200' x 15' . 1,500,000 cu. ft. - 56,000 cu. yds.
- Installed unit price
- Includes administration, legal and engineering - 15 percent
-------
TOWN OP SOUTHAMPTON
NORTH SEA LANDFILL
COST SUMMARY
Alternative 3A - Excavation/Backfill of Scavenger .Lagoons
Work Activity Quantity(1) Unit Price(2) Total
Excavation 56,000 cu. yd. $ 11.00 $ 616,000
Backfill 62,000 cu. yd. 5.50 341,000
Site fencing 800 lin. ft. 20.00 16,000
SUBTOTAL $ 973,000
Say $ 973,000
Contingencies*7 * 147,000
I
TOTAL COST $ 1,120,000
- Excavation area - 500' x 200' x 15' - 1,500,000 cu. ft. . 56,000 cu. yds.
- Installed unit price
- Includes administration, legal and engineering - 15 percent
'
-------
is -'88 11:51
H2HGROUP
cfaer. Mclendon and Murrell, P.C. • Holzmacher, McLejidon and Murrell, lac. • H2M Labs, Inc.
Engineers, Architects, Planners. Scientists
575 Broad Hollow Road. Melville, N.Y 11747-5076
(516) 756-8000 • (201; 575-5400
May 22, 1989
*
Supervisor Mardythe 0. DlPirro
Town of Southampton
116 Haapton Road
Southampton, New York 11968
Be: North Sea Landfill
SHMP 89-04
Dear Supervisor DiPirro:
Enclosed is the Field Operations Plan (FOP) for Phase II Remedial
Investigation (RI) activities for the above referenced site. These
activities are required as per EPA's conditional approval letter to
the Town dated March 27, 1989. The activities include collection
of: one more round .of groundwater samples (12 veils total),
landfill soil gas samples, and a background surface soil sample.
The analytical data generated would support the conclusions of the
feasibility study (FS) now in progress and the health risk
assessment.
*
As you are aware, a proposal for groundwater monitoring in 1989 was
submitted for Town review on March 2, 1989 and was later approved
on May 12, 1989. The estimated cost for this groundwater
monitoring program is $93,200. However, the Phase II SI will
require $28,759. worth of additional laboratory expenses, despite
the overlap on certain annual groundwater parameters.
The additional groundwater costs total $21,900. The extra costs
are related to: (1) extra cost for CLP (contract laboratory
program) deliverables; (2) use of the new analytical method 52^.2
•for volatile organics analysis; and (3) extra analytical parameters
which are not on the baseline groundwater parameter list. EPA was
unwilling to allow these analyses to be performed non-CLP and has
required method 524.2 for lover detection limits.
Seven landfill soil gas points will be sampled and reaolcs will
support the remedial alternative selected for cell on*. The
laboratory costs for soil gas analysis are $2,500. Oae off-site
surface soil sample will be collected to represent background soil
and compared with results fora the landfill. The total laboratory
cost for surface soil analysis is $4,359.
-------
Supervisor Mardythe 0. DiPirro
May 22, 1989
Pagt 2
Your expedient approval of this saapliag progran is r«f*eated. The
EPA has set up a fairly tight schedule for the next f«v souths. ID
order to comply with this schedule, groundvater samples «ust be
obtained in late May or early June. The soil gas and surface soil
samples can be obtained in early June. In all cases, the
laboratory turnover Bust meet the five week turnaround for CLP
analysis. If the -schedule is act, we can expect results in aid
July. These results will help'finalize the RI/FS process.
Tour cooperation in these aatters is greatly appreciated.
Vary truly yours,
HOLZMACI2X. McLEIDOM ft MURBKLL. P.C.
Paul V. Grosser, Ph.D., P.E.
Vice President
PWG/CLV/lc
-------
ALV- 13 '88 11 = 50 F.2 S
Hobonacher, Mcleadoo and Murrell, P.C • Holzmacher, McLeadon and Murrell, Inc. • H2M Labs, Inc
Engineers, Architects, Planners, Saemms
575 Broad HoUow Road, Melville, N.Y. 11747-5076
(516) 7564000 • (201) 575-5400
FAX 516-494-4122
March 2, 1989
Supervisor Mardyth* 0. DiPirro
Town of Southampton
116 Haapton Road
Southampton, New York 11968
R«: Town of Southampton
North Sea Landfill
1989 Groundwater Monitoring Program
Dear Supervisor DiPirro:
As part" of the Hydrogeologic Study for Cell 3 and the ongoing
RI/FS, 22 groundvater monitoring wells were installed. During
1989, we propose that each veil be sampled and analyzed on a quar-
terly basis. At the conclusion of one year of data gathering, an
assessment should be undertaken as to whether some of the veils can
be eliminated froa future monitoring.
X
The list of parameters to be analyzed has been expanded signifi-
cantly by NYSDEC as part of their changes to the Part 360 require-
ments. These changes have resulted in a significant increase in
the analytical costs associated with each sample.
Specifically, ve propose to provide the following services in
connection with the 1989 groundwater monitoring program:
Task A - Monitoring and Saaple Collection and Analysis
W« vill obtain and analyze samples of the 22 groundwater monitoring
wells for the baseline and routine list of parameters. During
1989, the initial sanple should be analyzed for the baseline param-
eters. During the remaining three quarters/ the samples would be
analyzed for the routine parameters. The baseline and routine
parameters are shown in Table I. Subsequent to sampling and analy-
sis, the data will be tabulated and forwarded .to the Town of
Southampton with a cover letter describing any anomalies. Suffi-
cient copies will be provided to the Town in order ^hat copies car.
be forwarded to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
and NYSDEC.
Task B - Monitoring Data Interpretation Report
The results of the baseline and routine sampling program perforr.ed
during 1989 will be summarized in an annual report. - In addition,
the data will be analyzed as to trends and the report will recom-
mend any changes that are necessary to the groundv.-ater acr.itorin^
network.
-------
12HGROUP
Supervisor Mardythe 0. DiPirro -2- March 2,
TaaV C - Additional Analysis .„;
NYSDEC requires that the groundwater samples be *ihole and unfil-
tered" for the various metal analyses. It has been our experience
that the samples obtained from the groundwater aquifer in the
vicinity of the North Sea Landfill show higher levels of metals in
unfiltered samples as compared to filtered samples. The reason for
this is that when the sample is not filtered, the analysis will
reveal not only the concentration of the metals in the water
sample, but also the concentration of those metals attached to the
sand/soil particles. Consequently, we propose that sufficient
sample be obtained to analyze for each of the metals indicated in
Table I in both filtered and unfiltered states.
Our lump sum fees for the above services, including labor,
expenses, equipment and laboratory analyses, are as follows:
Task A
Baseline Sample: CJS25,2J)0>
2) Three Routine Samples: 44,900
TasX B |*£porf 8,000 :.. '*
lasJcc c
TOTAL «•» $93,200 . ;
We propose to invoice the Town on a percent ^complete basis during
the course of the work. ' '*'. e
At your convenience, representatives of our office are available to
meet with you and the members of the Town 'Board to drsruss any
questions you may have concerning the above outlined monitoring
program.
— •ii ii
Very truly yours, -^ , .
HOLZHACHER, McLENDON^ & KURR2LL, P.C. -. "^ -\
^ h,
Gary E. Loesch, P.E.
GEL: mad
Enclosure
cc: Councilman Antonio L. Gil
Councilwoman Patricia F. Neumann
Councilwoman Marietta M. Seaman
Councilman George Stavropoulos
-------
i3 '88
TABLE I
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS TABLE
groundwater
Basel in* Routine
Parameters Parameters
Field Parameters
Static water level (in wells
and sumps) x x
Specific Conductance x x
Teoperature x x
pH XX
Leaehace Indicators
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKW) x
Ammonia x x
Nitrate x x
-Chemical Oxygen Demand (COO) X x
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD-5) x
sTotal Organic Carbon (TOC) x x
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) X x
Sulfate x x
Alkalinity x x
Phenol* • x x
-Chloride x x
Total Hardness as CaC03 x x
Turbidity x x
Color x
Boron x
Ketals —
Potassium x x
Sodium x x
Iron x x
Manganese x x
Magnesium x " x
Lead x x
Cadmium x x
Aluminum x
Calcium x x
Antimony x
Arsenic X
-------
3 '86 li:5l p . .
1H2MGROUP
i f (our ' D . >
Baseline Routine
Para»*t«rs Parameters
Metals
Beryllium x
Bariua x
Chrooiua (total and hexavalent) x
Copper x
Mercury x
NicJcal x
Selenium x
Silver x
Thallium x
Zinc x
Cyanide x
Volatile Organics* ^//^i x
Volatile organics are to be analyzed using IPX Methods 601
and 602 as described in 40. CFK Part 136 (Me Section 360-
1.3 of this Part).
All samples must be whole and unfiltered except
otherwise specified by the department.
-------
*/••'
(Baton of
Hong JUwd. If
MAAOrTHC O.
MAIL — I»« HAMrroM ROAO
. L. I.. New YO«K 1T9«6
Nay 12, 1989
Mr. G.-.ry £". Loescft
UclznacAer, AcLdndoc, S Hurrell
575 Broad Hollow Road
Melville, Hew 7orfc 11747-5076
Dear Mr. Loesch,
This is to confirm are previous conversation
authorizing H2M to proceed iaaediately with the 1989
Groundtfater Monitoring Program at the North Sea Landfill.
The total lamp sun for the proposed services,
including lator, expanses, equipment, anj laboratory
analyses, is accepted at a total cost of $93,200.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate
to contact ny office.
Sincerely,
. DiPirro
MOD/tvz
-------
ATTACHMENT 2 - INDEX OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
-------
W/12/B9 Indei DocuMnt Nuibtr Order Page: 1
MMTH SEA DocuMntf
OocuMnt Nuaber: SEA-tll-MIl To 1281 I*tit 11/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Set Landfill Part I - Surface Soil
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2fl Group (Holzaacher Hdendon t Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Docuient Nuiber: SEA-Ml-f282 To 1571 Date: 11/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part I - Sat Soil Suple W6
»
Type: DATA
Condition: MARGINALIA
Author: none: H2H Group (Holzaacher Ndendon i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
locutent Nuaber: SEA-II1-I571 To 1116 Date: 11/11/87
i
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part 1 - Sat Soil Suplet M3A, HKB,
W4A, KN4B, M4C
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2H Group (Holzucher HcLendon t Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Docuient Nuiber: SEA-II1-1I17 To 1177 Date: 11/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part I - Round 1 11,29,31 Supply Hell,
Hahoney
Type: DATA
Author: none: K2fl Group (Hohiachcr HcLendon I Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
-------
19/12/89 Indei Docuient Nuiber Order Page: 2
MIRTH SEA Docuients
Docuient Nuiber: SEA-H1-1178 To 1485 btl! 11/11/87
Title Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part I - Staples W2 I M6 Orfs t Iiorgs
Type: DATA
Author: none: K2H Group (Holziacher Hclendon i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
feculent Nuiber: SEA-Ml-1486 To 1642 Date: 11/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part I - Surface tater/Sediient
V
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2H Group (Holzucher KcLendon i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
locuMnt Nuiber: SEA-II1-1W3 To 2113 Date: 11/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part 1 - Surface Kater
Type: DATA
Author: none: K2H Group (Hohucher Hdendon i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Docuent Nuiber: SEA-M1-2I14 To 2341 Date: 11/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for Towi of Southampton North Sea Landfill Part I - Sat Soil
Siiples WI2 t HH3C
Type: DATA
Author: none: K2fl Group (Holziacher HcLendon i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Docuient Nuiber: SCA-N2-IN1 To 1393 Date: 12/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package lor Berth Sea Landfill - Round 2
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2fl Group (Holziacher Hcltndon I Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
-------
19/12/89 Indei Docuient Nuiber Ordir Page: 3
MIRTH SEA Oocuaents
Docuient Nuiber: SEA-M2-I394 To IS91 totll 8/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part II -Round 1 W2 t W6 Or) I Inorg
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2H Group (Holziacher Hdendon I Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
DooiMflt Nuiber: SEA-882-S592 To 1968 Bate: 18/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part II HK1ABC, W3ABC, IM4ABC
•
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2H Group (Holziacher HcLendon I Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Document Nuaber: SEA-M2-I949 To 1366 Date: 18/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part II -Lagoon Borings
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2fl Group (HolzMChcr HcLendon t Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
x
Bocuent Nuiber: SCA-B82-1367 To 1617 Date: 18/81/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part II
Type! DATA
Condition: HARGINALIA
Author: none: H2fl Group (Holzsachtr HcLendon i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Docuient Nuiber: SEA-882-1618 To 1883 Date: 18/81/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part II -Field Blank
Type: DATA
Condition: RAR6INALIA
Author: none: H2H Group (Holziacher HcLendon i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
-------
19/12/89 Indei Document Nuaber Order Page 4
MOTH SEA Docuaents
Document Umber: SEA-N2-1884 To 2155 Ittii 11/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part III - W1ABC, M3ABC, »4MC
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2fl Group (Holzucher HcLendon I Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Document Nuaber: SW-M2-21W To 2418 Bate: 11/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sei Landfill Part III
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2fl Group (Holziacher HcLendon i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Document Nuaber: SEA:N3-MI1 To 1351 late: 11/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part IV -RH1ABC, IN3ABC, IH4ABC
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2H Group (HolzMcher HcLendon t Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
kcueent Nuaber: SEA-N3-I3S1 To 1458 Date: M/ll/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill - MIC
Type: DATA
Condition: INCOMPLETE
Author: none: H2J! Group (Holzeacher RcLendon t Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Dociuent Nuaber: SEA-H3-MS9 To IU6 Date: 18/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report for North S*< Landfill - M1B
Type: DATA
Author: none: H2H Group (Holziacncr NcLmdon k Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
-------
19/12/89
Indei Document Nueber Order
NORTH SEA Docuients
Page: 3
ssrssrssssss
Docuien. Nutber: SEA-U3-I567 To 1724
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill - Detail Data
Type: MTA
Author: none: K2fl Group (Holziacher HcLendon i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: tone
tattt M/ll/87
loctiMnt Nuiber: SEA-H3-I725 To 1112
Title: Analytical lata Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part II - W48
•
Type: DATA
Author: none: K2H Sroup (Holziacher HcLendon I Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Date: 12/11/87
Document Nuabcr: SEA-N3-11I3 To 1391
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Part III
Type: DATA
Author: none: K2fl Croup (Holzucher Rdendofi i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Date: 12/11/87
Document Nutber: SEA-M3-1392 To 1591
Title: Field Operation! Plan, North Sea Landfill, Phase 1 Remedial Investigation
Type: PLAN
Author: none: H2fl Group (Holztacher HcLendon I Hurrell)
Recipient: none: Southampton NY, Tom of
Date: 17/11/87
Document Nuber: S£A-N3-1S91 To 1686 Date: 11/11/87
Title: Health and Safety Plan, North Sea Landfill, Phase I Remedial Investigation
Type: PLAN
Author: none: H2fl Sroup (Holzucher HcLendon I Rurrell)
Recipient: none: Southupton NY, Tom of
-------
19/12/89 Indei Document Number Order Ptge: 6
NORTH SEA Documents
tasssssssss
Document Number: SEA-II3-14B7 To 1687 totei / /
Title: (Business card)
Type: OTHER
Author: Harwll, H L: Chemsultants Inc
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: SEA-B83-1688 To 1714 Date: 13/31/87
Title: Administrative Consent Order (requiring the torn to undertake a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study at the site) •
Type: LE6AL DOCUHENT
Author: Daggett, Christopher It US EPA
Recipient: Lang, Martin: Southampton NY, TOM of
Document Number: SEA-IB3-17I5 To 1728 Date: 12/13/83
Title: North Sea Municipal Landfill Documentation Records for NPL Hazard Ranking System
Type: PLAN
Author: NcCarty, Robert: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: SEA-II3-1729 To 17SS Date: 17/21/84
Title: Quality Assurance Team Documentation Records for NPL Hazard Ranking System
Type: PLAN
Author: Haus, Stuart: US EPA
Recipient: DiForte, Nicoletta: US EPA
Document Number: SEA-N3-17U To 1781 Date: 15/25/83
Title: Potential Hazardous Haste Site Preliminary Assessment I Site Inspection Report
Type: PLAN
Author: HcTiernan, Ednard F: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
W/12/89
Indei Docuimt Nuiber Ordir
NORTH SEA OocuMflts
essrrssssssssssssssscsssBssssssssrersssrcssns
OocuMflt Nuiber: SEA-B13-17B2 To 1911
Title: Norl Plan - Phase 1 Remedial Investigation, North Sea Landfill
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Attached: SEA-N3-1B43
Page: 7
latei R/27/8A
feculent Nuiber: SEA-H3-1843 To 1911 Parent: SEA-N3-1782 Date: IS/27/83
Title: Guidance for Preparation of Combined Mork/Quality Assurance Project Plans for later Bonitoring
*
Type: PLAN
Author: Brossian, Martin H: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
feculent Nuiber: SEA-H3-19I2 To 1992
Title: Site Analysis, North Sea Municipal Landfill Voluie 1
Type: PLAN
Author: Norton, Douglas J: Bionetics Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
feculent Nuabcr: SW-H3-1953 To 1949
Title: Site Analysis, North Sea Municipal Landfill Volux II
Type: GRAPHIC
Author: Norton, Douglas ): lionetici Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Nuaber: SEA-H3-197I To 2112
Title: North Sea Landfill • Drift Reiedul Investigation Report Voluie I
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT; ILLEGIBLE; MARGINALIA
Author: Grosser, Paul N: H2JI Group (Holtitcner Ndendon I Murrell)
Recipient: none: Southaipton NY, Tom of
Attached: SEA-BB3-1971
Bate: k/ll/88
Date: I6/B1/B8
Bate: 14/11/86
-------
19/12/89 Indei DocuMnt Nuber Order Page: 8
IORTH SEA DocuMnti
feculent Nuaber: SEA-BB3-1971 To 1971 Parent: SEA-M3-1978 litit H/J9/B8
Title: (Cover letter forwrding tttached drift of Rewdial Investigation Report - tortk SM Laadfill)
Trpe: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Grosser, Paul M: H2H Group (HolZMcher Hdendon I Nurrell)
Recipient: l«an, Caroline: US EPA
Oocuicnt Nuiber: SEA-883-21B3 To 2373 late: 83/81/88
Title: North Sea Landfill - Remedial Investigation Report Volute II
•
Type: PLAN
Author: none: K2H Group (HolZMcher Hdendon I Barrel 1)
Recipient: none: Southampton NY, Tom of
Attached: SEA-883-2215 SEA-883-2385 SEA-D83-231S SEA-B83-2356 SEA-BB3-2342 SEA-B83-2345 SEM83-2372
SEA-813-2373
Docuaent Nuber: SEA-M3-2215 To 2292 Parent: SEAH83-2183 Bate: 82/18/B8
Title: (Letter forwrding attached copies of Reduced Hind Data for kite)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: S«ith, Jii C: RiR International
Recipient: Villardi, Christine: H2H Group (HolZMcher Ndendon I Iterrell)
fecuMnt Nuiber: SEA-M3-2383 To 2314 Parent: SEA-813-2183 Date: 88/85/86
Title: (Letter fomardiag attached results of the analyses perforted on saiples taken frot the scavenger
vaste lagooni at subject site)
Type: CORRESPONKNCE
Author: Fisher, Anthony P: K2H Group (Holztacher Hdendon i far re 11)
Recipient: Johnsen, John I: Louis I McLean Associates
Docwent Nuber: SEA-883-2313 To 2321 Parent: SEA-BS3-21B3 Date: 11/82/87
Title: (Letter fonurding attached data froi 16/22/87 sampling of Flanders Bay and the point sources
to the bay)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Hinei, Vito: Suffolk NY, County of
Recipient: Fisher, Anthony P: H2fl Group (Holzucner Hdendon I Hurrell)
-------
W/12/89 Indei Docuent hubtr Order Page: 9
•RTH SEA feotaents
Docuatnt Nuiber: SEA-M3-2356 To 2356 Parent: SEAH43-21I3 latet 11/25/78
Title: (Letter detailing analysis of Hater saiple collected at addressee's hot* on 17/12/71)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Koran, tennis: Suffolk NY, County of
Recipient: laecker, Halter: resident
toouent Nuiber: SEA-H3-2342 To 2364 Parent: SEA-H3-21I3 late: 11/31/79
Title: (Letter forwarding attached copy of analysis of Mter saaple collected at addressee's note
on 18/28/79)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Slade, Nilliu V: Suffolk NY, County of
Recipient: Baecker, Halter: resident
•ocuMnt Nuiber: SEA-M3-2365 To 2346 Parent: SEA-N3-21I3 late: 13/16/81
Title: (Letter forwarding attached Drinking Hater Analysis for ALKAftB)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Martin, TM: Suffolk NY, County of
Recipient: laecker, Halter: resident
locuaent Nuiber: SEA-N3-2372 To 2372 Parent: SEA-M3-21I3 late: 13/11/88
Title: (Rap detailing location of Monitoring Hells and Test lorings at Site)
Type: GRAPHIC
Author: none: H2fl Group (Holziacher Nclendon I Burrell)
Recipient: oone: tone
Docuient Nuaber: SEA-M3-2373 To 2373 Parent: SEA-M3-21I3 late: 13/11/88
Title: (Rap detailing geophysical and grolofic logs of Mil boreholes at Site)
Type: GRAPHIC
Author: none: H2fl Group (HoliNCher flclmdon I Bur rill)
Recipient: none: none
-------
M/12/89 Iriti PocuMnt Nuaber Ordtr Pigi:
NORTH SEA Docuwnts
Bocuaent Nuaber: SEA-H3-2374 To 2439 latti O/tl/tt
Titli: North Sti Landfill - Reaedial Investigation Response Docuaent
Type: PLAN
Condition: HAR6INALIA
Author: none: H2H Group (Holzucher Hdendon i Nurrtll)
Recipient: none: Southaipton NY, Tom of
Attached: SEA-M3-2375
Bocuaent Nuaber: SEA-H3-2375 To 2379 Parent: SEA-N3-2374 late: I1/M/B9
Title: (Cover letter accompanying Rttponsc Docutcnt)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: NISSINE AHACHKNT
Author: Grosser, Paul H: H2M Group (HolzMcner Rdeadon t Nurrell)
Recipient: Kuan, Caroline: US EPA
kcuient Nuber: SEA-N4-HI1 To 1471 Bate: 12/11/88
Title: North Sea Landfill - Retedial Investigation Supporting Documents
Type: PLAN
Author: none: H2H Group (Holziacher Hdendon t Nurrell)
Recipient: none: Southupton NY, Tom of
Attached: SEA-II4-I1I7 SEA-N4-I122 SEA-N4-I147 SEA-N4-ll7i SEA-H4H223 SEA-N4-I2S1 SEA-«4-M28
Bocuecnt Nuiber: SEA-H4-I1I7 To 1121 Parent: SEA-H4-NI1 Bate: 17/18/88
Title: (Letter fomarding attached analytical data for groundvater eon i tor ing progru at site, Junt
1788)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Loesch, Gary E: H2H Group (Holtucher Hdendon I Hurrell)
Recipient: Horganelli, Daniel: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
-------
19/12/89 Indii DecuMnt Muaber Order Page: 11
•OfiTH SEA Docuaents
Bocuaent Nuaber: SEA-M4-I122 To 1131 Parent: SEA-M4-HI1 . Bat* ft/U/tf
Title: (Article titled: 'Should Broundvater Saaples froe Monitoring Hells Be Filtered lefort Laboratory
Analysis?')
Type: OTHER
Author: Iraids, Olin C: Seraghty I Killer
Recipient: aone: none
Bocuaent Nuaber: SEA-M4-S147 To 1174 Parent: SEA-M4-M1 late: I9/I1/BS
Title: Bacteriological Mater Duality North Sea Harbor Shellfish Land M3, 1984 and 1985 data
Type: PLAN
Condition: HM6INAL1A
Author: Redaan, Jam: NY Dept of Environeental Conservation
Recipient: none: none
tocusent ftaber: SEA-M4-I176 To 1182 Parent: SEA-H4-MI1 Bate: 11/12/87
Title: (Letter forvarding attached data froe li/22/87 sampling of Flanders Bay and Point Sources)
Type: CpltRESPONPOCE
Author: Hinei, Vito: Suffolk NT, County of
Recipient: Fisher, Anthony P: H2M Broup (Holzeacher Ndendon i Nurrell)
sascscssssc
Bocuaent Nuaber: SEA-M4-I223 To 1251 Parent: SEA-M4-IN1 Bate: 12/26/88
Title: Evaluation of Metals Data for the Contract Laboratory Prograa
Type: PLAN
Author: Sheikh, Hanif: aone
Recipient: aone: US EPA
Bocuaent Nuaber: SEA-II4-I251 To 1295 Parent: SEA-M4-MI1 Bate: 12/81/88
Title: Laboratory Data Validation, Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organic Analyses
Type: PLAN
Author: Bleyler, Ruth: US EPA
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
19/12/89
Iftdei kcuient Nuibcr Order
NORTH SEA kcuaents
Page: 12
kcutent kMber: SEA-M4-I428 To 1436
Parent: SEA-M4-M1
fete i
Title: (Letter fonwrding attached analyses performed on tuples taken frot the scavenger Mite lagoons
OB lite)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Fisher, Anthony P: H2H Group (HolzMCher Hdeodon I Hurrell)
Recipient: Johosen, John I: Louis I HcLean Associates
kcuent Number: SEA-H4-M71 To 1447 Parent: SEA-M4-I473
Title: North Sea Landfill 4etedial Investigation - Public Health Evaluation
Type: PLAN
Author: none: H2H Group (Holziacher NcLendon i Hurrell)
Recipient: none: Southampton NY, Tom of
late: 17/11/89
kcument Nuber: S£A-*i4-i473 To 1473
Title: (Letter forMrding North Sea Landfill RI Public Health Evaluation)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Grosser, Paul N: H2fl Group (Holztacner Hdendon i Nurrell)
Recipient: C«an, Caroline: US EPA
Attached: SEA-M4-M71
late: 17/12/89
looiMnt Nuaber: SEA-N4-M48 To 1833
Title: North Sea Landfill Feasibility Study
Type: PLAN
Author: none: H2H Group (Holzucher Hdendon I Hurrell)
Recipient: none: Southampton NY, Tow of
late: 16/11/89
BocuMnt Nuber: SEA-M4-I834 To 1848
late: N/87/89
Title: (Letter forwarding attached finil cMMntt in response to EPA's conditional approval/content
letter for Phase I RI)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Grosser, Paul M: H2J1 Group (HolzMcher Hdendon I Hurrell)
Recipient: tan, Caroline: US EPA
-------
19/12/89 Iftdei Bocuaent Nubcr Order Pige: 13
WITH SEA BooiMnts
kcuMnt Nuiber: SEA-M4-I849 To M77 Parent: SEA-N4-W31 Bate: B/I3/8A
Title: Final CoMunity Relations Plan
Type: PLAN
Author: Condie, Alison: ICF Incorporated
Recipient: none: US EPA
loaiMnt Nuibcr: SEA-M4-I8S1 To N51 Bate: 15/15/84
Title: (Letter fonwrding copies of the Final Coeaunity Relations Plan)
•
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Bev R: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian D: US EPA
Attached: SEA-M4-I849
DocuMnt Nuiber: SEA-N4-U7B To 1224/A Bate: U/B1/89
Title: North Sea Landfill Feasibility Study - Operable Unit I
Type: PLAN
Author: none: K2fl Group (Holttacher Hdendon t Nurrell)
Recipient: none: Southaipton NY, Tom of
Bocuent Nuiber: SEA-N4-122S To 1413 Bate: 11/11/87
Title: Analytical Data Report Package for North Sea Landfill Puroeable Organics in Air • Part 1
Type: BATA
Author: none: H2fl Group (Holzucher HcLendon I Nurrell)
Recipient: none: none
Bocuient Nuiber: SEA-M4-1414 To 1414 Bate: I7/BS/89
Title: (Heto regarding ATSM reviH of the final report of the Endanger ten t Assessetnt)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Nelson, Nilliai B: Agency for Toiic Substances I Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Recipient: ban, Caroline: US EPA
-------
19/12/89 Indei DocuMnt faibcr Order Pa,
ORTH SEA Bocuaenti
looiMnt lluiber: SEA-II4-1415 To 1416 btt t 17/24/99
Titli: (Hew regarding Air Prograas Iranch revie* of the Endangertent Asttsuent)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: HusuNCi, Brace: US EPA
Recipient: Euan, Caroline: US EPA
BocuMt ftaber: SEA-H4-1417 To 1418 Bate: 17/21/89
Title: (Heeo regarding Ground Niter Management Division revin of the Drift Endangeraent AwMtacnt)
•
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MATT
Author: Hallect, John S: US EPA
Recipient: Peterson, Carole: US EPA
BooiMnt Niuber: SEA-N4-1419 To 1421 Bate: 17/16/89
Title: (Heio coatenting on 16/29/89 Final Report Endangerient Aunuent)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Nardcastle, Slenn J: US EPA
Recipient: dun, Caroline: US EPA
Nuber: SEA-H4-1421 To 1421 Bite: N/31/89
Title: (Letter forurding Final Endangere«nt Astesitent)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Soltz, Robert D: Ca«p DretMr i MM (CM)
Recipient: Noyil, Cathy: US EPA
Attached: SEA-M4-1422
Boctwent Nucber: SEA-M4-1422 To 13S3 Parent: SEA-N4-1421 Bate: M/31/89
Title: Final Report - Final Endangertent lhiMi*»nt
Type: PLAN
Author: Soltz, Robert D: Cup Dresser I HdH (CDH)
Recipient: Kuan, Caroline: US EPA
-------
19/12/89 Indu tocuMftt Nuiber Order Page: is
MRTH SEA BocttMflti
Docuunt Huaber: SEA-M4-1554 To 1541 fctit §1/11/89
Title: Superfund Update - Announcement of Proposed Reteditl Action PUn for North SH (kmicipl Lwdfill
Superfund Site
Type: PLAN
Author: tan, Caroline: US EPA
Recipient: none: Mine
-------
ATTACHMENT 3 - GROUND VATER DATA TABLES
-------
Total Ground-water Concentrations (ug/1) at North Sea Landfill
SCREEN
ELEV.
Well (MSL) Date
ARARs
NYSDEC GW STDS
SDWA MCLs
NYSDEC PUBLIC
BACKGROUND
MW1A 0 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW1B -50 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW1C -83 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
UG NA OCT 87
DOWNGRADIENT
MW2 -10 OCT -87
DEC 87
MW3A 0 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW3B -55 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW3C -130 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
JUN 89
MW4A -20 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW4B -68 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW4C -140 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW6A NA OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
104 Fish CovOCT 87
NA JUN 89
152 Fish CovOCT 87
NA JUN 89
#9 NA OCT 87
#10 NA OCT 87
02 9- NA OCT 87
130 NA OCT 87
Cadmium
EPA H2M
10
5
10
4.8 U
NA
4.8 U
5 U
4.8 U
5 U
4.8 U
NA
NA
4.8 U
5 U
4.8 U
5 U
4.8 U
5 U
4.8 U
5 U
4.8 U
5 U
4.8 U
5 U
NA
5 U
4.8 U
NA
NA
4.8 U
4.8 U
4.8 U
10
10
5 U
10
10
17 *
20
5
5 U
10
40
20
20 E
5 U
5 U
10 E
5 U
5 U
20 E
5 U
5 *
5 U
5
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5
5 U
5 U
20
10
5 U
10
5 U
5 U
5 U
11
5 U
10
10
Chromium
EPA
50
100
50
61
NA
29
62
198
4
7.8
NA
NA
43
78
14
19
83
47
60
98
51
104
31
11.5
NA
243
8.7
NA
NA
24
70
22
H2M
] 20
90
59 *
] 10
60
28 *
] 30
U 180
27 *
U 10 E
550
2720
] 10 U
60
688 *
] 10 U
10 U
21 *
] 20
30
80 *
46 *
] 30 E
220
111 *
] 30 E
110
155 *
] 10 U
20
46 *
20
50
44 *
# 10 U
9 U
10 *
9 U
30 *
# 50
# 30
# 30
Iron
EPA H2M
300
NA
300 *
11900 E 8500
NA 18800
1700 E
9510 E 6500
14700 21000
5380 E
24000 E16500
R 9100
945 E
R 150
61400 13500
32700 22300
16100 E13000
36700 33800
31500 E
30200 E29100
36100 36400
15800 E
50500 E45800
3200 2700
2690 E
2170 E
26900 E25800
13500 29700
2660 *
2140 E 2180
2130 2060
3950 E
2180 E 1630
1390 2600
542 E
NA 16200
27100 16500
13700 E
2040 E 280
27 ]
NA 17700
9430 E
NA 5090
3490 E 3700
R 760
39900 E39400
-------
Total Ground-water Concentrations (ug/1) at North Sea Landfill
SCREEN
ELEV.
Well (MSL)
ARARs
Date
NYSDEC GW STDS
SDWA MCLs
NYSDEC PUBLIC
BACKGROUND
MW1A 0
MW1B -50
MW1C -83
UG NA
OCT
DEC
JUN
OCT
DEC
JUN
OCT
DEC
JUN
OCT
87
87
89
87
87
89
87
87
89
87
DOWNGRADIENT
MW2 -10
MW3A 0
MW3B -55
•>
MW3C -130
MW4A -20
MW4B -68
MW4C -140
MW6A NA
OCT-
DEC
OCT
DEC
JUN
OCT
DEC
JUN
OCT
DEC
JUN
JUN
OCT
DEC
JUN
OCT
DEC
JUN
OCT
DEC
JUN
OCT
DEC
JUN
104 Fish CovOCT
NA
JUN
152 Fish CovOCT
NA
#9 NA
flO NA
#29 NA
#30 NA
JUN
OCT
OCT
OCT
OCT
87
87
87
87
89
87
87
89
87
87
89
89
87
87
89
87
87
89
87
87
89
87
87
89
87
89
87
89
87
87
87
87
EPA
25
5
50
NA
277
2
4.1
185
254
23
63
4.1
8.1
62
21
10
5.2
5.9
NA
30
4.1
NA
NA
4.1
4.1
4.1
Lead
H2M
R
R
R
U
U
U
R
R
R
U
U
U
U
30
52
NA
155
227
NA
48
29
NA
5 U
5 U
165
21 E
50
NA
6 E
17
NA
50 U
42
NA
NA
50 U
44
NA
6
8
NA
10
10
NA
31
23
NA
100 U
NA
10
NA
11
11
5
6
Manganese
EPA
300
NA
300
708
NA
324
510
598
17
6.1
NA
NA
215
491
2720
3350
1445
134
695
853
185
1620
57
36
NA
1130
18
NA
NA
402
64
4420
H2M
*
E
E
E
3
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
-
700
840
1170
290
540
197
590
220
41
20 U
9600 E
4900
310
380
182
3030
3040
2250
1610
90
51
46
930
1010
527
210
1340
162
60
60 U
19
1380 E
850
895
20
2 ]
1400
950
870
450
40
4800
1,1
EPA
0.07
7
NA
5U
NA
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
NA
NA
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
NA
5U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dichloro-
ethene
H2M
(G) *
5U
5U
0.
5U
5U
0.
5U
5U
0.
NA
16B
5U
5U
5U
0.
5U
5U
1.1
5U
5U
0.
0.
5U
5U
0.
5U
5U
0.
5U
5U
0.
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
4JB
5U
0.
NA
HA
HA
HA
HA
NA
NA
NA
5U
-------
Total Ground-water Concentrations (ug/1) at North Sea Landfill
SCREEN
ELEV.
Well (MSL) Date
ARARs
NYSDEC GW STDS
SDWA MCLs
NYSDEC PUBLIC
BACKGROUND
MW1A 0 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW1B -50 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW1C -83 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
UG NA OCT 87
DOWNGRADIENT
MW2 -10 OCT "87
DEC 87
MW3A 0 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW3B -55 OCT 87
DEC 87
>JUN 89
MW3C -130 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
JUN 89
MW4A -20 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW4B -68 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW4C -140 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW6A NA OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
104 Fish CovOCT 87
NA JUN 89
152 Fish CovOCT 87
NA JUN 89
#9 NA OCT 87
#10 NA OCT 87
#29 NA OCT 87
#30 NA OCT 87
Tetrachloro-
EPA
0.7
5
NA
5U
NA
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
NA
NA
5U
5U
5
8
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
NA
5U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ethene
H2M
(G)
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.53
NA
5U
5U
5U
5U
0.5U
7
4J
3
5U
5U
0.5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
0.5U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Trichloro-
EPA
10
5
NA
5U
NA
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
NA
NA
5U
5U
4J
4J
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
NA
5U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ethene
H2M
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
NA
5U
5U
5U
5U
0.5U
7
3J
3.8
5U
5U
0.5U
0.5U
1J
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,2
EPA
0.8
5
NA
5U
NA
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
NA
NA
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
NA
5U
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dichloro-
e thane
H2M
(G)
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
NA
5U
5U
5U
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
1.6
5U
5U
0.5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
1J
5U
0.5U
2J
5U
0.5U
5U
5U
0.5U
NA
K4
A
ra
HA
NA
NA
NA
-------
Dissolved Ground-water Concentrations (ug/1) at North Sea Landfill
BOTTOM
SCREEN
ELEV.
Well (MSL) Date
AP-ARs
NYSDEC GW STDS
SDWA MCLs
NYSDEC PUBLIC
BACKGROUND
MW1A 0 OCT 87
DEC 87
MAR 88
APR 88
JUN 89
MW1B -50 OCT 87
DEC 87
MAR 88
APR 88
JUN 88
JUN 89
MW1C -83 OCT 87
DEC 87
MAR 88
APR 88
JUN 88
JUN 89
UG NA MAR 87
JUL 87
OCT 87
DOWNGRADIENT
MW2 -10 OCT 87
DEC 87
MW3A 0 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW3B -55 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW3C -130 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
JUN 89
MW4A -20 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW4B -68 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
MW4C -140 OCT 87
DEC 87
JUN 89
Cadmium
10
5
10
10
5 U
NA
NA
5 U
10
10
NA
NA
5 U
49 *
5 U
5 U
NA
NA
5 U
6 *
5 U
NA
9 U
20
20
5 U
5 U
14 *
10
5 U
9 *
5 U
5 U
8 *
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
Chromium
50
100
50
10 U
10 U
NA
NA
9 U
10 U
20
NA
NA
20 U
9 U
10 U
10 U
NA
NA
20 U
9 U
NA
NA
30
10
530
10 U
10 U
9 3
10 U
10 U
13
10 U
10
20
37
10 U
20
9 U
10 U
20
9 U
10 U
10
9 U
Iron
300
NA
300 *
50
220
110
70
227
80
320
110
170
40
150
30
160
190
140
30
61 ]
340
90
140
13500
22300
280
600
136
25300
30000
306
150
180
70 ]
256
70
90
158
120
1330
72
100
130
14
Lead
25
5
50
7
30
5 U
5 U
NA
7
24
5 U
27
6
NA
50
6
11
7
5 U
NA
2 U
23
5 U
5 U
165
5 U
5 U
NA
5 U
5 U
NA
5 U
5 U
NA
NA
5
5 U
NA
5 TJ
10
HA
9
5 U
NA
Manganese
300
NA
300 *
380
390
630
100
948
30
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
16
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
30
19
20 U
HA
20 U
9100
4400
110
170
13 3
2940
3010
1360
120
30
3 ]
5 ]
60
320
.. 1070
170
1870
95
20
20 U
6 ]
-------
Dissolved Ground-water Concentrations (ug/1) at North Sea Landfill
BOTTOM
SCREEN
ELEV.
Well (MSL) Date
ARARs
NYSDEC GW STDS
SDWA MCLs
NYSDEC PUBLIC
MW5A -15 OCT 87
MAR 88
APR 88
MW5B -150 OCT 87
MAR 88
APR 88
MW5C NA MAR 88
APR 88
MW6A NA OCT 87
DEC 87
MAR 88
APR 88
JUN 89
MW6B NA MAR 88
APR 88
MW7A NA MAR 88
APR 88
HW7B NA MAR 88
APR 88
JUN 88
MW7C NA MAR 88
APR 88
JUN 88
MW8 NA MAR 88
APR 88
MW9 NA MAR 88
APR 88
11 NA MAR 87
19 NA MAR 87
JUL 87
OCT 87
flO NA MAR 87
JUL 87
OCT 87
129 NA MAR 87
JUL 87
OCT 87
130 NA MAR 87
JUL 87
OCT 87
S-4843NA MAR 87
JUL 87
Cadmium
10
5
10
5 U
NA
NA
5 U
NA
NA
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
NA
NA
12 *
5 U
5 U
8
5 U
6
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
NA
5 U
5 U
NA
10
5 U
NA
5 U
' 5 U
NA
10
NA
NA
Chromium
50
100
50
20 U
NA
NA
20 U
NA
NA
20
20 U
10 U
10 U
NA
NA
9 U
20 U
30
20 U
20 U
20 U
30
20 U
20 U
20
20 U
40
20 U
40
20 U
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
30
NA
NA
30
NA
NA
30
NA
NA
Iron
300
NA
300 *
20 U
140
70
150
220
70
150
360
40
170
1700
40
1450
2600
110
860
50
660
1400
40
160
110
30
1300
1400
26000
210
41200
4040
7600
160
3240
4200
140
1390
1800
300
4380
32200
20600
33400
22800
Lead
25
5
50
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
6
5 U
5 U
6
5 U
10
5 U
NA
5 U
7
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
5 U
17
24
5 U
2 U
25
38
5 U
9
19
5
9
17
5 U
17.5
30
5
22
11
Manganese
300
NA
300 *
900
570
480
20 U
40
20
380
20
1050
490
330
290
851
280
30
2800
340
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
20 U
4200
300
6200
1500
4130
1230
NA
550
460
NA
20 U
200
NA
30
3850
NA
4500
NA
NA
-------
FIGURE D-1 DATA QUALIFIERS
Noresi
- Indicate* that the *tandard provided 1* not • N.V.S. preMulgated atanderd, but • guidance value.
N.C.- Indicate* that the relative percent difference between the eplit vaMplo* Ma* not calculated beceu*e one or both of the
•piIt eeMple* reeult* Mere not reported, not detected* or rejected. ....
RNfl - Rnely*i* M** requested, but aeNple* nor* not analysed far the corresponding enalyte<*>.
RNR - Anelyei* Me* net reajue*ted f«M- the corresponding analyta<•>.
NR - Analytical re*ult* for the corresponding analyte MO* •«•* rapa^tad. Indicating that aithar t*»a analyt* «••• rtat analycad
fa*-, or- that tha artalyta Ma« nat idantiriad in tha »aMpla.
U - Indicata* that tha analyta »*» analycvd for but Ma* not da t act ad | tha raportad walwo If tha nininwM attainaala dataction
Unit for tha nanpla.
J - Indicataa that tha raportad valwa i* an aatinata dwo to aoxo QC critaria not ooing Mat. for inarfanlc analyoaa, waluao ara
canaidarad aatinata* if Kaldirvg tiMO* ara aMcaadad IOL>. if OC **npl*a (a.f.t blank a. apl !<•>•. and duplicata«>
ara analycad tao infraqut/ntly, if chach atandarda and natriM apiha racovariaa do not Maat OC «ritariov if tha calibration
blank contalna «n anal^t* »t • cancantratian >CROL. or if a fiald blank Maa uaad aa tha MatriM apika. for organic* analyaaa,
walu*a «r» canatrfarvd ••tixct** if thay ara tantativaly idantifiad and ^uantlfiad aaauning a 111 raapon*ac or if tho naa*
• p*ctr-«l d*t< Irv44<»*» tK» p*-*»*nca af a ca*«po«jnd that naata idanti f icatian critaria, but tho raaul t ia la«» than tha
•p*ctr4»d d***ctla*« lixik but yraatar than cara.
N - r»Wic«t*« that tK« apibvd acxpla rocovary Maa nat Mi thin control limit*.
* - r.*jic*t*« th*t th« analyta Maa faund in tha blank a* Mall a* tho aanpl*.
n - »aic*t*a th«t th* d««plicata injaction raawlt* aMcaadad tho control linit*.
t - nrficat** that aithar ICP ••rial dilution raaulta ara not Mi thin control liMlta, or tha raportad iraluo Ma* o*tiMatad or not
r»p*rt*d dua ta intarfaranca.
• - ndic«t»a that tha raportad cancantrotion valuo i* batwaan tho CHOt. and tho IOC.
• - ndicataa- that tha ra*ult* of tha duplicata aaxpla analy*a* ara not Mithin control linit**
• - Indtcata* that tha carralation coafficiant for tha nathod af *tandard addition* 1* la** than O.tVS.
R - Indicate* that tha rapartad valua M»» rajactad, but tha raaaan for tha rajaction Ma* not docuMantad.
HI - Indieata* that tha raportad walua Ma* rajoctad bacauao of contanination in tha Mathod blank ar tha preparation blank.
fl2 - Indicate* that tha rapartad value Ma* rejected becauao tha cancentration of tho analyte in tha *anpla km leaa than 5 or 1O
tine* (depending on tho analyte) tho concentration found int tho field blank, oquipnent blank, or trip blank.
RJ - Indicate* that the reparted valua Ma* rejected becau*a the *pika recovery did not Meet control linita, and the *anpl*
cancentratian Ma> lea* than tour tiMa* the *pik* concentration.
P^ - Indicate* that tha reported value Ma* rejected becauae the recavory of tho laboratory control aanple oMceeded QC criteria^
R5 - Indicate* that the reparted value Ma* rejected because the difference between the *anpla and duplicata OMceeded AC criteria.
Rfr - Indicate* that the reparted value Ma* rejected becauae the RPO of tho ICP aerial dilutiana OMCeeded OC criteria.
H7 - Indicate* that tne reparted value Ma* rejected becauae the aample holding tiMe Ma* eMceeded.
R6 - Indicate* that tho reparted value Ma* rejected becauae the calibration standard raeponae factor Ma* not in canV-ol.
R9 - Indicate* that tno reperted value Ma* rejected becauae the percent relative standard deviation botMean initial and continuing
calibration roopanae factor* eMceeded QC criteria.
RIO - Indicate* that tho reparted value Ma* rejected becauae tho carrelation coefficient for the Method of standard addition* Ma*
leaa than required.
-------
ATTACHMENT 4 - SOIL DATA
-------
K2MQOJP
AtSEMIC
MEALTN IASED
CIITERIA
TIC S0|
SURFACE
SOIL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
LAGOON
BORING
1(0-25')
1(25-55')
f(55-75')
2(0-25')
2(25-55')
2(55-75')
3(0-25')
3(25-55')
3(55-75')
4(0-25')
4(25-55')
4(55-75')
SATURATED
SOIL
NU1A
NW1B
NM1C
NU2
NU3A
NOB
HOC
NUtA
NMB
NUtC
me,
SEDIMENT
1
2
3
T9TAL
roue.
.••/kg)
MD
1.5
10
8.10 S
6.50 S
7.8
IB
3.3
MO
NO
<11.0 NEJR3
S.7tt*JU
<11.0 HEJU
<1.0 HE JO
<1.0 MEJU
<1 .0 NEJU
<1.1NEJU
<11.0 NEJU
<1.1NEJU
<11.0 NEJU
12.0SNE
MD
13.0
U.OSNER
23.0SMEJ
13.0SME
HO
ND
31.0CME
15.3S«
<15.0SME
17.7
IB
<1.0 NER7
•0*7
•0
ND
•
ND
•
MO
4.5$
ND
HOJR3
NDJR3
NDJR3
EP.TCJt.
CMC.
(•g/l)
•0
MD
MO
MO
NO
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
<0.01KER7
MD«7
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
•DJU
•DJU
•DJU
FIELD
•LANK
(••/I)
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
. HDJU
•HDJU
MDJR3
MDJU
MDJR3
MDJU
MDJR3
MDJI3
MDJI3
SDJR3
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MDR7
MDR7
MD
MD
MO
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
TRIP
•LAMK
(•B/l)
R3
MDJU
MDJR3
MDJU
MDJU
•A3
MDJU
MDJU
MDJU
MDJU
MD
MD
MM7
MM7
MD
MD
MD
•D
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
DETECT IOM
LIMIT
(•S/k8>
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
1.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
9. T01
LMT
OMVO
IJ
§.t
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
5.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
OMtClMOGEM
(A)
(••As)
IB
Ut
ut
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
UR
SYSTEMATIC
TOXICANTS
(S)
(•B/kg)
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA ^
NA ••
NA V
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
UR • UNDER REVIEW
NA - NOT AVAILABLE
• - LISTED BUT NO VA1JC CIVEN
NO - NOT DETECTED
A • NMlth-S«««d CrittH* for Carcinogen*, Oral Enpacurt Rout* RSQ
Tabl* 8-6 of 0«v«i.pai-t of «n RFI Work plan and General
Consideration! for tOA facility Invntloatiom.
EPA 530/SU-B7-001. July 1987, RtviMd Hay, 1999.
B • Health-Bated Criteria for Syvteaic Toxicants
Table 8-7 of Oevtlopeent of en RFI Wort Plan end General
Considerations for ecu facility Investioations.
-------
MSfD TIC SClL
CRITERIA
SURFACE
SOIL
1
2
3
4
•
6
;
8
j
IV
11
I?
12
14
IS
It
17
16
19
2d
LAfOON
HWrlNE
1(0-23')
1(23-55')
1(53-75';
2(0-25')
2(25-31 )
2(35-75')
3(0-25 'I
J US-SI'
3:55-73
4(025')
4(23-55'
4(55-73'
SATURATED
SOIL
NNiA
W1B
NN1C
W2
NNJ.4
M!8
W.T-C
NN4A
WN4B
MMC
ML
1 ?^«- :. ' . .
TOTAL
MNC.
(•f/k«;
0.5
I.O
0.7
1.0
2.2
1.0
I.I)
1.0
ID
0.8
o.e
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.6
W
ID
0.8
ID
ND
1.1
ND
NO
0,9
1.6
ID
NO
NO
i.o
ND
2.3
ND
ND
1.1*7
NDR7
1.2
NO
ND
1.2
NO
ND
0.0
1.2
I
EP.TOI,
CDNT.
(•9/1)
ND
ND
ND
ID
ND
ND
ND
ID
ID
NO
ID
NO
ID
NO
ID
ID
ID
«
ND
ND
ID
ND
ND
W
ID
ND
ID
ND
NO
ND
N9
IP
ND
N9R7
ID* 7
O.W5
ND
ND
0.006
0.005
ND
ND
0.01
FIDC
HAM
(•j/J
m
ID
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NO
ND
NT
NO
ND
Nil
ND
ND
NO
NO
ND
1C
ND
ND
US
NS
NO
NO
NO
10
NO
NO
NO
ND
or
NJ
NCP1
NO* 7
N£
Kt
US
NO
NO
ND
M
0.01
TRIP
ILANK
(•9/1)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
'•NO
NO
ND
ND
ND
ID
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NP
1C
ND
Nt
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
ND
M
ND
NO
ND
nil
w
NO
«R7
NO*?
ND
NO
NO
*D
Nf
NO
Nf
C.O!
DETECTION EP. TOI CAttfNHCi
UNIT I Uft/T ; (M 1
(•g/igj ; <•$/!) ; (if/kf) J
0.5 : i.o ; -
0.5 ! J.O i
0.5 ! J.t) .'
0.5 I I.O !
0.3 i i.o ;
c.s : i.o j -
0.5 .' I.O .' -
o.s : i.o :
0.3 .' J.O !
o.s : i.o i
0.5 : i.o .' -
0.3 : i.o : -
o.s ; i.o j -
0.5 I J.O !
0.5 ! I.O .'
0.5 ,' i.o :
o.s ; i.o : -
0.5 : i.o i -
o.s ; i.o ;
o.s : i.o .'
i *
i i
o.s ; i.o i
0.5 ; i.o : -
0.5 : 1.0 : -
0.3 ! 1.0 : -
0.5 ! I.O !
0.5 i i.o : -
0.5 f I.O ! -
d.5 ; i.o ; -
0.3 ! 1.0 ; -
0.3 : i.o : •
o.s ; i.o : -
0.5 ! 1.0 .'
I !
1 1
o.s ; i.o : -
c.s ; i.o ; -
o.s : i.o ;
0.5 : i.o ,- -
o.s : i.o !
0.3 i 1.0 ,' -
• 0.5 ! 1.0 .' -
: 0.5 ! 1.0 !
. 0.5 .' i.o : -
: 0.5 i I.O :
. v.s ; i.o ;
> i i
TOIICANT;
(I)
(•g/»«; :
NA ;
NA ;
NA :
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
•A
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA :
NA !
NA !
NA
NA
M
1
I
M
NA
NA !
NA
NA I
- NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M
M
•
•A
m
M
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I
V
-------
H2MGBOUP
IIM
NEALTN USD TK SO:
CtlTEXlA
••FACE
•OIL
1
2
3
4
S
6
r
a
9
10
11
12
13
U
15
16
17
18
19
20
i Afinm
^MUUal
HtlNG
1(0-25')
t(25-5S')
1(55-75')
2(0-25')
2(25-55')
2(55-75')
3(0-25')
5(25-55')
3(55-75')
4(0-25')
4425-55')
4(55-75')
SATURATED
MIL
H/1A
ana
MflC
ma
MSA
MUSI
M0C
«**
MAC
MM
KDINENT
1
2
3
TOTAL
COM.
(«/kg>
10
2.2
MD
1.0
4.4
4.4
1.0
2.0
2.2
MD
4.8
4.8
7.2
2.3
3.6
2.1
1.9
03.9
1.7
4.4
7.7J
11. OJ
11. OJ
1.4J
12.0J
12.04
5.1J
6.4J
14. OJ
8.2J
16.0J
8.1J
2.8
5.717
4.2X7
4.0
1.2
2.4
6.0
•ft
1.3
5.3
3.5
1.3
2.6
NO
t».TC*.
CMC.
(•Q/l)
ND
MD
m>
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
m
MD
m
m
m
m
MO
NO
NO
m>
wo
m
m>
IB
IB
m
m
ND
ND
m
m
m
m
m>
ND
•M7
NDt7
0.01
MD
•1
ND
IB
IB
ND
m
ND
IB
IB
riELO
•LANK
(•8/D
ND
•
IB
ND
•
•
IB
IB
IB
• IB
»
m>
m
m
IB
IB
IB
•>
M)
*>
m
m
»
»
m
m
•>
m
m
m
m
m>
m
mir
«*7
m
IIP
JUUHC
(•8/1)
»
•)
•>
m>
m
m
m
m
»
m
m
•>
«
m
m
»
IB
»
m
m
»j
»j
»j
IBJ
•J
•DJ
»J
»J
•J
»J
*J
•DJ
»
**7
••7
•>
»
OETEaiOM
LIMIT
<«8/kg)
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
1.2
1.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
9. TV
LMIT
(••/I)
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
5.0
S.O
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
^^^^^^fc • ^^^^^^i^u
CHCIKKu
a>
<«/*«)
•A
•A
M
M
M
M
•A
MA
M
«A
M
M
•A
M
•A
•A
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
fTSTEMATtC
TOKICANTS
(!)
(•BAB)
MA
MA
HA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
•A
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
UK - UMDEI KEVIEV
MA • DOT AVAILABLE
• • LISTED >UT HO VALUE GIVEN
MD • MOT DETECTED
A • MMlth-toMd CrfttrU for CxrcinoQVW, Oral Expocurt Routt ISO
Tcblt 8-6 of Drvtlapatnt of an IF1 Work plan md Ctrarai
Cwwfdtrtttorv for KOtA facility tnvettljatlor*.
E»A S30/W-87-001. July 1967, ItvfMd Nay, 1989.
I - MMlth-laMd Criteria for tyvtaafe Toxicants
Tablt 8-7 of D*y*{op»*nt of an IF! work Han and Ganaral
Comidtratfona for IOU Facility Invmtleatfom.
EM 530/M-B7-001. July 1987, |«ylt«d tay.1989.
-------
H2A4GROUP
LEAD
HEALTH USB) TK Mil
OtlTfXIA
••FACE
•OIL
1
2
3
4
5
6
r
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
KB IK
1(0-25')
1(25-55')
1(55-75')
2(0-25')
2(25-55')
2(55-75')
3(0-25')
3(25-55')
3(55-75')
4(0-25')
4(25-55')
4(55-75')
MTUUTED
•OIL
•VIA
HW1I
HW1C
HU2
MOA
M38
mac
NUU
MM8
HW4C
HU6
•E9INEMT
1
2
3
TOTAL
OOHC.
(•HA8)
<0.5«E
4. SHE
<0.5ME
<0.5«E
3.3MES
2.4ME
S.SHE
6.8MES
S.5HES
4.6
17.1
6.9
10.4
0.7
4.3
25
1.9
1.2
17.4
13.0ME
3.3SHE
4.1SME
5.SSHE
4.8SHE
4.0HKR
2.88HE
3.3CHE
5.1SME
5«6ME
7.2ME
S.ftttE
1.6
3.5110
4fl.SHER7
3.8
16.0
12.0
3.3
7.0
15.0
14.0
1.2
5.1SS
4.91S
2.3
EP.TOK.
ODBC.
(•ft/ 0
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
0.12
HD
HD
0.006
HD
HD
aj>
-HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
HD
•0
HD
HD
HD
HD
)£
tg)
jg)
K)
ajp
HD
HD
9
0.05
HMMO
0.025*7
0.009
D
HD
0.0125
HD
HD
B£
HD
HD
0.007
0.012
FIELD
•LAaK
iB^ai^^^^n
UBJ/I)
40
HD
•M10
HM7
HD
nif
8LAHK
ttaj/l)
M>
HD
»
HD
HD
HD
HM10
HDk7
OCTECTIOM
11*11
(*8/k> )
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0 5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
9. TOM
LOOT j
OHB/l>J
S • \
>*• 1
5.0
s.o
•0
•0
.0 I
.0
.0
.0 !
•0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
CMCIHDBEI
(A)
4HVkg)
HA
M
M
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA '
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
TOXICANTS
(8)
(•BAB)
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
UR • UHDEI tEVIEV
HA • HOT AVAILAftlE
• • LISTED OUT MO VALUE CIVCM
HO - HOT DETECTED
A • HMltti-MMd Crft»H* for C*re
-------
OMAN 1C OOXTMINANTt QUANTIFIED
UOOOH MIINfi SAMPLES
KALTN MSO TK Mil
PRIORITY
MM i Iff AttT*
r\HlUI AH 1
CONTAMINANTS
OUANTIflED
VOLATILE ORGAN ICS
-------
OMMIC CnHTMIHANTS OUANTIFIEO
IH SURFACE SOUS 8 NORTH SEA LANDFILL
HEALTH BASED T8C SOU
CRITERIA
mium 1 1
FOUUTANT*
CONTAMINANTS
OUANTIFIEO
•m-VOLATIlIt
• 1 • SUmMTNALATE
• IIIVTlMTNALATS
• l«}-tf*UNIIYL)-
miNALAlE
•DM- VOLATILE!
• 1 • N • •UTYLPNTNALATE
0IETKVLP1ITNALATE
•ISC2-ETNYLNEXYl)>
FUTNALATE
FLUORANTHENE
fVRENE
BUTYISENZVLF-HTHAUTE
BCHZO<«)ANTHRACENE
CNRYSENE
BfNZO
-------
ATTACHMENT 5 - RISK TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
CRITICAL TOXICITY VALUES FOR INGESTION ROUTE
FOR INDICATOR CHEMICALS AT NORTH SEA LANDFILL SITE
Chemical
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Ammonia
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (III)
(VI)
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Subchronic
Acceptable
Intake
(mgAg/day) •
NA
l.OOE-03
NA
1.4E+01
2.5E-02
NA
NA
5.00E-01
2.00E-02
Chronic
Acceptable
Intake
(mg/kg/day)
NA
NA
l.OOE-03 (food)
5.00E-04 (water)
l.OOE+00
5.00E-03
8.57E-03
1.4E-03
2.00E-01
2.00E-02
Carcinogenic
Potency Factor
(mg/kg/day)
NC
1.80E-»-08(A)1
NA
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NA
NOTES:
NA - Not available
NC - Noncarcinogenic
1 • Letter in parentheses represents EPA Weight of Evidence
classification.
Cadmium has 2 AIC values, one for food and one for water.
-------
TABLE 2
CRITICAL TOXICITY VALUES FOR INHALATION ROUT1
FOR INDICATOR CHEMICALS AT NORTH SEA LANDFILL
CHEMICAL
]
Aomonia
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
AIS
(mg/kg/day) (
INHALATION
MA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.00E-02
NA
C
• AIC 1
[ing/kg/day) ]
NA
NA
NA
5.10E-03 (+3)
8.60E-03
4.30E-04
3.00E-02
NA
Carcinogenic
Potency Factor
L/(ng/kg/day)
NC
1.50E+01
6.10E+00
4.10E+01 (+6)
NC
NC
NC
1.19E+00
Notes:
NA • Not Available
NC - Noncarcinogenic
-------
TABLE 3
RISK ESTIMATES FOR CARCINOGENS
CHEMICAL
Anmonia
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Exposure
Route
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral *
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Oral
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
CDI Potency Factor
(mg/kg.day) l/(mg/kg.day)
1.05E-01
O.OOE+00
1.45E-04
6.27E-07
1.15E-04
1.33E-07
1.28E-03
5.12E-07
2.99E-01
6.54E-04
3.71E-04
9.40E-07
2.81E-02
1.19E-05
7.37E-04
1.28E-06
U
U
1.80B+00
1.50E+01
U
6.10E+00
U
4 . 10E+01
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1.19E+00
Total Upper Bound
Route- Total
Specific Chemical-specific
Risk Risk
U
U
2.61E-04
9.40E-06
U
8.11B-07
U
2. IDE- OS
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
1.53E-06
Risk -
U
2.70E-04
8.11E-07
2.10E-05
U
U
U
1.53E-06
2.93E-04
Notesi U Unavailable or not applicable
* Oral CDI for cadmium is total of food and water GDIs.
-------
TABLE : 4
CALCULATION OF SUBCHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
NORTH SEA LANDFILL SITE
CHEMICAL
Ammonia
Arcenlc
Cadalun
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Inhalation
SDI AIS
O.OOE+00
9.52E-05
1.91E-05
7.77E-05
6.22E-02
3.64E-04
1.17E-03 3.
1.82E-04
Hazard
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
OOE-02
NA
Index t
SDI i AIS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.89E-02
NA
3.89E-02
ORAL
SDI AIS
6.20E-01
3.15E-04
1.97E-04
2.99E-03
1.17E+00
l.OOE-03
1.33E-01
1.55E-03
Hazard
NA
0.001
NA
14
NA
NA
0.5
0.02
Index >
SDI: AIS
NA
5.15E-01
NA
2.13E-04
NA
NA
2.65E-01
7.73E-02
8.S8E-01
Notett
NA - Not available or not applicable
-------
TABLE 5
CALCULATION OF CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
NORTH SEA LANDFILL SITE
CHEMICAL
Ammonia
Arsenic
Cadmiua
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Inhalation
GDI AIC
0.
6.
1.
5.
6.
9.
1.
1.
OOE+00
27E-07
33E-07
12E-07
34E-04
40E-07
19E-05
28E-06
Hazard
NA
NA
NA
5.10E-03
8.60E-03
4.30E-04
3.00E-02
NA
Index i
GDI t AIC
NA
NA
NA
l.OOE-04
7.61E-02
2.19B-03
3.98E-04
NA
7.87E-02
ORAL
GDI AIC
1
1
4
1
1
2
3
2
7
.05E-01
.45E-04
.11E-06
.11E-04
.28E-03
.99E-01
.71B-04
.81E-02
.37E-04
Hazard
1
5
1
8
1
2
2
NA
NA
.OOE-03
.OOE-04
. OOE+00
.57E-03
.40E-03
.OOE-01
.OOE-02
Index t
GDI > AIC
4
2
1
3
2
1
3
3
NA
NA
.11E-03
.22E-01
.28E-03
.49E+01
.65E-01
.40E-01
.69E-02
.56E+Ox
(food)*
(water)
Notest NA - Not available or not applicable
* Cadmium haa AIC valuea for food and water. Food GDI la
total of flan and eoil ingestion, and water GDI la total of
the remaining intakes.
-------
TABLE 6
y '
CALCULATION OF SUBCHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
(FOR SOIL INGESTION AND DERMAL ABSORPTION ONLY)
CHEMICAL
Ammonia
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Inhalation
SDI AIS
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00 3.
O.OOE+00
Hazard
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
OOE-02
NA
Index i
SDI t AIS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
O.OOE+00
NA
O.OOE+00
ORAL
SDI AIS
O.OOE+00 NA
6.62E-05 0.001
1.67E-05 NA
6.84E-05 14
9.47E-02 NA
3.19E-04 NA
1.03E-03 0.5
1.60E-04 0.02
Hazard Index t
SDI: AIS
NA
6.62E-02
NA
4.89E-06
NA
NA
2.05E-03
7.98E-03
7.62E-02
Noteat
NA - Not available or not applicable
-------
TABLE . 7
CALCULATION OF CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX
(FOR SOIL INGE6TION AND DERMAL ABSORPTION ONLY)
CHEMICAL
Armenia
Arsenic
Cadnlum
Chromlun
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Inhalation
CDI AIC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.001+00
.OOE+00
.001*00
.OOB+DO
. OOB+00
. OOE+00
. OOE+00
. OOE+00
Ha card
NA
HA
NA
5.10E-03
8.60E-03
4.30E-04
3.00E-02
NA
Index i .
CDI i AIC
NA
NA
NA
0. OOB+00
0. OOE+00
0. OOE+00
0. OOE+00
NA
0. OOE+00
ORAL
CDI AIC
I
B
7
1
6
a
1
1
1
.23E-06
.39E-07
. 64E-OB
. OZE-09
.978-07
.7BE-04
.26E-06
.63E-05
. 72E-06
Ha card
1
5
1
8
1
2
2
NA
NA
.OOB-03
.OOE-04
.OOE+00
.57E-03
.40E-03
.OOE-01
.OOE-02
Index i
CDI .AIC
*
;7.
2.
6.
1.
9.
B.
8.
1.
NA
NA
64E-05
04B-06
97E-07
02E-01
02E-04
14E-05
61B-05
04B-01
(food)*
(water)
Noteet NA - Not available or not applicable
* Cadmium has AIC valaet for food and water. Food CDI 10
total of fl«h and soil Ingeation, and water CDI 10 total of
-------
ATTACHMENT 6 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
NORTH SEA MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
OPERABLE UNIT ONE
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
A. OVERVIEW
This document presents the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) responses to questions and comments
raised during the public comment period on the Proposed Remedial
Action Plan (PRAP) for the North Sea Municipal Landfill Superfund
site in the Town of Southampton, New York. The PRAP only
addresses contamination of Cell #1 and the former sludge lagoons
at the site, known as Operable Unit One (OU1). Off-site
ground-water contamination and possible impacts on Fish Cove will
be addressed at a later time as Operable Unit Two (OU2).
The preferred alternative outlined in the PRAP includes no
action at the former sludge lagoons and closure of Cell #1 of the
landfill using either a low permeability soil or a flexible
synthetic membrane cover. The decision on the type of cover
(soil or synthetic) will be made during the remedial design phase
of the cleanup. In addition, confirmatory sludge/soil sampling
will be conducted in the lagoon area to assure that no hazardous
constituents that may pose a health or environmental threat are
present in the area.
Comments received during the public comment period suggest
that the Town of Southampton, the potentially responsible party
(PRP) for the site, strongly objects to the proposed remedy on
the basis of its cost. Several questions were raised about the
quality of the sampling data used to decide upon the proposed
remedy. Citizen involvement at this site has been low,
therefore, it is not possible to determine if the views of the
Town reflect those of the local residents.
These sections follow:
Background on Community Involvement
Summary of Agency Comments Received during the Public
Comment Period and Agency Responses
Remaining Concerns.
B. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community interest at the North Sea Municipal Landfill dates
back to 1978, when local residents near North Sea became aware of
the Town of Southampton's intention of closing its dump at Quioque
and shifting all municipal solid waste disposal to the North Sea
Landfill. Led by two local residents, community members counted
trucks entering the landfill and discovered that the number of
-------
commercial trucks using the facility was greater than the number
permits issued.
These local residents, concerned that commercial wastes were
being disposed of at the landfill, periodically inspected the
facility between 1978 and 1984. On one occasion they found that
large number of apparently empty pesticide containers had been
buried at the landfill. They were told by the town that this was
done with the permission of the Suffolk County Health Department.
Recent community involvement has mostly centered around the
cost issue for the cleanup. Town officials and some local
residents have expressed concern about the environmental benefit of
a multi-million dollar cleanup at the North Sea site. They claim
that the level of environmental improvement is outweighed by the
economic cost burden the town would have to bear for the cleanup.
[The town expressed concern about their inability to get bond money
from the State to pay for the cleanup because the landfill is not a
hazardous waste site.]
C. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Comments received during the North Sea public comment period
on the Feasibility Study and the PRAP are summarized below.
Similar questions have been consolidated and categorized by topic.
The comment period was held from September 2, 1989 to September
1989.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
\
The Town Attorney for the Town of Southampton asked
several questions regarding the public participation
process, specifically related to the public comment
period and the public meeting.
1. The Town Attorney expressed some confusion about
the purpose of the meeting. He wanted to know:
_ Was the meeting a public hearing or a public
meeting?
_ Will the public have input after the meeting?
Agency Response: EPA has a regulatory requirement
to hold a 21-day public comment period for
consideration of the Proposed Remedial Action Plan.
During the public comment period, EPA must provide
the opportunity for a public meeting, if there is
local interest. The purpose of the meeting is for
interested citizens to ask questions and offer oral
comments on the proposed plan. Written questions
and comments can be sent to EPA at any time during
-------
the public comment period. Although the public is
encouraged to ask questions or to offer comments at
any time, questions and comments on the proposed
plan must be received by the end of the public
comment period in order to be included in the
Responsiveness Summary.
2. Several questions were asked about the transcript
for the meeting, specifically:
_ What was the purpose of the stenographer?
_ Will a copy of the transcript be available to
the Regional Administrator before he makes his
decision on the proposed plan?
_ Will a copy of the transcript be available to
the public?
Agency Response; The purpose of the stenographer
is to allow EPA to accurately respond to the oral
questions and comments offered at the public
meeting. The transcript, along with the
Responsiveness Summary, will be available to the
Regional Administrator when he makes his decision
on the proposed plan. The decision document he
will sign is known as the Record of Decision (ROD).
The Responsiveness Summary and the transcript of
the public meeting will become part of the
Administrative Record for the site and will be
placed in the information repositories located in
the Southampton College Library and the Southampton
Village Library.
3. Several questions were asked about the comment
period and public notification of the meeting,
specifically:
_ How was the public notified of the meeting?
_ Will comments made at the meeting and those
sent to EPA during the comment period have any
impact on the decision-making process at EPA?
Agency Response; Public notification for the
public comment period and the public meeting
included a paid advertisement summarizing the PRAP
in the Suffolk County edition of Newsday on
September 2, 1989, a press release from the EPA
Office of External Programs, and material
distributed to the information repositories for the
site. Town officials and interested citizens on
-------
EPA's mailing list were also notified about the
meeting. EPA will consider and respond to all
comments received during the comment period, both
oral and written, before making any decision on the
remedial action for Operable Unit One of the North
Sea Municipal Landfill Superfund site.
4. A citizen asked what events would follow the public
meeting and if there was a time-frame for these
activities?
' •
Agency Response; The public comment period for OU1
will run until September 22, 1989. Soon after that
date EPA will prepare a Responsiveness Summary.
This document will be included in the Record of
Decision for the site and will be placed in the
information repositories. The next step is to
negotiate with the potentially responsible parties
(PRPs), in this case the Town of Southampton, to
pay for or perform the actual cleanup.
5. What is the difference between primary source and sole
source aquifers?
Agency Response; The Safe Drinking Water Act
designates an aquifer a sole source aquifer if no
alternative drinking water supply exists in the
area of that aquifer. Primary water supply
aquifers are defined as highly productive aquifers.
Primary source aquifer is a NYSDEC designation for
an unconsolidated vulenerable aquifer. The Magothy
is designated a primary aquifer.
6. What is the difference between primary and secondary
drinking water standards.
Agency Response; Primary drinking water standards
are protective of human health, whereas secondary
standards are based on taste or odor. The
secondary standards are aesthetic, not health
based.
The Town Attorney, the Chairman of the North Sea
Landfill Committee, and other participants asked several
questions about the Superfund process and how it related
to other NPL sites on Long Island:
7. How many landfills on Long Island have as much protection
in terms of liners and caps as the North Sea Municipal
Landfill? Are they on the NPL?
-------
Agency Response; There are four Long Island
landfills on the National Priorities List: North
Sea, Old Bethpage, Port Washington, and Syosset.
Only Port Wanshington Landfill which is an NPL site
has a IJner. Syosset, North Sea Landfill Cell #1
and Old Bethpage NPL sites do not have liners.
8. How many Long Island sites are on the NPL?
Agency Response; There are 23 NPL sites on Long
Island at this time. Twelve of the sites are in
Suffolk County and 11 are in Nassau County.
9. Is Brookhaven Landfill on the NPL?
Agency Response; Brookhaven Landfill is not on the
NPL, but the Brookhaven National Lab was proposed
for the NPL in July 1989
D. REMAINING CONCERNS
I. FILTERED VERSUS UNFILTERED GROUNDWATER SAMPLE
COMMENT: The Chairman of the North Sea Landfill and Solid
Waste Management Committee of Southampton and the Southampton
Town Board commented that unfiltered groundwater data
distorts the true character of the metals actually present in
the groundwater contributed by leachate flowing from Cell No.
1 at the North Sea Landfill site.
RESPONSE: The use of unfiltered samples for groundwater
analyses can give false positive, or at least elevated
readings of metals if the samples are of high turbidity.
Excessive concentrations of total metals in ground water may
indeed be reflected in environments with naturally high
concentrations of metals in soils, such as at Southampton.
However, there are additional considerations regarding the
results of metals analyses in the ground water at North Sea
Landfill that should not be ignored: concentrations of
dissolved (filtered) metals in wells downgradient from the
landfill are also above the established.ARARs and
concentrations of total (unfiltered) metals in wells
downgradient from the landfill are substantially higher
(i.e., 5 times the upgradient levels) than concentrations of
total metals in upgradient wells. Support for these
considerations is provided under the response concerning the
groundwater plume.
The comment incorrectly quotes the NYSDEC Solid Waste
Management Facilities Rules. As stated in the comment,
Section 360-2.11 (a) (12) of the NYSDEC Solid Waste
-------
Management Facilities Rules which became effective December
31, 1988 does state that water quality samples must be low in
turbidity. In addition, Section 360-2.11 (a) (12) (iv)
states that "all samples must be whole and unfiltered and
must be collected in a manrer which produces the least
possible turbidity".
The wells at North Sea Landfill were developed, purged, and
sampled according to EPA Region II protocol and the samples
collected from the wells, as observed by EPA's oversight
contractor, were not turbid. As the comment states,
unfortunately the turbidities of the samples are not
available to substantiate either claim.
The comment also states that the samples were not low in
turbidity as substantiated by the erratic unfiltered data in
the upgradient wells (i.e., MW1-A, MW1-B, and MW1-C). The
data presented in the comment is for the three zones of the
aquifer. Only when one compares the results for different
zones is the data erratic. If the data is examined by zone
(i.e., upper, middle, and deep), then the data is not
erratic; therefore, the claim that the samples were not low
in turbidity is not substantiated.
Finally, the comment states that the concentrations at MW1
indicate that the analyses are in error, because the
upgradient well MW1 exceeds the established ARARs. As the
comment states, metal concentrations in ground water may
reflect the environment, but the significant consideration is
that downgradient well concentrations are significantly
higher than upgradient well concentrations.
II. GROUNDWATER PLUME
COMMENT: The Town Attorney, the Chairman of the North Sea
Landfill and Solid Waste Management Committee of Southampton,
the Southampton Town Board, and the Board of the League of
Women Voters of Southampton dispute the presence of a
groundwater plume containing heavy metals.
RESPONSE: The following considerations from groundwater
sampling during the Remedial Investigation indicate a
groundwater plume exists: concentrations of dissolved
(filtered) metals in wells downgradient from the landfill are
above the established ARARs and concentrations of total
(unfiltered) metals in wells downgradient from the landfill
are substantially higher (i.e., 5 times the upgradient
levels) than concentrations of total metals in upgradient
wells. Again, concentrations for dissolved (filtered) metals
in wells downgradient from the landfill are above the
established ARARs [i.e., Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCLs) and New York State Groundwater Class
-------
GA Standards]. Dissolved concentrations for cadmium,
chromium, iron, and manganese exceed the established ARARs in
several downgradient wells. In addition, dovngradient
concentrations of filtered metals are consistently higher
than the upgradient concentrations cf filtered metals. The
comparison for upgradient and dovngradient wells are
restricted to wells that are screened at roughly the same
elevation in the ground water column, in order to avoid
faulty comparisons among different zones in the aquifer.
Also, the filtered samples yielded equivalent results to the
unfiltered samples.
Concentrations of total (unfiltered) metals in wells
downgradient from the landfill are substantially higher than
concentrations of total metals in upgradient wells.
Downgradient concentrations are substantially greater than
concentrations found in wells screened upgradient from the
landfill. In some instances, concentrations are more than
six times greater in downgradient a well than in a well
screened in a corresponding elevation upgradient from the
landfill. Although high naturally-occurring concentrations
of metals in the soil at the North Sea Landfill can
contribute to excessively high total concentrations of
metals in ground water, the disproportionate ratio of total
metals in ground water downgradient from the landfill to
total metals in ground water upgradient from the landfill
suggests that the landfill is contributing to groundwater
contamination.
The Town Attorney and the chairman of the North Sea Landfill
Committee question the evidence that a ground water
contamination plume really exists. The elevated
concentrations of both total and dissolved metals in ground
water downgradient from Cell No. 1 provides significant
evidence that a plume is migrating from the landfill toward
the direction of Five Cove. In addition, the organic
compounds tetrachloroethene (PCE) and trichloroethene (TCE)
were detected in downgradient wells in concentrations above
the established ARARs (i.e., MCLs) for both these compounds.
No organic compounds were detected in any of the wells
upgradient of the landfill. Other contaminants including
ammonia and total organic carbon which are indicative of
landfill leachate were detected in concentrations above
background levels.
II. PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SUPPLY
COMMENT: The Town Attorney, the Town Board, and the Board of
the League of Women Voters of Southampton state that the
capping of Cell No. 1 is not justified because public
drinking water has been provided to residents in the path of
the plume and that the aquifer is not a sole source aquifer.
-------
Pollutant
Ground-water Concentrations at North Sea Landfill
down gradient
% Increase
ARAR Sample Upgradient Downgradient Over
ug/1 Type Well ug/1 Well ug/1 upgradient
SHALLOW WELLS WITH
Cadmium 5
Chromium 50
Iron 300
Manganese 300
SCREEN ELEVATION 0 MSL TO -4
Filt. MW1-A 10 MW3-A
MW2
#10
#30
Unfilt.MWl-A 10 MW3-A
MW2
#10
#30
Filt. MWl-A 10 U MW3-A
MW2
#10
#30
Unfilt.MWl-A 90 MW3-A
MW2
#10
#30
Filt. MWl-A 227 MW3-A
MW2
#10
#30
Unfilt.MWl-A 18800 MW3-A
MW2
#10
#30
Filt. MWl-A 490 MW3-A
MW2
#10
#30
Unfilt.MWl-A 900 MW3-A
MW2
#10
#30
10 MSL
14
20
10
10
20
40
5 U
10
10 U
530
NA
30
688
2720
50
30
600
22300
4200
32200
33800
22300
3700
39900
170
9100
460
4500
380
9600
450
4800
140
200
100
100
200
400
50
100
100
5300
0
300
764
3022
56
33
264
9824
1850
14185
180
119
20
212
35
1857
94
918
42
1067
50
533
7A
-------
Pollutant
Ground-water Concentrations at North Sea Landfill
down gradient
%"Increase
ARAR Sample Upgradient Downgradient Over
ug/1 Type Well ug/1 Well ug/1 upgradient
MID-LEVEL WELLS WITH SCREEN ELEVATION -50 MSL TO -70 MSL
Cadmium 5 Filt. MW1-B 10 MW3-B 10
MW4-B 5 U
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Unfilt.MWl-B
50 Filt. MW1-B
Unfilt.MWl-B
3.00 Filt. MW1-B
Unfilt.MWl-B
300 Filt. MWlrB
Unfilt.MWl-B
10 MW3-B
MW4-B
10 U MW3-B
MW4-B
30 MW3-B
MW4-B
140 MW3-B
MW4-B
11400 MW3-B
MW4-B
16 MW3-B
MW4-B
370 MW3-B
MW4-B
10
5 U
13
20
21
155
30000
1330
36400
3950
3010
1870
3350
1620
1.00
50
100
50
130
200
23
172
13216
586
194
21
614
382
372
180
U - The material was analyzed for, but was not detected.
7B
-------
RESPONSE: EPA feels that additional information is needed
before that claim that public drinking water has been
provided to residents in the path of the plume. Only a
limited residential well survey was conducted as part of the
Remedial Investigation. The Town has supplied an alternate
public drinking water supply to identified residences whose
wells have been contaminated from the landfill. As part of
the additional investigation for Operable Unit 2, EPA will
perform a thorough residential well survey to verify that all
wells have been located. For the residences on public water
supply, this is not a sole source supply. However, the
aquifer is a sole source and drinking water aquifer.
Contaminants are still being released from the North Sea
Landfill, therefore, remedial action such as capping the
landfill pursuant to NYS Part 360 requirements are justified
to mitigate and control the source of the contamination. The
Operable Unit 2 RI/FS study will address the groundwater
plume.
IV. EXISTING LANDFILL CAP
COMMENT: The Chairman of the North Sea Landfill and Solid
Waste Management Committee of Southampton, the Town Board,
and the Board of the League of Women Voters of Southampton
dispute the statement in the Proposed Remedial Action Plan
that "the current existing cap is not adequate to prevent
infiltration due to precipitation".
RESPONSE: The concentration of contaminants are not
decreasing over time; therefore, the leachate is still
impacting the ground water, because the present cap is
inadequate to prevent further infiltration from precipitation
to Cell No. 1. Cell No. 1 was capped with a 20 milli-inch
polyvinylchloride membrane and approximately 2 feet of sand.
If a geomembrane is used, the NYS Part 360 Regulations for
closure requires a geomembrane with greater than 40 milli-
inch thickness rather than 20 milli-inch. In addition, the
side slopes were never capped. Therefore, EPA believes that
closure of Cell No. 1 pursuant to NYS Part 360 requirements
is necessary to prevent further infiltration.
V. PREFERRED ACTION
COMMENT: The Chairman of the North Sea Landfill and Solid
Waste Management Committee of Southampton states that the
preferred action should be to continue monitoring and to pass
appropriate ordinance prohibiting the drilling of any well in
this area.
RESPONSE: The no action alternative does not meet the NYS
Part 360 Requirements.
8
-------
VI. ESTIMATED REMEDIAL ACTION COST
COMMENT: The Town Attorney, the Town Board, and the Board of
the League of Women Voters of Southampton believe that the
estimated cost presented in the Proposed Remedial Action Plan
for capping Cell No. 1 is unrealistic.
RESPONSE: The costs estimates in a Feasibility Study are
pre-design estimates and are only required to be accurate to
within -30 percent to +50 percent of the anticipated actual
costs. The 2.9 million dollar estimate is for capital costs
only for the installation of the synthetic cap. This cost
does not include operation and maintenance costs or
monitoring costs for 30 years. It is not clear what the
alternate costs provided by the comments represent. EPA
suspects that the alternate costs are design estimates and
may include operation and maintenance. It should be noted
that costs would not be directly related to surface area
(e.g., volume discounts).
VII. SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
COMMENT: The Chairman of the North Sea Landfill and Solid
Waste Management Committee of Southampton states that the
Endangerment Assessment does not measure the contribution of
contaminants to the ground water and to Fish Cove by the
landfill only.
RESPONSE: The Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual
suggests that if background chemical contamination is
significant, then it should be accounted for in the public
health evaluation. EPA's Final Endangerment Assessment did
not compare the contaminant levels of downgradient wells to
those found in background wells, because, the remedial
investigation did not collect data from a background well.
The well cluster located at MW1 is upgradient from Cell No.
1, but it is downgradient from the sludge lagoons; therefore,
the impact to ground water was determined using ground water
from wells both upgradient and downgradient to the landfill.
Instead, the Endangerment Assessment examined risk based on
ARARs, a carcinogenic risk range of 10"* to 10'7, and
acceptable noncarcinogenic intake levels.
Analyses on surface water samples collected from the
hydraulically downgradient surface water (Fish Cove) show
evidence of contamination from landfill leachate. Surface
water samples were collected at 6 locations (i.e., three
close to shore assumed to be impacted by groundwater
interception and three away from the shore). The impacted
locations show concentrations of iron greater than the
-------
established ARARs (i.e., NYS Surface Water Standards (Class
B) and at concentrations 3 time greater than at the
unimpacted locations. Chromium was not detected at the
unimpacted locations (i.e., <10 ug/1), but was detected at 34
ug/1 at the impacted locations. An additional leachate
indicator parameter identified in the downgradient »onitoring
well is total organic carbon (TOC). The maximum TOC
concentration at unimpacted locations was 2.7 mg/1. The
concentrations detected at impacted locations were from 8.5
mg/1 to 13 mg/1.
VIII. GROUNDWATER MODELING
COMMENT: The Chairman of the North Sea Landfill and Solid
Waste Management Committee of Southampton states that the
modeling used in the EPA Endangerment Assessment overstates
the true groundwater condition.
RESPONSE: The exposure pathway that poses the greatest
potential health threat is the groundwater ingestion pathway.
The contribution to health risk from groundwater ingestion
carried the most influence over all of the exposure pathways
evaluated,- therefore, the groundwater ingestion exposure
pathway was evaluated using direct monitoring well data from
wells near residences, not modeled or "summed" data as in the
other exposure routes. The concentrations found in these
wells are higher than those predicted for concentrations
entering Fish Cove. The assumptions used to calculate the
concentration of contaminated water into Fish Cove from
ground water do produce a conservative estimate of potential
orfaite contaminant concentration, but the risk from this
route is small compared to groundwater ingestion; therefore,
the overestimation has a small impact on the overall risk.
IX. POTENTIAL RISK
COMMENT: The Town Board states that the Public Health
Evaluation indicates the risk to the public and to the
environment from direct contact with soil is low.
RESPONSE: The EPA Final Endangerment Assessment Report
included an assessment of risk associated with short and long
term exposures to noncarcinogens and carcinogens. As with
the Public Health Evaluation, the EPA's Endangerment
Assessment Report concludes that minimal risk exists for
exposure from only soil ingestion and dermal adsorption, but
EPA's assessment also concludes that a noncarcinogenic risk
exists at levels above the acceptable level for long term
oral groundwater ingestion exposure. Therefore, although the
Public Health Evaluation concludes that soil remediation is
not necessary, EPA believes that remediation is necessary to
10
-------
alleviate risk from oral groundwater ingestion exposure.
11
------- |