United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/160
September 1991
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Hertel Landfill, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT Na 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/160
4. TMeendSubtMe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Hertel Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Aiittiorte)
». Performing Orgilnlzetion Name «nd Addreee
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and AddreM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient1 • Acceeelon No.
5. Report Dele
09/27/91
6.
8. Performing Organlxrion Rept No.
10. Pro)»cVTMk/Work UnH No.
11. Contrael(C) or Gnnt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report ft Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 word*)
The 80-acre Hertel Landfill site consists of a 13-acre former municipal landfill and
adjacent land in Plattekill, Ulster County, New York. Land use in the area is
predominantly residential, with wetland areas adjacent to the site. The site
overlies two natural aquifers. From 1963 to 1975, Hertel Enterprises used the site
for the disposal of municipal solid waste. In 1975, the landfill was purchased by
Dutchess Sanitation Services, which had been hauling and disposing of refuse from
Dutchess County in the Hertel Landfill since 1970. It is estimated that 240,000
cubic yards of waste were disposed onsite during landfill operations. In 1976, the
site was shut down for a variety of violations, including illegal dumping of
industrial wastes and violating a town ordinance prohibiting the disposal of
non-local waste. As a result of these improper disposal practices, a number of State
investigations were conducted, which identified contamination by various organic
compounds and metals in the onsite soil and ground water. This Record of Decision
(ROD) addresses soil contaminated by landfill wastes, and ground water contaminated
by landfill leachate. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
(See Attached Page)
NY
17. Document Anetyei* a. Deecriptore
Record of Decision - Hertel Landfill,
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, toluene, xylenes), other organics (phenols), and
metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
b. Identifiera/Open-Ended Terme
c. COSATI FMoVGroup
18. Availability SUtemem
19. Security O«M (Thi* Report)
None
20. Security Cine (Thl* Page)
None
21. No. of Pegee
94
22. Price
(See ANSt-Z3*.18)
See Instruction* on Reveme
OPTIONAL FORM J72 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/160
Hertel Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
sediment, debris, and ground water are VOCs including benzene, toluene, and xylenes;
other organics including phenols; and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes regrading and compacting the landfill
mound to provide a stable foundation for cap placement; constructing a 13-acre
multi-layer cap over the landfill with an associated gas venting system; sampling soil
along the western portion of the disposal area to determine the need to extend the cap or
to consolidate the soil beneath the cap; monitoring air to ensure that air emissions
resulting from the cap construction meet ARARs; ground water pumping and treatment using
an innovative treatment system consisting of precipitation and membrane microfiltration
to remove metals and solids, and an ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide oxidation
system to remove organics; performing a treatability study to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the innovative technology; implementing a contingency remedy consisting
of precipitation, clarification, and filtration to remove metals and suspended solids,
and carbon absorption to remove organic compounds, if the treatability study indicates
that the selected innovative ground water treatment technology is not effective;
discharging the treated water onsite, and disposing of treatment residuals in accordance
with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions; evaluating and mitigating affected wetlands;
conducting ground water monitoring to observe flow patterns above and below the landfill;
and implementing institutional controls including deed restrictions, and site access
restrictions such as fencing. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action
is $8,207,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of $267,000 for years 0-12, $162,800 for
years 13-17, and $31,000 for years 18-30. The present worth cost for the contingency
remedy is $8,774,000, with the same O&M costs.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Capping will prevent direct contact exposure to
contaminated soil, and will result in risks that are less than EPA's target levels of
10~6 for carcinogenic risks and an HI=1. Ground water clean-up goals are based on
Federal and State standards, and include total xylenes 5 ug/1 (State) .
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date)
NPL Rank (date):
ROD
Date Signed:
Selected Remedy
Soils:
Groundwater:
Hertel Landfill
Plattekill, Ulster County, N.Y.
II
49.98 (June '83)
811 (March '91)
September 27, 1991
Initiate the control of the sources of
contamination through the construction of
a NYS-6 NYCRR Part 360-landfill cap.
Extraction and treatment for removal of
metals by chemical precipitation and
filtration, and for removal of organics
by ultraviolet oxidation.
Capital Cost:
O & M/ Year
Present Worth:
Contingency Remedy;
Soils:
Groundwater:
Capital Cost:
0 & M/Year:
Present Worth:
LEAD
$ 3,995,000
$ 267,000 Yrs. 0-12
$ 162,800 Yrs. 13-17
$ 31,000 Yrs. 18-30
$ 8,207,000
No Change
Removal of organics by activated carbon.
$ 3,989,000
$ 316,400 Yrs. 0-12
$ 162,800 Yrs 13-17
$ 31,000 Yrs 18-30
$ 8,774,000
Remedial, EPA
Primary Contact (phone): Richard Kaplan (212) 264-3819
Secondary Contact (phone): Doug Garbarini (212) 264-0109
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Groundwater-VOC's, ethylbenzene,
phthalates, inorganics.
Soil-inorganics.
Pollution originated as a result of both
deliberate and indirect disposal of
hazardous substances at the landfill.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Hertel Landfill Site
Town of Plattekill
Ulster County, New York
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Site Name and Location
Hertel Landfill, Town of Plattekill, Ulster County, New York
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Hertel Landfill site (the Site), located in the Town of
Plattekill, Ulster County, New York, which was chosen in
accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive •
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42
U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, as amended, and to the extent practicable,
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, 40 CFR Part 300. This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for the Site.
The information supporting this remedial action decision is
contained in the administrative record for the Site. The
administrative record index is attached (Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
("NYSDEC") concurs with the selected remedy (Appendix IV).
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
Description of the Selected Remedy
This operable unit represents the entire remedial action planned
for the Site. It addresses the principal threats posed by the
Site through controlling the source of contamination and the
migration of contaminated leachate, as well as providing for the
capture and treatment of contaminated groundwater.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
* Capping of the landfill in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part
360 closure requirements for New York State solid waste
landfills; the areal extent of the cap is expected to
be approximately 13 acres although the exact extent of
the cap will not be determined until the design phase
of the project;
* Additional soil sampling along the western portion of
the disposal area to determine the need to extend the
cap or to consolidate these soils under the cap;
-------
* Installation and monitoring of landfill gas vents
throughout the landfill mound;
* Development and implementation of an on-site
groundwater extraction and treatment system utilizing
innovative treatment via membrane microfiltration and
an ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide oxidation
system;
* Performance of a treatability study to demonstrate that
the innovative groundwater treatment system is
effective. If the study demonstrates that this
technology is not effective, then a contingency remedy
which utilizes precipitation, filtration, and carbon
adsorption for groundwater treatment will be
implemented. The contingency remedy is identical to
the selected remedy in all other aspects;
* Development and implementation of a groundwater
monitoring program including additional sampling and
analysis of residential wells and subsequent follow up
actions as necessary;
* Construction of fencing around the perimeter of the
approximately 13-acre landfill area part of the Site,
as well as the Site area;
* Recommendations that ordinances be established or
restrictions imposed on the deed to ensure that future
use of the Site property will maintain the integrity of
the cap; and
* Measures to mitigate potential disturbance of adjacent
wetland.
Declaration
The selected remedy and contingency remedy are protective of
human health and the environment, comply with federal and state
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and are cost effective.
However, because treatment of the principal threats of the Site
was not found to be practicable, this remedy and contingency
remedy do not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the source control portion of the remedy.
The size of the landfill, and the fact that the remedial
investigation did not identify on-site hot spots that represent
the major sources of contamination, preclude a remedy in which
contaminants could be excavated and treated effectively.
However, the selected remedy and contingency remedy do call for
the treatment of contaminated groundwater at the Site and hence
satisfy the preference for treatment for this portion of the
remedy.
-------
The selected remedy and contingency remedy include a groundwater
extraction and treatment system which reduces the toxicity and
nobility of contaminated groundwater. The permanence of
reduction in contaminated groundwater toxicity would be monitored
upon discontinuation of the pump and treat system.
Since this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted no
later than five years after commencement of the remedial action,
and every five years thereafter, to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
_
^onstantine Sicfamon-Eristoff /' J Da^fce
Regional Administrator ' ' '
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
HERTEL LANDFILL SITE
TOWN OF PLATTEKILL
ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II, New York
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION . . . 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 4
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 12
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 17
SELECTED REMEDY 25
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 29
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 32
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Hertel Landfill (the Site) is located in the town of
Plattekill, Ulster County, New York, just south of U.S. Route
44/NY Route 55 and approximately midway between Bedell Avenue and
Tuckers Corner Road (see Figure 1). The property occupies
approximately 80 acres and is oriented in a north-south
direction; the entire 80-acre property is herein considered the
Site. The landfill area occupies approximately 13 acres of the
property, ""he 80-acre property is zoned for residential use.
A locked gate exists across the main access road near Route
44/55; however, there is no perimeter fence. There are no
buildings on the Site. Private residences are located north of
the Site on Route 44/55 (approximately 1200 feet from the
landfill), and also east of the Site on Tuckers Corner Road
(approximately 3000 feet from the landfill).
The topography of the Site is generally flat with a gentle
overall slope descending to the east. Abundant vegetation covers
most of the property with the exception of limited portions of
the landfill. This landfill is located roughly at the center of
the Site and is covered with vegetation, rocky soil, wastes and
patches of grass and small shrubs. Previous investigations
identified a number of waste disposal areas which comprise the
landfill (see Figure 2).
Wetlands border the Site to the north, south, and east. Based on
the Tentative Freshwater Wetlands Map of Ulster County (New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 1986),
areas identified as potential wetlands also cover approximately
13 percent of the total area of the Site. A small unnamed stream
crosses the southern and eastern area of the Site and flows in a
northeasterly direction, bordering the east side of the fill
area.
A total of five ecological community types have been identified
on-site, including old field, forested upland, forested wetland,
stream and open water (pond). The forested wetland is located in
a basin in the southwest area of the Site; vegetation species
that have been observed include tussock sedge, sphagnum moss and
various hydrophytic perennials and annuals. Hydrophytic shrubs
and herbaceous species were found in the stream area. The ponded
wetland area in the northern section of the Site contains
floating, submergent and emergent vegetation. Thirteen plant
species, which are on the NYSDEC protected status list, exist on
the Site.
There are no federally listed threatened or endangered species
identified at the Site. One threatened species protected under
the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, the red
shouldered hawk, was identified on the Site.
-------
Two aquifers exist beneath the Site. The bedrock material is the
Austin Glen formation and described as a greywacke and shale;
variegated light blue to blue-grey fine to medium grained
sandstone (greywacke) with occasional seams of shale have been
observed. The rock has well defined bedding planes and the upper
few feet are slightly weathered. The overburden is a glacial
till deposit consisting of an unsorted mixture of material (clay,
silt, sand, gravel, and boulders) which widely range in size,
she1e, and permeability. Overlying the till deposit is a layer
of light brown fine and or fine sand and silt.
A review of existing flood insurance maps indicated that no
portions of the Site are located in either the 100- or 500-year
flood zone.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
The Hertel Landfill was established in 1963 as a municipal waste
landfill. Based upon an analysis of aerial photos it is believed
that about 10 acres of the Site were used when the landfill was
operating. Until 1975 the landfill was owned and operated by
Carlo Hertel and later by his family (Hertel Enterprises).
Around 1970, Dutchess Sanitation Services, Inc. began hauling
refuse from Dutchess County to the Hertel Landfill and in 1975,
Dutchess Sanitation Services, Inc. purchased the landfill.
In April 1976, the Ulster County Department of Health (UCDOH)
revoked the landfill permit for a variety of violations, among
which were allegations of illegal industrial dumping. The UCDOH
action and a Town of Plattekill ordinance, prohibiting the dumping
of out-of-town garbage resulted in the permanent closing of the
Site in March of 1977.
Ownership of the Site then passed from Dutchess Sanitation
Services, Inc. through•two subsequent parties [a partnership
known as F.I.C.A. and then to Hudson Valley Environmental
Services, Inc. (HVES)] to its current owner, Paul V. Winters and
his corporation, Environmental Landfills, Inc. (ELI), based in
New Windsor, New York. No landfilling operations or other
activities are currently performed at the Site under the present
proprietor, ELI.
During this time, the New York State Departments of Environmental
Conservation, Health (NYSDOH), and Law (NYSDOL) had filed suit
against F.I.C.A. and HVES for cleanup of the landfill Site; this
action was subsequently discontinued following the placement of
the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) and the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) assumption of the lead
role for Site activities. However, the State did reserve the
right to activate the case in the future. Previous
investigations included the installation of five groundwater
-------
monitoring veils in 1981, under the supervision of Wehran
Engineering, Inc. and at the direction of the State of New York.
In 1981, NYSDEC directed HVES to conduct groundwater monitoring.
Sampling and analysis of groundwater in 1980 and 1982 revealed
measurable amounts of various organic compounds and a number of
metals. Three surface water samples, described as leachate, were
collected in March and May of 1981 by the NYSDEC. Analyses
indicated phenols, organic compounds and a number of metals.
Based on the.e results, the NYSDEC placed the Hertel Landfill
Site on the New York State I/ st of Hazardous Haste Disposal
Sites. In 1983, the Site was recommended for inclusion on the
NPL by the NYSDEC and in October 1984, the EPA proposed the
Hertel Landfill Site for inclusion on the NPL. In June 1986, the
Hertel Landfill Site was placed on the final list of federal
Superfund sites.
In 1987, Dynamac Corporation, on behalf of the current owner,
ELI, initiated the preparation of a "Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study Work Plan/Scoping Document" under the guidance
of the NYSDOL. ELI had intended to implement this Work Plan, but
subsequently declined to do so. Therefore, the completion of the
Work Plan and the necessary field work was performed by the EPA
contractor, TAMS Consultants, Inc., beginning in April 1989.
Field work began in September 1989 and was completed in August
1990.
The landfill is currently mainly covered with vegetative growth.
However, previously buried materials are starting to become
exposed; also, there is exposed rubbish, debris, etc.
On August 14, 1991, general notice letters were sent to sixteen
entities who were determined at that time to be potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) at the Site. The general notice
letters informed these parties of their potential liability at
the Site. It is anticipated that special notice letters will be
sent to some or all of the PRPs with a copy of this ROD, in order
to ascertain their interest in conducting the remedial design and
remedial action.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
On November 16, 1989, the EPA conducted the first public meeting
concerning the Hertel Landfill Superfund Site at the Town of
Plattekill Town Hall, Modena, New York. The meeting was designed
to inform local officials and interested citizens about the
Superfund process, to review current and planned remedial
activities at the Site and to respond to any questions from area
residents and other attendees.
The remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) reports and
the Proposed Plan for the Site were released for public comment
on July 25, 1991 and July 26, 1991 respectively. These documents
-------
were made available to the public in the administrative record
file at the EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York and the
information repositories at the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York, the Plattekill Town
Hall, Modena, New York and Plattekill Public Library, Modena, New
York. A press release announcing the availability of these
documents was issued on July 31, 1991. The public comment period
was set by EPA to end on August 26, 1991; however, at the request
of a PRP, the comment period was extended to September 25, 1991.
During this comment period, EPA held a public meeting to present
the RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan, answer questions, and
accept both oral and written comments. The public meeting was
held in the Plattekill Town Hall, Modena, New York on August 14,
1991. At this meeting, representatives from the EPA, NYSDEC and
NYSDOH answered questions about problems at the Site and the
remedial alternatives under consideration. Responses to the
comments received during the public comment period are included
in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
EPA has planned to implement the remedial work in a single phase.
The major objective of this work is to control the source of
contamination at the Site. Concurrently, it is intended to
minimize the further contamination of the wetlands in the area
and the downgradient migration of contaminants in groundwater.
Specifically, the purpose of the response action is to: 1)
minimize the infiltration of rainfall or snow melt into the
landfill, thus reducing the quantity of water percolating through
the landfill materials and leaching out contaminants; 2) minimize
any further contamination of the wetlands; and 3) reduce the
movement and toxicity of the contaminated landfill leachate into
groundwater and subsequent downgradient migration of
contaminants.
This response action will utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. However, because the treatment of the principal
threats at the Site is not practicable, this response action does
not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the source control portion of the remedy. The size of
the landfill, and the fact that the RI did not identify on-site
hot spots in the soil that represent the major sources of
contamination, preclude a remedy in which contaminants could be
excavated and treated effectively.
It is noted that the listing of a release or threat of release on
the NPL merely represents EPA's initial determination that a
certain area may need to be addressed under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
-------
However, as explained in 54 Federal Register 41002-3, 1989, the
RI/FS and ROD for a CERCLA action may offer a useful indication
to the public of contaminated areas at which the Agency is
considering taking response action (based on information present
at that time). To that extent this ROD does not identify a
problem at, or seek to address, the 67 acres of the Site lying
outside the actual 13 acre landfill area which is the only area
intended for remedial action u>der CERCLA. The outlying area may
therefore be used for purposes best determined by the local
authorities given the close proximity to the Superfund site.
However, it has not yet been determined whether adjoining areas
may need to be utilized for treatment facilities or other
ancillary facilities necessary to support remedial actions
selected for the Site. The precise extent of such areas will be
determined during the remedial design and remedial action phases
of the project. In addition, since wastes will remain on-site
above health-based levels, the protectiveness of the remedy will
have to be evaluated every five years. These evaluations could
result in a modification of the selected remedy resulting in the
need to utilize additional land area to ensure that the remedy is
protective of human health and the environment.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Hertel Landfill was used for the disposal of municipal solid
waste from 1963 until its closure in 1977. During the early
1970s, there were reports of industrial waste dumping as well as
reports of improper operations relative to landfill operations
and permits. Analyses of environmental samples taken from the
Site demonstrate that hazardous substances were disposed of at
the Site.
Sixteen feet or more of landfill material exists in some areas of
the Site. It is estimated that a total of 240,000 cubic yards of
refuse were disposed of at the Site.
The study area for the RI/FS was divided into environmental areas
representing landfill as well as background, upgradient, and
downgradient locations, with background conditions not considered
to be within the groundwater flow path from the landfill. The
locations of sampling stations are indicated in Figure 3.
A geophysical investigation, which included electromagnetic
conductivity, magnetometry and metal detection, was conducted at
the Site to identify areas within the landfill where buried
metallic wastes might be present. Based on the results of this
investigation, twenty-five test pits were excavated to observe
the landfill material. Nothing other than debris typical of
municipal landfills was observed in the fill material excavated.
No buried drums were located.
-------
The potential for direct human exposure as well as the potential
for further contaminant migration to groundwater and surface
water exists at the Site. There are no permanent controls in
place to prevent contaminant migration.
Groundwater
As part of the groundwater investigation, a total of nineteen
aonitoring wells were installed. Fifteen wells were installed in
the overburden aquifer and four in the bedrock aquifer. Two
rounds of groundwater sampling were conducted. The groundwater
samples were analyzed for volatile organics (VOC's), semi-
volatile organics, pesticides and PCBs, inorganics and standard
water quality parameters. A summary of the analytical results is
given in Table 1A. Contaminants in the groundwater are listed
and compared to Federal and/or State maximum contaminant levels
in Table 2A. Several VOCs, BNAs and metals and other inorganics
exceeded one or more standards. The following are some
contaminants of concern and the highest concentrations detected:
chlorobenzene (24 ppb), ethylbenzene (64 ppb), xylenes (240 ppb),
benzoic acid (200 ppb), diethylphthalate (900 ppb), arsenic (44
ppb), barium (1980 ppb), and manganese (121,000 ppb).
Groundwater in the overburden aquifer appears to flow eastward
toward the landfill base and the wetland which borders the
landfilled area to the east. The direction of the groundwater
gradient in the bedrock aquifer (based on very limited data) is
generally toward the northeast or east.
Residential Wells
A total of nine area residential wells were sampled by EPA (see
Table IP) and NYSDOH. The results from initial and follow-up
sampling indicated that the water supply was of satisfactory
quality (i.e., State and Federal primary standards) for the
analytical tests that were performed.
Surface Water
Surface water samples were collected to determine if the Site is
impacting surface water or sediment quality and if components of
on-site waste are being transported off-site. A summary of
analytical results is given in Table IB. Contaminants in surface
water are listed and compared to standards in Table 2B.
Trace concentrations of VOCs, phenols, naphthalene and/or
polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds were detected in several
leachate seep samples. Many of the inorganic compounds and
landfill leachate indicator parameters were present at elevated
concentrations.
-------
In on-site stream samples, inorganic compounds and leachate
parameters (chlorides and bicarbonates) were present at levels
approximately 2 to 35 times above background levels. Analogous
results were obtained in samples collected from the pond/wetland
area north of the fill and west of the Site access road. Surface
water downgradient of the Site exhibited similar elevated
results, but with decreased effects with increasing distance from
the landfill.
Sediments
To evaluate the potential impact of on-site wastes being
transported off-site by erosion and redeposition of sediment.
samples were taken from seep locations along the eastern toe of
the landfill, from the stream along the eastern side of the Site,
from the northern wetland, and from the stream downgradient of
the Site. A summary of analytical results is presented in Table
1C and a comparison to standards is given in Table 2C.
At the seep locations results were highly variable. In general,
organic compounds were not detected at significantly elevated
levels. The only inorganic analyte elevated significantly over
background was cadmium. With respect to the sediment samples
taken in the on-site stream and the northern wetland, the results
were similar to these at the seep locations, i.e., cadmium
appeared at significantly elevated levels. Sediments
downgradient of the Site did exhibit the presence of several PAHs
and BNA compounds, but these could readily be attributable to
•roadway (Route 44/55) runoff.
Sjoils
During the RI/FS field investigation, seven disposal areas were
identified in the main fill area and an eighth disposal area was
tentatively identified south of the main fill area. Surface
and/or subsurface soil samples were collected from the waste
disposal areas and from other areas of the fill to characterize
contaminants in the fill and to provide some indication if the
wastes are Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
"characteristic" wastes, i.e. hazardous by RCRA definition.
Subsurface soil samples were collected at selected boring
locations to provide additional background data for subsurface
soils.
Summaries of surface soil data and subsurface soil data are
presented in Tables ID and IE respectively. Comparison of
surface soil contaminant concentrations with RCRA facility
investigation guidance values is presented in Table 2D. No
Federal or State of New York standards exist for assessing
contamination in surface or subsurface soils.
-------
8
The range of compounds detected and their concentration levels
were highly variable yet typical of what night be expected at a
landfill. Further, none of the samples obtained yielded analyses
which would indicate the presence of "hot spots". Samples were
submitted for the EP toxicity test which prior to the
promulgation of the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule (effective
September 25, 1990), had been used to determine if a waste is
hazardous by characteristic. Results were less than the "imits
previously used to characterize wastes as hazardous. These
results and other knowledge of waste characteristics do not
indicate that RCRA TC wastes are present.
Ecological Investigation
The scope of field investigations included the sampling/surveying
of the following components: wetlands, macroinvertebrates,
birds, fish, mammals, herpetofauna, and general vegetation.
There were no federal threatened or endangered species located on
the Site. Thirteen species of plants were identified on-site
which are protected by New York State. The red-shouldered hawk
is the only New York State threatened species which was
identified on-site. The benthic macroinvertebrate study
conducted on-site was inconclusive; the potential exists for Site
contaminants to produce adverse effects to aquatic organisms.
Additionally, there is some indication that the potential exists
for elevated inorganics (selenium, cadmium and mercury) in soil
to produce adverse environmental effects.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EPA conducted a baseline Risk Assessment to evaluate the
potential risks to human health and the environment associated
with the Hertel Landfill Site in its current state. The Risk
Assessment focused on contaminants in the groundwater, surface
water, sediment and soil which are likely to pose significant
risks to human health and the environment. A summary of the
contaminants present in each matrix, along with their frequency-
of-detection, range, and 95% Upper Confidence Limit, are
presented in Tables 1A-1E. The summary of the contaminants of
concern (COC) in sampled matrices is listed in Table 3.
Nine exposure pathways were evaluated under possible on-site
present and future land use conditions and are summarized in
Table 4. These exposure pathways were evaluated separately for
adults and children. In addition, exposure of workers, in the
event of future construction activities on the landfill, was
evaluated. The exposure pathways considered under both current
and future uses are: ingestion of groundwater from the
overburden aquifers; inhalation of airborne chemicals adsorbed to
dust; inhalation of volatiles in groundwater while showering;
incidental ingestion of surface water; dermal absorption of
-------
contaminants in surface water; ingestion of soils; ingestion of
contaminants in soil and home dust (future use only); dermal
absorption of contaminants in soils, and inhalation of
contaminants in soils.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and non-carcinogenic effects due to exposure to
Site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that
the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be
additive. Thus, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks
associated with exposures to individual compounds of concern
were summed to indicate the potential risks associated with
mixtures of potential carcinogens and non-carcinogens,
respectively.
Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of mg/kg-day, are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans
which are thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive
individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental
media e.g.. the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water are compared with the RfD to derive the hazard
quotient for the contaminant in the particular medium. The
hazard index is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all
compounds across all media.
A hazard index greater than 1 indicates that the potential exists
for non-carcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-
related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media. A summary of
the parameter values used to estimate exposure is provided in
Table 5. The reference doses for the compounds of concern at the
Hertel Landfill Site are presented in Tables 6A-6D.
A summary of the non-carcinogenic risks associated with these
chemicals across various exposure pathways are found in Tables
8C,D,G,H,& J. It can be seen that non-carcinogenic risks to
children in a future residential use scenario, such as the
potential for damage to vital organs, are possible from exposure
to Site contamination based on the calculated HI of 100. The
estimated total non-carcinogenic hazard index is primarily due to
ingestion of metals in Site groundwater including manganese
(HI=80) and arsenic (HI=10). These calculations are based on the
assumed future residential use of this Site using the contaminant
levels detected in on-site monitoring wells and soil samples.
The potential future risks posed via ingestion of Site
groundwater, and the fact that contaminants were present in on-
site groundwater samples above State and Federal drinking water
-------
10
standards, make the groundwater contamination a primary concern
at the Site.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by EPA for the compounds of concern.
Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the'conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the SF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the compounds of concern
are presented in Tables 7A t 7B.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10"1 to 10* to
be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has not
greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure
conditions at the Site.
A summary of the carcinogenic risks associated with the compounds
of concern across various exposure pathways under the reasonable
maximum exposure scenario are found in Tables 8A,B,E,F,& I.
Under possible future land-use conditions, adults exposed to
contamination from residing on the Site are at a potential total
excess lifetime cancer risk of 7xlO'3. This suggests that an
individual has a seven in one thousand increased chance of
developing cancer as a result of exposure to the Site. The
estimated total carcinogenic risk is primarily due to dermal
contact with arsenic in soil. Another exposure scenario which
also presented a significant risk, and which is more likely to
occur in the disposal areas than the establishment of residences,
is the current/recreational use of the Site. Under this use, it
was estimated that children and adults trespassing on the Site
would be subject to carcinogenic risks of 5x10^ and 4x10"*
respectively, due to dermal contact with arsenic in the soil.
The calculations were based on the contaminants detected in the
soil and on-site monitoring wells. It was assumed that in the
future these wells would be used for residential purposes.
Calculations were developed by taking into account various
conservative assumptions about the likelihood of residents being
exposed to the various contaminated media.
-------
11
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide
variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media
sampled. Environmental chemistry analysis errors can stem from
several sources including the errors inherent in the analytical
methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with
the chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such
exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of
exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by
making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure
parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk
Assessment provides upper bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the Landfill, and is highly unlikely to
underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
More specific information concerning public health risks,
including a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk
associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the Rl
Report.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The environmental assessment evaluated potential exposure routes
of the Site contamination to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.
An ecological survey was performed to identify any threatened or
endangered species.
One threatened species protected under the NYS Environmental
Conservation Law, the red-shouldered hawk, was identified on the
Site. Thirteen plant species, which are on the NYSDEC protected
status list, exist on the Site.
-------
12
A general trend of elevated concentrations of organic and
inorganic contaminants exists in one or more environmental media
at the Site. Of the identified inorganics of concern in soils,
selenium, cadmium and mercury present a potential for ecological
effects. Similar conclusions were not drawn for organic
compounds due to a paucity of ecotoxicological data on these
compounds.
The wetlands in the vicinity of the Site were delineated
preliminarily. The need to minimize the disturbance of these
wetland habitats via migration of contaminants from the landfill,
as well as via any future remediation activities, was identified
as an important factor to be considered in the design of the Site
remedy. Of particular concern were the leachate seeps located at
the toe of the landfill. These seeps discharge to the surface
and to an adjacent wetland. A definitive delineation of the
wetlands and an evaluation of their functional value will be
performed before the commencement of design activities for the
Site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by the selected alternative or one of the
other remedial measures considered, may present a current or
potential threat to the public health, welfare, and the
environment through the continued leaching and migration of
contaminants from the landfill and human exposure to contaminated
soils.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Following a screening of remedial technologies in accordance with
the National Contingency Plan (NCP), the following remedial
alternatives were developed for the Site. The alternatives were
further screened based on technical considerations such as
effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Time to implement
reflects the period following the ROD necessary to develop work
plans, complete remedial designs, conduct construction
activities, and also the time necessary to obtain
comments/approvals, conduct negotiations with PRPs, issue
inquiries, evaluate and select contractors, etc. as required by
Federal and State regulations and procedures.
These alternatives are:
Alternative 1: No Action
Capital Cost: $58,100
0 & M Cost: $132,200/yr.
Present Worth Cost: $2,509,000
Time to Implement: 9 months
Duration: 30 years
-------
13
The NCP requires that the no-action alternative be considered as
a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. The no-
action alternative does not include any physical remedial
measures that address the contamination at the Site.
This alternative would consist of a long-term groundwater
monitoring program that would provide data for the assessment of
the impact on the underlying groundwater of leaving contaminated
materials on-site. This program would utilize wells installed
during the RI at the Site and six additional wells. Groundwater
samples would be taken on a quarterly basis.
In addition, the no-action alternative would include the
development and implementation of a public awareness and
education program to enhance the community's knowledge of the
conditions existing at the Site. This program would require the
involvement of the local government, various health departments
and environmental agencies.
Under this alternative, the Site would be reviewed every five
years pursuant to CERCLA requirements. Using data from the
groundwater sampling program, these five year reviews would
include the reassessment of health and environmental risks due to
the contaminated material left on-site. If justified by the
review, remedial actions might be implemented.
Alternative 2: Site Use Restrictions and Capping
Capital Cost: $3,482,000
O & M Cost: $162,800/yr.
Present Worth Cost: $7,182,000
Time to Implement: 30 months .
Duration: 30 years cap maintenance
As with Alternative 1, this alternative would include a
groundwater monitoring program and public,awareness program.
However, this alternative would also provide for restricted Site
access and capping of the landfill area.
A chain link fence would surround the perimeter of the capped
area, thereby restricting access. Along the fence, at
appropriate intervals, warning signs would be placed that would
caution the public as to the Superfund status of the Site. One
access gate would be provided, which would be kept locked, to
allow access for groundwater sampling and review purposes.
Institutional controls in the form of local ordinances, and/or
deed restrictions would be recommended in an attempt to restrict
future use of the land because of the threats posed by
contamination.
-------
14
The major feature of Alternative 2 would be the construction of a
multi-layer closure cap over the landfill mound. This would
minimize the infiltration of rainfall or snow melt into the
landfill and reduce the movement of the contaminated leachate to
the groundwater.
The design of the cap would comply with the standards of Title 6,
New York State Compilation of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part
360, which addresses New York State Solid Waste Management
Facilities and landfill closure requirements. This facility
would comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Prior to construction of the cap, the
landfill mound would have to be regraded and compacted to provide
a stable foundation for placement of the various layers of the
cap. The Part 360 standards include minimum liquid migration
through the wastes, low cover maintenance requirements, efficient
site drainage, high resistance to damage by settling or
subsidence, and a low permeability cap. In addition to the
various layers, the cap would include allowances for the
installation of gas vents necessary for the escape of methane
generated by the decomposition of landfill materials, and also
provide for groundwater monitoring wells within the landfill
mound. The cap would consist of a four layered system: an upper
vegetative layer, a soil protective layer over a low permeability
layer, and a gas vent/collection layer. The landfill mound
surface area, including the side slopes, is estimated to be 13
acres.
Contaminated groundwater would be left to attenuate without any
treatment, and groundwater monitoring wells would be installed
within the landfill mound. Groundwater samples would be
collected for analyses to evaluate the effect of the cap on the
groundwater flow through the saturated portion of the landfill
materials and on the surrounding aquifer. Emissions from
landfill gas vents would also be monitored.
EPA believes that this alternative would result in achieving risk
reduction to levels below 10"6 and a hazard index below 1 for
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks respectively. However,
the potential for contaminants to migrate off-site, although
lessened due to the landfill cap, would continue to exist and
could impact nearby residential wells.
As with Alternative 1, a review of the Site's status would be
conducted every five years.
Alternative 2A: Site Use Restrictions, Capping and
Slurry Wall
Capital Cost: $8,406,000
0 & M Cost: $170,800/yr.
Present Worth Cost: $13,238,000
-------
15
Tine to Implement: 36 months
Duration: 30 years cap maintenance
The scope of this alternative is the same as Alternative 2,
except for the addition of a slurry wall. The purpose of the
slurry wall would be to act as a barrier to groundwater flow and
to lower the water table such that leachate breakout at the toe
of the landfill would be eliminated.
The slurry wal- design would be based on the use of a
cement/bentonite construction rather than soil/bentonite due to
slope. The wall would be located upgradient of the landfill
area, approximately 1800 feet long, 3 feet in width and keyed
into the underlying bedrock with an average depth of 40 feet.
EPA believes that this alternative would result in achieving risk
reduction to levels below 10* and a hazard index below 1 for
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks, respectively. However,
the potential for contaminants to migrate off-site, although
lessened due to the landfill cap, would continue to exist and
could impact nearby residential wells.
In order to monitor the effectiveness of this system 8
observation wells would be installed. These wells in addition to
the existing monitoring wells in the fill area, would facilitate
confirmation of the effectiveness of the slurry wall
in maintaining the groundwater table at a level below the base of
the fill material. In addition, a review of the Site's status
would be conducted every 5 years.
Alternative 4: Site Use Restrictions, Capping, Ground-
water Extraction with On-Site Treatment
Capital Cost: $3,989,000
0 & M Cost: $316,400/yr. years 0-12
$162,800/yr. years 13-17
$31,000/yr. years 18-30
Present Worth Cost: $8,774,000
Time to Implement: 36 months
Duration: 12 years groundwater extraction and treatment;
30 years cap maintenance
This alternative is identical to Alternative 2, with the addition
of a groundwater pumping system within the landfill mound to
control leachate migration.
The groundwater extraction system would consist of a series of
pumping wells installed around the inside of the landfill. The
groundwater pumping wells would extend through the landfill
material and end at bedrock. They would be screened through the
entire saturated length. It is estimated that approximately 22
extraction wells would be required to provide capture of the
-------
16
contaminated groundwater beneath the landfill. These wells would
produce an estimated total removal rate of approximately 10
gallons per minute or 14,000 gallons per day. These estimates,
presented in detail in the FS report, would be field verified via
performance of an aquifer pumping test during the remedial
design. Also, further studies may be conducted during that phase
to optimize the number and location of extraction wells. Pulsed
pumping may also be considered.
The extracted groundwater would be prefiltered to remove gross
solids and then pumped nto an equalization tank. This tank
would be utilized to equalize the groundwater flow.and
contaminant concentrations, which may be variable.
The collected groundwater would be treated in an on-site
treatment system. This treatment system would use chemical
precipitation and clarification followed by filtration to remove
metals and suspended solids. A carbon adsorption system would be
utilized to remove organic compounds from the filtration
effluent.
The organic compounds and metals present in the extracted
groundwater would be reduced to concentrations which are below
the site-specific surface water discharge standards which would
be determined in accordance with the New York State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES). It is expected that the
effluent groundwater would be discharged to the adjacent wetlands
unless detrimental impacts would result from such an action.
Other discharge options, such as reinjection, would be evaluated
during the design of the remedy. Groundwater remediation would
result in the attainment of State and Federal ARARs for ground-
water and drinking water at the Site boundary.
EPA believes that this alternative would result in achieving risk
reduction to levels below 10"6 and a hazard index below 1 for
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks, respectively.
Under Alternative 4, solids are expected to accumulate at a rate
of approximately 24 pounds per day, for a total annual
accumulation of 4 tons. Treatment residues generated would be
disposed of in accordance with RCRA Land Disposal Restriction
requirements. In addition, a review of the Site's status would
be conducted every five years.
Alternative 4A: Site Use Restrictions, Capping, Groundwater
Extraction vitb On-site Innovative Treatment
Capital Cost: $3,995,000
0 & M Cost: $267,000/yr. years 0-12
. $162,800/yr. years 13-17
$31,000/yr. years 18-30
Present Worth Cost: $8,207,000
-------
17
Tine to Implement: 36 months
Duration: 12 years groundwater extraction & treatment;
30 years cap maintenance
This alternative is similar to Alternative 4. However, the
treatment system to be employed would consist of a membrane
microfiltration unit for inorganics removal and ultraviolet (UV)
oxidation for organics removal.
The microfiltration system is an innovative treatment system
being developed and is currently included in EPA's Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. Prior to the
microfiltration stage, the groundwater is pretreated with lime to
precipitate metals. Microfiltration is designed to remove solid
particles from liquid wastes and consists of an automatic
pressure filter combined with special filter material, and
operates in a cyclical manner. Solids greater than one ten-
millionth of a meter are retained as a filter cake. Pilot tests
at the Palmerton Zinc Superfund site produced a filtrate with
non-detectable levels of heavy metals.
UV oxidation would follow the membrane microfiltration unit. UV
oxidation is a process in which UV light and hydrogen peroxide
chemically oxidize organic contaminants dissolved in water. The
combined UV light and hydroxy radicals (strong oxidizers formed
from hydrogen peroxide) promote rapid breakdown of organic^: -to
carbon dioxide and water without the creation of air emission- or
residual waste streams. The oxidation unit would be operated to
reduce the contaminant levels in groundwater to Federal or State
discharge requirements. Operation and maintenance of the unit
consists of UV lamp replacement every four months and occasional
replenishment of the hydrogen peroxide supply. As with
Alternative 4 the groundwater would be remediated until ARARs are
met.
EPA believes that this alternative would result in achieving risk
reduction to levels below 10"6 and a hazard index below 1 for
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks respectively.
Treatment residues would be disposed of in accordance with RCRA
Land Disposal Restriction requirements.
In addition, a review of the Site's status would be conducted
every five years.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
All remedial alternatives were evaluated in detail utilizing nine
criteria as set forth in the NCP and OSWER Directive 9355.3-01.
These criteria were developed to address the requirements of
Section 121 of CERCLA to ensure all important considerations are
factored into remedy selection decisions.
-------
18
The following "threshold" criteria are the most important and
must be satisfied by any alternative in order to be eligible for
selection:
Threshold Criteria o Overall protection of human health and
the environment; and
o Compliance with applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make
comparisons and to identify the major tra^e-offs between
alternatives:
Primary Balancing o Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
Criteria o Reduction in toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment;
o Short-term effectiveness;
o Implementability; and
o Cost.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
Modifying Criteria o State/support agency acceptance; and
o Community acceptance.
The nine criteria are summarized below:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate
protection and describes how risks posed through each
exposure pathway (based on a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy
would meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of Federal and State environmental statutes and
requirements or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been
met. It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of
the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed
by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume through treatment
is the anticipated performance of a remedial technology,
with respect to these parameters, that a remedy may employ.
-------
19
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation periods until cleanup goals
are achieved.
6. Implementabilitv is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and
maintenance costs, and the present worth costs.
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of
the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports,
opposes, and/or has any identified reservations with the
preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the
RI/FS reports. Factors of community acceptance to be
discussed include support, reservation, and opposition by
the community.
A comparative analysis of these alternatives based upon the
evaluation criteria noted above, are as follows:
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 4 and 4A provide the best approach to protection of
human health and the environment. Alternative 4 relies on proven
technologies, at a small cost increase, as compared to
Alternative 4A which is based on innovative technologies.
All alternatives, except Alternative 1 are protective. However,
Alternatives 2 and 2A rely on natural attenuation of
contamination in groundwater and land use restrictions. In
comparison Alternatives 4 and 4A provide additional protection by
the active means of pumping and treating groundwater, thus
reducing migration of contaminants from the Site. Although
ultimate resumption of contact between the soil/waste and ground-
water table is anticipated, the existence of the pump and treat
system does provide means for resumed operation of treatment
should it be deemed necessary at the completion of the extraction
period.
Alternatives 2, 2A, 4 and 4A are all designed, via the cap, to
prevent leachate seeps, thereby reducing surface water
contamination levels.
Alternative 1, the no action alternative, is the least protective
of human health and the environment. This alternative does not
-------
20
limit site access or future site development and, therefore, does
not address the principle threats posed by the Site.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 4 and 4A are expected to meet chemical-specific
ARARs for the groundwater. However, once pump and treat
operations are discontinued, the resumption of contact between
th^ soil/waste matrix and the groundwater may cause chemical
specific groundwater ARARs to be exceeded. If this is the case,
continued "pulsed" pumping and treatment of the groundwater may
be necessary. The technologies employed under Alternative 4A may
not be as effective in reaching ARAR-based cleanup levels for
effluent discharge. However, based on the information available
it is anticipated that ARARs will be achieved under this
alternative.
Alternatives 2 and 2A rely on natural attenuation to attain
chemical-specific ARARs for contaminants detected in the ground-
water and are not expected to achieve ARARs for a significant
amount of time. For Alternative 2A, the elimination of ground-
water flow through the in-place waste materials may eventually
result in reduced groundwater contaminant levels, but treatment
of the currently detected contaminant levels would not be
provided. Alternative 2 would take significantly longer to reach
ARARs in groundwater than the other alternatives.
Alternatives 2, 2A, 4 and 4A would meet the action specific
sanitary landfill closure ARARs as the final cap and surface
drainage features would be constructed in accordance with New
York Solid Waste Management Facility landfill closure
regulations.
Hazardous treatment residues that may be generated in
Alternatives 4 and 4A would be disposed of in accordance with
RCRA Land Disposal Restriction requirements.
Alternative 1, the no action alternative, is not expected to
attain chemical-specific ARARs for the groundwater in a
reasonable time frame. No location-specific or action-specific
ARARs would be applicable under the no action alternative.
Location-specific ARARs may potentially be triggered for wetlands
which cover some portions of the Site. It appears as though all
of the action alternatives could impact the wetlands to a similar
degree. However, based on preliminary identification, most of the
wetlands will not be impacted by the remediation activities
evaluated herein. The extent of the impact to the wetlands will
be determined during the design phase of the project. Wetlands
that might be impacted by the remediation activities would be
restored to the maximum extent practicable in compliance with the
appropriate wetlands and discharge regulations.
-------
21
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
None of the alternatives actively address remediation of
contaminants currently detected in surface water or sediment
(other than contamination associated with leachate seeps).
Therefore, all alternatives could present some residual risk
based on incidental ingestion and dermal contact with sediments
under a recreational use scenario. These calculated risks,
however, ai* within the acceptable risk ranges and are not
considered to seriously impact the long-term effectiveness of the
alternatives, especially with respect to those alternatives for
which site access will be limited for an extended period based on
the long-term operation of on-site remedial systems.
Alternative 2A would result in minimal residual risk through the
containment rather than treatment of on-site contaminants. The
combination of the cap and slurry wall minimize contact with soil
contaminants and potential exposure pathways associated with on-
site groundwater contamination, although potential exposure to
surface water/sediment would exist if access to the Site is not
fully controlled e.g., if the Site is used as a recreational area
following capping. The slurry wall would minimize contact of the
groundwater table with in-place waste materials, thereby
minimizing future contamination of groundwater. These
containment features are expected to be highly reliable with
minor maintenance or monitoring; if they should fail, replacement
or repair would not be exceptionally difficult.
Alternatives 4 and 4A provide comparable levels of long-term
protectiveness. While treating the groundwater and reducing
dermal exposure risks through containment features, these
alternatives do not provide for treatment of the source of
contamination. Therefore, the long-term effectiveness of these
alternatives in maintaining reduced groundwater contaminant
levels following discontinuation of the pump and treat system
operation is not guaranteed. The water table can be expected to
return to a level within the waste materials when pumping is
discontinued, thereby potentially allowing for future ground-
water contamination. If this is determined to be the case,
pulsed pumping of the system might be warranted. These
alternatives also require long-term management in the form of cap
maintenance and groundwater treatment system monitoring and
operation. Because of the ongoing operation of the groundwater
treatment system, use of the Site for recreation and the
associated potential exposures are not considered to apply to
these alternatives.
Alternative 2 would not treat the source of contamination or the
contaminated groundwater on-site, although it would provide
protection against dermal exposures to soil contaminants through
its capping containment feature. This alternative requires
minimal long-term management in the form of cap maintenance and
-------
22
monitoring. Potential exposure to surface water/sediment
contaminants will exist under this alternative if access to the
site is not fully controlled e.g., if the Site is used as a
recreation area following capping.
Alternative 1, the no action alternative, offers no long-term
effectiveness in terms of protection against current risks
associated with dermal contact with soil contaminants or future
groundwater ingestic i scenarios.
Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Alternative 2A provides a reduction of contaminant mobility,
without treatment, through its containment features. The
alternative utilizes a cap and slurry wall to isolate in-place
waste materials from exposure via direct contact and from
precipitation, infiltration and consequent groundwater migration.
While 'the waste materials are not treated, their isolation limits
the potential risks they pose.
Alternatives 4 and 4A reduce the toxicity of groundwater through
treatment and reduce the mobility of soil contaminants through
containment. The reduction in groundwater toxicity may not be
permanent, however, due to the lack of treatment of the
soil/waste matrix and the ability of the groundwater table to
return to a level within the waste materials upon discontinuation
of operation of the pump and treat system. Subsequently, a pulse
pumping system may be considered.
Alternative 2 only reduces the mobility of the soil contaminants
through containment measures. It does not address groundwater
contamination or limit additional contamination of groundwater
due to continued contact of waste materials with the water table.
Alternative 1 provides no reduction in toxicity, mobility or
volume of contaminants of any media through treatment. Residual
risks are identical to those identified by the baseline risk
assessment. Future risks posed by the Site will depend on future
Site usage.
Short-Term Effectiveness
In general, all alternatives except the no action alternative
require clearing of vegetation from the landfill area, road
improvements or other activities involving disturbance of
contaminated soils. These alternatives pose, at a minimum, non-
cancer risks which exceed acceptable risk ranges to on-site
remedial workers due to inhalation of contaminants adsorbed to
fugitive dust. This pathway of exposure can be minimized through
the use of personal protection equipment. Once remedial
activities are completed, this exposure pathway ceases to exist
for these alternatives.
-------
23
The no action alternative can be considered to be the most
effective alternative with respect to short-term risks. Because
no remediation is proposed under this alternative, no disturbance
of existing contamination occurs and no short-term risks are
realized. It should be emphasized, however, that while no
increases in risks result in the short-term, no protection
against the principle site threats is achieved.
For alternatives that involve site remediation, Alternatives 2
and 2A provide the greatest short-term effectiveness. They pose
the least amount of risk to on-site remedial workers and achieve
protection against dermal contact risks within the shortest time
frame. Alternative 2, however, does not provide the same degree
of protection against groundwater contaminant migration.
Alternatives 4 and 4A also provide good short-term effectiveness.
They pose additional risk to on-site workers due to the
installation of groundwater extraction wells within contaminated
areas, but they also meet remedial response objectives within a
limited time frame, with exposures to groundwater contamination
reduced through groundwater pumping and on-site treatment. The
additional handling of contaminated groundwater and required
discharge to surface water increases the potential risks and
environmental impacts associated with remediation, and makes
these alternatives less effective in the short-term than
Alternative 2A. These alternatives also have longer remedial
time frames associated with achievement of cleanup goals.
Implementability
Technical Feasibility
Wetlands regulations will impact the implementation of all
alternatives except the no action alternative to varying degrees.
Alternatives involving groundwater extraction and discharge to
wetlands/surface water (Alternatives 4, 4A) will require
compliance with regulatory requirements for surface water
discharges. Alternatives 2, 2A, 4, and 4A would require site use
and groundwater use restrictions. The responsibility for the
implementation of such restrictions would be left to State and
local authorities.
Alternative 1, the no action alternative, is the most
implementable because it requires only the installation of
additional monitoring wells.
Alternatives 2 and 2A follow Alternative 1 in iaplementability,
respectively. Capping construction methods are well developed
and easily implemented. The construction of a slurry wall under
Alternative 2A would also be relatively easy to implement,
although existing Site conditions could hamper construction.
-------
24
Alternatives 4 and 4A are similar to Alternative 2, involving the
construction of a cap, but also include the construction of a
groundwater extraction and treatment system. The construction of
such a system would be relatively easy. Minimal technical
problems would be expected in the implementation of Alternative
4. The innovative groundwater treatment technologies included in
Alternative 4A could pose additional technical problems; a
treatability study would be necessary to ensure that these
problems were not significant. The la~k of general availability
of the innovative treatment technologies could also limit the
availability of treatment systems and experienced operational
personnel relative to the other alternatives.
Administrative Feasibility
All of these alternatives would involve some degree of
institutional management. Alternative 1 would require
administrative coordination of the groundwater monitoring program
and the five year site status reviews, along with the development
of the public education program.
The administrative requirements for Alternatives 2 and 2A include
the groundwater monitoring program, and the security fence
inspection. In addition to these activities, the structural
integrity and impermeability of the closure cap and subsurface
barrier must be maintained through a program of periodic
surveillance and necessary repairs. Because of the large land
area of the landfill, this item could be fairly substantial.
In addition to the above, Alternatives 4 and 4A require an
extensive monitoring program, as well as the operation and
maintenance of the groundwater treatment facility. Their
administrative elements are extensive because they include
equipment maintenance schedules, system effluent
monitoring to comply with the SPDES requirements and to adjust
operating parameters, and transportation and disposal of
hazardous process residuals in compliance with regulations.
Availability of Services and Materials
Most services and materials required for implementation of any of
these potential remedial alternatives are readily available.
Standard construction equipment and practices can be employed for
equipment installation and site work activities for all
alternatives. Most of the materials and equipment required for
these alternatives may be obtained in the locality of the Site.
However, excavations necessary for the installation of the
subsurface barrier (Alternative 2A) may require that specialized
operations and equipment be obtained from non-local sources.
-------
25
Because the work would be taking place on a Superfund site, all
on-site personnel must have approved health and safety training.
Many companies are available to provide this training to
contractors. The engineering and design services required for
implementation of Alternatives 2, 2A, 4 and 4A may be obtained
from many vendors. Hazardous waste transportation and disposal
is also commercially available.
Cost
Cost estimates were developed for each of the five alternatives.
Present worth cost estimates consider a 5% discount rate and
operational periods as noted herein. The costs are as follows:
Capital Cost Annual O&M Total Present Worth
1. $ 58,000 $132,200 $ 2,509,000
2. $ 3,482,000 $162,800 $ 7,182,000
2A. $ 8,406,000 $170,800 $13,238,000
4. $ 3,989,000 Refer to Text $ 8,774,000
4A. $ 3,995,000 Refer to Text $ 8,207,000
State Acceptance
The State of New York, through the NYSDEC, concurs with EPA's
selected remedy. See Appendix IV.
Community Acceptance
EPA believes that the selected remedy has the support of the
affected community. Community comments can be reviewed in the
public meeting transcript which is included in the administrative
record. A Responsiveness Summary which summarizes all comments
received during the public comment period and answers the
questions and concerns raised at the public meeting on August 14,
1991 is attached as Appendix V to this document.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of the alternatives, public comments, and
NYSDEC's comments, EPA has determined that Alternative 4A,
Capping and Groundwater Treatment (via microfiltration and UV
oxidation) System, is the appropriate remedy for the Hertel
Landfill Site. A treatability study will be performed to
demonstrate that the innovative groundwater treatment remedy is
effective. If the study demonstrates that the innovative
treatment is not effective, then Alternative 4 will be
implemented as a contingency remedy.
-------
26
The selected alternative will achieve substantial risk reduction
through source control and a groundwater treatment system.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
* Construction of a multi-layer cap consistent with New
York State Part 360 solid waste landfill closure
requirements; the areal extent of the cap is expected
to be approximately 13 acres, although the ex? ^t extent
of the '-ap will not be determined until the design
phase;
* Additional soil sampling along the western portion of
the disposal area in the vicinity of soil sample "SS-
22" to determine the need to extend the cap or
consolidate soils from the area beneath the cap;
* Regrading and compaction of landfill mound to provide a
stable foundation for the placement of the cap prior to
its construction;
* Construction of a gas venting system;
* Performance of air monitoring prior to, during, and
following construction at the Site, to ensure that air
emissions resulting from the cap construction meet
ARARs;
* Quarterly groundwater monitoring program using existing
groundwater monitoring wells, and six additional wells
to be installed beyond the capped area, to observe the
effects of groundwater flow patterns through the
saturated portion of the landfill and to monitor the
movement of contaminants beneath the landfill. The
monitoring program will include sampling of selected
residential wells with subsequent follow-up actions as
necessary;
* Construction of fencing around the perimeter of the
capped area;
* Recommendations that ordinances be established or
restrictions imposed on the deed to ensure that future
use of the Site property will maintain the integrity of
the cap;
* Installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment
system to control leachate migration. A series of
wells would extract approximately 14,000 gallons per
day of groundwater from the overburden aquifer. The
treatment system would comprise two innovative steps.
Metals and suspended solids would be chemically
-------
27
precipitated and removed by membrane microfiltration in
a unique, automatic, cyclically operated pressure
filter. Organics would then be removed in a UV
oxidation system utilizing UV light and hydrogen
peroxide to chemically oxidize organic contaminants.
* Definitive delineation and evaluation of the wetlands
and the drainage channels flowing through these
wetlands adjacent to the landfill.
* In addition, a full evaluation of the wetlands prior to
remediation activities to determine any measures which
may be necessary to mitigate potential negative impacts
to the wetlands.
* Performance of a treatability study to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the innovative technology.
* Disposition of treatment residuals in accordance with
RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions.
* Implementation of Alternative 4 as a contingency remedy
should the treatability study indicate that the
innovative groundwater treatment technology is not
effective. Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative
4A with the exception that the groundwater treatment
system would consist of precipitation and
clarification, followed by filtration to remove metals
and suspended solids and carbon adsorption to remove
organic compounds.
REMEDIATION GOALS
The purpose of this response action is to reduce the present risk
to human health and the environment due to contaminants leaching
from the landfill mound. The capping of the landfill will
minimize the infiltration of rainfall and snow melt into the
landfill, thereby reducing the potential for contaminants
leaching from the landfill and negatively impacting the wetlands
habitat and groundwater quality. Capping will prevent direct
contact exposure to contaminated soils, and as such will result
in risks which are less than EPA's target levels of 10* and 1 for
carcinogenic risks and the non-carcinogenic hazard index,
respectively.
Pumping and treating the groundwater will contain the ground-
water contamination within the Site boundary and will ensure that
groundwater beyond the Site boundary meets applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(maximum contaminant levels) and State laws and regulations (10
NYCRR Part 5, 6 NYCRR Part 703). The extracted groundwater will
be treated to meet SPDES discharge standards if discharged to
-------
28
nearby surface water; or will meet appropriate reinjection
standards if reinjection is selected as the means of discharge.
An example of some of the ARARs for groundwater remediation at
this Site are:
CHEMICAL REQUIREMENT REFERENCE
Ethylbenzene 5 ug/l 10 NYCRR Part 5
Total xylenes 5 ug/l 10 NYCRR Part 5
Dichlorobenzene 5 ug/l 10 NYCRR Part 5
The goal of the groundwater portion of the selected remedy is to
restore groundwater at the perimeter of the waste disposal area
of the Site to its most beneficial use, which is as a supply of
potable water. Based on information obtained during the RI and
on a careful analysis of remedial alternatives, EPA believes that
the selected remedy will achieve this goal. It may become
apparent, during implementation or operation of the groundwater
extraction system, that contaminant levels have ceased to decline
and are remaining constant at levels higher than the remediation
goal over some portion of the contaminated plume. In such a
case, the system performance standards and/or the remedy may be
reevaluated.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an
estimated period of 12 years, during which the system's
performance will be carefully monitored on a regular basis and
adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected during
operation." Modifications may include any or all of the
following:
- Discontinuing pumping at individual wells where cleanup
goals have been attained
- Alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
- Pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to allow
adsorbed contaminants to partition into groundwater
- Installing additional extraction wells to facilitate or
accelerate cleanup of the contaminant plume
During the performance of long-term monitoring, EPA may determine
that a remedial action objective has been met. For the long-term
groundwater monitoring program, EPA will continue to monitor on a
semi-annual basis for at least 2 years after cleanup levels are
achieved and groundwater extraction/treatment has ceased in order
to ensure that cleanup levels are maintained. Upon meeting all
remedial objectives, or determining that the Site has been
-------
29
sufficiently purged of contaminants so that public health is no
longer threatened by exposure to the Site, EPA will initiate
proceedings to delete the Site from the National Priorities List.
The response action also reduces the movement and toxicity of the
contaminated landfill leachate into groundwater, and subsequent
downgradient migration of contaminants.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve
protection of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory
requirements and preferences. These specify that when complete,
the selected remedial action for this Site must comply with
applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards
established under Federal and State environmental laws unless a
statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be
cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a
preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently
and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous wastes, as available. The following sections discuss
how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements. The
contingency remedy would meet these requirements in the same
fashion, the only difference being the means of groundwater
treatment.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 4A and the contingency remedy are considered to be
fully responsive to this criterion and to the identified remedial
response objectives. Capping the landfill protects human health
and the environment by reducing the mobility of contaminated
materials off-site. The leaching of contaminants into the
wetlands and aquifers will be significantly reduced. In
addition, capping the landfill will eliminate threats posed to
trespassers utilizing the Site. The extraction and treatment of
contaminants in groundwater will prevent the off-site ground-
water from being contaminated above drinking water standards,
thereby ensuring that the community continues to have a potable
supply of drinking water.
Compliance with ARARs
Attainment of chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater will be
hastened due to reduced leaching following construction of the
cap and the extraction and treatment of ground water. The source
of surface water contamination (leachate seeps) will be
-------
30
eliminated. Action-chemical-and location-specific ARARs will be
complied with during implementation.
Action-specific ARARs:
* New York State Solid Waste Management Facilities 6
NYCRR Part 360
* National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP)
* 6 NYCRR Part 257 Air Quality Standards
* 6 NYCRR Parts 750-758 - State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
* RCRA 40 CFR Part 261 - Identification of Hazardous
Wastes
* RCRA 40 CFR Part 262 - Standards Applicable to
Generators of Hazardous Waste
* RCRA 40 CFR Part 263 - Standards Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous Waste
* RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 - Subpart F Applicable to Ground-
water Monitoring at Hazardous Waste Facilities
- Subpart J Applicable to Tank
Systems at Hazardous Waste Facilities
* RCRA 40 CFR Part 268 - Land Disposal Restrictions on
Regulated Hazardous Waste
* 6 NYCRR Part 372 - Hazardous Waste Manifest System and
Related Standards for Generators, Transporters and
Facilities
* 6 NYCRR Part 373-2 - Final State Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facilities
Chemical-specific ARARs:
The selected remedy will enable drinking water maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) to be met off-site and will ensure that
the landfill does not negatively impact the nearby residential
wells.
* Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs
* 6 NYCRR Part 703.5 Groundwater Quality Regulations
-------
31
* 6 NYCRR Part 703.6 Effluent Standards and/or
Limitations for Discharges to Class GA Waters.
* 6 NYCRR Part 702 Surface Water Standards
* 10.NYCRR Part 5 State Sanitary Code
Location-specific ARARs: .
* Clean Water Act Section 404, 33 USC"I344
* Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 16 USC §61
* National Historic Preservation Act 16 USC 470
* New York State Freshwater Wetlands Law ECL Article 24,
71 in Title 23
* New York State Freshwater Wetlands Permit Requirements
and Classification 6 NYCRR 663 and 664
* New York State Endangered and Threatened Species of
Fish and Wildlife Requirements 6 NYCRR 182
Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance To Be Considered:
* New York Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control
* New York State Sediment Criteria December 1989
* New York State Air Cleanup Criteria January 1990
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportional
to its cost. The total capital and present worth costs for the
remedy are estimated to be $3,955,000 and $8,207,000,
respectively. For the contingency remedy the corresponding costs
are $3,989,000 and $8,774,000. A detailed breakdown of the
estimated costs of the selected remedy is provided in Table 9.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy and contingency remedy utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. Note that Alternative 4A groundwater
treatment is considered to be innovative. The selected remedy
represents the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives
with respect to the evaluation criteria. The State and the
community also support the selected remedy.
-------
32
The extraction and subsequent treatment of groundwater will
permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
vo.lume of contaminants in the groundwater. A treatability study
will I;? performed to demonstrate that the innovative technology
u«j.acteij foi treating the groundwater is effective. If the
treatability study indicates that this technology is not
effective, then the contingency remedy, Alternative 4, shall be
implemented.
With the construction of the landfill cap, the direct contact
risk to the soils will be eliminated. No technological problems
should arise since the technologies for capping the landfill are
readily available.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element cannot be satisfied for the source area i.e.
ch* landfill itself. Treatment of the landfill material is not
practicable. The size of the landfill and the fact that there
are no identified on-site hot spots that represent tha major
sources of contamination preclude a remedy in which contaminants
oo'ji.d be excavated and treated effectively. However, the
selected remedy and contingency remedy do call for the treatment
of contaminated groundwater at the Site and hence do satisfy the
preference for treatment for this portion of the remedy.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There, are no significant changes from the- preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
-------
33
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Figure 2 Landfill Site Map
Figure 3 Sampling Locations
-------
HERTEL
UNDFILLSITE
T A M S/T R C
PBEPARED FOR IU. EPA. REGION II
LAMDF1U. PLATTEKILI, WY
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP
From Clintondale. NY U.S.G.S. 7.5' •
Topographic Map, 1957
-------
»-«o VEHRAN ENGINEERING
MONIIORING VELL
NGTES:
DISPOSAL ARC* •!
DISPOSAL MCA •!
DISPOSAL «CA 13
DISPOSAL AVtA
DISPOSAL ARIA
DISPOSAL ARtA
DISPOSAL APtA
DISPOSAL ABfA
CNGIMC M.OCK AND OIL VASTC MATERIALS
• 1RAILLR VRCCKATiC AND SCAIIC8ED DRUMS
OIL STAIN ABCA AND SANI1ART WAS1E
• (ARM COUIPMtNl DCBR1S
PRINTING VASTC
I URDUS HAUBIAL PIICS
• PAINI WASTE AND MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
• possigir RUIBIR WASTE
SCALE IH FTEI
8 ICO 100JOO
T A M S/T R C _
PMPAIICI ro> U.K. r»<< M:CIIM n AWCI
MITCL lAHDniL n.AtTCIULL, NT Kl «tP»I
FIGURE 2.
HERTEL LANDFILL SIFE MAP
(DISPOSAL AREAS)
-------
PfftP*ffCD FOB U.S. CPA, ffCOIDN II
LAWDFIlC PL*MflflLI, NT
FIGURE 3
LOCATIONS
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
1A Summary of GroundWater Data
IB Summary of Surface Water Data
1C Summary of Sediment Data
ID Summary of Surface Soil Data
IE Summary of Subsurface Soil Data
IF Compounds Detected in Private Wells
2A Comparison of Groundwater Concentrations to ARARS
2B Comparison of Surface Water Concentrations to ARARS
2C Comparison of Sediment Concentrations to ARARS
2D Comparison of Surface Soil Concentrations to RCRA
Facility Investigation Guidance Values
3 Chemicals of Potential Concern in All Media Sampled
4 Summary of Exposure Pathways
5 Summary of Parameter Values Used to Estimate Exposure
6A Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Non-
carcinogenic Chronic Effects-Oral
6B Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Non-
carcinogenic Chronic Effects-Inhalation
6C Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Non-
carcinogenic Sub-chronic Effects-Oral
6D Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Non-
carcinogenic Sub-chronic Effects-Inhalation
7A Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Carcinogenic
Effects-Oral
7B Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Carcinogenic
Effects-Inhalation
8A Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates, Current Use-Children
SB Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates, Current Use-Adults
8C Summary of Chronic Hazard Index Estimates, Current Use-
Children
8D Summary of Chronic Hazard Index Estimates, Current Use-
Adults
8E Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates, Future Use-Children
8F Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates, Future Use-Adults
8G Summary of Chronic Hazard Index Estimates, Future Use-
Children
8H Summary of Chronic Hazard Index Estimates, Future Use-
Adults
81 Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates, Construction Workers
8J Summary of Chronic Hazard Index Estimates, Construction
Workers
9 Detailed Costs - Alternative 4A
-------
Table 1A
SUWRY OF 8SIK)«TER DATA - ROW I " ""
II II IMI 1 IMI M Ml MM IMI M HIM IMIIIIIIII II Ml till tltl III M 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 M M II t M H 1 1 M 1 M III HIM (II 1 III 1 1
|f mi ii in H (mum H iiii||iiimim MM M mini 'ij^l"1 " iiitiHMmimiimiimimim iimmmi 1 1
ii M SflffUS RANGE RANGE Of U.S. t\
FfcOBCT (MS OF OF ON-SITE BACXGROW
jj JJOF SO. DETECTION 95» XL BACXGROW LEVELS jj
II M tin M mm in m til urn i lin i Wit tim iiitiWilmiiMiiiiiAmi nmmmmTimuAmif iiiiiH
11 M 1 1 1 I III 1 1 1 1 M I M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 II 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 If
CDITUn AiTl F fin^lir^
1 1 XfllYVUil ILL Uni^niw
j!l,2-Oichlorob*ueM
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2.4-OiKtnrlphBl
j^-ftUhrlpimol
jWhncei*
Benzoic Kid
BenzotilifithTieene
BeucuprreM
Benzol bJfluonrthMe
Benzol wi Jperylene
Benzol I JfluwwUme
II
[JO/25
1/25
3/25
2/25
0/25
0/25
3/25
0/25
0/25
0/25
0^5
0/25
Bennl ilcorcl ! 10/25
Bis(2-ethrlherylWithilite 1/25
Butrlbenzrlplitfalite J JO/25
Chrysene
Dibenzointhncene
Diethylphthilite
DH-Butylphlhilate
Di-n-octylphthiliie
riuonnthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l23cd)pyTeni
Niphthilene
Pheunthrent
Phenol
[JPrrene
JJVOUTLES
!!l,l-0ichloroethine
1,2-Oichloroettene
Benzene
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethine
Chlorofon
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
jjxylenes
JJINORWIICS
AluiinitB
Antiiony
Arsenic
Bariw
[JBerylliui
!|Uki3
Chrauui
Cobjlt
Copper
Iron
l!lud •
jjiunwnese
fcrcury
Nickel
PoUssiui
Seleoiui
Sodiia
Thilliui
JjVlMdtUt
l(2iit
!JpnnciK«B
Jj4.4'-OOD
I!*'*'?
0/25
0/25
1/25
0/25
1/25
0/25
0/25
0/25
5/25
0/25
3/25
[JO/25
II
II
JJO/25
0/2$
0/25
0/25
3/25
1/25
1/25
4/25
3/2S
1,2/25
II
JJ25/25
3/25
24/25
25/25
"l^?
JJ25^5
19/25
20/25
25/25
25/25
16/25
25/25
25/25
16/25
16^5
25/25
1/25
25/25
6/25
20/25
JJ25/25
1 1
0/25
j JO/25
..n?^?5....,
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0!
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005-0.01
0.005-0.01
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
NA
0.02-0.03
0.0022
NA
0.001-0.003
0.002-0.004
NA
6
0.007-0.009
NA
m
NA
NA
0.0002
0.016-0.028
M
0.0011-0.02
NA
0.001-0.002
0.01
NA
0.0001
0.0001
6 mpj
NA
0.002
0 .005-0.00$
0.031-0.044
NA
NA
0.014-0.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.003
NA
NA
NA
0.01
NA
0.069
NA •
NA
W
0.004-0.039
NA
0.018-0.072
W
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.001-0.024
0.004
0.001
0.001-0.064
0.016-0.033
0.062-0.2
0.649-252
0.029-0.041
0.001-0.041
0.034-1.98
0.0013-0.015
IO0.002H.006
181-1460
0.0036-0.536
0.007-0.22
0.0047-0.846
2.29-482
0.0047-0.288
2.27-133
0.159-212
0.0002-0.002
0.0154-0.49
0.85H1.7
NK 0.0011 H.002
2.18-112
« 0.001 H.003
0.0037-0.319
0.0234-2.88
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.002*
0.0051
0.0441
NA
NA
07*
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.018
NA
NA
NA
O.Olt
NA
0.069*
NA
NA
NA
0.012
NA
0.072»
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.008
O.OOU
O.OOU
0.012
0.0331
0.2*
144.19
0.0411
0.024
1.05
O.OSU
0.004
407.45
0.337
0.071
0.418
314.09
0.228
76.S58
68.009
0.001
0.182
22.98
0.003
131.26
0.002
0.112
0.932
NA
NA
Nk
NA NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
NA NA
0.01 NA
0.05 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
NA NA
0.01 NA
NA NA
0.006-0.01 NA
NA NA
0.01 NA
NA NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.01 NA
0.005 NA
0.005 NA
0.005 NA
0.005 NA
0.005 NA
0.01 NA
0.005 NA
0.005 NA
0.005 NA
0.005 NA
1.37-28.5 NA
0.073-0.03 NA
0.001-0.009 NA
0.034-0.651 NA
0.0016-0.0066
0.003-0.004 NA
196-412 NA
0.006-0.066 NA
0. 007-0 .OS4 NA
0.0047-0.123 NA
7.08-97.8 NA
0.0611-0.084 NA
0.282-21.6 NA
0.159-7.65 NA
0.0002-0.001 NA
0.0002-0.118 NA
0.851-5.33 NA
0.002-0.004 NA
2.H.79 NA
0.002-0.002 NA
0.005-0.059 NA
0.0234-0.186 NA
0.0001 NA
0.0001 NA
II
II
II
II
II
It
II
M'
II
II
II
II
II
II
,
M
I |
II
II
II
1 1
II
II
1 1
II
II
II
II
II
II
. . . .11
Hum 1 1 mini Minimum iimilinimi
mi 1 1 1 1 1 H H 1 1 1 1 1 1 m m 1 1 m
»: NOT DETECTED
NA: NOT APFL1CMLE
1: NAXIMJM DETECTED VM.IE
-------
Table IB
SUtVW OF SURFACE HATER DATA IKIUDIHG LEKHATi: SWfLES
n nun m i M minimum
M 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m m 1 1 1
1 1
immiimi
n
m i ii 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 HIM mi m 1 1 1 imimimi i
M 1 II 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 III (III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
iiPREOUENCY RANGE OF OF
1 1
1 1
1 1
II iMimimiiHiiiiiii inn
1 1 M M H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 I 1 11 1
SEWVOLATILE CR6ANICS
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-ttthylphenol
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Benzole Acid
Benzofa anthracene
Benzojajpyrene
Benzo bnluoranthene
Benzoo.h.ilperylene
Benzo kjfluoranthene
Benzy Alcohol
8is?2-ethylheiyl)phthalate
ButylbenzylphthaTate
Chrysene
Dibenzo( a, h Anthracene
Diethylphthalate
Di-N-Butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(123cd)pyTene
Naphthalene
Pnenanthrene
Phenol
jjPyrene
JJVOLATILES
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1, Xylenes
{{INORGANICS
Alutiniua
Antimy
Arsenic
Bariui
Berylliua
Calcim
Cadiiur
Chroiiui
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nagnesiui
Manganese
• Mercury
Nickel
Potassiui
Seleniui
Silver
Sodiui
Thalliui
Vanadiui
zinc-J
{{Cyanide
{{PESTICIDES
4,4'-ODE
4,4'-000
ff
\mi
mii||mi n
j JO/20
0/20
2^0
0/20
0/20
1/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
1/20
2/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
0/20
1/20
1/20
1/20
0/20
0/20
1/20
2/20
1/20
jjl/20
II
JJ4/20
1/20
1/20
2/20
3/20
{{2/20
II
jj 13/20
2/20
7/20
20/20
0/20
20/20
8/20
3/20
6/20
10/20
20/20
13^0
20/20
20/20
5/20
6/20
17/20
2^0
0/20
20/20
0/20
8/20
10/20
{{2/20
II
j JO/20
0/20
SOL DETECTION 9S XL
ION (K/1) (IQ/I) H/l
I M 1 1 |T 1 1 1 Ml 1 1 1 1 1 IT I r 1 1 1 III M 1 1 M 1 1 IT 1 ' 1 III 1
ii M mmi 1 1 mil mmimmmmi M mi i
0.01 NA NA
0.01 NA HA
0.01 O.C07-0.11 0.018
0.01 HA HA
0.01 HA NA
0.01-0.05 0.009 0.01*
0.01 NA NA
0.01 HA HA
0.01 NA NA
0.01 M NA
0.01 NA HA
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.01 0.002-0.005 0.005
0.01 HA NA
0.01 HA NA
0.01 W NA
0.01 NA NA
0.01 0.003 0.003*
0.01 0.003 0.003*
0.01 0.002 0.002*
0.01 N4 NA
0.01 NA NA
0.01 0.004 0.004t
0.01 0.001-0.002 0.002*
0.01 ND(O.OlH.021 0.012
0.01 0.002 0.002*
0.005 0.005-0.008 0.005
0.005 0.001-0.008 0.006
0.010 0.005 0.005
0.005 0.003 0.003
0.005 0.001-0.004 0.005
0.005 0.001-0.004 0.005
0.005 0.002-0.007 0.006
0.02-0.096 »(0.02)-20.4 86.22
0.010-0.023 NMO.Olj-0.015 0.011
0.01-0.02 KXO.OOlH.Otf 0.005
HA 0.008-3.58 1.85
0.01-0.04 NA NA
HA 11.7-317 118.02
0.02-0.05 0.002-0.178 0.101
0.03-0.06 KX0.003H.316 0.027
0.04-0.09 NM0.004H.016 0.009
0.02-0.04 NM0.002H.370 0.064
NA 0.013-836 836
0.001-0.010 ND70.001H.4S4 0.441
HA OJ5H8.6 14.55
NA 0.033-25.3 35.75
0.0002 NM 0.0002 H.004 0.0006
0.005-0.022 MX0.005H.116 0.028
0.445-0.780 100.445^28.3 13.25
0.002-0.003 ND(0.002H.0028 0.0028
0.002-0.006 HA NA
NA 1.730-79.8 36.37
0.001-0.020 MA NA
0.003-0.004 NDfO.003H.05S 0.0098
0.007 0.0022-11.2 11.2
0.010-0.0125 HX0.010H.085 0.018
10(0.0001) HA W
$0.0001) NA HA
iiM.'ffll iiW? WMfflLW »
M mimiiiiiimii iimiiimmimmiiimiimi mmm M M ii immmimMMM
i mi mmm i mi M mum M 1 1 ii i
1 1 1 mm m m m M i MI m M 1 1 1 1 1 j |
ON-SITE
BACXGftOUO
mimTTMiTiTi
mmmiiiim
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.003-0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.0415-0.628
0.010
0.002
0.008-0.025
0.001
11.7-19.3
0.002
0.005
0.004
0.003-0.009
0.178-1.63
0.0038-0.031
0.853-1.27
0.0326-0.087
0.0002
0.005-0.006
0.780-0.794
0.003
0.004
1.73-1.88
0.002
0.003-0.010
HA
0.010-0.013
0.0001
0.0001
BACXGROUf)
LEVELS
(k/1)
1 1 miTjif m m ii II
mmi mnmiii||
MA II
HH 1 1
UA 1 '
nfl M
UA 'I
IW 1 1
UA 1 1
ff II
NH 1 1
UA ' '
HH 1 1
HA
UA 1 •
m M
NA "
W 1 1
UA ' '
W it
UA M
m it
UA ' '
Iff! 1 1
8 !!
m ii
UA 'I
IW M
£ '!
w 1 1
UA 1 '
HH j i
UA ' '
HH ii
:
UA ' '
HR ii
UA I '
W II
UA 1 '
JJ II
IV 1 1
ilA ' '
II
II
K '<
U& ^ 1
1 1
£ u
m 1 1
UA ' 1
HR 1 1
NA (I
II
MA II
fW 1 1
NA
NA
UA H
IW II
UA H
HH 1 1
|U II
IW i i
u. U
IV 1 1
UA M
W 1 1
UA M
•W j I
UA 'I
Hi 1 1
UA I'
^H i i
HH 1 1
MA "
rvi 1 1
NA
UA . II
W | i
UA II
IW 1 1
UA II
Wl 1 1
|U 1 1
W 1 1
UA II
Wl i i
UA H
IW ii
NA
MA "
HR i i
NA
UA ' '
1 1
Mi H
M& "
Hn 1 1
mi'm mum M mmi MIMIM II
N): NOT DETECTED
HA: NOT APPLICABLE
»: HAHNUH DETECTED VALUE
-------
ii mi mi mmmtmmi
iv Table 1C
^ SMART OF SODBTDATA
IMMMM IMMMII Mill MM M M M M M 1 1 M M M M M M 1 M M M MM
1 1 m m I m m I m m I m i m 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m mm mm
|| II RANK
II
II
(In n mi mi imliii
I M ftfUUCT
ff
OF
SO.
IlKIBllff (ffMm
1 m*!»l''^.' UtiVM^l^XJ m i m m ( | n i m i m m n m urn m
,','1,2-OicMorcbeutm
1,4-Oichlorobemene
2,4-OiiethylpheiDl
4-*eth»lpheool
Acenaohthene
AKhriMW
Bcuoic Kid
||Benoji|iathrKne
jJBenzBbrfluonnUOTe
8e«9fl.h.i)p»rTl»M
Btnzottjfluorinthine
Bii(2etlvlr«iyl)phthiliU
ButrlbenirlphthiTite
Chrrwne
DibeiaointhrKtM
Oiethrlphthilatt
Di-irbutrlphthillU
Oioctrlpnthilite
Fluorinthene
Fluorene
Indeno(l23cd)prrene
Niphlhilene
Prcntnthrene
{[Phenol
[jvcLATius
1,1-OichlorottKjne
1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
Cirbon disulfide
Oilorooenzene
Chioroethine
Chlorofon
Ethrlbeiaem
Toluene
Trichloroethew
[jXrlenes
1 1 Hg^,......*
llAliainiui
Antiionr
Arsenic
Biriui
IJBerrlliui
IJUlclS
Chroiiui
jjCoUK
jjlron '
!!LMd
Ninoinne
literary
nickel
PoUssiui
Stleiiui
Silver
Sodiui
Thilliui
Vintdim
"Zinc
jjCriiidi
PKTIfIf£4/POK
!J4.4'-«!£
<.<;<»
>
0/21
0/21
i/a
1/21
0/21
0/21
1/21
0/21
1/21
0/21
!JO/21
||W4kl
j JO/21
!!o/2il
!!^!
1 l2/(l
0/21
2/21
\\m\
0/21
3/21
2/21
0/21
JJ2/21
II
1 1
0/21
0/21
0/21
7/21
3/21
0/21
1^1
1/21
4/21
|JO/21
II
JJ21/21
0/21
21/21
21/21
15^1
11/21
21/21
20/21
17/21
21/21
21/21
8^1
21/21
21/21
6/21
19/21
19/21
12/21
6/21
21/21
' '?nt
I l4/4ti
!i 10/21
ii2/21
n
IJi/a
0/21
I! 4 4 "COT ' '1/21
IIirMIMMMMMMIMIIMMIIMllflMIMIMMMI
MMM M IIIM Mill MM M M IMMMMMIMM MM II 1
0.450-5.1
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
fl.45-9.4
0.45-0.58
0.45-9.4
2.2-46
0.45-4.9
0.45-9.4
0.45-4.2
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
0.45-4.9
0.4H.4
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
fl.45-«.87
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
0.45-9.4
0.007-0.071
0.007-0.071
0.007-0.071
0.007-0.071
0.007-0.071
0.017-fl.l4
0.007-0.071
0.007-fl.OTl
0.007-C.071
0.007-0.071
0.007-0.071
NA
3.2-23.7
NA
NA
0.28-2.4
1.3-5.9
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
0.13-1.1
11.9
711-1240
0.4H6.4
0.93-9.5
NA
0.29-5.1
NA
NA
0.94-12.7
0.027-O.OS3
0.022-0.11
1 1 1 *mi 1 1 m m i m m m 1 1
OF
DETECTION
9UUQ
1 1 M MI rrr i M M M 1 1 1 ii Wi rri
MIIIIMIIMMMMIIII MMM
0.120
NA
NA
NX0.45H.59
0.28
Nil
NA
KX0.45H.O
ICX0.45X.77
NA
NA
0.10-2.90
NA
0.28-4.93
W
NA.
NTX0.45H.61
NA
IK0.45H.60
0.26-0.37
NA
IO0.45H.O
lRo.45H.50
NA
(KO.4iH.50
NA
NA
NA
0.004-0.064
W0.007H.43
NA
S0.007M.01
0.007H.013
0.006-0.049
NA
KX0.007H.97
1530-32500
NA
32 8-6230
NTX0.28r3.5
«1.3>17.1
1270-2J700
PW3H0.6
3-64.8
1310-137000
8.3^3.7
721-3110
83-68100
«0.13)-7
6^31.7
500-2080
«0.42)-5.9
0.84-12.8
82.9-771
W0.29H.45
7.5-79.5
32-340
HX0.94>-3
(CX0.027H.038
NA
O.WM.l^ ( M ,ffl;ffi m'nm
0.120
NA
NA
0.059<
0.280J
NA
NA
1.15
NA
0.799
NA
NA
2^3
NA
1.02
NA
NA
0.59
NA
1.44
0.37
NA
1.11
1.43
NA
1.43
NA
NA
NA
0.035
0.102
NA
O.OU
0.01*
0.027
NA
0.106
18014.8
NA
13.1
486.4
2.3
9.8
19684.7
25.6
10.8
38
105995
90
2547.6
10161.6
0.5
21.9
1271.5
4.5
5.5
688.5
2.3
30.9
259.8
6
0.039
NA
0.054
III! Mill
1 M 1 1 M 1 1 M M 1 M 1 Ml M M 1 M MM 1 1
m m
Ml IIIIIM III | M M MMM MM MM MM III
MS OF U.S. !!
(K-5ITI
BACKGROUK/
mmiTTiTTTiTTi r
mmimmimi
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
fl. 90-4 .70
0.90-4.70
4.3-23
0.9J-4.70
0.90-4.70
fl.9H.70
fl.9H.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.9H.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.90-4.70
0.013-0.035
0.013-0.035
0.013-0.035
0.009-0.035
0.013-0.035
0.027-0.07
0.013-0.035
0.013-0.035
0.006-0.035
0.013-0.035
0.013-0.035
1530-10200
7.5-23.5
1.9-4
45-142
0.75-2.4
1.6-4.7
10000-23700
15.5-21.5
1310-3970
NA
721-1060
83-104
0.38-1.1
7.3-11.9
1250-J080
2.1-7.6
3-9.5
139-296
1.4-5.1
8.H1.1
NA
3.8-12.7
NA
NA
BACXKUC
LEVELS
m.fom'MMi
iimmimi i
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
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
72000
0.66
7.2
580
0.92
9.1
24000
54
9.1
25
26000
19
9000
550
0.09
19
15000
0.39
80
12000
9.4
80
60
NA
NA
NA
NA NA
II M M 1 M M M M 1 M M 1 1 1 M 1 M 1 1 1 M
II
II
mill
""II
II
II
II
II
ii
1 1
II
| |
II
I I
1 1
II
II
||
II
II
1 |
[[
ii
n
n
1 1
mil
imiiiimiiimiimiimiiimiiimiimiimimiiiimmmmiiiiimii
«: NOT KTtCTO
NA: NOT Affl.ICML£
t: RM1IUI KTECTO VALUE
A: Sourc* • U5SU9S3)
-------
Table ID
SMMY OF SUV ACE SOIL IfeTA
1 1 1 1 MM III II IMMI 1 1 1 M M Mil 1 Mil II HIM 1 1 II
|| 1 1 1 II 1 Ml 1 1 M Ml 1 1 1 1 1 M || II
M: i
I I
COMPOUND NAME
M
11,1 1,11 Ml III, 1,1,1 1,1,1 1, III
'FREQUENCY
I \ff
IIIJDE|ECJIOM<)|
M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M Ml II II II IMMI 1 1
M 1 II H 1 1 1 1 Ml 1 M 1 1 Ml 1 1 M 1 1
RANGE RANGE
OF
SQL
n^kf).
OF
DETECTION
(•a/kg)
111111111,1,111,1,
IIMIIIIIIMMM
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 ,
9tt UCL
in in, IT/, mi,
1 H 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 HI 1 II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II l| |
ON-SITE
BACKGROUND
•WltfW
U.S
BACKGROUND
LMLSifl/kg) A
niiTTiTTiliTiiTMii
H
,11
mi HIM II IMIMIM M 1 1 II HIIMI ||MI Illl 1 HIM II 1 II Mill Mil Illl 1 1 IIIIIH M HI 1 1 1 1 M 1 Ml 1 1 II 1 M M Mill 1 1 1 1 1 M H 1 M M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
IfXmnUlliLt HftmllS
!!l,2-0iehlorobenzene
1,4-Oichlorobenzene
2,4-Mhylphenoi
{{4-flethylphenol
i lAcenapnthene
Anthracene
Benzole Acid
Benzof a anthracene
[JBenio a pnene
Benzo bn uoranthene
Benzo Qhifcerylene
BenzoUJf! uoranthene
Bis(2etnyineiyl)phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chrysene
Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Diethyiphthalate
Oi-n-butylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(123cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
JjPhenanthrene
U Phenol
IJPyrene
{{INORGANICS
{JAhairu
Antiiony
Arsenic
Bariui
Berylliut
Cadniui'
Calciua
! IChroaiut
IJCobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead .
Hagnesiua
Manganese
Nercury
Nickel
Potassiua
Seleniu*
Sodiui
Thalliui
{{Vanadiui
n^'*. j
{{Cyanide
{{pESTICIKS/PCBs
{{4,4'-CD£
4, 4 '-000
4.4'-OOT
\\ t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 M t M 1 1 1 1 1 1
Illllllllli" '1 1 1 1 1 1 Ml t II 1 M M t
»: NOT DETECTED
NA: NOT APPLICABLE
A: Sour «-US6S( 1983)
M
j!o/22
0/22
0/22
0/22
1/22
2/22
0/22
5/22
4/22
6/22
3/22
1/22
10/22
0/22
6/22
0/22
1/22
2/22
0/22
7/22
1/22
4/22
1/22
5/22
] JO/22
II
II
{{22/22
0/22
9/22
22/22
2/22
17/22
22/22
,,22/22
H21/22
11/22
22/22
19/22
19/22
22/22
14/22
21/22
14/22
0/22
16/22
0/22
22/22
22/22
{{0/22
II
II
"2/22
JO/22
6/22
II HHimimi
1 1 1 1 1 1 , , 1 , , I , ( ,
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
0.37-24
NA
7.5-18.6
NA
0.68-1.7
1.1-2.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.29-0.35
191-335
HA
NA
7.9
730-1780
1.1-28.2
182-449
1.4-3.4
NA
NA
1.1-2.8
0.018-1.5
0.018-1.5
ill ii M ill
IMMH Ml
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.062
0.048-0.13
NA
0.082-1.2
0.094-1.1
0.086-1.7
0.14-0.72
0.098
0.037-2.4
NA
0.078-1.7
NA
0.043
0.08-0.09
NA
0.063-2.4
0.046
0.058-0.65
ND(0.37)-3.1
0.077-1.9
NA
0.058-2.8
5210-33500
NA
9.1-109
43.5-2070
ND(0.68)-0.84
NX 1 1 r38 6
1410-29500
7.7-2880
5.4-29.4
32.20-319
538-278000
»(0.29H35
NW191)-14200
478-1890
0.3-1.60 •
KX7.9h347
14.9-2320
NA
NX182H460
HA
16.9-51.1
62.6-469
NA
10(0.018 H) .50
HA
iiW9i?WWl^?n
in, M, mill, in i
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.06
0.13
NA
0.77
0.97
0.93
0.72
0.098
1.64
NA
0.87
NA
0.04
0.09
NA
2.26
0.05
0.72
2.36
1.16
NA
2.32
19316.2
NA
45.4
191.1
1
7.6
11293:7
502.4
18.4
161.5
115980
5B1.5
15127
1732
1.6
64.7
2810.7
NA
672.1
NA
31.3
183
NA
0.341
NA
iilliuimmm
1 1 1 1 1 1 H M M 1 1 1 1
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
2.8
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
5330-28700
11.5-18.6
NA
43.5-155
1.0-1.70
1.7-2.8
2530-8890
10.3-22.4
4.5-12.5
NA
4880-32500
0.35-123
499-2040
230-1790
NA
7.9-15.3
1100-1780
17.5-28.2
279-449
2.1-3.4
36.5-51.1
67.8-133
1.7-2.8
0.500
0.280
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
72000
0.66
7.2
580
0.92
0.5
24000
54
9.1
25
26000
19
9000
550
0.09
19
15000
0.39
12000
9.4
80
60
NA
NA
NA
9,W NA
UT 1 1 H H 1 H H H H H 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 1 1
IIIIIH, HIM,
1, ,1,11, III IIHHI II
II
II
II
II
||
1 1
II
II
II
II
II
II
U
II
II
II
II
1 1
1 1
II
M
1 1
II
It
1 1
1 1
11
tt
| 1
11
II
II
II
U
II
1!
' '
-------
Table IE
SIMMY OF SUBRKFKZ SOIL Mlfl
IMI I
M 1 II 1 1
Mill 11 I I Ml It It I II I I I M I I I I II II M I III It I Ml lit It I 1 I M I M I I I M I 111 II I It I II 1 M Ml III II I I till Ml til 1 1 M I I
I 11 11 11 11 M M 111 11 111 U I I I I I M I M 1 I l|^l I U I H 11 I M M|^l I I H I I I 11 I | I I 11 | 11 | n I H U I H I M
II
1 1
[{COMPOUND KAHE
tin m m 1 1 1 1 im 1 1 H ii H i
" stid VOLA! ill ' M&itd is* " " '
!(l,2-0ichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Oiwthylphenol
4-tethyiphenol
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Benzoic Acid
Benzol a Anthracene
8enzO a ,Pyr»ne
Benzol bJFluoranthene
Benzrt9.h.i)p«rylene
Benzol Wuorathene
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Diethylphthalate
Di-rrbutylphthalate
Oi-n-Octylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indenod,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
jjPyrene
j [VOLATILE oRSANics
Benzene
Carbon Disulf ide
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
jjXylene( total)
"iNnpfMJTr?
{ [Aluiiniui
Antiiony
Arsenic
Bariui
Berylliui
Cadtiui
Calciui
Chroiiia
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Kagnesiw
Nanganese
Nickel
Potassiua
Seleniui
Sodiui
Vanadiui
Zinc
j{ Cyan ide
:;PESTICIDES/PCBS
!!4,4'-DC€
JUr-OOO
4.4'-DDT
Ififiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
jJFKOUENOf
(V
1 1 1 1 1 II 1 M II 1 1 H 1 I
IMM||MM1 HUM
|[o/n
1/11
0/11
i/ii
0/11
2/11
1/11
2/11
1/11
2/11
0/11
2/11
5/11
2/11
2/11
0/11
1/11
0/11
1/11
4/11
1/11
0/11
6/11
4/11
0/11
l(4/ll
II
11
2/11
3/11
5/11
7/11
J|8/ll
II
"ll/ll
JJ6/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
4/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
11/11
0/11
6/11
11/11
lJll/11
~ll
j|o/n
!!o/n
j 10/11
Wf»X
OF
SO.
(M/ka)
II 1 lIlTllTflllll II
IIIIUIIIIIIIHIIi
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
1.8-120
0.37-0.84
0.37-0.84
0.37-4.1
0.370-24.0
0.37-0.77
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.37-0.84
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0.37-1.9
0.370-24.0
0.370-24.0
0;370-24.0
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
NA
2.9-3.9
NA
NA
NA
0.41-0.55
NA
NA
NA
IM
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
HA
0.22-0.49
HA
NA
NA
0.5-0.75
0.035-0.051
0.035-0.051
0.035-0.051
wmx
OF
DETECTION
.iim Mr/in
minium
NA
0.10
HA
0.34
NA
0.068-0.15
0.22
0.30-0.42
0.24
0.26-0.71
NA
0.27-0.36
0.087-4.5
0.092-0.24
0.27-0.43
HA
0.11
HA
0.20
0.05-1.2
KX0.37H.
NA
0.068-0.65
0.17-1.1
NA
0.073-1.1
0.001-0.002
0.003
0.001-0.009
H3( 0.006 hO
0.002-0.015
KX0.006H
9360-16200
ND(2.9h21
2-12.5
32-378
0.43-0.89
MX0.41H.
986-2450
12.2-21.9
8.9-13.9
20.3-45.6
17400-28300
8.5-93.1
3990-6010
201-1720
14.3-25
738-1550
NA
70.5-237
12.1-22.3
48.6-286
ND(0.50hW
NA
NA
HA
95* UO.
iiiiiilmir'in
mmmmmi
NA
0.1
NA
0.34
NA
0.15
0.22
0.43
0.24
0.69
NA
0.391
6.39
0.24
0.43
HA
0.11
HA
0.2
1.35
42 0.60
NA
0.65
0.84
NA
1.21
0.002
0.003
0.007
.041 0.023
0.012
.310 0.422
13255.5
22.8
6.9
118.8
0.8
B 0.8
1722.8
18.3
12.5
36.1
24276.1
60.1
4954.3
1250.2
21.1
1334.6
0.4
191.5
16.8
134.1
4 2.4
NA
HA
HA
KAN* ur
ON-SITE
BACKGROUO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
KA
NA
NA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
KA
NA
HA
HA
NA
HA
HA
NA
HA
HA
HA
HA
NA
NA
HA
KA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
NA
KA
NA
NA
HA
NA
HA
KA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
HA
u.».
6ACXGROUO
LEVELS
iiniiiiiii i
HA
HA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
NA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
« .
HA
NA
HA
HA
72000
0.66
7.2
580
0.92
0.5
24000
54
9.1
25
26000
19
9000
550
19
15000
0.39
12000
80
60
HA
HA
HA '
NA
jj
II
Ml
II
11
II
II
II
II
II
1 1
II
II
II
II
H
1 1
II
H
M
I 1
II
II
II
II
M
1 1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
1 1
1 1
1 1
II
inn n ii IIIIIM ii inn nun i
IIIMIIII
1C: NOT DETECTED
HA: NOT APPLICABLE
A: Source-US6S( 1983)
-------
Table IF
mtXKI. LtJfDtfLL KXMEDIAL I Wilt I CAT t ON
I ORtCTO !• TO fUVAIV VXLL*
I Ft*-11 rtt-11
••0 10-.liu.-tO 2Q-Jn»-tO
r BOXI wticxjn ATT. DOT or n»-i
VOLATtlB OftCUlIC*
nUTKAL/ACXD BmiACTABLCS (U«/lt
"*J "•« >°-» u.s 4t.o g «.o «.i j 14.3 14.0 ».4
IMOO.O 17100.0 14100.0 2ltOO.O 9(900.0 41100.0 41700.0 17200.0 43900.0 41100.0 4440O.O 37«0.0
C°*"E IS'° «•« »•» »•' >.0 O il.1 H.5 ,4.4 7.1 11.7 24.0 34.7
I*0" 201.0 lit a «) i ,» ,
*J-* **•* 41.1 71.1 13t.O 110.0 1».0 II.« 413.0 11».0
2.4 J 1.1 J l.o 01 — ft „ R „ a __ K l.« j 10.7 J - — I
T*° ° 7-° " ».0 O 4.1 343.0 1.1 134.0 7.0 O 4».» 2.4
MET CaXMISTKT (»«/l|
OLOMDC
20
140
1S 14 '•• JO »-0 31.0 10.0 4.3 71.0 10.0
»° >00 100 210 350 120 IfO 140 HO 200
H100.0 i 4140.0 71*0.0 30100.0 11300.0 J
211.0 J 41.4 3 --ft « K 274.0 J
50.0
0.29
" " HO 41 140 41 140 7< ItO
0.2S <0.010 l.ff l.« 0.10 4.1 • Ho ttaalft** of tbi* eoapouad
-------
Table 2A
MURIEL LANDFILL REHLDIAL INVESTIGATION
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATLR CONCENTRATIONS TO ARARS
Parameter
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
1 , l-0ich)oroethane
1 , 2-Dichloroethene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Slyrene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
Diethylphthalate
2, 4-Di methyl phenol
Di-n-octylphthalate
2-Methylnaplithalene
4-Me thy 1 phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Aluminum (total/dissolved)
Arsenic (total/dissolved)
Barium (total/dissolved)
Beryl Sum (total/dissolved)
Cadmium (total/dissolved)
Calcium (total/dissolved)
Chromium (total/dissolved)
Cobalt (total/dissolved)
Copper ( lotal/di ssol ved)-Nol
I ron (total/dissolved)
Maximum
Concentration
Observed In
Ground Water
(ppb)
45
6
31
24
4
1
2
1
1
64
1
33
1
240
200
b
21
10
900
82
69
5
44
39
II
72
252.000/733
44.1/33.8
1.980/732
13.4/NO
9.0 /NO
71,000/264.000
538/ND
220/ND
Primary 846/ND
893,800/1 Ib.OOO
federal ARARs,
MCL1
(ppb)
5
100
100(a)
cis-70
trans-100
5
700
100
1.000
5
10,000
75
50
2.000
1
5
100
See Note
MUG2
(ppb)
0
100
cis-70
trans- 100
0
700
100
1.000
0
10,000
(0)
75
(50)
2.000
0
5
100
Ambient Water^
Qua) i ty Cri teria
(ppb)
0.66
488
0.19
2.400
15.000
2.8
21.000
470
434.000
400
3.500
0.0022
10
50
1000
New York ARARs
Ground Hater4
Qual i ty Criteria
(ppb)
NO
20
100
50
50
931
50
10
50
50
4.7
50
0.3
50
10
50
1
25
1000
10
1000
300
NYMCL5
(ppb)
50
5
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
50
5
50
5
50
50
50
50
50
50
1000
10
50
200
300
-------
Table 2A
MCRTCL LANDFILL RtMEOIAL INVESTIGATION
COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER CONCENTRATIONS TO ARARS
(Continued)
Parameter
Lead (total/dissolved)
Magnesium (total/dissolved)
Manganese (total/dissolved)
Mercury (total/dissolved)
Nickel ( total/dissolved)
Potassium (total/dissolved)
Silver (total/dissolved)
Sodium (total/dissolved)
Vanadium (total/dissolved)
Zinc (total/dissolved)
Chloride
Max imum
Concentration
Observed In
Ground Water
(ppb)
313/5.9
133.000/55.500
121.000/27,900
_ 0.90/0.3
490/43.2
4I.000738.5UU
266/NO
115.000/122.000
319/NO
2,880/91.6
150,000
MCL1
(ppb)
See Note
2
(100)
100
Federal ARARs
Ambient Water3
MCLG2 Quality Criteria
(ppb) (ppb)
0 50
50
2 10
(100) 15.4
50
5.000
250.000
New York
Ground Water4
Qual i ty Cri teria
(ppb)
25
300
2
SO
250.000
ARARs
NYMCL5
(ppb)
50
35.000
300
2
50
20.000
300
(a) Based on standard for total trihalomethanes of 100 ppb.
NO - Not detected.
' MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Final Rule Amendments to SDWA. U.S. EPA, 1/30/91, 40 CFR 141 -
(Proposed MCL)
2 MCLG - Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, based on health considerations only, amendments to SDWA, U.S. EPA, 1/30/91; Cites 50 FR 46936.
11/13/85 - Proposed MCLG).
3 Derived from published EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (drinking water only) 45 FR 79318-79379, 11/28/90. (August 8, 1988 draft - recent
update is being sent to SDWA).
4 NYSDEC 6NYCRR Part 703. Regulations for ground water (1/9/89).
5 NYSOOM 10NYCRR Part 5, Regulations for drinking water supplies (1/9/89) and NYSDOM 10NYCRR Part 170, Regulations for source of drinking water.
June 7th - Final Rule on Lead and Copper Treatment technique action levels have been identified in lieu of MCL levels: Lead 15 ppb; Copper
1,300 ppb. Testing would be done at the consumer's tap water and any time 10% ol the samples exceed these limits, then action would
be required.
-------
Table 2B
HIKILL LANUULL REMtplAt INVtSI l&AI ION
COMPARISON OF SURFACE WATER CONCENTRATIONS TO (ARABS)
Maximum
Concentration
in
Surface Water
Parameter (pph)
Acetone
Carbon Distil fide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzeiie
Methylene Chloride
loluene
Irichloroethene
Xylenes
benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Ph thai ate
Di-n-Butylph thai ate
Fluoranlhene
4-Methyl phenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper - Not Primary
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
110
2
10
4
9
10
3
7
4,280
12.1
509
37.1
61.700
39.2
190.000
54.9
37.300
11,800
Maximum
Concentration
i n
Leachate Seep
(pph)
17
8
8
5
3
4
1
7
5
3
2
no
4
2
21
2
20,400
3.580
178
317.000
316
370
526,000
454
836,000
25,300
Federal ARARt
MCL1
(ppb)
100
700
1.000
5
10.000
50
2.000
5
100
See Note
See Note
Ambient Water-'
MCtG2 Qual ily Criteria
(pph) (pph)
100
700
1.000
0
10.000
(0)
(50)
2,000
5
100
0
488
2,400
15.000
2.8
21.000
0.0022
10
50
1000
50
50
New York ARARs
Drinking Fishing Fishing
Water and Fish and Fish
Supply Propagation'* Survival
(pph) (ppb) (ppb)
20 .
sol
SO*
50|
505
505
*l
50*
505
10,
505
)
505
505
1.000
10
50
200
300
50
35.000
300
5 50
-
0.6
I 1
100
I906 3606
300 300
-------
Table 2B
HtRTEL LANDFILL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
COMPARISON OF SURFACE WATFR CONCENTRATIONS TO (ARARS)
(Continued)
Parameter
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Maximum
Concentration
in
Surface Water
(ppb)
1.0
1Q.O
7.700
29.600
11.8
347
Maximum
Concentration
in
Leachate Seep
(ppb)
4.1
116
28.300
79.800
51.6
11. ZOO
65.3
MCL1
(ppb)
2
(100)
Federal ARARs
Ambient Water3
MCLG* Quality Criteria
(ppb) (ppb)
2 10
(100) 15.4
Drinking
Water
Supply4
(ppb)
2
300
100
New York ARARs
Fishing
and Fish
Propagation4
(ppb)
0.25
14
30
5.27
Fishing
and Fish
Survival4
(ppb)
0.25
190
227
' MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Final Rule Amendments to SDWA. U.S. EPA, 1/30/91, 40 CFR 141 -
(Proposed MCL)
2 MCLG - Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, based on. health considerations only, amendments to SDWA. U.S. EPA, 1/30/91; Cites 50 FR 46936,
11/13/65 - (Proposed MCLG).
3 Derived from published EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (drinking water only) 45 FR 79318-79379, 11/28/90. (August 8, 1988 draft - recent
update is being sent to SDWA).
4 New York State Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values. NYSDEC 6NYCRR Part 701 and 702. Regulations for Surface Water.
5 Guidance value.
" Dissolved concentrations.
Standard for free cyanide.
June 7th - Final Rule on Lead and Copper Treatment technique action levels have been identified in lieu of MCL levels: Lead 15 ppb; Copper
1,300 ppb. Testing would be done at the consumer's tap water and any time 10% of the samples exceed these limits, then action would
be required.
-------
Table 2C
'" ' '7-
HERTEL LANDFILL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS TO ARARS
Parameter
Maximum
Concentration
Detected In
Sediment
(ppb)
New York ARARs
Aquatic
Toxicity
Basis1
(ug/gOC)
Human
Health
Basis1
(ug/gOC)
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Xylenes
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Benzo{ A) Anthracene
Benzo ( B ) Fluoranthene
Benzo ( K ) Fluoranthene
Benzo(A)Pyrene
Benzoic Acid
Bis (2 ethylhexyDphthalate
Chrysene
Dibenzo ( A , H ) Anthracene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
Indeno (1,2, 3-CD ) Pyr ene
2-Methylnaphthalene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
86
64
430 700
19
13
860
49
970
160 146,000
280
1,500
770
1,200
870 260
5,600
2,900 23,940
1,700
960
120
610
370
3,100
390
300
59
1,000
2,500
2,900
32,500,000
30,000 (5,000 ppb)
6,230.000
17,400 (800 ppb)
23,700
-------
Table 2C
HERTEL LANDFILL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
COMPARISON OF. SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS TO ARARS
(Continued)
New York ARARs
Parameter
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Concentration Aquatic
Detected In Toxicity
Sediment Basis1
(ppb) (ug/gOC)
64,400
60,600
67,800
137,000,000
93,700
5,950,000
68,100,000-
700
29,000
1,620,000
400
5,600
78,300
340
6,700
Human
Health
Basis1
(ug/gOC)
(26,000 ppb)
(19.000 ppb)
(27,000 ppb)
(24,000 ppb)
(428,000 ppb)
(110 ppb)
(22,000 ppb)
(85,000 ppb)
All New York ARARs values were based on a representative site organic
carbon value of 20% by weight.
NYSDEC 1987; Sediment Criteria, Bureau of Environmental Protection,
Division of Fish and Wildlife.
-------
..Table 2D . ;,
HERTEL LANDFILL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
COMPARISON OF SURFACE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO RCRA
FACILITY INVESTIGATION GUIDANCE VALUES
Maximum
Concentration
In Surface Soil RCRA*
Parameter (ppb) (ppm)
Total Volatile Organics 353
(with Benzene <1 ppm)
Benzene 2
Total Carcinogenic PAHs
Total PAHs (if total carcinogenic
(PAHs <10 ppm)
Total Base Neutrals
Anthracene
Benzo ( A } Anthracene
Benzo(B)Fluoranthene
Benzo (K)Fluoranthene
Benzo(G,H, I ) Perylene
Benzo(A)Pyrene
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl ) Phthalate
Chrysene
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno ( 1 , 2 , 3 -CD ) Pyr ene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
130
1,200
1,700
100
720
1,100
2,400
1,700
43
90
2,400
46
650
3,100
1,900
2,800
500
620
33,500
109V
4,490
113.
29,500
2,000
60,000
40
4,000
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) guidance. Office of Solid Waste, Volume
I, Section 8, Table 8-7.
-------
Table 2D
HERTEL LANDFILL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
COMPARISON OP SURFACE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO RCRA
FACILITY INVESTIGATION GUIDANCE VALUES
(CONTINUATION)
Maximum
Concentration
In Surface Soil RCRA*
Parameter (ppb) (ppm)
Chromium 2,880 80,000*
Cobalt 34.7
Copper . 319
Iron 278,000
Lead 1,170
Magnesium 14,200
Manganese 6,040
Mercury . 1.6
Nickel 347 2,000
Potassium 2,320
Sodium 1,460
Vanadium 51.1
Zinc 615
1 This is the value for Cr$+, value for Cr^+ is 400
ppm.
-------
Table 3
11 11 1 I 11 I 11 11II M
swttson. JTKTPIT
saww
SWFAS
OOQCALS Of POTDflld C9CW IN HI IOIA S/WUD
M M M I I I MHIMIIIIM III! IHIIIMIMMIUMIIIIIIIMIHHMIIH II lllinmiHIIIMIM IHHMIMMMIimiHIM II
'II
Ifianut turn "
'?SkS 'itt^ifl/n 'ftflSb*?18''' 'Kffi1^^*' "
i HIM llffiTTM MmilnpnnWir/milWm ilMiMtMtlffrnriMi MMI nil
MI|I|IMIMIMIIIII|I Mill I II HUM l||
I I II
MB MMER
111111) i
1
a U-Dichlorob«uint m
BMZaiWTMl 0.094-1.1
« fleiaojbjfluourtr-M 0.086-1.7
8tiu««ijperylHi 0.14-0.72
« 8tnz3l)fluorirthMi 0.098
Btiwl ilotol m
< Bi9(2ithrlrciyl)phtht]iti 0.037-2.4
« ButribenjrlpMh»liu m
»Chrys«« 0.078-1.7
n Oibenn(i,h)tiithric*M HA
« DiethrlptthiliU 0.043
t Di-rfatrlphihiliti 0.08-0.09
o Oi-Mctylphthilite m
ifluormUe 0.063-2.4
iFluorene 0.046
« Indei»(123ed)pyTir» 0.058-0.65
» Hlphtfelew KX0.37h3.1
t Pteninthrene 0.077-1.9
mPhtwl NA
JJ » Prrine jO.058-2.8
II
U
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
n
II
II
M
II
II
II
n
u
n
n
It
n
n
n
u
n
it
u
n
II
II
n
il
ii
It
u
n
n
n
n
il,
1 1 1
t
n
i
>
i
t
t
i
t
i
a
a
t
i
INORWtlQ
Aluiiniui
Antiionr
Arsenic
Birim
Brrlli*
Cilcia
Cobilt
Cowr
Iron
Leid
Ki9«siui
Hingintse
Hercury
HicUl
Potissii*
StJtniui
Silver
Sodiu
Thilliu
Vinidiii
Zinc
Crinide
< 1,1-OicMoretthiM
U-Oichlorotthtse
> Urbot disulf idt
> CMorotenzim
CMorMthm
Chlerofori
< EthrlbtueM
» Tolutnt
Trichioroethim
< Xrlire
PESTICIDES/PCS
« 4,4;-OK
» 4!4'-OOT
M 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
MI ii mi imiiii 1 111 111 M
1
I
J5210-33500
m
9.1-109
43.5-2070
JWtO.68H.84
Jl410:29500'
7.7-2880
5.4-29.4
32.20-319
538-278000
KK0.29)-835
KK191H4200
478-1890
0.3-1.40
KK7.91-347
{14.9-2320
[KK182H460
m
16.9-51.1
[62.6-469
1
1
1
Jm
!:
is
r
jm
Jm
Jm
0.10
m
0.34
m
0.088-0.15
0.22
0.3H.42
0.24
0.26-0.71
m
0.27-0.36
m
0.087-4.5
0.092-0.24
JO.27-0.43
8u
J0.20
0.05-1.2
KK0.37H.42
m
0.068-0.65
0.17-1.1
NA
JO .073-1.1
1
1
[9360-16200
KK 2.9 )-21
2-12.5
32-378
0.43-0.89
KK0.41H.8
986-2450
12.2-21.9
8.9-13.9
20.3-45.6
17400-28300
8.5-93.1
3990-6010
201-1720
m
14.3-25
!»•»»
'm
J70.5-237
m
12.1-22.3
48.6-286
[KKO.SOM0.4
1
1
1
J0.001-0.002
0 003
0.001-0.009
m
m
JKKO.006H.041
IUA
JKKO.006H.310
i i
!«(o.oi8H.50 jm
Jm Jm
1 1 M IM lilMllllllMIIMMMIIIIIM
MIIMM MIIMIMHMIIIIIM IIIIIM
[0.120 Jm
iKKO.45H.59 [0.007-0.11
0.28 m
m m
m 0.009
JKK0.45H.O jm
[KKO.45H.77 jm
iW iW
m m
m o.oi
jO.10-2.90 [0.002-O.OOS
J0.28-0.93 |m
JKK0.45H.61 Jo.003
m 0.003
KKO.45M.6fl 0.002
0.26-0.37 m
m m
KK0.45H.O 0.004
KK0.45H.50 O.OOH.002
m KKO.oiH.02i
JKK0.45H.50 [0.002
1
[1530-32500
m
1.2-X
32.6-6230
iS(0.28)-3.5
KX1.3H7.1
1270-23700
7.6-64.4
KK3H0.6
3-64.8
1310-137000
8.3-93.7
721-3110
83-68100
KK0.13H
6.2-31.7
500-2080
KK0.42h5.9
0.84-12.8
82.9-771
Ki(0.29H.45
T.i-79.5
32-340
[KK0.94H
1
[KK0.02|-20.4
HX0.01H.015
KKO.OOlH.012
0.008-3.56
m
11.7-317
0.002-0.178
HXO.W3H.316
HXO.004Kl.016
KK0.002H.370
0.013-836
KK0.001H.454
0.853-18.6
0.033-25.3
KK0.0002H.004
I00.005H.116
10 0.445 J-28.3
JKKO.002H.0028
jr730-79.8
[KK0.003H.OSS
0.002M1.2
KK0.010H.085
t 1
1 1
1 1
jm Jo.003
IUA lu
!o.004-0.064 lo.005-0.008
KK0.007H.430.0CH.008
m 0.005
iiXo.oo7H.oim
IK0.007H.01 0.001-0.004
[ol06-0.049 Jo.OOH.004
JKK0.007H.97[o.002-<.007
0.002
0.003-0.005
JO.031-0.OU
[0.014-OJ
[m
'm
!o.003
[m
m
[o.oi
m
0.069
'S
[m
0.004-0.039
m
0.01M.072
[m
[m
m
KKO.01H.032
JKKO.01H.079
[m
jm
jm
[KKO.01H.021
!»
KKO.OlH-900
S
'HA
m
KKO.01H.036
m
KKO.01H.018
jm
1 1
1 1
|0. 649-252 [KK0.029H.193
0.029-0.041 m
O.OOH.041 0.002-0.0334
0.034-1.98 0.0048-0.564
0.0013-0.015 0.0012-0.0071
KK0.002H.006 0.002-0.003
181-1460 5.41-257
0.0036-0.538 m
0.007-0.22 KK0.004H.014
0.0047-0.846 m
2.29-482 K<0.012)-88.3
0.0047HI.288 ltXO.002H.004
2.27-133 01*9-55.5
0.159-212 KK0.007H6.4
0.0002-0.002 NA
0.0154-0.49 KK0.005H.029
0.851-41.7 KK0.780 1-38.5
KKO.001lH.002m
m m
2.18-112 2.48-119
KKo.ooiH.oo3 m
0.0037-0.319 KK0.003H.004
0.0234-2.88 KXO.002H.092
IUA IUA
1
1
1
[m
m
m
m
O.OOH.024
0.004
0.001
O.OOH.064
0.016-0.033
m
0.062-0.2
1 1 1
1 1 1
JxKo.027H.03jm [m
IUA IUA IUA
iW iW iW
!Ct0.022H3^W M
1 1 Tl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 M 1
1 1 1 II II 1 M II M 1 1 1 II 1 II 1 1 1 1 M Ml 1 Mil 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1 1 1 1
i
i
i
jm
KKO.005H.027
m
m
KKO.OOiH-063
JKK0.005H.033
JKK0.005H.200
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
!!
n
u
n
n
M
II
II
II
II
II
1 II
1 II
i!£ n
'm "
1 IIMIM MM 1 III ill
1 imlllllMI III) 1 1
»: NOT CfTECTEl
m: HOT (ffl.lCML£
i : USED IK OUNfTITAnVE AWLTSIS
»: USED IN OUHnATlff ANALYSIS
to : USED HI BOTH OUWI1ATM M) QUAUTATIVE ANAITSIS
-------
Table.4
SWOT OF EffOSUC MltUATS
I H 11 M H M I I M H HI H 1 I I I I 11 111 III I I I 111 H HI 1111 H 11 I H 111 11111 H II
Ml II MM II111 (II11IIIIIIIMIIIIIIII11| IIII11111 nun I)) || 11 III! II
^Potentially Eiposed
"Population
Exposure Route, Nedim and Exposure Point
Patl
fa
1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 MM Ml M 1 II II 1 MM 1 1 M 1 II M III 1 M M II III MM II II II MM MM III II
! Current Land Use
! Residents
|
! Residents
! Residents
! Residents
Residents
! Residents
! Residents
1 Residents
! Future Land Use
1 Residents
! Residents
Residents
! Residents
1 Residents
! Residents
! Residents
1 Residents
J
! Construction workers
', Construction Workers
! Construction Workers
! Construction Workers
! Construction Workers
! Construction Workers
1 Construction Workers
IigestioR of ground wter fro*
local wlls down gradient of the site
Ingestion of soils on site
Ingestion of stdlients on site
Ingestion of surface wter on site
Demi contact Nith soils
Derial contact Nith sediients
Inhalation of fugitive dusts
Oerial contact Nith surface wter
Ingestion of ground wter froe local wlls
on the site
Ingestion of soils on site
Ingestion of sediients on site
Ingestion of surface wter on site
Derial contact nith soils
Oerial contact Kith sediients
Inhalation of fugitive dusts
Inhalation of chaicals volatilized frot
ground wter during hoie use
Ingestion of ground, wter froi local wlls
Ingestion of soils on site
Ingestion of sediients on site
Ingestion of surface wter on site
Derial contact tilth soils
Oerial contact with sediients
Inhalation of fugitive dusts
1 1 1 1 1
No
Tes
No
Tes
Tes
No
No
Tes
Tes
Tes
No
No
Tes
No
Tes
Tes
No
Tes
No
No
Tes
No
Tes
Mill IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII HIM IIIIII IMI II MM IIIII MM M I M M 11 M M M M M M II M IIII Ml II
II Mill M Mill IIII Illllll II IMI III IIIMMIII IMI III M 11 M I M M M III Mill Ml M M III M M II Ml
Pathwy Selected
for Evaluation?
Reason for Selection or Inclusion
I III IMMMIIMMMIIIII III) IIIIMMIIMMMMI Mill M M IIII111 IIIII M M II I
M III IIIIIIIMII MMMMIIIIItl MIMIIIIIII11 Ml III IMI II M III Ml II M M M I
No upacts found
Access to site unrestricted
Ingestion of soils chiracterizes equal or greater risk
Access to site unrestricted
Access to site unrestricted
Denal contact lith soils characterizes equal or greater risk
Site heavily vegeUted
Access to site unrestricted
Potential residential use of site ',',
11
11
Potential residential use of site "
Insertion of soils characterizes equal or greater risk ||
Contact route unlikely; ground wter available for insertion ! |
Potential residential use of site !!
Derial contact »ith soils characterizes equal or greater risk \\
Potential residential use of site uy produce areas devoid of cover ',!
Potential residential use of site; volatile organic; in ground wterj!
wlls not developed during construction
Incidental ingestion epected
Contact route unlikely; ingestion of soils characterizes equal or
greater risk
Contact route unlikely
Contact nith soils expected during construction
•Contact route unlikely .
Generation of fugitive dust expected during construction
I M M II IMIM II Mill Mltltlll M M III! Mill Ml II M I I I I I I I I M
11 M I IMI IMI II III M MMMMI I MMM MM M I M M 11 11 M 11 M I I
-------
Table 5
SUWRT OF MIMCIU VM.UES USED 10 (SIIMIE UKKUt
IIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItllllllHIIIIIIHIIIHIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIII '•" "1 1 1 1 1 II M 1 1 1 1 H II M II 1 Ml 1 1 II II 1 1 H II M II H Mill 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1ll 1 1 lull 1 III M 1 II 1 1
! VN.UE
! P«MK1EII OR VftuT U5CD RAIIOm
1 QilKf
1 ""*•
ll"
! Sceurio 1-3: Globil wrbblM
I! Body Ibi* (b)
!! - Child (xeuriol)
!! - Child (scmilo))
:: - Miit
i! liposute Duntioi (ytiri)
I! dcuuit I)
;: child
;: Miit
! (sceurio 2)
(Kendo 3)
! Child
: Mitt
i twtTASIIf IIM
i CiKtr-risb (din)
! NoKimr-riski (dm) (ttenrio 1)
! Child
I Mill
1 feKitcir-risb (din) (steierio 2)
; Noicuc*r-risb(dvi)(«**ilol)
i Child
! Mill
i
1 feorpllot Ftttor
! ormic coepoutdi
! irseilc
! itarguic cctpamd)
I Perteebilitr Cetstut - Demi co*t*ct it totet (ca/hr )
! Mieretco Fictor (tg/ci2)
! Flutist ligesliM f rot CoiUiiMtid Sourci
t Scetnl* 1-3 ChtMcil Coecittiitio* Justificitioi
i Surfm Soili; Sutwrfm toils; Surfici lUteri
;; boiudlbUr
36-H.2
ll.i-17.4
47.2-H.S
-19
-70
-70
-6
-70
m
3W-2S.S50
%S-2S.SSO
IN
345-2.HO
3U-2S.SSO
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-2.77
0-1
«
Ii
70
9
30
1
t
»
2S.SSO
3.26S
10.150
ISO
2.190
IO.KO
O.I
O.I
0.01
6.4E-04
I. IS
1
Vilue bised « iverigi of tiles ltd feules btlwet Mt pi
Vilue Used 01 nerigt of tiles ind feules hetwei 0-t ps
Vilue Used 01 merige of tilts ltd levies betMtt I8-&S ps
Bised UPOI the tat ritgt of thildrei likely to tetti the tit*
B*s*d upoi the ige tinge for tdulls ltd utioeil upper-baud
(ttth percettile) lesidnce it ote locitiot.
toautt of tin ape* buildiw ten rots.
NMber of years ii this lot group.
Nitioul upper -faoiud (Wtb percettile) it ote rtsldnct.
Vilue Used upot 70 year life eiptctitty.
Vilue based upoi eipoauie durilioi.
Vilue bistd upoi eiposure dunliot.
Vilue bised upoi eiposuie dintioi.
Vilw based upoi eiposure diiillot.
Vilut bised upot eiposure dunliot.
Based upoi the petttritioi ule of inter
Bistd upoi cotterciil pott 119 soil
fcsmitg IOW of the soil iitntioD otons Nhili ot til*
Klh pecettile vilues used ii eiposuie eslitele Mire
calculated usitj the ttthods described ii sectiot 6.3.
iiiiiiiiliiiiliilillliiliiiiiiiiilllliliiiiiiiiiitiiiiiiiitiii
1*1(111 II IIIMIMII 1
IMMIIIMIIIIMIMI
EMIfW
(M IW)
EP»IW9
8roM(l1M)
«ISHR(IW9)
tw (I9W;IW2;I9«)
lllMllllllliliillllliillllliiliilliilllliiiilMiiiiiiiiiiiiiilliliiiiiliiiiiiiMiiiiMiiiiiiliiliiiiiliiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i
-------
Table 5
(cortiutd)
9MWT ff MUKIU WLUS WO 10 (SIIMK (XPOStK
JJSCIHIIO 1 - iKIUllOHl (iPOSUfi: (mint Use
jj tiposuu fieweKridns/reii 1
j! Dtriil CoUjct Hitk Cbaicils ii Iktei .
Slit SnfKf ton (ci2)
jj Ckild
!! Milt
I! Consul tin (his/dn)
jj Child
j! l«Btlw Of CkJciU It tafltl Hitif
! (MtKt Ml Mr)
II ^^ rtTlJ
II III II
f^ilLlhri/dr,)
Oral CMUcl Tilth CfcMluls Ii Soils
Sill Swfici «r*i(a2)
, .a*, „
IUWtlot Of Chmcill ll Still
l*«t • toll Wdwl
i! cSd
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 IMI 1 1 II 1 1 M 1 » 1 1 M • 1 1 1 1 II » * 1 1 » 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I M 1 1 1
'I *"p**f '"•"•nffl^ji*)
II iMilMl l^KKl 9l\m l^PBlUII II Mill
jj Stii SnfKt fcu fci2)
i! ligtsti*! Of Chalull ll Sllll
I*IMIMIMIII
I-XS
I-XS
0-1440
0-18. 150
1-24
1-24
1-24
0-14.400
0-19.150
0-200
I-XS
0-11,150
! HontiM Mi (M/M
IMitiM onUitwi* Chuiuli ftmkd ti Oust
Miitt Oat (MtntiitiM (tf •))
,1 WiMiM Mi (iVtrj
jj CipntTi finmtr tdns/rr) I-XS
jj Onul CMtict Hitk Ckitiuli ll IktM
jj tVfi "* **
ii Milt
'' IfSri'sTk'^^!
jj Stii SHlm tin (a2)
!! "•!'
JJ Ivstln Of Chnicilt Ii Soili ud Must tot
ll Cki? '
II .» i
jj l^tsllNoicMtlllllDrMiiilMtr
II IWjJiltaUMB)
II IIU "
Milt
Jj IMitinOf tirhetM (V«w Ph«) Chaiuls
jj (nnuii°liM fhiAhri
! lAilitiwOf »iibom (hnicils Mnxbed to Oust
Mtieit tat CoKMtiitioi
jj l*ilttioo Me (iVhi )
II {fftfflt.liff.toKftlV i...
0-7200
Ml, 150
1-24
o-noo
018,150
0-200
0100
0-24
,,;«
1*1 IHIIII Mil Mill Mil Mil II Mil HI MM Ml MM HIIII HIIHIHIII
» hsod *oi tiespmlig 1/2 of m-tchool dvs/ron
S Bised o* i high tstiiite of the nrim of cotUcls wlk
i.OOO
S.SOO
4
4
o.os
1
t.800
3.100
100
in
i.m
too
J.2C-W
suifici niter dui« i totil of M tiips/rw
Itsed upot ineisioi of l»gs, tin, duds. Sviai^
is wliielr. iMtige foi * 18 r*ns tat gioup.
lised upoi totil low bodr eqnane to «t«.
(lothiig stirs «rt liter iiitiil *ipcoot t.
(lothiig stirs wt iftir iiitiil ivoaai.
lised UPDO atei iigestioi nti for »imi(.
Imd vat laosfd «n, hiidi, ud IKS.
bsed *oi eiposed iris ud hi«k.
Sojl jigntjoi rite for tins* oxer 1 run if m.
,M>il,IWMlli?f,!ftf,If!,lHlT.ff.1,t,n1!f,t!.H'fl 1
bMd w M ntiHti of tin utnr if dm blldi« koka.
licladn huds. UB. hud. MCI ad i Putin if tkj Irak.
Soil iwntiN rtti for thm owr i nut if M.
Hid wosiftt, lodiH Md tepl« •*! feMd It »-«.
•dulls dnm Hdnili nntioo
iTTTTIinTIIITirlmillnilTllinTllllllMMIIItllllllllllHI
XS Mi ti« *mt Mr froi torn.
7700
U.I50
0.2
3.141
1.440
200
100
0.754
?
0.0)
O.I hi
I.M -Of
0.0)
...}
toHUt child 2-i rnri old; loUl bodr MPOSWI
Milt totil body liposni.
btbiv or showriig tit*.
(nasMi el n child's urn. huh, ud lip.
Ciposni of n obit's «M, kisdi, ud ligs.
Childru. l-t rtirs old; m m
M grovs aieitir thii i rms old; m IWI.
ttiildrw. 04 ruts old; m IflO
Milt. mbpMCMtilo: m iw.
Milts nd cbildiii. light ttilvitr tsswd.
bsed am tbt irilioo of i sham.
Hid nesioi. ledlio id dbviii Kxfcl fond ii IP-42
Milts id ckildiii. light Vlmtr esaed.
IIIIHIHIHIIHIIIH
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
mm Jj
II
II
II
II
II
II
mm jj
IHIIlKf.ln1? II
n
n
n
n
mint jj
mm jj
ii
MIHIIIlMMIHIIltlt
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
H
II
II
CM IMS jj
II
-------
iaoj.e OA
-
sum or Toncm W.UES ASSOCIATED BTH itXAKMsEWc-awac EFFECTS: ORAL
III! I III I II II I I I II II II I I
I IMI 11 II I I I I I I I 11 11 I I I I II I
Illlllllllllllll II II Illllllllllllllllllllllllllll MM III I I I'll
OCIICM.
II
j! INORGANICS
AluBinn
jjAntiaony
!(Arsenic
Bariui
Berylliui
jjCadiiuii
IJChroiiui III
ChmiuiVI
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Hercury
Nickel
Seleniui
Vanadiui
Zinc
j{Cyanide
jj VOLATILES
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
jJEthylbenzene
Toluene
[jXylenes
II
II
SffllVOLATILES
!!eis{2ethylheiiyl)phthalate
jjfeitrlbenzylphthalatt
IJBenzoialanthracew
B«nzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
BeniolbKluoranthene
Benzol kjfluoranthe IK
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracenf
j|lndeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
J[l,4-0ichlorobenzene
jjoiethylphthalate
II
!JDi-n-butylphthalate
jjDi-n^ctylphthalate
II
HAcenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Jjp-Cresol
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
II
If
1^
PESTICIDES/PCBS
II"?1 »•• —
4 4*"OOT
I I I I I I I U I I I I I I t I I I I M M I) t II I
MMIIIIMI I|MMMIIMII(IIIIIMIIIIMMIMIIIMIIMMMMIMMMI|IIIMIMMMMM
(OR*) j WIDENS
M/kg/day) LEVEL
1 M Ml 1 M 1 1 M M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
M M Ml II M 1 | 1 1 MIIMI 1 1
1
01 j
4E-04 LOH
I
i
1E-03 NA
7E-02 Nediui
5E-03 LOH
IE-03 | High
1E+00 ! LOH
5E-03 J Lou
4E-02 ! W
10 ft
1E-C1 Nediui
3E-04 NA
2E-02 Nediui
If
7E-03 IK
2E-01 NA
2E-42 j Hediui
I
t
1E-01 ! Hediui
2E-02 Nediui
1
i
1E-01 LOH
2E-01 Hediui
2E+00 ; Hediui
1
1
2E-02 ! Hediui
2E-01 j LOH
1
*
If
DI J
1
IF
If J
* !
ND j NA
8E-01 ! LOH
1
J
1
i
1E-01 Low
2-02 NA
i
1
6H2 ! LOH
3E-01 LOH
NF
4E-02 LOH
1
4E-02 ! LOH
I
i
5E-02 Hediui
4E-03 NA
3E-02 LOH
01
6.0E-01 ! LOH
1
If '
If
1
1 1 1 1 1 in tli 1 1 1 1 1 HIT MI 1 1
CHTKN. RFC BASIS/
EFFECT SOURCE
MIMII II Ml MM M Ml MM M MUM Illlllllllll MIMI MUM
1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 Ml 1 1 II 1 M 1 1 1
Longevity .blood glucose and
cholesterol
Keratosis and hyperpigwntation
Increased blood pressure
None observed
Proteinuria
No effects reported
No effects reported
Local 61 irritation
Neurobehavioral effects
CMS effects
Kidney effects
Decreased body aid organ wight
None observed
Aneeia
wight loss, thyroid effects,
irelin degeneration
Fetal toiicity, ulforiation
Histopathological changes
in the liver
Liver and kidney toiicity
Changes in liver and kidney
HyperacUvity.decreased body wight
Increased relative liver wight
Effects on body wight gain,
testes, liver, kidney
Decreased growth rate, food
consuiption rate and altered
organ wights
Increased Mrtality
Elevated kidney and liver
Heijhts, increased SGOT and SSPT
Hepatotoxicity
No observed effects
Nephropathy, liver wight changes
heutolofical alterations and
clinical effects
Decreased RBC, packed cell
volute and heaoglobin
Decreased body wight gain, neurotoxicity
Decreased body wight gain
Kidney effects
Reduced fetal body wight
Liver lesions
1 1 M M II 1 1 M ITT 1 1 1 iTTTI 1 M 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(CAST
wter/IRIS
NVKAST
wter/IRIS
wter/IRIS
wter/IRIS
Diet/IRIS
wter/IRIS
IRIS.ICAST
NMCAST
ttVIRIS
Oiet/IRIS
HVIEAST
Diet/IRIS
IRIS.ICAST
wter/ICAST
HVKAST
Oral/IRIS
Iihalation/IRIS
Oral/IRIS
Oral/IRIS
Gavage/IRIS
6avage/IRIS
Diet/IRIS
Oiet/IRIS
IRIS.ICAST
IRIS.HEAST
NEAST
IRIS.HEAS1
IRIS.HEAST
IRIS.HEAST
IRIS.ICAST
NAAEAST
Oiet/IRIS
Diet/IRIS
Oiet/lCAST
Oral/IRIS
6avage/IRIS
OUTCAST
6avige/IRIS
Savage/IMS
IRIS
Gavage/HEAST
6avage/IRIS
HEAST
6avage/IRIS
IRIS.ICAST
IRIS.ICAST
Diet/IRIS
Mlllll 1 Mill III
j "'"""" M
UCERTAINTY AND
NOOIFYIN6 FACTORS
IMIII MIIMI II III H
MIIMIIMM MIMI||
II
II
J 1
(FMOOOllF'l
1 1
i i
UT'l
UTi3;if=l
UF:100,NF:1
UF»10;lfM jj
UF«100;lfMO jj
UF'SOC;ff=l
1 1
w^?1 1 1
y* 1 1
™ i j
UF*l;lf*l
11=1000
uT=100;lf'3
1 1
1 1
IF'IOO
UF=10 J|
If'lOOin5,* it
1 1
ii
ii
UFMOOIHM !!
UF=1000;lfM
1 1
i i
iF'ioooiif'i !!
UF«100ilf=l jj
II
II
UF*1000;lf=l jj
«iF«iooo,";*i jj
1 1
1 1
II
II
II
UF»IOOO;IFM !!
1 1
1 1
«F«iooo;ir«i
UF>1000
1 1
II
UF=3000,lf=l jj
\Jf *JWnrlW 1 ii
1 I
||
UFOOOOiNFM jj
i i
Ur*3000t*sl ti
1 1
1 1
«F«1000;IF«1
UF'10,000
UF=3000;HF=1
I 1
UF=100;HFM ||
II
II
in M i IM 1 1 > 1 1 1 n ill
I I I I H I I 11 I I M I I I I t I I M I M I I I 11 I M I I I I I < I I H I M I 11 11 I I I I I M I I M I I I I I t I
I I II I I II I I I I
-------
.
SWHARY OF TOXICITY VALltS ASSOCIATED UIDTNONCARCIKSNIC-OfiONIC EFFECTS: IHHALATION
II II I I I I I I H I I I I I I II I I I, H I I I I I II I I I I Ml
I II I
miiiiimiiiiHiiii
"II
!| OOUCAL
11
M 1 1 1 1 M 1 | 1 1 1 | 1 1 f M | 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1
||ll Hill 11*11 Illimillllllll
!! INORWICS
Aliainut
jJAntiiony
! [Arsenic
Bariui
Berylliui
JJCaduui
|!chrnita III
Chrctiui VI
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
fcnjanese
1 1
i i
II
1 1
Hercury
Nickel
Seleniu*
Vanadiu*
Zinc
Cyanide
u
II
!! VOLA11LES
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
JjXylenes
j| SEMIVOLATILES
!{Bis(2eth>-lhexyl)phthalate
ijButylbenzylphthalatf
Benzojalanthracene
Benzol a Jpyren*
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzol k)fluoranthew
Dibenzo(a,h (anthracene
]JlndenoU.2,3-c.d)pyrene
j[l,4-Dichloroben:ene
jJDiethylphthalate
II
iJOi-it-butylphthalate
[JDi-n-octylphthalate
II
jJAcenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzotj.h.ifeerylene
IJFluoranthene
jJFluorene
!!p-Cresol
Naphthalene
Prrene
Phenanthrene
[(Phenol
!{ PESTICIDES/PC8S
' 1 t J • MSA
II4.V-OOE
1 1 1 fi 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1
(MM!ATIU>
iSiS:?:!!1
DI
4£-04a
!E-03a
7E-02a
5E-03a
5E-4a
tf-07
tf-07
NF
ND
to
1E-04
1E-04
2E-02a
NF
TE-^3 a
2E-01 a
2E-02a
IE-Ola
5E-03
IE-Oil
6E-01
9E-02
2£-02a
2E-01 a
HF
NF
DI
NF
NF
NF
NF
2E-01
8E-01 a
IE-Ola
2E-02a
6E-02a
3E-01a
MF
4E-02a
4£-02a
SE-02a
4E-03a
3E-02a
DI
DI
KF
NF
CONFIDENCE
iiiTTiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiii
MA
NA
Nadiui
NA
Nfl
NA
NA
MA
SE-04 a
MM III! II Illllllllll II 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M 1
ttlTKAL
Ml II II Mill 1 II MTl M M M Illllllllllllll
M 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 M 1 M 1 1 1 1 M
Nasal ucosa atrophy
Nasal ucosa atrophy
06 effects
Increased prevalance of respiratory
SYWtws and psycho-wtor
disturbances
Neurotosicity
•yelin degeneration
Liver and kidney effects
CMS effects, eyes and nose irritation
CMS effects, eyes and nose irritation
Liver and kidney effects
M 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M M 1 M M 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M 1 1 1
, M 1 1 1 1 II 1 M M II 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 I
Ufflflijun
RFC BASIS/
imiTniTTiiii
IIIIMIIIMIIII
HEAST
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS.HEAST
MVHEAST
NA/HEAST
IRIS
HEAST
NA/HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
(EAST
HEAST
HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
IRIS.HEAST
HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
1RIS.HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
HEAST
IRIS
IRIS.HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
UORTAWTY M>
NODIFYINB FACTORS
IIIIIIMMMMIM
UF*300
IF<300
MA
«Fi300ilf«3
uT*900
ir«»
LF=10,000
UF=100
UFMOO
UFMOO
IIIMIIII 1 111 Illllll IMMI MIIMI 1
Illlllll M ItlMMM MMMII III II Ml
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
-------
Table,6C, <
••*« -•• 1 .1
SMART OF TOXICITY VALIES ASSOCIATED KITH WNCARCINKENIC-MORMIC EFFECTS: ORAL
1 1 1 1 M 1 II II I
||im mn ii urn mum
n
|| OEMICAL
1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 III M 1 1 M 1 1 1 M 1 1
Ml 1 1 M 1 M I'M M M M M 1 1 M 1
TlwirulTrc
1 1 INOKWnlls
Alutinui
Antitony
1 1
1 1
Arsenic
Bariui
Berylliui
Cadiiui
Chroiiui III
Chroiiui VI
Cobalt
Cooper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Seleniui
Vanadiui
Zinc
Cyanide
u
n
!! VOLAT1LES
Carbon Disulfide
[jChlorobenzene
JJEthylbenzene
Toluene
Jjxylenes
|[ SEHIVOLAT1LES
!JBis(2ethylhe»yl)phthalate
[jButylbeniylphthalate
i i
Benzot a Anthracene
Benzoujpyrene
Chrysew
Benzoj btfluoranthene
Benzol kjfluoranthene
Diben:o(a,h Anthracene
Indeno(l.2,3-c,d)pnene
1.4-Oichlorobenzene
Oiethylphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
j[oi-n-octylphthalale
i i
Acenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(s,h,i)perylene
JjFluoranthene
IJFluorene
p-Cresol
Naphthalene
Pyrene
jPnenanthrene
IJPhenol .
j! PESTICIDES/PCBS
(j4,4;-B)0
'hV-flOT
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
"mm"
RFD(ORAL)
ntffmKfrm
imiiiiiimi
DI
4E-04C
1E-03
5E-02
5E-03C
1E-03
lEtOl
2E-02
HF
1.3«/1 (0.04)
ND
lE-Olc
3E-04
2E-02C
NF
7E-03
2E-01
2E-02C
lE-Ole
2E-01
1E+00
2E+00
4E+00
2E-02C
2E+00
If
HF
DI
If
NF
NF
NF
ND
8E+00
1E*CO
2E-02
6E-01
3E+00
NF
4E-01
4E-OI
5E-01
4E-02
3E-01
DI
6.0E-01
If
NF
5E^4(|
IIIIMMIIMIIM
IIIMIIII
COFK8CE
ht riff 1
IMIMII
mini ii
Lw
NA
LM
NA
Hedim
NA
Nediui
NA
NA
Nediui
Nediui
Mediui
NA
NA
Low
mi mil
n m nun
iiiiii.iiiiiit.fiiiiifiiiiifiiiiiiiiiiii, 1,11,111111111111
1 M H 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 M 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 M 1 j 1 1 1 1 1 U> » 1 1 1 1 U
(HAL
CRITICAL
i m m 1 1 1 m i inTi IT? ! i m 1 1 m m 1 1 1 1 1
mini mimiimimii mm IIMIIMI
Decreased longevity, blood glucose and
cholesterol
Keratosis and hyperpigKnUtion
Fetotoxic, itcrewed blood pressure
None observed
Hepatotoiicity
Not defined
Local 61 irritation
NA
06 effects, respiratory syjptots
Kidney effects, neurotoucity
Decreased body and organ wight
None observed
Anetia
wight loss, thyroid effects,
•yelin degeneration
Fetal toiicity, ulforiation
Liver and kidney effects
Heoatotoiiety. neohrotoiicity
Changes in liver and kidney wight, CMS
CMS effects
Increased relative liver wight
Effects 'on body wight gain,
testes, liver, kidney
NA
Mortality
Elevated kidney and liver
wights.iMcreised S60T and S6PT
Hepatotoiicity
No observed effects
Nephropathy, liver wight changes
(tautological (Iterations and
clinical effects
Hnatoiogical changes
Decreased body wight gain, neurotoricity
Decreased body wight gain
Reina! effects
Reduced fetal body wight
m BASIS/
MMTmTTllll
1 III 1 III 1 III 1 1
HEAST
Itoter/IRIS
NVHEAST
Uater/HEAST
•ter/IRIS
Diet^CAST
Dater/HEAST
IRIS.HEAST
leVHEAST
NA/HEAST
Diet/IRIS
NA/HEAST
Diet/IRIS
OUS,I€AST
Uater/HEAST
NA/HEAST
Oral/IRIS
IthalatioitARIS
HEAST
Oral/HEAST
HEAST
6avage/HEAST
Diet/IRIS
DietVHEAST
IRIS,tCAST
IRIS.ICAST
IRIS.HEAST
IRIS.HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
NA^EAST
HEAST
Diet/HEAST
Diet/HEAST
fiavage/HEAST
Gavage/HEAST
IRIS.HEAST
6avtge/)EAST
6ivt9e/HEAST
HLAST
6avtge/HEAST
Gavaae/HEAST
(EAST
HEAST
IRIS.HEAST
DUSJEAST
Liver lesions IRIS.HEAST
MiMMimiMiMMiM MMMMiiiimmlmmlM Miinl
M M M M 1 MM 1 M 1 1 M M MM 1 M M M 1 1 1 1 HIM Mill mill Mill
1 1
UORTAINTYAW)
wlrfiifM^iff?!!
limilMIIMMII ||
II
1 1
uT<1000;IF:l
1 1
1 1
UT--1
UF'100
UF>ioo;ff.-i
II
uF«ioo !!
UF«100
II
UF4M !!
UF4M
UF*lilf'l
UFMOOO jj
11
i i
UT«100
UF=10
ir«ioo;«»5
1 1
II
II
UF«ioo;if=i .!!
UTslOO {J
UFMOO !j
IFMOO
lf'100 jj
"H
II
«F«1000;IFsl !!
UF^lOO
II
II
II
II
UF'100 'j
UFMOO JJ
1 1
1 1
OT*300
UFOOO
I |
If =300 |!
| 1
IF«300
lf'100
IFMOOO
UF--300 jl
1 1
OT«100 Jj
II
II
II
IFMOO !!
1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 t 1 1 1 1 1
MIIIII Mini
DPData inadequate for quantitative risk assessment
NA:Not available ative risk assesster-t
NF:Not found
N):Not deterlined
a=0ral value hts been placed nhere no inhalation value eiists.
c'Subchronic RFO/RFC values taken froi HEAST tables
-------
SIMMY OF TOXICITY VALUES ASSOCIATED UITH NONCIPCINOSNIC-SUBOffMIC EFFECTS: INFLATION
II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III II II 1 1 II II
'! OOICAL
II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ii 1 1 n i n n n n n
|| 1 1 1 1 m n n 1 1 1 1 1 n n li n
!! DOKNIICS
.Altai nut
jJAntiiony
[! Arsenic
Bariia
Berylliui
JjCaotiui
||chroiiui III
Chroiiui VI
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
, [ Manganese
JJNercury
Nickel
Seleniu*
Vanadiui
Zinc
Cyanide
II
|j VOLAT1LE5
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
jjxylenes
{[ SEJIIVOLATILES
!!Bis(2ethylheiyl)phthalate
jJButylbenzrlphthalate
jJBenzo(a)anthracene
8enzo(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
BenzoiUfJuorantherie
Oibenzo(a,h)anthracene
,jlndeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
|jl,4-Dichlorobenzene
jJDiethylphthalate
ll
!!oi-n-butylphthalate
,,Di-n-octylphthalate
IJAcenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzol 9, h,i)perylene
j, 'Fluor anther*
II
jJFluorene
!{p-Cresol
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Phenanthrene
j {Phenol
|! PESTICIOES/PC8S
4,<'-DM>
4.4--OC-:
4.4'-WT
1 1 1 II M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M
^t'^JxVJJiT ' 'W 'I'" '" " " I1 " " ll(l" " " " '"i " "iiimnini t ii t |"L" ! ' 'ilL111
(INHALATION)
,,tem m i ii 1 1 1 n i m ii > 1 1 1 1 1 1
imfliuH
RFD BASIS/
SOURCE
1 M M II II 1 1 1 1 1
iiimiimm
HEAST
HEAST
ICAST
HEAST
IRIS.HEAST
NA/tCAST
NA/ICAST
IRIS
NA/VCAST
IRIS.ICAST
ICAST
ICAST
ICAST
IRIS.ICAST
IRIS.HEAST
HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
IRIS.ICAST
IRIS.ICAST
IRIS.ICAST
HEAST
IRIS, HEAST
ICAST
HEAST
IRIS.ICAST
IRISjICAST
ICAST
1 1 1 m 1 1 1 m 1 1 1
1 1 n 1 1 1 ii i ii 1 1 1
mmmmimi||
(KERTAINTY AND !!
MOIFYIN6 FACTORS
i n M n 1 1 n 1 1 n 1 1 1 1
mini iimmii||
II
II
II
II
II
II
UF«30 "
IFiTfl "
1 1
1 1
Nn 1 1
ui II
m 1 1
UF«300;IF»3 {{
i i
UFOO
I (
II
M
1 1
II
II
n
1 1
UF'1000 ||
i i
UFMOO
UF=100 |j
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
UFMOO ||
II
II
II
II
1 1
1 1
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1 1
II
II
II
II
II
iiiin M MII 1 1 n II
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m 1 1 1 1
-------
Table 7A
SUtWY OF TOXICITY WLUES ASSOetfTH CAttlWGWC LFFEC1&: on.
IMIMI 11MI 11M I I I I I I I III IM
|| M M Ml M I I I I I M I I Ml I I II M
M Mill MM I II MM MMMMIMIIMMMMIM MM M I I I
mMMM|IIMMIIIIMMIIIIII|IMMMIMIIMIMI||
jj ttHICAL
1 1
III 1 MIMM IIIMMM II Mill
MIIMI IIIIIMMMIM IMMI
!! 'INORGANICS
Alwinui
Antiiony
Arsenic
Brim
Berylliia
Cadiiut
ChroiiuiVI
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Seleniw
Vanadiui
Zinc
jjcyanide
1 1 VOLATILES
!! Carbon DisulTide
Chjorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
jjxylenes
!! SEMIVOLATlLEs
!!6is(2ethylheiyl)phthalate
j|Butylbenzylphthalate
]JBenzo(a)anthracene
Benzol a jpyrene
Chrysene
Benio(b)fluorantriene
Benzot in luoranthene
Dibenzot a ,h {anthracene
[jlndeno(123cd)pyrene
jjl,4-Dichlorobenzene
jJDieth/lphthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
jJDi-n-oetylphthalate
j JAcenaphthene
Anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)peTylene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
p-Cresol
Naphthalene
Pyrene
Phenanthrene
jjphenol
[{ t PESTICIDES/PC8S
!J4.V-DDT
MlfllMMMII tt IIIIMttllll
M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(SF)ORAL
.(fj/m'^h!
1 1 M 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1
HF
NF
1.75
If
4.3
M)
ND
NF
NF
NA
NF
NF
ND
If
NF
NF
NF
If
NF
NF
NF
1.4E-02
»
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
2.4E-02
$
NF
NF
If
NF
If
NF
NF
ND
If
If
NF
NF
2.4E-01
3.4E-01
EVIDENCE
C^^jFJIfATJW
I.MMIMMIM
D
D
A
D
82
W
M)
D
D
82
D
D
ND
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
82
C
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
82
D
D
D
D
'0
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
0
82
82
TYPE OF
miiiiTiiMimm
M M 1 Ml M II MM III
Skin
Skin
Renal
Liver
Stouch
Liver
Jing, liver, thyroid
Liver, thyroid
3.4E-C1 82 Liver
MIMMMMI tin miMiiimi mill mi mm mi
1 1 MM 1 1 1 1 1 M M 1 1 M M 1 M M HIM HIM 1 M M M II 1 Mill 1
Sf BASIS/ jj
IMIIimirTMIMlll
IMMMI Ml III M 1 l||
II
NA/IRIS ,I£AST jj
MVIRIS.HEAST
UaUr/IRIS
Ulter/IRIS
Hater/IRIS
NA/HEAST
NF/1RIS
NA/IRIS ,IEAST
NA/IRIS
Oral/IRIS
NA/IRIS
HARRIS
NA/IRIS
NA/IRIS.ICAST
NA/IRIS .HEAST
NA/IRIS.IEAST
NA/IRIS jj.
II
NA/IRIS.HEAST [j
NA^RIS !!
NA/IRIS
NA/IRIS jj
II
Diet/IRIS !!
If /IRIS Jj
NA/IRIS jj
Diet/IRIS
NA/IRIS
NA/IRIS
NA/IRIS
HA/IRIS
NA/IRIS jj
6avage/)€AST jj
NA/IRIS,IEAST !1
NA/IRIS.ICAST
NA/IRIS jj
NA/IRIS.HIAST jj
NA/IRIS
NA/IRIS
NA/IRIS.HEAST JJ
*KK jj
NA/IRIS
NA/IRIS
NA/IRIS
NA/IRIS j{
II
1 1
DietHRIS
Diet/IRIS
Diet/IRIS
M MM 1 1 M 1 M 1 1 M II
MMMMMMIIIMM
-------
Table 7B
+ if. - , .1 ••
mm OF TOHCITY WLUES AssociATaTiriTH cttciNOGoac EFFKTS.- INHALATION
111 H 11
(Ml
!! ! SLOPE FACTOR | ICIGHT-OF- | ,' !!
!! CHEMCAL !(SF) DHALATION! WOOCE | TOE OF SF BASIS/ !!
tliiiiMMin ii 111 it MM i M tt it mmiimi
II 1 1 H 1 II 1 H H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 I II 1 1 1 1 it 1 1 1 1 II 1 1
JJ INORGANICS
Altai nui
Antiiony
Arsenic
Bariui
Berylliui
Caotiui
ChroiiuiVl
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Seleniui
Vanadiui
Zinc
{[Cyanide
!! VOLATILES
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
jjxylenes
j! SENIVOLATILES
8is(2ethylheiyl)phthalate
jJButylbenzylphthalate
Be nzo( a Anthracene
Benio(a)pyrene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Beiuo( ktfluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h Anthracene
jjlndeno(123cd)pyrene
jjl,4-0ichlorobenzene
IJoiethylphthalate
Oi-irbutylphthalate
jJDi-n-octylphthalate
JJAcenaphthene
Anthracene
Beitttfg.h.ilperylene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
p-Cresol
Naphthalene
Pyrene
IjPhenanthrene
jiPhenol
,'! PESTICIKS/PC8S
4,4 'H»0
4,4 '•«
!4,4'-OOT
M 1 II IIIIIIIIIIIJI Illllllll II
NA
NA
SE+01
NA
8.4E*OOa
6.1E+00
4.le*i
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.4E-1
NA
NA
KA
NA
HH
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.4E-02 a
WH
6. b
6. b
6. b
6. b
6. b
6. b
6.1 b
2.4E-02 a
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2.4E-01
OSSIFICATION CANCER SOJ&
M MI l iiiiiiiiiliiiimiimiiiHiiiliim Tim mil
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
D
D
A
D
Bl
A
D
0
B2
0
J
D
D
p
D
D
D
D
0
0
C
B2
82
82
82
82
82
82
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
82
3.4E-01 J 82
Illllllllllllllllll
Lung
Lung
Respitory Tract
Respitory Tract
3.4E-01 82 Liver
iiiiiiiiiiiiniiii M inn' i"i in Minimum
III 1 1 II III III! 1 II l| j
II
WIRIS.IEAST If
H^IRIS,ICAST
Air/t£ASI
NA/IRIS.KAST
U
1 1
OCCUPATIOHAL/)CAST
CCOMTIOWUCAST
*VIR1S,I€AS1
MRIS.HEAST
HVIRIS,HIAST
HVIRIS, HEAST
NA/IRIS, HEAST
OCOPATIONAi/ICAST
NAyiRIS,ICAST
NA/IRIS, HEAST
MA/IRIS, HEAST 11
MA/IRIS .(CAST jj
II
1 1
NA7IRIS.IEAST
MA/IRIS.HEAST
NA7IRIS.HIAST
NA/IRIS.HEAST
NA/IRIS,IEAST jj
II
II
1 1
If /IRIS, MA/ICAST jj
NA/IRIS.HEAST [j
IKHALATIOK^CAST
NA/IRIS, HEAST
NA/IRIS,H>AST
NA/IRIS, HEAST
NA/IRIS, HEAST
NA/IRIS.ICAST jj
II
II
NAyiRIS,l€AST j
NA/IRIS JCAST
NA/IRIS.HEAST jj
HVIRIS,ICAST jj
MA/IRIS.rt-AST
HVIRIS JCAST
KVOUSJEAST
NA/IRIS.ICAST
DUS
NHOIUS,HEAST
NVIRISJEAST
NA/IRIS J£AST
MVORIS,>EAST jj
II
H
NA/IRIS.HEAST
NAyiRIS,HEAST jj
1 H 1 1 1 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II II 1
-------
Table 8A
SIMMY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES - SCSMRIO 1: CHILDREN
ItI I I I I I I I ItI I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I IMIMI I I II I I I I II I I I I||I I I I 11 I I 11 11 III 1111 1111 111 I I M I
I (I II I II III! I II I I 1111 II (I Illlllllll III) III! II HIM Illl I Ml I I II II Hill II
DCKICAL
imtmi 11
INORGANICS
Arsenic
DAILY! cw
INTAKE! COI) lAOJVSraFO
(U/kfi/day) ! ABSORPTION
I I 11 11 11 I I I I I
KIM
EXPOSURE PA HUAY: DERMAL CONTACT
2.9E-05
0.10
SF
(w/kg/dayH
UEIGNTOF
EVIDENCE
TYPE OF
CAMCER
in mmmimimm
iiiinii mill
limn
1.7S
A Ifiladder, Liver, Lung
SF BASIS/
SOURCE
I H 11 I I I I M I
QCNICAL
SPECIFIC
RISK
IMIIIIIIIIIIII nun
inmiiim
i mmmi
SE-04
I I I I I I I I I I I
TOTAL
PATHMY
RISK
5E-04
TOTAL
EJWSURE
RISK !
mum
5E-W
-------
Table 8B
OF CANCER RISK ESTDMTES - SEWttIO 1: AftLTS
mini 1111 ii 11 ii miiimiumiiimmmimmiimmtiimi minimum
mi m 111 m 11111 mi m 11 mm 11111 mi in m 11 n 11
lOWNIC WILY ! COI !
OCNICAL ! INTAff(COI) {ADJUSTED FOR! SF
! (tg/kj/day) ! ABSORPTION |(i9/kj/darH
ICISHTOF
EVIDENCE
JIEJWSURE PATHWAY: OERNN. CWTACT KITH SURFACE WTER • ADULTS
M 11t I I M II H II t I I III II
I I I I I I I I I 11 I I 111 11 I I I I I I
!! INORGANICS
![Arsenic
limimimi
mimiii I
;; INORGANICS
llArsenic
7.4E-M
nEXPOSURE PATHUAY: DERHAL CONTACT WITH SOILS • ADULT
M I I
I I I 1
M I It I I I I •
1 1 I I I I I I I I
2.1E-05
0.10 !
1.7S
mum n im
0.10
1.75
111111 ii i mil ill ii ii 111 it
I I I Illl III I I Mill I I III I I
TYPE OF
CANCER
IOGICAL
SF BASIS/ iSPECIFIC
SOftCE ! RISK
TOTAL
PATMMY
RISK
iiiiimmimimi
mm miiiiiiimmmiimmim im
imnmmiiiimim
TOTAL !!
EXPOSURE !i
RISK !!
3.7EHX !!
A iBlidder, Liver, LungiUiter/IRIS! 1.3E-07 !
linn
in
III
HI 11
3.4E-W
mmmiii
Bladder, Liver, Lung!toter/IRIS
3.6E-04
I M I I I M II I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I M I I I I
111111 iiiiiiii n i in ii mm ii i minim
-------
Table 8C
OF CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES • SC9WIO 1: CHILDREN
11 II 1 I I I t 1 I 111 M I I I I I I M | | | M | | 11 | | 11 | | I I I 11 11 I I I I I I I II M I I I 11 I I 111 1 11 I I I
II II II III! I I I ill Ml Ml II || II III I I I I III III I till HI I I 1) Illlt II II II
OCMICAL
IIIIIIIIMII
;INORGANICS
lArsenic
CHRONIC DAILY; CDI
INTAKE! 0>I )!AUUSTED FOR
(•8/kfl/day) ; ABSORPTION
{EXPOSURE PA HUAY: KRtW. CONTACT WITH SOIL - CHILDREN
2.3E-04 I
0.1C
RFO iCOflOOCE
(i8/ks/day)! LEVEL
i nil tun
HIM
I M M M
I 11
1E-03 HA
QflTICAt
EFFECT
\ RFC ! !
SOURtZ/ ilimiAINniMOIFYIHB! HAIMD
BASIS iNUUSTMENTS; FACTORS iOUDTIEKT
11111IIIII11 III Mil II
I III
minimi
minium
Keritosis i |
and HyperpigKntationlNA/HtAST;
2E+00
M M I I M
HIM
PATMMY
HAZARD
IWO(HI)
TOTAL ii
EXPOSURE;;
HI ::
-------
Table 8D
SIMMY OF CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX ESTATES - SEMARIO 1: ADULTS
m 11 m i m i m i m n i m 11 m 11 m 11111111 m 11M111 m 111111 M 11
111 n n n 11111 n 1111111 n 111111 n 111 ii 11 ii m n ii 1111111111111111 im m 11 inn mil
IMONIC DAILY; coi ! !
CHEMICAL I OTNCtCOI) [ADJUSTED FOR! RfD I
! (u/kg/dar) ! ABSORPTION Kv/kg/dar)!
LEVEL
OtlTICAL
EFFECT
RFD ! RFD
SOURCE/ UNCERTAINTY
BASIS (ADJUSTMENTS
11111 n n M M M n i
n n in n n 1111 n 11111 ii mini n n n 111 n n n i n iiiiimi i in n 11 n n
!!EXPOSURE PATHUAY: DERMAL CONTACT WITH CHEMICALS IN SOIL - ADULTS
11111 n im 111 mi m ii n 1111111111
mil imm immimmiii
IlllIlllllll
IIINORGANICS
!jArsenic
4.K-05
0.1
1E-03
! Keratosis !
find hrperpigwnUtionlHA/HEAST
I I II II I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I III I I I
miiiiiim
mi
NOOIFYIN6! HAZARD
FACTORS IQUOTIEKT
! 4.8E-01
Illl I I I I I I I II I I I I I
III
PATMMY ! TOTAL !!
HAZARD lEJPOSURE !!
DKX(HI)! HI !,'
i immi m 11 it it 11
mmmmiiim
4.9E-01 ! S.4E-01 !!
imim
iiitmiim IMII
-------
Table 8E
SIMMY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES • SCENARIO 3: CHILDREN
11 It I t II I I I Ml I It I It 11 I I II
II I I I H I I I I 11 I II 11 I I 11 I
I III II Hill II I
timiiiiiin ill
m nun
Mil
Him
minium ii mini H 11111 u M
III I 1111 II 11 I I IM111 I I IIII I I I I 11
!! DCHICAL
M I 111 I 1I M I ' 11
11 11 I M 11 11 I I I I
! [EXPOSURE PATWAY: INSSTION OF OENICALS IN DRMING HATER
!! INORGANICS
![Arsenic
;; INORWICS
!!Arsenic
OfiONIC DAILY
INTKE(COI)
(«j/kj/day)
miimimi
coi !
ADJUSTED FOR \
ABSORPTION
HEIGHT OF
iimimmi
mini
TYPE OF
CANCER
SF BASIS/
SOURCE
OeUCAL
SPECIFIC
RISK
TOTAL
PATMMY
RISK
III 111 I I 111 I I I Ml 11 M I M It 111 Ml I II Mil 11
I M H IMIIMII III IIIMIII II M MIIMMIIMIMIMIMHI I HI
2E-04
9.8E-05
I:OCPOSUK PATHWY: DERM. CONTACT UITH OCMICALS IN SOIL -
I M I I t I I M I I t M
I I I II I I I I I I I I I I
1.1E-M
Mil
Mil
N H M | III H I 1 11 II II III II M 11 Ml II I I 1111IIIIIM t IIIMI II M III
MMI II II It II I I H I II I I M II I 11 III Mill I III) Mill II II MM MMMI Ml II IMI M Ml I I II I
III 1
No
1.7SE+00
Skin
I t I 11 MI IH > M11 I I I I I 11 I I I I I II
toter/IRIS ! 2-04
0.10 ! 1.75E+00
I I I I I M M
M I I M I M
I Ml I I I I I I M M I I 11 M MIM Ml M M
II I M M M M M M I M I M I M I M M I 11
Skin
Uter/IRIS 2E-03
2E-03
TOTN.
RISK
minimi
2E-03!!
M t M M M 11
IIMIMM II
-------
Table 8F
SIMMY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMTES • SCOWUO 3: MU.T
OOIICAL
! INORGANICS
[Arsenic
Illlll Illl Illllllllll M I I Ml II III MM Illllll II II Illlll I Illl I Illlllllllll Illl Illlllllllllll II
II II IMIIIIII II I M II I I Illl II Illlllllllllll II Illllll Mlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Illl
II
II
CffiONK DAILY | CDI | !
iNiAKE(O)i) IADJUSTEO FOR | SF HEIGHT OF
(ig/l«/dar)'! ABSORPTION Kv/kg/day )•! {EVIDENCE
II Illl Illllll MMIMMMMIIMM Illlllll II Illlll
II IIIIIlllllIII IIIlllllllllllllIIIllllll I I Illlll
! [EXPOSURE PATHWAY: INGESTION OF QEKICALS IN DRINKING UATER
IIIIIIIIIIIMI
I I I I I I I I M M I I
I INORGANICS
[Arsenic
TYPE OF
CANCER
SF BASIS/
SOURCE
QOQCAL
SPECIFIC
RISK
TOTN.
PATHMY
RISK
I I I I I I I I I I
3.0E-04
II I IIlllllIllll
IOPOSURC PATHKY: DERfW. CONTACT UITH CHEMICALS IN SOIL
I I I M I I I M I I I t I
3.8E-04
No
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
II
II
Illlllll Illllllllll
IMIIIIII IMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II I II M M Illllllllll
7E-03I!
iiiiiiiiiii
iimii
i
5E-04
TOTAL
EXPOSURE !!
RISK
Uater/IRIS [ SE-04 [
0.10
1.75E+00 A [ Skin
I I ItI I I I 11 I I| | 111 (I I t
I I I I II I III HIM II I I M Ml I
7E-03!
I Ml I III II II II II I I I I Illllll IIIIIIIMII II Illlllllllllllll
M III I II M M M III I I
I
1.75E+00
I I I I I I I III I I I
I
I
A [ Skin lUter/IRIS ! 7E-03 [
MM I Illllllllllllllllll M Mil M M M III M I II I
I II IlllllllIllllllllll Illllllllll I
-------
Table 8G
SUNttY OF CHRONIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIHATES - SCSWHO 3: CHILDREN
M II H M I I II 11
MI mi 111
II
" OOICA I MT«E(0)1)1 ADJUSTED FOR!
M 1111 11 I I t M 11 I I
numm
10MNIC DAILY! Oil ! !
RFD IWFIOENK
ABSORPTION Kw/kj/day)! LEVEL
H inn IMMI MI M
in
mi
III!
CRITICAL
EFFECT
inn 11111111111 niiiii
I I I IIIlllI I I I I
iimiin
II II I II II II I I Mil
11 11 11 I I I I I 11 111111111 M 11 111111 11111 M I 111111 111111 I 11 I
Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
RFD I RFD I !
SOURCE; IUQRTAINTYINOOIFYIK! HAZARD
BASIS IAWUSTKXTS; FACTORS IQUOTIEKT
11 iiiiiiiim HI
IIEXPOSURE PATWAY: INGESTION OF QCHICALS IN DRIIKIN6 HAO - CHILDREN
M H I I Mill M I M II 1 I I I 1 I M 1
11 M 11 I 11 I I 11 I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I
IIINORGAN1CS I
!!Arsenic i
!!ChroiiuiVi;
llNanjanese !
1.1E-03
1.6E-02
7.6EHJO
PATHUAY: DEBN. CONTACT UITH OEHICALS IN SOIL - CHILDREN
I I I I I I I I t t I I t t I I t t | I I M I I I
I INORGANICS
lArsenk
1.3E-03
11INORGANICS !
HChroiiui VI!
6.3EHJ3
Mill Mill
M Ml M M Ml II M III I I
No
No
No
0.10
I M I I I I I H I I
1E-03
5E-03
1E-01
IMMMIII IIMIIIIIII I I I I I M M I I M I 1 M
NA
.Lw
Hediui
No effect reported
CMS effects
Itoter/IRIS
IMIIIMI II
II I I I M I M t M I I I I M I I I I I I M I M 11 I I M I I 11 I I I M 11 I II 11
I I Ml M I M Ml MM M Ml M
1E-03
NA
I I I
IIEXPOSURE PATHMY: INGESTION OF OCHJCALS IN SOIL AND HOUSE DUST - CHILDREN
I KenLosis |
iind hyperpigMnUtion! NMCAST
500
1
MMMMMI
IMMI
MMIM
I I I M I I I M I M I M I I I I III I 111 M M M M I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M 11 1.1 11 I I 11 M I 11 11 11 I I I
M M I I M II I M M I M III M I M I I I I I
M H M M M Ml I M I M Mill M M I M
No
SE-03 I Lot* ! No effect reported lUter/IRIS
$00
lEtOO
3E*00
13
1E+00
II I Mill
MIMIII
PATHKY ! TOTAL !!
HHARD lEVOSURE I!
(HI)! HI
II I I I M I I I I I I I
II
II
III
III
84
100::
MMIMIIMIMI
II M I M Ml Ml I M MUM
13
-------
Table 8H .
SUKJMRY OF CHRONIC HAZARD IKCX ESTATES - SCEMARIO 3: ADULT
mini
III!
II
II
II
DAILY! GDI
! INTAKE(0)I)!ADJUSeFOR
! (l9/k9/day) ! ABSORPTION
Illlllllllllllllll Illl Illllllll II MUM I
I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I II II II I M II I I I I I I I I I I
! [EXPOSURE PATHUAY: INGESTION OF KH1CALS IK ORIKXING MATER - NXU
immiinii i m n M mi n mimi i m
IIINORGANICS
nChroiiui VI
11 M 11 I I M I I I
11 I I I I I I I I I I I
!!INORGANICS
11 Arsenic
9.6E-03
4.6E+00
No
No
III M Illllllll
I II Mill
I
RFD IWFIDQCE
! LEVEL
n 11 m m mi 111 ii ii i
SE-03
1E-01
Lew
Hediui
! EXPOSURE PA HUAY: DOm CONTACT WITH QCHICALS IN SOIL -
8.9E-04
0.10
IE-03
i IIIIMIIIII m mil i n M M ii M n
mi mil nil in mmii IIMIIIII m
i RFD ! RFD
i
CRITICAL
EFFECT
ISOJRCE/ lUNCERTADOYlWDIFYM! HAZARD
BASIS lADJUSnWTSi FACTORS iQUOTIEMT
i! ii ii i ii 11111 ii ii 1111 ii ii i iimmiim it ii i mum 111 ii mil in IIIIIIIM
n ii 1111111> it i
IIMIIIMIIMIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIMIIMI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I
No effect riported
CMS effects
,'yater/IRIS! 500
iDiet/HEAST; 1
1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 II M 1 1 1 1
I I I I I I I I It M I I
It IMIIIIIII till Illl Illlllll
11 I I I l
2E+00
Illl I I I I I I I I
IlltltllltM I
Keratosis
and hyperpijMnUtion
imiMMII Illlllllll M I I I I I I I I I f I M I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I
WHEAST
11 I M M I 11
: TOTAL ii
PATHWAY ! TOTAL
HAZAfl) IEXPOSURE !!
INDEX (HI)! HI !!
SI ! M !!
„!,;
nil
inn ii
mini
-------
Table 81
SUH1ARY.OF CANCER RISK ESTATES - SCOMRIO 2 : CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
!! DOICM.
|[ INOR6ANICS
nArsenic
I II I I II I I I II I I IIM MI IMI II I I I I
Illl Illll II HUM Illlllllll I I I
OfONIC DAILY
INTAKE(COI)
(•o/ko/diy)
GDI
ADJUSTED FOR
ABSORPTION
M I I I M M M I I HIM I
I M M M I I I I M I M I I
SF
(19/lS/dayH
(EIGHT OF
EVIDENCE
TYPE OF
CANCER
SF BASIS/
SOURCE
! EXPOSURE PATHUAY: DERMAL CONTACT WITH OCMICALS IN SOIL
QOUCM.
SPECIFIC
RISK
I I I I M I I I I I II I |
I II Ml I I I I I I I I I I I I I |
TOTAL
PATWAY
RISK
IE-OS
TOTAL
EXPOSURE
RISK
IE-OS
6.34E-07
0.10
1.75
MM II MIIMIIIIM
I I I I I MM I M I I M Ml II M II M M I I M M I M M I I I I I M
II I I I I I M M M I I I I M II I I I I I M M
I I
Skin !Uater/IRIS ; IE-OS
-------
Table 8J
SIMMY OF CHRONIC WIZARD INDEX ESTIMATES - SCOWtIO 2 : CONSTRUCTION IOKRS
I Jill Illl
li
::'
11 in 1111 n ii n 11 ii 111 linn i ii
nun
i avnnnnt- j QJJ J
mini
, S18CHRONIC ! CDI
IOAILY INTAKE lAOJiisra FOR; m ,'CONFIOQCE
ttSORPTION idg/ks/dar)! LEVEL
CSIIICA
EFFECT
mi
mi
EEXPOSURE PATHUAY: DERMAL CONTACT HTH OCNICALS IN SOIL
I INORGANICS
!Arsenic
9.0E-05
111 ii M mmiimiim
0.10
1E-03
(till
I I I I I I I I I
NA
Mill
n IMIII
RFD ! RFD ! i
SOURCE/ lUttRTAOTYlHOOIFYING! KAZMO
BASIS {ADJUSTMENTS! FACTORS |QUOTIENT
Keratosis |
aix, nxperpi9MnUtion|HA/HEAST
i:
9E-01
PATHWY
HUM
IICEX (HI)
9E-01
TOTAL
EXPOSURE
HI
1E*00 !!
-------
Table 9 - Detailed Costs
Alternative 4A:
Site Use Restrictions. Nultl-Liyer Cap.
Ground Utter Extraction. On-Slte Innovative Treatment and Discharge to Surface Hater
Item
CAPITAL COSTS - DIRECT
Quantity Units
1991 1991 Years Present
Unit Price Basis year Reference Escalation Unit costs Costs (DIM) Value (DIM)
Monitoring Uell Installation
(4 60-ft. bedrock wells - 2* dlam..
2 30-ft. deep overburden veils - 2 ")
-Uell Construction t Katls.
(Tubex)
300 ft
1126.00
1991
1.00
1125.00
t37.SOO.00
-Health 1 Safety (171)
-Mobilization
Total Monitoring Uell Cost
Security
-Perm. Chain Link Fence
-Warning Signs
Total Security Cost
Site Preparation
Clearing
Grading
Fill Material
Access Road Reconstruction
Total Site Preparation
B 16. 375.00
1 time SB. 000. 00 1991 1 1.00 IB. 000. 00 $8.000.00
t61.B7B.OO
6.2SO linear ft til. 65 ' 1991 5 1.00 til. 65 172. 812.50
20 signs t42.00 1991 5 1.00 142.00 $840.00
t73. 652.60
12.2 acres $3.675.00 1991 6 1.00 $3.676.00 $44.835.00
BO. 000 cu.yd. $3.53 19B7 6 1.083 $3.82 $305.639.20
60.000 cu.yd. til. 03 1991 5 1.00 $11.03 $882.400.00
7.200 sq.ft. $15.20 1991 5 1.00 $16.20 $109.440.00
$1.342. 514. 20
(1) - Calculated based on an assumed 61 Interest rate.
A-4A.I
-------
Table 9 - Detailed Costs
Item
Run-on/Hun-of f Control t
-Ditching
-Sedimentation Basin
Total Run-On/Run-Off Control*
Hultl-Layer Cap Construction
-12* Cat Vent Layer
-40-mtl HOPE Liner
-Filter Fabric (2 layert)
-24* Barrier Protection Layer
-6* Topsoll Layer
-Seed. Fertilizer. Mulch
-Vertical Gas Vent Pipes
-Lateral Gat Vent Pipe
-Health and Safety (17S)
Total Cap Conttructlon Cost*
Alternative 4Ai
Site Use Restrictions. Multi-Layer Cap.
Ground Water EMtractlon. On-Slte Innovative Treatment and Discharge to Surface Water
(continued)
1991
Quantity Units Unit Price Basis year Reference Escalation Unit costs
2100 l.ft.
1 each
20.000 cu.yd.
630.000 sq.ft.
1.060.000 sq.ft.
40.000 cu.yd.
630 nsf
630 nsf
16 each
6.600 ft
11.70
tio.ooo.oo
117.25
tO. BO
SO. 17
12.50
t400.00
$43.00
t BOO. 00
16.00
19B8
19B8
1991
1991
1991
19BB
1991
1991
19BB
19B9
7
7
13
13
13
7
6
6
7
7
B
1.055
1.055
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.055
1.00
1.00
1.065
1.05S
tl.79
tlO. 650.00
$17.25
tO. 80
tO. 17
$2.64
$400.00
$43.00
$627.60
$6.33
(1)
1991 Tears Present
Costs (MM) Valut (UN)
$3.766.36
tlO. 650.00
tl4.31C.35
$346.000.00
$424.000.00
$180.200.00
$105.600.00
$212.000.00
$22.790.00
$7.912.60
$41.145.00
$220.558.43
11. 659.105. 93
Ground Water Extraction
(22 30-ft. deep overburden veils - 6')
-Well Construction and Materials
(Tubex)
660 ft
$124.00
1991
1.00
$124.00
$81.640.00
-Health and Safety (171)
-Ejector Punps
Total Extraction Cost
8
22 pumps $4.264.00 1991 24 1.00 $4.264.00
$13.912.80
$93.808.00
$189.660.80
Piping To and Fran Treitient Systen
-------
Table 9 - Detailed Costs
Alternative 4A:
Site Use Restrictions. Nultl-Uyer Cap.
Ground Utter Extraction. On-Slte Innovative Treatment and Discharge to Surface Hater
(continued) (1)
1991 1991 Years Present
Item Quantity Units Unit Price Basis year Reference Escalation Unit costs Costs (DIM) Value COIN)
Ground Hater Treatment System
-Membrane Hlcroflltratlon Unit 1 each ISO. 000. 00 1991
-Filter Aid System 1 each s20.000.00 1991
-UV Oxidation Unit , 1 each 159.960.00 1991
-UV Oxidation Service Connection 1 time $5.000.00 1991
-Piping 500 l.ft. $2.60 19BB
-Equal Ixatlon Tank 1 each 112. 600. 00 1988
Total Ground Hater Treatment System Costs
Equipment Decontamination
-Rental of steam cleaner 4 months $390.00 1991
-Construct Oecon Pit
Excavate Pit 100 cu.yd. 127.00 1991
Polyethylene Tarpaulin 1200 sq.ft. 10.31 1991
-Tanker rental 1 each $800.00 1989
-Disposal 1 each 11.100.00 1989
Total Equipment Decon Costs
Engineering Hgmt. Hob/Demob 6 months S430.00 1991
(1 Trailer)
Dust Control
- Hater Tank Sprayer BOO hours $7.10 1991
Direct Capital Cost Subtotal
26 1.00 $50.000.00 $50.000.00
25 1.00 $20.000.00 $20.000.00
IB 1.00 $59.950.00 $59.950.00
IB 1.00 $5.000.00 $5.000.00
7 1.055 $2.74 $1.371.60
7 1.065 $13.187.60- $13.187.60
6 1.00 $390.00 $1.660.00
6 1.00 $27.00 $2.700.00
6 1.00 $0.31 $372.00
9 1.036 $828.80 $828. BO
9 1.036 $1.139.60 $1.139.60
6 1.00 $430.00 $2.660.00
5 1.00 $7.10 $5.680.00
$149.609.00
$6.600.40
$2.680.00
$5.680.00
$3.409.628.68
(1) - Calculated based on an assumed 6S Interest rate.
A-4A.3
-------
Table 9 - Detailed Costs
Alternative «A:
Site Use Restrictions. Multi-Layer Cap.
Ground Water Extraction. On-Site Innovative Treatment and Discharge to Surface Water
Hen
CAPITAL COSTS - INDIRECT
Engineering and Des1gn(13S)
Legal and AdmlnUtratlveOI)
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
-Ground Uater Monitoring
Annual Sampling (16 Wells)
Quarterly Sampling (12 Wells)
TCL Analysis
-Cap Maintenance
Annual Inspection
Howl ng/Reveget at 1 on
Erosion Control
Repa1rs(total for 1 year)
-Membrane Mlcroflltratlon OIH
-UV Oxidation OIH Cost
-Filter Cake Transportation 1
Disposal
-Discharge to Surface Water Sampling
And Analysis
T01AL NET PRESENT VALUE OF 0 I M
Quantity Units
IS samples
40 samples
63 samples
1 each
530.000 sq.ft.
12.2 acres
1 each
5.256 1000 gal
12 months
4 tons
24 samples
(continued)
Unit Price Basis year Reference Escalation
1200.00
S200.00
SI. BOO. 00
$5.000.00
SO. 04
1200.00
tl.000.00
14.00
M. 796. 00
U. 300. 00
$850.00
1991
1991
19BB
1988
1991
1982
1988
1991
1991
1991
1991
2
2
13
13
4
7
5
12
7
26
18
22
13
1.00
1.00
LOSS
1.055
1.00
1.247
l.OSS
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1991
Unit costs
1200.00
$200.00
tl.B99.00
$5.275.00
tO. 04
t249.40
tl.OS5.00
$4.00
t4.796.00
tl.300.00
teso.oo
1991 Years
Costs (DIM)
$3.000.00
$9.600.00
$119.637.00
$5. 275.00
$21.200.00
$3.042.68
$1.055.00
$21.024.00
$57.552.00
$5.200.00
$20.400.00
$266.985.69
17
17
17
30
30
30
30
12
12
12
12
(1)
Present
Value (O&M)
t443.2S1.73
$102. 288. B6
$3.955.169.26
$33.822.00
$108.230.40
$1.348.787.54
$81.087.30
$325.886.40
$46.772.08
$16.217.46
$185.335.71
$510.083.38
$46.087.60
$180.805.20
$2.864.115.06
(1) - Calculated based on an assumed 51 Interest rate.
A-4A.4
-------
Table 9 - Detailed Costs
Alternative 4Ai
Site Use Restrictions. Hultl-Layer Cap.
Ground Water Extraction. On-Stte Innovative Treatment and Discharge to Surface Water
(continued) (1)
1991 1991 Yetrt Present
Item Quantity Units Unit Price Basis year Reference Escalation Unit costs Costs (01H) Value (DIM)
SUBTOTAL $6.839.284.33
CONTINGENCYC20*) 11.367.856.87
TOTAL PRESENT VALUE COST FOR ALTERNATIVE 4A $8.207.141.19
(1) - Calculated based on in assumed SS Interest rate.
A-4A.5
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 1
HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents
S===sss3=s=s====s=s==="===sssa===s3s=^s==s=ssarsr==3=sss==3r:5====s==;ss============ss===================================
Document Number: HTL-001-1904 To 1904 Date: / /
Title: (Notice of the availability of the Hertel Landfill site data. Chain of Custody Form*, and
Quality Assurance/Quality Control information)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Kaplan, Richard: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: HTL-001-0189 To 02U Date: 06/06/83
Title: (Hazardous Ranking System Package for the Hertel Landfill site)
Type: DATA
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docunent Number: HTL-001-0173 To 0188 Date: 06/07/83
Title: Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Site Inspection Report (Hertel Landfill site)
Type: REPORT
Author: Baummer, J. Charles Jr.: Ecological Analysts
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: HTL-001-0001 To 0172. Date: 11/01/83
Title: Preliminary Investigation of the Hertel Property, Town of Plattekill, Ulster County, New York,
Phase I, Summary Report
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Ecological Analysts
Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Document Number: HTL-001-1671 To 1678 Parent: HTL-001-1670 Date: 06/30/89
Title: Preliminary Health Assessment for Hertel Landfill, Inc., CERCLIS No. NYD980780779, Ulster
County, Plattekill, NY
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 2
HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: HTL-001-1670 To 1670 Date: 07/12,:::
Title: (Memorandum forwarding the enclosed Preliminary Health Assessment for the Hertel Landfill
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Nelson, William Q.: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Recipient: Cam, Vinh: US EPA
Attached: HTL-001-1671
Document Number: HTL-001-0441 To 0545 Date: 09/01/89
Title: Final RI/FS Work Plan for Hertel Landfill Site • Plattekill, New York
Type: PLAN
Author: none: TAHS Consultants
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: HTL-001-0215 To 0440 Date: 10/01/89
Title: Final RI/FS Field Operations Plan for Hertel Landfill Site • Plattekill, New York
Type: PLAN
Author: none: TAMS Consultants
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: HTL-001-1682 To 1733 Date: 11/01/89
Title: Final Community Relations Plan for Hertel Landfill Site • Plattekill, New York
Type: PLAN
Author: none: TAMS Consultants
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: HTL-001-1905 To 1926 Date: 04/01/90
Title: Site Analysis, Hertel Landfill, Clintondale, New York
Type: PLAN
Author: McDonald, Bruce D.: 8ionetics Corporation
Recipient: Osberg, Thomas R.: Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (US EPA)
-------
09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 3
HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents
sssas
Document Number: HTL-001-1927 To 1934 Date: 01/29/91
Title: (Transmittal cover sheet forwarding attached proposed applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements for the Hertel Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Penn, Bill: TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Recipient: Kaplan, Richard: US EPA
Document Number: HTL-001-0546 To 0755 . Date: 07/01/91
Title: Remedial Investigation Report for Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York, Volume 1
Type: REPORT
Author: none: TAHS Consultants
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: HTL-001-0756 To 0890 • Date: 07/01/91
Title: Remedial Investigation Report for Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York, Volume 2
Type: REPORT
Author: none: TAHS Consultants
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: HTL-001-0891 To 1290 Date: 07/01/91
Title: Remedial Investigation Report for Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York, Volume 3
Type: REPORT
Author: none: TAMS Consultants
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: HTL-001-1291 To 1588 Date: 07/01/91
Title: Feasibility Study Report for Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York, Volume 1
Type: REPORT
Author: none: TAMS Consultants
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
09/26/91
Index Chronological Order
HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents
Page:
Document Number: HTL-001-1589 To 1600
Title: Superfund Proposed Plan (Revised) Hertel Landfill Site
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Date: 07/01/91
Document Number: HTL-001-1601 To 1601 Date: 07/25/91
Title: (Letter offering concurrence with the selected remedy for the Hertel Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: O'Toole, Michael J. Jr.: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Recipient: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Document Number: HTL-001-1734 To 1736
Date: 07/31/91
Title: (Press Release:) EPA to Hold Meeting on Proposed Clean Up of the Hertel Landfill Superfund
Site in Plattekill, New York
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: HTL-001-1602 To 1616
Date: 08/14/91
Title: General Notice of Potential Liability and Request for Information under & U.S.C. Sections
9604 and 9607 Concerning the Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekm, New York
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Recipient: none: various PRPs
Document Number: HTL-001-1617 To 1628
Date: 08/14/91
Title: General Notice of Potential Liability and Request for Information under 42 U.S.C. Sections
9604 and 9607 Concerning the Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York (Version sent to generators)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Recipient: none: various PRPs
-------
09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 5
HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents
Dociment Number: HTL-001-1629 To 1643 Date: 08/U/91
Title: General Notice of Potential Liability and Request for Information under 42 U.S.C. Sections
9604 and 9607 Concerning the Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York (Version sent to corporations)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
'Author: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Recipient: none: various PRPs
Document Number: HTL-001-1644 To 1654 ' Date: 08/14/91
Title: Request for Information under 42 U.S.C. Section 9604, Concerning the Hertel Landfill Site,
Plactekil I, New York
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Recipient: none: various parties associated with the site
Document Number: HTL-001-1655 To 1665 Date: 08/14/91
Title: Request for Information under 42 U.S.C. Section 9604, Concerning the Hertel Landfill Site,
Plattekill, New York (Version sent to transporters)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Recipient: none: various parties associated with the site
Document Number: HTL-001-1666 To 1669 Date: 08/14/91
Title: Hertel Landfill Addresses (for 107(a) and 104(e) letters sent August 14, 1991)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 6
HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: HTL-001-1737 To 1903 Date: 08/H/91
Title: (Public Hearing Transcript: Town of Plattekill Town Court, August U, 1991, concerning the
Hertel Landfill site)
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: D'Lorenzo, (Catherine: shorthand reporter
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: HTL-001-1679 To 1631 Date: 08/27/91
Tide: (Letter on behalf of Western Publishing Company ("Western") requesting that EPA extend the
public comment period for the Superfund Proposed Plan (Revised) for the Hertel Landfill site
- fax transmittal slip attached)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ephron, Susan K.: Beveridge & Diamond
Recipient: Capon, Virginia: US EPA
-------
ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX—HERTEL LANDFILL
SUPERFUND SITE
1. September 24, 1991—Comments on behalf of Western Publishing
Company on the Proposed Plan for the Hertel Landfill Site,
Plattekill, New York, submitted by Beveridge & Diamond, P.C.
-------
APPENDIX IV
NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
SEP-20-1991 14:21 FROM NYS.EMUIR.CONSERUflT1 ON TO 8-592667-2122846607 p.0i
New York State Department of Environmental Conservati
SO Wolf Road, Albany, N»w Ybri< 12233 7010
. Jorllng
SEP 2 0 1991 Commissioner
*r. Constant ine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, KY 10278
Dear Mr. Sidamon-Eristoff :
Re: Record of Decision
Hertel Landfill Site (ID No. 356006)
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the
Draft Record of Decision for the Hertel Landfill site located in the Town of
Plattekill, Ulster County, New York and finds it to be acceptable with the
condition that appropriate remedial action will b« incorporated into the
selected Remedial Action Plan if sampling of the residential wells shows
contaminant levels of concern.
Please contact Mr. James Lister at (518) 457-3976 if you should have any
questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Edward 0. Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
«x»^"K tHtSl"SQ /i^g ^»f
------- |