United States        Office of
          Environmental Protection   Emergency and
          Agency           Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/200
September 1993
&EPA    Superfund
          Record of Decision:
          Niagara County Refuse, NY

-------
50272-101
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION
          PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/200
3. Recipient's Accession No.
   Tttto and Subtitle
   SUPERFUND RECORD  OF DECISION
   Niagara County Refuse, NY
   First  Remedial Action - Final
                                          5.  Report Oat*
                                          	09/24/93
                                          6.
7.  Authors)
                                          6.  Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9.  Performing Organization Mama and Address
                                          10  Project Task/Work Unit No.
                                                                    1 1 . Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
                                                                    (GO
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
   U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency
   401 M Street, S.W.
   Washington, D.C.   20460
                                          13.  Type of Report & Period Covered

                                             800/800
                                          14.
15. Supplementary Notes
                PB94-963821
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)

  The 50-acre Niagara County Refuse site  is an inactive municipal landfill located in
  Wheatfield,  Niagara County,  New York.   Land use in the  area is mixed  agricultural,
  industrial,  and residential, with a wooded wetlands  area located to the north of the
  site and  the Niagara River located 500  feet to the south.  Area residents use a
  municipal water supply  to obtain their  drinking water.   Several field tiles exist  in  a
  field to  the west of the  site to facilitate drainage of the agricultural area, which
  appear to be hydraulically connected to surface water drainage at the site. Beginning
  in 1969,  the Niagara County Refuse Disposal District (NCRDD) used the site to dispose
  of municipal and industrial waste, including household,  commercial, industrial,
  demolition  and construction, agricultural, sewage treatment plant sludge, and tires.  In
  1973, the State constructed a compacted clay barrier seal around the  perimeter of  the
  site to reduce the potential for offsite contaminant migration.  In 1976, when the site
  officially  closed, any  exposed refuse was reported to have been covered with 20 inches
  of soil and clay.  In 1977,  the Town of Wheatfield acquired ownership of the site.
  Beginning in 1980, several EPA, State,  and USGS investigations identified elevated
  levels of VOCs, SVOCs,  PAHs, pesticides,  and metals  in  onsite and offsite soil,

  (See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis     a. Descriptors
   Record of Decision - Niagara  County Refuse,  NY
   First Remedial  Action - Final
   Contaminated Media: soil,  sediment, debris,  gw,  sw
   Key  Contaminants:  VOCs (benzene,  TCE), other organics  (PAHs,  pesticides,  phenols),
                       metals  (arsenic, lead)

   b.  IdentlfienVOpen-Ended Terms
   c.  COSATI Field/Group
IB. Availability Statement
                          19. Security Class (This Report)
                                    None
                                                     20.  Security Class (This Page)
                                                               None  •
          21. No. of Pages
                  78
                                                    22.  Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
                                   Saw Inttmctions on R»v»rto
                                                   OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
                                                   (Formerly NTIS-35)
                                                   Department of Commerce

-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/200
Niagara County Refuse, NY
First Remedial Action - Final

Abstract (Continued)

sediment, ground water, and surface water.  Also, leachate seeps, in the form of toe
discharges, were observed emanating from the sides of the landfill. These seeps have
contributed substantially to onsite soil and ground water contamination.  In 1990, EPA
initiated RI field activities which included a topographic and property survey, a biota
survey, ambient air sampling, collection and analysis of subsurface soil, leachate seep,
drainage swale sediment, and ground water; and a field tile investigation in the field
west of the site.  This ROD addresses a first and final remedy for all sources of
contamination at the site.  The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, debris, ground water, and surface water are VOCs, including benzene and TCE;
other organics, including PAHs, pesticides, and phenols; and metals, including arsenic and
lead.

The selected remedial action for this site includes regrading, capping, and revegetating
the landfill, with installation of a gas venting system beneath the cap; constructing a
clay perimeter barrier wall around the perimeter of the landfill; removing field tile
drains located to the west of the landfill and placing these under the cap prior to
closure; installing a passive leachate collection system around the perimeter of the site
above the water table, and possibly installing an active leachate collection system, as
determined during the RD phase; performing leachate characterization treatability and
leachability tests to determine whether pretreatment of the collected leachate is
necessary, prior to piping to a POTW; treating the collected leachate offsite at a POTW;
performing a wetlands delineation and assessment and, if needed, mitigating any affected
wetlands; monitoring air, ground water, and surface water; performing a cultural resource
survey, a coastal zone consistency determination, and an impact assessment to agricultural
land; and implementing institutional controls, including deed restrictions and site access
restrictions, such as fencing.  The estimated present worth cost for this remedial action
is $20,151,300, which includes an estimated annual O&M cost of $198,700 for 30 years.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:

Chemical-specific cleanup goals were not provided, however, landfill closure will comply
with all provisions of RCRA hazardous waste landfill closure regulations.

-------
                          ROD FACT SHEET

SITE

Name:                    Niagara County Refuse
Location/State:          Wheatfield, Niagara Co., New York
EPA Region:              II
HRS Score  (date):        39.85 (8/3/83)
NPL Date:                9/1/83

ROD

Date Signed:             September 24, 1993
Selected Remedy: construction of a cap, barrier wall, gas venting
     system, leachate collection system, wetlands assessment,
     ecological risk analysis, cultural resources survey, deed
     and access restrictions, a long-term operation & maintenance
     program, air and water quality monitoring, re-evaluation
     every 5 years
Operable Unit Number:    01
Capital Cost (1993 dollars):                      $ 16,740,200
Construction Completion  (projected):              12/97
0 & M (1993 dollars):
     1998                                         $ 198,700
     1999                                         $ 198,700
     2000                                         $ 198,700
     2001                                         $ 198,700
Present Worth  (30 yrs O&M, 6% discount rate):     $ 20,151,300

LEAD

Enforcement, PRP Lead
Primary Contact  (phone):   Michael Negrelli  (212-264-1375)
Secondary Contact (phone): Kevin Lynch  (212-264-6194)

WASTE

Type: VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides, metals
Medium:  Surface soil, subsurface soil, leachate, surface water
     (drainage swales),  sediment, groundwater
Origin: municipal landfill which operated from 1969 to 1976

-------
             RECORD OF DECISION

         Niagara County Refuse Site

    Wheatfield, Niagara County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
                  Region II
             New York, New York
               September 1993

-------
             DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION


SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Niagara County Refuse Site
Town of Wheatfield
Niagara County, New York

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This Record  of Decision  (ROD)  documents  the U.S.  Environmental
Protection Agency's  (EPA's) selection of the  remedial action for
the Niagara County Refuse site in accordance with the requirements
of  the Comprehensive  Environmental Response,  Compensation  and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act  of  1986 (CERCLA), and  the National  Oil  and
Hazardous  Substances Pollution  Contingency  Plan  (NCP).    This
decision  document summarizes the factual  and  legal basis  for
selecting the remedy for this site.                      ""-"'

The  New  York   State Department  of  Environmental  Conservation
(NYSDEC) concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix IV).

An administrative record for the site contains the documents that
form the  basis for EPA's  selection  of  the remedial  action  (see
Appendix III).

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 ROD,  may present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health,  welfare,  or the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY

This operable  unit is the first and only  operable unit  for  the
site.   The primary objectives of this action are  to  control  the
source of contamination  at  the site and to reduce and minimize the
migration of contaminants  into site  media thereby minimizing any
health and ecological impacts.

The major components of  the selected remedy include the following:

•    Construction of a NYS Part  360 Standard Cap;

•    Construction of a clay perimeter barrier wall;

•    Construction of a gas venting system beneath the cap;

•    Construction of a leachate  collection system:

•    Removal of the field  tile drains located to the  west of the

-------
      landfill;

 •    Performance   of   a  wetlands  delineation  and  assessment,
      including a supplemental ecological risk analysis;

 •    Compliance with  federal and state  regulations,  including a
      cultural  resources   survey,   a  coastal  zone  consistency
      determination,  and  an  impact  determination for  adjacent
      farmland;

 •    Implementation of deed and access restrictions;

 •    Implementation of a long-term operation & maintenance program
      for the cap, gas venting, and leachate system;

 •    Implementation of long-term air and water quality monitoring;
      and

 •    An evaluation of site conditions at least once every 5 years
      to determine if any modifications to the selected alternative
      are necessary.

 DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

 The   selected  remedy  is   protective of  human  health  and  the
 environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are
 legally applicable  or relevant  and appropriate to  the remedial
 action, and  is cost effective.   This remedy  utilizes permanent
 solutions and  alternative treatment technologies  to  the maximum
 extent practicable, given the scope of the  action.  However, the
 remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that
 employ treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility,  or volume of the
 hazardous substances,  pollutants or  contaminants at a site.  It is
 not practicable (or within the limited scope of  this action)  to
 treat the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the
 site, because the contaminant source, the site itself, can not be
 effectively excavated and  treated due to its large  size and the
 absence of hot spots representing major sources of contamination.

 A review of the remedial action will be conducted five years after
 the commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy
 continues to provide adequate protection to human health and the
 environment,  because  this  remedy  will   result  in  hazardous
 substances remaining on-site above health-based levels.
William J. Mu£*yhfik^^P.E.                      Date
Acting Regional Administrator


                                ii

-------
              RECORD OF  DECISION
               DECISION  SUMMARY

          Niagara  County Refuse Site

     Wheatfield, Niagara County,  New  York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
                  Region II
             New  York, New York
               September 1993

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                               page

SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 	 1'

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 	 1

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 	 2

SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION	3

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS . .	3

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS	6

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES  	  10

DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES	.	11

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 	  16

SELECTED REMEDY 	  21

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS  	  23

DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES  	  25



ATTACHMENTS

APPENDIX I.    FIGURES
APPENDIX II.   TABLES
APPENDIX III.  ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV.   STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V.    RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

-------
BITE KRME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Niagara County Refuse Site (the "Site") is a former municipal
landfill, comprised of approximately  50  acres,  located along the
eastern border of the Town of Wheatfield, New York and the western
border of the City of North Tonawanda.   The southern edge of the
Site lies approximately 500 feet north of the Niagara River.

The Site is generally surrounded to the west by active farmland; to
the north by wooded wetlands,  a clay mining operation, a Niagara-
Mohawk Power  Corporation transmission  line,  and a  right-of-way
owned by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT);
to the east by woodlands and  low-density  housing (approximately
1000 feet  from the Site  boundary);  and to the south  by access
roads,  railroad tracks, River  Road, and  the Niagara  River.   (See
Figure 1).


SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

Refuse disposal  operations commenced  at the Site in  1969 by the
Niagara County Refuse Disposal  District (NCRDD).  The landfill was
operated  by  completing  a series  of  six  excavations  into  the
clay/upper till layer underlying the  Site.   The excavations were
each filled with compacted solid waste, creating the six distinct
cells which comprise the  landfill.  Wastes reported  to have been
disposed of at  the Site  include household,  yard,  institutional,
commercial,  industrial, demolition and construction,  agricultural,
sewage treatment plant   sludges,  street  sweepings,  and  tires.
Municipal refuse and industrial wastes were commingled throughout
the landfill.

In 1973,  the NCRDD reportedly constructed a compacted clay barrier
seal around  the  perimeter of the  Site,   thereby  reducing  the
potential for contaminants to migrate off-site.   In addition, two
feet of clay were reported to have been placed on the side slopes
and one foot of  clay placed over the top of  the landfill.  The Site
continued to be operated by the NCRDD until October 1976 at which
time it was officially closed.  Any exposed refuse at that time was
reported to have been covered with about  20 inches  of  dirt and
clay, and then graded.  The Town of Wheatfield acquired ownership
of the Site from the NCRDD in June 1977.

Beginning in 1980, the Site became the focus of several investiga-
tions by the  EPA,  NYSDEC,  and  United States  Geological Survey
(USGS).  The investigations were comprised of limited sampling of
on-site  soils,  ground water,  drainage  swale  surface water and
sediments (drainage swales are surface runoff ditches that separate
each landfill cell and  surround the Site  perimeter),  as  well as
some off-site soil, surface water, and sediment sampling.  Volatile
organic  compounds (VOCs),  primarily  methylene chloride,  semi-
volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), primarily phenolic compounds,
phthalates,  and polycyclic  aromatic hydrocarbons  (PAHs), pesti-
cides,  and metals were detected at varying concentrations in Site

-------
media.  Based on the results of these  investigations, the Site was
placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983.

In  March  1989,  a group of  fourteen  (14)  Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) entered into  an  agreement with the EPA to conduct an
RI/FS for the Site.  The RI field activities were initiated in 1990
and  completed  in August  1991.   These  activities included:  a
topographic  and  property  survey of  the  Site;  a  biota  survey;
ambient air sampling;  collection and analysis of 26 subsurface soil
samples, nine leachate seep  samples (seven liquid and two soil), 18
drainage swale sediment samples, ten drainage swale surface water
samples, and two sets of ground-water  samples from each monitoring
well; the excavation  of three  test pits;  permeability testing of
the hydrogeologic units beneath the site; and completion of a field
tile investigation in the field west of the Site (field tiles are
placed in  agricultural areas to facilitate drainage).   Figure 2
indicates soil boring/monitoring well locations at the Site.  The
draft RI Report was completed  in 1992 and finalized in 1993.  The
draft  FS Report  for  the  Site was   completed in  May  1993  and
finalized in July 1993.


HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The RI report, FS report,  and the Proposed Plan for the Site were
released  to the  public for  comment on  July  24,  1993.    These
documents were  made available  to the public  at two information
repositories maintained at  the North  Tonawanda Public Library in
North Tonawanda,  New  York and  at the  EPA  Region II  Office in New
York City.   The notice of  availability for the above-referenced
documents was published in the Niagara County Gazette on July 24,
1993. The public  comment period on these  documents  was  held from
July 24,  1993 to August 22,  1993.

On August 5,  1993, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Wheatfield
Town Hall, to inform local officials and interested citizens about
the Superfund process, to present the Proposed Plan for the Site,
including the preferred alternative for remediation of  the Site,
and to  respond to  any questions from  area residents and  other
attendees.  The comments received at the public meeting generally
focused on the project schedule and the negotiation process which
follows the completion of this ROD.   There were also suggestions
provided  to facilitate  the remedial action;  e.g., using  clay
currently mined in the vicinity of the Site for the landfill cap.

Responses to the  comments received  at the  public meeting and in
writing during  the  public  comment  period are  included in  the
Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).

-------
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION

This  is the first  and only planned  action for  the Site.   The
primary objectives  of this action are  to control the  source of
contamination at the Site and to reduce and minimize the migration
of contaminants into Site media thereby minimizing any health and
ecological impacts.

In  addition to  the  impacts  measured  and  reported in the  RI
concerning traditional  Site media  (e.g.,  ground water,  surface
water, sediments, etc.),  the RI identified sensitive wetland areas
at the  Site,  particularly in the  area  immediately north  of the
landfill.  The ecological risk assessment performed as part of the
Site  risk  assessment  indicated  that the  potential for  chronic
impacts to occur in resident species in the northern wetland area
had been established.  Additionally,  stressed vegetation has been
observed in the northern wetland area which may have been induced
by the Site.  It is therefore necessary for the selected remedial
alternative to  include the following steps with regard  to the
wetlands:

•    Perform a pre-design phase wetlands delineation and assessment
     of the delineated area in accordance  with state and federal
     guidance which will  include  additional  surface water and
     sediment samples to adequately quantify any chemical impacts
     on the wetlands that may exist and, based on sampling results,
     perform a supplemental ecological risk analysis;

•    If the supplemental ecological risk analysis indicates adverse
     impacts  on  the wetlands,  the  contaminated areas  of  the
     affected wetlands may be removed, placed under the cap prior
     to closure,  and the excavated areas restored or the cap itself
     may be extended over the area of contamination.  Any signifi-
     cant net loss  of wetlands or wetland  function  will require
     mitigation.


SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

This section  summarizes  the findings of  the RI.   A statistical
summary of the analytical data collected for the  Site,  listed by
chemical and medium, can be found in Table f of Appendix II.  The
results of the RI indicated the following:

* Commingled industrial and municipal solid wastes  were disposed of
throughout the landfill cells.  The landfill cells  are completed in
the clay/upper till unit (discussed below).

* The following  four hydrogeologic units were identified  at the
Site: silt unit; clay/upper till unit; lower till unit; and bedrock
unit.  The silt unit is present across the Site outside the limits

-------
of the landfill cells, varying in thickness from one  (1) to eight
(8)  feet,  and exhibits a relatively  low hydraulic conductivity,
which, along with the clay seal that may have been placed along the
landfill  perimeter,  has minimized  the potential  for horizontal
migration of contaminants from the landfill.  The clay/upper till
unit is present beneath the  silt  unit  with an average thickness of
30  feet;  this unit  is characterized as  an aquitard due  to low
hydraulic conductivities measured  in the unit  and similarly has
minimized the potential for vertical migration of contaminants from
the  landfill.    The  lower  till  unit  is  present beneath  the
clay/upper till unit with an average thickness of 15.7 feet.  The
bedrock unit  beneath the lower  till  unit is a highly fractured
water-bearing unit characterized  as a usable aquifer by the NYSDEC.

* Ground-water flow beneath the Site varies in each hydrogeologic
unit.  The lower till unit and bedrock unit are the primary water-
bearing formations.  Ground-water flow in the lower  till is to the
southwest  in  the southern  half of  the  Site  and towards  the
north/northwest in the northern half of the Site. The ground-water
flow in the  upper bedrock  is generally towards the  west  in the
southern two-thirds of the Site and to the north/northwest in the
northern  one-third of the  Site.   The  upper bedrock  aquifer  is
recharged by the Niagara River.

*  Surface water  runoff  drains  from  the Site  via the drainage
swales.  The drainage  pattern for the southern  two-thirds of the
Site channels  into an underground  culvert that empties into the
Niagara River and  the  northern one-third of Site drains into the
wetland area to the  north of the Site (see  Figure 2).  The field
tile drains to the west of the landfill are hydraulically connected
to the surface drainage pattern of  the Site.

*  Leachate  mounding  occurs  within  the  landfilled  material.
Leachate seeps, in the form  of toe discharges from the side slopes
of the  landfill,   have developed.   Samples  taken  of  the  liquid
leachate  indicate the presence  of  VOCs, SVOCs,  pesticides,  and
metals. Toluene and ethylbenzene were the most frequently detected
VOCs   (five  samples  out   of   seven  total),   with   a  maximum
concentration  of  350 parts per  billion   (ppb)   and  680  ppb,
respectively.  Phenols and phthalates were prevalent SVOCs in the
leachate  samples;  Bis  (2-Ethylhexyl)   phthalate   was  the  most
frequently detected SVOC (present in all seven leachate samples),
with an estimated maximum concentration  of 10 ppb.  The pesticides
4,4'-DDT and  delta-BHC were present  in  three  out of  the seven
leachate samples and the metals  arsenic,  barium, chromium, iron,
lead, magnesium,  manganese,  and  zinc were detected in all seven
leachate samples.  The maximum concentration of each exceeded the
maximum contaminant level (MCL)  established by the EPA and/or the
Ambient Water  Quality Standard  (AWQS) established  by NYSDEC for
drinking water.

* Subsurface soil samples,  taken during monitoring well installa-

-------
tion  from depths of  less than  one foot to  more than  50 feet,
indicate a limited presence of VOCs  and  SVOCs.  Methylene chloride
was the VOC detected with greatest frequency (ten samples  out of 28
total), with a maximum concentration of 49 ppb.  Bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate was the most  frequently detected SVOC  (four out of 28
total samples), with a maximum concentration of 1500 ppb.

*  Samples  taken of  Site  sediments  from  the  drainage  swales
traversing  the  Site  indicate  the  presence  of  VOCs,  SVOCs,
pesticides, and metals.  Methylene  chloride and acetone were the
most frequently detected VOCs (11 samples out of 18 total), with a
maximum  concentration  of   73   ppb  and  an   estimated  maximum
concentration of 89 ppb, respectively; bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
was the most frequently detected SVOC (11 samples out of 18 total),
with a maximum concentration of 3900 ppb.  The pesticide delta-BHC
was present in seven out of 18 samples with a maximum concentration
of 5.4 ppb.  Metals occur  naturally in  soils  and sediments (most
metals were consistently detected  in all  18  samples);  however,
mercury,  which   is  attributable  to mercury  cell process  waste
sludges deposited in  the  landfill,  was detected in 12 out of 18
samples, at a maximum concentration  (1.1 parts per million (ppm))
slightly higher than regional background.  Cadmium, magnesium, and
nickel were other metals detected in sediments at maximum concen-
trations in excess of regional background levels.

* Surface-water samples, also collected from the drainage swales at
the Site, indicate a limited presence of VOCs,  SVOCs,  pesticides,
and metals.  Carbon  disulfide was the most frequently detected VOC
(three of ten samples), with  a maximum concentration of 8 ppb.  Bis
(2-Ethylhexyl) phthalate was  the most frequently detected SVOC (six
out of ten samples)  with a maximum concentration of 1000 ppb.  The
pesticides  4-4*DDT  and  heptachlor  epoxide  were detected  in  one
sample out  of  ten at levels that slightly exceeded  the EPA MCL
and/or the NYS AWQS  for drinking water.  Iron, lead, magnesium, and
manganese were  metals that  were detected  in  all surface water
samples at levels above the EPA MCL and/or the NYS AWQS.

* Ground-water samples were  taken from  three  water-bearing zones
identified at the Site:  shallow overburden zone (corresponding to
the silt unit described above); deep  overburden zone (corresponding
to the clay/upper till and lower till units described above); and
upper bedrock zone  (corresponding to the bedrock  unit described
above).  Analysis of the shallow  overburden  zone samples indicated
maximum  concentration exceedances   of  the EPA MCL   or  maximum
contaminant level goal (MCLG) and/or New York State Department of
Health (NYSDOH)  MCL for the metals chromium, iron, manganese, and
sodium (although iron and sodium levels in  regional  ground water
typically exceed MCLs).   Deep overburden zone samples also showed
maxiaum concentration exceedances of the EPA MCL  or  MCLG  and/or
NYSDOH MCL for chromium, iron, manganese, and sodium and addition-
ally for  lead.   Ground-water  samples  taken in the bedrock zone
indicated maximum concentration  exceedances  of  the   EPA  and/or

-------
NYSDOH MCL or MCLG for  iron  and  sodium.   All three water-bearing.
zones  showed  either a  negligible impact  from VOCs,  SVOCs,  and
pesticides or no impact at all.

* The ambient air quality measured across the Site did not exceed
NYS acceptable ambient air levels.

* The  compound 2,4,5-trichlorophenol was  not confirmed in any of
the  chemical  samples  analyzed for  the Site  and,  therefore,  a
dioxin-screening program was not required.


SUMMARY OF BITE RISKS

EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the potential
risks  to  human health  and the  environment  associated with  the
Niagara  County Refuse  Site  in   its  current  state.   The  Risk
Assessment focused on contaminants in the surface soil, subsurface
soil, ground water,  surface  water, sediments,  and leachate which
are  likely  to pose  significant  risks  to human  health  and  the
environment.  The summary of the contaminants  of concern in sampled
matrices is listed in Table a and the contaminant levels used for
the human health risk calculations are listed in Table f.

Human Health Risk Assessment

EPA's  baseline risk  assessment addressed the  potential risks to
human health by identifying several potential exposure pathways by
which the public may  be exposed to contaminant releases at the Site
under  current and future  land-use conditions.    Exposures  were
assessed for both potential present and future land use scenarios.
A total of 21 exposure pathways were evaluated under possible on-
site  current  and  future  land-use  conditions.   These  exposure
pathways are  listed  in  Table b.   As illustrated  in  Table b,  the
future potential risk associated with the ingestion of ground water
by area residents was calculated.   The present and future potential
risk associated with  incidental ingestion of on-site surface soils
and drainage  swale   sediments  by a youthful trespasser  and  the
future potential risk associated with incidental ingestion of on-
site subsurface soils and  drainage swale  sediments by excavation
workers were also quantified  pathways.  Similarly, the present and
future potential risk associated with dermal contact with drainage
swale  sediments and  dermal  contact  and incidental  ingestion of
leachate soils by a  youthful trespasser and  the future potential
risk associated with dermal contact with drainage swale sediments
by excavation workers were also calculated.   Reasonable  maximum-
exposures were evaluated for all  scenarios.

Under  current EPA  guidelines,  the  likelihood  of  carcinogenic
(cancer-causing)  and noncarcinogenic  effects due  to exposure to
Site chemicals are considered separately.  It was assumed that the
toxic  effects  of  the site-related chemicals would  be additive.

-------
Thus,  carcinogenic  and  noncarcinogenic risks  associated  with
exposures  to  individual compounds  of  concern were  summed  to
indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures  of potential
carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.

Noncarcinogenic  risks were  assessed using  a  hazard  index  (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes and
safe levels of  intake (Reference  Doses).   Reference doses (RfDs)
have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse
health  effects.     RfDs,   which  are  expressed   in  units  of
milligrams/kilogram-day   (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 to the RfD
to derive the  hazard quotient for the contaminant  in the particular
medium.  The HI is obtained  by  adding the hazard quotients for all
compounds  across  all  media that impact  a  particular  receptor
population.

An HI  greater than 1.0  indicates that the potential exists for
noncarcinogenic health effects  to occur as a result of site-related
exposures.  The HI provides  a  useful reference  point for gauging
the potential  significance of multiple contaminant exposures within
a  single  medium or across  media.   The  reference doses  for the
compounds of  concern  at the Site are presented  in Table c.   A
summary of the noncarcinogenic risks associated  with exposure to
these chemicals across various  exposure pathways  is found in Table
d.

It can be  seen from Table d that the HI  for noncarcinogenic effects
from the future potential ingestion  of Site  ground  water by area
residents is 5,  therefore, noncarcinogenic effects may occur under
this scenario.  The potential noncarcinogenic risk is attributable
to several inorganics, including aluminum,  antimony, arsenic, iron,
and manganese.

Potential carcinogenic risks were  evaluated using the cancer slope
factors developed by EPA for the contaminants of concern.  Cancer
slope factors  (SFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment Verification  Endeavor  for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals.  SFs,  which are expressed  in units of  (mg/kg-day)'1, are
multiplied by the  estimated  intake of  a  potential  carcinogen,  in
mg/kg-day, to generate  an upper-bound  estimate  of  the  excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound at
that  intake  level.    The  term  "upper bound"   reflects  the
conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF.  Use of
this  approach  makes   the underestimation  of  the  risk  highly
unlikely.   The SF for the compounds of concern  are presented in
Table c.

-------
For known  or suspected carcinogens, EPA  considers excess upper-
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of  between 10"4 to  ID"* to be
acceptable.    This  level   indicates   that  an  individual  has
approximately 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.   As indicated  in  Table e,  an  incremental  risk was
calculated for each of  the quantified exposure pathways from Table
b.  This includes  a risk of 2x10"* for  the  future potential risk
associated with the  ingestion  of Site  perimeter ground  water by
area  residents,   a  1x10"4  risk  for the  future potential  risk
associated with the ingestion of ground  water  beneath the northern
landfill cell by area residents, a 4X1CT6 risk for the present and
future potential risk associated with the ingestion of Site surface
soils by a youthful  trespasser,  and  a  5x10* risk for the present
and future potential risk associated with the  ingestion of Site
sediments by a youthful trespasser.   Other  calculated risks were
7xlO'7  for   the future potential  risk  from the  ingestion  of
subsurface soils  by an excavation  worker,  9xlO'7  for  the future
potential risk from  the  ingestion of sediments  by an excavation
worker, and 9x10"* for the present and  future potential risk from
the ingestion of leachate soils by a youthful trespasser.

The greatest  carcinogenic risk  attributable  to the Site  is the
potential  future   risk associated  with  the ingestion  of  Site
perimeter ground water  by area residents.  This generated  a risk of
2x10"4, which is at the  margin of the NCP's acceptable risk range.
This risk is primarily  attributable to the metal  arsenic, although
the levels detected in Site ground-water wells were below the EPA
and  New  York  State  Department   of   Health   (NYSDOH)   maximum
contaminant level (MCL).

Uncertainties

The procedures and inputs  used to assess risks in this evaluation,
as in all such  assessments, are subject to a wide  variety of
uncertainties.   In  general,  the  main  sources  of  uncertainty
include:

•    environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
•    environmental parameter measurement
•    fate and transport modeling
•    exposure parameter estimation
•    toxicological data.

Uncertainty  in environmental sampling  arises  in part  from the
potentially uneven distribution  of chemicals in the media sampled.
Consequently, there  is significant  uncertainty  as to  the actual
levels present.  Environmental  chemistry-analysis error can stem
from  several  sources  including  the  errors   inherent  in  the
analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.


                                8

-------
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
Site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related
to the Site.

An  estimate  of   central tendency  risk   can   be  obtained  by
substituting average or median values for upper bound values.  This
is most  useful for the  exposure  pathway  which  results  in the
highest  estimated carcinogenic or  non carcinogenic risk,  i.e.,
ground-water  ingestion.   Applying  these  lower  values to  risk
calculations results in the following changes in risk values:

     « carcinogenic risk decreases by a factor of 4.8, and
     • noncarcinogenic risk decreases by a factor of 1.4.

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 Risk  Assessment
Report.

The  greatest  carcinogenic risk attributable  to  the  Site  is
associated with the ingestion of  ground water.  The cancer risk is
based on current levels of ground-water contaminants.  If no action
is taken with  respect  to the landfill, the  continued  release of
contaminants  into Site ground  water  could  result in  a  greater
cancer risk at some point in the future.  Additionally, significant
noncarcinogenic effects from the  ingestion of Site ground water by
area residents has  also been established in the Risk Assessment.
Therefore, based on the results of the Risk Assessment, the EPA has
determined  that  actual  or  threatened  releases  of  hazardous
substances  from this Site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action  selected  in this  ROD, may present a  potential
threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.

Ecological Risk Assessment

Potential risks to the environmental receptors associated with the
Niagara County Refuse Site were identified in the ecological risk
assessment.   The  ecological risk  assessment identified  surface
water and sediments as the primary media pathways that potentially

-------
impact local species and sensitive environments.  Surface water and
sediment  samples  collected from  the northern wetland  area, the
northern drainage swales,  and the  southern drainage swales as well
as   samples  from   leachate  seeps   and   surface   soils   were
representative  of potential  exposure  media.    Surface-water and
sediment concentrations of metals (primarily  aluminum,  lead, and
zinc)  and pesticides  (primarily  4,4-DDT)  may result  in adverse.
acute  and/or chronic  effects  in aquatic  organisms within the
drainage  swales  and streams present  on the Site  or  in  close
proximity.  Acute  toxic effects may also occur  in  aquatic organisms
within the southern drainage swale due to elevated metal  concentra-
tions detected in the swale surface water.

Based  upon the computed  risk indices  for  the  northern wetland
stream and the northern and southern drainage swales, quantified by
using exposure and toxicity data to estimate the potential impact
on the  ecosystem,  the  potential for chronic  impacts  to occur in
resident species has been  established (i.e., the  risk indices were
greater than one).  Acute  effects are  also  likely to occur to
organisms in the southern drainage swale.  Additionally, stressed
vegetation has been observed in the northern  wetland area which may
have been induced by the Site.


REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Remedial  action  objectives are specific goals  to protect  human
health  and  the   environment.    These  objectives  are  based  on
available information and  standards such as applicable or relevant
and  appropriate   requirements   (ARARs)  and   risk-based  levels
established in the risk assessment.  The primary objectives of this
action are to control the source of contamination at the Site and
to reduce  and minimize the  migration of contaminants  into site
media thereby minimizing any health and ecological impacts.

The following remedial action objectives were established for the
Site:

*    Preventing direct contact with landfill contents;

*    Controlling surface water runoff and erosion;

*    Collecting and treating landfill leachate;

*    Controlling landfill gas;

*    Preventing the infiltration of contaminants into ground water;
     and

*    Remediating contaminated wetland areas, if necessary.

However, this action does not propose to remediate the ground water'

                               10

-------
as the greatest carcinogenic risk attributable to the Site is the
future  potential  risk associated  with  the  ingestion of  Site
perimeter  ground  water  by  area  residents.    Currently,  area
residents are provided with water through a municipal water supply.
Implementation  of  the  selected  remedy  will  prevent  further
degradation  of the  ground water.    Long-term ground-water  and
surface-water monitoring  will be implemented to ensure that the
remediation is effective.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

CERCLA mandates that a remedial action must be protective of human
health and the environment, cost effective,  and utilize permanent
solutions  and  alternative treatment  technologies  or  resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.  It also
establishes a preference for remedial actions  which employ,  as a
principal  element,  treatment  to  permanently  and  significantly
reduce  the  volume,  toxicity,   or  mobility  of  the  hazardous
substances, pollutants and contaminants at a site.  CERCLA further
specifies that a remedial action must attain a level or standard of
control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants,
which at least attains ARARs under federal and state laws, unless
a waiver can be justified.

This  ROD  evaluates  in  detail,   six remedial alternatives  for
addressing the  contamination  associated with  the Niagara County
Refuse Site.  The time to implement a remedial alternative reflects
only the time  required to construct or implement the  remedy and
does not include the time required to design the remedy, negotiate
with the responsible parties,  or procure contracts for design and
construction, or conduct  operation and maintenance  (O&H)  at the
Site.

The remedial alternatives are:

ALTERNATIVE 1: NO ACTION

Capital Cost:  $ 0
O&M Cost:      $ 2200/yr (for 5 year reviews
               for a 30-year period)
Present Worth Cost:   $ 30,500
Implementation Time: None

CERCLA requires that the "no-action" alternative be considered as
a baseline for comparison with  other  alternatives.   Under  this
alternative,  no  action would  be taken to contain wastes, reduce
infiltration into the landfill,  eliminate areas of exposed waste,
or  control and  treat leachate  discharging from the  landfill.
Because this  alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
site above health-based levels,  CERCLA requires that the remedial

                               11

-------
action be reviewed at least once every five years.

ALTERNATIVE 2: INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS

Capital Cost:  $ 267,400
0 & M Cost:    $ 130,300/yr (monitoring program)
Present Worth Cost:  $ 2,501,900
Implementation Time: 6 months

This alternative would consist of deed and access restrictions and
an environmental monitoring program.  The deed restrictions would
be designed  to  prevent direct contact with  the subsurface waste
material in the  landfill by limiting future Site use.  Access would
be restricted by the construction of a perimeter fence with locked
gates.   Ground-water and  surface-water  monitoring, designed  to
track  any  contaminant  migration  from  the  landfill,  would  be
conducted on a quarterly basis.  No  remedial action would be taken
with regard to the  leachate seeps.   Five-year Site reviews would
again be required.

ALTERNATIVE 3: RCRA "C" STANDARD CAP

Capital Cost:  $ 21,196,050 (avg.)
0 & M Cost:    $ 150,300/yr
Present Worth Cost:  $ 23,774,550 (avg.)
Implementation Time: 2 years

This alternative would include the deed and access restrictions and
monitoring program  described  in Alternative  2, above,  with the
addition of the following remedial  measures:

*    Grading of  the  landfill  (either minimal  grading for capping
     each distinct cell, extensive  grading  for capping all cells
     under one contiguous cap, or a configuration between the two
     extremes).     The  final   grading   configuration   would  be
     determined  during the remedial design  phase of the project,
     largely based on cost and  the  availability of fill material
     to achieve proper drainage;

*    Construction  of a Resource  Conservation and  Recovery Act
     (RCRA)  Subtitle C Standard Cap, comprised of  24  inches  of
     compacted clay liner, high-density polyethylene  (HOPE) liner,
     12-inch sand drainage layer, 24 inches of fill,  six inches of
     topsoil, and  grass cover.  Figure  3 illustrates  a typical'
     section for a RCRA Standard Cap;

*    Construction of a clay perimeter barrier wall;

*    A gas venting system  beneath the cap.  It is anticipated that
     a system of gas venting  trenches would be installed beneath
     the cap  instead of a 12-inch  gas venting layer,  due to the
     current  low  volume  of   gas  generated  by  the  landfill

                                12

-------
      (approximately 126  cubic  feet  per minute (cfro)).   The final
      gas venting configuration will be determined in the remedial
      design phase; and

*     Removal of the field tile drains to the west of the landfill
      which have  been  hydraulically connected with  Site drainage
      patterns and their placement under the cap prior to closure.

The EPA's Hydrogeologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP)
Model was utilized to evaluate percolation rates under the RCRA "C"
Cap configuration and yielded a 25 gallon per day (gpd) estimate of
leachate generation.   Based on  this  relatively small  amount of
leachate for a 50-acre  Site, a  variance from the RCRA "C" Standard
Cap design would be  sought to omit the  leachate collection system.
Five-year Site reviews would again be required.

ALTERNATIVE 4: NYS STANDARD CAP CONSISTENT WITH 6NYCRR PART 360

Capital Cost:  $ 15,779,200 (avg.)
0 & M Cost:    $ 150,300/yr
Present Worth Cost:   $ 18,357,550 (avg.)
Implementation Time: 2  years

This  alternative would include the  deed and access restrictions,
monitoring program,  re-grading, clay barrier wall, gas venting, and
field tile drain  removal described in Alternative 3 above.  The NYS
Standard Cap,  constructed to meet the standards for municipal solid
waste facilities  in accordance  with  6 NYCRR  Part 360, has  the.
following configuration:

*    A minimum of eighteen inches of  compacted  clay liner  (or 40
     mil  geomembrane),  24  inches  of  low  permeability  drainage
     material, .six  inches  of  topsoil,  and grass  cover.    This
     differs from the RCRA "C" Standard Cap configuration in that
      18 inches of clay liner is required as opposed to 24 inches,
     the 40 mil geomembrane can  replace the clay liner under the
     NYS configuration as opposed to being required in addition to
     the  clay liner  under  the RCRA  configuration,  a  24-inch
     drainage layer is  required as opposed to a 12-inch layer, and
     six inches of topsoil is called for as opposed to 24 inches.
     Figure 4 illustrates a typical section for a NYS Standard Cap.

No remedial action would be taken with regard to the leachate seeps
under this alternative.   Five-year Site reviews would  again be
required.
                                13

-------
ALTERNATIVE 5: NYS STANDARD CAP, LEACHATE COLLECTION WITH ON-SITE
TREATMENT

Capital Cost:  $ 17,459,400 (avg.)
0 & M Cost:    $ 360,300/yr
Present Worth Cost:  $ 23,650,900 (avg.)
Implementation Time: 3 years

This alternative  would be  identical to  Alternative 4  with the
addition of  leachate  collection and on-site treatment.   As with
Alternative 4, this option includes deed and access restrictions,
a monitoring program, re-grading, a clay barrier wall, gas venting,
field tile drain removal,  and construction of a NYS Standard Cap.
Again,  the EPA's HELP Model was utilized to evaluate percolation
rates under the NYS Standard Cap configuration and yielded a 6600
gpd estimate  of  leachate  generation.  Based on  this figure, the
leachate collection system would consist of the following:

*    Eight-inch diameter perforated HOPE pipe installed around the
     perimeter  of  the  Site  above  the  water  table  with  an
     approximate length of 10,000 feet;

*    Installation  of  the  system  in a  granular  trench with  a
     geotextile liner installed at the clay/granular interface and
     the granular, trench  connected  to  the cap's  gas  collection
     trenches;

*    Approximately four pumping stations to properly  convey the
     leachate in the system (final configuration to be determined
     during the remedial design phase of the project);

*    In order to meet  the requirements of 6NYCRR  Part  360  for a
     leachate collection  and  removal system, the  option for the
     installation  of  extraction wells with submersible  pumps to.
     actively extract leachate  from the landfill and through the
     collector  system  for  treatment.    The need  for an active
     leachate collection  system in conjunction  with the passive
     system  described  above will be determined in  the  remedial
     design phase of the project; and

*    Leachate would be discharged to an on-site treatment facility.

Figure  5 illustrates the  leachate subsurface  perimeter drain and
gas collection system.

Based on  the representative  leachate  data  for  the Site,  the
following  is an outline  of  the key  components  of an on-site
treatment system:

*    Physical  and/or  chemical  pretreatment   to  reduce  metal
     concentrations and minimize solid formation. This may involve

                                14

-------
     aeration and/or pH adjustment followed by flocculation;

*    Aerobic  biological  treatment, using  a suitable  system for
     dealing with high strength and variable effluents; and

*    Activated granular carbon treatment, which may be required for
     final polishing depending on action-specific ARARs.

The on-site treatment plant would  be  located  on  a parcel of land
adjacent to the southwest corner of the  Site.   The effluent from
this treatment plant would be  discharged  in accordance with NYSDEC
discharge criteria  into  the  ditch that  runs along  the southern
portion of the Site which  connects  to the underground culvert that
drains to the Niagara River.

Five-year Site reviews would again be required.


ALTERNATIVE 6: NYS STANDARD  CAP, LEACHATE COLLECTION WITH OFF-SITE
TREATMENT

Capital Cost:  $ 16,740,200 (avg.)
O & M Cost:    $ 198,700/yr
Present Worth Cost:  $ 20,151,300 (avg.)
Implementation Time: 2 years

This alternative  would be  identical  to Alternative 5  with the
exception of off-site treatment of collected  leachate instead of
on-site.  As  with Alternative 5,  this option includes  deed and
access  restrictions,  a monitoring program,  re-grading, a  clay
barrier wall,  gas  venting, field tile drain removal, and construc-
tion of  a  NYS Standard Cap.   The  method of  leachate collection
would also be  identical to  that  proposed in Alternative  5.   For
Alternative 6, however, collected leachate would be treated at an
off-site facility.  The City of North Tonawanda's publically owned
treatment works (POTW)  has been assumed for costing purposes to be
the off-site treatment facility.   The ultimate off-site facility
chosen will be determined during the remedial design phase of the
project.  Under this alternative, leachate collected from the Site
would be pumped via direct discharge  by  forcemain to the City of
North Tonawanda's  sanitary sewer system to be treated  at the City's
POTW (if the North Tonawanda POTW is determined in the design phase.
to be  a suitable treatment  facility).   The  physical  point  of
connection to the sanitary  sewer system will  also be determined
during  the  remedial  design  phase  of the  project  based on  an
investigation  of  the  sewer  system  proposed to transport  the
leachate, which will evaluate the  ability of  the sewer system to
transport the  leachate to  the  POTW  without  overflows  from the
system or backup  into adjacent services.   Based on preliminary
data, it is not expected that  pretreatment of the  leachate will be
necessary; however,  under the State  Pollutant Discharge Elimination
Syrstem (SPDES)  permit for  the  North Tonawanda POTW, the POTW alone

                               15

-------
must  determine  if  the  leachate  from  the  Site  will  require
pretreatment.   A  leachate  characterization  treatability study,
including the Toxicity  Characteristic  Leaching  Procedure (TCLP),
will be required during the  design phase of the project to confirm
that the  selected  facility  will be able to  accommodate the Site-
leachate without pretreatment.

Five-year Site reviews would again be required under this alterna-
tive.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each alternative
is required.  The detailed analysis consisted of an assessment of
the  individual  alternatives  against each  of  nine  evaluation
criteria  and  a comparative  analysis  focusing upon  the relative
performance of each alternative against those criteria.

The  following  "threshold"  criteria  must  be satisfied  by  any
alternative in order to be eligible for selection:

1.   Overall  protection  of human  health  and  the  environment
     addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection
     and  describes how risks posed  through  each  exposure pathway
     (based  on  a  reasonable  maximum  exposure  scenario)  are
     eliminated,  reduced,   or  controlled  through  treatment,.
     engineering controls, or institutional controls.

2.   Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would
     meet all of the  applicable (legally enforceable), or relevant
     and  appropriate  (requirements  that pertain to  situations
     sufficiently similar to those encountered at a Superfund site
     such that their use is well suited to the Site) requirements
     of federal and state environmental statutes and requirements
     or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.

The  following  "primary  balancing"  criteria  are used to  make
comparisons  and  to  identify  the  major  trade-offs  between
alternatives:

3.   Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
     of a remedy to  maintain reliable protection  of human health
     and the environment over  time, once  cleanup  goals have been
     met.  It  also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of the
     measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by
     treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.

4.   deduction  of toxicity, mobility,  or  volume via  treatment
     refers to a remedial technology's expected ability to reduce
     the toxicity, mobility,  or volume of hazardous substances,
     pollutants or contaminants at the Site.

                                16

-------
5.   Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
     to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health
     and the environment that may be posed during the construction
     and implementation periods until cleanup goals are achieved.

6.   Implementability refers  to  the  technical and administrative
     feasibility  of  a  remedy,   including  the  availability  of
     materials and services needed.

7.   Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance
     costs, and the present-worth costs.

The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:

8.   State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the
     RI/FS  and  the Proposed  Plan,  the State  supports,  opposes,
     and/or has  identified any  reservations  with  the  preferred
     alternative.

9.   Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
     to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan  and the
     RI/FS  reports.    Factors  of community  acceptance  to  be
     discussed include support, reservation, and opposition by the
     community.

A comparative analysis of the  remedial alternatives based upon the
evaluation criteria noted above follows.
•    Overall JProtection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternatives  3,  4,  5,  and 6  would  provide permanent  overall
protection of human health and the environment by containing waste.
with a landfill cap,  controlling landfill gas through venting, and
preventing potential contaminant migration with the construction of
a  clay  barrier wall.   Alternative  3  effectively minimizes the
amount of leachate  generated by  the landfill, while Alternatives 5
and 6 control and treat the generated leachate.  Alternatives  3, 5,
and  6  are,  therefore, more effective  in achieving  the remedial
objectives for the Site.

Alternative 4 eliminates contact with landfilled wastes, but does
not address leachate seeps that  would continue to occur under this
alternative.    Alternative  1  (No  Action)  and  Alternative  2
(Institutional Controls)  are not protective of human health and the
environment because they do not eliminate potential  contact with
landfilled wastes and do not minimize  rainfall  infiltration into
the landfill, thereby preventing further leaching of contaminants
into the environment.   In addition,  Alternatives l  and 2  do not
control the leachate seeps.  Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 2 were
eliminated from consideration and will not be discussed further.

                                17

-------
 •     Compliance with ARARs

 The principal  action-specific  ARARs for  the Site  include RCRA
 Subtitle  C and 6NYCRR Part  360  requirements, the  NYSDEC  State
 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) for the discharge of
 treatment  system effluent,  federal  Guidelines  and standards  for
 effluent discharge to a POTW  (including the Clean Water Act  and
 RCRA permits  by rule for a POTW),  and  state regulations for  the
 control of surface water runoff.  The main  purpose of a NYCRR Part
 360  Standard   Cap  is  to  construct a landfill cover with a
 permeability  less than or equal to  the existing  liner,  which in
 this case  is  the  natural  low  permeability  clay on which  the
 landfill is sited.  Alternatives 4,  5, and  6  will  require the clay
 cover to  have  a  post-compaction  maximum remolded coefficient of
 permeability  of 1x10-7 cm/sec throughout its thickness to comply
 with the regulation.  Alternatives 3  and 4 would  be  in compliance
 with action-specific  ARARs with the  exception of  the  RCRA and  NYS
 Part 360  regulations  requiring  a  leachate  collection system.
 Alternative 3 would reduce the leachate generation  to  approximately
 25  gpd, a quantity  for  which a variance from the  regulation  would
 be  requested.  Under Alternative 4, however, approximately 6600  gpd
 would be generated and a  leachate  collection   system  would  be
 warranted.     Alternative  4,  therefore,    does   not  meet   the
 requirements for action-specific ARARs.  Alternatives 5 and 6  would
 be  in compliance with  all action-specific ARARs.  Alternative 5
 would also require compliance with the substantive requirements of
 state air  and  discharge  permits  in  its  implementation.     The
 implementation  of Alternative 6 would also have to  meet the federal
 requirements for discharge to a POTW  (40 CFR Part 403) and the City
 of  North Tonawanda's Sewer  Use Ordinance (if the North Tonawanda
 POTW is determined  in the design phase to be a suitable treatment
 facility).  Federal and state action-specific air ARARs which  would
 have to be  met in the implementation of Alternative  6 include 40
 CFR 50  (federal air quality standards for  particulate matter  and
 lead) and 6NYCRR Part 373 (control of wind dispersal of particulate
 matter).

 Since the landfill ceased operations in  October 1976,  prior to  the
 effective date of the RCRA Subtitle C  regulations  (November  19,
 1980),  and the remedy does  not involve  the disposal  of   RCRA-.
 regulated waste, the RCRA  Subtitle  C closure  standards are  not
 applicable.     However,  available   information  indicates  that
 hazardous substances disposed of at  the  landfill may  be similar to
 RCRA wastes.  In addition,  the purpose of some of  the RCRA closure
 requirements is similar to the purpose of this CERCLA action.  For
.these and  other reasons,  certain of  the RCRA Subtitle C closure
 requirements, although not applicable, are relevant and appropriate
 for  the   remedial  action  at   this  landfill.      Accordingly,
 Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 will comply  with  all provisions of  the
 RCRA hazardous waste  landfill  closure  regulations which  are
 relevant and  appropriate  to the  Site;  specifically,  40  CFR Part

                                18

-------
264, Subpart N,  sections  264.303  and 264.310,  as well as the NYS
Part 360 regulations for closure.

RCRA Land Disposal  Restrictions  (LDRs)  preclude the placement of
restricted hazardous waste into a land disposal unit.  For the LDRs
to be applicable to a CERCLA response, the action must constitute
placement of a restricted RCRA hazardous waste.  Because the waste
is being capped in place,  LDRs do  not apply except for Alternative
6, which involves transferring the leachate off-site  for treatment.
Therefore, Alternative 6 will include a leachate characterization
treatability study, including the TCLP, to  confirm  that the off-
site facility will be able to accommodate the Site leachate without
pretreatment.

Principal location-specific ARARs for the  Site include Section 404
of the Clean Water Act of  1972, as amended (CWA), New York Code of
Rules  and Regulations  Wetlands  Permit  (6NYCRR  Part  663),  the
National Historic Preservation  Act,  the  Coastal  Zone Management
Act, and the Farmland Protection Policy Act.  Construction of a cap
and leachate  collection system may  result in  some net  loss of
wetlands that will require mitigation; any action taken at the Site
in the wetlands  area will  require compliance with Section 404 of
the CWA and 6NYCRR  Part 663.  The National  Historic Preservation
Act will require the performance of  a Stage IA cultural resources
survey.   The  Coastal  Zone Management  Act will  require that  a
coastal zone consistency determination be  performed.  The Farmland
Protection Policy Act will  require a determination  of impacts on.
adjacent agricultural  lands.  Alternatives  3,  4, 5,  and  6  would
each be in compliance with all location-specific ARARs.


•    Long—Term Effectiveness and Permanence

A landfill cap is considered a reliable remedial measure that, when
properly  designed  and  installed,   provides  a  high  level  of
protection.   Provided that the cap is maintained, Alternatives 3,
5, and 6 are each effective and permanent in  the long-term.  Direct
contact with   landfill  contents  would be  eliminated,  leachate
generation and migration would be significantly reduced, minimizing
the potential  for  surface water and sediment  contamination,  and
lateral  landfill   gas migration  would   also   be  effectively
controlled.   Alternative  4 would likely  result  in  the continued
occurrence of  leachate seeps and is therefore less effective in the
long-term.

Post-closure operation and  maintenance  requirements would ensure
the continued  effectiveness  of  the landfill  cap,   landfill  gas
ventilation system,  and any of the leachate system options.
                               19

-------
 •    Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume via Treatment

 None of the proposed alternatives reduces the toxicity, mobility,
 or  volume  of  landfill waste through treatment.   The mobility of
 contaminants  would,   however,  be  significantly  reduced by  the
 installation  of  a  cap.  Alternative  3  is the most  effective in
 reducing  the  volume  of leachate  generated  as   it  is  the  most
 restrictive  cap  configuration  with  respect  to  infiltration.
 However, without leachate  collection  and  treatment,  the toxicity
 and  mobility  of  contaminants  in  the  leachate would  not  be
 effectively reduced.   Alternative 4  is  effective in reducing the
 volume  of leachate  generated,  but  also  has no effect on  the
 toxicity and mobility of contaminants in the leachate since there
 is no collection and treatment.

 Only Alternatives 5 and 6 effectively reduce the volume of leachate
 generated and the toxicity  and  mobility of the contaminants in the
 leachate through collection and treatment.


 •    Short-Term Effectiveness

 The installation of a  cap for Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 would not
 result in any  short-term impacts which can  not be readily mitigated
 and controlled.  Alternative 3  would result in a greater increase
 in traffic flow  along local roads because the RCRA Cap requires
more materials than the NYS Standard Cap.  This  traffic would raise
dust and increase noise levels  locally.  However,  this activity is
expected to be of short duration and measures  can be  taken to
minimize these impacts.

Short-term risks to workers could be increased to the extent that
surficial  wastes   are  encountered   during  landfill   capping
activities.   However,  these  risks  will  be  properly  mitigated
through the implementation of  a site-specific Health  and Safety
Plan for all on-site workers.

Alternatives 3, 4, 5, and  6 have high  short-term effectiveness,
when considering the  length  of time  needed for construction..
Alternatives 3, 4,  and 6 would  each be completed within a two-year
period to allow for compaction and settlement of fill material over
the  winter season.    Alternative  5  would  likely  require  an
additional year for construction to allow for building an on-site
leachate treatment system.


•    Implementabilitv

All of  the alternatives  are  implementable  from  an engineering
standpoint.   Each  alternative  utilizes  commercially  available
products and accessible technology.

                               20

-------
Alternatives 5 and 6 also involve common construction practices in
the installation  of the perimeter subsurface leachate collection
system.  The on-site leachate treatment facility for Alternative 5-
would  require  treatability studies to determine  the appropriate
technology components prior to final design.

The  implementation of  off-site  treatment  for Alternative  6 is
contingent upon acceptance and approval by the off-site treatment
facility.


•    Cost

The capital costs for Alternatives 3,  4, 5, and 6 range from $15.8
million  for  Alternative  4,   which  does  not  include  leachate
collection/treatment, to $21.2 million for  Alternative  3,  which
uses the most cap materials.   Alternatives  3  and 4 have the lowest
O  & M  costs,  $150,300,  since  they do  not  require  leachate
collection/treatment and Alternative  5 has the highest O&M cost,
$360,000, due to maintenance of an on-site treatment facility.  The
range  in net  present worth  costs runs from $18.4 million for
Alternative 4, the least material and  O&M intensive alternative to
$23.8  million  for Alternative  3,  the most material  intensive
alternative.
•    State Acceptance

The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy.


•    Community Acceptance

All  comments submitted  during  the  public  comment period  were
evaluated and are addressed in the attached Responsiveness Summary
(Appendix V).


SELECTED REMEDY

EPA has  determined after  reviewing  the alternatives  and public
comments, that  Alternative 6 is the appropriate remedy  for the
Site, because it best satisfies  the requirements of CERCLA and the
NCP's nine evaluation criteria for remedial alternatives.

The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:

1) Capping of the landfill with a NYS  Solid Waste  Standard Cap,
meeting 6NYCRR  Part 360  requirements, including a  minimum of 18
inches of  compacted  clay  liner with a post-compaction  maximum
remolded coefficient of permeability of 1x10'7 cm/sec throughout its
                                21

-------
thickness, 24 inches of low permeable  fill, six inches of topsoil,
and a grass cover (see Figure 4).  Grading of the landfill will be
based on the  final  capping configuration (either minimal grading
for capping each distinct cell, extensive grading for capping all
cells under one contiguous cap,  or a configuration between the two
extremes) to be determined during the  remedial design phase of the
project,  largely based  on  cost  and the  availability of  fill
material to achieve proper drainage.   Clean fill will be necessary
to properly grade the Site.  The low permeability soil cover will
be placed  on a  minimum  four  (4)  percent  slope along  the upper-
portions of the landfill to promote positive surface-water drainage
and a maximum 33 percent  slope along the lower portions  of the
landfill to minimize erosion;

2) Construction of a clay barrier wall around the perimeter of the
landfill.   The  barrier  wall  will  extend  from the  cap to the
clay/upper  till  unit underlying the  Site  and will minimize the
potential for leachate and gas migration from the landfill to the
surrounding shallow silt unit;

3) Construction of a gas venting system consisting of a gas venting
layer or trenches underlying the  low permeability  cap material,
connected to perimeter trench vents surrounding the landfill and /or
vertical vent pipes  along the cap of  the landfill.  The gas venting
system will be located within the clay barrier wall to increase its
effectiveness in controlling horizontal landfill gas migration;

4) Removal  of  the field  tile drains to the west of  the landfill
which have been hydraulically connected with Site drainage patterns
and their placement under the cap  prior to closure.

5) Construction  of a  leachate  collection system, consisting of.
approximately 10,000  feet  of  eight-inch diameter perforated HDPE
pipe installed around the perimeter of the Site above the water
table.  The system will  be installed  in a granular  trench with a
geotextile liner installed at the  clay/granular interface and the
granular trench connected to the cap's gas collection trenches (see
Figure 5).   Approximately four pumping stations will be installed
to properly convey the leachate in the  system;  an  option for the
installation of extraction wells with submersible pumps to actively
extract leachate from the landfill  and through the collector system
will be determined  in the remedial  design phase of  the project.
Treatment of the collected leachate will be done at  an off-site
treatment facility.   The City of North Tonawanda's  POTW has been
assumed for costing purposes to be the  off-site treatment facility.
The ultimate off-site  facility chosen will be determined during the
remedial design phase of the project.  Although it is unlikely that
the leachate will require  pretreatment  prior to its  release from
the Site,  the treatment facility  alone must  determine if any
pretreatment   is  necessary.     A  leachate   characterization
treatability study, including the TCLP,  will be performed during
the remedial design phase to allow the treatment facility to make

                                22

-------
this determination.  Collected leachate will be pumped by forcemain
to  the City of North  Tonawanda's sanitary sewer  system  (if the
North  Tonawanda  POTW is determined  in  the design phase  to be a
suitable treatment facility).   The physical point of  connection to
the sanitary sewer system  will  be determined during the remedial
design phase of the project based on  an  investigation of the sewer
system proposed to transport the leachate,  which will evaluate the
ability of the sewer system to transport the leachate to the POTW
without overflows from the  system or backup into adjacent services.
The leachate will then be treated at the off-site facility;

6)  Performance of  a pre-design  phase  wetlands delineation and
assessment in  accordance with  state and federal guidance.   This
includes taking additional surface water  and sediment samples to
adequately quantify any chemical impacts on the wetlands that may
exist.  Based on sampling results, a supplemental ecological risk
analysis will be performed.  If the supplemental ecological risk
analysis   indicates  adverse   impacts   on  the   wetlands,   the
contaminated areas of the affected wetlands may be removed, placed
under the cap prior to closure,  and restored or the cap itself may
be extended over the area  of contamination.   Any significant net
loss of wetlands or wetland function will require mitigation.

7) Compliance with  all ARARs, including the  location-specific ARARs
identified in this ROD.   This will  include the  performance of a
Stage  IA  cultural resources survey,  a coastal  zone consistency
determination,  and  a   determination   of   impacts  on  adjacent
agricultural lands.

8) Implementation of deed restrictions designed to prevent direct
contact with  the  subsurface waste material  in  the  landfill  by
limiting future Site use.  Access to the Site will be  restricted by
the construction of a perimeter fence with locked gates;

9) Implementation  of long-term maintenance and  operation of the
landfill cap,  gas  venting, and leachate  systems to provide for
inspections and repairs;

10) Implementation of long-term air and water quality monitoring;.
and

11) An evaluation of Site conditions at least once every five years
to determine  if a  modification to  the selected  alternative  is
necessary.


STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

As; previously noted, CERCLA mandates that a remedial action must be
protective of human health and the environment,  cost effective, and
utilize permanent solutions and  alternative treatment technologies
ox-  resource   recovery  technologies   to  the  maximum   extent

                                23

-------
practicable.   CERCLA  also establishes a preference  for remedial
actions which  employ  treatment to permanently  and significantly
reduce  the  volume,  toxicity,  or  mobility  of  the  hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants at a site.  CERCLA further
specifies that a remedial  action must attain  a  degree of cleanup
that satisfies ARARs under federal and state laws, unless a waiver
can be justified.

For  the  reasons discussed below,  EPA  has  determined that  the
selected remedy meets the requirements of CERCLA.

Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The  selected  remedy   is  protective  of  human  health  and  the
environment.  Contact with landfilled wastes  would be eliminated
through  capping,  landfill gases  would  be  controlled  through
venting,  and potential contaminant migration through surface water
and ground water to the surrounding environment would be prevented
through  the  construction of the  clay  barrier  wall  and  the
collection and treatment of leachate.

Compliance with ARARs

The selected remedy will  be in compliance with all ARARs.  Action-
specific ARARs  for the selected remedy  include 6NYCRR  Part  360
requirements, federal  requirements for effluent discharge to a POTW
(40 CFR Part 403),  state regulations for the  control of surface-
water runoff, federal  and  state  air ARARs (40 CFR 50 and 6NYCRR
Part 373, respectively), and  the City of North  Tonawanda' s Sewer
Use Ordinance  (if  the North  Tonawanda POTW is. determined in  the
design phase to be a  suitable  treatment  facility).   Landfill
closure will  also  comply with all  provisions of  RCRA hazardous
waste  landfill  closure   regulations  which  are   relevant  and
appropriate to the  Site.  Location-specific ARARs for the selected
remedy include Section 404  of  the Clean Water Act, as amended,  New
York Code of  Rules and Regulations Wetlands Permit  (6NYCRR Part
663), the  National Historic  Preservation Act,  the  Coastal Zone.
Management Act, and the Farmland  Protection  Policy Act.

Cost-Effectiveness

The selected remedy is the least costly remedy  that achieves all
the goals of the response action.

Utilization  of  Permanent  Solutions  and  Alternative  Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable

The selected  remedy utilizes  permanent  solutions and treatment
technologies to  the maximum  extent practicable.    The  selected
remedy  provides  the  best   balance  of  trade-offs  among  the
alternatives with respect to the  evaluation  criteria.


                               24

-------
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at
a site.  It is not practicable (or within the limited scope of this
action)  to   treat   the  hazardous  substances,   pollutants  or
contaminants at the Site,  because the contaminant source, the Site
itself, can  not  be effectively excavated and treated  due  to its
large size and the absence of hot spots representing major sources
of contamination.

A review of the remedial action will be conducted five years after
the commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection to human  health and the
environment,   because   this  remedy  will result   in  hazardous
substances remaining  on-site above health-based levels.


DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

There are no significant  changes from the preferred  alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
                               25

-------
APPENDIX I




  FIGURES

-------
                                                   I.
                                                                    500
                                                       Wl/KI
                                                   «.•   *"""'••   METERS
                                                   :ri  " ""SCALE 1=25,000
                                                                     t :
           \S1TE LOCATION

      1        /  v    I ^Sxfet

   ;  i     /'•"•; t^
   I  1     *•     v   t •  • •
   I  •               l'».---«»

             T.
OWOR'lNGLf LOCATON
             SOURCE;
U^. OEOLOOCAL SURCT
SW/4 TQKAWADA 15* QUADfUNOI
                         figure   1

                   SITE  LOCATION
NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE
                  Wheatfield, N.Y.

-------
                       500' NE
                    NCR-1U
 HCR-SS
-•NCR-SM
 NCR-SO
                                             0'
      Mo*
•oo1
                                                 LEGEND
                                            .-—SWALE
                                                 APPROXIMATE LOCATION
                                                 OF LANDFILL CELL

                                                 SOIL BORING /
                                                 MONITORING
                                                 WELL LOCATION
 S . SHALLOW OVERBURDEN
     WELL

I. M - DEEP OVERBURDEN WELL

 D - BEDROCK WELL
                                       O
                                       B"
•OODWATO-aWC CONSULTANTS.
MfSTDNC ttfWT fl. WORK PUN
VDft n/TS. MA6MA 00. R0USE STL
•CA1FKIA. Itt, AUGUST 25. 1MB
                                                      figure    2
                                   SOIL BORING/MONITORING
                                             WELL LOCATIONS
                            NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE
                                               Wheat field, N.Y.

-------
                      24* COMPACTED FILL
                           * ".
                       ^ figure  3
TYPICAL SECTION RCRA LANDFILL CAP
       NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE'SITE

-------
                                           iCETATlVE COVER
                                          6' TOPSOIL
                                          24* COMPACTED FILL
                                          •IB-CLAY BARRIER
                                          LAYER
» O«T(. ,- .T 3»re5VJ
                                          12' GAS VENTING
                                          TRENCH
                                          REFUSE
                                              figure   4

                           TYPICAL SECTION NEW YORK
                        STATE SANITARY LANDFILL CAP

                        NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE
                                        Wheatfidd, N.Y.

-------
                                                       LANDFILL CAP
                                                       fRCRA OR NYS
                                                       STANDARD CAP)
                    PERIMETER LEACH ATE/GAS
                    COLLECTION TRENCH
                                                                               CAS VENTING
                                                                               LAYER OR
                                                                               TRENCH
                                                     .'vr--;. v ** *iV»-»*
                                                     ^^•,;^>N
                                                    VMRLTER FABRJC
                      4.2 FT. =
                     (AVERAGE -
                    THKKNESSE
     WASHED STONE
                                   BARRIER
                                    WALL-v
'^i »•»* -*
(^S" PERFORATED
   HOPE LEACHATE
  /COLLECTION PIPE
 .•_-_» o^.
— — _ Olov
 . -_•_   CLAY BARRIER WALL
;V----_--  KEYED MTO CLAY/
        UPPER HI. UNIT
           CLAY/UPPER TILL
                                                                                      figure  5
                                         SCHEMATIC OF LEACHATE  SUBSURFACE PERIMETER
                                                        DRAIN AND GAS COLLECTION SYSTEM
                                                              NIAGARA COUNTY  REFUSE SITE
                                                                                Uheat field, N.Y.

-------
APPENDIX TT




  TABLES

-------
Table a NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE: CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

VtfctUe
Acetone
Bcaztoc
J-BmiBco*
M-DicbfanbcazeK
Mc&ylaw Qtoride
Styrtoe
TrieblwueAyJtne
104-
Tri»eth;rlbenieBe
VjBvl Chloride
BNAi
Bfpiofi teDtui H4ut
Benzofi>p\Tre*
Biitf.
•ttylbcrytlpbtbdiic
4-Ck)OT B*nit|Bt
Jj4-DJB«4vWieool
2.6-DiDmnDlune
2-Metbvlvbnol
4^«b'vtebeno^
Naebibileee
fbCDU^TCM
fkcool
FMkiilcs
AJtlD
Delu-HHC
Snrfoer
CoU

X



X
X
X

X



X










X
Sabwrfact
SoUs

X



X

X

X



X




X
x
X




LudQll
NriBtur
Ground
Water

X
X


X







X







x

X
X
NCR
12D
Ground
Water

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X




X

x

x
x
x

x



DraJugt
fwale
Svfeo
Water













X

X





x


X
Drateigt
Swak
Sediments

X
X


X





x
x
X






x


x
X
Uacfcate
SoU




X
X





x

X




x
x
x


x
x
Laacfcau
Water

X
X
X

X







X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x

-------
• Table a

4 4'-DDE
44'-DDT
Did drill
Hepurblor
Hcpttcbtor Eooxide
bernnls
Aln»«UB
AotJiDOoy
Arteoic
BtriuB
Beryllium
^fcrffnilM*
Cobalt
Copper
Cynide
boo
Lnd
MiDMoese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Thallium
Vanadium
Zioc
Surface
SoU






x

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X'

X


X
X
Svbwriac*
Soils




X

x
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
Landfill
Ptrtncttr
Ground
Waltr
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
X
X
X
X
x
X

X
x
X

X
X

X
X
CONTINUED)
NCR
12D
Grotiod
Water



X


X
X
X
X
X

x
X

X

X

X
X

X
X
Drainage
Swak
Surface
Water

X


X

x

X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
x
x

X

X
X
X
Drainage
Swak
SadlntBU
X
X
X

X

x
X
X
X
X
X
x
X

X
x
x
x
x


x
X
Ltaehau
Soil
X

X



x

X
X
X
X
x
X

x
x
x
x
x


x
X
Laaebau
Water

X

X


x

X
X
X
X
x
X

X
x
x
x
X


x
X

-------
                     i«uiu u    NJAuAKA iXKJNTY KbFUSE SITE: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
                     Rcccpor
                                      Ttnrftmt Evafauctf         tfcpw at AMCMBKM

                                      Htif*        RMMTC       Qua*.       Qud.    Riuoulc (w SckctMMi of Eackuio*

                                                                                AMm«kiMiikaiscMfMilyNlyM    UOgRMMw
                                                                                                MM it      «f«w|y. 9MS.«if*9i]^

       of
teVobulia

                                                                                CiMoralraiioM cf volMilM M
                                                                                •Met m lov. HohnMil 0*v «f
                                                                                •ppon lo k« IMMMA
DmMlCb
Water
                                                    N*



                                                                                                                  i«r-n
SwfM»Soili
OCHMII
                                        No
UMdMiMofVOCEMMiou
••4 PMkabMi (TOM S«fte»
Soib
                                       No
No

-------
                                                         Table b    (CONTINUED)
                        Receptor
IVncM
           Deptt of AHCHMMI

           QMM.        QiMl.     lUikMulc for SckdiM or Eicteioa
                                            Ya
              Vci
                                                                                         Eifnwnto
                                                                                         lV»-»,

                                                •nib (2* to     All
                                                McavMiooj     •opIlolS'.
                       CmvMioB
 No
                               EifNMvn M MbwrfMi Mib <1* lo
                               150 My oca* Arioj ciavMiow
                               for witty «M hodM MWUMML
                               EipoMre* cipccui to b*
                                                          Y«
                       Worto
                                              EifMwctot
DcmrfCboUdwi*
 VM
                                             H*
Ya
               YM
                                                                                         Owi*
                               Eipo«B« to uliariii to»y
       efVOC
       MUa
DkaiHfiSw«k
               No

               No
                       Wortuv
                               «iMitewx «rf «c(ctoliMi IMMI
                               iclcaje of fwtiorfMct. VcgcUthw
                                                          No
                                              AatkipMMl cdivily iavolM*
                                                    ; ctpomn via MM cnl

-------
                                                          Table b     (CONTINUED)
  PMk»«y
                                             Ttmt fnmt E
           De*<*ofj

           QIUL        Qiul.     Ratio** for Scfcaioa or Eidwios
                                              N*
N*
                                                                                           AMiripMcdl ftGiivay Mvoha KM
                                                                                           cipon«».
         Salt
                                              Y«
Ya
OHM* trnpMfcn IMM
••4 ••! MCMMMMy i

                                              YM
Y«
                                                                                           CocraHy ««<
                                                                                           IMMIC mtic
                                                                                           VOC eamrrtmuamt m toil (v«M()
                                               N*
Na
                                                                                           •rgligMi
         WMT
                                              N*
         of VOC
No
LOW VOC


ickaics.
                                       OMKCttf MKMf M Mi
                                              N*
  HoMCraw»rkMlHM
                                Rm field •djMSM lo *• fitt.
                                CluMMW Of kOBM (fOW* |W1I«M»
                                ^KMAMWvtW Wy 1»^W»^A^BWA*B
                                cmuuiiac If am Ike liu ii aakaowB.
 'od evaluate! «|uanlMMivciy. per fcl*A guMttacc too cmimiuai, rCBs, UIUMO
**ctdniuni only

-------
Table c  TOHCFTY VALUES FOR THE NCR SITE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN.
(CHEMICAL
3
VobnJts
Acetjne
Benzene
2-Butanone (MEK)
14 Dichlorebenzene (pan)
Metfiylene chloride
Styrtne
Thc!JoToe*ylene
12* TrimethylbenzeRe
Vinyl chloride (chloroethylene)
BNAs
Ben::o(a)anthracene
Beru:o(a)pyrene
BisC2-efliylhexyl)ph:halate
^ChlOToanHine
2.4-Dime*ylphenol
16-lDiriaotDhiene
2-Methylphenol (cxresol)
4-Methyh*eno! (p-cresol)
Naphthalene
Hieiunthrcne
I1ie;i»l
Pesticides
Aldrin
delta-BBC
4.4' DDE
4.4' DDT
Dieldrin
Heixachlor
HeixacnJor epoxide
laaiwiicj
Aliimmifln
Amsmony
Anenic
' Baiium
Be^Iliinn
CalmiunG)
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
CARCINOGENIC
Weight
«f Evidence
CluslflcatioB

D •
A •
D a
C b
B2 •
B2 b
. B2 b
D 1
A b

B2 a
B2 a
B2 a
•

B2 b
b
C a
D a
D a
D a

B2 a
—
B2 a
B2 a
B2 a
B2 a
B2 a

D d
- a
A a
- a
B2 a
Bl a
.-.
D c
D a
D d
B2 a

Onl Slope
Factor
(•rfcc/duM


190E-02 a

2.40E-02 b
7JOE-03 a
3.00E-02 b
1.10E-02 b

1.90E+00 b

5.79E-01 e
5.79E400 a
1.40E-02 a


6.80E-01 b.k






l.TOE+Ol a

3.40EO1
3.40E-01
1^0E401
4JOE400
9.10E400



1.75E+00 f

4JOE400 a






CHRONIC
Chronic
OralRfD
(•glcg/dty)

l.OOE-01 a

5.00EO2 b
l.OOE-01 d
6.00E-02 a
2.00E-01 a
6.00E-03 d
6.00E-04 d




100E-02 a
4.00E-03 a
2.00E-02 b
f
5.00E-02 a
5.00E-02 b
4.00E-03 b

6.00E-01 a

3.00E-05 a


S.OOE-04 a
S.OOE-OS a
5.00E-04 a
IJOE-OS a

1.00E400 d
4XOE-04 a
3.00E-04 a
3.00E-02 b
5.00E-03 a
5.00EXX a. •
d
4.00E-02 d
100E-02 a
3.00E-01 d

SUB CHRONIC
Sobckraek
OralRfD
(BK/kg/day)

1.00E*00 b

5.00E-01 b
1.00E41 i
6.00E-02 b
lOOE^OO b
6.00E-03 i
6.00E-04 i




2.00E-02
4.00E-03
2.00E-01

5.00E-01
5.00E-01
4.00E-02

6.00E-01 b

100E-OS b


S.OOEXM b
S.OOE-OS b
5.0QE-W b
1JOE-OS i

1.00E400 i
4.00EO4 b
1DOE-03 b
S.OOE-02 b
SAEO3 b
SAEXM i

4.00E-02 i
2-OOE-02 b
3JODE-01 i


-------
 Table e  TOXJCTTY VALUES FOR THE NCR SITE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN. (MOD.
CHEMICAL

Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
ThaDium
Vanadium
Zinc
CARCINOGENIC
Weight
•T Evidence
Classification
D
D
A
D
.
D
D

Oral Slope
Factor
(•tVke/day).l







CHRONIC
Chronic
OnlRTD
(Bt/kft/day)
1JOE-01 a
3.00E-04 b
2.00E-02 a,h
5.00E-03 a
7.00E-05 b
TOOE-03 b
2.00E-01 b
SUBCHRONIC
Sobchronic
OnlRJD
(•i/kt/day)
1AOE-01
3.00E-04
100E-02
3.00E-03
7.00E-04
7.00E-03
2.00E-01
a. Bon Integrated Risk Information System (BUS) 5/1/92.
a. From Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) FY1991.
c. From Drinking Water Regulations and Health Advisories, April 1992.
a\ bserim value ton ECAO. Set text for specific reference.
c. Oral slope factor for B(a)P used for B(a)A (classified as aB2 carcinogen) with aTEF of O.I applied
I Arsenic oral slope factor derived from unit risk in IRIS.
f. Cadmium Rfl> is for «rater. 14K-03 ng/kg/day is Rfl> for food.
k Value is for nickel soluble salts.
L ChronuRfDujedisSubchrorucRJDifnoSubclDTmfcvalueisavaibbleperl^GS^
J. "Dermal touchy values for cadmium have been derived from oral toxicity values applying an
   absorption factor of 0.01 (10%) per EPA guidance (tee texi for specific
   stference). The WD for both chronic and subchronic dermal exposure is 5.00E-05 mg/kg/day.
L Value used appfcs to mixture of 2.4-and 2^-dinitrotoluene.
L Carcinogenic Weight of Evidence Classification obtained from Health Effects Assessment docoment, not IRIS
   or HEAST.

-------
       Tible d   SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICES (HI) FOR
                  THE NCR SITE
Scenario
Receptor
Present/Future
Chronic HI
Ground Water • Perimeter

Ingestion           Resident

Ground Water • Northern Landfill Cell
Ingcsa'on

Surface Soil

Ingestion

Subsurface Soil

Ingestion

Sediments

Inges&on
Deimal Contact
lngi:stion
Deimal Contact
Lejichate Soils

Ingcstion
Dermal Contact
Resident
Youth Trespasser
Excavation Worker'
Youth Trespasser
Youth Trespasser
Excavation Worker
Excavation Worker
Youth Trespasser
Youth Trespasser
P/F
P/F
P/F
F
F
P/F
P/F
                                               Total
                                               Total
                                               Total
                                          5E+00'
                  4E400'
9E-02
                  7E-01a
1E-01
2E-03
1E-01

7E-01a
JE-03a
7E-01a
3E-03
9E-Q5
3E-Q3

-------
      Ttble e   SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES FOR THE
               NCR SITE
Scenario
Ground Water •
Ingestion
Ground Water •
Ingestion
Surface Soil (
Ingestion
Subsurface Soil
Ingestion
Sediments
Ingestion
Ingestion
Leachate Soils
Ingestion
Receptor Present/Future Incremental Risk
Perimeter
Resident F 2E-04**
Northern Landfill Cell
Resident F 1E-04*
^
Youth Trespasser P/F 4E-06*

Excavation Worker F 7E-07

Youth Trespasser P/F * 5E-06*
Excavation Worker F 9E-07

Youth Trespasser P/F 9E-08
•Exceeds JO* risk
••Exceeds 10* risk

-------
Table f
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SlTfe.
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITK, BY CHBMICAL AND MBDIUM/ARKA
all in units of parts par billion, except pesticides/PCBa which are in units of

Num.
Times
Analyta Detected
Vinyl Chloride
Methylene chloride
Acetone
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Styrene
1,2-Diehloroethylene (total)
bi s ( 2 -Bthylhexyl ) phthalat a
Delta-BRC
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium, total
. Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zine
1
6
4
2
2
1
1
2
1
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
Num. Lowest Highest Highest
Samples Detected Detected Cone.
Analyzed Cone .
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
240
6
6
3
20
1
440
700
1400
4650000
2700
18600
260
3140000
6400
3000
7400
10395000
4900
2850000
63000
9000
727000
09000
13100
30700
.00
.50
.50
.00
.00
.40
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Cone.
240.00
22.00
17.00
6.10
32.00
1.40
440.00
1025.00
1400.00
26000000.00
28000.00
135000.00
1100.00
68900000.00
31000.00
14000.00
32000.00
31000000.00
175000.00
25500000.00
575000.00
26000.00
6300000.00
690000.00
37000.00
105000.00
Locat.
NCR-13(0-0.8')
HA- 3
HA- 3
NCR-e(o.o-a.o')
NCR-13(0-0.8')
NCR- 13 ( 0-0.8')
NCR-13(0-0.8')
HA- 9
HA- 8
NCR-8 (0.0-2.0')
NCR-llA(0-3.2')
NCR-llB(0-3.2')
NCR-8(0. 0-2.0' )
HA- 14
NCR-8 (0. 0-2.0')
NCR-8 (0. 0-2.0')
NCR-13(0-0.8')
MCR-8(0. 0-2.0')
NCR-11BIO-3.2')
HA- 14
HA- 8
NCR-11B( 0-3.2')
NCR-8 (0. 0-2.0')
NCR-7(0. 0-2.0')
NCR-8(0. 0-2.0')
NCR-llB(0-3.2')
parts per trillion
Oeom.
Mean
Cone.
a.
6.
7.
3.
4.
2.
4.
326.
2465.
10575373.
10578.
50755.
407.
14630170.
14190.
5586.
12964.
14895316.
15213.
7162948.
259798.
15035.
1404302.
207982.
19905.
46734.
03
49
42
16
24
79
SO
36
99
34
94
91
32
16
55
08
15
02
35
35
95
72
59
45
94
98
95 Pet.
Upp . Conf .
Limit
38
19
10
3
11
3
66
651
14123
16326685
22102
103277
808
72547708
21035
8044
19922
19370286
143424
15744603
482275
19755
2521111
455773
25547
68686
.23
.61
.48
.65
.82
.24
.28
.98
.04
.74
.73
.58
.73
.80
.94
.25
.59
.45
.42
.91
.12
.66
.61
.69
.40
.54
Min. Max.
Detect. Detect.
Limit Limit
10.00 13.0
5.20 6.5
10.00 13.0
5.20 6.5
5.20 6.5
5.20 6.5
5.20 6.5
340.00 1200.0
1100.00 14000.0
•
•
•
180.00 180.0
•
•
•
•
. .
•
•
•
•
•
100000.00 100000.0
.
•

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
all in units

SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITU, BT CHEMICAL AND MBDIUM/ARBA
of parts per billion, except pasticidea/PCBs which are in units of parts per trillion
Num.
Times
Analyta Detected
Vinyl Chloride
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
1.1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1.2-Dichloroethylene (total)
4-Methylphenol
Benzoie Acid
Naphthalene
2,4, 5-Trichlorophenol
Fhenanthrene
• Fluoranthane
Pyrene
Chrysene
bis (2-Bthylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-oetylphthalate
Alpha-BBC
Reptaehlor epoxide
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
copper ,••-. 	
1
4
1
2
4
2
1
. 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
10
. 9
a
10
10
10
10
Num. Lowest Highest
Samples Detected Detected
Analyzed Cone.
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.. 10. .
210.00
3.50
56.00
5.60
6.60
160.00
68.00
220.00
43.00
50.00
60.00
66.00
67.00
46.00
160.00
52.00
260.00
580.00
5000000.00
13000.00
3100.00
12000.00
200.00
2600000.00
4000.00
2100.00
.4000.00
Cone.
210.00
17.00
58.00
.5.70
15.00
320.00
66.00
220.00
43.00
50,00
60.00
66.00
67 ioO
46.00
160.00
52.00
260.00
560.00
25000000.00
13000.00
26000.00
160000.00
960.00
90000000.00
30000.00
15000.00
. .,. 242000.00,
Highest
Cone. '
Locat.
NCR-1312.5-3.5)
NCR-13(2.5-3.5)
NCR-6(2.0-6.0')
NCR- 10 (2-4')
NCR-6(2. 0-6.0')
NCR-9M(2. 0-6.0)
TBSTFIT3R
TBSTPIT3R
TBSTPIT3R
TBSTPIT3R :
TBSTPIT3R
TBSTPIT3R
TBSTPIT3R
TBSTPIT3R
TBSTPIT3R
NCR-6(2. 0-6.0')
NCR-9M(2. 0-6.0)
NCR-5(5. 4-7.0')
NCR-3M(4-6' )
NCR-5 (5.4-7. 0')
NCR-3M(4-6')
NCR-3M(4-6')
NCR-3M(4-6')
NCR-3M(4-6')
NCR-3M(4-6')
NCR-3M(4-6')
_TBaT>>IT38F .
Oeom.
Mean
Cone.
8
6
8
3
5
7
187
882
177
748
184
192
186
179
205
184
3623
374.4
11278846
4323
9392
37497
301
32360865
12781
5910
... 16741
.70
.91
.80
.37
.23
.14
.26
.67
.96
.69^
.67
.21
.95
.30
.93
.54
.01
.94
.01
.12
.10
.33
.52
.40
.02
.77
.90 .
95 Pet.
Dpp . Conf .
Limit
57
42
28
4
13
796
301
1731
356
4513
313
283
303
346
263
336
34859
27961
19395607
7818
20212
1777260
1115
208620777
25758
12078
	 .107784
.50
.50
.45
.22
.57
.91
.69
.85
.10
.85
.74
.64
.02
.18
.00
.66
.69
.32
.03
.92
.47
.25
.53
.88
.69
.41
.90
Kin.
Detect.
Limit
11.00
5.60
11.00
5.40
5.40
5.40
350.00
1700.00
350.00
1700.00
350.00
350.00
350.00
350.00
350.00
350.00
1000.00
1000.00
•
2800.00
•
1100.00
140.00
•
.
.
. . ;
Max.
Detect.
Limit
15.0
150.0
66.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
660.0
4200.0
860.0
4200.0
860.0
660.0
860.0
860.0
860.0
660.0
21000.0
21000.0
•
12000.0
•
1100.0
160.0
•
•
•
e

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITR, BT CHEMICAL AND MBDIUM/ARBA
all in units of parts per billion, except peeticldeeYPCB* which are in unit* of parta per trillion
(continued)


A&alyte
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganeae
Mercury
Nickel
Fotaaaium
Selenium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Num.
Time*
Detected
9
10
9
9
1
10
10
1
10
1
10
10
Num.
Sample*
Analyzed
9
10
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Lowe it
Detected
Cone.
8700000.00
6300.00
2200000.00
190000.00
230.00
2600.00
470000.00
820.00
120000.00
610.00
6300.00
25000.00
Righact Highest
Detected Cone.
Cone . Locat .
31000000.00 NCR-3M(4-6')
20500.00 TBSTPIT3R
39000000.00 NCR-5{5. 4-7.0')
1300000.00 NCR-3M<4-6'»
230.00 TBSTPIT3R
30000.00 NCR-3M(4-6'|
6000000.00 NCR-3M(4-6')
820.00 TBSTPIT3R
920000.00 NCR-3M(4-6')
610.00 NCR-3M(4-6'|
36000.00 NCR-3M(4-6'(
135000.00 TKSTPIT3R
Oeom'.
Mean
Cone.
16392629.60
11609.43
12372993.45
483370.01
35.03
12429.08
1978699.33
628.09
292499.18
216.18
18616.95
64390.05
95 Pet.
Upp . Conf .
Limit
26166527.21
16354.81
54082052.04
1001137.35
81.62
32719.44
4619697.63
4667.37
486389.39
.319.11
33381.29
104279.38
Min. Max.
Detect. Detect.
Limit Limit
. . .
•
•
•
50.00 110.0
•
•
340.00 5000.0
•
240.00 500.0
.
•'

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE.
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITE, BY CHEMICAL AND MBDIOM/ARBA
all In unit* of part* par billion, axcapt paeticidaa/PCB* which are In units of part* par trillion

Nun.
Tlma*
Analyta Datactad
Vinyl Chlorlda
Mathylana Chlorlda
Acatona
2 -But anon* (MBK)
Trichloroathylana
Toluana
Bthylbanzana
Styrana
Total Xylanaa
1,2-Dlchloroathylana (total)
Phanol
3-Mathylphanol
4-Mathylphanol
Banzoie Aeld
Di-n-butylphthalata
Banzylbutylphthalata
bl* (2-Bthylhaxyl)phthalata
Dl-n-octylphthalat*
Dalta-BHC
Aroelor-1254
Alunlnun
Antimony
Araanlc
Barium
Baryllium
Cadmium
Cttcltia 	
1
2
a
i
i
a
a
a
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
3
3
1
1
1
11
3
11
11
e
i
11. ..
Num. Lowait
Sampla* Dataetad
Analyz ad Cone .
11
11
11
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
190.00
ao.oo
50.00
10.00
14.00
3. CO
5.00
4.90
26.00
390.00
4550.00
330.00
290.00
2190.00
430.00
laoo.oo
1400.00
150.00
25000.00
47000.00
2300000.00
13000.00
1800.00
33000.00
aao.oo
3600.00
... .84000000.00
Hlghaat Hlgha*t
Dataetad Cone.
Cone . Locat .
190.00 MCR-5 (44-47')
49.00 NCR-3 (24-24.7')
9S.OO NCR- 13 (33-36')
10.00 HCR-3M(24-26>)
14.00 NCR-10(26-28' )
51.00 NCR- 12 (33-36')
65.00 HCR-5 (44-47*)
39.00 NCR-5 (44-47 ')
26.00 NCR- 12 (32-26')
390.00 HCR-5 (44-47')
4550.00 NCR- 12 (22-26')
230.00 NCR-12(aa-26')
290.00 NCR-12 (22-26' )
2190.00 NCR-12 (2 J-26-)
430.00 NCR-12 (22-26')
2(00.00 NCR-12 (22-26')
2900.00 NCR-12 (21-26 ')
150.00 NCR-3M(24-26')
25000.00 NCR-12 (22-26')
47000.00 NCR-12 (22-26-)
9500000.00 NCR- 10(26-28')
20000.00 NCR-7 (44-46')
13000.00 NCR-2124-24.7-)
280000.00 NCR-K44-46')
400.00 NCR- 10 (44-46')
3600.00 NCR-12 (22-26-)
150000000.00 NCR-7 (44-46')
Oaom.
Ma an
Cone.
7.77
4.37
9.30
5.99
3.21
3.71
3.90
3.72
3.42
4.34
251.27
186.43
190.80
1001.99
198.47
349.81
362.58
186.02
6533.72
104762.80
5978744.69
5409.47
6524.34
66706.33
204.82
339.41
74096851.83
95 Pet.
0pp. ConC.
Limit
38.83
18.33
41. 03
6.84
5.06
11.64
14.66
9.94
7.19
87.93
1225.13
230.00
an. 65
1391.15
346.13
1983.34
3464.65
305.93
9775.73
138496.73
8739973.07
12064.03
11376.45
115555.75
431.38
818.05
93956133.73
Mln.
Dataet .
Limit
11.00
5.40
11.00
11.00
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
5.35
340.00
340.00
340.00
1700.00
340.00
340.00
340.00
340.00
9800.00
aooooo.oo
.
5050.00
.
•
130.00
300.00
•
Max.
Dataet .
Limit
12.0
5.9
15.5
12.0
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
380.0
380.0
380.0
1900.0
380.0
380.0
380.0
540.0
13000.0
350000.0
.
9750.0
•
•
160.0
490.0
•

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITE, BT CHEMICAL AMD MEDIUM /AREA
all in units of parti par billion, axcapt pesticidee/FCBa which ara in units of parti par trillion

Analyta
.Chromium, total
Cobalt
Coppar
Iron
Laad
Maonaaium
Manganaaa
Mareury
Hickal
Potaaaium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Hum.
Timaa
Datactad
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1
11
11
11
11
10
Hum. Lowaat
Samplaa Datactad
Analyzed Cone.
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
3500.00
1500.00
4300.00
5200000.00
4900.00
16000000.00
220000.00
150.00
3500.00
660000.00
210000.00
7400.00
5400.00
(continuad)
Highaat Highaat
Datactad Cone. •
Cone . Locat .
12000.00 NCR- 10 (44- 46 ')
6050.00 HCR-3MI24-26')
16700.00 HCR- 12 (22-26*)
14100000.00 NCR-3M< 24-26')
14750.00 HCR- 12 (22-26')
93000000.00 NCR-7 (44-46')
530000.00 NCR-2 (24-24.7')
150.00 NCR- 12 (22-26')
12850.00 NCR-3M(24-26')
3600000 . 00 .HCR- 7 (44-46 ' )
390000.00 NCR- 12 (22-26')
17000.00 HCR- 10 (44-46')
120000.00 NCR-2(24-24.7')
Oaom.
Mean
Cone.
7986.36
3523.03
9631.73
9309897.40
9153.51
29700088.98
407740.34
30.71
7945.08
1864177.97
285831.32
11948.53
42721.41
95 Pet. Min. Max.
Upp. Conf. Datact. Datact.
Limit Limit Limit
11288.53
5436.62
14840.23 ,
12228271.78
11871.59
47402410.33
496264.54
52.35 50.00 80.0
10998.85
2991397.71
331992.15
15207.72
130247.99

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
all in unite of parti
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITE, BY CRBMICAL AND KBDIOM/ARBA
per billion, except peaticldes/PCBa which are in unite of parta per trillion
Num. Num.
Time* Sample*
Analyte Detected Analyzed
Metbylene chloride
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene (para)
4 -Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2 -Methylnaphthal ane
Acenaphthane
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Dl -n-butylphthal at •
Pluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzylbutylphthalate
Benzo ( a) anthracene
Chryiene
bl» (2-Bthylhexyl)phthalate
Delta-BBC
Aldrin
Dieldrin
4,4-DDB
gamna- chlordane
Aluminum
Araenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
a
Loweat Rlgheit Highest
Detected . Detected Cone.
Cone.
67.00
1200.00
440.00
240.00
120.00
100.00
470.00
190.00
81.00
480.00
640.00
1200.00
210.00
200.00
750.00
2100.00
2100.00
3200.00
690.00
1200.00
7810000.00
7000.00
110000.00
290.00
710.00
78600000.00
17SOO.OO
Cone.
67.00
1200.00
440.00
240.00
120.00
100.00
470.00
190.00
350.00
480.00
840.00
1200.00
210.00
200.00
750.00
2100.00
2100.00
3200.00
690.00
1300.00
11700000.00
12000.00
110000.00
600.00
710.00
81400000.00
18100.00
Locat.
SBBP-l-R
8BBP-3-R
SEBP-3-R
SSBP-3-R
8BBP-3-R
SBKP-3-R
SBBP-3-R
8BBP-3-R
8BBP-3-R
SBBP-3-R
BBBP-3-R
8BBP-3-R
SBBP-3-R
SBBP-3-R
SBBP-3-R
SBBP-l-R
8BBP-1-R
SBBP-l-R
SBBP-l-R
SBBP-l-R
SBBP-3-R
SBBP-3-R
SBBP-l-R
SBBP-3-R
8BBP-3-R
SBBP-l-R
SBBP-l-R
Oeon.
Mean
Cone.
22
848
513
379
268
344
531
337
168
536
709
848
354
346
670
3694
3694
4560
3117
2793
9559131
9165
110000
417
386
.43
.53
.81
.47
.33
.95
.04
.64
.37
.66
.93
.53
.96
.41
.83
.59
.59
.70
.78
.85
.76
.15
.00
.13
.13
79987749.06
17797
.47
95 Pet.
Dpp . Conf .
Limit
67.
1300.
440.
340.
120.
100.
470.
190.
350.
480.
840.
1300.
310.
300.
750.
3100.
3100.
3300.
690.
1200.
11700000.
12000.
110000
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Min.
Detect .
Limit
15.00
1200.00
1200.00
1300.00
1300.00
1300.00
1300.00
1300.00
•
1200.00
1200.00
1200.00
1200.00
1200.00
1200.00
13000.00
13000.00
13000.00
13000.00
13000.00
•
•
•
Max.
Detect .
Limit
15.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
•
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
1200.0
13000.0
13000.0
13000.0
13000.0
13000.0
•
•
•
600.00
710.00
420.00
420.0
81400000.00
18100.00

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITfe. (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITE, BY CHEMICAL AND KBDIUM/ARBA
all In unit* of parts per billion/ «xc«pt p««tlcid««/PCB« which ar« In units of parts per trillion
(continued)


Analyte
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magneaium
Manganaae
Mercury
Hickel
Potaaaium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Hum.
Time*
Detected
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Hum.
Sample*
Analyzed
2
2
• 2
2
2
2
2'
. 2
2
2
2
2
Loweat
Detected
Cone.
4700.00
29400.00
23400000.00
40000.00
29700000.00
441000.00
390.00
16100.00
1390000.00
365000.00
16300.00
102000.00
Higheat Higheat
Detected Cone.
Cone . Locat .
6600.00 SBBP-3-R
47600.00 SBBP-3-R
25700000.00 SBBP-3-R
110000.00 SBBP-l-R
31300000.00 SBBP-l-R
511000.00 SBBP-3-R
1200.00 SBBP-3-R
16700.00 SBBP-3-R
2890000.00 SBBP-3-R
394000.00. SBBP-l-R
23100.00 SBBP-3-R
119000.00 SBBP-3-R
Oeoro.
Mean
Cone.
5653.32
37467.60
24523050.38
66332.50
30469506.39
474711.49
664.11
17351.37
2004270.44
379222.89
19404.36
110172.59
95 Pet. Min. Max.
Upp. Conf . Detect. Detect.
Limit Limit Limit
6800.00
47800.00
25700000.00
110000.00
31300000.00
511000.00
1200.00
18700.00
2890000.00
394000.00
23100.00
119000.00

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR 8ITR, BT CHEMICAL AND MBDItJM/ARBA
all in uaiti of part* per billion, except pesticide* /PCBa which are In units of parts

Num.
Timaa
Analyte Detected
Methylane Chloride
Acetone
1, 1-Dichloroethane
1,1, 1-Trichloroethana
Bencene
Phenanthrene
Di-n-butylphthalate
Pluoranthene
Pyrene
Banco (a) anthracana
Chryaana
bii (2-Rthylhexyl)phthalat«
Di-n-octylphthalat«
Banzo(b) f luoranthana
Banco ( k ) f luoranthana
Banco ( a ) pyr ana
Banco (g, h, i ) parylana
Delta-BHC
Oamma-BHC
Aldrin
Raptachlor apoxida
Dialdrin
4,4-DDK
Bndrin
Bndoculfan IZ
4,4-DDD
4,4-DOT
18
11
1
2
1
6
1
7
7
4
5
11
1
4
3
3
1
7
3
a
3
3
3
i
3
1
5
Nun.
Samples
Analyzed
30
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
Lowest Highest Highest
Datactad Detaetad Cone.
Cone .
13.00
13.00
19.00
3.00
3.00
40.00
140.00
63.00
50.00
83.00
120.00
110.00
290.00
130.00
160.00
140.00
230.00
1700.00
930.00
1100.00
300.00
1900.00
1100.00
7600.00
2700.00
4700.00
8900.00
Cone.
73.00
89.00
19.00
3.00
3.00
180.00
140.00
330.00
310.00
210.00
270. .00
3900.00
290.00
320.00
250.00
350.00
230.00
5400.00
1500.00
2000.00
3100.00
2350.00
38000.00
18000.00
7800.00
4700.00
77000.00
Locat.
BSD- 13 -R
SBD-ll-R
8TO-14-R
3TO-7-R
SBD-14-R
8BD-10-R
8BD-12-R
8BD-10-R
SBB-10-R
8BD-10-R
SBD-8-R
98D-18-R
SBD-1S-R
SBD-8-R
SBD-8-R
SBD-8-R
SBD-8-R
SBD-4-R
8BD-17-R
SBD-10-R
SBD-17-R
SBD-ll-R
SBD-17-R
SBD-10-R
SBD-4-R
SBD-13-R
SBD-3-R
Oeom.
Mean
Cone.
27
17
4
4
4
411
743
481
475
567
545
581
773
618
651
699
1661
3690
2702
2683
3633
3099
3385
3535
7603
3886
7637
.55
.35
.61
.09
.31
.35
.56
.56
.31
.52
.96
.04
.34
.38
.18
.43
.53
.39
.18
.05
.35
.56
.88
.31
.86
.90
.34
par trillion
95 Pet.
Upp . Conf .
Limit
40
37
5
. 4
4
1418
997
1045
1077
1077
1007
1137
932
944
964
998
3363
8760
8714
8973
10156
11981
17101
17369
23435
13385
28532
.44
.77
.77
.63
.56
.18
.61
.63
.79
.44
.92
.78
.25
.83
.55
.79
.68
.88
.11
.99
.62
.79
.00
.26
.58
.69
.83
Min.
Datact.
Limit
26.50
15.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
980.00
980.00
1100.00
1100.00
980.00
980.00
760.00
980.00
980.00
980.00
980.00
980.00
2500.00
1700.00
1500.00
1700.00
1600.00
1700.00
1500.00
4700.00
1500.00
3500.00
Max.
Detact .
Limit
28.0
61.6
11.0
11.0
11.0
2100.0
2100.0
2100.0
3100.0
2100.0
2100.0
2100.0
2100.0
2100.0
2100.0
2100.0
6300.0
36000.0
36000.0
36000.0
36000.0
54000.0
54000.0
54000.0
94000.0
54000.0
71000.0

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITB, BY CBBMICAL AND MBDIDM/ARBA
all in units of parti per billion, except pesticides /PCBs which are in units of parts par trillion

Analyte
Methoxyclor
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Num.
Times
Detected
1
20
1
20
20
20
3
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
13
20
20
1
20
20
20
(continued)
Num. Lowest Highest Highest
Samples Detected Detected Cone.
Analyzed . Cone .
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
19
20
20
20
16000.
6480000.
15200.
710.
64SOO.
460.
640.
5170000.
13400.
4600.
10400.
8590000.
21000.
4210000.
117000.
80.
7400.
1320000.
710.
240000.
12000.
66800.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Cone.
16000.00
27800000.00
15200.00
27600.00
218000.00
1300.00
2100.00
115000000.00
34800.00
17700.00
41950.00
69000000.00
100000.00
48700000.00
695000.00
1650.60
35400.00
6340000.00
710.00
2260000.00
49000.00
293000.00
Locat.
SBD-7-R
SBD-16-R
SBD-12SP
8BD-10-R
8BD-9-R
8BD-16-R
SBD-18-R
SBD-18-R
SBD-16-R
BBD-18-R
SBD-4SP
SBD-9-R
SBD-8-R
SBD-18-R
SBD-8-R
SBD-4SP
SBD-16-R
SBD-16-R
SBD-12SP
SBD-12SP
SBD-16-R
SBD-ll-R
Oeom.
Mean
Cone.
14474
16790176
6JB8
14770
108553
763
416
31275490
22382
9190
20678
22410606
43413
11974238
367373
122
21627
3226462
333
550368
29698
120034
.54
.31
.67
.00
.56
.27
.41
.03
.94
.23
.88
.62
.93
.01
.04
.26
.57
.71
.22
.81
.60
.76
95 Pet.
Upp . Conf .
Limit
62847
20683775
7263
34174
126267
877
690
71761993
25924
11282
26689
29146279
56342
19965754
529966
438
26940
4321208
384
915804
35624
155387
.59
.34
.19
.30
.53
.54
.26
.64
.49
.33
.57
.32
.47
.78
.90
.81
.52
.48
.77
.80
.23
.89
Min. Max.
Detect. Detect.
Limit Limit
7300.00 270000.0
.
9600.00 15000.0
.
.
.
480.00 1500.0
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
•
60.00 100.0
.
.
500.00 920.0
.
.
•

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITB, BY CHEMICAL AND MBDIUM/ARBA
all in unite of parta par billion, except pesticides /PCBs which ara in unlta of parta par trillion


Analyte
Mathylana Chloride
Ac at one
Carbon Diaulfida
1, 1-Dichloroethana
cia-l,2-Dlchloroathylana
Chloroform
3-Butanone (MHK)
Triehloroathylana
Bensana
4-Mathyl-2-Pantanona
2-Haxanona (MBK)
Tatrachloroathylana
Toluene
Bthylbenzene
Styrene
1,4-Diehlorobansana (para)
Isopropylbenzene
Naphthalene
1,2, 4-Trimathylbeniana
1,3, S-Trimethylbentene
Total Xylanes
Phenol
2 -Mathylphanol
4-Nathylphanol
2 , 4-Dimethylphanol
Di-n-tratylphthalate
bl«(2-lthylhaxyl)phthalata
Num.
Times
Detected
1
2
3
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
Num. . Lowest Highest Highest
Samples
Analyzed
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Datactad
Cone.
12.50
46.00
0.45
1.00
0.35
5.50
15.00
9.50
0.70
6.50
4.00
1.00
1.00
9.50
2.00
0.50
0.30
0.80
0.95
0.30
0.95
775.00
16.50
21.50
3.00
2.00
3.50
Datactad Cone.
Cone . Locat .
12.50 NCR-12DSP
320.00 NCR-13DSP
1.00 NCR-12D-II
1.00 NCR-12DSP
0.35 NCR-12D9P
5.50 NCR-12DSP
60.50 NCR-12D9P
9.50 NCR-12D9P
5.00 NCR-12DSP
6.50 NCR-12D8P
4.00 NCR-12D3P
1.00 NCR-12D9P
49.50 NCR-12D9P
9.50 NCR-12DSP
67.00 NCR-12DSP
8.00 NCR-12DSP
0.30 NCR-12D9P
0.80 NCR-12D9P
0.95 NCR-12D3P
0.30 NCR-12DSP
26.00 NCR-12DSP
2650.00 NCR-12D8P
175.00 NCR-12D9P
245.00 NCR-12D9P
;27.00 NCR-12D8P
2.00 NCR-12D-Z
3.50 NCR-12D-Z
Oeom.
Maan
Cone.
5.00
54.09
0.63
0.63
0.44
1.11
25.83
1.33
1.21
3.65
3.11
0.63
5.30
1.33
7.38
2.15
0.30
0.80
0.95
0.30
3.67
1350.75
48.70
60.96
5.74
5.16
6.22
95 Pet.
Upp . Conf .
Limit
12.50
98782535923601
3.36
2.99
0.74
142059072.90
5788.95
2241049355649.3
4190856.40
44.18
5.80
2.99
7.127841117B17
2241049355649.3
3.0285093115816
340390871.49
0.30
0.80
0.95
0.30
20692517313047
58539.74
50726087.94
269616243.69
497721907.72
4406981983.06
83517866.96
Min. Max.
Dataet. Detect.
Limit Limit
4.00 4.0
21.50 21.5
.
1.00 1.0
1.00 1.0
1.00 1.0
.
1.00 1.0
1.00 1.0
5.00 6.0
5.00 6.0
1.00 1.0
•
1.00 1.0
.
5.00 5.0
•
•
•
•
• .
•
•
•
•
5.00 55.0
5.00 55.0

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR BITS, BY CHEMICAL AND MBDIUM/ARBA
all in unito of parts par billion, axcapt paatlcidaa/PCBa which ar« in units of parti par trillion

Analyta
Oantaa-BBC
Baptachlor
Bndoaulfan «ulf«ta
Aluminum
Antimony
Araanic
Barium
Baryllium
Calcium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Coppar
Iron
Magnaaiua
Manganaaa
Hlckal
Potaaaium
Salanium
Silvar
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Num.
Tima*
Datactad
1
2
1
2
2
1
3
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
Num.
Sanplaa
Analyzed
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Lowaat
Datactad
Cone.
0.
0.
0.
99.
26.
2.
9.
1.
379000.
32.
e.
31.
631.
61500.
21.
22.
9990.
1.
4.
66050.
15.
12.
41
59
69
20
60
50
45
00
00
85
40
00
50
00
30
SO
00
00
25
00
25
25
(continuad)
Righaat Bighaat Oaora.
Datactad Cone. Mean
Cone.
0.41
6.70
0.69
223.50
44.75
2.50
97.60
1.00
511000.00
32. as
8.40
31.00
655.50
97150.00
24.25
22.80
117500.00
1.00
4.25
83050.00
15.25
15.70
Locat.
NCR-12D-II
NCR-12D-I
NCR-12D-II
NCR-12DSP
NCR-12D3P
NCR-12DSP
NCR-12DSP
NCR-13DSP
HCR-12D-II
NCR-12D3P
NCR-12DSP
NCR-12DSP
NCR-12DSP
NCR-12D-I
HCR-12D-II
NCR-12DSP
NCR-12DSP
NCR-12DSP
NCR-12DSP
HCR-12DSP
NCR-12DSP
NCR-12D-II
Cone.
3
4
7
130
25
1
22
0
45B748
5
4
4
641
83172
23
7
25957
4
2
72631
3
12
.71
.62
.01
.40
.54
.78
.56
.63
.96
.90
.19
.53
.42
.82
.13
.60
.52
.83
.77
.71
.94
.44
95 Pet.
Upp . Conf .
Limit
5.2875826357818
8.8525121067B15
4.4996957382B20
1075.46
682.79
4.33
173036746.27
2.99
667440.07
13314286863.38
186.96
3003140543796.9
655.50
172258.50
24.25
83333.04
653736088476.73
1132078340.20
11.95
92942.70
2578741.55
22.21
Min.
Datact.
Limit
10.00
50.00
20.00
200.00
28.00
3.00
.
1.00
.
5.00
5.00
3.00
•
•
•
7.00
.
15.00
4.00 •
.
4.00
20.00
Max.
Datact .
Limit
50.0
50.0
100.0
200.0
28.0
3.0
.
1.0
•
5.0
7.0
4.0
•
•
•
11.0
.
30.0
5.0

4.0
20.0

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITE, BT CHEMICAL AND MBDIOM/ARBA
all in unit* of part* per billion, except pe*tielde*/PCB* which are in unit* of



Analyte
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
Bthylbenzene
Total Xylene*
Phenol
Diethylphthalate
Pentachlorophenol
Di-n-butylphthal«te
Benzylbutylphthalate
bi* (2-Bthylhexyl)phthalat«
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Delta-BHC
Oamna-BHC
Reptachlor
Aldrin
Reptachlor epoxide
Dieldrin
4,4-DDB
4,4-DDD
Bndosulfan culfate
4,4-DDT
Methoxyclor
Bodrin ketone
Num.
Time*
Detected
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
3
9
2
2
3
6
18
1
1
1
10
1
3
2
2
2
Nun. Lowest
Sample*
Analyzed
23
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
Detected
Cone.
4.
5.
1.
1.
5.
1.
a.
i.
i.
3.
1.
2.
0.
0.
10.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
240.
0.
140.
2.
2.
00
SO
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
ao
54
00
SI
as
70
89
86
SB
81
00
89
00
SO
40
r wj. Aiuvb w*,
Righeat
Detected
Cone.
4.00
27.00
1.00
1.00
S.OO
1.00
8.00
4.00
2.00
3.00
1.00
4.00
23.00
0.65
49.00
1.20
3.00
90.00
0.89
0.86
0.58
570.00
240.00
56.00
670.00
7.80
22.00

Highest
Cone.
Locat.
NCR-2Z-ZZ
NCR-11DSP
HCR-11DSP
NCR-2M-Z
NCR-2M-Z
NCR-2M-Z
HCR-2M-Z
MCR-43-Z
NCR-9M-ZZ
KCR-13S-I
NCR-4M-Z
KCR-5M-I
NCR- 58- Z
KCR-3M-I
HCR-3S-Z
HCR-2S-Z
NCR-11D-ZZ
NCR-13S-IZ
NCR-9M-Z
NCR-11D-Z
NCR-10M-Z
NCR-11D-ZZ
HCR-11D-ZZ
NCR-11D-ZZ
NCR-11D-II
NCR-4S-Z
NCR-11D-ZZ

part* per trillion

Oeora.
Mean
Cone.
1.
2.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
2.
9.
2.
2.
2.
4.
5.
4.
3.
3.
4.
4.
8.
5.
9.
8.
10
.37
9
50
86
51
51
S3
51
S3
49
45
94
49
49
33
32
06
01
83
67
57
57
92
50
61
56
67
94
04

95 Pet.
Dpp . Conf .
Limit
1.97
3.90
0.52
0.52
0.61
0.52
0.65
2.67
2.68
10.82
2.64
2.69
3.46
6.85
7.70
6.96
S.86
8.00
6.56
6.57
13.98
23.27
15.34
14.22
21.52
83.47
12.27

Min.
Detect .
Limit
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
S.OO
2.00
20.00
5.00
2.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
0.86
2.00
1.80
2.00
2.00
4.00
0.78
4.00
4.00
4.00
2.90
4.00

Max.
Detect .
Limit
S.O
27.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
10.0
10.0
SO.O
10.0
10.0
10.0
SO.O
50.0
SO.O
50.0
;50.0
SO.O
SO.O
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
500.0
100.0

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE.'(continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITE, BY CHEMICAL AND
all in units of parts per billion, except pe0tlcide«/PCBi which are
i
_ •» v _ .. _ _*.__.._ r- M*V*«^ * -. J*l 1 1 *t.^_i_Al.AV **«*»••.*> M_h._H

Analyte
Bndrln aldehyde
alpha- chlordana
gamma- chlordana
Aluminum
Antimony
Arcenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magneelun
Manganeee
Mercury
Nickel
Potaaaium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zlno
Num.
Time*
(continued)
Num. Lowest Highest Hlgheat
Sample* Detected Detected Cone.
Detected Analyzed Cone.
3
4
2
33
4
20
44
8
3
44
17
9
22
42
11
44
43
2
IS
44
3
43
13
31
45
45
45
44
41
44
45
45
. 43
44
45
45
45
45
43
44
45
44
44
44
42
43
45
44
2.50
0.62
i.eo
73.80
23.10
3.00
3.40
1.00
4.40
35600.00
7.50
6.60
3.10
59.50
2.60
28500.00
17.25
1.20
9.50
1370.00
5.00
15100.00
4.70
3.70
Cone
7.60
2.20
15.00
80800.00
69.80
16.40
431.00
3.10
5.00
577000.00
134.00
43.90
127.00
108000.00
77.90
340000.00
3930.00
1.80
155.00
24300.00
6.50
3610000.00
150.00
508.00
Locat .
NCR-11D-II
NCR-4S-II
NCR- 1 ID- II
NCR-2I-I
NCR-11DSP
NCR-1M-II
NCR-2I-I
NCR-2X-I
NCR-11M-I
NCR-2I-II
NCR-38-I
NCR-2X-X
NCR-2I-II
NCR-2I-I
NCR-2I-I
NCR-11M-I
.NCR-2I-ZI
NCR-2I-I
NCR-38-I
NCR-2I-I
NCR-11DSP
NCR-3S-II
NCR-2Z-I
NCR-2I-II
MBDIUM/ARBA
in units of parts per trillion
Oeom.
Mean
Cone.
6
4
3
543
13
2
36
0
2
216649
7
4
5
1247
3
86075
135
0
12
6714
2
93015
4
23
.94
.56
.88
.84
.96
.95
.54
.61
.12
.56
.33
.15
.51
.78
.97
.61
.41
.11
.21
.22
.36
.46
.02
.84
95 Pet.'
Upp . Conf .
Limit
12
8
9
19125
16
5
139
0
2
498585
46
6
25
30423
13
117865
1871
0
S3
10034
2
193169
14
101
.83
.73
.24
.76
.30
.73
.76
.77
.30
.03
.16
.80
.99
.70
.01
.09
.25
.16
.64
.81
.63
.53
.76
.35
Min.
Detect.
Limit
1.70
2.00
0.74
35.00
22.00
2.00
200.00
1.00
4.00
•
5.00
5.00
3.00
42.00
1.00
•
33.70
0.20
7.00
•
4.00
•
4.00
9.30
Max.
Detect.
Limit
100.0
500.0
500.0
228.0
28.0
3.0
200.0
1.0
4.0
•
5.0
7.0
4.0
287.0
27.0
•
57.7
0.2
11.0
•
5.0
•
4.0
96.8

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS P<
all in unit* of parti par billion. except l


Analyte
Carbon Dieulf id*
1,1, 1-Trichloroethan*
4 -Methyl - 2 - Pent anon*
T«trachloro«thyl*n«
Toluene
Bthylbenzene
Total Xylene*
Phenol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Bencoie Acid
Dlethylphthal at *
Di-n-butylphthalate
bl* (2-Bthylh*xyl)phthalate
Delta-BHC
Oamma-BRC
Reptachlor apoxide
4,4-DDT
Aluminum
Ar**nic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Num.
Time*
Detected
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
8
2
1
1
1
11
4
11
1
1
11
3
2
4 •
11
Hum.
Sample*
Analyzed
11
11
11
11
11
11
'll
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
Lowe at
Detected
Cone.
0.65
3.00
2.00
4.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
11.00
3.00
5.00
0.55
0.30
0.70
14.00
5.10
14.00
40.00
436.00
3.10
55.00
2.10
5.70
46900.00
26.90
16.00
21.90
468.00
3R BITS, BY CHEMICAL AND
pe*ticide*/PCB* which are
nage Swale Surface Water
Righeat Highest
Detected Cone.
Cone . Locat .
8.00 SW-18-R
2.00 SW-4-R
2.00 SW-ll-R
4.00 SW-18-R
2.00 SW-ll-R
1.00 SW-13
3.00 SW-11SP
11.00 8W-4-R
6.50 SW-ll-R
5.00 SW-13
0.55 SW-ll-R
0.40 SW-ll-R
1000.00 8W-18-R
21.00 SW-4-R
5.10 SW-2-R
14.00 SW-6-R
40.00 SW-4-R
25300.00 SW-13
30.60 SW-13
456.00 SW-13
2.10 SW-8-R
5.70 SW-13
286000.00 SW-13
38.00 SW-8-R
,25.00 SW-13
94.00 SW-13
38000.00 SW-13
MBDIUM/ARBA
in unit* of parta
Oeom.
Mean
Cone.
2.26
2.45
4.60
2.61
2.40
2.30
2.54
5.32
4.84
21.00
4.05
3.05
9.10
9.39
7.47
8.19
17.00
1563.81
3.62
132.07
1.00
2.64
120300.45
8.17
6.30
16.96
2938.94
per trillion
95 Pet.
Dpp . Conf .
Limit
4.37
2.00
5.66
2.86
2.00
2.83
3.00
6.34
5.47
32.51
8.36
15.93
1067.71
24.55
16.26
20.43
44.51
28869.58
17.03
294.03
1.29
3.21
227431.36
24.08
11.97
47.97
62958.16

Mln.

Max.
Detect. Detect.
Limit
5.00
5.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
9.00
9.00
47.00
9.00
9.00
10.00
9.40
9.40
9.40
19.00
•
4.00
.
1.00
4.00
•
10.00
7.00
20.00
•
Limit
5.0
5.0
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
10.0
10.0
51.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
51.0
51.0
51.0
100.0
•
4.0
•
2.0
5.0
•
10.0
10.0
20.0
•

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITB, BT CHEMICAL AND MBDIOM/ARRA
all In units of parts per billion, except pesticidea/PCBs which are in units of parta per trillion

"


Analyte
L«»d
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Num.
Time*
Detected
11
11
11
4
11
11
1
2
6
4
Num.
Samples
Analyzed
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
	 A A r n^avA. o^Meayw O*««*AW BU&LQW nabv«7
Lowest Highest Righeat
Detected
Cone.
6.10
28500.00
27.00
27.00
5650.00
29800.00
4.40
9.10
24.00
15.60
Detected Cone.
Cone . Locat .
352.00 SW-8-R
211000.00 SW-11SP
1690.00 SW-8-R
63.00 SW-8-R
211000.00 SW-11SP
393500.00 SW-ll-R
4.40 SW-11SP
61.00 SW-13
2360.00 SW-13
40.60 0W-7-R
Oeom.
Mean
Cone.
24.95
59387.65
129.55
17.07
21577.36
92516.52
2.63
11.69
45.10
8.86
95 Pet.
Upp . Conf .
Limit
587.36
113425.60
3226.35
43.30
135455.43
262707.26
2.95
20.05
3687. S3
25.08
Min. Max.
Detect. Detect.
Limit Limit
. .
•
•
20.00 20.0
.
.
5.00 5.0
20.00 20.0
20.00 20.0
10.00 10.0

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITS, BY CHEMICAL AND MEDIUM/ AREA
all la unit* of part* par billion, .except pesticides /PCBs which are in unita of parts per trillion

Analyte
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
2-Butanone (M8K)
Benzene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
2-Hexanone (MBK)
Toluene
Chlorobenzena
Bthylbenzene
Total Xylenea
Phenol
1, 3-Diehlorobenzene
1, 2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylphenol
4-M«thylph*nol
2 , 4-Dimethylphenol
Benzoie Acid
Naphthalene
4 -Chloroani 1 in*
2-M«thylnaphthalan*
2 , 6-Dinitrotoluene
Acenaphthene
Diethylphthalata
Fluorane
N-Nitrosodlphenylanine
t>h*naathr*n«
Dl-n-butylphthalate
Num.
Times
Nun.
Samples
Detected Analyzed
1
2
4
3
3
2
6
3
6
S
6
1
1
7
6
7
2
4
1
1
1
3
7
2
2
3
3
8
B
S
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8 •
8
Lowest Highest Highest
Detected Detected Cone.
Cone.
470.00
490.00
96.00
38.00
3.00
11.00
3.00
28.00
2.00
12.00
45.00
6.00
16.00
12.00
400.00
18.00
4300.00 .
0.60
180.00
5.00
51.00
0.80
1.00
0.60
2.00
1.00
0.40
Cone.
470.00
2200.00
1400.00
50.00
21.00
270.00
410.00
56.00
660.00
1400.00
1800.00
6.00
16.00
960.00
3750.00
980.00
12000.00
200.00
160.00
S.OO
51.00
1.00
55.00
1.00
, 7.00
2.00
4.00
Locat.
SBBP-13-R
SBHP-13-R
8BBP-13-R
SBBP-16-R
SBBF-14-R
SBBP-5SP
SBBP-SSP
SBBP-16-R
SBBP-16-R
SBBP-SSP
8BBP-7-R
SBBP-16-R
SBBP-16-R
SBBP-7-R
SBBP-5-R
SBBP-16-R
SBBP-7-R
SBBP-5-R
SBBP-5SP
SBBP-21-R
SBBP-7-R
8BBP-21-R
SBBP-7-R
SBBP-21-R
8BBP-16-R
SXBP-16-R
SBBP-16-R
Oeom.
Mean
Cone.
14
41
77
10
15
21
21
12
22
51
138
7
S
155
340
61
147
11
7
7
9
3
13
4
6
4
4
.09
.90
.11
.68
.14
.54
.46
.61
.32
.72
.89
.32
.28
.33
.17
.24
.21
.51
.80
.07
.57
.76
.98
.44
.66
.60
.15
95 Pet.
tjpp . Conf .
Limit
5561
147284
36989
635
422
667
98816
392
149234
3142928
1300392
39
SO
815S2
39568104
32S6
9364706
2970
103
39
107
163
332
156
50
as
220
.49
.93
.82
.31
.50
.06
.98
.01
.44
.48
.06
.87
.02
.74
.28
.22
.78
.92
.75
.96
.91
.63
.92
.19
.40
.73
.23
Min. Max.
Detect . Detect .
Limit
5.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
48.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
Limit
200.0
200.0
200.0
100.0
200.0
200.0
5.0
100.0
25.0
25.0
11.0
160.0
160.0
10.0
11.0
10.0
800.0
160.0
11.0
160.0
160.0
160.0
10.0
160.0
160.0
160.0
160.0

-------
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR THE NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE SITE, (continued).
«1I is -liit
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SITK, BY CHKMICAL AND MBDIUM/ARKA
: cf •?•»»•• •»»• Vitlllrm. MTeenfe BeafcieideB/PCBfl which aro in iinlt-.n ot nurfa n«i- t-.r11llnn


Num.
Timei
Analyte Detected
Benxylbutylpht hal at •
bie(2-Bthylhaxyl)phthalate
Delta-BHC
damma-BBC
Heptachlor
Aldrln
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDT
Aluminum
Arienic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium, total
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnaaium
Manganaae
Mercury
Nickel
Potaiaium
Sodium
Vanadium
lino
2
7
3
1
a
i
i
3
e
a
8
i
3
a
a
4
5
a
a
a
a
2
a
a
8
4
•
Num.
Samples
Analyzed
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
e
a
a
a
a
a
e
a
a
e
a
a
a
e
a
e
8
8
8
' 8
(continued)
Loweat Highest Higheat
Detected Detected Cone.
Cone.
0.90
0.70
19.00
52.00
91.00
82.00
15.00
44.00
1140.00
9.50
147.00
2.20
6.10
93000.00
26.00
12.50
28.00
12555.00
17.40
107000.00
76.00
O.SO
34.00
26200.00
84800.00
23.00
204.00
Cone . Locat .
4.00 SBBP-S-R
10.00 SBBP-S-R
180.00 SBBP-S-R
52.00 3KRP-14-R
1100.00 SBBP-S-R
82.00 SXBP-16-R
15.00 SBBP-13-R
110.00 snp-io-R
325000.00 8BKP-14-R
58.60 SBBF-10-R
7610.00 SBBP-10-R
2.20 S8BP-14-R
9.00 SBBP-16-R
396000.00 8BBP-14-R
116.00 8BBP-5SP
93.00 SBBP-21-R
99.00 SBBP-16-R
390000.00 SBBP-10-R
1010.00 SBBP-16-R
419000.00 SBBP-7-R
2960.00 SBBP-14-R
0.50 SBBP-16-R
157100 SBBP-5SP
445000.00 SBBP-21-R
1660000.60 SBBP-21-R
33.00 BBBP-S-R
1410.00 SWP-7-R

Oeom.
Mean
Cone.
5.62
4.11
27.49
23.57
22.44
18.56
21.94
71.41
7047.34
20.02
756.29
1.35
4.37
153062. 89
52.19
17.04
32.26
43788.58
115.74
254841.73
392.71
0.15
90.73
202462.04
S24801.63
17.91
564. «t
95 Pet.
Opp . Cont .
Limit
77.18
154.01
433.53
929.91
14360.69
1305.50
899.77
655.50
1204135.71
41.56
9253.53
2.85
17.52
279944.47
105.03
178.88
130.24
1010524.33
3668.17
432266.14
8077.09
0.44
146.97
1095864.25
4053790.68
31.93
1389.99
Min. Max.
Detect. Detect.
Limit Limit
10.00 160.0
160.00 160.0
9.40 100.0
9.40 535.0
9.40 97.0
9.40 535.0
9.40 535.0
19.00 1050.0
.
.
•
2.00 10.0
5.00 50.0
• *
.
10.00 100.0
20.00 50.0
•
.
.
•
0.20 0.2
•
• e
.
20.00 40.0
.

-------
        APPENDIX IV




STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE

-------
Jew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
0 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233
                                                                                Thomas C. Jorllng
                                                                                Commissioner
                                                  SEP  17 1993
   Mr. George Pavlou, P.E.
   Acting Director
   Emergency & Remedial Response Division
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Region n
   26 Federal Plaza - Rm 737
   New York, New York  10278

   Dear Mr. Pavlou:

          Re:   Niagara County Refuse Site, Wheatfield (T), Niagara County,
                New York, Site No. 9-32-026

   The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Niagara County Refuse (NCR) site has been reviewed by the New
   York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the New York State Department
   of Health (NYSDOH).  This ROD  concerns the NCR landfill closure, the only currently  identified
   operable unit for this site.

   The NYSDEC and NYSDOH concur with the selected remedy listed  in the ROD.  This Alternative
   includes a standard Title 6 NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste Landfill cap with a clay barrier wall, leachate
   collection, gas venting, field tile drain removal, long term monitoring and erosion control. In addition,
   a wetlands assessment will be performed as part of the remedial design.

   II'you have any questions, please contact Mr. Robert W. Schick, P.E.,  of my staff, at 518/457-4343.

                                           Sincerely,
                                           Ann Hill DeBarbieri
                                           Deputy Commissioner
                                           Office of Environmental Remediation
  cc:    C. Petersen, USEPA
         K. Lynch, USEPA
         M. Negrelli, USEPA
         D. Hettrick, NYSDOH

-------