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 ------- |