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
------- |