SDMS Document

RECORD OF DECISION

Hertel Landfill Site Town of Plattekill

Ulster County, New York

XI

3 3

J l

m -n

•

DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

Site Name and Location

Hertel Landfill, Town of Plattekill, Ulster County, New York

Statement of Basis and Purpose

This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Hertel Landfill site (the Site), located in the Town of Plattekill, Ulster County, New York, which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive • Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, as amended, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300. This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for the Site. The information supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the administrative record for the Site. The administrative record index is attached (Appendix III).

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

Assessment of the Site

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.

Description of the Selected Remedy

This operable unit represents the entire remedial action planned for the Site. It addresses the principal threats posed by the Site through controlling the source of contamination and the migration of contaminated leachate, as well as providing for the capture and treatment of contaminated groundwater.

The major components of the selected remedy include:

* Capping of the landfill in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 closure requirements for New York State solid waste landfills; the areal extent of the cap is expected to be approximately 13 acres although the exact extent of the cap will not be determined until the design phase j, of the project; r

* Additional soil sampling along the western portion of ^ the disposal area to determine the need to extend the ^ cap or to consolidate these soils under the cap;

!-•

U>

* Installation and monitoring of landfill gas vents throughout the landfill mound;

* Development and implementation of an on-site groundwater extraction and treatment system utilizing innovative treatment via membrane microfiltration and an ultraviolet light and hydrogen peroxide oxidation system;

* Performance of a treatability study to demonstrate that the innovative groundwater treatment system is effective. If the study demonstrates that this technology is not effective, then a contingency remedy which utilizes precipitation, filtration, and carbon adsorption for groundwater treatment will be implemented. The contingency remedy is identical to the selected remedy in all other aspects;

* Development and implementation of a groundwater monitoring program including additional sampling and analysis of residential wells and subsequent follow up actions as necessary;

* Construction of fencing around the perimeter of the approximately 13-acre landfill area part of the Site, as well as the Site area;

* Recommendations that ordinances be established or restrictions imposed on the deed to ensure that future use of the Site property will maintain the integrity of the cap; and

* Measures to mitigate potential disturbance of adjacent wetland.

Declaration

The selected remedy, and contingency remedy are protective of human health and the environment, comply with federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and are cost effective. However, because treatment of the principal threats of the Site was not found to be practicable, this remedy and contingency remedy do not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the source control portion of the remedy. The size of the landfill, and the fact that the remedial -a investigation did not identify on-site hot spots that represent ^ the major sources of contamination, preclude a remedy in which contaminants could be excavated and treated effectively. 5 However, the selected remedy and contingency remedy do call for the treatment of contaminated groundwater at the Site and hence satisfy the preference for treatment for this portion of the remedy. ii

•J

r>

o

The selected remedy and contingency remedy include a groundwater extraction and treatment system which reduces the toxicity and mobility of contaminated groundwater. The permanence of reduction in contaminated groundwater toxicity would be monitored upon discontinuation of the pump and treat system.

Since this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based levels, a review will be conducted no later than five years after commencement of the remedial action, and every five years thereafter, to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.

^ f ^ ^ ^

onstantine Sidamon-Eristoff Regional Administrator

1-3

o

00

DECISION SUMMARY HERTEL LANDFILL SITE

TOWN OF PLATTEKILL ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

United States Environmental Protection Agency Region II, New York

3B

o o

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3

SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 4

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 12

SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 17

SELECTED REMEDY 25

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 29

DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 32

ATTACHMENTS

APPENDIX I. APPENDIX II. APPENDIX III. APPENDIX IV. APPENDIX V.

FIGURES TABLES ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

1-3

o o

o

SITS HAME, LOCATIOM AND DESCRIPTION

The Hertel Landfill (the Site) is located in the town of Plattekill, Ulster County, New York, just south of U.S. Route 44/NY Route 55 and approximately midway between Bedell Avenue and Tuckers Corner Road (see Figure 1). The property occupies approximately 80 acres and is oriented in a north-south direction; the entire 80-acre property is herein considered the Site. The landfill area occupies approximately 13 acres of the property, ' he 80-acre property is zoned for residential use.

A locked gate exists across the main access road near Route 44/55; however, there is no perimeter fence. There are no buildings on the Site. Private residences are located north of the Site on Route 44/55 (approximately 1200 feet from the landfill), and also east of the Site on Tuckers Corner Road (approximately 3000 feet from the landfill).

The topography of the Site is generally flat with a gentle overall slope descending to the east. Abundant vegetation covers most of the property with the exception of limited portions of the landfill. This landfill is located roughly at the center of the Site and is covered with vegetation, rocky soil, wastes and patches of grass and small shrubs. Previous investigations identified a number of waste disposal areas which comprise the landfill (see Figure 2).

Wetlands border the Site to the north, south, and east. Based on the Tentative Freshwater Wetlands Map of Ulster County (New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), 1986), areas identified as potential, wetlands also cover approximately 13 percent of the total area of the Site. A small unnamed stream crosses the southern and eastern area of the Site and flows in a northeasterly direction, bordering the east side of the fill area.

A total of five ecological community types have been identified on-site, including old field, forested upland, forested wetland, stream and open water (pond). The forested wetland is located in a basin in the southwest area of the Site; vegetation species that have been observed include tussock sedge, sphagnum moss and various hydrophytic perennials and annuals. Hydrophytic shrubs and herbaceous species were found in the stream area. The ponded wetland area in the northern section of the Site contains floating, submergent and emergent vegetation. Thirteen plant en species, which are on the NYSDEC protected status list, exist on ^ the Site.

o There are no federally listed threatened or endangered species 2 identified at the Site. One threatened species protected under the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, the red M shouldered hawk, was identified on the Site. ^

Two aquifers exist beneath the Site. The bedrock material is the Austin Glen formation and described as a greywacke and shale; variegated light blue to blue-grey fine to medium grained sandstone (greywacke) with occasional seams of shale have been observed. The rock has well defined bedding planes and the upper few feet are slightly weathered. The overburden is a glacial till deposit consisting of an unsorted mixture of material (clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders) which widely range in size, shape, and permeability. Overlying the till deposit is a layer of light brown fine and or fine sand and silt.

A review of existing flood insurance maps indicated that no portions of the Site are located in either the 100- or 500-year flood zone.

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY

The Hertel Landfill was established in 1963 as a municipal waste landfill. Based upon an analysis of aerial photos it is believed that about 10 acres of the Site were used when the landfill was operating. Until 1975 the landfill was owned and operated by Carlo Hertel and later by his family (Hertel Enterprises). Around 1970, Dutchess Sanitation Services, Inc. began hauling refuse from Dutchess County to the Hertel Landfill and in 1975, Dutchess Sanitation Services, Inc. purchased the landfill.

In April 1976, the Ulster County Department of Health (UCDOH) revoked the landfill permit for a variety of violations, among which were allegations of illegal industrial dumping. The UCDOH action and a Town of Plattekill ordinance prohibiting the dumping of out-of-town garbage resulted in the permanent closing of the Site in March of 1977.

Ownership of the Site then passed from Dutchess Sanitation Ser-vices, Inc. through two subsequent parties [a partnership known as F.I.C.A. and then to Hudson Valley Environmental Seirvices, Inc. (HVES) ] to its current owner, Paul V. Winters and his corporation. Environmental Landfills, Inc. (ELI), based in New Windsor, New York. No landfilling operations or other activities are currently performed at the Site under the present proprietor, ELI.

During this time, the New York State Departments of Environmental Conservation, Health (NYSDOH), and Law (NYSDOL) had filed suit a; against F.I.C.A. and HVES for cleanup of the landfill Site; this ^ action was subsequently discontinued following the placement of the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) and the o Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) assumption of the lead ° role for Site activities. However, the State did reserve the right to activate the case in the future. Previous M investigations included the installation of five groundwater ^

No

monitoring wells in 1981, under the supervision of Wehran Engineering, Inc. and at the direction of the State of New York. In 1981, NYSDEC directed HVES to conduct groundwater monitoring. Sampling and analysis of groundwater in 1980 and 1982 revealed measurable amounts of various organic compounds and a number of metals. Three surface water samples, described as leachate, were collected in March and May of 1981 by the NYSDEC. Analyses indicated phenols, organic compounds and a number of metals. Based on these results, the NYSDEC placed the Hertel Ijandfill Site on the New York State L"3t of Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. In 1983, the Site was recommended for inclusion on the NPL by the NYSDEC and in October 1984, the EPA proposed the Hertel Landfill Site for inclusion on the NPL. In June 1986, the Hertel Landfill Site was placed on the final list of federal Superfund sites.

In 1987, Dynamac Corporation, on behalf of the current owner, ELI, initiated the preparation of a "Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study Work Plan/Scoping Document" under the guidance of the NYSDOL. ELI had intended to implement this Work Plan, but subsequently declined to do so. Therefore, the completion of the Work Plan and the necessary field work was performed by the EPA contractor, TAMS Consultants, Inc., beginning in April 1989. Field work began in September 1989 and was completed in August 1990.

The landfill is currently mainly covered with vegetative growth. However, previously buried materials are starting to become exposed; also, there is exposed rubbish, debris, etc.

On August 14, 1991, general notice letters were sent to sixteen entities who were determined at that time to be potentially responsible parties (PRPs) at the Site. The general notice letters informed these parties of their potential liability at the Site. It is anticipated that special notice letters will be sent to some or all of the PRPs with a copy of this ROD, in order to ascertain their interest in conducting the remedial design and remedial action.

MXGHLXGHTS 05" COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

On November 16, 1989, the EPA conducted the first public meeting concerning the Hertel Landfill Superfund Site at the Town of Plattekill Town Hall, Modena, New York. The meeting was designed ^ to inform local officials and interested citizens about the ^ Superfund process, to review current and planned remedial activities at the Site and to respond to any questions from area § residents and other attendees. ^

The remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) reports and I the Proposed Plan for the Site were released for public comment ; on July 25, 1991 and July 26, 1991 respectively. These documents

were made available to the public in the administrative record file at the EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York and the information repositories at the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York, the Plattekill Town Hall, Modena, New York and Plattekill Public Library, Modena, New York. A press release announcing the availability of these documents was issued on July 31, 1991. The public comment period was set by EPA to end on August 26, 1991; however, at the request of a PRP, the comment period was extended to September 25, 1991.

During this comment period, EPA held a public meeting to present the RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan, answer questions, and accept both oral and written comments. The public meeting was held in the Plattekill Town Hall, Modena, New York on August 14, 1991. At this meeting, representatives from the EPA, NYSDEC and NYSDOH answered questions about problems at the Site and the remedial alternatives under consideration. Responses to the comments received during the public comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).

SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE tJNIT

EPA has planned to implement the remedial work in a single phase. The major objective of this work is to control the source of contamination at the Site. Concurrently, it is intended to minimize the further contamination of the wetlands in the area and the downgradient migration of contaminants in groundwater.

Specifically, the purpose of the response action is to: 1) minimize the infiltration of rainfall or snow melt into the landfill, thus reducing the quantity of water percolating through the landfill materials and leaching out contaminants; 2) minimize any further contamination of the wetlands; and 3) reduce the movement and toxicity of the contaminated landfill leachate into groundwater and subsequent downgradient migration of contaminants.

This response action will utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. However, because the treatment of the principal threats at the Site is not practicable, this response action does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the source control portion of the remedy. The size of as the landfill, and the fact that the RI did not identify on-site ^ hot spots in the soil that represent the major sources of contamination, preclude a remedy in which contaminants could be o excavated and treated effectively. o

It is noted that the listing of a release or threat of release on M the NPL merely represents EPA's initial determination that a ]^ certain area may need to be addressed under the Comprehensive * Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).

5

However, as explained in 54 Federal Register 41002-3, 1989, the RI/FS and ROD for a CERCLA action may offer a useful indication to the public of contaminated areas at which the Agency is considering taking response action (based on information present at that time). To that extent this ROD does not identify a problem at, or seek to address, the 67 acres of the Site lying outside the actual 13 acre landfill area which is the only area intended for remedial action under CERCLA. The outlying area may therefore be used for purposes best determined by the local authorities given the close proximity to the Superfund site. However, it has not yet been determined whether adjoining areas may need to be utilized for treatment facilities or other ancillary facilities necessary to support remedial actions selected for the Site. The precise extent of such areas will be determined during the remedial design and remedial action phases of the project. In addition, since wastes will remain on-site above health-based levels, the protectiveness of the remedy will have to be evaluated every five years. These evaluations could result in a modification of the selected remedy resulting in the need to utilize additional land area to ensure that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

StJMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The Hertel Landfill was used for the disposal of municipal solid waste from 1963 until its closure in 1977. During the early 1970s, there were reports of industrial waste dumping as well as reports of improper operations relative to landfill operations and permits. Analyses of environmental samples taken from the Site demonstrate that hazardous substances were disposed of at the Site.

Sixteen feet or more of landfill material exists in some areas of the Site. It is estimated that a total of 240,000 cubic yards of refuse were disposed of at the Site.

The study area for the RI/FS was divided into environmental areas representing landfill as well as background, upgradient, and downgradient locations, with background conditions not considered to be within the groundwater flow path from the landfill. The locations of sampling stations are indicated in Figure 3.

A geophysical investigation, which included electromagnetic a: conductivity, magnetometry and metal detection, was conducted at t the Site to identify areas withiii the landfill where buried metallic wastes might be present. Based on the r:esults of this o investigation, twenty-five test pits were excavated to observe 3 the landfill material. Nothing other than debris typical of municipal landfills was observed in the fill material excavated. M No buried drums were located. !

s

The potential for direct human exposure as well as the potential for further contaminant migration to groundwater and surface water exists at the Site. There are no permanent controls in place to prevent contaminant migration.

Groundwater

As part of the groundwater investigation, a total of nineteen nnnitoring wells were installed. Fifteen wells were installed in the overburden aquifer and four in the bedrock aquifer. Two rounds of groundwater sampling were conducted. The groundwater samples were analyzed for volatile organics (VOC's), semi-volatile organics, pesticides and PCBs, inorganics and standard water quality parameters. A summary of the analytical results is given in TiQ)le lA. Contaminants in the groundwater are listed and compared to Federal and/or State maximum contaminant levels in Table 2A. Several VOCs, BNAs and metals and other inorganics exceeded one or more standards. The following are some contaminants of concern and the highest concentrations detected: chlorobenzene (24 ppb), ethylbenzene (64 ppb), xylenes (240 ppb), benzoic acid (200 ppb), diethylphthalate (900 ppb), arsenic (44 ppb), barium (1980 ppb), and manganese (121,000 ppb).

Groundwater in the overburden aquifer appears to flow eastward toward the landfill base and the wetland which borders the landfilled area to the east. The direction of the groundwater gradient in the bedrock aquifer (based on very limited data) is generally toward the northeast or east.

Residential Wells

A total of nine area residential wells were sampled by EPA (see Table IP) and NYSDOH. The results from initial and follow-up sampling indicated that the water supply was of satisfactory quality (i.e.. State and Federal primary standards) for the analytical tests that were performed.

Surface Water

Surface water samples were collected to determine if the Site is impacting surface water or sediment quality and if components of on-site waste are being transported off-site. A summary of aj analytical results is given in Table IB. Contaminants in surface ^ water are listed and compared to standards in Table 2B.

o Trace concentrations of VOCs, phenols, naphthalene and/or 2 polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds were detected in several leachate seep samples. Many of the inorganic compounds and -. landfill leachate indicator parameters were present at elevated ^ concentrations. o

In on-site stream samples, inorganic compounds and leachate parameters (chlorides and bicarbonates) were present at levels approximately 2 to 35 times above background levels. Analogous results were obtained in samples collected from the pond/wetland area north of the fill and west of the Site access road. Surface water downgradient of the Site exhibited similar elevated results, but with decreased effects with increasing distance from the landfill.

Sediments

To evaluate the potential impact of on-site wastes being transported off-site by erosion and redeposition of sediment, samples were taken from seep locations along the eastern toe of the landfill, from the stream along the eastern side of the Site, from the northern wetland, and from the stream downgradient of the Site. A summary of analytical results is presented in Table IC and a comparison to standards is given in Table 2C.

At the seep locations results were highly variable. In general, organic compounds were not detected at significantly elevated levels. The only inorganic analyte elevated significantly over background was cadmium. With respect to the sediment samples taken in the on-site stream and the northern wetland, the results were similar to these at the seep locations, i.e., cadmium appeared at significantly elevated levels. Sediments downgradient of the Site did exhibit the presence of several PAHs and BNA compounds, but these could readily be attributable to •roadway (Route 44/55) runoff.

Soils

During the RI/FS field investigation, seven disposal areas were identified in the main fill area and an eighth disposal area was tentatively identified south of the main fill area. Surface and/or subsurface soil samples were collected from the waste disposal areas and from other areas of the fill to characterize contaminants in the fill and to provide some indication if the wastes are Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) "characteristic" wastes, i.e. hazardous by RCRA definition. Subsurface soil samples were collected at selected boring locations to provide additional background data for subsurface a; soils. t

Summaries of surface soil data and subsurface soil data are o presented in Tables ID aafi IS respectively. Comparison of S surface soil contaminant concentrations with RCRA facility investigation guidance values is presented in Tabl© 2D. No *-Federal or State of New York standards exist for assessing .S* contamination in surface or subsurface soils. ^

The range of compounds detected and their concentration levels were highly variable yet typical of what might be expected at a landfill. Further, none of the samples obtained yielded analyses which would indicate the presence of "hot spots". Samples were submitted for the EP toxicity test which prior to the promulgation of the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) rule (effective September 25, 1990), had been used to determine if a waste is hazardous by characteristic. Results were less than the limits previously used to characterize wastes as hazardous. These results and other knowleoge of waste characteristics do not indicate that RCRA TC wastes are present.

Ecological Investigation

The scope of field investigations included the sampling/surveying of the following components: wetlands, macroinvertebrates, birds, fish, mammals, herpetofauna, and general vegetation.

There were no federal threatened or endangered species located on the Site. Thirteen species of plants were identified on-site which are protected by New York State. The red-shouldered hawk is the only New York State threatened species which was identified on-site. The benthic macroinvertebrate study conducted on-site was inconclusive; the potential exists for Site contaminants to produce adverse effects to aquatic organisms. Additionally, there is some indication that the potential exists for elevated inorganics (selenium, cadmium and mercury) in soil to produce adverse environmental effects.

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

EPA conducted a baseline Risk Assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment associated with the Hertel Landfill Site in its current state. The Risk Assessment focused on contaminants in the groundwater, surface water, sediment and soil which are likely to pose significant risks to human health and the environment. A summary of the contaminants present in each matrix, along with their freguency-of-detection, range, and 95% Upper Confidence Limit, are presented in fablos a.A=lg. The summary of the contaminants of concern (COC) in sampled matrices is listed in Tabl® 3.

Nine exposure pathways were evaluated under possible on-site 3. present and future land use conditions and are summarized in ^ Sabl® 4. These exposure pathways were evaluated separately for adults and children. In addition, exposure of workers, in the o event of future construction activities on the landfill, was 2 evaluated. The exposure pathways considered under both current and future uses are: ingestion of groundwater from the _, overburden aquifers; inhalation of airborne chemicals adsorbed to Jg dust; inhalation of volatiles in groundwater while showering; 00 incidental ingestion of surface water; dermal absorption of

contaminants in surface water; ingestion of soils; ingestion of contaminants in soil and home dust (future use only); dermal absorption of contaminants in soils, and inhalation of contaminants in soils.

Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic (cancer causing) and non-carcinogenic effects due to exposure to Site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be additive. Thus, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks associated with exposures to individual compounds of concern were summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures of potential carcinogens and non-carcinogens, respectively.

Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI) approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media e.g.. the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water are compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the contaminant in the particular medium. The hazard index is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across all media.

A hazard index greater than 1 indicates that the potential exists for non-carcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium or across media. A summary of the parameter values used to estimate exposure is provided in Table 5. The reference doses for the compounds of concern at the Hertel Landfill Site are presented in Tables SA-SD.

A summary of the non-carcinogenic risks associated with these chemicals across various exposure pathways are found in Tables 8C,D,6,H,£ Jo It can be seen that non-carcinogenic risks to children in a future residential use scenario, such as the potential for damage to vital organs, are possible from exposure to Site contamination based on the calculated HI of 100. The § estimated total non-carcinogenic hazard index is primarily due to ^ ingestion of metals in Site groundwater including manganese (HI=80) and arsenic (HI=10). These calculations are based on the § assumed future residential use of this Site using the contaminant *"" levels detected in on-site monitoring wells and soil samples. The potential future risks posed via ingestion of Site '^ groundwater, and the fact that contaminants were present in on-site groundwater samples above State and Federal drinking water

3.0

standards, make the groundwater contamination a primary concern at the Site.

Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer potency factors developed by EPA for the compounds of concern. Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. i3Fs, vhich are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)', are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the compounds of concern are presented in Tables 7A a 7B.

For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10"* to 10* to be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has not greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 7G-year period under specific exposure conditions at the Site.

A summary of the carcinogenic risks associated with the compounds of concern across various exposure pathways under the reasonable maximum exposure scenario are found in Tables 8A,B,E;F;S 1.

Under possible future land-use conditions, adults exposed to contamination from residing on the Site are at a potential total excess lifetime cancer risk of 7x10' . This suggests that an individual has a seven in one thousand increased chance of developing cancer as a result of exposure to the Site. The estimated total carcinogenic risk is primarily due to dermal contact with arsenic in soil. Another exposure scenario which also presented a significant risk, and which is more likely to occur in the disposal areas than the establishment of residences, is the current/recreational use of the Site. Under this use, it was estimated that children and adults trespassing on the Site would be subject to carcinogenic risks of 5x10"* and 4x10'' respectively, due to dermal contact with arsenic in the soil.

EC 1-3

The calculations were based on the contaminants detected in the f soil and on-site monitoring wells. It was assumed that in the future these wells would be used for residential purposes. g Calculations were developed by taking into account various i-conservative assumptions about the likelihood of residents being exposed to the various contaminated media. «3

O

11

Uncertainties

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

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

Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in. part from the potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media sampled. Environmental chemistry analysis errors can stem from several sources including the errors inherent in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.

Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an individual would actually come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.

Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk Assessment provides upper bound estimates of the risks to populations near the Landfill, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the Site.

More specific information concerning public health risks, including a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the RI Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT a:

The environmental assessment evaluated potential exposure routes t of the Site contamination to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. An ecological survey was performed to identify any threatened or o endangered species. o

One threatened species protected under the NYS Environmental »— Conservation Law, the red-shouldered hawk, was identified on the J Site. Thirteen plant species, which are on the NYSDEC protected *"" status list, exist on the Site.

12

A general trend of elevated concentrations of organic and inorganic contaminants exists in one or more environmental media at the Site. Of the identified inorganics of concern in soils, selenium, cadmium and mercury present a potential for ecological effects. Similar conclusions were not drawn for organic compounds due to a paucity of ecotoxicological data on these compounds.

The wetlands in the vicinity of the Site were delineated preliminarily. The need to minimize the disturbance of these wetland habitats via migration of contaminants from the landfill, as well as via any future remediation activities, was identified as an important factor to be considered in the design of the Site remedy. Of particular concern were the leachate seeps located at the toe of the landfill. These seeps discharge to the surface and to an adjacent wetland. A definitive delineation of the wetlands and an evaluation of their functional value will be performed before the commencement of design activities for the Site.

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by the selected alternative or one of the other remedial measures considered, may present a current or potential threat to the public health, welfare, and the environment through the continued leaching and migration of contaminants from the landfill and human exposure to contaminated soils.

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Following a screening of remedial technologies in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), the following remedial alternatives were developed for the Site. The alternatives were further screened based on technical considerations such as effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Time to implement reflects the period following the ROD necessary to develop work plans, complete remedial designs, conduct construction activities, and also the time necessary to obtain comments/approvals, conduct negotiations with PRPs, issue inquiries, evaluate and select contractors, etc. as required by Federal and State regulations and procedures.

These alternatives are: ^

Alternative 1: No Action ^

Capital Cost: $58,100 o 0 & M Cost: $132,200/yr. " Present Worth Cost: $2,509,000 ^ Time to Implement: 9 months ^ Duration: 30 years J5

13

The NCP requires that the no-action alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. The no-action alternative does not include any physical remedial measures that address the contamination at the Site.

This alternative would consist of a long-term groundwater monitoring program that would provide data for the assessment of the impact on the underlying groundwater of leaving contaminated materials on-site. This program would utilize wells installed during the RI at the Site and six additional wells. Groundwater samples would be taken on a quarterly basis.

In addition, the no-action alternative would include the development and implementation of a public awareness and education program to enhance the community's knowledge of the conditions existing at the Site. This program would require the involvement of the local government, various health departments and environmental agencies.

Under this alternative, the Site would be reviewed every five years pursuant to CERCLA requirements. Using data from the groundwater sampling program, these five year reviews would include the reassessment of health and environmental risks due to the contaminated material left on-site. If justified by the review, remedial actions might be implemented.

Alternative 2: Site Use Restrictions and Capping

Capital Cost: $3,482,000 O. & M Cost: $162,800/yr. Present Worth Cost: $7,182,000 Time to Implement: 3 0 months Duration: 30 years cap maintenance

As with Alternative 1, this alternative would include a groundwater monitoring program and public awareness program. However, this alternative would also provide for restricted Site access and capping of the landfill area.

A chain link fence would surround the perimeter of the capped area, thereby restricting access. Along the fence, at appropriate intervals, warning signs would be placed that would caution the public as to the Superfund status of the Site. One access gate would be provided, which would be kept locked, to ^ allow access for groundwater sampling and review purposes. tr" Institutional controls in the form of local ordinances, and/or deed restrictions would be recommended in an attempt to restrict g future use of the land because of the threats posed by M contamination.

w

145

The major feature of Alternative 2 would be the construction of a multi-layer closure cap over the landfill mound. This would minimize the infiltration of rainfall or snow melt into the landfill and reduce the movement of the contaminated leachate to the groundwater.

The design of the cap would comply with the standards of Title 6, New York State Compilation of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 360, which addresses New York State Solid Waste Management Facilities and landfill closure rec[uirements. This facility would comply with all applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs). Prior to construction of the cap, the landfill mound would have to be regraded and compacted to provide a stable foundation for placement of the various layers of the cap. The Part 360 standards include minimum liquid migration through the wastes, low cover maintenance requirements, efficient site drainage, high resistance to damage by settling or subsidence, and a low permeability cap. In addition to the various layers, the cap would include allowances for the installation of gas vents necessary for the escape of methane generated by the decomposition of landfill materials, and also provide for groundwater monitoring wells within the landfill mound. The cap would consist of a four layered system: an upper vegetative layer, a soil protective layer over a low permeability layer, and a gas vent/collection layer. The landfill mound surface area, including the side slopes, is estimated to be 13 acres.

Contaminated groundwater would be left to attenuate without any treatment, and groundwater monitoring wells would be installed within the landfill mound. Groundwater samples would be collected for analyses to evaluate the effect of the cap on the groundwater flow through the saturated portion of the landfill materials and on the surrounding aquifer. Emissions from landfill gas vents would also be monitored.

EPA believes that this alternative would result in achieving risk reduction to levels below 10"* and a hazard index below 1 for carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks respectively. However, the potential for contaminants to migrate off-site, although lessened due to the landfill cap, would continue to exist and could impact nearby residential wells.

As with Alternative 1, a review of the Site's status would be conducted every five years.

a: Alternative 2A: Sit@ Us@ Restrictions, Capping and ^

Slurry Wall

Capital Cost: $8,406,000 0 & M Cost: $170,800/yr. Present Worth Cost: $13,238,000 >->

vo

o o

15

Time to Implement: 36 months Duration: 30 years cap maintenance

The scope of this alternative is the same as Alternative 2, except for the addition of a slurry wall. The purpose of the slurry wall would be to act as a barrier to groundwater flow and to lower the water table such that leachate breakout at the toe of the landfill would be eliminated.

The slurry wal_ design would be based on the use of a cement/bentonite construction rather than soil/bentonite due to slope. The wall would be located upgradient of the landfill area, approximately 1800 feet long, 3 feet in width and keyed into the underlying bedrock with an average depth of 40 feet.

EPA believes that this alternative would result in achieving risk reduction to levels below 10"* and a hazard index below 1 for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks, respectively. However, the potential for contaminants to migrate off-site, although lessened due to the landfill cap, would continue to exist and could impact nearby residential wells.

In order to monitor the effectiveness of this system 8 observation wells would be installed. These wells in addition to the existing monitoring wells in the fill area, would facilitate confirmation of the effectiveness of the slurry wall in maintaining the groundwater table at a level below the base of the fill material. In addition, a review of the Site's status would be conducted every 5 years.

Alternative 4: Site Use Restrictions, Capping, Ground­water Extraction with On-site Treatment

Capital Cost: $3,989,000 0 & M Cost: $316,400/yr. years 0-12

$162,800/yr. years 13-17 $31,000/yr. years 18-30

Present Worth Cost: $8,774,000 Time to Implement: 36 months Duration: 12 years groundwater extraction and treatment;

30 years cap maintenance

This alternative is identical to Alternative 2, with the addition of a groundwater pumping system within the landfill mound to control leachate migration. aj

o

The groundwater extraction system would consist of a series of pumping wells installed around the inside of the landfill. The o groundwater pumping wells would extend through the landfill material and end at bedrock. They would be screened through the entire saturated length. It is estimated that approximately 22 extraction wells would be required to provide capture of the

s t^

Or

16

contaminated groundwater beneath the landfill. These wells would produce an estimated total removal rate of approximately 10 gallons per minute or 14,000 gallons per day. These estimates, presented in detail in the FS report, would be field verified via performance of an aquifer pumping test during the remedial design. Also, further studies may be conducted during that phase to optimize the number and location of extraction wells. Pulsed pumping may also be considered.

The extracted groundwater would be prefiltered to remove gross solids and then pumped nto an equalization tank. This tank would be utilized to equalize the groundwater flow and contaminant concentrations, which may be variable.

The collected groundwater would be treated in an on-site treatment system. This treatment system would use chemical precipitation and clarification followed by filtration to remove metals and suspended solids. A carbon adsorption system would be utilized to remove organic compounds from the filtration effluent.

The organic compounds and metals present in the extracted groundwater would be reduced to concentrations which are below the site-specific surface water discharge standards which would be determined in accordance with the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES). It is expected that the effluent groundwater would be discharged to the adjacent wetlands unless detrimental impacts would result from such an action. Other discharge options, such as reinjection, would be evaluated during the design of the remedy. Groundwater remediation would result in the attainment of State and Federal ARARs for ground­water and drinking water at the Site boundary.

EPA believes that this alternative would result in achieving risk reduction to levels below lO"* and a hazard index below 1 for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks, respectively.

Under Alternative 4, solids are expected to accumulate at a rate of approximately 24 pounds per day, for a total annual accumulation of 4 tons. Treatment residues generated would be disposed of in accordance with RCRA Land Disposal Restriction requirements. In addition, a review of the Site's status would be conducted every five years.

Alternative 4A: Site Use Restrictions, Capping, Groundwater ^ Extraction with On-Site Innovative Treatment tr"

Capital Cost: $3,995,000 g 0 & M Cost: $267,000/yr. years 0-12 M

$162,800/yr. years 13-17 $31,000/yr. years 18-30 ^

Present Worth Cost: $8,207,000 <-n

17

Time to Implement: 36 months Duration: 12 years groundwater extraction & treatment;

30 years cap maintenance

This alternative is similar to Alternative 4. However, the treatment system to be employed would consist of a membrane microfiltration unit for inorganics removal and ultraviolet (UV) oxidation for organics removal.

The microfiltration system is an innovative treatment system being developed and is currently included in EPA's Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program. Prior to the microfiltration stage, the groundwater is pretreated with lime to precipitate metals. Microfiltration is designed to remove solid particles from liquid wastes and consists of an automatic pressure filter combined with special filter material, and operates in a cyclical manner. Solids greater than one ten-millionth of a meter are retained as a filter cake. Pilot tests at the Palmerton Zinc Superfund site produced a filtrate with non-detectable levels of heavy metals.

UV oxidation would follow the membrane microfiltration unit. UV oxidation is a process in which UV light and hydrogen peroxide chemically oxidize organic contaminants dissolved in water. The combined UV light and hydroxy radicals (strong oxidizers formed from hydrogen peroxide) promote rapid breakdown of organics into carbon dioxide and water without the creation of air emissions or residual waste streams. The oxidation unit would be operated to reduce the contaminant levels in groundwater to Federal or State discharge requirements. Operation and maintenance of the unit consists of UV lamp replacement every four months and occasional replenishment of the hydrogen peroxide supply. As with Alternative 4 the groundwater would be remediated until ARARs are met.

EPA believes that this alternative would result in achieving risk reduction to levels below lO'* and a hazard index below 1 for carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks respectively.

Treatment residues would be disposed of in accordance with RCRA Land Disposal Restriction requirements.

In addition, a review of the Site's status would-be conducted every five years. tn

1-3

SUMMARY OP COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 0? ALTERNATIVES ' o

All remedial alternatives were evaluated in detail utilizing nine ^ criteria as set forth in the NCP and OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. These criteria were developed to address the requirements of H_, Section 121 of CERCLA to ensure all important considerations are ^ factored into remedy selection decisions. -j

The following "threshold" criteria are the most important and must be satisfied by any alternative in order to be eligible for selection:

Threshold Criteria o Overall protection of hviman health and the environment; and

o Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.

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

Primary Balancing o Long-term effectiveness and permanence; Criteria o Reduction in toxicity, mobility, or

volume through treatment; o Short-term effectiveness; o Implementability; and o Cost.

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

Modifying Criteria o State/support agency acceptance; and o Community acceptance.

The nine criteria are summarized below:

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

2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of Federal and State environmental statutes and requirements or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.

3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been nc 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. o

Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated performance of a remedial technology, with respect to these parameters, that a remedy may employ.

o

19

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

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

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

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

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

A comparative analysis of these alternatives based upon the evaluation criteria noted above, are as follows:

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternatives 4 and 4A provide the best approach to protection of human health and the environment. Alternative 4 relies on proven technologies, at a small cost increase, as compared to Alternative 4A which is based on innovative technologies.

All alternatives, except Alternative 1 are protective. However, Alternatives 2 and 2A rely on natural attenuation of contamination in groundwater and land use restrictions. In comparison Alternatives 4 and 4A provide additional protection by the active means of pumping and treating groundwater, thus reducing migration of contaminants from the Site. Although ultimate resumption of contact between the soil/waste and ground­water table is anticipated, the existence of the pump and treat system does provide means for resumed operation of treatment tn should it be deemed necessary at the completion of the extraction ^ period.

Alternatives 2, 2A, 4 and 4A are all designed, via the cap, to prevent leachate seeps, thereby reducing surface water contamination levels. i-'

Alternative 1, the no action alternative, is the least protective ^ of human health and the environment. This alternative does not

o o

20

limit site access or future site development and, therefore, does not address the principle threats posed by the Site.

Compliance with ARARs

Alternatives 4 and 4A are expected to meet chemical-specific ARARs for the groundwater. However, once pump and treat operations are discontinued, the resumption of contact between the soil/waste matrix and the groundwater may cause chemical specific groundwat^jr ARARs to be exceeded. If this is the case, continued "pulsed" pumping and treatment of the groundwater may be necessary. The technologies employed under Alternative 4A may not be as effective in reaching ARAR-based cleanup levels for effluent discharge. However, based on the information available it is anticipated that ARARs will be achieved under this alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 2A rely on natural attenuation to attain chemical-specific ARARs for contaminants detected in the ground­water and are not expected to achieve ARARs for a significant amount of time. For Alternative 2A, the elimination of ground­water flow through the in-place waste materials may eventually result in reduced groundwater contaminant levels, but treatment of the currently detected contaminant levels would not be provided. Alternative 2 would,take significantly longer to reach ARARs in groundwater than the other alternatives.

Alternatives 2, 2A, 4 and 4A would meet the action specific sanitary landfill closure ARARs as the final cap and surface drainage features would be constructed in accordance with New York Solid Waste Management Facility landfill closure regulations.

Hazardous treatment residues that may be generated in Alternatives 4 and 4A would be disposed of in accordance with RCRA Land Disposal Restriction requirements.

Alternative 1, the no action alternative, is not expected to attain chemical-specific ARARs for the groundwater in a reasonable time frame. No location-specific or action-specific ARARs would be applicable under the no action alternative.

Location-specific ARARs may potentially be triggered for wetlands a: which cover some portions of the Site. It appears as though all ^ of the action alternatives could impact the wetlands to a similar degree. However, based on preliminary identification, most of the <=> wetlands will not be impacted by the remediation activities 3 evaluated herein. The extent of the impact to the wetlands will be determined during the design phase of the project. Wetlands M that might be impacted by the remediation activities would be ^ restored to the maximum extent practicable in compliance with the ^ appropriate wetlands and discharge regulations.

21

I/ong-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

None of the alternatives actively address remediation of contaminants currently detected in surface water or sediment (other than contamination associated with leachate seeps). Therefore, all alternatives could present some residual risk based on incidental ingestion and dermal contact with sediments under a recreational use scenario. These calculated risks, however, are within the acceptable risk ranges and are not considered to seriously impact the long-term effectiveness of the alternatives, especially with respect to those alternatives for which site access will be limited for an extended period based on the long-term operation of on-site remedial systems.

Alternative 2A would result in minimal residual risk through the containment rather than treatment of on-site contaminants. The combination of the cap and slurry wall minimize contact with soil contaminants and potential exposure pathways associated with on-site groundwater contamination, although potential exposure to surface water/sediment would exist if access to the Site is not fully controlled e.g., if the Site is used as a recreational area following capping. The slurry wall would minimize contact of the groundwater table with in-place waste materials, thereby minimizing future contamination of groundwater. These containment features are expected to be highly reliable with minor maintenance or monitoring; if they should fail, replacement or repair would not be exceptionally difficult.

Alternatives 4 and 4A provide comparable levels of long-term protectiveness. While treating the groundwater and reducing dermal exposure risks through containment features, these alternatives do not provide for treatment of the source of contamination. Therefore, the long-term effectiveness of these alternatives in maintaining reduced groundwater contaminant levels following discontinuation of the pump and treat system operation is not guaranteed. The water table can be expected to return to a level within the waste materials when pumping is discontinued, thereby potentially allowing for future ground­water contamination. If this is determined to be the case, pulsed pumping of the system might be warranted. These alternatives also require long-term management in the form of cap maintenance and groundwater treatment system monitoring and aj operation. Because of the ongoing operation of the groundwater ^ treatment system, use of the Site for recreation and the associated potential exposures are not considered to apply to o these alternatives. 3

Alternative 2 would not treat the source of contamination or the _, contaminated groundwater on-site, although it would provide ^ protection against dermal exposures to soil contaminants through t- its capping containment feature. This alternative requires minimal long-term management in the form of cap maintenance and

22

monitoring. Potential exposure to surface water/sediment contaminants will exist under this alternative if access to the site is not fully controlled e.g., if the Site is used as a recreation area following capping.

Alternative 1, the no action alternative, offers no long-term effectiveness in terms of protection against current risks associated with dermal contact with soil contaminants or future groundwater ingestion scenarios.

Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume

Alternative 2A provides a reduction of contaminant mobility, without treatment, through its containment features. The alternative utilizes a cap and slurry wall to isolate in-place waste materials from exposure via direct contact and from precipitation, infiltration and consequent groundwater migration. While the waste materials are not treated, their isolation limits the potential risks they pose.

Alternatives 4 and 4A reduce the toxicity of groundwater through treatment and reduce the mobility of soil contaminants through containment. The reduction in groundwater toxicity may not be permanent, however, due to the lack of treatment of the soil/waste matrix and the ability of the groundwater table to return to a level within the waste materials upon discontinuation of operation of the pump and treat system. Subsequently, a pulse pumping system may be considered.

Alternative 2 only reduces the mobility of the soil contaminants through containment measures. It does not address groundwater contamination or limit additional contamination of groundwater due to continued contact of waste materials with the water table. Alternative 1 provides no reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants of any media through treatment. Residual risks are identical to those identified by the baseline risk assessment. Future risks posed by the Site will depend on future Site usage.

Short-Term Effectiveness

In general, all alternatives except the no action alternative require clearing of vegetation from the landfill area, road improvements or other activities involving disturbance of ^ contaminated soils. These alternatives pose, at a minimum, non- ^ cancer risks which exceed acceptable risk ranges to on-site remedial workers due to inhalation of contaminants adsorbed to fugitive dust. This pathway of exposure can be minimized through the use of personal protection equipment. Once remedial activities are completed, this exposure pathway ceases to exist J for these alternatives. f

O O

23

The no action alternative can be considered to be the most effective alternative with respect to short-term risks. Because no remediation is proposed under this alternative, no disturbance of existing contamination occurs and no short-term risks are realized. It should be emphasized, however, that while no increases in risks result in the short-term, no protection against the principle site threats is achieved.

For alternatives that involve site remediation. Alternatives 2 and 2A provide the greatest short-term effictiveness. They pose the least amount of risk to on-site remedial workers and achieve protection against dermal contact risks within the shortest time frame. Alternative 2, however, does not provide the same degree of protection against groundwater contaminant migration.

Alternatives 4 and 4A also provide good short-term effectiveness. They pose additional risk to on-site workers due to the installation of groundwater extraction wells within contaminated areas, but they also meet remedial response objectives within a limited time frame, with exposures to groundwater contamination reduced through groundwater pumping and on-site treatment. The additional handling of contaminated groundwater and required discharge to surface water increases the potential risks and environmental impacts associated with remediation, and makes these alternatives less effective in the short-term than Alternative 2A. These alternatives also have longer remedial time frames associated with achievement of cleanup goals.

Implementability

Technical Feasibility

Wetlands regulations will impact the implementation of all alternatives except the no action alternative to varying degrees. Alternatives involving groundwater extraction and discharge to wetlands/surface water (Alternatives 4, 4A) will require compliance with regulatory requirements for surface water discharges. Alternatives 2, 2A, 4, and 4A would require site use and groundwater use restrictions. The responsibility for the implementation of such restrictions would be left to State and local authorities.

Alternative 1, the no action alternative, is the most implementable because it requires only the installation of a: additional monitoring wells. ^

Alternatives 2 and 2A follow Alternative 1 in implementability, o respectively. Capping construction methods are well developed 3 and easily implemented. The construction of a slurry wall under Alternative 2A would also be relatively easy to implement, y although existing Site conditions could hamper construction. ^

24

Alternatives 4 and 4A are similar to Alternative 2, involving the construction of a cap, but also include the construction of a groundwater extraction and treatment system. The construction of such a system would be relatively easy. Minimal technical problems would be expected in the implementation of Alternative 4. The innovative groundwater treatment technologies included in Alternative 4A could pose additional technical problems; a treatability study would be necessary to ensure that these problems were not significant. The lack of general availability of the innovative treatment technologies could also limit the availability of treatment systems and experienced operational personnel relative to the other alternatives.

Administrative Feasibility

All of these alternatives would involve some degree of institutional management. Alternative 1 would require administrative coordination of the groundwater monitoring program and the five year site status reviews, along with the development of the public education program.

The administrative requirements for Alternatives 2 and 2A include the groundwater monitoring program, and the security fence inspection. In addition to these activities, the structural integrity and impermeability of the closure cap and subsurface barrier must be maintained through a program of periodic surveillance and necessary repairs. Because of the large land area of the landfill, this item could be fairly substantial.

In addition to the above. Alternatives 4 and 4A require an extensive monitoring program, as well as the operation and maintenance of the groundwater treatment facility. Their administrative elements are extensive because they include equipment maintenance schedules, system effluent monitoring to comply with the SPDES requirements and to adjust operating parameters, and transportation and disposal of hazardous process residuals in compliance with regulations.

Availability of Services and Materials

Most services and materials required for implementation of any of these potential remedial alternatives are readily available. Standard construction equipment and practices can be employed for equipment installation and site work activities for all * alternatives. Most of the materials and equipment required for ' these alternatives may be obtained in the locality of the Site. However, excavations necessary for the installation of the o subsurface barrier (Alternative 2A) may require that specialized ^ operations and equipment be obtained from non-local sources. ^

<o

o

25

Because the work would be taking place on a Superfund site, all on-site personnel must have approved health and safety training. Many companies are available to provide this training to contractors. The engineering and design services required for implementation of Alternatives 2, 2A, 4 and 4A may be obtained from many vendors. Hazardous waste transportation and disposal is also commercially available.

Cost

Cost estj.mates were developed for each of the five alternatives.

Present worth cost estimates consider a 5% discount rate and operational periods as noted herein. The costs are as follows:

Capital Cost Annual O&M Total Present Worth

1. 2. 2A. 4. 4A.

$ $ $ $ $

58,000 3,482,000 8,406,000 3,989,000 3,995,000

$132,200 $162,800 $170,800 Refer to Text Refer to Text

$ 2,509,000 $ 7,182,000 $13,238,000 $ 8,774,000 $ 8,207,000

State Acceptance

The State of New York, through the NYSDEC, concurs with EPA's selected remedy. See Appendix IV.

Community Acceptance

EPA believes that the selected remedy has the support of the affected community. Community comments can be reviewed in the public meeting transcript which is included in the administrative record. A Responsiveness Summary which summarizes all comments received during the public comment period and answers the questions and concerns raised at the public meeting on August 14, 1991 is attached as Appendix V to this document.

SELECTED REMEDY

Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the detailed analysis of the alternatives, public comments, and NYSDEC's comments, EPA has determined that Alternative 4A, Capping and Groundwater Treatment (via microfiltration and UV oxidation) System, is the appropriate remedy for the Hertel Landfill Site. A treatability study will be performed to demonstrate that the innovative groundwater treatment remedy is effective. If the study demonstrates that the innovative treatment is not effective, then Alternative 4 will be implemented as a contingency remedy.

a:

o o

2S

The selected alternative will achieve substantial risk reduction throuigh" source control and a groundwater treatment system.

The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:

; - 6 _- Construction of a multi-layer cap consistent with New York State Part 360 solid waste landfill closure requirements; the areal extent of the cap is expected to be approximately 13 acres, although the exact extent

• "- of the '"ap will hot be determined until the design -' - - • ' phase; - ••"''' : "; :

*- Additional soil sampling along the western portion of the disposal area in the vicinity of soil sample "SS-

:i:.i;_ V;.;::;: 22 ' to determine -the need to extend the cap or consolidate soils from the area beneath the cap;

--- ift : Regrading and compaction of landfill mound to provide a •'•""' stable foundation^ for the'placement of the cap prior to

' • - its construction; -_. .

* " Construction of a gas venting system; - ' -

* : Performance of air monitoring prior to, during, and following construction at the Site, to ensure that air emissions resulting from the cap construction meet ARARs;

* Quarterly groundwater monitoring program using existing groundwater monitoring wells, and six additional wells to be installed beyond the capped area, to observe the effects of groundwater flow patterns through the saturated portion of the landfill and to monitor the movement of contaminants beneath the landfill. The monitoring program will include sampling of selected residential wells with subsequent follow-up actions as necessary;

* Construction of fencing around the perimeter of the capped area;

* Recommendations that ordinances be established or restrictions imposed on the deed to ensure that future use of the Site property will maintain the integrity of ^ the cap; tr'

o Installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system to control leachate migration. A series of wells would extract approximately 14,000 gallons per day of groundwater from the overburden aquifer. The \^ treatment system would comprise two innovative steps. ^ Metals and suspended solids would be chemically

1T>

*

27

precipitated and removed by membrane microfiltration in a unique, automatic, cyclically operated pressure filter. Organics would then be removed in a UV oxidation system utilizing UV light and hydrogen peroxide to chemically oxidize organic contaminants.

Definitive delineation and evaluation of the wetlands and the drainage channels flowing through these wetlands adjacent to the landfill.

In addition, a full evaluation of the wetlands prior to remediation activities to determine any measures which may be necessary to mitigate potential negative impacts to the wetlands.

Performance of a treatability study to demonstrate the effectiveness of the innovative technology.

* Disposition of treatment residuals in accordance with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions.

* Implementation of Alternative 4 as a contingency remedy should the treatability study indicate that the innovative groundwater treatment technology is not effective. Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 4A with the exception that the groundwater treatment system would consist of precipitation and clarification, followed by filtration to remove metals and suspended solids and carbon adsorption to remove organic compounds.

REMEDIATION GOALS

The purpose of this response action is to reduce the present risk to human health and the environment due to contaminants leaching from the landfill mound. The capping of the landfill will minimize the infiltration of rainfall and snow melt into the landfill, thereby reducing the potential for contaminants leaching from the landfill and negatively impacting the wetlands habitat and groundwater quality. Capping will prevent direct contact exposure to contaminated soils, and as such will result in risks which are less than EPA's target levels of 10"* and 1 for carcinogenic risks and the non-carcinogenic hazard index, respectively.

a; Pumping and treating the groundwater will contain the ground- ^ water contamination within the Site boundary and will ensure that groundwater beyond the Site boundary meets applicable or relevant o and appropriate requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (maximum contaminant levels) and State laws and regulations (10 NYCRR Part 5, 6 NYCRR Part 703). The extracted groundwater will M be treated to meet SPDES discharge standards if discharged to ^

o

28

nearby surface water; or will meet appropriate reinjection standards if reinjection is selected as the means of discharge.

An example of some of the ARARs for groundwater remediation at this Site are:

CHEMICAL REOUIREMENT REFERENCE

Ethylbenzene 5 ug/l 10 NYCRR Part 5 Total xylenes 5 ug/l 10 NYCRR Part 5 Dichlorobenzene 5 ug/l 10 NYCRR Part 5

The goal of the groundwater portion of the selected remedy is to restore groundwater at the perimeter of the waste disposal area of the Site to its most beneficial use, which is as a supply of potable water. Based on information obtained during the RI and on a careful analysis of remedial alternatives, EPA believes that the selected remedy will achieve this goal. It may become apparent, during implementation or operation of the groundwater extraction system, that contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are remaining constant at levels higher than the remediation goal over some portion of the contaminated plume. In such a case, the system performance standards and/or the remedy may be reevaluated.

The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an estimated period of .12 years, during which the system's performance will be carefully monitored on a regular basis and adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected during operation. Modifications may include any or all of the following:

- Discontinuing pumping at individual wells where cleanup goals have been attained

- Alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation

- Pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to allow adsorbed contaminants to partition into groundwater

- Installing additional extraction wells to facilitate or accelerate cleanup of the contaminant plume

During the performance of long-term monitoring, EPA may determine ™ that a remedial action objective has been met. For the long-term ^ groundwater monitoring program, EPA will continue to monitor on a semi-annual basis for at least 2 years after cleanup levels are achieved and groundwater extraction/treatment has ceased in order to ensure that cleanup levels are maintained. Upon meeting all remedial objectives, or determining that the Site has been ^

a\ 00

o o

29

sufficiently purged of contaminants so that public health is no longer threatened by exposure to the Site, EPA will initiate proceedings to delete the Site from the National Priorities List.

The response action also reduces the movement and toxicity of the contaminated landfill leachate into groundwater, and subsequent downgradient migration of contaminants.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve protection of human health and the environment. In addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory requirements and preferences. These specify that when complete, the selected remedial action for this Site must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards established under Federal and State environmental laws unless a statutory waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be cost-effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes, as available. The following sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements. The contingency remedy would meet these requirements in the same fashion, the only difference being the means of groundwater treatment.

Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternative 4A and the contingency remedy are considered to be fully responsive to this criterion and to the identified remedial response objectives. Capping the landfill protects human health and the environment by reducing the mobility of contaminated materials off-site. The leaching of contaminants into the wetlands and aquifers will be significantly reduced. In addition, capping the landfill will eliminate threats posed to trespassers utilizing the Site. The extraction and treatment of contaminants in groundwater will prevent the off-site ground­water from being contaminated above drinking water standards, thereby ensuring that the community continues to have a potable supply of drinking water. 2

c Compliance with ARARs

o Attainment of chemical-specific ARARs for groundwater will be ° hastened due to reduced leaching following construction of the cap and the extraction and treatment of ground water. The source M of surface water contamination (leachate seeps) will be <T,

30

eliminated. Action-chemical-and location-specific ARARs will be complied with during implementation.

Action-specific ARARsi

* New York State Solid Waste Management Facilities 6 NYCRR Part 3 60

* National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

* 6 NYCRR Part 257 Air Quality Standards

* 6 NYCRR Parts 750-758 - State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

* RCRA 40 CFR Part 261 - Identification of Hazardous Wastes

* RCRA 4 0 CFR Part 2 62 - Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste

* RCRA 4 0 CFR Part 2 63 - Standards Applicable to 5j Transporters of Hazardous Waste

* RCRA 4 0 CFR Part 264 - Subpart F Applicable to Ground­water Monitoring at Hazardous Waste Facilities

- Subpart J Applicable to Tank Systems at Hazardous Waste Facilities

* RCRA 40 CFR Part 268 - Land Disposal Restrictions on Regulated Hazardous Waste

* 6 NYCRR Part 372 - Hazardous Waste Manifest System and Related Standards for Generators, Transporters and Facilities

* 6 NYCRR Part 373-2 - Final State Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities

Chemical-spseific ARARs s ^

The selected remedy will enable drinking water maximum ' contaminant levels (MCLs) to be met off-site and will ensure that the landfill does not negatively impact the nearby residential o wells.

* Safe Drinking Water Act MCLs ^ o

* 6 NYCRR Part 703.5 Groundwater Quality Regulations

o

31

* 6 NYCRR Part 703.6 Effluent Standards and/or Limitations for Discharges to Class GA Waters.

*r 6 NYCRR Part, 702 Surface Water Standards

* 10 NYCRR Part 5 State Sanitary Code

Location-specific ARARs:

* ciean; Water Act. Section 404,; 3:3 USC 1344;

* Fish .and Wildlife Coordination Act: 16. use 661

* National Historic Preservation Act 16 USC.470

* New York State Freshwater Wetlands Law ECL Article 24, 71 in Title 23

* New York State Freshwater Wetlands Permit Requirements and Classific.ation 6 NYCRR 653 and 664

* New York State Endangered and Threatened Species of Fish; and Wildlife Requirements .6 NYCRR 182

Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance To Be, Considered:

* New York Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control-

* New York Stat« Sediment Criteria December 1989

* New York State Air Cleanup Criteria January 1990

Cost Effectiveness

The selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportional to its cost. The total capital and present worth costs for the remedy are estimated to be $3,955,000 and $8,207,000, respectively. For the contingency remedy the corresponding costs are $3,989,000 and $8,774,000. A detailed breakdown of the estimated costs of the selected remedy is provided in Table 9.

. . . : . . • . ; . . - - . . , . 1 - 3

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

o The selected remedy and contingency remedy utilize pemnanent ^ solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Note that Alternative 4A groundwater ^ treatment is considered to be innovative. The selected remedy represents the best balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. The State and the community also support the selected remedy.

-J

32

The extraction and subsequent treatment of groundwater will permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and voluma of contaminants in the groundwater. A treatability study will bs performed to demonstrate that the innovative technology jalectad for.treating the groundwater is effective. If the treatability study indicates that this technology is not effective, then the contingency remedy. Alternative 4, shall be Implemented.

With the construction of the landfill cap, the direct contact risk to the soils will be eliminated. No technological problems should arise since the technologies for capping the landfill are readil'y available.

Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element cannot be satisfied for the source area i.e. tha landfill itself. Treatment of the landfill material is not p.cacticable. The size of the landfill and the fact that there are no identified on-sits hot spots that represent the major sources of contamination preclude a remedy in which contaminants could be excavated and treated effectively. However, the selected remedy and contingency remedy do call fof the treatment of contaminated groundwater at the Site and hence do satisfy the preference for treatment for this portion of the remedy.

DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

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

33 1-3

o o

to

33

APPENDIX I

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Map

Figure 2 Landfill Site Map

Figure 3 Sampling Locations

a: IT"

o o

CO

•

QUADRANGLE LOCi" ON

From Clintondale. NY U.S.G.S. 7.5' Topographic Map, 1957

S/T R C PBEPA8CD FDR U.S. €PK RECICW 11

KERTEL LftNBFllX PLATTEKILL NY rS REPORT

FIGURE 1

SITE LOCATION MAP

TO RDUrC <4/53

/STRc*H cH-l^s-ft-e-l-^) TO PANCAKE HnLt.OV

NDTES DISPOSAL DISPOSAL DISPOSAL DISPOSAL DISPOSAL DISPOSAL DISPOSAL DISPOSAL

AREA 11 AREA 12 ARLA 13 ARE:A (4 ARLA «5 AREA (S ARLA t n AREA DB

ENGINE BLOCK AND OIL VAS7E MATERIALS TRAILER WRECKAGE AND SCATTERED DRUMS OIL STAIN AREA AND SANITARY WASTE EARM EOUIPMENT DEBRIS PRINTING WASTE FIBROUS MATERIAL PILES PAINT WASTE AND MUNICIPAL LANDFILL POSSIBLE RUBBER WASTE

SCALE IN FEET

'1° f T "° ^

T A M S / T R C PRCPAffED FOT U-S. £PK REGION [I

HERTEL L*NW"ILL PL.^TTEtCILL NY

FIGURE 2.

HERTEL UNDFILL SITE MAP (DISPOSAL AREAS)

5L6I TOO l i H

9^61 TOO l i H

APPENDIX II

TABLES

lA Summary of Groundwater Data 13 Summary of Surface Water Data IC Summary of Sediment Data ID Summary of Surface Soil Data IE Summary of Subsurface Soil Data IF Compounds Detected in Private Wells 2A Comparison of Groundwater Concentrations to ARARi 2B Comparison of Surface Water Concentrations to ARARS 2C Comparison of Sediment Concentrations to ARARS 2D Comparison of Surface Soil Concentrations to RCRA

Facility Investigation Guidance Values 3 Chemicals of Potential Concern in All Media Sampled 4 Summary of Exposure Pathways 5 Summary of Parameter Values Used to Estimate Exposure 6A Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Non-

carcinogenic Chronic Effects-Oral 63 Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Non-

carcinogenic Chronic Effects-Inhalation 6C Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Non-

carcinogenic Sub-chronic Effects-Oral 6D Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Non-

carcinogenic Sub-chronic Effects-Inhalation 7A Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Carcinogenic

Effects-Oral 7B Summary of Toxicity Values Associated w/Carcinogenic

Effects-Inhalation 8A Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates, Current Use-Children 8B Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates, Current Use-Adults 8C Summary of Chronic Hazard Index Estimates, Current Use-

Children 8D Summary of Chronic Hazard Index Estimates, Current Use-

Adults 8E Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates, Future Use-Children 8F Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates, Future Use-Adults 8G Summary of Chronic Hazard Index Estimates, Future Use-

Children 8H Summary of Chronic Hazard Index Estimates, Future Use-

Adults 81 Summary of Cancer Risk Estimates, Construction Workers 8J Summary of Chronic Hazard Index Estimates, Construction

Workers 9 Detailed Costs - Alternative 4A

a: f-3

o o

T a b l e lA

amfn GF m m » m v ^ u - m t :

SKivouiiu m t i i a

" M l

II' . n i t ' " I f

I I M I I I M ( n I I 1 I 11 M n I I M I n I ( I I I I i r I I I I I H I I I I

m a j o c i m s . or

,S(!) • I I I M I I I I I t ! I I I M t (

mi ttTtCTION

0/2S 1.2-Cichl»To6«(i:ew l,<-DicWofflt«n2e» 2,*-0iMt(T)rW«B!l 4-f»thyip»ie»l Aufupntinne AnthrKiw isnzok Kid

ru'o(i)4nthTKtne

bHlueriiithMt

k)fluorintht»

llBi9(J-ethTlherylWilhilile;;i/a Butrlbetirrlphlhiiiie

Benzol Gtuoi b u o I k u o tofinl

Oiben:o4nthrieei» OiettiTlpMMi«t« 0i-*-8utrlptilh4;jte

,,Oi-tMx:>lphih»late riuorjn*S«r» Fluorew !n*ro(i23cd)pr«n»

Pherantftrene

||(>rT«r»

1/2$ , 3 / »

2 /K 0/2$.

;t)/7$ , 3 / 2 5 :i>/2$

0/2$ 0/2$ 0/2$ 0/2$ 0/25

VOL*TIU$

l , l - : i :hlor»tK4fi«

II II II l!l,2-Cichl8roe".nene

C^-bor d ; s , l f ; « CMcrotxnze*

0/2$ ;o/25 0/25 1/25 0/25 1/25 0/25 0/25 0/25 5/25 0/25 3/25 0/25

£'.fty!t*«er« Iclaei*

:MORW.;:S

Anuicnr

Si'i\ ja

Be'Wiiia Cad i .u i

Chra:ji Cebi!'.

0/25 0/2$ 0/25 0/25 3/25 1/25 1/25 1/2$ 3/25 Z/25

0.01 0.01 «.0l 0.01 0.01 0.01 0^0$ 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.0C5-O.01 0.0O5-C,01 0.005 0.00$ 0.K5 0.01 0.005 0.0O5 0.005 0.0C5

0.002 fl.COX .085 0.031-0.0*4 W w 0.014-0.2

m m m w N> 0.003 M l« HA 0.01

0.0i9

0.OO4-0.039

O.Oie-C.072

NA

KA

o.oc:-o.o2» 0.0O4 o.oc; 0.001-0.064 O.OU-C.033 0.062-0.2

COPWT Iron l u d

Hineircst IlNirajry "Nickel

PetBSilB ^leniia $odiui ThilliiA Viudiia ZiK

I II II II II II 111

IIPESTKIKS/PCS

II

u

25/25 3/25 24/25 2$/2$ 11/2$ 5/2$ 2$/2$ 19/2$ 20/2$ 2$/2$ 2y2$ 18/2$ 2y2$ 2$/2$ 16/2$ 16/2$ 2$/2$ 1/25 25/2$ 6/2$ 20/2$ 2S/»

4,4 -««

.11 II

['0/2$ 0/2$

0,02-0.03 0.0022 w 0.0Ol-<.0O3 O.W2-C'.004 NA 6 0.007-0.009 NA NA NA NA NA 0 0002 0.'016-0.02S NA o.mi-0.02 NA 0.001-O.0O2 0.01 NA

NA 0.002> 0.00$t 0.0441 NA m o.^ NA NA NA NA NA NA

o.oie NA NA NA O.Olt

0.0691 NA NA NA 0.012 NA 0.072> NA

NA NA NA NA o.ooe C.OOU O.OCH 0.012 0.033» 0.2»

0.649-2S2 0.02^.041 0.001-0.041 0.034-1.» 0.0013-0.01$ W 0.002 )-o.oe6 iel-1440 0.0036-0.$38 0.007-0.22 0.0047-0.846 2.29-482 O.0O47-0,2« 2.27-lB e.l$»-212 0.0002-0.M2 e.01i4-0.49 e.«$H1.7 »(0.001l)-«.»2 2.18-112

0.0037-0.319 0.0234-2.18

W-5ITI

Scxa"--

Of u.$. Mcxsnuo

I I M I < M M I I I t !

HA 0.01 9.01 0.01 NA 0.01 6.0$ 0.01 0.01 0.01 NA 0.01 M 0.006-0.1 NA 0.01 NA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.000! 0.0001

NA NA NA

NA NA NA

0.00$ 0.00$ 0.005 0.00$ 0.00$ 0.01 0.005 0.00$ 0.005 0.005

I 11 I I t i ( ! 11 I n I

NA NA W NA NA W NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

144.19 0.0411 0,024 1.0$ c.o$u 0.0O4 407.4$ 0.337 0.071 0.418 314.09 0.228 76.S$8 68.009 0.001 0.1S2 22.% 0,003 131.28 0.002 0.112 e.TO

1.37-28.5 NA 0.023-0.03 NA O.0O1-0.0O9 m 0.034-0.6$1 NA 0.0016-O.0066 0.003-0.004 NA 196-412 NA 0.006-0.0)6 NA 0.007-C.0$4 NA 0.0047-0.123 NA 7.08-97.1 NA 0.0611-0.084 NA 0.2S2-21.6 NA 0.159-7.65 NA 0.0002-0.001 NA 0.0002-O.118 NA O.ISl-S.S HA 0.002-0.004 NA 2.1-6.79 NA 0.002-0.002 NA 0.0O$-0.OS9 NA 0.0234-0.186 NA

I I I t I t I I M I •

0.0001 NA 0.0001 NA ? iWI M

I M I H I I H I I I I I I I I I I M I M

o o

» : NDl OfTECTEO » : (01 AW-ICASLi l : RAZIN* KTtCTED VALUE

00

T a b l

s j imt Of aw^E ^ r a WTA itcuDifs L D W K ^ m i s

I I I I I I I I 1 n I I I M I M I I I M I I

M II II t / n 1 I I M I M I I I I M I I 11 M M I I M I I

S£«1V01JTIL£ OR&AK'iCS 1.2-D>chlorobenzei» l ivCichloroteiuene <"i*thylphenol

I I M n I I I I M I t M I I I I I I I M I I t I M I M I M I t I

" S^m.E5

M M ) I t I 1 I t

M r I n ( M 1111111 M M H r I M I I I M I 11 I I

I ( n M n I I 111 M r 11 11

I I M ; i 11 M 1111 r t M 11 I ( I t

jjFKaUENCY W«G£-Of

11 f I I I ( ( i T i t M I M 11 i f i I /1 I r ' H I I I I I I H I I I I ( i; I I 1 ( I I 1 I I I I M M 1

KTECTKW

Ml 9 5 * U 1

9 / i ; I ( 11 n 1 1 1 i T T i • C i 1 1 1 1 M I

H M 1 I I M I I I I I I I I M n I M H M M

s t taof W-SITE

11 n H J t n 1111111

H H ( M I

LEvas i m i i / i 1111

111111111111 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 ( t n I M I n 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I M 11

Anthracene Benzoic k i i Sen20 Benzo

aMnlhracene «)pyrene

9en2o(b)nuoTanlhene iiBtniKS.h.ijperrlew

B*n2o(i;)fluoranlhene ..Beniyl Alcohol

Bi!?2-elhrlhexyltehlhalate Sutyibenryiphthalate Chrysers DiberJO\a,h^nthracene Oielhylphthalale Di-M-3ulylpht^laIale Di- r r tc ty lphthai i le

0/20 0/20 2/20 0/20 0/20 1/20 0/20 0/20 0/20 0/20 0/20

111/20 2/20 0/20 0/20

;;o/2o 0/20

II

I .Fluoranthene Fluoriiw Iftd«rv^l23cd)pyTet« Naphlhalene Phenanlhrene Phenol Pyiene

1/20 1/20 1/20 0/20 0/20 1/20 2/20 1/20 1/20

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 e.oi 0.01-0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.0] 0.01 0.01 0,01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.007-0.11

m 0.009

0.01 0.O02-O.0O5 l«ll

0.003 0.M3 0.002

0.004 O.Ml-0.002 ®(C.01)-0.021 0.KI2

0.018

0.014

0.01 0.005 m

0.003> 0.0031 0.002« NA

0.004J 0.002J 0.012 0.002»

II

VaAIILES iCarbon O i a l f i d e Chlorober.zene Chloroetl-jne

lll , l-Oichloro€th«ne Ethylbenzene

I Toluene Xylene;

INOftW::t Alui;n;uii AntiKn* Arsenic Ba'iui BeryliiUB Calcius Catkiur ChroiiuB Cobalt Copper Iron Lead Nagnesiua Manganese Nercury Nickel Potassiui

^ l e n i u f l Silver Sodiut Thal l i is

, VanadiuB ZiiK-Cyanide

2/20 4/20 1/20 1/20 2/20 3/20 2/20

13/20 12/20 7/20 20/20 0/20 20/20 8/20 13/20 6/20 10/20

0.005 O.OOf 0.010 o.oos 0.005 0.005 0.005

0.02-0.0% 0.010-0.023 0.01-0.02

0.005-0.00« 0.001-o.ooe 0.005 0.003 0.001-0,004 0.001-0.004 0.002-0.007

0.005 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.006

ID{0.02)-20.4 HWC.01)-0.015 ®(0.0011-0.012 0.006-3,58

0,01-0.04 ^

0.02-0.05 0.03-0.06 0.04-0.09 6.02-0.04

20/20 m 13/20 O.OOH.OIO 20/20 ^ 20/20 i» 5/20 6/20 ; 17/20

0/20 20/20 m

6 m 2 0.W5-O.022 0.445-0.70) 0.002-O.0O3 0.002-0.0(fe

0/20 8/20 10/20 2/20

e.Kll-0.020 0.003-0.004-0.007 0.010-0.0125

.7-317 0.002-0.178 l®( 0.003 HI.316 f«O.W4}-0.016 »(0.M2)-O.370 0.013-636 »(0.001}-0.454 0.»3-ie.6 0.033-25.3

S0.W2)-O.0O4 0.0051-0.116

®(0.445)-28.3 l^0.002H.M2S

{D(0.003)-0.05S 0.0022-11.2 ®(0.010 )-0.(S5

PESnCIOES

4,4'-00C 4,4'-D01

I I I I I I N M I I I I 11 M M I M ( f M M

II !!o/2o

0/20 0/20

f M M u r f f

®(0.0001] SIWO.OOOl t^0.«)01

KA

^.22 0.011 0.005 1.85 ^ 118.02 0.101 0.027 0.W9 0.064 S36 0.441 14.55 35.75 0.0006 0.028 13.25 0.0028 HA ^ . 3 7

0.0098 11.2 0.018

NA NA

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.003-0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 S.Ol 0.01

0.005 0.005 0.010 0.005 0.W5 0.005 0.005

0.0415-0.628 0.010 0.002 O.W8-0.025 0.001 11.7-19.3 0.002 0.005 0 004 O.0O3-O.O09 0.178-1.63 e.0038-0.031 0.853-1.27 0.0326-0.087 0.0002 0.005-0.006 0.780-0.794 0.003 O.KM 1.73-1.« 0.002 0.003-0.010 IM 0.010-0.013

O.Wl O.WOl 0.0001

m NA NA NA NA

NA NA NA NA NA NA

NA Wi NA

NA NA W\ NA NA ^ NA

NA NA NA NA IM

NA IM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

IM IM

IM NA NA

o o M

M 11111 ( i 1111 r 111 i ' l 11 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 11 ( M 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( I M I (11 M 111 i 11111111 M 11 n n I I I I I I t M I M I I I n I I M I I I M M I I H M I I M n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M M I I I I I n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M

M M I I M I I I I I I I I I

» : NCI DETECTED IM: NOT WJCABlE i: HAXINUN DETECTED VAllS

T a b l e I C

l,2-Oichloro6eti:»fB l,4-OicMciro6en:fW 2,4-Ci»elhrlp)enc! 4-*eihYlpheBol

[Aceniphlhtne AKhrtcene 8euoic Kid Beuo Senzoi

iSeiuoi [Beucn 6euo

I lenthracew eWreie trli»rinth*(ie 8,h,i)»:rl9W

luoriiTthene 8ii(2eUirIh«iyl)B^thiltli SuirlbennlP^iheute Chryjew Dititn2C4n'.hrK*»

II,

II (I lloieihrlphtKiiate

Di-rriuiTlphtneljU OiKtrlphtktijte

iinuortn'.lurB Fluo-ew lad«no(i23cd)py'eiB > ^ t l u l e «

I I

WKMrthrene Pkno!

w u i i i i ; !!l,l-0ich!orcie'.h4iB ;il,2-0icr.;orc>c.'«r«

6er.!ene U:5o^ d i a l ' i d J

llCftioro&«r,:ene .X t i ' . i -o t ' . nm

Chloroforr

I I

ir;

E'.hjlierceTB Toluew rjcnloTWttttitt

lylews

,,Aiui;r,ii,@ An-.lSCfl; Arser.,: 84-lJl

,,BeTr;,iu8 :4a:a i Ciiciua

'CoM.t Cosw' IT or, Cue 'flijreita

Beraiiy Nickel POIMSIUI $«leDiua Silver Sodiut TMiJiB VIIWJIUS

l lrinc | |Cr<Ai4i

I IPESTICIOES/IOS 4,4'-0K 4.4'-00C

W iYM

1 t l ( t 1 > 1 1 1 1 M

II ' " II .jjf^aorr Wm^m.. I I ' " " " " "

iJl/21 0/21 0/21 1/21 1/21 0/21 0/21 1/21 0/21 1/21 0/21 0/21 6/21 0/21 2/21 0/21 0/21 2/21 0/21 2/21 2/21 0/21 3/21 2/21 0/21

1J2/21 II

I Jo/21 0/21 0/21 7/21 3/21 0/21 U21 1/21 4/21 0/21

IJ3/21

II

1'21/21 0/21 21/21 21/21 15/21 11/21 21/21 20/21 17/21 21/21 21/21 8/21 21/21 21/21 6/21 19/21 19/21 12/21 6/21 21/21 2/21 21/21

1110/21 112/21 II

!|l/21 0/21 1/21

I I I i n n

1 1 1 1 1 1 ) 1 n 1 M M 1 1 n 111 1 M < 111 H I

ms. (r .,MM) 11 M 111 n M 111 n

0.4S^5.1 fl.4H.4 0.45-9.4 0.4$-9.4 0.45-0.53 fi.4$-9.4 2.2-46 e.4S-«.9 C.4S-9.4 0.45-4.2 0.45-9.4 0.45-9,4 0.4i-9.4 0.45-9.4 0.4S-4.9 0.45-9.4 0.45-9,4 0.45-9.4 0.45-9.4 0.45-9.4 C.4$-«.e7 0.4$-9.4 0.45-9.4 0.45-9.4 0.45-9.4 0.45-9.4

0.007-C.071 6.0C'-0.07! 0.0C7-C.071 0.OC7-O.071 0.007-0.071 0.017-0.14 0,007-0.071 0.007-0.071 0.007-0.071 0.0C7-O.071 C.007-C.071

KS 3.2-23.7 l» 1^ 0,26-2.4 1.3-5.9 » 11.9 3-9.5 RA la t» la t» 0.13-1.1 11.9 711-1240 0.4M6.4 0.9>9.$ tss 0.29-$.1 ra « e.W-12.7

0.027-0.OU 0.02-0.11 0.022-0.11

l l l l l l l M l

M l I M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 M

"'m V KTICTI»

i i i W : 1 U 1 1 1 n M 1 ! M U 1 1

0.120 m » «(0.4$h0.59 i.S w NA ai(o.4S)-i .o

^ ®(0.4$)-0.77

m NA e.io-2.» m 0.28-0.93 RA

m m.i iHM NA ai(0.4$)-1.6O 0.26^5.37 m ffi(0,45H.O i(0.45H.5O NA !«0.45)-1.50

)» m m 0.904-0.064 «I(0.007H.43 NA ©(0.007K.01 ^C.0O7rC.013 0.»t-0.»49 NA

15aK32$0C t^ 1.2-X

iD(C.2eh3.$ ®( l .3} l7 .1 iyCh2370C 7 ^ * ¥ * »(3H0.6 3-64.6 1310-137000 §.}-93.7 721-3110 83-401W il(0.13h7 6.2-31,7 S9>2K0 «0 ,42H .9 eTk-12.8 §2.9-771 i(0.29)-0.4$ 7.S-79.$ s-w W0.94)-3

««0.627)-e.«38 ^ ^0.022 h<.074

1 I I I I n M 1 ( I 1 M > 1 1

• 1 1 1 1 n 1 n 11 n 1

i i M , M t n 1 1 1 1 1

S.12C«

% ISA 0.0$^ 0.2801 NA NA 1.1$ NA 0.799

^ NA 2i3 NA 1.02 HA NA 0.$9 NA 1.44 0.37

m 1.11 1.43 NA 1.43

NA NA NA 0.03$ 0.102 NA O.OU 0.013« 0.027 NA 0.106

18014.6 t^ 13,1 486.4 2.3 9.8 196S4.7 2$ .6 10.6 S 10$99S

% 2547,6 10161.6 0.$ 21.9 1271.5 4.5 $.5 i@.$ 2.3 ».9 2S9.8 6

0.039 HA e.OM

1 i T i 1 I I t n

M 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 M 1

mats »-SITE

m .\ ) M < 111 n n 1 M 1 (( 1 1

3.«H4.70 0.90-4.70 9.90-4.70 0.9O-4.70 0.90-4.70 0.90-4.70 4.>23 0.90-4.70 6.90-4.70 0.9M.70 8.90-4.« O.W-4.70 e.90-4.70 e.»-4.70 9.90-4.70 0.90-4.70 0.90-4.70 0.9O-4.70 0.9O-4.7O 0.9O-4.70 0.90-4.70 0.9O-4.70 0.90-4.70 0.9O-4.70 C.90-4.70 0.90-4.70

0.013-O.035 0.013-0.035 0.013-0.03$ e.009-0.035 0.013-0.035 O.O27-C.07 0.013-0.035 0.013-0.03$ 0.006-0.03$ 0.013-0.035 0.013-<i.03$

1$30-10200 7.$-23.$ l .H 45-142 0.7$-2.4 1.6-4.7 10000-23700 11.9-14.8 3-9.$ 15.5-21.5 131CH3970 NA 721-10*0 83-104 0.38-1.1 7.3-11.9 l2»-2®0 2.1-7.6 S-9.5 lJ9-2% 1.4-5.1 8.1-11.1

m 3.8-12.7

m HA NA

I M I I M M I M I I I I M

"ills'. 1 w:sax \

,ffi),» 1 M 1 1 1 M 1 1 U 1 1 1 1 M 1

KA 1 » NA NA m NA r»> NA NA HA NA NA NA l» NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA t» NA NA NA 1

NA 1 NA M NA NA NA NA NA HA NA NA 1

72000 1 0.66 7.2 $8C 0.92 9.1 24O0C

9.1 » 26000

" 9080 SSO 0.09

W ISOOO 0.39

a l»00 9.4 10 1 u ! HA 1

m 1 NA NA

EC i-a

O o

I I I 1 t I I I t I M I t I I I t I I I M I I I 11 I t I I I 1 t M I I t I M I I t I ) I I t M I I I I 1 I

» : NDl OCTICTEi »•• m i A P J M B i «: m \ H H OfTECTO) VALUE A: Source U5fiS(19e3) 00

o

Table ID

SOIL DflTA

I M M I M M M M M I M M M I

I M I M M I M I I I n M It M M I I M M I I M M M M IJ M I

II COMPOUND W «

I I I , M I I M M I M M I M M M M M M M 1

II iEKivOLATiL^iWAWCS'

!!l,2-0ichloro6en2ene l,4-{lichloro6enzene 2,4-Nethylphenol 4-flethvlpSenol Acenaphthene Anthracene Benzoic Acid

FREWMCr Of DCTECTl® I I I M M I I I I I I I

I t n M I I I M I 1111111

111 n 111111111 It 11 11111111111 n 111111111111 M 11111111 M , 11 11 M I 11 111111111111111111111111 IJ 1111 111 M I 111 M 11 n 1111 1111111 1111 J1111 I I I

RANGE OF (? (F ON-SITE U.S

i i W to WM) ^l^LS(^/k^;„„^^5ft/k^;,A„ < I I I I . M I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I 11 I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

6enzo(a Anthracene

II

Benzo Benzo

Isenzo Benzo M

yrene uoranthene

p t r y l t K uoranthene heiyl)phlhalate i i D J S ^ i r t i i ? i K » M • ' i i u i

Butylbeniylphthalate Chrysene Oibenzo(a,h)enthr8cew Dieth/lphthalate Oi-n-butylphthalate Di-rr-octylphthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(123cdhrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene PhencI

iJFVrene

[{iNORW.Ci

. .A iu i inu i Anli»or.! Arsenic

I Bariun Be-yliiuB Cadr.iUt Calciat

llChroBii'i llCobalt

Copce-Iror. Lead , Hagnesiuu NanjiTtese Nercxjr, Nickel Petassiun Seleniur Sodiui Tha l l iu i VarbadiuB Zinc.

j|Cr«nide

]|PEST1CIKS/PC8S

,'|4,4'-»E

0/22 0/22 0/22 0/22 1/22 2/22 0/22 V22 4/22 6/22 3/22

;;i/22 10/22 0/22 6/22 0/22 1/22 2/22 0/22 7/22 1/22 4/22

111/22 5/22 0/22

||7/22

i f II

'{22/22 0/22 9/22 22/22 2/22 17/22 22/22

1122/22 1121/22

11/22 1122/22

19/22 19/22

"22/22 14/22 21/22 14/22 0/22 16/22 0/22 22/22 I22/22 0/22

0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-21 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24 0.37-24

4,4'-001 I 1 M M M II I I M 11 M I M '

n M M M M n I M I I ' M M I M M I n I t I I

_ n II 11

''.2/22 0/22 6/22

M I n M M I M I I M I n M M I M

7.5-18.6

0.68-1.7 1.1-2.8

HA

0.29-0.35 191-335 NA t^ 7.9 730-17^ 1.1-28.2 182-449 1.4-3.4

1.1-2.8

0.062 0.048-0.13

0.^-1.2 0.094-1.1 0.0^-1.7 0.14-0.72 0.098 0.037-2.4 NA 0.078-1,7 Wt 0.043 0.08-0,09

0.063-2,4 0.046 0.058-0,65 ®(0.37)-3.1 0,077-1,9

0,058-2,8

5210-33500

9.1-109 43.5-2070

0.68)-0.84 l.l)-38.6

1410-29500 7.7-2880 5.4-29.4 32.20-319 iX-27&X)0 ®(0.29)-835 ®(191)-14200 478-1890 0.3-1.60 • i<7.9)-347 14.9-2320

®(182H460 1^ 16.9-51.1 «.6-469

m 0.06 0.13 NA 0.77 0.97 0.93 0.72 0.098 1.64 NA 0.87 IM 0.04 0.09 NA 2.26 0.05 0.72 2.36 1.16 W\ 2.32

19316.2

45.4 191.1 1 7.6 11293.7 502.4 18.4 161.5 115980 581.5 15127 1732 1.6 M.7 2810.7 NA 672.1 ^ 31.3 183

0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 2.8 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0,57 0.57 0.57

5330-28700 11.5-18.6 IM 43.5-155 1.0-1.70 1.7-2.8 2S30-8890 10.3-22.4 4.5-12.5 NA 4880-32500 0.35-123 4^2040 230-1790

7.9-15.3 llW-1780 17.5-28.2 27^-449 2.1-3.4 36.5-51.1 67.8-133 1.7-2.8

1111 l l l l l l l

0.016-1.5 iKO.OISHl.M e.34i 0.018-1.5 ^ t^

i9(?l?:}(Li^?.?l?h^i^?„„?i??l,i I M 1111111111111111u i I i 111 n 111111111H11111nIII M 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I

0.500 0.260

..?l „

NA NA NA NA NA HA

NA NA HA NA IM NA IM NA IM IM NA IM NA NA NA HA NA NA

72000 0.66 7.2 580 0.92 0.5 24000 54 9.1 25 26000 19 9000 550 0.09 19 15000 0.39 120O0 9,4

NA

NA NA NA

o o

00

ND: NOT DETECTED IM; NOT APPLICABLE A: Source-WSSS(1983)

M M M 1 M M 1 1 M M 1 M M M 1 M 1 n 1 1 1 M M M 1 M n M M M 1 I I M M M 1 n 1 1 1 1

1 1 t 1

1 / I I 1 1 M 1 M M I I 1 M 1 1 M M M 1 1 M 1 M

j's^voAiiLri^liV' 1,2-iiichlorobenzcne l,4-{lichlorob?n2en€ • 2,4-{)iDethylph2nol 4-ft8thylphenol toenapthene Anthracene Benzoic Acid B6nzo(' ~mhracene Ssnzola/yTone BenzoibJFluoranthene B«nzo(a.h,i)j«rylen8 Benzol klFluorathene Bis(2-Ethylhjxyl)PhthaUte Butylbenzylphthalate Chrysene Diben2o(a,h)anthracene Diethylphthalate Di-n-wtylphthalate Oi-n-Octylphthalate . Fluoranthene Fluorene Indenc>;i,2,3-cd)pyrene KiPhthaiene Phenanthrene Phenol

J jPyrer*

' { V O L A T I L E ORiA^:;CS Benzene Carbon D i s u l f i d e Chlo'ober,:ere Ethylbenzene Toluene

I {Xy lene ; -Ota ! )

{{W3S34SIC5 A l u n i n u B An t i& : - y Arsenic Bariun B e r y l l i u t CadJiuo

i iCa lc iuD 1 ChrooiuD

Cobalt Copper I ron Lead Rajnesiua Ranoanese HicTel

.Po tass ius i Ss len iu i . SodiuD Vjnadiuo , Zinc

i jCyanide

ilP£STICIDES/PCes 114.4'-DOE H4,4'-000

4,4'-DDT U 1 1 M 1 M 1 M 1 1 M M t 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 M 1 n 1 n 11 M M M M 11 M M 1 n M n 1 11 n n 1

KD: KOT DETECTED RA: KOT APPlK^R E A: Source - USG5(1983)

1 1 1 M 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

l l - „ FREQUENCY

\ \^ DETECTION

M M M 1 M I I M 1 1 M M ) M M 1 1 1

1 0/11 1/11 0/11 1/11 0/11 2/11 1/11 2/11 1/11 2/11 0/11 2/11 5/11 2/11 2/11 0/11 1/11 0/11 1/11 4/11 1/11 0/11 6/11 4/11 0/11

|4/n

1 1 2/11 3/11 5/11 7/11 8/11

{8/11

1 I 11/11 6/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 4/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 11/11 0/11 6/11 11/11 11/11

{2/11

1 1 0/11 lo/ii 10/11

T a b l e IE

SIK^Y OF SlS^WAa 5U1L Uftlfl

M M 1 1 M M M 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 M n 11 M M M M 1 1 1 1 M M M M H I f M 1 1 1 1

m i OF SSL

1111 m ( f f M n (1 1 1 U M 1 U ( M M 1 1 .

0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 1.8-120 0.37-0.84 0.37-0.84 0.37-4.1 0.370-24.0 0.37-0.77 0.370-24.0 0.37(h24.0 0.37-0.84 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.37-1.9 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0 0.370-24.0

0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.006 C.006

IM 2.9-3.9 NA IM IM 0.41-0.55 KA NA KA KA KA KA KA KA RA KA 0.22-O.49 KA KA KA 0.5-0.75

0.035-0.051 0.035-0.051 0.035-0.051

ms. OF DETECTION

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M I I 11 11 11 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1

95;ua

ft««0F 0?^SITE lACXGfiOUfO

I I111 n n 11 111111 11111 11111

U.S.

basxm LEVELS

.M\^) \ m tmiM??^^M?^^i*i,i 11 11111111111 n 11

KA 0.10 KA 0.34 KA O.Oa-0.15 0.22 O.3O-0.42 e.24 0.26-0.71 KA 0.27-0.36 0.037-4.5 0.092-0.24 0.27-0.43 KA 0.11 KA 0.20 0.05-1.2 l3)(0.37}-0.42 KA 0.068-0.65 0.17-1.1 KA 0.075-1.1

0.001-0.002 0.003 0.001-O.OOS KD(0.006)-0.041 0.002-O.015 KD(0.0O61-0.310

9360-16200

m.iHi 2-12.5 32-378 0.43-0.89 KD(0.41)-1.8 936-2450 12.2-21.9 8.9-13.9 20.3-45.6 17400-28300 8.5-93.1 3990-6010 201-1720 14.3-25 7^-1550 KA 70.5-237 12.1-22.3 18.6-266 HK 0.50 HO.4

KA KA KA

1 1 1 M 1 M 1 1 1 1 M M M 1 M 1 1 M M 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 H U 1 M M M

1 M 11111 u n H 1 n I I 1 r 111 H 1 H 1 n n M M 1 I I 1

KA 0.1 i» 0.34 KA 0.15 0.22 0.43 0.24 0.69 KA 0.391 6.39 0.24 0.43 KA 0.11 KA 0.2 1.35 0.60 KA 0.65 0.84 KA

.1.21

0.002 0.003 0.007 0.023 0,012 0,422

13255.5 22,8 6,9 118,8 0.8 0.8 1722.8 18.3 12.5 36.1 24278.1 60.1 4954,3 1250.2 21.1 1334.6 0.4 191.5 16.8 134.1 2.4

NA KA KA

KA KA KA KA KA KA KA IM KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA

KA NA KA KA NA IM

KA NA KA NA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA

KA KA KA

KA KA KA KA t^ KA KA » KA KA KA KA IM IM ^ KA KA KA KA KA KA KA KA IM KA KA ]

KA 1 ^ o KA KA NA, KA {

72000 1 0.66 7.2 580 0.92 0.5 24000 W 9.1 25 26000 19 5000 SSO 19 15000 0.39 12000 60 60 KA 1

KA ! KA ! KA 1

1 1 M 1 M M 1 1 1 t 1 11 1 M n 1 1 1 1 1 1 M n M 1 1 M 1 M 1 n n M i 1 M M M n M 1 11 1 M i n 1 M M 1 1 1 11 ( M 1 1 1 M 1 11 M 1 U 1 1 M 1 n M 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( t 11 M 1 n ( 1 1 M 1 M M 1 1

1 tc 1 M 1 ^ j

1 '^

1 o t .

1 n.J

1 M 1 KO

1 ^ 1 NJ '

Table IF

BSMTEl. IMIDFILL PZHZDCAL t t rvTSTt<^Tt<.

C O M P O U N D S D E I P X I E D I N T H H PBrv*TR WEI.

lELD SAKPLC l O

0 * « SAKPLCO

•AKPLZ TTTE

F W - 0 1

H - J u n - » 0

CERRA

FM-I

H - J u o - 9 0

CAVEtlH

PM-OJ

J O - J u n - 9 0

LACXSCIO

PW-04 PW-05

] Q - J u n - 9 0 ] 0 - J u n - 1 0

H. LAHAKNA P . lAMAMNh

PM-OS

7 D - J u n - « 0

JOmSOM

PM-OT

BtTTDTM

VOLATILE O a t G U l C S ( n f / l ) .

A c r r o n

8UUII m t r m u ^ M r i D KinuwrTABLes f u ^ / i )

PBSTICIOES/PCB'S laq /L)

rw-o» pw-io pw-ii p n - i j

30-Jun-10 30-JOO-90 aO-Jun-90 IO-Jun-90

BISACCIO tHICKSWH BOHS WICKsni APT. OOP OP PW-i

IMORCAIIICS fBq/L>

Mtsmic

BARIUM

CAICIUN

COPPER

IRON

LEAD

KACHESION

HAMGAMESE

SELERIUH

SODIUM

tlHC

J.o

t . l

» J 0 0 . 0

1 5 . 0

aos.o

3 . 4

3 1 4 0 . 0

7 . 0

1.0

• 7 0 0 . 0

—

0

J

u

u

It

2 . 0

K . l

2 7 1 0 0 . 0

4.C

1 J 9 . 0

J . 4

J 1 7 D . 0

4 1 . 7

1.0

i S i O . D

V

J

u

R

2 . 0

5 . 1

3 4 5 0 0 . 0

1.1

i l . l

2 . 4

44DD.0

7 . 0

1.0

13400 .0

D

J

U

U

R

2 .0

5.3

2 0 * 0 0 . 0

l i . 3

3 9 . 3

3.2

1790.0

7 .0

1.0

7050.0

D

J

U

0

R

3 . 0

10 .»

3 4 5 0 0 . 0

J.O

4 3 . 3

3 . 0

7 4 5 0 . 0

T.O

J.O

5 4 * 0 . 0

-.

0

u

DJ

U

0

R

2 . 0

U - 5

45JOO.O

• 1.3

J1 .5

-S l t O . O

4 . 1

l . o

7470 .0

1 4 . •

OJ

R

WJ

1

49

4 1700

IB

53*

41*0

341

1

11900

14

3

0

0

3

0

-0

0

0

0

1

J

' J

R

UJ

3.0

4 . 0

37300.0

34.4

110.0

~-1*50.0

l . I

1.0

1*500.0

311.0

OJ

R

UJ

J

J

3 . 0

3 * . 2

43500 .0

7 . 5

2 5 2 . 0

-5440 .0

154 .0

3 .0

4340 .0

41 .4

OJ

J

R

UJ

J

3 . 0

14. 1

44500.0

11-7

>•.>

3 .«

1*40 .0

7.0

1.0

71R0.0

--

0

J

u

0

R

2 . 0

1 4 . 0

4 4 4 0 0 . 0

1 4 . •

4 1 3 . 0

1 0 . 7

9 3 4 0 . 0

4 * . *

3 . 0

10500 .0

--

D

J

° R

3 .

*. 37400 .

14.

1 1 * .

3 7 4 0 .

3 .

1 .

2 I 3 0 O .

3 7 4 .

• C H E M i m t T IM^/I)

C K U N U o e

TXJi

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS

SULFATE

CARBOMATE a* CkCOl

BICARBONATE m« CaCOl

NITRATE-RITRITE'H3

AHMOHLK MITROCEN

TOC

0 . 3 5

0 . 0 5 0

< 1 . 0 J

< 0 . 0 5 0

< 0 . 0 5 0

1 .4 *

30

O. IO

210

1* .0

O.IR

250

15 .0

o . n

220

50-0

0 .15

t«0

140

0 . 1 0

< 0 . 0 5 0

< 1 . 0

4)

4.11

< 0 . 0 5 0

< ] . 0

140

<o.oio

< 0 . 0 5 0

1.08

7 1 . 0

D . I l

130

1 0 . 0

« 0 . J 0

3 0 0

5 0 . 0

0 . 3 5

190

1*0

0 . 0 5 0

0 . 0 5 0

< I . O

no 3 . 0

< 0 . 0 5 0

< 1 . 0

riELD tARAKETVRS

pB (atandard anita)

TEMPERATURE ("C>

IB (••»

COfCDUCTIVtTT Ivmhoa/d

SALINITY Cll

4.4

14.5

115

345

7.1

15.3

DUP

DlIP

DUP

DUP

DUP

O m Not Dwtactad to th« Rvportad D«t*c:tion Lijait

UJ > Not Datactad to an rati«at«d Detection Liattt

J - tattaatad Valua.

R > Data R*l*ct*d bf Validation

•D - No aoalrtaa of thla ctHpound qroup datactad

£86T 100 l i H

Table 2A

MLKIIL l.ANtlt U L HfMl 'J lAI INVLSIIOAIION

COMCARISON Of (iWOlINn WATIk I l)N( I N I KA IIONS 10 AWARS

Paramete r

Max imum

C o n c e n t r a l i o n Observed In (iruuiiO Water

(ppl>)

MLL'

(ppt>)

rcdtTdl ARARj New York ARARs

(ppli)

Ambient Water Qua lily Cr ileria

(ppb)

Ground Water Quali ty Cr i ter ia

(ppb) NYMCL^ (ppb)

Acetone Ben/ene ?-Biitanone Chlorobenjene Chloroethane Chloroform I,l-Dithloroethane 1 , < ? - D i c l i l o r o e t h e n e

1.?-Oichloropropane Ethylbenzene

Slyrene Toluene Trichloroethene Xylenes Benzoic Acid Benzyl Alcohol Bis (2-ethyIhe<<yl) Phlhalate I,1-Oichlorobenzene Diethylphthalate 2 ./l-Oinielhyl phenol Oi-n-ortyiphthalate 2-Methylnaphthalene '1-Methylphenol Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol Aluminum (total/dissolved) Arspnic (total/dissolvpd) Barium (total/dissolved) Berylium (total/dissolved) Cadmium (total/dissolved) Calcium (total/dissolved) Chromium (total/dissolved) Cobalt (total/dissolved) Copper (loldl/dissolved)-Nol I roil (total/di ssol ved )

I"! 6

^\ 21 4 I 2 I

1

61 I

31

I 210 200

() 21 10

000 82 64 5

11 :t9 I I 72

2S2.000//VI 11,1/n.n I ,100/732

i:i.i/No I.O/ND

71,000/261,000 sia/No 220/NO

Primary ni(./NO 8'j:i.800/1 l(.,«(rfl

S

100

100(a)

tis-70

trans-100 •,

700 100

I ,000

10,000

7S

SO 2.000

I

100

See Note

0

100

cis-70 trans-100

n 700 100

1,000 0

10.000

(0) 7S

(SO) 2,000

0

100

0.66

Iflfl

0.19

2,100

is.noo 2.8

21.000 170

131,000 100

3,500

0.0022

10

SO

1000

ND

20

100

50 50

931 50 10 50

50 1.7 50

0.3 50

10 50 I

25 1000

10

1000 300

50 5

50 5 5

5 5

5 5 5 5 5

50

5 50 5

50 50

50 50 50

50 1000

10

50

200 300

^861 TOO IM

Table 2A

l l tR ILL LANOr i tL REMEDIAL INVESIIGAI ION

COMPARISON 01 GHOIINn WAUR CONCI Nf HAIIONS 10 ARARS

( f o n t i niipH )

Ma Xi mum

Contentrat ion Observed In Ground Water

federil ARARs_

MCI Parameter

lead (total/dissolved) Maqnpsiiim (total/Hi«;solvert) Manrjanese (total/dissolved) Mercury (total/dissolved) Nickel (luldl/dissolved) Potassium (totdl/dissoived) Silver (total/dissolved) Sodium (total/dissolvcH) Vanadium (total/dissolved) Zinc (total/dissolved) Chloride

(ppb)

.313/5.9 133.000/55.500 121.000/27,900

0.90/0.3 190/43.2

ll.OOO/Jb.bOO 266/ND

115,000/122,000 319/ND

2.880/91.6 150.000

(ppb)

See Note

2 (100)

100

(ppb) .

0

2 ( 100)

Ambient Water MClC'' Qu.ilily Criteria

(ppb)

New York ARARs

Ground Water Quali ty Cri teri a

(ppb) NYMCL (ppb)

60

50 10

15.4

50

5.000 250.000

25

300 2

50

35

?0

50 .000 300 2

50 .000

250.000 300

(a) Based on standard for total trihalomethanes oi 100 ppb.

ND - Not detected.

' MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Final Rule Amendments to SDWA, U.S. EPA, 1/30/91. 40 CFR III -(Proposed MCL)

^ MCIG - Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, based on health considerations only, amendments to SDWA, U.S. EPA, 1/30/91; Cites 50 IR 16936, 11/13/65 - Proposed MCLG).

^ Derived from published EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (drinking water only) 15 fR 79318-79379, 11/28/90. (August 8, 1988 draft - recent update is being sent to SDWA),

'' NYSDEC 6NVCRR Part 703, Regulations for ground water (1/9/B9).

^ NYSDOH lONYCRR Part 5, Regulations for drinking water supplies (1/9/89) and NYSDOH lONYCRR Part 170, Regulations for source of drinking water.

June 7lh - Final Rule on Lead and Copper Irealment technique action levels have been identified in lieu of MCL levels." lead 15 ppb; Copper 1,300 ppb. Testing would be done at the consumer's tap water anit any time 10'/- ol the samples exceed these limits, then action would be required.

S86I TOO liH

Table 2B

I I IR ILL L A N U I I l l RIMLUIAL INVLSl lOAl ION

COMPARISON o r SIIPrAf l WAIIR rOMf (NIRAt IONS 10 (ARARS)

Parameter

Acetone Carbon Disulfide Chlorobenzene Chloroethane 1 ,1-Oi chloroethane Etiiylbenzeiie Methylene Chloride loluene

Irichloroethene Xylenes Uenzoic Acid Benzyl Alcohol Bis (2-ethylhexyl) Phlhal Di-n-Butylphthai ate riooranttiene 4-Melhylphenol Naphthalene Phenanthrene Phenol

Pyrene A1 urn i num Arsenic Barium Cadmium Calc ium Chromium Copper - Not Primary Iron lead Magnes i um Manganese

Ha X i mum Concentration

i n Surface Water

(ppb)

110 1

1

10 4

9 10

ate 3

7

4,280 12.1 509 37.1

61,700

39.2 190.000

51.9 37,300 11.800

Max imum Concentralion

i n Leachate Seep

(ppb)

17 8 R r 3 4

1

7

5 ^ 3 2

no 4 2

21

2 20.400

3,580 I7B

317,000 316 3/0

526.000 151

836,000 2 5,.300

MCl' (ppb)

100

700

1,000

5 10,000

50 2,000

5

100 See Note

See Note

Ffideril

MCIG'' (ppb)

100

700

'• 1.000 0

10,000

(0)

(50) 2,000

5

, 100 1

1 0

A R A R i

Ami Qua

bient Water^ lily Criteria

( ppb.)

188

2,100'

15,000 2.8

21,000

0.0022

10

50 1000

50

50

Ni ' Drink ing

Water

Supply" 1 (ppb)

20

: 505

50^ 50^ 50^

50^

", 4^

S05 505

50^ 1

50^

50^ 1,000

10

50 200 300 50

35,000 300

New_iQrk-_ARARs_ f i sli i i ig F i s h i n y

and r i sli and f i sh P r o p a g a t i o n S u r v i v a l

(ppb) (ppb )

0 . 6

100^ 190^

300

50

360"

300

986T roo TiH

Table 2B

HLRILL LANOMLI RIMLOIAL INVLS i IGAI ION

COMPARISON 01 SDRFACF WAIFR fONCFNIRAIIONS TO (ARARS)

ICunli nued)

Parameter

Maximum Concentration

in Surface Water

(ppb)

Max imum Concent ration-

in leachate Seep

(ppb)

ffderiLARARs.

MCL' (ppb)

MCLG'' (ppb)

Ambient Water-* Quality Criteria

(ppb)

New York ARARs

Drinking Fishing Fishing Water and Fish and Fish Supply Propagation Survival (ppb) (ppb) (ppb)

Mercury Nirkel Potass ium Sod i um Vanadium / inc Cyanide

1.0 19.0

7.700 29,600

11.6 34/

4.1 116

28,300 79,800

54.6 I 1,200 85.3

2 ( 100)

2 (100)

10 15.4

300 100

0.2 =

14 30

5.2^

0.2-

190

22'

' MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Final Rule Amendments to SDWA, U.S. EPA, 1/30/91, 40 CFR 111 -(Proposed MCI )

^ MCLG - Maximum Contaminant Level Goals, based on health considerations only, amendments to SDWA, U.S. EPA, 1/30/9); Cites 50 FR 46936, 11/13/65 - (Proposed MCLG).

-' Derived from published EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria (drinking water only) 45 FR 79318-79379, 11/28/90. (August 8, 1988 draft - recent update is being sent to SDWA).

'' New York Stale Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values', NYSDEC 6NYCRR Part 701 and 702, Regulations for Surface Water.

-' Guidance value.

" Dissolved concentrations. ,, ::

Standard for free cyanide.

June 7th - Final Rule on Lead and Copper Treatment technique actio" levels have been identified in lieu of MCL levels: Lead 15 ppb; Copper 1,300 ppb. Testing would be done at the consumer's tap water .nnd any time 107. of the samples exceed these limits, then action would be required.

^86T TOO TiH

Table 2C

HERTEL LANDFILL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS TO ARARS

Parameter

2-Butanone Carbon Disulfide Chlorobenzene Chloroform Ethylbenzene Methylene Chlori(ie - . , Toluene Xylenes Acenaphthene ; Acenaphthylene Benzo(A)Anthracene Benzo(B)Fluoranthene Benzo(K)Fluoranthene Benzo(A)Pyrene Benzoic Acid Bis(2 ethylhexyDphthalate Chrysene Dibenzo(A,H)Anthracene l,2-Dichloroben2ene Di-n-butylphthalate Fluorene Fluoranthene Indeno(1,2,3-CD)Pyrene 2-Methylnaphthalene 4-Methylphenol Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Aluminum Arsenic Barium Cadmium Calcium

Maximum Concentration Detected In Sediment

(ppb)

86 64 430 .19 13-

860 49 970 160 >

;. . 280 1,500 770

1,200 870

5,600 2,900 1,700 960 120 610 370

3,100 390 300 59

IvOOO 2,500 2,900

32,500,000 30,000

6,230,000 17,400 23,700

New York ARARs

Aquatic Toxicity Basis^ (ug/gOC)

Human Health Basis^ (ug/gOC)

700

146,000

260

23 ,940

(5 ,000 ppb)

(800 ppb) o o

00 00

Table 2C

HERTEL LAhJDFILL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

COMPARISON OF SEDIMENT CONCENTRATIONS TO ARARS

. (Ck>ntinued)

Parameter

Maximum Concentration Detected In Sediment

(ppb)

64,400 60,600 67,800 :.

137,000,000 •; ". : 93,700 ;

5,950,000-- -: -;•-•68,100,000-

700 29,000

1,620,000 400

5,600 78,300

340 6,700

New Aquatic Toxicity

. Basis! (ug/gOC)

; . " ji

- - •

1

York ARARs

Human Health Ba s i s! (ug/gOC)

.(26,000 ppb)

v(19,:000:. ppb) -•(27,000 ppb) . (24,7000: ppb)

- •' -

(42 8;-000- ppb) (110 ppb)

(22,000 ppb)

(85,000 ppb)

Chromium Cobalt Copper; Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury Nickel PotassiaTi Selen:UiTi

Silver Vanadiun Zinc Cyanide

Ail New York ARARs values were based on a representative site organic carbon value of 20% by weight.

! NYSDEC 1987; V Sediment - Criteria, Bureau of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife.

a: 1-3

o o

00

Table 2D

HERTEL LANDFILL RDffiDIAL INVESTIGATION

C(^4PARIS0N OF SURFACE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO RCRA

FACILITY INVESTIGATION GUIDANCE VALUES

Parameter

Maximum'; " Concentration In Surface Soil

(ppb),. .: RCRA* (ppm)

Total Volatile Organics (with Benzene <1 ppm)

353

Benzene

Total Carcinogenic PAHs'

Total PAHs (if total carcinogenic XPAHs <10 ppm)

Total Base Neutrals

Anthracene Benzo(A)Anthracene Benzo(B)Fluoranthene Benzo(K)Fluoranthene Benzo(G,H,I)Perylene Benzo(A)Pyrene Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate Chrysene Diethylphthalate Di-n-butylphthalate Fluoranthene Fluorene Indeno(1,2,3-CD)Pyrene Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene 4,4'-DDE 4,4'-DDT Aluminum Arsenic Barium Cadmium Calcium

...-130-. 1,200 1,700

100 720

1,100 2,400 1,700

43 90

2,400 46

650 3,100 1,900 2,800

500 620

33,500 lOS-:-/ 4,490

113 29,500

2,000

60,000

40

4,000

o o

RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) guidance. Office of Solid Waste, Volume I, Section 8, Table 8-7. o

Table 2D

HERTEL LANDFILL REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

COMPARISON OF SURFACE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS TO RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION GUIDANCE VALUES

(CONTINUATION)

Parameter

Maximum Concentration In Surface Soil

(ppB-> . RCRA* (ppm)

Chromium Coba1t Copper Iron Lead Magnesium Manganese Mercury . Nickel Potassium Sodium Vanadium Zinc

2,880 34.7 319

278,000 1,170 14,200 6,040 - 1..6

347 2',"3Z0" 1,460 51.1 615

80,000-

2,000

1 This is the value for Cr^*, value for Cr^+ is 400 ppm.

EC H3

o

vo

Table 3

araw.5 u PoiDfTia. css££» w tu sniii SOUD M I I ( I t I I 11 > I I M I I I I I I I f n t M I r ! f I I

nsT PIT IsDimn

a l.i-0ichleroteii2erB ;«« 1,4-Ciichlor^njen?

n 2,4-0iKthylp(8nci 31 K r B o l S3 itcei^tfuiQ 5 A«thr6«IB

i^ Ssnzoic scid « felU0(«lallt,*i:K«!8

s fcn2«b5fli»fjntteK

»I?nzo(«)fruorsiit.tei3 Ssnrrl ilcohol

i l i^Mhrlteirlfehtteli i te

«ChrratB o Oiten:o(j,hhnthri!CsiB « Dielh/lsdtSslJte t Oi-lrtutrlp1l.^^l^le

«« Di-mxtrl?htMl«U I Fluorjfitieia > fluo'ene « !!*w;i2i:d)pjTeie

« Ptawathrfitt ; « " Ptere!

Pyrsre

n AnUocny » HrwriiC

« B«^rlllia > C^^:ia

! ChrM.ia < CoUi*. I COOMT

Iror 8 lead

< nickel POIJSS.X)

o Sjjeriio Silwr

n IIUuiuD I VsUtiilD > Zinc

WUTIliS

S l ,Hichl0T«tfQfB 1.2-0icUore2tteiE2

> Carbon disulfidt > ChlorotenzofD

Chlsrosthsta ChlorofwB

> tcluiiQ Trichlwftjitefo

s l ! r U »

PES;iCIKS/PCE

> iX-fSS.

I «,4'-D01 ) ( I I I I I ( t I , M ( I I I < I t I I I ) M M I I i I t r t t M I I H I I I t I I 1 I I

C.OM C.0«-C.i3

0,tS2-l .J e.ow-i.i 0.»-1.7 ie.H-C.72 0.ff?3 fel |ci.037-2.<

;0.078-1.7

|0.W3 0.03-O.W IW O.OU-2.4 O.Wt O.C«"C.i5 © 0 . 3 7 r j . l 0.077-1.9 (^ 0.058-2.8

5210-3350C

9.1-109 43.5-2070 l®(0.6«)-0.W «I(:.1)-3S.6 141CH29»C

7.7-2KC 5.a-29.il r .?0-319

tS(C.29)-83J ;®(:9i]-_H2«

I

I

I

I

I

uTe-iRc

0.3- l .M

14.9-2320

!(IK182>-Ii!40

l i .9-51.1 «.6-469

D (a

P ta

P

I

tS<0.818H.SO

.15

^ ? ? i ,

;iB

10.10

'O.M c.e. lo.Q ;0.30-0.42 ,0.24 0.24-0.71 A) ej7-0.34 ta 0.037-4.5 0.092-0.24 l0.27-0.43

10.11 KS

,0.20 10.05-1.2 ,KD(0,37i-0.42

o.Oie-0.^ 0.17-1.1 ;i» 0.073-1.1

0(0.018 )-0.62 t i l I I ) I I M ' 11 I n t I

9360-1620C tlK2.9)-21 2-12.5 32-378 0.43HJ.89 ®(C,41M.8 S3t-245C 12.2-21.9 8,9-13.9 20.3-45.6 17«O^2S3O0 8.5-93.1 399O-6C10 201-1720 D 14.3-25 73-1550

t» 70.5-237

12.1-22.3 «S.6-2^ 13(0.50 )-10.4

KS 0.681-0.082 i.m O.DO]-S,6W ,D f»

O.Mi)-O.Ml «.002-0.615 ta I3(0.0tt)-C.310

11 I t M I M I n ( I

ffi 1111 K 11 1111

§.120

®(0.1S)-e.59 0.23

m :i3(0.45)-S.0 t^ t3)(0.«)-0.77

m

C.10-2.?0

0.28-<.93 t» i» KK0.45)-0.61

a)(0.45)-1.6C 0.26-0.37

fWo.asM.o

»(0.«5H.50

(«C.45}-!.50

153O-32S0C t» 1.2-30 32.8-6230 «l(C.2e)-3.5 (5(1.3}-17.1 1270-23700 7.6-64.4 l«3)-60.6 3-64.8 1310-137000 8.3-?3.7 721-3110 83-«10C ;«l(O.I3)-7 6.2-31.7 5 0 0 - 2 ^

0.84-12.8 82.9-771 ®(0.29}-0,4i 7>79.5 32-340 t3(0.W)-3

t»

0 W-0 (&4 I^0.007)-0.«

e.wve.ei .0.007M.91

0.»t-<.W9

tSK0.»7K.97

,®0 .W)^ .93 Ittt

0.022 h«.e7 I I M I I I I t I I

(HTOi

I I > I I I I t I I 11

t»

0.W7-0.11

!«l 0.009 m t» :M

0.01 0.002-O.OOi

!^ 0.003 0.003 0.002 t» t» 0.004 0.001-0.002 UK 0.01 )-0.021 0.002

HI(0.02)-20.4 tI<C.01)-0.ei5 KO(C.OC1>-0.012 0.«8-3.5e 1^ 11.7-317 0.002-O.17S «I(0.003)-0.316 ®^0.OWr«.O16 !i(0.002)-«.370 0.013-S36 18(0.001)-0.4i4 0.S53-18.6 0.033-25.3 m.M2H.m fii(0.0C5Hl.ll6 l i^0.445h28.3 ^C.M2hC.0028 RA 1.73Ch79.8 1^ ai(0.M3)-«.0S5 6.(822-11.2 i K o . o i o H , ^

^ ' i i

0.002 0.003-0.005 0.031 •«.M4

m . 014-0 J

m t^

0.0O3

0.01 1^ 0.069 ft) (tt i^ COW-0.039 m 0.018-0.072

0.M9-2S2 0.029-0.041 0.001-O.Ml 0.034-1.98 0.0013-0.015 (SK0.002Hi.0Ct 181-1440 0.00ai-<.5S 0.W7-0.22 0.0O47-0.846 2.29-482 0.0M7-0.2® 2.27-133 0.159-212 0.W02-O.OO2 0.0154-0.49 0.851-41.7 «K0.0011)-0.002

2.18-112 ^ 0 . 0 0 l h 0 . 0 0 3 0.0037-0.319 0.0234-2.®

o.m \m 0.085-C.003

o.^i-c.m 6.605 M O.m-C.684 m O.W2-<,e07

m i(0,01)-«.032 aKo.oiK.

e.Wl-0.924

m .081 . 6 0 1 - C . ^ .016-0.033

0.062-0.2

t» I t I H I

I I : M I n : I . M 11

079

m

®(0,01)-0,021

m

ICKO.OD-C.W

HKO.Oli-O.O^

«Kc.oi)-e.oie i«0.029)-0.1?3

0.002-0.0334

o.ows-c.w O.OC12-C.OC7; 0.002-0.0C3 5.41-257 fift ISKO.OWX.OU

«)(C.012h®.3 m . X 2 H M 0.549-55.5

0.00;)-16,4

:i«C.0C5)-O.029 ;®(0.780>-S.5

2.48-119

0.0031-0.004 0.0O2h«.O92

i^o.^H.e27 in

0.«S)-O.M 0.0O5H.O33

HA ®(0.005)-C.20e

a:

o o

«3

tS

I I I M I I I I I I I H rt f M I I I 1 I M I I I I I M I H I H I I I 1 ( I t I I I I I I I H M I 1 i t ( I I I M M I I I I < I I I I I M I I I I I ' < I t I

8 : ISD IX amiTATIW » a r 5 I S « : 15£B IN a a i W M «Ki.TSI5

Table 4

awwtt Of Dfonis. wtwrs

I < I I I I M I M M I I I I I I I I I M I 1 I t I I I M I I M M M I t I I M I ( I I I I M M t t M I I ( I I I I I t t t H ( I t I M I ( ( I 1 t I I M M I M I I M M M M H I I I I 11 I I I > I U U n I i I I I H I : , M I I I H I J I M I : I I I I I I I I I I I I H M I I I 1 I I I 1 M I M M I M I I I I I I I I t I I M I I I I I I I I n M i n M M n I M I M n I I I I M

Potentially Itposti P t lbur Sel«ted P*t l j t ion EipoRire (toute, P^iua incl Exposure Po'rt for Eviluilion? ftujon for Selectior ar iKlusion

Current 'avi Js*

Residents

Residents Reidenls Residents Residents Sesidents Residents Residents

future Lind Use

Residents

Residents Resioev.s Residents Residents Residents Resioents Residents

Const auction Workers Constructior Wc-kers Construction iwrke'S

Constructior i«rke-s CofEtructior ycrkers Construction yc^kers Consfuction Wcrke-s

I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I , I I 1 It I I I I 11 1111 t t I I I I 11 I I 11 t I t I I I I I I I I 11 I I I i I I I I I I I I I 111 r l I I11 11 11 M I I I 111I I 11 111 11 I I I I I I , I , 1 I I I I M I t I I ! t I J I M M 1 M M I I I I I ; I I n M I M I t M I 1 I I M I I I I I I I I I I < 11 M I I I : M H I I I I I I I 1 1 I 11 I I t I n I I I I n I I M I M M 11 I M I M I M M I I I I

IiQBtioii of ^ jnni 'Mier h m (to iocj] IKIIS dcM r*dient of the site Iioesticii >jf » i l s on site Tes Ii«esti»n of ndisents on site No laeestion of wrftce a l e r «• s i te Yes Derul contact Nith to i ls Tes Derail conUct vith teditents No Inhalation of fujitive dusts No Demi contact nith surface Mter Yes

Injestion of ground wter fro* Ixa l wells Yes on the site lojestion of soils on site Yes Injestion of sediwnts or site Mo Iseestion of surface aate' on site No OerMl contact Nith soils Yes Oeraal contact nith sediMnts No Inhalation of fugitive dusts Yes Inhalation of cheiicals volatilized froe Yes ^ound Mter during hose use Insestion of jround aater froi local wells Mo Ingestion of soils on site Yes Ingestion of sediients on site No

ingestion of surface water on site No [)eria! contact with soils Yes Oeria! contact with sedieents No Inhalatior o' fugitive dusts Yes

ilD i iptct j found

fctcss to l i t e inr&tricted Ii^tstion of ya'ili chirKteriz^s squal or p ta te r risk JScnss to s i te uvrtstricteo Access to s i te siKrsstricted Oertal contact oith » i i s chirKterizes equal or greater risk Site KHvilr vegeUted teas to s i te unrestricted

Potential residential use of site

Potential residential use of site Iigestion of soils cfariscteriies e<?jal or rea te r risk Contact route unlikelr; rcuf^ aater available for ineestion Potential residential use of site Oertal -contact with » i h characterizes equal or r e a t e ' risk Potential residential use of site a»i produce a'sas devoid of cover Potential r«sidential use of s i te ; volatile or^nics in ground i.iter

Nells not developed diring construction Incidental ingestion eipected Contact route unlikely: ingestion of soils characterizes equal or greater risk Contact route unlikely Contact with soils eipected during construction Contact route unlikely Generation of fugitive dust expected during construction

I t ( I I I I I M ( I I M I I M I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I t I I < I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I << I I M 1 <> I I I I I I M I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I M 1 1 I I I I M I I I I t I I I I I I I I t I I I

P

o o

T a b l e 5

suMRT or mm.\a VAIUIS USED fo (SIIIMIE t r fvm

111111111 (11 I I I I I I t l I I I I M I I I I I I I I t I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I < I I I I t I I II I II M I II I I I I I t I I I I I II I I II I I M II III

MMICIU VN.UC

W

RNCf

VMIfUSfD RAIICNt

11111 m i l I I I 1 1

srniEm

ScMwie l - l : (labil warlAlM

M itiiiM W

- C h i l d l x N i f i e l l

- Child (xodirie 1)

- M i l t

(vosuf* OwTilio* (iTMrt)

(xMtrie I )

Ckild

Adilt

( s t t w i * 2)

(tceaarie 3)

OtiU

l ^ l t

*M(a(i« l ia i

Cac«i-ii*b (dm)

NDecaicet-iiib (dart) (steiais I)

Ckild

Adill

NNca««r-ri(b (dwt) ( t t t t v io 2)

NntcaKtr-iiib (ikyt) (aMwio 3)

CkiM

Milt

A t t r p t l N FtcUe

Of f ia ic CMpewMi

i w t M i c CMpond)

NTMi6 i l i t r CMBtart - D H M I cacttct i t m i M (ca/hi

AArNce factw i m l f f i )

Fitcliae I v i s t i a t F r a UotaMMlHt Sowrce

Sc t t i i i * 1-3 Ctwical toKMitrat iw tatificalio*

Sw i lm Soi l i ; SatewilaM to i l s ; S n f K t Ui te i ;

(fOwidUrtn

36-61.2

1 1 * 1/4

67.2 MS

1-18

1 70

1 70

1 - 6

1 70

49

16

n

1

30

1

6

10

»

365-2S.S50

36b?S, iM

180

)652.l»

36525.550

01

M

M

0-2.77

0-1

3,285

I0,9»

180

2.190

10.950

d l

0.1

0 01

8.4( 04

1 45

I

Value tiawtl' o» evstagt «t H I N aad tea i ln bofmrn 9-18 m ',

Vilue biied M n w i t e of sites and fttMles bttwMi t - i yrs |

ValiM bnad on iv<«ge i f M I * S aai l a u l M M O M I l - i 5 n i ! I i

Band upon tte i t t n t v i of chitdiM likolir ts aalM t in l i t t l

Bnad iiS>o« i h <g» i i i«e for « t i l t s la t Mtioai l ifipM-tHuid I

Cmh ,>;rcsitil«) in ldMce i t o « iocitioa. !

teouit of t i « 9eat b i i i ld i t i vw hoan. | I I

lialwr oJ ifMis in t h i l s p 8io«>. • Hatioul mp9i-tioaial(9Sth;sic«fitilol al ess r » l & a a . |

25,550 Value based upoa 70 roar l i fe t ipKtaicy.

Valae based voa t v ^ f d i r i t ioa.

Vilut bised upoi eqnane duii l ioa.

ViliM bassii spoe eqionre d i i i i i os .

Valve bnad a>»» evnurs dwatioa.

Value basad I«KM eqnsure dnatio*.

EP« 1990

(MI9(9

;bowi(l9M)

;aisw(im) ;CM( l9M; !982 i 1986)

Sased lanii l i e p c K t i a i i o a i i t e of witar

Based upo* c o i M f c i a l p o U i i g so i l

A s s m i q lOOl of the n i l i ^ a s l i o a acona tdl i la a t l i t e

95(h ( leteal i le v a l u n used i t n t osu i c ( s t i u l o ane

ca lo i la led usiag the otthods desciibed i i sactioa 6.3. I I I I • I I I I i I I I I I I I • I I I • I t I • I C I t I I ( t i I I t l I t 1 1 I I I I I I I I • t I • I t I 1 I I I I I I I I t I M I • , ) I I t I I t i t l I I t I t I t I I

^^^^ 100 7j,H

Tab le 5

((ODliwH) si»wn IS MMKKR waiss USC!) 10 rsiiniK i w r m

I I I I I M i t l l l t t I M I I I I I I M I I I I I Illllltlll (1111111

' 'Ml 10 I - D K I M I I O M I [IPOSM

Child ad<l(

tefeal Coitact wilfc Chaicals in i^tet 5(ia Snfeca tiaa (cal)

Child

td t l t [EtMsa l i l t (Itrs/fei)

Child M i | t

lepst le* SF Oicaicala la SsriEto tiator CMtKl Batf ( l / t 9 |

Child

cOd Bsral Castecl Kith c ^ i c a h in SsiU

Chijd adsll

l ^ s l i s a eF Chaaiuls ID Ssila I^Bt iea M e l ^ i ^ l

Chid

I I K I I I I I t l l l l l t l l l T T t l l l l l l l l l l M I I I I I I I I I I I Ml | t l l l l | l l l l l « | I I I J * l l | | i l | l l l l | i | | | | | l | l l l l l l l t l 5c«mi9 2 - tan t ra l i es ti9<a)o: Finino Ite

I »5 I »S

0-UW

M8,IS0

I 74 I 74

I 74

tM.rn 0-18,IM

S btxS @m l intwsi i ig 1/7 of w»-«hotl Ars/ ruf Basnl 0* a high r s t i u t t of tie H A H of (oe(acl3 silh su'lice ualn duileg < total oi Ul l i lps / ro i

bneal j • • - • Costact nith t t e i u l s ID Soils Siit VsnfBO t aa Ico?)

I ^ M t i M el Cha lu l t lo Ssilo lo tRt iM Rata lee/d^)

Ir is l i t ioo of t i i b s i n daaicslD t te i t ed to teit a * iMt t M CMtotliitioa |le/s3) l i J i i l i t i e« IMe(^ / lw |

11111111 i i n i f l ' l i I m i \ VI Tl TT1 (111 * 1111111II111111111111 I J I I I I I t * l | M I I I I | | l l l | l l l l l l l l l | l t l l M l l l t l l l l l l l l l l | l l l l iStaasn* 3 - M M n l l g l Scaanio: fatcre UK

l v t m » Fiotnaif ( d t n / r l

0-7W

I I « i m i l l I n i l l l l l l l l

0-I8.IW 6.II0

100

l.2ff-«9

..M ?

iM)0

lased if«M iesisioe of logs, a ra , haeda. Saiesiet is mill idif. t im i t f fo* 9 18 rwrs m poip. 3is«d upoa tott i lo«i bodr n^onie to n i e i .

.too

M i l l i i i M i i i a i i i i i

Oaiaal (aaUct With Cbaiuig is listar Stit S « I I K ( turn (ca?)

Child atill

^ ^ ^ t l^h C M S I I la Sail Bataal CaMact Stia Swfaca Araa [cat)

Child adilt

lant l laa Of d a t i a l B la Saila aad Knm 0»t ladstiaaOstaCo'darl

Child a d i l

lafeatlaa Of dw i ca l t la k lat ias m a I tmAm Rats [Uk t ]

Child td i l t

Idalat i ta Of Aiiteiaa ( « M I rtmsa] Chmiuls lAalaClaa lata laViT) (voaiia l i M (hii/dair)

Idialatiai Of aiihatwa Chaicals MMofbed to Dost a i6 in l Dwst Co«c«ttialloa Irfulatio* tote ( •Vhi l

\T7t\iU*:,m'Ai)

I 345

0-7700 MB,IW I 74

0 18.159

0-780 0 100

074

365

7R0 18,150 07

).l«6 1.410

708 100

7

0.81 0.1 hi

Clothiist stars eet d i n init ial i tlolbiiit stars m\ aftoi ioi l ial eipasMa.

te»l laoa latei itjestioo iste fot saieai^.

Sassd 1909 owossi arG3, ttgods, ool I G ^ . Bastd upon eiposed eira ani hasla.

Soil i^asties latt fot t toe w n t rasra o? tsa.

M.m\m.'Mi\f\.\^.m.lmitm, Ill I It III I I I I I I I I I I I K I I till It I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I

Bosn) 00 00 eatiiate of l is « & » ef ^ hsildic) l e ^ .

I cc i i t ^ tests, a m . laal, istk e ^ a ^ t i e a c4 t b t r s ^ .

Soil itgastioa late fot tiasa omt 6 r tsn e( e ^ . tliid Mosiifii, M i l s teA i m i t aadil foad la I M i . adults donng Bodnaie aiartioa

i,i?«iMiWWiOi»M.^iWti#[i I I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I I I 1 1 I I m l 1 1 I I I I I i n f i l l t i l l

to t i e sta«) aa i fios host.

fktnsta child 7-a i m i i old; total bodr adalt total bodr aqmata. dathiai oi ahguwiat t iat .

CipoaMa oF ae cbiid' i area, haada, aad lata. (iposBia of ao adult's ares, haads, aad le«i.

Childtaa, 1-6 reais old; m i m t t i voi«>i vaatw thaa 6 r«ais old; D t I W .

Ih i td iw, ^ msis old; ( N \<m adult, Wth^ icof t i la ; GM I W .

itdaits and chil^eo, l i ^ actWitr Sastd i»o« the daialioo ol a shown

SaiW

m m l M i l i i t i m

(Ft 1 ^

EMIW

I oa-oa Hiad aiaaiea, leaditt aod da^iat aodll feaad ia «^«7 0.83 adults and childiea, lieM at l iv i tr asuatd.

RH oa 1-74 4 Ihr amat ol t w SRH oatdoMS m l i l M i t i m i m t i t m m m l l . i i r ^ , , 1,1

I m

n>*i«

S b b I lUU ' I J J H

Table 6A

SUtWRY o r TOXICITY WLUES ASSOCIATED WTH O O S C I M O S D n C - O W N I C EFFECTS: OHM.

I f M M I I I I n I I I M I I t M t I I I I M I I t I I • I M I I M M 1 I I I

II OCHICAL

11 n I I 1 1 1 I n I M n n I 1111111111111 ( I I 1 1 n 11 M l 11 M 11 M I r H I t 1111111 n 11 M i M 11111 i M i • i 111 i i i M < ' n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M M I I

SSOWC RFD

I f M ) I M M I I I I I M r I I I M ( I I I 111 I I I I n M M 11 I 11 I I 11 11 111

tAntiKiV/

r.mmc

3ei)- I ! i ia Ctdiiu?

ChroaiuB i n Chroiiuo VJ Co6ilt Copper Lead n8n98res(

jlNeraj'; Nickel Selehius

l lvanadiui Zinc Cy^nids

VOLATLES

Ciilorcbenzene

Ei i iy lbenzene Toluene Xyleojs

S £ H : V O L A T ; . [ ?

II w II

IJBis;2ethylh«>yl)ph:helate jJButribenzylphthaiate

,5er,20ialdn'.h-3:enf iBer.io, a)p-'ren«

,,,Chrysen« SenzcHjt f luoranthene Benzo. k)fiuc-av.fient

|,Di&er;!o.:a,h)anth-8:erie nlnbenc>;; ,2t3-c,d)pyren€

" l

" c 11 II

{{Di-rrbutylphlhalale

l i ' ' II II

,l,4-0ich]orobenzer>e

ioiethylp^t'.helate

Oi-roclyiphthilate

(teenaphlhene Anthracsne

,,Ben;ci(5th,i)pery]er)e fluoranthene II

llFluorene

Kreso l Hiphthalene Pyrene Phenanthrene P h e w l

n I 4,4'-«)0 ; ;4 ,< ' -D0t

P[5T]CIKS/5^BS

(ORAL,

1 M I t I I I I I I I

DI 4E-W

iE-03 K-02 lt-03 lE-03

lE+OC K-^3

If 4£-<J2

lE-01 3E-04 2!-02

\f 7E-03 2E-01 2£-(l2

lf-01 3-C2

lE-01 2E-01 2E+0O

2:-02 2E-01

If NT . 0 1 If If If NF

ND

K-01

lE-01 Z-02

6E-02 3E-01

NF 4E-02

4E-02

5f-02 4E-03 X-C2

DI fc,0E-01

as f iDOd LEVEL

n M I M M I I M I I t I M I M

Loai

% d i u t Lw Hish

LOH

NA

IK ^ i u i

(K NA

M i U B

NF If

,t,,^:?fi

todiua

lew

^ i u t

ftediu! Loa

NA.

L«i

l««

Lou Lew

L«f

LOK

Rediut NA

Low

LOM

t tWiff ,

CRITICAL EFFECT

I I I M I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1111111111111111 n 11111111111111111111111

Lw^ity.bicod glucose snd ctelest«rol

Asritdsis s ^ ltn*«rpi9Kntiti9n iKcr.' tised blood prsssure

Proteinuria

Mo effects raportod * «ff»ctj ri^wrtod

Lecdl 61 in i tJ l ion NH/robet»viQrii «ffKts

0 6 iffecls KidiKr effects

O i c r u s e d bodr i ^ organ w i p h t

$Sont s t a r v e d A n e i i a

Itei^t loss, Ihrieid effbcls, t r t l in dtoeneration

Fetal toiicity, etlforsaticr Histepaf-telositaJ ehanses

in the l i « r Liv-«r and kidney toxicity

Changes in .lir'"T j?^ kidrsey Ityperactivity,dtcr9«sed body wight

Iitreised relative liwr neight E f f e c t s on body t i e igh t s a i n ,

testes, liver, lidney

Decreased jroirth rate, feed coiBUiption rate and altered

organ wights Iicreased Bortality

elevated kidi«r and liver Mights,iKcreased $60T and SfiPT

Hnatotoiicitr No eberved affects

NephroMthr, liver iieiaht changes iwatolo^ical i tera t ions and

(liaical effects Decreased RBC, pecked cell

vo luR and ha ios lobi r Decreased bodr Might gaiit , m i r o t o i i c i t r

Decretsed bodr Height gain Kidney e f f e c t s

Reduced fetal body Height

Liver l«ion« t M t M M I I I•IiTlI I I iTlT I I IT I ( M I I I I I M I I I

(11111 M n 1111111

m m BASIS/

SOURCE 1 1 1 1 < 1 M M 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; 1 ( 1 M 1 i t t 1 M 1 1 1 1 1

1 «AST 1 teter/lRIS

; KV>£AST I Hater/IRIS

yiter/ lRIS 1 MaUr/IRIS

Diet/IRIS Mater/IRIS KIS.ICAST »A€AST NA/IRIS

&iet/IRIS NA/VCAST

9iel/IRIS IRIS.«AST

Uater/)€AST NA/lfAST

Oral/IRIS

! l l ^ l8 t i6 f l / IRIS 1 Orsl/IRIS

Oral/IRIS gsvs^/IRIS

I 6sva9«1RIS

Diet/IRIS Oiet/IRIS

1 IRIS.ICAST IRIS,I£AST

HEAST IRIS,<AS1 IRlSt tA?: IRIS,f€AS'

j IRIS,I£A5T

NA/HEA5T

Diel/IRIS

Diet/IRIS Diet/ftAST

\ Oral/IRIS 1 6iv<9e/IRIS

IRlTtfAST tovi^/IRIS

lavage/IRIS

! IRIS , 6av^/HEAST

6avage/IRIS »1AST

! Ssvage/IRIS

HiI5,t£AST I R I S , * AST

I t .MfRIL t i

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

[ tWZRTAIHTY A » { TOIFYIM6 FACTORS

111111111 i 11111 • 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 n 1 1

j lF«100C;lf=l {

1 ^ ' ^ 1 lF«3; l f= l

l?MOO;if=l } UFMO;>f--i j

j UF«lOO;ifMC j { yF»^;HF-- l {

! \ifm I IM

attuwA UF-IOOC

, l f : 100 i> fO ,

1 UFxlOC !

I UF:100;I^S {

1 UFilOOllfM ! 1 \f-im\tf--} j

1 UF=iOOC;lfrl 1

1 !?=iOO;lf=l j

j UFOOOOlIf:] j 1 UF:100C',lf:; {

1 yF»iooo;ff=i 1

1 l f«1000; l f r j 1 [ I f«l000 I

j UFt3000,»f--l ! j ( f«3000;f f=l ;

1 tf«3000i»r=i ]

1 i f=3000; i f= i 1

1 \f-lW,W-l 1 UF'ICOOC'

j UF-3000;¥.-1 j

1 l f= lOC; i f= i ]

1 1 t 1 1 1 M M 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I M I n t I I I M I I I I M 111 M 11 n 11 M 11 M I H 111 n 111111 M I H M I H 1111 11 n 11 M I M M 11111III n 11 n I I I I n I t I 1 I M

Table 6B

SUmAfiV Of TOKICITY VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH N O N : A R C I « 6 D ( I C - 0 « O N 1 C EFFECTS: I IWUMIOh'

1 1 1 11 M M M I 11 M 1 t 1 1 1 > 1 1 I M 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 t 1 1 1

1 OCfllCA.

/ M 1 1 1 n 1 1 I 1 1 ' 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 n 1 1 1 1 M ( 1 ( 1 1

1 im^Ki AJui;rijr

|Antieon»

[Arsenic Esdut S«rylliu»

JUiiiiua

jchrcaiui I I ! Chroiiui Vi C.^all Copper Lead nanganese

1 1 1 1

iWercury Hic l ie : Seleniuf Vanadiui Zinc

(Cyanide

1

1 TOL'':..ES .Car'-on .US.!*i3t Ch!orci6*r,:fn«

lEtiivjI-^nzerie TcJu?.v;

{xylene

1 SENIVOLATLE:

!eis!2e'.h. lhe): l ) fhtnalau JBttylberi2ripr.tfic:5te

iBerjc-! a [anthracene ,S«nzo(a)pyrerie Ch-yser* Ben20'!b)fiuc'anthene

,6erjc>!l,/]uor8ntS«ne tOibenzo, e,h')an'.h'a:er>e j]noeno':,2,3-c.d)Prrene

jj.i-DichlorolKriierie

loiethylphtrtcls'.e

(Oi-n-butrlphthalate jOi-n-octyiphihalate 1 1

Acenaphthene Anthracene 8en2o (8 th , i ) pe ry lene |Fluoranthene

I

Fluorene

'p-CresoI Naphthalene Pyrene Phenanthrene

[phencl

1 PESTICIDES/P;^: 4 t ' ' -D0C 4,4'-ODE 4 ,4 ' -DC!

1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1 1 M t 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 1 M M n 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 t t

imt'iii' I l iWJ^TION)

W,W,1»\}, < 1 M 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 1

DI «-04a

lE-03 4 )E-fl2a U-t i l i

SE-4d

6£-07 tf-07

NF Id 10 lE-04

lE-04 2E-02a

NF 7E-03a 2E-0; a 2£-02a

lE-01 3 5E-03

JE-Ola 6E-01 9E-«2

2f -C:a 2£-0i a

If NF DI NF NF If If

2E-01

8£-Cl a

lE-01 a 2£-02a

tf-02« 3E-01 a

I f 4£-02a

4£-02a

5E-02a 4E-03 a 3E-02a

DI DI

NF NF

5£-04a 1 1 1 1 I t 1 1 1 11 1 11 n 11 n 1 M 1

1 M M I 1 1 1 1 > 1 1 M M 1 1 1 1 M i

COIflDENCE LEVEL

M 1 i T 1 « 1 1 1 M M M 1 1 1 1 1 1 11

NA NA

Nediu i

iV

m f^ NA

W'.

I I I I I I M I I I I 1 1 1 11 I 1 1 1 1 M

1 ! 1 ) 1 1 t 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 M M 1 1 1 t 1 1 r 1 1 M : 1 ! 1 j M i M 1 1 M I M 1 1 1 1 U 1 t M 1 1 i 1 1 t t n 1 1 1

•

CRITICAL EFFECT

t 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 t t 1 t 1 t 1 1 1 M 1 1 11 t 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Kasil »jco5a atrophy Nasal ucosa atrophy

0 6 effects Increased prevalance of respiratory

syiptot j and psrcho-tctor disturbances Neurotoiicity

Byelin degeneration

Liver and kidney effects '

iJiS -jffe^Lo, eyes and aose i r r i ta t io f ; CKS effects, eyes and iKise i r r i t a t i on

Liver and kidney effects

•

I t 1 I t t 1 1 t 1 1 M t 1 1 I f 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 I H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t n 1 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 H M 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 M 1 1

'"mm"' (FD BASIS/ S O K E

1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 M 1 1 1 ( t '. 1 1 ( 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 t I t I (

l€AST

f£AST •CAST

IRIS.fCAST NAAEAST SMiAi]

IRIS «AST

RA/>£A5T

IRIS,(CAST

«AST

mi -HEAST

IR IS t fCAH IRIS . t AST

ICAST IRIS.ICAJT

IR IS , l € AS-IRIS,>€AST IR IS . tAST

l€AS:

IRIS,HAST

HEA5T

IRIS

IR IS . tAST IRIS.HEAST

1 1 M 1 1 I f 1 1 ( l l 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 ( 1 1 H t 1 t t 1 f ' ' ' ' * ' " 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t M 1 1 I l l

UNCERTAINTY # C ! l fSOinr iNS FACTORS 1 ( J 1 I 1 M 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f M 1 1 M 1 t M 11 M j j

1 1

1 1

s \

liF--300 i j UF«300 [ [

NA 11 NA

UF«X>C;lf=3

. IfrW [j

UF=» II

1 1

1 1 1 j

yFoo.ooo I I

••, '-\ lX 11 i>'=ic«:' j ]

UF=ioc II

1 1 t 1 1 1 M t n 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t

T a b l e 6 C

Of TOXICITY VALl S ASSOCIATED aiTH « B C ^ I t ^ ® ( I C - a a ) T O ( I C EFFECTS: m . I I I I I I M I M M I 1 I t I I I 1 1 I I n I M M I I t I I I I I t

II II I I , I

M I I I I I t I I I t I I t I I ( I I I I I M M 11 I J I I I I

0€MICAL

i iA l i ^ inu i i l|AntiEcri;

{{Arsenic BariuD

^ r y l l i i B Cadiiue ChrraiuD III Chrraiui VI C(*all Copper Lead

^ n g a r e s e fercury Nickel Selen;uB

I ' U . ^ . / J :

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ICS

Vanadiue Zinc Cyanide

VOLATILE> Carbon O i a j i f i d e

jChloroben-ene

JEthy iber jene .Toluene Xyler«£

S E H I V D L A T I L E ;

Bis.'2e'.hylheyvl)phthal8le iBotrlberilrlohtneiate

II Ber:Zo'a)ii'..hra:ene ,,Ber:Zo,aiir..ir ljBeri:>'a)pyren ene

Chrysene Berjo ' t l ' iucrantheie Benzo'n'luoranthene

n 1 }

Oiberi:ofa,h)anthracene lindens :,2.3-Ctd)pyrene l,4-Dichloro6?n:ene Dietriylphthaiate

II D;-n-bkJtyloh'.rteia'.e Oi-n-octylphthala'.e

II

Acenaph:Kene Anthracene

i8eri2oi!;,i-.,ife Fluoranthene

erylent

II II

Fluorene Kresol

;,(tephthalen? " lene II

II' II i f II

P t e n a n t h r e n e Phencl

P E S T I C I D E S / P C B S 4,4"-DDC'

i 4,4'-DOE 4,4 ' -0CT

M I I ( I I I I 1 ' ' I I I I I I I I M I I I I I

m im.) > I M I I 11 11 n I I

01 4E-CM c

lE-03 5E-02

5E-C3C lE-03 lEHil 2-C2

\ . W l (O.W)

lE-01 c

H-02C t?

^ • 0 3 H-01

H-02C

lE-01 c 2E-01

lE^OC 2E+0C iSE+OC

KF 5E-04

I t M I 11 I I I M I I I I I I I I

Cffi^IOOlE LEVEL

I t i l I I I I I I

I M I I I I I I t

Loa

KA

Lea

( i :d iuo KA

(wdiuo

KA KA

[vSdiia

Rsdiuo

feuiuB

KA

KA

Lea

I I I I M M M 11 n n I I I I I M I I

11 1111111 n 111 n 11111111111 M 11 M I

I I I I I I I M M f M I I I I I M t l t l I I t M M 1111 i I M I M 11111 M n I I M I M ( I I r i 11 n

KITICAL

n M I t I 11 I 11 1 1 n I I I i T T i t M t 111 I 11 11 111 11 I M I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I

Oscrossod lof^ity.blood glucose and ctolaterol

Keratosis and hyf«rpi^nlaticn Fetotoiic, i ^ ^ ^ blood pr^sure

&im ^ r v e d

{^toloiicitr ^ t definsd

Loc l 61 irritation

06 effects, r^iratory s ^ t « s Kidney effects, Burotoiicity

^r&3S^ Mf s ^ orgsn t^ight

fei^t IKS, Oirroid effects, orelin ^nerat ion .

Fetal toxicity, islferiation Liver aiKi kidney effects

tepatotoiicty. i^hrotoiicitr Changes in liver and kidrey ^ight, 06

CMS effects

Increased relative liver eeight E f f e c t s on body ee ish t g a i n ,

testes, liver, kidney

Mortality Elevated kidney and liver

tsi9hts,iKr6ased S60T and SfiPT tesatoloxicity

Kc ^ r v 9 d effects

fephropathy, liver eeight e fa r^ itaatci^ical aiterstiom m

clinical effects K32atologic4l c>@f9es

Decreased body t^i^t ^ in . mrotoiicitr C^re3S^ m ( m i m pin

^ M 1 gff^u

Educed fetal body @ight

Lit^r Ifsiofs 1111111111111111111111111111111111111

I t I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t

M M 111 11 1 1 1 1 r 1 M i l 1 n 1 t 1 1 H 1 1

eiASIS/ i m n T i r T i 1I I1 111111111111111

ICAST »ter/IRIS

KA/ICAST alter/ICAST fester/IRIS

Diet/tCAST a iU r /«AST IRIS.ICAST ^/^£AST Wk/«AST Oiet/ IRIS I8lk/«AST e ie t / IRIS

KIS,ICAST feUr/>CAST

KA/»CAST era l / IRIS

I^lation/IRIS tSAST

Oral/tCAST ICAST

fev«ge/«AST

Oiet/IRIS Diet/ICAST

IRIS.ICAST IRIS.tCAST

ICAST IRIS,ICAST IRIS.ICAST IRIS.ICAST IfilS.tCAS* ^/KEAST

ICAST OietACAST Diel/HEAST

Ssva^/JCAST ^va^/)CAST

IRIS,ICAST 6avap/^CAST

6svi«e/«AST ICAST

SsvaeeAEAST ^va§e/>CAST

lesT

KIS, ICAST IRIS,tCAST IRIS.ICAST

1 1 I t 1 1 1 1 t I I 1 1 1 1

11111 n 111 < 1111111 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 1 H 1

WtCOTAIKTY m !

Wlflf^^i^^lff^l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M I

(f'lMOlRF^l 1

l f=l .{ l?»10C

lf«100;f=l I

IfalOO { IF«100 I

l ^ ^ [ \sm

l?«l i l f=l »f«1000

IF«lW;^--3 {

IfolOO { IF=10

[ M ' W l P P i 1

W-W,W-i 1 lf=10C j

IT'lOO { I fs lOC' IF=10C I

l F = i 0 O C ; f f = : {

w-m j

IFMOO I I^'IOC lf«100C 1

l?'300 j (f»3O0 I

H-JOO {

lf«S)0 [ ir«ioo ir«iooc l?>300 1

IfMOC 1

IfalOC 1 111111111111111111

DI:08tj i n a M j a t e for quantitative risk c ^ a s ^ n t HA:NC'. available ative risk sssessceni ff ;No; found SCi:Not detersined 8:0ra] value has been pieced shere © inhalation value c:S**chronic OT/RFC v a l u a taken frK) (CAST tables

ex is t s .

•o • o 33

Table 6D

S i S m i OF TOXICITY VALUES ASSOCIATED HITH ©JWCI^SHIC-Si iQTOdC EFFECTS: W m i W

0 » I C ^

t I H I I I I t I I I t I I I l l l l l l l

I C ^ C

r / I I t ( I M I I I I I M 11 I I M I I I I I I I U I I 1 I t I I M M I M M I I I 1 I I I

II iiAluairui. IjAnti&on'

I « K W I C S

.Arsenic ,<6«TiuQ ^ r y l l i u a

, |Ca&jUD

{{chrcsiuB III .iChroaiuo VI ,jC«*alt iiCoppe'

Lead llNanganese I I '

tiRerair* Nicke!

,Selen;'ji'

II Vartad:jB Zinc Cyanide

VOtA'L-t Carbon O i s . l ' i o e

,Chioro6«-:erie Ethylb?r,:er,e Toluene Xylene;

SEPIVO-A'LES

I II II II It

! lBis :2eth>lh?jyl)phtha:ate jjSu:>lb?r,:<;pr.ha!a' .e

II II H

{alanthracene •'« jcyrene

Berjcv! zc'

Chrysene Benz^tlfiuorantherie

n;c>, M'iucrsnt.^f r.e Oibenz&a.hianthracenf Indero!:,2,3-c,d)pyiene

j,l,4-Dich;orot»ri2erie

{[Diethyjprithidlate

II

Oi-n-butrlphthalate Di-n-ectylphthalate

&enaphtf«ne jlAnlhracene

8en2o(9 ,h , i^ ry len« Fluoranthene

11

II

Fluorene

I/,

II

tP-Creso! Naphthalene

ene enanthrene

Phencl

PESTICIOES/PCBS 4,4'-MIC

;i4,4'-oc-: 4,4'-DCT

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 I t I t l M 111 n 11111

01 4E-W a

lE-03 a 1E-03 H - C 3 a lE-03a

6E-04

KF ®

(SE-4

lE-W 2E-02 a

tf 7E-03a 2E-01 a 2E-02a

I M I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I M

OKFIOEtCE LEVEL

I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I t I

lE-Ol a 5E-C2

lE+OC a 2EK>C. X-Cl

2E-02 a

DI H-

KF tf

H-Ci

e£*OCa

lEtOCa 2-02 a

4E-01 a 3I*0C' a

^ - 0 1 a

4E-01 a

5E-01 a 4E-02 a 3£-0i a

Dl DI

KF

K - 0 4 a

KA

RidiiB

KA

KA KA

t t I I I I I I I I

t M I I M I I I M I I M M I t I t 1 I n I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M t I I I M t M I M I I M I t l l t l l l l l M I I M l H I M I I I I I t i t l f l l M l t l l l j n n i J M I i n M I M M I I I t t l l l l l

SITICA EFFECT

t 1 I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I t t I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I M I I I I I I I I M I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Fetotoxic i ty ; iscressed blood p r e ^ r e

tesal c u c ^ a o t r ^ h y { ^ ; Qic^a atrophy

prevalance of r » i r 8 t o r r e m U m and rayelw-iolor

d i s t u r ^ n c e s Ksurotoi ic i ly

Dyelin erera t ion

Liver and kidney ef fec ts

0 6 e f f ec t s , eyes and ncse i r r i t a t i o n CMS e f fec t s , eyes and rose i r r i t a t i o n

Liver and kidney effects

1111 111 11 11 111111111 n 111111

Liver lesions I t t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I M I I t I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I

^ 0 BASIS/ SOURCE

I t M I I I 11 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I n 111111

ICAST

ICAST

ICAST ICAST

IRIS.ICAST NAi^AST ^A/ICAST

IRIS

KAACAST

IRIS.ICAST

ICAST

l€A5T fCAST

IRIS.f^AST IRIS.ICA:'

«ASI IRIS,fCAST IRIS.ICAST IRIS,ICAST IRIS,ICAST

ICAST

WIS,ICAST

ICAST ICAST

IRIS,ICAST KISjICAS:

«AST I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I

HCERTAIKH ^ SCIFYIN6 FACTORS I I I t I I I I I I t I I I t 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I M I ) I I

1^1^

»f«30

ilA

l?»300i l f=3

IF=3C

ir=iooo IF--100

irnoc

UF:lO0

111 n 11 1111 11 I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 11 I M

T a b l e 7A

S m ^ ) Of TOXICITY VALUES ASSOCIATED «TH C INOfiENK EfFttib: uwi

1 M I 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 n M ( 1 t M 1 1 1 1 t

j M f f 4 M M 1 M r M 1 ( ( M f f f t ( (

1 ; o o i c A L ! 1 1 1 11 H I t 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 t 1 1 1 1 < 1 M M 1 M 1 1 M I I t 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 iKfmKi Alueinua

,Anti»ony Arsenic Sariu* B e r y l h u i CKk iu* Chroeiui V] Cobalt

poe-Lead Kanganese Hercury Nickel Seleniui Vanadiui ZitK

[Cyanide

1 VOLAHLES iCarbor Disulf ide (Chlorobenzene Ethylberiiene Touene

[xylenes

I SEHiVOtATlLES ;eis;2ethyinexyl)phthalate jButyJbenzylphthalate

iBerzo'.aianthracene ,6<nzo(a)pyrene Chrysene

,Ben2o(t f uoranthene iBenzoiOf uorentnene DiberiZO';a,h)anthracene

|Jndeno;i23cd)pyrene

jl,4-Dichlorober,2ene

lo ieth/ lphthalate Oi-n-butylphlhalate

JDi-n-xtylphtl-,alate

{Acenaphthene Anthracene Ben2o(9.h,i)perylene F uoranthene F uorene p-Cresol Naphthalene PrreiK Phenanthrene

jPhenol

1 PESTICIDES/PCes 4,4'-D00 4,4'-OOt 4,4'-D0T

{ 1 (1 1 1 1 ( 1 I t 1 1 1 1 M 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 < 1 t t M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 n 1 r I I t 1 1 1 11 1

SLOPE FACTOR ( S f ) O W t

1 1 1 < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

If »

1.7S If 4.3 » ND If If NA W If W If If If If

If NF If If NF

1.4E-02 IC

n.s 11.5

n.s n.s n.s n.s n.s

2.4E-02

If If If

If If If If If ND If W If

5_ 2.4£-01 3.4£-<l 3.4E-01

1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 < M 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t > M 1 M 1 1 1 1 1

ICIfiHT-OF-EVIDEJCE

w^f^wn?^'i I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1

0 D A D

S2 IC ND 0 0

B2 0 0

«) D D D D

D D D D D

62 C

B2 12 B2 B2 B2 B2 82

B2

D . D

D

D D D D D C 0 0 D D

82 82 82

1 U t 1 M H 1 M t I t M 1 1 1 1 M M 1 t 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 l.I 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 r 1 1 1 1 1 t t M 1

TYPE OF

aim 1111111 I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Skin 1

Skin 1

Renal {

Liver I

Stouch j

Liver j

Lung, l i v e r , thyroid j L iver , thyroid

Liver

11111111111111111111 1 1 1 1 1 1 t i 1 1 f 1 1 1 t f 1 M 1

SF BASIS/ I I M I M 1 n n iT M 1 1 M 1 1 I I M I I 11 1 1 t 1 I t 1 1 M 11

NAHRIS.ICAST |[ l*t/IRJS,ICAST

ttaUr/IRIS teter/IRIS lHUr/IRIS NA/«AST If/IRIS

NA/IRIS,ICAST NA/IRIS

Oral/IRIS NA/IRIS w<nm NA/IRIS

NA/IRIS,ICAST NA/IRIS.ICAST NA/IRIS . t A S i

NA/IRIS 11

NA/IRIS.tAST I I wim NA/IRIS NA/IRIS I^IRIS [j

Diel/IRIS |! If/IRIS j ;

NA/IRIS II Oiet/IRIS

NA/IRIS NA.'IRIS NA-'IR'S m/mi m m i i {[

SavftgeACAST | ]

NA/IRIS,ICAST I I NA/IRIS,ICAST

l«k/IRIS I I

NA/IRIS.ICAST [| »^ IRIS NA/IRIS

NlflRIS-ICAST

IRIS NI^IRIS NA/IRIS It t / IRIS NA/IRIS I I

Oiet/IRIS 11 Oiet/IRIS Oiet/IRIS

1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I l l

a:

o o

o o o

Table 7B

S M R Y OF TOXICITY VALUES ASSOCIA''ED UITH CARCIIJIffNIC EFFECTS: I^^ATICW

• t I M I M I I t I I I M i M t I t I M M M M I I < I I I I I I t I 1 I I M I I M M M M M M

OCWCAL

I SLOPE FACTOR !(SF) IKH*LATIOJ(

I M I I M I I I I I < I M M I I M I I I I I I I M t M I I I I I I I I I M I M n I I I M I I M M I I M M I M I ( I M t I I M M M I

IKfife^ICS Altai nus Antimony Arsenic Bariue

ry l l i uo

Chrraiua VI Cobalt Copper Lead ^ n g a r ^ e tercury Nickel SeleniuD VanadiuD Z i x Cyanide

II

II

WJLATILES Carbon Disulfide Chlorobenzene Ethyl&eniene Toluene Xylenes

II

SEHIVOiATlLES Bis (2e thylhe iy l )phtha la te

l a i ty lbenzy lph th i l a t e

iBenro^ajanthracene ,6erjoia)pyrenf jChrysene Beri2o(b)fluoranthene

lBerjo(k/fluoranthene Diberi2t>;a,h)anthracen« Indeno; 123cd)pyren«

ll,4-0ichloTdieri2ene

II Diethylphthalate j l D i - r b u t y l p h t h a l a t e l |Di-f t -octylphthalate

«^e tapht te ie Anthracene Ben2o<9,h , i^ ry leTte Fluoranthene Fluorene P - C r a o l Naphthalene

w e n e PfenanthretB

jjPtenol

II PESTICIDES/PC8S

111

4 , 4 ' - o o : 4,4'-K)E 4,4'-DOT

RA

S E ^ i KA

B.CEKlOa i.lE+OO l . l e f l

KA KA KA KA KA

8.4E-1 KA KA NA KA

KA KA KA KA KA

l .«£-02 KA

6.1 b 6,1 b 6,1 b 6.1 b 6.1 b 6.1 b 6.1 b

2.4E- Q2 a

KA KA KA

KA KA RA RA KA RA » D RA KA

2.'!£-01 3.4E-01 3.4E-01

I M I t I I M I M I I M M I I t M I M M I I t I M I M M I I

I M M M M I I t I M I M I I M M M I I

.HI9fT-0f-fVlKKCE

CJj SSIFICATION I I I I I I I I t M t I I t

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I 1 I I I M I I I I I I M I M I t I I t I I I t I I I I I t I I I t t t I t I

I I n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I I I I I t I I I I I I t I t t

A D D B2 D D A D D D D

B2 B2 B2 62 B2 B2 B2

32 82 62

M M t I M I M M I

TYPE Cf

11111111111111111111

11111111111111 n 1111

im

?itory Tract

Re»itory Tract

L i v e r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

SF ^ I S /

I I I I M I I M M 1 I I M I I I M M I M M M I I I M

mmiS . ICAST m/IRIS,ICAST

Air / ICAST ^ y l R I S , I C A S T

(mPATiaW-ACAST KOWTIO^LACAST

m/IRlS,ICAST iTlRIS,ICAST ^ylRIS,ICAST ta/1RIS,ICAST ^IRIS,ICAST

(KCII>ATI(»*1ACAST il'IRIStlCAST m/IRIS,ICAST ©URIS,ICAST m/IRIS,ICASI

( IRIS . ICAST fg^IRIS,ICAST ^IRIS.ICAST ^IRIS. ICAST ^IRIS.ICAST

I ? / I R I S , ^ ^ A S T

m/iRis.tCAST WWLATICSC/ICASI ^IRIS. ICAST ^IRIS . ICAST I^IRIS.I^AST ^IRIS. ICAST l«^IRIS.ICAST

^IRIS. ICAST ^IRIS. ICAST Ei/IRIS,ICAST

m/lRIS.ICAST ^IRIS. ICAST IMRIS,ICAST ^IftlS,HEAST ^IRIS. ICAST

IRIS ^ m i S , I E A S T a^/IRIS,ICAST fianRIS,ICAST ^IRIS . ICAST

^IRIS. ICAST m/IRIS,ICAST ^ / I R I S . I C A S T

11 i 11111111111111 111 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1111 n M 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111111111111111

a:

o o

O O

Table 8A

a W t ^ Y OF t M B RISK ESTHETES - S f f ^ I O 1 : OflLDI»f

I f t M I t I M M I I I I I I I M M i M M

lofONic DAILY; cri 1 ; ; 0C«IC<1 ; INT«(E(CCI) iWJUSTED FORI SF ,' g l W T ff ; TYK ff

i (eg/kg/day) ! ABSflRPTIOH Kag/kg /day) - ! ; EVIKKCE i C^CER

I M M M I I t I M I I M I M M I I M t I t I M I M M M M M M M I i l I I I I I M M M M I I M M M I I M I I t M I t I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I M M I I M I I I n I I I I M M I I I I M I I I I I M M I t I M M I t M I I M M M M I M

lOCKICAL Sf (BsSIS/ !S?CIFIC

SOJRCE ! RISK 11 t t I M M I I I I I I t I I M I M M t l M I I I I I I I

M M I I I I M M M I M M I I I M M M M I t I I I I M M I I I I M M I I I M I I I M I I I I I I I M I I I I t I M I I I I M I I I I I t I I M M M I I t I t I M M M I I f M I I I I I t M I I M M M I 1 M M n I I M M I M M M I M M I t M I M H I M I I I I M I n I n

EXPOSURE PATHU6.Y: DERSA. COKTACT t I M M I M I I M I I > I I M I I M I I

M M M t M t I M M t I I I I t 1 I M I I I M M I I M I M I I I I I M M M I I M I M I I I t I t M M M I I M t 1 M I I I I t M M M M I M t I I M M M I 1 I M M I M I I M M M M I I M I M I t I M M M I M M M M M M M M I I I I M t I M I M M M

; TOTAL ; PATIWY ; RISK M M I I M I t I I I 11 I M I I

5f-04 M M M I M t I I M I I I M I

; ::3TAL

! RISK 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

: K-04 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

IN0R04''':CS Arse-lc 2.9E-0S ; 0.10 1.7S iBladder, L ive r , Luitg; 5E-04

t I I M I t I I I I t I I t M I I I

t I I I I I I I t 11 I t I I I I M I 11 I I I t I I 1 I I I I I I > t I I I 11 t I I : I t 1 I I t I I I I I I I I M 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 11 I I I I t I M I M I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I

o o

to o o lO

T a b l e 8B

SJrmi ff CM» RI» ESTIRATES - 2 ^ 1 0 1: a iTS

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , , , 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I i i i n 11111 1 1 I I n >11111 < 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I'ofOHic DAILY; cDi ; ; OCHICAL : INTAKE(CDI) I ADJUSTED FOR; Sf 1 SISHT ff

i ( i g / k g / d a y ) ; ABSOWTICW K ^ / k g / d a y H l fVIKlCE I I M I I t I I M I M I I t I t I I M I I I I M I M M M I M M M M 1 I t M M M M M M M I M M t M I t I I t I I M I I M I I I

EWJSORE PAT*Ar: OERWt CONTACT BITH SURFACE IttTER • «XITS I I I M ( I t I t M M t M I I I M I I I I M I I I I I I I M I M I I 1 I I M M I I M M I M M 1 I I I t M 1 I I I I I I I M t i I M M I M I

INORMIICS Arsenic 111111111111 1111 I l l

7,4£-0^ 1 0.10 M I 11 I 11 M I I I M t M I M M M I M M M M M M M M I I I I I I I I t I I I I M I IJ M I I

E X P O K F : PATHUAV: CCRtW. C0K7ACT WITH SOILS - m X . I ( t U I ' • I ' : I I M I 1 M I 1 M > 1 I 1 I I i M t I I { I

I I I M t t I I I M

INOPGAN'ICS Arsenic 2.1E-C5 0 . 1 0 ;

l l l l l l l M M M I

I M I I M M M I I I

i . T s :

I t I t M I l l l l l l l

1.7S

l l l l l l l l l l l l l l

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l l l l l

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l l l l l l

1111111 l l l l l l l

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

vm. ff I iOCMICAL if f ^ I S / ISPECIFIC ; m m ; RISK

t I t M I I I M M M I I M I M t I I I I t I M M M M I M M I I M t I t I I M M M I M H M M I I t I I I M I I M I I M I

I I I M M M M M I I I n

B l & d ^ T , Li«?T, L u n s l t e t e r / I R I S l 1.3E-^7 I I M I M M M I M I M I

I I I I M I ( t t 1 I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I M M I

I n 11 M 1 M I I I I

I I I M I I I f I M M

t M U M M t I M I

I I 1 1 I I I M 1 I I

I t M M H I I I I I d I I M I I I I I t I M H M I M n I I 111

I I

I I I M 1 I M I I I I I I M I I M M I I I M M I I M M 11 M M

M ( I ( I t M I t M I I M t M I M I I I t I 1 M I I M I M I I M

Bladde- i L i v e r , L u n j i y a t e r / I R I S ; 3.6E-04 I I It M M M M t M I M tl M M

II M I I M M I I I I M I I I I I M M II M M I I I M I M I I I

TOTAL : TOT^ PATiwY ;E»>OSUR[ RT^ 1 Ria

II II ll I I M I II M I I M M I I I I I I I I I M It M 11 M I I

1.3E-e7 ! 3.7E-04 ; I t I 11 I M 11 I M M I I 11 I I I II n I M I I M M I M I It

I I M M t t M

3.6E-04 : U I ( M t I 1 I M 11 M I M I

%

o o

Table 8C

sjiWARY ff o ^ i c m m i t m ESTI^TES - KDWIO J; OALOREN

('<•'' < • ) • < < ' I < > I M I t I I 11 II M It I I M I I I M t I I I t I t I I M I M 11 I I M I I I I I t I M I I I II M I M I It I M 11 M M I M I I M M M I I M I M 11 I M M M II 11 11 II I ' I M M ' I I M t I M I t I I I II M It I I > I > I > I M I tl I t I M I I 11 I I I I M 1 I M M 11 M I I M I 1 11 I I I II It M I t I M I I I M M 1 M I M I II I I It I I M I It I M M M M M I M M 11 M M M M I M I I t I M I I M I I

: \ o m K DAILY; COI ; ; ; ; ^ ; ^ o i ; ; PATWY ; TOTAL

; ooiCAL ; INTAKE;CD!) .'(ttjusra FOR; RFO i c j g f iKCE; e m c ^ isascE/luNcaTAiNTYiroiFYiNs; HAZARD : HAZARD ;EXPOSJ?E

; ; ( t g / kg /day ) ; AeSORFTIWi- ; ( i g / k 8 / d a y ) ; LEWL ; EFFECT ! BISIS 1«3USTICNTS; FACTORS ; f lU0TIEm; i l l lO ( H I ) ; HI ( U f M M M M It M M I I M I ( ( M M I ( ( ( ( I M M M M M ( M r I ( ( ( M t t I I I ( t t t t t ( I ( M I f ( t I ( I t ( t M M ( M ( M t H I M f M t t I I ( M M U M M ( I I I I M t I M t I M M I M M M ( I I I I f M I 1 M I I I I I I M M I M I I I M I t I t I I I M I I I II 11 I I I M M II M It I I I II II I I It M 11 M II I I I 11 M 11 I I M t I I M M I I I M I M M M I M I I M M It M I I' I 1 M M It I M I M M I I I I I I I M I

;EXP0SURE PATHWAY: OERtW. COKTACT UITH SOIL - OIlLDREN ! 2£K)0 ; 5»00 I M I I I M I I M II I I t I t M M M I It t I M It M t I t I 11 I M I I I I I 11 I t I I I I I I M I I I M M I I M M I II M M M M I M M It t I I I 11 t I It t I t I I I 1 I I I I M I I I I I M I M I M I 11 M It II I I I 11 I 11 I M I t 11 r I I I It I M I I t M 11 M t 11- M I 1 I M M I M I I I 11 I It I t M I II M M M t M I t I M M I M 11 I II I

: ; 1 Keratosis \ \ \ ] \ O.K ; lE-03 ; KA :andHy5«rpi^nUtion;^AACAST; | ; 2*00 ;

I I I 1 1 I I M I I M II I 1 I 11 M I I I I I I It It I t I t 1 1 I I M I 11 I t I I I I I t It I I I I I I M 1 It I I M M M I I I M I M M 11 I M t 11 I I I 1 M I I 1 M I I ' M M ' t M n I M f M M I I I I M M > I I ( I f f I M M M M f ( M J ll M ) I M I M M I n M M It t I M M M M I t M 1 I I f M M It M I 11 I M I I I

1 M M 1 1 M M M 1 M 1 1 1 M 1 1 i 1 1 U

;iN0ROAs::s :

;Arsen:c ;

1 1 M 1 I t 1 1 1 t 1 1 M 1 1 t 1 1 1 I I 1

2.X-04;

•-3

o o

o o

T a b l e 8 D

SUWARY ff OfONIC IWARD IICEX ESTIWiTES - SDWIO 1: ADULTS

I I 11 I I M I I M I It M I t I t I I I I t I t It M M I M It I I I t I II I t I t I M t It I I

I I M M M I II I I I I i 11 M I 11 I I I M M II II I t I M I I 11 I I I 11 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I t

lOfOh'K DAILY; CDI 1

o c N i c A ; iNT<«(co i ) ;ADJUSTEC FOR; RFD ; (•g/kg/day) ; AESORPTION K ig /kg /day)

I I I It I I I It M I M I II M 11 11 I M M M II I It t M M 11 I I I I I I It II It I I

M II t It M M I I M I It M It II 11 I I I M I I I I I I M I It M I M I I M I I M I I

EXPOSURE PATHWAY: OERtW. COKTACT WITH OCNICA.S IN SOIL - ADaTS I I I It M I I I M r I I It I M 11 M I I I t 11 M M I t I M I I M

I M I It I M I I I t M I I I I I I I M I I It I t I I It I I t II I I I I

iN0R6w<:cs; Arsenic ; I I I I I I I I I n t t

I I I I I I I I M I t I

4.K-0S; 0.1 lE-03 t ll t I I I J < t 1 I I I I I It I I I t I <

I I I I I t I M I I M U t I I I II 11 I

I M II I I t t II t M I t It M M I M M I t I I ir I I I 11 I I I I I It I I I M I I I M t r I I I I I M I I I I M I I I I I I II I

I M II It M I t I 11 M M M I I M I It I t t I I I It M I I M M I I I I II M I M II M I I M I I I I M 11 M M M It I

; I RTD ! RFD ! ! 1 PATtilAY caf ioE)CE; o i T i c / ^ i s a m / iuNcsTAiMn INOOIFYINS; HAZARD i HAURC

LEVEL ; EFFECT 1 BASIS '.AWUSTHEKTS 1 FACTORS lOUOTIENT I D K X (H I )

1 TOTAL iEWJSURE

; m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I 11 I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11111111111111111II11111111111II111II1111111II1111 n i l 11II11111111111111111111111111111111

4,9£-01 ; 5,*£-01 lllllll lllllll

It I t I t I t I M It r I I M M I t I I I I I M M M I t t I I I I I I t M I I I I I M I I M M M I I I I I 1 I I I M I t I t I 11 I I t M M i I I M I M M I I I I I t I I I M M I I t I I I I I M M 1 I 1 t I I I I I I I M M I I I M M M 11 M M M It I

t M I M I t t I I I I I I I I M I I I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

; Keratosis 1 ;and hyperpipenUtion;HA/HEAST 4,8E-<I1

I I I t I I I M I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I

I I I I I I I t I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

a:

o o

to o o

Table 8E

SUWtfiY ff CANCER RISK ESTHETES - SCOtl«10 3: OULDRW

M I I r I I t M t M I 1 I t I I t t I I I I I M t 1 I t I I I I I I M M M I I t M M M I I I I 11 I I I I I I t 11 M I I 11 M I I 11 I I I t I I 11

; OWNIC DAILY ; CDI

Q€HIU>L ! INT«E(COI) j/ttJUSTED FOR

! ( i g / k g / d a y ) 1 ABSORPTION I t M I I I I t I I M I I M I M I I I I M I t I

EXPOSURE PATHWAY I I 1 I I I I

I I t H i I

INORGANICS ;

A-se: .c ; 11 I l l I < • I I I M M t I I M > I I M I 11 M

EXPOStK PATH*4

]Hyi^::~ ; Arsenic ;

I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I M I M I I I

INGESTION ff O C K I D ^ S IN I I I I I M t t I I I I M t I I t I I t t 1

9.eE-0S

0O9W. CONTAC 1 I I I 1 I n I I I I I M I M I t I t I I M

l , l E - 0 4

I I t I I l l M I M I I I I I I

I I I I I t I I I M I I I M M

I t I t I t i 1 I t I I I M I M

No t I t I I I

WITH C>«IC I 11 I I t I I I t I M t I I

0.10 1 1 I 1 M M I M l I I 1 I I I

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

; SF !lCI9fT ff ;(ig/kg/day)-i;EVI0eCE 1 1 11 t 1 1 M 1 1 t 1 M t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 t M 1 t 1 1 M M 1 1 1 1

DRMINe MTER < M t 1 1 t 1 1 t 1 t M I I I I I I M I t 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 M 1 M M I I 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

; 1.75£K)0 ; A 1 11 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 t 1 1

CALS in SOIL -M 1 I t 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 M M M t 1 M 1 1 11 1 M 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I f M 1 1 1 1

; \ . 7 [ £ * K ; A 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 M 1 1 t M t 1 t n 1 t 1 M 11 1 1 11 M 1 i 1 ) M 1 1 1 1 < 1 1

1 M 1 1 f 1 1 1 I t 1 M 1 M M 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 M M 11 M t 1 1 M 1 1 I I M M 11 1 1 I t t M 1 I I 1 M 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 M 11 M I I M 1

; ! QoiDi 1 mti : TYPE ff i SF BASIS/ 1 SPECIFIC \ PATHIAY | CAHC£R ; SOKCE ! RISK ! RISK 1

11 I I 1 1 t M 1 t t 11 M 1 t 1 I I 1 1 1 M 1 1 I I I I t l 1 1 I M 1 1 1 1 I t t 1 t 1 1 1 1 M 11 1 1 1 t M 1 M 11 1 I I t 1 11 1 1 M 11 M r 1 M M t 1

2-04.1 1 1 1 M 1 M 1 I I t 1 1 M M M 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 t 1 r t 1 1 1 1 M M I t 1 1 1 M 1 1 M M 1 t l 1 1 M M 1 1 1 1 t M 1 M M M t 1 1 11 t 1 M 1 M (

1 I I I

Skin |«ater/IRIS.; 2-04 ; ; 1 1 1 1 t 1 I t 1 1 1 t M 1 1 I t 1 1 I I 1 11 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I M I t I I I I 1 M I t 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 M 1 1 1 t I I M M I I t 1 1 t M 1 M M M 1 I t 1

2 - C 3 ; 1 t M 1 M 1 1 t 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 t 11 t 1 1 I t I t 1 t 1 t M I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t M M M 1 M 11 I I I I 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 M f 1 M 1 1

1 1 1

Skin ;uater/lRIS 1 2-03 ; 1 M M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 t M 1 t 1 V t t I t M t M t M 1 1 t I t r 1 1 M I t 1 1 t 1 1 1 I t M 1 i M 1 1 1 M 1 M 1

t I I t M M I I I I t M M I

T0T«. EXPOSURE

RISK I t I I I I M I M M M M I

2-03 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1-3 IT"

o o

t o o o CM

Table 8F

SUNDRY ff CANCER RISK ESTIIV^TES - SCEMIO 3: MU.T

I M t I t I I It t M M M t I t I t M t I II II t t I It II II II II I t t I I I It t I I I I 1 M M II M I I II I I M M I I I t t I t I I I I I I It M I I M M I I I M M I I 1 I M I I t

; CLONIC DAILY ; 0 1 1

O n i C A L ; INTAKE(CDI) lICJUSTED Fff! ; SF ; ( • g / k g / d a y ) ' ; AKORPTW K i g / k g / d a y } - !

I M I t I I I M I I

EXPOSUR:

iNORwics ;

Arsenic ;

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

PATHWi*

M I I t 1 I t I I I t t t M I I I I t I I t M I I

INGESTION ff OCHICALS IN ORMING WATER I I I I I I t I I M I I I I I I ) I I 1 t t I

iN0Si6\::i ; ; Arsenic ; 3.0E-0< ; I I I < M I I I M M 1 1 I i I I I I I I f M I I M I I I 1 I I I I 1 : I I I 1 M I I I I I I I I M I I 1 11 I

EXPOSLRE PATHU:^: OERfVL CONTAC

3.8£-0i

I I I I 1 I t I I I I t I I t I I 1 t I t I t I I M M I t t M I I t t M t I I I I I I I I I

t M I t I I I M I I M I M M I t I M I I M I M I > M I I 1 I IJ M I I I M

No 1.7S£tOC'

WITH CHEMICALS IN SOIL -I I I M M I I t I t I I I I M 11 I I 11 I I 11 I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I n I t 11

0.10 ; 1.7SE+0C

M I t 1 11 I I I I M i I M

WEIGHT ff EVIDENCE

1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l< I I II I > < > I ' I ' X > < < I I I << <

; I OOdCAL ! TOTAL I TOT«. |

TYPE ff 1 SF BASIS/ 1 SPECIFIC 1 PATHIAY 1E3WSUC 1 CMCER ; SOURCE ! RISK ! RISK i RISK ;

I H I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I t I M I I I M I M I I I n I II II I I I I I I I I I M I M I M M I I M I 1

5E-04 ; 7E-03 ; It M I 11 I It It t t M t t t < I n M 11 M M 11 n M M I n

Sk

Sk

M It It M M I t I I t I I I I I I I

I 1 t M I It I M I I M U I M I I

I t ta ter / IRIS I I 1 I I 1 I M I t I I M M I M M

It t M M 1 M 11 It It 1 I It

IWater/IRIS I t I t t I M I I I I I I t I M I t

I t I I M i l

SE-04 I 1 I I I I

7E-03 M M 11 11

t M I t I I I M I I I t I 11 11 t

7E-03 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

a:

o o

o o

T a b l e 8G

SlNMtY ff OfONIC W<im I IKX ESHWIES - SCOMilO 3: OQLDREN

! RFD 1 RFD ; 1 SOURd/ lUNCERTAWTYlNOOIFYING ; BASIS iAOJUSTICNTS; FACTORS

11>I< < > > 11 < I < > > 11 > I < I < 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 ' I n I " 1111 " I' 11 " 1 1 ' 11111 I'll I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 III I III 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I i i i i i i i i 11(1 i m III l u i i i i i i 11 l l l l l l l I I I 1 1 1 III

; l o w n : . DAILY; CDI i ; i ; OCMICA. I WTAKEiCDI) I A D J U S T O F O R ; RFD ICDIflOOCE; O U T I D l

; (ig/kg/day) ; ABSORPTION |(a«/kg/dar); LEVti I EFFECT 1 11 > 11 <> 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

' 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 n i l 1 1 1 I I I I i i i i i i i i i n i l I I m i l l I I 1 1 n i l m i l n i l I I I I m i l I I n i l I I I I I I 111 I I I

lEXPOSURE PATHIAY: INGESTION ff OCWCALS IN ORIITING w m - OULCREN M f t M M ( ( t f I f i I I ( f ( r ( ( M f M f I I 11 M M M I t I I M t I r I t M t M t M 11 I 11 M I M I M I I I I I If f tl If I I M ( r I M It f t (I I If M M M M M I I I M I

1 I t It I M I I t 1 I t I 1 It I I t 11 M M M ll M M t It t I I I M M II It M II 11 I M M M I M M II I M M M 11 I M t M I M It I I t M M 11 M M I I I 11 M M I I I II

'lMa^iM'-'= ' t i l l t i t ) i f * i F M , y t i . , * I I I I I t i l

;A:senic ; 1.1E-05 ; Nc ;Chro i i u i V i ; 1.6E-C2 ; No ;Kanganese ; 7.6E»0C ; No

i E - 0 3 ; iw • ; i 1 5E-03 ; Lou ; No e f f ec t reported ! « a U r / I R I s ; 500 lE-01 ; Hediu i ; OS e f fec ts ! D i e t / * A S T ; 1

EXPCSLRE PATHWAY M M M I I I M M I i I

I I I > I I I M M I M M l l t t t I I t I I I I

OERmt COKTAC

I t I t I M ! M I I II t M I I I M M I M M M It M M I It It M t I t t t I 1 I t M M M It M I t

I I I I M I 11 t 11 M It M t II M It I M II It 11 I I M M II It I t I I M M I I M t i I t I I I M

WITH CHEHICA.S IN SOIL - OllLOREh

; iN0RiAN:: : ; ;Arsenic ; 11111111111111111 I M t t I ' I I ' I I I I I 1 '

;EXPOSURE PATH*.':

I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I M I I M I I I t I t 1 t I t I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I 111111111111 11 11111 1111 I 11111111111 n 1111111111111111111111111

; 1 1 1 Keratosis | I ;.3E-C3 ; 0.10 ; IE-03 ; NA land hrperp ig»enta t ion; NA/»CAST ; I I I M I M I 1 M M I M t M M I I I 11 I M I t I t I I t I I I I I t t I I M M M t I t I I t t I I I M t M I t I t I t M M 1 I t t I t ) I I M t M I I I I t t ) M M M I t I I I I I I t I I I M ) M I M M M M M I I I I I M M. I I I I M M I M t M I t 11 M I

INGESTIOh O-- 0CHIC4S IN SOIL PK) HOUSE DL'ST - 0<lLOR£h I 1 I 1 1 I t I I M I I 1 n I 1 1 ( 1 ( I ( M ( 1 I M ( I f t M M I 1 M I M I M f M ( M ( I I M I t 1 t f M M I ( M I M { M f I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 M I I I I M I t M I I t I I M t I I I I I t M I I t I M I I M I t M M M t M M I M I M I M M M M 11 I M

; i N O R ( i w < : : : : ; ; ; I 1 1 ; c h r o « ; u i V : : fc,3E-03 ; Nc I SE-03 ; L w ; No e f f e c t reported iWater/ IRISl

M I M t t I I I M I M I I I M M M I t I I 11 I t M M I t t M M I

I I M I ll It M I M I I It t I t II It M I II I II I M I I I I M M

t It I I I M It It I M I

t I It 11 M I II I t i II

I M M I II I M M M I

M M I M It I It I M I

t I I 11 I I M II II I I I

II M II M M I M M I

( I I t t I t I t f M M I I

t I I It M I I M I 1 I I J

500 I I I t I t t M I M I

II t M I I t I II M

I I I II It I

M I M I M

HAZARD QUOTIEKT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I 11111111

lEtOC' 3E+00 8E+01

I M M I t I

It M I M

13 l l l l l l l

11 M 11 I

I I I M I ( I

t t M I t 1 I

lE+OC M I 1 I t I I

It M II M

M t t M t I t I M t t t M I I t I I

M M I M M M I ) I I J I 11 I I I

PATWY ; TOTAL ; i HAZARD iDnSURE W

I I O E X ( H I ) ; HI I I I I I I t I II M M M M It I I II

M M f I t M M I I I I I M I I M

u : 10011 M M I M M M I < I t I M M f I II M M I M I M It I 1 I I I I I I

t I II t M I I I

I M I M M 11

13 I t M t I I 11 I

I M tl M M 1

I ( t f 1 ( t M ( I

t M I I II 1 I I I

a:

o o

to o o CD

Table 8H

S S ^ m ff OfSWIC KAZA^ I ® D ( ESTIf^TES - SCOiARlO 3: fiOai

I I > I I ' I I I < ' < • < I < I > I > I I < I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1

I ' I I I > I I I I I I I I I < I I I < I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l l l l I I l l l l l l l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

l o«0Nic W I I L Y ; CDI I I I '

0CMIC4 I IHTAKE(CDI) | I ! W U S T E D F O R ; m > |Cffi7IDEKCE I (ag/ks /day) I ^ S W T l O J i ; (8®/k8/day) ; LEVEL

, »v , m ', I 1 WTI^Y ; TOTAL 1 C R I i m 1 aWCi/ ItKCERTAINTYlTOinriNGl MA® I tlOAf® iE»13SLlRE |

EFFECT 1 m i % ! M ) J l 5 T f e n s ; FACTORS ! i JOT IE«T ; i®EX(H I ) ; HI | t t M 1 M M 1 1 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 I t 1 1

EXPOSURE PATHMA 1 t M 1 I t 1 t 1 1 M M 1 I : M M 1 M 1 1 M 1 M

i N O R y i h : : s : ChroaiuB V i ; Hanganese ; 1 r 1 1 1 I M M n 1 1 M

1 1 M 1 1 M 1 M 1 1 1 1 1

EXPOSURE PATtitir

INORGA iCS ;' Arse- ic ;

I i M I ) I M M I M M t ) t t t 1 t ) t M M M I M 1 t t t I ) t M I t I I M M M t M I M M M I I I t M I t ) M n I t t n I I I ) n ) ) M I t I I n t t I 1 M M I t t 1 t I M M ) t I I t t t t t t M M I M I M I I M I M M I M 1 It I I I t t M I M 11 I I I M It I I t I M I I I t M M M M I I t M l l I I M M I I M I I I I I I I l i t I I t I I M I M I M M M I I I I 11 I I I I I I M 11 M I t I t M M I M

INGESTION Of OCWCALS I« ORI^IKC t^TER - ftDULT 51 M I M 11 M M I II t It I M I M M I II

I M M I I M M M It I I I I II I M 11 II

I I I I It I t I M I I It I I M I t II I t It I I M t It M M I I M M M I II I II II II I I I M I II M I M II 11 I M I II M t I

M M M I II II It M M I t I M I 11 M I M M M It II I M 11 II I I M I M M I I I I I I 11 II t M M t I I M I t t II M I I

9.6E-03 4.6£tOC

Kc ttc

SE-03 ; Lea I Ko e f f ec t resor ted [Ba te r / IR Is ; 5« i I 1 ; 2 * 0 0 ; lE-01 I tediuD ; OlS e f f ec t s |Oiet/>CAST; 1' | 1 I IE+01 I

M I 11 I I I t 1.1 M I 1 It It t It II II t II t t I I M I M t t 1 I I It I I t I t 11 I I I II I t I M I t I 1 I I I M I It M I II It I t I t t M I I II 11 M I t It II M I t

n I I I M I I I M I M ) I I I I M M M ll I I I I It M I I I t I I M M I 11 I M M M It t I M I M 1 I I I M t I t 1 I I I I < M It I M I t I M ) I M M ) ) M It II

X m ^ CCB IACT aiTH OCHICALS IN SOIL - ftOai M I 1 t I I t M t t t t I I I t I I I I I I I I ( I I t I M I t M It M I M I It M t t M I 11 M I I I I I t I I I M I t I I I M M It M I M M I t t I t M t I t M I I It 11 i

M t M I 1 I t I t M I It M I M M I I M I t I M I M It I I It It I I t t I t I I I M I I M I I M I M M I I I t I II I M t It M I It It t I t I 1 I I t I t I M t M t M

e.9E-o< : ; I I Keratos is i I

O.IC ; IE-03 ; KA land h y p e r p i p e n U t i o n ; KA/)€AST ; 1 V ;

I l l l l l t l l l I I I I ' I I I I I I I t I t I I I I I I I I 1 t I t I t I I I t t I t I t I I I I I I t I t I I I I f I t I t I I I I I , I t I t t I I I I I I t I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I 11 I I I I i t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I t I I I I I I I I t I I I t I I I I I I 1 I I I I t I I I I I t I I t I I I t I t I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I

o o

to o o

Table 81

SUM!Y ff CANCER RISK £STiKATES - SCENIC 2 : CSI6TRUCTIil« W m M

1111111111 111II11111

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I l [ I M I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I OKONK DAILY | CDI ! | | ! [ OCXICA I TOTAL | TOTAL \ Ct£HIC«. I I N I ^ ( . . ' I ) 1 #XLR)STEO FC» I SF ! yEIWT ff 1 TYPE OF 1 S^ ^ I S / 1 ^ C i F I C ; PATXJAY \ O m j > i \

I ( i g /kg /day ) | ^SORPTION | (ag /kg /day) - ! | EVIDENCE I C^CER ! SORCE ! RISK | RISK ! RISK ; 111111111111111111111111111111111111 M 1111111II111111111111111111IIII1111 I I I 1111111II i m 11 I I I 11111111111II11111II111111111111 I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I i I I I I I I H I 1 I I I I i i I I ! I I I i I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXPOSi,K PAT*AY: DERfW. CWTACT WITH OCHICALS IN SOIL IE-OS I IE-OS | I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I INORGANICS I

Arsenic I 6.34E-0? ; 0.10 1.7S Skin iHater/IRIS ; IE-OS ; I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I I I t I I I I 1 I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I t I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I M I I 1 I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I

1-3

o o

to o

Table 8J

^ S i ^ M ) ff C m ( [ : HAZARD IKDEX ESTKMTES - SCENARIO 2 : CONSTRUCTION I M E R S

I I I I I I II I I I I I t I I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I II I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

I I SU8a«0!<IC : CDI I ! 1 1 RFD ! RFD ! I I PATK^Y ', TOTAL I I OCHICAL IDAILY INTAKE lADJUSTED FOR| m !C0?!FI0£KCE; CRITICAL ! SOURCE/ lUXCOTADfnlHffilFYINGl V S d m \ HAZARD [EXPOSURE | I I (Dg/kg/day) I A8SO!?'TI0S l ( c s / k e / d a r ) | LEVEL I EFFECT I BASIS IftDJUSTKEHTSl FACTCRS iQUOTIEtfl lIt®EX ( H I ) ; HI | I I II II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I 1 I 1 I II I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I M I I I I I I II I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n l l l l III i i n i i i i i i 111 I I I I I I M i l l 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

lEXPOSURE PATHWAY; OERfWL COJOACT UITH OCHICALS IN SOIL I 9E-01 I lE+00 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I M I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I H I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

; INORGANICS ; ; I I I Keratosis ! I , I I I lArsenic ; 9.0E-0S ; 0.10 ; IE-03 ; NA land hrperpig3e.nUtion|NA/>£AST I . 1 I • I 9E-01 ] I t I I t t t t I 1 I I 1 M I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I t I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I t I t I t I I I I I M I 1 I I I I I I I I I I M I t I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I M t I I t I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I t t I I I t I t I I M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

a: t-"

o o

to o

T a b l e 9 - D e t a i l e d C o s t s

AltemitUe 4A:

Site Use Restrictlont. Mu1t1-Liyer Ctp.

Ground Water Extraction. On-Slte Innoyitlve Treatment and DUcharge to Surface Hater

Item

CAPITAL COSTS - DIRECT

Quantity Units 1991

Unit Price Basis year Reference Escalation Unit costs 1991

Costs

Tears

(OIH)

(1) Present

Value (OIH)

Monitoring Well Instal lat ion

(4 ( 0 - f t . bedrocit m i l s - 2 ' diam.. 2 30- f t . deep overburden wells - 2 *)

-Hell Construction 1 Nat1s. 300 f t $125.00

(Tubex) -Health t Safety (17t) -Hoblllzatlon 1 time SB.000.00

1991

1991

1.00

1.00

tl2S.00

SB.000.00

137.500.00

t6.37S.00

$8,000.00

Total Nonltoring Hell Cost $61,878.00

Security

•Perm. Chain Link

•Uarnlng Signs

Total Security Cost

Site Preparation

Clearing

Grading

F111 Material

Fence

Access Road Reconstruction

Total Site Preparation

C.2S0 linear ft

20 signs

12.2 acres

BO.000 cu.yd.

BO.000 cu.yd.

7.200 sq.ft.

Sll.fiS

$42.00

$3.£75.00

$3.53

$11.03

$15.20

1991

1991

1991

19B7

1991

1991

$ S

6 6

5 5

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.0B3

1.00

1.00

$11.65

$42.00

$3.E75.00

$3.B2

$11.03

$15.20

$72.B12.fiO

$B40.00

$44,835.00

$305,839.20

$882,400.00

$109,440.00

$73.SS2.50

tl.342.S14.20

(1) - Calculated based on an assumed 5( Interest rate.

2103 TOO a iH

A-^A.I

Itara

T a b l e 9 - D e t a i l e d C o s t s

Alternative 4A:

Site l/se Restrictions. Multi-Layer Cap,

Ground Hater Eatrectlon. On-Slte Innovative Treatment and Discharge to Surface Hater

(continued)

1991

Quantity Units Unit Price Basis year Reference Escalation Unit costs 1991

Costs

Years

(OIH)

( I I

Present

Value (OIH)

Run-on/Run-off Contro ls

-D i tch ing

-Sad tMn ts t l on Basin

Total Run-On/Run-Off Controls

^ u l t l - L a y e r Cap Construct ion

-12° Gas Vent Layer

-40-B l l HOPE Liner

- F i l t e r Fabric (2 l aye rs )

-24" Bar r ie r Pro tec t ion Layer

-S° Topsoll Leyiar

-Saed. F e r t l l l z s r . Mulch

-Latera l Gas Vent Pipe

•Health and Safety(178)

Total Cap Construct ion Costs

2100 l . f t .

1 each

20.000 cu .yd .

530.000 s q . f t .

1.060.000 s q . f t .

40.000 cu .yd .

530 m f

530 Bsf

15 each

6.500 f t

$1.70

$10,000.00

817.25

80.80

SO.17

82.50

$400.00

843.00

8500.00

86.00

1988

19B8

1991

1991

1991

19BB

1991

1991

1988

19BB

7

7

13

13

13

1.055

1.055

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.055

1.00

1.00

LOSS

1.055

$1.79

$10,550.00

617.25

80.80

80.17

82.64

8400.00

843.00

8527.60

86.33

$3,766.35

$10,550.00

8345.000.00

8424.000.00

8180.200.00

8105.500.00

8212.000.00

822.790.00

87-912.60

841.145.00

8220.558.43

814.316.36

81.559.105.93

Ground Hater Extraction

(22 30-ft . deep overburden e»1U - 6*)

-Hell Construction and Materials 660 f t

(Tubes)

-Health and Safety(17g)

-Ejector Pumps 22 punps

8124.00 1991

$4,264.00 1991 24

1.00 $124.00

1.00 $4,264.00

$81,840.00

813.912.BO

$93,808.00

Total Eatractlon Cost $189,560.80

Piping To and From Treatment System

• W diBB. P K In Trench) 2450 ft 85.81 1991 1.00 $5.81 $14,234.50 $14,234.50

(1) - Calculated based on an assumed 6S Interest rate.

£IOZ too liH , .

•

T a b l e 9 - D e t a i l e d C o s t s

Alternative 4A:

Site Use Restrictions. Multl-layer Cap.

Ground Hater Estrsctlon. On-SUe Innovative Treotnsnt and Discharge to Surface Hater

(continued)

1991

Quantity Units Unit Price Basis yeor Reference Escolotlon Unit costs

1991

CoStD

Tsars

(OSM)

(1)

Present

Value (O&M)

id Hater Traotaent Systea

Membrane M i c r o f i l t r a t i o n Unit

F i l t e r Aid Systna

UV Oaldat lon Uni t

UV Oxidat ion Service Connection

Piping

Equal izat ion Tend

Ground Hater Treotexsnt Systea Costs

isant DacontonlnDtlon

Construct Oecon P i t

ExCOVDtQ P i t

Polyethylone Tarpaul in

•Tonker ren ta l

Disposal

Equlpsaent Decon Costs

leering Mgivt. Mob/Oeioob

1 T r a i l e r )

Control

' Hater Tank Sprayer

1 Qach

1 each

1 each

1 t1eie

500 l . f t .

1 each

4 Bonths

100 cu .yd .

1200 s q . f t .

1 each

1 each

6 Bonths

RIO hours

850.000.00

820.000.00

$59,950.00

85.000.00

82.60

812.500.00

8390.00

$27.00

80.31

8800.00

81.100.00

8430.00

87.10

1991

1991

1991

1991

198S

19BB

1991

1991

1991

19B9

19B9

1991

1991

25

25

IB

IB

7

7

6

5

5

9

9

5

5

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.055

1.055

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.036

1.036

1.00

1.00

850.000.00

820.000.00

859.950.00

$5,000.00

82.74

813.167.50-

8390.00

827.00

$0.31

8826.80

81.139.60

8430.00

87.10

850.000.00

820.000.00

859.950.00

85.000.00

81.371.60

813.187.50

81.660.00

82.700.00

8372.00

8628.80

81.139.60

82.6B0.0U

e6.Sffi>.M

8149.509.00

86.600.40

82.6R).00

86.SS).08

:t Cepltel Cost Subtotal 83.409.628.68

Calculated based on an assisiied 5S Interest rate.

A-AA.3 HTL- oo i - 2.^^^V

Item

CAPITAL COSTS - INDIRECT

Table 9 - Detailed Costs Alternative 4A:

Site Use Restrictions. Multi-layer Cap.

Ground Hater Extraction. On-S1te Innovative Treatment and Discharge to Surface Hater

(continued)

1991

Quantity Units Unit Price Basis year Reference Escalation Unit costs

1991

Costs

Years

(0$H)

(1)

Present

Value (OtM)

Engineering and 0es1gn(13S)

legal and AdmlnlstratlveOS)

$443,261.73

$102,288.66

TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $3,955,169.26

OPERATIOtj AHD MAIOTEHABCE COSTS

-Ground Hater Monitoring

Annual Sampling (15 Us)la)

Quarterly Sampling (12 Hells)

TCL Analysis

-Cap Maintenance

Annual Inspection

Howlng/Reveget at ton

Erosion Control

Repa1rs(tota1 for 1 year)

-Membrane Microfiltration OSM

-UV Oxidation OtM Cost

-Filter Cake Transportation S

Disposal

-Discharge to Surface Hater Sampling

And Analysis

TOTAL MET PRESENT VALUE OF 0 S M

IS

48

63

1

530.000

12.2

1

5.256

ssnples

samples

samples

each

sq.ft.

acres

each

1000 gal

12 months

4

24

tons

samples

$200.00

$200.00

$1,800.00

$5,000.00

$0.04

$200.00

$1,000.00

$4.00

$4,796.00

$1,300.00

$B50.00

1991

1991

196B

1988

1991

19B2

19BB

1991

1991

1991

1991

13

13

4

7

5

12

7

26

18

22

13

1.00

1.00

1.055

1.055

1.00

1.247

1.055

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

8200.00

$200.00

81.699.00

$5,275.00

$0.04

$249.40

$1,055.00

$4.00

$4,796.00

$1,300.00

tBBO.OO

83.000.00

$9,600.00

$119,637.00

$5,276.00

$21,200.00

$3,042-68

$1,055.00

$21,024.00

$57,552.00

$5,200.00

$20,400.00

$266.935.6E

17

17

17

30

30

30

30

12

12

12

12

833.822.00

8108.230-40

$1,346,787.54

$81,087.30

$325,886.40

$46,772-08

816.217.46

$186,335.71

$510,063-38

$46,067-60

$160,605.20

»2.684.115-06

(I) - Calculated based on an assumed 58 interest rate.

ST02 TOO lIiH A-4A.4

Table 9 - Detailed Coir.s Al te rna t i ve ' ik :

S i te Use Res t r i c t i ons . M u l t i - l a y e r Csp.

Ground Hater Ex t rac t ion . On-Slte Innovative Treatr. j . i t and Diicharae t o Surface Hater

(continued)

1991

Item Quantity Units Unit Price Basis year Reference Escalation Unit costs

SUBTOTAL 8S.B3$.2B4.33

CONTINGENCY(202) 81.367.656.B7

TOTAL PRESENT VALUE COST FOR ALTERNATIVE 4A 8B.207.141.19

1991

Costs

Vears

(O&M)

(1) Present

Value (OtM)

(1) - Calculated based on an assumed 5S Interest rate.

9T0S 100 7 M

A-4A.5

APPENDIX III

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX

a: 1-3

o o

to

o

i .

09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 4

HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents

Document Number: HTL-001-1589 To 1600 Date: 07/01/91

Title: Superfund Proposed Plan (Revised) Hertel Landfill Site

Type: PLAN

Author: none: US EPA

Recipient: none: none

Document Number: HTL-001-1601 To 1601 Date: 07/25/91

Title: (Letter offering concurrence with the selected remedy for the Hertel Landfill site)

Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Author: O'Toole, Michael J. Jr.: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation

Recipient: Callahan, Kathleen C : US EPA

Document Number: HTL-001-1734 To 1736 Date: 07/31/91

Title: (Press Release:) EPA to Hold Meeting on Proposed Clean Up of the Hertel Landfill Superfund

Site in Plattekill, New York

Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Author: none: US EPA

Recipient: none: none

Oocunent Number: HTL-001-1602 To 1616 Date: 08/U/91

Title: General Notice of Potential Liability and Request for Information under 42 U.S.C. Sections

9604 and 9607 Concerning the Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York

Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Author: Callahan, Kathleen C : US EPA

Recipient: none: various PRPs

Docifiient Nunber: HTL-001-1617 To 1628 Date: 08/14/91

Title: General Notice of Potential Liability and Request for Information under 42 U.S.C. Sections

O O

9604 and 9607 Concerning the Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York (Version sent to generators)

Type: CORRESPONDENCE '~

Author: Callahan, Kathleen C : US EPA to

Recipient: none: various PRPs o (->

09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 5

HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents

Docunent Number: HTL-001-1629 To 1643 Date: 08/14/91

Title: General Notice of Potential Liability and Request for Information under 42 U.S.C. Sections

9604 and 9607 Concerning the Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York (Version sent to corporations)

Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Author: Callahan, Kathleen C : US EPA

Recipient: none: various PRPs

Document Number: HTL-001-1644 To 1654 Date: 08/14/91

Title: Request for Information under 42 U.S.C. Section 9604, Concerning the Hertel Landfill Site,

Plattekill, New York

Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Author: Callahan, Kathleen C : US EPA

Recipient: none: various parties associated with the site

Document Number: HTL-001-1655 To 1665 Date: 08/14/91

Title: Request for Information under 42 U.S.C. Section 9604, Concerning the Hertel Landfill Site,

Plattekill, New York (Version sent to transporters)

Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Author: Callahan, Kathleen C : US EPA

Recipient: none: various parties associated with the site

Document Number: HTL-001-1666 To 1669 Date: 08/14/91

Title: Hertel Landfill Addresses (for 107(a) and 104(e) letters sent August 14, 1991)

Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Author: none: US EPA

Recipient: none: none

35 1-3

o o

O

09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 6

HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents

Document Nunber: HTL-001-1737 To 1903 Date: 08/14/91

Title: (Public Hearing Transcript: Town of Plattekill Town Court, August 14, 1991, concerning the

Hertel Landfill site)

Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT

Author: D'Lorenzo, Katherine: shorthand reporter

Recipient: none: none

Document Number: HTL-001-1679 To 1681 Date: 08/27/91

Title: (Letter on behalf of Western Publishing Company ("Western") requesting that EPA extend the

public comment period for the Superfund Proposed Plan (Revised) for the Hertel Landfill site

- fax transmittal slip attached)

Type: CORRESPONDENCE

Author: Ephron, Susan H.: Beveridge & Diamond

Recipient: Capon, Virginia: US EPA

a: 1-3

o o

o O

ADDENDUM TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX—HERTEL LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE

1. September 24, 1991—Comments on behalf of Western Publishing Company on the Proposed Plan for the Hertel Landfill site, Plattekill, New York, submitted by Beveridge & Diamond, P.C,

a:

o o

lO o to

09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 1 HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents

Docuinc-iii: Number-: HTL-OlV, •••i90;i "t'.j 1904 Distei / /

Title: (Notice of the availability of the Hertel LaiidfiU site data. Chain of Custody Forms, and Quality Assurnnce/Quslity Control information)

Type: CORRESPONDENCE Author; Kaplan, Richard: US EPA

Recipient: none: none

Document Number: HTL-001-0189 To 0214 Date: 06/06/83

Title: (Hazardous Ranking System Package for the Hertel Landfill site)

Type: DATA Author: none: US EPA

.7ei:ipiint: none: none

Document Number; HTL-001-D173 To 0188 Date: 06/07/83

Title: Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Site Inspection Report (Hertel Landfill site)

Type: REPORT Author: Bauimer, J. Charles Jr.: Ecological Analysts

Recipient: none: US EPA

Document Number: HTL-001-0001 To 0172. Date: 11/01/83

Title: Preliminary Investigation of the Hertel Property, Town of Plattekill, Ulster County, New York, Phase I, Summary Report

Type: PLAN Author: none: Ecological Analysts

Recipient: none: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation

Document Number: HTL-001-1671 To 1678 Parent: HTL-001-1670 Date: 06/30/89

Title: Preliminary Health Assessment for Hertel Landfill, Inc., CERCLIS No. NYD980780779, Ulster aj County, Plattekill, NY ^

Type: PLAN ^ Author: none: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) O

Recipient: none: US EPA

ro o to to

09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 2

HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents

•iocun.;,.!: :.l-mber: liTL-001-1670 To 1670 Date: 07/12/89

TitU-; (Memorandum forwarding the enclosed preliminary Health Assessment for the Hertel Landfill

site)

Type: CORRiiSPONDENCE

Author: Nelson, William Q.: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR)

Recipient: Cam, Vinh: US EPA

Attached: HTL-0C1-1671

Docvimant Number: HTL-001-0441 To 0545 Date: 09/01/89

Title: Final RI/FS Work Plan for Hertel Landfill Site - Plattekill, New York

Type: PLAN

Author: none: TAMS Consultants

.<ecipif:ni:; none: US EPA

Document Number: HTL-001-0215 To 0440 Date: 10/01/89

Title: Final RI/FS Field Operations Plan for Hertel Landfill Site - Plattekill, New York

Type: PLAN

Author: none: TAMS Consultants

Recipient: none: US EPA

Document Number: HTL-001-1682 To 1733 Date: 11/01/89

Title: Final Community Relations Plan for Hertel Landfill Site - Plattekill, New York

Type: PLAN

Author: none: TAMS Consultants

Recipient: none: US EPA

Docunent Nimber: HTL-001-1905 To 1926 Date: 04/01/90

Title: Site Analysis, Hertel Landfill, Clintondale, New York

Type: PLAN ;i,

Author: McDonald, Bruce D.: Bionetics Corporation 3

Recipient: Osberg, Thomas R.: Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (US EPA)

O

o

o

09/26/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 3 HERTEL LANDFILL SITE Documents

Documei-it liuntisr ; HTL-U01-1V27 To 1934 fiste: D'!/29/91

Title: (Transmittal cover sheet forwarding attached proposed applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements for the Hertel Landfill site)

Type: CORRESPONDENCE Condition: DRAFT

Author: Penn, Bill: TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. Recipient: Kaplan, Richard: US EPA

Document NLtnber: HTL-001-0546 To 0755 Date: 07/01/91

Title: Remedial Investigation Report for Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York, Volume 1

Typ;: AHfOUt

Author: none: TAMS Consultants Recipient; nuns;: US EPA

Docuritint Number: HrL-001-0756 To 0890 Dale: 07/01/91

Title: Remedial Investigation Report for Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York, Volume 2

Type: REPORT Author: none: TAMS Consultants

Recipient: none: US EPA

OocLnent Number: HTL-001-0891 To 1290 Date: 07/01/91

Title: Remedial Investigation Report for Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York, Volune 3

Type: REPORT Author: none: TAMS Consultants

Recipient: none: US EPA

Docunent Number: HTL-001-1291 To 1588 Date: 07/01/91

Title: Feasibility Study Report for Hertel Landfill Site, Plattekill, New York, Voltrie 1 EC 1-3

Type: REPORT f« Author: none: TAMS Consultants

Recipient: none: US EPA O • o

i~>

O to

APPENDIX IV

NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE

33

O O

to o to

5EP-20-1991 14:21 FROM NYS.ENUIR.CONSERUflTION TO 6-592607-2122646607 P.01

S«a*® D®p&dmm'i @? Environmental Consen/ail so WoW Road, Albany, N®w York 12233 7010

" ^ 6S~C.

SEP 2 0 1991 YfiomlS^. Jorling Commissioner

Wr. Constantine Si^awon-Eristoff Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278

I>ear Mr. Sidaroon-Eristoff:

Re: Record of DecisioTi Hertel Landfill Site (ID No. 356006)

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the Draft Record of Decision for the Hertel Landfill site located in the Town of Plattekill, Ulster County, Kew York and finds it to be acceptable with the condition that appropriate remedial action will be incorporated into the selected Remedial Action Plan if sampling of the residential wells shows contaminant levels of concerD.

Please contact Mr. James Lister at (518) 457-3976 if you should have any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,

>, ... P V }

Edward 0. Sullivan Deputy CommiBsioner

" ^ • n

WE:^!J&

- rsP:cir _ _

a:

o o

!0 o 10 0^

APPENDIX V RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

o o

O to

RESPONSfVENESS SUMMARY

HERTEL LANDRLL SUPERFUND SITE

The Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) reports and the PrqDOsed Plan fcx the Site were made available for public review on July 27, 1991. The ckxuments were placed in information repositories located at the Town of Rattekill Town Hall, Rcxites 44/55, Mcxlera, NY, and ttie Plattekill Public Uxary, Route 32, Modena, NY. A puUic meeting was hekj at the Town of Plattekill Town Hall on August 14 ,1^1 , for representatives of t\e United States EnvircxTnental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 to present the results of "le RI/FS and the Proposed Plan tor remediation of the Site. A period for public review arKl comment o i these docunents was initjally established from July 27, 1991, to August 26, 1 ^ 1 .

Public notices appeared CXI or abojt July 29,1^1,in'TheNewPaltzNews,"ThePoughkeepsJe Journal," 'The Daily Freeman," and 'The Times Herald Record." These rtotices anrourK»d the availat>ility of the Plan at tiie Information Repositories, provided a summary of the Plan, and provided the dates for the public meeting and the public comment period.

During the public comment period, Westem_ Publishing Company of Radne, Wisaxisin, a potentially responsible party (PRP), petitioned EPA for an extension of the comment periaj. EPA granted an extension until Septemt>er 19, 1 ^ 1 . A second request for extension was granted to another PRP, DeLaval, which resulted in a comment period totalling sixty days, which ended on September 25, 1 ^ 1 .

The following section is a summary of comments and questions received from the public, with EPA's responses. The section is divided into two parts. Part A includes questions and comments raised at tine meeting. The responses provided below are a summary of statements made at the public meeting; however, in several cases, the responses provided at the meeting have been supplemented with additional information. Part B includes responses to written questi'ons and comments which were sent to EPA during the comment period.

PART A

Question: What is the timetable for implementing the selected alternative? When would EPA begin?

Response: The timetable for implementing the remaify is dependent on the alternative ultimately selected. The prcpDsed alternative, Altemative 4A, woukj take m approximately 36 months to implement After the Record of Decision ^ (ROD) is signed, measures would be taken to attempt to ^ewe the PRPs implement t ie remediation. These administrative steps could involve § negotiations with several PRPs whch could last several months. Tf^ actual ^ design of the remedy is ex{^:tKl to take 12-18 rrxxiths. Ihe actual period of construction is also exj^cted to take approximately 12 to 18 months, resulting in a total estimate on the order of 36 months.

lO o to 00

*Hlt l3/Ht!*<JNS.SUM

Question: Has tie profX)sed process been used at any other Site, and, if so, how effective has it been?

Response: The capping of t e disposal areas would be corducted h accordarxe with the New Yori< State Code of Rules and Regulations Part 360 standards for ctosure of sanitary v\/aste landfills. Numerous larxlfills across the State have been rapped in axordance with tese roijuirements. StarxJard construction fXcctices ard «:juipment woud be utilized for the cap constiixaion, afthough since the Site is a Superfund site, all wori<ers woud have to urdergo ap{xc>/ed heatth ard safety training.

The proposed microfilti tion ard UV oxdation gr jrdwata" ti-eatinent techriologies fxoposed ureter Altemative 4A are hnovative freatment systems which are curentiy rduded in EPA's Superfund Imovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) prcgram. There is currentiy a great incentive to irrtroduce inriovative t^tindogy in remedial ^:tivities. The miaofirtration tKtindogy has t ^ n jointiy developed by E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc. ard Oberiin Filter Company. The special type of filter utilized in the microfifration unit has been used successfully in ottier irdustries as weH as at the Palmerton Zinc Suf^rfurd site for ti^ renxival of metals from t\e waste sti-eam. Treatability shjdies will be perfcxmed to ensure t e effectiveness of tiie prcK:ess for t e type of grcxjrdwater ard metals at Hertel.

Question:

Response:

The elimination of organics using ozone and ultraviolet light is a pilot process developed by Ulti-ox International and evaluated by EPA under t e SITE program. This particular prcxess has been denxxistiBted successfully v^^ certain organic compounds. Again, f eatability studies would be performed involving tie organics specific to Hertel.

Is the process proposed for Hertel typical of procedures used for other landfill closures? Is t e cost per acre of capping generalizable?

As noted above, tfie proposed cap is not unique ard will be constructed in accordafX« with State requirements for sanitary lardfill dosure. This type of cap has t^en ccxistructKl at numerous otiier sanitary landfills, some of which are induded on State or Federal lists of hazardous waste sites. The process proposed for groundwater treatment is different from processes generally used at otf>er lardfiUs.

Capping cost per aae is very much a function of the size, side slop^ ard other -existing physical dTaracteristics of the terdfill. Generally speakkig ecorxxnies of scale can be realizaj in cappirg a lardfill, i.e., as the size of the landfill irxreases, the cost p r a:re wcxid decrease.

cri 1-3

o o

lO o to

hERTHi/FESPONaSUM

Question:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Question:

RespcxTse:

What is the yfe expectancy of ti^ cap?

The proposed cap woud tie design^j for a minimum of 30 years, contingent upcxi proper upkeep. The cap wiH be rr\aintained as kxig as necessary to protect human heafth and t e envronment In fact, a review will be conducted every five years to ensure ttnat t e remedy continues to tDe prc3tective.

Are tiTere to be any rroTitoring systems for vented gases to see if anytfung other t a n methane is cxming ft^m tfTe landfill?

The proposed rem«jy calls for tte cap to te consti\x:ted with gas vents. These vents will be rrxxiitored for metiiane, as well as crtfer ccxitaminants. At ttTJs time, other contaminants are not expected to be of concern. If it is determinaJ tfiat offer ccxTtaminants are of concern, rreasures can subsequentiy be taken to ti^eat such contaminants to ensure pxotection of human f^ahh and tfTe envircximent. This fXDSSitxIity will t e given additional consideraticxi during t e design phase.

What happens to t e groundwater after it has teen tf-eated?

The proposed remedy calls for t e treated groundwater to te discharged to surface water unless detiimental impacts would result from such action. Other discharge options, such as reinjection into t e aquifer, wiW be evaluated during t e remedial design.

How many gallons of contaminatKl water will t e pxoposed plant tf-eat per day?

The current estimate is 14,0CXD gallons per day.

Why would treated water be discharged into the sti-eam rather t a n back into the lardfill to be ccxrtinuously reti"eated?

Water discharged into surface water woud have to meet New York State discharge limits. It is antidpatKJ ttiat the tf-eated grcxjnd water woud be discharged to t e surface water unless it is determined that t e surface water discharge option has a detiimental impact on t e wetiards, or is not effective for some otiner reason, in any event reinjection will be furttier evaluated as a discharge option during the renredial design phase. This evaluation will consider reinj aicxn of t e ti-eated v rater irduding reirijection upgradient of ttie landfill. Applicable or relevant arxj appropriate standards f a discharge of t e ti-eat«j water into the aquifer woud be mel

•X 1-3

o o

to o o

HEHTELS/RESPONS.SUM

Question: Rather tfian rr^rely treating t e dty layer and t e tesser oxitaminated groundwater togetfer, can t e oily layer te ti-eated separately ard h a mcxe rapd fashion?

Response: Evider>ce of a floating product layer was fcxird in ere sample from cxie well. However, it is difficult to determine t e extent of tfTis layer both laterally ard vertically. Additional sampling will be performed durir>g t e design phase to determine if tiiis layer is present If it is present and if it is significant enough to warrant handling separately from t e contaminated groundwater, rreasures will taken to do so.

Question:

Response:

Question:

Response:

Related (Comment:

What plan^ are tere to dispose of t e filter cake?

EPA is currentiy assumirg tax the fitter cake will be ctxisidered hazardous ard will be disposed of at a licensed hazardous v\raste facility in accordance with State and Federal requirements for ti'anspjort, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes.

What was t e detenmining factcx in choosing Altemative 4A C5ver 4?

The alternatives were evaluated against 9 evaluaticxi criteria namely: Overall protection of human heattfi ard t e environment; Long-term effectiveness and permanence; Redu<:tion of toxicity, mobility, ex volume; Short-tenm effectiveness; Implementability; Cost; State acceptance; ard Community acceptance. The Superfund legislaticxi also estat>lishes a pxeferenc^ for remedies v\/hich utilize innovative teciinologies to t e greatest extent prac:ticable. EPA feels tinat overall Altemative 4A is tiie alternative tiTat test satisfies t e 9 criteria. Atthough Altemative 4 is very similar to Altemative 4A in terms of satisfying t e 9 criteria, Altemative 4A also satisfies t e statutory preference for utilization of innovative technologies. EPA realizes tfiat tere are some questions r^arding t e inrx)vative natijre of Alternative 4A and therefore has identified t e reed for freatability stijdies to evaluate t\e ability of tfiis innovative treatment system to effectively ti-eat t e grouncKvater at t e Site. lYe treatment system would not te operated cxi a fijil-scale basis at t e Site unless it is shown to be effective in t e ti-eatability studies. If t e stijdies irxJicate that t e remedy is not effective or implementable, tfien Altemative 4 shall t« implemented as a contingency remedy.

Ore audience member objected to the use of unproven techrKDlogy ard expressed t e preference for t e proven technology as represented by Altemative 4. The member dd not want to t)e a test case.

as 1-3

Response: Since Altemative 4A is protKjtive of human teafth over t e lor^temi, as well as during short-term constiiiction activities, t e operatkxi of t ^ treartment system wcxjid not impact t e readents. The uncertainty is solety related to t e effectiveness of the ti-eatment system. As noted above.

o o

to o OJ

MERTHJ/FESPONS.SUM

ti^atability stijdies will confirm t e viablity of Altemative 4A; and t e treatirent scheme woud not te imp)lementKl unless treatability study results were pxjsitive.

Question: Regarding t e groundwater treatment and testing, who monitors t e progress and is t e treatn&t time frame (12 years) ftexibie? Who will test ard how often?

Response: The twelve years is an estimate only of the anticipated p^iod of time required to reach remediation ot^ectives. EPA in ccxijunction witfi t e State of New York Department cjf Environmental (DcxTservation, will be responsible for operating t e groundwater tf-eatment system durrtg t e first ten years of its operation. Thereafter, the State v nll t e resporsibte for operation and maintenance activities. The specifics of tfTe testing pnxess will be detailed as part of the design phase of tfTe project The prcposed renTedy calls for sampling of mcxTitiDring wells cxi a quarteriy basis. Sampling of ti-eated water is expected to t)e conduc5©d on a more fi-^quent basis, espaaally during tfTe start-up phase of tfTe process. The public will t e kepjt informed of tfre cxjtcome of tfTe remedial ctesign efforts, induding tfTe development of tfTe rrranitoring program, tirrcxjgh m^tings and tfTe distribution of fact sheets.

Question:

Response:

Question:

When will cardnogens and other dangerous substarK:es "te gone?'

RatiTer tiTan trying to predict wten all ccxitaminants are gore, it is more appropxiate to focus on tfre point in time at which protKition of human healtfr and tfTe environment is in place. As not^J above, it is estimated tfTat tfre pxoposed remedy will be fijnctional ard in operaticxr (tfre pump ard ti-eat system) in approximately 36 morrths. AltiTcxjgh tfTe remedy will be functional at tiris point in time, contaminants will still remain beneath t e cap. The time required before tfre contaminant concerrtraticxTS are significantiy reduced, is highly dependent upcxr tfre specific contaminants present and tfTe specific conditions witfrin tfre landfill mound. Some organic contaminants could remain for an extended pericxj of time, pertraps 50 years. Inorganic contaminants could remain for ever longer pericxJs of time. Again, it is important to remember tirat t e selected r ^ r t ^ will be prot^sive of human healtfr ard tfre ^wonment Since contaminants will remain on-site, the effectiveness of tfre r^redy wiU be evaluated on a periodic basis, at least once every five years, to ©rsure tfrat the pxotection of human frealtfr and tfre environrtient is maintained.

What about protecting tfTe community fi-om risk in tfre period bsfcxe t e site remediation is complete? What can you do abcxjt keeping tf-espassers off tfTe Site? What atx)ut fences and posting? Why h ^ n l tfre Site been fenced?

a:

o o

to o u> to

HERIELi/FESPCINS.SUW

Response: Ore of tfre first measures taken by EPA during tfTe fied investigatkDn phase of tfre prqect was to limit v^Ticular ti^ffic. This was dore by pitting a lcxi<ed gate at tfre beginning qf tiTS long ^rti-arxe road to tfTe Site. In additicxi, a f^rce was placed at tfTe i d of t e ©itrarce road to fixttT«-prevent access to tfre disposal area A {^gn has t^sn p»Kted en tf-e fence which stales tfrat tire area is a Sup»1und tazarcfc)us waste investigation Site.

n-

Ore of tfre primary-means of protK^ng tfTe community prxx to ccxnprfetkxr of site rerr^iaticxT wiH be to maintain site security. Maint^iance of site security \N\\\ restiict tire potKTtial fcx f " spassers to utilize the ste pxicx to CM-durirgrremediation; As a - ^ step_1owarcis ir^^ementing ate security, signs will be pps t^ at varicxis ksabcxTS, r«±ding those wrtch have

.recentiy teen us©d as peteways byareareaciaTts, F C & ^ t h a t t i ^ site is a Superfund site, The prt^30s«j raneciy hductes farcir^ t m perimeter of tfre area to be capped. Erther a temporary-or permanent fence will be erected prior to tire cxrset of construction at tfTe site and will Kmit ate access. Orrce tfTe cont i^or is on site, tfre contractor controls site saxirity and access to the site. The ccxrti'actcx will also be responsible few-implenrenting a tealtir and safety plan for site rem^iaticxr as well as for preparing contingency plans in tfre event any unusual emergences shoud arise cjuring tfTe-course. of tfTe rem^iation. As rK)t«J:in tf-e pxcpDsed raredyrp^ipdic^ourTdwater sampling will also t e conducted to rrxxritor t ^ narture and e)^en{;of contaminantsri#^ grca,odwaterf The monitoring

. program will indude tfre sampling of a numter of resdential wells.

Question: The Chief of tfre Clintondale Rre Department wantKl to know wfrat was in tfTe landfill; what hazards he and his men may face if tfTey have to fight a fire, induding subterranean fires, on tfre lardfill; ard what tfTOse hazardous materials may do to human life and tfre Kiuipment Can tfre Rre Department have a copy of tfTe reports or otiTer information on wfrat was found at tfre landfill?

RespKDnse: Extensive sampling and ti^enching of tfre landfill was performed during tfTe fied investigation. The investigation dd not reveal any evidence of buriaj -drums or "hot spots" at.tfre site, The risk assessment showed no significant risk urader a reasonable maximum exposure sc^rario, to construction wori<ers tir^Dretically on site for six mcxittTS, eight hcsjrs a day, buiding hcxjses. However, tf>e risk of wori<ing witfT ccxnbustibl^ goes beyond tfiis scenario. Available data does not indicate .tfrat fre fighters wcxjd t e placed at incremental risks by going cxito tfre ate [to fight a fire], above ard beyond- tiTose tfrat ttrey might be subject to. at arratfrer munidpal landfill.

32

o o

The standard procedures fcx fighting chemical fires of an unknown nature wcxjd be suggested as a prudent measure e.g., self-contaired breathing ap DarahJs, maximum feasible dermal prot^zticxT, etc. tt woud also be

o OJ OJ

^€HTHJ5/HESW^S.aJM

prudent for bca! emergency services tiD have a fire resfxxrse contingency plan, rduding an evaxiation plan, fcx such a sitijation. Chenxais tfrat have been dentified at tfre Site in soil, subsurface sdl, and grourdwater are tabulated in tfre ReoTedial Investigation Report; a c c ^ of tfris dcxxinrent was r^entiy tiransnnitted to tfre Plattekill Rre Department

As a general guideline, tfre fi-equency of subsurface landfill fires shoud d^xease witfT time after cessation of refuse ctepositicxr. The H^t^ Landfill tias been dosed for 14 years. The Platt^<ill Fire CommissJor^ has noted that tire last underground fire was around 1977.

Question(s): Several audience membas had questions palaining to tf-e ptecarent of HTonitoring wells, tfTe sampling of water at neariDy Ixxres, tire testing of groundwater near tfTe landfill, and tfTe state of tfre wetlands sajinrent

Response (s): Additional nnonitoring wells called for under tfTe proposed remajy will hdude a combinaticxT C3f overtDurden and t>^rcx:k aquifer wells. In additicxT, residential wells will also be sampled as part of tfTe monitoring program. EPA sampled eleven residential wells during tfTe RI/FS. These 11 wells were sampled due to tfTe fact tfrat tfrey were rduded in a previous sampling event conducted by tfTe Ulster County Healtfr Department (UCHD) and as such, tfTe results of tfre two sampling events could t e ccxnp)ared over time. There was not an intent to samF)!e wells for tfre sole purpose of testing drinking water quality. These wells were also intended to provide information similar to tfTat provided by nronitcxing wells. Now tfTat the direction of tfre groundwater flow is known, there may be a new grcxjping of residential wells sampled as part of tfTe nrxxiitoring pxogram. The same 11 houses may be resampled as part of tfrat stijdy, altfTOugh tfris determination will be made during tfre planning stages for tire nnonitoring program. There is no apparent n e ^ to test wells in tfre ti-ailer pari< nortfr of tfTe site because tfTe direction of grounchA^er flow is away ft-om tfTe pari<.

NYSDOH sampled residential wells at nine homes along Route 44/55. As stated by a NYSDOH representative at tfTe public meeting, NYSDOH is willing to ccxisider requests fi-om residents for additional residential well sampling. In fact, based on r&xrit discussions hed t)etween EPA, NYSDEC, NYSDOH and UCHD it was agreed tfTat tfre UCHD woud obtain samples ft'om homes on Tuckers Comer Road and send tfrem to NYSDOH for analysis. This program has been initiatKi.

The analytical results for tire samples coll«3ed in tire wetiands cjd indicate that contaminants had migrated to tfre wetiands and tfiat tfre ocxitinued migration of contaminants to tire wetlands may have potential e d v ^ ^ environmental impacts. The pxoposed r e m ^ does not call fiDr tire excavation of wetiand sediments. In fact, during tfre course of tfre rem^iation, efforts will be made to minimize tfre impacrts to tfre wetlands.

o o

to o OJ

HERTa5/l=ESPONS.SUM

tt is posable tfTat some contaminated wetiands sediment will be partially covered by tfre proposed cap. The extent of tfTe impacts to wetiands and tfTe nneans of restoration will t e addressed during tfre remedial design prfTase of tire project.

Question: Were any samples taken to determine if any of tire aa-ea flora ard faujna v/ere contaminatKl, ex were tf^ simply counted?

Response: Animal samples were taken for ccNjnting only. No stijdy was dcre to see if p)lants had taken any contaminants up tfTrough tfTeir rcx3t systems. The evaluaticn of tfre t y p ^ and numbers of animals and plants present pxovdes information on tfTe typ^ of habitat present its fijnctional value and healtfT. Samples collected ft'om tfTe leachate seeps and tfTe wetiand sediments indicate tfTat tf-e wetlands are being innpacted by tfTe lardfill. All of tfTis infcxmation indicates tfrat tf'^ potential exists for tfTe larxJfill to adversely impact tfre wetiands, ard flora and fauna utilizing tfTe wetiands, if tfTe landfill is not property contained.

Question: At different areas witfrin tfTe Site, could tfrere te a different bedrock aquifer flow direction?

Response: Variation in flow direction is more likely to cxxur witfrin tfTe shallow aquifer tfran witfrin tire deeper aquifer. Flow nearer tfTe surface is typically more topographically oriented, whereas flow in tfTe tedrcck aquifer is mere regionally oriented. In tfTis instance, based on available data, tfTe bedrock groundwater is believed to be flowing in an east nortfreast direction towards tfTe Hudson River.

Question: CcxTceming a "gas odor" emanating from some residential faucets in tfre Tuckers Comers area (past 2-3 years), is tiTere an indep^endent aquifer tfrat would carry any kind of discharge (e.g., gas) to residential wells?

Response:

Question:

Response:

The geology and conditions at tire specific locations in question woud govem tfre cause ft^r tfTe gas odor which some resdents experienced. The goDlc^ical conditions at tfTe Site could be very different fi-om tfre conditions at tfTose specific locations. Based upcxi tfTe gec^ical conditions and flow of groundwater at tfTe Site, it is unlikely tfrat tfre gas conditicxis were caused by tfTe Site corditicxrs.

Has EPA determined who tfre potentially responsible parties are?

EPA has provided written notice to several parties informing tfrem of ttreir statjs as potentially responsibJe parties. EPA is continuing to evaluate other sources of informaticn to determine if additional parties rray be respxxTSible fcx tfTe Site ccxitaminaticxT.

X 1-3 IT

o o

to o OJ

hEHTHJ5/BESP0NS.SUM 8

Question(s):

Response:

Question (s):

Response:

Will Superfund money pay fiDr tf^ remediation? In what manner might taxpayers pay?

Superfund will not necessarily pay. The Superfund program has a strcxig emphasis cxi errfcxcement aind requires every effort be made to dartify and arrange for prrtentialty respxxisible parties to remediate tire site tfremselves under EPA direction. It is antidpated tfrat upon signature of tfre ROD, negotiations will te initiated witfT pxjtentially responsible parties in an attempt to have tfrem undertake tfTe remedial design and remedial action. Superfund itself is autfxxized by Ccrgress ard several efferent aveni.es rrf fijnds are channeted into the ova3ll ftjrding appropriation. The majority of tfre fijrds corre ftxxn a chemical f^dstcx:k tax, a petrcteum tax, and a broad based corporate tax. CoTtiibutkxrs are also made ft'om general tax revenues, ard legal a:tions to recover expenditijres tor Site activities ft'om responable panties.

Several audience members raised questions and ccxnments concerning tfTe nature and extent of any deed restiictions, or restrictions on fijtijre development of tfTe Site tfrat might be recommended. In additicxi concerns were raised about tfre px tential effects of any such restiicticxTS on tfre tax base of tfTe community. Ore person raised a concem tfTat if use of the site were significantiy restiicted, tfTe ownership of tfre lard wcxjd eventually revert to tfre County as a result of tax delinquency and tfre County might beccxne responsible for deanup of tfre landfill.

The proposed ROD indudes tfTe recommendation tfrat institutional controls such as ordinances or deed restrictions be imposed en tfTe Site property to ensure tfTat any futijre use of tfTe site property will maintain tfre integrity of tfre cap. EPA regulaticxis aeate a strong preference for ti-eatirent to desti-oy the hazards presented by tire wastes. However, as typical in munidpal lardfill remediations, tfTe destiucticxT of tfre wastes at tfre Hertel Landfill is impxacticable because of tfTe high volume ard relatively taw toxicity of tfTe wastes and tfTe absence of "hot spots" of ccxitaminatien. This situation necessitates tfTe use of engineering controls such as tfre cap. Institijtional ccxTti-ols are necessary to ensure tfTat tfTe int^rity of tirese engin^ring controls is maintained over time.

The institijtional corrtrols should be applied to tfre area of tfTe Site tfTat is necessary toe maintenance of tfre engineering corrtf-ols. In tfre case of tfre Hertel Landfill, it is antidpated tfrat tfTe primary institijtional ccxiti-ols can be restrkSKi to tire lardfill area tfTat is to be c a p p ^ (approximately 13 acres) arxi t e adjoining areas tfrat may be recessary to maintain tfrat cap. In addition, use of any area where treatment facilities, or otfrer ancillary facilities, are n^ded to sup)port tfTe remedial actions will also have to be restiicted. The predse nature and extent of tirese restrictions will be determined during tfre remedial design ard remedial acticxr stages of tfre project.

X

o o

to o OJ

Hmraj/FESPOi&ajM

At tfris tinre, it is not anticipated tfTat tfre other areas of tf^ Site (approximately 67 aaes) will require institijticral corrtrols as a r^ult of tfre Superfurd rem^ial acticn. Hov 'ever, since v/astes will remain cxvsite, tfre Superfund law requires tfTat tfre remedy's effectiveness te reassessed every five years. This statijtory raijuirement would induete reassessments of rstitjticnal controls ard cc«jd result in a ctetermir^ation to change tfre nature ard extent of any such ccxrti-ols. It shoud also be roted tfrat other areas of tf'^ Site, suc^ as tf-e wetiards a-eas, may be subjaS to requirements irdependent of tfTe Superfund a:ticxT pursuant to Fecteral ard/or State law which coud restrict Site developrrent Any su t i proposed development lust be consistent wittr any such Federal or State statutcxy or regulatory requirements.

WitfT resj:»ct to tfre potential for evenrtual reversion of tfre prop)erty to t e County as a result of tax default and ccxTsequent County respxxrsib'lity as an owner of tfre Site, tfre provisions of tfre Superfund law are complex. As a general rule, tfre involuntary acquisition of property by a unit of State or local govemment tfTrough tax delinquency will not by itself subject tfre bcal govemnnent to Superfurd liability. Hov /ever, certain other a::ticxTS taken by such govemment, c3tfTer tfTan tfTe involuntary acquisition itself, might independentiy subject tfTe bcal govemment to liability.

This issue and related liability issues have teen tfTe subject of substantial recent litigation. EPA published proposed regulations on June 5, 1991 in an attempt to darify tfTese liability issues. In light of tfrese recent changes, it is rot possible to provide definitive guidance conceming tfTese issues, tt would be t e County's responsibility to keep apprised of its potential legal liability conceming tfTe Site if it were to acquire tfre property as a result of tax delinquency.

Part B

Written comments were received fi-om tfre Westem Publishing Ccxnpany, a PRP at tfTe Site, concerning tfre basis for tire selection of an innovative t'eartment scheme fcx contaminated groundwater at tire Site and tfTe duration of groundwater tf'eatment. A summary of tfTe written ccxnments ard respxxrses to tirose ccxnments is provded below.

CcmnTent(s): Altemative 4A does not have an established tf-ack record and may not be effec^e in providing protection of human healtfr and tfre environnrent

Response: EPA believes tfTat implementaticxT of Altemative 4A will achieve fijil ^ protecSicxi of human healtfr ard tfre envircximent at tfre Site. EPA ^ recognizes tfTat tfrere are scxre concerns relative to t e innovative nature ° of t e Altemative 4A tf'eatment schieme, and tfrerefcxe has identified tfTe need for tf-eatability stijdies to derronsti'ate tfTe effectiveness of tfre g process. As noted above, if tfTe treatability stijdy results indicate tfrat tfre ^^ remedy is not effec:tive or implementable, tfTen tfTe altemative witfr the more

- ~ j

10 hERTHjS/HESPON&SUM

"established ti^ck reccxd" will be imF)lenTented as a contingency reredy. AltfTOugh Altemative 4A's t-ack record is not tfrat "establishecr, tfre selec jon of Altemative 4A is dearly consistent witfT tfre statutory prefe'ence for tfTe seieeiion of remedies which utilize innovative tectroJogies.

Comment(s): EPA's choice of Altemative 4A is not supjported tjy tfre Proposed Plan. Page 8 of tfTe Proposed Plan states tfTat Altemative 4 provides tfre best balance among tfTe nine evaluation criteria Since tfre tectroiogy is relatively new tfrere may not be vendors who can inpJeneit tfre technology ncr experienced personnel to run tfre system once it is constnjcte '. The rexxd does not dN^mexistrate tfrat Altenrative 4A is cost effective.

Response: The reference cxr page 8 was a typxjgraphical error. The Prefered Altemative section of tire Proposed Plan explidtiy states tfrat Aftsmative 4A is tfTe proposed remedy for tfTe Site. EPA always seleSs as its preferred altemative, tfTe altemative tfTat test satisfies tfre nine evaluation criteria and tfTe preferences of tfTe Statute, which in tfTis ease is Altemative 4A. In addition, tfTe public notice, press releases, and tfre presentation at tfre August 14 public meeting, deariy dentified Altemative 4A as tire preferred altemative. Altemative 4A is dentical to Altemative 4 witfr the excepticn of tfTe proposed metfrod of ti^eating exti-acted groundwater. AltfTOugh Altemative 4 is very similar to Altemative 4A in terms of satisfying tfTe nine criteria. Alternative 4A also satisfies tfTe statijtcxy preference tor utilization of innovative technologies.

As tfTe PRP noted, Altemative 4 is a "nnore standard tireatment". However, consistent witfT statiJtory preferences, an innovative altemative shoud not be eliminated ft-om selection solely because of uncertainties associated witfr performance, tt is undeniable tfTat vendors and experienced personnel are more readily available tor conventional treatinent alternatives than for innovative alternatives. If relative avalability were tfre only condusive criterion, innovative technologies woud never be selected ard tfTe statutory preference tor innovative tf'eatment woud never te satisfied. EPA t>elieves tfTat vendors ard services will be available to implerrent tfre innovative Altemative 4A.

In additicxi, attfTough Altemative 4A requires tfre ccxiduct of a treatability study, it is antidpated tfTat tfTe ti-eatability study woud cost tess tfran $150,000. As such, Altemative 4A is less costfy tfran Alterrative 4 ard provdes overall effertiveness proportionate to its cost.

X • > - 3 f

O o

Comment(s): Page 10 of tire Proposed Plan notes tfrat tire inirovative technologies emptoyed under Altemative 4A may not be as effe:tive in reading ARAR based deanup tevels tor effluent discharge as tfre standard tf'eatment proposed under Altemative 4.

to o U l CO

»CFITH2/RESP0NS.SLIM 11

Response: Page 10 states tfTat The technologies emptoyed und& Altemative 4A may not be as effe::tjve in reaching ARAR-ts^ed cleanup I s v ^ for effluent disciiarge. However, based cxi tfre inft^rmation available it s anticipated tfTat ARARs will te achieved unde' tfTis Altemative". This refer^ice reveals tfTe fact tfrat due to t e innovative nature of tfTe f e a t m ^ scirene, tire-e are some questions about tfre effectiveness of tf^ process. This s ti'^ very reason why tfTe Proposed Plan calls ftDr tfie cordtct of a treatability study and tfre provision of a contingency rereciy, h tf'^ evert thet the treatability stijdy results indicate tfTat tf-e tf'eatmeTt scheme s not effK^ive ex implernentable.

Altematives 4 ard 4A have ciifferent prex»sses for treatmeit di t e exti-ac^ed groundwater, ard tfTereftxe woud differ in tfreir ability to renove ccxTtaminants ft'cxn tfre groundwater pwior to eiischarge. However, tfre attanment of chemical specific ARARs in tfre groundwater at tfre perirreter of tfre landfill is dependent upon tfTe placement of exbaction wells ard tfre rate of extraction of groundwater. These design criteria are tfTe same for botfT Altemative 4A ard Altemative 4 ard tfrereftxe, berth altematives woud be similar in tfreir ability to nneet chemical specific ARARs in tfTe grourdwater and tfTeir prcjtection of human healtfr ard tire envircxTment

Commenit(s): The Proposed Plan dees not darify tfTe duraticxi of time tfrat groundv\^er must ccxitinue to OTeet ARARs and does not quantify tfre duration of any additional "pulsed pumping" tfTat may te ne»ssary. In tfre absence of a final cut off ftDT groundwater ti^eatfrent ex a waiver tor technical impracticability, groundwater treatment at tfTe Site cxxid ccxitinue indefinitely. The ROD should include speafic criteria to tfigger tfTe ccmp)letion C3f groundwater treatment and should proviete ftDr tfre attainment C3f a waiver ftDr technical impracticability.

Respexise: BcjtfT grcxjndwater pump and treat altematives, as described ri tfTe Proposed Plan, inducted provisions ftDr monitoring tfTe grounchvate after remiediaticxi goals are achieved to ensure tfrat ARARs ccxitinue to be met tt is tfre intent of tfTe remedy to permanently meet identified ARARs, and rreasures such as pulsed pumping miay be neiassary to meet tfris objective.

The goal of the groundwater portion of tfre setected renrtedy is to restjxe groundv\ater at tfre perimeter of tfre waste disposal area of the Site to its most beneficial use, which is ^ a supply of potable water. Based en JTrfomration obtained during t e RI ard on a carehjl analysis of ranedial altematives, EPA tjelieves tfrat tfre sela:ted rermdy wiy aditeve this gfal. tt may become apparent, during implementation ex operaticn of tfi^ groundwater exbBCtioh system, that ccrrtaminant tevels. have ce^ed to etedine ard are remaning ccxrstant at tevels high^ then tfre r^T^diatJon goal over scxre portion of tfTe ccntaminated pliirne; In sixt) a c a ^ , i ^ ^

X-.

o o

ro o OJ

heTrEL5/HESP0NS.SUM 12

system performance standards and/or tfie remedy may te reevaluated.

The selected remedy will indude grourdwater extinction tor an estimated period of 12 years, during which tfre system's performance will be careftjily monitiDred en a regular basis ard adjusted as warranted by tfre performance data collected during operation. Modificatiexis may induete any or all of tfTe ftDlbwing:

- Discontinuing pxjmping at indivdual wells where deanup goals have teen attained

- Alternating pumping at v ells to elimniate stagnation

- Pulse pumping to altow aquifer equilibration and to altow adsorbed ccxitaminants to partition into groundwater

- Installing additional extraction wells to fadlitate or acceterate deanup C3f tire cxxitaminant plume

During tfre performance of torg-term monitoring, EPA may determine tfTat tfTe remedial action objectives have tDeen met For tfTe torg-term grourdwater rircnitoring prcDgram, EPA will continue to monitor on a semi­annual basis for at least 2 years after deanup tevels are achteved, and groundwater extraction/tf-eatment has ceased, in order to ensure tfrat deanup tevels are maintained.

X

o o

to o o

13 ferRs/nESPONS.suM