ATSDR - PHA - Batavia Landfill, Batavia, Genesee County, New York

Batavia Landfill
Summary of Groundwater Data (On-Site Monitoring Wells)
Remedial Investigation
(All values in micrograms per liter)
(see Table 6 for Comparison Values)


Contaminant	Concentration Range
Contaminant	Upper Fill/Soil Zone	Lower Soil Zone	Lower Bedrock Zone

*acetone	ND-40	ND-2,300	ND-50
*arsenic	ND-105	ND-90	ND-10
*barium	ND-26,700	ND-824	ND-550
*benzene	ND-24	ND-17	ND-1
*2-butanone	ND-4	ND-13,000	ND-6
*chlorobenzene	ND-25	ND	ND-1
*chloroethane	ND-170	ND-100	ND-96
chromium	ND-14	ND-13	NA
*1,1-dichloroethane	ND-200	ND-340	ND-20
*trans-1,2-dichloroethene	ND-3	ND-160	ND
*ethylbenzene	ND-140	ND-46	ND-1
*iron	456-28,800	ND-141,000	ND-3,110
*lead	ND-28	ND-79.6	ND-20
*magnesium	20,000-661,000	31,500-459,000	70-96,300
*manganese	30-551	50-2,180	ND-240
*4-methyl-2-pentanone	ND	ND-360	ND
*4-methylphenol	ND-7	ND-4,700	ND-5
*phenols, total	ND	ND-1,870	ND-70
*toluene	ND-16	ND-1,900	ND-3
*1,1,1-trichloroethane	ND-110	ND-60	ND
*trichloroethene	ND-26	ND-99	ND
*vinyl chloride	ND	ND-480	ND
*xylenes, total	ND-300	ND-130	ND-4

NA - not analyzed
ND - not detected

Table 2.
Batavia Landfill
Summary of On-Site Subsurface Soil and Waste Data
Remedial Investigation
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)

Compound	Concentration Range	Typical Background Range**	Comparison Value***	Source****

Subsurface Soil Contaminant^a

*acetone	210	NA	2	EPA RfD
*2-butanone	45-1,700	NA	2.2	EPA HEAST
*chromium	42-3,200	10-40	250	EPA RfD
copper	31-410	<1-25	6,500	EPA RfD
*ethylbenzene	190-600	NA	200	EPA RfD
*lead	77-2,000	10-300	--
*toluene	6.6-5,100	NA	230	EPA RfD
xylenes, total	830-2,100	NA	4,620	EPA RfD

Waste Contaminant^b

aluminum	13,300-248,000	7,000-100,000	--
*arsenic	20.2-164	10-20	15	EPA RfD
*barium	28,800	300-500	3,500	EPA RfD
cadmium	4.2-17.3	<0.5-1	10	ATSDR MRL
*chromium	101-313,000	10-40	250	EPA RfD
copper	76-1,010	<1-25	6,500	EPA RfD
iron	236-8,770	10,000-40,000	--
lead	8.6-94.7	10-300	--
manganese	444-1,850	500-3,000	7,000	EPA RfD
*magnesium	24,900-410,000	50-6,000	--
*methylene chloride	0.013-0.14	NA	0.07	EPA CPF
zinc	513-3,670	50-100	10,000	EPA RfD

NA - not available
^aSubsurface soil at a depth of 4 feet or greater.
^bWaste contaminants at a depth of greater than 3.5 feet except for barium which was found at a depth of 1 foot or greater.
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**References: Clarke et al. (1985); Connor et al. (1957); Dragun (1988);
Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988); Shacklette and Boerngen (1984)
***Comparison values for volatile and semi-volatile organics are based on ingestion of soil and homegrown vegetables; comparison values for metals (inorganics) are based on ingestion of soil.
****ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
     EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose
     NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
     EPA HEAST = EPA Health effects Assessment Summary Tables

Batavia Landfill
Summary of On-Site/Off-Site Surface Water Data
Remedial Investigation
(All values in micrograms per liter)
(see Table 6 for Comparison Values)


Surface Water Contaminant	Concentration Range
Surface Water Contaminant	On-Site	Off-Site

*acetone	ND	ND-4,990
*barium	76-6,560	ND-21,700
*2-butanone	ND	12,000
*cadmium	NA	300
*chloroethane	ND-58	ND-38
*chromium	NA	ND-212
*ethylbenzene	ND	130
*iron	NA	480-1,570,000
*lead	ND-12	ND-3,720
*magnesium	19,100-63,600	18,500-348,000
*manganese	58-512	30-3,300
*methylene chloride	ND-8	ND-5
*toluene	ND	ND-1,400
*1,1,1-trichloroethane	ND	ND-240
*xylenes, total	ND	ND-98
*zinc	ND-65	ND-19,800

Batavia Landfill
Summary of On-Site/Off-Site Sediment Data
Remedial Investigation
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)


Sediment Contaminant	Concentration Range		Typical Background Range**	Comparison Value***	Source****
Sediment Contaminant	On-Site	Off-Site	Typical Background Range**	Comparison Value***	Source****

acetone	ND-0.52	ND-2.3	NA	5,000	EPA RfD
aluminum	3.11-16,400	7,000-100,000	--
*arsenic	ND-110	10-20	15	EPA RfD
*barium	87.2-1,270	34.2-5,200	300-500	3,500	EPA RfD
2-butanone	ND-1.3	NA	2,500	EPA RfD
cadmium	ND-14	0.5-<1	25	EPA RfD
*chromium	10.5-189	7.6-3200	10-40	250	EPA RfD
cyanide	ND-7.1	NA	1,000	EPA RfD
iron	5,340-362,000	10,000-40,000	--
*lead	10.8-531	8.7-1,220	10-300	--
*magnesium	4,060-31,200	1,800-39,000	50-6,000	250,000	NYS RfG
manganese	196-665	102-2,410	500-3,000	7,000	EPA RfD
mercury	ND-0.9	0.01-3.4	15	EPA RfD
phenols, total	ND-5.3	NA	30,000	EPA RfD
toluene	ND-0.066	NA	10,000	EPA RfD
zinc	59.4-1,460	24-1,730	50-100	10,000	EPA RfD

***Comparison value for noncancer risk determined for a 10 kilogram child who ingests 200 milligrams soil per day.

****NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
EPA RfD = EPA Risk Reference Dose

Batavia Landfill
Summary of Off-Site Groundwater Data
(All values in micrograms per liter)
(see Table 6 for comparison Values)


Groundwater Contaminant	Concentration Range
Groundwater Contaminant	Private Wells	Trailer Park Well	Municipal Well

1,1-dichloroethane	ND-1.0	ND	ND
*trans-1,2-dichloroethene	ND-7.1	ND	ND
*iron	230-3,230	750	1,250
*methylene chloride	ND-10	ND	ND
phenols, total	NA	52	ND
tetrachloroethene	ND-1.0	ND	ND
*1,1,1-trichloroethane	ND-240	ND	ND
*trichloroethene	ND-20	ND	ND
*trichlorofluoromethane	ND	ND	ND-11

New York State and Federal Standards and Public Health Assessment Comparison Values for Contaminants Found in Sources of Drinking Water.
(All values in micrograms per liter)


Compound	New York State			U.S. EPA	Comparison Value*	Source**
Compound	Groundwater	Surface Water	Drinking Water	Drinking Water	Comparison Value*	Source**

arsenic	25	50	50	50	11	EPA RfD
barium	1,000	2,000	1,000	2,000	2,000	EPA LTHA
cadmium	10	10	5	5	5	EPA LTHA
iron	300	300	300	300s	--	--
lead	25	50	15***	15***	--	--
magnesium	35,000g	35,000	--	--	35,000	NYS RfG
manganese	300	300	300	50s	175	EPA RfD
mercury	2	2	2	2	2	EPA LTHA
acetone	50	--	50	--	700	EPA RfD
benzene	0.7	0.7	5	5	0.7	NYS CREG
2-butanone	50	50	50	--	200	EPA LTHA
chlorobenzene	5	20	5	100	140	EPA RfD
chloroethane	5	--	5	--	--	--
1,1-dichloroethane	5	5g	5	--	700	EPA RfD
trans-1,2-dichloroethene	5	5g	5	100	100	EPA LTHA
ethyl benzene	5	5g	5	700;30ps	700	EPA LTHA
4-methyl-2-pentanone	50	50g	50	--	350	EPA RfD
4-methyl phenol	1	1	50	--	360	EPA RfD
methylene chloride	5	5g	5	5	4.7	ATSDR CREG
phenols, total	1	1	--	--	--	--
tetrachloroethene	5	0.7g	5	5	0.7	NYS CREG
toluene	5	5g	5	1,000;40ps	1,000	EPA LTHA
1,1,1-trichloroethane	5	5g	5	200	200	EPA LTHA
trichloroethene	5	3g	5	5	3	NYS CREG
trichlorofluoromethane	5	5g	5	--	2,200	EPA RfD
vinyl chloride	2	0.3g	2	2	0.02	EPA CPF
xylenes	5n	5g,n	5n	10,000;20ps	10,000	EPA LTHA
zinc	300	300	5,000	5,000s	2,100	EPA LTHA
chromium	50	50	100	100	100	EPA LTHA

g = guidance
n = applies to each isomer separately unless isomers are analytically indistinguishable
p = proposed national primary drinking water standard
ps = proposed national secondary drinking water standard
s = national secondary drinking water standard

*Comparison value determined for a 70 kilogram adult who ingests 2 liters of water per day.

**ATSDR CREG = ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
   EPA LTHA = US EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
   EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
   EPA RFD = US EPA Reference Dose
   NYS CREG = NYS Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
   NYS RfG = NYS Risk Reference Guideline

***The maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for lead is zero and the action level is 15 mcg/L at the tap.

This Appendix was not available in electronic format for conversion to HTML at the time of preparation of this document. To obtain a hard copy of the document, please contact:

PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS FROM SITE-ASSOCIATED CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

To evaluate the potential health risks from contaminants of concern associated with the Batavia Landfill site, the New York State Department of Health assessed the risks for cancer and noncancer health effects.

Increased cancer risks were estimated by using site-specific information on exposure levels for the contaminant of concern and interpreting them using cancer potency estimates derived for that contaminant by the US EPA or, in some cases, by the NYS DOH. The following qualitative ranking of cancer risk estimates, developed by the NYS DOH, was then used to rank the risk from very low to very high. For example, if the qualitative descriptor was "low", then the excess lifetime cancer risk from that exposure is in the range of greater than one per million to less than one per ten thousand. Other qualitative descriptors are listed below:

Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
Risk Ratio Qualitative Descriptor
equal to or less than one per million very low
greater than one per million to less than one per ten thousand low
one per ten thousand to less than one per thousand moderate
one per thousand to less than one per ten high
equal to or greater than one per ten very high

An increased excess lifetime cancer risk is not a specific estimate of expected cancers. Rather, it is an estimate of the probability that a person may develop cancer sometime in his or her lifetime following exposure to that contaminant.

There is insufficient knowledge of cancer mechanisms to decide if there exists a level of exposure to a cancer-causing agent below which there is no risk of getting cancer, namely, a threshold level. Therefore, every exposure, no matter how low, to a cancer-causing compound is assumed to be associated with some increased risk. As the dose of a carcinogen decreases, the chance of developing cancer decreases, but each exposure is accompanied by some increased risk.

There is no general consensus within the scientific or regulatory communities on what level of estimated excess cancer risk is acceptable. Some have recommended the use of the relatively conservative excess lifetime cancer risk level of one in one million because of the uncertainties in our scientific knowledge about the mechanism of cancer. Others feel that risks that are lower or higher may be acceptable, depending on scientific, economic and social factors. An increased lifetime cancer risk of one in one million or less is generally considered an insignificant increase in cancer risk.

For noncarcinogenic health risks, the contaminant intake was estimated using exposure assumptions for the site conditions. This dose was then compared to a risk reference dose (estimated daily intake of a chemical that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of health effects) developed by the US EPA, ATSDR and/or NYS DOH. The resulting ratio was then compared to the following qualitative scale of health risk:

Qualitative Descriptions for
Noncarcinogenic Health Risks
Ratio of Estimated Contaminant
Intake to Risk Reference Dose Qualitative
Descriptor
equal to or less than the risk reference dose minimal
greater than one to five times the risk reference dose low
greater than five to ten times the risk reference dose moderate
greater than ten times the risk reference dose high

Noncarcinogenic effects unlike carcinogenic effects are believed to have a threshold, that is, a dose below which adverse effects will not occur. As a result, the current practice is to identify, usually from animal toxicology experiments, a no-observed-effect-level (NOEL). This is the experimental exposure level in animals at which no adverse toxic effect is observed. The NOEL is then divided by an uncertainty factor to yield the risk reference dose. The uncertainty factor is a number which reflects the degree of uncertainty that exists when experimental animal data are extrapolated to the general human population. The magnitude of the uncertainty factor takes into consideration various factors such as sensitive subpopulations (for example, children or the elderly), extrapolation from animals to humans, and the incompleteness of available data. Thus, the risk reference dose is not expected to cause health effects because it is selected to be much lower than dosages that do not cause adverse health effects in laboratory animals.

The measure used to describe the potential for noncancer health effects to occur in an individual is expressed as a ratio of estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose. If exposure to the contaminant exceeds the risk reference dose, there is concern for potential noncancer health effects. As a rule, the greater the ratio of the estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose, the greater the level of concern. A ratio equal to or less than one is generally considered an insignificant (minimal) increase in risk.

APPENDIX G
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD CONCERNS

Batavia Landfill
Town of Batavia, Genesee County, New York

This responsiveness summary was prepared to address public concern on the Batavia Landfill draft Public Health Assessment. The public was invited to review the draft document during the public review period which ran from April 12, 1993 to May 12, 1993 (extended to May 19, 1993). Eight sets of responses were received by the New York State Department of Health. Some comments were consolidated or grouped together to incorporate similar concerns raised by more than one person. If you have any questions about this responsiveness summary, contact the Health Liaison Program at the toll-free number 1-800-458-1158, extension 402.

We are appreciative of the work performed on behalf of the citizens of this community.

Page 5, "R.E. Chapman Industries" should probably read "R.E. Chapin Industries".

Page 7, D - The report indicates the distance of the Village of Oakfield wells as 1.5 northwest of the landfill, yet the map in Figure 1 of Appendix A clearly shows that these wells are well within one (1) mile of the landfill. Which is correct?

The map of the Batavia Landfill has been revised (Appendix A). It shows both the property boundaries and the waste disposal location. The Village of Oakfield municipal wells are about one mile northwest of the waste disposal area. The report text has also been revised.

The background section of the report is intended to provide a description, history and nature of site operations, a summary of community health concerns and regulatory involvement, a characterization of populations near the site, land use and natural resources near the site, and an evaluation of health outcome data.

After reading the draft public health assessment and attending a meeting conducted by the EPA (Fall, 1992), I fear what may happen to the Village of Oakfield if our wells are found to be contaminated. We were told then that the test wells had not been tested since 1987, and promised a full report by the spring of 1993. So far no report...worse yet, no testing.

The Village of Oakfield is extremely concerned over the very lax position that the EPA is taking with the monitoring of test wells between the Village of Oakfield Well Site and the landfill. Contaminants known to be found in the landfill were detected in our water source.

Although there is no current threat to Village of Oakfield residents, this situation could change at any time. A single test could change all that. We cannot depend on the EPA to perform the testing. The New York State Department of Health and Village of Oakfield will continue these tests.

Although the municipal wells were reported to be contaminated with trichlorofluoromethane and total phenols in 1982, follow-up samples collected from the municipal wells have not been contaminated. Monitoring wells BL-16R and BL-25R are located between the landfill and the municipal wells. These monitoring wells were sampled in 1987 and in November 1992 and no contamination was detected. A comprehensive groundwater monitoring system will be instituted as part of the final site remedy. In addition, routine monitoring of the municipal wells is mandated by New York State. The sampling results for the municipal wells are maintained on file in NYS DOH office in Albany, New York. Those reports on the landfill investigation are in document repositories in Batavia, New York at the Richmond Library, 19 Ross Street and the Batavia Town Hall, 4165 West Main Street Road.

I lived on Kelsey Road for 11 years and developed breast cancer in 1989. Cancer runs in my family, so I am not blaming water contamination, but could it have been a contributing factor? We are very concerned for people who live in that area. We have since moved.

Water from this particular well was sampled by the NYS DOH in January 1992. No contaminants were detected. Based on this analytical data and the distance that the well is from the landfill, people at this location were unlikely to have been exposed to contaminants in the drinking water.

Industrial wastes were buried at the landfill and at a nearby location that no one ever checked on. It was owned by a town councilman and was agricultural land. It may be hazardous to public health and may be in groundwater.

If you really want to have a safe environment, check land behind old brick building on Kelsey Road.

Specific details and information about these disposal locations and nature of the wastes should be provided to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC), United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) for appropriate follow-up. We have sent your comments to both agencies.

The Batavia Landfill site is still contaminated and needs to be cleaned up. This needs to be part of your recommendations.

Contaminants associated with the disposal of wastes at the landfill will be addressed as part of the final site remedy, following completion of the feasibility study (FS) for the site.

With the exception of a gate to restrict vehicular access, there are no other barriers to restrict access to the site. NYS DOH recommended in this document that public access to the landfill be restricted.

The NYS DOH collected off-site groundwater samples in May 1989, August 1991, October 1991 and January 1992. Groundwater samples were collected from the Village of Oakfield municipal wells, two trailer parks and forty-five residential wells. No contaminants were found in either the municipal wells or the wells at the two trailer parks. Those homeowners with contaminated wells were notified and provided with information about the continued use of their water supply.

We are concerned with the potential contamination of the Village of Oakfield's wells, and the need for a safe backup water supply. Your report states that there are no safe geological barriers that will protect the Village Water Supply. It also states that several aquifers are already contaminated in this area. We implore your support for a secondary source of Municipal Water.

Although contaminants have been found in the on-site water bearing zones, we do not believe that a new source of drinking water for the Village of Oakfield is necessary at this time. Monitoring wells are between the plume and the Village wells. If contamination is detected, sufficient time is available to implement controls to minimize human exposure. We will also reevaluate the need for a backup supply if the monitoring wells become contaminated. Moreover, the groundwater plume may be remediated, negating the need for a backup supply.

What about the health of ARC workers working at the Batavia Landfill? What about their health outcome from exposure to toxic chemicals and methane gas?

The Batavia Recycling Center is in an area of the Batavia Landfill site where there was no waste disposal. It is unlikely that normal use of the recycling center will result in exposure to site contaminants. The work performed by the Association of Retarded Citizens (ARC) does not involve activities in the areas of the Batavia landfill where the disposal of waste has occurred. Any use of the waste disposal area is unauthorized and the toxicological implications of the unauthorized use of the Batavia Landfill are provided in the Public Health Assessment.

The report indicates that plume migration of site contaminants to the Oakfield wells is possible. You do not take into account the interaction of geology and hydrology and the effect that shifting of geological structures could have on speeding the contamination of Oakfield Municipal wells. You don't give an explanation why your current tests of the Oakfield wells fail to detect contaminants that have been found in your earlier samples.

In response to contaminants found in off-site groundwater and to community concerns, a high priority was given to the performance of an accelerated focused feasibility study that will extend public water to residents living near the landfill. This study was conducted by US EPA and it was determined that public water should also be extended to the mobile home parks on Pratt Road. This interim remedial action will be protective of human health by eliminating exposures to site contaminants in drinking water. The draft Public Health Assessment also addressed the Village of Oakfield municipal wells and the conclusions and recommendations remain unchanged.

Based on the available information and data, a sample collected in 1982 from the Village of Oakfield municipal wells showed the presence of total phenols and trichlorofluoromethane. Follow-up samples collected from the municipal wells have not shown the presence of site-related contaminants. Therefore, the continued monitoring of the on-site monitoring wells and the municipal wells that is recommended in this Public Health Assessment report remains unchanged.

In 1982, a private consulting firm collected groundwater samples from the Village of Oakfield municipal wells. Total phenols and trichlorofluoromethane were reported in those samples (refer to Table 5 of Appendix B). There were no quality assurance or quality control (QA/QC) documents accompanying the sample results. Follow-up samples were collected from the municipal wells using a proper QA/QC protocol, and no contaminants were found in these samples.

There is no indication that geological formations and related hydrology are changing and affecting the migration of contaminants to the Oakfield wells. The earlier samples that showed the presence of contaminants in the municipal wells were collected by a private consulting firm. There have been no contaminants found in any samples collected from the municipal wells by the NYS DOH. Although we can't explain the analytical results produced by the private consulting firm, we assume that the data were valid and use the data in this document.

If we need something done to help people living here now, it seems it is already too late. It is just a wait and see game.

I am disappointed that while you recommend that all homes near the landfill site be connected to the Town of Batavia public water supply, you don't specifically address the mobile home park residents, and also ignore those citizens who depend on water from the Village of Oakfield municipal wells in the same general area.

In general, I think the report is thorough, and indicates that it is only a matter of time before the contamination known to exist in the Galloway Swamp migrates to all wells taking groundwater from the general area.

Money is spent foolishly in many areas of government. City water is a necessity here.

In response to contaminants found in off-site groundwater and to community concerns, a high priority was given to completing a focused feasibility study on extending public water to residents living near the landfill. This study was conducted by US EPA and stated that public water should also be extended to the mobile home parks on Pratt Road. This interim remedial action will be protective of human health by eliminating exposures to site contaminants in drinking water. The health assessment recommends that the monitoring wells between the plume and the Village of Oakwood municipal wells be monitored to detect contamination that might impact the village wells. If contamination is detected in the monitoring wells, additional actions can be taken to protect the village wells.

The EPA doesn't have any answers for why the test wells were not being monitored on a regular basis at the Batavia Landfill. This was very clear at the public hearing they held in Batavia, New York in September of 1992.

Although the on-site monitoring wells were not sampled on a regular basis, the NYS DOH did collect off-site groundwater samples on a regular basis to evaluate groundwater quality near the landfill. Based on the data generated from the off-site groundwater samples, public water will be extended to residents living near the landfill. In addition, a comprehensive groundwater monitoring system will be instituted as part of the final site remedy.

We need a new, clean water source - not Batavia City or creek water - and clean out that dump now!

The City of Batavia municipal wells are 4.5 miles southeast of the landfill. Given the distance and location of the municipal wells, they are unlikely to be contaminated by chemicals migrating from the landfill.

You recommend routine monitoring of the Village of Oakfield municipal water supply wells and yet do not recommend a frequency of testing. Following a test, exactly how long a time can be know our water supply is safe before taking additional samples? Assuming you are recommending testing on an accelerated schedule, I would like to know at what routine frequency we can expect the New York State Department of health to take samples and report back to us.

The frequency of testing of the Village of Oakfield municipal wells is determined by New York State regulations. Also see Response #14.

I am not satisfied with your conclusion that we should wait until contaminants show up in test wells BL-19 and BL-25. There is no assurance that these wells are representative of the aquifer(s) that supply the Oakfield municipal wells, nor that they will even detect any plume migration of contaminants.

Based on monitoring well logs and the distribution of contaminants in groundwater at the site, all water bearing zones are connected to form one heterogeneous aquifer. Monitoring wells BL-19 and BL-25 are located between the landfill and the monitoring wells. Given their location and the nature of the aquifer, these monitoring wells will provide an early warning of the migration of contaminants towards the municipal wells.

Because you cannot guarantee the safety of groundwater supplies originating from the general area of Galloway Swamp, your recommendations should include measures for finding new sources for drinking water for all affected residents, including the residents of Oakfield.

Based on monitoring well logs and the distribution of contaminants in groundwater at the site, all water bearing zones are connected to form one heterogeneous aquifer. Monitoring wells BL-19 and BL-25 are located betwen the landfill and the monitoring wells. Given their location and the nature of the aquifer, these monitoring wells will provide an early warning of the migration of contaminants towards the municipal wells.

It is my opinion (and that of others concerned with this problem) that there is only one sure way to protect individuals from the landfill. If must be circled with pipelines so that all of us can be assured that our water is safe! It is my understanding that part of this is being done: water is being piped up Kelsey Road to the corner of Galloway and also down Pratt Road past the trailer park. Now, to protect Oakfield's wells, we need to continue with the pipes west from the corner of Kelsey/Galloway Road one mile to our water plant. We don't even have to use this. But we need to be assured that if our wells go bad, we have a safe backup.

We ask that the New York State Department of Health support the construction of a water line north of the New York State Thruway, as already proposed in the EPA plan. And then continue this water main to the Village of Oakfield Water Filtration Site for a Secondary, Emergency Source of Water. This would be 1/2 to a mile west of the current EPA Proposal to provide water to Kelsey Road residents north of the New York State Thruway.

Please consider amending your findings to provide for a secondary municipal source of water for the 2,000 residents served by our municipal water. This would only be an additional 1/2 to a mile of additional cost. We implore your assistance.

Based on monitoring well logs and the distribution of contaminants in groundwater at the site, all water bearing zones are connected to form one heterogeneous aquifer. Monitoring wells BL-19 and BL-25 are located betwen the landfill and the monitoring wells. Given their location and the nature of the aquifer, these monitoring wells will provide an early warning of the migration of contaminants towards the municipal wells.

Your findings are spelled out very clearly in your report. Clearly, when we compare your report with the EPA's there are many irregularities. The EPA report differs especially in the test results. If there are any contaminants at all that will put our residents at risk; this is of great concern to all of us on the Village of Oakfield Board of Trustees. Thank you for this opportunity.

In 1984, the US EPA and NL Industries entered into an Administrative Order on Consent for the performance of a remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility study (FS) at the Batavia Landfill site. The RI report was prepared by Goldberg-Zoino Associates of New York, P.C. and revised by GZA GeoEnvironmental of New York for NL Industries. Much of the data found in the document are from these reports. The off-site groundwater data from samples collected by NYS DOH in 1989-1992 at private wells are not found in the earlier RI report, but are in the NYS DOH project files in Albany, New York.

It is unfortunate that some industries in the Batavia area that also bear responsibility for the contaminants buried there, are not being researched further. They should share the cost of corrective action.

Records indicating the type, quantity, and location of wastes that were disposed at the landfill during its twelve years of operation are limited. If further records exist to document that other parties are responsible for past disposal of wastes at the landfill, then these records should be provided to the US EPA and NYS DEC, for appropriate follow-up.

Additional review comments were received from the US EPA outside of the public comment period, as follows:

The conclusions and recommendations are not reflective of the risks described in the document. The health risks for people exposed to contaminants in off site groundwater are described as low but the conclusion is "the Batavia Landfill site is a public health hazard because users of private wells near the site and the Village of Oakfield public water supply were exposed to site contaminants in their drinking water in the past."

The ATSDR criteria for determining whether a site poses a public health hazard as a result of long-term exposures to hazardous substances are:

For the Batavia Landfill, groundwater contamination has been detected off-site in private residential wells at levels exceeding New York State drinking water standards for public water supplies. Lower level contamination (at or below standards) persists in at least fourteen residential wells. The estimated increased cancer risk from past exposures to trichloroethene and methylene chloride in drinking water exceeds the one in one million baseline cancer risk used to assist in categorizing sites.

In addition, lead and chromium have been detected in off-site sediment at levels that could present a high public health risk, particularly to children if they play in these areas. The estimated potential exposures to both these metals exceed health risk criteria. Also, since no deed restrictions exist for residential development, there is the possibility that future excavation could bring contaminated soils and waste materials to the surface and make them available for direct contact and uptake by homegrown vegetables/fruits. As noted in Table 2 of the Public Health Assessment, the concentrations of several organic and metal contaminants in on-site soil and waste materials exceed health assessment comparison values for soil in a residential setting.

Given this information and the criteria the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry uses for placing sites in categories, this site meets the criteia for a public health hazard.

EPA has just issued a Record of Decision for this site that calls for the extension of a waterline to provide water to many of the homes near the landfill based on a quantitative risk assessment that identifies that the threat exists of contaminants migrating from the landfills to the wells to the south.

A single sampling event in 1982 of the Village of Oakfield municipal wells identified contaminants in the public water supply. It is never stated in the report that there is no link of the possible contamination of the Oakfield well to the Batavia Landfill site. The EPA does not believe that the Village of Oakfield wells have been impacted by the Batavia Landfill site.

The following is a summary of comments received from the ENVIRON Corporation:

In the toxicological evaluation of past exposures to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and iron in drinking water, the report (section 1 of the Toxicological Evaluation) claims that past exposures to methylene chloride and trichloroethene (magnitude unknown prior to 1982) could result in a "low" increased risk of developing cancer. NYS DOH has presented no documentation of this statement in the form of quantitative risk calculations, and no definition of "low risk". Theoretically, the presence of any non-zero concentration of methylene chloride or trichloroethene would be accompanied by an incremental cancer risk; however, this in itself may not be of sufficient magnitude to constitute a public health problem. Similarly, it is impossible to verify or interpret the qualitative statements regarding "low risks" of noncarcinogenic effects from past exposures to VOCs, and "minimal risks" from past exposure to iron. The report also states that long-term exposure to 1,1,1-trichloroethane (the only substance exceeding NYS drinking water standards in recent sampling of domestic wells) poses minimal risk of adverse health effects. NYS DOH has not quantified the magnitude of risks from past or current exposures.

Although quantitative risk calculations are completed to estimate health risks, it is not the intent of the Public Health Assessment to provide detailed documentation. The increased cancer risks were estimated for the Batavia Landfill site by using site-specific information on exposure levels for each contaminant of concern and interpreting the exposure using cancer potency estimates derived by the US EPA or, in some cases, by the NYS DOH. The following qualitative ranking of cancer estimates, developed by the NYS DOH, was then used to rank the risk from very low to very high. For example, if the qualitative descriptor was "low", then the excess lifetime cancer risk from that exposure fell in the range of greater than one per million to less than one per ten thousand. Other qualitative descriptors are listed below:

Contamination of a number of private wells near the Batavia Landfill site was first detected in 1985. Prior to 1985, it is not known for how long or at what levels residents with private wells were exposed to contaminants in their drinking water. Since 1989, one only sample taken from a private well contained VOCs at levels exceeding NYS DOH's drinking water standards. Since the Batavia Landfill site was opened in 1968, the estimated maximum period of time during which the private wells were contaminated with VOCs at levels above drinking water standards is about 21 years.

Both trichloroethene and methylene chloride have caused cancer in laboratory animals and are potential human carcinogens. The estimated increased cancer risk for exposure to the highest level of trichloroethene (20 mcg/L) is in the low range (greater than one per million to less than one per ten thousand) for exposure periods ranging from about 5 to 21 years. For exposure to the highest level of methylene chloride (10 mcg/L), the estimated increased cancer risk falls in the low range for exposure periods of about 16 years or more. The levels of these volatile organic contaminants in residential private wells prior to 1985 are not known and could have been less or greater than 20 mcg/L and 10 mcg/L for trichloroethene and methylene chloride, respectively.

For noncarcinogenic health risks, the contaminant intake was estimated using exposure assumptions for conditions at the Batavia Landfill site. This dose was then compared to a risk reference dose (estimated daily intake of a chemical that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of health effects) developed by the US EPA, ATSDR and/or NYS DOH. The resulting ratio was then compared to the following qualitative scale of health risk:

As a rule, the greater the ratio of the estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose, the greater the level of concern. A ratio equal to or less than one is considered a minimal increase in risk.

For past exposures to each of the VOCs in private wells (trichloroethene, methylene chloride and 1,1,1-trichloroethane), the ratio of the level of contaminant to the risk reference dose of that contaminant was less than one. Therefore the risk of noncarcinogenic effects from past exposures to each of these contaminants is considered minimal. The risk for noncarcinogenic effects from exposure to these VOCs, reported as low in the Public Health Assessment for the Batavia landfill site, has been corrected to indicate that it is minimal.

The health risk from past ingestion of iron at the highest levels found in drinking water (3,230 mcg/L) was determined to be minimal. Although no risk reference dose has been derived for ingestion of iron in drinking water, the clinical literature reports that ingestion of iron at doses less than 20 mg/kg body weight is typically nontoxic. Consequently, a 70 kg adult who ingests 2 liters of water per day could ingest water with about 200 times more iron (700,000 mcg of iron per liter) that found at the highest level in a private well without adverse health effects. Therefore, drinking water containing iron at a level of 3,200 mcg/L would be considered to pose an insignificant (minimal) increase in risk. However, water containing iron at these levels is unlikely to be used for drinking since iron alters the taste of water.

The draft Public Health Assessment of the Batavia Landfill provides no basis for the State's conclusion that "The site poses a public health hazard because of past and continuing exposures to site contaminants in drinking water." Concentrations in the private domestic wells from the most recent round of sampling were all at or below NYS DOH drinking water standards; contrary to the NYS DOH conclusion, this does not suggest the existence of a public health hazard.

The ATSDR criteria (ATSDR, 1992, Table 8.1) for determining whether a site poses a public health hazard as a result of long-term exposures to hazardous substances are:

Because no quantitative risk estimates are presented, it cannot be determined how the State arrived at the qualitative potential future risk estimates for the on-site contaminants discussed in section 3 of the Toxicological Evaluation. There is no evidence in the report to indicate that the State actually determined the magnitude of risk (if any) to future off-site water consumers.

As indicated in the previous response, quantitative risk assessment for contaminants from the Batavia Landfill site was completed. The potential health risks from contaminants of concern in on-site groundwater were estimated by assessing the risks for cancer and noncancer health effects using procedures and qualitative descriptors discussed in response to Comment #1. For example, potential chronic exposure to the highest levels of vinyl chloride and benzene by on-site groundwater plume migration and subsequent contamination of residential drinking water supplies could pose a high (one per thousand to less than one per ten) and low (greater than one per million to less than one per thousand) increased cancer risk for vinyl chloride and benzene, respectively.

Two separate firms specializing in hydrology [GZA GeoEnvironmental (GZA) and Leggett, Brashears & Graham (LBG)] have interpreted the data to indicate that the aquifers are not interconnected and that overburden groundwater does not discharge to existing domestic wells, but rather to surface water in Galloway Swamp. The NYS DOH report does not mention these two independent studies, giving the false impression that there is no question as to the hydrogeology of the Batavia site. Based on the GZA and LBG interpretation, the State has no basis to assume that all contaminants identified in on-site monitoring wells pose a potential future risk of contamination of the off-site domestic wells.

GZA and LBG, consultants for the responsible parties, and the government agencies, US EPA, NYS DEC and NYS DOH, have reviewed the same hydrogeology data that are in the Batavia Landfill Site Remedial Investigation Report Final Draft, as prepared by GZA. The consultants interpretation of the hydrogeology at the site differs from that of the government agencies. However, the consultants have failed to demonstrate that a continuous confining layer exists throughout the entire site which keeps each water-bearing zone separate and which prevents the migration of site contaminants between each water-bearing zone. The following statements are excerpts from the US EPA final technical comments on the report and they summarize the government agencies position on the site hydrogeology. "Based on well logs, discontinuous layers of silt and clay, varying in thickness between 1 and 30 feet, are present in the northern and southern portions of the site. Because of the discontinuity of the low permeability lenses, the upper soil zones, the low permeability lenses and the lower soils should be considered as one heterogeneous aquifer. The interconnectedness of the aquifer is demonstrated by the detection of site contaminants in samples from wells screened at all depths." The interpretation of site hydrogeology in the public health assessment is based upon the above information.

The Site Visit section claims that the site is not fenced, but a gate was present which restricted vehicular access to the site. The nearby residences evaluated by NYS DOH are located along Pratt Road and in order for these residents to trespass the site, they would have to perform the highly unlikely action of crossing the Thruway on foot.

An evaluation of all residences near the site included not only those located along Pratt Road, which is south of the site, but also those residences located along Kelsey Road, east of the site and Galloway Road, north of the site. Although a gate restricts vehicular access to the site, it remains readily accessible to the general public. Since Kelsey Road crosses over the NYS Thruway, the general public does not have to negotiate traffic on the Thruway, as this comment suggests.

For those substances with the potential to migrate to off-site wells, use of on-site monitoring well data alone will not provide accurate predictions of future off-site wells concentrations because attenuation may occur between the monitoring wells and the domestic wells.

Although it is reasonable to expect attenuation to occur between on-site monitoring wells and domestic drinking water wells, it is also possible that the levels of contaminants detected in the on-site monitoring wells were not the maximum levels that could have been found in on-site groundwater by additional monitoring. Consequently, it is not unreasonable to use the present on-site groundwater monitoring data to calculate what the potential risks could be to users of off-site private and municipal drinking water supply wells contaminated from on-site groundwater by plume migration. This is the approach used to estimate cancer and noncancer risks from potential exposures to contaminants found in groundwater at the Batavia Landfill site.

The State presents no evidence to suggest that the Batavia Landfill will be converted to residential use, so the statement that "The waste materials would pose a higher increased risk if they were in a residential setting" is unwarranted.

There are no deed restrictions that would prevent future residential development and it must, therefore, be included as a future possibility.

It is highly unlikely, given the remote nature of the site that nearby residents would trespass on the site. Also, the highly contaminated areas are covered with at least one foot of soil and contact is, therefore, further unlikely.

Further examination of the on-site soil data by the NYS DOH indicates that on-site soil contaminant results were all subsurface (at least 3 to 4 feet in depth). Therefore, contact with these contaminants by trespassers is highly unlikely. Appropriate revision of the text has been made in the potential exposure pathway subsection on soil and waste material and also in the toxicological evaluation subsection (#4) entitled "potential ingestion, inhalation and dermal exposure to persons coming in contact with on-site soil and waste material".

With respect to potential future exposure to recreational users of the wetlands, the State has not provided any documentation that children in fact play in these areas (Galloway Swamp) on a frequent basis.

Since access to the Galloway Swamp is not restricted, its use for recreational purposes by adults or children may occur at any time.

The State concludes that the public water supply should be extended to the residents with contaminated private wells. This conclusion does not logically follow other information presented in the health assessment report. New York State has failed to provide support for the conclusion that the public water supply should be extended to all homes near the site.

We disagree. The logic is: The landfill has contaminated groundwater. People have been exposed to site contaminants in drinking water in the past continue to be expressed and people may be exposed in the future. If public water is extended to these people, they will no longer be exposed to site contaminants.

Additional comments were received on June 11, 1992 (after the close of the comment period) from NL Industries, Inc. These comments are considered part of the public record and a copy of these comments will be maintained in the document repositories for the site, at the following locations:

Document Repository
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Room 222
Albany, New York 12233-7010

Response to these comments will be prepared under separate cover and will also become part of the public record and maintained in the document repositories for the Batavia Landfill site.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1825 Century Blvd, Atlanta, GA 30345
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

Department of Health and Human Services

Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
Risk Ratio	Qualitative Descriptor
equal to or less than one per million	very low
greater than one per million to less than one per ten thousand	low
one per ten thousand to less than one per thousand	moderate
one per thousand to less than one per ten	high
equal to or greater than one per ten	very high

Qualitative Descriptions for Noncarcinogenic Health Risks
Ratio of Estimated Contaminant Intake to Risk Reference Dose	Qualitative Descriptor
equal to or less than the risk reference dose	minimal
greater than one to five times the risk reference dose	low
greater than five to ten times the risk reference dose	moderate
greater than ten times the risk reference dose	high