ATSDR - PHA - Butz Landfill, Jackson Township, Monroe County, PA

Skip directly to: content | left navigation | search

ATSDR > Public Health Assessments & Consultations

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

BUTZ LANDFILL
JACKSON TOWNSHIP
MONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. TABLES

TABLE 1. Selected Demographic Parameters for Pennsylvania, Monroe County and Jackson Township (10)

PARAMETER PENNSYLVANIA MONROE COUNTY JACKSON TOWNSHIP

1980 Census Population 11,864,751 69409 2315

1990 Census Population 11,881,643 95709 3757

Percent Change⁽¹⁰⁾ 0.1 37.9 62.3

Percent White ⁽¹⁰⁾ 88.5 96.9 98.2

Percent 65 & Over ⁽¹⁰⁾ 15.4 13.1 10.6

Persons Per Household ⁽¹⁰⁾ 2.57 2.69 2.82

Per Capita Income (1989) ⁽¹¹⁾ 14068 13636 14141

TABLE 2. Maximum Contaminant Levels In On-Site Groundwater (Monitoring Wells) October-December 1990 (8)

Contaminant Maximum Concentration Well No. Comparison Values

ppb ppb source

Trichloroethene 8,400 R1-D 3 CREG

Tetrachloroethene 6 R1-D 0.7 CREG

1,1-Dichloroethene 3 R1-D, T1-1A 0.06 CREG

1,2-Dichloroethene 720 R1-D 200 RMEG (child)

Vinyl Chloride 7 R1-D 0.2 EMEG (child)

ppb - Parts Per Billion
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide

TABLE 3. Maximum Contaminant Levels In Off-Site Groundwater (Monitoring Wells) October-December 1990 (8)

Contaminant Maximum Concentration Well No. Comparison Values

ppb ppb source

Trichloroethene 110,000 R2* 3 CREG

Tetrachloroethene 10.4 R2 0.7 CREG

1,1-Dichloroethene 7.5 R2 0.06 CREG

1,2-Dichloroethene 1200 R2* 200 RMEG (child)

Vinyl Chloride 13 T2 0.2 EMEG (child)

* Results From Pump Test Sampling

TABLE 4. Maximum Contaminant Levels In Residential Wells (1986-1990) (8)

Contaminant Maximum Concentration Well No.* Comparison Values

ppb ppb source

Trichloroethene 7,000 4 3 CREG

Tetrachloroethene 5.4 4 0.7 CREG

1,1-Dichloroethene 14.6 4 0.06 CREG

1,2-Dichloroethene 4.2 26 200 RMEG (child)

Vinyl Chloride 9.2** NI 0.02 EMEG (child)

* See Figure 2
** February 21, 1992 sample, EPA contractor, may not be site related
NI Not included in RI

APPENDIX B. FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Location Map

Figure 2. Residential Well
Sample Locations

Figure 3. Geological and Cultural
Features Near the Site

Figure 4. Distribution of TCE
in Residential Wells

Figure 5. Monitoring Well
Sample Locations

Figure 6. General Geologic Map

Figure 7. Water Table Elevation Contours
Water Table Aquifer

Figure 8. Ground-Water Flow Direction
Bedrock Aquifer

Figure 9.

Figure 10. Wells R2, R3D, and R4 TCE
and 1,2-DCE Concentrations (parts per
billion, PPB)

Figure 10a. Well RW-18 TCE Concentrations
(parts per billion x 1000)

Figure 11. TCE Concentrations in
Residential Wells Over Time

Figure 12. Wells R-6 and 19 TCE
Concentrations (parts per billion, PPB)

Figure 13.

Figure 14. Surface Water and
Sediment Sampling Locations

APPENDIX C. Response to Comments on the Public Health Assessment, Public Comment Release

The Butz Landfill Public Health Assessment was released for review and comments. The written comments received and our responses are summarized in this section.

The following comments were received from the respondent. Our response follows each question/comment:

1. The six (6) technical points of understanding between the Water Authority and USEPA need no comment. PADOH also understands these points to be USEPA's position on groundwater flow near the site.

2. QUESTION: Do outlined areas of Figure 13 of the public health assessment (PHA) represent the extent of the plumes?

RESPONSE: The plumes outlined in Figure 13 represent one alternative to USEPA's hydrogeologic interpretation of field data. Plume boundaries are based on a combination of well data, principles of groundwater flow, topography, and other potential contaminant sources.

3. QUESTION: Is the direction of contaminant flow assumed to be downgradient with "downgradient" defined by the surface contours?

RESPONSE: "Downgradient" as used in the PHA refers to both topographic slope and water table slope. There has been no evidence presented to PADOH that shows any other relationship between topography and the water table than the expected one; that is, the water table is a subdued replica of the topography (Figure 7, PHA). When referring to head lines in the "bedrock aquifer" (Figure 2-3 of the Remedial Investigation (RI) and Figure 8 of the PHA), "downgradient" means in the direction of decreasing hydraulic head.

4. QUESTION: Are the sources of contamination assumed to be at the highest elevation within a given plume as defined by the highest surface topography?

RESPONSE: Not necessarily, although topographic highs are generally good places to begin looking for contaminant sources.

5. QUESTION: Is there cross-contamination from each of the sites, i.e., is the total contamination in a given well the sum of several components?

RESPONSE: PADOH does not have sufficient field data to conclusively answer this question. USEPA continues to study the geology and hydrogeology around the site. Perhaps we will be able to better answer this question after all the data are presented for evaluation.

6. QUESTION: How did the TCE reach wells on Golf Course Road which are at the upper end of the road at elevation 1100? Since the landfill contamination did not flow this way (see Figure 8 in which the solid arrow shows the flow of clean ground water) contamination in the residential wells east of site 3 must have come from site 3.

RESPONSE: PADOH does not now have a satisfactory answer to this question, which is also one of our own questions. It is difficult to believe that Butz Landfill is the source for this contamination for reasons explained in the PHA. We do not believe there has been a thorough investigation of potential contaminant sources northeast of the site. Site 3 may not be the source of contamination along Golf Course Road.

7. COMMENT: It would seem that flow from sites 2 and 3 would be moving down gradient (to lower elevations as shown by contours) just as the landfill plume does. Therefore it is difficult to see how contamination from sites 2 or 3 could reach Golf Course Road. It had always been difficult to understand how contamination from the landfill could reach Golf Course Road but the EPA explanation was that the bedding planes (sloped toward the mountain) controlled flow.

RESPONSE: PADOH agrees with this statement. It should be remembered that, regardless of the geologic structure (bedding planes dipping northwesterly, etc.), there must be proper hydraulic head relationships to drive a dissolved plume in a given theoretical direction. USEPA is supposedly planning packer tests and flow studies within well bores (vertical and horizontal flow measurements) in order to answer questions about groundwater flow in the bedrock aquifer (s).

8. QUESTION: If the faults control flow, would there not need to be a fault NNE of site 3? Figure 6 does not seem to show such a fault.

RESPONSE: PADOH does not have information indicating the extent of faulting, if, in fact, there are faults present in the area. However, the rocks are abundantly fractured. These fractures (joints) and the partings along bedding planes provide many pathways for groundwater movement.

9. COMMENT: The question therefore arises as to whether there is a fourth site upgradient of the wells on Golf Course Road.

RESPONSE: This is indeed possible. The PADOH hydrogeologist has visited and/or investigated between 60 and 70 Superfund sites in Pennsylvania. About two-thirds of them have other contaminant sources nearby (within one mile).

10. QUESTION: The existence of multiple other sites would seem to imply a different collection of contaminants. The existence of TCE in wells serves as an indicator of plumes. Have well R-6 or any of the residential wells NNE of site 3 been tested for the full spectrum of Primary Pollutant Compounds? Is the PADOH report, a public health assessment of the Butz Landfill, also a public health assessment of the additional sites?

RESPONSE: According to the RI and other information presented to PADOH all wells tested were tested at least once for the full range of volatile organic compounds and metals.
The PHA, while focusing on the Butz Landfill site, considers other potential sources of contamination and evaluates information from local residents, government officials, and independent field investigations.
Our conclusions and recommendations appropriately consider any adverse health effects on citizens, regardless of where contaminants of concern originate.

APPENDIX D. Response to Comments Collected During the Public Availability Sessions

On February 14, 1996, PADOH and ATSDR held two public availability sessions at the Pocono Elementary Center Library in Jackson Township, Monroe County.

The purpose was to provide people who live near the Butz Landfill site an opportunity, individually, to discuss with PADOH concerns they may have about the site.

Nine people came to the two sessions. PADOH provided them with detailed information about the extent of groundwater contamination at the site. We also listened to the concerns of a few of them who thought their health or their family's health may be adversely affected by exposure to groundwater contamination near the site. Those concerns are listed and addressed below.

CONCERN: One person reported suffering dizziness, vertigo, facial numbness, and deafness in one ear.

RESPONSE: At the levels of exposure to TCE experienced by this person we would expect that dizziness and vertigo would be possible. We also expect that the dizziness and vertigo would disappear soon after exposure ceased. We do not expect that facial nerve damage and deafness would occur at this person's reported level of exposure. As we stated earlier in the Toxicological Evaluation section, acute exposure to TCE at high levels and chronic exposure at high levels in the workplace have been associated with nerve damage. However, the levels exprienced by this individual are much lower than the levels reported to be associated with nerve damage.

CONCERN: One person reported experiencing stomach aches after drinking TCE contaminated water, but that they did not persist.

RESPONSE: We do not expect that permanent gastrointestinal problems would arise due to TCE exposure at the levels experienced by this person.

CONCERN: One person reported that a family member suffered from acute febrile polyneuritis (Guillain-Barre syndrome) before expiring in 1992.

RESPONSE: As we stated in the Community Health Concerns Evaluation section, we do not believe that the exposure caused the death. Neither do we believe that it is likely to have caused the illness.

FOOTNOTES

1. ATSDR policy prohibits the use of people's names in documents. The abbreviations used to designate wells replace individuals' names that are used in referenced documents to identify the well locations and test results.

Table of Contents

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

PARAMETER	PENNSYLVANIA	MONROE COUNTY	JACKSON TOWNSHIP
1980 Census Population	11,864,751	69409	2315
1990 Census Population	11,881,643	95709	3757
Percent Change⁽¹⁰⁾	0.1	37.9	62.3
Percent White ⁽¹⁰⁾	88.5	96.9	98.2
Percent 65 & Over ⁽¹⁰⁾	15.4	13.1	10.6
Persons Per Household ⁽¹⁰⁾	2.57	2.69	2.82
Per Capita Income (1989) ⁽¹¹⁾	14068	13636	14141

Contaminant	Maximum Concentration	Well No.	Comparison Values
Contaminant	ppb	Well No.	ppb	source
Trichloroethene	8,400	R1-D	3	CREG
Tetrachloroethene	6	R1-D	0.7	CREG
1,1-Dichloroethene	3	R1-D, T1-1A	0.06	CREG
1,2-Dichloroethene	720	R1-D	200	RMEG (child)
Vinyl Chloride	7	R1-D	0.2	EMEG (child)

Contaminant	Maximum Concentration	Well No.*	Comparison Values
Contaminant	ppb	Well No.*	ppb	source
Trichloroethene	7,000	4	3	CREG
Tetrachloroethene	5.4	4	0.7	CREG
1,1-Dichloroethene	14.6	4	0.06	CREG
1,2-Dichloroethene	4.2	26	200	RMEG (child)
Vinyl Chloride	9.2**	NI	0.02	EMEG (child)

1.	The six (6) technical points of understanding between the Water Authority and USEPA need no comment. PADOH also understands these points to be USEPA's position on groundwater flow near the site.
2.	QUESTION:	Do outlined areas of Figure 13 of the public health assessment (PHA) represent the extent of the plumes?
2.	RESPONSE:	The plumes outlined in Figure 13 represent one alternative to USEPA's hydrogeologic interpretation of field data. Plume boundaries are based on a combination of well data, principles of groundwater flow, topography, and other potential contaminant sources.
3.	QUESTION:	Is the direction of contaminant flow assumed to be downgradient with "downgradient" defined by the surface contours?
3.	RESPONSE:	"Downgradient" as used in the PHA refers to both topographic slope and water table slope. There has been no evidence presented to PADOH that shows any other relationship between topography and the water table than the expected one; that is, the water table is a subdued replica of the topography (Figure 7, PHA). When referring to head lines in the "bedrock aquifer" (Figure 2-3 of the Remedial Investigation (RI) and Figure 8 of the PHA), "downgradient" means in the direction of decreasing hydraulic head.
4.	QUESTION:	Are the sources of contamination assumed to be at the highest elevation within a given plume as defined by the highest surface topography?
4.	RESPONSE:	Not necessarily, although topographic highs are generally good places to begin looking for contaminant sources.
5.	QUESTION:	Is there cross-contamination from each of the sites, i.e., is the total contamination in a given well the sum of several components?
5.	RESPONSE:	PADOH does not have sufficient field data to conclusively answer this question. USEPA continues to study the geology and hydrogeology around the site. Perhaps we will be able to better answer this question after all the data are presented for evaluation.
6.	QUESTION:	How did the TCE reach wells on Golf Course Road which are at the upper end of the road at elevation 1100? Since the landfill contamination did not flow this way (see Figure 8 in which the solid arrow shows the flow of clean ground water) contamination in the residential wells east of site 3 must have come from site 3.
6.	RESPONSE:	PADOH does not now have a satisfactory answer to this question, which is also one of our own questions. It is difficult to believe that Butz Landfill is the source for this contamination for reasons explained in the PHA. We do not believe there has been a thorough investigation of potential contaminant sources northeast of the site. Site 3 may not be the source of contamination along Golf Course Road.
7.	COMMENT:	It would seem that flow from sites 2 and 3 would be moving down gradient (to lower elevations as shown by contours) just as the landfill plume does. Therefore it is difficult to see how contamination from sites 2 or 3 could reach Golf Course Road. It had always been difficult to understand how contamination from the landfill could reach Golf Course Road but the EPA explanation was that the bedding planes (sloped toward the mountain) controlled flow.
7.	RESPONSE:	PADOH agrees with this statement. It should be remembered that, regardless of the geologic structure (bedding planes dipping northwesterly, etc.), there must be proper hydraulic head relationships to drive a dissolved plume in a given theoretical direction. USEPA is supposedly planning packer tests and flow studies within well bores (vertical and horizontal flow measurements) in order to answer questions about groundwater flow in the bedrock aquifer (s).
8.	QUESTION:	If the faults control flow, would there not need to be a fault NNE of site 3? Figure 6 does not seem to show such a fault.
8.	RESPONSE:	PADOH does not have information indicating the extent of faulting, if, in fact, there are faults present in the area. However, the rocks are abundantly fractured. These fractures (joints) and the partings along bedding planes provide many pathways for groundwater movement.
9.	COMMENT:	The question therefore arises as to whether there is a fourth site upgradient of the wells on Golf Course Road.
9.	RESPONSE:	This is indeed possible. The PADOH hydrogeologist has visited and/or investigated between 60 and 70 Superfund sites in Pennsylvania. About two-thirds of them have other contaminant sources nearby (within one mile).
10.	QUESTION:	The existence of multiple other sites would seem to imply a different collection of contaminants. The existence of TCE in wells serves as an indicator of plumes. Have well R-6 or any of the residential wells NNE of site 3 been tested for the full spectrum of Primary Pollutant Compounds? Is the PADOH report, a public health assessment of the Butz Landfill, also a public health assessment of the additional sites?
10.	RESPONSE:	According to the RI and other information presented to PADOH all wells tested were tested at least once for the full range of volatile organic compounds and metals. The PHA, while focusing on the Butz Landfill site, considers other potential sources of contamination and evaluates information from local residents, government officials, and independent field investigations. Our conclusions and recommendations appropriately consider any adverse health effects on citizens, regardless of where contaminants of concern originate.

CONCERN:	One person reported suffering dizziness, vertigo, facial numbness, and deafness in one ear.
RESPONSE:	At the levels of exposure to TCE experienced by this person we would expect that dizziness and vertigo would be possible. We also expect that the dizziness and vertigo would disappear soon after exposure ceased. We do not expect that facial nerve damage and deafness would occur at this person's reported level of exposure. As we stated earlier in the Toxicological Evaluation section, acute exposure to TCE at high levels and chronic exposure at high levels in the workplace have been associated with nerve damage. However, the levels exprienced by this individual are much lower than the levels reported to be associated with nerve damage.
CONCERN:	One person reported experiencing stomach aches after drinking TCE contaminated water, but that they did not persist.
RESPONSE:	We do not expect that permanent gastrointestinal problems would arise due to TCE exposure at the levels experienced by this person.
CONCERN:	One person reported that a family member suffered from acute febrile polyneuritis (Guillain-Barre syndrome) before expiring in 1992.
RESPONSE:	As we stated in the Community Health Concerns Evaluation section, we do not believe that the exposure caused the death. Neither do we believe that it is likely to have caused the illness.