PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
SARNEY FARM
AMENIA, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK
Figure 1. Sarney Property Site
| SUBSURFACE |
GROUNDWATER
|
SOIL | ||
| SOIL | SHALLOW | BEDROCK | VAPOR | |
| COMPOUND NAME | mg/kg | mcg/L | mcg/L | ppb |
|
|
||||
| Semi-Volatile Organics | ||||
| *naphthalene | 5-43 | 0-0.4 | 0.3-1.5 | |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 0.056-15 | |||
| 4-nitrophenol | 0-0.082 | |||
| *di-n-butylphthalate | 0-4.3 | 71-120 | ||
| butylbenzylphthalate | 0.079-6.2 | 4-9 | ||
| *bis(2-ethylhexyl) | 0.480-4.6 | |||
| phthalate | ||||
| Volatile Organics | ||||
| *vinyl chloride | 0-4 | 0-14 | ||
| carbon disulfide | 0-0.4 | 0-2 | ||
| acetone | 0-0.375 | |||
| *1,2-dichloroethane | 0-0.006 | 0-380 | 16-131 | |
| *2-butanone | 0.017-14,000 | 0-85 | ||
| *trichloroethene | 0.003-220 | 0.4-10.7 | 0.4-1.7 | 42-64,000 |
| 4-methyl-2-pentanone | 0.014-6,600 | 0.5-4.3 | ||
| *toluene | 0.002-3,300 | 0-130 | 400-355,000 | |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | 0-0.001 | 0-0.2 | ||
| 1,2-dichloroethene | 0-0.015 | 0-0.5 | 1.1-3.1 | |
| (total) | ||||
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 0-2 | 0.6-1 | ||
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 0.2-0.5 | 0-1.2 | ||
| styrene | 0-0.1 | |||
| cis-1,2-dichloroethene | ||||
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | 0.1-0.9 | |||
| 1,3-dichlorobenzene | 0-1 | 0-1 | ||
| 1,4-dichlorobenzene | 0-1 | |||
| 1,2,4-trichloro-benzene | 0-0.047 | 0-0.2 | ||
| PCBs | ||||
| *Aroclor 1254 | 0-0.51 | |||
| Metals | ||||
| *lead | <0.001-0.13 | 3.1-18 | 2.5-12.7 | |
| cadmium | 0.005-0.064 | |||
| arsenic | 0.001-0.019 | 0-2 | 2.2-6.1 | |
|
|
||||
Note: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram
mcg/L = micrograms per liter
ppb = parts per billion
Only detected results are reported.
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation (see Tables
4, 5 and 6 for
public health assessment comparison values).
TABLE 2
OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION
| BEDROCK GROUNDWATER* | SURFACEWATER*** | SEDIMENT*** | |
| COMPOUND NAME | mcg/L | mcg/L | mg/kg |
|
|
|||
| Semivolatile Organics | |||
| naphthalene | |||
| 2-methylnaphthalene | |||
| 4-nitrophenol | |||
| **di-n-butylphthalate | 2-3 | 0.095-0.15 | |
| butylbenzylphthalate | |||
| Volatile Organics | |||
| **vinyl chloride | 0-68 | ||
| **carbon disulfide | 0.1 | 0-1 | |
| acetone | 1.3-19 | ||
| **1,2-dichloroethane | 0-3 | 0.2-5 | |
| 2-butanone | 0.3-1 | 0-0.022 | |
| **trichloroethene | 0-2 | 0-3 | |
| 4-methyl-2-pentanone | |||
| toluene | 0-5 | ||
| 1,1-dichloroethene | 0-5 | ||
| 1,2-dichloroethene (total) | |||
| **1,1-dichloroethane | 2 | ||
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | |||
| **styrene | 0-9 | 0-0.4 | |
| **cis-1,2-dichloroethene | 0-1.4 | ||
| 1,3-dichlorobenzene | 0-0.1 | ||
| 1,4-dichlorobenzene | 0-0.1 | ||
| 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene | 0-0.3 | ||
| PCBs | |||
| Aroclor 1254 | |||
| Metals | |||
| **lead | 0-5.4 | 4-6 | 0-0.02 |
| cadmium | 0-7 | 0-0.001 | |
| arsenic | 0-52 | 0-0.003 | |
|
|
|||
| Note: mcg/L = micrograms per
liter mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram Only detected results are reported. *Private residential wells, compilation of NYS DOH and US EPA data. **Contaminant selected for further evaluation based on public health assessment comparison values for contaminants found in sources of drinking water (see Table 4) and/or community health concerns. ***Data from the 1990 remedial investigation. |
|||
| CONTAMINATED MEDIA | POTENTIAL RECEPTORS | PATHWAYS OF EXPOSURE |
|
|
||
| SITE SOILS | On-site: residents and trespassers | Direct contact with soils, ingestion, inhalation of particulates |
| Off-site residents | Inhalation of volatile organic vapors released from soils and suspended solids | |
|
|
||
| SURFACE WATER AND SEDIMENTS | Area residents | Direct contact and ingestion during recreational use of pond and downstream drainages |
|
|
||
| SHALLOW GROUNDWATER | Areas residents | Direct contact and ingestion from recreational use of water bodies to which groundwater is discharging |
|
|
||
| BEDROCK GROUNDWATER | Residents | Ingestion, direct contact, and inhalation of volatiles |
|
|
||
| SOIL VAPOR | Residents | Inhalation |
|
|
||
TABLE 4
Public Health Assessment Comparison Values for Contaminants Found in Sources
of Drinking Water
[All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
|
Comparison Values
|
||||||||
|
New York State
|
U.S. EPA | |||||||
| Chemical | Groundwater | Surface Water | Drinking Water | Drinking Water | Cancer | Source*** | Noncancer | Source*** |
|
|
||||||||
| naphthalene | 10g | 10 | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 20 | EPA LTHA |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 50 | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 4-nitrophenol | -- | -- | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 60 | EPA LTHA |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 50 | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 700 | EPA RfD |
| butylbenzylphthalate | 50g | 50g | 50 | 100p | -- | -- | 1,400 | EPA RfD |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 50 | 4g | 50 | 6 | 2.5 | EPA CPF | 140 | EPA RfD |
| vinyl chloride | 2 | 0.3g | 2 | 2 | 0.02 | EPA CPF | 0.7 | ATSDR EMEG |
| carbon disulfide | -- | -- | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 700 | EPA RfD |
| acetone | 50 | -- | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 700 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2-dichloroethane | 5 | 0.8 | 5 | 5 | 0.38 | ATSDR CREG | 52 | EPA RfD |
| 2-butanone (methylethyl ketone) | 50 | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 200 | EPA LTHA |
| trichloroethene | 5 | 3g | 5 | 5 | 3 | NYS CREG | 52 | EPA RfD |
| 4-methyl-2-pentanone | 50 | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| toluene | 5 | 5g | 5 | 1000;40ps | -- | -- | 1,000 | EPA LTHA |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | 5 | 0.07g | 5 | 7 | 0.058 | ATSDR CREG | 7 | EPA LTHA |
| trans-1,2-dichloroethene (trans)isomer | 5 | 5g | 5 | 100 | -- | -- | 100 | EPA LTHA |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 5 | 5g | 5 | -- | -- | -- | 700 | EPA RfD |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 5 | 5g | 5 | 200 | -- | -- | 200 | EPA LTHA |
| styrene | 5 | 50 | 5 | 100;10ps | 1.2 | EPA CPF | 100 | EPA LTHA |
| cis-1,2-dichloroethene | 5 | -- | 5 | 70 | -- | -- | 70 | EPA LTHA |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | 5 | 5g | 5 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 1,3-dichlorobenzene | -- | 20 | 5 | 600 | -- | -- | 600 | EPA LTHA |
| 1,4-dichlorobenzene | 4.7* | 30 | 5 | 75;5ps | 1.5 | EPA CPF | 75 | EPA LTHA |
| 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene | -- | 10 | 5 | 70 | -- | -- | 9 | EPA LTHA |
| Aroclor 1254 | 0.1c | 0.01c | 0.5c | 0.5 | 0.0045 | ATSDR CREG | 0.18 | ATSDR EMEG |
| lead | 25 | 50 | 50 | 50;15** | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| cadmium | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | -- | -- | 5 | EPA LTHA |
| arsenic | 25 | 50 | 50 | 50 | -- | -- | 11 | EPA RfD |
|
|
||||||||
| c = total PCBs g = guidance value p = proposed MCL (maximum contaminant level) ps = proposed secondary MCL *Applies to total of 1,2- and 1,4-isomers. **The current MCL for lead is 50 mcg/L; after December 7, 1992 there will not be a MCL for lead. Effective after that date, there will be a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for lead and an action level of 15 mcg/L at the tap. ***ATSDR CREG = ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guide EPA LTHA = EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Advisory EPA CPF = EPA Cancer Potency Factor EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose |
||||||||
Table 5
Public Health Assessment Comparison Values for Soil Contaminants at
or Near the Sarney Property Site
[All values in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]
|
Comparison Values
|
|||||
| Chemical | Typical Background* | Cancer | Source** | Noncancer | Source** |
|
|
|||||
| naphthalene | ND | -- | -- | 1.4 | NYS RfG |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | ND | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 4-nitrophenol | ND | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| di-n-butylphthalate | ND | -- | -- | 4,100 | NYS RfG |
| butylbenzylphthalate | ND | -- | -- | 3,200 | NYS RfG |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | ND | 2.3 | NYS CREG | 17.6 | NYS RfG |
| acetone | ND | -- | -- | 2 | NYS RfG |
| 1,2-dichloroethane | ND | 0.02 | NYS CREG | 1.6 | NYS RfG |
| 2-butanone | ND | -- | -- | 2.2 | NYS RfG |
| trichloroethene | ND | 0.2 | NYS CREG | 5.3 | NYS RfG |
| 4-methyl-2-pentanone | ND | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| toluene | ND | -- | -- | 230 | NYS RfG |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | ND | 0.002 | NYS CREG | 3.2 | NYS RfG |
| cis-1,2-dichloroethene | ND | -- | -- | 2 | NYS RfG |
| trans-1,2-dichloroethene | ND | -- | -- | 1 | NYS RfG |
| 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene | ND | -- | -- | 152 | NYS RfG |
| Aroclor 1254 | <0.01-0.04a | 0.03a | NYS CREG | 5 | NYS RfG |
| lead | 10-300 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| cadmium | <0.5-1 | -- | -- | 10 | ATSDR EMEG |
| arsenic | 10-20 | -- | -- | 15 | EPA RfD |
|
|
|||||
| ND = not determined aTotal PCBs *References: Clarke et al. (1985); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988); Shacklette and Boerngen (1984) **NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline (for residential exposure) NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline (for residential exposure) ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guide EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose |
|||||
Table
6
Public Health Assessment Comparison
Values for Ambient Air Contaminants at the Sarney Property Site
[All values in parts per billion (ppb)]
|
Comparison Values
|
|||||
| Chemical | Typical Background* | Cancer | Source** | Noncancer | Source** |
|
|
|||||
| toluene | 0.78-37 | -- | -- | 105 | EPA RfC |
| trichloroethene | 0.03-0.59 | 0.11 | EPA CPF | 4.8 | EPA RfD |
|
|
|||||
|
*References: Singh
et al. (1981); Brodzinsky and Singh (1982) |
|||||
Comment #1
Many residents were concerned that the 3 off-site wells that showed contamination might be theirs. Have the owners of the 3 wells been notified?
Response #1
The owner of each of the three off-site wells were notified of the sampling results. As previously stated, none of these wells were found to be contaminated with organic chemicals in concentrations above the New York State drinking water standards for public water supplies. Additionally, only one of the wells has shown contamination in more than one sample. However, monitoring will continue to verify that the concentrations stay below standards.
Comment #2
Who is responsible if our water becomes contaminated?
Response #2
If your water becomes contaminated with chemicals from the site, the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) will request that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) provide a treatment system to remove contaminants from your water or an alternative source of potable water at no cost to you. The Sarney Farm site is on the National Priorities List (NPL) of Hazardous Waste sites and, therefore, the US EPA is responsible for remediation of the site. The US EPA, under the legislation that created the NPL, also has the ability to recover costs of remediation from parties that disposed of the hazardous waste.
Comment #3
Our water has not been tested every 3 months as recommended.
Response #3
Not all homes previously tested are included in this recommendation. This recommendation is specific to those homes that have the highest potential for contamination. Sampling of other homes should be done, but at a lesser frequency. Regardless, even the homes thought to have the highest potential for contamination may not be tested every three months. If you have questions regarding the status of sampling and your well, you are encouraged to call the NYS DOH at 1-800-458-1158, extension 305.
Comment #4
Could you have polluted the water when digging wells down through the contaminated aquifer thus bringing contaminants into the lower aquifer and endangering residential wells?
Response #4
Although this is possible, it is not likely. During installation of groundwater monitoring wells, measures are taken to reduce the potential for cross contamination of aquifers.Comment #5
Why has it taken so long to clean this site up?
Response #5
The US EPA is the agency responsible for remediating the site and can provide a specific answer to this question. Mr. Kevin Willis is the project manager for the US EPA and he can be reached at (212) 264-8777. Also, Mr. Mike Mason of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) is involved in the construction activities on-site and can be reached at 518/457-9280. However, in general, the work required to remediate a site such as Sarney Farm can be categorized into five tasks. The first task is to identify the presence of hazardous waste which is typically done by reviewing disposal records or sampling results. The second task is to define the extent and types of contaminants on-site and off-site. The third task is to determine if the contamination is a potential health or environmental threat and the need for remediation. The fourth task is to evaluate the technical and fiscal feasibility of remediation. The final step is to implement the remedial program. Each one of the steps is time consuming and involves specific tasks such as developing workplans, sampling, bidding and awarding of contracts, and actual construction of the remedial program.
Comment #6
Have all buried drums been removed from the site?
Response #6
All buried drums have been removed from Area 4; however, a total of 300 drums are estimated to remain on-site in Areas 1 and 2. By January 1994 the US EPA hopes to have a contractor on-site, removing the drums from Areas 1 and 2.
Comment #7
Why are you stopping work now, only to come back in a few months or years at more expense and begin again?
Response #7
See the response to Question 5.
Comment #8
Please further explain chronic exposure (Public Health Implications section).
Response #8
Exposure may be either acute (short-term) or chronic (long-term). Acute exposure is generally any length of time less than a few weeks but may be as short as a few seconds. Chronic exposure refers to an extended period of time typically ranging from several months to a lifetime. During a period of chronic exposure, contact may be continuous or may occur repeatedly by any of the following routes: ingestion (eating or drinking), inhalation (breathing) or from dermal (skin) contact. The maximum period of chronic exposure to drinking water contaminated by organic chemicals migrating from the Sarney site would be 25 years (from 1968 when waste was first discarded to the present).
Comment #9
I agree with Response #1 and I would like to have a contact person assigned to go over results with.
Response #9
The contact person from the NYS DOH is Mr. Lloyd Wilson. Any results transmitted from the NYS DOH include the name and telephone number of a contact person. Mr. Wilson can be reached at 1-800-458-1158, extension 305. If Mr. Wilson is unavailable, please ask for Ms. Nina Knapp at extension 405.
Comment #10
Recommendation #3 (access restriction) needs further explanation. Do you mean the whole Sarney Property?
Response #10
Recommendation #3 is intended to address only the areas of contaminated soils and includes a "buffer" zone. At this time the exact boundaries have not been defined.
