PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
SIDNEY LANDFILL
SIDNEY, DELAWARE COUNTY, NEW YORK
Figures
Tables
Table 1. Public Health Assessment Comparison Values and Typical Background Ranges for Contaminants Selected for Further Evaluation in Soils and/or Sediments Town of Sidney, Delaware County, New York [All values in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]
| Contaminant | Typical Background Range |
Comparison Values
|
|||||
|
Nonresidential Setting*
|
Industrial Setting**
|
||||||
| Cancer | Basis*** | Noncancer | Basis*** | Cancer | Noncancer | ||
| PCBs (Aroclor 1248) | <0.01-0.04 | 23 | EPA CPF | 40 | ATSDR MRL | 4.3 | 59 |
| Inorganics (metals) | |||||||
| arsenic lead |
10-20 10-300 |
30 -- |
EPA CPF -- |
600 -- |
EPA RFD -- |
5.6 -- |
890 -- |
*Comparison values for cancer risk are determined for a 70 kg adult who ingests 50 mg soil per day, 2 days per week for 3 months per year for 30 years out of a 70 year lifetime. Comparison values for noncancer risk are determined for a 36 kg child (10 year old) who ingests 50 mg soil per day, 5 days per week for 6 months per year.
**Comparison values for cancer risk are determined for a 70 kg adult who ingests in the workplace 50 mg soil per day, 5 days per week, 8 months per year and assuming that exposure occurs for 25 working years out of a 70 year lifetime; comparison values for noncancer risk are determined for a 70 kg adult who ingests in the workplace 50 mg soil per day, 5 days per week for 8 months per year.
***EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
Table 2. Water Quality Standards/Guidelines and Public Health Assessment Comparison Values for Contaminants Selected for Further Evaluation in Sources of Drinking Water [All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
| Contaminant |
New York State
|
U.S. EPA |
Comparison Values*
|
|||||
| Groundwater Water |
Surface Water |
Drinking Water |
Drinking Water |
|||||
| Cancer | Basis** | Noncancer | Basis** | |||||
| Organic Compounds | ||||||||
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 5 | 5(g) | 5 | -- | -- | -- | 700 | EPA RfD |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | 5 | 0.07(g) | 5 | 7 | 0.058 | EPA CPF | 7 | EPA LTHA |
| 1,2-dichloroethene (total) | 5 | 5(g) | 5 | 70 | -- | -- | 70 | EPA LTHA |
| tetrachloroethene | 5 | 0.7(g) | 5 | 5 | 0.67 | EPA CPF | 70 | EPA RfD |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 5 | 5(g) | 5 | 200 | -- | -- | 200 | EPA LTHA |
| trichloroethene | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 3.3 | EPA CPF | 52 | EPA RfD |
| vinyl chloride | 2 | 0.3(g) | 2 | 2 | 0.018 | EPA HEAST | 0.14 | ATSDR MRL |
| xylenes | 5 | 5(g) | 5 | 10,000 | -- | -- | 10,000 | EPA LTHA |
| toluene | 5 | 5(g) | 5 | 1,000 | -- | -- | 1,000 | EPA LTHA |
| ethylbenzene | 5 | 5(g) | 5 | 700 | -- | -- | 700 | EPA LTHA |
| Aroclor 1248 | 0.1 | 0.01 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.005 | EPA CPF | 0.14 | ATSDR MRL |
| chlorobenzene | 5 | 20 | 5 | 100 | -- | -- | 100 | EPA LTHA |
| trichlorobenzene | 5 | 10 | 5 | 70 | -- | -- | 40 | EPA LTHA |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 50 | 4g | 50++ | 6 | 2.5 | EPA CPF | 140 | EPA RfD |
| Inorganic Compounds | ||||||||
| aluminum | -- | -- | -- | 50-200s | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| arsenic | 25 | 50 | 50 | 50+ | 0.02 |
EPA CPF |
1.1 | EPA RfD |
| chromium | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 | -- | -- | 100 | EPA LTHA |
| antimony | 3(g) | 3(g) | -- | 6 | -- | -- | 3 | EPA LTHA |
| lead | 25 | 50 | 15l | 15l | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| manganese | 300 | 300 | 300 | 50s | -- | -- | 2,000 | EPA RfD |
| nickel | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 100 | EPA LTHA |
| iron | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300s | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| barium | 1,000 | 1,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | -- | -- | 2,000 | EPA LTHA |
| beryllium | 3(g) | 3(g) | -- | 4 | 0.008 | EPA CPF | 18 | EPA RfD |
g = Guidance value
l = Action level
s = Secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL)
*Comparison value determined for a 70 kg adult who drinks 2 liters of water per day.
**EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose
EPA CPF = EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA LTHA = EPA Lifetime Health Advisory
EPA HEAST = EPA Health Assessment Summary Tables
ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Oral Minimal Risk Level
+Under review
++MCL being revised to conform to EPA's standard
Table 3. Summary1 of Inorganic Contaminants in On-Site Groundwater Sidney Landfill, Town of Sidney, Delaware County, New York. [All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
| Chemical Name | Concentration Range (mcg/L) |
| aluminum | 64.9-508,000 |
| antimony | ND-91 |
| arsenic | ND-142 |
| barium | 33.9-5,900 |
| beryllium | ND-28 |
| chromium | ND-754 |
| iron | 56.8-1,000,000 |
| lead | 2.8-171 |
| manganese | 23-18,200 |
| nickel | ND-1,400 |
1This table includes only those metals found at levels exceeding New York State water quality standards or guidelines and/or public health assessment comparison values (refer to Table 2).
ND = not detected
Table 4. Public Health Assessment Comparison Values for Contaminants Selected for Further Evaluation in Surface Water. [All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
| Contaminant |
Comparison Value*
|
|||
| Cancer | Basis** | Noncancer | Basis** | |
| PCBs (Aroclor 1248) | 0.91 | EPA CPF | 7.3 | ATSDR MRL |
*Comparison value for noncancer risk is determined for a 21 kilogram child whose arms, hands, legs, feet and trunk are exposed to surface water for 1 hour per day, 2 days per week for 3 months per year and who swallows 0.05 liters of surface water per day, 2 days a week for 3 months per year. Cancer comparison value is determined for a 70 kilogram adult whose arms, hands, legs, feet and trunk are exposed to surface water for 1 hour per day, 2 days per week for 3 months per year for 30 years out of a 70-year lifetime and who swallows 0.05 liters of surface water per day, 2 days a week for 3 months per year for 30 years out of a 70-year lifetime.
**EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
Table 5. Public Health Assessment Comparison Values for
Contaminants Selected for Further Evaluation in Leachate Seeps [All values in
micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
| Contaminant |
Comparison Values
|
|||||
|
Nonresidential Setting*
|
Industrial Setting**
|
|||||
| Cancer | Basis*** | Noncancer | Basis*** | Cancer | Noncancer | |
| PCBs (Aroclor 1248) | 5.5 | EPA CPF | 56 | ATSDR MRL | 0.61 | 15 |
| vinyl chloride | 6.2 | EPA HEAST | 56 | ATSDR MRL | 0.70 | 15 |
* Comparison values for noncancer risk are determined for a 21 kg child whose arms and hands are exposed to leachate for 1 hour per day, 2 days per week for 3 months per year. Cancer comparison values are determined for a 70 kilogram adult whose arms and hands are exposed to leachate for 1 hour per day, 2 days per week for 3 months per year for 30 years out of a 70-year lifetime.
**Comparison values for cancer risk are determined for a 70kg adult whose arms and hands are exposed to leachate for 1 hour per day , 5 days per week, 8 months per year and assuming that exposure occurs for 40 working years out of a 70-year lifetime. Comparison values for noncancer risk are determined for a 70 kg adult whose arms and hands are exposed to leachate for 1 hour per day, 5 days per week, 8 months per year.
***EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA HEAST = US EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
To evaluate the potential health risks from contaminants of concern associated with the Sidney 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 in a million
|
very low |
|
greater than one in a million to less than one in ten thousand |
low
|
|
one in ten thousand to less than one in a thousand |
moderate
|
|
one in a thousand to less than one in ten |
high
|
|
equal to or greater than one in ten
|
very high
|
An estimated increased excess lifetime cancer risk is not a specific estimate of expected cancers. Rather, it is a plausible upper bound 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 general consensus among the scientific and regulatory communities on what level of estimated excess cancer risk is acceptable. An increased lifetime cancer risk of one in one million or less is generally not considered a significant 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
reference dose or minimal risk level |
minimal
|
|
greater than one to five times
the reference dose or minimal risk level |
low
|
|
greater than five to ten times
the reference dose or minimal risk level |
moderate
|
|
greater than ten times the
reference dose or minimal risk level |
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 may be concern for potential noncancer health effects because the margin of protection is less than that afforded by the reference dose. As a rule, the greater the ratio of the estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose, the greater the level of concern. This level of concern depends upon an evaluation of a number of factors such as the actual potential for exposure, background exposure and the strength of the toxicologic data.
INTERIM PUBLIC HEALTH HAZARD CATEGORIES
|
CATEGORY / DEFINITION |
DATA SUFFICIENCY |
CRITERIA |
| A. Urgent Public Health Hazard
This category is used for sites where short-term exposures (< 1 yr) to hazardous substances or conditions could result in adverse health effects that require rapid intervention. |
This determination represents a professional judgement based on critical data which ATSDR has judged sufficient to support a decision. This does not necessarily imply that the available data are complete; in some cases additional data may be required to confirm or further support the decision made. | Evaluation of available relevant information* indicates that site-specific conditions or likely exposures have had, are having, or are likely to have in the future, an adverse impact on human health that requires immediate action or intervention. Such site-specific conditions or exposures may include the presence of serious physical or safety hazards. |
| B. Public Health Hazard
This category is used for sites that pose a public health hazard due to the existence of long-term exposures (> 1 yr) to hazardous substance or conditions that could result in adverse health effects. |
This determination represents a professional judgement based on critical data which ATSDR has judged sufficient to support a decision. This does not necessarily imply that the available data are complete; in some cases additional data may be required to confirm or further support the decision made. | Evaluation of available relevant information* suggests that, under site-specific conditions of exposure, long-term exposures to site-specific contaminants (including radionuclides) have had, are having, or are likely to have in the future, an adverse impact on human health that requires one or more public health interventions. Such site-specific exposures may include the presence of serious physical or safety hazards. |
| C. Indeterminate Public Health
Hazard
This category is used for sites in which Acritical@ data are insufficient with regard to extent of exposure and/or toxicologic properties at estimated exposure levels. |
This determination represents a professional judgement that critical data are missing and ATSDR has judged the data are insufficient to support a decision. This does not necessarily imply all data are incomplete; but that some additional data are required to support a decision. | The health assessor must determine, using professional judgement, the Acriticality@ of such data and the likelihood that the data can be obtained and will be obtained in a timely manner. Where some data are available, even limited data, the health assessor is encouraged to the extent possible to select other hazard categories and to support their decision with clear narrative that explains the limits of the data and the rationale for the decision. |
| D. No Apparent Public Health
Hazard
This category is used for sites where human exposure to contaminated media may be occurring, may have occurred in the past, and/or may occur in the future, but the exposure is not expected to cause any adverse health effects. |
This determination represents a professional judgement based on critical data which ATSDR considers sufficient to support a decision. This does not necessarily imply that the available data are complete; in some cases additional data may be required to confirm or further support the decision made. | Evaluation of available relevant information* indicates that, under site-specific conditions of exposure, exposures to site-specific contaminants in the past, present, or future are not likely to result in any adverse impact on human health. |
| E: No Public Health
Hazard
This category is used for sites that, because of the absence of exposure, do NOT pose a public health hazard. |
Sufficient evidence indicates that no human exposures to contaminated media have occurred, none are now occurring, and none are likely to occur in the future |
Summary of Public Comments and Responses
This summary was prepared to address comments and questions on the public comment draft of the Sidney Landfill Public Health Assessment. The public was invited to review the draft during the public comment period, which ran from June 26 to August 20, 1998. We received 10 written comments from residents and a concerned public agency. Similar comments may be consolidated or grouped together and some statements reworded to clarify the comment. If you have any questions about this summary, you may contact the New York State Department of Health's (NYS DOH) Outreach Unit at the toll free number: 1-800-458-1158.
Comment #1 - Will there be an in depth health/study cancer cluster study of the area?
Response #1 - The NYS DOH has not evaluated health outcome data specifically for Sidney Landfill. On-site workers and trespassers were likely exposed to contaminants in surface soil. There is inadequate information about levels of exposure and the number and identity of workers and trespassers. Since the NYS DOH cannot identify potentially exposed workers and trespassers, the NYS DOH plans no health studies related to these potential exposures for the Sidney Landfill site. The NYS DOH will consider evaluating health outcome data for these groups if new information becomes available. Three households were identified with levels of VOCs in drinking water that were at some time above the NYS drinking water guidelines or standards. The NYS DOH is currently developing a registry of individuals in New York State who have been exposed to VOCs in drinking water. These residents who have been exposed to VOCs in their drinking water above NYS drinking water standards will be considered for inclusion in the VOC registry.
Comment #2 - The homes and properties in the area should be bought out and the residents relocated. The properties near this landfill are worthless.
Response #2 - We have no evidence that residents should be relocated for health reasons. Potential human exposures at this site are being addressed by the regulatory agencies and the responsible parties through remediation of the site and continued monitoring of groundwater. While the concerns for loss of property values are legitimate, it is not within the authority of the NYS DOH or the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to address this issue.
Comment #3 - I live in the area and my water is not being tested. Please test my water.
Response #3 - The extent of groundwater contamination at this site has been characterized through years of testing both at site monitoring wells and at private wells. The identified areas of concern will continue to be monitored by the responsible party. Should future monitoring data indicate the need to expand the area of testing, this will be done. The data developed by routine monitoring are reviewed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) and NYS DOH. Residents may contact NYS DOH staff at 1-800-458-1158 to discuss the location of their well in relation to groundwater contamination.
Comment #4 - Please keep me informed of all findings and actions at the site.
Response #4 - All persons on the site mailing list will continue to be updated by fact sheets or other mailings as site remediation continues. Residents are also welcome to contact staff at NYS DOH and US EPA for updated information about the site.
Comment #5 - We are told that the dumpsite is only extremely toxic and dangerous to trespassers. What makes it dangerous and toxic, but safe for me to walk in my own yard?
Response #5 - There is concern for exposure to site trespassers because of contaminated soil on-site and physical hazards on the site. Soil testing indicates that the extent of contamination is limited to the landfill property. There is no concern for off-site soil contamination in residential yards.
Comment #6 - Runoff from the Sidney Landfill has always gone into the creek to the north and Carrs Creek. Until 1981 the people in Sidney Center got their drinking water from the creek. Was the Sidney Center water supply or Carrs Creek impacted by this landfill?
Response #6 - The extent of surface water contamination to the north of the site has been characterized and is limited to the ponds in the immediate area of the site. The use of Carrs Creek as a public water supply for Sidney Center was discontinued because of a change in ownership of the water supply and because of concerns about the Sidney Landfill.
Comment #7 - NYS DOH received a petition signed by 164 people. The petition included a request for a public informational meeting.
Response #7 - The NYS DOH has actively participated in public meetings held by the US EPA and answered health-related questions. The US EPA has held these meetings throughout the process, with NYS DEC and NYS DOH participating, and will continue to do so. NYS DOH will participate in any future meetings and has forwarded a copy of this request for a public meeting to the US EPA.
Comment #8 - We feel that since contaminated fish were found in Herrick Hollow Creek it would be to the public's best interest to have a fish study performed in all streams and creeks that are directly connected to the site of contamination. Also, have fish from Carrs Creek been tested?
Response #8 -Based upon the documented release of PCBs and solvent-containing waste oils from a waste oil pit on the Richardson Hill Road Landfill site to South Pond, the contamination in South Pond is attributable to the Richardson Hill Road Landfill site, rather than the Sidney Landfill site. South Pond is a source to Herrick Hollow Creek, where sampling of fish to date has identified PCB contamination. The status of the fish contamination in the area will continue to be evaluated to determine the effectiveness of remedial measures, which are yet to be completed, at the Richardson Hill Road Landfill.
No contaminants were detected in sediments from North Pond, Carrs Creek, or the tributary to Trout Creek at levels which exceed public health assessment comparison values. North Pond is the main source to Carrs Creek and is closer to the Sidney Landfill site. Fish in North Pond were sampled and no contamination, above background, was identified. No fish from Carrs Creek have been tested, since surface water and sediment sampling indicate no need to sample fish from this creek.
Comment #9 -Besides the water quality issues and concerns, we are concerned about the continued lack of site security, supervision, and maintenance and the ongoing threat of human exposure by direct contact with contaminated soils, waste oils, leachate and surface water.
Response #9 - These concerns for the Sidney Landfill are being addressed by the site remediation which is currently underway. The US EPA Record of Decision for the Sidney Landfill includes consolidating and capping contaminated soil and wastes. This should eliminate the potential for direct contact. Additionally, these concerns have been expressed to the responsible party who will be taking appropriate measures to mitigate against direct contact with site contamination at both landfills. The responsible party has recently erected a security fence at the Richardson Hill Road Landfill. They have also agreed to better maintain the existing interim remedial measures at the Richardson Hill Road Landfill (i.e., snow fence, warning signs, water level control of South Pond, seep collection system maintenance in South Pond).
ATSDR Plain Language Glossary
of Environmental Health Terms
(Revised -15Dec99)
