Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

POLLUTION ABATEMENT SERVICES (PAS)
CITY OF OSWEGO, OSWEGO COUNTY, NEW YORK


APPENDIX A

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1.

Figure 2
Figure 2.

Figure 3
Figure 3.

Figure 4
Figure 4.

Figure 5
Figure 5.

Figure 5a
Figure 5A.

Figure 6
Figure 6.

Figure 7
Figure 7.

Figure 8
Figure 8.

Figure 9
Figure 9.


APPENDIX B

Tables

Table 1.

Summary of Inorganic and Organic Chemicals Handled
by Pollution Abatement Services (PAS), Inc. Between 1970-1977.


Inorganic Organic


lead methylene chloride (dichloromethane)
arsenic benzene
cadmium toluene
bromine xylene
sulfur chloroform
aluminum ethyl alcohol
chlorine methyl ethyl ketone/MEK (2-butanone)
chromium dimethylfuran
copper methanol
iodine butanol
iron xylenol (1,2-dimethyl-3-hydroxybenzene)
mercury glycerine
sodium trichloroethene
zinc ethylene glycol
nickel methylchloroform
cobalt dimethylaniline
silicon acetaldehyde (ethanol)
ammonium chloride pyridine
ammonium hydroxide polychlorinated biphenyls/PCBs
sodium hydroxide chlorinated pesticides

acrylonitrile (vinyl cyanide)

bromoform

styrene

phenol

formaldehyde

nitrobenzene

chloronitrobenzene

2-thiourea

oleic acid (cis-9-octadecenoic acid)

allyl alcohol (2-propen-1-ol)

butyl carbitol (diethyleneglycol monobutyl ether)

Adapted from: Scrudato, R.J. et al.; undated.

Table 2.

The following table 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:


Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch,
MS E-56
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333


Table 3.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in Samples Collected from On-Site Waste Lagoons.
Pollution Abatement Services Site, Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units reported in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
[Refer to Table 28 for Public Health Assessment Comparison Values]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected


Metals

cadmium 10-259
copper 19-21,000
*chromium 235-63,000
mercury 0.21-0.23
lead 149-6,200
zinc 82.5-4,000

Organic Compounds

*benzene 11-1,290
*carbon tetrachloride **-9.1
*1,1-dichloroethene **-80
*dimethylaniline 19-4,700
*methylene chloride 6.5-7,120
*tetrachloroethene 0.8-240
toluene 29-4,360
trichloroethane+ 1.9-2,000
*trichloroethene 5.2-2,870
xylenes 32-36,000
alkyl substituted benzenes 52-4,000

Source: Adapted from URS Company, Inc.; January 1988.

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**Indicates that this compound was not detected in other samples collected.
+No distinction between either 1,1,1-trichloroethane or 1,1,2-trichloroethane was indicated in the data reported.

Table 4.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in Liquid Waste Samples Collected
from On-Site Underground Storage Tanks.
Pollution Abatement Services Site,
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units reported in parts per million (ppm)]+


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected


Organic Compounds

acetone 920-9,500
acrylonitrile 54
ethylbenzene 23-43
methylene chloride 310
methyl-isobutylketone 65-160
2-propanol 46
toluene 27
xylenes 65-160
alpha-BHC1 0.003
beta-BHC 0.001
PCBs2 (Aroclor 1242) 290
PCBs2 (Aroclor 1248) 3.0-553
PCBs2 (Aroclor 1260) 5,200

Inorganic Chemicals

arsenic 4.6
cadmium 0.02-0.77
chromium 0.05-0.10
lead 0.09-0.29
cyanide 0.6-16.5
sulfide 23-53

Source: URS Company, Inc.; January 1988.

Notes: + Data were reported in units of milligrams per liter (mg/L) or milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). However, for the data reviewed, no distinction was made between those results reported as mg/L or mg/kg.
1BHC = hexachlorocyclohexane
2PCB = polychlorinated biphenyls

Table 5.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in Tank Sludge Samples
Collected from On-Site Underground Storage Tanks (1985-1986).
Pollution Abatement Services Site,
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]+


Chemical Name Range (or Maximum) of
Concentrations Detected


Organic Compounds

benzene 60
chlorobenzene 72
chloroform 97
1,2-dichlorobenzene 25
1,2-dichloroethane 73
ethylbenzene 2,800
methylene chloride 640
methyl isobutyl ketone 1,600
tetrachloroethene 450
toluene 9,900
1,1,1-trichloroethane 46
trichloroethene 1,200
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
    Aroclor 1242 2-2,390
    Aroclor 1248 <3-523
    Aroclor 1254 81-534
    Aroclor 1260 3-1,480

Inorganic Chemicals

arsenic 1.6-29
cadmium 3.3-40
chromium 40-9,620
lead 130-39,000
mercury 0.24-1,000
nickel 23-50
chloride 2,600-79,200

Source: URS Company, Inc.; January 1988.

Notes: Reported results for metals are based on wet weight analysis. To maintain consistency among the units referenced throughout this public health assessment, the concentrations listed in this table were converted from reported units of micrograms per gram to milligrams per kilogram.

Table 6.

Summary of Organic Chemicals Detected in Samples Collected from
On-Site Leachate Collection Well LCW-2 as part o the Long Term Monitoring Plan.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units reported in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected+

acetone 5,100B-5,800
benzene 100D
2-butanone 310D
chlorobenzene 1,000-1,200D
chloroform 30D-3,900
1,2-dichloroethane 210D
1,1-dichloroethene 7,500
1,2-dichloroethene (total) 1,200D
1,2-dichloropropane 3,100
trans-1,2-dichloropropene 8,300D
4-methyl-2-pentanone 3,400D-5,500
tetrachloroethene 8,400D
vinyl chloride 980D
xylenes (total) 11,000D-16,000
n-nitrosodiphenylamine 23
phenol 290
1,2-dichlorobenzene 110
4-methylphenol 1,600
2,4-dimethylphenol 100
naphthalene 110
2-methylnaphthalene 16

Source: Golder Associates, Inc.; August 1993.

Notes: + = does not include levels reported at estimated concentrations.
D = indicates concentration calculated from secondary dilution.
B = indicates compound found in associated quality control method blank


Table 7.

Summary of Organic Chemicals Detected in
On-Site Leachate Collection Wells in September 1992.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units reported in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]


Chemical Name Reported Concentration
LCW-2LCW-4

1,2-dichloroethene (total) 2,200 8,100
benzene 800 1,500
acetone 4,000 17,000
methylene chloride
5,800
toluene 3,400 2,400
xylene (total) 9,600 6,600
2-butanone 1,500 1,700
ethylbenzene 4,500 3,100
1,1-dichloroethane
530
4-methyl-2-pentanone 3,400 2,300

Source: de maximus, Inc.; September 1992

Blank space indicates "not reported over the detection limit."

Refer to Figure 6 (Appendix A) for sample locations (leachate collection wells [LCW] 1 and 2).

Table 8.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in On-Site Subsurface
Soil Samples Collected During the Remedial Investigation (1982-1983).
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]


Chemical Name Number of Locations
Detected
  Range of Concentrations
Detected


Organic Compounds

2,4-dimethylphenol 3 0.53-0.66
phenol 1 3.0
naphthalene 2 0.44-0.59
nitrobenzene 1 185
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 9 0.25-14
butyl benzyl phthalate 1 0.66
di-n-butyl phthalate 1 0.41
di-n-octyl phthalate 3 0.28-3.3
anthracene 1 0.25
phenanthrene 1 0.5
PCB-1248 11 0.2-22

Metals

arsenic 12 4.9-17
beryllium 12 1.5-4.0
chromium 12 9.8-26
copper 12 8.4-87
lead 12 2.9-9.1
mercury 12 0.009-0.04
nickel 12 6.6-2.7
zinc 12 19-61

Source: Adapted from URS Company, Inc.; January 1988.

Note: Reported results are for a dryweight basis. To maintain consistency among the units referenced throughout this public health assessment, the concentrations listed in this table were converted from reported units of micrograms per gram for metals and nanograms per gram for organic compounds to milligrams per kilogram.

Table 9.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in On-Site Subsurface Soil Samples
Collected During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected+


Inorganic Chemicals

aluminum 3,790-10,600
arsenic 2.6-5.3
barium 50.0-90.4
cadmium 1.2
calcium 4,380-48,500
chromium 4.8-15.4
cobalt 12.4
copper 19.6-71.4
iron 7,060-18,500
lead 3.9-62.7
magnesium 1,830-10,100
manganese 158-1,120
nickel 9.3-18.1
potassium 1,190-1,690
vanadium 10.9-21.6
zinc 17.6-75.6
cyanide 0.75-4.2

Organic Compounds

4-methyl-2-pentanone 0.076
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.72

Source: Golder Associates, Inc.; August 1993.

Notes: + does not include estimated concentrations as reported in the Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report.

Table 10.
Summary of Chemicals Detected in On-Site Surface Water Samples
Collected from White Creek During the Remedial Investigation
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
[Refer to Table 27 for Public Health Assessment Comparison Values]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected


Inorganic Chemicals

beryllium 2
cadmium 1
chromium 5-15
copper 4-8
iron 440-28,700
nickel 135-326
selenium 112-187
silver 5-88
zinc 5-279
cyanide 39-127

Organic Compounds

*benzene 8.7-270
chlorobenzene 51
*chloroform 1.7-95
1,1-dichloroethane 7.8-150
*1,2-dichloroethane 12-2,700
*1,1-dichloroethene 6.9
*trans-1,2-dichloroethene 3.8-540
ethylbenzene 28-370
*methylene chloride 18-24,000
*vinyl chloride 11-80
*1,1,2-trichloroethane 7.1
1,1,1-trichloroethane 16-51
*tetrachloroethene 9.7-290
toluene 50-4,300
*trichloroethene 44-290
phenol 140-1,300
2-nitrophenol 11-120
2,4-dimethylphenol 24-320
1,2-dichlorobenzene 17-3
*bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 21-40
*bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 21-110
*n-nitrosodiphenyl amine 23-95
*isophorone 22

Source: Adapted from URS Company, Inc.; January 1984.
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.

Table 11.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in Surface Water Samples
Collected During the Environmental Assessment
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
[Refer to Table 27 for Public Health Assessment Comparison Values]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Reported
On-Site Off-Site


Organic Compounds

*methylene chloride 11 8.2
acetone
13

Inorganic Chemicals

aluminum 380 210-610
*arsenic
2-60
barium 230-260 130-210
cadmium 5
calcium 44,300-71,000 7,200-74,000
chromium 9 5
cyanide 13-20 10-200
iron 1,100-1,520 173-6,700
lead 21-45 38-42
magnesium 5,000-18,000 8,720-16,600
manganese 230-1,600 45-1,000
mercury 0.49 0.25-0.51
nickel 45-59 53
potassium 5,400-21,000 850-16,700
selenium 60 60
silver 27 13-46
sodium 36,000-170,000 11,000-180,000
*thallium 36-566 12-33
tin 19 22-30
zinc 10-789 5-939

Source: URS Company, Inc.; January 1988.

Notes: Blank space indicates "not detected".
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation

Table 12.

Summary of Inorganic Chemicals Detected in Surface Water Samples
Collected During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations Detected+
On-Site (SW-3) Off-Site

aluminum - 212-333
calcium 40,400J 39,600J-69,300J
iron 412 312-725
magnesium 9,110J 8,980J-12,400J
manganese 197J 115J-230J
sodium 66,100J 60,000J-108,000J
lead - 7.8
potassium - 4,390
zinc - 25

Source: Golder Associates, Inc.; August 1993.

Notes: + does not include data reported as estimated concentrations below the detection limit as reported in the Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report
J indicates estimated concentrations above detection limit

Table 13.

Summary of Contaminants Detected in On-Site Sediment Samples
Collected from White Creek During the Remedial Investigation.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected


Metals

beryllium 3.38-5.67
cadmium 1.07-21.8
chromium 10.9-137
copper 12.4-37.7
lead 42-277
mercury 0.014-0.116
nickel 9.48-49.3
zinc 45.3-242

Organic Compounds

benzene 4.5-23
chlorobenzene 2.6-6.5
chloroethane 6.7
1,1-dichloroethane 5.8-43
1,2-dichloroethane 47-120
trans-1,2-dichloroethene 74
ethylbenzene 3.5-77
methylene chloride 27-470
tetrachloroethene 5.7
toluene 130
trichloroethene 7.3
phenol 1.2
2,4-dimethylphenol 29
2,4-dichlorophenol 0.41
anthracene 1.2
benzo(a)fluoranthene 0.50
benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.70
pyrene 1.4
fluorene 1.0
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.39-0.46
n-nitrosodiphenyl amine 2.4
isophorone 0.53

Source: Adapted from URS Company, Inc.; January 1984.

Table 14.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in Sediment Samples
Collected During the Environmental Assessment.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per kilogram (mcg/kg)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected
On-Site Off-Site


Organic Compounds

acetone 35
methylene chloride 36
2-butanone
14-46
toluene
79-81
fluoranthene 410 580-2,400
phenanthrene
460-4,100
anthracene
540-1,100
benzo(a)anthracene
750-1,800
chrysene
730-1,400
benzo(a)pyrene
390-1,400
benzo(b)fluoranthene
460-2,200
naphthalene
440
2-methylnaphthalene
390
dibenzofuran
460
benzo(k)fluoranthene
430-2,200
polychlorinated biphenyl
(Aroclor 1248)

1,700
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 860 790
pyrene 360 420-1,900
fluorene
350-950
anthracene
540-1,100
4-methylphenol
2,000-4,000
acenaphthene
80
phenols (total) 8 0.26-12

Inorganic Chemicals

aluminum 11,200-15,000 2,910-19,000
antimony
320
arsenic 1.4-4 0.62-320
barium 150 10-250
beryllium 8.3 2.5-19.2
cadmium 1 2.2-28
calcium 9.5-3,400 1,410-23,200
cobalt 14 9.5-14
chromium 12-30 6.2-189
copper 13-24 8.4-140
iron 3,900-13,100 700-17,100
lead 7.2-45 9.1-320
cyanide
0.25
magnesium 2,390-4,500 1,690-5,610
manganese 310-730 120-4,000
mercury 0.088-2.24 0.06-1.4
nickel 12-97.9 5.6-526
potassium 634-1,500 261-2,300
sodium 221-350 82-770
selenium
0.28-320
thallium
47-320
vanadium 39 34-71
zinc 48-144 13-180

Source: URS Company, Inc.; January 1985.

Notes: Blank space indicates "not detected".

Table 15.

Summary of Inorganic Chemicals Detected in Sediment Samples
Collected as Part of the Long Term Monitoring Plan.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]


Chemical NameRange of Concentrations Detected+
On-Site Off-Site

aluminum 6,110-6,430 4,750-11,000
arsenic 1.6-2.5 1.3-6.8
barium 48-60 51.7-2,470
cadmium 0.61
calcium 5,450-7,110 1,770-14,700
chromium 6.7-10.7 4.7-17.8
cobalt 4.9-4.98 3.9-6.1
copper 24-33.9 10.7-54.2
iron 9,890-10,100 89-18,700
lead 16.3-66 11-74.1
magnesium 2,580-2,900 2,010-4,410
manganese 392-445 222-947
mercury 0.21 0.15-0.27
nickel 12-16 10.4-28.8
potassium 724-733 622-697
sodium 144 301-511
vanadium 12-13.6 11.1-24.4
zinc 13.9-36 36.9-207
hexavalent chromium 0.27 0.26-0.74

Source: Golder Associates, Inc.; August 1993.

Notes: + does not include estimated concentrations below the detection limit or other laboratory qualified data as reported in the Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report.
Blank space indicates "not detected".

Table 16.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in Groundwater
Samples from On-Site Monitoring Wells During the
Remedial Investigation (1983).
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected

arsenic 17-100
cadmium 4.9-7.8
chromium 8-330
copper 7-30
lead 7-98
nickel 26-11,200
zinc 14-120
cyanide 26-7,300
benzene 6-5,500
chlorobenzene 480
1,2-dichloroethane 160-3,500
1,1,1-trichloroethane 250-560
chloroform 290
trans-1,2-dichloroethene 250-5,300
ethylbenzene 730-5,000
methylene chloride 3,200-120,000
toluene 8-16,000
trichloroethene 180-15,000
xylenes 2,500-36,000
2,4-dimethylphenol 20-1,200
2-nitrophenol 550
phenol 510-8,300
1,2-dichlorobenzene 46-160
1,4-dichlorobenzene 22
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 12
isophorone 14
naphthalene 15

Source: Adapted from URS Company, Inc.; January 1984.

Table 17.

Summary of Organic Chemicals Detected in Groundwater Samples
Collected as Part of the Long Term Monitoring Plan.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations Detected+
On-Site Off-Site

acetone 18 22
benzene 8-680 5-43
chloroethane 10-180
chlorobenzene 5-18
1,1-dichloroethane 6-56
1,2-dichloroethene (total) 8-28
ethylbenzene 8-640
1,1,1-trichloroethane 81-180
trichloroethene 9
vinyl chloride 23-33
toluene 95-160
xylenes (total) 5-1,900
4-methylphenol 33
di-n-butylphthalate 89 0.9-76
butylbenzylphthalate 39 16-46
2,4-dimethylphenol 18-23

Source: Golder Associates, Inc.; August 1993.

Notes: + does not include estimated concentrations reported below the quantitation limit.
Blank space indicates "not detected".

Table 18.

Summary of Inorganic Chemicals Detected in Groundwater Samples
Collected During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations Detected+
On-Site Off-Site
MW-22 MW-21 MW-23

arsenic
19.1J
barium 454-962 964-1,640 456
calcium 118,000-191,000 138,000-198,000 121,000
copper - - -
iron 215-1,000 732-6,190 605
magnesium 34,500-69,400 43,400-60,100 33,500
manganese 110-4,370 3,800J-4,300 4,160
potassium 8,150J-8,380 12,600J 5,190
sodium 94,300-102,000 117,000-155,000 113,000
nickel - 90.3-173 -

Source: Golder Associates, Inc.; August 1993.

Notes: + does not include estimated concentrations below the detection limit as reported in the Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report. Concentrations reported are for dissolved phase only.
- indicates "not detected".
J indicates estimated concentration

Table 19.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in Groundwater Samples Collected
from Off-Site Monitoring Wells During the Remedial Investigation.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected

arsenic 12-24
cadmium 1.4-8.5
chromium 8-35
copper 8-99
lead 6-280
nickel 6-41
selenium 61
zinc 6-240
cyanide 13-94
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 12-60

Source: Adapted from URS Company, Inc.; January 1984.

Table 20.

Summary of Organic Chemicals Detected in Groundwater Samples
Collected from Off-Site Monitoring Well MW-21
During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected+

chloroethane 22-38
benzene 36-100
chlorobenzene 12-34
ethylbenzene 59-180
xylene (total) 240-670
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 12

Source: Golder Associates, Inc.; August 1993.

Notes: + does not include estimated concentrations below the detection limit as reported in the Final Supplemental Remedial Investigation Report

Table 21.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in Off-Site Surface Water Samples Collected
from White and Wine Creeks During the Remedial Investigation.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
[Refer to Table 27 for Public Health Assessment Comparison Values]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected


Metals

chromium 3-7
copper 4-13
iron 260-1,100
lead 78-185
silver 5
selenium 170-243
zinc 4-221

Organic Compounds

*1,2-dichloroethane 7.0-7.8

Source: Adapted from URS Company, Inc.; January 1984.

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.

Table 22.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in Off-Site Sediment Samples Collected from
White and Wine Creeks During the Remedial Investigation.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations Detected


Metals

beryllium 2.61-4.59
cadmium 0.96-16.4
chromium 7.20-17.0
copper 1.69-21.1
lead 25
mercury 0.032-.067
nickel 7.56-10.7
zinc 36.4-258

Organic Compounds

benzene 7.8-13
methylene chloride 39-1,200
fluoranthene 0.40
pyrene 0.34
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.23-0.90

Source: Adapted from URS Company, Inc.; January 1984.

Table 23.

Summary of Organic Chemicals Detected in Off-Site Sediment Samples
Collected As Part of the Long Term Monitoring Plan.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per kilogram (mcg/kg)]


Chemical Name Range of Reported
Concentrations+

fluoranthene 730-2,000
pyrene 650-2,500
benzo(a)anthracene 1,400
chrysene 1,100
benzo(b)fluoranthene 1,900
benzo(k)fluoranthene 730
benzo(a)pyrene 1,200
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
    Aroclor 1248 1,400D
    Aroclor 1254 570
heptachlor epoxide 35
4,4'-DDE1 19
dieldrin 40

Source: Golder Associates, Inc., August 1993.

Notes: + does not include data reported as estimated concentrations or qualified as being found in the associated laboratory method blank.
D indicates concentration calculated from secondary dilution
1DDE = 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene

Table 24.

Summary of Inorganic Chemicals Detected in Off-Site Sediment Samples
Collected During the Supplemental Remedial Investigation.
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in micrograms per kilogram (mcg/kg)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations
Detected+

aluminum 2,600-6,010
arsenic 5.0
barium 60.6-157
calcium 1,270-4,550
chromium 3.7-10.5
copper 8.0-27.2
iron 8,050-14,700
lead 3.1-41.5
magnesium 1,940-3,040
manganese 175-1,270
zinc 28.5-134

Source: Golder Associates, Inc.; August 1993.

Notes: + does not include data qualified as "estimated".

Table 25.

Summary of Chemicals Detected in Whole Fish Collected
from Off-Site Areas During the Environmental Assessment (1984-1986).
Pollution Abatement Services Site
Oswego, Oswego County, New York
[All units in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]


Chemical Name Range of Concentrations

arsenic 0.086-0.51
cadmium 0.04-0.086
lead 0.06-0.52
mercury 0.1-0.23
nickel 0.13-0.84
selenium 0.33-1.16
calcium 7,699-9,940
phosphorus 5,109-6,070
magnesium 329-380
sodium 887-1,260
aluminum 6.94-84
iron 24.8-130
strontium 5.66-8.28
chromium 0.32-27.9
copper 1.37-5.43
manganese 3.7-18.4
zinc 19.2-820.8
DDT1 0.006
DDD2 0.006-0.037
DDE3 0.025-0.221
heptachlor epoxide 0.018
endrin 0.005-0.006
dieldrin 0.007-7.075
beta-BHC4 0.007-0.019
phenols 0.42-10.3
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
    Aroclor 1254 0.04-2.2
    Aroclor 1260 0.12-0.4

Source: URS Company, Inc.; January 1988.

Notes: 1dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
2dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
3dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
4beta-hexachlorocyclohexane

Table 26.

Summary of 1992 Chemical Air Emissions and Releases for Toxic
Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Facilities Near the Pollution Abatement Services (PAS) Site,
City of Oswego, Oswego County, New York.


Facility Name Approx. Distance From Site (miles) Chemical Name        1992 Chemical Emissions (lbs/yr)        
Stack/Point Source Fugitive/
Non-Point
Total (#)
Maximum

Alcan Rolled Products Co. 2.0 chlorine 13,700 11-499 14,199
copper 11-499 1-10 509
hydrochloric acid 120,500 1,200 121,700
chromium 11-499 1-10 509
manganese 11-499 11-499 998
aluminum (total) 8,500 1,300 9,800

Adapted from: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI), Calendar Year 1992.

Note: All emissions data reported in pounds/year (lbs/yr).
      # Indicates estimated worst case emissions based on reported data.

Table 27.

Pollution Abatement Services Site
Public Health Assessment Comparison Values that are Exceeded
by Contaminants Found in Surface Water.
[All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]


Contaminant          Comparison Values*         
Cancer Basis** Noncancer Basis**


Organics

benzene 2.3 EPA CPF 25 NYS RfG
chloroform 11 EPA CPF 363 EPA RfD
1,2-dichloroethane 0.75 EPA CPF 269 NYS RfG
1,1-dichloroethene 0.11 EPA CPF 326 EPA RfD
trans-1,2-dichloroethene -- -- 725 EPA RfD
methylene chloride 5.6 EPA CPF 2,176 EPA RfD
vinyl chloride 0.03 EPA HEAST 0.75 ATSDR MRL
1,1,2-trichloroethane 1.2 EPA CPF 145 EPA RfD
tetrachloroethene 1.3 EPA CPF 363 EPA RfD
bis(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate 4.9 EPA CPF 725 EPA RfD
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether 0.06 EPA HEAST -- --
n-nitrosodiphenylamine 14 EPA CPF -- --
isophorone 7.1 EPA CPF 7,253 EPA RfD
trichloroethene 6 EPA CPF 268 NYS RfG

Inorganics

arsenic 11 EPA CPF 1,765 EPA RfD
thallium -- -- 412 EPA RfD

*Comparison values for noncancer risk from organic chemicals are 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. Noncancer comparison values for metals are determined for a 21 kilogram child who swallows 0.05 liters of surface water per day, 2 days a week for 3 months per year. Cancer comparison values for organic chemicals are 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 and who swallows 0.05 liters of surface water per day, 2 days a week for 3 months per year. Cancer comparison values for metals are determined for a 70 kilogram adult who swallows 0.05 liters of surface water per day, 2 days a week for 3 months per year.

**EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
EPA HEAST = US EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
NYS RfG = NYS Department of Health Risk Reference Guideline

Table 28.

Pollution Abatement Services Site
Public Health Assessment Comparison Values that are Exceeded
by Contaminants Found in Waste Lagoons.
[All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]


Contaminant       Comparison Values*      
Cancer Basis** Noncancer Basis**


Organics

benzene 8.5 EPA CPF 170 NYS RfG
carbon tetrachloride 2.5 NYS CPF 170 EPA RfD
1,1-dichloroethene 0.40 EPA CPF 2,000 EPA RfD
dimethylaniline 0.33 EPA HEAST 480 EPA RfD
methylene chloride 21 EPA CPF 15,000 EPA RfD
tetrachloroethene 4.7 EPA CPF 2,400 EPA RfD
trichloroethene 23 EPA CPF 1,800 NYS RfG

Inorganics

chromium -- -- 49,000 EPA RfD

*Cancer and noncancer comparison values for organic chemicals 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 6 months per year and who swallows 0.05 liters of leachate per day, 2 days a week for 6 months per year. Cancer comparison values for metals are determined for a 70 kilogram adult who swallows 0.05 liters of leachate per day, 2 days a week for 6 months per year.

**EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
   EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
   EPA HEAST = US EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
   NYS CPF = NYS Department of Health Cancer Potency Factor
   NYS RfG = NYS Department of Health Risk Reference Guideline

APPENDIX C

New York State Department of Health,
Health Advisory: Chemicals in Sportfish and Game, 1997-1998

The following section 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:


Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Health Assessment and Consultation
Attn: Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch,
MS E-56
1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30333


APPENDIX D

New York State Department of Health Procedures for
Evaluating Potential Health Risks for Contaminants of Concern

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS
FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

To evaluate the potential health risks from contaminants of concern associated with the Pollution Abatement Services (PAS) 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 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 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. A ratio equal to or less than one is generally considered an insignificant (minimal) increase in risk.

APPENDIX E

ATSDR Guidance for Assigning a Public Health Hazard Category

The enclosed pages have been copied from the March 1992 Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1992) and summarize the criteria that are evaluated when assigning a public health hazard category to a site.

APPENDIX F

Summary of Public Comments and Responses

This responsiveness summary was prepared to address comments and questions on the draft Public Health Assessment (PHA) for the Pollution Abatement Services (PAS) site. The public was invited to review this document during the public comment period which ran from October 19, 1995 to December 1, 1995. Public review comments were received by only one party. Similar comments were consolidated or grouped together. Some statements were reworded to clarify the comment. If you have any questions about this responsiveness summary, contact the New York State Department of Health's (NYS DOH) Health Liaison Program at the toll-free number 1-800-458-1158, extension 402.

Comment #1

Any references and discussion of the NYS DOH cancer investigation at the Eastside Wastewater Treatment Plant (EWTP) should be deleted. This cancer investigation is not related to the PAS Oswego site and it should not be discussed in the PHA. Any reference to the EWTP as being near the PAS site should be deleted because the EWTP has nothing to do with the PAS site.

Response #1

As stated in the NYS DOH report "Incidence of Cancer Among Workers in the Eastside Sewage Treatment Plant," the major concern of the person who requested the study was the possibility of a cancer excess among Eastside Plant workers that might be due either to the processing of industrial wastes or to the location of the plant near the Pollution Abatement site. The Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual (ATSDR, March 1992), states that "the health assessment is an evaluation of relevant environmental data, health outcome data and community concerns associated with a site where hazardous substances have been released." Health outcome data are community specific and may include medical records, morbidity and mortality data, tumor and disease registries, birth statistics and surveillance data. The NYS DOH considers the cancer incidence study among workers in the Eastside Treatment Plant as relevant health outcome data related to past community concerns about the PAS site. The text has been revised to clarify that the cancer incidence study was completed in response to community concerns. These changes have been made in the Summary, Background (subsection B - "Actions Completed During the Public Health Assessment Process" and subsection E - "Health Outcome Data") and the Conclusions sections.

Comment #2

Clarify the time period that the site may have posed a public health hazard in the past. Does the statement "Past remedial actions have eliminated the potential for exposure to contaminants on-site" refer to the time period before 1986, when the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) completed construction of the on-site containment system?

Response #2

The text has been revised to clarify the time period that the site posed a public health hazard in the past. The statement, "Past remedial actions have eliminated the potential for exposure to contaminants on-site," is a general conclusion of the PHA. This statement refers collectively to the remedial actions that were completed at the site between 1977 and 1995 to minimize, reduce or eliminate exposure to site contaminants. The Site Description and History section of the PHA includes discussions of the various remedial actions that were completed at the site.

Comment #3

The conclusion that on-site workers were most likely exposed to on-site wastes at levels of public health concern is unsubstantiated and should be deleted. The conclusion that on-site workers, residents and people working near the site were most likely exposed to contaminants in air should be deleted as there is insufficient information to characterize these past exposures. The use of "likely" or "most likely" should be avoided in the discussions of completed exposure pathways for wastes and leachate, surface soil and air without appropriate documentation to support such statements.

Response #3

As discussed in the Environmental Contamination and Other Hazards section of the PHA, (subsection A - On-Site Contamination), contaminants were detected in samples collected from the on-site waste lagoons in 1977 as well as in liquid waste and sludge samples collected between December 1985 and August 1986 from the on-site underground storage tanks. The Background section of the PHA discusses that (subsection A - Site Description and History), PAS operated a chemical waste incinerator at the site from 1970 to 1977 and liquid wastes were collected and stored on-site in drums, open lagoons and above ground storage tanks. NYS DOH representatives who visited the site in 1979 (subsection C - Site History) found drums that were punctured, leaking and unsealed at the PAS site; chemical odors were noted and leachate was visible. Consistent with ATSDR guidelines and the Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual, NYS DOH has evaluated available historical information about past site operations, site conditions and contaminant concentrations from sampling data to characterize an exposure pathway that probably existed in the past.

Comment #4

The draft PHA states that "If remedial measures are not taken to address groundwater contamination, people who install and use private wells downgradient of the site could be exposed to contaminants at levels of public health concern." The draft PHA does not properly characterize potential groundwater remediation issues at the site associated with the US EPA's 1993 Record of Decision (ROD). Based on studies required by and performed subsequent to the 1993 ROD, US EPA and the NYS DEC determined that remediation of groundwater downgradient of the site was not required. Furthermore, the 1993 ROD requires that institutional controls be placed on properties downgradient of the site. The potential for installation of any new private wells downgradient of the site would be eliminated by these controls. The reference to additional remedial measures being required to prevent off-site contamination of groundwater is misleading and suggests that additional remedial actions need to be taken when US EPA and NYS DEC have determined that additional actions are not required.

Response #4

The text has been revised (Background section).

Comment #5

The draft PHA indicates that people could be exposed to contaminants in surface water and sediment during recreational use of White and Wine Creeks and Lake Ontario. Currently, Roux and Associates is performing an investigation under US EPA guidance to identify all potential sources of surface water and sediment contamination identified in White and Wine Creeks near the PAS site. Any discussion of sediment contamination or possible exposure to contaminants in sediment and surface water in the creeks should be qualified to include data collected at other nearby sites.

Response #5

The text clearly states that contaminants in surface water and sediments may be from sources upgradient of the site. The text has been revised to clarify that a supplemental pre-remedial design study was completed to evaluate contaminants in surface water and sediments in nearby creeks and wetlands. The NYS DOH reviewed the findings of this study which are included in this revised PHA.

Comment #6

Any conclusion or implication that people could be exposed to contaminants in Lake Ontario from the site should be deleted as there is no supporting documentation. This statement is also inconsistent with the conclusion that: "Currently, the site poses no apparent public health hazard."

Response #6

The text has been revised.

Comment #7

The cause of the reduced fish populations is discussed in the draft PHA (page 9, paragraph 4) as part of the findings of the 1984 RI. Without supporting data, it is uncertain that the reduced fish population was site-related, especially considering the other potential source areas near the PAS site. We are not aware of any subsequent fish population studies in the area and, this discussion should be clarified to indicate that the source associated with any reductions in fish populations identified in the 1984 RI is unknown. The discussion should also reflect whether an appropriate reference site was used in the study.

Response #7

The text has been revised. A discussion of the findings and uncertainties of these findings is included in the Environmental Contamination and Other Hazards section of the PHA (subsection B - Off-Site Contamination) under the heading "Biota".

Comment #8

The second sentence of paragraph two on page 12 should be revised as follows: "Prior to May 1991, during the period in which NYS DEC operated the containment system, periodic overflows of the slurry wall occurred near slurry wall wells (SWW) 11 and 12."

Response #8

The text prior to this statement has been revised to clarify that NYS DEC operated and maintained the leachate collection system between 1986 and October 1991.

Comment #9

The discussion (in paragraph 4 on page 12) of the Phase I supplemental pre-remedial design study that was completed in January 1995 should include a clarification of the objectives of the Phase I study to be consistent with the 1993 ROD. The PHA should reference the decision by the US EPA and the NYS DEC that pumping of the bedrock aquifer downgradient from the site was not required, based on their review of the Phase I study results.

Response #9

The text has been revised (Background section) in accordance with similar concerns expressed in Comment #4.

Comment #10

Paragraph 5 on page 18 should be qualified to include a discussion which indicates that the option of using the EWTP for treatment of leachate from the PAS site has since been eliminated from further consideration and that no wastes of any kind from the PAS site have ever been sent to the EWTP for treatment.

Response #10

The text has been revised to eliminate the discussion of non-health related concerns since they were addressed in a responsiveness summary to the Record of Decision.

Comment #11

The discussion about the results of the groundwater investigation performed during the supplemental pre-remedial design study (SPRDS) in paragraph 2 on page 23, does not properly characterize the scope of that investigation (i.e., the number of bedrock wells sampled, etc.). This investigation was the basis for the US EPA and NYS DEC decision that remediation of groundwater downgradient of the site is not necessary.

Response #11

A discussion of the scope of the supplemental pre-remedial design study is included in the Background section of the PHA (subsection A - Site Description and History). The discussion of off-site groundwater contamination (subsection B - Off-Site Contamination) has been revised to reflect that off-site monitoring wells (MW) OD4, MW21, MW23, MW24, MW25 and MW26 were also sampled. The on-site monitoring wells that were sampled are identified in subsection A - On-Site Contamination, under the heading "Groundwater".

Comment #12

The discussion of iron and manganese concentrations detected in private well samples in the Smith's Beach area (Environmental Contamination and Other Hazards section, subsection B, Off-Site Contamination) should be clarified to describe that these constituents are naturally occurring and not related to the PAS site. The initial detection of acetone in a well sample, which was not duplicated in the follow-up sampling, should be qualified as a lab artifact.

Response #12

The text has been revised to reflect that iron and manganese occur naturally in groundwater. The presence of iron and manganese at elevated levels in this well is attributed to local geologic conditions. The NYS DOH Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research did not report the occurrence of acetone in this water sample as a laboratory artifact nor was it reported as laboratory-introduced contamination. The text has been revised to reflect that acetone was initially reported at 11.0 micrograms per liter (mcg/L), which is slightly above the analytical detection limit of 10.0 mcg/L and that this result may have been a laboratory artifact.

Comment #13

The discussion of potential exposure to contaminants in air is misleading and implies that site workers may not follow the health and safety requirements contained in the approved US EPA workplan for conducting site remedial operations. We are not aware of any information that suggests that workers may still be exposed to site contaminants as stated in the PHA. The PHA should qualify such statements and reference the basis of these inferences.

Response #13

The text has been revised to clarify that the site has been remediated and that exposure to contaminants in air at the site is limited. The text also discusses that use of appropriate work practices and personal protective equipment in accordance with the site-specific health and safety plan will minimize possible exposure to VOCs in air by on-site workers.

Comment #14

The discussion of "Data Gaps" in paragraphs 1 and 2 on page 33 indicates that insufficient information exists to evaluate possible exposures to contaminants in soil gas or surface soils at the site that may have occurred in the past. This discussion contradicts statements elsewhere in the PHA referring to past exposures that "likely" or "most likely" occurred at the site.

Response #14

There is no information about contaminants in soil gas at or near the site, before it was capped. The PHA does not characterize past exposure(s) to soil gas as a completed, potential or eliminated pathway. As discussed in the Pathways Analysis section (Completed Exposure Pathways subsection), past exposures to surface soils by people working at or visiting the site are believed to have occurred based on observations of site conditions by NYS DOH personnel during past site visits. The text has been revised to clarify the basis for this comment.

Comment #15

In paragraph 3 on page 33, it is stated that "...exposures to contaminants in air at and near the site are believed to have occurred." Without proper technical justification, such statements should be deleted.

Response #15

The text has been revised throughout the document to clarify the basis for this statement. Also refer to the response to Comment #3.

Comment #16

The elevated manganese concentrations detected in private wells is not related to the PAS site and is very likely due to naturally occurring constituents in groundwater. There is no basis to discuss exposure to manganese in the draft PHA for this site and this discussion should be deleted.

Response #16

The text has been revised to reflect that iron and manganese occur naturally in groundwater and that the concentrations detected in private wells may reflect local geologic conditions. The discussion on manganese exposures has been eliminated.

Comment #17

The NYS DOH procedure for evaluating potential health risks for contaminants of concern is extremely conservative and should be deleted. According to the NYS DOH risk ranking procedure in Appendix D, a high risk is equivalent to one in a thousand to one in ten risk. This risk range is substantially higher than the total groundwater cancer risk estimate for the residential reasonable maximum exposure (RME) of 2.1 x 10-4 calculated in the baseline risk assessment by US EPA. This discrepancy is due to the use of the maximum concentrations of benzene and vinyl chloride by the NYS DOH instead of the upper confidence limit (UCL) used in the baseline risk assessment.

Response #17

This discussion has been eliminated.

Comment #18

The draft PHA should serve as a tool for risk communication. NYS DOH has not included any description of uncertainties with the results of the draft PHA, therefore the reliability of these findings are unknown.

Response #18

The Conclusions section of the PHA has been revised to reflect information about data gaps and insufficient information related to the PHA. We also recognize the limitations of risk assessment methodology and the text and Table 28 have been revised to reflect assumptions about past exposures to contaminants in leachate and on-site waste lagoons. Appendix D of the PHA (NYS DOH Procedures for Evaluating Potential Health Risks for Contaminants of Concern) includes a discussion of the uncertainties related to estimates of cancer risk and non-carcinogenic health effects.

Comment #19

The discussion of public health concerns regarding potential ingestion, dermal and inhalation exposure to inorganic contaminants in drinking water (Public Health Implications section, subsection A, Toxicological Evaluation) should consider that compounds such as manganese, iron, magnesium and sodium in area soils, groundwater and surface waters are naturally occurring.

Response #19

This discussion has been eliminated from the text.

Comment #20

The discussion of past potential ingestion, dermal and inhalation exposures of workers and trespassers at the PAS site to leachate and waste lagoons should be revised to reflect more realistic assumptions that can be technically supported and documented. The discussion of chronic exposures in the past to the highest contaminant concentrations detected in on-site waste lagoons and leachate seeps does not properly characterize past exposures, if any.

Response #20

Our response to Comment #3 includes a discussion for the basis of characterizing these past exposures. Our response to Comment #18 includes a discussion of the NYS DOH procedures for evaluating potential health risks. Please refer to those responses. Also, Table 28 which provides health comparison values for workers exposed to wastes in the lagoons has been revised to reflect more realistic exposure scenarios.

Comment #21

The statement, "Currently the site poses no apparent public health hazard", should be presented as the first and foremost conclusion of the draft PHA.

Response #21

The text has been revised.

Comment #22

The recommendation in paragraph 3 on page 39 should also reference the decision by US EPA and NYS DEC that remediation of groundwater in the bedrock aquifer downgradient of the site is not necessary. This decision is based on the results of the Phase I supplemental pre-remedial design investigation completed in 1995.

Response #22

This information is included in the Background and Conclusions sections of the PHA. The purpose of the recommendations section of the PHA is for:

  1. implementing actions to protect public health;
  2. obtaining additional health information;
  3. conducting public health actions; and
  4. obtaining additional site characterization information.


Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #