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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

HERTEL LANDFILL
PLATTEKILL, ULSTER COUNTY, NEW YORK

APPENDIX A


Figure 1. Site Location Map


Figure 2. Hertel Landfill Site Map


Figure 3. Hertel Landfill Regional Location


Figure 4. Surface Soil Sampling Locations


Figure 5. Test Pit Excavation Locations


Figure 6. Surface Water/Sediment Sampling Locations


Figure 7. Areal Extent of Landfill



APPENDIX B

Table 1.

Hertel Landfill Remedial Investigation
Gas Chromatograph Soil Gas Results.


Sample
ID #
Concentrations (ppb)
Benzene* Toluene* Trichloro-
ethene*
Tetrachloro-
ethene*

  1 51 ND<2 ND<2 ND<2
 

2

ND<4 70 ND<4 ND<4
 

3

ND<4 ND<4 13 ND<4
 

4

15 >178** 41 >142
 

5

ND<4 184 7065
 

6

ND<4 32 4ND
  7 ND<4 ND<4 ND<4 ND<4
 

8

ND<20 1448 1634243
 

9

ND<4 7322 ND<4178
  10 98 115 21841
 

11

ND<2000 36782 7843132389
  12 ND<4000 13071 ND<4000 ND<4000
 

13

ND<40 69 305405
 

14

159 690 251121
 

15

61 35 131121

* = contaminant of concern in ambient air
** = masked in off-scale peak

ND = not detected at instrument's detection limit

< = less than

> = greater than


Table 2.

Hertel Landfill Site Soil Sampling Data and Comparison Values.
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)


Compound

Surface
Soil
Range

Subsurface
Soil
Range
Typical
Background
Range**
Comparison Values
Minimal
Health
Risk
Source****

Semi-volatiles

         
Anthracene 0.048-0.13 0.088-0.15 *** 7,470 NYS RfG
Benzo(a)anthracene 0.082-1.2 0.30-0.42 *** NA  

Benzo(a)pyrene

0.094-1.1 0.24 *** 0.03 NYS CREG

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

0.086-1.71 0.26-0.71 *** NA  

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

0.098 0.27-0.36 *** NA  

Benzo(ghi)perylene

0.14-0.72   *** NA  

*Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate

0.037-2.4 0.087-4.5 ND 2.3 NYS CREG

Butylbenzylphthalate

  0.092-0.24 ND 3,220 NYS RfG

Chrysene

0.078-1.7 0.27-0.43 *** NA  

Di-n-butylphthalate

0.08-0.09   ND 4,100 NYS RfG

Diethylphthalate

0.043 0.11 ND 677 NYS RfG

Di-n-octylphthalate

  0.16 ND 489 NYS RfG

Fluoranthene

0.063-2.4 0.045-1.2 *** 746 NYS RfG

Fluorene

0.046 0.048-0.42 *** 328 NYS RfG

Indo(123cd)pyrene

0.058-0.65   *** NA  

*Naphthalene

ND(0.37)-3.1 0.068-0.65 ND 1.4 NYS RfG

Phenanthrene

0.077-1.9 0.17-1.1 *** NA  

Pyrene

0.058-2.8 0.073-1.1 *** 67 NYS RfG

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

  0.10 ND 0.4 NYS CREG

4-Methylphenol

  0.34 ND NA  
           

Volatiles

         
Benzene   0.001-0.002 ND 0.05 NYS CREG

Carbon Disulfide

  0.003 ND 5,000 EPA RfD

Chlorobenzene

  0.001-0.010 ND 0.3 NYS CREG

Ethylbenzene

  0.007-0.041 ND 200 NYS RfG

Toluene

  0.002-0.022 ND 230 NYS RfG

Xylenes

  0.013-0.30 ND 4,620 NYS RfG
           

Pesticides

         
4,4'-DDE 0.150-0.50   0.01-7 0.01 NYS CREG

4,4'-DDT

0.093-0.62   0.01-6 0.07 NYS CREG
           

Metals

         
Aluminum 5,210-33,500 9,360-16,200 7,000-100,000 NA  

*Antimony

  13.0-21.0 0.6-10 20 EPA RfD

*Arsenic

9.1-109 2.0-12.5 10-20 50 ATSDR EMEG

*Barium

43.5-4,490 32.0-409 300-500 3,500 EPA RfD

Beryllium

  0.43-0.89 <1-7 200 ATSDR EMEG

*Cadmium

1.2-113 0.55-1.8 <0.5-1 10 NYS EMEG

Calcium

1,410-29,500 986-2450 100-400,000 NA  

*Chromium

7.7-2,880 12.2-21.9 10-40 200 ATSDR EMEG

Cobalt

5.4-34.7 8.9-13.9 <0.3-70 NA  

*Copper

32.2-319 20.3-50.1 <1-25 6,500 EPA RfD

*Iron

538-278,000 17,400-28,300 10,000-40,000 NA  

*Lead

29.3-1,170 8.5-100 10-300 NA  

*Magnesium

499-14,200 3,900-6,010 50-6,000 NA  

*Manganese

230-6,040 201-1,720 500-3,000 5,000 EPA RfD

Mercury

0.3-1.60   0.01-3.4 15 EPA RfD

*Nickel

8.4-347 14.3-25 <5-20 1,000 ATSDR EMEG

Potassium

14.9-2,320 738-1,550 50-30,000 NA  

Sodium

244-1,460 70.5-237 3,000-50,000 NA  

Vanadium

16.9-51.1 12.1-22.3 3-500 350 EPA RfD

*Zinc

62.6-615 48.6-286 50-100 10,000 EPA RfD


Table 2.

Hertel Landfill Site Soil Sampling Data and Comparison Values (page 2).
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)


Compound

Surface
Soil
Range

Subsurface
Soil
Range
Typical
Background
Range**
Comparison Values
Minimal
Health
Risk
Source****

Inorganics

         

Cyanide

  0.61-10.4 ND 1,000 ATSDR EMEG

NA - not available
ND - not determined

* - Contaminant of concern in soil.

**References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985a,b); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett (1983); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988); Shacklette and Boerngen (1984)

***Based on reported background levels for total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons of <1 to 13 milligrams per kilogram in soil from relatively rural areas of the eastern United States (ATSDR, 1990b; Edwards, 1983)

****NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
NYS EMEG = New York State Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
EPA RfD = EPA Risk Reference Dose


Table 3.

Hertel Landfill.
Summary of Surface Water Data (Excluding Leachate Samples).
Remedial Investigation (See Table 8 for comparison values).


Compound Name Frequency
of Detection
Range of
Detection
(mcg/L)
(excluding
non-detects)

Semi-volatile Organics

   

4-Methylphenol

1/21 7

Benzoic Acid

1/21 9

Benzyl Alcohol

1/21 10

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate

3/21 2-3
     

Volatile Organics

   

Acetone

3/21 7-110

Carbon Disulfide

1/21 2

Toluene

1/21 4
     

Inorganics

   

*Aluminum

13/21 31-4,280

Arsenic

6/21 1-12

Barium

21/21 8-509

Calcium

21/21 11,700-178,000

*Cadmium

3/21 3-37

Cobalt

1/21 7

Copper

8/21 4

*Iron

21/21 178-190,000

*Lead

9/21 2-55

Magnesium

21/21 853-17,000

*Manganese

21/21 33-11,800

Mercury

1/21 1

Nickel

2/21 6-19

Potassium

15/21 794-7,700

Selenium

2/21 3

Sodium

21/21 1,630-29,600

Vanadium

7/21 6-12

Zinc

10/21 2.2-347

NA - Not applicable
* - Contaminant of concern in surface water


Table 4.

Hertel Landfill Site Sediment Data and Comparison Values.
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)
Remedial Investigation.


Compound

Frequency
of
Detection

Range
of
Detection
Typical
Background
Range**
Comparison Values for Soil
Minimal
Health
Risk
Source****

Semi-volatiles

         

Acenaphthylene

1/34 0.160 *** NA  

Anthracene

1/34 0.180 *** 7,470 NYS RfG

Benzo(a)anthracene

1/34 1.50 *** NA  

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

2/34 0.230XJ-2.50XJ *** NA  

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

2/34 0.230XJ-1.20 *** NA  
Benzo(a)pyrene

2/34

0.570-0.870 *** 0.03 NYS CREG

Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate

1/34 2.3 ND 2.3 NYS CREG

Chrysene

2/34 0.140-1.70 *** NA  

Dibenzo(A,H)anthacene

1/34 0.960 *** NA  

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

1/34 0.120 ND 324 NYS RfG

Di-n-butylphthalate

1/34 0.058 ND 4,100 NYS RfG
Di-n-octylphthalate

1/34

2.50XJ ND 489 NYS RfG

Fluoranthene

2/34 0.190-3.10 *** 746 NYS RfG

Fluorene

1/34 0.170 *** 328 NYS RfG

Indeno(1,2,3-CD)pyrene

1/34 0.390 *** NA  

2-Methylnaphthalene

1/34 0.110 ND NA  

4-Methylphenol

1/34 0.059 ND NA  

Phenanthrene

1/34 2.50 *** NA  

Pyrene

2/34 0.190-2.90 *** 67 NYS RfG
           

Volatiles

         

2-Butanone

4/34 0.003-0.086 ND 2 NYS RfG

Carbon disulfide

7/34 0.003-0.069 ND 5,000 EPA RfD

Chlorobenzene

1/34 0.130 ND 0.3 NYS CREG

Chloroform

3/34 0.002-0.019 ND 0.2 NYS CREG

*Methylene chloride

2/34 0.32-0.78 ND 0.07 NYS CREG

Toluene

4/34 0.005-0.008 ND 230 NYS RfG

Xylenes

1/34 0.22 ND 4,620 NYS RfG
           

Pesticides

         

4,4'-DDD

2/34 0.094-0.10 0.01-5 NA  

4,4'-DDE

1/34 0.038 0.01-7 0.01 NYS CREG

4,4'-DDT

1/34 0.074 0.01-6 0.07 NYS CREG
           

Metals

         

Aluminum

33/33 1,530-32,500 7,000-100,000 NA  

Antimony

1/33 8.5 0.6-10 20 EPA RfD

Arsenic

31/33 0.66-30 10-20 50 ATSDR EMEG

*Barium

33/33 32.8-6,230 300-500 3,500 EPA RfD

Beryllium

22/33 0.29-3.5 <1-7 200 ATSDR EMEG

*Cadmium

9/33 1.6-16.5 <0.5-1 10 NYS EMEG

Calcium

33/33 1,270-23,700 100-400,000 NA  

Chromium

33/33 7.6-30.9 10-40 200 ATSDR EMEG

Cobalt

30/33 1.7-60.6 <0.3-70 NA  

*Copper

33/33 3-67.8 <1-25 6,500 EPA RfD

*Iron

33/33 1,310-137,000 10,000-40,000 NA  

Lead

19/33 6.7-93.7 10-300 NA  

Magnesium

33/33 721-5,950 50-6,000 NA  

*Manganese

33/33 64.9-68,100 500-3,000 5,000 EPA RfD

Mercury

7/33 0.18-0.85 0.01-3.4 15 EPA RfD

Nickel

29/33 6.2-29 <5-10 1,000 ATSDR EMEG

Potassium

30/33 446-2,080 50-30,000 NA  


Table 4.

Hertel Landfill Site Sediment Data and Comparison Values (page 2).
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)
Remedial Investigation.


Compound Frequency
of
Detection
Range
of
Detection
Typical
Background
Range**
Comparison Values for Soil
Minimal
Health
Risk
Source****

Metals (continued)

         
Selenium 14/33 0.40-6.1 0.1-4 100 ATSDR EMEG

Silver

15/33 0.84-12.8 0.1-5 250 EPA RfD

Sodium

32/33 7.69-889 3,000-50,000 NA  

Thallium

3/33 0.32-0.88   4 EPA RfD

Vanadium

33/33 5.9-79 .5 3-500 350 EPA RfD

Zinc

31/33 32-372 500-100 10,000 EPA RfD
           

Inorganics

         
Cyanide 2/34 1.70-3 ND 1,000 ATSDR EMEG

J - This parameter not seperable from other parameters; value given is the total value for all parameters in the sample with this qualifier.

NA - not available
ND - not determined

* - contaminant of concern in sediment

**References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985a,b); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett (1983); Dragun (1988); Frank et al. (1976); Klein (1972); McGovern (1988); Schacklette and Boerngen (1984)

***Based on reported background levels for total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons of <1 to 13 milligrams per kilogram in soil from relatively rural areas of the eastern United States (ATSDR, 1990b; Edwards, 1983).

****NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
NYS EMEG = New York State Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guide
EPA RfD = EPA Risk Reference Dose


Table 5.

Hertel Landfill.
Summary of Groundwater Data - Round 1.
Remedial Investigation (See Table 8 for Comparison Values).


Compound Name Frequency
of Detection

Range of
Detection
(mcg/L)


Semi-volatile Organics

   

1,4-Dichlorobenzene

2/26 2

2,4-Dimethylphenol

3/26 3-5

4-Methylphenol

2/26 31-44

*Benzoic Acid

3/26 14-200

*Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate

2/26 3-10

Diethylphthalate

1/26 10

*Di-n-octylphthalate

1/26 69

Naphthalene

5/26 4-39

*Phenol

3/26 18-72
     

Volatiles

   

*Benzene

2/26 5-6

*Chlorobenzene

3/26 1-24

Chloroethane

2/26 4

Chloroform

1/26 1

*Ethylbenzene

6/26 1-64

*Toluene

4/26 16-31

*Xylenes

5/26 10-140
     

Inorganics

   

*Aluminum

26/26 649-252,000

Arsenic

25/26 1-41

*Barium

26/26 34-1,980

Beryllium

11/26 1.3-15

Cadmium

5/26 3-6

Calcium

26/26 181,000-1,460,000

*Chromium

20/26 3.6-538

*Cobalt

21/26 7-220

Copper

26/26 4.7-846

*Iron

26/26 2,290-482,000

*Lead

19/26 4.7-288

Magnesium

26/26 2,270-133,000


Table 5.

Hertel Landfill.
Summary of Groundwater Data - Round 1 (page 2).
Remedial Investigation (See Table 8 for Comparison Values).


Compound Name Frequency
of Detection
Range of
Detection
(mcg/L)

Inorganics (continued)

   

*Manganese

26/26 159-212,000

Mercury

17/26 0.2-2.2

Nickel

17/26 15.4-490

Potassium

26/26 851-41,700

*Sodium

26/26 2,180-112,000

Vanadium

21/26 3.7-319

Zinc

26/26 23.4-2,880

NA - Not applicable
* - Contaminant of concern in groundwater


Table 6.

Hertel Landfill.
Summary of Groundwater Data - Round 2.
Remedial Investigation (See Table 8 for Comparison Values).


Compound Name Frequency
of Detection
Range of
Detection
(mcg/L)

Semi-volatile Organics

   

*2,4-Dimethylphenol

2/27 32-82

*4-Methylphenol

3/27 17-130

*Bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate

1/27 21

*Diethylphthalate

2/27 11-900

Naphthalene

1/27 36

Phenol

1/27 18
     

Volatile Organics

   

*Benzene

1/27 6

*Chlorobenzene

3/27 22-28

*Ethylbenzene

4/27 6-63

*Toluene

4/27 16-33

*Xylene (Total)

3/27 62-200
     

Inorganics

   

*Aluminum

7/25 4,390-88,700

Arsenic

23/25 3-44

Barium

25/25 17-943

Beryllium

10/25 1-7

Cadmium

3/25 2-9

Calcium

25/25 23,400-671,000

*Chromium

10/25 46-143

*Cobalt

24/25 4-109

*Iron

25/25 1,180-287,000

*Lead

24/25 3-313

Magnesium

25/25 3,830-123,000

*Manganese

24/25 591-121,000

Nickel

23/25 13-29

Potassium

25/25 878-40,500

*Silver

2/25 16-266

*Sodium

25/25 2,110-115,000

Vanadium

23/25 4-100

Zinc

25/25 6.8-951

* - Contaminant of concern in groundwater


Table 7.

Hertel Landfill Remedial Investigation
Summary of Compounds Detected in the Private Wells.
(See Table 8 for Comparison Values)


Field Sample ID
Date Sampled
PW-01
6/19/90
PW-2
6/19/90
PW-03
6/20/90
PW-04
6/20/90
PW-05
6/20/90
PW-06
6/20/90

Volatile Organics (mcg/L)

         

Acetone

10u 5j 10u 10u 10uj 10uj

Base Neutral/Acid
Extractables (mcg/L)

ND ND ND ND ND ND

Pesticides/PCB's
(mcg/L)

ND ND ND ND ND ND

Inorganics (mcg/L)

           

arsenic

2.0u 2.0u 2.0u 2.0u 2.0u 2.0uj

barium

6.2 16.1 5.2 5.2 10.9 17.5

calcium

39200.0 27100.0 54500.0 28900.0 56500.0 45300.0

copper

15.0 4.6 3.3 18.2 3.0u 81.2

iron

205.0 139.0 63.1 29.2 43.2 71.5

lead

2.4j 3.4j 2.4j 2.2j 2.0uj --r

magnesium

2360.0 2170.0 4400.0 1790.0 7450.0 5180.0

manganese

7.0u 41.2 7.0u 7.0u 7.0u 4.3

selenium

3.0u 3.0u 3.0u 3.0u 3.0u 3.0uj

sodium

6700.0 6560.0 12400.0 7050.0 5490.0 7670.0

zinc

--r --r --r --r --r 26.8

Field Sample ID
Date Sampled
PW-07
6/20/90
PW- 8
6/20/90
PW-09
6/20/90
PW-10
6/20/90
PW-11
6/20/90
PW-12
6/20/90

Volatile Organics (mcg/L)          

Acetone

10uj 10uj 10u 10u 10u 10u

Base Neutral/Acid
Extractables (mcg/L)

ND ND ND ND ND ND

Pesticides/PCB's
(mcg/L)

ND ND ND ND ND ND
Inorganics (mcg/L)

           

arsenic

3.2j 2.0uj 2.0uj 2.0u 2.0u 2.0uj

barium

49.0j 6.0 29.2j 34.3 14.0 9.4

calcium

41700.0 27200.0 43500.0 46500.0 64400.0 37600.0

copper

38.5 24.6 7.5 11.7 24.8 34.7

*iron

539.0* 110.0 252.0 28.6 412.0* 139.0

lead

--r --r --r 2.6j 30.7j --r

magnesium

4390.0 1950.0 5640.0 8940.0 5260.0 2740.0

manganese

242.0 1.2 156.0 7.0u 49.9 2.4

selenium

3.0uj 3.0uj 3.0uj 3.0u 3.0u 3.0u

*sodium

11900.0 19500.0j 4560.0 7180.0 30500.0* 27200.0j*

zinc

34.1 211.0 41.4j --r --r 276.0

 u = not detected to the reported detection limit
uj = not detected to an estimated detection limit
j = estimated value
r = data rejected by validation
ND = no analytes of this compound group detected

*contaminant of concern in private wells


Table 8.

New York State and Federal
Standards and Guidelines
(all values in mcg/L)


Chemical

NEW YORK STATE

U.S. EPA
Ground
Water

Surface
Water

Drinking
Water
Drinking
Water

VOCs and Semi-volatiles

       
         
acetone 50 -- 50 --

benzene

0.7 0.7 5 5

benzoic acid

50 -- 50 --

benzyl alcohol

-- -- -- --

bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate

50 4g 50 4p

carbon disulfide

-- -- -- --

chlorobenzene

5 x20 5 100

chloroethane

5 -- 5 --

chloroform

7 7 100d 100d

1,4-dichlorobenzene

4.7e 30 5 75;5ps

diethylphthalate

50 50g 50 --

2,4-dimethylphenol

1 1 50 --

di-n-octylphthalate

50 50g 50 --

ethylbenzene

5 5g 5 700;30ps

4-methylphenol

1 1 50 --

naphthalene

10g 10 50 --

phenol

1 1 50 --

toluene

5 5g 5 1,000;40ps

xylene (total)

5n 5g,n 5n 10,000i;20ps
         

Metals

       
         

aluminum

-- -- -- 50-200**

arsenic

25 50 50 50

barium

1,000 1,000 1,000 2,000

beryllium

3g 3g -- 1p

cadmium

5 10 10 5

calcium

-- -- -- --

chromium

50 50 50 100

cobalt

10 10 10 10

copper

200 200 1,000 1,300p

iron

300 300 300 --

lead

25 50 50 50;5p

magnesium

35,000g 35,000 -- --

manganese

300 300 300 50s

mercury

2 2 2 2

nickel

-- -- -- 100p


Table 8.

New York State and Federal
Standards and Guidelines
(all values in mcg/L) (page 2).


Chemical

NEW YORK STATE

U.S. EPA

Ground
Water

Surface
Water
Drinking
Water
Drinking
Water

Metals (cont.)

       
         

potassium

-- -- -- --

selenium

-- -- -- --

silver

50 50 50 50

sodium

20,000 -- * --

vanadium

-- -- -- --

zinc

5,000 300 5,000 5,000s

*no designated limit; water containing more than 20,000 mcg/L should not be used for drinking by people on severely restricted sodium diets; water containing more than 270,000 mcg/L should not be used for drinking by people on moderately restricted sodium diets

**Secondary standard: U.S. EPA Federal Register, Vol. 50, page 46,975, November 13, 1985.

d = Drinking water standard for total trihalomethanes produced as a result of disinfection with chlorine. This standard is inappropriate for evaluating environmental contamination not associated with disinfection practices.
e = applies to total of 1,2- and 1,4- isomers
g = guidance value
h = total PCBs as decachlorobiphenyl
i = total xylenes
n = applies to each isomer separately unless isomers are analytically indistinguishable
p = proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL)
ps = proposed secondary MCL
s = secondary MCL


APPENDIX C.

HERTEL LANDFILL
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS


Comment #1

In the areas of Pathway Analyses and Public Health Implications, the report states there are areas ofconcern that pose a public health threat, yet in the area of recommendations the remedies are notsufficient to mitigate the dangers and the perception is that these recommendations tend to minimizethat danger.

Response #1

We believe the recommendations are sufficient to mitigate the potential public health threats. Specificquestions about remedial design should be sent to the US EPA. Specific suggestions on therecommendations in the public health assessment should be sent to the NYS DOH.

Comment #2

Leaching of waters, from this site, that will continue to contaminate the neighboring streams andwetlands must be stopped. The landfill area must be capped immediately. The town and especiallythe residents of the area need a time frame as to when remediation will begin.

Response #2

The proposed clean-up plan for the site addresses the principal threats posed by the site. A majorcomponent of the plan is the construction of a multi-layer closure cap over the landfill. The cappingof the landfill will minimize the infiltration of rainfall and snow melt into the landfill, thereby reducingthe potential for contaminants leaching from the landfill and contaminating the wetlands andgroundwater.

The current time frame for remediation of the site has reached the remedial design phase, for whicha draft work plan has been issued. Once approved, the actual design of the remedy is expected totake 12-18 months. The actual period of construction is also expected to take about 12-18 months,resulting in a total estimate of 36 months.

Comment #3

The presence of contaminated surface soils, which poses a high health risk, especially to children, willnot be eliminated through fencing of the landfill area only. The wetlands bordering the site are alsoa problem area but access to them will not be impeded under the current remedial plan. The only wayto prevent access (to contaminated areas) is through fencing of the entire site including placards towarn people of the danger, as well as periodic inspection of the fencing.

Comment #4

The exposure of contaminated materials through the neighboring wetlands and streams must also beaddressed, either through fencing, extensive education program or other means.

Response #3 and #4

The potential for exposure to contaminated surface soils will be eliminated by capping of the landfill. The cap will consist of a four layered system: an upper vegetative layer, a soil protective layer overa low permeability layer, and a gas vent/collection layer. The placement of fencing around theperimeter of the landfill area part of the site and site access area is included as part of the closure planprimarily as a security measure. Periodic inspection of the fencing will be performed by the US EPAand/or their contractors. Additional sampling of the adjacent wetlands is planned and the additionaldata and information will aid in determining the extent and placement of fencing.

Comment #5

Because of the unknown dangers of the air and soil gas exposures, testing for these should beaddressed immediately. Would summer temperatures and conditions affect soil gas screening testresults?

Response #5

A landfill perimeter gas survey is planned during the design phase to verify that soil gas is notmigrating outward from the landfill. This survey will be performed three times to confirm that thereis no outward migration of gas. The testing will not be performed when the ground is wet or has afrost layer, conditions which could alter test results. Summer temperatures/conditions would not beexpected to significantly alter soil gas screening test results provided proper field procedures arefollowed and the soils are unsaturated. The selected remedy calls for the development and monitoringof landfill gas vents throughout the landfill mound. Emissions from the vents will be monitored formethane, as well as other contaminants. If necessary, appropriate measures will be taken to treatemissions to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

Comment #6

As the continual testing of neighboring wells is a must, a schedule outlining this testing must bedeveloped. One resident suggested periodic automatic well testing. Since the possibility exists thatwells in this area could become contaminated, it is imperative that alternative measures be addressed. Monitoring wells at off-site locations seem to be needed given the levels of groundwatercontamination on-site.

Response #6

The remedial design work plan includes provisions for additional groundwater sampling from existingand proposed monitoring wells. One full round consisting of about 30 samples is proposed duringthe remedial design phase. A second partial round of sampling may be performed on selected wellsto monitor contaminant migration. This method of evaluating groundwater as a drinking watersource is preferred to continuously sampling private drinking water wells since then we would havesufficient information to initiate remedial action before a homeowner well is affected. Since existingdata do not show site-related contamination in local homeowner wells, provisions for interimmeasures, including treatment and alternative supplies, will not be addressed at this time.

Comment #7

The remediation process must take into account the exposure of nearby residences to contaminateddust. Plans must be developed to address the containment of that dust.

Response #7

Work area perimeter air monitoring will be monitored for dusts and organic vapors during fieldactivities to determine migration of contaminants from the work site. If monitoring indicate thatcontaminants at concentrations of concern are moving off-site, additional measures will be taken toassure that human exposures do not occur. Dust suppression methods will be used during remedialactivities involving the disturbance of soils at the site which should prevent the transport ofcontaminated soil to off-site areas.

Comment #8

During the comment period, a concern in regard to fire fighting at this site was discussed.

Response #8

This issue was addressed by the US EPA and is included in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix5) entered in the Record of Decision for the site. According to the US EPA, available data do notindicate that fire fighters would be subjected to increased risks by going onto the site to fight a fire,above and beyond those that they might be subject to at another municipal landfill. Furthermore, theplacement of a multi-layer cap on the landfill will confine chemical wastes and hazardous materialswhich otherwise could be involved in a subterranean fire with limited cover material.

Comment #9

A plan must be developed to offer financial relief to homeowners for the possible loss of propertyvalues or the residents homes.

Response #9

Environmental liability and compensation issues are very complex and situation specific. These issuesneed to be addressed by independent counsel.

Comment #10

There must be a continuing education of the residents involving the potential pathways of exposuresto hazardous materials and treatment for the exposure.

Comment #11

What is the continuing mechanism to inform the residents of public hearings and other information.

Response #10 and #11

The proposed cleanup plan for the site will eliminate any potential pathways of exposure. The NYSDOH works with the US EPA and the NYS DEC to keep the public informed about the investigationand remediation at inactive hazardous waste sites. The outreach from the agencies to the communityusually occurs at project milestones. The US EPA has indicated that the public will be kept informedof the outcome of the remedial design efforts, including the development of the monitoring program,through meetings and the distribution of fact sheets. If you have health questions in the interim orin the future, please contact Ms. Nina Knapp of the NYS DOH Health Liaison Program at the tollfree number 1-800-458-1158, extension 402.

Comment #12

One resident indicated concern for wildlife, domestic pets, and people who may enter the landfill areaand adjacent wetlands.

Response #12

Fencing will be constructed around the perimeter of the landfill area and the access road prior toclosure of the landfill which should prevent animals and people from entering the contaminated areas.

Comment #13

More tests should be run and checks kept on this area in years to come to watch for dangerous healthhazards which may develop or have not yet been discovered.

Response #13

Additional investigations are planned as part of the remedial design and include the following: alandfill gas study, groundwater sampling, sampling of adjacent wetlands, fauna sampling, and soilsampling. In addition, a long-term post closure environmental monitoring program will be initiatedto confirm the effectiveness of the landfill closure and treatment systems. The US EPA will reviewthe site every five years to ensure that the remedy continues to be protective. This review will includea reassessment of health and environmental risks posed by the site.

Comment #14

What is the reason why testing data for surface soil sample SS-25 were rejected by QA? Will a newsample be collected?

Response #14

The summary data tables included in the RI only indicate that the organic analysis results wererejected by the QA/QC validation process. We will request the US EPA to obtain an answer andprovide it to the respondent. This sample was collected in an area east of an unpaved road across thesite where runoff from the southern area of the site (and possibly Disposal Area #8) might haveaccumulated. The remedial design work plan does not include resampling of surface soil near the SS-25 sampling location. However, additional investigation is planned at Disposal Area 8 to determinethe nature of the waste in this area as well as to define the extent of the disposal area. Test pits willbe excavated to determine, visually, if waste is present. If waste is encountered, samples of the wasteand surrounding soil will be collected and tested for chemical contamination.

Comment #15

Will a more scientific/rigorous survey be conducted regarding the relationship between the HertelLandfill site and the incidence and location of cancer-related deaths, miscarriages and birth defectsin the population that live downgradient of the site?

Response #15

The information and data developed in this public health assessment have been evaluated by ATSDR'sHealth Activities Recommendation Panel for appropriate follow-up with respect to health activities. The panel did not recommend health studies be conducted at this time because there is no evidencethat human exposure to site-related contamination is occurring or has occurred at levels which couldcause illness or injury. New environmental, toxicological, or health outcome data will be evaluatedby the ATSDR and NYS DOH as they become available to determine the need for additional actions(i.e., health studies) at this site.

Comment #16

A resident asked what will be done to control the migration of contaminants from the soil into thegroundwater and air.

Response #16

The US EPA has decided to cap the landfill. The landfill cap will contain the contamination withinthe landfill mound. The cap will prevent precipitation from percolating through the wastes, therebyreducing the flow of contaminants into the groundwater and surface water. The selected remedyincludes the installation of gas vents into the landfill mound. These vents will be constructed atappropriate locations into the cap to allow for the controlled escape of methane and other landfillgases. These vents minimize the potential for gases to migrate off-site through the soil. The gaseswill be monitored and controlled as needed. They also provide for groundwater monitoring wellswithin the landfill mound.



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. #