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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

HOOKER-102ND STREET
NIAGARA FALLS, NIAGARA COUNTY, NEW YORK

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Figure 2
Figure 1.

Figure 2
Figure 2.

Figure 3
Figure 3.

Figure 4
Figure 4.


APPENDIX B

Table 1.

Olin Corporation Chemical Inventory
102nd Street Landfill Site

The following inventory of chemicals was developed from all available records, the InteragencyTask Force (ITF) Report on Hazardous Waste (1978) and additional information.

Inorganics



Reported Tonnage

Black Cake 19,760 cubic yards 18,673
Graphite 742 tons 742
Concrete 6,625 tons 6,625
Lime Sludge 22,695 cubic yards 22,978
Brine Sludge 15,899 cubic yards 67,186

Flyash 5,472 truckloads

Total
116,204

Disposal quantities of inorganic were generally based on production factors rather than actualrecorded amounts. Inorganics can roughly be translated to tonnages through the use of theconversion factors. Estimated tonnages are as shown.

"Black Cake" resulted from the production of sodium chlorite and had a dry basis compositionapproximately as follows:

    Approximately 2% soluble material (sodium chloride, sodium chlorite, sodium chlorate)

    18% carbon

    80% calcium carbonate/calcium hydroxide

Organics



Reported Tonnage

Benzene Hexachloride (BHC)
Trichlorophenol (TCP)
Trichlorobenzene (TCB) and Benzene 295 truckloads 2,000
V-Tetrachlorobenzene 310,550 gallons 2,327
Total
4,327

Available records indicate truckload shipments of these materials to the landfill. There is no wayto determine the specific quantities of the different chemicals, however, there is also no reason tobelieve they constitute a mixture. Rather, it is believed they were simply loads of some bulk andsome drummed material on the same truck. Tetrachlorobenzene is a separate known quantity. Trichloroanisole was a probable impurity in one of the production processes. It was not disposedof as a separate item.

All the organic materials are solids at STP (Standard Temperature and Pressure) except benzeneand 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene. The quantity of benzene and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (if the 1,2,4-isomer was disposed of at the site) are unknown.

The organic disposal can roughly be translated to tonnages through use of the conversion factorsof eight cubic yards per truckload and a density of 0.85 grams per cubic meter (g/cc). Tetrachlorobenzene has a density of 1.8 g/cc.

Adapted from the Remedial Investigation Final Report, Volume I, July 1990; Conestoga-Roversand Associates and Woodward-Clyde Consultants.


Table 2.

Occidental Chemical Corporation Chemical Inventory
102nd Street Landfill Site


Type of Waste Physical State Estimated Quantity (tons) Container

Organic phosphites L,S <100 D

Sodium hypophosphite mud S 20,000 B

Phosphorus and inorganic phosphorus derivatives (excluding sodium hypophosphite) L,S 1,300 D

BHC cake (including lindane) S 300 D

Chlorobenzenes* S (?) (?)

Misc. 10% including cell parts used in chlorate production S 2,200 D,B

SUB-TOTAL
23,800

Brine, sludge & gypsum
53,200

TOTAL WASTE REPORTED
77,000

*Quantity unknown, but believed to be small.
Notes: L = liquid
S = solid
D = drummed
B = bulk

From Occidental Chemical Corporation's November 17, 1978 and May 23, 1979 responses to theNew York State Interagency Task Force.

Adapted from the Remedial Investigation Final Report, Volume I, July 1990; Conestoga-Rovers jand Associates and Woodward-Clyde Consultants.


TABLE 3.
HNAPL Analysis from OCC Property*
Ranges of Constituents Found in Percent Weight




Range Frequency of Detection
in 10 Samples

ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS


(unidentified) 0.02-1.119 5

cyclohexadecane 0.46 1

cyclohexane 0.0078 1

dimethylcyclohexane 0.7 1

hexane 0.0032-2.2 4

hexadecane 0.27 1

methylcyclopentane 0.004 1

trimethylpentene 0.0027-0.053 3

AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS


(unidentified) 0.017 1

benzene 0.018-1.5 6

benzoic Acid 0.018 1

1,1-biphenyl 0.8 1

diphenyl ether .017 1

naphthalene 0.017-0.053 2

toluene 0.015-0.36 9

CHLORINATED AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS


(unidentified) 0.016-28.6 3

chlorobenzene 0.08-1.4 8

dichlorobenzene 0.16-1.9 9

trichlorobenzene 0.038-42.0 9

tetrachlorobenzene 0.48-67.0 8

pentachlorobenzene 0.18-17.0 7

hexachlorobenzene 0.13-2.5 8

chloromethylbenzene 0.046-0.47 3

bromodichlorobenzene 0.056 1

trichloro (methyl,ethyl) benzene 0.25-0.4 2

trichloropropylbenzene 1.2 1

chloroethylbenzene 0.032 1

dichloroethylbenzene 0.005 1

trichloromethoxybenzene 0.029 1

chlorotoluene 0.039-2.1 7

dichlorotoluene 0.023-0.789 4

trichlorotoluene 0.013-0.1 4

tetrachlorotoluene 0.047-0.35 2

pentachlorotoluene 0.17 1

2,4,5-trichlorophenol 0.013-0.019 2

2,4,6-trichlorophenol 0.16 1

chloronaphthalene 0.042-0.11 2

dichloronaphthalene 0.091-1.0 3

trichloronaphthalene 0.017-0.299 3

chlorobenzotrifluoride 0.077 1

dichlorobiphenyl 0.07-0.59 2

tetrachlorothiophene 0.21-0.77 2

trichlorobiphenyl 0.01-0.24 2

tetrachlorobiphenyl 0.07 1

pentachlorocyclohexene 0.54 1

chlorobenzaldehyde 0.13 1

CHLORINATED ALIPHATIC HYDROCARBONS


(unidentified) 0.51 1

carbon tetrachloride 0.012 1

chloroform 0.29 1

hexachlorobutadiene 0.02-2.9 6

1-chlorododecane 0.11-49.0 3

1-chlorotetradecane 25.0 1

1-chlorohexadecane 4.9 1

1-chloroctadecane 0.4-1.5 2

methylene chloride 0.06-2.4 2

trichloroethylene 0.015-0.024 2

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0.031-0.15 3

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethene 0.076-0.19 2

tetrachloroethylene 0.73 1

PESTICIDES


alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.43-1.27 4

beta-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.022-0.075 3

delta-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.13-0.67 4

gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.069-0.58 4

Aroclor 1248 0.24-0.4 3

Aroclor 1260 0.21-0.31 3

p,p'-DDT 0.015-0.044 3

p,p'-DDE 0.18 1

p,p'-DDD 0.048-0.14 2

heptachlor 0.021-0.037 2

OTHER


(minor constituents) 0.085-9.05 9

WATER
0.08-63.8 9

DENSITY (specific gravity)1.006-1.455

*HNAPL is considered a contaminant selected for further evaluation.


TABLE 4. HNAPL Analysis from Olin Property
Ranges of Constituents Found in Percent Weight




Range Frequency of Detection
in 5 Samples

VOLATILE ORGANICS


trans-1,2-dichloroethene 0.0105 1

chloroform 0.0125-0.029 3

trichloroethene 0.0045-0.0065 1

benzene 0.012-5.5444 5

1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0.0119-5.808 5

tetrachloroethene 0.0147-7.809 5

toluene 0.0064-0.0083 1

chlorobenzene 0.074-5.7884 5

ethylbenzene 0.0569-0.06 1

carbon tetrachloride 0.086-0.088 1

BASE NEUTRALS

2-chloroethylether 0.0008-0.015 3

dichlorobenzenes (including 1,3; 1,4; 1,2 isomers) 0.019-2.1213 5

1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 4.620-38.2755 5

An Isomeric trichlorobenzene 1.434-13.2447 5

naphthalene 0.0060 1

hexachlorobenzene 0.2021-1.332 5

phenanthrene 0.008-0.0102 2

anthracene 0.007-0.0301 2

fluoranthene 0.011-0.0198 2

pyrene 0.009-0.015 2

benzo(a)anthracene 0.0076-0.0107 2

chrysene 0.0076-0.0105 2

bis-2-(ethylhexyl)phthalate 0.008-0.0807 4

benzo(k)fluoranthene 0.0058-0.029 2

benzo(a)pyrene 0.072 1

1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 3.5348-72.567 5

1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 3.8131-42.5893 5

pentachlorobenzene 4.8277-20.144 5

PESTICIDES/PCBs

Aroclor-1254 0.0196-0.1259 4

Aroclor - 1260 0.038-0.2247 4

alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.5254-3.0393 5

beta-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.009-0.1978 5

gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.110-2.4121 5

delta-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.0724-1.2345 5

heptachlor 0.005 1

endosulfan II 0.0047 1

p,p'-DDD 0.0097 1

p,p'-DDT 0.0121 1
DENSITY (specific gravity) 1.421-1.613

*HNAPL is considered a contaminant selected for further evaluation.


TABLE 5.

102ND STREET LANDFILL
CHLORINATED DIOXIN AND FURAN RESULTS
FROM HNAPL ANALYSIS
(all values in parts per million)


Chlorodibenzo-p-dioxins* OCC Olin


2,3,7,8-tetra CDD 0.059-0.19 ND-0.06
total tetra CDD 0.060-0.78 ND-0.07
1,2,3,7-penta CDD X ND-0.03
total penta CDD 0.15-8.9 ND-5.0
2,3,7,8,x,x-hexa CDD X ND-2.0
total hexa CDD 2.2-27.0 ND-6.0
2,3,7,8,x,x,x-hepta CDD X ND-8.0
total hepta CDD 23.0-49.0 ND-14.0
total octa - CDD 25.0-430.0 ND-10.0


Chlorodibenzofurans* OCC Olin


2,3,7,8-tetra CDF 0.11-0.64 ND-0.5
total tetra CDF 0.33-1.7 ND-0.8
2,3,7,8,x-penta CDF X ND-0.5
total penta CDF 0.96-8.1 ND-7.0
2,3,7,8,x,x-hexa CDF X 0.01-10.0
total hexa CDF 5.4-18.0 0.01-11.0
2,3,7,8,x,x,x-hepta CDF X ND-12.0
total hepta CDF 11.0-48.0 ND-15.0
total octa CDF 16.0-82.0 ND-6.0

*All chlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and chlorodibenzofurans in HNAPL are contaminants selected forfurther evaluation.

ND - not detected

X - data not available


Table 6.
102nd Street landfill
Summary of Monitoring Well Data
Remedial Investigation
(all values in micrograms per liter)


ParameterFill Groundwater

Native Soil Groundwater

Standards/Guidelines

Comparison Value** Source***
Range of Concentration Number of Wells With Detects (out of 17) Range of Concentration Number of Wells With Detects (out of 23) New York State

U.S. EPA

Groundwater Drinking Water Drinking Water

*benzene 5-3600 8 77-79,000 10 0.7 5 5 0.7 NYS CREG
*toluene 12-2300 2 213-320 1 5 5 1,000 1,000 EPA LTHA
*monochlorobenzene 7-5500 9 5-17,000 10 5 5 100 140 EPA RfD
*2-monochlorotoluene 6-36 2 98-150 1 5 5 - 100 EPA LTHA
*4-monochlorotoluene 200-300 1 73-110 1 5 - - - -
*1,2-dichlorobenzene 15-860 6 14-1100 9 4.7e 5 600 600 EPA LTHA
*1,4-dichlorobenzene 15-1500 6 26-4800 8 4.7e 5 75 1.5 EPA CPF
*1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 47-2700 2 94-4500 5 5 5 - - -
*1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 31-5300 5 370-15,000 6 5 5 70 70 EPA LTHA
*1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 22-8100 5 110-40,000 5 5 5 - - -
*1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 97-2400 3 12-6000 5 5 5 - 2 EPA RfD
*hexachlorobenzene 140 1 75-360 1 0.35 5 1 0.02 ATSDR CREG
*alpha hexachlorocyclohexane 33-730 5 23-840 6 ND 5 - 0.15 EPA CPF
*beta hexachlorocyclohexane 10-140 6 11-120 4 ND 5 - 0.02 NYS CREG
*gamma hexachlorocyclohexane 25-440 5 14-720 5 ND 5 0.2 0.03 EPA CPF
*delta hexachlorocyclohexane 66-900 5 19-1200 6 ND 5 - - -
*2,5-dichloroaniline 12-14,000 4 18-13,000 3 5 5 - - -
3,4-dichloroaniline ND 0 ND 0 5 5 - - -
*phenol 26-120 4 10-180 5 1 50 - 4,000 EPA LTHA
*2-chlorophenol 14-280 4 11-260 4 5 5 - 40 EPA LTHA
*4-chlorophenol 58-1000 4 16-3900 8 5 5 - - -
*2,4-dichlorophenol and 2,5-dichlorophenol 14-4200 4 12-3400 8 0.3g 5 - 20 EPA LTHA
*2,4,5-trichlorophenol 95-190 2 10-290 3 5 5 - 700 EPA RfD
*2,4,6-trichlorophenol 190-230 1 10-50 2 5 5 - 3 ATSDR CREG
*2-chlorobenzoic acid 600-860 1 100-450 2 - 50 - - -
*3-chlorobenzoic acid 530-860 1 100-220 2 - 50 - - -
*4-chlorobenzoic acid 120-2160 2 100-200 2 - 50 - 1,400 EPA RfD
phosphorous 100-205,000 16 130-3,420,000 21 - - - - -
*mercury 0.6-50 4 1.2-13 3 2 2 2 2 EPA LTHA
arsenic ND 0 200 1 25 50 50 11 EPA RfD

e = applies to total of 1,2- and 1,4-isomers
g = guidance value
p = proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL)

ND - not detected

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**Comparison value determined for a 70 kilogram adult who drinks 2 liters of water per day.
***ATSDR CREG = ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
     EPA CPF = EPA Cancer Potency Factor
     EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose
     EPA LTHA = EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
     NYS CREG = NYS Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline


Table 7.

102nd Street Landfill
Ranges of Chemical Concentrations Found in
Bulkhead Seep Samples
(all values in micrograms per liter)



Concentration
Range
Number of Detects
(out of 5 samples)

benzene 71-2,000 3
toluene ND 0
monochlorobenzene 120-2,200 4
1,2-dichlorobenzene 28-400 4
1,4-dichlorobenzene 24-420 4
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 14-180 3
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 35-650 4
1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 340-420 3
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 65-74 3
hexachlorobenzene 15 1
alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane 210-700 3
beta-hexachlorocyclohexane 30-150 5
gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane 13-1,400 3
delta-hexachlorocyclohexane 800-4,500 3
2,5-dichloroaniline 580 1
3,4-dichloroaniline ND 0
phenol 25-28 3
2-chlorophenol 12-54 3
4-chlorophenol 27-240 3
2,4-dichlorophenol 75-97 2
2,5-dichlorophenol 75-97 2
2,4,5-trichlorophenol 72-1,300 3
2,4,6-trichlorophenol 240 1
2-chlorobenzoic acid 130 1
3-chlorobenzoic acid ND 0
4-chlorobenzoic acid 100 1
phosphorus (dissolved) 100 1
mercury 2.3-31.3 2
arsenic ND 0
total organic halide (TOX) 130-10,000 5
total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) 1,800-4,700 5
total organic carbon (TOC) 80,000-180,000 5

ND - not detected


TABLE 8.

STORM SEWER SEDIMENT ANALYTICAL RESULTS
(from 2 samples)
(all values in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) dry weight).


Parameter Range of
Concentration
Typical
Background
Range**

SITE SPECIFIC INDICATORS

1,2-dichlorobenzene 810/710 NDT
1,4-dichlorobenzene 220/170 NDT
2-monochlorotoluene 570/510 NDT
4-monochlorotoluene 400/350 NDT

2,4-dichlorophenol ND/ND* NDT
2,5-dichlorophenol ND/ND NDT
hexachlorobenzene 490/530 NDT
alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane 350/400 NDT
beta-hexachlorocyclohexane 11/9.5 NDT
delta-hexachlorocyclohexane 84/78 NDT
gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane 89/93 <0.01-0.1
pentachlorobenzene 3,500/5,100 NDT
1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 21,000/22,000 NDT
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 1,600/1,600 NDT
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 890/930 NDT
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 3,000/4,900 NDT
2,4,5-trichlorophenol ND/ND NDT
2,4,6-trichlorophenol ND/ND NDT

mercury 36/24 0.01-3.4


ND - not detected
NDT - not determined

*Detection limit at 1.0 mg/kg dry

**References: ATSDR, 1989; Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984.


TABLE 9.

102ND STREET LANDFILL
STORM SEWER INFILTRATION
AQUEOUS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
(all concentrations in micrograms per liter)


SITE SPECIFIC INDICATORS (SSI) UPGRADIENT OF SITE CONCENTRATION RANGES IN SEWER LINE CONCENTRATION AT THE OUTFALL

benzene ND ND ND/ND
toluene ND ND ND/ND
monochlorobenzene ND ND 330/260
2-monochlorotoluene ND ND 28/23
4-monochlorotoluene ND ND-7 15/13
1,2-dichlorobenzene ND ND 32/40
1,4-dichlorobenzene ND ND 110/140
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene ND ND 46/55
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene ND 23-25 280/280
1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene ND 13-14 300/230
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene ND ND 32/33
hexachlorobenzene ND ND ND/ND
alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane ND ND 75/71
beta-hexachlorocyclohexane ND ND ND/ND
gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane ND ND 33/37
delta-hexachlorocyclohexane ND ND 130/130
2,5-dichloroaniline ND ND ND/ND
3,4-dichloroaniline ND ND ND/ND
phenol ND ND 64/76
2-chlorophenol ND ND ND/ND
4-chlorophenol ND ND 26/39
2,4-dichlorophenol ND ND ND/ND
2,5-dichlorophenol ND ND ND/ND
2,4,5-trichlorophenol ND ND ND/ND
2,4,6-trichlorophenol ND ND ND/ND
2-chlorobenzoic acid ND ND ND/ND
3-chlorobenzoic acid ND ND ND/ND
4-chlorobenzoic acid ND ND ND/ND

total SSI ND 39-43 1501/1427

soluble phosphorus 860 ND-270 67/65
mercury ND ND 0.41/0.49
arsenic ND ND-0.41 ND/ND

ND - not detected


TABLE 10.

102ND STREET LANDFILL
NIAGARA RIVER
SURFACE SEDIMENTS
(all values in milligrams per kilogram)


Parameter Concentration Range (Excluding Highest Sample, C-75) Frequency of Detects (out of 87) Highest Sample (C-75) Typical Background Range** Comparison Value*** Source****

2-monochlorotoluene ND 1 1.47 NDT 1,000 EPA RfD
4-monochlorotoluene 0.15 2 1.55 NDT --
1,2-dichlorobenzene 0.11 2 1.19 NDT 4,500 EPA RfD
1,4-dichlorobenzene 0.103-0.649 12 13.2 NDT 30 EPA CPF
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene ND 1 19.7 NDT --
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 0.128-0.358 3 295.0 NDT 500 EPA RfD
1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 0.196 2 454.0 NDT --
*1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 0.108-0.799 5 153.0 NDT 15 EPA RfD
*pentachlorobenzene 0.176 2 147.0 NDT 40 EPA RfD
*hexachlorobenzene 0.14-0.236 4 10.1 NDT 0.44 ATSDR CREG
*alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.1-4077.0 6 2550.0 NDT 0.11 EPA CPF
*beta-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.173-15.3 8 310.0 NDT 0.71 EPA CPF
delta-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.21-9.79 3 11.3 NDT --
*gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.843-55.4 3 6.82 0.01-0.1 0.45 EPA CPF
2,4-dichlorophenol 0.137-0.208 2 ND NDT 150 EPA RfD
2,5-dichlorophenol 0.109 1 ND NDT --
2,4,5-trichlorophenol 0.367 1 ND NDT 5,000 EPA RfD
2,4,6-trichlorophenol 4.3 2 6.45 NDT 65 EPA CPF
*mercury 0.108-10.2 67 (out of 91) 200 0.01-3.4 15 EPA RfD

ND - not detected
NDT - Not determined

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.

**References: ATSDR, 1989; Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984

***These values are for a nonresidential setting and assume a lifetime exposure throughincidental ingestion of soil.

****ATSDR CREG = ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
     EPA CPF = EPA Cancer Potency Factor
     EPA RfD = EPA Risk Reference Dose


TABLE 11.

102nd Street Landfill
Off-Site Surface Soil
(all values in milligrams per kilogram)


Parameter Griffon Park

Along Buffalo Avenue

East of Site

Typical
Background
Range**
Comparison
Value***
Source****
Concentration
Range
Frequency of Detection
(out of 35)
Concentration
Range
Frequency of Detection
(out of 47)
Concentration
Range
Frequency of Detection
(out of 23)

2-monochlorotoluene ND00.127-0.8813ND 0NDT57NYS RfG
4-monochlorotoluene 0.129-1.43 2 0.113-0.917 6 0.228 1 NDT --
1,2-dichlorobenzene 0.137-1.57 2 0.198-5.81 5 0.102-0.12 2 NDT 324 NYS RfG
*1,4-dichlorobenzene 0.103-0.43 5 0.118-4.28 13 0.127-0.164 2 NDT 0.4 NYS CREG
1,2,3,-trichlorobenzene ND 0 0.108-0.859 3 ND 0 NDT --
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene ND 0 0.114-0.404 15 ND 0 NDT 152 NYS RfG
1,2,3,4-tetrachlorobenzene 0.128 1 0.105-11.3 14 ND 0 NDT --
1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene 0.103 1 0.105-4.88 16 ND 0 NDT 4.2 NYS RfG
pentachlorobenzene 0.118 1 0.101-0.736 5 ND 0 NDT 21 NYS RfG
*hexachlorobenzene ND 0 0.117-9.51 18 ND 0 NDT 0.004 NYS CREG
*alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.266-1.26 2 0.109-4.57 18 0.114-0.46 4 NDT 0.003 NYS CREG
*beta-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.230 1 0.179-7.88 25 0.109-2.8 14 NDT 0.02 NYS CREG
*delta-hexachlorocyclohexane ND 0 0.15-1.65 3 ND 0 NDT --
*gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane 0.185 1 0.113-1.21 4 ND 0 0.01-0.1 0.006 NYS CREG
2,4-dichlorophenol ND 0 0.115-0.546 6 ND 0 NDT 4.3 NYS RfG
2,5-dichlorophenol ND 0 ND 0 ND 0 NDT --
2,4,5-trichlorophenol 0.253 1 0.132 1 ND 0 NDT 421 NYS RfG
2,4,6-trichlorophenol ND 0 ND 0 ND 0 NDT 1.5 NYS CREG
*mercury 0.13-4.76 39 (of 42) 0.11-9.29 45 (of 50) 0.153-5.08 22 0.01-3.4 1.6 EPA RfD

ND - not detected
NDT - not determined

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.

**References: ATSDR, 1989; Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984

***These values are for a residential setting and assume a lifetime exposure through incidentalingestion of soil and homegrown vegetables.

****NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
     NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
     EPA RfD = EPA Risk Reference Dose


TABLE 12.

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
(all values in pounds per year)


Facility
Chemical
Air Release
Stack Plus Fugitive


Carborundum Abrasives

formaldehyde 2-20
pseudocumene (trimethylbenzenes) 57,759
phenol 937
zinc compounds 2-20

Niacet


methanol 517,500
chloracetic acid 501-1,009
phenol 22-898
hydrochloric acid 22-898
chlorine 22-898
glycols 22-898

Energy from Waste Facility

*hydrochloric acid 4,560,014
sulfuric acid 0
chlorine 0

*Contaminant anticipated to exceed 1 microgram per cubic meter within 1/2 mile from the 102nd Street Landfill site.

APPENDIX C

Health Advisory
Chemicals in Sportfish and Game 1992 - 1993

This Appendix 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

PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

To evaluate the potential health risks from contaminants of concern associated with the 102nd Street 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 per million very low
greater than one per million to less than one per ten thousand low
one per ten thousand to less than one per thousand moderate
one per thousand to less than one per ten high
equal to or greater than one per 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 cancersometime in his or her lifetime following exposure to that contaminant (i.e., there is only about a5 percent chance that the risk of a response is greater than the estimated value).

There is insufficient knowledge of cancer mechanisms to decide if there exists a level ofexposure to a cancer-causing agent below which there is no risk of getting cancer, namely, athreshold level. Therefore, every exposure, no matter how low, to a cancer-causing compound isassumed to be associated with some increased risk. As the dose of a carcinogen decreases, thechance of developing cancer decreases, but each exposure is accompanied by some increasedrisk.

There is no general consensus within the scientific or regulatory communities on what level ofestimated excess cancer risk is acceptable. Some have recommended the use of the relativelyconservative excess lifetime cancer risk level of one in one million because of the uncertaintiesin our scientific knowledge about the mechanism of cancer. Others feel that risks that are loweror higher may be acceptable, depending on scientific, economic and social factors. An increasedlifetime cancer risk of one in one million or less is generally considered an insignificant increasein cancer risk.

For noncarcinogenic health risks, the contaminant intake was estimated using exposureassumptions 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 healtheffects) developed by the US EPA, ATSDR and/or NYS DOH. The resulting ratio was thencompared 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 risk reference dose minimal

greater than one to five times the risk reference dose low

greater than five to ten times the risk reference dose moderate

greater than ten times the risk reference dose high

Noncarcinogenic effects unlike carcinogenic effects are believed to have a threshold, that is, adose 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 theexperimental exposure level in animals at which no adverse toxic effect is observed. The NOELis then divided by an uncertainty factor to yield the risk reference dose. The uncertainty factor isa number which reflects the degree of uncertainty that exists when experimental animal data areextrapolated to the general human population. The magnitude of the uncertainty factor takes intoconsideration various factors such as sensitive subpopulations (for example, children or theelderly), 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 muchlower 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 individualis expressed as a ratio of estimated contaminant intake to the risk reference dose. If exposure tothe contaminant exceeds the risk reference dose, there may be concern for potential noncancerhealth 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, thegreater the level of concern. A ratio equal to or less than one is generally considered aninsignificant (minimal) increase in risk.

APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

This summary was prepared to respond the public's comments and questions on the 102nd StreetLandfill draft Public Health Assessment (PHA). The public was invited to review this documentduring the public comment period which ran from July 8, 1993 to August 13, 1993. However,because of requests for copies of the draft PHA toward the end of the comment period by thepublic, the comment period was extended until mid-September. Some comments have beenconsolidated or grouped together to incorporate similar concerns. If you have any questionsabout this responsiveness summary, contact the Health Liaison Program at the toll-free number1-800-458-1158, extension 402.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Only one comment was received from the public, as follows:

Comment

A sign should be posted at the public docks at Griffon Park to inform the public aboutcontamination from 102nd Street Landfill and the chances of getting skin reactions if launchingboats into the water.

Response

Contaminated sediments from the 102nd Street Landfill are close to the shoreline and do notextend very far beyond the western property line of the landfill. Therefore, people launchingboats from the docks at Griffon Park are unlikely to be exposed to contamination from the 102ndStreet Landfill.

COMMENTS FROM THE US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Comment #1

When referring to children at Griffon Park being exposed to contamination, it is not clearwhether this contamination is due to migration of surface contamination from the site orcontamination unrelated to the 102nd Street site.

Response #1

The data evaluated in this Public Health Assessment were gathered during the remedialinvestigation (RI) of the 102nd Street Landfill. There may be contamination at Griffon Parkfrom sources other than the 102nd Street Landfill; however, the 102nd Street Landfill is a sourceof contaminants in soil at Griffon Park. These contaminants were identified during the RI andare summarized in Table 11 of this public health assessment. To assess possible health impactsto the community, total exposures must be evaluated, even if contamination is from more thanone source.

Comment #2

There is no acknowledgement of the Record of Decision (ROD) or its contents.

Response #2

The ROD has been added to the References and a discussion of the elements of the ROD hasbeen incorporated in the text (Background Section).

Comment #3

Heavily contaminated sediments are going to be placed inside the slurry wall, thereby eliminatingthe need to excavate and incinerate.

Response #3

All references to incineration of sediments have been revised in the text.

Comment #4

Groundwater will only be recovered and treated to maintain an inward gradient across the slurrywall.

Response #4

The text has been revised to reflect that the purpose of groundwater recovery is to maintain aninward gradient across the slurry wall.

COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION AND OLIN CHEMICALS CORPORATION

Comment #1

OxyChem does not agree with the statement on page 2 of the Summary that "Exposures to site-related chemicals could cause an increased risk of cancer. Other health related problemsassociated with the site contaminants are neurological, liver and kidney effects." Thisdisagreement is based on the EPA/State approved Baseline Risk Assessments, Final Report(Sirrine, July 1990) which stated "The PHA determined that neither the individual exposureroutes nor the cumulative effects of the site present any significant risks to health under currentconditions."

Response #1

The comment implies that the EPA/State agreed with the conclusions of the OxyChem/Olinbaseline risk assessment (Sirrine, 1990). On the contrary, both agencies disagreed with some ofthe assumptions and the conclusions of the risk assessment. Subsequently, OxyChem/Olin wasrequired to incorporate EPA's Baseline Risk Assessment summary into the Feasibility Study(Sirrine, 1990). As discussed in Chapter 3 and Section 7 of the feasibility study, the EPA riskassessment used conservative but reasonable assumptions to evaluate "reasonable maximumexposures" and concluded that significant health risks could be associated with exposure to site-related contaminants. A significant human health risk was defined as one in one millionincremental increase in the chance of getting cancer. Additional information on how health riskswere evaluated and qualified in the Public Health Assessment has been included in Appendix D.

Comment #2

Descriptions of Olin's and OCC's wastes are incorrect and should be revised. The correctinformation can be found in the Consent Order for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.

Response #2

The text has been revised. I have grouped OCC and Olin waste together since this site isconsidered one site and knowing who disposed of which wastes isn't important for thediscussions of potential public health exposures.

Comment #3

Please revise the last paragraph of Section B of the Background section to reflect that the NYSDOH health advisory on fish is based upon PCBs, which is not a contaminant at the 102nd StreetLandfill.

Response #3

The text has been revised to reflect that the fish advisory has been developed based upon concernfor chemicals which bioaccumulate in fish. The specific sources of these chemicals can notalways be identified.

Comment #4

There are many sources for chemicals that have bioaccumulated in fish caught in the NiagaraRiver or Lake Ontario. It is not appropriate to reference only 102nd Street Landfill when it isonly one of many sites that generate this concern. Analysis of fish from the upper Niagara Riverfor organochlorines will not provide data specific to discharges from the site due to the migratorynature of fish and the presence of other organochlorine sources along the upper Niagara River.

Response #4

The Public Health Assessment states that 102nd Street is not the sole contributor ofcontamination to the Niagara River. It also states that the current fish advisory is based uponPCB data, which is not a chemical of concern at 102nd Street Landfill. We agree thatorganochlorine analyses of fish caught in the upper Niagara River will not give specific data onthe impact of the landfill's discharges on fish. However, 102nd Street does contribute to the totalchemical loadings to the Niagara River. Discharges from the site, combined with loadings fromother sources could result in persons being exposed to contamination in fish at levels of publichealth concern. The Public Health Assessment evaluates total exposures to contamination at aspecific exposure point and may include both site-related and non-site-related contamination.

Comment #5

The last paragraph of the Background section, section B stating "fish from the Niagara River andLake Ontario have been monitored extensively..." conflicts with the previous paragraph whichrecommends further sampling and with the Pathway Analysis, section A, Fish, which states that"There are no analytical data for site specific compounds in fish from the Upper NiagaraRiver...".

Response #5

The word "extensively" has been removed. Many more fish from the lower Niagara River andespecially Lake Ontario have been analyzed than from the upper Niagara River. The fish areanalyzed for only a few chemicals and not most of the site-related chemicals.

Comment #6

It should be noted in the Public Health Implications section, subsection A, ToxicologicalEvaluation, item 3 that there is a Health Advisory on fish in place in order to protect humanhealth.

Response #6

The Health Advisory on eating fish caught in the Upper Niagara River has been mentioned inseveral places in the Public Health Assessment. This section discusses potential health effectsthat might occur from exposure to site related contamination through various pathways. Sincewe do not have site-specific fish data, we did not include the discussion of the Health Advisoryin this section.

Comment #7

The off-site soil sampling included analysis for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) and total TCDD. No other analyses for dioxin isomers or chlorinated dibenzofuranswere performed.

Response #7

The text has been revised to reflect these corrections.

Comment #8

The site has be fenced along Buffalo Avenue and on the western side of the site sincecommencement of landfilling, in the early 1940's, thus restricting access on those sides andexposure to on-site soils.

Response #8

This information has been included in the revised text. However, if access to the site was notrestricted on all the land bound sides of the site, then access to the site by the public could havebeen possible and the past exposure scenario remains correct. Furthermore, due to themaintenance and condition of this fence, it may not have been an effective barrier at all times.

Comment #9

Why has the public health hazard been described as "indeterminate" when the exposures werecharacterized and evaluated in the "Baseline Risk Assessment - Final Report" prepared by SirrineEnvironmental Consultants in July 1990 which was approved by the EPA/State including theNYS DOH. As stated in the Sirrine report, "The PHA determined that neither the individualexposure routes nor the cumulative effects of the site present any significant risks to humanhealth under current conditions."

Response #9

The Public Health Assessment evaluates both known (i.e., completed) and potential humanexposure scenarios for the past, current, and future. Human exposure pathways are consideredcomplete if there is an identified source of contamination, an environmental media which hasbeen contaminated from the source, an exposure point for humans, a route of human exposure(i.e., ingestion, inhalation),and an identified receptor population. If one or more of these factorsdoes not exist, then it may be considered as a potential pathway. Specific guidelines have beendeveloped by ATSDR to determine public health hazards that a site poses. Based on theinformation reviewed during development of the PHA, the site currently poses an indeterminatepublic health hazard because it is unknown to what extent persons may be exposed to surfacesoils off-site. Additionally, there is a potential for direct contact with or incidental ingestion ofcontaminated surface water, and contact with sediments or off-site surface soils. The majorpublic health concern is ingestion of fish caught in the Niagara River or Lake Ontario that havebioaccumulated contaminants from the 102nd Street Landfill. However, there are inadequatedata to assess the public health significance of past, present and potential exposures to sitecontaminants in fish. In addition, the comment implies that the EPA/State agreed with theconclusions of the OxyChem/Olin baseline risk assessment (Sirrine, 1990). Please refer to theresponse to comment #1 for a discussion of this issue.

Comment #10

Inhalation or ingestion of airborne soil particulates is unlikely. Such exposure is potentiallypossible during remedial activities. However, appropriate measures to control fugitive dustemissions will be implemented during the performance of remedial activities.

Response #10

We agree that dust is unlikely to be generated under current site conditions. However, in the pastthis was a possible exposure route. The text has been revised to clarify that exposure tocontaminated dusts and particulates may have occurred in the past.

Comment #11

Remediation of the area north of Buffalo Avenue was completed in November 1993. The subjectitem should be revised accordingly.

Response #11

This was incorporated in the Public Health Assessment.

Comment #12

Sediment "hot spots" are not going to be excavated and incinerated. They will be contained inplace.

Response #12

The text was revised accordingly.

Comment #13

On page 7, 4th full paragraph - Why is there concern related to surface water discharges to thenorth or west of the site?

Response #13

This section relates observations made during a site visit. These are observations made by thestaff person who conducted the visit and is considered as part of the historical record for the site. The exposure pathway analysis section discusses known potential human exposure routes ofconcern.

Comment #14

Page 10, 1st full paragraph, last sentence - Sediment sampling and analyses have shown that thecontamination is limited to within 300 feet of the shoreline and the sediments of the Little Riverhave not been impacted.

Response #14

This section is titled "Public Health Concerns" and discusses concerns that have been expressedby the public that may or may not have been address previously. Concern about dredging of theLittle River has been addressed in the Record of Decision and in this Public Health Assessment.

Comment #15

The site is not the only source of chemicals present in soils, groundwater, sewer water, andsediments of the Niagara River.

In addition, for many years the swale to the east was an open cesspool which discharged directlyto the River. The origin of the sewage was the trailer park to the northeast. The periodicdamming of the discharge by natural wave action at the river shore created a stagnant, opensewer which was the most significant health hazard at or near the site. The potential for diseasepathogens in the untreated, raw sewage and the many chemicals discharged in average householdeffluent specifically contributed to the sediment and surface water problems at the site.

Response #15

The text has been revised, where appropriate, to clarify that sources other than the 102nd Streetsite are contributing to contamination of the Niagara River.

The discharge from the ditch east of the site may have contributed to contamination in theNiagara River. However, household effluent is unlikely to contribute greater chemicalscontamination than the site. Therefore, this point will be mentioned, but not evaluated in thisPublic health Assessment.

Comment #16

The correct name for the "Energy Furnace" is "Energy from Waste" (EFW). The current owner isAmerican Ref-Fuel.

Response #16

The text has been revised.

Comment #17

Air data were collected during the Remedial Investigation activities (a "worst case" situation) anddid not show a problem. The data should be reviewed and the subject paragraph revisedaccordingly.

Response #17

Air was not specifically sampled as part of the Remedial Investigation. Air was monitored aspart of the health and safety activities. The purpose of this type of air monitoring is to warn ofany potential releases of site contamination so that corrective action can be taken. The "worstcase" situation would have been expected to have occurred during dumping activities at the site.

Comment #18

Prior to initiating any remedial activities, a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) will be in place tominimize the release of chemicals during the implementation of remedial activities at the site. Therefore, impacts during the performance of remedial activities will be negligible.

Response #18

A discussion of the past and proposed remedial measures to minimize public exposures to sitecontaminants is given in the Background section of this document. As part of the selectedremedial action, a Health and Safety Plan will be in place to minimize exposure to sitecontaminants by remedial workers and nearby residents, as mentioned in the Pathways section ofthis document.

Comment #19

The off-site soil survey performed during the site RI showed that the chemical presence inGriffon Park due to the site did not extend into the playing area of the two baseball diamonds. Since the chemical presence did not extend onto the baseball diamonds, the potential for dermalcontact by the baseball participants would have been minimal. In addition, the area which hasshown chemical presence was and is heavily vegetated and it is unlikely that exposure to dustparticulates occurred. This is supported by the Public Health Implications section which states initem 4 of Section A, "past exposures to these chemicals by the Little League baseball participantsand other park users at the highest concentrations found in the park's soil would pose a minimalhealth risk".

Response #19

We agree that site contaminants were not found in most of the samples collected in the area ofthe baseball diamonds. However, from the diagrams provided in the RI, some site-relatedcontaminants were found in the area of the baseball diamonds. Since most of the samplescollected from the baseball diamonds have not contained site-related contaminants, thediscussion of human exposure via this pathway will be changed from a completed pathway to apotential pathway for past exposure to site-related contamination.

Comment #20

The area north of Buffalo Avenue is on the NYS DOH "not habitable" list and the Love CanalArea Revitalization Agency's (LCARA's) current plans are to convert this area into an open area. There are no plans to re-habit the area. Conversion to an open area will not occur until remedialactivities are completed. Olin has control of the house immediately east of the site through a 99year lease. It has been vacant for several years.

Response #20

These points are noted and the text has been revised where appropriate.

Comment #21

The statement of the Toxicological Evaluation section, item 2, that "exposures...would pose aminimal health risk to (persons exposed to surface soils at Griffon Park)" should be incorporatedinto the Conclusions section, item 2(c).

Response #21

The text will be revised accordingly. The Toxicological Evaluation section will be used to reviseall relevant conclusions.

Comment #22

OxyChem and Olin should be placed on the mailing list for the annual follow-ups to the PublicHealth Assessment.

Response #22

OxyChem and Olin will be placed on the appropriate mailing lists.



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. #