PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
NIAGARA COUNTY REFUSE
TOWN OF WHEATFIELD, NIAGARA COUNTY, NEW YORK
(Figures)
(Tables)
Niagara County Refuse - On-Site Leachate Samples
[All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
Samples Collected 11/90
| Chemical | Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | Comparison Value | |||
| Cancer** | Source*** | NonCancer** | Source*** | |||
| Organics: | ||||||
| 2-butanone | 4/7 | 96-1400 | -- | -- | 13,900 | EPAHEAST |
| 2-hexanone | 1/7 | 11 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 4-methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) | 3/7 | 3-21 | -- | -- | 13,900 | EPAHEAST |
| acetone | 2/7 | 490-2200 | -- | -- | 27,800 | EPA RfD |
| *benzene | 3/7 | 36-50 | 17 | EPA CPF | -- | -- |
| chlorobenzene | 3/7 | 26-56 | -- | -- | 5,580 | EPA RfD |
| ethylbenzene | 5/7 | 2-680 | -- | -- | 27,800 | EPA RfD |
| *methylene chloride | 1/9 | 470 | 67 | EPA CPF | 16,740 | EPA RfD |
| toluene | 5/7 | 3-350 | -- | -- | 55,600 | EPA RfD |
| xylenes | 4/7 | 12-1300 | -- | -- | 556,000 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2-dichlorobenzene | 1/7 | 16 | -- | -- | 25,020 | EPA RfD |
| 1,3-dichlorobenzene | 1/7 | 6 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 2,4-dimethylphenol | 6/7 | 18-980 | -- | -- | 5,560 | EPA RfD |
| *2,6-dinitrotoluene | 1/7 | 51 | 1 | NYS CPF | -- | -- |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 1/7 | 5 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 2-methylphenol | 6/7 | 12-960 | -- | -- | 13,900 | EPA RfD |
| 4-methylphenol | 5/7 | 400-3750 | -- | -- | 13,900 | EPA RfD |
| acenaphthene | 3/7 | 0.8-3.0 | -- | -- | 16,680 | EPA RfD |
| benzoicacid | 2/7 | 4300-12000 | -- | -- | 1,112,000 | EPA RfD |
| butylbenzylphthalate | 2/7 | 0.9-4.5 | -- | -- | 55,600 | EPA RfD |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 3/7 | 1.0-5.2 | -- | -- | 27,800 | EPA RfD |
| diethylphthalate | 6/7 | 1-55 | -- | -- | 222,400 | EPA RfD |
| fluorene | 2/7 | 0.6-1.0 | -- | -- | 11,128 | EPA RfD |
| n-nitrosodiphenylamine | 2/7 | 2-7 | 102 | EPA CPF | 13,900 | ATSDRMRL |
| naphthalene | 4/7 | 0.6-103 | -- | -- | 1,112 | EPAHEAST |
| phenanthrene | 3/7 | 1-2 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| phenol | 5/7 | 45-1800 | -- | -- | 166,800 | EPA RfD |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 7/7 | 0.7-10.0 | 36 | EPA CPF | 5,560 | EPA RfD |
| 4,4'-DDD | 1/7 | 0.015 | 1.5 | NYS CPF | a | a |
| 4,4'-DDT | 3/7 | 0.044-0.11 | 0.14 | NYS CPF | 139 | EPA RfD |
| *aldrin | 1/7 | 0.082 | 0.04 | EPA CPF | 8.3 | EPA RfD |
| *heptachlor | 2/7 | 0.091-0.575 | 0.13 | NYS CPF | 139 | EPA RfD |
| *delta-hexachlorocyclohexane | 3/7 | 0.019-0.333 | b | b | b | b |
| gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane | 1/7 | 0.052 | 0.32 | NYS CPF | 83.4 | EPA RfD |
| Metals: | ||||||
| aluminum | 7/7 | 1140-325,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| *arsenic | 7/7 | 9.5-58.6 | 12 | EPA CPF | 1,770 | EPA RfD |
| barium | 7/7 | 147-7610 | -- | -- | 413,104 | EPA RfD |
| beryllium | 1/7 | 2.2 | -- | -- | 2,950 | EPA RfD |
| cadmium | 2/7 | 6.1-9.0 | -- | -- | 1,180 | ATSDRMRL |
| calcium | 7/7 | 96,450-396,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| chromium | 7/7 | 26-114 | -- | -- | 29,507 | EPA RfD |
| cobalt | 7/7 | 12.5-93.0 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| copper | 5/7 | 24.5-99.0 | -- | -- | 767,192 | EPAHEAST |
| iron | 7/7 | 12,555-390,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| lead | 7/7 | 17.4-1010 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| magnesium | 7/7 | 145,000-419,000 | -- | -- | 29,507,400 | NYS RfG |
| manganese | 7/7 | 76-2960 | -- | -- | 29,507 | EPA RfD |
| mercury | 2/7 | 0.5 | -- | -- | 1,770 | EPAHEAST |
| nickel | 7/7 | 34-115 | -- | -- | 118,030 | EPA RfD |
| potassium | 7/7 | 26,200-445,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| sodium | 7/7 | 84,800-1,660,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| vanadium | 4/7 | 21.5-29.0 | -- | -- | 4,131 | EPAHEAST |
| zinc | 7/7 | 204-1410 | -- | -- | 1,770,444 | EPA RfD |
Data adapted from: Remedial Investigation Report, Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 1992.
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**Noncancer comparison values for organic chemicals are determined for a 21 kilogram childwhose arms and hands are exposed to leachate for 1 hour per day, 2 days per week for 3 monthsper year and who swallows 0.05 liters of leachate per day, 2 days a week for 3 months per year. Noncancer comparison values for metals are determined for a 21 kilogram child who swallows0.05 liters of leachate per day, 2 days a week for 3 months per year. Cancer comparison valuesfor organic chemicals are determined for a 70 kilogram adult whose arms and hands are exposedto leachate for 1 hour per day, 2 days per week for 3 months per year and who swallows 0.05liters of leachate per day, 2 days a week for 3 months per year. Cancer comparison values formetals are determined for a 70 kilogram adult who swallows 0.05 liters of leachate per day, 2days a week for 3 months per year.
***EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
NYS RfG = NYS Risk Reference Guide
NYS CPF = NYS Cancer Potency Factor
ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
EPA HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
aSee DDT
bSee gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane
Niagara County Refuse
Surface Water Sample Results
[All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/l)]
Samples Collected 11/90
| Chemical | On-Site | Off-Site | Comparison Value | |||||
| Frequency ofDetection | Range of Detection | Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | Cancer** | Source*** | NonCancer** | Source*** | |
| Organics: | ||||||||
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 1/6 | 2 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 25,020 | EPAHEAST |
| 4-methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) | 1/6 | 2 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 13,900 | EPAHEAST |
| carbondisulfide | 2/6 | 0.6-1.0 | 1/4 | 8 | -- | -- | 27,800 | EPARfD |
| ethylbenzene | 1/6 | 1.0 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 27,800 | EPARfD |
| tetrachlorobenzene | 0/6 | -- | 1/4 | 4 | -- | -- | 83.4 | EPARfD |
| toluene | 2/6 | 2 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 55,600 | EPARfD |
| xylenes | 1/6 | 5.5 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 556,000 | EPARfD |
| 2,4-dimethylphenol | 1/6 | 6.5 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 5,560 | EPARfD |
| benzoicacid | 1/6 | 5.0 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 1,112,000 | EPARfD |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 1/6 | 0.4 | 1/4 | 0.3 | -- | -- | 27,800 | EPARfD |
| diethylphthalate | 1/6 | 0.55 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 222,400 | EPARfD |
| phenol | 1/6 | 11 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 166,800 | EPARfD |
| *bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 5/6 | 3.0-80.0 | 2/4 | 80.0-1000.0 | 36 | EPACPF | 5,560 | EPARfD |
| 4,4'-DDT | 1/6 | 0.04 | 0/4 | -- | 0.14 | NYSCPF | 139 | EPARfD |
| heptachlorepoxide | 0/6 | -- | 1/4 | 0.014 | 0.05 | EPACPF | 3.6 | EPARfD |
| delta-hexachlorocyclohexane | 2/6 | 0.014-0.021 | 0/4 | -- | a | a | a | a |
| gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane | 0/6 | -- | 1/4 | 0.0051 | 0.32 | NYSCPF | 83.4 | EPARfD |
| Metals: | ||||||||
| aluminum | 6/6 | 426-25,200 | 4/4 | 665-21,500 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| *arsenic | 1/6 | 30.6 | 2/4 | 4.7-24.6 | 12 | EPACPF | 1,770 | EPARfD |
| barium | 6/6 | 66-456 | 4/4 | 55-347 | -- | -- | 413,104 | EPARfD |
| beryllium | 0/6 | -- | 1/4 | 2.1 | -- | -- | 2,950 | EPARfD |
| cadmium | 1/6 | 5.7 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 1,180 | ATSDRMRL |
| calcium | 6/6 | 75,400-134,000 | 4/4 | 71100-285000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| chromium | 1/6 | 27 | 1/4 | 38 | -- | -- | 29,507 | EPARfD |
| cobalt | 1/6 | 25 | 1/4 | 18 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| copper | 2/6 | 27-94 | 1/4 | 61 | -- | -- | 767,192 | EPAHEAST |
| cyanide | 3/6 | 19.3-40.6 | 0/4 | -- | -- | -- | 118,030 | EPARfD |
| iron | 6/6 | 448-38,000 | 4/4 | 1,030-31,300 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| lead | 6/6 | 6.1-176 | 4/4 | 6.3-352 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| magnesium | 6/6 | 34,300-90,000 | 4/4 | 30400-113000 | -- | -- | 29,507,400 | NYSRfG |
| manganese | 6/6 | 27-1460 | 4/4 | 41-1,690 | -- | -- | 29,507 | EPARfD |
| nickel | 2/6 | 25-57 | 1/4 | 63 | -- | -- | 118,030 | EPARfD |
| potassium | 6/6 | 7,380-68,000 | 4/4 | 5,850-33,400 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| sodium | 6/6 | 47,700-395,000 | 4/4 | 46400-171000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| vanadium | 1/6 | 61 | 1/4 | 42 | -- | -- | 4,131 | EPAHEAST |
| zinc | 3/6 | 24-2,360 | 2/4 | 76-307 | -- | -- | 1,770,444 | EPARfD |
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**Noncancer comparison values for organic chemicals are determined for a 21 kilogram childwhose arms and hands are exposed to surface water for 1 hour per day, 2 days per week for 3months per year and who swallows 0.05 liters of surface water per day, 2 days a week for 3months per year. Noncancer comparison values for metals are determined for a 21 kilogramchild 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 whosearms and hands are exposed to leachate for 1 hour per day, 2 days per week for 3 months per yearand 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 0.05liters 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
NYS RfG = NYS Risk Reference Guide
NYS CPF = NYS Cancer Potency Factor
ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
EPA HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
aSee gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane
Niagara County Refuse
Sediment Sample Results
[All values in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]
Samples Collected 11/90
| Chemical | On-Site | Off-Site | BackgroundRange* | Comparison Value** | |||||
| Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | Cancer | Source*** | Non-Cancer | Source*** | ||
| Organics: | |||||||||
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 1/12 | 5 | 1/6 | 2 | ND | -- | -- | 132,300 | EPARfD |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 1/12 | 19 | 0/6 | -- | ND | -- | -- | 147,000 | EPARfD |
| acetone | 7/12 | 12-100 | 4/6 | 12-30 | ND | -- | -- | 147,000 | EPARfD |
| benzene | 1/12 | 3 | 0/6 | -- | ND | 280 | EPACPF | 1,029 | NYSRfG |
| methylenechloride | 8/12 | 15-73 | 3/6 | 21-71 | ND | 1,260 | EPACPF | 88,200 | ATSDRMRL |
| benzo(a)anthracene | 1/12 | 82 | 3/6 | 140-210 | + | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| benzo(a)pyrene | 0/12 | -- | 2/6 | 140-250 | <1-1.3 | 1.4 | EPACPF | 5,880 | EPARfD |
| benzo(b)fluoranthene | 1/12 | 250 | 3/6 | 130-320 | + | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| benzo(g,h,i)perylene | 0/12 | -- | 1/6 | 230 | + | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| benzo(k)fluoranthene | 0/12 | -- | 3/6 | 160-250 | + | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| chrysene | 1/12 | 150 | 4/6 | 120-270 | + | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 1/12 | 140 | 0/6 | -- | ND | -- | -- | 147,000 | EPARfD |
| di-n-octylphthalate | 1/12 | 290 | 0/6 | -- | ND | -- | -- | 29,400 | EPARfD |
| fluoranthene | 2/12 | 62-150 | 4/6 | 150-330 | + | -- | -- | 58,800 | EPARfD |
| phenanthrene | 2/12 | 40-62 | 4/6 | 83-180 | + | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| pyrene | 2/12 | 50-140 | 4/6 | 170-310 | + | -- | -- | 44,100 | EPARfD |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 9/12 | 170-970 | 2/6 | 580-3900 | ND | 700 | EPACPF | 29,400 | EPARfD |
| 4,4'-DDD | 1/12 | 4.7 | 0/6 | -- | 0.01-5 | 28 | NYSCPF | -- | -- |
| 4,4'-DDE | 2/12 | 1.1-1.3 | 1/6 | 28 | 0.01-7 | 2.8 | NYSCPF | -- | -- |
| 4,4'-DDT | 2/12 | 6.9-15 | 3/6 | 11-77 | 0.01-6 | 2.8 | NYSCPF | 735 | EPARfD |
| aldrin | 1/12 | 1.1 | 1/6 | 2 | ND | 0.56 | EPACPF | 44 | EPARfD |
| dieldrin | 3/12 | 1.9-2.4 | 0/6 | -- | 0.001-0.049 | 0.28 | NYSCPF | 88 | ATSDRMRL |
| endosulfan II | 3/12 | 2.7-7.8 | 0/6 | -- | ND | -- | -- | 74 | EPARfD |
| endrin | 1/12 | 7.6 | 1/6 | 18 | ND | -- | -- | 588 | ATSDRMRL |
| heptachlorepoxide | 1/12 | 0.93 | 2/6 | 0.30-3.1 | ND | 1.12 | EPACPF | 19 | EPARfD |
| methoxychlor | 1/12 | 16.0 | 0/6 | -- | ND | -- | -- | 7,350 | EPARfD |
| delta-hexachlorocyclohexane | 5/11 | 1.7-5.4 | 2/6 | 2.0-4.4 | ND | a | a | a | a |
| gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane | 1/11 | 0.92 | 1/6 | 1.5 | 0.01-0.1 | 6.3 | NYSCPF | 441 | EPARfD |
| Metals: | |||||||||
| aluminum | 12/12 | 11,600-27,800 | 6/6 | 6,480-24,900 | 7,000-100,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| arsenic | 12/12 | 11-26.8 | 6/6 | 7.2-27.6 | 10-20 | 80 | EPACPF | 441 | EPARfD |
| barium | 12/12 | 64.5-156 | 6/6 | 91.1-148 | 300-500 | -- | -- | 102,900 | EPARfD |
| beryllium | 12/12 | 0.54-1.3 | 6/6 | 0.48-1.1 | <1-7 | 2.8 | EPACPF | 7,350 | EPARfD |
| cadmium | 3/12 | 0.8-1.4 | 1/6 | 2.1 | <0.5-1 | -- | -- | 294 | ATSDRMRL |
| calcium | 12/12 | 5,170-61,400 | 6/6 | 8,790-115,000 | 100-400,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| chromium | 12/12 | 16.3-34.8 | 6/6 | 14.1-30.8 | 10-40 | -- | -- | 7,350 | EPARfD |
| cobalt | 12/12 | 4.8-14.9 | 6/6 | 7.9-17.7 | <0.3-70 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| copper | 12/12 | 10.4-35.5 | 6/6 | 11.9-36.7 | <1-25 | -- | -- | 191,100 | EPARfD |
| iron | 12/12 | 15,100-69,000 | 6/6 | 8590-28,200 | 10,000-40,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| lead | 12/12 | 21-101 | 6/6 | 30-68 | 10-300 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| magnesium | 12/12 | 4210-39,200 | 6/6 | 6140-48,700 | 400-15,000 | -- | -- | 7,350,000 | NYSRfG |
| manganese | 12/12 | 126-695 | 6/6 | 187-515 | 500-3,000 | -- | -- | 205,800 | EPARfD |
| mercury | 9/12 | 0.082-1.1 | 3/6 | 0.18-0.32 | 0.01-3.4 | -- | -- | 441 | EPARfD |
| nickel | 12/12 | 13.7-35.4 | 6/6 | 7.4-30.9 | <5-20 | -- | -- | 29,400 | EPARfD |
| potassium | 12/12 | 1,520-6,340 | 6/6 | 1,320-4,750 | 50-30,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| sodium | 12/12 | 240-1,660 | 6/6 | 265-528 | 3,000-50,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| vanadium | 12/12 | 22.2-49.0 | 6/6 | 12-40.5 | 3-500 | -- | -- | 10,290 | EPARfD |
| zinc | 12/12 | 66.8-306 | 6/6 | 71.2-146 | 50-100 | -- | -- | 294,000 | EPARfD |
ND - not determined
*References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett (1983); Dragun (1988); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988); Schacklette and Boerngen (1984).
**Comparison values for cancer risk are determined for a 70 kg adult who ingests 100 mg soilper day, 2 days per week for 3 months per year. Comparison values for non-cancer risk aredetermined for a 21 kg child who ingests 200 mg soil per day, 2 days per week for 3 months peryear.
***ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
NYS CPF = NYS Cancer Potency Factor
NYS RfG = NYS Risk Reference Guideline
+Based on reported background levels for total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons of <1 to 13mg/kg in soil (ATSDR, 1990d; Edwards, 1983).
aSee gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane
Niagara County Refuse
Sediment Sample Data
Culvert Discharge to Niagara River
[All values in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]
[See Table 3A for Background Levels and Public Health Assessment Comparison Values]
| Chemical | Level of Detection |
| acetone | 0.012 |
| methylene chloride | 0.021 |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 3.9 |
| 4,4'-DDT | 0.011 |
| aluminum | 6,480 |
| arsenic | 7.2 |
| barium | 114 |
| beryllium | 0.48 |
| cadmium | 2.1 |
| calcium | 115,000 |
| chromium | 14.1 |
| cobalt | 17.7 |
| copper | 11.9 |
| iron | 8,590 |
| lead | 59 |
| magnesium | 48,700 |
| manganese | 451 |
| mercury | ND |
| nickel | 7.4 |
| potassium | 1,320 |
| sodium | 528 |
| vanadium | 12 |
| zinc | 78 |
Data adapted from: Remedial Investigation Report: Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 1992.
"ND" indicates "not detected".
Niagara County Refuse - On-Site Subsurface Soil Samples [All values in milligrams perkilogram (mg/kg)]
Samples Collected 4/90 to 12/90
| Chemical | Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | Background Range* | Comparison Value** | |||
| Cancer | Source*** | Non-Cancer | Source*** | ||||
| acetone | 5/28 | 0.004-0.050 | ND | -- | -- | 147,000 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2-dichloroethene | 1/28 | 0.160 | ND | -- | -- | 14,700 | EPA RfD |
| methylene chloride | 10/28 | 0.0035-0.049 | ND | 1,260 | EPA CPF | 88,200 | ATSDR MRL |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 4/28 | 0.003-0.0061 | ND | -- | -- | 132,300 | EPA RfD |
| trichloroethene | 5/28 | 0.014-0.024 | ND | 910 | EPA CPF | 10,878 | EPA RfD |
| butylbenzylphthalate | 1/28 | 1.2 | ND | -- | -- | 294,000 | EPA RfD |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 4/28 | 0.700-1.5 | ND | 700 | EPA CPF | 29,400 | EPA RfD |
| alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane | 1/30 | 0.00026 | ND | 1.54 | EPA CPF | 438b | EPA RfD |
| heptachlor epoxide | 1/29 | 0.00058 | ND | 1.12 | EPA CPF | 19 | EPA RfD |
| delta-hexachlorocyclohexane | 1/29 | 0.0014 | ND | 0.42a | EPA CPF | 438b | EPA RfD |
| aluminum | 29/29 | 2,300-26,000 | 7,000-100,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| antimony | 5/30 | 6.8-20 | 0.6-10 | -- | -- | 588 | EPA RfD |
| arsenic | 30/30 | 1.8-28 | 10-20 | 80 | EPA CPF | 441 | EPA RfD |
| barium | 29/30 | 12-280 | 300-500 | -- | -- | 102,900 | EPA RfD |
| beryllium | 24/30 | 0.2-1.1 | <1-7 | 2.8 | EPA CPF | 7,350 | EPA RfD |
| calcium | 30/30 | 2,600-150,000 | 100-400,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| chromium | 30/30 | 3.5-31 | 10-40 | -- | -- | 7,350 | EPA RfD |
| cobalt | 30/30 | 1.5-15 | <0.3-70 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| copper | 30/30 | 4-39.2 | <1-25 | -- | -- | 191,100 | EPA RfD |
| iron | 29/29 | 5,200-31,000 | 10,000-40,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| lead | 29/29 | 4.9-250 | 10-300 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| magnesium | 29/29 | 2,200-93,000 | 400-15,000 | -- | -- | 7,350,000 | NYS RfG |
| manganese | 29/29 | 63-1,300 | 500-3,000 | -- | -- | 205,800 | EPA RfD |
| nickel | 30/30 | 2.6-30 | <5-20 | -- | -- | 29,400 | EPA RfD |
| potassium | 30/30 | 470-6,300 | 50-30,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| sodium | 29/30 | 89-920 | 3,000-50,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| vanadium | 30/30 | 6.3-38 | 3-500 | -- | -- | 10,290 | EPA RfD |
| zinc | 29/29 | 5.4-135 | 50-100 | -- | -- | 294,000 | EPA RfD |
Data adapted from: Remedial Investigation Report: Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 1992.
ND - not determined
*References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett (1983); Dragun (1988); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988); Schacklette and Boerngen (1984).
**Comparison values for cancer risk are determined for a 70 kg adult who ingests 100 mg soilper day, 2 days per week for 3 months per year; comparison values for non-cancer risk are determined for a 21 kg child who ingests 200 mg soil per day, 2 days per week for 3 months per year.
***ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level
EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
NYS RfG = NYS Risk Reference Guideline
aBased on cancer comparison value for gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane.
bBased on non-cancer comparison value for gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane.
Off-Site Subsurface Soil Samples
[All values in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)]
Samples Collected 4/90 to 12/90
| Chemical | Off-Site Soil Samples | |
| Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | |
| aluminum | 4/4 | 4,200-23,000 |
| antimony | 1/4 | 13 |
| arsenic | 4/4 | 1.8-28 |
| barium | 4/4 | 45-280 |
| beryllium | 3/4 | 0.38-1.0 |
| calcium | 4/4 | 3,500-97,000 |
| chromium | 4/4 | 5.9-28 |
| cobalt | 4/4 | 2.6-9.4 |
| copper | 4/4 | 8.3-29 |
| iron | 4/4 | 6,800-25,000 |
| lead | 4/4 | 4.9-250 |
| magnesium | 4/4 | 3,200-48,000 |
| manganese | 4/4 | 63-370 |
| nickel | 4/4 | 5.9-28 |
| potassium | 4/4 | 800-3,300 |
| sodium | 3/4 | 89-290 |
| vanadium | 4/4 | 8.1-38 |
| zinc | 4/4 | 39-110 |
Samples Collected 11/90
| Chemical | Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | Background Range* | Comparison Value** | |||
| Cancer | Source*** | Non-Cancer | Source*** | ||||
| methylene chloride | 1/2 | 0.067 | ND | 1,260 | EPA CPF | 88,200 | ATSDR MRL |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 1/2 | 0.120 | ND | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 4-methylphenol | 1/2 | 0.440 | ND | -- | -- | 73,500 | EPA RfD |
| acenaphthene | 1/2 | 0.100 | ND | -- | -- | 88,200 | EPA RfD |
| anthracene | 1/2 | 0.190 | + | -- | -- | 441,000 | EPA RfD |
| benzo(a)anthracene | 1/2 | 0.210 | + | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| butylbenzylphthalate | 1/2 | 1.200 | ND | -- | -- | 294,000 | EPA RfD |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 2/2 | 0.081-0.350 | ND | -- | -- | 147,000 | EPA RfD |
| fluoranthene | 1/2 | 0.480 | + | -- | -- | 58,800 | EPA RfD |
| naphthalene | 1/2 | 0.240 | ND | -- | -- | 5,800 | EPA RfD |
| phenanthrene | 1/2 | 0.470 | + | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| pyrene | 1/2 | 0.840 | + | -- | -- | 44,100 | EPA RfD |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 1/2 | 0.750 | ND | 700 | EPA CPF | 29,400 | EPA RfD |
| 4,4'-DDD | 1/2 | 0.00069 | 0.01-5 | 28 | NYS CPF | -- | -- |
| aldrin | 1/2 | 0.0021 | ND | 0.56 | EPA CPF | 44 | EPA RfD |
| dieldrin | 1/2 | 0.0032 | 0.001-0.049 | 0.28 | NYS CPF | 88 | ATSDR MRL |
| delta-hexachlorocyclohexane | 1/2 | 0.0021 | ND | 0.42a | EPA CPF | 438b | EPA RfD |
| aluminum | 2/2 | 7,810-11,700 | 7,000-100,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| arsenic | 2/2 | 7-12 | 10-20 | 80 | EPA CPF | 441 | EPA RfD |
| barium | 2/2 | 110 | 300-500 | -- | -- | 102,900 | EPA RfD |
| beryllium | 2/2 | 0.29-0.6 | <1-7 | 2.8 | EPA CPF | 7,350 | EPA RfD |
| cadmium | 1/2 | 0.71 | <0.5-1 | -- | -- | 294 | ATSDR MRL |
| calcium | 2/2 | 78,600-81,400 | 100-400,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| chromium | 2/2 | 17.5-18.1 | 10-40 | -- | -- | 7,350 | EPA RfD |
| cobalt | 2/2 | 4.7-6.8 | <0.3-70 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| copper | 2/2 | 29.4-47.8 | <1-25 | -- | -- | 191,100 | EPA RfD |
| iron | 2/2 | 23,400-25,700 | 10,000-40,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| lead | 2/2 | 40-110 | 10-300 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| magnesium | 2/2 | 29,700-35,000 | 400-15,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| manganese | 2/2 | 441-511 | 500-3,000 | -- | -- | 205,800 | EPA RfD |
| mercury | 2/2 | 0.39-1.2 | 0.01-3.4 | -- | -- | 441 | EPA RfD |
| nickel | 2/2 | 16.1-18.7 | <5-20 | -- | -- | 29,400 | EPA RfD |
| potassium | 2/2 | 1,390-2,890 | 50-30,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| sodium | 2/2 | 365-394 | 300-50,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| vanadium 2/2 16.3-23.1 3-500 | -- | -- | 10,290 | EPA RfD | |||
| zinc | 2/2 | 102-119 | 50-100 | -- | -- | 294,000 | EPA RfD |
Data adapted from: Remedial Investigation Report: Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 1992.
ND - not determined
*References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett (1983); Dragun (1988); Frank et al. (1976); McGovern (1988); Schacklette and Boerngen (1984).
**Comparison values for cancer risk are determined for a 70 kg adult who ingests 100 mg soilper day, 2 days per week for 3 months per year; comparison values for non-cancer risk are
determined for a 21 kg child who ingests 200 mg soil per day, 2 days per week for 3 months peryear.
| ***ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level | EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose |
| NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline | EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer PotencyFactor |
| NYS CPF = NYS Cancer Potency Factor | |
| +Based on reported background levels for total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons of <1 to 13mg/kg in soil (ATSDR, 1990d; Edwards, 1983). | |
| aBased on cancer comparison value for gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane. | bBased on non-cancer comparison value for gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane. |
Niagara County Refuse
Groundwater Samples
[All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
[See Table 8 for Public Health Assessment Comparison Values]
Samples Collected 3/91 to 5/91
| Chemical | Shallow Overburden | Deep Overburden | Bedrock | |||
| Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | |
| acetone | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1/8 | 6 |
| benzene | -- | -- | 1/9 | 1 | -- | -- |
| toluene | -- | -- | 2/9 | 3-5 | -- | -- |
| ethylbenzene | -- | -- | 1/9 | 1 | -- | -- |
| xylenes | -- | -- | 1/9 | 8 | -- | -- |
| methylene chloride | -- | -- | 1/9 | 4 | -- | -- |
| phenol | 1/5 | 4 | 2/9 | 2 | 1/8 | 1 |
| *pentachlorophenol | 1/5 | 3 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| di-n-butylphthalate | -- | -- | 1/9 | 1 | -- | -- |
| butylbenzylphthalate | 1/5 | 3 | 1/9 | 4 | 1/8 | 2 |
| *bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 2/5 | 8-23 | 5/9 | 0.8-10 | 3/8 | 3-5 |
| diethylphthalate | -- | -- | 1/9 | 1 | -- | -- |
| alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane | 1/5 | 0.00054 | 1/9 | 0.00065 | -- | -- |
| *beta-hexachlorocyclohexane | 1/5 | 0.049 | -- | -- | 1/8 | 0.00086 |
| delta-hexachlorocyclohexane | 1/5 | 0.0012 | 1/9 | 0.00051 | 1/8 | 0.0011 |
| gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane | 2/5 | 0.0011-0.0016 | 2/9 | 0.00085-0.0011 | 1/8 | 0.0030 |
| *heptachlor | 2/5 | 0.00092-0.090 | 7/9 | 0.0007-0.0037 | 4/8 | 0.00083-0.0016 |
| dieldrin | -- | -- | 1/9 | 0.00058 | -- | -- |
| heptachlor epoxide | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1/8 | 0.00086 |
| *4,4'-DDE | 3/5 | 0.001-0.0012 | 4/9 | 0.00092-0.0012 | 2/8 | 0.00081-0.57 |
| methoxychlor | 1/5 | 0.0078 | -- | -- | 1/8 | 0.0025 |
| endosulfan sulfate | -- | -- | 1/9 | 0.00089 | 2/8 | 0.00094-0.056 |
| endrin aldehyde | 1/5 | 0.0025 | 1/9 | 0.0031 | 1/8 | 0.0076 |
| alpha-chlordane | 3/5 | 0.00062-0.0022 | 1/9 | 0.00098 | -- | -- |
| gamma-chlordane | 1/5 | 0.018 | -- | -- | 1/8 | 0.015 |
| 4,4'-DDD | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1/8 | 0.015 |
| *4,4'-DDT | -- | -- | -- | -- | 2/8 | 0.14-0.67 |
| endrin ketone | -- | -- | -- | -- | 2/8 | 0.0024-0.022 |
| aldrin | -- | -- | -- | -- | 1/8 | 0.00089 |
| *aluminum | 5/5 | 265-27,300 | 8/9 | 101-80,800 | 7/8 | 73.8-829 |
| *antimony | -- | -- | 2/9 | 26.4-29.6 | 1/8 | 23.1 |
| *arsenic | 2/5 | 4.2-6.1 | 9/9 | 3.0-16.4 | 2/8 | 3.5-4.2 |
| barium | 5/5 | 26.9-364 | 9/9 | 11.4-431 | 8/8 | 3.4-30.7 |
| beryllium | 1/5 | 1.7 | 4/9 | 1.0-3.1 | 0/8 | -- |
| cadmium | 1/5 | 4.6 | 1/9 | 5.0 | 0/8 | -- |
| calcium | 5/5 | 71,100-317,000 | 9/9 | 35,600-577,000 | 8/8 | 59,800-553,000 |
| *chromium | 5/5 | 7.5-134 | 4/9 | 8.3-119 | 0/8 | -- |
| cobalt | 3/5 | 6.6-19.6 | 2/9 | 14.0-43.9 | 0/8 | -- |
| copper | 5/5 | 7.4-62.6 | 7/9 | 3.1-127 | 2/8 | 4.5-10.7 |
| *iron | 5/5 | 1,440-43,600 | 9/9 | 398-108,000 | 8/8 | 58.5-1,710 |
| *lead | 4/5 | 4.2-22.4 | 4/9 | 2.6-77.9 | 0/8 | -- |
| *magnesium | 5/5 | 28,500-100,000 | 9/9 | 33,500-340,000 | 8/8 | 31,900-148,000 |
| *manganese | 5/5 | 190-3,840 | 9/9 | 35.4-3,930 | 8/8 | 17.2-109 |
| mercury | 0/5 | -- | 2/9 | 1.2-1.8 | 0/8 | -- |
| *nickel | 5/5 | 19-155 | 4/9 | 9.5-133 | 0/8 | -- |
| potassium | 5/5 | 1,370-11,200 | 9/9 | 2,350-24,300 | 8/8 | 4,090-17,900 |
| silver | 0/5 | -- | 1/9 | 5.0 | 0/8 | -- |
| *sodium | 5/5 | 60,200-3,610,000 | 9/9 | 15,100-112,000 | 8/8 | 53,600-420,000 |
| *vanadium | 4/5 | 4.7-55.9 | 4/9 | 5.1-150 | 0/8 | -- |
| zinc | 4/5 | 33.9-160 | 7/9 | 6.8-508 | 7/8 | 3.7-44.0 |
Data adapted from: Remedial Investigation Report: Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 1992.
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
"--" indicates "not detected".
Niagara County Refuse
On-Site Ambient Air Sampling
[All values in micrograms per cubic meter (mcg/m3)]
Samples Collected 7/90
| Chemical | Frequency of Detection | Range of Detection | Background Range* | Comparison Value | |||
| Cancer | Source*** | Non-Cancer | Source*** | ||||
| benzene | 2/2 | 0.4-0.6 | 0.53-5.89 | 0.1 | EPA CPF | -- | -- |
| chlorobenzene | 0/2 | ND | 3 | -- | -- | 20 | EPA RfC |
| methylene chloride | 3/3 | 0.5-1.9 | 0.2-2.2 | 2.1 | EPA CPF | 60 | NYS RfG |
| toluene | 3/3 | 0.004-0.4 | 2.5-142 | -- | -- | 400 | EPA RfC |
| vinyl chloride | 0/2 | ND | <26 | 0.01 | EPA CPF | 0.07 | ATSDR MRL |
| phenol | 0/6 | ND | -- | -- | -- | 2,100 | EPA RfD |
Data adapted from: Remedial Investigation Report: Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 1992.
ND - not detected
*References: ATSDR (1990c; 1991k,l); Bozzelli et al. (1980); Singh et al. (1981).
**Comparison values based on a 70 kilogram adult inhaling 20 cubic meters of air per day.
***ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimum Risk Level
EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
EPA RfC = US EPA Reference Concentration
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
Public Health Assessment Comparison Values for Contaminants Found in Sources of DrinkingWater
[All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]
| Chemical | Standards/Guidelines New York State | U.S. EPA Drinking Water | Comparison Value | |||||
| Ground water | Surface Water | Drinking Water | Cancer* | Source** | Non-Cancer* | Source** | ||
| acenaphthene | 20g | 20 | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 420 | EPA RfD |
| acetone | 50 | -- | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 700 | EPA RfD |
| aldrin | ND | 10 | 5 | -- | 0.002 | EPA RfD | 0.21 | EPA RfD |
| benzene | 0.7 | 0.7 | 5 | 5 | 0.7 | EPA RfD | 5 | EPA RfD |
| benzoic acid | 50 | -- | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 28,000 | EPA RfD |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 50 | 4g | 50 | 6 | 2.5 | EPA CPF | 140 | EPA RfD |
| 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone) | 50 | 50 | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 200 | EPA LTHA |
| butylbenzylphthalate | 50g | 50g | 50 | 100p | -- | -- | 1,400 | EPA RfD |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 50 | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 700 | EPA RfD |
| carbon disulfide | -- | -- | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 700 | EPA RfD |
| chlordane | 0.1m | 0.02g,m | 2m | 2m | 0.016 | NYS CPF | 0.4 | EPA RfD |
| chlorobenzene | 5 | 20 | 5 | 100 | -- | -- | 140 | EPA RfD |
| cyanide | 100 | 100 | 100++ | 200 | -- | -- | 200 | EPA LTHA |
| 4,4'-DDD | ND | 0.01*** | 5 | -- | 0.1 | NYS CPF | -- | -- |
| 4,4'-DDE | ND | 0.01*** | 5 | -- | 0.01 | NYS CPF | -- | -- |
| 4,4'-DDT | ND | 0.01*** | 5 | -- | 0.01 | NYS CPF | 3.6 | EPA RfD |
| 1,2-dichlorobenzene | 4.7+ | -- | 5 | 600;10ps | -- | -- | 600 | EPA LTHA |
| 1,3-dichlorobenzene | -- | 20 | 5 | 600 | -- | -- | 600 | EPA LTHA |
| dieldrin | ND | 0.0009 | 5 | -- | 0.0022 | EPA CPF | 0.4 | EPA RfD |
| diethylphthalate | 50g | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 5,000 | EPA LTHA |
| 2,4-dimethylphenol | 1 | 1 | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 140 | EPA RfD |
| 2,6-dinitrotoluene | 5 | 0.07g | 5 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| endosulfan sulfate | -- | 9 | 50 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| endrin aldehyde | -- | -- | 50 | 2 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| endrin ketone | -- | -- | 50 | 2 | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ethylbenzene | 5 | 5g | 5 | 700;30ps | -- | -- | 700 | EPA LTHA |
| fluorene | 50g | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 280 | EPA RfD |
| heptachlor | ND | 0.009 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0078 | EPA CPF | 3.6 | EPA RfD |
| heptachlor epoxide | ND | 0.009 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0038 | EPA CPF | 0.1 | EPA RfD |
| alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane | ND | 0.01**** | 5 | -- | 0.006 | EPA CPF | a | a |
| beta-hexachlorocyclohexane | ND | 0.01**** | 5 | -- | 0.036 | NYS CPF | a | a |
| delta-hexachlorocyclohexane | ND | 0.01**** | 5 | -- | a | a | a | a |
| gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane | ND | 0.01**** | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.02 | NYS CREG | 0.2 | EPA LTHA |
| 2-hexanone | 50g | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| methoxychlor | 35 | 35 | 40 | 40 | -- | -- | 40 | EPA LTHA |
| methylene chloride | 5 | 5g | 5 | 5 | 4.7 | EPA CPF | 420 | EPA RfD |
| 4-methyl-2-pentanone | 50 | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 350 | EPA RfD |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | 50 | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 2-methylphenol | 1 | 1 | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 360 | EPA RfD |
| 4-methylphenol | 1 | 1 | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 360 | EPA RfD |
| naphthalene | 10g | 10 | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 20 | EPA LTHA |
| n-nitrosodiphenylamine | 50g | 50g | 50 | -- | 7 | EPA CPF | 2,000 | ATSDR MRL |
| pentachlorophenol | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.3 | EPA CPF | 210 | EPA RfD |
| phenanthrene | 50g | 50g | 50 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| phenol | 1 | 1 | 50 | -- | -- | -- | 4,000 | EPA LTHA |
| toluene | 5 | 5g | 5 | 1,000;40ps | -- | -- | 1,000 | EPA LTHA |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 5 | 5g | 5 | 200 | -- | -- | 200 | EPA LTHA |
| tetrachlorobenzene | 5i | 10 | 5 | -- | -- | -- | 2 | EPA RfD |
| xylenes | 5n | 5g,n | 5n | 10,000;20ps | -- | -- | 10,000 | EPA LTHA |
| Metals | ||||||||
| aluminum | -- | -- | -- | 50-200s | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| antimony | 3g | 3g | -- | 6 | -- | -- | 3 | EPA LTHA |
| arsenic | 25 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 0.02 | EPA CPF | 11 | EPA RfD |
| barium | 1,000 | 1,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | -- | -- | 2,000 | EPA LTHA |
| beryllium | 3g | 3g | -- | 4 | 0.0081 | EPA CPF | 180 | EPA RfD |
| cadmium | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 | -- | -- | 5 | EPA LTHA |
| calcium | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| chromium | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 | -- | -- | 100 | EPA LTHA |
| cobalt | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| copper | 200 | 200 | 1,000 | 1,300 | -- | -- | 1,300p | EPA MCLG |
| iron | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300s | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| 25 | 50 | 15+++ | 15+++ | -- | -- | -- | -- | |
| magnesium | 35,000g | 35,000 | -- | -- | -- | -- | 35,000 | NYS RfG |
| manganese | 300 | 300 | 300 | 50s | -- | -- | 175 | EPA RfD |
| mercury | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | -- | -- | 2 | EPA LTHA |
| nickel | -- | -- | -- | 100 | -- | -- | 100 | EPA LTHA |
| potassium | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| silver | 50 | 50 | 50 | 100s | -- | -- | 100 | EPA LTHA |
| sodium | 20,000 | -- | ++++ | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| vanadium | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | 20 | EPA LTHA |
| zinc | 300 | 300 | 5,000 | 5,000s | -- | -- | 2,100 | EPA LTHA |
*Comparison value determined for a 70 kilogram adult who drinks 2 liters of water per day.
| **ATSDR MRL = ATSDR Minimal Risk Level | g = guidance value |
| NYS CPF = NYS Cancer Potency Factor | i = applies to each isomer individually |
| EPA LTHA = EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory | m = applies to total chlordane |
| EPA CPF = EPA Cancer Potency Factor | n = applies to each isomer (1,2-; 1,3-; and 1,4-)individually |
| EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose | ND = not detected |
| NYS RfG = NYS Risk Reference Guide | p = proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL) |
| s = secondary MCL |
***Applies to total DDT, DDD and DDE.
****Applies to total alpha-, beta-, delta- and gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane.
+Applies to total of 1,2- and 1,4-isomers.
++10 NYCRR Part 170 Sources of Water Supply.
+++There is a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for lead and the action level is 15mcg/L at the tap.
++++No designated limit; water containing more than 20,000 mcg/L should not be used fordrinking 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.
aSee gamma-hexachlorocyclohexane.
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Data for Facilities Near the Niagara
County Refuse Site - Air Releases of Chemicals
in Pounds Per Year (lbs/yr).
| Facility Chemical | Air Release Stack Plus Fugitive |
| Buffalo Pump | |
| Nickel | 11-499 |
| Copper | 11-499 |
| Zinc | 11-499 |
| Precious Plate Inc. | None |
Data adapted from: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, March 1993.
PROCEDURE FOR EVALUATING POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS FOR CONTAMINANTSOF CONCERN
To evaluate the potential health risks from contaminants of concern associated with the NiagaraCounty Refuse site, the New York State Department of Health assessed the risks for cancer andnoncancer health effects.
Increased cancer risks were estimated by using site-specific information on exposure levels forthe contaminant of concern and interpreting them using cancer potency estimates derived for thatcontaminant by the US EPA or, in some cases, by the NYS DOH. The following qualitativeranking of cancer risk estimates, developed by the NYS DOH, was then used to rank the riskfrom very low to very high. For example, if the qualitative descriptor was "low", then the excesslifetime cancer risk from that exposure is in the range of greater than one per million to less thanone 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.
Response to Public Comments
Niagara County Refuse
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
This summary was prepared to respond to the public's comments and questions on the NiagaraCounty Refuse draft Public Health Assessment (PHA). The public was invited to review thisdocument during the public comment period which ran from March 31 to May 13, 1994. Comments were also received from the Niagara County Health Department and the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Some of the comments with similar concern havebeen grouped together. If you have any questions about this summary, contact the Health LiaisonProgram, toll-free, at 1-800-458-1158, extension 402.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
| 1. | COMMENT: This is the first that I am hearing about this site. I did not hear about the public meeting. How was it publicized? I suggest that another meeting be scheduled. RESPONSE: A public meeting was held on August 5, 1993 to discuss the Proposed Plan and thepreferred remedy for the site was discussed. It was publicized through newspaper and radioannouncements. At this time, the US EPA is not planning any more public meetings. However,US EPA expected to distribute information to the community about future site activities. |
| 2. | COMMENT: Home owners should be updated twice a year in case a problem occurs. RESPONSE: At this time, there are no plans to update the public health assessment (PHA). Ifadditional information is received that would change the PHA significantly, an addendum to thePHA would be prepared (see Public Health Actions Plan). The update will be placed in the site'srepositories and will be provided to persons who request it. The US EPA will provide periodic updates on the progress of the remedy. |
| 3. | COMMENT: Why was a toxic waste dump put in a residential area? RESPONSE: The Niagara County Refuse site is predominantly a municipal landfill. When thislandfill was active, there were less restrictions on the type of wastes that could be placed in amunicipal landfill than there are today. Some of these wastes are now considered hazardous. |
| 4. | COMMENT: Why were none of the companies responsible for the dumping mentioned in thereport? Are any of the responsible parties helping to clean-up this area? RESPONSE: Currently, 17 responsible parties have been identified for this site, includingcompanies that generated or hauled the waste and municipalities. The responsible partiesinclude: 1) Allied Signal, successor to Prestolite Battery; 2) Carborundum; 3) Browning-FerrisIndustries of New York and Browning-Ferris of Ohio, successors to Browning Ferris Industriesof Buffalo, Buffalo Sanitation, Niagara Sanitation, and Cataract Disposal; 4) E.I. du Pont deNemours; 5) Federal-Moqul, with respect to former National Grinding Wheel Division andNational Grinding Wheel, whose parent company is American Optical; 6) Goodyear Tire andRubber; 7) International Paper; 8) Modern Disposal Service; 9) Nabisco; 10) Niagara CountyRefuse Disposal District; 11) the City of Niagara Falls; 12) the City of North Tonawanda; 13)Occidental Chemical, successor to Hooker Chemical and Durez Division of Hooker; 14) Olin;15) Textron, for Bell Aerospace-Textron; 16) Waste Management of North America, successorto Downing Container; and 17) the Town of Wheatfield. The remedial investigation/feasibilitystudy (RI/FS) was performed by a consultant hired by the responsible parties. The remediationwill also be paid for by the responsible parties. The Background section of this PHA has beenrevised to include information about the responsible parties, the activities they have undertakenat the site and a discussion of the selected remedy. The remedy that will be performed at this siteis prescribed in the Record of Decision (ROD). |
| 5. | COMMENT: In the Pathway Analyses Section, Subsection A, Completed Exposure Pathways(page 11), it is stated that there are no known completed pathways. Please indicate which of thefive elements of a completed exposure pathway is missing. RESPONSE: In order for an exposure pathway to be completed, there must be (1) a source ofcontamination, such as waste; (2) an environmental media (soil, water, or air) that has beencontaminated; (3) a point where people may be exposed to the contaminated media, for examplesurface soil; (4) a route of exposure, such as ingestion, inhalation, or direct contact; and (5) apopulation that is known to be exposed. At the Niagara County Refuse site, none of the exposurepathways had all of these elements. The first paragraph of the Potential Human ExposurePathways section briefly discusses what element is missing for each of the pathways. For someof the potential pathways, people may come in contact with some contamination, but the contactcan not be documented. |
| 6. | COMMENT: How much off-site sampling has been done? There is no map showing wheresamples were collected. RESPONSE: Four out of ten surface water samples, seven out of 19 sediment samples, and fourout of 34 soil samples were collected off-site. Two surface water samples and four sedimentsamples were collected from a drainage ditch which parallels the site to the west. An additionalsurface water and sediment sample were collected northwest of the site near the wetland area. Surface water and sediment samples were also collected from a culvert discharge to the NiagaraRiver southwest of the site. A sediment sample was collected in a drainage ditch south of thesite. Maps showing sampling locations, and the results of the individual samples, are provided inthe remedial investigation report. A copy of the RI report is available for public review at thedocument repository for this site at the North Tonawanda Public Library at 505 Meadow Street,and the contact at the library is Ms. Elizabeth Lewin. |
| 7. | COMMENT: The tables in Appendix B are difficult to understand. Please explain them,particularly the column on "Frequency of Detection". RESPONSE: The frequency of detection has two numbers, separated by a slash (/). The firstnumber indicates how many samples contained the particular chemical. The second number isthe total number of samples that were analyzed for the particular chemical. The second numberis usually the same for an entire column since the samples were analyzed for many chemicals. Occasionally, these numbers are different and generally means that laboratory problems occurredduring the analysis for the specific chemical. The range of detection has either a single number or two numbers separated by a dash (-). Thefirst number is the lowest concentration that was found and the second number is the highestconcentration that was found. Concentrations for all samples are within the range. When there isonly one number, the chemical was found only at that concentration. |
| 8. | COMMENT: How were the Comparison Values calculated that are shown on the tables? RESPONSE: A public health assessment comparison value is a contaminant level in water, soil,or air that is not likely to cause health effects given the potential for exposure. Comparisonvalues are used to determine which site-related contaminants found in water, soil, or air need tobe further evaluated for cancer and non-cancer health risks. Please refer to the footnotes on eachtable and Appendix C for specific assumptions used in calculating the comparison values. |
| 9. | COMMENT: How was it determined that there were no community health concerns. RESPONSE: Prior to the release of this PHA for public comment in March of 1994, there wereno records or known community health concerns related to the site. We looked for communityhealth concerns in county, state, and US EPA files. This report has been revised to reflect thosehealth concerns received during the public review of this PHA and are included in theCommunity Health Concerns and Community Health Concerns Evaluation sections. |
| 10. | COMMENT: Why are they mining clay near the landfill? Why are they building new houseseast of the landfill? RESPONSE: There is no indication that contamination has migrated off-site or thatcontamination is present at levels that would be of public health concern; therefore, there is noreason to restrict the usage of land off site. |
| 11. | COMMENT: In the spring, water from the drainage ditch next to the dump backs up into thebackyards along Witmer Road. Residents are worried that leachate and/or contamination mightbe coming into their backyards through surface water or groundwater. Testing of the nearbyresidential properties, particularly surface soil, should be conducted. RESPONSE: Due to the concerns expressed by area residents, the US EPA collected surface soiland surface water samples in residential yards near the site. The concentrations of chemicalsfound in surface soil and surface water samples from the residential areas were within expectedbackground ranges or were below health-based comparison values. These data do not show aneed to restrict any usage of residential properties near the site. The community health concernsand community health concerns evaluation sections of this public health assessment have beenrevised to reflect this concern. |
| 12. | COMMENT: Where was the groundwater tested? How many feet below the ground surfaceis the groundwater? How far has the contamination spread? RESPONSE: Groundwater monitoring wells were placed in and around the landfill. There aregroundwater data for three separate waterbearing zones in the subsurface including, shallowoverburden, deep overburden, and bedrock. The shallow overburden zone is about 2 to 5 feetbelow the natural ground surface and the deep overburden zone is about 40 to 50 feet belowground. The bedrock zone is about 55 to 70 feet deep. The contaminant levels in groundwaterare low and most are below New York State drinking water standards. Pesticides and metalswere found in most of the monitoring wells. The data did not show any distinct contaminanttrends that suggest a contaminant plume is migrating from the site. Therefore, it is not likely thatthe low levels of pesticide contamination found in groundwater are due to the landfill. Metals dooccur naturally in groundwater at various concentrations. Some of the metals concentrations areabove their respective comparison values, but these analytical results were for unfiltered watersamples and the high metal concentrations are likely due to sediments suspended in the water. Most of the other contaminants were found in monitoring wells on-site and in monitoring wellsnorth and west of the site perimeter. The only exception is acetone, which was found in one wellsouth of the site. However, the presence of acetone in this well could be due to laboratoryintroduced contamination. |
| 13. | COMMENT: Samples should be taken in the wetlands north of the site and where BlackCreek enters the Niagara River. RESPONSE: A wetlands assessment is planned as part of the selected remedy, outlined in theRecord of Decision (ROD) for the site. This wetlands assessment will include collection ofadditional surface water and sediment samples from the wetlands to quantify possible chemicalimpacts from the site. Currently, there are no plans to sample Black Creek. If the wetlandsassessment determines that Black Creek will be impacted, then the need to take samples fromBlack Creek will be considered. |
| 14. | COMMENT: There should be sampling during the wet season, February to May. RESPONSE: Groundwater samples were collected in March and April, during the "wet season". In addition, the US EPA has collected samples during a period of flooding at the site. Therefore,samples have been collected during the "wet season". |
| 15. | COMMENT: What might be the impact of this landfill on property values of homes aroundthe site? RESPONSE: We do not know what impact this site may have on surrounding property values. |
| 16. | COMMENT: Are there contaminated airborne particles from the landfill present in our area? RESPONSE: Air samples were collected over leachate seeps and analyzed for volatile chemicals,but not particles. The air over these seeps would contain higher levels of these particularcontaminants than elsewhere on or off the site. None of the concentrations of the chemicals wereabove their respective comparison values and no adverse health effects are expected. Thegeneration of particulates would not be expected unless the soil is disturbed. During remediationof the site, an air monitoring program will be in place to ensure that people living or workingnear the site are not exposed to volatile chemicals or dust particulates that might be generated byremedial activities. The Community Health Concerns and Community Health ConcernsEvaluation sections of this PHA have been revised to reflect concern about airbornecontamination migrating off-site. |
| 17. | COMMENT: It is quite common for people living in the area to use the woods for recreation. I am offended that they are called "trespassers" in the report. RESPONSE: The term "trespassers" was not meant to be offensive. It was used to refer topersons who enter the site without prior authorization. The report has been revised in an attemptto select more neutral terminology. |
| 18. | COMMENT: We received information about people who came into contact with standingwater at the site and experienced an adverse health effect. RESPONSE: These incidents were not recorded in the files that were reviewed in thepreparation of this report, nor were exact details available from the individuals who reportedthem. However, any exposures of this nature should be reported to the local or state healthdepartment. To report exposure to environmental contamination, please contact The NiagaraCounty Health Department's 24-hour emergency line at (716) 439-7430 or the New York StateDepartment of Health at 1-800-458-1158. These incidents have been included in the CommunityHealth Concerns and Community Health Concerns Evaluation sections of this PHA. |
| 19. | COMMENT: What could be the dangers to people who as children spent considerableamount of time at and around the landfill and in the adjacent woods? RESPONSE: In the Public Health Implications Section of this PHA, the various exposurepathways are evaluated and possible health effects are discussed. People who spent aconsiderable amount of time on the site may have had a chronic exposure to site contaminants. A chronic exposure is an exposure that occurs over a long period of time. Chronic exposure tochemicals at the highest levels on and near the site could pose a low increased risk of developingcancer. This evaluation was performed using data obtained during the remedial investigation anddoes not reflect possible exposures to contaminant levels that may have been present when thesite was an active landfill. This concern has been added to the Community Health Concerns andCommunity Health Concerns Evaluation sections of this PHA. |
| 20. | COMMENT: What are the possible future health effects to people that live or have livednear the site? RESPONSE: Based on the data we reviewed, we believe the risk of any adverse health effectsoccurring is low for people who live or lived near the site since the landfill was closed. However, we do not have any data to assess exposures during the period that the landfill wasactive. The Community Health Concerns and Community Health Concerns Evaluation sectionsof this PHA have been revised to reflect this concern. |
| 21. | COMMENT: A health survey of people living near the site needs to be performed todetermine if possible health effects are present, including cancer, that might be related to thelandfill. There are children in the neighboring area who are learning disabled, are restricted towheelchairs, or have had rashes that appeared after moving to the area. RESPONSE: There is no indication that people living in the neighboring community were or arebeing exposed to contamination at levels where possible health effects would be expected tooccur. If, however, future information suggests that the area residents might be exposed to sitecontaminants at levels of public health concern, a type of health follow-up may be considered. The Community Health Concerns and Community Health Concerns Evaluation sections of thisPHA have been revised to reflect this concern. |
| 22. | COMMENT: Is it safe to plant a garden in our backyards? RESPONSE: Concentrations of chemicals found in soil samples collected by US EPA fromresidential properties near the site in June 1994 were within expected background ranges. Thedata do not show any need to restrict any usage of residential properties near the site. TheCommunity Health Concerns and Community Health Concerns Evaluation sections of this PHAhave been revised to reflect this concern. |
| 23. | COMMENT: Could mosquitoes that breed in the wetlands near the landfill be a health threatto the residents if they are bitten? RESPONSE: Mosquitoes are capable of transmitting viruses, but there is no documented illnessassociated with mosquitoes in the area in the past 10 years. With respect to the landfill itself, it isnot expected that mosquitoes could transfer enough contaminants from the landfill or thewetlands to pose a health concern. The Community Health Concerns and Community HealthConcerns Evaluation sections of this PHA have been revised to reflect this concern. |
| 24. | COMMENT: Gratwick Park and other sites are in the general area. Gratwick Park should bebeautified. RESPONSE: The presence of other inactive hazardous waste sites that are near this site has beenincluded in the report. However, the purpose of this document is to evaluate the public healthimplications posed by the Niagara County Refuse Landfill site. |
| 25. | COMMENT: The gates on the roads into the site were only put up about 2 to 3 years ago. Ifthis site was known in the early 80's, why were gates and warning signs not put up earlier? RESPONSE: Although the site was placed on the National Priorities List in the early 1980's,very little was known about the site at that time. After evaluating the on-site data, we concludedthat exposure to on-site contaminants could pose a low risk of adverse health effects. The gateswere installed to discourage unauthorized site access and further dumping at the site. |
| 26. | COMMENT: The site should be fenced, especially on the eastern and southern portions ofthe site. RESPONSE: The Record of Decision calls for restricting access to the site by constructing afence around the perimeter. This will be completed when the selected remedy is in place. |
| 27. | COMMENT: All the trenches and ditches should be covered. RESPONSE: Some of the on-site ditches will be covered by the landfill cap, when the site isremediated. Once the landfill cap is in place, it is expected that the ditches around the site willnot be affected by leachate and contaminated site run-off from the landfill. |
| 28. | COMMENT: Leachate is moving north and east of the site. People in the development northof the site should also be notified. RESPONSE: Leachate tends to flow into the drainage ditches at and around the site. Thedrainage ditches at the south end of the site flow south, toward the Niagara River and thedrainage ditches at the north end of the site flow north toward the wetlands, the wetlands in turnfeed creeks which flow westward. Samples will be collected in the wetlands as part of theremedy. The development north of the site along and north of Ferchen Road is not expected tobe affected by this site. In addition, the remedy outlined in the Record of Decision includesactivities which will collect leachate, and therefore prevent it from migrating off-site. |
| 29. | COMMENT: A complete clean-up should be done before drainage contaminates areas milesaway from the landfill. RESPONSE: The remediation design is planned to begin in 1994 and construction of the landfillcap is expected to begin in 1995. Based on the available data, it does not appear that off-siteareas are affected by contamination at this site. |
| 30. | COMMENT: The proposed remedy outlined is not enough. A permanent landfill cap isinsufficient. Water can leak into the landfill through the cap. The possibility of leachate goinginto groundwater needs to be addressed. The wastes should be removed or properly sealed (i.e., aliner should be placed under the wastes). Run-off into the river needs to be stopped. RESPONSE: The remedy, as outlined in the Record of Decision, will include capping thelandfill, constructing a clay barrier wall, constructing a gas venting system, constructing aleachate collection system, implementing deed restrictions, fencing the site and implementing along-term maintenance and operation plan. The cap will minimize infiltration of precipitation. The clay barrier wall will prevent lateral flow of groundwater through the landfill. The gasventing layer will control the build-up of gases that are produced within the landfill. Theleachate collection system will control the build-up of leachate within the landfill, minimizepotential contamination of groundwater, and minimize leachate from migrating off-site. Deedrestrictions will prevent future use of the site which might compromise the cap. An operationand maintenance plan will outline the maintenance of the landfill cap, the gas venting system,and the leachate collection system. This remedy is protective of public health since it willcontain the waste and will control leachate. The Community Health Concerns and CommunityHealth Concerns Evaluation sections of the PHA have been revised to reflect this concern. |
| 31. | COMMENT: Will testing continue to see if the exposure pathways will persist? Will theremediation be updated if future monitoring indicates that it is needed? RESPONSE: After the remedy, as outlined in the Record of Decision, is in place, a monitoringand maintenance program will be implemented to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of theremedy. This will include collecting groundwater samples and inspecting the site. The RODalso calls for an evaluation of site conditions at least once every five years to determine if theselected alternative needs to be modified. This review will evaluate the effectiveness of theremedial actions at the site and include recommendations for continued remedial efforts at thelandfill. The Community Health Concerns and Community Health Concerns Evaluation sectionsof this PHA have been revised to reflect this concern. |
| 32. | COMMENT: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had some editing comments. They also informed us that the "Proposed Remedial Action Plan" is known as the "ProposedPlan". RESPONSE: These changes have been made. |
