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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

BUTZ LANDFILL
JACKSON TOWNSHIP
MONROE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA



APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. TABLES

TABLE 1. Selected Demographic Parameters for Pennsylvania, Monroe County and Jackson Township (10)

PARAMETERPENNSYLVANIAMONROE COUNTYJACKSON TOWNSHIP
1980 Census Population11,864,751694092315
1990 Census Population11,881,643957093757
Percent Change(10)0.137.962.3
Percent White (10)88.596.998.2
Percent 65 & Over (10)15.413.110.6
Persons Per Household (10)2.572.692.82
Per Capita Income (1989) (11)140681363614141

TABLE 2. Maximum Contaminant Levels In On-Site Groundwater (Monitoring Wells) October-December 1990 (8)

ContaminantMaximum ConcentrationWell No. Comparison Values
ppbppbsource
Trichloroethene8,400R1-D3CREG
Tetrachloroethene6R1-D0.7CREG
1,1-Dichloroethene3R1-D, T1-1A0.06CREG
1,2-Dichloroethene720R1-D200RMEG (child)
Vinyl Chloride7R1-D 0.2EMEG (child)

ppb - Parts Per Billion
CREG - Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
RMEG - Reference Dose Media Evaluation Guide
EMEG - Environmental Media Evaluation Guide

TABLE 3. Maximum Contaminant Levels In Off-Site Groundwater (Monitoring Wells) October-December 1990 (8)

ContaminantMaximum Concentration Well No. Comparison Values
ppbppb source
Trichloroethene110,000 R2* 3 CREG
Tetrachloroethene10.4 R20.7CREG
1,1-Dichloroethene7.5R2 0.06CREG
1,2-Dichloroethene1200R2* 200RMEG (child)
Vinyl Chloride13T2 0.2EMEG (child)

* Results From Pump Test Sampling

TABLE 4. Maximum Contaminant Levels In Residential Wells (1986-1990) (8)

ContaminantMaximum ConcentrationWell No.*Comparison Values
ppbppbsource
Trichloroethene7,000 4 3 CREG
Tetrachloroethene5.4 4 0.7CREG
1,1-Dichloroethene14.64 0.06CREG
1,2-Dichloroethene4.226 200RMEG (child)
Vinyl Chloride9.2**NI 0.02EMEG (child)

* See Figure 2
** February 21, 1992 sample, EPA contractor, may not be site related
NI Not included in RI


APPENDIX B. FIGURES

Figure 1. Site Location Map



Figure 2. Residential Well
Sample Locations



Figure 3. Geological and Cultural
Features Near the Site



Figure 4. Distribution of TCE
in Residential Wells



Figure 5. Monitoring Well
Sample Locations



Figure 6. General Geologic Map



Figure 7. Water Table Elevation Contours
Water Table Aquifer



Figure 8. Ground-Water Flow Direction
Bedrock Aquifer



Figure 9.



Figure 10. Wells R2, R3D, and R4 TCE
and 1,2-DCE Concentrations (parts per
billion, PPB)



Figure 10a. Well RW-18 TCE Concentrations
(parts per billion x 1000)



Figure 11. TCE Concentrations in
Residential Wells Over Time



Figure 12. Wells R-6 and 19 TCE
Concentrations (parts per billion, PPB)



Figure 13.



Figure 14. Surface Water and
Sediment Sampling Locations

APPENDIX C. Response to Comments on the Public Health Assessment, Public Comment Release

The Butz Landfill Public Health Assessment was released for review and comments. The writtencomments received and our responses are summarized in this section.

The following comments were received from the respondent. Our response follows eachquestion/comment:

1. The six (6) technical points of understanding between the Water Authority and USEPA need no comment. PADOH also understands these points to be USEPA's position on groundwater flow near the site.
2. QUESTION: Do outlined areas of Figure 13 of the public health assessment (PHA) represent the extent of the plumes?
RESPONSE: The plumes outlined in Figure 13 represent one alternative to USEPA's hydrogeologic interpretation of field data. Plume boundaries are based on a combination of well data, principles of groundwater flow, topography, and other potential contaminant sources.
3. QUESTION: Is the direction of contaminant flow assumed to be downgradient with "downgradient" defined by the surface contours?
RESPONSE: "Downgradient" as used in the PHA refers to both topographic slope and watertable slope. There has been no evidence presented to PADOH that shows any other relationshipbetween topography and the water table than the expected one; that is, the water table is asubdued replica of the topography (Figure 7, PHA). When referring to head lines in the "bedrock aquifer" (Figure 2-3 of the Remedial Investigation (RI) and Figure 8 of the PHA), "downgradient" means in the direction of decreasing hydraulic head.
4. QUESTION: Are the sources of contamination assumed to be at the highest elevation within agiven plume as defined by the highest surface topography?
RESPONSE: Not necessarily, although topographic highs are generally good places to beginlooking for contaminant sources.
5. QUESTION: Is there cross-contamination from each of the sites, i.e., is the total contaminationin a given well the sum of several components?
RESPONSE: PADOH does not have sufficient field data to conclusively answer this question. USEPA continues to study the geology and hydrogeology around the site. Perhaps we will beable to better answer this question after all the data are presented for evaluation.
6. QUESTION: How did the TCE reach wells on Golf Course Road which are at the upper endof the road at elevation 1100? Since the landfill contamination did not flow this way (see Figure 8 in which the solid arrow shows the flow of clean ground water) contamination in the residential wells east of site 3 must have come from site 3.
RESPONSE: PADOH does not now have a satisfactory answer to this question, which is also one of our own questions. It is difficult to believe that Butz Landfill is the source for this contamination for reasons explained in the PHA. We do not believe there has been a thorough investigation of potential contaminant sources northeast of the site. Site 3 may not be the source of contamination along Golf Course Road.
7. COMMENT: It would seem that flow from sites 2 and 3 would be moving down gradient (tolower elevations as shown by contours) just as the landfill plume does. Therefore it is difficult tosee how contamination from sites 2 or 3 could reach Golf Course Road. It had always beendifficult to understand how contamination from the landfill could reach Golf Course Road but theEPA explanation was that the bedding planes (sloped toward the mountain) controlled flow.
RESPONSE: PADOH agrees with this statement. It should be remembered that, regardless ofthe geologic structure (bedding planes dipping northwesterly, etc.), there must be proper hydraulic head relationships to drive a dissolved plume in a given theoretical direction. USEPA is supposedly planning packer tests and flow studies within well bores (vertical and horizontal flow measurements) in order to answer questions about groundwater flow in the bedrock aquifer (s).
8. QUESTION: If the faults control flow, would there not need to be a fault NNE of site 3? Figure 6 does not seem to show such a fault.
RESPONSE: PADOH does not have information indicating the extent of faulting, if, in fact, thereare faults present in the area. However, the rocks are abundantly fractured. These fractures(joints) and the partings along bedding planes provide many pathways for groundwatermovement.
9. COMMENT: The question therefore arises as to whether there is a fourth site upgradient of thewells on Golf Course Road.
RESPONSE: This is indeed possible. The PADOH hydrogeologist has visited and/or investigatedbetween 60 and 70 Superfund sites in Pennsylvania. About two-thirds of them have othercontaminant sources nearby (within one mile).
10. QUESTION: The existence of multiple other sites would seem to imply a different collectionof contaminants. The existence of TCE in wells serves as an indicator of plumes. Have well R-6or any of the residential wells NNE of site 3 been tested for the full spectrum of Primary PollutantCompounds? Is the PADOH report, a public health assessment of the Butz Landfill, also a publichealth assessment of the additional sites?
RESPONSE: According to the RI and other information presented to PADOH all wells testedwere tested at least once for the full range of volatile organic compounds and metals.

The PHA, while focusing on the Butz Landfill site, considers other potential sources ofcontamination and evaluates information from local residents, government officials, andindependent field investigations.

Our conclusions and recommendations appropriately consider any adverse health effects oncitizens, regardless of where contaminants of concern originate.


APPENDIX D. Response to Comments Collected During the Public Availability Sessions

On February 14, 1996, PADOH and ATSDR held two public availability sessions at the PoconoElementary Center Library in Jackson Township, Monroe County.

The purpose was to provide people who live near the Butz Landfill site an opportunity,individually, to discuss with PADOH concerns they may have about the site.

Nine people came to the two sessions. PADOH provided them with detailed information aboutthe extent of groundwater contamination at the site. We also listened to the concerns of a few ofthem who thought their health or their family's health may be adversely affected by exposure togroundwater contamination near the site. Those concerns are listed and addressed below.

CONCERN: One person reported suffering dizziness, vertigo, facial numbness, and deafness inone ear.
RESPONSE: At the levels of exposure to TCE experienced by this person we would expect thatdizziness and vertigo would be possible. We also expect that the dizziness and vertigo woulddisappear soon after exposure ceased. We do not expect that facial nerve damage and deafnesswould occur at this person's reported level of exposure. As we stated earlier in the Toxicological Evaluation section, acute exposure to TCE at high levels and chronic exposure at high levels in the workplace have been associated with nerve damage. However, the levels exprienced by this individual are much lower than the levels reported to be associated with nerve damage.
CONCERN: One person reported experiencing stomach aches after drinking TCE contaminatedwater, but that they did not persist.
RESPONSE: We do not expect that permanent gastrointestinal problems would arise due toTCE exposure at the levels experienced by this person.
CONCERN: One person reported that a family member suffered from acute febrile polyneuritis(Guillain-Barre syndrome) before expiring in 1992.
RESPONSE: As we stated in the Community Health Concerns Evaluation section, we do not believe that the exposure caused the death. Neither do we believe that it is likely to have caused the illness.

FOOTNOTES

1. ATSDR policy prohibits the use of people's names in documents. The abbreviations used todesignate wells replace individuals' names that are used in referenced documents to identify thewell locations and test results.


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. #