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

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

LAUREL PARK, INC.
NAUGATUCK, NEW HAVEN COUNTY, CONNECTICUT


SUMMARY

The Laurel Park Landfill is in Naugatuck, Connecticut, one milewest of the Naugatuck River. The landfill occupies about 19 acres of a 35 acre site. The landfill operated from the early1949 to 1987 accepting industrial as well as municipal wastes.

The site represents an indeterminant public health hazard. Although past exposures to contaminated air, as a result of openburning and accidental fires occurred, there is no data to assesswhat people were exposed to. Leachate runoff contaminatedsurface water with a variety of compounds including acetone,benzene and chromium. Some private wells in the vicinity of thelandfill were found to have trace amounts of contaminantsbelieved to be site related. Concern about continued migrationof contaminated groundwater initiated the provision of bottledwater to the fifty residences within a half mile of the site. All but three of these homes were hooked up to public water. These three home owners chose not to hook up to public water. Inaddition, soil and sediment sampling have detected contamination.

The information in the RI/FS is not sufficient nor adequate tofully characterize the site, the extent of contamination or thepotential for migration.

At the time of our site visit the landfill was readily accessedand there was evidence of trespassing. However, since then thelandfill is no longer readily accessed. A six-foot high chainlink fence was installed around much of the site with theexception of areas where obstacles, such as step embankments,provide restricted access to the site. Numerous physical hazardsexist onsite including abandoned vehicles, holes, pits, andprotruding objects. Leachate seeps are quite common throughoutthe site.

There has been a significant amount of community concern andinterest in the site since the early years of landfill operationswhen open burning occurred. An organized citizens group was veryactive in the 1980's and played a role in the final landfillclosure.

It is recommended that access to the landfill be restricted. Private well water testing should be performed for the threeprivate wells in the area of the landfill that have not beenconnected with public water. In addition, the land adjacent tothe site should not be developed unless environmental data showsthe property to be uncontaminated. The remedial activitiesoutlined in the Record of Decision should be implemented as soonas possible to prevent any further migration of contaminants.

The public health assessment for Laurel Park was reviewed by ATSDR's Health Activities Recommendations Panel for appropriate follow-up with respect to health actions. The panel agrees that the community health education planned by CT DPHAS is appropriate for the site.

CT DPHAS will provide environmental health education for localpublic health officials, the local medical community and localcitizens to assist the community in assessing possible adversehealth outcomes associated with exposure to hazardous substances.


BACKGROUND

In cooperation with the Agency for Toxic Substances and DiseaseRegistry (ATSDR), the Connecticut Department of Public Healthand Addiction Services (CT DPHAS) evaluated the public healthsignificance of the Laurel Park Landfill site. The purpose ofthe public health assessment is to determine whether adversehealth effects are possible and to recommend actions to reduce orprevent possible health effects.

A. SITE DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY

The Laurel Park Landfill is in Naugatuck, Connecticut, New HavenCounty, one mile west of the Naugatuck River and ConnecticutRoute 8. The landfill is on the north and west slope ofHuntington Hill and occupies about 19 acres of a 35 acre site. No buildings are on the site. Most of the site is enclosed by afence. A fence was not installed in areas where obstacles, suchas steep embankments, provide restricted access to the site. Figure 1 shows the location of the site and vicinity.

The site is currently owned by Laurel Park, Inc. a corporation.

The site was in operation from 1949 to 1987. In the 1960's thesite was excavated in some areas to bedrock. According to a 1972Inventory of clients serviced by the landfill conducted by theCT DEP, 107,000 tons of solid waste and 46 tons of liquid wastewere disposed of per year at the Laurel Park Landfill.(SolidWaste Files, CT DEP) These include rubber products, tires,chemicals, oils, solvents, chemical solids and municipal wastes(Solid Waste Files, CT DEP.) In the late 1980's the landfillaccepted approximately 200 tons per day of municipal andindustrial wastes (Solid Waste Files, CT DEP.)

The landfill was known to have operational problems. Fires werecommon, the facility used fly ash as a cover which was inadequateto prevent litter from being blown off-site (Camp, Dresser &McKee, 1986 and Memo R.J. Botti, CT DEP Site Inspection, June1990.) Spills on the roads leading to the landfill were commonaccording to local residents.(Solid Waste Files, CT DEP) Inaddition, local residents reported seeing leachate flowing intoan unnamed creek along Andrews Avenue (Solid Waste Files, CTDEP.)

In the early 1970's, the CT DPHAS recommended steps to eliminatethe migration of contaminants into surface waters. A sand filterwas installed in response to CT DPHAS recommendations on thewestern edge of the site in the mid 1970's.

In the early 1980's, monitoring of residential wells in the vicinity of Laurel Park found that some wells had contaminants believed to be site related. As a result, residences were provided with bottled water in 1983 by Laurel Park, Inc., and subsequently by the CT DEP until 1990 when the majority of the residences near the landfill were connected to the public water supply.

In 1983 the CT DEP and Laurel Park Inc., entered into astipulated judgement which required: (1) the installation ofmonitoring wells; (2) the construction of a leachate collectionsystem; and (3) delivery of bottled water to affected homeowners. The judgement also allowed the landfill to be used for disposalof municipal waste only. In 1983, a leachate collection systemwas constructed to convey wastes off-site into the Naugatuckmunicipal waste water treatment plant. However, it was nothooked up until 1989. The CT DEP did not allow the collectionsystem to flow into the municipal sewers until an additionalseparate leachate line was installed in December 1989.

On October 13, 1983 the CT DEP issued a cease and desist orderprohibiting the operation of the landfill based on the detectionof 2,3,7,8-tetra-chloro-p-dioxin (TCDD) in an onsite monitoringwell. Later sampling and analyses did not detect the presence ofthis contaminant. As a result the landfill was allowed to reopenand accept municipal waste.

In 1986, a preliminary health assessment was performed by ATSDRwhich concluded that surface runoff and leachate associated withthe site posed a potential public health threat to residents nearthe site. This health assessment outlined the followingrecommendations:

  1. Determine if the existing monitoring system (i.e.sampling techniques, sampling locations, contaminantanalysis, well configuration and location) is capableof evaluating exposures.

  2. Consider collection of additional monitoring dataincluding all ground water monitoring wells,residential wells adjacent to the site, surface waterdrainage from the site, and specific indicatorcontaminant air sampling in the direction of thepredominant winds in the areas of potential humanexposure.

  3. Limit site access to prevent human exposure.

  4. Institute operational controls to prevent leachateoverflows and seeps.

In May of 1988 an Addendum to the Health Assessment was released. ATSDR reviewed a list of proposed alternatives for remediation todetermine which were adequate for the protection of publichealth.

Leachate is produced by rain percolating into the ground andcoming into contact with contaminated waste buried in thelandfill.

Leachate overflow has been a problem at the site. In the late 1980's leachate collected in the leachate system, overflowed a manhole on the Laurel Park site entering a stream that passes by several residences and a school playground. Tests of the leachate and the stream revealed the presence of hazardous substances, including benzene, toluene, and ethyl benzene.

The landfill was closed in 1987.

In 1989, the USEPA ordered the owners of the landfill toconstruct a sewer line connecting the leachate collection systemto the Naugatuck Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant. The sewerline was installed to alleviate the serious problem of overflowof contaminated leachate from a manhole on the Laurel Park site. This sewer line discharges into the Naugatuck municipal sewagetreatment plant.

The public health assessment for Laurel Park was reviewed byATSDR's Health Activities Recommendations Panel for appropriatefollow-up with respect to health actions. The panel agrees thatthe community health education planned by CT DPHAS is appropriatefor the site.

CT DPHAS will provide environmental health education for localpublic health officials, the local medical community and localcitizens to assist the community in assessing possible adversehealth outcomes associated with exposure to hazardous substances.

B. SITE VISIT

Edith Pestana and Jennifer Kertanis of the Connecticut Departmentof Health and Addiction Services and staff from the ConnecticutDepartment of Environmental Protection conducted a site visit onWednesday, July 15, 1992. During the site visit we climbed tothe top of the landfill and walked the perimeter.

During an inspection of the site, the following observations weremade. These observations are not presented in order ofsignificance or importance.

  • The landfill is located on a hill in a thickly wooded area.
  • A make-shift gate was placed at the entrance of the landfillaccess road.
  • Strong pungent odors were detected throughout the sitevisit.
  • Four (4) empty 55 gallon drums were found adjacent to a monitoring well at the top of the landfill. These drumswere utilized for containerizing purge water. (These drumshave since been properly removed from the site.)
  • Spent fireworks (fire crackers, roman candles, etc.) were observed at the top of the landfill.
  • Dirt bike tracks were evident throughout the site.
  • A pilot sludge ash testing pad was on the top of thelandfill. The purpose was to provide weight to evaluatepotential settlement due to capping.
  • Four streams of leachate seepage were observed.
  • Two abandoned cars with bullet holes were observed on theroad leading to the top of the landfill.
  • Two abandoned excavators with bullet holes were observed atthe base of the landfill along the access road.
  • Along the perimeter of the landfill, four manholes, part ofthe leachate collection system, were observed.
  • Ten empty 55 gallon steel drums were located at the base ofthe landfill near what appeared to be a work trailer for the contractors working at the site. (The drums have since beenproperly removed from the site.)
  • Bullet holes were observed on signs marking environmental hazard areas.
  • A siltation fence was constructed adjacent to the landfillcover stockpile area on the southeast side of the site.
  • Two inclinometers which were installed to measure lateral movement in the landfill were observed.
  • One partially buried 55 gallon steel drum numerous tires and debris were seen protruding from the overgrown landfillarea.
  • An abandoned 2,000 gallon steel storage tank was observed onthe southeastern portion of the landfill, it appeared to beempty.
  • Deer and other wildlife were seen grazing on the landfill.
  • Wetlands bordered the edge of the refuse on the northernslope.
  • The landfill was overgrown with weeds and small shrubs.

C. DEMOGRAPHICS, LAND USE, AND NATURAL RESOURCE USE

The town of Naugatuck has a population of approximately 30,600based on the 1990 Census. Ninety-six percent of the populationis white. Ten Percent of the population is under the age of six. Eighteen percent of the population is between the ages of six andnineteen. Fifty-five percent of the population is between theages of twenty and fifty-nine. Fifteen percent of the populationis over the age of sixty. The average per capita income inNaugatuck is $16,700 per year.

Approximately fifty homes are located within a one-half mileradius of the site to the east, northeast, and southeast. Theareas to the south and west of the site are sparsely populated,undeveloped and forested. Residential areas are located on LewisStreet, Andrews Avenue, Hunters Mountain Road, Perock Lane andAndrews Mountain Road. The closest residents are locatedapproximately l,000 feet to the north, northeast, and southeastof the landfill. Up until 1990 when the public water supply wasextended to this area, the residents near the landfill hadprivate wells. Bottled water was provided to them in 1983.

An elementary school with an approximate enrollment of between200 to 350 students is located on Andrews Avenue near the site. The town of Naugatuck, one mile to the east of the site is highlyindustrialized. A number of other industries exist along theNaugatuck River Valley.

Forested land surrounds the landfill. This area provides ahabitat for a variety of wildlife species including birds anddeer.

Hunting is likely to occur in some areas surrounding the site. Hiking and dirt bike riding in the forested area is also likely.

Surface water runoff from the landfill flows into two tributaries of the Naugatuck River, Spruce Brook and Long Meadow Pond Brook. Spruce Brook is one-half mile west and Long Meadow Pond Brook is one mile north of the landfill. Surface drainage is illustrated in Figure 2.

The major portion of the landfill, approximately 19 acres, ispart of the Long Meadow watershed. Most surface drainage ischanneled through a drainage ditch located around the southernand western perimeter of the landfill. This drainage ditchcontrols runoff around the site into the unnamed stream. LongMeadow Pond Brook is fed by an unnamed stream which begins at thebase of the landfill and flows along Andrews Avenue. Meadow PondBrook flows along Cobber Avenue and eventually empties into theNaugatuck River (See Figure 2.)

Spruce Brook flows south, originating east of the site andintercepts the Naugatuck River south of the town of Naugatuck.Fishing may occur in both Brooks and the Naugatuck River. TheNaugatuck River flows through the town east of the site.

The landfill is characterized by steep slopes making it conduciveto a high runoff rate over short periods of time. The easternportion of the site, approximately 7 acres, drains asuncontrolled runoff. Some surface runoff enters wooded areas tothe east as an intermittent stream and flows down the steepslopes toward the Naugatuck river. Another portion of surfacerunoff is channeled easterly across the access road at the baseof the landfill.

D. HEALTH OUTCOME DATA

Health outcome data was not evaluated. Please refer to thediscussion in the Health Outcome Data Evaluation Section for anexplanation of why these data were not evaluated.


COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS

Community involvement regarding the Laurel Park landfill sitedates back as far as the early 1960's when open burningactivities and accidental fires were taking place at the site. In the early 1980's an organized citizen group, PollutionExtermination Group (PEG) was formed. Throughout the yearscitizen complaints and concerns have been numerous. Citizensconcerns were compiled from historical records and documentedcomplaints at a number of agencies. The Connecticut Departmentof Environmental Protection Air Management, Water, Solid Waste,and Superfund files were reviewed. In addition, local and statehealth officials were contacted. The concerns include:

  1. Dust and debris blowing from the landfill as well as dust generated by the flow of trucks up to the site made itdifficult to go outside and sometimes made it difficult tobreathe while the landfill was operating.
  2. What were the sludges and liquids that dripped off trucksand onto people's yards during the time when the landfillwas operating?
  3. What were people being exposed to when leachate runs off thelandfill and onto yards, down streets and in drainageditches?
  4. Is water safe to drink in private wells in homes around thesite?
  5. The odors emanating from the site were very strong andsometimes nauseating.
  6. What is the brook behind the Andrews School contaminatedwith?

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND OTHER HAZARDS

The majority of the sampling that was performed at the LaurelPark Landfill was included in the Remedial Investigation,completed in February of 1987. During site investigations,groundwater, private wells, leachate, soil, surface water,sediment and air sampling was conducted. Additional sampling ofsoils, surface water, private wells and sediments were conductedafter the Remedial Investigation primarily as follow-up tocitizen complaints.

The following discussion and data tables present the contaminantsof concern. Contaminants are presented by the media (soil,groundwater, air etc.) in which they were found. Thecontamination is also broken into on-site and off-site. On-siterefers to sampling points within the boundaries of the Murthaproperty and off-site refers to sampling points not within theseboundaries.

These contaminants will be evaluated in subsequent sections ofthis public health assessment to determine whether exposures tothem has public health significance. These contaminants wereselected based upon the following factors:

  1. Concentrations of contaminants on and off-site.
  2. Field data quality, laboratory data quality and sampledesign.
  3. Comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations.
  4. Comparison of on-site and off-site concentrations withhealth assessment comparison values for noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic endpoints.
  5. Community health concerns.

The listing of a contaminant does not mean that it will causeadverse health effects from exposure. The list indicates whichcontaminants will be discussed further in the public healthassessment.

Comparison values for health assessments are contaminantconcentrations in specific media that are used to selectcontaminants for further evaluation. These values includeEnvironmental Media Evaluation Guides (EMEGs), Cancer RiskEvaluation Guides (CREGs), and other relevant guidelines. EMEGsare calculated from Minimal Risk Levels (MRLs). An MRL is anestimate of daily human exposure to a chemical that is likely tobe without appreciable risk of an adverse, non-carcinogenic risk. CREGs are estimated contaminant concentrations based on a oneexcess cancer in a million people exposed over a lifetime. EPA'sReference Dose (RfD) and Reference Concentration (RfC) areestimates of the daily exposure to a contaminant that is unlikelyto cause adverse health effects. A concentration is calculatedfrom RfDs and RfCs making certain assumptions about human intakeof water or ambient air. Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)represent concentrations that EPA deems protective of publichealth (considering the availability and economics of watertreatment technology) over a 70 year period of exposure drinkingtwo liters of water per day. Lifetime Health Advisories (LTHA)are concentrations EPA has determined to be protective of publichealth over a lifetime at an exposure rate of 2 liters of waterper day.

A. ON-SITE CONTAMINATION

Ground Water

Ground water occurs in both bedrock and in the unconsolidatedoverburden formations. Within the overburden, ground wateroccurs in a shallow water-table aquifer. The overburden groundwater principally flows from the topographic high in the southand west, and converges toward the topographic low, north of thelandfill, discharging episodically into the unnamed stream (LESI1992).

Ground water flow in bedrock is controlled principally by thefractures which occur in the upper 30 feet of bedrock. Thesefractures could potentially be a ground water pathway from thelandfill to domestic wells.

There exist some discrepancy as to the direction of ground waterflow in the bedrock. Certain hydrologic conditions suggest thatthe groundwater in the bedrock flows towards the east-northeast. Data on the nature and orientation of the fractures shows thatground water flows towards the northwest. In addition, there arevariations in the general flow path. Ground water also flows outward from the center of the landfill at several locations aroundthe perimeter of the site. Dry rill channels along the eastslope of the landfill show that during periods of heavy rain,ground water seeps out just east of the landfill access road andflows overland downslope.

Leachate has contaminated the ground water at the overburden-bedrock contact beneath the landfill. In addition, groundwatermonitoring data indicates that the leachate has migrated intofractures in the bedrock.

Ground Water Monitoring Wells

In November and December of 1982, eight monitoring wells wereconstructed under a state-ordered program. During three roundsof sampling in August, October, and December of 1983, DEPsampling of these groundwater wells detected the presence of2,3,7,8-TCDD in one monitoring well.

Thirteen monitoring wells, installed by Malcolm Pirnie as part ofthe Remedial Investigation were sampled in two rounds in Augustand November of 1985 (See Figure 3 for sampling locations). Ofthe thirteen monitoring wells installed, two were overburdenwells, MP1A and MP2A. Two deep bedrock wells were drilled, MP1Band MP10. Eight additional bedrock wells were drilled, MP1C,MP2B, MP3, MP8, MP10A, MP11A including two shallow bedrock wells,MP9 and MP12. One well location MP5 was a dry hole.

In addition, monitoring wells installed under the state-orderedprogram were monitored in March, June and December, 1985 andFebruary, 1986 (Fred C. Hart.) Data collected for all of thesesampling activities are incorporated in our assessment of on-sitecontamination.

Additional sampling of ground water from monitoring wells wasperformed during the Pre-Design in 1992, by Langan Engineeringand Environmental Services.

Table 1 lists the contaminants detected during these samplingevents above comparison values.

Table 1.

GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION IN ON-SITE MONITORING WELLS *
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION RANGE PPB COMPARISON
PPB
VALUE
SOURCE
Benzene ND-8700 1.2 CREG
Benzo(a)pyrene ND-5 0.006 CREG
2-Chlorophenol ND-2500 40 LTHA
1,2-Dichloroethane ND-39 0.38 CREG
2,4-Dimethylphenol ND-1160 700 RfD
Ethyl benzene ND-992 700 LTHA
Lead ND-1520 0 MCLG
N-nitrosodiphenylamine ND-1547 7.1 CREG
Methylene Chloride ND-3340 4.7 CREG
Toluene ND-11000 1000 MCL
Vinyl Chloride ND-14 0.7 EMEG
ND-not detected
PPB-Parts Per Billion
CREG-Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
LTHA-Lifetime Health Advisory
MCL-Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG-Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
EMEG-Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline
* Malcolm Pirnie RI/FS 1987; Fred C. Hart 1986

Gas - Ground Water Monitoring Wells

Gas samples were obtained from two on-site monitoring wells (MW-1and MW-2.) by ESE in 1993. Methane was found in both wells atlevels below comparison values. Benzene gas was also detected at31,200 and 30, 600 parts per billion by volume of air (PPBV.) The two monitoring wells are located in an area on the landfillwhere waste are known to exist.

Leachate

In September of 1983, Batelle did an analysis of leachate for thepresence of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. TCDD was not found in the leachatesample, OCDD was detected and the highest concentration was 0.9ppt (parts per trillion).

Leachate was sampled at four locations during the RemedialInvestigation. (See Figure 4 for sampling locations.) Leachatesampling locations were identified during site reconnaissance. Sheet flow was identified at collection location LS1, 20 feetupgradient of the access road. Leachate seepage appears to re-enter the fill near the road. Collection locations LS2 and LS3were taken from eroded leachate flow channels. The forthleachate collection took place in the overflow of the dischargingmanhole of the leachate collection system.

Two rounds of sampling were conducted, one sampling point hadbeen covered over and was not sampled during the second round. Table 2 lists the contaminants detected in the leachate abovecomparison values.

Table 2.

Leachate Contamination *
CONTAMINANT RANGE DETECTED PPB COMPARISON
PPB

VALUE
SOURCE

Acetone 100-6400 3500 RFD
Arsenic ND-390 11 RFD
Barium 140-5850 2000 LTHA
Benzene ND-850 1.2 CREG
Benzo(a)pyrene ND-160 0.006 CREG
Beryllium ND-21 0.0081 CREG
2-Butanone 60-5500 200 LTHA
Cadmium ND-217 7 EMEG
Chromium 11-1250 100 LTHA
Copper ND-2090 1300 MCL
1,2-Dichloroethane ND-1300 0.38 CREG
Lead 23.5-4280 0 MCLG
Manganese 1400-44400 3500 RFD
Nickel ND-1300 100 LTHA
N-nitrosodiphenylamine ND-9800 7.1 CREG
Vanadium ND-1230 20 LTHA
Zinc 332-15700 2100 LTHA
ND-not detected
PPB-parts per billion
MCL-Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG-Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
EMEG-Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline
LTHA-Lifetime Health Advisory
* Malcolm Pirnie 1987

Soil

In September of 1983, Batelle Laboratories analyzed four soilsamples for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. No TCDD was detected in any of thesoil samples, OCDD was found at 280 ppt.

The on-site soil investigation for the Remedial Investigation waslimited to leachate seep areas and areas that received leachaterunoff. Five soil samples were taken at unknown depths, threewere composite samples. (See Figure 5 for sampling locations.) Soil samples SS1 and SS2 were approximately 75 feet west of theunnamed stream and north of the overflowing manhole. Sample SS3was collected at the base of the landfill. SS4 and SS5 werecollected on a large leachate seep area, where leachate was indirect contact with soil.

2-Butanone and acetone were found in soils above concentrationsfound in leachate but below comparison values. Polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons including phenanthrene, fluoranthene, andbenzo(a)pyrene were detected in soils at concentrations belowcomparison values.

Sediments

In September of 1983, Batelle performed analysis for 2,3,7,8-TCDDon three sediment samples taken from the leachate collectionsystem. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD was detected, OCDD was found as high as690 ppt.

B. OFF-SITE CONTAMINATION

Ground Water - Private Wells

In December of 1983, DEP coordinated residential well sampling offorty-one homes and analysis by three laboratories for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. No TCDD was detected in any of the private wells by any ofthe laboratories.

In March of 1985, eight residential wells were sampled by NUSCorporation to confirm previous results taken by Fred C. Hart. No priority pollutants were detected in any of the samples. Lowconcentrations of tetrachloroethane were found in three privatewells. However, subsequent sampling of the three wells did notfind the presence of this compound.

Thirty-nine residential wells located to the north, northeast andnorthwest of the site were sampled as part of the state-orderedprogram. Most of these wells are in bedrock, a few are at theoverburden-bedrock contact. The depths of these private wellsrange from 18 to 725 feet. According to the RI/FS, leachate hascontaminated the ground water at the overburden-bedrock contactmaking wells located in this zone more susceptible to landfillcontamination. Well samples were taken in September 1984,February, June and December, 1985.

Table 3 reports the contaminants detected during the residentialwell sampling rounds. Validation criteria for methylene chloridewas not met for the first three sampling rounds so thosecontaminant ranges should be interpreted with caution.Pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD analysiswas dropped after the first round of sampling because none ofthese contaminants were detected.

Table 3.

Ground Water Contamination in Private Wells *
CONTAMINANT RANGE DETECTED PPB COMPARISON
PPB
VALUE
SOURCE
Benzene ND-32 1.2 CREG
Lead 2-17 0 MCLG
Methylene Chloride ND-252 4.7 CREG
Tetrachloroethylene ND-168 5 MCL
Trichloroethylene ND-13 5 MCL
Vinyl Chloride ND-5 0.7 EMEG
ND-not detected
PPB-parts per billion
CREG-Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
MCL-Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG-Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
EMEG-Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline
* Malcolm Pirnie 1987; CT DEP Water Compliance Files

Leachate

In 1990, leachate monitoring was done regularly at a monitoringstation located at the bottom of Andrews Avenue. Starting inFebruary, sampling was done weekly for one month then monthlysamples were taken thereafter. Benzene has been detected at 200ppb. Ethyl benzene, toluene and xylenes have been detected belowcomparison values.

Soil

During the 1980's, soil sampling was performed at the AndrewsSchool and residential properties following complaints of run-offand overflow of storm drains.

At the Andrews School, samples were collected by the CT DEP nearthe storm drain. No TCDD was detected. No volatile organiccompounds were detected near the storm drain. Toluene wasdetected at very low concentration as were ethyl benzene andxylenes.

Soil at residential properties, to the east and south of thesite, on Hunters Mountain Road and to the north of the site onAndrews Avenue have been sampled. Nothing was detected abovecomparison values.

Surface Water and Sediments

The RI/FS included surface water and sediment sampling conductedby Fred C. Hart under the state ordered program and samplingconducted by Malcolm Pirnie (See Figure 6 for samplinglocations). Each of these sampling activities included threelocations for a total of six samples. Sediment sampling wasconducted at the same locations. Composite samples were taken attwo inch depths near the stream bank and mid stream.

In June of 1986, additional sampling was done by EPA at elevenlocations in the unnamed stream. Malcolm Pirnie also collectedsamples in Spruce Brook at five locations. Table 4 lists thecontaminants detected in surface water above comparison values.

Low concentrations of volatile organics including acetone, toluene and 2-Butanone were detected in sediment samples. Metals were present at high concentrations. These include lead, barium, zinc, and copper (Malcolm Pirnie 1987.)

In June of 1991, the stream on the east side of Hunter MountainRoad was sampled by the DEP. Nothing was detected abovecomparison values.

Table 4.

Surface Water Contamination *
CONTAMINANT RANGE DETECTED PPB COMPARISON PPB VALUE SOURCE
Trichloroethane ND-120 0.61 CREG
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine ND-1600 7.1 CREG
Benzene ND-650 1.2 CREG
ND-not detected
PPB-parts per billion
CREG-Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
* Malcolm Pirnie 1987; USEPA 1986

C. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL

Several consulting firms (Fred C. Hart, Malcolm Pirnie, YWC, andLangan Engineering) have conducted analyses of soil, groundwater,air, surface water and leachate. The QA/QC procedures used bythese consultants were not evaluated by the ConnecticutDepartment of Health Services. We did not obtain the QualityAssurance/Quality Control summary from EPA on the RI/FS data. Therefore, the conclusions drawn for this health assessment aredetermined by the availability and reliability of the referencedinformation and it is assumed that adequate quality assurance andquality control measures were followed with regard to chain ofcustody, laboratory procedures and data reporting.

However, we do not feel that the data in the RI/FS is sufficientor adequate to characterize the extent of contamination or thepotential for migration of contamination off-site in surfacewater, groundwater, surface soil and air. In addition, we foundsome analytical problems and controversy with the data that wasavailable for our review.

In 1983 analyses for TCDD was performed by three laboratories. This compound was found in one on-site monitoring well and soil. There exists some controversy regarding the reliability of thefirst TCDD data because subsequent analysis for TCDD did not findthe presence of TCDD in any of the media analyzed. Thus the firstround samples may have been contaminated during sample collectionor in the laboratory.

Analytical problems were noted for methylene chloridecontamination in well water because methylene chloride was foundin the laboratory blanks.

Analyses of different media for chromium reported only totalchromium. Therefore no analytical information exists on the formof chromium (Chromium III, Chromium VI) in the sampled media. Theform of chromium is important because some forms are more toxicthan others.

Past exposures to contaminants in air from previous fires and theopen burning of waste can not be assessed because there is nodata available.

The soil data is insufficient and inadequate. Only five soilsamples were collected from unknown depths and analyzed duringthe RI/FS investigation. The soil data is insufficient to allowthe assessment of downwind deposition of contaminants in soilthrough fugitive dusts. Nor is the data sufficient to assess thepotential for transport of soil contamination through surfacewater runoff.

The low concentrations of contaminants found in the on-sitegroundwater monitoring data (Malcolm Pirnie RI/FS 1987) are notrepresentative of the historical on-site waste disposalpractices. This is based on a review of the 1972 CT DEPCommercial and Industrial Solid Waste Survey which indicates thatapproximately one million gallons of sludge and liquid hazardouswastes were disposed of for approximately 15 to 20 years. According to the CT DEP (Patton, E., personal communications)much of the leachate generated in the landfill flowed off-sitethrough the unnamed stream. In addition, most of the industrialwaste was burned after disposal. These factors could explain thelow concentrations found in ground water. The public healthimplications are discussed in the Conclusion and Recommendationssection.

D. PHYSICAL AND OTHER HAZARDS

It is apparent based on observations made during the site visitthat trespassers do frequent the site. Dirt bike tracks could beseen throughout the site and fireworks had obviously beenlaunched from the top of the landfill. The physical hazards atthe site are numerous. Trespassers could fall or cut themselveswhile playing or climbing on the abandoned equipment and cars . Dirt bikers and hikers could also come in direct contact withother hazards including partially buried drums and tires, ditchesand holes.


PATHWAYS ANALYSES

To determine whether nearby residents have been or are beingexposed to contaminants migrating from the site CT DHS and ATSDRevaluate the environmental and human components that lead tohuman exposure and an exposed population. The pathway analysisconsists of five elements: A source of contamination, transportthrough an environmental medium, a point of exposure, a route ofhuman exposure and an exposed population. Exposure pathwaysdiscussed here are air, soil, ground water and surface water. ATSDR categorizes exposure pathways as either completed orpotential pathways. For an exposure pathways to be completed allfive elements of the pathway must be present. Potential pathwaysare those where there isn't enough evidence to show that all theelements are present, could be present or were present in thepast.

A. COMPLETED EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

No completed exposure pathways were identified.

B. POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS

Private Well Pathways

Past exposures may have occurred from contaminated ground waterpresent in private wells. Please refer to Table 3. Forty-fourprivate wells near the Laurel Park were sampled during aquarterly monitoring program. These chemicals were not detectedrepeatedly in the same well except for a few isolated instancesand no repetitive pattern of findings can be found. Many ofthese, however, are considered reliable indicators of possibleleachate contamination. The highest concentrations ofcontaminants were detected after residences were put on bottledwater.

Elevated levels (6 to 70 ppm) of chloride were found inresidential wells toward the northeast. There are severalpotential sources for the presence of chloride. The presence ofchloride could be indicative of the potential for leachatemigration towards the northeast. Or the could be the result ofroad salt contamination.

In response to the identification of contaminants in privatewells and the potential for contamination of nearby private wellsthe CT DEP provided fifty (50) residences in the area withbottled water in 1983. The residences were provided with bottledwater until 1990 when all but four residences were connected tothe public water supply. These residents chose not to abandontheir wells. These wells have not been monitored since the mid1980's.

Although the residents were provided with bottled water those households with contaminated wells still use this water for otherpurposes such as bathing or showering.

Benzene, tetrachloroethylene, vinyl chloride, phenols, and PAH'sevaporate into the air from contaminated water during showeringor baths. Inhalation exposures occur when persons breath theindoor air in the house while showering or bathing. In addition,these compounds will be absorbed through the skin during showersand baths. While lead can be ingested, inhalation of leadduring showering is unlikely.

Because quarterly sampling did not consistently detectcontaminants and because residences were placed on bottled waterin 1983, before water sampling detected contamination, we do notknow if and for how long neighboring residents were exposed tothese chemicals.

In 1983, CT DEP found 2,3,7,8-TCDD in an on-site ground watermonitoring well. Subsequent sampling of 35 private wells by CTDHS did not show the presence of this contaminant. There were noconfirmed positive detections of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in any residentialwell in the vicinity of Laurel Park.

Ambient Air Pathway

Past exposures to contaminated ambient air from on-site and off-site Laurel Park operation activities may have occurred.

The landfill open burned industrial wastes (solvent sludges,rubber products, etc.) in the early 1960's (Malcom Pirnie 1987). The residents of approximately fifty (50) homes in the area mayhave received inhalation exposure to potentially toxic emissionsgenerated from the open burning of waste. In addition, residentsmay have been exposed to smoke and fume emissions generated fromtwo large uncontrolled fires.

In 1962 a large fire burned for 5 days. Residents may have beenexposed to potentially toxic emissions from the wastes thatburned for 5 days. The smoke and fumes reportedly caused severalpeople to become ill. (Camp, Dresser, McKee 1982)

In 1986, a fire occurred at the top of the west slope of thelandfill resulting in the evacuation of approximately 500 personsin the surrounding area and the town of Naugatuck.(Letter,Commissioner CT DEP, Naugatuck Town Files, Solid Waste, CT DEP) The fire burned for 4 hours. Residents may have been exposed topotentially toxic emissions generated from the wastes thatburned.

We do not know what residents may have been exposed to, since wedo not know what types of waste were burned. There is no ambientair data for the years when the landfill actively burned wastenor for the uncontrolled fires.

We know from complaints that residents received inhalationexposure to fumes generated from the transport and spilling ofwaste chemicals along Hunters Mountain Road. (Solid Waste Files,CT DEP)

Gas production in landfills is a subject of much concern becauseof the potential hazards of methane combustion. Methanemeasurements have been taken from two on-site monitoring wellsand methane was found below comparison values. A gas ventingsystem will be installed in the landfill and additional gassampling is planned during the Remedial Action.

Surface Water/Leachate Pathways

Residents may have received inhalation and dermal exposures toVOCs ( i.e., acetone, benzene, methyl ethyl ketone) from the on-site stream that carried leachate materials off-site. The mostsignificant exposures are believed to have occurred when thestream flowed through residential backyards and along the rear ofthe Andrews Avenue Elementary School along Andrews Avenue andScott Street. The stream flowed into a storm drain into anunderground culvert beneath the Andrews Avenue School. Schoolchildren may have received inhalation exposures to VOC's (i.e.,acetone, benzene, methyl ethyl ketone ) and other compoundsevaporating into the air from the leachate.

According to CT DEP representative who inspected the site in theearly 1980's the stream was contaminated and had an extremely badodor (Patton, E., personal communication, CT DEP WaterManagement.) Residents consistently complained about leachateflowing in the stream and the extremely bad odor the stream hadas the leachate flowed past their backyards.(Naugatuck TownFiles, Solid Waste Files, CT DEP)

Soil/Dust Pathways

Past, current and future exposure pathways are possible from thecontamination of soil and dust. The mechanisms of contaminationinclude transport of contaminated soil and dust by wind, surfacewater runoff, excavation, and trucks transporting waste. Thepredominant wind blows in a northerly direction up the valley,however, most of the potential exposures discussed here areexpected to be from localized activities.

Soil samples collected on-site showed the presence of VOCs (e.g., acetone and benzene) and metals (e.g., arsenic, chromiumand lead).

Residents, landfill workers and truck drivers potentiallyreceived ingestion, inhalation and dermal exposure tocontaminated soil and road dust in the past when the landfill wasin operation.

We observed evidence of on-going recreational activities (e.g.,spent fire works and dirt bike trails) on unvegetated landfillareas.

Residents involved in recreational activities on-site canpotentially receive inhalation, skin and ingestion exposures toVOCs and metals from contaminated soils.

Leachate Pathway

Although the leachate collection system was designed to conveyleachate to the northern end of the landfill and through a sewerfollowing the path of the unnamed stream, leachate seeps arecommon throughout the landfill. Persons involved in recreationalactivities (dirt bikers) can potentially receive dermal andinhalation exposures to leachate (e.g., benzene, acetone,toluene) evaporating into the air from the leachate.

Fish Pathways

The potential exist for past exposures to fish contaminated withleachate in the Meadow Brook Stream. A review of the CT DEPSolid Waste files provided evidence that residents activelyfished in this stream while they observed leachate flowing downstream.

Acetone was detected at 65 ppb, methyl ethyl ketone at 30 ppb,and heptane and methane were found in trace concentration insediments (CT DEP 1980). Since, these compounds do notbioaccumulate in fish they are not cause for concern with respectto fish consumption.

Heavy metals, which include lead, zinc, and copper were found inthe sediments in Long Pond Meadow Brook stream. The potentialexists for exposures to fish contaminated with zinc and copper because fish will bioaccumulate zinc, and copper.

We do not feel that the lead from the contaminated sediments iscause for concern because it is mostly likely the inorganic formof lead.In order for lead to bioaccumulate in fish it has to bein the organic form, which is rarely found.


PUBLIC HEALTH IMPLICATIONS

A. TOXICOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Potential exposure pathways have been identified for air, soil,groundwater, surface water and leachate. In this section, thehealth effects associated with exposure to contaminants ofconcern will be discussed.

We used ATSDR Toxicologic Profiles in our review of the healtheffects associated with site contaminants. ATSDR's ToxicologicalProfiles are chemical-specific profiles which provide informationon health effects, environmental transport, and human exposures.

Tetrachloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene was detected in one private well at 168 ppb. This concentration was not detected in the same well when testedtwo times prior and once after. This concentration exceeds thecurrent EPA MCL of 5 ppb, however, this was detected after thisresidence was placed on bottled water.

Exposure to tetrachloroethylene through inhalation can cause eyeand upper respiratory irritation headaches, dizziness anddrowsiness at high levels. These adverse effects would not beexpected as a result of short term exposures to this compoundduring bathing and showering at the concentrations found in thiswell.

The EPA recommended a Group B (probable human carcinogen) weightof evidence classification for tetrachloroethylene.

Trichloroethylene

Trichloroethylene was detected in one private well at 1 ppb, theEPA MCL for trichlorethylene is 5 ppb. Trichloroethylene was notdetected in four follow-up samples of this same well.

The elevated concentration of trichloroethylene was detected inthe private well after bottled water had been provided. Adverseeffects from trichloroethylene during showering and bathing arenot expected. Dermal effects have not been reported fromexposure to dilute solutions containing trichloroethylene. Inhalation exposures at the concentrations detected are also notlikely to cause adverse effects.

Vinyl Chloride

Vinyl chloride was detected in one private well at 5 ppb, thecurrent EPA MCL in 2 ppb. This concentration was not confirmedduring four follow up samplings. Vinyl chloride was detectedafter residents were provided with bottled water.

Vinyl chloride is not absorbed by the skin during dermalexposure. If you breathe high levels of vinyl chloride,dizziness, sleepiness and unconsciousness may occur. Theseeffects occur at levels much higher than those found in thewater.

Methylene Chloride

Methylene chloride was detected in several private wells. Thehighest concentration detected was 252 ppb, above the EPA MCL of5 ppb. Methylene chloride was also detected in laboratoryblanks, therefore these concentrations should be interpreted withcaution. In addition, methylene chloride detection was notconsistently confirmed in follow up sampling.

Exposure to methylene chloride affects the central nervoussystem. Inhalation of methylene chloride at 300 ppm or greaterfor short periods of time can cause inability to hear faintsounds and vision impairment. Mild skin irritation can occurafter dermal exposure to methylene chloride.

Benzene

Benzene was detected in three private wells, only one well hadconcentrations above the EPA MCL of 5 ppb. These benzeneconcentrations were not consistently found on follow up. Thewell with the highest concentration of 32 ppb had nondetectablelevels on follow-up sampling. Benzene vapors were detected intwo on-site ground water monitoring wells at 30,600 and 31,200ppb. Benzene was also found in leachate as high as 850 ppb onsite and 200 ppb off-site.

Benzene is a known human carcinogen. It has been linked to thedevelopment of leukemia and other adverse effects related to thehematopoietic (blood related) system.

The highest concentration of benzene detected in private wellwater was found after bottled water was supplied. Oral exposureto benzene is not likely to have occurred.

Inhalation exposure and dermal exposures to benzene may haveoccurred during showering and bathing and in areas of leachateseepage. It is not likely that adverse health effects wouldoccur from inhalation exposure caused from the liberation ofbenzene found at concentrations in water. Benzene is a skinirritant causing a defatting of the keratin layer. A dry andscaly dermatitis may occur as a result of dermal exposures.

Other Volatile Organic compounds

Several volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were identified in on-site groundwater monitoring wells but not in private drinkingwater wells above EPA MCL standards. These are ethyl benzene,and 1,2 dichloroethane. These compounds are included in thissection because of the potential for these contaminants tomigrate into the four private wells in the area that have notbeen hooked up to public water.

Ethyl benzene

As indicated in Table 1 elevated levels (992 ppb) of ethylbenzene were detected in groundwater monitoring wells but not inprivate drinking water wells at levels higher than the currentEPA MCL of 680 ppb.

No studies were found which provide evidence regarding adverserespiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological.musculoskeletal, hepatic, reproductive or renal effects in humansor animals following oral or dermal exposures (ATSDR 1990). Nostudies were found regarding carcinogenic effects in humans todate (ATSDR 1990).

1, 2-dichlorethane

As indicated in Table 1, elevated levels of 1,2 dichloroethane (39 ppb) were found in groundwater monitoring wells at levels exceeding the EPA MCL of 5 ppb. The amount of 1,2 dichloroethane in drinking water with known health effects in humans and animals is not known. In short term animal studies exposures to levels much higher than those identified on the site increased the susceptibility to infection in laboratory animals.

No studies were found which provide evidence regarding adverserespiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological.musculoskeletal, hepatic, reproductive or renal effects in humansor animals following oral or dermal exposures (ATSDR 1990.) Nostudies were found regarding carcinogenic effects in humans todate (ATSDR 1990).

Benzo(a)pyrene

Benzo(a)pyrene was found in leachate (160 ppb) and on-sitegroundwater monitoring wells (5ppb). Benzo(a)pyrene, has beenfound to cause birth defects, decreased body weight andreproductive effects in laboratory animals at levels (308ppm)higher than those detected at Laurel Park (160 ppb.)

However, adverse skin effects have been seen in humans followingskin exposure in patients with preexisting skin conditions. Thissuggests that skin exposures to leachate maybe cause for concern.

Heavy Metals

Heavy metals were detected in private ground water wells,leachate sediments, and surface water.

Lead

Lead was found in leachate (23.5 to 4280 ppb) and ground water (0-1520 ppb), private wells (2 to 17 ppb), surface water (780 to8200 ppb), and in minor amounts in on-site soils.

Studies indicate that long term exposure to low levels of leadcan cause brain damage and lowered I.Q. in children. Exposure tohigh levels of lead can cause the brain and kidneys of humans tobe badly damaged. Lead exposure can increase blood pressure inmiddle aged men. If a pregnant women is exposed to lead it canbe carried to the unborn child and cause premature birth, lowbirth weight, or even spontaneous abortion.

Chromium

Chromium was found in leachate at concentrations of 11 to 1250ppb. There are several different forms of chromium in theenvironment. The most common forms include chromium (III) andchromium (VI). The RI/FS did not identify what form of chromiumwas found in the leachate. Chromium (III) is an essentialnutrient in humans. No adverse effects have been reported fromexposure to chromium (III) in part because of it's non-corrosiveand it cannot be readily absorbed in the human body. In contrastchromium (VI) is toxic because it is easily absorbed into thebody. Concentrations of 1900 ppb chromium (VI) applied to theskin of laboratory animals has been found to cause skinulcerations. It is highly unlikely that the chromium found inleachate is entirely chromium IV however, skin exposure tochromium from recreational activities at Laurel Park may be causefor concern.

Octachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin (OCDD)

OCDD was detected in all media sampled. The highestconcentration was found in sediments at 690 parts per trillion(PPT). In addition, OCDD was detected in private wells near thesite in trace amounts ( 105 to 709 parts per quadrillion.) However, these amounts are very low and there is no evidence tosuggest that exposure to these levels of OCDD will cause anadverse health effect. OCDD is a common by-product ofcombustion. Thus, the OCDD found in all media sampled wasprobably generated from the burning of wastes on-site.

Few studies have been undertaken to assess the toxicity of OCDDin animals, but preliminary indications suggest it is much lesstoxic than 2,3,7,8- tetrachlorodibenzo (p) dioxin (TCDD), themost highly toxic form of dioxin. The four major toxic effectsof exposure to these compounds at levels significantly higherthan those measured on-site are: chloracne, the wasting syndrome,liver and immune system damage and cancer.

In 1983, analyses for TCDD was performed by various laboratories. This compound was found in one on-site monitoring well and soil. There exists controversy regarding the reliability of the firstTCDD data because subsequent analysis for TCDD by the threelaboratories did not find the presence of TCDD in any of themedia analyzed. Thus, the first round samples may have beencontaminated during sample collection or in the laboratory.

B. HEALTH OUTCOME DATA EVALUATION

Health outcome data were not evaluated for this public healthassessment. Specifically, because there is no documentedevidence to indicate that the nature and extent of exposure thatoccurred could have caused an adverse toxicologic or physiologiceffect. Although records suggest that inhalation exposures totoxic air contaminants may have occurred because of the landfillfires, and the open burning of waste, we have no air monitoringdata to work with that would enable us to identify what potentialcontaminants people may have been exposed to. In addition, therewere no documented concerns of specific adverse health outcomes.

C. COMMUNITY HEALTH CONCERNS EVALUATION

Community concerns are reported in the document as broadcategories of issues. This was done because communityinvolvement has occurred for long periods of time and concernswere gathered from historical reports. We addressed theseconcerns as follows.

  1. Dust and debris blowing from the landfill as well as dust generated by the flow of trucks up to the site make it difficult to breath.

There was no air monitoring done in the vicinity of theresidential properties or on the road during active landfilloperations. We cannot make an assessment of what people may havebeen exposed to in the fugitive dusts. The landfill was closedand truck traffic has stopped. A permanent cap as required bythe Record of Decision will also address fugitive dust issues.

  1. What are the sludges and liquids that dripped off trucks and onto people's yards?

The sludges and liquids that spilled from trucks were not sampledto allow us to make an assessment of them. According to CT DEPfiles, an effort was make to reduce dripping from trucks byadding a catchment system to them. Soil sampling was done insome residential yards along the road leading to the landfill. Nothing was detected above comparison values.

  1. What are people being exposed to when leachate runs off the landfill and onto yards?

The leachate running off the landfill has been sampled. Avariety of compounds including acetone, benzene, chromium andlead were detected at levels above health comparison values. Some of these compounds will volatilize into the air and peoplemay have been exposed through inhalation, however, we do not knowat what concentrations. A leachate collection system wasinstalled on the site to capture leachate run-off. However,because the system was not hooked up to the waste water treatmentplant until 1989, overflow of the leachate flowed down AndrewsAvenue.

  1. Is the water safe to drink in private wells in homes around the site?

Sampling of private wells closest to the landfill was conductedby both CT DEP and during the remedial investigation. Aquarterly sampling program beginning in 1984 found lowconcentrations of contamination in a few wells. Thesecontaminants were not found consistently in the wells duringsubsequent sampling. Residents were placed on bottled water in1983 after groundwater monitoring wells on site detected TCDD. We have no evidence that private wells were impacted by thelandfill prior to being placed on bottled water in 1983. Fourresidences continue to use private wells and have not beensampled since the mid 1980's. There is the potential forcontamination of these wells.

  1. The odors emanating from the site are very strong and sometimes nauseating.

We do not know what specific contaminants were contributing tothe odor problem at the site. The permanent cap will help reducethese odors.

  1. Is the brook behind the Andrews School contaminated?

Leachate contaminants flowed into the stream prior to theleachate collection system being connected to the waste watertreatment facility.



Next Section     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. #