i 3r300769semspub.epa.gov/work/03/46768.pdfmg/kg/day, assuming an exposure point concentration of 1...

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #1! 30/SEPT/91

where:GDI = Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg/day);EPC = Exposure Point Concentration (ug/L);CF = 10'3 mg/ug;IR = Ingestion Rate (L/day);EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year);ED = Exposure Duration (years);BW = Body Weight (kg); andAT = Averaging Time (days).

Exposure parameter values used to estimate exposure to residents via ingestionof ground water are discussed below and summarized in Table 6-22.

!!

EPC: The methods for estimating exposure point concentrations arepresented in Section 6.1.3.2.

I

CF: A conversion factor of 10"3 mg/ug was used to convert mass units.i

IR: Gillies and Paulin (1983) estimated the 90th percentile of dailywater consumption to be 1.9 L/day. Studies conducted by Cantor etal. (1987) suggested an ingestion rate of 2.0 L/day represented a90th percentile of the ingestion rate distribution. USEPA (1989a),after reviewing available data, concluded that a ground wateringestion rate of 2.0 L/day represents a reasonable maximumingestion rate. Using this value in the risk assessment, however,assumes that the individual ingests water only from one's own tapduring the course of the day. Data presented in USEPA (1989b)suggest that individuals may receive approximately 30 percent oftheir drinking water from sources other than their own well.

IEF: For the RME it is assumed that a resident ingests ground water from

their own private well 350 days per year (USEPA 1991d).

ED: Approximately, 90 percent of the population live in the sameresidence for 30 years (USEPA 1989a, 1991d). An exposure durationof 30 years was assumed for estimating exposure (USEPA 1989a,1991d).

6-51 ;

i 3R300769

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

Table 6-22

Exposure Parameter Values used to EstimateExposure to Residents via Ingestion of Groundwater

Parameter

CFIREFEDBUAT

Value

10"3 mg/ug2 L/day350 days/year30 years70 kg

25,550 days (carcinogens)10,950 days (noncarcinogens)

Reference

- - -(EPA,(EPA,(EPA,(EPA,

(EPA,(EPA,

1985)1989a)1989a)1985)

1989a)1989a)

6-52

AR300770

' TCN 4204i ' RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

'!'..' i

BW: USEPA (1985a) calculated an average body weight for males andfemales of 71.8 kg. This value is approximately equal to theconsensus value of 70 kg which is typically used as the average bodyweight (USEPA 1989a, 1991d).

AT: The averaging time is 30 years (exposure duration) x 365 days/yearfor noncarcinogens and 70 years (lifetime) x 365 days/year forcarcinogens.

An example calculation of the RME GDI for contaminants under review for ingestionof ground water assuming an exposure point concentration of 1 ug/L is presentedbelow:

rnr , (1 uff/L) (i x Id'3 mg/ug) (2 L/day) (350 days/year) (30 years)«"1*»/d«' (70 kg) (25,550 days)

GDI = 1.2 x 1CT5 oig/kg/day

Thus, the GDI for ingestion of ground water for carcinogen is 1.2 x 10"5mg/kg/day, assuming an exposure point concentration of 1 ug/L. The GDI foringestion of ground water for noncarcinogens is 2.7 x 10"5, assuming an exposurepoint concentration of 1 ug/L. \

, i

Exposure to Ground Water via Dermal Absorption

Residents in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site may be exposed to chemicalsvia dermal absorption while bathing or showering. In this assessment, it isassumed that the residents are exposed via dermal absorption while showering inorder to be conservative (adults typically take showers more regularly thanbaths) and to be consistent with the evaluation of VOC exposure while showering.The estimated exposure to a chemical is based on the amount absorbed through theskin.

6-53

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Potential exposures to chemicals of potential concern in ground water via dermalabsorption were calculated using the following equation:

CDI = (mg/kg/day) =(AD

where:

CDI = Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg/day);EPC = Exposure Point Concentration (ug/L);CF = Conversion Factor (10~3 mg/ug);SA = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (cm2);PC = Dermal Permeability Constant (l/cm2/hrs);ET = Exposure Time (hrs/day);EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year);ED = Exposure Duration (years);BW = Body Weight (kg); andAT = Averaging Time (days).

Exposure parameter values used to estimate exposure to residents via directcontact with ground water are discussed below and summarized in Table 6-23.

EPC: The methods for estimating exposure point concentrations are presented inSection 6.1.3.2.

CF: A conversion factor of 10"3 mg///g was used to convert mass units.

SA: The average total body surface for men and women of 18,000 cm2 was assumedto come in direct contact with the water over the duration of the shower(1985a, 1989d). The 50th percentile of the total body surface area wasused, rather than an upper-bound percentile, because it reflects the bestestimate of the surface area for the individual with the 50th percentilebody weight (USEPA 1989a).

PC: The permeability constant reflects the movement of the chemical across theskin to the stratum corneum and into the bloodstream. Factorsinfluencing dermal absorption from water include the nature of thecompound, the presence of other agents which might facilitate thepermeability of a chemical, as well as the properties of the skin itself

6-54SR300772

1 TCN 4204RI REPORT

: I REV. #1! | 30/SEPT/91

Table 6-23

Exposure Parameter Values used to EstimateExposure to Residents via Direct Contact with Groundwater

Parameter

CFSAPC

ETEFED8WAT

Value

10"3 mg/ug18,000 cm28.4 x 10"4 VcmVhrs

0.2 hrs/day350 days/year30 years70 kg

25,550 days (carcinogens)10,950 days (noncarcinogens)

Reference

(EPA, 1989a)(Blank et al, 1984;EPA, 198?a)(EPA, 1989a)(EPA, 1989a)(EPA, 1989a)(EPA, 1985a)

(EPA, 1989a){EPA, 1989a)

6-55

SR300773

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

(USEPA 1988), Chemical-specific permeability constant values arecurrently under review, as presented in the Superfund Exposure AssessmentManual (SEAM) (USEPA 1988), and are not recommended for use in baselinerisk assessments at this time (USEPA 1989a). Currently, USEPA (1989a) hasrecommended using the permeability of water of 8.4 x 10"4 l/cm2/hrs forchemicals of potential concern (USEPA 1989a, Blank et al. 1984). However,this method may underestimate skin permeability properties for someorganic compounds (USEPA 1989a), while overestimate the permeability ofcertain inorganic compounds.

ET: For the exposure time, it was assumed that dermal contact with groundwater while showering would be 12 minutes per day, which represents the90th percentile of the time people spend showering (USEPA 1989a).

EF: For the exposure frequency, it was assumed that residents would shower 350days per year (USEPA 1989a).

ED: Approximately 90 percent of the population live in the same residence for30 years (USEPA 1989a, 1991d). An exposure duration of 30 years wasassumed for estimating exposure (USEPA 1989a, 1991d).

BW: USEPA (1985a) calculated an average body weight for males and females of71.8 kg. This value is approximately equal to the consensus value of 70kg which is typically used as the average body weight (USEPA 1989a,1991d).

AT: The averaging time is 365 days/year x 70 years for evaluating carcinogeniceffects and 365 days/year x 30 years for evaluating noncarcinogeniceffects.

An example calculation of the GDI for carcinogens assuming an exposure pointconcentration of 1 ug/L is presented below:

r , (1 ug/L) (1(T3 mg/ug) (18.000 cm') (8.4 x 1Q-* l/cm1/hi3) (0.2 his/day) (30 yra) (350 daya/yr)-'Wte/««1 __________(2S550 days) (70 kg)———————————— ————————

6-56

AR30077U

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

1.8 x Id"5 nig/kg/day

The GDI for noncarcinogens, using 10,950 days for the averaging time substitutedinto the above equation, is 4.1 x 10"5 mg/kg/day.

Total CDIs estimated for dermal absorption and ingestion of chemicals ofpotential concern in ground water are presented in Table 6-24 and Table 6-25.

... - \ \

Current Land-Use; Inhalation of VOCs in Residential Hells while Showering.There is research evidence to suggest that the exposure to VOCs via inhalationwhile showering can be related to the exposure from ingestion. Using theexposure calculated for ingestion and a simple multiplier in place of theinhalation exposure would be practical given the 1 eve!-of-effort necessary forperforming the shower model for each contaminant. Certain USEPA Regions such asRegion IX have adopted this approach as a standard practice for estimatingexposure and risk via inhalation in order to expedite the risk assessmentprocess. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine whether it isappropriate to use an ingestion rate CDI to estimate exposure from inhalation.

Potential exposure to an individual per shower via inhalation of VOCs for the RMEcase can be calculated using the following equation (Foster and Chrostowski1987):

Einh ** (D> + exp (~ja>')/* " sxplR(D' ~D<

where: ;Einh = Inhalation Exposure per Shower (mg/kg-shower);VR = Ventilation Rate (15/min);Cwd = Concentration leaving the shower droplet (//g/1)

(Chemical specific concentration based on the Henry's LawConstant and ground water concentration)

BW = Body Weight (70 kg);SV = Shower room air volume (2 m3)Dt = Total Duration in Shower Room (5 min);

6-57

I ^300775

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

Table 6-24

Chronic Daily Intakes (GDIs) Estimated for the Ingestion and Dermal Absorption Exposure from Use of Groundwaterfrom Untreated Residential Wells at the Butz Landfill Site for the RME Case

(Technical Assistance Team Sampling)(a)

Resident/Chemical

Adcock Farmhouse Inlet (c)1,1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTrichloroethene

Baker Inlet1,1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTrichloroethene

Barthold Inlet1,1-DichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTetrachoroetheneTrichloroethene

Bear InletTrichloroethene

Betticher Inlet1,1-DichloroetheneMethylene Chloride (b)Trichloroethene

Bunnell InletMethylene Chloride (b)Tetrachloroethene (b)Trichloroethene

Camp Streamside Inlet (chapel) (e)Trichloroethene

Camp Streamside Inlet (dining)Trichloroethene

Capolella InletTrichloroethene

Cobles Inlet (c)Trichloroethene

Detrick InletTrichloroethene

Farda InletTrichloroethene

Farda/Smee Inlet (c)Trichloroethene

Farleigh InletTrichloroethene

Flowers InletTrichloroethene

Fuel-Rite Inlet (e)Trichloroethene

Haney. Inlet (c)Trichloroethene

RMEExposurePoint

Concentration(ug/L)

3.02.153.6

4.62.142.0

6.34.82.9

108.0

9.6

2.13.499.1

2.72.138.3

5.2

6.8

19.9

11.9

7.6

2.6

4.6

13.6

17.2

75.4

64.3

Total RME GDIs(mg/kg/day) (f)

Carcinogens

8.8E-056.2E-051.6E-03

1.4E-04S.2E-051.2E-03

1.9E-041.4E-048.6E-053.2E-03

2.8E-04

6.2E-05l.OE-042.9E-03

8.0E-OS6.2E-051. IE-03

1.5E-04

2.0E-04

5.9E-04

3.5E-04

2.2E-04

7.7E-Q5

1.4E-04

4.0E-04

5. IE-04

2.2E-03

1.9E-03

Moncarcinogens

2. IE-041.4E-043.7E-03

3.2E-041.4E-042.9E-03

4.3E-043.3E-042.0E-047.4E-03

6.6E-04

1.4E-042.3E-046.8E-03

1.9E-04 ^1.4E-042.6E-03

3.6E-04

4.7E-04

1.4E-03

8.2E-04

5.2E-04

1.8E-04

3.2E-04

9.4E-04

1.2E-03

S.2E-03

4.4E-03 4

6-58

^300776

; TCN 4204' ' RI REPORTi ! REV. #1

, 30/SEPT/91Table 6-24 (Cont.)

Chronic Daily Intakes (GDIs) Estimated for the Ingestion and Dermal Absorption Exposure from Use of Groundwaterfrom Untreated Residential Wells at the 8utz Landfill Site for the RME Case


Resident/Chemical

Jacoby Inlet1,1-Dichoroethene1,2-Dichloroethene (total) (b)Methylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichloroethene

Kinsley Inlet (c)1,1-DichloroetheneTrichloroethene

Kirkpatrick InletMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichloroethene

Mongilutz InletTrichloroethene

Petrus InletTrichloroethene

Possinger, F. Inlet1.1-Oichoroethene1,2-Dichloroethane (b)Methylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichloroethene

R inker Inlet1,1-Dichoroethene1,2-DichloroethaneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroethene (b)Trichloroethene

StiTlo InletTrichloroethene

Strausser, P. InletTrichloroethene

Strausser, P. Jr. Inlet (c)Trichloroethene

Sullivan Inlet (c)Trichloroethene

Whitaker Inlet (d)Trichloroethene

Wilgus InletMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichloroethene

Young, InletTrichloroethent

RMEExposurePoint

Concentration(ug/L)

7.94.23.82.1

122.0

4.0107.0

2.02.151.9

3.2

14.0

14.63.011.35.4

5110.0

9.42.17.63.6

3670.0

3.7

3.6

6.1

10.6 ;21.3

2.73.035.7

4.4

(a) Sampled by the Technical Assistance Team for Emergency Response Removal(b) Chemicals detected only in 1989 sampling.(c Veils sampled in 1989 by the Technical Assistance Team but not in 1990.(d Most recent detect from 1988.(e Most recent detect from 1987.(f Total CO I estimated for ingest ion and dermal absorption routes.

Total 'RME cois(rng/kg/day) (f)

Carcinogens

2.3E-04

1. IE-046.2E-053.6E-03

1.2E-043.2E-03

5.9E-056.2E-051.5E-03

9.4E-05

4. IE-04

4.3E-048.8E-053.3E-041 . 6E-041.5E-01

2.8E-046;2E-052.2E-041. IE-041. IE-01

1. IE-04

1. IE-04 •

1.8E-04

3. IE-04

6.3E-04

8.0E-058.8E-051. IE-03

1.3E-04

and Prevention (April,

Noncarcinogens

5.4E-042.9E-042.6E-041.4E-048.4E-03

2.8E-047.4E-03

1.4E-041.4E-043.6E-03

2.2E-04

9.6E-04

l.OE-03

7.8E-043.7E-043.5E-01

6.5E-04

5.2E-042.5E-042.5E-01

2.5E-04

2.5E-04

4.2E-04

7.3E-04

1.5E-031

1.9E-042. IE-042.5E-03

3.0E-04

1

|I

AR300777

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Table 6-25

Chronic Daily Intakes (GDIs) Estimated for Ingestion and dermal Absorption Exposure from Use ofGroundwater from Untreated Residential 1 Wells at the Butz Landfill Site

(Remedial Investigation Sampling)(a)

Res ident/Chemica 1

CamelOrganics:

Naphthalene

Inorganics:Copper

Mobil (b)Inorganics:CopperZinc

RldayInorganics:BariumCopper

ShafferInorganics:BariumCopper

WesternInorganics:BariumCopperZinc

(a) Wells sampled for th(b) A toxlclty criterion(c) Total CDI estimated

RMEExposurePoint

(ug/L)

0.6

42.2

236.0207.0

37.2199.5

24.925.8

44.582.5267.0

e Remedial Investigation In 1990.was not available for aluminum; therefore,for ingest ion and dermal absorption routes.

Total RME CDIs(mg/kg/day) {c)

Carcinogens Noncarcinogens

- - - 4. IE-05

- - - 2.9E-03

1.6E-02- - - 1.4E-02

- - - 2.SE-031.4E-02

- - - 1.7E-031.8E-03

3. IE-03 1S.7E-03 ^

- - - 1.8E-02

CDIs were not estimated.

6-60

4R300778

• - ; TCN 4204! RI REPORTI REV. #1

' , 30/SEPT/91

Ds = Shower Duration (15 min);R = Air Exchange Rate (30)

The model developed by Foster and Chrostowski (1987) has been validated based onavailable experimental data. The results of the validation indicate that themodel produces reliable air concentrations from the volatilization component.Air concentrations were derived using chemical-specific Henryjs Law Constants.Exposure per shower calculated from the model can be used in the followingequation to estimate the GDI.

~nr . (BF) (ED) (Bioh)aff/fy/day / » Tn\.ftj-1

where:GDI = Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg/day);EF = Exposure Frequency (shower/year);ED = Exposure Duration (years);Einh = Inhalation Exposure per shower (mg/kg/shower); andAT = Averaging Time (days).

Table 6-26 presents GDIs estimated for five VOCs in shower room air modeled usingthe approach outlined by Foster and Chrostowski (1987) and GDIs estimated foringestion of ground water. In comparing exposures in Table 6-26 it is reasonableto assume that VOC exposures to individuals via inhalation are three times theexposures from ingesti on. Thus, three times the ground water ingesti on exposurescalculated for VOCs will be used as the GDIs for inhalation exposure in thisassessment as presented in Table 6-27 . However, inhalation toxicity criteriawill be used, where available, for estimating potential carcinogenic andnoncarcinogenic risks.

Current Land-Use; Direct Contact with Surface Soil by Trespassers - Children maybe exposed to contaminants under review in surface soil while playing at the BUTZLANDFILL. The following sections describe the two potential routes of exposurefrom direct contact with soils: incidental ingestion and dermal absorption.

Exposure to Soils via Inqestion - The ingesti on of soil by children is consideredto be a normal phase of childhood development (Baltrop et al. 1963, Robinson

6-61

Chemical

BenzeneChloroformTetrachloroe thaneTrichloroetheneVinyl chloride

Table 6-36

Comparison of ExposuresInhalation While Showering

Exposure fromInhalation During

Shower(mg/kg/day) (a)

6.8 x 10'35.6 x Itr35.3 x 10'35.7 x 10'37.5 x 10"3

Estimated forversus Ingest ion

Exposure fromIngestion ofGroundwater

(mg/kg/day) (b)

2.1 x 10,-32.1 x 10'32.1 x 10'32.1 x 10'32.1 x 10'3

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

3 Times theExposure

from Ingestion(mg/kg/day)

6.3 x 10'36.3 x 10'36.3 x 10'36.3 x 10'36.3 x 10'3

(a) The upper-bound scenario for inhalation during a shower assured a water concentration = 75 ug/L, an airexchange rate - 0.5 hr"1, and a 15-minute shower with 5 minutes in the shower room after the water was turnedoff.

(b) An exposure point concentration of 75 ug/L was used for all chemicals as well as exposure parameter valuesdiscussed for the ingest ion pathway.

6-62

AR300780

Table 6-27..

Chronic Daily Intakes (GDIs) Estimated for the Inhalation of VOCs whileUsing Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells at the Butz Landfill

(Technical Assistance Team Sampling) (a)

Resident/Chemical

Adcock Farmhouse Inlet (c)1 , 1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTrichloroethene

Baker Inlet1 , 1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTrichloroethene

Barthold Inlet1 , 1-DichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTetrachoroetheneTrichloroethene


Betticher Inlet1 , 1-DichloroetheneMethylene Chloride (b)Trichloroethene

Sunnell InletMethylene Chloride (b)Tetrachloroethene (b)Trichloroethene

Camp Streams ide Inlet (chapel)Trichloroethene

Camp 5treamside Inlet (dining)Trichloroethene



Oetrick InletTrichloroethene






Haney Inlet (c)Trichloroethene

RMEExposure

PointConcentration

(ug/L)

3..02..153.6

4.62-.142.0

6.34.82.9

108.0j

9.'6

2.13J499.1

2.72.138.3

(s)5.2

6.8

19.9

11.9

7.6

2.6i

4.6

13.6

17.2

75.4

64.3

1

Showering for ResidentsSite for the, RME Case

i

RME GDIs(mg/kg/day)

TCN 4204RI REPORTREV. #1

30/SEPT/91


1. IE-047.4E-051.9E-03

1.6E-047.4E-051.5E-03

2.2E-041.7E-04l.OE-043.8E-03

3.4E-04

7.4E-051.2E-043.5E-03

9.5E-057.4E-051.3E-03

1.8E-04

2.4E-04

7.0E-04

4.2E-04

2.7E-04

9.2E-05•

1.6E-04

4.8E-04i

6. IE-04

2.7E-03|

2.3E-03

2.5E-041.7E-044.4E-03

3.8E-Q41.7E-043.5E-03

5.2E-043.9E-042.4E-048.9E-03

7.9E-04

1.7E-042.8E-048. IE-03

2.2E-041.7E-043. IE-03

4.3E-04

5.6E-04

1.6E-03

9.8E-04

6.2E-04

2. IE-04

3.8E-04

1. IE-03

1.4E-03

6.2E-03

5.3E-03

6-63 [

ftR3Q078i

Table 6-27(Cont.)

Chronic Daily Intakes (GDIs) Estimated for the Inhalation of VOCs WhileUsing Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells at the Butz Landfil'


Resident/Chemica 1

Jacoby Inlet1, L-OichoroetheneL,2-Oichloroethene (total)Methylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichloroethene

Kinsley Inlet (c)1, 1-DichloroetheneTrtchloroethene


Mongi lutz InletTrichloroethene


Possinger. F. Inlet1. 1-Dichoroethene1,2-Dichloroethane (b)Metnylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichloroethene

R inker Inlet1, 1-Dichoroethene1 , 2-D ich loroethaneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroethene (b)Trichloroethene

Sti llo InletTrichloroethene




Whitaker Inlet (d)Trichloroethene

Wi Igus InletMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTncnloroethene

Young, InletTrichloroethene

(a) Sampled by the Technical(b) Chemicals detected only(c) Wells sampled in 1989 by(d) Host recent detect from(e) Most recent detect from

' ' RMEExposurePoint

Concentration(ug/L)

7.9(b) 4.2

3.82.1

122.0

4.0107.0

2.02.151.9

3.2 .

14.0

14.63.011.35.4

5110.0

9.42.17.63.6

3670.0

3.7

3.6

6.1

10.6

21.3

2.73.035.7

4.4

Showering for Residents1 Site for the RME Case

RME COIs(mg/kg/day)

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

•


2.8E-04

1.3E-047.4E-054.3E-03

1.4E-043.8E-03

7.0E-057.4E-051.8E-03

1. IE-04

4.9E-04

5. IE-041. IE-044.0E-041.9E-041.8E-01

3.3E-047.4E-052.7E-041.3E-041.3E-01

1.3E-04

1.3E-04

2. IE-04

3.7E-04

7.5E-04.

9.5E-051. IE-041.3E-03

1.5E-04

6.5E-043.5E-043. IE-041.7E-04l.OE-02

3.3E-048.8E-03

1.6E-041.7E-044.3E-03

2.6E-04

1.2E-03

1.2E-03 ^

9.3E-04 ^ 14.4E-04 H4.2E-01

7.7E-04

6.2E-043.0E-043.0E-01

3.0E-04

3.0E-04

5.0E-04

8.7E-04

1.8E-03

2.2E-042.5E-042.9E-03

3.6E-04

Assistance Team for Emergency Response Removal and Prevention (April, 1990). ^Hjin 1989 sampling. ^Mthe Technical Assistance Team but not in 1990. ^H1988. ^1987.

6-64flR300782

1 TCN 4204RI REPORT

; ; REV. #1• 30/SEPT/91.II

1971, and Ziai 1983), Usually temporary, this behavior may result from normalmouthing, incidental hand-to-mouth activity, and/or dermal absorption (USEPA1989a). Ingestion .of soil past the ages of 6 or 7 has seemingly been termed"abnormal" and is frequently the result of developmental problems (Lourie et al.1963, Paustenbach et al. 1986). This behavior is otherwise known as pica-abnormal ingestion of a non-food substance (USEPA 1989b).

I

Potential exposures to contaminants under review in surface soil via incidentalingestion for the RME case were calculated using the following equation:

CDI (mg/ks/day) (cf) 1™™™ <*»\Brf) (AT)

where:CDI = Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg/day);EPC = Exposure Point Concentration (mg/kg for inorganics, ug/kg for

organics);CF = Conversion Factor (10~6 kg/mg for inorganics, 10'9 kg/ug for

organics);IR = Ingestion Rate (mg/day);FI = Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unitless);EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year);ED = Exposure Duration (years);RBF = Relative Bioavailability Factor (unitless);BW = Body Weight (kg); andAT = Averaging Time (days).

Exposure parameter values used to estimate exposure to children via incidentalingestion of surface soils are discussed below and summarized in Table 6-28.


:

CF: The conversion factor of 10'6 kg/mg was used to convert mass unitsfor inorganics. The conversion factor of 10"9 kg/ug was used toconvert mass units for organics.

IR: Several studies have been performed to estimate the amount of soilingested by children. Recent studies performed have used tracer

6-65I

/JR300783

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #1Table 6-28 30/SEPT/91

Exposure Parameters Used to EstimateExposure to Children via Incidental Ingestion of Surface Soil

and Sediments at the Butz Landfill Site

Parameter Value Reference

CFOrganics 10'9 kg/mg - - -Inorganics 10"8 kg/mg - - -

IR 140 mg/day (EPA, 1989b)FI 1 - (EPA, 1989a)EF 125 days/year {EPA, 1989a)ED 10 years (EPA, 1989a)RBF

Semi-Volatile .5 (Poiger andOrganic Compound Schlatter, 1980

McConnell et al., 1984,Lucier et al,1986, Wending et al.1989, and van denBerg et al., 1986,1987)

Volatile Organics and 1 Assumed valueInorganics

8W 25 kg (EPA, 198Sa)ATCarcinogens 25,550 days (EPA, 1989a)Non-carcinogens 3,650 (EPA, 1989a)

6-66

j TCN 4204-- \ RI ' "=ORT

R-,. #130/SEPT/91

elements in feces and soil to estimate the amount of ingested soil(USEPA 1989b). Calabrese et al. (1987) estimated that the average95th percentile of soil ingestion rates for the three best tracersevaluated was approximately 200 mg/day. Problems with theanalytical results for the Calabrese study, however, were found.Binder et al. (1986) used three tracer elements to estjmate soilingestion. The three tracer element results were averaged for anestimated average soil ingestion of 108 mg/day with a range of 100mg/day to 200 mg/day (USEPA 1989b). Van Wijnen et al. (1990)reported that the estimated range of 90th percentiles of ingestionrates ranged from 190 mg/day during normal activities to 300 mg/dayduring vacationing at campgrounds. The interim final guidance forsoil ingestion rates released by the Office of Soil Waste and

! iEmergency Response (OSWER) recommended using 200 mg/day as an upper-bound soil ingestion rate for children under the age of 6 (USEPA1989d). The 200 mg/day ingestion rate appears to be a reasonableupper-bound value given the supporting research discussed above. Asoil ingestion rate of 100 mg/day was recommended for children overthe age of 6 and adults (USEPA 1989a,d). For the age groupevaluated for this pathway (i.e., 2 to 12), a weighted averageingestion rate of 140 mg/day was calculated using the USEPA(1989a,d) recommended ingestion rates (i.e., 200 mg/day for childrenbetween the ages of 2 to 6, and 100 mg/day for children between theages of 6 to 12). \

FI: The fraction ingested from the contaminated source wasconservatively assumed to be one (1).

' i

EF: For the exposure frequency, it was conservatively assumed thatchildren would play in surface soil at the site three times per weekfor 10 weeks in the spring and fall when the temperature is abovefreezing (total of 60 days). In the summer months, accounting forwarmer weather and schools being closed, children's exposure isconsidered to be up to five times per week for approximatelythirteen weeks. Therefore, the exposure frequency would be 65 days

6-67

flR30Q785

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

during the summer. The total number of days exposed per year forthe RME case was estimated to be 125 days/year.

ED: Children were assumed to play in the area between the ages of 2 and12. Therefore, the exposure duration is 10 years. Children in thisage group are more likely to engage in the activity outlined in thispathway than during other ages. In addition, children in this agegroup may have higher exposure (mg/kg/day) because of their lowerbody weights (kg) than older children which would have higher bodyweights.

RBF: The relative bioavailability factor is used to adjust exposure tocontaminants under review which tightly bind to a soil/sedimentmatrix (e.g., PCBs). Many contaminants which adsorb to soilparticles may be less bioavai Table than when the contaminant isadministered in water or oil, which is the typical vehicle used inlaboratory toxicity tests. Experimental data on the relativebioavailability of the contaminants under review are limited.Several studies have been conducted on dioxin which show therelative bioavai lability to range from 7% to 50% (Poiger andSchlatter 1980, McConnell et al. 1984, Lucier et al. 1986, Wend!inget al. 1989, and Van den Berg et al. 1986, 1987). To beconservative, all semi-volatile organic compounds (e.g., PCBs) areassumed to have a relative bioavailability factor of 50 percent.Other volatile organic compounds and inorganics are assumed to havea relative bioavailability factor of one (1). This is aconservative assumption which would tend to overestimate thebioavailability for some compounds.

BW: The mean body weight for both male and female children between theages of 2 to 12 is approximately 25 kg (USEPA 1985b).


6-68

UR300786

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

i

An example calculation of the RME GDI for semi-volatile carcinogens assuming anexposure point concentration of 1 ug/kg is presented below:

CDI (mg/kg/day) - (1 u&/k& <-10'3 sr/uff) (140 mg/day) (1) (125 days/year] (10 yeara) (.5)

1.4 x 10-ld mg/kg/day

For semi-volatile organic compounds (1 ug/kg exposure point concentration), theRME CDI is estimated to be 1.4 x 1(T10 mg/kg/day and 9.6 x 10'10 mg/kg/day, forevaluating carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects respectively. For volatileorganic compounds (1 ug/kg exposure point concentration), the RME CDI isestimated to be 2.7 x 10'10 mg/kg/day and 1.9 x 10"9 mg/kg-day, for evaluatingcarcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects, respectively. For inorganic compounds(1 mg/kg exposure point concentration), the RME CDI is estimated to be 2.7 x 10"7mg/kg/day and 1.9 x 10~6 mg/kg/day, for evaluating carcinogenic andnoncarcinogenic effects, respectively. GDIs estimated for incidental jngestionof contaminants under review in surface soil are presented in Table 6-29.

' !

Exposure to Surface Soils via Dermal Absorption - This assessment will focus onthe dermal absorption of organic contaminants since laboratory studies (Skog andWahlberg 1964, Wahlberg 1968a,b) have shown that dermal absorption of inorganiccompounds bound in a soil/sediment matrix is negligible. Potential exposures toorganic contaminants under review in surface soil via dermal absorption for theRME case were calculated using the following equation:

CDX - (5 ' '* '***' ISF> (ED)(Sri) (AT)

where:

EPC = Exposure Point Concentration (ug/kg);CF = Conversion Factor (10~9 kg/ug);SA = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (cm2/day);AF = Soil to Skin Adherence Factor (mg/cm2);ABS = Dermal Absorption Factor (unitless);

6-69

5R300787

Chemical (a)

Organics:Aroclor-1260

Inorganics:BerylliumZinc

Chronic Dai lywith Surface Soils by C

RMEExposure PointConcentration

Inorganics: mg/kg)

140.0

0.1230.0

TCN 4204RI REPORT

Table 6-29 REV. #1Intakes (COIs) Estimated for Direct Contact O/SEPT/91

hildren Playing at the 8utz Landfill for the RME Case

RME COIs RME COIsfor Incidental Ingestion for Dermal Absorption

(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)(b)

Carcinogens Noncarcinogens Carcinogens Noncarcinogens

3.8E-08 - - - _ 2.0E-08

2.7E-08 1.9E-07 - - -4.4E-04 - - - - - -

(a) The dermal absorption of inorganics is negligible; therefore, exposure and risk were not estimatedfor this route.

(b) No Rfd was available for Aroclor-1260

6-70flR300788

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

EF - Exposure Frequency (days/year);ED = Exposure Duration (years);BW - Body Weight (kg); andAT = Averaging Time (days).

Exposure parameter values used to estimate exposure to children via dermalabsorption of contaminants in surface soil are discussed below and summarized inTable 6-30. The exposure frequency (EF), exposure duration (ED), body weight(BW), and averaging time (AT) previously discussed for the surface soil ingestionexposure route also were used to estimate exposure for the dermal absorptionexposure route. :


1 i

CF: The conversion factor of 10"9 kg/ug is used to convert mass units.I ' i

SA: Approximately one-third of the total surface area of the hands,arms, and legs were assumed to directly contact surface soil. Thus,approximately 1000 cm2 of the body surface would contactcontaminated surface soil based on data presented in USEPA (1985a,1989b) for children ages 2 to 12. The 50th percentile of thesurface area of the hands, arms, and legs was used, rather than anupper-bound percentile, because it reflects the best estimate of thesurface area for the individual with the 50th percentile body weight(USEPA 1989a).

i. i

AF: A skin-to-soil adherence factor of 1.45 mg/cm has been calculatedbased commercial potting soil (USEPA 1989a).

ABS: The absorption factor reflects the percentage of a compound thatcontacts the skin which will pass through the skin to the stratumcorneum and into the bloodstream. Factors influencing dermalabsorption from a soil matrix include the affinity of the compoundfor the soil matrix, the presence of other agents that mightfacilitate the permeability of a compound, as well as the properties

6-71

Parameter

CFSAAFASS

Semi-VolatileOrganic CompoundsVolatile OrganicCompoundsInorganics

EFEDawATCarcinogensNoncarc Imogens

Table 6-30Exposure Parameters Used to Estimate

Exposure to Children via Dermal Absorption of Chemicalsin Surface Soil and Sediments at the Butz Landfill Site

Value

1Q-9 kg/ug1000 cmVday1.45 mg/cm2

.05

.1

0

125 days/year10 years25 kg

25,550 days3,650 days

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Reference

(EPA, 1989a)(EPA, 1989a)(EPA, 1989a)(Yang et al., 1986a,bWester et al., 1987,Poiger & Schlatter,1980}(Skog & Wahlberg,1964, Wahlberg,1968a, b)

(EPA, 1989a)(EPA, 1989a)(EPA, 1985a)

(EPA, 1989a)(EPA, 1989a)

AR3Q079Q

' TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #1; 30/SEPT/91

of the skin Itself (USEPA 1988). Based on results from Yang et al.(1986a,b), Wester et al. (1987), and Poiger and Schlatter (1980), itis assumed that 5 percent of the semi-volatile compounds (e.g.,PCBs) in surface soil are absorbed through the skin. There isinsufficient experimental evidence for deriving dermal absorptionfactors for other contaminants under review. Considering therelative absorptive properties of other organic compounds comparedto those with known values, it is conservatively assumed that 10

. percent is absorbed through the skin to the bloodstream. Based oni

laboratory studies (Skog and Wahlberg 1964, Wahlberg I968a,b),inorganic compounds are not considered to be absorbed and thusexposure to inorganics from dermal contact is assumed to be zero.

An example calculation of the RME GDI for semi-volatile carcinogens assuming anexposure point concentration of 1 ug/kg is presented below:

(1 ucr/kg-) (1Q-* kg/ug) (loop cm'/day) (1.45 mglon3) (.05) (125 days/year) (10 years)(25 kg) (25550 days)

* 1.4 x id'10 mff/kff/day

For semi -volatile organic compounds (1 ug/kg exposure point concentration), theRME GDI is estimated to be 1.4 x 10'10 mg/kg/day and 9.9 x 10'10 mg/kg/day, forevaluating carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects respectively. For volatileorganic compounds (1 ug/kg exposure point concentration), the RME GDI isestimated to be 2.8 x 10"10 mg/kg/day and 2.0 x 10"9 mg/kg-day, for evaluatingcarcinogenic and noncarcinogenic effects, respectively. GDIs estimated fordermal absorption of contaminants under review in surface soil at the BUTZLANDFILL site are presented in Table 6-29.

Current Land-Use; Direct Contact with Surface Hater bv Children Playing inStreams and Ground water Seeps - Children may be exposed to contaminants underreview in surface water from streams and ground water seeps in the vicinity ofthe BUTZ LANDFILL site. The estimated exposure to a contaminant is based on the

6-73

flR30079l

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. n30/SEPT/91

amount absorbed through the skin. The amount of surface water ingested isnegligible during playing activities and; therefore, was not considered in thisassessment.

Potential exposure to contaminants under review in surface water via dermalabsorption were calculated using the following equation:

0>I = (mg/kg/day) = (ED}

where:

GDI = Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg/day);EPC = Exposure Point Concentration (ug/L);CF = Conversion Factor (1Q~3 mg/ug);SA = Skin Surface Area Available for Contact (cm2);PC = Dermal Permeability Constant (L/cm2/hr);ET = Exposure Time (hrs/day);EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year);ED = Exposure Duration (years);BW = Body Weight (kg); andAT = Averaging Time (days).

Exposure parameter values used to estimate exposure to children via contact withsurface water are discussed below and summarized in Table 6-31. The same skinsurface area (SA), exposure frequency (EF), exposure duration (ED), body weight(BW), and averaging time (AT) previously discussed for the surface soil ingestionexposure route also were used to estimate exposure for the dermal absorption ofcontaminants in surface water.


CF: This conversion factor adjusts the mass units.

PC: The permeability constant reflects the movement of the contaminantacross the skin to the stratum corneum and into the bloodstream.Factors influencing dermal absorption from water include the natureof the compound, the presence of other agents which might facilitate

6-74 AR300792

Parameter

CFSAPC

ETEDEFATCarcinogensNon-carcinogensBU

,

Table 6-31

Exposure Parameters Used to EstimateExposure to Children via Direct Contact with Surface

. .. "in the Vicinity of the Butz Landfill Site

Value ,

10"3 mg/ug1000 cm28.4 x 10"* L/cm2/hr

2.6 hrs/day10 yrs125 days/yr

25,550 days3,650 days '25 kg.

TCN 4204RI REPORT

1 REV. #130/SEPT/91

Water

Reference

- - - i(EPA, 1989a)(Blank et al, 1984;EPA, 1989a){EPA, 1989a)Assumed Value(EPA, 1989a)

(EPA, 1989a)(EPA, 1989a)(EPA, 1985a)

' : . 300793

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

the permeability of a compound, as well as the properties of theskin itself (USEPA 1988). Chemical-specific permeability constantvalues are currently under review, as presented in the SuperfundExposure Assessment Manual (SEAM) (USEPA 1988), and are notrecommended for use in baseline risk assessments at this time (USEPA1989a). Currently, USEPA (1989a) has recommended using thepermeability of water of 8.4 x 10~4 l/cm2/hr for contaminants underreview (USEPA 1989a, Blank et al. 1984). However, this method mayunderestimate skin permeability properties for some organiccompounds (USEPA 1989a), while overestimate the permeability ofcertain inorganic compounds.

ET: For the exposure time, it was assumed that contact with surfacewater during play activities would be similar to the nationalaverage of time spent swimming. The national average of time spentswimming is 2.6 hrs/day (USEPA 1988, 1989a).

An example calculation of the CD I for carcinogens assuming an exposure pointconcentration of 1 ug/L is presented below:

car (X ug/L) (1Q'J mg/ug) (1000 em') (8.4 x 10'* .Z/cmVhr) (2.6 hrs/day) (10 yra) (1 L/iOOO cm1) (125 dayg/yr)(w/te/owl (25550 cfa -7) (25 kg)

4.3 x IQ-* mer/kcr/day

The GDI for noncarcinogens, using 3,650 days for the averaging time substitutedinto the above equation, is 3.0 x 10"5 mg/kg/day. CDIs estimated for dermalabsorption of contaminants under review in surface water from streams and groundwater seeps in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site are presented in Table 6-32.

Current Land-Use; Direct Contact with Sediments by Children Playing in Streamsand Ground water Seeps - CDIs estimated for direct contact of contaminantspresent in sediments were estimated using the same methods (i.e., exposureparameter values [Table 6-28 and Table 6-30] and CDI equation) outlined for

6-76

V TCN 4204> \ RI REPORT

REV. #1Table 6-32 j 30/SEPT/91

Chronic Daily Intakes (GDIs) Estimated for DirectContact with Surface Water in the Vicinity of the Sutz Landfill Site by Children for the RME Case

RME ' RME GDIsExposure Point (mg/kg/day)Concentration ————————————————————————

Station/Chemical (a) (ug/L) Carcinogens Noncarcinogens___________________!___________ ____ ___

iGroundwater Seeps Near Butz Landfill \Station 10 . :

Organics: iTrichloroethene 1.00 4.3E-06 3.0E-05

Inorganics: :No inorganic contaminants selected

Station 13 :Organics:Chlorobenzene 2.00 ... 6.0E-051,2-Oichlorqethene (Total) 10.00 - - - 3.0E-04Trichloroethene 1.00 4.3E-06 3.0E-05Vinyl Chloride 2.00 , 8.5E-06

Inorganics:Arsenic 2.40 l.OE-05 7.2E-05Barium 104.00 - - - 3.IE-03Manganese 2,010.00 t - - - 6.0E-02

West Fork of Reeders Run

Station 5 :No contaminants selected

Station 6Organics:No contaminants selected

Inorganics:Barium 14.50 - - - 4.3E-04Mercury 1.00 - - - 3.0E-05

Station 7No contaminants selected

Mountain Spring Lake

Station 14Organics: :delta-BHC 0.16 - - - - - -gamma-BHC 0.08 3.4E-07Benzoic Acid 25.00 - - - 7.5E-04Di-n-butylphthalate 5.00 , - - - 1.5E-04

Inorganics:Arsenic 6.90 2.9E-05 2.IE-04Barium 143.00 - - - 4.3E-03Cadmium 9.60 - - - 2.9E-04Chromium 6.70 - - - 2.0E-04Manganese 893.00 - - - 2.7E-02Nickel 22.30 - - - • 6.7E-04Vanadium 15..00 - - - 4.5E-04Zinc 866.00 , - - - 2.6E-02

6-77

flR3G0795

Table 6-32(Cont

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. 1130/SEPT/91

Chronic Daily Intakes (GDIs) Estimated for DirectContact with Surface Water in the Vicinity of the 8utz Landfill Site by Children for the RME Case

Station/Chemical (a)

North Fork of Reeders Run

Station 2Organ ics:Trichloroethene

Inorganics:Manganese

Station 3Organics:Trichloroethene

Inorganics:Mercury

Station 9Organics:No organic contaminants

Inorganics:Mercury


Inorganics:BariumMercury

Wetland East of Landfill

Station 11Organics:No organic contaminants

Inorganics:Barium

RMEExposure PointConcentration

(ug/L)

10.00

102.00

2.00

0.25

selected

0.25

2.00

15.801.00

selected

14.50

RME GDIs(mg/kg/day)


4.3E-05 3.0E-04

- - - 3. IE-03

8.5E-06 6.0E-05

- - - _7.5E-06

7.5E-06

8.5E-06 6.0E-05

- - - 4.7E-04- - - 3.0E-05

4.3E-04

(a) Toxicity criteria were not available for aluminum and lead.

6-78

flR300796

i TCN 4204; i RI REPORT; ! REV. #1: I 30/SEPT/91

direct contact of surface soil. Although, studies have not been performedspecifically on the ingestion rate of sediments, play activities along the banksof streams may result in the incidental ingestion of sediments. USEPA (1989a)recommends using the soil dermal contact equation for sediment, although due totheir textures, most sediments are probably less likely to adhere to the skinthan soil. GDIs estimated for incidental .ingestion and dermal contact withsediments are presented in Table 6-33.

Current Land-Use: Ingestion of Fish from Tributaries of Reeders Run. There isthe potential for bioaccumulation of contaminants present in surface water andsediments in fish which may inhabit pools along tributaries of Reeders Run.Thus, recreational fisherman who may fish along these tributaries may be exposedto contaminants under review from the consumption of contaminated fish tissue.USEPA (1989e) guidance entitled "Assessing Human Health Risk from ChemicallyContaminated Fish and Shellfish" was used to estimate exposure from ingestion offish. The quantity and rate of fish consumption will vary depending on theregion of the country, age group, fishing pattern, and race of the fisherman.The following estimates concentrate on the subpopulation of recreationalfishermen and their families.

i

i

Potential exposures to recreational fisherman via ingestion of contaminated fishfor the RME case were calculated using the following equation:

_ _ (EPO (CFt) (CFj (IS) (FI) (EF> (ED) (BCF)IBM (AT)

where:

CDI = Chronic Daily Intake (mg/kg/day);EPC = Exposure Point Concentration (ug/kg);CFj = Conversion Factor (10~9 kg/ug);CF2 = Conversion Factor (103 mg/g);IR = Ingestion Rate (g/day);FI = Fraction Ingested from Contaminated Source (unitless);EF = Exposure Frequency (days/year);ED = Exposure Duration (years); iBCF = Biconcentration Factor;BW = Body Weight (kg); andAT = Averaging Time (days).

i ;

6-79 ;: i

AR300797

OCM O

LU :_ —z a: uJ "-I0I—— 1-4

08

COCO1CO

cur~rar—

9!rau1 • 1

as

&•M

UO

0)•4-* 4-1(j -f—2"

o •—Cj —u-

0} <Qt- _l

O NJU 3o m

(U •!->

e oW 4-1UJ •»-

W CJ

O >uCO -W(U

ra *

is gX >»f— «

ra a.Q cU 0)

u u.ato

1•5cuen

'i

COccu01i

c uo u4-> UB ™» CI- >i Oco o a z— to-o

CJ <£ Ol

w--<

QJ (Ua otgo •—<*- o

toi§ 1"- U4-* Uv> «a(U U01 Cc-— » o« > as

W tQ

CJ 4-1 D)

as -~ E «o * — * cc cu_ gloS- CM- U

(8U

_. — .

4-» e .*

O .(_, 3 EfO . .

•g tJ-g g u

Ull^ ^«

rO

»—rauiu1<0on

1 1 11 1 11 1 1

1 1 i1 1 11 1 1

^ CD COa o Oi i iUJ UJ UJen r-. *?CU CM CO

1 t 1

i ao iCO

o-«r o«-*«-< oOJ f*

***

p.

C "S"O 4-*

ra cucu

M CO4J3 COCO +j

S>a c£ I<aex ccu ocu uen ••u tou •• •*- o E cuCU 0 CO C — S 104J — U ra C — CUro -—131 ro E— CS c c fc- en a-— n•U O r o O t- — >, Olc ••- en o t. c. c3 4-> U 0 C r O C U r O

ca en

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1 1 11 1 1 11 1 1 1

a o a o> i i iU] LU LU LUo o ul «r-« CO CM O5

LO i r^. ia o> i i ILU UJLO 1 LO 1

~* CO

LO O CO O

SCQ *-H O-H COCO O)

CU

n}

ra><a4-»

g

2!£>0

cu4J

TU CO

U g 0)CO CO >i •<- 3 CO— C U »- CU_ _ ,a g^. cecu 01 e Si— raOrfl»- U CD -^ >, Ol— Ol X O W 1- l_ c4-> u o c u i a c u r a« O r— — KTCDCQa:

en

i r** co i00LU LU

1 CM CM 1CM CO

g , II I I 1LUCM 1 1 1

CO

i r». co coo o oi i i iLU LU LU

i CM o r*»>» CO CM

co i i r^O C3I I I 1LU LUCO 1 1 CO

— CO

TOO »rCO O CO — <in CM -<

CM

COCz~C~ 410 CU 01o • —

T) U raC 4-1 >> ——3 U X 3an cu o-

i — U LUto cu — —I. 10 4-1

CU [ * O QJ 01a. ra < >, cuU- -^ U —— 4J CO0 i »;=,is -si-^ U1 4J C O U U O U C U C —S c§ ccS-S^I g,^1 |£ li'01" II3t en en

•acuuOl

tocrac

c

4J O

4Jtn

6-80QR300798

o<M«3>j-O

O \Q. •(—LU =» o.CE UJ LUa: </i3 o

JO

-7coeneftto

XI! —

<UV)<OuLUz:0)XT

o0)

o —10 10C i—o •—CJ —u-*•> -D0) 10U —Ia NU 3O CO

"S5rtJ t«-.6 0

LU ••-cW U3 >u•w* Q)

M 4-1a£ c:10 —C O)i— C

i— 10

rO 0.a cu ao —s- ••-x: -cu uXIw1

•5ajto4

X

cueng

S ot-— (O•M OQ- — . Ct- >i Oman x.

h~4 Crt -Oa -a -».u<: enUJ ' — *-*

0) V)0)

"<- CuuCJ

incen

o c

s sen u•5s; §<n 10 z.— < — *ou 4-> enLU|<

C tfl~ gt- 0)

° 1O

.3

'"enc s<^• — en 5?

*£*•««04 = S H •"liliUJ U£ 0

-»5

_B,TJ'Su

co4-1

t/5

"

1 t 1

1 1 11 1 1

I 1 11 1 1

1 1 1

^ U1 COoo o1 1 1LU LU UJO") O) CD

*~* •"*

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

o o oCMO5 CsiO CMH CO

1u01t/1ncc

_J 4-1Ol O.£ u(- O Wa. ••— oto 2 " c "~ e

4J •— Ol O TI "5 CC 4-IUO C « S —3 IQOZ ~OQ cj rviO 4>»Z to

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 ' 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

LO "* ta CD CM *C3 O C3 O O O1 1 1 1 1 1oj oo CM o «r «3•a- co T "«• m co

co i r*K i t io ai i i i i iLU LUo i cn i i ito tn

CSJ O <VI~l O Ocsj in cw csj a •-*CM to c? tn" S "*

2u010)n

c inae ct- -o> E•a B0) 4->OJ CQ: o

0(*-O U M. . — o g 0)j* w e — - 3 n

1 cl? sli^IIo a o 21 01 — ">> Jj cn u^ IO O 3S i- C CO CO ', ? 3 f 4O 4-1z to

0 ' 't 1 1LUa i iOJ

•

CO CO 1o SLU LUCO ^ 1cvi to

j .

i

5 ' §1 1 1LU LUCO I -*

cn *-t

i

'

§ 5 '1 1 iLU LU^- CM 1

LO -H

|

ja i oo ao aO LOCOCM *9-Lf)

II

i

iw

l~U 4-1IO C8) y a)

•o <o t- 10v ^-a >4J 10 >»••-u x;z 3) 4-> O-

"o! Q. — ~—in ^ 4

4-» X 5 V 0)C 0) (- t_ c10 x:« >i a)C ~ * f

1 ..J?"— flC3 M 4J^>-» IO<n 4-> cn o LU o o <-C — 1 >t M O

CO C C C M U C 300 0 10—— >i V<—— — 0) W •— CO U.4-i a 4-» t- •*- o10 z n a xta.4-1 4J

6-81 . -

; fl-R30C)799

CM O ~^-«3- a. • I—UJ =» 0-Z a: LU LU0 o: in

J—— 1— 1 "~"a; oCO

4JCoCJc»reniCO<L

-Q<a>—

0)(/i«ouUJZof

-g4-*

0t*-QJ

4-1 4-1O >f-(O t/)4-»Cf—<S-

t4-4-> -aO IOt- —ia N

4-1

ocao-

01 4J4-»<g c>.E O£ >,(/) 4-1UJ •*-C

CO U

0>CJ«_» g;CO 4-t0)J£ Crc .4J

5f>> >1tZ ""a a.oco <"c-oO '~*t- •—JZ JZo u

>> ,jaCO4JC

•auCO

J=4-»

1

CO "

§>en§c uO i.— fl4-* Uci ^ c:t- >, 0

CO O i? 3E— CO T3a ja-».CJ < Dl-LU>— --»z n oi05 ES~ 2

01(- DlO OV- C

Uuiau

COc0)O)c ao c

4-> UCO Ucu a01 u5> §

« <C 3EI— • r-~ *Oa io~~CJ 4J Ot

C J^UJ 0) ^ZT3 Dlce — 6o •c n*- c:u£ S1>4- C

Ircu

- **4J °>5^c^1s£***

a 2 i: « »04 3 S ° —

isslS-0 Dig1UJ CJ I- _sj

id

«3u

seca4-t(Q4-1<st

1 I < 1 I 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

1 t 1 1 1 1

1 t 1 1 1 1

LO in tf m ro o a o o oi i i i t iUJ UJ UJ UJ UJ ' ' 'a co o -^ co- m *r GO -H LO

g , , , , ,i i i i i iCO I 1 1 1 1in

co TOO m oO CD -HO CO OCM - in en to co

CMOJ CM^

T3 -a0) CU4J " — 4-»S i — u

. ua> -a oin C coaen — t co4J 4-1C <*- C(O o to

W 5 4- .5U 0) E CO E•~ E CO (O <O «™ I IOC C J 3 01 i—14-l UJ —44J10 — — «- c— C Cc n c E c y m u co "O cos- cu o o. aij u o u a o oOCOUO.COC — IO —ct-jzons — — 4JO •— 4JO— «£ i_J CJ z z r»j ia a: -H «z

4-1 01 4JCO 7 CO

4

10

•8uc.on-4ijaITJ

i«3»Scoz0)4-1

uu>>4J

ug"4J

o

<o

6-82

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

Exposure parameter values used to estimate exposure to recreational fisherman viaingestion of fish caught from streams in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANQFILL siteare discussed below and summarized in Table 6-34.


i

CFr: This conversion factor of 10~9 kg/ug is used to convert fishconcentration mass units.

CF2: A second conversion factor of 103 mg/g is used to convert the fishingestion rate mass units.

IR: Pao et al. (1982) estimated that 132 g/day represented the 95thpercentile for individuals consuming fin fish averaged over a threeday period. Pao et al. (1982) estimated that 38 g/day representedthe 50th percentile for the consumption of fin fish averaged over athree day period. SRI (1980) reported that the daily average 95thpercentile for fish ingestion was 41.7 g/day. For recreationalfisherman, Pao et al. (1982) estimated that the average consumptionrate is 54 g/day. This latter value is recommended by USEPA (1991d)for use as a standard fish ingestion rate for recreationalfisherman.

FI: This value is a measure of the fraction of fish ingested fromstreams in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site. In order toevaluate the contaminants at each location independently, 100percent (FI=1) of the non-commercial fish ingested was assumed tocome from each of the sites evaluated.

EF: An exposure frequency of 350 days per year was assumed, asrecommended in USEPA guidance (USEPA 1991d).

6-83

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

Table 6-34

Exposure Parameter Values Used to EstimateExposure to Recreational Fisherman from Ingestion of Fish

from Reeders Run

Parameter

CF,CF2IRFIEFEOBCFBWAT

Value

103 mg/g1Q'9 kg/ug54 g/day1350 days/year30 yearsSee Table 6-3370 kg25,550 days (carcinogens)10,950 days (noncarcinogens)

Reference

- -(SRI,(EPA,

' (EPA,(EPA,- -(EPA,(EPA,

.-1930)1989a)1989a)1989a)

-1989a)1989a)

6-84 flR300802

, TCN 4204• ! RI REPORT

REV. #1• 30/SEPT/91

ED: Approximately, 90 percent of the population live in the samei

residence for 30 years (USEPA 1989a, 1991d). An exposure durationof 30 years was assumed for estimating exposure (USEPA 1989a,1991d).

BCF: To evaluate this pathway it was necessary to model fish tissueconcentrations using available surface water data andbiconcentration factors (BCFs). BCFs used to model fish tissueconcentrations are presented in Table 6-35. It is assumed that fishwill be exposed to surface water in the more contaminated portionsof the stream where the sample was collected. No site specificbioaccumulation factors (BAFs), which evaluate possible food chainaccumulation, were available for modeling fish tissueconcentrations.

BW: USEPA (1985a) calculated an average body weight for males andfemales of 71.8 kg. This value is approximately equal to theconsensus value of 70 kg which is typically used as the average bodyweight (USEPA 1989a, 1991d).


An example calculation of the RME GDI for contaminants under review for ingestionof fish from streams in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site assuming anexposure point concentration of 1 ug/kg is presented below:

(1 usr/kg) (10-* kg/ug) (IP* msr/ff) (41.7 gr/day) (1) (365 days/year) (70 years) (BCF)(7Q k (25550 days)

~ 3 -2 x 10~

6-85

flR300803

TCN 4204RI REPORT


Bioconcentration Factors (BCFs) for Contaminants Under Reviewfor the Consumption of Fish from Reeders Run

Chemical- - 8CF

Organics:

Trichloroethene (a) . 17.0

Inorganics:

Barium (b) 100.0Manganese (c) 558.2Mercury (d) 3400.0

(a) The BCF for trichloroethene was obtained from the Health Effects AssessmentDocument for Trichloroethene (EPA, 1988)

(b) The BCF for barium was obtained from Schroeder (1970).(c) BCF data were obtained through AQUIRE database (EPA, 1991). The BCFs presented

in this table are averages of BCF's obtained for various species of bony fish.(d) BCF for mercury was obtained from the National Bioaccumulation Study (NBS)(EPA, 1990).

6-86

'• ' ! TCN 4204: : RI REPORT

REV. #1! 30/SEPT/91

Thus, the GDI for ingestion of fish for carcinogens and noncarcinogens is7.4 x 10"7 mg/kg/day assuming a 1 ug/kg exposure point concentration in fishtissue and a BCF of. 1. GDIs estimated for ^"ngestion of fish for contaminantspresent in surface water in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site are presentedin Table 6-36.

.Future Land-Use; Use of Ground water at the BUTZ LANDFILL Site - For the futureuse of ground water, it was assumed that a resident may install a well in thevicinity of the most contaminated monitoring wells at the site. It should beemphasized that it is highly unlikely that residents would actually use groundwater directly at BUTZ LANDFILL as a source of drinking water in the future. Thefuture land-use pathway was quantitatively evaluated in this report in order tojustify further restrictions of ground water use and in order to provide thebasis for making risk management decisions concerning ground water contaminationat the BUTZ LANDFILL site. Exposure routes evaluated for future use of groundwater include ingestion, dermal absorption, and inhalation of VOCs whileshowering. The methods used to estimate GDIs for these exposure routes werepresented previously for current land-use of residential well ground water. GDIsestimated for ingestion of and dermal absorption exposure to ground water underfuture land-use conditions of the BUTZ LANDFILL site are presented in Table 6-37.GDIs estimated for inhalation of VOCs while showering under future land-useconditions of the BUTZ LANDFILL site are presented in Table 6-38.

6.1.4 Toxicity Assessment

This section contains the evaluation of the carcinogenic and noncarc^'nogenictoxicity of contaminants selected in Section 6.1.2 for quantitative evaluation

iin this report. Toxicity assessment is the process of evaluating the potentialfor a contaminant to cause an adverse health effect in humans and, if possible,to quantify the relationship between exposure levels (i.e., dose) and the adversehealth effect. Hazard identification is the first step in conducting a toxicityassessment which involves evaluating the potential for a contaminant to cause anadverse health effect. Dose-response evaluation is the second step in thetoxicity assessment process which attempts to quantify the relationship betweendose of the administered contaminant and the increased incidence of the adversehealth effect. !

6-87 - '

gOSOGCiiJi ; ;

Table 6-36

Chronic Daily Intakes (GDIs) Estimated for tngestion of Fish from Reeders RunUnder Current Land-Use Conditions for the RHE Case

' RME COlaRME Exposure (mg/kg/day)

Potential Concentration ——————————————————— ————Station/Chemical (ug/L) Carcinogens Noncarcinogens



Station 6Organics:No organic contaminants selected

Inorganics:Barium 14.50 - - - 1. IE-03Mercury 1.00 - - - 2.5E-03


North fork of Reeders Run

Station 2Organics:Trichloroethene 10.00 5.4E-05 1.3E-04

Inorganics:Manganese 102.00 - - - 4.2E-02

Station 3Organics:Trichloroethene 2.00 1. IE-05 2.5E-05

Inorganics:Mercury 0.25 - - - 6.3E-04

Station 9Organics:No organic contaminants selected

Inorganics:Mercury • 0.25 - - - 6.3E-04

Station 1Organics:Trichloroethene 2.00 1. IE-05 2.5E-05

Inorganics:Barium 15.80 - - - 1.2E-03Mercury '1.00 - - - 2.5E-03

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

6-88

AR300806

Chronic Oai ly Intakesfrom Use of Groundwater from

"

Chemical (a)

Organ ics:1 , 1-Oichloroethene1.2-Oichloroethene (total)TrichloroetheneVinyl Chloride

Inorganics:Ant imonyArsenicBariumManganese

Table

(GDIs) Estimated forthe Sutz Landfill S

RMEExposure Point

-(ug/L)

3.0950.08400.0

7.0

16.06.552.6831.0

i _ i i

6-37 i

Ingestion and Dermal Absorption Exposureite by Hypothetical Residents for the RME Case

iTotal RME COIs(mg/kg/day) (b)


8.8E-05 2. IE-046.5E-02

2.5E-01 5.8E-012. IE-04

| ' ' i1. IE-03

1.9E-04 , 4.5E-04- - - , 3.6E-03

i - - - , 5.7E-02

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

(a) A toxicity criterion was not available for aluminum, therefore a CD-Iwas not estimated for this chemical.

(b) Total COI estimated for ingestion and dermal absorption routes.

6-8.9

SR3GG807

Chronic Oai ly Intakesfor Hypothetical

Resident/Chemical

Organ ics:1, 1-Dichloroethene1,2-Oichloroethene (total)TrichlorcetheneVinyl Chloride

Table 6-38

(COIs) Estimated for the InhalationResidents at the Sutz Landfill Site

RMEExposure

PointConcentration

(ug/L)

3.0950.08400.0

7.0

of VOCs whilefor the RME

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Showering •HCase ]J

RME COIs(mg/kg/day)


1. IE-043.3E-023.0E-012.5E-04

2.5E-047.8E-026.9E-015.8E-04

6"9° HR300808

TCN 4204RI REPORTREV. n30/SEPT/91

The slope factor is used to evaluate the potential carcinogenic risks associatedwith exposure to a contaminant. The reference dose (RfD) is used to evaluate thepotential noncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to a contaminant.Toxicity criteria and supporting toxicity data used in the baseline riskassessment were obtained from the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)(USEPA 1991), FY-91 Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (USEPA1991b), Health Effects Assessment documents, Toxicity Profiles developed by theAgency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and other sources.This report evaluates both chronic oral exposure for all contaminants underreview and inhalation exposure for VOCs in ground water. In addition, dermalabsorption of contaminants in surface soil, surface water, and sediments wereevaluated. However, dermal absorption toxicity criteria were not available forevaluating the impact from dermal absorption. In this report, oral toxicitycriteria were used to estimate impacts from the dermal absorption route.1;

:

6.1.4.1 Toxicity Criteria for Evaluating Potential Carcinogenic Effects

The slope factor, expressed in mg/kg/day"1, quantifies the potential cancerpotency of a contaminant for evaluating the carcinogenic risks associated withexposure. Unlike noncarcinogenic effects, a small number of molecular events mayalter a cell in such a way as to cause uncontrolled cellular proliferation,thereby resulting in disease (i.e., carcinogenic effect). Therefore, anyexposure may result in the manifestation of a carcinogenic effect. Thus, noexposure is considered risk free.

;

To evaluate the potential carcinogenic toxicity of a contaminant, USEpA first.determines the likelihood that the contaminant is a human carcinogen. USEPA usesa classification system (i.e., weight-of-evidence classification) forcharacterizing the potential carcinogem'city of a contaminant based on theevidence presented in animal and human studies. The weight-of-evidenceclassification scheme is presented below: ,

, i i

A - Human Carcinogen;Bl - Probable Human Carcinogen, based on limited human data;

II

6-91

! flR300809

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

B2 - Probable Human Carcinogen, based on sufficient evidence in animalsand inadequate or no evidence in humans;

C - Possible .Human Carcinogen;D - Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity; andE - Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans.

If the contaminant is a human carcinogen (Group A) or a probable human carcinogen(Group Bl or Group B2), then a slope factor is calculated for the contaminantwhich quantifies its cancer potency. In certain cases, slope factors are derivedfor possible human carcinogens (Group C compounds). Slope factors are derivedby extrapolating dose-response relationships measured under high dose conditionsin laboratory animal studies or epidemiological studies to low dose conditionstypically encountered at Superfund sites. The first step in deriving a slopefactor involves fitting a mathematical model to the experimental data (USEPA1986a). Of the available low dose extrapolation models (i.e., Weibull, probit,logit, one-hit, and gamma multihit models), the more conservative linearizedmultistage model is typically used to derive a slope factor from animal data.This model assumes that the dose-response relationship at low doses is linear.Once the data are fit using the linearized multistage model, the 95th upperconfidence limit on the slope of the line is calculated which represents theslope factor. Slope factors are then verified and validated by the CarcinogenRisk Assessment Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) Workgroup before being placed onIRIS. Slope factors based on epidemiological data are fit on an ad hoc basis.

Slope factors and supporting toxicity data for contaminants under review aresummarized in Table 6-39.

6.1.4.2 Toxicity Criteria for Evaluating Potential Noncarcinogenic Effects

The reference dose, expressed in mg/kg/day, is used to evaluate the potentialnoncarcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to a contaminant at a Superfundsite. A chronic RfD is defined as an estimate of a daily exposure level for thehuman population, including sensitive subpopulations, that is likely to bewithout an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime based on anadministered dose (USEPA 1989a). It is assumed that a protective mechanism inthe body must be overcome in order for a noncarcinogenic effect to occur (i.e.,

6-92

•3- 1—— -H—— <o os =tb cnoj o """-«3- CL. • h-UJ > O-z a: LU LUo cc co"S o"ro

TTto ."

CO , _ ,

o Z

* "cOJ -

f2 -2

 ..7 I «CO U j

1 llX (_l£. 4J•— -o•f- 3

1-I 2

* 4-1C

•»— CJC j_

CJ

OJu30tou.

**" 1-

(U £

>—

0) . — >O T3

Is> •*-LU +•>

•S.H.c wO1 <fl

3 0

o-

J£cL °*

IOCJ

uOJ

oa:

*

CO trt </5o= LU oe

"SJZ (ftU IO

* § "'It io >5

CM CM CM

O — < OJ•t- -H 1LU LU LUr— CM rr». «-i i—

'ZT <u01 <O

> j:

LU .— H

01 Xo oi -£CO t- i—CM >1 >*

U IO LU01 O — 14i .. — 0 CM3 U) O N — •o u o c cn** ^ < CD 3i— IO(o cnt- uQ O

t_0).

01>

1001

COEC

1>vCO

o

3u0

CMCO

OJ1LU

cn

-Dichloroethane

CM

h- H- P—

OS Q£ LU LU LU

U01>

"OC i. i- S- -oi oi oi oi cn5 ^33^

cj cj CM CNJ CNJ <;

1 l_l If J ^J QJ 1 i 1ornLn~H-.cnco t-4 rs, m •*« *-4

S -8 ..8 r £ a,4J O -C C 010) •— +J 0) T3O J= Ol -C "-1- (J 0 J-> Uo (. oi aj= -2 2 j=U ffi &) JZ O O ' •••- 1 r— o I— OTQ M >, 10 J= i— urt 1 i -H

— « O)Z H- 1— > §1UOC

H-CO CO CO

jgS «

It- X§ u5|— 3

C IO U• +J U_^ o •—CO h- (J

< CM CMca ca

00 CM

LU LU LUr « CO ~

-» r cn

enic

ylli

um

ion

Route

(b)

-Oichloroethane

H U +j CMt- OI IO

IO-Cc

h-CO

2

u

CJ

0

UJCM^

-Dichloroethene

»-•

D£

t.QJ>

-U

O>C3_J

h- h- 1—CO CO CO

UJ LU LU

U .oi ia•2 '= a?

"ll Ifl QJ d

j^ m c ay3 c -o >m 3 — —_J —a _j

esj.cs/ CM «CCD CD QO

CM1LU

__

hylene Chloride

4-»

£

fO CM Ht 1 1LU LU LUPO r** O

CO -H CO

rachloroethene

chloroethene

yl C

hloride

4-» •*- C

££ S

='o4-1a.&.on

• -SJ—— T=Ocn ccn o4-*

- iO1- UD —3 (4-

OJ V)4-1 »Q. 10OI i—CO O

OI* "a ucn oi ccn w oirt 3 2. iO >

£ 4-1 01

2 -Si(0 0a: i— i__ CO 4..

• < -C~ C 3Z '*™xi •— <yro iO U X•H Xt 4-» U10 O t- OS I O M -

10 34-> O* 4-1

•J2 -a jz 8~O CO &.

O " 3 oiZ 1-1 Lt CO

1 * 101 * * ——

CTICU.

JC/3

JU

i9)M

'10"o

I

3.+JOJ

S1acnc»10u

_gu(-o-o01c01M01u a.a. 3o10 L.u jOI I-

r*U LU>^ 4jj OS

o u

Inhalation

toxi

Under

review by

J3 U

6-93

AR3008M

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

threshold effect). For example, numerous cells in an organ must be damagedbefore an effect may be manifested.

In general, RfDs are derived from animal laboratory studies or human epidemiologystudies. These studies are reviewed to derive a no-observable-adverse-effectlevel (NOAEL) for the contaminant. The lowest-observable-adverse-effect level(LOAEL) is used when a NOAEL cannot be derived from the study. In this case, anadditional uncertainty factor is applied to estimate the RfD. Uncertaintyfactors (UF) are applied to the NOAEL (or LOAEL) to account for various types ofuncertainty including:

• variation in the human population (UF = 10);• extrapolation from animal to human studies (UF = 10);• derivation of a chronic RfD from a subchronic NOAEL (UF = 10); and• derivation of a chronic RfD from a chronic LOAEL (UF = 10).

An additional safety factor, referred to as the modifying factor (MF), may beapplied when deriving the RfD to account for other sources of uncertainty in thestudy. The modifying factor is a value that ranges from 1 to 10 which isassigned based on a qualitative evaluation of the study. RfDs are developed bythe intra-agency RfD Workgroup in accordance with USEPA guidelines (USEPA 1986b,1989f,g).

RfDs and supporting toxicity data for contaminants under review are summarizedin Table 6-40.

Toxicity profiles for the primary contaminants at the BUTZ LANDFILL site (i.e.,arsenic, beryllium, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane,manganese, mercury, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, trichloroethene, andvinyl chloride) are presented in Appendix G-l.

6.1.5 Human Health Risk Assessment

The final step in the baseline risk assessment process is risk characterization.In this section, toxicity criteria identified in Section 6.1.4 are combined withexposure estimates presented in Section 6.1.3 to quantify potential

6-94

flR3008!2

o

co coco cotn

u o:§Z

X x xx xx u x- --xx x < < •* "I < «•u . t . , - « . c . u , 2 « . = i . . . u ' x31 <«„ =•= zo o o o o o o u o o o o i t - t . i- t, i- i-14- 4— u-i*_ M-I+- o *^- Qt*-i*- t+_ QUO O O t- OO

O W- - U<+- O<^ **- **. O u- U-o o oo oo o o oo o o o n- <*-cj o oca oo - o ooo o o M-O o o o o oo o oo oo o o ooo o o ooo o oo o o4_4 ~-4 •—* H .-M CO *-* —4 i—lf-1 •—< *-« *—4~H CO «"H «""• WJ »—I fO •—• ~H CO ^

II II II II II II II II II II II II tl If II II II I II II If If II tl

;£ S £SS 55 % =*5= S ££' => = = •=! =5=5 =5=5 =5 =

«OO CO to<C< «t <f_ _ __ UJ UJ UJ

^ a;

aO 4-> 4-1V— «3I UU3O Z

>v24-» >.— Illuo:

uj UJOSQ:x i-"—

g -s f si•§ iS H Sc.5OJ — T3 O O

o fe I I 1 * :• a.i— ~ou5c »CU uC31CO toC C

u'iCJ3occQa)+-J> s-^^>•— o c "- Q..CIO o •— c •— •— > i— a; i— c t- u on-UC.E:— wa >I-MJS"O ••- x-«-aj — rcwg"o nsa* z: ~o — aj— aj *j a) aj QJ +j ro o aj x o xa>> — — & a> a u to O J O J Mx 01 <o w _j « c-*- Q . O T O c n - t - J c n c / i u "D «•— «' — -*- a < — « 2Jo a Q.OJ to-— < — Q*jio 4-*4-> oaj>tfO3 o .iat4-o <o <a o «•M-W O OIL. U>— IQ UJ= 3) O O S--W OIO) 01 W ITS -M I- 0) — — I U 01 C —O1J*JCa)!-ra*J_CCJll-CI-a>ai'OCCS- O ro OJ I- M c tu ^I_M<IIE_ _ _ .0—1. — _**t-^i-i.tatjua Ot-CtUMOtCICUOl" ""

I IO UK-— UJI— 01 C 5SIU >.c= o— n ni ft, .,0 w^-— oj i— ai c >>0) >iC O— O a 0) Co c 01 in I I — II ooiz a>_JX(jjiO ro a:vx«a.ooz i (_>o oz«t ao

_ _ = & E E3 3 3 1 1 I I I I 1 1 3 1 I 3 I I 3 5 I I

•5-5 - a i i ii i i i i -5 i x i ~ a x a i i i •S'5 i iO J Q J Q J oj o o> o — a) DEZ Zli II I I I I Z i —II Z—IX I I XX I I

» -M t. CE Q. <T3 QJ QJ3 . ,—— 4_»^"•^ O flW<o * a. * oju v -go

°

c c o ~ ro c'!"" ° « .HJ5

-C 0)O. 0) 4-t Q,=• ^S -2 2g>< OJ.C ra j_ 3

0)

S1 -SS Su StJ J§ g °2 IS

5 j=x: «5 -2! ",2 o

U

+"1 *U -Cf 4-t 4-1 *—• Fi- il s • S '*'

•HV •§ .H.H J g 5 t ? J - g c l s l u = - i § S S c | a i 3 3»s i s° tl t ? til s !!! i. ll i >_ .. -^«v . -i brf. w 4 4-"— — tO 4J W t- 1_"O U CtC U C C <Qf '—i c (u— j= - - —«- s o a i r u o t . o i c t - 10 ai «j= o «— «— H je•— IB O3J2 (_) «rt QU. 3: £ XI—H- H- I- <«t CD CD t_l CJ C_) 13! »fvl ro| U(O pi m

6-95

; AR3008I3

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

noncarcinogenic and carcinogenic effects associated with contaminants underreview from the BUTZ LANDFILL site. Section 6.1.5.1 presents an overview of themethods for quantifying potential carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards.Potential risks associated with exposure pathways evaluated under current andfuture land-use of the BUTZ LANDFILL site are discussed in Section 6.1.5.2 andSection 6.1.5.3, respectively.

6.1.5.1 Methods for Estimating Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards

Potential carcinogenic risks are expressed as an increased probability ofdeveloping cancer over a lifetime (i.e., excess individual lifetime cancer risk)(USEPA 1989a). For example, a 10"6 increased cancer risk can be interpreted asan increased risk of 1 in 1,000,000 for developing cancer over a lifetime if anindividual is exposed as defined by the pathways presented in this report. A10"6 increased cancer risk is the point of departure established in the NCP(USEPA 1990). In addition, the NCP (USEPA 1990) states that "for known orsuspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels are generally concentrationlevels that represent an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to an individualof between 10"4 and 10'6."

Carcinogenic risks for contaminants under review are quantified using theequation below since the carcinogenic risks are below 10"2 for the BUTZ LANDFILLsite:

Cancer Risk± = CDIi * SFi

where:

Cancer Risk, = The potential carcinogenic risks associated withexposure to contaminant (unitless);

CDI, = Chronic daily intake for contaminant (mg/kg/day); andSFi = Slope Factor for contaminant (mg/kg/day)"1.

Contaminant-specific cancer risks are summed in accordance with USEPA (1989a,1986a,b) guidance in order to quantify the combined cancer risk associated withexposure to a chemical mixture. The slope factor is the 95th UCL on the linear

6-96

AR3008U

: : TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #1! 30/SEPT/91

slope that describes the cancer potency of the contaminant. Using the 95th UCLon the linear slope is a conservative approach adopted by the USEPA in order thatthe true risks will not be underestimated. ,

Noncarcinogenic effects are not quantified as a probability of exhibiting aparticular effect. Rather, noncarcinogenic effects are evaluated by comparingthe estimated dose (i.e., GDI) with a reference dose (RfD). The hazard quotientis used to quantify the potential for an adverse noncarcinogenic effec : to occurand is calculated using the following equation:

CDI

where: ;i

HQ1 = Hazard quotient for contaminant1 (unitless);GDI, = Chronic Daily Intake for contaminant (mg/kg/day); andRfD, = Reference Dose for contaminant, (mg/kg/day).If the hazard quotient exceeds unity (i.e., 1), then an adverse health effect mayoccur. The higher the hazard quotient the more likely that an adversenoncarcinogenic effect will occur as a result of exposure to the contaminant.If the estimated hazard quotient is less than unity, then an adversenoncarcinogenic effect is unlikely to occur.

USEPA (1989a, 1986b) recommends summing contaminant-specific hazard quotients toevaluate the combined noncarcinogenic hazard from exposure to a chemical mixture.The sum of the contaminant-specific hazard quotients is called the hazard index.Using this approach assumes that contaminant-specific noncarcinogenic hazards areadditive. Limited data are available for actually quantifying the potentialsynergistic and/or antagonistic relationships between contaminants in a chemicalmixture. In addition, it is assumed that the target organs and toxicologicalmechanisms that may result in the effect are the same for all contaminantsevaluated in the chemical mixture. If the latter assumption is not valid and thehazard index exceeds unity, then hazard indices should be calculated by targetorgan and mechanism, as recommended by USEPA (1989a) guidance.

6-97j IJR3QQ815

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

The following sections present carcinogenic risks and hazard quotients forcontaminants under review for the RME case for pathways under current land-useand future land-use.conditions.

6.1.5.2 Potential Risk Under Current Land-Use Conditions

Ingestion and Dermal Absorption Exposure from Use of Untreated Ground water fromResidential Wells in the Vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL Site

Potential carcinogenic risks associated with ingestion and dermal absorptionexposure from use of untreated ground water from off-site residential wells inthe vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site are presented in Table 6-41. Probablehuman carcinogens (Group B2) detected in residential wells included 1,2-»dichloroethane, methylene chloride, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene. 1,1-Dichloroethene, which is a possible human carcinogen, also was detected inseveral residential wells. Trichloroethene was the most frequently detectedcontaminant in residential wells. Of the 57 residential wells sampled by TAT,31 had detected concentrations of VOCs (particularly trichloroethene) while theremaining residential wells (i.e., 26) had no detected concentrations of VOCcontaminants. No potential carcinogenic contaminants (including VOCs) weredetected in 5 residential wells sampled by the RI team.

Of the 62 residential wells evaluated, potential carcinogenic risk from ingestionand dermal absorption exposure from of untreated ground water from 30 residentialwells exceeded the NCR point of departure (i.e., 10'6) (USEPA 1990). However,the potential carcinogenic risks from ingestion and dermal absorption exposurefrom use of untreated ground water from only 5 residential wells (i.e., Barthold[2xlO'4], Jacoby [2xlO'4], Kinsley [IxlO'4] F. Possinger [8xlO'4] and L. Rinker[6xlO~4]) exceeded the upper-bound of the NCP acceptable risk range (i.e., 10"4).Potential carcinogenic risks associated with only 2 residential wells (F.Possinger and L. Rinker) exceeded a 10"3 cancer risk. These residences arelocated downgradient (with respect to ground water flow) of BUTZ LANDFILL,approximately 1,000 feet southeast of site. he majority of carcinogenic riskwas associated with trichloroethene. It shou.., be noted, however, that residentsare not currently being exposed to untreated ground water. Water treatment

6-98

AR3008I6

-Table 6-41

TCN 4204i RI REPORT' REV. #11 30/SEPT/91

Potential Carcinogenic Risks Associated with Ingestion and DermalUse of Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells in the Vicinity of the


Resident/Chemical

Adcock Farmhouse Inlet (c)1,1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTrichloroethene

Baker Inlet1,1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTrichloroethene

Barthold Inlet1,1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTetrachoroetheneTrichloroethene


Betticher Inlet1, 1-OichloroetheneMethylene Chloride (b)Trichloroethene


Camp Streamside Inlet (chapel)Trichloroethene





Farda InletTrichloroethene.





RME ChronicDaily Intake(mg/kg/day)

8.8E-056.2E-051.6E-03

1.4E-046.2E-OS1.2E-03

1.9E-041.4E-048.6E-053.2E-03

2.8E-04

6.2E-05. l.OE-042.9E-03

8.0E-056.2E-051. IE-03

(a)1.5E-04

2.0E-04

• 5.9E-04

3.5E-04

2.2E-04

7.7E-05

1.4E-04

4.0Er04

S. IE-04

2.2E-03

Slope Weight-Factor of-

(mg/kg/day)-l Evidence

6.0E-017.5E-031. IE-02

Total Carcinogenic

6.0E-017.5E-031. IE-02

Total Carcinogenic

6.0E-01. 7.5E-03

5. IE-021. IE-02

Total Carcinogenic,

1. IE-02i

6.0E-017.5E-031. IE-02

Total Carcinogenic

7.5E-035. IE-021. IE-02

Total Carcinogenic

1. IE-02

1. IE-02

1. IE-02

1 . IE-02

1. IE-02

1.1E-P2

1. IE-02

1. IE-02

1. IE-02

1. IE-02

6-99

C8282

Risk:

C8282

Risk:

C828282

Risk:

82

C8282

Risk:

828282

Risk:

B2

62

B2

82

82

' 82

82

82

82

82.

Absorption Exposure fromBut* Landfill Site for the RME Case

PotentialCancerRisk

5.3E-054.6E-071.7E-05

7. IE-05

8. IE-054.6E-071.4E-05

! 9.5E-05

1. IE-041. IE-OS4.4E-OS3.SE-05

1.5E-04

; 3. IE-06

3.7E-057.5E-073.2E-05

7.0E-05

6.0E--Q73.2E-061.2E-05

1.6E-05

1.7E-06

2.2E-06

6.5E-06

3.9E-06

. 2.5E-06

8.4E-07

1.5E-061

4.4E-06

5.6E-06

2.4E-05

aR3QQ8 (7

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #1Table 6-41(Cont.) 30/SEPT/91

Potential Carcinogenic Risks Associated with Ingestion and Dermal Absorption Exposure fromUse of Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells in the Vicinity of the Butz Landfill Site for the RHE Case'


RME Chronic Slope Weight- PotentialDaily Intake Factor of- Cancer

5esident/Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)-l Evidence Risk

Haney Inlet (c)Tricnloroethene 1.9E-03 1.IE-02 B2 2.IE-05

Jacoby Inletl.L-Oichoroethene 2.3E-04 6.0E-01 C 1.4E-04Methylene Chloride 1.IE-04 7.5E-03 B2 8.4E-07Tetrachloroethene 6.2E-05 5.IE-02 82 3.2E-06Tricnloroethene 3.6E-03 1.IE-02 B2 4.0E-05

Total Carcinogenic Risk: 1.8E-04

Kinsley Inlet {c)1,1-Dichloroethene 1.2E-04 6.0E-01 C 7.IE-05Trichloroethene 3.2E-03 1.IE-02 82 3.5E-05

Total Carcinogenic Risk: 1.IE-04

KirkpatrickMethylene Chloride ' 5.9E-05 7.5E-03 B2 4.4E-07Tetrachloroethene 6.2E-05 5.IE-02 82 3.2E-06Trichloroethene 1.5E-03 1.IE-02 B2 1.7E-05


Mongilutz InletTnchloroethene 9.4E-05 1.IE-02 82 l.OE-06

3etrus InletTrichloroethene 4.IE-04 1.IE-02 82 4.5E-06

3ossmger, F. Inletl.L-Oichoroethene 4.3E-04 6.0E-01 C 2.6E-041,2-Dichloroethane 8.8E-05 9.IE-02 82 8.IE-06Methylene Chloride 3.3E-04 7.5E-03 82 2.5E-06Tetrachloroethene 1.6E-04 5.IE-02 B2 8.IE-06Trichloroethene 1.5E-01 1.IE-02 82 1.7E-03


Rir.ker Inlet1,1-Oichoroethene 2.8E-04 6.0E-01 C 1.7E-04!.2-Oichloroethane 6.2E-05 9.0E-02 B2 5.6E-06Methylene Chloride 2.2E-04 7.5E-03 B2 1.7E-06•etrachloroethene (b) 1.IE-04 5.IE-02 B2 5.4E-06Trichloroethene 1.IE-01 • 1.IE-02 82 1.2E-03


Stillo InletTrichloroethene




Whi taker Inlet (d)Tnchloroethene

1. IE-04

1. IE-04

1.8E-04

3. IE-04

6.3E-04

1. IE-02

1. IE-02

1. IE-02

1. IE-02

1. IE-02

B2

B2

B2

B2

82

1.2E-06

1.2E-06

2.0E-06

3.4E-06

6.9E-06 ^ F

6-100

flR3008J8

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #1; ; 30/SEPT/91

Table 6-41(Cont, )„,

Potential Carcinogenic Risks Associated with Ingestion and Dermal Absorption Exposure fromUse of Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells in the Vicinity of the Butz Landfill Site for the RME Case

(Technical Assistance Team SamplingJ(a)

• I iRME Chronic Slope Weight- PotentialDaily Intake Factor of- Cancer

Resident/Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)-l Evidence Risk

Wilgus InletHethylene Chloride 8.0E-05 7.5E-03 82 6.0E-07Tetrachloroethene 8.8E-05 5. IE-02 82 4.5E-06Trichloroethene 1. IE-03 1. IE-02 82 ,1.2E-05


Young, C. Inlet ITrichloroethene 1.3E-04 1. IE-02 82 . 1.4E-06'

, • • I

(a) Sampled by the Technical Assistance Team for Emergency Response Removal and Prevention (April, 1990).(b) Chemicals detected only in 1989 sampling.(c) Wells sampled by the Technical Assistance Team in 1989 but not in 1990.(d) Most recent detect from 1988. . ;(e) Most recent detect from 1387.

6-101

ftR30GT8l9

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

systems have been provided to residents with contaminated wells in the vicinityof the BUTZ LANDFILL site.

Potential noncarcinogenic hazards associated with ingestion and dermal absorptionexposure from use of ground water from residential wells in the vicinity of theBUTZ LANDFILL site are presented in Table 6-42 (TAT sampled wells) and Table 6-43(RI sampled wells). The hazard indices for most of the residential wells werebelow unity by more than an order of magnitude. Therefore, noncarcinogeniceffects associated with ingestion and dermal absorption exposure to contaminantsfrom these residential wells are unlikely to occur. Of the 62 residential wellsevaluated in this report, the hazard index exceeded unity only for 5 residentialwells: Barthold (HI = 1), Jacoby (HI = 1), Kinsley (HI =1), F. Possinger (HI= 19) and L. Rinker (HI = 14). Trichloroethene was the only contaminant with ahazard quotient above unity. Thus, noncarcinogenic effects may occur fromchronic ingestion and dermal absorption exposure from use of untreated groundwater from these wells due to trichloroethene exposure. It should be noted,however, that the RfD for trichloroethene is currently under review and wasderived using an uncertainty factor of 1,000.

Inhalation of VOCs present in Untreated Ground water from Residential Wells whileShowering - Potential carcinogenic risks to residents from inhalation of VOCswhile showering using untreated ground water from their private wells arepresented in Table 6-44. As previously discussed, VOCs (particularlytrichloroethene) were detected in 31 residential wells sampled by TAT. No VOCswere detected in the 5 residential wells sampled by the RI team. The potentialcarcinogenic risk associated with inhalation of VOCs from 31 residential wellsexceeded the NCP point of departure (i.e., 10'6) (USEPA 1990). However, thepotential carcinogenic risks associated with only 8 residential wells (i.e.,Adcock, Farmbauser, Baker, Barthold, Betticher, Jacoby, Kinsley, F. Possinger,and L. Rinker) exceeded the upper-bound of the NCP acceptable risk range (i.e.,10"4). The majority of the carcinogenic risk was associated with 1,1-dichloroethene (which is a possible human carcinogen) and trichloroethene. Thehighest potential carcinogenic risk of 4xlO"3 was estimated for the F. Possingerresidential well which is approximately 1000 feet southeast of BUTZ LANDFILL.As previously discussed, treatment systems have been installed at contaminatedresidential wells in order to prevent exposure to contaminants.

6-102

HR3QQ820

Table 6-42

Potential Noncarcinogenic Risks Associated with Ingestion and Dermal Absorptionfrom Use of Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells in the Vicinity of the 8utz Landfill


Ses ident/Chemical

Aacock Farmhouse Inlet (c)1. 1-Oichloroethene"vylene Chloride

cnioroethene

3aker Inlet1,1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTrichloroethene

Bartnold Inlet1 , 1-OichloroetheneMethy.ene ChlorideTetrachoroetheneTr'chloroethene

Sear InletTrichloroethene

Betticher Inlet1, 1-OichloroetheneMethylene Chloride (b)Trichloroethene

3unnell Inlet,ye:hy'ene Chloride (b)Tetrachloroethene (b)rnchloroethene

Camo Streams ide Inlet (chapel)Trichloroethene


Capolella InletTricnloroethene






RME ChronicDaily Intake(rng/kg/day)

2. IE-041.4E-043.7E-03

3.2E-041.4E-042.9E-03

, 4.3E-043.3E-042.0E-047.4E-03

6.6E-04

1.4E-042.3E-046.8E-03

1.9E-041.4E-042.6E-03

(e)3.6E-04

4.7E-04

1.4E-03

8.2E-04

5.2E-04

1.8E-04

3.2E-04

9.4E-04

RfORfD Uncertainty

(mg/kg/day) Factor

I i

9.0E-03 10006.0E-02 1007.4E-03 ;oo

Total Hazard kidex:

9.0E-03 10006.0E-02 1007.4E-03 1000

Total Hazard Index:

9.0E-03 10006.0E-02 100l.OE-02 10007.4E-03 1000

Total Hazard Index:

7.4E-03 1000

9.0E-03 10006.0E-02 ' 1007.4E-03 1000

Total Hazard Index:

6.0E-02 100l.OE-02 10007.4E-03 1000 .

Total Hazard Index:

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000i !

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. 1130/SEPT/91

ExposureSite for the RME Case

HazardQuotient

2.3E-022.4E-035.0E-01

5.2E-011

3.5E-022.4E-033.9E-01

4.3E-01

4.8E-025.5E-032.0E-02l.OE+00

1.1E+00

8.9E-02

1.6E-023.9E-039.2E-01

9.4E-01!

3. IE-031.4E-023.6E-01

3.7E-01

4.8E-02

^.3E-02

1.9E-01

1, IE-011

7. IE-02

2.4E-02

4.3E-02

1.3E-01i

6-103

D O n <-i « -.

TCN 4204RI REPORT

Table S-42(Cont.) RJ: ^

Potential Noncarcinogen ic Risks Associated with Jngestion and Dermal Absorot'on Exposure 30/SEPT/91eram Use of Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells in the V i c i n i t y of the 8utz Landfill Site for the RME Case


Resident/Chemical

F'cwers InletTr icnloroethene , ..

Fjel-Rite Inlet (e)Trichloroethene


RME Chronic HfDDaily Intake RfO Uncertainty(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) Factor

1.2E-03

5.2E-03

4.4E-03

Jacoby Inlet1,1-Dichoroethene 5.4E-041.2-Dichloroethene (total) (b)(c) 2.9E-04"ethylene Chloride 2.6E-04Tetrachloroethene 1.4E-04Trichloroethene 8.4E-03

<insley Inlet (d)I, 1-DichloroetheneTrichloroethene


Mongilutz InletTrichloroethene


Possinger F. Inlet1, 1-DichoroetheneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichloroethene

Rinker Inlet1, 1-OichoroetheneMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroethene (b)Trichloroethene

Sti llo InletTr'chloroethene

Strausser P. InletTrichloroethene

Strausser P. Jr. Inlet (d)Trichloroethene

5u i ! i /an Inlet (d)Trichloroethene

Whi taker Inlet (e)Tnchloroethene

Wilgus InletMethylene ChlorideTetrachloroetheneTrichloroethene

Young C. InletTrichloroethene

(a) Sampled by the Technical(b) Chemicals detected only(c) Wells sampled in 1989 by(d) Most recent detect from(e) Most recent detect from

2.8E-047.4E-03

1.4E-041.4E-043.6E-03

2.2E-04

9.6E-04

l.OE-037.8E-043.7E-043.SE-01

6.5E-045.2E-042.5E-042.5E-01

2.5E-04

2.5E-04

4.2E-04

7.3E-04

1 .'5E-03

1.9E-042. IE-042.5E-03

3.0E-04

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

9.0E-03 10002.0E-02 10006. IE-02 100l.OE-02 10007.4E-03 1000

Total Hazard Index:

9.0E-03 10007.4E-03 1000

Total Hazard Index:

6. IE-02 100l.OE-02 10007.4E-03 1000

Total Hazard Index:

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

9.0E-03 10006. IE-02 100l.OE-02 10007.4E-03 1000

Total Hazard Index:

9.0E-03 10006. IE-02 100l.OE-02 10007.4E-03 1000

Total Hazard Index:

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 1000

7.4E-03 - 1000

6. IE-02 100l.OE-02 10007.4E-03 1000

Total Hazard Index:

7.4E-03 1000

Hazard •IQuotient ^U|

1.6E-01

7.0E-01

6.0E-01

6.0E-025.3E-034.3E-031.4E-02l.lE-t-00

1.1E+00

3. IE-02l.OE+00

l.OE+00

2.3E-031.4E-024.8E-01

5.0E-01

3.0E-02

M1.3E-01 •1

1. IE-011.3E-023.7E-024.8E+01

4.8E+01

7.2E-028.6E-032.SE-023.4E+01

3.4E+01

3.4E-02

3.3E-02

5.7E-02

9.9E-02

2.0E-01

3.0E-032. IE-023.3E-01

3.6E-01 J

4. IE-02

Assistance Team for Emergency Response Removal and Prevention (April, 1990).in 1989 sampling.the Technical Assistance Team but not in 1990. _ _ rt1IS?- 3R3G0822

6-104

Potentialfrom Use of Grounwatar

3es ident/Chemical

CamelOrganics:

Naphthalene

Inorganics:Copper

Mobi 1Inorganics:CopperZinc

3 idayInorganics:3ar iumCopper

Shaf farInorganics:

BariumCopper

WesternInorganics:

BariumCopperZinc

Table 6-43

Noncarcinogenic Risks Associated with Ingestion and Dermal Absorptionfrom Untreated Residential Wells in the Vicinity of the Butz Landfill

(Remedial Investigation Sampling)(a)

RME ChronicDaily Intake(mg/kg/day)

1.5E-05

Z.9E-03

1.6E-021.4E-02

2.6E-031.4E-02

1.7E-031.8E-03

3. IE-035.7E-Q31.8E-02

RfDRfO Uncertainty

(mg/kg/day) Factor

4.0E-03

1.3 £+00

1.3E+002.0E-01

Total Hazard

7.0E-021.3E+00Total Hazard

7.0E-021.3E+00

Total Hazard

7.0E-021.3E+002.0E-01

Total Hazard

10,000

...

10

Index:

3

Index:

3

Index:

3

10

Index:

ExposureSite for the

i

HazardQuotient

4.0E-03

2.2E-03

1.2E-027. IE-02

8.4E-02

3.7E-021. IE-02

4.7E-02

2.4E-021.4E-03

2.6E-02

4.4E-024.4E-039.2E-02

1.4E-01

TCN 4204RI REPORTREV. #1

30/SEPT/91

RME Case

(a) Wells Sampled for the Remedial Investigation (RI) in 1990.

6-io5 ;; aR300823

fan ie o-44

Potential Carcinogenic Risks Associated with the Inhalation of VOCs TCN 4204While Showering for Residents Using Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells RI REPORT

in the Vi c i n i t y of the Butz Landfill Site fop the RME Case REV. #1(Technical Assistance Team Sampling) (a) 30/SEPT/91

Resident/Chemical

Adcock Farmhouse Inlet (c)1 , l-OichlorcetheneMethylene ChlonaeTr Jchlorcethene

Saker Inlet1.1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTrichloroethene

Sarthold Inlet1,1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTetrachoroethene

. Trichloroethene


Betticher Inlet1. 1-OichloroetheneMethylene Chloride (b)Trichloroethene


Camp Streams ide Inlet (chapel) (e)Trichloroethene






Farda/Smee Inlet (c)Trrchloroethene





RME ChronicOai ly Intake(mg/kg/day)

1. IE-047.4E-051.9E-03

1.6E-047.4E-OS1.5E-03

2.2E-041.7E-04l.OE-043.8E-03

3.4E-04

7.4E-Q51.2E-043.5E-03

9.5E-057.4E-051.3E-03

1.8E-04

2.4E-04

7.0E-04

4.2E-04

2.7E-04

9.2E-05

1.6E-04

4.8E-04

6. IE-04

2.7E-03

2.3E-03

Slope Weight-Factor of-

(mg/kg/day)-l Evidence

1.2E+00 C1.4E-02 821.7E-02 82

Total Carcinogenic Risk:

1.2E+00 C1.4E-02 821.7E-02 82


1.2E+00 C1.4E-02 823.3E-03 821.7E-02 82


1.7E-02 82

1.2E+00 C1.4E-02 821.7E-02 82


1.4E-02 823.3E-03 821.7E-02 82


1.7E-02 82

1.7E-02 82

1.7E-02 82

1.7E-02 82

1.7E-02 82

1.7E-02 82

1.7E-02 82

1.7E-02 82

1.7E-02 82

1.7E-02 82

1.7E-02 82

Potential 1Cancer 1Risk

1.3E-04l.OE-063.2E-OS

l.SE-04

1.9E-04l.OE-062.5E-05

2.2E-04

2.7E-042.4E-063.4E-076.5E-05

3.3E-04

5.7E-06

8.9E-OS1.7E-065.9E-OS

1.5E-04

1.3E-062.4E-072.3E-OS

2.5E-OS

3. IE-06

4. IE-06

1.2E-05

7. IE-06

4.6E-06

1.6E-06

2.8E-06

8. IE-06

l.OE-05

4.5E-OS

3.9E-OS

6-ioe &R30Q.8214

i dO ie 0-44^i,ufK. I , .! TCN 4204

3otsnf3l Carcinogenic Risks Associated, with the Inhalation of VOCs , RI REPORT«rr,:e S.-cwering for Residents Using Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells REV |l

m :ne V i c i n i t y of the Butz Landfill Site for the RME Case :(Technical Assistance Team Sampling)(a) ,

RME Chronic Slope Weight- , PotentialDaily Intake Factor of- Cancer

Resident/Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)-l Evidence \ Risk

Jacoby Inlet i !1.1-Oichoroethene ' . 2.8E-04 , 1.2E+00 C 3.3E-04Methy^ene Chloride 1.3E-04 . 1.4E-02 , 82 ' 1.9E-06Tetracnloroetrene 7.4E-05 ; 3.3E-03 32 2.4E-07Trichiarcecrere 4.3E-03 1.7E-02 82 7.3E-05

Total Carcinogenic Risk: ; 4.IE-04Kinsley Inlet (c) • i

1,1-Dichloroethene 1.4E-04 . 1.2E+00 C 1.7E-04Trichloroethene 3.8E-03 , 1.7E-02 82 s!4E-05

Total Carcinogenic Risk: 2.3E-04Kirkpatrick Inlet ' :

Methylene Chloride 7.0E-05 , 1.4E-02 82 ' 9.9E-07Tatrachlprcethejie. ___ 7.4E-05 3.3E-03 , 82 2.4E-07Trichloroethene . - .- 1.8E-03 1.7E-02 ,82 .. 3.IE-05

Total Carcinogenic Risk: , 3.2E-05; i '

Mongilutz Inlet _. ._ ' ' - :Tricnloroethene . :""",,. 1.IE-04 1.7E-02 ; 82 , 1.9E-06

Petrus Inlet : ,Trichloroethene 4.9E-04 . 1.7E-02 82 8.4E-06

Possinger, F. Inlet i1,1-Oichoroethene 5.IE-04 1.2E+00 C 6.2E-041,2-Oichloroethane 1.IE-04. 9.IE-02 82 9.6E-06Methylene Chloride 4.0E-04 , 1.4E-02 82 5.6E-06Tetrachloroethene 1.9E-04 3.3E-03 82 6.3E-07Trichloroethene 1.8E-01 1.7E-02 82 3.IE-03

Total Carcinogenic Risk: 3.7E-03Rinker Inlet - i '

1,1-Oichoroethene 3 .IE-04 1.2E+00 C 4.0E-041,2-Oichloroethane ' 7.4E-05 9.IE-02 82 6.7E-06Methylene Chloride 2.7E-04 1.4E-02 82 , 3.7E-06Tetrachloroethene (b) . _ 1.3E-04 . 3.3E-03 82 4.2E-07Trichloroethene 1.3E-01 1.7E-02 82 ! 2.2E-03


S t i l l o Inlet ' : , iTrichloroethene 1.3E-04 1.7E-02 82 , 2.2E-06

Strausser. P. Inlet """ iTrichloroetrene . 1.3E-04 , 1.7E-02 82 . , 2.2E-06

Strausser, P. Jr. Inlet (c) , , ITrichloroethene 2.IE-04 1.7E-02 ,82 , 3.7E-06

Sul 1 ivan In let (c) '.Trichloroethene - 3.7E-04 ]1.7E-02 82 j 6.3E-06

Whitaker Inlet (d)Trichloroethene -_- 7.5E-04 :1.7E-02 ,82 , 1.3E-05

Wilgus InletMethylene Chloride 9.5E-05 .1.4E-02 82 1.3E-06Tetrachloroethene 1.IE-04 .3.3E-03 82 , 3.SE-07Trichloroethene 1.3E-03 1.7E-02 82 , 2.IE-05


Young, C. Inlet . :Trichloroethene 1.5E-04 1.7E-02 82 , 2.6E-06

(a) Sampled by the Technical Assistance Team for Emergency Response Removal and Prevention (April, 1990).(b) Chemicals detected only in 1989 sampling.(c) Wells sampled in 1989 by the Technical Assistance Team but not in 1990.(d) Most recent detect from 1988. • .(e) Most recent detect from 1987.

6-107 i ' SR300825

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

The potential noncarcinogenic hazards to residents who inhale VOCs from untreatedground water while showering are presented in Table 6-45. Hazard indicesassociated with inhalation of VOCs from residential wells were below one with theexception of the Barthold (HI = 1), Betticher (HI = 1), Jacoby (HI = 1), Kinsley(HI =1), F. Possinger (HI = 57), and L. Rinker (HI = 40) residential wells. Byadding the potential noncarcinogenic hazards associated with ingestion and dermalabsorption exposure to those estimated for inhalation, 4 additional residentialwells had hazard indices equal to or greater than one, including Adcock (HI = 1),Fuel-Rite (HI = 2), Haney (HI = 1), and Kirkpatrick (HI = 1). Trichloroethenewas the only contaminant with a hazard quotient above one. Thus, noncarcinogeniceffects associated with inhalation of VOCs while showering with untreated groundwater from the F. Possinger, Barthold, Betticher, Jacoby, Kinsley, and L. Rinkerresidential wells may occur. In addition, the combined exposure associated withingestion and dermal absorption exposure and inhalation of contaminants presentin untreated ground water at the Adcock Farmhouse, Fuel-Rite, Haney, andKirkpatrick wells also may result in noncarcinogenic effects.

Spatial Distribution of Risks Associated with Use of Untreated Ground water fromResidential Wells - The potential carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazardsassociated with exposure to trichloroethene in each residential well were plottedon a map and presented in Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2, respectively. The riskswere based on trichloroethene monitoring data collected from 1987 to 1991 by TATand supplemental RI monitoring data collected in 1990. The risks presented inFigure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 represent the total risk associated with ingestion oftrichloroethene, dermal absorption exposure to and inhalation of trichloroethenewhile showering [the risks may differ from those presented in previous tablesbecause they are based only on exposure to trichloroethene and recently collected1991 TAT data were available for performing this analysis]. The risk levelspresented in these figures give an indication of the extent of ground watercontamination at the BUTZ LANDFILL site.

As presented in Figure 6-1, several residential wells with carcinogenic risksexceeding the NCP point of departure were found along the northern portions ofStrausser Road and Storm Road, as well as Railroad Drive. With respect topotential carcinogenic effects, risk levels exceeding the NCP point of departure

6-108

flR300826

iaO .6 0-40

Potential Noncarctnogenic Risks Associated with the Inhalation of VOCs TCN 4 04while Showering For Res idents .Using Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells RI REPORT

in tne V i c i n i t y of the 3utz Landfill Site for the RME Case , REV. #1(Technical Assistance Team Sampling) (a) 30/SEPT/91

Resident/Chemical

Adcock Farmhouse Inlet (cJ)1 , 1-0 ichloroethene (c) ' "•"ethylene ChlorideTrichloroethene (c)

Baker Inlet1 , 1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTrichloroethene

Barthold InletI , 1-OichloroetheneMethylene ChlorideTetrachoroethene [c)Trichloroethene

Sear InletTrichloroethene

Setticher Inlet1 , i-OichloroetheneMethylene Chloride (b)Trichloroethene

Bunnell Inlet :Methylene Chloride (b)Tetrachloroethene (b)Trichloroethene

Camp Streamside Inlet (chapel) (f)Trichloroethene

Camp Strsamside Inlet (dining)Trichloroethene


Cobles Inlet (d)Trichloroethene

Patrick InletTrichloroethene


Farda/Smee Inlet (d)Trichloroethene



Fuel-Rite Inlet (f)Trichloroethene

Haney Inlet (d)Trichloroethene

RME ChronicOai ly Intake(mg/kg/day)

2.5E-041.7E-044.4E-03

3.8E-041.7E-043.5E-03

5.2E-043.9E-Q42.4E-Q48.9E-03

7.9E-04

1.7E-042.8E-G48. IE-03

2.2E-041.7E-Q43. IE-03

4.3E-04

5.6E-04

1.6E-03

9.8E-Q4

6.2E-04

2. IE-04

3.8E-04

1. IE-03

1.4E-03

6.2E-03

5.3E-03

RfO_ RfO Uncertainty

(mg/kg/day) Factor

9.0E-038.6E-Q17.4E-03

Total

9.0E-03: 8.6E-017.4E-03

Total

9.0E-038.6E-01

, l.OE-027.4E-03

; Total

7.4E-03

'• 9.0E-038.6E-017.4E-03

: Total

8.6E-Q1l.OE-02

i 7.4E-03

1 Total

, 7.4E-03

] 7.4E-03

: 7.4E-03i

7.4E-03

'7.4E-03

:7.4E-03

7.4E-03

7.4E-03

7.4E-03

7.4E-Q3

7.4E-03

10001001000

Hazard Index:

10001001000

Hazard Index:

ICOQ10010001000

Hazard Index:

1000

10001001000

Hazard Index:

10010001000

Hazard Index:

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

1000

HazardQuotient

2.7E-022.0E-045.0E-01

5.2E-01

4.2E-022.0E-044.7E-01

5. IE-01

5.8E-024.6E-Q42.4E-021.2E+QO

1.3E+00

1. IE-01

1.9E-Q23.2E-041.1 £+00

1.1E+00

2.6E-041.7E-024.3E-01

4.4E-01

5.8E-02

7.6E-021

2.2E-Q1I

1.3E-01

8.4E-Q2

2.9E-02

5. IE-02

1.5E-01

1.9E-01

8.4E-01

7. IE-01

6-109

AR300827

fable S-45(Cont.)

Potential Noncarcinogenic Risks Associated *ith the Inhalation of VCCs or DCDnorW h i l e Showering for Resiaents Using Groundwater from Untreated Residential Wells °^ REPORT

in the V i c i n i t y of the 3utz Landfill Site for the RHE Case REV. #1(Technical Assistance Team Sampling) (a) 30/SEPT/91

RME Chronic RfDDaily Intake RfO Uncertainty Hazard

Resident/Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) Factor Quotient

Jacoby Inlet • -i,1-Oichoroethene 6.5E-04 9.0E-03 1000 7.2E-021,2-Oichloroethene (total) (b)(c) 3.5E-04- 2.0E-02 1000 5.SE-03uethy!ene Chloride 3.IE-04 8.6E-01 100 3.SE-04Tetrachloroetnene 1.7E-04 l.OE-02 IQOO 1.7E-02Tnchlorcethene l.OE-02 7.4E-03 1000 1.4E+00

Tota) Hazard Index: 1.<JE*00

Kinsley Inlet (d)1.1-Oichloroethene 3.3E-04 9.0E-03 1000 3.7E-02Tnchloroethena 8.8E-03 7.4E-03 LOOO 1.2E+00

Total Hazard Index: 1.2E*00

Kirkpatrick InletHethylene Chloride 1.6E-04 8.SE-01 100 1.9E-04Tetrachloroethene 1.7E-04 l.OE-02 1000 1.7E-02Tricnloroethene 4.3E-03 7.4E-03 1000 5.8E-01

Total Hazard Index: 5.9E-01

Mongilutz InletTnchloroethene 2.5E-04 7.4E-03 1000 3.6E-02

Petrus InletTrichloroethene 1.2E-03 7.4E-03 1000 1.5E-01

Possinger, F. Inlet1,1-Oichoroethene 1.2E-03 9.0E-03 1000 1.3E-01Methylene Chloride 9.3E-04 8.6E-01 100 1.IE-03Tetrachloroethene 4.4E-04 l.OE-02 1000 4.4E-02Trichloroethene 4.2E-01 7.4E-03 1000 5.7£*01

Total Hazard Index: 5.7E+01

Rinker Inlet1,1-Oichoroethene 7.7E-04 9.0E-03 1000 8.6E-02Methylene Chloride 6.2E-04 8.6E-01 100 7.3E-04Tetrachloroethene (c)(d) 3.0E-04 l.OE-02 1000 3.0E-02Trichloroethene 3.0E-01 7.4E-03 1000 4.1E+01


Stillo InletTrichloroethene 3.0E-04 7.4E-Q3 1QQO 4.IE-02

Strausser, P. InletTrichloroethene 3.0E-04 7.4E-03 1000 4.0E-02

Strausser, P. Jr. Inlet (d)Trichloroethene 5.0E-04 7.4E-03 1000 6.8E-02

Sullivan Inlet (d)Trichloroethene 8.7E-04 7.4E-03 1000 1.2E-01

Uhitaker Inlet (e)Trichloroethene 1.8E-03 7.4E-03 1000 2.4E-01

Wilgus InletMethylene Chloride 2.2E-04 8.6E-01 100 2.6E-04Tetrachloroethene 2.5E-04 l.OE-OZ . 1000 2.5E-02Trichloroethene 2.9E-03 7.4E-03 1000 4.0E-01


Young, C. InletTrichloroethene 3.6E-04 7.4E-03 1000 4.9E-02

(a) Sampled by the Technical Assistance Team for Emergency Response Rtnwval and Prevention (April, 1990).(b) Chemicals detected only 1n 1989 sampling.(c) No inhalation toxiclty criteria wer« available for l.l-dichloroetheno. tetracnloroethene.

or trichloroethene; therefore, risks were estimated using oral toxicity criteria.(d) Wells sampled in 1989 by the Technical Assistance Team but not in 1990.(e) Most recent detect from 1988. ,-,,„(f) Most recent detect from 1987. 6-110

'•• \ TCN 42041 ' Rl REPORT: ! REV. #1i ! 30/SEPT/91

(i.e., 10"6) appear to extend approximately 0.5 miles south/southwest of the siteand 1 mile east and southeast of the site. Potential carcinogenic risksexceeding the upper-bound of the NCP acceptable risk range (i.e., 10~4) werefound only in residential wells nearest the site. With respect tononcarcinogenic hazards, hazard indices above one were found only at residentialwells nearest the site, as shown in Figure 6-2. The highest carcinogenic risksand noncarcinogenic hazards were estimated for residential wells located on thenorthern portion of Storm Road which is approximately 1,000 feet due east of BUTZLANDFILL. Significant contamination does not appear to extend directly north ofthe site based on the results of residential well monitoring. The descriptionof the extent of contamination is consistent with the interpretation of theground water flow at the site (see Section 5).

p;

Direct Contact with Surface Soil by Children Playing at BUTZ LANDFILL - Potentialcarcinogenic risks to children playing in surface soil at BUTZ LANDFILL due todermal absorption and incidental ingestion are presented in Table 6-46. ;Aroclor-1260 and beryllium which are considered probable human carcinogens (Group B2)were the only potential carcinogenic contaminants identified for evaluation inthis report. As discussed in Section 6.1.2, several other potential carcinogeniccompounds were detected in surface soil but were found to be within naturalbackground levels. These natural inorganic compounds are probably more ofconcern than the potential contain'nants found in surface soil (i.e., aroclor-1260and beryllium), as discussed in Section 6.1.2. The total carcinogenic riskassociated with incidental ingestion and dermal absorption (6xlO~7) of Aroclor-1260 and beryllium was below the NCP point of departure (10'6) (USEPA 1990).

• ' I; [

The potential noncarcinogenic hazards due to children playing in surface soil atBUTZ LANDFILL due to dermal absorption and incidental ingestion of contaminantsunder review are presented in Table 6-47. All of the contaminant-specific hazardquotients, as well as the hazard index, were below unity (1) by at least twoorders of magnitude. Therefore, noncarcinogenic effects associated with directcontact with surface soil while at BUTZ LANDFILL are unlikely to occur.

Direct Contact with Surface Water by Children Playing in Streams and Seeps -Potential carcinogenic risks to children playing in streams and ground waterseeps within the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site due to dermal contact with

6-113 [

«*• 1— — ' •-'o ce=»« CT>CNJ o 7»«.«a- o- • t—LU => Q-z ce LU LUo oi c/i

0)-C re4-1 U

'ILU2:4-1 Q£CJrQ CUC »JOCJ i.0

4-1 U-

cu "-~i- ' —o u-

"U-C c

Nl•a 4-101 3

co re03t U R3CO Oto 01CU CO Ci — <C ••—-a >•.*O to (Ot— j»; * —to a.

cz ccuCJ i-

cu .—01 -C0 CJc— t-0 0S- 14-

CJ • —

*"" OIB t/1*J CUc uCD aO t-Q_ 3

t/)

1o "go1— ^ £ *<~4-1 CU C 4-1c o cu a.cu c a i-4-1 fQ O0 CJ t- to

°" £5

' — c10 t- a— L. O —4-1 CU 14— 4-1c u toCU C Ji CU4-1 rg to CTO CJ •— CQ. OS ——

1 CJ-= ' §^ ^ "O•s >-* LU

_

QJ t. fQa-a-aO 4-> --*— o 01U. >»v.

1

§o a. >t4— t- *ao ~a"— CO "C3 J3 Cn

LU »— CTz « eo: E— -cuaco4-1

0 CU >>

— J55a 01o •— .y g; g°* -a"~"

uc

<o• ,_

U

io

p-* io1 1LULO 1

'

0 O1 1LU LUOT CSJ

CM ~t

CM CM03 03

§ 00+ -t-

LU UJr PO

§i iLUO 1

CM

CO CO0 01 1LU LUco r**en CM

atoCM Vt

»T -S§u u c —

re u u x01 o o t-u <- c cu

ffcs>oLULO

a oi iUJ LU— • tor iri

ttj4-13OL.

CO

a s-VI O

ao -o• * <o Q)QJ **- -t->

a£ iO CO 'a: 4-1u to>> o cu4-1-a; - : ato to c

i- ex; cuCJ cj CUc 'ccu cu .*C31 C31 COo a •—c c t-O O T3t- L. C

cj ej— f— 2.4-» *J COo o ai — i — a.

Xcucuuoii-cui.cu+J

cu

O!r~"aisVI

V)(Jci1ocu-0c04-1Q.Uototo

CUT3

£t»

fl3

: TCN 4204r , , fi ,7 RI REPORTTable 6-47. : ^y ^

| Potential Noncarcinogenic Risks Associated with Direct Contact with 30/SEPT/91f Surface Soil for Children Playing at Butz Landfill for the RME Case

Chemical (a)

Organ ics:Aroclor-1260

Inorganics: (a)Beryl 1 iumZinc

RME COI forIncidental Ingestion

(mg/kg/day)

2.

1.4.

,7E-07

.9E-07

.4E-04

RME CDI forDermal Absorption(mg/kg/day)

1.4E-07

TotalTotal

RfD(mg/kg/day)

l.OE-04

5.0E-03-2.0E-01

Hazard IndexHazard Index

RfDUncertainty

Factor

- - -

10010

by Route:for Sediment:

Hazard Quotientfor Ingestion

2.7E-03

3.8E-052.2E-03

4.9E-036.3E-03

Hazard Quotientfor DermalAbsorption

1.4E-03

- - -

1.4E-03

(a) The dermal absorption of inorganics is negligible; therefore, exposure and risk were not estimated for this route.

6-115

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

surface water are presented in Table 6-48. Probable human carcinogens identifiedas contaminants in surface water include gamma-BHC (Station 14) andtrichloroethene (Stations 1, 2, 3, 10, and 13). Known human carcinogensidentified as contaminants under review included arsenic (Station 13 and 14) andvinyl chloride (Station 13). The site relatedness of gamma-BHC and arsenic foundat Station 14 is questionable given the proximity of the sampling point to thesite (approximately 1 mile southwest of the site) and the lack of gamma-BHC inother media at the site. The total potential carcinogenic risks associated withdirect contact with surface water at all locations were well below the NCP pointof departure (i.e., 10"6) with the exception of Stations 13 and 14 (USEPA 1990).The potential carcinogenic risks associated with Stations 13 and 14, however,were within the NCP acceptable risk range (i.e., <10"4).

Potential noncarcinogenic hazards to children playing in streams and ground waterseeps within the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site due to dermal contact withsurface water are presented in Table 6-49. Individual contaminant-specifichazard quotients for all contaminants under review at all stream locations werebelow unity (1). The hazard indices estimated for Mountain Spring Lake, however,slightly exceeded unity (1) due to exposure to arsenic, cadmium, manganese, andzinc. The target organs for these chemicals at such does levels are not similar;therefore, summing hazard quotients may not be appropriate. Thus,noncarcinogenic effects may not occur. At any rate, the chemicals of potentialconcern detected at Mountain Spring are probably not linked to site relatedactivities.

Direct Contact with Sediments for Children Playing in Streams and Seeps -Potential carcinogenic risks to children playing in sediments in streams andground water seeps due to dermal absorption and incidental ingestion arepresented in Table 6-50. Probable human carcinogens identified as contaminantsin sediments include beryllium (Stations 2, 6, 10, and 13), benzo(a)pyrene(Equivalent) (Stations 6 and 9), and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (Station 9).

Arsenic, a known human carcinogen, was identified as a contaminant under reviewat Stations 2, 9, and 13. The total potential carcinogenic risks associated withincidental ingestion of sediments at Stations 2, 6, 9, 10, and 13 slightlyexceeded the NCP point of departure (i.e., 10'6), yet were within the NCP

6-116

I 1

Table 6-48

Potential Carcinogenic Risks Associated with Direct Contactwith Surface Water by Children Playing in the Vicinity of the Butz Landfill Site

RME Chronic ; Slope Weight-Daily Intake factor of-

3tat ion/Chamica 1 - (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)-l Evidence

Grcundwater Seaps Near 8utz Landfill ,

Station 10 '. ',Crganics: - . . :' - :--Trichloroethene 4.3E-06 1. IE-02 82

Station 13 ,Crganics: ' 'Trichloroethene 4.3E-06 : 1. IE-02 B2Vinyl Chloride , — - 8.5E-06 , 1.9E+00 A

Inorganics: •• - - • ; .Arsenic " l.OE-05 , 1.7E+00 , A


West Fork of Reeders Run . . >

Station 5 'No contaminants selected .

Station 6No carcinogenic contaminants selected i


Mountain Spring Lake

Station 14 : iOrganics: . . . . " - . - - - -gamma-BHC 3.4E-07 1.3E+00 82

Inoraanics: " ' -Arsenic 2.9E-05 1.7E+00 A


North Fork of Reeders Run- — ---.------ ——————— ———— j !

Station 2 - '. ! •Organics: . . - - - - - • ; 'Trichloroethene 4.3E-05 . 1. IE-02 82

Station 3 !Organics: ;Trichloroethene 8.5E-06 1. IE-02 82

Stat ion 9 . • • - - - ~No carcinogenic contaminants selected j

Station 1 •Organics: . - - - - - -'Trichloroethene 8.5E-06 , 1. IE-02 82

Wetland East of Landfill . ;

Station 11 . . - ' • 'No carcinogenic contaminants selected :

TCN 4204RI REPORT

i REV. #130/SEPT/91

for t;he RME Case

PotentialCancerRisk

, 4.7E-08

4.7E-081.6E-05

11.7E-05

1

3.4E-05

!

.

4.4E-07iI

5.0E-05

5. IE-05

4.7E-07i-

9.4E-08

'9.4E-08

j-

6-117: .AR300835

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Table 6-49

Potential Noncarcinogenic Risks Associated with Direct Contactwith Surface Water by Children Playing in the Vicinity of the 8utz Landfill Site for the RME Case

RME Chronic RfODaily Intake RfO Uncertainty Hazard

Station/Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) Factor Quotient

Groundwater Seeps Near Butz Landfill

Station 10Organics:Trichloroethene 3.0E-05 7.4E-03 1000 , 4.0E-03

Station 13Organics:Chlorobenzene 6.0E-QS 2.0E-02 1000 3.0E-031.2-Oicnloroethene (Total) 3.0E-04 2.0E-02 1000 1.5E-02Trichloroethene - 3.0E-05 7.4E-03 1000 4.0E-03

Inorganics:.Arsenic 7.2E-05 l.OE-03 1 7.2E-02Barium 3.IE-03 5.0E-02 3 6.2E-02Manganese 6.0E-02 l.OE-Ol 1 6.0E-01




Station 6 .Inorganics:Barium 4.3E-04 5.0E-02 3 8.7E-03Mercury 3.0E-08 3.0E-04 1000 l.OE-04



Mountain Spring Lake ^

Station 14Crganics:Senzoic Acid 7.5E-04 4.0E+00 1 1.9E-04Oi-n-butylphthalate 1.5E-04 l.OE-01 1000 1.5E-03

Inorganics:Arsenic . 2.IE-04 l.OE-03 1 2.IE-01Barium 4.3E-03 5.0E-02 3 8.6E-02Cadmium 2.9E-04 5.0E-04 10 S.7E-01Chromium 2.0E-04 5.0E-03 500 4.0E-02Manganese 2.7E-02 l.OE-01 1 2.7E-01Nickel 6.7E-04 2.0E-02 300 3.3E-02Vanadium 4.5E-04 7.0E-03 100 6.4E-02Zinc 2.6E-02 2.0E-01 10 1.3E-01


6-118HR3G0836

Table 6-49(Cont.)

Potential Noncarcinogenic Risks Associated with Direct Contactwith Surface Water by Children Playing in the Vicinity of the Butz Landfill Site for

Station/Chemical .

North Fork of Readers Run




Inorganics:Mercury

Station 9Inorganics:Mercury



Wetland East of Landfill

Station 11Inorganics:Barium

RME Chronic '• RfDDaily Intake '• RfD Uncertainty(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) Factor •

i

3.0E-04

3. IE-03 (

6.0E-05

7.5E-09

7.5E-09

6.0E-05

4.7E-043.0E-08

4.3E-04

7.4E-03 1000

l.OE-01 , 1

! Total Hazard Index:

i 7.4E-03 , 1000

3.0E-04 1000

Total Hazard Index:

3.0E-04 ,1000

. 7.4E-03 1000:

. 5.0E-02 33.0E-04 1000

i

! Total Hazard Index:

i5.0E-02 3

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #1- 1 30/SEPT/91

the,RME Case

Hazard.Quotient|

i

4.0E-02i

3. IE-02

7. IE-02

8. IE-03

2.5E-05

8. IE-03i

2.5E-051

8. IE-03

9.5E-03, l.OE-04

1.8E-02

i8.7E-03

(a) Toxicity criteria were not available for delta-BHC, gamma-BHC, vinyl chloride, aluminum and lead.

6-119 .•; AR300837

CNJ O •>»*3* a. • r"LU 3» O-

Z Qi LU LUO oi co1 — •— * ^-~en om

ounCOOJ

"•a

CUCO

UJ

OJJZ

JT U4-i O

Z (U•*-! 4-1O ——fa onc •—a •—

SiQJ 13.— — 'Q NJ

.C 34-1 CO

2 aj_cOJ

u >*o *-•in •—in c0(n •—

_ Z»tn— QJ02 _C

u— cc —QJOl Ol0 Cc —U <Bt- ' —0c— -ac —

oa_ uO

4-JC

IQJc/1

J*'- C• — tn <TJ o

4-4 OJ Q.c t-o i-QJ QJ O4-1 u t- tnO C O -Q0. US I*- <0

—— C13 t- Q— 1_ O •*-4_> QJ (4— 4-1c u tnQJ C X QJ4-j <o cn 01o <-» •— cO fV MM

^ U

i °">•* LU

*X

QJ O "O

o u aito u. - ^

1c0

o a. >,U- U 13o -aO J2 Ol

LU — Ols: n eoi e— 'QJac0

o «*>^<*- QJ rtj

O1T3a — 01LU rt3 O"»

aj

uc:

u

oc04-1«34~»

1 1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1

tO LT) tO Lf>0 0 O O

i i l lUJ LU LU LUID to LO r .

jc£•oQ)

Csj ^ CSJ CO

m ^ t_04-^V)

o o o u0 O O •—4- •+••+• CLU LU UJ OJ

. . O^r — * cut_T3LJr—

4jO1—

1 1 11 1 I1 1 1

f< LD f-»O O C3

LU LU LUCO LO LO

CO - CO

,'"•

^

1(T3

N3CO

t-

QJ

VIa.QJ

tn M

4-> — 4 C -^ 2 C O "-5 C 01 - C CD C^-O Q(->, O 1- QJ >»c — o t- •— o w uo +-» c OJ 4-<C'uajL. 4J 4-1to to co

CO 1 CO0 01 1 1LU LU•«r t «rcn 01

i i t i

4-1CQJ

QJ -F-

3 Wo tocsj csj at.10 >,c3

-QU-

oo to0£0£

u u_< C3 «- —0 O C C4. -f QJ Q)LU LU Ol OlCSJ CO O Oc _c

u uU L.T3 CT3

ra IQ4-1 4-JO O1— h-

O5 1O1 1LUCSJ 1

CO

g ^01 1

UJ UJCO 00—> CO

CO

J~~U 4-1a cQ r_

(U T3 >C -W >> —3 U 13o: cu er

i — O LUM 0) — ——U CO 4-1•a 10 icCU 4-1 O QJQJ C U L.a: ra «s >.c a.'S "S •••- ro OS

fd to ' — — ' — 3y kf)4-i C O U U O C"~t- C ••— >% P»J fO f~O CO C C U C t31>—U. OU O (0 >, OJ t. >

"- ••- Ot' — CO O U4-1 4-1 O 4-1 U O CCUco rez (ooa. i— >caQJ 4-1 4.13 on on

•acu

Vcuinvt4-1Cc

^fc§° °4-J O

4-1to

6-120

HR300838

0CM•3-ZOr—

cr: =fc CTiO ^v.Q_ . 1——UJ 3" Q.o: uJ LU

c£. </)3 0

CO

4-1cocjoinCO

-2i —

CU

<0UUJ

a.cu4J

-C L.4-1 0

201

4-t 4-1CJ ——<0 00c —O l~~

u cOl nj._O Nl

-C 3

O>(O o

en —vi co

tn— CU

u— cc —01CJ1 OlO Cc —CJ tJ

JoZC

.2 -Q4-* • ——C —, 01 j:oa. s-a

*4-

c

CUt/i

_^- g

-*-< , 0) a.c h a s-01 S O-t-j ^ i- tn

*"~ t. c

13 « **- n= y ij vi0) ~: -*r o>°"5 ca. ** t—t

, OJJj ^~ i c~fc- cj.5"S;o- UJ

— .CU fc <0°£i(O CT

LL. ~

1c0

a.° S'Z• "

Q , _ Ol" *^£uj — oig cu .

caien

, 01^ _ .£ = 1?"•aS*"

illUc

1— -u

1c0

"Sw5

1 1t 11 1

o o oi t ILU UJ LUo urt m—4 CU r-i

^ CO

VJ

Q£ua o —a o c

+ + O)LU UJ Olf* c*3 O• • C

,-« J- ——OL.<Q0

(Q•M

I |

1 1

1 '

to r*»O O1 1LU LUo cnto Ln

-a0)u0)OlVI

tnCTJ -ac c o>•^•3 -M£ Q£ U<T3 0)-M « r—

OJ C t- 0)j* o oi n<o o -a_i aj «O 0) J

01 •- OS CCZ C (Q•- CU «- CL. Ol O CO •*-Q. O O E Stn T c ^ — 3 13

rt— U CVJCO— c<!4->

•S era i2 c^'c^ co<e ou ouoi>i o cjC 4-)O 4-( 4 - > C U C U 4-IO3 rQ2£ t- ra^^^cQ rd^O 4-1 O 4J 4-tZ c/1 Z to t/1

_

Or— I f>>-10 0

t 1 I IUJ UJ UJo > v I Tco r-. r-

o to to in to^H o o o ol i i l lUJ LU UJ UJ UJto ^r m r~> —tr-- — i cn' ~H' co

4-1

•• E=U —3 CUa in

CNJ CM — Q£en co ** t.ja"-*?

cn ence a:u u

CM — 0 — —O O CO C GZ1 4> 4* CU Oluj LU uj ai o>^r tsi r-* o O

ra rau ura ra4-* 4-*O 01 — 1 —

CD 00 1o oLU LUco *r iCNJ in .

§r— toa oi i iUJ UJ UJ*r CM coLO -* LO

•aOluOl

W i —g CU

u 4-* cnn) c 4-1cu u Hi c4-1 O'— ra

4 - 1 0 - 4-> ——-C U LU C t+—0.— «— o TJ^"« Ol " S>| § C O _ |x 5 u •-Ol (. U C It.-e< 21 ' £. °i — a. oi>! o— • tn o 4J

• • -C ••- ro u C «tnULUU? CU — ' U LU

•^ 1 >l N 10 — L.C C C M U C Ol C C ro T3o ra^ >« aj t. ai a u c"" 01 w •-" 3 O cn "* to(Q o 3 CU "™* <C ra 3C 44-1 4-> CUt/1 CO 3

•oOl4uCUOlcnen4-1crac1ra0uucCUglc

— 1 U(.c rao u•u ora z4-1t/1

6-121 ' I: I flR?00839

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

acceptable risk range (i.e., < 10"4) (USEPA 1990). Potential carcinogenic risksranged from 2xlCT6 (Station 6) to SxlCT5 (Station 13). It should be noted,however, that it was conservatively assumed that children will play 125 days peryear for 10 years at each location and ingest 140 milligrams of sediment per day(USEPA 1989a, 1991d). In addition, it is unclear whether the contaminantsdetected at each station are actually associated with site related disposalactivities. Inorganics, PAHs, and phthalates are commonly found in sediments inseeps and streams. Limited background data were available for determiningwhether these compounds are actually due to natural background, anthropogenicactivities, or site disposal activities. For example, surface water runoff fromroads may contaminate streams with PAHs which were formed from the incompletecombustion of hydrocarbons from vehicles.

Potential noncarcinogenic hazards to children playing in sediments in streams andseeps due to dermal absorption and incidental ingestion are presented in Table6-51. Individual contaminant-specific hazard quotients for all contaminantsunder review, as well as hazard indices for all stream and seep locations, werebelow unity (1) by at least a factor of 5. Hazard indices ranged from 4xlO~2(Station 10) to 4xlO~l (Station 2). Therefore, noncarcinogenic effectsassociated with direct contact with sediments while playing in streams and seepsin the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site are unlikely to occur.

Ingestion of Contaminated Fish - Recreational fisherman may be exposed tocontaminants under review from bioaccumulation of contaminants from the streamsin the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site. As discussed in Section 6.1.3, fishtissue concentrations were estimated using available BCFs and surface waterconcentrations. Trichloroethene, which is a probable human carcinogen, wasdetected at several locations in surface water along the North Fork of ReedersRun. Potential carcinogenic risks to recreational fisherman who ingest fishcaught from different locations along the North Fork of Reeders Run are presentedin Table 6-52. The potential carcinogenic risks associated with ingestion offish from all sample locations were below the NCR point of departure (i.e., 10~6)(USEPA 1990).

Potential noncarcinogenic hazards to recreational fisherman who ingest fish fromthe West Fork and North Fork of Reeders Run are presented in Table 6-53.

6-122

flR3008l*0

O CC =(*a OCM 0 7 .•* °- !T;i i > a.z: a; LU LUo o: </•>H- i— ' " âs o

CO

LO

CO

(11^

t —

CD

ULUX

1

— OX <4-

4-> QJCJ 4J(0 —4-> CO

§-o •—O -00} CU nja^2+J 3— CO

* a,•ojz0) 4J

(0 14-— OCJ0 >>CO 4-1

< E

CO O

W »

tt 0]

U 4-1

C Cg,"o o>c c0 >>

n —u a.co czZ HIu(13 r— •

-3 24-1 t_O OC3_ *+-

tnc(UE•501CO

4-1Ccu— c'Z § ~"S C 4J3 0) Q. -O-Q i-

ûSt- O J3T3 4- *t(BX

4-1C Ccu o4-1 4-J0 in3 (U0- 01c-a —Nl O

>,S. i-ocu *c=3

-

Q 13o; 01

tco

t. a., —0 t- >ii*- o ma < enc_) _i«;— *^

1 § J-

a

caj

u tn --^0 OJ >»i*- at 13c -aQ O1C-J '— J

UJ -M Ol^ c^

uc1— •

—.fc

"

"0u£

-C

co4-»(Q

CO

> 1 t 1 1 1 1

( I I I I I I

I I I I I I I

CO CM OJ ^H CM CMO O O O OOOOUJ UJ LU UJ UJ UJ LU UJto^r-«r ai OCMOO^r to ro n -M--uno)

o oCO O -^ -^ CO O -^

"~* *

XCM CO — H QJ COCMCO^HOOO -D OOOOI I I C I I I ILU ''if LU *- LU LU LU UJOOO OOOO. . . ~o . . . .

5(Qx:i—4-*O

I I I I I I II I I I I I It i l I I I I

«tr us ro ^ to roOOO OOOOi i i i i i iLU UJ UJ LU LU liJ UJco f*. -a- o o in oCM CM CO ^« CO CMCn

f—•~~

T3C

N3CQ

s-QJ

a.0)QJ

W «t- (J E 4J U E (UC U O - ^ 3W rO-^- 3Wjj ^«c — a* — * c u ---a)2 ,- « i"" c ,- £*C i1" 5X C O> 3 <~~ n C DJ C 3 *~^ (Q-o ou-f->,CT ouai"->\o»c "-ofc-t-e ^ - o w i - u c3 -M C fl 0) fl 4->CU(QOJ(Ot. 4J ** 4J """tD CO CO

1

LO r^ i0 O .i i iUJ LULO CO 1

LO — »

I

*••* ^ r** ô o o ot-LJ LU LU UJO ,-« U") *T ,

c-J <-H *-i LO

:i §1 ""*

X

•a oooC i l l— ' LU UJ LU

O O O1- 3- CM LO

N13or,_

at—r^ oo <O O

1 l lUJUUCM CM 1

CM ro

h*. oO CO0 O 01 1 1LU LU UJCM O r-vTT CO CM

Cff

Iuo

CU "OC 4-1 >,

Q£ CPCO V '<~t~ tfl 4J1) (13•Q W gCU 4-1 O111 C U CUa: a -s ci _ .5 LJ JZ W'

0 i ys's .si_^£ Lf)4J C O O C J i Q C U C-f~

4-» 4J O 4-» t- O U_ O CO)» teas * o a. i— —CD4) 4J 4J3i to c-o

inoiLUunin

^ «o o1 1LU UJIT) O

CO f*s

4-1C

iil"•o3 CUO CO

« t.>, 0-Q X-

X X•s-sc c

•a *nt. s-M M

-X Z— ~

4-1 *-»

.2

T3CU

C OO Q

6-123

CM O

LU:»OUz: o£ uJ LUcj oi co'""" 5 "

CO

OJc/1CJ

1-C4-1 U

4-1 111U 4-1

co ~4-1 U—u -o01 C!_ fO

OfM

4-1 3,— CQ

ll4-J

c •— acS g>,— « en ••-l/l A3 C1 ••—(O WO01 « =>

"re ^ jit—— O 4J

c cCJ • —

O Ol

0 >>R3 r-~u a.co cZ 11u• — T3

C Ud)4-J Uo oa- 14-

•a

4-1Ca) ' — c— ra OO U 4J3 m a.

o"O t- w1_ O -Q

Ni(T33C

4-1c cai o4-> 4-1a wo- e>•a —u15 (.N a

= u£™2at g

u u-c

*•aa ^a: j<:ic0

U 4-JO Q-. — •14- U >,

O <QQ ja- .C_) <S O>

Z TJ C31Q£ S E

01

cot_ 4-1 , —— >O W >i

a— Dio _*:LU fO CT

S'c~01•aQ

—

«-rf

nCJ

CJco4-J

to

I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1I I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ooo o oooaoo ol i t i i i i i i i ico co O O c^j co r o T ro *"•co en co 1 1 ^••-HCOCOCO^ '

QO ^ °0 0"^ X ^ X

c c

-o -aU l-

O O O <O OOOOOO R3I 1 I 3Z 1 1 1 1 I 1 ZO O O *~ OOOOOO *~"tn LO c\j Jj »-imir>tn»MCJ 4J

0 0H- —

I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1I I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

«$• un ro in^rcococM^rOOO OOOOOOI I I 1 1 1 1 1 1UJ UJ UJ '' 1 UJ UJ UJ UJ Ml

^^^ •q-co^-^fcnco

T3C 0)3 4->ce u

0)« f—QJ £- • Q)j CU VI

_l OJ VI01 J-1at Qi c

C fl.— 4_ CU « O t/J •«-a. u u e ai €to ^ — ^ •»- 3 W «

^c E s - c s J C O ^ E O ) CO-M

4-» "-OU-Qc -C T-O«£t.-5cC "~c 4-» c fl <g •— 4-> 4-»ct-fOiJ<CfO"- 4->o3 (Q H CD CJ f**J i— "0 ^ C CO OD U Z *J W C0 4J 0 -M -M3C wi as t/> tn

6-124

' TCN 42041 RI REPORT

Table 6-52 j 30/SEPT/91Potential Carcinogenic Risk Associated with Ingestion of Fish

From Reeders Run for the RME Case

Chronic :Slope Weight- PotentialDaily Intake Factor of- Canter

Station/Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)-l Evidence Risk

iWest Fork of Reeders Run

Station.5No contaminants selected

Station 6No carcinogenic contaminants selected


North Fork of Reeders Run

Station 2 ' \Organics:Trichloroethene 5.4E-05 1.IE-02 82 5.9E-07,

Station 3 • ' • •Organics: i iTrichloroethene 1.IE-05 1.IE-02 82 1.2E-07

• 'Station 9 :

No carcinogenic contaminants selected

Station 1 :Organics: '•• !Trichloroethene 1.IE-05 1.IE-02 82 1.2E-07

6-125

Station/Chemical

West Fork of Readers Run


Station 6Inorganics:BariumMercury


North Fork of Readers Run




Inorganics:Mercury

Station 9Inorganics:Mercury



Table 6-53

Potential Noncarcinogenic Risks Associated with Ingestion offrom Reeders Run for the RME Case

RME Chronic RfODaily Intake RfO Uncertainty(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day) Factor

1. IE-03 5.0E-02 32.5E-03 3.0E-04 1000

Total Hazard Index:

• 1.3E-04 7.4E-03 1000

4.2E-02 l.OE-01 1

Total Hazard Index:

2.5E-05 7.4E-03 1000

6.3E-04 3.0E-04 1000

6.3E-04 3.0E-04 1000

2.5E-05 7.4E-03 1000

1.2E-03 5.0E-02 32.5E-03 3.0E-04 1000

Total Hazard Index:

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #1. 30/SEPT/9k

Fish I

HazardQuotient

2.2E-028.3E+00

8.4E-MJO

1.8E-02

4.2E-Q1

4.4E-01

3.4E-03 "

2.1E+00

2.1E+00

3.4E-03

2.4E-028.3E+00

8.4E+00

6-126

: TCN 42041 RI REPORT

• ; REV. II: ; 30/SEPT/91

iMercury, which was detected at Stations 1, 3, 6, and 9, was the only contaminantwith a hazard quotient exceeding unity (1). The concentrations of mercurydetected in surface-water ranged from 0.25 to 1 ug/L, which exceeds the USEPAAmbient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) of 149 ng/L for the consumption of fish(USEPA 1986c). Thus, recreational fisherman who ingest 54 grams of fish per dayfor thirty years from one of these locations (i.e., Stations 1, 3, 6 or 9) mayexperience an adverse health effect. It should be noted, however, that the RfDfor mercury is currently under review and was derived using an uncertainty factorof 1,000. Although mercury was not detected in background surface water samples,which were collected in streams west of the site, the site-relatedness pf mercuryis questionable. Mercury was not detected in ground water monitoring wells,surface soil, subsurface soil borings, or test pits samples collected at the BUTZLANDFILL site. In addition, the levels of mercury along the North Fork ofReeders Run increase further downstream from the site. Therefore, mercury maynot be a contaminant associated with site disposal activities.

;

Multimedia Assessment of Risk Under Current Land-Use Conditions - Potentialcarcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards from exposure to all current land-use exposure pathways quantitatively evaluated in the risk assessment arepresented in Table 6-54. It was conservatively assumed that an individual isexposed via all exposure routes evaluated, as well as the highest risk estimatedfor any given location according to the RME case (i.e., highest risk estimatedfor direct contact with surface water and sediment from Station 13, ingestion offish caught from Station 1, and use of untreated ground water from F. Possingerwell). The total carcinogenic risk was 6xlO"3 and the hazard index was 115. Thehighest carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards were associated with useof untreated ground water from the F. Possinger residential well. It should benoted, however, that ground water treatment systems are installed at contaminatedresidential wells; therefore, residents are currently not being exposed tountreated ground water. In addition, the risks estimated for direct contact withsediments and ingestion of fish may be due to contaminants (i.e., arsenic,beryllium, and mercury) which may not be related to waste disposal activities atthe site, as previously discussed. , , ' I

6-127

Table 6-54

Potential Risks from Multiple Exposure Pathwaysunder Current Land-Use Conditions

Pathway

Use of Groundwater fromUntreated Residential Wells (a):

Children Playing In Surface Soil

Ingestion of soi 1

Dermal absorption from soil

Subtotal for Pathway:

Children Playing in Streams and Seeps (Station

Ingest ion of sediments

Dermal absorption from sediments

Dermal absorption from surface water

Subtotal for Pathway:

Fishing in Streams (Station 1)

Total for all Routes (b):

PotentialCarcinogenic Riskfor the RME Case

6E-3

4E-7

2E-7

6E-7

13):

3E-5

—

3E-5

6E-5

IE-7

6E-3

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. 1130/SEPT/91

Hazard Indexfor RME Case

105

2E-3

--

2E-3

2E-1

--

8E-1

1E+0

8.4

115

(a) Total risks associated with ingestion of groundwater and inhalation of VOCs while showering usinggroundwater from the F. Possinger Residence.

(b) It should be noted that these risk estimates are conservative upper-bound estimates that assume thatan individual is exposed according to the RME scenario outlined in this report for all exposurepathways evaluated; and thus represents the maximum plausible risk under current land-use conditions.

6-128

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

6.1.5.3 Potential Risk Under Future Land-Use Conditions

Inqestion of Ground water by Hypothetical Residents at the BUTZ LANDFILL site -Potential carcinogenic risks to hypothetical residents at the BUTZ LANDFILL sitefrom ingestion and dermal absorption exposure to ground water are presented inTable 6-55. Potential carcinogenic contaminants detected in ground water samplesincluded: 1,1-dichloroethene (Group C), trichloroethene (Group B2), vinylchloride (Group A), and arsenic (Group A). The total potential carcinogenic riskfrom ingestion and dermal absorption exposure to ground water was IxlO"3. Thisrisk exceeded the NCP point of departure (i.e., 10"6) and the upper-bound of theNCP acceptable risk range (i.e., 10'4) (USEPA 1990). The majority of the riskis associated with ingestion and dermal absorption trichloroethene (IxlO'3). Thepotential carcinogenic risk associated with ingestion of vinyl chloride andarsenic also exceeded the upper-bound of the NCP acceptable risk range (10~4).The highest detected concentration of trichloroethene was found at monitoringwell RID which is located along the eastern boundary of the site.

iThe potential noncarcinogenic hazards to hypothetical residents due to ingestionof ground water are presented in Table 6-56. The hazard index associated withingestion of ground water at the BUTZ LANDFILL site exceeded unity by a factorof 85, mainly due to trichloroethene. Trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, andantimony were the only contaminants with hazard quotients that exceeded one.Therefore, noncarcinogenic effects from ingestion of ground water from the BUTZLANDFILL site may occur. It should be noted, however, that the RfD fortrichloroethene is currently under review and was derived using an uncertaintyfactor of 1,000. No toxicity criteria were available for vinyl chloride andaluminum. Therefore, the potential contribution of risk from these contaminantscould not be evaluated. , |

i

Inhalation of VOCs by Hypothetical Residents while Showering - Potential"—-"->-——->-——-L----1-—— - -- ' -- - -- - --" - •' - - -"-iL—ui--". _--.——-I-"———-i_-.-r.,_—— _—— _-r-..-- - , - ——-..__.__- ———- __ ... !

carcinogenic risks to hypothetical residents who inhale VOCs present in theground water while showering are presented in Table 6-57, Several potentialcarcinogenic VOCs were detected in ground water at the BUTZ LANDFILL siteincluding: 1,1-dichloroethene (Group C), trichloroethene (Group B2), and vinylchloride (Group A). The potential carcinogenic risk from exposure to these VOCswhile showering is 5xlO"3 which exceeds the NCP point of departure (i.e., 10"6)

6-129

TCN 4204RI REPORT


Potential Carcinogenic Risks Associated with Ingestion and Dermal Absorption Exposurefrom Use of Groundwater from Butz Landfill by Hypothetical Residents for the RME Case

RME Chronic SlopeDaily Intake Factor Weight- Potential

Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)-l of-Evidence Cancer Risk

Organics:

1.1-Oichloroethene 8.8E-05 6.0E-01 C 5.3E-05Trichloroethene 2.5E-01 1.IE-02 82 2.7E-03Vinyl Chloride 2.IE-04 1.9E+00 A 3.9E-04

Inorganics:

Arsenic 1.9E-04 1.7E+00 A 3.3E-04


6-130

\J W \f I ? j-i

,Table 6-56

Potentialfrom Use

Chemical (a)

Organics:1 . l-Dichlorcethene1.2-OichloroetheneTrichloroethene

Inorganics:Ant imonyArsenicBariumManganese

Noncarcinogenic Risks Associatedof Groundwater from Butz Landfill

RME" Chronic"~ " ~~ Dai ly Intake

with Ingestion and Dermalby Hypothetical Residents

RfO . Un(mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)

2. IE-04(Total) 6.5E-02

5.8E-01- -

1. IE-034.5E-043.6E-035.7E-02

9.0E-032.0E-027.4E-03

1

4.0E-04l.OE-035.0E-02l.OE-01

Total Hazard

RfOcertaintyFactor

100010001000

100.0131

Index:

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Absorption Exposurefor the RME Case

1

HazardQuotient

'

2.3E-023.3E+007.8E+01

'

2.8E+004.5E-017.2E-025.7E-01

8.5E+01I

(a) Toxicity criteria were not available for vinyl chloride and aluminum.

6-131

TCN 4204RI REPORT


Potential Carcinogenic Risks Associated'with the Inhalation of VOCsWhile Showering for Hypothetical Residents at Butz Landfill for the RHE Case

RME Chronic Slope Weight-Daily Intake Factor of- Potential

Chemical (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)-l Evidence Cancer Risk

Organics:

1.1-Oichloroethene 1.IE-04 1.2E+00 C 1.3E-04Trichloroethene 3.0E-01 1.7E-02 82 5.QE-03V i n y l Chloride 2.5E-Q4 3.0E-01 A 7.3E-05


6-132

flR30G850

' TCN 4204RI REPORT

i REV. #130/SEPT/91

and the upper-bound of the NCR acceptable risk range (i.e., 1CT4) (USEPA 1990).Again, the majority of the potential carcinogenic risk was due totrichloroethene.

; i

I ;The potential noncarcinogenic hazards to hypothetical residents who inhale VOCswhile showering are presented in Table 6-58. No inhalation RfDs were availablefor the VOCs evaluated; therefore, oral RfDs were used to evaluate potentialnoncarcinogenic hazards associated with this exposure route. The hazard indexestimated for this exposure route was 98. Therefore, noncarcinogenic effectsassociated with inhalation of VOCs in ground water while showering may occur.

6.1.6 Uncertainties Associated with the Human Health Risk Assessmenti

This section outlines the uncertainties associated with the results of the BUTZLANDFILL site baseline risk assessment. The primary areas of uncertaintyinclude: 1) environmental sampling and analysis; 2) estimation of exposure; and3) toxicity assessment. An overview of the primary areas of uncertainty in thequantitative risk assessment is presented in Table 6-59 and is discussed below.

•6.1.6.1 Environmental Sampling and Analysis

As discussed in Section 6.1.2, monitoring data collected from ground water,surface and subsurface soil, surface water, and sediments were used tocharacterize the extent of contamination in these media. These data wereconsidered to be representative of site contamination, yet the degree to whichthe RI data characterizes site contamination is unknown. For example, thepotential impact of seasonal variability on site contamination may not be fullyevaluated. The extent of sampling of ground water, soil, surface water, andsediment, however, was considered to be extensive relative to other typicallandfill Remedial Investigations. Given the uncertainty associated with themonitoring data, the 95th UCL on the arithmetic mean was used when estimatingexposure for the various exposure pathways evaluated in this assessment in orderthat potential exposure would not be underestimated.

Another area of uncertainty concerns the treatment of non-detected concentrationsin the quantitative assessment of risk. One-half of the Sample Quantisation

6-133 I

Table 6-58

Potential Noncarcinogenic Risks Associated with InhalationShowering for Hypothetical Residents at Butz Landfill for

1 - RME ChronicDai ly Intake \fO

Chemical (a) (mg/kg/day) (mg/kg/day)

RfOUncertainty

Factor

Organics: . __

l.l-Oichloroethene (b) 2.5E-04 9.0E-03 LOGO1,2-Dichloroethene (Total) (b) 7.8E-02 2.0E-02 1000Trichloroethene (b) S.9E-01 7.4E-03 1000

Total Hazard Index:

(a) No toxicity criteria was available for vinyl chloride;estimated risk does not include this chemical.

(b) No inhalation RfOs were available for these chemicals.

therefore, the

therefore, oral

of VOCs whilethe RME Case

HazardQuotient

2.7E-023.9E+009.4E+01

9.8E+01

RfDs were used

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

to estimate risk.

6-134

. 3R3G0852

! TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #1Table 6-59 , 30/SEPT/91

Uncertainties Associated with the Butz Landfill SiteBaseline Risk Assessment

Effect on Estimated Risk (a)

Potential Potential Potential forfor for Over or Under-

Source of ; Over- Under- EstimationUncertainty Estimation Estimation of Risk_______________________._______________;of Risk_______of Risk_____________

Environmental Sampling and Analysis

Available sampling data used to . . j Lowcharacterize the extent of • : .contamination at the site ' '

!

Contaminants Under Review" Moderatewere assumed to be site related.

-! iSystematic and/or'random errors ; , j Lowin analysts and reporting

TICs were not quantitativelyevaluated Low (

;Estimation of Exposure

Exposure parameters were Moderateassumed to.be characteristicof the potentially exposed . ,population . : I

The amount of media intake is Moderateassumed to be constant and •.representative of the exposedpopulation :

'Toxicitv Assessment

An additive model is used to ! Moderateevaluate risk from a chemical , .mixture \

iToxicity criteria not available , Lowfor certain contaminants underreview . ,

Conservative methods used to Moderatederive toxicity.criteria to high{particularly slope factors[see text])

(a)As a general guideline, assumptions marked as "low," may affect estimates of exposure by less than one orderof magnitude; assumptions marked "moderate" may affect estimates of exposure by between one and two orders ofmagnitude; and assumptions marked "high" may affect estimates of exposure by more than two orders of magnitude.

6-135

t HR300853

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Limit (SQL) was used as the detection limit for samples qualified with an "U" or"UJ" qualifier. The actual concentration of the contaminant may be anywhere inthe range from zero .to just below the SQL. In all probability, the actualconcentration may be below one-half the SQL given that the instrument detectionlimit (IDL) is often much lower than one-half the SQL. The methods used toevaluate non-detects in this assessment, however, probably do contributesignificantly to the overall uncertainty of the results (probably less than afactor of 2).

With the exception of certain organic contaminants such as trichloroethene, itis unclear whether other compounds which significantly contributed to estimatedrisks can be linked to site disposal activities. For example, arsenic andberyllium found in sediments and mercury found in surface water significantlycontributed to estimated risks, however, these inorganic compounds were found atrelatively low concentrations and may be naturally occurring. In fact, mercurywas not detected in ground water, surface soil, or subsurface soil at BUTZLANDFILL and levels of mercury in the North Fork of Reeders Run increased furtherdownstream from the site.

Another potential source of uncertainty involves the analytical methods used toquantify the levels of contaminants in samples collected for the BUTZ LANDFILLsite. There is a certain degree of variability associated with the laboratoryinstruments ability to quantify the levels of a compound in a sample. Thisvariability tends to be normally distributed. The potential contribution of thissource of uncertainty, however, is considered to be low given QA/QC requirementsfor samples and analysis.

Several TICs were identified in ground water, soil, surface water, and sediment.Given the uncertainty associated with their identification and concentration, aswell as the lack of toxicity criteria; these compounds were not quantitativelyevaluated in this report. Thus, the risks associated with contact with variousmedia may be underestimated. Of those TICs with available toxicity criteria, itwas determined that they would not significantly contribute to estimated risks.However, the source of certain unknown hydrocarbons found in surface water andsediment may not be site related but rather from other anthropogenic activities.

6-136

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

6.1.6.2 Estimation of Exposure

As discussed in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.1.5, conservative assumptions were used to!

estimate exposure for the various exposure pathways quantitatively evaluated inthis report. Under current land-use conditions, it was assumed that childrenwould play in streams and ground water seeps 125 days per year for 10 years andthat during these play activities, children would incidentally ingest 140 mg ofsediment each day. Similar assumptions were used to estimate exposure from

i I !

direct contact with surface soil at the BUTZ LANDFILL site. In addition,children were assumed to contact surface water and sediments over one-third ofthe surface area of their hands, arms, and legs. These are conservativeassumptions used to evaluate a reasonable maximum exposure case. The likelihoodof children in the area actually engaging in such behavior is unknown.'

;

For the fish ingestion pathway, no actual fish tissue data were available todetermine the exposure point concentration. In this assessment, surface waterconcentrations and BCFs were used to estimate the concentration in fish tissue.However, potential exposure levels may be overestimated using this method. Inaddition, the extent of recreational fishing in vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILLsite is unknown.

For future land-use exposure pathways, it was assumed that an individual wouldingest 2 liters per day of ground water from the more contaminated areas at thesite over a 30 year life-span and take a 15 minute shower daily for 30 years.It is unlikely that ground water at the site would actually be used as a futuredrinking water resource. These pathways, however, were evaluated primarily tojustify restrictions on the future use of ground water at the site and providethe basis for making risk management decisions for the site.

6.1.6.3 Toxicity Assessment j

USEPA (1989a, 1986a,b) recommends summing chemical-specific risks in order toquantify the combined risk associated with exposure to a chemical mixture.Limited data are available for actually quantifying the potential synergisticand/or antagonistic relationships between compounds in a chemical mixture. Thus,

Icompounds are assumed to act independently in the body to cause an effect. Ifi

6-137

! flR300855

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

this assumption is incorrect regarding chemical interaction, then over- orunderestimation of potential risk of the chemical mixture may occur.

Several contaminants, presented in Section 6.1.2, did not have available toxicitycriteria. Because of the exclusion of these compounds, the potential risksassociated with the site may be underestimated.

There is a high degree of uncertainty associated with the derivation of availabletoxicity criteria. The primary sources of uncertainty associated with thederivation of toxicity criteria, as summarized by the USEPA (1989a), include:

• using dose-response information from effects observed at high doses topredict the adverse health effects that may occur following exposure tothe low levels expected from human contact with the agent in theenvironment;

• using dose-response information from short-term exposure studies topredict the effects of long-term exposures, and vice-versa;

• using dose-response information from animal studies to predict effects inhumans; and

• using dose-response information from homogeneous animal populations orhealthy human populations to predict the effects likely to be observed inthe general population consisting of individuals with a wide range ofsensitivity.

USEPA (1989a,b,c, 1986a,b) uses a conservative approach to derive toxicitycriteria given the uncertainties in the toxicity studies and dose-responseinformation. For example, the slope factor is the 95th UCL on the linear slopethat describes the cancer potency of the contaminant. Using the 95th UCL on thelinear slope is a conservative approach adopted by the USEPA in order that thetrue risks will not be underestimated. A thorough assessment of the high degreeof uncertainty associated with the derivation of slope factors was presented inan USEPA (1985c) document entitled "Techniques for the Assessment of theCarcinogenic Risk to the U.S. Population Due to Exposure from Selected Volatile

6-138

AR3G0856

: : i TCN 4204: RI REPORT

1 REV. #1f, | 30/SEPT/91

:Organic Compounds from Drinking Water Via the Ingestion, Inhalation, and DermalRoutes." Based on the conservative approaches used to derive slope factorsoutlined in this report (USEPA 1985c), it may be concluded that 1:he "truecarcinogenic risk" may be orders of magnitude less than the carcinogenic riskspresented in this report. , j

i

Thus, risks presented in the BUTZ LANDFILL site baseline risk assessment shouldnot be construed as absolute estimates of risk given the degree of uncertaintyiassociated with the risk assessment process as described above. Rather, the BUTZLANDFILL site baseline risk assessment characterizes the potential for an adverseeffect to occur if an individual is exposed to contaminants at the site asoutlined in Section 6.1.3. When reviewing the results of this assessment, theconservative assumptions used should be considered. The conservative methods arerecommended in USEPA guidance (1989a) in order to ensure that risks are notunderestimated.

6.1.7 Summary and Conclusions of the Human Health Risk Assessment

This section summarizes the findings of the human health risk assessment for theBUTZ LANDFILL site. This report attempts to quantify whether contaminants at theBUTZ LANDFILL site pose a current or future risk to human health under the no-action alternative (i.e., in the absence of remediation of th^ site).Contaminants under review selected for evaluation in the baseline risk assessmenti

are discussed in Section 6.1.7.1. Exposure pathways of concern selected forquantitative evaluation in the baseline risk assessment are summarized ip Section6.1.7.2. Potential carcinogenic risks and nopcarcinogem'c hazards estimated forthe pathways quantitatively evaluated in this report are summarized below inSection 6.1.7.3. , - I

6.1.7.1 Contaminants Under Review iI j

Over fifty chemicals were selected as contaminants under review at the BUTZLANDFILL site including carcinogenic PAHs, VOCs, and heavy metals.Trichloroethene was the primary contaminant at the BUTZ LANDFILL site.Trichloroethene was selected for evaluation for ground water (residential andmonitoring wells) and surface water, however trichloroethene was not selected for

6-139 ;

: ^300857

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

surface soil, subsurface soil, or sediments. In fact, trichloroethene wasdetected in only one subsurface soil boring sample at a relatively lowconcentration of 23 ug/kg. Several carcinogenic PAHs were selected ascontaminants under review for subsurface soil and sediment. PCBs were detectedonly once in surface and subsurface soils at the site. Arsenic, beryllium, andmercury were the primary inorganic contaminants selected for evaluation. Forsediments, the stations closest to the site seem to be the most contaminated,especially with regard to inorganics. However, for surface water, some of themost contaminated stations were the greatest distance from the site. The sourceof many of the inorganic and semi-volatile contaminants is unclear, especiallyfor surface water. For example, mercury was selected as a contaminant underreview at several surface water stations, however, it was not present in anyother media. In addition, levels of mercury increased further downstream fromthe site. This suggests that mercury may not be site-related.

6.1.7.2 Exposure Assessment

The following current land-use exposure pathways were quantitatively evaluatedin this report:

• ingestion of untreated ground water from residential wells in the vicinityof the BUTZ LANDFILL site;

• dermal absorption of untreated ground water while bathing from residentialwells in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site;

• inhalation of VOCs while showering using untreated ground water fromresidential wells in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site;

• direct contact with surface water and sediments by children playing instreams and seeps in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site

• dermal absorption of ground water at the BUTZ LANDFILL by hypotheticalresidents while showering; and

6-140

AR300858

1 TCN 4204! RI REPORT

; . : REV. #1~ " ! 30/SEPT/91

• ingestion of fish caught in streams in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILLsite by recreational fisherman. j

The following future land-use exposure pathways were quantitatively evaluated inthis report: ;

• ingestion of ground water at BUTZ , LANDFILL by future hypothetical1 i

residents; and

• inhalation of VOCs while showering by future hypothetical residents whouse ground water at BUTZ LANDFILL.

i 'Exposure point concentrations were estimated for each contaminant and exposurepathway. Exposure point concentrations an,d exposure parameter values werecombined using a chemical intake equation to estimate exposure (i.e., chronicdaily intake [GDI]) for the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) case for eachcontaminant and pathway. |

'6.1.7.3 Results of the Human Health Risk Characterization ;

: I! j

Toxicity criteria identified in Section 6.1.4 and GDIs estimated in Sect]on 6.1.3were combined to quantify potential carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazardassociated with the exposure pathways quantitatively evaluated in the BUTZ

iLANDFILL baseline risk assessment.

Potential carcinogenic risk was quantified by multiplying the GDI by the slopefactor when the cancer risk was below 10"2. Chemical-specific cancer risks weresummed in order to quantify the total cancer risk associated with exposure to achemical mixture. Potential carcinogenic risks are expressed as an increased

iprobability of developing cancer over a lifetime (i.e., excess individuallifetime cancer risk) (USEPA 1989a). For example, a 10"6 increased cancer riskcan be interpreted as an increased risk of 1 in 1,000,000 for developing cancerover a lifetime if an individual is exposed as defined by the pathways presentedin this report. A 10"6 increased cancer risk is the point of departureestablished in the NCR (USEPA 1990). In addition, the NCP (USEPA 1990) statesthat "for known or suspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels are

; j

6-141

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

generally concentration levels that represent an excess upper bound lifetimecancer risk to an individual of between 10~4 and 10"5." Carcinogenic risks inexcess of the acceptable risk range are likely to trigger a remedial response.Carcinogenic risks within the acceptable risk range, yet in excess of the pointof departure (i.e., 10"6), also may trigger a remedial response.

Noncarcinogenic effects associated with exposure to a contaminant was quantifiedby dividing its CDI with its reference dose (RfD). This ratio is called thehazard quotient. If the hazard quotient exceeds unity (i.e., 1), then an adversehealth effect may occur. If the estimated hazard quotient is less than unity,then adverse noncarcinogenic effects are unlikely to occur. The potential riskfrom a chemical mixture was evaluated by calculating the hazard index which isthe sum of the chemical-specific hazard quotients.

As discussed in Section 6.1.3.3, Section 6.1.5, and Section 6.1.6, conservativeassumptions were used to estimate GDIs and risk in order that potential risk willnot be underestimated. The conservative assumptions are used because of theuncertainty associated with the risk assessment process. The assumptionsdiscussed in this report should be considered when reviewing the risks presentedin this section. In particular, the risk estimates presented for future use ofground water should be interpreted as an evaluation of ground water quality atthe site for developing remediation strategies. Ground water at BUTZ LANDFILLis currently not used as a drinking water resource. In addition, treatmentsystems are installed at contaminated residential wells in order to preventexposure to contaminants. In this report, residents were assumed to useuntreated ground water for the purpose of evaluating the no-action alternative.

A summary of the potential carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazardsestimated for the exposure pathways quantitatively evaluated in the BUTZ LANDFILLbaseline risk assessment are presented in Table 6-60 and discussed below.

Current Land-Use Conditions; Use of Untreated Ground water from ResidentialHells in the Vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL Site - Of the 57 residential wellssampled by TAT, 31 had detected concentrations of VOCs while the remainingresidential wells (i.e., 26) had no detected concentrations of VOC contaminants.Trichloroethene was the most frequently detected contaminant in residential

6-142

M300860

o oi *o>CSI O ^"ûjôZz oi SujO Qi oO*~S o"ro

^

c £.j g... c/ii; «3

' o> 10 5 -*O) (/I

-Q ~ Ccih •*- QJ

CO Cc iiro '" S-, nj_^ O3CJCoo

>

4-Jc

oCJ

. — .

c * — "' — QJ "3".2 ? oj= -5 .£ ,54-J t. - -L.

S. 3 ô ^-~ fdz -E:

* '

CJ

«i^s i"-si"^

14-113O.OJu3COOaXLU

_- flJ >» tnS J ^ T J = CO CU _ - . ( • ^ C

( _ J-§ c ' . 3 U _ O • ^Z E O T3

O '— W -O UQJ OCO °? >> i '— CJ "TH 4-1 T3 ' - QJ QJ ^-E O i — &* — Q »

C C d ) I - - L - _ C ( J t - 4 - * l + - Q J ~-t QJ 4-J -Ôr")Q Q J Q J C U ^ O X Q J C O 4->' * — • ,X CJ <4~ QJ r— 4-J -Q - - . rO Q. QJ 3 CO +_! .-. i •«— OlCJt/1 t-C C 4-» fO (O i — cNJCJ' — -, , QJ 31 CO •— O 33 O C 4 - J ^ ~ " f « O^ a j t n a j j - o D coÔ4j 4-j , o — a. coo I-C-C-— -C-O o C- (_co O »UJ S g £ U O_CO . O U E U- "— *->

"O'-.CU'— . — QU. 13CO "Ot- I-LJ C O T S ^

f O 4 - » ^ C J O [ 3 ' — t - - - C 4 - > t . Q . U-(J . ~O - C t J X T C O Q )^.^-x — -LU4-»u(— x o-"- -c34-»cu _^ •:C J •*-! QJ "" S- I-H cj QJ QJ C _C QJ -J" 4— •*—O "O C i >— O1 **— 4-> cU 4-* "O C . o ^™•^c.gj^*3-"0 H*4"'4"* coi •— Oj'c'Oco cQ_Q.^-CO Q J r t j 4 - i 4 - » i — 'QJ OC O-4-Jf°-'-C tt- i- to ~ - j^ CO' — > O.— T3X"~ * - » O C Oo o i a i Q i ' C U J Q j Q j — cua; cj Q j a j 5 t / 1 " - - - - 4 - iCO U OJ— C J 3 O T C J U 0, U . • 4J 3= > 4-1 u-O T3 • Q£ 1— "O QJ QJ Q. CJ ifl . ro >•» ^ ^ •*— T_ QJfU QJ QJ ' •«— !— Oi cu z; (j -r— r— ~ Q, .(-i flj i)

*-* - uT "— ' • O co a. o co o c cj+->3j u a u _• — 03 4-Jl9 _ I 4 - » Q J Q J C Q J 4 J SO O . C 1 O 0 3 X Q Jr D Q J O Q J (J t- "- 'OC W a i ^ C l J

L_ 4-J O C t— 3 QJ -«t t- ^ CU * fQ "~ t- J fq QJ -i-

•Q3i— « . ! _ O 1 ' — * O O O *+- coi*— trt 4-1 co ro C nCC1 — — C O C O U U X C T3 —a) — O ^ -^ •— 4-> CO *— ' — -*— "— to c »— " t- aj t_ u ' t_ •— >« co 73 .^- .„4-J 3 U Q_ "O -C t. QJ 4-) i CJ "..C • CJ 13 * CC QJ •«•> t_(O t- l_ flj ' " 4-1 QJ (— ( C •'" 4-1 ••— O **~* 4-* tQQ J O 1 O 3 ' — • V) J^ O I •— C C a"? — *— U

f~aJ"wQ."a.>QjaQ::aJ=I'M ° C t : o c T o cC O 1 — "O CJ O 3 _J >^ Cft CJ CJ >n CJ -f 0) V *O ••" QJ••--C u u o t . t , 4 - » , ( - U . Q J C S -fQ '^" O ""3 S t+— C - Q J ' f l OC C J C J *— * • fl "4—3 C U C Q _ t - U C O 4 - > 3 : Q) < — 5QJ

> _ c o — • — •»— - iJi c: L. •— -^-o -^- c 3 -— ' Qj_c1J 5 C O U O V O O 4J •"" 4J »•"" • 4-J QJ 4-* QJ ,-Q J

C CO CJ 4-J 4-1 O 4«* It •«•* 3 4-» QJ ^ 3 QJ -^- ftJ Ol QJ • »Q J O t - O _ t-CJ"~'-^</) CO 4-J CJ. 4J"DQ.C4-Jl- — *_C O <O CJ ti_ r$ "Q c Z QJ t*— C O *— ' CJ O QJ QJ <O O QJ "^S 2* CJ 21 O CQ 3 •"-* (-. O ir~ Q- X O i i^, yj "O I— C 5 »-^

0 _ _ ' _ _ ' , ,— • ro ' csi evj' i t ,

1 LU , LU ii ics ^-- ! ^ ^ ;• V V ~O v "^30 OJ V QJ

O CJQJ QJ

QJ QJCO CO

1£ 'Hi 2.S c c

M .S C C :

- 1 en 1 'ia) cu i 13 f°2 u W • c cto — t_ ^ r-, c o u i g c o O L o m

O) '[ ' ' > ' ' ijj ' • ' UJ 1 1 t , 1 1 i01 C CD "0 C\J 03 0 cva 0 ui . ô •— oi T c cC 01 •• UJ"- -a c: M CM0 CU 13 <—rt3 CJ CUo cu .*: 2*•» to •z -a oi n • ' !

u--oc_1N

—— 4->U f O ' 3 CQJ "•— f QJ CO CQ C 34-» CJ E 3 OS

C O f O C O ffl .U t- -» .— OS _-.cS'— i+- QJ «i 2 _: • to »** ^ ( f l c s jO "O •— I- 1- Q ) ' ~ > ^ H M Q J ^ L— C OJ 3 4J* Z — — t - C C C - ^ — O J C-^ c? J *" w g. « S S * .2 3 .2 J5 § "8 .2O ' « - TJ c / ) Q j J 5 ^ S a : - * J * - ' * - * c _ 5 •*-*cj"O4-i oic 01 t/i *r ±: c o t o c o " - . 4 i t * - c oa j c c u c u v ^ y - t - ^ oQ J 4 J Q J -^ j -^ QJ u Q Qc o i j " a . >\ >, 4-» aj c o _ ^t U C O f— *J r- 5 rfl t- CO*C4-*QJ 0.3 O . ~ O Z O *~* ULCCCt O O C T 3 U . 1 31 3 ^ C C 3 C - M X !— 1 C S J Q J 4 J Q J O 3 4 - 1 C 4 J

<4-CO ( - 1 3 I - . U O C O 3 t -

QJ QJ O — — "- T3I- CO I- ^ O -C C ;t- :D t*- cj co o u :3 :

fO J <Nl roLU __' UJ LU20 , CNJ ai

V V V V

OO CO COI I I 1LU LU LU t<7) CO O)

r——

"01- £2c c c c _.2 .2 .2 2 s+J -M 4-J '555 'o jo« <" „ S

CO

UJ

T3CT34->

3

AR30.086

CM O •*-.«* Q- • 1—

UJ > Q-z: Q; UJ UJo c£<s>*~ S o"

, ——

--""• ^ 4-1

" 1 I

J M «• 0)

CD £OI *•* CO

££ c o a,w "F3. couiCJ

V)•MC

Eu

•t— 3ZC ^

i— CU ".2 g* S+-1 c "w c0) CJ t"-O fl "PQ_ O

1 1

O

3'ic 1"•*-* o

fOC-J

n

na.cu(7oaXUJ

1- T3 • ~OCU O QJ <"" (U l4-» *— *J3 t f l U U - ' - i T J - * - ^1 CJ^_»C.f— (j jij jyj Q C U Q J

«fl "~ I jB "U C O O. T3flJtt)Q.'M<"Dfl3(-«JjJ QJ {Ui~Or—•OjJ--â)4_»_c;(u Q *^ 41 « +J HJ

O O1 O K( ^-» 3 n3~î*-flj^tfl**— ~ 3-MC4-Jt."T3 "~* O U •"" CU C

cfVoojj+jj^Q) •^sujpiâjQ.Wl-OXJ-' — U. t- O t - - - C > U -^ CL-.-. CSJ 4>J Ql LU

'a)^^C(-3— " a . t - ^ r 2 1(U — - ^ U « 3 U U u c *« GT

•M 0) 3E -" * • OJ V O <+- c t.ij *— ^T

_^caju"»x'ô ^^ •*- H» -^ o« 3 r - 0 ) O l O c : » W W U - M 4 J O.-— j.-*3«-^- « •*- >^F—•r- (U u OI • <0 OJ V •'-TOTJ^*« fl)o3 x aJ -S •?- 1 3 2I(jCT«3i^: 3 •— w en O N O J H - C TO C - C W H - 0 ) O - ^ t - i — < D CC " — « > * • • - C ' « J f l * J ( * - - * -

o > i - a * Z u 3 - — u-c ns« ou ^ * - a-)cja)> t . - f - O ' — I C - M

r— o a.) c ~a « >— o i o i 4 - » t / ) ( T J E+ J - O ' — - M O C J 4 - » O J -M U U- "O ' COC • -H* "i T3 QJ O- M - 0 ) OI O'~ •MW(UO-'-3C"Oo - * - 3 w c c c s - e u o — - c t - c o o a . i

^- o H en. . . . CO

CO -H CSJ CSJ CO -

•a -a0) QJ•M -MCJ U41 oiCU CUC/J M

w «-M -Mc cra n3c c1 "IMO r*H ••-» p** en° 1 " t i l l 1,-, 1 — LU UJ 1 LU UJ-g £ CO CM CNI O)

in c <ai 3 ol -Hco 0) c at 4->cuo) tncorx oesieno---* en o>o 4-1 s « <- = -C

•— Irt C (-CCC 0 1 C C C C O J-i4-1 cu o i a o o "a o o o o — 4J o•--nx: -a '•->--.•- ai*-- "-••-•*- 4-1100-

C_}(/1 C/1C/3C/1 t4-»C/)t/)t/)C/l> O4-l>l

oi u. a a _xM C J* 01 •Q 1— ——- 3 t 4 - C 3 ^ f. COC-— (010— t: o = 3 — --i• 0 4 - 1 0 u- i o u-c c ia u. •at.-Dcni r j o c u -C COC4J4-1 CO 0) 01 O O "Oc o > a i 3 x. ai M —0) EX t- 0) 4J «t- C >• 3 M 3 0)3 3U 14-

CO0)3

1X0)

OIcc-

1V)

c4-1-3

K)

£

1CO

Q.U0COJ3

0)

c

(/- 01 Q)

C 0) Jtl XI

"~ „ s 'sil«§§i— c a •— •—

"" i- x; o oto <a u i iS N — «M t-H*£•!:---HCO LU LU

CO LU CNI —4— —. (J ...

IO

6-144

; TCN 4204" | RI REPORT

ff *• ' ' REV. #1; , ! 30/SEPT/91

wells. Other VOCs detected in residential wells included 1,1-dichloroethene,1,2-dichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethane, methylene chloride, andtetrachloroethene. .Mo VOCs were detected in 5 residential wells sampled by the

i

RI team. Water treatment systems have been provided to residents withcontaminated wells in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site in order to preventexposure.

• i

Potential carcinogenic risks and noncarcinogenic hazards to residents wereestimated for ingestion and dermal absorption exposure to untreated ground waterand inhalation of VOCs while showering, in order to evaluate the no-actionalternative. Of the 62 residential wells sampled, the potential carcinogenicrisks associated with ingestion, dermal absorption exposure, and inhalationexposure for 31 residential wells exceeded the NCR point of departure (10~6)(USEPA, 1990). With respect to the spatial distribution of wells, carcinogenicrisks for residential wells which exceeded a 10"6 cancer risk extendedapproximately 0.5 miles south/southwest of the site and 1 mile east and southeastof the site. However, the potential carcinogenic risks associated with use ofuntreated ground water from only 8 residential wells (see Table 6-60) exceededthe upper-bound of the NCR acceptable risk range (i.e., > 10~4). Most of theseresidential wells are located within approximately 1,000 feet of BUTZ LANDFILL.

For noncarcinogenic hazards, the hazard indices for most of the residential wellswere below unity by more than an order of magnitude. Therefore, noncarcinogeniceffects associated with use of untreated ground water are unlikely to occur. Ofthe 62 residential wells evaluated in this report, the hazard index exceeded orequaled one for 10 residential wells; with F. Possinger (HI = 105) and L. Rinker(HI = 74) having the highest hazard indices. Trichloroethene was the onlycontaminant with a hazard quotient above unity. Thus, noncarcinogenic effectsmay occur from chronic use of untreated ground water from these wells due totrichloroethene exposure. It should be noted, however, that the RfD fortrichloroethene is currently under review and was derived using an uncertaintyfactor of 1,000.

Current Land-Use Conditions; Direct Contact with Surface Soil by ChildrenPlaying at BUTZ LANDFILL - Potential carcinogenic risks to children playing insurface soil at BUTZ LANDFILL due to dermal absorption and incidental ingestion

6-145

! .flR3()0863

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

were below the NCR point of departure (i.e., 10"6). Aroclor-1260 and berylliumwhich are considered probable human carcinogens (Group B2) were the onlypotential carcinogenic contaminants identified in surface soil. Levels ofarsenic in surface soil may be of more concern than the other contaminantsevaluated, however, this compound was within natural background levels. Withrespect to noncarcinogenic hazards, all of the contaminant-specific hazardquotients, as well as the hazard index, were below unity (1) by at least twoorders of magnitude. Therefore, noncarcinogenic effects associated with directcontact with surface soil while at BUTZ LANDFILL are unlikely to occur.

Current Land-Use Conditions; Direct Contact with Surface Water and Sediments byChildren Playing in Streams and Seeps - Children playing in streams and groundwater seeps within the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site may be exposed tocontaminants via dermal absorption of contaminants in surface water andsediments, and incidental ingestion of sediments. The potential carcinogenicrisks associated with dermal absorption of contaminants in surface water andsediments at all sample locations were well below the NCR point of departure(i.e., 10'6) except for Stations 13 and 14 (USEPA 1990). With respect tononcarcinogenic hazards, the hazard indices estimated for the dermal absorptionroute for all stream and seep locations, were several orders of magnitude belowunity (1). The hazard indices estimated for Mountain Spring Lake, however,slightly exceeded unity (1) due to exposure to arsenic, cadmium, manganese, andzinc. The target organs for these chemicals at such dose levels are not similar;therefore, summing hazard quotients may not be appropriate. Thus,noncarcinogenic effects may not occur. At any rate, the chemicals of potentialconcern detected at Mountain Spring are probably not linked to site relatedactivities. Therefore, direct contact with surface water and sediments in thevicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site does not appear to present appreciable riskto children.

The potential carcinogenic risks associated with incidental ingestion ofsediments at Stations 2, 6, 9, 10, and 13 slightly exceeded the NCR point ofdeparture (i.e., 10"e), yet were within the NCR acceptable risk range (i.e., <10'4) (USEPA 1990). Potential carcinogenic risks ranged from 2xlO"6 (Station 6)to 3xlO"5 (Station 13). Probable human carcinogens identified as contaminantsin sediments include beryllium (Stations 2, 6, 10, and 13), benzo(a)pyrene

6-146

i TCN 4204RI REPORT

" . ' ! REV. #1I 30/SEPT/91

(Equivalent) (Stations 6 and 9), and bis(2-ethylhexyl)pnthalate (Station 9).Arsenic, a known human carcinogen, was identified as a contaminant under reviewat Stations 2, 9, and 13. With respect to noncarcinogenic hazards, hazardindices estimated for all stream and seep locations were below unity (1) andranged from 4xlO"2 (Station 10) to 4X10'1 (Station 2). Therefore, noncarcinogenic

. " !

effects associated with incidental ingestion of sediments while playing instreams and seeps in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site are unlikely tooccur. , ;

ii

It should be noted that it was conservatively assumed that children will play 125days per year for 10 years at a given location and ingest 140 milligrams ofsediment per day (USEPA 1989a, 1991d). In addition, it is unclear whether thecontaminants detected at each station are actually associated with site relateddisposal activities. Limited background data were available for determiningwhether these compounds are actually due to natural background, anthropogenicactivities, or site disposal activities. For example, surface water runoff fromroads may contaminate streams with PAHs which are formed from the incompletecombustion of hydrocarbons from vehicles.

Current Land-Use Conditions; Ingestion of Contaminated Fish - Recreationalfisherman may be exposed to contaminants under review from bioaccumulation ofcontaminants from the streams in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL site. Thepotential carcinogenic risks associated with ingestion of fish due to exposurei •to trichloroethene from all sample locations were below the NCP point ofdeparture (i.e., 10"6) (USEPA 1990). With respect to noncarcinogenic hazards,mercury, which was detected at Stations 1, 3, 6, and 9, was the only contaminantwith a hazard quotient exceeding unity (1). The concentrations of mercurydetected in surface water ranged from 0.25 to 1 ug/L, which exceeds the USEPAAmbient Water Quality Criteria (AWQC) of 0.15 ug/L for the consumption of fish(USEPA 1986c). Thus, recreational fisherman who ingest 54 grams of fish per dayfor thirty years from one of these locations (i.e., Stations 1, 3, 6 or 9) mayexperience an adverse health effect. It should be noted, however, that the RfDfor mercury is currently under review and was derived using an uncertainty factorof 1,000. In addition, the site-relatedness of mercury is questionable. Mercurywas not detected in ground water monitoring wells, surface soil, subsurface soilborings, or test pits samples collected at the BUTZ LANDFILL site. In addition,

i ' !

6-147

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

the levels of mercury along the North Fork of Reeders Run increase furtherdownstream from the site.

Future Land-Use Conditions: Use of Ground water by Hypothetical Residents at theBUTZ LANDFILL Site - If ground water at the site were used as a source of waterin the future, then residents may be exposed to contaminants under review viaingestion, dermal absorption exposure, and inhalation of VOCs while showering.The total potential carcinogenic risk from ingestion and dermal absorptionexposure to ground water and inhalation of VOCs while showering is 3xlO"3, Thisrisk exceeds the NCR point of departure (i.e., 10"6) and the upper-bound of theNCR acceptable risk range (i.e., 10"4) (USEPA 1990). The majority of the riskis associated with ingestion, dermal absorption exposure, and inhalation oftrichloroethene. The highest detected concentration of trichloroethene was foundat monitoring well RID which is located along the eastern boundary of the site.With respect to noncarcinogenic hazards, the hazard index associated with use ofground water at BUTZ LANDFILL exceeded unity by a factor of 183, mainly due totrichloroethene. Trichloroethene, 1,2-dichloroethene, and antimony were the onlycontaminants with hazard quotients that exceeded one. Therefore, noncarcinogeniceffects from ingestion of ground water from the BUTZ LANDFILL site may occur.

6.2 ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

6.2.1 General Description of Study Area

The BUTZ LANDFILL site study area is located in rural Monroe County,Pennsylvania, northwest of State Route 715 and south of Camel back Mountain. Thefocus of the ecological assessment was two-fold. First, the ecology on thelandfill was evaluated. Second, the small first-order and second-ordertributaries in the small area of the landfill was evaluated (Figure 4-4).

The ecology on the landfill was characterized by conducting a site walk-throughon the landfill and the adjacent woodlands, and by using vegetative datacollected during the wetland investigation.

All of the streams that were sampled during the ecological investigation weretributaries to Reeder Run except sample station 15, which flows into Mountain

6"148 AR300866

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

i • ' iSpring Lake. All the streams are fast-running, cold water mountain streamstypical of the area. As part of the stream investigation, the riparianvegetation on each bank was recorded in an area extending perpendicularapproximately 10 meters from each stream bank.

I

6.2.1.1 Terrestrial Ecology

The vegetation on the landfill is an early-successional community termed a"successional field" (see PNDI, 1983; Reschke, 1990). Successional fields are

•typical of sites that have had a recent history of disturbance. The successionalfield consists of opportunistic plant species that are typically fast-growing andshort-lived, such as many of the lichens, mosses, grasses and other herbaceousplants. Over time, slower-growing and longer-lived species, such as shrubs,trees, and related herbaceous shade plants will succeed many of the earlyopportunistic plant species. The community at the time of this investigation,was dominated by annual species, but had a significant number of perennial herbs,such as goldenrod, and woody perennials such as brambles, sweetfern, sumac, birchand cherry. This indicates that the site has not had a major disturbance in anumber of years (although there have been a few local disturbances, such as theRI investigation) and that natural successional processes appear to be takingplace normally on the site. There were no jurisdictional wetlands identified onthe site property.

The observed terrestrial wildlife community on the landfill was typical of thatfound at successional fields. There were runways, nests, and scat of smallmammals in the herbaceous layer, a meadow vole sighted on the landfill, plus deertracks and scat, woodchuck burrows, and sightings of a song sparrow, Americangoldfinch, northern cardinal, black-capped chickadee, northern mockingbird,slate-colored junco, white-throated sparrow, common crow, and downy woodpecker,and a sharp-shinned hawk. All of the species mentioned are typical wintering.birds found in early successional field habitats. The presence of the sharp-shinned hawk is important because it suggests that a healthy population of smallmammals is present on the landfill. The terrestrial wildlife community is

! ' !

expected to change as the vegetation changes.

6-149

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

6.2.1.2 Aquatic Ecology

The streams in the .v.icinity of the landfill were mostly first-order streams,except for Reeders Run, which is second-order. The streams are relatively small,fast running and cold, with a high ratio of riffles and runs to pools. Thestreams in the area of BUTZ LANDFILL are ranked as High Quality Cold Water FishStreams (HQ-CWF) by the State of Pennsylvania. The impressive quantity anddiversity of aquatic life in the streams reflect this rating. The diversity oforganisms found within the samples was not, however, entirely represented in thefamily-level taxonomy used for this analysis. Some families contained someconspicuously different species. The Chironomidae, for example, had severalfree-living species and two conspicuously different case-making species. Therewere also more than one species of Tipulidae, Limnephilidae, Hydropsychidae,Ephemerellidae, and other taxa represented in the samples.

EPT abundance ranged from 25 to 83% of the total individuals collected, with theaverage being 62%. EPT diversity ranged from 2 to 11 families, with the averagebeing 7.

A strong representation of filter feeders/collectors was present at most of theecological sample locations. A moderate representation of scrapers was presentat the ecological sampling stations. ECOL-05, ECOL-11 and ECOL-07 had highpopulations of scrapers. The high scrapers populations at the above-mentionedstations may be due to the presence of a different food source utilized by thescrapers.

The higher trophic levels were well represented in the samples, with several taxaof predators (Corydalidae, Dytiscidae, Odonata) and parasites (Ancylidae,Hirudinea) present.

6.2.2 Identification of Potential Receptors

Part of the risk analysis is to identify the receptors that may potentially beaffected by site-related conditions. Potential receptors include vegetationand/or wildlife. Prior to determining potential receptors, possible routes of

6-150flR300868

', TCN 4204! RI REPORT: ! REV. #1

j ; j 30/SEPT/91

exposure must first be identified. The following discussion describes the routesof exposure and potential receptors within the ecological study area.

6.2.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Speciesi

A list of endangered animal species for Monroe County provided by thePennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) is given in Table 6-61.Additional species that could potentially occur in the county are given in thepotential receptors list (Table 6-62 and Table 6-63). The PNDI has only a single•record of a threatened or endangered animal species in the vicinity of the site,

; I

an Osprey. The date or precise location of the sighting was not provided, onlythat the record is from the Pocono Pines quadrangle. The BUTZ LANDFILL site lieswithin the Mount Pocono Quadrangle. In addition, osprey are fish-eating hawksand are not likely to come in close contact with the site. The PNDI also notedthat the Frosted Elfin Butterfly (Incesalia iras), a species without a listedstatus but monitored by the PNDI, has been collected in open areas on CamelbackMountain two miles west of the site. No animal species listed as threatened orendangered are known to be associated directly with the site..

The PNDI also had records of a plant of concern, Slender Mountain-Ricegrass(Orzopsis pungens), on the Mount Pocono Quadrangle. This plant, listed as rarein Pennsylvania, had been collected in the area of Tannersville in the past,however, there has not been any confirmed records of this plant within 3 milesof the landfill in "recent years" (PNDI, 1991). There were no records ofthreatened or endangered species on the site itself. The small whorled pogonia(Isotria medeoloides), which is Federally listed as endangered, has adistribution that extends into Monroe County (USFWS, 1991), but the PNDI had norecords of this species in the Mount Pocono Quadrangle. There were no plants ofconcern identified on the site during the terrestrial habitat or wetlandsassessment. Because there does not appear to be any threatened or endangeredspecies that are likely to be impacted by the site, threatened and endangeredspecies will not be given further specific consideration.

6-151

! 3R3GQ869

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-61ANIMALS OF SPECIAL CONCERN IN MONROE COUNTY1

Common Name

MammalsBobcatHare, SnowshoeOtter, River

BirdsBittern, AmericanBluebird, EasternBobwhite, NorthernEagle, BaldHarrier, NorthernHawk, CoopersHawk, Red-ShoulderedHeron, Great BlueMartin, Purpl*OspreyOwl, Short-EaredRail, KingSandpiper, UplandSparrow, Henslow'sTern, BlackWoodpecker, Red-HeadedWren, Marsh

ReptllosTurtle, Bog

Scientific Nama

Pel is rufusLepus americanusLutra canadensis

Botaurus lentiqinosusSialiasialisColinus virgjnianusHaliaeetus LeucocephalusCircus cyaneusAccioiter cooperiiButeo lineatusArdea herodiasProgne subisPandion HaliaetusAsio flammeusRallus eleqansBatramia lonqicaudaAmmodramus henslowiiChlidonias nigerMelanerpes ervthrocephalusCistothorus palustris

Clemrnys rnuhlenbergji

Status2

sscsscssc

TSSCsscESSCsscsscsscsscEEETTTSSCssc

E

Information obtained from the Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory, Bureauof Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.

2E=Endangered, T=Threatened, SSC=Species of Special Concern.

6-152

3R30087Q

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV #130/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-621

POTENTIAL TERRESTRIAL RECEPTORS IN THE BUTZ STUDY AREA

Common Name || Scientific NameMAMMALS2MARSUPIALS

OPOSSUM, VIRGINIA

SHREWSSHREW, MASKEDSHREW, WATERSHREW, SMOKYSHREW, SHORT-TAIL

MOLESMOLE, EASTERNMOLE, HAIRY-TAILEDMOLE, STAR-NOSED

BATSBAT, LITTLE BROWNBAT, PYGMY

BAT, BIG BROWNBAT, REDBAT, HOARY

RABBITSCOTTONTAIL, EASTERNHARE, SNOWSHOE

RODENTSCHIPMUNKWOODCHUCKSQUIRREL, GRAY

SQUIRREL, REDSQUIRREL, SOUTHERN FLYINGSQUIRREL, NORTHERN FLYINGMOUSE, DEERMOUSE, WHITE-FOOTED

VOLE, RED-BACKEDVOLE, MEADOW

VOLE, PINEMUSKRATLEMMING, SOUTHERN BOG

Di del phi's marsupial isvirqlm'ana

i=i.

Sorex cinereus cinereusSorex palustris albibarblsSorex fumeus fumeusBlarina brevicauda kirtlandi

, Parascalops breweriSeal opus aquaticus aquaticusCondylura cristata cristata

Mvotis lucifuqus luci'fugusPipjstrellus subflavus

subflavusEptesicus fuscus fuscusLasiurus boreal is boreal isLasiurus cinereus cinereus

i

Svlvilaqus floridanus mallurusLepus americanus virqinianus

Tamias striatus fisheriMarmota monax monaxSciurus carol inensis

pennsylvanicusTamiasciurus hudsonicus loquaxGlaucomvs volans volansGlaucomys safari nus macrotisPeromyscus maniculatusPeromvscus leucopus

noveboracensisClethrionomvs qapoeri qapperiMicrotus pennsylvanicus

pennsylvanicusPitymys oinetorum scaloosoidesOndatra zibethicus macrddonSvnaptomvs cooperi cooperi

6-153 :I ^300871

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV #130/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-62 cont'd


Common NameMAMMALS cont'd

RODENTS cont'dRAT, NORWAYMOUSE, HOUSEMOUSE, MEADOW JUMPINGMOUSE, WOODLAND JUMPINGPORCUPINEBEAVER

CARNIVORESCOYOTEFOX, REDFOX, GRAYBEAR, BLACKRACCOONERMINEWEASEL, LONG-TAILEDMINKSKUNK, STRIPEDOTTER, RIVERBOBCAT

DEERDEER, WHITE-TAILED

BIROS3GREBES

GREBE, PIED-BILLEDCORMORANTS

CORMORANT, DOUBLE-CRESTEDHERONS, BITTERNS

HERON, GREAT-BLUEHERON, GREEN-BACKEDHERON, LITTLE-BLUEBITTERN, AMERICANIBIS, WHITE-FACED

Scientific Name

Rattus norveqicus norveqicusMus musculusZaous hudsonius americanusNaoaeozaous insiqm's insiqnisErethizon dorsatum dorsatumCastor canadensls canadensis

Cam's latransVulpes vulpes fulvaUrocvon cinereoargenteusUrsus americanus americanusProcvon lotor lotorMustela erminea cicoqnam'iMustela frenata noveboracensisMustela vison minkMephitis mephitis m'qraLutra canadensis canadensisLynx rufus rufus

Odocoileus virqinianus

Podilvmbus podiceps

Phalacrocorax auritus

Ardea herodiasButorides striatusEqretta caeruleaBotaurus lentlqinosusPleqadis chihi

6-154

flR300872

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV #130/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-62 cont'd


Common Name

BIRDSWATERFOWL

SWAN, MUTEGOOSE, CANADAGOOSE, WHITE-FRONTEDDUCK, MALLARDDUCK, AMERICAN BLACKGADWALLTEAL, GREEN-WINGEDTEAL, BLUE-WINGEDWIDGEON, AMERICANDUCK, WOODREDHEADDUCK, RING-NECKEDCANVASBACKSCAUP, GREATERSCAUP, LESSERGOLDENEYE, COMMONBUFFLEHEADSCOTER, BLACKDUCK, RUDDYMERGANSER, HOODEDMERGANSER, COMMONMERGANSER, RED-BREASTED

VULTURESVULTURE, TURKEYVULTURE, BLACK

HAWKS, FALCONS, EAGLESGOSHAWK, NORTHERNHAWK, SHARP-SHINNEDHAWK, COOPER'SHAWK, RED-TAILEDHAWK, RED-SHOULDEREDHAWK, BROAD-WINGED

Scientific Name

Cygnus olarBranta canadensisChen albifronsAnas platyrhvnchosAnas rubn'pesAnas streperaAnas creccaAnas discorsAnas amen'canusAix sponsaAvthya americanaAvthva coll an' sAvthva valisinerlaAvthva maniaAvthva af finisBucephala clangulaBucephala albeolaMelam'tta ni'graOxvura jamalcenslsLophodvtes cucullatusMerqus merganserMergus serrator

Cathartes auraCoragyps atratus

Acclplter gentlllsAcclplter strlatusAcci piter cooperliButeo .lamaicenslsButeo llneatusButeo platvpterus

6-155 ;

I 1^300873

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV #130/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-62 cont'd


Common Name

BIRDS cont'dHAWKS, FALCONS, EAGLES cont'd

EAGLE, GOLDENEAGLE, BALDHARRIER, NORTHERNOSPREYFALCON, PEREGRINMERLINKESTRAL, AMERICAN

GROUSEGROUSE, RUFFED

QUAILBOBWHITE, NORTHERNPHEASANT, RING-NECKED

TURKEYSTURKEY, WILD

RAILSRAIL, KINGRAIL, VIRGINIASORARAIL, YELLOWMOREH EN, COMMONCOOT, AMERICAN

PLOVERSPLOVER, SEMIPALMATEDKILLDEERPLOVER, LESSER-GOLDENPLOVER, BLACK-BELLIED

SANDPIPERSWOODCOCK, AMERICANSNIPE, COMMONSANDPIPER, UPLANDSANDPIPER, SPOTTEDPHALAROPE, RED-NECKEDSANDPIPER, SOLITARYYELLOWLEGS, GREATERYELLOWLEGS, LESSERSANDPIPER, SEMIPALMATEDSANDPIPER, PECTORALDUNLINDOWITCHER, SHORT-BILLED

Scientific Name

Aqulla chrvsaetosHaliaeetus leucocephalusCircus cyanusPandton haliaetusFalco pereqrlnusFalco columbariusFalco sparverius

Bonasa umbellus

Coli'nus virqlm'anusPhaslanus colchicusMeleagris qaTlopavo

Rail us eleqansRail us 1 inn col aPorzana CarolinaCoturnicops noveboracensisGalling] a chloropusFulica americanaCharadrius semi pal matusCharadrius vociferusPluvial is dominicaPluvial is sauatarola

Scolopax minorGallinaqo qallinaqoBartramia lonqicaudaActitis maculariaPhalaropus lobatusTrinqa solitariaTringa melanoleucaTrinqa flavipesCalidris pus ill aCalidris melanotosCalidris alpinaLimnodromus qriseus

6-156

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV #130/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-62 cont'd

POTENTIAL- TERRESTRIAL RECEPTORS IN THE BUTZ STUDY AREA

Common NameBIRDS cont'dGULLS

GULL, HERRINGGULL, RING-BILLEDGULL, BONAPARTE'S

TERNSTERN, COMMONTERN, BLACK

PIGEONS, DOVESDOVE, ROCKDOVE, MOURNING

CUCKOOSCUCKOO, YELLOW-BILLEDCUCKOO, BLACK-BILLED

OWLSOWL, GREAT HORNEDOWL, BARREDOWL, EASTERN SCREECH-OWL, LONG- EAREDOWL, SHORT- EAREDOWL, NORTHERN SAW-WHET

NIGHTHAWKSWHIP-POOR-WILLCOMMON NIGHTHAWK

SWIFTSSWIFT, CHIMNEY

HUMMINGBIRDSHUMMINGBIRD, RUBY-THROATED

KINGFISHERSKINGFISHER, BELTED

WOODPECKERSFLICKER, NORTHERNWOODPECKER, PILEATEDWOODPECKER, RED-BELLIEDWOODPECKER, RED-HEADEDSAPSUCKER, YELLOW-BELLIEDWOODPECKER, HAIRYWOODPECKER, DOWNY

Scientific Name

Larus arqentatusLarus delawarensisLarus Philadelphia

Sterna hirundoChlldom'as nigerColumba liviaZenaida macroura

1

Coccvzus americanusCoccvzus ervthropthalmus

Bubo virqinianusStrix van' aOtus asioAsio otusAsio flammeusAeqolius acadicusCaprimulqus vociferusChordeiles minor

i

Chaetura pelaqicaArchil ochus colubrlsCervlealc.von

i

Colaptes auratusDrvocopus pileatusMelanerpes carol inusMelanerpes ervthrocephalusSphvrapicus variusPicoldes villosusPicoi'des seal an' s

i

6-157 " i! : flR3QG875

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV II30/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-62 cont'd


Common Name

BIRDS cont'dFLYCATCHERS

KINGBIRD, EASTERNFLYCATCHER, GREAT-CRESTEDPHOEBE, EASTERNFLYCATCHER, YELLOW-BELLIEDFLYCATCHER, ACADIANFLYCATCHER, WILLOWFLYCATCHER, ALDERFLYCATCHER, LEASTPEEWEE, EASTERN WOODFLYCATCHER, OLIVE-SIDED

SWALLOWSLARK, HORNEDSWALLOW, BARNSWALLOW, CLIFFSWALLOW, TREESWALLOW, BANKSWALLOW, ROUGH-WINGEDMARTIN, PURPLE

JAYS, CROWSJAY, BLUECROW, AMERICANCROW, FISH

TITMICE, CHICKADEESCHICKADEE, BLACK-CAPPEDCHICKADEE, CAROLINATITMOUSE, TUFTED

NUTHATCHESNUTHATCH, WHITE-BREASTEDNUTHATCH, RED-BREASTED

CREEPERSCREEPER, BROWN

WRENSWREN, HOUSEWREN, WINTERWREN, CAROLINAWREN, MARSH

Scientific Name

Tyrannus tvrannusMviarchus crim'tusSayorm's phoebeEmpidonax flaviventrlsEmpidonax virescensEmoidonax trail iiEmpidonax alnorumEmpidonax minimusContopus virensContopus boreal is

Eremophila alpestrisHirundo rusticaHirundo pyrrhonotaTachvcineta bicolorRiparia ripariaStelqidoptervx ruficollisProqne subis

Cvanocitta cristataCorvus brachvrhvnchosCorvus ossifragusParus atricapillusParus carol inensisParus bicolorSitta carol inensisSitta canadensisCerthia americanaTroglodytes aedonTroglodytes troglodytesThrvothorus 1 udi vi ci anus ,Cistothorus palustris

6-158SR300876

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV il30/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-62 cont'd


Common Name |( Scientific Name

BIROS cont'dTHRUSHES

MOCKINGBIRD, NORTHERNCATBIRD, GREYTHRASHER, BROWNROBIN, AMERICANTHRUSH, WOODTHRUSH, HERMITTHRUSH, SWAINSON'STHRUSH, GRAY-CHEEKEDVEERYBLUEBIRD, EASTERN

KINGLETSGNATCATCHER, BLUE-GRAYKINGLET, GOLDEN-CROWNEDKINGLET, RUBY-CROWNED

PIPITSPIPIT, WATER

WAXWINGSWAXWING, CEDAR

SHRIKESSHRIKE, LOGGERHEAD

STARLINGSSTARLING, EUROPEAN

VIREOSVIREO, WHITE-EYEDVIREO, YELLOW-THROATEDVIREO, SOLITARYVIREO, RED-EYEDVIREO, PHILADELPHIAVIREO, WARBLING

WOOD WARBLERSWARBLER, BLACK-AND-WHITEWARBLER, PROTHONOTARYWARBLER, WORM-EATINGWARBLER, GOLDEN-WINGEDWARBLER, BLUE-WINGEDWARBLER, TENNESSEEWARBLER, NASHVILLEPARULA, NORTHERN

Mimus polyql ottosDumetella carol inensisToxostoma rufumTurdus mlqraton'usHvlocichla musteli'naCatharus quttatusCatharus ustulatusCatharus minimusCatharus fuscescensSi alis si alis

Polioptila caemleaRequlus satrapaRequliis calendula

i

Anthus spinolettaBombycilla cedrorum

Lanius ludivicianus

Sturnus vulqaris

Vireo qriseusVireo flavifronsVireo solitariusVireo olivaceusVireo philadelphicusVireo qilvus

Mniotilta van' aProtonotan'a citreaHelnritheros vermivorusVermivora chrysopteraVermivora pinusVermivora pereqrinaVermivora ruficapillaParula americana

6-159N3R300877

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV #130/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-62 cont'd


Common Name

BIRDS cont'dWARBLERS

WARBLER, YELLOWWARBLER, MAGNOLIAWARBLER, CAPE MAYWARBLER, BLACK-THROATED BLUEWARBLER, YELLOW-RUMPEDWARBLER, BLACK-THROATED GREENWARBLER, CERULEANWARBLER, BLACKBURNIANWARBLER, YELLOW-THROATEDWARBLER, CHESTNUT-SIDEDWARBLER, BAY-BREASTEDWARBLER, BLACKPOLLWARBLER, PINEWARBLER, KIRKLAND'SWARBLER, PRAIRIEOVENBIRDWATERTHRUSH, NORTHERNWATERTHRUSH, LOUISIANAWARBLER, KENTUCKYWARBLER, MOURNINGYELLOWTHROAT, COMMONCHAT, YELLOW-BREASTEDWARBLER, HOODEDWARBLER, WILSON'SWARBLER, CANADAREDSTART, AMERICAN

WEAVER FINCHESSPARROW, HOUSESPARROW, EUROPEAN-TREE

BLACKBIRDSBOBOLINKMEADOWLARK, EASTERNBLACKBIRD, RED-WINGEDORIOLE, ORCHARDORIOLE, NORTHERNBLACKBIRD, RUSTYGRACKLE, COMMONCOWBIRD, BROWN-HEADED

Scientific Name

Dendroica petechiaDendroica magnoliaDendroica tigrinaDendroica caerulescensDendroica coronataDendroica virensDendroica ceruleaDendroica fuscaDendroica domim'caDendroica pensylvanicaDendroica castaneaDendroica striataDendroica pinusDendroica kirklandiiDendroica discolorSeiurus aurocapillusSeiurus noveboracensisSeiurus motacillaOporornis formosusOporornis PhiladelphiaGeothlvpis trichasIcteria virensWilsonia citrinaWilsonia ousillaWilsonia canadensisSetophaqa ruti cilia

Passer domesticusPasser montanus

Dolichonvx orvzivorusSturnella maqnaAqelaius phoeniceusIcterus spun' usIcterus qalbulaEuphagus carol inusQuiscalus guisculaMolothrus ater

6-160

flR300878

TCN 4204i RI REPORT

REV #130/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-62 cont'd


Common Name || Scientific Name

BIRDS cont'dTANAGERS

TANAGER, SCARLETTANAGER, SUMMER

FINCHES, SPARROWSCARDINAL, NORTHERNGROSBEAK, ROSE-BREASTEDBUNTING, INDIGODICKCISSELGROSBEAK, EVENINGFINCH, PURPLEFINCH, HOUSEREDPOLL, COMMONSISKIN, PINEGOLDFINCH, AMERICANCROSSBILL, REDCROSSBILL, WHITE-WINGEDTOWHEE, RUFOUS-SIDEDSPARROW, SAVANNAHSPARROW, HENS LOW'SSPARROW, SHARP-TAILEDJUNCO, DARK-EYEDSPARROW, AMERICAN TREESPARROW, CHIPPINGSPARROW, FIELDSPARROW, WHITE-CROWNEDSPARROW, WHITE-THROATEDSPARROW, FOXSPARROW, LINCOLN'SSPARROW, SWAMPSPARROW, SONGLONGSPUR, LAPLANDBUNTING, SNOW

1

Piranqa olivaceaPiranoa rubraCardinal is cardinal isPheucticus sinuatusPas sen' na cyaneaSpiza americanaCoccothraustes vespertinusCarpodacus purpureusCarpodacus mexicanusCarduelis flammeaCarduelis oinusCarduelis tristisLoxia curvi rostraLoxia leucopteraPipilo ervthrophthalmusPasserculus sandwichensisAmmodramiis henslowiiAmmodramus caudacutusJunco hyemalisSpizella arboreaSpizella passerinaSpizella DusillaZonotrichia leucophrysZonotrichia albicollisPasserella iliacaMelosoiza lincolniiMelospiza qeorgianaMelospiza melodiaCalcarius lapponicusPlectrophenax nival is

6-161

: flR300879

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV #130/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-62 cont'd


Common Name

REPTILES4TURTLES

TURTLE, WOODTURTLE, EASTERN BOX

SNAKESSNAKE, BROWNSNAKE, NORTHERN RED-BELLIEDSNAKE, COMMON GARTERSNAKE, EASTERN RIBBONSNAKE, RING-NECKSNAKE, BLACK RATSNAKE, EASTERN MILKRATTLESNAKE, TIMBER

Scientific Name

Clemmys insculptaTerrapene CarolinaStoreria dekayiStoreria occipitomaculataThamnophis sirtalisThamnophis sauritusDiadophis punctatusElaphe obsoletaLampropeltis triangulumCrotalus horridus

1. Receptors list based primarily on information furnished by the PennsylvaniaGame Commission from the Pennsylvania Fish and Wildlife Data Base.

2. Scientific names and taxonomic order for mammals follow Doutt, J.K., C.A.Heppenstall, and J.E. Guilday. 1977. Mammals of Pennsylvania. PennsylvaniaGame Commission, Harrisburg, PA. 288 pp.3. Scientific names and taxonomic order for birds follow Peterson, R.T. 1980.A Field Guild to the Eastern Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 384 pp.

4. Scientific names and taxonomic order to reptiles and amphibians based onConant, R. 1975. A Field guide to Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton MifflinCompany, Boston. 429 pp.

6"162 flR300880

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-631

POTENTIAL AQUATIC RECEPTORS IN THE BUTZ STUDY AREA2

Common Name

FISH3EELS

EEL, AMERICANSALMON, TROUT

TROUT, RAINBOWTROUT, BROWN

PIKEPICKEREL, CHAIN

MINNOWSCARP, COMMONDACE, BLACK-NOSE

SUCKERSCHUBSUCKER, CREEKSUCKER, WHITE

CATFISHMADTOM, MARGINED

KILLIFISHKILLIFISH, BANDED

SUNFISH, BASSBASS, ROCKSUNFISH, BLUE-SPOTTEDSUNFISH, GREENSUNFISH, REDBREASTBLUEGILL

PERCH, DARTERSDARTER, TESSELLATEDDARTER, SHIELDPERCH, YELLOW

AMPHIBIANSMOLE SALAMANDERS

SALAMANDER, MARBLEDSALAMANDER, JEFFERSONSALAMANDER, SPOTTED

NEWTSNEWT, EASTERN

LUNGLESS SALAMANDERSSALAMANDER, NORTHERN DUSKYSALAMANDER, MOUNTAIN DUSKY

Scientific Namej

Angullla rostrata1

Sal mo gairdneriSalmo trutta

Esox niger

Cyprinus carpi oRhinichthys atratulus

Erimyzon oblongusCatostomus commersoniNoturus insignis

i

Fundulus diaphanusAmbloplites rupestrisEnneacanthus gloriosusLepomis cyanellusLepomis aun'tusLepomis macrochirus

iEtheostoma oldstediPercina peltataPerca flavescens

Ambystoma opacumAmbystoma jeffersonianumAmbystoma maculatum

i

Notophthalmus viridescensDesmognathus fuscusDesmognathus ochrophaeus

6-163

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-63 cont'd

POTENTIAL AQUATIC RECEPTORS IN THE BUTZ STUDY AREA

Common Name |j_ Scientific NameAMPHIBIANS cont'd

WOODLAND SALAMANDERSSALAMANDER, RED-BACKEDSALAMANDER, SLIMY

SPRING AND RED SALAMANDERSSALAMANDER, NORTHERN SPRINGSALAMANDER, NORTHERN RED

BROOK SALAMANDERSSALAMANDER, NORTHERN TWO-LINEDSALAMANDER, LONGTAIL

FROGSBULLFROGPEEPER, NORTHERN SPRING

REPTILESTURTLES

TURTLE, COMMON SNAPPINGSTINKPOTTURTLE, SPOTTEDTURTLE, BOGTURTLE, MIDLAND PAINTED

SNAKESSNAKE, NORTHERN WATER

Plethodon cinereusPlethodon glutinosus

Gyrinophilus porphyriticusPseudotriton ruberEurycea bislineataEurycea longicauda

Rana catesbeianaHyla crucifer

Chelydra serpentinaSternotherus odoratusClemmys guttataClemmys muhlenbergiChrysemys pi eta

Nerodia sipedon

1. Receptors list based primarily on information furnished by the PennsylvaniaGame Commission from the Pennsylvania Fish and Wildlife Data Base.2. This list is in addition to that found in Table 4-7.

3. Taxonomic order based on Werner, R.G. 1980. Freshwater Fishes of New YorkState. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY. 186 pp.

6-164flR300882

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

6.2.2.2 Potential Terrestrial Receptors

Potential terrestrial, receptors would include plants and animals that occur on,or in the general vicinity of, the site. On the landfill itself, potentialreceptors could include species that are typically found in early successionalfield habitats. Mammalian species would include the meadow jumping mouse, white-footed mouse, meadow vole, shorttail shrew, eastern cottontail, woodchuck, andwhite-tailed deer. Avian species may include the song sparrow, white-throatedsparrow, goldfinch, house finch, juncos, common crow, cardinal. The sparrows,finches and cardinals are of particular importance because these speciesfrequently feed directly off the ground. Potential plant receptors could include•any of the plant species listed in Table 4-6 or listed in the wetlandsevaluation. A comprehensive receptors list was developed from informationobtained from the Pennsylvania Game Commission Fish and Wildlife Data Base forMonroe County (Table 6-59 and Table 6-60).

Areas surrounding the ecological sampling station and bordering the landfill aremostly woodlands. Potential receptors expected in this area could include thedeer mouse, white-footed mouse, eastern striped skunk, red fox, gray squirrel,red squirrel, fox squirrel, wooded jumping mouse, eastern chipmunk, and white-tailed deer. Avian representatives could include the black-capped chickadee,tufted titmouse, nuthatches, and various raptors such as owls and the sharp-shinned hawk.

6.2.2.3 Aquatic Receptorsi i

!

The aquatic organisms listed in Table 4-7, Table 6-62, and Table 6-63, areconsidered potential aquatic receptors. This list is comprised of all theaquatic organisms found at all of the ecological sampling stations.

6.2.3 Exposure Assessment

The purpose of the exposure assessment is to measure or estimate the potentialintensity, frequency and duration of exposures of an agent of concern toidentified receptors. The exposure is compared to known levels occurring in theenvironment from which potential ecological risk is evaluated.

: , i

6-165

AR3Q0883

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

6.2.3.1 Terrestrial Exposure Assessment

Potential exposure of terrestrial wildlife to contaminants on the landfill islimited to the surface soils. Direct and/or indirect ingestion of surface soilsand absorption through contact are the routes of exposure related to surfacesoils. Direct ingestion may occur by invertebrates, such as worms and somelarva, consuming in soils, or by birds and mammals preening feathers or peltswhich have contaminated soil attached to them. Indirect ingestion may occur bymammals and birds feeding on invertebrates from the soil, feeding on plants whichhave taken contaminants into their tissue through the roots, burrowing throughcontaminated soil, or ingesting flying insects that have emerged fromcontaminated soils. Absorption may occur by through the skin by direct contactwith contaminated soil.

The terrestrial exposure will be evaluated by comparing on-site surface soilconcentrations of organic and inorganic compounds to those detected in thebackground surface soil samples. Those compounds that are elevated abovebackground will have their maximum concentration detected on-site used as theassumed worst case exposure. The toxicity of these compounds will be furtherevaluated during the toxicity assessment.

Inorganics - Two upgradient background samples were taken at the BUTZ LANDFILL(SS-1 and SS-2). The soil at SS-2 had semi-volatiles (total semi-volatiles = 470ug/kg) and elevated manganese (1,390 mg/kg), therefore SS-1 will be used solelyas a background reference. The majority of inorganic compounds, i.e., heavymetals, found in the surface soils are similar in concentration to those foundin background samples.

The background concentration for copper was 26.2 mg/kg at SS-01. All surfacesoil sample locations had comparable copper concentrations detected except SS-7which had 77.3 mg/kg copper. The background concentration for lead was 16.9mg/kg. Again SS-7 had a slightly elevated concentration at 55.1 mg/kg lead, withthe average on-site concentration being 26.1 mg/kg lead. Manganese concentrationon the landfill and vicinity ranged from 363-998 mg/kg, with the average being510 mg/kg. The background concentration was 268 mg/kg manganese. The highestconcentration on the landfill was at SS-9. Zinc concentrations on the landfill

6-1665R30088I4

; " TCN 4204: : RI REPORTI i ; REV. #1; j 30/SEPT/91.

and vicinity ranged from 51.6 to 341 mg/kg, with an average of 136 mg/kg. Thebackground concentration was 81.6 mg/kg. Exposure to elevated levels of theabove mentioned heavy metals is thought to be minimal and does not warrantmodeling, however a discussion on the toxicity of these metals will follow.

!

Aluminum and iron were comparable to background levels and high concentrationsappear to be naturally occurring. The aluminum and iron in the study areaaverage 13,900 and 19,600 mg/kg, respectively. The background concentration foraluminum and iron were 13,700 and 18,200 mg/kg, respectively. Because there

iappears to be a healthy terrestrial community in the area surrounding the BUTZLANDFILL, exposure to aluminum and iron at the existing levels do not appear tobe having detrimental effects.

j

Volatile Organics - Acetone was detected at surface soil sample SS-2 in aconcentration of 140 ug/kg. No other volatile organics were detected in thesurface soil samples. Exposure to the levels of volatile organics detected inthe surface soils at the BUTZ LANDFILL is not likely to constitute anenvironmental risk.

Semi-Volatile Qrganics - Four semi-volatile organic compounds were detected atlow levels in the surface soil samples. Fluoranthracene was detected at SS-2 ata concentration of 180 ug/kg. Pyrene was detected at SS-2 at a concentration of150 ug/kg. £is(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected at SS-7 and SS-8 atconcentration of 110 and 120 ug/kg, respectively. Butyl benzylphthalate wasdetected at SS-8 at a concentration of 170 ug/kg. Exposure to the level of semi-volatile organic compounds detected in the surface soils at the BUTZ LANDFILL isnot likely to constitute an environmental risk.

i

PCB/Pesticides - No PCBs or pesticides were detected at the BUTZ LANDFILL,therefore, there is no known exposure risk to these compounds.

i , |

6.2.3.2 Aquatic Exposure Assessment't

Surface water and sediment data taken from the ecological sampling stations wereused to evaluate the exposure of the aquatic organisms to contaminants ofconcern. It was assumed that the concentration of compounds detected at the

6-167 . ,. • i I' ; I

: AR30Q885

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

sample stations represent the average concentration in that stream section, andthat the aquatic organisms were exposed' to the detected concentrationscontinuously. Surface water and sediment data that were collected at locationsother than the ecological sampling stations are incorporated into the discussionduring the risk analysis.

Exposure to contaminants in the water column offers two routes of exposure; thefirst being ingestion through mouthparts of organisms and gills, and the secondthrough dermal absorption. Exposure to sediments offers two routes of exposure;the first being direct and incidental ingestion during feeding, and the secondfrom dermal absorption.

The aquatic exposure was evaluated by comparing surface water and sedimentconcentrations of organic and inorganic compounds to those detected in thebackground surface water and sediment samples taken at the reference station(Stations 15 and 16). Those compounds that are elevated above background willhave their maximum detected concentration used as the assumed worst caseexposure. The toxicity of these compounds was further evaluated during thetoxicity assessment. Comparisons to applicable Water Quality Criteria were alsoevaluated during the toxicity assessment. During the assessment of risk, thepreviously mentioned discussions were combined with the information gained fromthe benthic macroinvertebrate collection and stream habitat evaluation (Section4.5), from which the overall aquatic ecological risk assessment developed.

Water Quality - The water quality at the ecological sampling stations isconsidered excellent (see Table 4-2). The only parameters that may affectaquatic life are the total dissolved solids (247 mg/L) and total suspended solids(1,960 mg/kg) at SW-13. These parameters are extremely high compared to the othersampling stations. Grain size, sediment TOC, and sediment pH parameters appearto be typical of mountain spring-fed streams, and are considered good. ,

Inorganics - Aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, iron, and manganese were the primaryinorganics detected in the surface water samples collected at the ecologicalsampling stations. Copper, lead, and zinc were also detected in the surfacewater at low concentrations, however, those compounds were detected in the

6-168

, TCN 4204: RI REPORT

i : REV. #1I 30/SEPT/91

laboratory blank sample at comparable levels. Because of this, these compoundscannot be accurately evaluated. .

, i

Cadmium and silver were not detected in the surface water at any of theecological sampling stations, however, the laboratory detection limits (3.0 and5.0 ug/L, respectively) were above chronic Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria(PAWQC) (0.29 and 0.2 ug/L, respectively). Mercury was detected at three (3)sample stations at a concentration of 0.25 ug/L, however, the laboratory blanksample contained 0.43 ug/L. In addition, the chronic PAWQC for mercury is 0.012ug/L. The exposure to cadmium, silver, and mercury cannot be accuratelyassessed. Aluminum concentrations ranged from 80.1-170 ug/L total aluminum, withthe average being 103 ug/L total aluminum. Arsenic was detected at samplestation SW-13 (2.4 ug/L). Iron concentrations ranged from 62-749 ug/L totaliron, with the average concentration being 227 ug/L at the sample stations.Manganese was detected at the ecological sampling stations at levels ranging from10.1-2,010 ug/L, with the average being 252 ug/L. Sample station SW-13 had thehighest concentration of manganese. If the manganese concentration at SW-13 wereexcluded, the average concentration at the other ecological sampling stationswould be 32.4 ug/L. Station 13 offers the greatest exposure to manganese toaquatic organisms.

High concentrations of aluminum in the sediment appears to be naturallyoccurring. The concentrations in the sediment ranged from 4,290 to 14,700 mg/kgat the ecological sampling stations, with the average being 7,698 mg/kg. Thereference station (Station 15) had a concentration of 9,250 mg/kg. The highestconcentration was detected at station 13.

i: | I

•

Arsenic was detected in the sediment at all the ecological sampling stationsranging from 1.7 to 54.5 mg/kg, with the average being 14.6 mg/kg. The referencestation had a concentration of 8.2 mg/kg. The highest concentration was detected

iat station 13. :

; i

Beryllium was detected in the sediment at ecological sampling stations 02, 03,04, 05, 07, 09, 11, 13, and 15, ranging from 0.38 (SED-09) to 2.20 mg/kg (SED-02), with the average being 0.91 mg/kg. The reference station had aconcentration of 0.62 mg/kg. Station 13 had a concentration of 1.3 mg/kg.

6-169

! 8R3G0887

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Beryllium was not detected in any of the surface water samples (detection limit= 1.00 ug/1).

Iron was detected in the sediment at all the ecological sampling stations rangingfrom 7,400 to 52,700 mg/kg, with the average being 22,500 mg/kg. The referencestation had a concentration of 23,600 mg/kg. The highest concentration wasdetected at station 13.

Manganese was detected in the sediment at all the ecological sampling stationsranging from an estimated 121 to 17,800 mg/kg, with the average being 3,170mg/kg. The reference station had a concentration of 181 mg/kg. The highestconcentration was detected at station 02.

Cadmium was detected in the sediment above the laboratory detection limit atstation 02 at a concentration of 2.1 mg/kg. Lead concentrations in the sedimentat the ecological sampling stations were below 26 mg/kg, with the exception ofstations 02 and 09 where the concentrations were 49.6 and 266 mg/kg,respectively. Station 09 is thought to be receiving run-off from Route 715 anda gravel parking lot. The highest concentrations of chromium, copper, and nickelwere also detected at station 09 (49.4 mg/kg; est. 251 mg/kg; 56.3 mg/kg,respectively). Cobalt concentrations at stations 02 (48.1 mg/kg) and 13 (35.2mg/kg) were approximately three to four times that which was detected at thereference station (12.4 mg/kg).

Volatile Organics - Trichloroethylene (TCE) was detected in the surface water atfour of the ecological sampling stations. The TCE concentrations ranged from anestimated 1 ug/L (laboratory detection limit 5.0 ug/L) to 32 ug/L. Vinylchloride and chlorobenzene were both detected in the surface water (station 13)at estimated concentrations of 2 ug/L with the quantification limit of 10 ug/Land 5 ug/L, respectively. 1,2-Dichloroethylene was detected in the surface waterat station 13 at a concentration of 10 ug/L.

No volatile organics were detected in the sediment samples taken from theecological sampling stations.

6-170SR30Q888

'. TCN 4204| RI REPORT

: ! ' REV. #1: ' ! 30/SEPT/91

; ' !

Semi-Volatile Orqanics - No semi-volatile organics were detected in the surfacewater at any of the ecological sampling stations.

i

Anthracene was detected in the sediment at station 13 at an estimatedconcentration of 660 ug/kg. No other semi-volatiles were detected in thesediment samples at the ecological sampling stations, with the exception ofstation 09 where chrysene, fluoranthrene, indeno(l,2,3-c,cOpyrene, phenanthrene,pyrene, Ms(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(o)pyrene,benzo(6)fluoranthrene, benzo (fir,/?, z)perylene, and benzo (k) fluoranthrene weredetected at a total estimated concentration of 2.95 mg/kg.

i j, ' - ! !

Pesticides/PCBs - No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the surface water at anyof the ecological sampling stations. The pesticide 4,4-DDE was detected in thesediment at an estimated concentration of 18 ug/kg at station 04.

i i '

6.2.3.3 Exposure Summary

The potential exposure of terrestrial wildlife to contaminants found in thesurface soil on the BUTZ LANDFILL appears to be minimal. Heavy metals* such ascopper, lead, manganese, and zinc appear to be at levels slightly elevated abovebackground. It may be argued that the heavy metal levels on the landfill are hotsignificantly above background levels, however, it will be conservatively assumedthat the levels are elevated and they will be further evaluated. There is no"hot spot" associated with the heavy metals. The potential exposure of wildlifeto organic compounds on the landfill is not considered sufficient to cause anenvironmental risk. Although organic compounds have been detected at elevatedlevels in the subsurface soils, wildlife is not expected to have significantcontact with these isolated subsurface soils. It should be noted that thesubsurface soils where contaminants were identified consisted of hard crushedshale. This soil type is not expected to have significant soil invertebratesbecause of the invertebrates inability to burrow through such material>

i • '1The greatest risk to aquatic organisms is at station 13. Water quality appearsexcellent with the exception of the TDS and TSS at station 13. Potentialexposure of aquatic life to heavy metals, specifically manganese and iron, appearto be the predominant contaminants that offer an exposure risk. Pptential

6-171 !

; flR'300889

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

exposures to arsenic, aluminum, and possibly beryllium, are thought to beminimal. Exposure to heavy metals appears to be greatest at station 13, andoccurs to a lesser extent at station 02. Low levels of volatile organics werepresent in the surface water, however, the exposure is not considered to besignificant because PAWQC for the volatile organics detected are one to twoorders of magnitude greater than the highest detected levels at the ecologicalsampling stations. Potential exposure of aquatic life to semi-volatile compoundsis minimal. Semi-volatiles were only detected in the sediments at stations 13and 09. Anthracene was the only semi-volatile compound detected at station 13.Eleven (11) semi-volatiles were detected at low concentrations at station 09;however, these compounds were not detected in any of the upstream samplingstations. Station 09 is located adjacent to an unpaved parking lot used by autility company. The compounds detected at station 09 are believed to be non-site related. One pesticide (4,4-DDE) was detected in the sediment (station 04)upgradient from the site, but its reported value may not be accurate or precise.No evidence of stress to the aquatic community was observed and the pesticide isnot likely to be site related. Station 04 is located across from a privateresidence.

The greatest risk of exposure is in the vicinity of station 13. Exposure at theother ecological sampling stations and the landfill appears to be minimal.

6.2.4 Toxicity Assessment

The following sections describe the toxicity associated with the potentiallytoxic parameters previously discussed. The parameters selected were detectedabove background concentrations and warrant further toxicological evaluation.

Aluminum - Aluminum is toxic to only the aquatic community in the BUTZ LANDFILLstudy area. Aluminum may be both physically and metabolically toxic to aquaticlife, however, the dominant toxicological property has yet to be universallyagreed upon. Dietrich and Schlatter (1989) reported two forms of toxicityoccurring in rainbow trout when exposed to a pH of 5.4 and aluminumconcentrations greater than 200 ug/L. Metabolic toxicity included electrolyteloss possibly due to the interaction of aluminum with enzymes at the epithelialtight junction in the surface lining of the gills. The physical toxicity was

6-172SR3GQ890

TCN 4204RI REPORT

; REV. #1' ; I 30/SEPT/91

caused by labile aluminum (a modified form, of aluminum) covering the gillepithelium resulting in the impairment of gas exchange.

!; ! i| i I

Brown trout eggs appear to be tolerant to lov^pH and elevated levels of aluminum.The hatch!ings, however, appear to be highly sensitive, with an acute LC50 ofless than 20 ug/L aluminum (Weatherly et al., 1990). Cleveland et ql. (1989)reported a 30 day no-observed-effect-level (NOEL) for juvenile brook trout to be29 ug/L at pH 5.6, and 57 ug/L at pH 6.6. Aluminum will tend to flocculate whenpH reaches a critical value of 5.2 (Skelly and Loy, 1973). Thompson et al.(1988) reported a LC50 of 3800 ug/L for rainbow trout larvae in waters with a pHof 5.0. i i

iCorn et al. (1989) investigated the effects of aluminum and pH on five amphibians(northern leopard frog, Rana pipiens; boreal toad, Bufo boreas; chorus frog,Pseudacris triseriata; tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum; and the wood frog,Rana sylvatica). The 24 hr. LC50 pH for the various embryos ranged from 4.2 -4.8. The 24 hr. LC50 Al for the various embryos ranged from 100 - 400 ug/L.

iArsenic - Arsenic is toxic to only the aquatic community in the BUTZ LANDFILLstudy area. Arsenic can be bioconcentrated by organisms, but is not known to bebiomagnified in the food chain (Eisler, 1988). The toxicity of arsenic isdependent on the species, dose, route of exposure, and the form of arsenicinvolved. Arsenic is found in four oxidative forms that are either inorganic ororganic in nature. Inorganic arsenic and its trivalent form are more toxic thanorganic arsenic and its pentavalent form, respectively (Eisler, 1988).

; | •

' ' ' !Eisler (1988) stated that concentrations of arsenical compounds at concentrationof 19 to 48 ug/L in water, 120 mg/L in diets, and 1.3 to 5.0 mg/kg fresh weightin tissue was sufficient to cause adverse affects in aquatic organisms. Speharet al. (1980) reported Daphnia magna (Cladocera) having a 28 day LC5 of 0.96 mg/LAs3+ and a 28 day LC50 of 0.93 mg/L As5+. D. magna also had a reported 96 hr. LC50of 7.4 mg/L As5* (USEPA, 1980a). Studies involving total arsenic reportedtoxicity, involving D. magna, occurring at concentration as low as 1.0 mg/L(NRCC, 1978). Johnson and Finley (1980) reported a 96 hr LC50 of 38 mg/L As3* forPteronarcys californica (giant stonefly).

6-173

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Arsenic toxicity involving freshwater vertebrates also varies. USEPA (1985a)reported an 8 day EC50 of 4.5 mg/L for the marbled salamander, Ambystoma opacum.Effects included death and malformation in developing embryos. As3* has a 96hr. LC50 of 30-35 mg/L for adult bluegills, Lepomis macrochirus (Johnson andFinley, 1980; NAS, 1977). Brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, has a 96 hr. LC50of 15 mg/L As3* (USEPA, 1985a).

Arsenic toxicity to freshwater algae ranges from 48 ug/L As5* (14 day EC50,Scenedesmus obliquus) to 4.0 mg/L As3*, resulting in algal mortality anddecomposition (NRCC, 1978; USEPA, 1980a; USEPA, 1985a).

Arsenic was detected at approximately two (2) orders of magnitude below thechronic Pennsylvania Water Quality Criteria (PAWQC) of 190 ug/L As3*. However,arsenic was found at 11.2, 20.8, and 54.5 mg/kg at ECOL 05, 09, and 13,respectively (vs. 8.2 mg/kg at the background, ECOL-15).

Beryl 1 iurn - Beryllium is toxic to only with the aquatic community. Beryllium wasdetected in the sediments only. Little is known about the toxicity of berylliumwith regard to aquatic organisms. Beryllium is known to bioconcentrate, butbioconcentration factors are not known (Bolten et al. 1987). Bolten et al.(1987) used a bioconcentration factor of 19 based on USEPA (1980b) for theiranalysis. Beryllium is known to be more toxic in soft water than in hard water(USEPA, 1976).

The USEPA water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life for berylliumis 130 ug/1 (acute toxicity) and 5.3 ug/1 (chronic toxicity). The PAWQC for theprotection of aquatic life is 0.05 x 96 hr LC50 of a representative species(acute toxicity) and 0.01 x 96 hr LC50 of a representative species (chronictoxicity). The USEPA criteria was based on the work of Tarzwell and Henderson(1960), Slonim and Ray (1975), and Slonim and Slonim (1973). Tarzwell andHenderson (1960) obtained 96 hr LC50 values for fathead minnows that ranged from0.15 mg/1 beryllium (tested as a sulfate) in soft water (20 mg/1 CaC03, totalalkalinity of 18 mg/1, and pH of 7.4), to 20 mg/1 (as a nitrate) in hard water(400 mg/1 CaC03, total alkalinity of 360 mg/1, pH of 8.2). Slonim and Ray (1975)obtained 96 hour LD50 values on two species of salamander larvae (Ambystoma Spp.)of 26.3 mg/1 beryllium in hard water (400 mg/1 CaC03), and 4.7 mg/1 in soft water

6-174

i : TCN 4204; ; RI REPORT

• , ! REV. #1; | 30/SEPT/91

j

(20 to 25 mg/1 CaC03). Slonim and Slom'm (1973) obtained 96 hour LD50 values of20.0, 13.7, 6.1, and 0.16 mg/1 for common guppies (Poecilia reticulata) conductedat a hardness of 400, .275, 150, and 22 mg/1 as CaC03 respectively. Additionally,Williams Dusenbery (1990) obtained a 96-hour LC50 value for the nematodeCaenorhabditis elegans of 0.14 mg/1.

Copper - Copper is toxic to only the terrestrial community in the BUT^ LANDFILLstudy area. Copper is a normal constituent in virtually all animal tissue.

i

Copper is believed to be involved with iron metabolism (Browning, 1969).i

Copper itself is less toxic than copper salts. Ingestion of the salts, such ascopper acetate and especially copper suIfate may be acutely toxic at relativelylow doses (Browning, 1969). Copper poisoning causes acute liver and kidneydamage, fluid in the lung and abdomen, and hemorrhaging into the digestive(alimentary) tracts (Ishmael et al., 1969). Sholl (1957) reported animalsingesting 3 ounces of one percent copper sulfate produced severe inflammation ofthe gastrointestinal tract resulting in abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhea.Copper toxicity varies between mammals according to different physiologicallevels between species. Ruminants animals are more susceptible to coppertoxicity than nonruminant animals (NAS, 1977). Cows, for example, possess ahigher resistance (225 kg daily forms chronic toxicity) to copper then sheep (27ppm fatal dose; Adamson et al., 1969, Tait et al., 1971). The toxic oral doseis typically 25-50 mg/kg for larger mammals (Shannan, 1969). Nonruminantanimals, such as the rat and swine, have to be exposed to dietary level of copperin excess of 250 ppm before toxicosis is observed (Boyden et al., 1938; andSuttle and Mills, 1966a,b).

Poultry appear to have a greater tolerance to copper than most animals. Smith(1967) reported day old chicks being fed 350 ppm for 25 days showing only slightreductions in weight gained.

:, i

Iron - Iron is toxic to only the aquatic community in the BUTZ LANDFILL studyarea. Iron is necessary for animal life. Ferrous (Fe*2) and ferric (Fe*3) ironare the important forms for aquatic life, with Fe+3 being dominant at lower pH.Ferrous iron is highly soluble while ferric iron has a low solubility.Precipitates of iron, typically iron hydroxide (Fe[OH]3), can coat the gills of

; i

6-175 \: i

SR3QQ893

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

fish and mechanically inhibit oxygen uptake. Iron precipitates can also coversediments and vegetation, suffocating fish eggs and benthic organisms andlimiting attachment .sites for many aquatic insects. Tackett and Wieserman (1972)reported this mechanism being lethal to eggs and fry at a level of 1000 ug/L ironat low flow. Iron flocculates at the critical value of pH 4.3 (Skelly and Loy,1973).

High iron concentrations have been known to decrease macroinvertebrate abundanceand diversity (Letterman and Mitsch, 1978). Warnick and Bell (1969) reported anacute (96 hr.) LC50 value of 320 ug/1 iron for the mayfly Ephemerella subvariaat a water hardness of 48 mg/1. The stonefly Acroneuria lycorias and thecaddisfly Hydropsyche betteni have a reported 50% mortality rate when exposed for7 days to 16 mg/1 iron. This suggests that stoneflies and caddisflies are moretolerant to iron than mayflies, an inference supported by the presentinvestigation.

The lowest concentration fatal to brook trout (within 24 hrs.) was 133 mg/1(Doudoroff and Katz, 1953). USEPA (1985b) reported a chronic value for brooktrout of 9690 ug/1. Brenner et al. (1976) reported minor toxicity in the commonshiner being exposed to ferric hydroxide. Toxicity was caused by initial changesin serum protein, glucose, sodium and potassium ions.

In contrast many organisms have adapted to high ferric conditions. Euglenamutabilis is known to thrive in ferric waters and may be used to improve waterquality in acidic and ferric waters by producing oxygen to reduce acidity (Lieb,1971).

Iron concentrations were generally below the PAWQC of 1,500 ug/L total iron andthe recommended ERA level of 1,000 ug/L total iron. The PAWQC for dissolved ironis 300 ug/L. Station 13, which had iron detected at 749 ug/L, is the onlyecological sampling station that may potentially exceed the criteria fordissolved iron. Analysis for dissolved iron was not performed, however, sincethe pH was field measured at 7.45 units, it is not likely that the concentrationof dissolved iron would exceed criteria.

6-176

i TCN 4204i RI REPORT

' , I REV. #1: | 30/SEPT/91

! j

Lead - Lead is toxic to only the terrestrial wildlife and vegetation at the BUTZLANDFILL study area. '•'•''lliamson and Evans (1972) reported no observed affectsin millipedes and wood!ice which had bioconcentrated 80 ppm and 700 ppm lead,respectively. Straalen and Meerendonk (1987) fed green algae, having a leadconcentration ranging from 1600 to 2200 tug/kg dry weight, to adult Collembola(springtails), Orchesella cincta, for over four weeks. The springtails had alead concentration of 0.2 mg/kg dry weight. Doelman et al. (1984) reported thatingestion of lead contaminated bacteria and fungi by nematodes (round worms)leads to impaired reproduction.

Small mammals having whole body concentrations of 30 ppm lead showed nosignificant affect (Williamson and Evans, 1972). Williamson and Evans found noevidence of bioaccumulation of lead between trophic levels. Quarles et al.1 '(1974) reported a greater tendency for lead to bioconcentrate in female meadowvoles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) and shorttailed shrews (Blarina brevicauda) thanin males. Lead also appeared to have a greater tendency to bioconcentrate inolder meadow voles and white-footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) than in young.'

Toxicity to birds from lead salts occurs only at concentrations exceeding 100mg/kg dietary dose (WHO, 1989). Organolead compounds appear to have the greatesttoxicity to birds. Trialkyllead compounds produce chronic toxicity in starlings(Sturnus vulgaris) at dietary concentrations of 0.2 mg/day, and cause fatalityat 2 mg/day (Osborn et al., 1983).

:

In laboratory tests, survival was reported reduced at acute oral lead doses of5 mg/kg body weight (BW) in rats, at chronic oral doses of 5 mg/kg BW in dogs,and at dietary level of 1.7 mg/kg BW in horses (Eisler, 1988).

: |

|1 ' I

Inorganic lead has a tendency to form highly insoluble salts and complexes withvarious anions. Lead also binds tightly with soils. These two characteristicsdrastically reduce the availability of lead to the roots of terrestrial plants.Translocation of lead to lead ions in plants is poor, resulting in the majorityof the lead staying bound to root and leaf surfaces. High concentrations oflead, ranging from 100 to 1000 mg/kg in soil, are needed for photosynthesis,growth, and other metabolic activities (WHO, 1989).

i. , I

6-177 '; I ' . I

: • 4R300895

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

Manganese - Toxicity of manganese may be associated with both the terrestrialwildlife and aquatic life at the BUTZ LANDFILL study area. Despite the potentialtoxicity of manganese, it is essential for the nutrition of both plants andanimals (Browning, 1969). Manganese has been documented to be involved withformation of connective tissue and bone, growth, carbohydrate and lipidformation, the embryonic development of the ear, reproductive function, andprobably brain function (WHO, 1981).

There are little data on manganese toxicity for terrestrial animals andvegetation. Manganese in plants concentrates in the reproductive parts,especially seeds and nuts (Browning, 1969).

Divalent manganese (Mn2+) is 2.5 to 3 times more toxic than trivalent manganese(Mn3+) (WHO, 1981). Chronic poisoning in dogs, rabbits, rats and monkeys isknown to cause gross pathology in the liver and diffuse lesions in the cerebrum(Turner, 1955). McKee and Wolf (1963) reported stunted growth and interferencein bone development in rats when exposed to 500-600 mg/kg/day manganese.Chandra (1971) reported appreciable damage to the sperm producing tubules in thetestes (seminiferous tubules) in rats after 150 days of daily doses of 8 mg/kgI.P. (I.P.: intraperitoneal - within the abdominal membrane). Levels of 50-125mg/kg in the diet of baby pigs has caused manganese-iron antagonism, resultingin interference in hemoglobin formation.

Although manganese is associated with central nervous disturbance, relatively lowconcentrations are found in the brain. Manganese tends to concentrate in theliver, kidney, and bone (Fore and Morton, 1952). Manganese is absorbed throughthe gastro-intestinal tract, however absorption is very 'slow due to the lowsolubility of manganese in gastric juices. Relatively high concentrations ofmanganese must be ingested before sufficient absorption can take place to causetoxicity (von Oettingen, 1935). Absorption through the lungs by inhalation ofmanganese dust typically is the route causing toxicity (Maynard and Fink, 1956).

Little detailed information is available regarding manganese toxicity to aquaticlife, although it is recognized as a toxic metal. Ludemann (1953) reporteddragonfly larva (Sphaerium sp.) and crayfish (Cambarus affinis) to be unaffectedwhen exposed to solutions of manganese chloride and manganese sulphate at a

6-178

i I TCN 4204: , ! RI REPORT

! REV. #1| 30/SEPT/91

concentration of 1 g/L. Manganese is known.to increase mortality of fish eggsi

at levels of 1000 ug/L (Lewis, 1976). There is no manganese PAWQC for aquaticlife. Presently PADER is in the process of developing a criteria for aquaticlife. The Pennsylvania Drinking Water Standard for manganese is 1,0 0 ug/L.

] ' ii

Zinc - Zinc is toxic to the terrestrial wildlife and vegetation at the BUTZLANDFILL study area. Zinc is an essential constituent of carbonic anhydrase,which is vital to the respiration of most animal species (Keilin and Mann, 1940).Zinc ingestion is relatively non-toxic, however, large doses of soluble zincsalts may cause vomiting and diarrhea (Browning, 1969). Heller and Burke (1927)* ' ' ireported zinc chloride or zinc carbonate at a concentration of 2,500 ppm of thediet of rats were completely without effects. Dogs can tolerate 2 mg/kg of zincgluconate (Vallee, 1959). Calvery (1942) reported the LD50 for zinc chloride forrats, mice, and guinea pigs to be 350, 350, and 200 mg/kg, respectively. Thetoxicity of zinc varies between mammalian species. Large doses of zinc arerequired before toxicity generally occurs. Pigs are relatively sensitive zinclevels, with young animals more sensitive than adults (Grimmett et al,, 1937).Sutton and Nelson (1937) suggested the limit of tolerance for zinc in animalsranges from 0.5 to 1.0 percent in diet, with the higher concentration resultingthe potential inhibition of reproduction and the appearance of anemia,

i I

Zinc concentrates in the foliage of plants. Zn2* toxicity results inphotosynthetic inhibition by blocking the photosynthesis II cycle. Matureperennial species are more tolerant to surface soil zinc contamination for theyhave a deep root base, resulting in only a small percentage of the roots comingin contact with the surficial zinc present.

! ;

6.2.5 Assessment of RiskI

; ' |

The following assessment of risk combines the elements previously discussed inSections 6.2 and 4.5, then formulates an overall risk for each habitat type.

The potential risk to terrestrial wildlife and vegetation is related to heavyi

metals found in the surface soils on the landfill. Copper, lead, manganese, andzinc were the specific heavy metals that were detected above background levels.Any potential risk to aquatic life is related to heavy metals found in the water

6-179 ;

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

column and sediments in the tributaries in the vicinity of the BUTZ LANDFILL.Aluminum, arsenic, beryllium, iron, and manganese were the specific heavy metalsthat were detected above background levels.

6.2.5.1 Terrestrial Assessment of Risk

The average on-site copper concentration (35.9 mg/kg) was not significantlyelevated above background levels (26.2 mg/kg), except for at SS-07 (77.3 mg/kg).Comparing information presented during the toxicological assessment with on-sitecopper concentrations, it can be concluded that copper does not constitute anecological risk to the ecological community on the BUTZ LANDFILL.

The average on-site lead concentration (26.1 mg/kg) was not significantlyelevated above background (16.9 mg/kg) except for at SS-07 (55.1 mg/kg).Comparing information presented during toxicolbgical assessment with the on-sitelead concentrations, it can be concluded that terrestrial invertebrates, birds,and plants are tolerant to the existing lead concentrations on site. Smallmammals have been reported to be tolerant to lead concentrations in whole bodytissue as high as 30 mg/kg. WHO (1989) stated that mammals typicallybioconcentrate lead at levels below those found in the soils. Therefore it canbe assumed that the potential for small mammals to bioconcentrate enough lead tocause toxicity is not likely. Lead concentrations in the surface soils do notpose a risk to the terrestrial ecological community on the BUTZ LANDFILL.

The average detected concentration of manganese (510 mg/kg) was two times (2x)higher than the background concentration (268 mg/kg). It is concluded that theconcentrations found on-site and off-site can potentially cause toxicologicalaffects on terrestrial wildlife provided that the concentrations in the soilscould be introduced into the organs of the organisms by the appropriate route,i.e. ingestion and possibly daily inhalation of large volumes of manganese dust.Ingestion is not an applicable route, and inhalation is not likely since thelandfill is covered with vegetation. Toxicity by route of ingestion is unlikelydue to poor absorption rates of manganese through the gastrointestinal tract (seeSection 6.2.4). Plants metabolize manganese, however, the concentrations in thesoils do not appear to be sufficient to cause toxicity. No evidence of toxicityto vegetation was observed during the site visit. Based upon the review of the

6-180SR3Q0898

'• TCN 4204RI REPORT

: REV. #1; ,. | 30/SEPT/91

-» I- : * ;

presented information, manganese does not appear to pose a risk to the ecologicalcommunity on the BUTZ LANDFILL.

The average detected surface soil concentration of zinc on the landfill (136mg/kg) was less than two times (2x) that detected in the background sample (81.6rag/kg), although on-site concentrations were detected as high as 341 mg/kg (SS-08). Comparing the on-site surface soil concentrations to the informationpresented in toxicological assessment, zinc levels in the surface soils do notappear to be high enough to pose an ecological risk on the BUTZ LANDFALL.

6.2.5.2 Aquatic Assessment of Risk ;

The benthic macroinvertebrate collection and evaluation revealed an excellentaquatic community and stream habitat. All stations had good community structureand diversity. The only obvious exception was at station 13, where the habitatwas poor and the community lacked abundance and sensitive organisms. Station 11was slightly below the norm, but this was expected because of natural lowerquality habitat. There were no site related contaminants detected at station 11.

Aluminum appeared to be naturally occurring in the sediments (background stationsSED-15 and SED-16) at a concentration of approximately 7,000 to 9,000 mg/kg.Surface water concentrations ranged from being comparable to the backgroundconcentration (SW-15, 91.8 ug/L) to almost two times the concentration of thebackground station (SW-05, 170 ug/L). Comparison of the surfape waterconcentrations to the information presented during the toxicological assessmentreveals that the highest concentrations of aluminum detected may pose anecological risk to aquatic organisms, however, a large portion of the potentialtoxicity involving aluminum is due to suspended aluminum accumulating on thegills of fish and invertebrates. With the exception of SW-13 (TSS = 1,960 mg/L),the TSS were below 10 mg/L of which only a small portion would be expected toconsist of aluminum. The results of the benthic macroinvertebrate collection donot indicate any impairment to the aquatic community, with the exception againof SW-13. In addition, the pH measured at the ecological sampling stations,ranging from 6.42 to 7.45, limits the partitioning of the aluminum from thesediment to the dissolved phase. Aluminum does not appear to pose an ecological

6-181

! flR300899

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

risk to aquatic organisms at any of the ecological sampling station exceptpossibly ECOL-13.

Arsenic was detected in the surface water only at Station SW-13 at aconcentration of 2.4 ug/L. Arsenic was detected in the majority of the sedimentsamples averaging 14.6 mg/kg. The average concentration was comparable to thatdetected at the reference station (8.2 mg/kg). SED-13 and SED-09 were the onlylocations where the arsenic concentrations in the sediment were elevated (54.5mg/kg, 20.8 mg/kg, respectively) when compared to the reference station.Comparing the detected concentration at SW-13 with the information presentedduring the toxicological assessment, the concentration of arsenic detected in thesurface water may pose a minimal chronic risk to aquatic organisms.

ISW->5 was adjacent to a parking lot used by a local utility company. Arsenic wasalso elevated in the sediments at ECOL-09 at a level of 20.8 mg/kg. The sourceof the arsenic at location SED-09 has not been definitively identified. Itshould be noted that arsenic was not present above background in the closestupstream station (SED-03) to SED-09. It does not appear that arsenic found atSED-09 is site related. Inorganic arsenical compounds have extensively been usedfor centuries as insecticides and herbicides (Eisler, 1988). There are a numberof agricultural crop fields which drain into the tributaries once the streamsleave the forested areas. This may be a potential non-point source that couldcontribute to the elevated arsenic levels found at SED-09 and SED-13. Arsenicfound at SED-09 does not appear to be posing an ecological risk.

Beryllium was detected in stream sediments above background (0.62 mg/kg) levelsat stations SED-02 (2.20 mg/kg) and SED-13 (1.30 mg/kg). Beryllium was notdetected in the surface water at any of the stations. Comparing this informationwith the toxicological information previously presented, it does not appear thatberyllium is presenting any detectable toxicity. Station 02, where the highestlevel of beryllium in the sediment was detected, supported an excellent benthicmacroinvertebrate population.

The average concentration of iron detected in the surface water samples from theecological sampling stations was 227 ug/L, which was comparable with that foundin the reference station (152 ug/L). SW-13 had an elevated iron concentration

6-182

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

of 749 ug/L. Sediment concentrations of iron at the ecological sampling stationswere comparable to the reference station (23,600 mg/kg), with the exception ofSED-09 and SED-13 which were slightly elevated (41,700 mg/kg and 52,700 mg/kg,respectively). Comparing the surface water concentrations with the informationpresented in the toxicological assessment indicates that iron is not likely topose an ecological risk to the aquatic community, with the exception of SW-13.Station 09 had an excellent benthic macroinvertebrate population, which supports

ithis conclusion. Station 13 had iron in the surface water approaching PAWQC,which may pose a minor risk to aquatic life.

Manganese concentrations in the surface water at the ecological sampling stationswere comparable to the concentration detected at the reference station (10.10ug/L), with the exception of SW-02 (102 ug/L) and SW-13 (2,010 ug/L). Manganesedetected in the sediment was highly elevated at SED-02 (17,800 mg/kg) comparedto the concentration detected at the reference station (787 mg/kg). Despite theelevated manganese concentration in the sediments, there was a superb benthiccommunity present at SED-02. Comparing the information presented duringtoxicological assessment to the measured levels of manganese, manganese does notappear to pose an ecological risk to aquatic life. The'exception is at SW-13,1where detected levels in the surface water are sufficient to impact aquaticorganisms.

;'

6.2.6 Conclusions of Ecological Assessment

BUTZ LANDFILL - The terrestrial ecology on the BUTZ LANDFILL does not appear tobe impacted by any organic compounds or inorganic elements found in the surfacesoils. The contaminants in the surface soils, primarily heavy metals, are notpresent at levels sufficient to cause toxicity to either the vegetation orwildlife. Both organic and inorganic contaminants were present in the subsurfacesoil of the landfill. These contaminants were not uniformly dispersed, and itwas assumed that terrestrial wildlife would not typically come in contact withorganic compounds. The subsurface soils were noted to be hard and mixed withcrushed shale. This soil type is not expected to be utilized by burrowing soilinvertebrates. During the course of two site walk-throughs numerous signs and

: isighting of small mammals, game animals, and avian species were observed. Thevegetation was typical of that expected to occupy a successional field.

6-183 !

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Aquatic Community - The aquatic communities within the tributaries adjacent tothe BUTZ LANDFILL site were of excellent quality. Rich diversities, highabundances, stable and high quality habitats, good water quality, and impressiverepresentation of sensitive organisms indicate no ecological impairment.Insignificant levels of organics and low levels of inorganics do not appear tobe affecting the aquatic community, nor do they pose a concern when compared to•values from toxicological literature.

The only exception to the above stated summary occurred at station 13, wheremanganese and arsenic occurred at levels sufficient to pose a potential risk andiron and aluminum were at levels approaching that which may cause risk. Thesemetals combined are expected to contribute to limited risk. It should be notedthat the stream habitat evaluation revealed that the stream section associatedwith station 13 was poor in quality. Heavy sedimentation, poor flow (almoststagnant), high seasonal flow variation, and poor stream substrate (i.e. lack ofcobble and other attachment sites) were the primary poor stream parameters. Ironflocculent was also observed at this station. The benthics collected at SW-13were fair, however, when compared to the other excellent stations, station 13 wasconsidered poor. — **• ECOL-13 naturally supports a lower quality aquaticcommunity than is typical of the area, and manganese, iron, and aluminum,potentially derived from the BUTZ LANDFILL site, may be further suppressing theaquatic community.

Other Areas of Concern - A number of semi-volatiles and inorganic compounds weredetected at station 09. These compounds do not appear to be site related. Atpresent, these compounds do not appear to be affecting the aquatic community.Potential sources of the contaminants may be the adjacent unpaved parking lotused by a utility company, and run-off from sprayed farmlands.

A number of contaminants were present in the surface water and sediment atStation 14. However, no ecological sampling was performed at station 14 becauseof its distance from the BUTZ LANDFILL. In addition, stations 05 and 07 (locatedbetween station 14 and the landfill) would be expected to intercept surface waterand shallow ground water discharge from the landfill, therefore, any site relatedcontamination would be expected to be detected at these stations. No siterelated contamination was detected at stations 05 and 07. Any contamination at

6-184

4R300902

I TCN 4204. ; : RI REPORT

; i REV. #1J . ! 30/SEPT/91

,—,- -" - .i . =£ ; i

station 14 is not likely to be related to the BUTZ LANDFILL site. Aluminum,j

cadmium, iron, lead, mercury, zinc, delta-BHC, and gamma-BHC were present atlevels that may be. of risk to aquatic organisms (Table 6-64). The metalspreviously mentioned were also present at elevated levels in the sediments.

6-185

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

TABLE 6-64

COMPARISON OF DETECTED COMPOUNDS WITH WATER QUALITY CRITERIAFOR AQUATIC LIFE AT SW-14

COMPOUND

ALUMINUM

CADMIUM

IRON

LEAD

MANGANESE

MERCURY

ZINC

delta-BHC

gamma-BHC

CONCENTRATION DETECTED(ug/L)

2,560

9.6

17,800

46.7

893

1.4

866

0.16

0.08

WATERQUALITYCRITERIACHRONIC(ug/L)

0.lXLCMof

0.79*

1,000

1.8*

1,000

0.012

72*

—

0.08

WATERQUALITYCRITERIAACUTE(ug/L)

Rep. Species

2.3*

—

44*

—

2.4

80*

_-

2

' - Criteria calculated using the hardness of 63.4 mg/L CaCO,.

6-186

: i TCN 4204I RI REPORT

REV. #1!30/SEPT/91

i !7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 SUMMARY ... •i -i

The Butz property covers approximately 13 acres of land in Jackson Jownship,Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The landfill, consisting of approximately 8 acres,was operated as a municipal landfill from approximately 1963 to 1975. Wastesaccepted at the landfill included municipal solid waste and sewage sludges. Ithas been alleged that industrial wastes were also placed in the landfill.

! i

: I '

In 1971, local residents began to complain about odors in their private drinkingwater wells. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PADER)documented that organic contaminants were present in the private residentialwells. In 1986, further actions were taken by PADER to investigate the extent ofground water contamination and to provide alternate supplies of drinking wateror provide treatment for the drinking water supplies. In 1987, the USEPAperformed a hydrogeological investigation of the landfill and demonstrated thatthe landfill was the source of organic contaminants, primarily trichloroethene,in the ground water. \

iiThe objective of this investigation was to investigate all media in whichcontaminants from the landfill could have migrated. Samples of surface soil,

1 . isubsurface soil, surface water, sediments, and ground water were collected andanalyzed for the presence of organic and inorganic contaminants. Th£ sampleresults were then employed to assess the potential risk posed to human health andthe environment. ;

7.1.1 Nature and Extent of Contamination"

i- i iThe present nature and extent of contamination associated with the BUTZ LANDFILLis summarized for all media below.

! ' !

i

Surface Soil - A thin cover of topsoil was placed over the landfill in 1973 aspart of its closure. To assess whether contaminants were present in this surface

! I

7-1

^300905

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

soil cover, 11 samples were collected from a depth of 0-6 inches below grade.Organic compounds, including a PCB compound, were detected in the surface soil.However, the compounds were only present in one to two locations and were presentin relatively low concentrations.

Subsurface Soils - Twenty-eight (28) test pits and 5 soil borings were excavatedin the landfill to determine whether contaminants were present in the soilbeneath the fill materials. The borings were also used to assess whetherleachate was currently being generated by the landfill. No ground water orleachate was encountered in any of the subsurface excavations.

The fill materials were found to range between 2 and 19 feet in thickness. Themajority of the fill can be described as municipal-type solid waste. Magneticanomalies identified in a previous investigation (postulated to represent apossible deposit of buried drums) were found to consist of various car parts andother metal fragments. Although several small empty drums were found at isolatedsample locations, no drums containing hazardous materials were found in thelandfill.

Several areas of sewage sludges were located. The sewage sludges were generallylocated on the south end of the landfill, found in seams 1 to 2 feet thick, andwere found at less than 8 feet below grade.

Samples collected from 22 of the locations indicate that the soil beneath thefill materials does contain organic contaminants including several volatileorganic compounds, numerous polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) compounds, anumber of pesticides, and 1 PCB compound. Lead was present above backgroundlevels in 9 test pits and beryllium was present above background levels in 4 testpits and 2 borings. Although many different contaminants were identified to bepresent in the landfill, the actual concentrations of contaminants were elevatedonly in a few localized areas.

Surface Water - Fourteen (14) surface water samples were collected from streamsand seeps located around BUTZ LANDFILL. The surface water contained very few

7-2

i TCN 4204; RI REPORT

: i REV. II: . i 30/SEPT/91i i

contaminants. Several locations in the north fork of Reeders Run containedj

trichloroethene (TCE) in low concentrations. The presence of TCE in the surfacewater probably reflects the discharge of ground water containing TCE to thesurface water. The surface water also contained aluminum, arsenic, barium, iron,manganese, mercury, vanadium, and zinc in concentrations above background levels.However, the arsenic, mercury, and vanadium cannot be shown to have originatedfrom the landfill. Aluminum, barium, iron, and manganese may originate from thelandfill, although these metals may have other sources as well. Station 14,located at the east end of Mountain Spring Lake, contained several pesticides andnumerous metals. None of the contaminants at this location can be shown to haveoriginated from the landfill.

!.Sediments - Fourteen (14) stream sediment samples were collected during thisinvestigation from the same locations as surface water samples. PAHs were theprimary organic contaminants present at station 06, located southwest of thelandfill, and station 09, located south of the landfill. In both cases, itcannot be demonstrated that the contaminants originated from the landfill.Instead, it is more likely that the PAHs are associated with roadway runoff.

.•The sediment (from one or more of the sampling stations) contained the metalsaluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron,

:

lead, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and zinc. As with the surface water, a numberof these metals cannot be linked to the landfill. Metals that may be potentiallylinked to the landfill include aluminum, barium, cobalt, copper, iron, manganese,nickel, and zinc.

Ground Water - Samples from 18 monitoring wells and 5 residential wells werei

collected to assess the ground water quality. Four (4) of the 5 residentialwells were located east of other residential wells that previously have beenshown to contain organic contaminants. Site-related organic contaminants werenot detected in the residential wells sampled.j

: i i

The organic contaminants TCE, 1,2 dichloroethene, and vinyl chloride were thepredominant contaminants present in the monitoring wells samples. TCE was most

7-3

^300907

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

prevalent and was present in every well on or immediately downgradient of thelandfill property. Two separate rounds of samples were collected. The resultsfrom both rounds of sampling were generally consistent.

The results of this investigation, as well as sample results from sampling ofover 50 other residential wells by the USEPA Technical Assistance Team, indicatethat a plume of TCE extends approximately 7,000 feet east/northeast of thelandfill. Comparison of present levels of TCE in the monitoring wells toresults obtained from 1987 indicates that levels of TCE have declined in mostmonitoring wells located off the landfill. However, concentrations of TCE haveincreased in some wells located on the landfill property.

7.1.2 Fate and Transport

The fate and transport of the contaminants associated with BUTZ LANDFILL dependson the physical and chemical properties of the individual contaminant and thephysical and chemical properties of the medium in which it is present. Thephysical setting also plays an important role in understanding the fate andtransport of contaminants.

Physical Setting - The BUTZ LANDFILL is situated in a thin layer of glacial tilloverlying a thick sequence of fractured alternating sandstones and shales. Thesurface topography slopes to the southeast in the vicinity of the site. Surfacewater flow follows the topography. Ground water exists in two hydrologic zones.A thin unconfined water table aquifer exists in the glacial till. It generallyflows in the same direction as surface water at a velocity of over 1 foot per dayand discharges to the surface water southeast of the landfill. Ground water alsoexists within the fractured bedrock under semi -confined conditions. A pump testhas indicated that the shallow and the deep hydrologic zones are interconnectedto some extent. Ground water flow in the bedrock appears to be both throughstructurally controlled fractures and along interfaces between dissimilar rockunits. Based on the distribution of TCE in residential wells, the horizontalgradient in the fractured bedrock is to the east/northeast. Based on the resultsof aquifer testing, the estimated ground water flow velocity in the fractured

7-4

5R300908

1 • TCN 4204: i RI REPORTi ' ! REV. #1< ; | 30/SEPT/91

rock between well RID, located on the landfill, and well R2, locatedeast/southeast of the landfill, is approximately 0.06 feet per day. On the otherhand, a simple evaluation of flow velocity by dividing the distance TCE hastraveled over time (since the time the landfill began operations in 1963 to 1986when TCE was first sampled and detected in residential wells), yields a minimumtravel velocity of 0.77 feet per day. The difference in the estimates of flowvelocity may be expected because of the complexities of flow in fractured rock.

iFate of Contaminants - TCE is a ubiquitous contaminant in the ground water. TCEhas a low viscosity and a low tendency to sorb to soil. If TCE were dumped intothe landfill in discrete large quantities, it would have quickly passed through

'.' ithe soil and entered the ground water. Because of TCE's high density and lowsolubility, it may exist as a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL). DNAPLssink through the water column under gravity until they meet an impermeableboundary. TCE is assumed to exist as a DNAPL in the ground water at 8UTZLANDFILL. The migration of TCE in the dissolved state will be largely governedby advective transport of the ground water, described above. TCE is generallynot susceptible to breakdown through photolysis, hydrolysis, oxidation, orbiodegradation. Concentrations of TCE will therefore primarily be reducedthrough dilution in the ground water. Where shallow ground water discharges tosurface water, TCE will be removed from the water through volatilization, due toits high vapor pressure.

PAHs were encountered in subsurface soil samples in the landfill and in selected1sediment samples. PAHs have a low vapor pressure and Henry's Law Constants of<10"3 atm-m3/mo1 and therefore do not readily volatilize. Photolysis, hydrolysis,and oxidation are not important fate processes. The PAHs have a high octanolwater coefficient and therefore have a high tendency to sorb to soils andsediments. They have a very low solubility and therefore do not dissolve inwater in high concentrations. Therefore, the PAHs found in the soil befieath thelandfill are not likely to leach into the ground water. Biodegradatibn may bethe ultimate fate for PAHs.Metals are conservative contaminants meaning they do not break down or cannot betransformed into other species. The migration of metals will be affected by

7-5

flR300909

TCN 4204RI REPORT

REV. II30/SEPT/91

advective transport of surface water and ground water and sediment transportprocesses.

7.1.3 Risk Assessment

Human Health - An assessment was performed to quantify the risk associated withuse of untreated ground water, direct contact with surface soil, direct contactwith surface water and sediments, and ingestion of contaminated fish. The riskassessment evaluated all chemicals present above background levels in the variousmedia described above.

For untreated ground water, 30 residential wells exceeded the NationalContingency Plan (NCR) point of departure of 10"6 carcinogenic risk. However,only 6 residential wells, all located within 1000 feet of the BUTZ LANDFILLexceeded the upper bound of the acceptable risk range of 10"4. Noncarcinogenichazards associated with the use of untreated ground water were only identifiedat 3 residential wells.

No unacceptable levels of carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic hazards are associatedwith contact of surface soils on BUTZ LANDFILL.

No unacceptable levels of carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic hazards are associatedwith contact with surface water in streams adjacent to BUTZ LANDFILL. Thepotential carcinogenic risk associated with incidental ingestion of sedimentsslightly exceeds the NCR point of departure but is within the acceptable riskrange. There are no noncarcinogenic risks associated with incidental ingestionof sediments.

There are no unacceptable levels of carcinogenic risks associated with ingestionof fish from streams around BUTZ LANDFILL. There is a noncarcinogenic riskassociated with ingestion of fish due to the presence of mercury in the surfacewater. There is no evidence that the mercury present originated from thelandfill.

7-6

AR3009IO

: ; TCN 4204: RI REPORT

REV. III 30/SEPT/91

Ecological Risk - The terrestrial ecology on BUTZ LANDFILL does not appear to beI

impacted by any organic or inorganic contaminants.• - . : .

The aquatic communities within the tributaries in the vicinity of the landfillare of excellent quality. Rich diversities, high abundances, stable and highquality habitats, good water quality, and impressive representation of sensitiveorganisms indicate no ecological impairment. The only exception to this case isat Station 13 where manganese and arsenic, and to a lesser extent iron andaluminum, pose a potential ecological risk. The landfill is not the apparent

isource of the arsenic. However, due to the physical setting of Station 13,Station 13 naturally supports a lower quality aquatic community than is typicalof the area. The presence of metals may further suppress the quality of theaquatic community at this location.

; | j

7.2 CONCLUSIONS ; jI

This Remedial Investigation was designed to define the nature and extent ofcontamination and the risks to human health and the environment posed by anypotential contaminants. To the extent practicable, these objectives have beenmet.

! • ' "jI

Sufficient site-specific data have been generated to address the objectives ofi

the Remedial Investigation; no data limitations have been identified. Conceptuallimitations involve the lack of understanding regarding the transport ofdissolved TCE in fractured bedrock and lack of confirmation as to whether TCEiexists as a DNAPL in the ground water. However, further investigation of these

Iissues is generally considered to be technically and economically infeasible.

7-7

flR3009i I

1 TCN 4204RI/FS REPORT! REV. #1

: . ; | 30/SEPT/91

8.0 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGIES

8.1 INTRODUCTION - :

iThe Feasibility Study (FS) is performed to identify the optimal remedy for agiven site through an iterative screening process accomplished in the followingthree general phases:

• development of remedial alternatives;• screening of remedial alternatives; and• the detailed analysis of the selected alternatives.

i

Section 8.0 addresses the first phase of alternative development as per USEPAGuidance for Conducting Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Studies UnderCERCLA (USEPA, 1989). This section identifies the potentially applicable

i

remedial technologies and constituent process options, and screens the identifiedtechnologies as to their implementability in regard to the conditions of the BUTZLANDFILL. In the subsequent section (Section 9.0) the applicable technologieswill be assembled into a range of remedial alternatives, Major steps in the

I

remedial alternative development procedure include the following:- ! |

1. Development of remedial action objectives based upon the identified chemicalsunder review (those which exceed ARARs or represent a risk to humgn healthor the environment);

i2. Determination of appropriate general remedial response actions for each

contaminated medium by which the remedial action objectives may be attained;i ' |

3. Identification of quantities of media to which remedial actions may apply;I • |

4. Identification and screening of technologies applicable to each generalresponse action to eliminate those that are not technically feasible toimplement based upon site-specific conditions; and

8-1

i ^3009(2

TCN 4204RI/FS REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

5. Evaluation of technology process options to select a process optionrepresentative of each technology type, where applicable.

The assembly of representative, feasible technologies into medium-specificremedial alternatives encompassing a range of remedial actions will be presentedin Section 9.0.

8.2 REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Section 8.2 presents the development of remedial action objectives for the BUTZLANDFILL site, as per Step 1. These objectives consist of medium-specificenvironmental goals which direct the development of alternatives to those whichwill protect human health and the environment.

8.2.1 Identification of Site Contaminants

The following sub-sections discuss parameters that were identified in the siteRemedial Investigation to exceed regulatory permitted levels (ARARs) or wereidentified in the Risk Assessment to pose an unacceptable level of risk to humanhealth or the environment, respectively. Exposure to unacceptable levels ofthese compounds is defined in the Risk Assessment as carcinogenic risk above the"acceptable NCP range" of IxlO"6 to IxlO'4 excess cancer risk, and noncarcinogenicrisk indicated by a hazard quotient above unity [one].

8.2.1.1 Contaminants Present Above ARARs

Table 8-1 summarizes the compounds detected in the ground water at the BUTZLANDFILL site for which federal or state concentration limits have beenestablished. Although levels of some inorganics in surface water were found toexceed ARARs, the BUTZ LANDFILL was not indicated to be the source of theinorganics, and as such, the remediation of these inorganics is not the purviewof CERCLA. No chemical-specific ARARs exist for the soil or sediment media;however the leaching potential of contaminants from those media must beevaluated.

8-2

3R30G9I3

Table 8-1

Chemical-Specific ARARs

\ TCN 4204RI/FS REPORT

REV. #130/SEPT/91

Contaminant UnderReview

BENZENE*

1,1 DICHLOROETHENE*1,2 dichloroethene1,2 DICHLOROETHANE*METHYLEHE CHLORIDE*naphthalene

TETRACHLOROETHENE*TRICHLOROETHENE*VINYL CHLORIDE*

aluminumban' urncopperLEAD*zincantimonyarsenicMANGANESE*

MaximumConcentrationDetected inMonitoring

Wells

42.3840

N.D.N.D.N.D.

56,800

11344468.4

13.396

17.526.99,520

MaximumConcentrationDetected inResidential

Wells

N.D.14.6

4.23

11.30.73.6

5,110N.D.

79.344.5

236N.D.267

N.D.N.D.

N.D.

USEPA NationalDrinking WaterRegulations1

Current& FinalMCLs"

57

100"5••5

5

2

•

2,0001,000

505,000

*5050

Current& FinalMCLGs"

07

»0••*0

0•

2,0001,300

»**#

*

PA HumanHeal th

Cri teri ac

1 (CRL)0.06 (CRL)

350" (H)0.4 (CRL)

5 (CRL)

10 (T&O)0.7 (CRL)

3 (CRL)

0.02 (CRL)

•

•

6.5 to 21"1.3,to 7.7'59 to 190'

145 (H)50 (H)

*

Notes; ; ,

* Contaminants exceeding chemical-specific ARARs.• No criterion available ,

MCLs Maximum Contaminant LevelsMCLGs Maximum Contaminant Level GoalsN.D. Chemical not detected above detection/quantitation limits.CRL Cancer risk level criterion at 1 X 10'6.H Threshold effect human health criterion.T&O Taste and odor criterion.

'.(a) Selected sections from USEPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

(40 CFR 141.11-141.51).Final MCLs and MCLGs become effective July 1992.Criteria also applicable for Surface Water Discharge.Criteria for frans-1,2 dichloroethene isomer only.Limit dependent upon stream hardness.

8-3

AR3009U


REV. #130/SEPT/91

8.2.1.2 Risk-Assessment Contaminants Under Review

Over 50 compounds or-elements were evaluated in the Risk Assessment portion ofthe RI/FS, including volatile and semivolatile organic compounds and heavymetals. An explanation of the methodology for the selection of contaminantsunder review can be found in the Risk Assessment (Section 6.0) of this RI/FSReport.

Trichloroethene (TCE) was the primary organic contaminant under review at theBUTZ LANDFILL site in ground water and surface water. Semi-volatile PAHs wereidentified as the primary organic contaminants under review for subsurface soiland sediments. A wide range of inorganics were reviewed for the surface waterand sediment media, while only a few selected metals were reviewed for thesurface soil, subsurface soil, and ground water media. The source of much of theinorganics and semi-volatiles in all media is unclear, particularly for surfacewater in which the concentrations of some chemicals increased with distance awayfrom the site.

8.2.2 Pathways of Exposure

The pathways by which exposure to site contaminants may occur were identified inthe Risk Assessment (Section 6.0) to consist of ingestion, inhalation, and dermalcontact with contaminants. The quantitative evaluation of risk associated witheach exposure pathway under current and future land-use conditions was alsoperformed in the Risk Assessment (Section 6.0); the findings were summarized inTable 6-54. The conclusions of the exposure pathway evaluation are discussedbriefly below.

Unacceptable risk levels under current land-use conditions were identified forthe combined effects of the ingestion pathway and the inhalation pathway withregard to volatile organics (particularly TCE) in residential well water.Approximately half of the sampled residential wells had carcinogenic risk levelswhich exceeded the NCR point of departure. Non-carcinogenic risks were below ahazard quotient of one for all residential wells except three. Actual risk to

8-4

AR3Q09J5

: TCN 4204: .. RI/FS REPORT• '•• ] REV. #1i ; ! 30/SEPT/91

local residents with contaminated wells has been mitigated through watertreatment systems and/or alternative water supplies currently provided by USEPA.

i • '

The evaluation of the exposure pathways of direct contact with surface soils bychildren playing at the landfill, and direct contact with surface water andsediments by children playing in streams and seeps indicated the potential riskis below the NCR carcinogenic point of departure (10~6). The only exception isthe potential risk associated with incidental ingestion of stream sediments, forwhich the risk level was within the NCR acceptable range (2xlO~6 to 3xlO"5). Therisks were attributed to arsenic, beryllium, and PAHs, which are not clearlyassociated with the BUTZ LANDFILL site. All noncarcinogenic risks associatedi 'with those exposure pathways were well below a hazard quotient of one.

The exposure pathway consisting of the ingestion of contaminated fish byrecreational fishermen was also evaluated. The identified carcinogenic risk wasbelow the NCR point of departure, but a noncarcinogenic risk was identifiedassociated with mercury exposure. Mercury was not detected in any samples ofground water, surface soil, subsurface soil, or test pits from the landfill site,therefore the mercury is not attributed to site disposal activities and itssource is unknown.

: :1

Future hypothetical land-use scenarios were evaluated for the ingestion of groundwater and inhalation of VOCs while showering with ground water from the sitewells. Unacceptable carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks were identified forthis future site use scenario, primarily due to TCE.

8.2.3 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements: i i

Section 121 (d)(2)(a) of CERCLA specifies that Superfund remedial actions meetany Federal standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations that are determinedto be legally applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs).Additionally, State ARARs must be met if they are more stringent than the Federalrequirements.

8-5

MR3Q09I6


REV. #130/SEPT/91

Waivers to compliance with ARARs may occur under the following conditions perCERCLA 121(d)(4):

• The remedial action selected is only a part of a total remedial action(interim remedy) and the final remedy will attain the ARAR upon itscompletion;

• Compliance with the ARAR will result in a greater risk to human health andthe environment than alternative options;

• Compliance with the ARAR is technically impracticable from an engineeringperspective;

• An alternative remedial action will attain an equivalent standard ofperformance through the use of another method or approach;

• The ARAR is a State requirement that the state has not consistently applied(or demonstrated the intent to apply consistently) in similar circumstances;

• For 104 Superfund-financed remedial actions, compliance with the ARAR willnot provide a balance between protecting human health and the environment andthe availability of Superfund money for response at other facilities.

Media concentrations and occurrences shall conform to ARARs, where possible.Chemical-specific media concentrations as per federal and state ARARs have beenpresented in Table 8-1 and are summarized below. The following action-specificand location-specific ARARs must also be met, to the fullest extent practicable,by current or future site conditions, including remedial actions if warranted.

8.2.3.1 Chemical-Specific ARARs

Ground Water; Concentrations of hazardous substances in the ground water shallnot exceed "background levels" as specified by PA Code, Title 25, Section 75.264.If discharge of treated ground water to surface water courses is proposed as aremedial alternative, both state (PA Code) and federal (Clean Water Act) NPDES

8-6

flR3009l7

; | TCN 4204I RI/FS REPORT

REV. #1; ! 30/SEPT/91

|

criteria would be applicable. Federal regulation of ground water contaminantsoccurs under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

I |

Surface Water; PA Code, Title 25 specifies chemical-specific surface water ARARsin Chapter 92 (NPDES criteria) and Chapter 93 (Pennsylvania Water QualityCriteria for Toxic Substances) under the PA Clean Streams Law. Federalregulation of the composition of surface waters occurs under the Clean Water Act.

I

Soil and Sediment; No Commonwealth of Pennsylvania chemical-specific ARARs existfor the media of soil and sediments. Remediation to background levels isprovided under PADER Guidance if soil or sediments are identified as posing apotential source of contaminated leachate to ground water or surface water.

; j

8.2.3.2 Action-Specific ARARs i:

The following section lists actions which have been identified as potentialremedial actions at the BUTZ LANDFILL. The actions include air emissions fromstorage or treatment facilities, closure and maintenance actions for municipaland hazardous waste landfills, treatment residuals handling and storage, thedischarge of treated ground water to surface water, earth-moving activities, andinjection, pumping, or carbon treatment of ground water. Citations are providedin Table 8-2.

iAir Emission Requirements; PA Code requires that emissions from any new aircontamination source be controlled to the maximum extent possible and beconsistent with best available technology. Regulatory limits are listed as thePennsylvania Ambient Air Quality Standards. Examples of actions for which theseARARs would apply include dust emissions from earth moving, or emission ofvolatile organics from storage or treatment facilities. Federal regulation ofair emissions occurs as the National Ambient Air Quality Standards under theClean Air Act.

; !'

Hazardous Waste Management; Pennsylvania Rules and Regulations for theidentification, listing, transportation, treatment, and storage of hazardouswaste, are regulated per PA Code. These would apply to the handling of residuals

8-7

AR'3009lfl


REV. #130/SEPT/91

Table 8-2

Action-Specific ARARs

ACTION

Air Emissions

Closure and Maintenanceof Municipal Waste andHazardous WasteFacilities

Treatment ResidualsManagement

Discharge of TreatmentEffluent (NPDES)

Non-Specific Earth-MovingActivity

Underground Injection ofTreated Ground WaterActivated CarbonTreatment of Ground Wateror Surface Water

Ground Water Pumping ofover 100,000 gpd

Drilling and installationof ground waterextraction wells

REQUIREMENT

Prohibition of adverse impact on airqual i ty

Provide long-term minimization ofleaching through fill. Promotedrainage and minimize erosion. Musthave 30-year maintenance.

Identification, listing,transportation, treatment and storageof hazardous wastes.Prevent release of toxic substancesto surface water.

Meet Ch. 102 requirements; developErosion and Sedimentation ControlPlan.Authorization from Bureau of WaterQuality.Treatability Study; Fugitive VOCemissions controls.

Authorization from Delaware RiverBasin Commission (permit).Licensing of water well drillers,prevention of pollution ofunderground waters, submittal of wellconstruction or abandonment records.

CITATION1

National Ambient Air QualityStandards (Clean Air Act)PA Code Title 25, Ch. 131PA Ambient Air Quality StandardsPA Air Pollution Control ActPA Solid Waste Management ActPA Code, Title 25, Ch. 75 andCh. 271-277RCRA 40 CFR 264Solid Waste Disposal Act

RCRA 40 CFR 264PA Code, Title 25, Ch. 261-264PA SWMA Ch. 264-265CWA (40 CFR 122-125)PA Code, Title 25, Ch. 91, 92 |and 93 fClean Streams Law \Clean Streams LawChapter 102.4 and .31

PA Code, Title 25, Ch. 91PA SWMA, Ch. 264-265PA Air Pollution Control ActClean Air ActPA SWMA, Act 97

Delaware River Basin Compact (PAand Federal)Water Well Drillers License ActPA Code, Title 25, Ch. 107

8-8

fiB3009I9

S TCN 4204I RI/FS REPORT: i REV. #1

" ! * j 30/SEPT/91

from the treatment of contaminated media. Federal regulation of such substancesoccurs under RCRA. ; . . j

i

Solid Waste Management and Landfills: Pennsylvania Rules and Regulations for theapplication, permitting, management, operating, design, and closure of municipalwaste and landfills are regulated under the PA Code and the Solid Waste1Management Act. Federal regulation occurs under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

IHazardous solid waste landfills are also regulated through PA Code and the SWMA,and federally under RCRA.

:: !

Discharge of Treatment Effluent to Surface Water; PA Code, Title 25, Chapter 92sets forth provisions for the administration of discharge water quality under theNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit program.Discharges of treated or untreated waters to surface water will be in compliance

• -with the criteria contained therein.

Earth-Moving Actions Near Streams; Erosion and Sedimentation Control plans arerequired for earthmoving actions near streams for the protection of aquaticquality -and habitat under the PA Clean Streams Law.

!,

Ground Water Actions; (Specific actions related to the ground water medium areregulated, including permitting of pumpages of over 100,000 gpd by the DelawareRiver Basin Commission, treatment using activated carbon systems, and injection

iof treated ground water.) The installation of ground water extraction wells is

!

a state-permitted action, and must be performed by a PA licensed well driller.•

8.2.3.3 Location-Specific ARARs! ' ! I

This category of ARARs pertains to the location of a facility or site, usuallyin relation to natural features such as streams, wetlands, protected habitats,or lands with special designated uses by way of either local zoning ordinancesor state or federal recreational uses. Citations for these ARARs are includedon Table 8-3.

8-9

flR300920


REV. #130/SEPT/91

Table 8-3

Location-Specific ARARs

LOCATIONWetlands

Area affecting stream orriver

Rare, threatened,endangered specieshabitat

Near State Forest or GameLandLand Use

Within 50 feet ofproperty line40-foot setback frombuildingWithin 100-yearfloodplain

Underlain by fracturedbedrock

REQUIREMENTAction to avoid adverse effects,minimize potential harm, and preserveand enhance wetlands to extentpossible.

Action to protect fish or wildlifefrom activity that modifies a streamor river and affects fish orwildlife.Prohibition of adverse impacts onspecies or habitat in the event ofpresence of endangered or threatenedspecies.Treatment facility within one mile ofState lands.Comply with local zoning.Must maintain 50 feet buffer zonebetween property line and facilities.Storage of reactables/igni tables.

No treatment or disposal.

Construction, filling, excavationactivities for obstruction orencroachment.Disposal prohibited over areas ofcoarse unconsolidated depositsincluding heavily fractured bedrock.

CITATIONSection 404; 40 CFR Part 6Clean Water ActPA Code, Title 25, Ch. 75.423PA Dam Safety and EncroachmentActFish & Wildlife CoordinationAct; PA Code Title 25, Ch 16,and 93.0; PA Dam Safety andEncroachment ActEndangered Species Act (50 CFR,Part 200 and 402)PA Wild Resource Conversation |Act; PA SWMA Ch. 269PA SWMA, Ch. 269

PA Code, Title 25, Ch. 75.445 IPA SWMA, Ch. 264-265 j

PA SWMA, Ch. 264-265

PA SWMA, Ch. 269

Floodplain Management Act; DamSafety and Encroachment Act

PA SWMA, Ch. 269

1

8"1C " /IR300921


REV. #130/SEPT/91

8.2.4 Statement of Remedial Action Objectives

The general objective of remediation is the protection of human health and theenvironment, and the attainment of ARARs, where possible. Remedial actionobjectives for BUTZ LANDFILL are, more specifically, to mitigate the identifiedexceedances of ARARs and of exposures to contaminants of concern which result inunacceptable levels of risk (carcinogenic risks of greater than 10"6 to 10~4 and

ihazard indices of below 1) to human, aquatic, and terrestrial receptors. Anyremedial action proposed to satisfy these objectives must be technicallyimplementable and cost effective. Per RI/FS Guidance (USEPA, 1989), remedialaction objectives must address the contaminants of concern (see Section 8.2.1),the exposure routes and receptors (see Section 8.2.2), and the acceptable levelsof contaminant concentrations (see Section 8.2.3). t

'.

8.3 GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS , |i - !•

Section 8.3 contains the determination of appropriate general remedial responseI

actions for each contaminated medium by which the remedial action objectives maybe attained, as per Step 2 of Section 8.1.

8.3.1 Ground Water Response Actions! I

Ground water was identified to contain site-related volatile organic contaminantsand selected inorganics at concentrations which exceeded ARARs and were evaluatedto represent an unacceptable level of risk to human health and the environment.General response actions which may achieve the remedial objectives identified inthe previous section for ground water include:

'• No Action; r I

i

• No Action with monitoring; i

• Institutional controls on ground water use; -; i• Provision of an alternative water supply;

8-11 i

flR3'00922


REV. II30/SEPT/91

• Contaminant Containment actions; and

• Contaminant Collection-Treatment-Discharge actions.

8.3.2 Landfill Response Actions

Media samples of surface soil were collected from the landfill surface, andsubsurface soil samples were collected from beneath the landfill materials in thelocations where soil was present over the bedrock. Leachate was not encountered,nor was any indication of the disposal of hazardous materials encountered.Response actions relevant to the landfill are of three types: those applicableto the landfill as the probable residual source of ground water contamination;those applicable to the risks, hazards, and exceedances of ARARs associated withthe soil samples; and those applicable to ARARs for landfill closure.

No unacceptable levels of risk were identified with exposure to surface orsubsurface soils at BUTZ LANDFILL. Further, no chemical-specific ARARs exist forsoils. However, the potential for soil contaminants to migrate to other mediamust be considered, as well as residual source control or containment actions andcompliance with PADER ARARs for landfill closure. Relevant response actions forthe landfill include:

• No Action;

• Institutional controls (deed restrictions on future land use); and

• Contaminant Source Reduction/Removal actions.

8.3.3 Surface Water and Sediment Response Actions

The levels of organic compounds detected in the surface water were below theARARs, where present. Two sampling stations contained localized concentrationsof aluminum, cadmium, iron, and manganese in excess of PADER Water QualityCriteria (WQC) or toxicity data, and four sampling stations had exceedances ofthe WQC for mercury. However, the occurrence of these inorganics cannot solely

8-12

'. ' i TCN 4204! RI/FS REPORT

- • ' • ~ \ REV. #1; ; I 30/SEPT/91

I

be attributed to the BUTZ LANDFILL site, thus the remediation to ARARs is beyondthe intent of CERCLA. j

No unacceptable levels of risks or hazards to human receptors were identified forexposure to stream water and sediments, although a noncarcinogenic hazard wasidentified related to the ingestion of potentially contaminated fish byrecreational fishermen. This hazard occurred as a result of mercury

:bioaccumulation, however, as above, the occurrence of mercury is not site-related, thus remediation is outside the scope of CERCLA. Therefore, relevantsurface water and sediment response actions are limited to No Action.

8.4 QUANTITIES OF CONTAMINATED MEDIAi

j , |' ; |

As per Step 3 of Section 8.1, the approximate volume of contaminated media towhich remedial actions may apply is estimated as follows.i

The BUTZ LANDFILL covers approximately 8.2 acres based on the results of the soilinvestigations from the RI. Surface soils over the landfilled material weretypically less than one foot thick, while subsurface soils beneath the landfilledmaterial were generally 0.5 foot to absent.

i i

The contaminated ground water plume was estimated to coyer approximately 1.5square miles based on the results of sampling performed during this RI and bysampling performed by the USEPA Technical Assistance Team. The geophysicalborehole logs indicate that the dominant water-bearing fractures are fourtd within125 feet of the surface. Fractured rocks typically have a porosity on the orderof 1% (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). Using a saturated thickness of 125 feet and aneffective porosity value of 1% yielded a volumetric estimate of 4.4 x 107 ft3,or roughly 440 million gallons of potentially contaminated ground water.

] ( i

8.5 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF TECHNOLOGY TYPES AND PROCESS OPTIONS; ' , I

In accordance with RI/FS Guidance and Step 4 from Section 8.1, the universe ofpotentially applicable technology types and process options shall be reduced byevaluating the options according to general technical implementability. As

8-13

flR3o'092lf


REV. #130/SEPT/91

recommended by RI/FS Guidance, this evaluation is presented in tabular form;Table 8-4 contains the preliminary screening for Ground Water, and Table 8-5contains the preliminary screening for the Landfill. No preliminary screeningis warranted for the Surface Water/Sediment because the No Action option has noconstituent technologies or process options which require evaluation.

8.6 EVALUATION OF PROCESS OPTIONS

The evaluation of process options is Step 5 in the Identification and Screeningof Technologies (Section 8.1). All technologies or process options that wereidentified in Tables 8-4 and 8-5 to be potentially applicable to site conditionsshall be evaluated in relation to their effectiveness, implementability, andrelative cost per USEPA Guidance (1988). The criteria are described as follows:

Effectiveness; Each technology process option is evaluated for effectiveness andits relation with other processes by focusing on: the potential effectiveness ofthe technology to handle the volume of contaminated media estimated to exist atthe site, the ability of the process to attain the remedial objectives, thepotential impacts upon human health and the environment during implementation ofthe technology, and the reliability of the technology with respect to thecontaminants and conditions at the site.

Implementabilitv; This includes both the technical and administrativefeasibility of implementing the technology or process option.

Cost; During this screening process, cost will be based on best engineeringjudgement. The relative costs of technologies or options will be designated aslow ($0-100,000), moderate ($100,000-1,000,000) or high ($ >1,000,000). Bothcapital costs and operation and maintenance costs (O&M) are considered. Thecosts quoted represent total costs for the process option.

The following subsections present the medium-specific evaluation of thepotentially applicable technologies and process options for ground water and forthe landfill, respectively.

8-14

AR300925

o ce. =* 01C\J O -«3- Q. • Q.

LU =» LUz a: LU ooCJ Qi-~-»1—00 O

CO§

< It— o •oi= "5sLL.<O

a:oco

H-ZLU

j

f pgZZLULUo;to

t— 1t—o_a;otoLUO

1— tt—a.

£3*3a.

j . r

SlUoo_

oLU'

LU

a.LUOo: 1-1

aeLUzLU

013BU•r-a.Q.

>r—

£c014,oa.

co4-»UB

•51i-oz

013oa.a.

i

0)ca

cu

oz

013' •BU

a.a.B^f-i4-1C014,oa.

0)

i•acoi.OIi/i01-a3

"uC•1—

co•r-ua

22•O •.-Ol i.E O

iiOIc

£±oto4.01e3

•g32o

Io4,•f"co

.c

c cO '!-•r- I.4-> OU +,Ii

013Bua.a.B>jp..a4,C014,oa.

-C

X-a<uBuoVI

aVIc.04J 01U VIr =VI 01

OI

C 3O ON L.

0 01

•a 301 4->01 3

1u1 •VI

•801O

<? VI•r- C

15

VI

§•r"U•r-t-4-*I/I

aeVIVI

0

**

co4J VIn4-1 4-»I/I Cc o

2LUco t-3 O

*1O-a uX 01LU VI

0)f\S•r-

"a.a.

i

01

30)aoi a.4-> a.<to

013•3U

a.Q.c>j_

4,C014->o

+J

gsO (-• o.4Jc O0) +•"C VI VIOl— 4->O r— C

OI Q*- 36 CO T-C E

VI O B0) •!- 4->••- 4-< CI- U O0) B UVI S-

4J U-B X O

01M- CO i. O

ID -r-

sisa1"!!»— 3O. O 01LU DI4J

VI

3COI *U£XLU

1-oS"•1- fc.a. oi3 B0.3oi -a> c•r- 3112<U3

C

'5coo

oOJ3 -*"O Oo01 !-r- -a-Q 01e J2u••- -a"o. t-Q. 3u4-> e

z«t

pcu•f—4-*t.01

C 4->01 C> B01 Ca'i04?+J Co•a u01u o01

?!4-> 03 U

If

I/IS.01t1_<s«Jus.01

fc.01r&- Boi oa

B C3 0•a 4,c a3 S.O 01o £

0

OI3 JtfQ

01 i-r— T3-Q 01B -QU•r- T3r-* 01a. s-Q. 3B 4-10

4J OO t~z >*-

r- CB B

§1N «3

O O.c u

C 0101 4->> B

a. -ac0 34,0

•a 0101o o01

?!4-> 1o3 t-O O?S- •!-

VIi-01•r"

fc001

BCON•1—

i

a— >C O 4J•r- C r— -r-

•i- C01 O 3

B -i- OI -r-O i— 3 -C•r- •!- T3 4J"o. t. B t- *o. oi u oi >>B H- •!— *4- 4-*

>! 3 a. 3 >i— o- a. O--1-i— B B B VIB I/I•r- J* T3 S T-4J U 01 O EC O 4J r— VI01 S- ••- i— C4, -a E B BO <1) -r- -C i-a. ja — j vi 4-i

t.01 4->•— > c

BOO)C U E0 01 4-1•i- b B

0) 4J 4-1

C VI S-Oi— O'O r- >*-

01O 01C 4,

VI O B01 •.- 3•r- 4,s- u-aOI B CVI i- 3

4-> O«3 X i-

01 OIM-O t. T3

OI 014-» 4-> 4,C B B01 X C

g>]g si— 3 4Jto c

S- OLU OI U

VI

r—013CO•i—4JU

£•*->

0)•r*

**

co•r-

O01r~

cS

Q.0101-a coO '!-

B

B E•i- i-

Q. S-Q. 01B !*-

4-1 3

Z B"

• O CVI 01 01r-i— E

C B O B•r- 2 O 01

01 OI O *->a. c 4,•r- C S-0.1- «J OTJ E "501 OJ 0) t-B 4**I- TJ 1/1 eO C 3 S«*- B OS- t-T301 VI O Ca.01 a. 3J= O

4- U -C S-O C 4J 01

O 4J *~S•r- "O 4,4, -a o) BB 01 t— C

"B > £ BI/I U U CC X B O« 1) -Q U

Uc2!o4-1a.01ui.0)ct— 1

0)•r-VIVI

°-

Q.0101•a co0 -r-

B0) *f—o 0)B E(J OI•r- (.

"a. s-a. oiB l+-

o o-Z B

JcE

B i01 t-•o oi•r- 4-*> B2sO.T30§4,0

I— 01

'E o §01 l«- 4,4, viB j: >,E 4J VI

B 0.4,c;'o'o i

. 4-1

C C 01

01 01UM- B

aT 0.4,

VIeBao•i—3

^300926

o ai =* 01«t Q. • a.

LU =» UJZ O.UJ 00h— OO O

U- CO

inio0000UJ

a:ooo

l/Tr-

•£*

EU

zzUJUJ

u00

zo1—41—a.asooUJa

oJ— 4t—a.000

1a.

1Sze«_>UJ'

UJ

1*10

•oc3 -ao vOI 3O t)4_4 A3

S-0)4-3 OA3 4-*U•r- HIi— 3CL-a .*O. UC U 0

4J .2-0O A3 01Z I-Q

inu in•4- Ec inA3 •!-0) cS- A3O O)t- 0o os-c u•21-§•5A3s- in •cn o>0) in•a in

01u u•r- O-Q i-o a.s-01 UA3 •!-C r—

(J aJ3 012*

co•4-*49

•501

£O'r-ea

A3u'p-0oo'r-ea

c1s*~

os.O i-4- 0

•I- 4->01 i- O in-i— a. c uA3 Ift ••> C

•r- -r- C Oli — C 01 t-a. AS s oa. C04J0 i. A3 0

O 0) 4->>. C S-r— r- 4-> 41

AS 01 in .a•r- C O «34J.r-.r- uC > C •!-0) 0 A3 t—4J E 01 a.O 0) S- Q.Q- I- 0 A3

4-0

4- >,0 4JC .A....

3 •!- S-•r- J3 D) 4)S. 3 C 4J5'o I! s£ 6 T33 01 0 C01 -W CL 0r— 0) - cno u in<J 3 i— 4-•r- T3 A3 O

6 i. *" 4JJ= E Is0 O O

4-> S-4- 01 CO S- -C O

ID 4-> •<-C 4-> O 4->O A3 A3•r- 3-0 4J4J C -r-A3 -a <3 a.S- C T-01 3 C O

£222.<C OVr- Q.

coA34-1

a.u^a.

A3u

0

A3u•r-E0)-Ci _r™A3U•r-in

a.

oi4-> Oin01

3 C 01A3 A3 4->

•r- in 3f•— 0Q.-1- eO. C Oe AS t.

O>4->> s-r— 0 inr- OA3 O»-(-•i- C C4-> T- A3C > Ol0) O &-4J E O0 01 C0. «-•!-

•a01 C4-> O

11•£ uuA3 A3

O -C4-" O>C 300in -c4J 4JcA3 S-C OI•1- 4JE 0A3 X

C 01O CU •!-in4- inO A3a.c

4->a. c es- o £o -a 3l/l S- r—•a 49 a

•a01 C4-1 OA3 •!-

•i- ti4-* &-<J O< in

r— C

A3 t-t- 49O O

01

3

CLa.•3^

_A3

4-*

1

•a0)A3

'r-4JUco *>4-1 CC 010 Ein 434-1 01c s-A3 4JC

A3 <J

c cn0 OU i —O4- •!-o -aCT3O C•p- 434-»CL CS- OO -Qin i.ss

•a014-» 4JA3 C> oi•r- EU 43< 01

l|to AS a.a. o *— •

TJCA3 O

O OI4-> •— 0)

•r- r—

J3l— 043 O •!-O > I —•-'s S-1 — ' E CLa. oi oa. inA3 4J•a o>< c c1 ••*AS oi in•r- r— 0

01 A3 c A34J r— 0)4Jo o s- oia. > o E

cncul

Co4JA3r— inr— 4-1•r- C4-> A3in c•5 'Ir— 4-4e cC 00 04-J 4)u >£1in3 OO 4->3C— >•r- E4 A3C 010 4->O in

cnc•r-Q.a.*r-S-4-*ooA30100

OIr—J2U

a.CLA3>

r .

4-4

014J

01A3 VI2 4Jc0) A3

0 E4- A30 C4-1 O

U

i- 013 Cin -r-in >01 A3u oiO.1—

-C -cn oi•r- C

*£o "§c E0•I- A3

N wa•i- 3 C

-w -c a

ininginO0)ins-0101

01c0ct*013u•r- 01

a. AS4J A3O >Z A3

•a j=C 4J

1*cn oio-a c01 A34-> -aA3 i-t- 4J A3A3 01J= S. L.<J OI 4Jin 4-* oi•r- A3 t.020.

1•(J

-1

01•I—oo14-O

in§Q.in•p-a

3J3

Oi a-i — -Jt"i i/jC =>ur J3CLO.T3

>, s-r- 01

'AS'U*r- l-4J CLe4)0 0CL. C

•o41

S*:i- C

ps

O A301

3 «- >i0) 4J 4JA3 T3i—01 01 T-t- > 0c i— 4—3 CLr-4- A3 43O <nC 0

VI O -r-O 4-> "OCLin s- *o•p- 0) cT3 4J e

4-> OJ•r- T3 O»in c AS4! o OO cn if

O001—0)•r—ini4-4-o

11-Q

U

CLa.

>i«A3

1 _'C41

£.

T.1C

2cn•a014->A341S_

S-o~a in

A3 0101 S-

c3r—

i] (jo aa)1"cn oi- 4->

|fe•r- CO S

41cns-43

U

a

£4->00

t-C 01'r- 4-

>i 34J CP•r- ASi—-Q UA3 OU S-•r- T3r— 01a. -aa.A3 T3

01•a t.01 3•r- (J

•52-J 4-

r* J.cn o3o cL. 0

5 I.

uJ01 4-14-> -r-A3 01

-a in3 r—O 01o>2c•a o01 T-

A3 U01 01S- -r-j

4-O 4-O

01 0101 01 4->U in <r-43 3 UlJZO 01 4-0) JZ <t-o: 4J o

01

A3

Uaia:t-4)

•ac32O

(U•i—1

S

8-i6

o oi *• ovc\j o ""-TO. -a.uj > uiz a£ UJ in<J !*•-».

zoa.o

i uj«g.UJ t— *

Of<_>CO

to1—zUJ

5Ot n

1—4ZUJtu

CO

^

H"i1—a.t— »a:UtoLUo

i—a.OtoS3£ccc:CL.

1-4U1O a.Z, >•

&ji—

LU

£Eg"5gUJzUJ0

Ol

u•a.a.c

r— -43

4-1C01

oa.

co4-1CJ43

,_a•ai<uoz

01s43Uf_Q.Q.43

4-1

Z

01gz

ca£u

z

Ol

343u£Q.Q.43

r—>r—4-1COl4-1oo.

-C•F-s-o014-1e

'iCOUl43

COcO•r-

o4J

01i_

Ol

C 3•r-C T3O CM 43s_ r~O OlT3 3(U 4-101 3Ot-

to•o c41 O3 4J

•-v. OOl-i-C S-•r- 4JC COO 01MQJ

COCO

t)uu»4!O£UlI/I01Uu

r™

CO•*J (/t

!!in c

O

cC/) r— £•i- r— CS- C ••-

•r- 4304-14-14J C 4-»oi e •Ol 4-1 COi— a o of43 egO •• Ol <C'r" C r—r— 0 J3 .—Q--t- 0 i—Q.4-1 CJ -r-43 U T- 4-3 .— T3

4-1 T3 O, CO Ol Cc. 43Z i- 43 r—

Ols-3'OQ.X01[ 'c01Ol0.o

•r—it-isc43

0)cuc01Lu

I?•r*

gU-

4J C<U OlOl COt- •• 01CJ T3 t-ui oi Q.•r" 'r—

O 4J 43C C Ol

01 i..«-ar— I.Ol ••- 43 OlJ3 CO CO 43a 43 4J 3eU Ol C•i- i. 43 -Oi — 43 C C0. -r- 3CL OJ E O43 U 43 i.

4-1 3 C0 0 0 CZ CO U •r-

4J OC 4-101 COl "~i- IAa. 4-10 43•4-1 C

oi 'iU 431- 4-13 CO Oin u4-1 t-c oc c'i -°43 4-14-> 3C r-O Oo in i.m oi>4- T- 4JO T3 0

"43 oi -a> -c c§4-1 3

S- 0Ol 3 l-Qi "*- O>

01r™J3*3U•i—

a.a.43

4-1

Z

Mr

•EO -"->

43

SE •O4-1 1 —

> >«-43 -au cX 43UJ —1

43

01cn01ui.3OCO

C CO

t-co

43O 4-14-1 a.

01Ol U-Q 43a c•r— QJ1 —— O •!-Q. C t-Q. •!-

i— C4-1 •!- 01o o -oZ CO •!-

01coN

01u oiC CO43 O-C T3

11 >

0 C

E w3 -O3 CU 343 0

> t43 o<Jo t-oco c•i— O4J •!-C 4-1U 43•i— NQ.I—Q.-I-

Ol r—J= 0*~ *

Co•r-4-1Ug4-1XUJs3U43

01Ui-3OCO!«•43 1——3 43•o >•p- Oco E01 Ol0! 0£

C CO

CO *"X Ola. 343O 4-14-1 a.

01Ol U

-a ao 3 -a•r- Olr— O *i—a. c <*-a. T-43 *4t 4-1r— C

4-1 T- 0)

O

CO O4-1 4-1C

cj O43 Ult- E«- e <u3 S 4JCO ^ CO"t- >>t. COO CO•a c oC K3 •!-43 C 4-1

E 'i a43 « 4.01 4-1 4J4J C Xco O 0)u4- i«-Oi— OaC 3 OlOT3 C•r- *p- O4-1 in Mu 013 t- Ol-o s-O -C 3

4-1 3 a.Cr— 43

.•O<oco4-1u24-1X 0)UJ C

01 3

CO U-

Ol-Q43U^'o.Q.

^

>r-4-1

014-1

0101 -i-in inin43 r-S- 43o> c

•r-i*- cnO T-l-t- o01*o t-i— O01 V)•— 01cn I.c•r- OCO 4-1

Q Ol4-11*- •!-

O CO

C i.O Ol•r- > Ul-U O Ce or— •!- •£43 0-r-co a. ccoo

u0143

HI

.=to

,_•1—

-ac43—1a.43u

o4-1<J3•auC£.01ui.3OCO

Ol

43U£a.CL43

r— •'o•U

2"•3O

0 !-4J CO

a. oO 4-1u c11 0)43 T-

1 U•r- 434-1 Ol

Ce 43c<*- T-0 E

0 S•r- O4-1 U43

1 — 4-1

'olo s.U» J= 4-1C C |

Ol4-1CO433:

Iu'c3S

UJ

S3-Q-U

Ol

43O

r-a.a.43

P—43

4-1C01oa.

•ocoo t-

4-1 Ol

O. O43 4-1U C

CO3 D>0 C•r" 'r-> -Ct- U01 43

f"

C C43 13C

>*- T-O Ea§ c•i- O4-1 U43r~ 4-1r— C43 01 I.4-1 > Olco ai 4-1c s- 43>-> CLX

VJ343

01I"4-H

s-01<C CL—1 43

I U

3 UE CC.

8-17


REV. #130/SEPT/91

8.6.1 Evaluation of Remedial Technologies for Ground Water

8.6.1.1 No Action • -

Description; No Action means that no remedial actions are to be conducted on theground water.

Effectiveness; A No Action evaluation is required by USEPA RI/FS Guidance as abaseline against which other remedial alternatives may be compared. Since thereare no remedial actions undertaken, there is no additional adverse impact onhuman health and the environment caused by implementation of No Action. Theremedial action objectives for ground water may be achieved in the long term bythe dilution, biodegradation, and natural attenuation of contaminants that mayoccur over time.

Implementability; This criterion does not apply to the No Action alternative.

Cost; No capital or O&M costs are associated with this action.

8.6.1.2 No Action with Monitoring

Description; As with the No Action option, no remedial actions are to beconducted on the ground water. However, unlike the previous option, biannualground-water monitoring of selected wells would be conducted.

Effectiveness; Since there are no remedial actions undertaken, there would be'no additional adverse impact the environment caused by implementation of NoAction with Monitoring. Potential adverse impacts on human health by exposureof sampling personnel to contaminated ground water during sampling would beminimized by the implementation of stringent Standard Operating Proceduresregarding health and safety protocols. Because monitoring does not reducecontaminant levels, the remedial action objectives for ground water would not beachieved except by the possible long term dilution, biodegradation, and naturalattenuation of contaminants that may occur over time. Monitoring of ground wateris a conventional, reliable method of collecting data, but would not result in

8-18

HR3Q0929

: ; i TCN 4204• RI/FS REPORT

! REV. #1; i 30/SEPT/91

any reduction in contaminant concentrations. Monitoring of ground watercontaminant concentrations is considered to be applicable to site conditions, andis a means of assessing the rate of natural attenuation and any related reductionin risk levels through time. I

Implementabilitv; Ground water monitoring is not difficult to implement. Welllocations are generally accessible, and equipment and trained sampling personnelare readily available.

I

Cost; No capital cost is associated with this action, however biannualmonitoring of ground water in a selected number of wells results in moderate O&Mcosts and moderate to high total present worth costs.

• . . - - • - • i8.6.1.3 Institutional Controls

Method 1 - Deed and/or Zoning Restrictions

Description: Institutional actions are a class of controls that can be used toi

minimize the potential for exposure to the ground water. These controls wouldentail ground water use (well installation) restrictions for the area.

::Effectiveness; Restrictions on ground water use would protect human health ai.Jthe environment, even though contaminants would remain in the ground water.Protection would be provided by preventing the consumption, use, or release tothe environment of contaminated ground water by area residents. Depending uponthe enforceability of the actions taken, the remedial action objectives may ormay not be met; protectiveness may be attained, however remediation to backgroundor ARARs would not. There would be no additional adverse impacts to human healthand the environment caused by implementation of this action, however the volumeof contaminated ground water would not be reduced, and migration of contaminantsin the ground water would not be contained. .

ji

Implementability; The successful enforcement of institutional controls would'require the cooperation of various public and private entities. The prohibition

8-19

1 flR3!00930


REV. #130/SEPT/91

of ground water use would only be imp lenient able if coupled with an alternatewater supply method, as discussed below.

Cost; Capital costs for the implementation of institutional controls areanticipated to be low, as are O&M costs. Total present worth costs areanticipated to be moderate.

8.6.1.4 Alternate Water Supply

Method 1 - Provision of Alternate Residential Water System

Description: A means of eliminating the pathway of exposure to contaminatedresidential well water is to institute the provision of alternative sources ofwater for domestic use.

Effectiveness; This action is already in progress under a cooperative effort bythe USEPA, PADER, and the Bureau of Land Reclamation pursuant to an existingUSEPA Record of Decision, and, therefore, it will not be further evaluated as apotential remedial alternative technology.

Implementabilitv; Not applicable - technology is in progress.

Cost; Not applicable - technology is in progress.

8.6.1.5 Ground Water Plume Containment and Collection Methods

Method 1 - Ground Mater Migration Barriers

Description; Under some conditions, the horizontal and vertical migration ofcontaminants in the subsurface can be contained with engineered cement or groutstructures including slurry walls, grout curtains, etc.

Effectiveness; Although the landfill is indicated to be the original source ofground water contaminants, the occurrence of contaminants in ground water is notlocalized. Because of the absence of a localized source area and the fractured

8-20

AR30093I

; , i TCN 4204RI/FS REPORT

i • REV. #1: ' 30/SEPT/91

nature of the bedrock, these containment technologies are screened asinapplicable to the BUTZ LANDFILL site.

!

Implementabilit.y; Not applicable - technology is screened out.

Costs; Not applicable - technology is screened out.

Method 2 - Ground Water Collection Technologies

Ground water collection systems are installed to intercept and extract groundwater from the saturated flow zone to contain the migration of a contaminationplume and/or to collect the ground water for treatment. Collection systemsinclude both active and passive devices, as well as point and line (or area)devices. These collection systems are discussed below.

ii i

Active Pumping Using Extraction Wells i

Description; The active extraction devices work by enhancing a gradient on theground water system by withdrawing ground water, which induces an increased flowtoward the collection location. Pumped extraction wells and trenches, groundwater galleries, and isolated collection systems are examples of active devices.An active extraction well system will be described in Section 9.0.

t i

IExtraction wells are utilized for ground water containment or collectiontechnologies, and consist of a borehole drilled to the desired depth and asubmersible pump set at the selected pumping interval. In unconsplidatedmaterials, the wells are screened over the desired interval of recovery with asand filter pack in the annular space around the screen, and solid casing.extending to the surface with the annular space cement-grouted. This type ofwell is typically installed at depths appropriate for the capture of contaminated

Iground water, at lateral spacing intervals across a site such that the respectiveoverlapping cones of depression permit the containment of the contaminant plume.\

Effectiveness; Pumping is a widely used technique for the long-term containment,and collection (for treatment) of contaminated ground water. Packer test and

8-21

3R3Q0932


REV. #130/SEPT/91

pump test data have documented downward flow of ground water from the shallow tothe deep aquifer. Pumping would be only from the deep aquifer. In this method,the natural downward gradient from the shallow aquifer would be enhanced, and theDNAPL phase (which is assumed to exist [see RI]) would be contained. Theinstallation of extraction wells or other active collection methods in both thebedrock and the thin till horizon (where contaminant levels are lower) isconsidered to be redundant. Except for extraction wells, the active systems(e.g., collection trenches, survey wells, etc.) are restricted to shallow depths(less than 40 feet), so other active methods are screened as inapplicable to siteconditions.

Implementability; Extraction wells can be installed using conventional drillingmethods with minimal disruption at the site. Locations would be selected tominimize disturbances to local residences. The materials and labor for theconstruction of extraction wells are readily available. Easements for the wellsand pipelines might be required. Treatment of the pumped ground water willlikely be required to meet discharge ARARs. Technologies for Ground WaterTreatment and Discharge are discussed in Sections 8.6.1.5 and 8.6.1.6,respectively.

Cost; The capital costs for drilling and installing an extraction well networkare anticipated to be moderate. The overall O&M costs are low to moderatebecause of maintenance requirements and power consumption.

Passive Collection Systems - Shallow Aquifer

Extraction trenches, wick drains, and membrane walls are examples of passivecollection systems. A passive system takes advantage of static conditions tocollect contaminants, relying on the natural ground water gradient to carry thecontaminants to the collection location and/or to a barrier impermeable to thepassage of ground water. Typically more than one collection system is utilizedin a combined or supplemental role. Collected ground water would likely requiretreatment to ARARs prior to discharge.

8-22

' „ ! TCN 4204: - - i ' RI/FS REPORT

, i REV. #1| 30/SEPT/91

; i

Effectiveness; Passive collection systems are a proven, effective method forcontaining contamination plumes that exist at shallow depths (less than 40 feet).They are not applicable to the collection of ground water from bedrock. Aseparate collection system only applicable to shallow ground water would beredundant if used in conjunction with a deep aquifer extraction system. If usedalone, a shallow aquifer system would not attain the remedial objectives relatingto contaminants in the deep aquifer. Therefore, the shallow collection systemsare screened as inapplicable to site conditions.

!

Implementabilitv; Not applicable - technology is screened out.

Cost; Not applicable - technology is screened out.;:

8.6.1.6 Ground Water Treatment Technologies:

Method 1 - Chemical Precipitation

Description; Chemical precipitation processes may be used to remove inorganicspecies such as iron, manganese and zinc from the water once the water has beenremoved from the aquifer. A chemical precipitant is added to the water. Thesolution is mixed, and a flocculating agent (such as a synthetic polymer) isadded to enhance floe formation and settling. A mixing tank and a settling tankare usually required for chemical precipitation.

.Effectiveness; Chemical precipitation is an effective and reliable conventionaltechnology for metals/solids removal, as long as the metals are present insufficient quantity and oxidation state to permit precipitation. Unlesstreatment vessels are covered to prevent volatile emissions, there may bepotential adverse impacts to human health and the environment duringimplementation. Chemical precipitation may be used as a first step process priorto treatment processes for organics.

\ ii

Implementabilitv; The materials and labor needed for proper installation of thisprocess option are readily available. Chemical precipitation at the site wouldbe used as an inorganic pretreatment step prior to further treatment; of the

8-23


REV. II30/SEPT/91

ground water for organics removal. Because the process results in the formationof insoluble metal salts, a solids fraction is generated that may requiredewatering prior to -disposal. Possible disposal options will depend on thecharacter of the solids fraction, which can be determined using the TCLP(Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure). Sludge disposal facilities,depending on the size of the treatment plant, may be required.

Cost; The capital cost for implementing a chemical precipitation process ismoderate. The costs for chemicals, solids fraction disposal, supervision, andmaintenance lead to moderate O&M costs also.

Method 2 - In-situ Bioremediation

Description; Bioremediation; (1) is a process in which bacteria degradecontaminants by using the contaminant as food, and (2) can occur aerobically oranaerobically. In general, aerobic degradation processes are more often usedbecause the degradation process is more rapid and more complete, and problematicend products (methane, hydrogen sulfide) are not produced. However, anaerobicdegradation is important for dehalogenation.

Some compounds are not degraded by naturally occurring microbial populationsbecause of the lack of solubility, absence of required enzymes, nutrients orother factors. Organic microorganisms require adequate levels of inorganics andorganics nutrients, water, oxygen, carbon dioxide and sufficient biological spacefor survival and growth. One or more of these factors are usually in limitedsupply. In addition, various microbial competitors adversely affect each otherthrough the struggle for these limiting factors. Other factors which caninfluence microbial biodegradation rates include microbial inhibition bychemicals in the waste to be treated, the seasonal state of microbialdevelopment, predators, pH and temperature. Interactions between these and otherpotential factors can cause wide variation in degradation kinetics.

Naturally occurring aerobic bacteria can decompose organic materials of bothnatural and synthetic origin to harmless or stable forms or both by convertingthem to C02 and water. For- the reasons mentioned above, aerobic biodegradation

8-24

! TCN 4204^ "- : fcl/FS REPORT

1 REV. #1: i 30/SEPT/91

is usually carried out ex-situ in which all or many of the requisiteenvironmental conditions can be controlled.

-Effectiveness; Biodegradation would be effective on the volatile organiccompounds in the ground water, however the heterogeneous nature of the fracturedbedrock and the anisotropic permeability (along fractures and bedding planes)render it inapplicable to site conditions. Bioremediation is not rated by theUSEPA (1990) for application to remediation of ground water in fractured bedrock.

! j

Implementability; Not applicable - technology is screened out.i; jij

Costs; Not applicable - technology is screened out.• ' i( • I

Method 3 - Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Adsorption

Description; Carbon adsorption involves contacting a waste stream with activatedcarbon, usually by flow through a series of packed bed reactors. Most organiccompounds, many inorganics, and dioxins will readily attach to the carbon. Thecarbon is said to be activated because the carbon has been treated to increaseits surface-to-volume ratio. This allows more adsorption to occur. The strengthof the attachment of a compound to carbon depends on the specific compound beingadsorbed. The stronger this attachment, the more difficult the subsequentdesorption (regeneration) will be.

•Wh,en the activated carbon has adsorbed so much that its adsorptive capacity isseverely depleted, the "spent" carbon must either be regenerated or replaced.Carbon regeneration can be accomplished on-site or off-site. If stean) is used

ito regenerate the carbon, a condensate requiring treatment or disposal willresult. If the carbon is directly heated instead, the adsorbed organics can bedestroyed and converted to primarily carbon dioxide and water. Simple carbonreplacement may be more cost effective than regeneration for strongly adsorbedcompounds.

Effectiveness; GAC is an effective and reliable means of removing aqueoUs wasteswith high molecular weight, high boiling point, and low solubility and polarity.

8-25

^300936


REV. II30/SEPT/91

Such compounds include aromatics such as phenol, chlorinated hydrocarbons suchas tetrachloroethylene, and dioxin. GAC may also provide some metals removal.The GAC process is, however, sensitive to iron and suspended solidsconcentrations. This process effects a permanent removal of contaminants fromthe water and has the advantage that no off-gas is generated. There would beminimal impacts to human health and the environment associated with carbonreplacement.

The carbon-packed beds range in size from disposable 55-gallon drums to sizesappropriate for wastewater treatment plants. Depending upon the concentrationsand type of chemicals that need to be treated, GAC can be used as either aprimary treatment process or a secondary (polishing) process. A pilot test wouldbe required to determine the efficiency of the GAC process for the recoveredground water.

Implementabilitv; The equipment and labor for installing this process option arereadily available, and the operation and maintenance requirements of the systemare not complex. Mechanical equipment failure should be infrequent and minor fora GAC system. Spent carbon must either be regenerated, incinerated or disposedof depending on the quantity of carbon used and the relative costs of eachoption.

Cost; The capital cost for a GAC system is moderate, and the overall O&M costis also moderate. Carbon regeneration and replacement are the primary factorsdetermining the O&M costs.

Method 4 - Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment

Description; A Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT™) system uses powderedactivated carbon which can have a greater adsorptive capacity than granularcarbon, and combines it with activated sludge. The powdered activated carbonadsorbs compounds similar to those adsorbed by granular carbon, but has a greaterunit surface area.

8-26

flH300937

I TCN 4204(U/FS REPORT: REV. #1! ,,., . 30/SEPT/91

A Batch-Operated PACT™ is designed for small flow rates up to 100 gpm. Thebatch operation allows aeration, settling, and decanting - all in the same tank.In the first step, the water is pumped from a flow equalization tank into theaeration tank where it comes in contact with, a mixture of biological solids andpowdered activated carbon. In the second step, the contents are aerate^. Duringaeration, the biodegradable portion of the waste is treated biologically, whilethe non-biodegradable contaminants are adsorbed in the carbon particles. In stepthree, aeration ceases and the tank contents,are allowed to settle. The solidsare retained in the tank for use with the next batch of water, unless somedisposal or regeneration is needed. Ordinarily, 150-200 mg/Jt of Chemical OxygenDemand (COD) is needed to support the biomass. If necessary, a supplementalcarbon source (e.g., molasses) can be metered into the treatment system.

;

When the powdered activated carbon has adsorbed so much that its adsorptivecapacity is severely depleted, the "spent" carbon must either be regenerated orreplaced.

!

Effectiveness; The PACT™ system is very reliable and effective in removingvolatile organic compounds from ground water. Acid extractables and aromaticcompounds are generally well removed. Phenolics removability decreases withincreased ring chlorination. j

• iImplementabiltty; The Batch PACT™ plant arrives on-site, ready to hook up andoperate. In batch mode the PACT™ can handle flows of up to 100 gpm.

j

Cost; The capital costs for a Batch PACT™ are moderate to high. O&M costs fora Batch PACT™ are also moderate to high. The costs of this system aredisproportionately high for the level of contaminant remediation indicated to benecessary; other conventional volatile remediation technologies are more costeffective for the same level of protect!veness. Based upon cost difference, PACTis screened from further consideration.

8-27

flR3!00938


REV. #130/SEPT/91

Method 5 - Air Stripping

Description; Air stripping to remove organics from water is performed by passingair through the water to facilitate transfer of volatile organics from the liquidphase to the gas (e.g., air) phase. These volatiles are then removed with thestripper off-gas. The degree to which stripping is successful for removingvolatiles from a liquid stream depends on the volatility of the compoundspresent, the volumetric ratio of air to water flow, the surface area of theair/liquid interface, and the temperature at which stripping is conducted. Threeprincipal methods of air stripping are employed: diffused aeration, mechanicalaeration, and packed or spray tower stripping. Packed-tower stripping is mostwidely used for stripping volatiles in waste streams the size of thoseanticipated for this site.

Effectiveness; The packed-tower stripping efficiency for a given compound isprimarily a function of the air-to-water ratio, the packing configuration anddepth, and the stripping temperature. Air stripping is not suitable for highlywater-soluble organic compounds, metals, non-volatile organics, or dioxin. Thistechnology is expected to be effective on the volatile compounds detected in theground water at BUTZ LANDFILL.

Implementabilitv; The materials and labor needed to install an air stripper arereadily available. Periodic maintenance and effluent sampling would be required.An air discharge permit may be required. Off-gas treatment may be needed basedon the levels of contaminants in ground water and the flow rate through thestripper.

Cost; The cost for installing an air stripping system is low to moderate. Theoverall O&M is generally moderate and depends on power consumption, the frequencyof packing replacement, and whether or not an off-gas treatment is required.

Method 6 - Steam Stripping

Description: Steam stripping operates essentially as a continuous fractionaldistillation process carried out in a packed or tray tower. Steam is used to

8-28

AR300939

TCN 4204i . RI/FS REPORT: i REV. #1. - 30/SEPT/91

I" I

evaporate volatile organics from aqueous wastes. Clean steam provides directheat to the column in which gas flows from the bottom to the top of the tower.The resulting residuals are contaminated steam condensate, recovered solvent and

: ; jstripped effluent. The organic vapors and the raffinate are sent through acondenser in preparation for further treatment. Carbon adsorption may be usedas a post-treatment.

Effectiveness; Steam stripping is effective on a wider range of organiccompounds than air stripping alone, including: chlorinated hydrocarbons,aromatics such as xylenes, ketones such as acetone or MEK, alcohols such asmethanol and high boiling point chlorinated aromatics such as pentachlorophenol .Steam stripping can handle a wide concentration range (less than 100 ppm to about10 percent organics). Some type of air pollution control mechanism is typicallyneeded. Although this method is applicable to the treatment of the yolatilesfound at BUTZ LANDFILL, it is more complex and expensive than conventional air

i

stripping, which is also applicable to site conditions.

Implementability; The equipment, materials, and labor required for thistechnology are commercially available. PADER emission standards would have tobe met. An additional power source for stream generation would be needed.

: ,.

Costs; The capital and O&M costs are moderate for this process. Because thisprocess is more expensive than air stripping for essentially the same results,steam stripping is screened from further consideration.

!,

Method 7 - Reverse Osmosis: ' i

Description; In normal osmotic processes, the solvent (e.g., water) will flowacross a semi -permeable membrane from a dilute concentration (e.g., a solutionof contaminants in water) to a more concentrated solution (e.g., water with nosolute) until equilibrium is reached. The application of high pressure to theconcentrated side will cause this process to reverse. This results in solvent(water) flow towards the concentrated solution (purer water), leaving an evenhigher concentration of solute.

8-29


REV. #130/SEPT/91

Effectiveness; As a contaminant collection method, reverse osmosis is veryeffective. Some membranes may be dissolved by some wastes. Low-solubility saltsmay precipitate onto the membrane surface. Suspended solids, some organics, andoil will clog the membrane material.

Implementabilitv; The equipment, materials, and labor required for theapplication of this technology are commercially available.

Costs; The capital costs are moderate but the O&M cost would be unreasonablyhigh. The costs of this system are disproportionately high for the level ofcontaminant remediation indicated to be necessary; other conventional volatileremediation technologies are more cost effective for the same level ofprotectiveness. Based upon cost difference, Reverse Osmosis is screened fromfurther consideration. The properties of the contaminated ground water at thissite are amenable to remediation by other less expensive and more conventionalmethods, thus reverse osmosis is screened from further consideration.

8.6.1.7 Ground Water Disposal Technologies

Method 1 - Off-Site Disposal of Ground Water

Description; This process option involves the off-site disposal of contaminatedground water by discharge to a local Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) or ahazardous waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) Facility.

Effectiveness; No public water treatment facilities exist within a distance ofthe landfill such that a pipeline could reasonably be constructed. Tankertrucking of the anticipated large volume of ground water would not be reasonable.In addition, it is unlikely that any treatment facility oriented to the treatmentof municipal sewage could effectively treat the volatile constituents ,in theground water from the extraction well network.

Implementation; USEPA has shown preference to remedies which implement remedialmeasures at the site of origination, rather than relocating contaminants toanother treatment or disposal location. Disposal of ground water to a TSD

8-30

AR3009M

! TCN 4204; 'RI/FS REPORT

: > REV. #1... , ' 30/SEPT/91

facility is not considered to be either cost effective or the optimal approachto the remediation of contaminated ground water, and it is screened from furtherconsideration. Disposal to a POTW is screened from further consideration.

;

Cost; The costs of disposing of contaminated ground water at a TSD facility areanticipated to be high compared to other disposal options.

; ' i; I

Method 2 - Discharge of Treated Mater to Surface Mater

Description; In this disposal option, treated ground water would be directlydischarged to local streams. This would require the installation of a pipelinefrom the treatment plant site to the discharge point.

i

Effectiveness; Direct discharge is a proven, effective means of disposing oftreated ground water from a site. There would be no chemical-specific adverseimpacts on human health or the environment since the water would meet P/|iDER NPDESdischarge standards. Compliance with other action-specific or location-specificARARs (e.g., disturbance of wetlands) would require evaluation.

i

Implementabilitv; The materials and labor are readily available to install adirect discharge line from the site to local streams. A discharge would have tomeet NPDES standards. In addition, a right-of-way to the receiving streamselected may be required. Periodic inspection and maintenance of the pipelinewould also be required.

! ' '

Cost; The capital cost to install the discharge line is low to moderate, and O&Mcosts for inspection and maintenance are low.

Method 3 - On Site Disposal in Injection Hells\

Description; Ground water recharge involves the replacement of treated groundwater back into the aquifer by use of injection wells or infiltration galleries.

iThe primary purpose of re-injection is to ensure the recharge of an aquifer.

8-31


REV. #130/SEPT/91

Effectiveness; Although recharge has been successfully used at a number of sitesfor ground water disposal, other discharge options are found to be moreapplicable to conditi-ons at BUTZ LANDFILL, thus more cost effective. The rateat which the fractured bedrock would accept injected water would need to be pilottested.

Implementabilitv; The materials and equipment for the construction and operationof a recharge system are readily available. Permission from USEPA and PADER toinject treated water to ground water would be required. Low well yields wereencountered in shallow wells during well sampling, indicating a low permeabilitycondition in the shallow aquifer. Based upon the uncertainties identified withground water injection and the availability of stream discharge, injection wellsare screened out as a disposal technology.

Cost; The capital cost of a recharge system is expected to be moderate, as anumber of wells would be required. The cost to operate and maintain the wellswould be low to moderate.

8.6.2 Evaluation of Remedial Technologies for Landfill

8.6.2.1 No Action

Description; Under the No Action technology, no remedial actions are to beconducted on the materials residing in the landfill (residual source ofcontaminants), or on the landfill surface soils or subsurface soils, includingclosure requirements such as capping, grading, vegetating, or surface drainage.

Effectiveness; A No Action evaluation is required by USEPA RI/FS Guidance as abaseline against which other remedial alternatives may be compared. Since thereare no remedial actions undertaken, there would be no additional adverse impactson human health and the environment caused by implementation of No Action. Thesurface and subsurface soils were evaluated to pose no exposure risk to humanhealth or the environment. The likelihood of contaminants migrating from thesoils is low; contaminants identified in soils consist largely of semi-volatilePAHs which are strongly hydrophobic, thus will not readily leach into ground

8-32

TCN 4204JU/FS REPORT! : I REV. #1

, !9 | 30/SEPT/91

water or to surface water. In addition, most PAHs also have Henry's Lawi

Constants smaller than 10"3 atm-m3/mo1e, thus will not readily volatilize into thevapor fraction. PADER regulations for landfill closure (PA 273.192) would notbe met by the No Action technology.

Implementability; This criterion does not apply to the No Action alternative.

Cost; No capital or O&M costs are associated with this action.i

8.6.2.2 Institutional Controls

Institutional controls could be enacted to reduce the access to the landfill byadministrative actions or by direct physical barriers (fencing).

: ' |; . |

Method 1 - Deed and/or Zoning Restrictions; i I

.

Description; Institutional actions are a class of controls that can be used tominimize the potential for future exposure to site-related contamination. Thesecontrols would entail deed restrictions on land use on and in the immediatevicinity of the landfill.

Effectiveness; Restrictions on future land use would protect human health andthe environment by preventing exposure to and disruption of the soils.

'- • IInstitutional actions would also protect future land buyers from unknownliability.

'

Implementability; Institutional controls are feasible to implement at BUTZLANDFILL. The successful enforcement of institutional controls would require thecooperation of various public and private entities. No permits or specialfacilities would be required. Professional legal services would be needed andare readily available.

Cost; Capital costs for the implementation of institutional controls areanticipated to be low, as are long-term O&M costs.

8-33


REV. #130/SEPT/91

Method 2 - Direct Access Restrictions by Fencing BUTZ LANDFILL

Although no risks were identified associated with the exposure to surface orsubsurface soils at the landfill, the restriction of access to the landfill isa requirement of the PADER landfill closure process. Therefore, this processoption is removed from further consideration as related to institutional actionsbut remains a consideration for meeting landfill closure ARARs.

8.6.2.3 Source Removal Technologies

Method 1 - Excavation and Removal of Landfilled Materials

Description; This technology involves the removal of the source of ground watercontamination by the excavation of the landfilled materials presently emplacedin the BUTZ LANDFILL.

Effectiveness; Neither the field investigation, the analytical data, nor therisk assessment provide a justification for this action. Municipal refuse, metalvehicle parts, and possible sewage sludge were identified to reside in thelandfill; no drums or other discreet sources of any potentially hazardousmaterials were encountered in the numerous test pit excavations and soil boringsperformed on the landfill. Nor was any leachate identified to exi^t as adistinct recoverable phase under the landfilled materials. The risk assessmentwas performed using the analytical sample database, and no unacceptable levelsof risk were identified associated with exposure to the surface or subsurfacesoils on the landfill, or to the ground water issuing from seeps or dischargingto the local streams. In sum, the removal of the landfilled materials is notsupported by the data collected in the Remedial Investigation, therefore thisremedial technology is screened as not applicable to site conditions.


Costs; Not applicable - technology is screened out.

8-34

TCN 4204;RI/FS REPORTREV. #1

30/SEPT/91

Method 2 - Residual Source Removal by Vacuum Extraction

Description; Vacuum'extraction is effective at removing volatile contaminantsfrom the vadose zone which may act as a source of ground water contamination.This technology is typically implemented in-situ; however, treatment of excavatedsoils on-site is also effective.

\In-situ vacuum extraction consists of vacuum extraction ports which are connectedto a vacuum pump system to provide continuous air flow through the soil,resulting in the stripping of volatile compounds from the soil. Some form of

' jnearly impervious surface cover is used to ensure that airflow pathways arenearly horizontal. In some systems, air injection wells are used at the:perimeter of the contaminated zone to increase air flow through the soil, thusaiding in both oxygenation of the subsurface to facilitate natural biodegradationand in contaminant stripping.

Effectiveness; Vacuum extraction has been found to be particularly applicableto the removal of relatively volatile organic compounds (those with Henry's LawConstant > 10"3 atm-m3/mole) residing in the unsaturated zone. It cap also beapplied to remove volatile light non-aqueous phase liquids (LNAPLs) floating onthe water table or bound in the capillary fringe. Generally, any compound witha low solubility in water and a vapor pressure of at least 1 mm Hg at ambientsoil temperatures (55 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit) can potentially be removed byvacuum extraction. Vacuum extraction cannot remove metals (except mercury),heavy oils, or PCBs.

Although volatile organics are identified as compounds under review for theground water medium at BUTZ LANDFILL, they were not identified in the subsurfacesoils beneath the landfilled materials. Rather, the semi-volatile PAHs are theprimary class of contaminants detected in subsurface soils. Acenaphthene, 2-Methyl naphthalene, and naphthalene are the only PAHs with Henry's Law Constantsgreater than or equal to 10~3; the remaining PAHs are not amenable to recoveryby the vacuum extraction method. In addition, no unacceptable risk level wasassociated with exposures to the concentrations detected, thus no remediation iscompelled from a risk point of view. In sum, soil vacuum extraction of the

8-35


REV. #130/SEPT/91

landfilled materials is considered to be inapplicable to site conditions, and isscreened from further consideration as a remedial technology.


Cost; Not applicable - technology is screened out.

Method 3 - Residual Source Removal by Steam Extraction or Soil Flushing

Description; This is an emerging technology which utilizes the application ofsteam, a solvent, or surfactant (depending upon the chemical behavior of thetarget contaminant) to facilitate the extraction of contaminants from the vadosezone. The mobilized contaminants are then collected from the subsurface, e.g.,drawn into a pumping extraction well, for treatment or disposal. The extractantused must be limited to those which exhibit low toxicity and will not otherwiseharm the subsurface environment. This methodology is applicable to contaminantswhich are not recoverable by vacuum extraction, e.g., semi-volatiles, metals, andcyanides. USEPA Guidance (EPA, 1990) suggests that this method only be appliedin situations where other less potentially intrusive remedial technologies cannotbe utilized.

Effectiveness: Treatability studies would be needed to assess the effectivenessof this emerging technology to remediate the contaminants at the site. PAHs havea strong affinity for binding to soil particles, and may be difficult to extractfrom fine-grained residual soils.

Implementabilitv; The uncertainties associated with this technology, as well asthe absence of any identified risk associated with subsurface soils, render itinapplicable to site conditions, therefore it is screened from furtherconsideration.

Cost; Not applicable - technology is screened out.

8-36


REV. #130/SEPT/91

8.6.2.4 Source Reduction Technologies

Landfill capping is a-well known method of preventing leachate production. Thecapping of the landfill is identified to serve as a potential means of residualsource reduction. Three increasingly restrictive levels of capping are describedbelow as potentially applicable to site'conditions.

i

Method 1 - Landfill Soil Cap:

Description; The soil cap would consist of the placement of surface soils to adepth of one foot to provide a minimal cover over landfilled materials. Topsoil,seed, and mulch would be placed to establish a vegetative cover for erosioncontrol of the soil cover materials.

it j

Effectiveness; The maintenance of the soil cover on the landfill will providecover of landfilled materials against wind and vectors, and as a communityrelations measure. Because no unacceptable hazards were identified to exist forexposure pathways involving surface or subsurface landfill soils, the remedialobjectives of protection of human health and the environment would be satisfied.The restoration of minimal surface cover would not meet PADER Municipal LandfillRegulations for closure, so ARARs would not be satisfied. Fronj a riskperspective, this technology is applicable to site conditions.

•'Implementabilitv; This action will not be complex or difficult to implement.A hand-auger boring program could be performed on the landfill to ascertain thevolume of fill material necessary to establish adequate soil cover. Theprocurement and placement of cover materials are not anticipated to pose anylogistical problems. The services for the establishment and maintenance of thevegetative cover are likely available through any of several local constructionand landscape contractors. No permits or TSD facilities are required.

|

Costs; The capital costs are anticipated to be moderate while the O&M costs areexpected to be low.

8-37: ; j

: ^30091*8


REV. #130/SEPT/91

Method 2 - Installation of a PADER Municipal Waste Landfill Cap

Description: This technology involves the installation of an multi-layered capover the landfill surface. A cap which meets PADER Municipal LandfillRegulations (273.234) consists of a basal 1 foot of clay, a drainage layer overthe clay, and 2 feet of soil over the drainage layer. A membrane liner may besubstituted for the clay, upon the state's approval. These layers inhibit theinfiltration of precipitation and thereby minimize the potential for mobilizationand transport of residual contaminants from the landfill materials into theground water. Grading, revegetating, and erosion and sedimentation controls onthe landfill would also be required.

Beyond physical surface alterations, the formal landfill closure in accordancewith PADER ARARs would require a Closure Plan (PADER 273.192 Municipal LandfillRegulations) which, in addition to the above, addresses water quality monitoring,gas control and monitoring, leachate collection and treatment, and site accesscontrols.

The final cap would require regular inspection for signs of erosion, settlement,or subsidence. Periodic mowing of the vegetated layer may be necessary toprevent plant roots or burrowing animals from disrupting the integrity of thecap.

Effectiveness; Landfill capping is a well known method of preventing leachateproduction. Although leachate was not encountered during the field investigationportion of this RI/FS, it may be formed under some conditions. This method ofcapping would minimize the generation of leachate without the level of complexityinvolved in a RCRA cap (discussed below). If the additional requirements for siteclosure were performed, utilization of this methodology would result in theattainment of both risk-based and ARAR-based remedial objectives. Although notcompelled from a risk perspective, this technology would satisfy ARARs and is aconventional and reliable methodology. No human health or environmental impactswould arise from the implementation of this technology.

8-38

: i TCN 4204RI/FS REPORTI REV. #1

I i 30/SEPT/91

Implementabllity; Although more complex than a soil cover cap, this technologyutilizes personnel, equipment, and materials which are conventional in wasteengineering and are -generally readily available. Competent and experiencedicontractors are generally available. The site is accessible for heavy machinery,and no permits or special facilities are required.

'. , i •j

Cost; The capital cost associated with meeting all PADER landfill closurerequirements is expected to be high and the annual O&M cost is expected to below. The costs for the attainment of closure are not within the purview ofCERCLA unless the remediation of hazardous materials or conditions is involved,and would likely revert to PADER. !

|, ; j

i

Method 3 - Installation of a RCRA Hazardous Haste Landfill Cap

'Description; This technology involves the installation of an impermeable RCRA

i

cap over the surface of the landfill to inhibit the infiltration of precipitationand thereby to minimize the mobilization and transport of residual contaminantsfrom the landfilled materials into the ground water. Such a cap is used for

i

hazardous waste landfills. Capping materials utilized in a RCRA cap typicallyconsist of a drainage layer, and a combination of clay and synthetic linermaterials. The cap would require regular inspection and maintenance £o assure*integrity of the cap.

' jEffectiveness; This technology would satisfy the implementability requirements;it would attain the remedial objectives, no human health or environmental impactswould be associated with its implementation, and it is a reliable technology.However, this technology provides a level of protectiveness which does not appearto be warranted on the basis of the site investigation, in that no significanthazardous or suspected hazardous materials were encountered in the landfill.

Implementabilitv; The materials and equipment necessary for the installation ofa RCRA cap are readily available. Technical contractors are available to install

ithe cap in accordance with RCRA specifications. Access to the site for heavy

imachinery should pose no problems. No permits or special facilities would berequired for the cap installation, but may be necessary for site closure.

8-39

HR3Q0950


REV. II30/SEPT/91

Costs; The actual capital and O&M costs depend upon the particularspecifications of the cap, including depth and type of materials and inclusionof various optional layers such as a gas vent layer or a biotic layer. Overall,the capital cost is expected to be high and the annual O&M cost is expected tobe low to moderate.

8.7 SUMMARY OF RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY TYPES AND PROCESS OPTIONS

The following remedial technology types and representative process options havebeen identified in the screening process to be potentially feasible forimplementation at BUTZ LANDFILL. A summary listing of the technologies relevantto ground water is presented first, followed by the listing of relevanttechnologies for the landfill.

8.7.1 Ground Water

No Action, No Action with Monitoring, and Institutional Actions are all retainedfor further consideration. Extraction wells are selected as the optimalcontai nment/col 1 ecti on technol ogy for further eval uati on. Chemi cal preci pitati onfor inorganic pre-treatment and air stripping and granular activated carbonadsorption for organic treatment are selected as the optimal treatmenttechnologies. Disposal to surface water in accordance with PADER NPDES criteriais selected as the representative disposal technology for further consideration.

8.7.2 Landfill

No Action and Institutional controls are retained as applicable technologies.All source removal technologies are screened out as infeasible and/or unwarrantedon the basis of encountered site conditions. The three different capping optionsare retained for further evaluation. The RCRA cap does not appear' to bewarranted on the basis of encountered site conditions, but will be retained asa conservative option. Only the PADER cap and associated actions would satisfyPADER Municipal Landfill closure ARARs.

8-40

HR30095I


•! REV. #130/SEPT/91

8.7.3 Surface Water and Sediments

The No Action response action is retained for further consideration as a remedialtechnology.

8-41: , i

; i AR300952

i 3r300769semspub.epa.gov/work/03/46768.pdfmg/kg/day, assuming an exposure point concentration of 1...

Documents