HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD--REVIEW COVER SHEET

Name of Site: Dewey Loeffel Landfill

Date Prepared: March 2010

Contact Persons:

Site Investigation: James Desir U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New York, NY

Documentation Record: Ildefonso Acosta U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New York, NY

Pathways, Components, or Threats Not Scored

Even though evidence of ground water contamination exists (see below), the Ground Water Migration, Soil Exposure, and Air Migration Pathways are not scored because the listi ng decision is not significantly affected by those pathways. The site score based solely on the Surface Water Mi gration Pathway is sufficient to list the site.

Some hazardous substances, in particular PCBs, have migr ated from the facility to underlying aquifers, resulting in contamination of ground water [Ref. 6, pp. 7; 9, pp. 6, 15- 17]. New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) has conducted residential well monitoring in the vicinity of the facility since 1979 [Ref. 9, p. 10]. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) de signated ground water contamination associated with the disposal facility as Operable Unit 2 (OU2) [Ref. 6, pp. 7, 10]. General Electric Company (GE) has conducted remedial investigations and remedial actions associated with OU2 since 1992, and has reported that Aroclor-1260 exists as a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) [Ref. 9, pp. 10-15; 10, pp. 9-10, 23]. In January 2001, NYSDEC issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU2 [Ref. 9, p. 1].This page has been left blank intentionally.1 HRS DOCUMENTATION RECORD

Name of Site: Dewey Loeffel Landfill Date Prepared: March 2010

EPA ID No.: NYD000512335

EPA Region: 2

Street Address of Site*: Mead Road, Nassau, NY 12123

County and State: Rensselaer County, New York

General Location in the State: Capital District (eastern portion of state)

Topographic Map: Nassau, NY

Latitude*: 42° 33 ′ 39.44” North (42.560957°) Longitude*: 73° 33 ′ 37.78 ′′ West (-73.560496°)

Site Reference Point: Facility entrance

[Figure 1; Ref. 3, p. 1; 4, p. 1; 5, pp. 1-2]

* The street address, coordinates, and contaminant lo cations presented in this Hazard Ranking System (HRS) documentation record identify the general area where the site is located. They represent one or more locations EPA considers to be part of the site based on the screening info rmation EPA used to evaluate the site for NPL listing. EPA lists national priorities among the known "releases or threatened releases" of hazardous substances; thus, the focus is on the release, not precisely delineated boundaries. A site is defined as where a hazardous substance has been "deposited, stored, placed, or otherwise come to be located." Generally , HRS scoring and the subsequent listing of a release merely represent the initial determination that a certain area may need to be addressed under CERCLA. Accordingly, EPA contemplates that the preliminary description of facility boundaries at the time of scoring will be refined as more information is developed as to where the contamination has come to be located.

Scores

Ground Water Pathway Not Scored Surface Water Pathway 100.00 Soil Exposure Pathway Not Scored Air Pathway Not Scored

HRS SITE SCORE 50.002 WORKSHEET FOR COMPUTING HRS SITE SCORE

DEWEY LOEFFEL LANDFILL

S S 2

1. Ground Water Migration Pathway Score (S gw ) Not Scored (from Table 3-1, line 13)

2a. Surface Water Overland/Flood Migration Component 100.00 10,000.00 (from Table 4-1, line 30)

2b. Ground Water to Surface Water Migration Component Not Scored (from Table 4-25, line 28)

2c. Surface Water Migration Pathway Score (S

sw ) 100.00 10,000.00 Enter the larger of lines 2a and 2b as the pathway score.

3. Soil Exposure Pathway Score (S

s ) Not Scored (from Table 5-1, line 22)

4. Air Migration Pathway Score (S

a ) Not Scored (from Table 6-1, line 12)

5. Total of S gw 2 + S

sw 2 + S

s 2 + S

a 2 10,000.00

6. HRS Site Score Divide the value on line 5 by 4 and take the square root 50.003 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET

DEWEY LOEFFEL LANDFILL

SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD

MIGRATION COMPONENT Factor Categories & Factors

D RINKING WATER THREAT MAXIMUM

VALUE VALUE

ASSIGNED

L ikelihood of Release

1. Observed Release 2. Potential to Release by Overland Flow

2a. Containment

2b. Runoff

2c. Distance to Surface Water 2d. Potential to Release by Overland Flow (lines 2a [2b + 2c]) 3. Potential to Release by Flood 3a. Containment (Flood) 3b. Flood Frequency 3c. Potential to Release by Flood (lines 3a x 3b) 4. Potential to Release (lines 2d + 3c)

5 . Likelihood of Release (higher of lines 1 and 4) 550

10

25

25

500

10

50

500

500

550 550

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

550

W aste Characteristics

6. Toxicity/Persistence 7. Hazardous Waste Quantity

8 . Waste Characteristics *

*

100 not scored

not scored

not scored

T argets

9. Nearest Intake 10. Population

10a. Level I Concentrations

10b. Level II Concentrations

10c. Potential Contamination 10d. Population (lines 10a + 10b + 10c)

11. Resources

1 2. Targets (lines 9 + 10d + 11) 50

**

**

**

**

5

** not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

not scored

13. DRINKING WATER THREAT SCORE ([lines 5 x 8 x 12]/82,500) 100 not scored

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. ** Maximum value not applicable4 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET

DEWEY LOEFFEL LANDFILL

SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD

MIGRATION COMPONENT Factor Categories & Factors

H UMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT MAXIMUM

VALUE VALUE

ASSIGNED

L ikelihood of Release

14. Likelihood of Release (same as line 5) 550 550

W aste Characteristics

15. Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 16. Hazardous Waste Quantity

1 7. Waste Characteristics *

*

1,000 5.00E+08

100

320

T argets

18. Food Chain Individual 19. Population

19a. Level I Concentrations

19b. Level II Concentrations

19c. Potential Human Food Chain Contamination 19d. Population (lines 19a + 19b + 19c)

2 0. Targets (lines 18 + 19d) 50

**

**

**

**

** 45

0

0.03

0.0003

0.0303

45.0303

21. HUMAN FOOD CHAIN THREAT SCORE ([lines 14 x 17 x 20]/82,500) 100 96.06

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. ** Maximum value not applicable5 SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORESHEET

DEWEY LOEFFEL LANDFILL

SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD

MIGRATION COMPONENT Factor Categories & Factors

E NVIRONMENTAL THREAT MAXIMUM

VALUE VALUE

ASSIGNED

L ikelihood of Release

22. Likelihood of Release (same as line 5) 550 550

W aste Characteristics

23. Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation 24. Hazardous Waste Quantity

2 5. Waste Characteristics *

*

1,000 5.00E+08

100

320

T argets

26. Sensitive Environments

26a. Level I Concentrations

26b. Level II Concentrations

26c. Potential Contamination 26d. Sensitive Environments (lines 26a + 26b + 26c)

2 7. Targets (line 26d) **

**

**

**

** 0

50

not scored

50

50

28. ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT SCORE ([lines 22 x 25 x 27]/82,500) 60 60.00

29. WATERSHED SCORE (lines 13 + 21 + 28) 100 100.00

30. SURFACE WATER OVERLAND/FLOOD
MIGRATION COMPONENT SCORE (S of ) 100 100.00

SURFACE WATER MIGRATION PATHWAY SCORE (S

sw ) 100 100.00

* Maximum value applies to waste characteristics category. ** Maximum value not applicable6 REFERENCES

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Hazard Ranking System, Final Rule . Federal Register, Volume 55, No. 241, pp. 51532-51667. December 14, 1990. [138 pages]

2. EPA. Superfund Chemical Data Matrix, SCDM Data Version: 1/27/2004, Appendices B-I (Hazardous Substances Factor Values) and B-II (Hazardous Subs tance Benchmarks); excerpts downloaded on March 30, 2009 . A complete copy of SCDM is available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/site s/npl/hrsres/tools/scdm.htm . [8 pages]

3. EPA. Superfund Information Systems, CERCLIS Database, Dewey Loeffel Landfill: Site Information and

Actions . Downloaded from http://cfpub.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0201218 on September 16, 2009. [2 pages]

4. U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS). Nassau Quadrangle, New York, 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic) . 1978. [1 page]

5. Gilliland, Gerry, Region 2 Site Assessment Team 2 (SAT 2), Weston Solutions, Inc. (WESTON). Project Note to Dewey Loeffel Landfill site file, Subject: Geographic Coordinates – De wey Loeffel Landfill site; with Google Earth map attached . September 28, 2009. [2 pages]

6. New York State Department of Envi ronmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Record of Decision, Dewey Loeffel Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site, Operable Unit 3, Towns of Nassau and Schodack, Rensselaer County, New York, Site No. 442006 . January 2002. [129 pages]

7. O’Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc. (OBG). Loeffel Site Engineering Report . Prepared for General Electric Company (GE). October 1981. [153 pages]

8. Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. (BBL). Loeffel Site Environs, Feasibility Study Report: Nassau lake Drainage Basin . Prepared for GE. May 13, 1998. [285 pages]

9. NYSDEC. Record of Decision, Dewey Loeffel Site, Oper able Unit 2, Town of Nassau, Rensselaer County, Site No. 4-42-006 . January 2001. [87 pages]

10. HSI GeoTrans. Phase II Hydrogeologic Report, Loeffel Site Environs Remedial Investigation . Prepared for GE. May 8, 1997. [496 pages]

11. Brown, Mark P., BBL. Letter Report to James N. Ludlam, NYSDEC, Re: Post-Remedial Monitoring and Long-Term Monitoring Plan, Operable Unit 3, Loe ffel Site Environs, Nassau, New York, 2004 Surface Water and Suspended Monitoring, 2004 Biota Samp ling, Proposed 2005 Monitoring, BBl Project #:

10073.900 . Prepared on behalf of GE. October 19, 2004. [151 pages]

12. NYSDEC. Dewey Loeffel Landfill Fish Monitoring Upda te; with attached database from NYSDEC

. February 2009. [646 pages]

13. WESTON Region 2 SAT 2. Field Logbook, Dewey Loeffel Landf ill, DCN # SAT2.20113.119.001; with Photo Logs attached . May 14, 2009 to August 10, 2009. [66 pages]

14. Lucarino, Kelli, WESTON Region 2 SAT 2. Letter to James Desir, EPA, Subject: Sampling Trip Report, Work Assignment No.: 0119 Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Contract No.: EP-W-05-048, Document Control No.

SAT2.20113.119.839 . June 11, 2009. [19 pages]7 REFERENCES (continued)

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

15. Snyder, Scott T., WESTON Region 2 SAT 2. Letter to James Desir, EPA, Subject: Sampling Trip Report [Phase 2], Work Assignment No.: 0119 Dewey Loeffe l Landfill, Contract No.: EP-W-05-048, Document

Control No. SAT2.20113.119.867 . August 12, 2009. [27 pages]

16. Desir, James, EPA. Letter to Gerry Gilliland, WESTON, Subjec t: [Attached] Organic Data Validation (Phase 1), Hazardous Ranking System (HRS), Work Assignment No. 119, Dewey Loeffel LF Site

. September 15, 2009. [43 pages]

17. Desir, James, EPA. Letter to Gerry Gilliland, WESTON, Subjec t: [Attached] Organic Data Validation, Hazardous Ranking System (HRS), Work Assignment No. 119, Dewey Loeffel LF Site . September 10, 2009. [84 pages]

18. Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for: Weston Solutions, Inc., Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Mead Road, Nassau, NY, Project # 20113.111.00.0119.00, Accutest Job Number: JA20530, Sampling Dates: 06/08/09

– 06/09/09 . June 23, 2009. [225 pages]

19. Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for: Weston Solutions, Inc., Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Mead Road, Nassau, NY, Project # 20113.111.002.0119.00, Accutest Job Number: JA25102, Sampling Dates: 08/05/09

– 08/06/09 . August 25, 2009. [108 pages]

20. Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for: Weston Solutions, Inc., Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Mead Road, Nassau, NY, Project # 20113.111.00.0119.00, Accutest Job Number: JA25103, Sampling Date: 08/06/09

. August 25, 2009. [94 pages]

21. Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for: Weston Solutions, Inc., Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Mead Road, Nassau, NY, Project # 20113.111.00.0119.00, Accutest Job Number: JA25211, Sampling Date: 08/07/09

. August 24, 2009. [103 pages]

22. Accutest Laboratories. Technical Report for: Weston Solutions, Inc., Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Mead Road, Nassau, NY, Project # 20113.111.00.0119.00, Accutest Job Number: JA25223, Sampling Dates: 08/07/09

– 08/08/09 . August 26, 2009. [128 pages]

23. New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). Chemicals in Sportfish and Game, 2008-2009 Health

Advisories . May 21, 2008. [30 pages]

24. NYSDEC. NYSDEC Questionnaires for Fish Consumpti on from the Valatie Kill and Nassau Lake, Rensselaer County; completed by local residents . September 2009. [50 pages]

25. WESTON. 15-Mile Surface Water Pathway Map, Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Town of Nassau, Rensselaer County, NY . October 1, 2009. [1 page]

26. EPA. Quick Reference Fact Sheet EPA 540-F-94-028: Using Qualified Data to Document an Observed

Release and Observed Contamination . Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. November 1996. [18 pages]

27. EPA. Basic Information: Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) . Downloaded from http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/tsd/pcbs/pubs/about.htm , on July 13, 2009. [2 pages]8 REFERENCES (continued)

Reference

Number Description of the Reference

28. Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). EDR Radius MapTM Report with GeoCheck®, Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Mead Road, Nassau, NY 12123, Inquiry Number: 2593233.1s . September 16, 2009. [69 pages]

29. NYSDEC and General Electric Company (GE). Administrative Consent Order (“Seven Sites Agreement”)

. September 1980. [34 pages]

30. U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York. Stipulation and Order of Partial Settlement, Civil Action No. 89-CV-1135 (McAvoy), State of New York et al., Plaintiff, v. General Electric Company,

Defendant . September 3, 1992. [29 pages]

31. Armstrong, Shirley, Times-Union. Waste Lagoon to be Burned . May 21, 1970. [2 pages]

32. Rensselaer County Health Department (RCHD). Memoranda from Mr. Furlong to File via Mr. Stefanik, Subject: Loeffel’s Waste Oil, Town of Nassau, Restricted Burning and Inspection . May 25, 1970. [3 pages]

33. C.T. Male Associates. Engineer’s Report on Waste Water Disposal , Loeffel Refining Products, Inc., Town of Nassau, Rensselaer County, New York . October 26, 1970. [13 pages]

34. Loeffel, Dewey, Loeffel Refining Products Inc. Letter to Andrew Weist, Water Pollution Control Eng., RE: Receipt of Letter and Agreement to Terms . August 5, 1970. [1 page]

35. Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM). Final Engineering Report, Implementation of a Remedial Program at the Dewey Loeffel Hazardous Waste Site, Town of Nassau, Rensselaer County, New York . December 1985. [237 pages]

36. Munro, David A., New York State Department of Law. Letter to James R. Bieke, Shea & Gardner, Re: New York v. General Electric Company; with attach ed Sampling and Analysis Plan, Volumes 1 and 2, Remedial Investigation, Loeffel Site Environs, Nassau, New York . June 24, 1992. [324 pages]

37. Gilliland, Gerry, WESTON Region 2 SAT 2. Project Note to Dewey Loeffel Landfill site file, Subject: Sample Quantitation Limits – Dewey Loeffel Landfill site; with attached spreadsheets . December 29, 2009. [28 pages]

38. Capriglione, Michele, WESTON Region 2 SAT 2. Project Note to Dewey Loeffel Landfill site file, Subject: HRS-eligible wetland frontage calculation – Dewey Loeffel Landfill site; with map attached

. January 5, 2010. [2 pages]

39. EPA. Envirofacts Warehouse, RCRAinfo Query Resu lts, Handler Name: Dewey Loeffel Landfill

. Downloaded from http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/rcris_web.report?pgm_sys_id=NYD000512335 on January 7, 2010. [2 pages]

40. Torell, Christopher, BBL. Completion Report, Mead Road Pond Area Interim Remedial Measures, Loeffel Site Environs, Nassau, New York . Prepared for GE. February 2002. [230 pages]

41. Torell, Christopher, BBL. Tributary T11A Completion Report, Loeffel Site Environs, Operable Unit 3, Nassau, New York . Prepared for GE. March 2003. [364 pages]9 SS -Site Summary

SITE SUMMARY

The Dewey Loeffel Landfill (DLL) site (C ERCLIS ID No. NYD000512335) is composed of an inactive hazardous waste disposal area and the releases from it into the former Mead Road Pond, Tributary T11A, Valatie Kill, Valley Stream, Smith Pond, and Nassau Lake (Mead Road Pond is referred to as “former” due to remediation and excavation of Mead Road Pond in 2001[Ref. 40, p 25]). The DLL facility is located in southern Rensselaer County, New York and is located within a low-lying, 19.6-acre easement between two wooded hills [Ref. 3, p. 1; 4, p. 1; 6, pp. 5-6; 9, p. 7]. In the 1950s and 1960s, the property was used as a disposal facility for more than 46,000 tons of industrial hazar dous wastes, including solvents, waste oils, polychlorinated bip henyls (PCB), scrap materials, sludges, and solids [Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8; 7, p. 7; 29, pp. 1, 28-30]. Some hazardous substances, in parti cular PCBs, have migrated from the facility to underlying aquifers and downstream surface water bodies, resulting in contamination of ground water, surface water, sediments, and several species of fish [Ref. 6, pp. 5-7, 12-17; 8, pp. 18-21; 9, pp. 6, 15-17]. T he geographic coordinates of the DLL facility are 42° 33 ′ 39.44” north latitude (42.560957°) and 73° 33 ′ 37.78 ′′ west longitude (- 73.560496°) [Ref. 4, p. 1; 5, pp. 1-2]. Figure 1 presents the s ite location, and Figure 2 shows the extent of documented PCB contamination along the surface water migration pathway.

From 1952 to 1968, Loeffel Waste Oil Removal and Service Company (“Loeffel”) operated the DLL pr operty as a disposal facility for waste materials generated by several industries [Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 16]. The General Electric Company (GE) reported that approximately 37,530 tons of waste materials from GE manufacturing facilities were deposited at the facility [Ref . 7, p. 7; 29, pp. 28-30]. New York State Department of Environmen tal Conservation (NYSDEC) reported that at least 8,790 tons of waste materials were deposited at the facility from other industrial sources, including Bendix Corporation and Schenectady Chemicals, Inc. [Ref. 6, p. 8; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 16; 29, p. 30; 30, pp. 4-5; 31, p. 2]. Waste materials were dumped into a lagoon area, oil pit, and drum burial area [Ref. 7, p. 8; 8, pp. 16, 17]. So me drum contents were pumped onto the ground surface, and waste materials were also burned during facility operations [Ref. 6, p. 8; 8, p. 16].

In 1968, after several years of citizen complaints, documented downstream fish and cattle kills, and uncontrolled fires at the facility, the State of New York ordered Loeffel to stop discharg es from the disposal facility and perform remedial activities [ Ref. 6, p. 8; 7, p. 7]. By 1974, Loeffel had covered and graded the disposal areas with soil and constructed drainage channels to c ontrol runoff [Ref. 6, p. 8; 7, pp. 7-8]. From 1974 to 1980, Loeffe l continued to use four 30,000-gallon aboveground storage tanks (A ST) at the facility for waste oil transfer [Ref. 6, p. 9; 7, p. 8] . In 1980, GE entered into an agreement with NYSDEC to perform additional investigation and remediation at the facility [Ref. 6, p. 9; 7, pp. 9-10; 29, pp. 1, 13-27]. From 1982 to 1984, GE removed approximately 500 surface drums and the 30,000-gallon ASTs from the property, and installed a NYSDEC-approved slurry wall, clay cap, and leachate collecti on system [Ref. 6, pp. 9-10; 8, p. 17; 35, pp. 10, 14, 17-22]. The encapsulated di sposal area (i.e., landfill) is evaluated as the source for HRS scoring purposes [Ref. 1, pp. 51591]. The facility is not classified as a treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) under the Resour ce Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and is not subject to RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authority [Ref. 39, p. 1]

Since 1985, NYSDEC has overseen operation, maintenance, and monito ring activities at the DLL facility [Ref. 6, p. 9]. NYSDEC designated three operable units (OU) at the facility: OU1, th e encapsulated disposal area; OU2, ground water contamination associated with the facility; and OU3, surface water releases downgr adient of the facility [Ref. 6, pp. 5-7, 10, 13]. In Janua ry 2001, NYSDEC issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for OU2, and in January 2002, NYSDEC issued a ROD for OU3 [Ref. 6, p. 1; 9, p. 1]. GE has conducted remedial inve stigations and remedial actions associated with OU2 and OU3 since 1992 [Ref. 8, pp. 7, 17-21; 9, pp. 10-15; 10, pp. 9-10; 11, pp. 1-2]. From 2001 to 2004, GE removed approxi mately 15,000 tons of PCB-contaminated soil and sediments from the drainage-way between the facility and Nassau Lake, including the area immediately adjacent to the disposal facility, Mead Road Pond, Tributary T11A, and Valatie Kill [Ref. 12, pp. 5-7; 40, p. 7; 41, p. 9].

In June and August 2009, EPA conducted sediment sampling along the surface water migration pathway downstream of the facility, including the former Mead Road Pond, Tributary T11A, Valatie Kill, Valley Stream, Smit h Pond, and Nassau Lake [Ref. 13, pp. 8-48; 14, pp. 3-6, 9; 15, pp. 3-8, 11]. Samples were analyzed for Target Compound List (TCL) Aroclors, total organic carbon (TOC), and grain size [Ref. 16 through 22] . The analytical results indicated the continuing presence of PCBs in sedimen t samples from the former Mead Road Pond, Tr ibutary T11A, Valatie Kill, and Nassau Lake [Ref. 16, pp. 30-32; 17, pp. 3-5, 17, 20- 22, 24, 31-32, 45, 74]. Nassau Lake and the Valatie Kill between County Route 18 and Nassau Lake are fisheries that have been closed due to the site-related PCB contamination, and there are 1.7 miles of wetland frontage located within the zone of contamination [Figure 2; Ref. 8, pp. 21, 26; 23, pp. 13, 17, 21; 25, p. 1; 38, pp. 1-2].LEGEND: TITLE:

PROJECT:

CLIENT NAME: DATE: FIGURE #: ! ( Facility Entrance

2,000 1,000 0 2,000

Feet

Facility Boundary (11-acre encapsulated area) 

### Site Location Map

National Geographic TOPO! U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 7.5 Minute 

### Dewey Loeffel Landfill

Series (Topographic) Quadrangles: Nassau, NY 1992 

### Town of Nassau

Dewey Loeffel Landfill 

### Rensselaer County, NY

Oct ber 2009 1 EPA o 

# ®

Site Areadxap.mon_Matic



### "te_Loi_SLLD17_/071naliF/DXM/SR_Hllindfa_Lleff_Loeyeew2/DTA:/SP

### ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !

( ! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! ( ! (

! (

! (

! ( ! ( ! ( ! (

! ( ! ( !

( ! ( ! (

! ( ! ( PPE1
NORTHWEST DRAINAGE AREA

PPE2
SOUTHEAST DRAINAGE AREA

NASSAU LAKE Closed Fishery ('Eat No Fish' advisory) SMITH POND V A L L E Y S T R E A M V A

L ATI

E K

I LL T RI

B

UT

A

R

Y

T

1 1 A

DLL-SED47A See Inset

MEAD ROAD POND Valatie Kill Closed Fishery ('Eat No Fish' advisory)

LYONS LAKE DLL-SED27/27A

DLL-SED12/12A

DLL-SED11/11A DLL-SED10/10A DLL-SED13/13A

DLL-SED26/26A

DLL-SED25/25A

DLL-SED24/24A

DLL-SED21/21A

DLL-SED20/20A

DLL-SED19/19A

DLL-SED14/14A DLL-SED15/15A DLL-SED16/16A DLL-SED17/17A DLL-SED04/04A

DLL-SED03/03A

DLL-SED02/02A DLL-SED22/22A DLL-SED23/23A (Dup)

DLL-SED43A DLL-SED45A DLL-SED05/05A

DLL-SED18/18A DLL-SED01/01A DLL-SED28A DLL-SED29A

DLL-SED30A DLL-SED31A

DLL-SED32A DLL-SED33A

DLL-SED34A

DLL-SED35A DLL-SED36A DLL-SED37A

DLL-SED38A DLL-SED39A DLL-SED40A

DLL-SED41A

DLL-SED42A DLL-SED44A DLL-SED46A (Dup) Freshwater Forested/Shrub

Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater Emergent &
Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub

Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub

Wetland Freshwater Forested/Shrub

Wetland

FIGURE #: DRAWING NUMBER: CLIENT NAME: PROJECT: LEGEND: TITLE:

PROJECT MANAGER:

DATE: DRAWN BY:

REVIEWED BY: 

### M. Capriglione

G. Gilliland

G. Gilliland

1" = 1,400 ' Figure 2 Sample Location Map

June-August 2009

Dewey Loeffel Landfill HRS

US EPA 07118 2 October 2009 

# . ! (

! ( ! (

10 0 10 5 F e e t 

### DLL-SED08/08A

DLL-SED06/06A
DLL-SED07/07A (Dup)

DLL-SED09/09A Inset

Source: 1. Rensselaer County 2' Resolution Natural Color Ortho-imagery. NYS Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Coordination. http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/gateway/mg/2007/rensselaer/. 11/01/2007 2. Weston Solutions, Inc. Region 2 Site Assessment Team 2, Site Logbook, SAT2.20113.119.001, May-August 2009. 3. EPA CLP Data Packages, Dewey Loeffel Landfill. June-September 2009. 4. U.S Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, St. Petersburg, FL. National Wetlands Inventory, http://www.nwi.fws.gov. Date unknown; downloaded April 2009. 5. NY State Department of Health, Chemicals in Sportfish and Game, 2008 -2009 Health Advisories. May 2008.

Sediment sample location with observed release concentration(s)

Sediment sample location without observed release concentration(s)

Background sediment sample locations

Zone of contamination with mile marker

HRS-Eligible Wetlands Along the Zone of Contamiantion V al

at

i e

K i l l

T r i b

u t a ry

T

1 1 A



# # * 1



# # *

2



# # *

3



# # * 1 825 0 825 1,650 412.5

Feet SCALE:12 SD-Characterization and Containment

SOURCE DESCRIPTION

2.2 SOURCE CHARACTERIZATION

2.2.1 Source Identification

Number of the source: Source No. 1

Name and description of the source: Operable Unit 1 (OU1)

Source Type: Landfill

Source 1 consists of Operable Unit 1, the encapsulated dispos al area (i.e., landfill) at the DLL facility [Ref. 6, p. 10]. The condition of the source changed significantly due to response actions, as described below:

Source Prior to Response Actions:

From 1952 to 1968, Loeffel operated the subject property as a disposal facility for waste materials generated by several industries [Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 16]. GE reported that approximately 37,530 tons of waste materials from GE manufacturing facilities were deposited at the facility [Ref. 7, p. 7; 29, pp. 28-30]. NYSDEC reported that at least 8,790 tons of waste materials we re deposited at the facility from other industrial sources, including Bendix Corporation and Schenectady Chemicals, Inc. [R ef. 6, p. 8; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 16; 29, p. 30; 30, pp. 4-5; 31, p. 2]. The waste materials dumped at the fac ility included chlorinated solvents, solvents, waste oils, PCBs, acids and bases, other scrap materials (resins, paints, solids and liquid chemicals), heavy metal sludge, organic chemical sludge, paint sludge, wet dust collector residue, and PCB-contaminated solids [Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8; 7, p. 7; 29, pp. 1, 28-30]. In May 1970, Rensse laer County Health Department (RCHD) reported that trichloroethylene (TCE), methyl chloride, toluene, xyl ene, silicones, phenols, lead, and other chemicals were known to be present [Ref. 32, p. 2].

Before remedial action was initiated, the Loeffel dispos al facility consisted of a 6-acre lagoon, a 25- by 150-foot oil pit, a 1- to 3-acre drum storage and disposal ar ea, and four 30,000-gallon ASTs [Ref. 7, p. 8]. During disposal operations, liquid hazardous wastes were transpor ted to the facility and emptied into the lagoon or oil pit, pumped onto the ground surface, or left at the facility in sealed drums [Ref. 8, p. 16; 33, p. 4]. Some wastes were reportedly burned during facility operations [Ref. 6, p. 8; 8, p. 16]. Drums were discarded on the lagoon perimeter or in a drum burial area, and were later cove red with soil using a bulldozer [Ref. 8, p. 16]. The lagoon area was a natural swamp before Loeffel used it for liquid waste disposal [Ref. 33, p. 4]. A wastewater sample collected from the lagoon in July 1970 reportedly contained hydrocarbons including petroleum residues, sulfoxide organic compounds, and substituted aromatic or ganic compounds [Ref. 33, p. 6]. In October 1970, Loeffel indicated that the discharge of liquid industria l wastes over approximately 20 years had resulted in the former swamp being devoid of plant and animal life [Ref. 33, p. 5].

Source After Response Actions:

In 1968, after several years of citizen complaints , documented downstream fish and cattle kills, and uncontrolled fires at the facility, the State of New York ordered Loeffel to stop discharges from the disposal facility and perform remedial activities [Ref. 6, p. 8; 7, p. 7]. Remedial activities began in the summer of 1970, when Loeffel divided the lagoon into upper and lower areas with a 2- to 3-foot-high earthen dike and began to fill the lower area with gravel [Ref. 7, pp. 7-8; 33, p. 7]. The liquid wastes displaced by the filling operation were either pumped to the upper lagoon area or into a ta nk truck for salvage use [Ref. 33, p. 7]. In August 1970, Loeffel reported that “we have completely rem oved floating pollutants from lower lagoon and completed filling in lower lagoon” [Ref. 34, p. 1]. By 1974, Loeffel had covered and graded the disposal facility with soil and constructed drainage channels to control runoff [R ef. 6, p. 8; 7, pp. 7-8]. From 1974 to 1980, Loeffel continued to use the four 30,000-gallon ASTs at the facility for waste oil transfer [Ref. 6, p. 9; 7, p. 8].13 SD-Characterization and Containment

In 1980, GE entered into an agreement with NYSDEC to perform additional investigation and remediation at the facility [Ref. 6, p. 9; 7, pp. 9-10; 29, pp. 1, 13-27]. From 1980 to 1984, GE installed a chain-link fence around the facility, removed approximately 500 surface dr ums and four 30,000-gallon ASTs from the property, and installed a NYSDEC-approved slurry wall, clay cap, a nd leachate collection system at the disposal facility [Ref. 6, pp. 9-10; 8, p. 17; 35, pp. 10, 14, 17-22]. Since 1985, NYSDEC has overseen operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities at the facility [Ref. 6, p. 9] . The encapsulated disposal area (i.e., landfill) is designated by NYSDEC as OU1 and is evaluated as the source for HRS scoring purposes [Ref. 6, p. 10].

In addition to OU1, NYSDEC designated ground water contam ination associated with the facility as OU2 and surface water releases downgradient of the facility as OU3 [Ref. 6, pp. 5-7, 10, 13]. GE has conducted remedial investigations and remedial actions associated with OU2 and OU3 since 1992 [Ref. 8, pp. 7, 17-21; 9, pp. 10-15; 10, pp. 9-10; 11, pp. 1-2]. From 2001 to 2004, GE removed approximately 15,000 tons of PCBcontaminated soil and sediments from the drainage-way between the facility and Nassau Lake, including the area immediately adjacent to the disposal facility, Mead Road Pond, Tributary T11A, and Valatie Kill [Ref. 12, pp. 5-7; 40, p. 7; 41, p. 9].

Location of the source, with reference to a map of the site:

A November 7, 2007aerial photograph showing the boundary of the landfill (i.e., Source 1) is shown in Figure

2.

Containment

Release to surface water via overland migration and/or flood:

There is evidence that hazardous substances (i.e., P CBs) migrated from the disposal area into downstream surface waters [see Section 4.1.2.1]. However, NYSDEC has indicated that the contaminants migrated into the surface water pathway prior to the 1983-1984 remedial actions, which included the following containment

measures: GE removed drums and tanks and installed a NYSDEC-approved slurry wall, clay cap, and leachate collection system at the disposal facility [Ref. 6, pp. 1, 9-10; 8, p. 17; 35, pp. 10, 14, 17-22]. Since 1985, NYSDEC has overseen operation, maintenance, and monito ring activities at the facility [Ref. 6, p. 9]. As evidenced by the Final Engineering Report for the remedial action and confirmed by wells installed within the encapsulated disposal area in 1996, there is no liner associ ated with the leachate control system [Ref. 35, pp. 14, 25, 71-72, 78-83].

Based on the above considerations (i.e., a maintained engineered cover and functioning, maintained run-on control and runoff management system are present, but a liner is not present), a surface water containment factor value of 7 is assigned for this source [Ref. 1, p. 51609, Table 4-2].14 SD-Hazardous Substances

Source No.: 1

2.4.1 Hazardous Substances

The waste materials dumped at the facility included chlorinate d solvents, solvents, waste oils, PCBs, acids and bases, other scrap materials (resins, paints, solids and liquid chem icals), heavy metal sludge, organic chemical sludge, paint sludge, wet dust collector residue, and PCB-contaminated solids [Ref . 6, pp. 5, 8; 7, p. 7; 29, pp. 1, 28-30]. GE reported that approximately 37,530 tons of waste materials from GE ma nufacturing facilities were deposited at the facility [Ref. 7, p. 7; 29, pp. 28-30]. NYSDEC reported that at least 8,790 tons of waste materials were deposited at the facility from other industrial sources, including Bendix Corporation and Schenectady Chemicals, Inc. [Ref. 6, p. 8; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 16; 29, p. 30; 30, p. 4; 31, p.2]. GE collected soil samples from the disposal area in 1981, prior to installation of the clay cap and slurry wall, and reported that concentrations of individua l PCBs (Aroclor-1016, Aroclor-1254, and Aroclor-1260) ranged from 0.6 to 979 parts per million (ppm) [Ref. 7, pp. 37-38, 77]. GE collected landfill l eachate sample PO4-1021 in 1996 and analyzed the sample for TCL volatile organic com pounds (VOC), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), and

PCBs in accordance with EPA’s “Test Methods for Evalua ting Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods (SW-846)”, Third Edition, Revision 1 dated December 1987 [Ref. 10, pp. 74, 90-97; 36, pp. 27, 36, 58]. The analytical results for sample PO4-1021 indicated the presence of VOCs, SVOCs, and the PCB Aroclor-1260 [Ref. 10, pp. 23-24, 74, 90-97]. Based on the leachate results, GE reporte d that Aroclor-1260 exists as a dense non-aqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) at the site [Ref. 10, p. 23].

Hazardous

Substance Evidence Reference(s)

Aroclor-1260 Leachate sample PO4-1021, GE, Oct-1996: 10, p. 97 260,000 μg/L

Chlorobenzene Leachate sample PO4-1021, GE, Oct-1996: 10, p. 91

89 μg/L

1,2-Dichlorobenzene Leachate sample PO4-1021, GE, Oct-1996: 10, pp. 91, 95

4.7 μg/L

1,3-Dichlorobenzene Leachate sample PO4-1021, GE, Oct-1996: 10, pp. 91, 95

19 μg/L

1,4-Dichlorobenzene Leachate sample PO4-1021, GE, Oct-1996: 10, pp. 91, 95

80 μg/L

2,4-Dimethylphenol Leachate sample PO4-1021, GE, Oct-1996: 10, p. 95

14 μg/L15 SD-Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source No.: 1

2.4.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

2.4.2.1.1 Hazardous Constituent Quantity

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier A source hazardous waste quantity; therefore, hazardous constituent quantity is not scored (NS).

Hazardous Constituent Quantity (C) Value: NS

2.4.2.1.2 Hazardous Wastestream Quantity

GE reported that approximately 37,530 tons of waste mate rials from GE manufacturing facilities were deposited at the DLL facility [Ref. 7, p. 7; 29, pp. 28-30]. NYSDEC reporte d that at least 8,790 tons of waste materials from other industrial sources, including Bendix Corporation and Schenect ady Chemicals, Inc., were deposited at the DLL facility [Ref. 6, p. 8; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 16; 29, p. 30; 30, pp. 4-5; 31, p. 2]. Howe ver, GE removed an unknown quantity of the hazardous materials, some of which had been stored in sealed drums and tanks, prior to the installation of the landfill cap [Ref. 6, pp. 9-10; 8, p. 17; 35, pp. 10, 14, 17-22]. In a ddition, the condition of the source changed significantly due to response actions [see Section 2.2.1]. Therefore, the informa tion available is not sufficient to evaluate Tier B source hazardous waste quantity, and hazardous wast estream quantity is not scored (NS).

Hazardous Wastestream Quantity (W) Value: NS

2.4.2.1.3 Volume

The information available is not sufficient to evaluate Ti er C source hazardous waste quantity; therefore, volume is not scored (NS).

Dimension of source (yd 3 ): NS Volume (V) Assigned Value: NS

2.4.2.1.4 Area

GE reported that the encapsulated disposal area (i.e., landfill) c overs an area of approximately 11 acres [Ref. 7, p. 8; 10, pp. 13-14]. However, there were multiple sources originally and it is unclear how much waste was removed prior to encapsulation. Therefore, the area value is assigned a va lue of greater than zero but the specific amount is unknown [Ref. 1, p. 51591, Section 2.4.2.1.4, Table 2-5].

Area (A) Assigned Value: > 0

2.4.2.1.5 Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value

The source hazardous waste quantity value for Source 1 is > 0 for Tier D - Area [Ref. 1, p. 51591].

Source Hazardous Waste Quantity Value: > 016 SD-Summary

SITE SUMMARY OF SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS

Containment

Source

Source Hazardous Waste Ground Surface Air

Number Quantity Value Water Water Gas Particulate

1 > 0 NS 7 * NS NS

NS = Not Scored

* The overland flow containment factor is 7 for the source [see Section 2.2.1].

Other Possible Sources (these form er sources were subject to response actions, including removal and encapsulation; all that remains of them is with in the encapsulated disp osal area [Source No. 1]):

Before remedial action was initiated, the Loeffel dispos al facility consisted of a 6-acre lagoon, a 25- by 150-foot oil pit, a 1- to 3-acre drum storage and disposal area, and four 30,000-gallon ASTs [Ref. 7, p. 8]. Hazardous substances deposited in these sources included chlorinated solvents, waste oils, PCBs, petroleum products, and aromatic organic compounds [Ref. 6, p. 8; 7, pp. 7-8; 8, p. 16; 33, pp. 4]. During disposal operations, liquid hazardous wastes were transported to the facility and emptied into the lagoon or oil pit, pumped onto the ground surface, or left at the facility in sealed drums [Ref. 8, p. 16; 33, p. 4]. Some wastes were reportedly burned during facility operations [Ref. 6, p. 8; 8, p. 16]. Dr ums were discarded on the lagoon perimeter or in a drum burial area, and were later covered with soil using a bu lldozer [Ref. 8, p. 16]. The lagoon area was a natural swamp before Loeffel used it for liquid waste disposal [R ef. 33, p. 4]. A wastewater sample collected from the lagoon in July 1970 reportedly contained hydrocarbons including petroleum residues, sulfoxide organic compounds, and substituted aromatic organic compounds [Ref . 33, p. 6]. In October 1970, Loeffel indicated that the discharge of liquid industrial wastes over a pproximately 20 years had resulted in the former swamp being devoid of plant and animal life [Ref. 33, p. 5].17 SWOF-Surface Water Overland Flow/Flood Migration Pathway

4.1 OVERLAND/FLOOD MIGRATION COMPONENT

4.1.1.1 Definition of Hazardous Substance Mi gration Path for Overland/Flood Component

The DLL facility is located in a low-lying area (elevation approximately 620 feet) between two wooded hills with peak elevations of 876 and 778 feet above mean sea level (MSL) [Figure 1; Ref. 4, p. 1; 6, p. 7; 9, p. 7]. Topography in the area generally slopes downward from east to west [Ref. 6, p. 7] . Surface drainage at the facility is controlled by a series of drainage swales built into and around the vegetated landf ill cap, which was constructed in 1984 [Ref. 6, pp. 7, 10]. From the disposal facility, surface water flows into the Valatie Kill drainage basin [Ref. 6, p. 7]. There are two probable points of entry (PPE) to surface water from the DLL facility: northwest toward the former Mead Road Pond (PPE1) and southeast toward Valley Stream (PPE2) [Figure 2; Ref. 6, pp. 7, 48; Ref. 25, p. 1]. The majority of surface water drains northwest into an unnamed stream (the “northwest drainage ditch”; PPE1), through the former Mead Road Pond and into Tributary T11A, which in turn flows into Valatie Kill [Figur e 2; Ref. 6, p. 7; 8, pp. 18-19, 105]. Valatie Kill flows southwest into Nassau Lake approximately 3.1 miles downstream of the facility, into Kinderhook Lake approximately 8.5 miles downstream, and to the end of the target distance limit (T DL) [Ref. 25, p. 1]. The secondary drainage system flows southeast into an unnamed tributary (the “southeast drainage ditch”; PPE2) and into Valley Stream, which flows through Smith Pond on its way to Nassau Lake 3.4 miles downstream [Figur e 2; Ref. 6, pp. 7, 48]. PPE2 is not used in the site scoring because doing so would not change the site score, but contamination migrating from this location does pose a

threat to downstream surface waters.

The northwest drainage ditch, former Mead Road Pond, Tr ibutary T11A, and Valatie Kill are perennial streams, as illustrated in GE’s Completion Report for the Mead Road Pond Area Interim Remedial Measures and confirmed by the presence of water at all times during the EPA investigation [Ref. 13, pp. 4-6, 10-13, 17-18, 23, 39-42, 45-46, 49-52, 55, 59-61; 14, pp. 4-5, 9; 40, pp. 8, 25, 43-51, 67-69]. Nassau Lake and the Valatie Kill between County Route 18 and

Nassau Lake are fisheries that have been closed due to th e site-related PCB contamination, and there are 1.7 miles of wetland frontage located within the zone of contamination [Figur e 2; Ref. 8, pp. 21, 26; 23, pp. 13, 17, 21; 25, p. 1; 38, pp. 1-2].

The Dewey Loeffel Landfill site is scored by the following approach:

The threats being evaluated are the Surface Water Pa thway Human Food Chain and Environmental Threats.

An observed release by chemical analysis is documente d, and the hazardous substances present are PCBs [see Section 4.1.2.1].

The known zone of contamination extends from PPE1 at th e northwest corner of the facility into Nassau Lake (sample DLL-SD34A), approximately 3.4 miles downstream [see Figure 2].

Targets subject to actual contamination include the Valatie Kill and Nassau Lake fisheries [see Section 4.1.3.3] and approximately 1.7 miles of wetland frontage [see Section 4.1.4.3].

As mentioned above, PPE2 is not used in the site scori ng because it does not contribute to the site score, but it does pose a threat to downstream surface waters.18 SWOF-Observed Release

4.1.2.1 Likelihood of Release

4.1.2.1.1 Observed Release

Sampling and analysis by EPA in June and August 2009 showed the presence of PCBs at concentrations significantly above background concentrations in several sediment samples collected downstream of the DLL facility. Tables 1 and 2 present the background and observed release concentrations.

NYSDEC has designated surface water releases downgradient of the DLL facility as operable unit OU3 [Ref. 6, pp. 5-7, 13]. GE has conducted remedial investigations and remedi al actions associated with OU3 since 1992, and NYSDEC issued its ROD for OU3 in January 2002 [Ref. 6, p. 1; 8, pp. 7, 17-21; 11, pp. 1-2]. From 2001 to 2004, GE removed approximately 15,000 tons of PCB-contaminated soil and sediments from the drainage-way between the facility and Nassau Lake, including the area immediately adjacent to the disposal facility, Mead Road Pond, Tributary T11A, and Valatie Kill [Ref. 12, pp. 5-7; 40, p. 7; 41, p. 9]. However, recent fish tissue da ta (2008) indicate that PCBs still affect several species in surface waters downstr eam of the facility [Ref. 12, pp. 20-91].

Direct Observation

An observed release by direct observation is not being scored.

Chemical Analysis

An observed release by chemical analysis is documented along the surface water migration pathway downstream of the Dewey Loeffel Landfill facility, between sample location D LL-SED12 in the former Mead Road Pond and sample location DLL-SED34A in Nassau Lake, approxi mately 3.4 miles downstream [Figure 2].

In June and August 2009, EPA conducted sediment sampling along the surface water migration pathway downstream of the facility, including the former Mead Road Pond, Tribut ary T11A, Valatie Kill, Valley Stream, Smith Pond, and Nassau Lake [Ref. 13, pp. 8-48; 14, pp. 3- 6, 9; 15, pp. 3-8, 11]. Samples were analyzed for TCL Aroclors (i.e., PCBs), TOC, and grain size [Ref. 16 through 22]. The validated analy tical results indicated the continuing presence of PCBs at concentrations significantly above background in sediment sa mples from the former Mead Road Pond, Tributary T11A, Valatie Kill, and Nassau Lake [See Tables 1 and 2; Ref. 16, pp. 17, 28, 30-32, 38; 17, pp. 3-5, 7, 17, 20-24, 31-32, 45, 50, 74]. The June and August 2009 sediment data document the observed release by chemical analysis to the surface water pathway. The background sample lo cations were chosen because they are representative of upgradient locations unaffected by site contamination [Ref. 14, pp. 4-6, 9; 15, pp. 5-8, 11].

Notes on Sample Similarity:

Figure 2 (Sample Location Map) shows the background and re lease sample locations for the DLL site. Background samples were collected upstream from influence by the source [F igure 2]. The release sample data from three different water body types (stream, lake, spring) were compared to samples from the only usable upgradient background locations, which came from stream samples [Tables 1 and 2] (i.e., ther e were no lakes or springs immediately upgradient of the release sample locations). The background and release sample s were handled the same procedurally and were similar physically, as follows:

• Sampling Methods: The background and release sediment samples were all collected by EPA, using Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), during the June and Augus t 2009 sampling events [Ref. 14, pp. 2-6; 15, pp. 2-8].

• Analytical Procedures: The background and release samp les were all analyzed for TCL Aroclors through the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) [Ref. 16, pp. 1-43; 17, pp. 1-84]. The samples were also analyzed for grain-size distribution according to Method ASTM D422-63 and for TOC according to Method CORP ENG 81M/SW9060M by Accutest Laboratories of Dayton, New Jersey [Ref. 18 through 22].

• Data Validation: The PCB analytical data were re viewed independently by EPA according to “SOP HW-37 (Revision 1), USEPA Region II Data Validation SOP for Statement of Work SOM01.2” dated August 2007 [Ref. 16, pp. 2-9; 17, pp. 8-11, 41-44, 69-72, 81-84]. The data reviewers found the results to be valid and acceptable with the following exception:19 o The non-detect results for background samples DLL-SED43A, DLL-SED44A, DLL-SED45A, and DLL-SED46A, collected in August 2009, were found to be unusable because percent moisture content exceeded 90% [Ref. 15, pp. 7-8; 17, pp. 33-35, 41, 44, 73, 81, 84].

• Water Body Type: Background and release samples presente d in Tables 1 and 2 were all collected from small streams, with the exception of sample DLL-SED34A, which was collected from Nassau Lake in August 2009. EPA collected background lake samples DLL-SED 43A, DLL-SED44A, DLL-SED45A, and DLL-SED46A from Lyons Lake [see Figure 2] in August 2009, and Aroc lors were not detected. However, the non-detect results for the Lyons Lake samples were found to be unusable because percent moisture content exceeded 90%.The percent moisture values ranged from 91% to 93%, whereas the percent moisture value for sample DLLSED34A was 78% [Ref. 14, pp. 4-6, 9; 15, pp. 5-8, 11; 17, pp. 33-35, 41, 44, 73, 81, 84]. Based on these considerations, the results for sample DLL-SED34A ar e compared to the highest usable background value for significance above background [Table 2].

• Sampling Depth: Background and release samples were all co llected from the 0- to 6-inch interval below top of sediment [Ref. 13, pp. 10-19, 21-47].

• Percent Moisture: The percent moisture in the b ackground samples ranged from approximately 17% to 62%, while percent moisture in the release samples ranged from approximately 15% to 78% [Ref. 16, pp. 17, 28, 30- 32, 38; 17, pp. 3-5, 7, 17, 20-24, 31-32, 44-45, 50, 74].

• Total Organic Carbon: The TOC levels in the background samples ranged from less than 1,300 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) to 33,000 mg/kg, while TOC levels in the release samples ranged from less than 1,200 mg/kg to 53,300 mg/kg [Ref. 18, pp. 14, 16-18, 24, 32; 20, p. 7, 14, 16; 21, pp. 6, 9, 12-15; 22, pp. 12-15, 17].

• Grain Size: The amount of fine-grained materials (silt, clay, and colloids) in the solid portion of the background samples ranged from 4.9% to 39.7%, with an average of 17.2%. The amount of fine-grained materials in the solid portion of the release samples ranged from 0.74% to 90.4%, with an average of 16.5% [Ref. 18, pp. 14, 16-18, 24, 32; 20, p. 7, 14, 16; 21, pp. 6, 9, 12-15; 22, pp. 12-15, 17].

Due to the similarities (i.e., same time frames, sampling a nd analytical methods, and sampling depths; overlapping ranges of percent moisture, TOC, and grain-size) among the b ackground and release samples, the background and release analytical results are considered to be comparable.

Notes on significance above background:

EPA evaluated Phase 1 (June 2009) and Phase 2 (August 2009) samples separately, comparing observed release concentrations to the highest usable background values (i.e., hi ghest SQLs) within each data set. Results for two of the June 2009 background samples were flagged “UJ” because th e samples were associated with a %Difference that exceeded criteria [Table 1; Ref. 16, pp. 8, 28, 38].

The following criteria from the HRS were used to evalua te significance above background (i.e., observed release):

• If the maximum background concentration is not detected or is less than the detection limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the SQL [Ref. 1, p. 51589].

• If the maximum background concentration equals or ex ceeds the detection limit, an observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the SQL and is three times or more above the background concentration [Ref. 1, p. 51589, Table 2-3].

• The Aroclor-1260 result for sample DLL-SED34A (B 5Q64) is qualified as positively identified but approximate (“J”) because the percent moisture content is greater than 70% but less than or equal to 90%, which indicates an unknown direction of bias [Table 2; Re f. 17, pp. 32, 41, 44]. This J-flagged result has been adjusted in accordance with EPA’s Quick Reference Fact Sheet “ Using Qualified Data to Document an

Observed Release and Observed Contamination ” dated November 1996, thereby compensating for probable uncertainty in the analyses [Tab le 2; Ref. 26, pp. 1-8, 16].

Notes on Tables 1 and 2:

Italics denote the highest usable background value (i.e ., highest SQL) for each hazardous substance.

Bold shaded indicates concentrations that meet the criteria for observed release. Blank spaces indicate that the results do not meet observed release criteria. Explanation of the Comments Row: “Background Samp le” indicates a sample collected upstream from influence by the source. “Dup.” means duplicate of the sample specified.Table 1Background and Observed Release ConcentrationsPhase I Sediment Sampling - June 2009Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Nassau, NYBackground ConcentrationsObserved Release ConcentrationsField Sample No.DLL-SED08DLL-SED18DLL-SED27DLL-SED10DLL-SED11DLL-SED12EPA Sample No.B5PE2B5PF2B5PG2B5PE4B5PE5B5PE6Date6/8/20096/8/20096/9/20096/9/20096/9/20096/9/2009Depth (inches)0-60-60-60-60-60-6CommentBackground Sample- streamBackground Sample- streamBackground Sample- streamstreamstreamstreamReferencesRef. 13, pp. 10-11;14, pp. 4, 9, 11, 17Ref. 13, pp. 10-11;14, pp. 5, 9, 12, 18Ref. 13, pp. 11, 19;14, pp. 6, 9, 15, 19Ref. 13, pp. 11, 17;14, pp. 4, 9, 14, 17Ref. 13, pp. 11, 17-18; 14, pp. 4, 9, 14,Ref. 13, pp. 11, 17-18; 14, pp. 5, 9, 14,PCBs (μg/kg)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAroclor-126042 UJ4244 UJ4487 U87340411904517059% Moisture222562192744ReferenceRef. 16, pp. 6-9, 28;37,p. 8Ref. 16, pp. 6-9, 38;37,p. 10Ref. 16, pp. 2-5, 17;37,p. 4Ref. 16, pp. 6-9, 30;37,p. 8Ref. 16, pp. 6-9, 31;37,p. 8Ref. 16, pp. 6-9, 32;37,p. 9Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)<1,3005,43033,0001,6208,19010,800% Gravel24.223.23.516.252.314.7% Sand70.949.256.880.74380.8% Silt, Clay, Colloids4.927.739.73.14.84.6ReferenceRef. 18, p. 14Ref. 18, p. 24Ref. 18, p. 32Ref. 18, p. 16Ref. 18, p. 17Ref. 18, p. 18μg/kg - micrograms per kilogrammg/kg - milligrams per kilogramSQL - Sample quantitation limitU - The substance was analyzed for, but no quantifiable concentration was found at or above the Contract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL) [Ref. 26, p. 6].UJ - The analyte was not quantifiable at or above the CRQL, and one or more QA/QC requirements did not meet acceptance criteria [Ref. 26, p. 6].Notes:* Maximum values (italicized) were used for determination of observed release.Highlighted results indicate observed release concentrations.Table 2Background and Observed Release ConcentrationsPhase II Sediment Sampling - August 2009Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Nassau, NYBackground ConcentrationsObserved Release ConcentrationsField Sample No.DLL-SED08ADLL-SED18ADLL-SED27ADLL-SED01ADLL-SED02ADLL-SED05ADLL-SED06ADLL-SED07AEPA Sample No.B5Q38B5Q48B5Q57B5Q31B5Q32B5Q35B5Q36B5Q37Date8/7/20098/6/20098/8/20098/6/20098/7/20098/7/20098/7/20098/7/2009Depth (inches)0-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-6CommentBackgroundSample - streamBackgroundSample - streamBackgroundSample - streamstreamstreamstreamstreamDup. of DLLSED06AReferencesRef. 13, pp. 21,41; 15, pp. 5, 11,21, 23Ref. 13, pp. 21,33; 15, pp. 6, 11,15, 17Ref. 13, pp. 21,47; 15, pp. 7, 11,25, 27Ref. 13, pp. 21,29; 15, pp. 5, 11,15, 17Ref. 13, pp. 21,36; 15, pp. 5, 11,21, 23Ref. 13, pp. 21,40; 15, pp. 5, 11,21, 23Ref. 13, pp. 21,40; 15, pp. 5, 11,21, 23Ref. 13, pp. 21,40; 15, pp. 5, 11,21PCBs (μg/kg)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAroclor-123247 U4743 U4340 U40Aroclor-126047 U4743 U4340 U40654428049940401,000401,30040% Moisture3024172633191818ReferenceRef. 17, pp. 23,41-44; 37, p. 17Ref. 17, pp. 50,69-72; 37, p. 22Ref. 17, pp. 7­11; 37, p. 13Ref. 17, pp. 45,69-72; 37, p. 21Ref. 17, pp. 17,41-44; 37, p. 14Ref. 17, pp. 20,41-44; 37, p. 15Ref. 17, pp. 21,41-44; 37, p. 16Ref. 17, pp. 22,41-44; 37, p. 16Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)11,6003,3502,0005,54015,70024,100<1200Duplicatesample notanalyzed forTOC or GrainSize% Gravel0.169.214.40.420.1911.223.1% Sand8778.379.888.773.878.275.3% Silt, Clay, Colloids12.912.55.710.92610.61.5ReferenceRef. 21, p. 14Ref. 20, p. 16Ref. 22, p. 17Ref. 20, p. 14Ref. 21, p. 6Ref. 21, p. 15Ref. 21, p. 12μg/kg - micrograms per kilogrammg/kg - milligrams per kilogramSQL - Sample quantitation limitCRQL - Contract required quantitation limitU - The substance was analyzed for, but no quantifiableconcentration was found at or above the CRQL [Ref. 26, p. 6].C - Result confirmed by GC/MSJ - The substance was positively identified; the associated numerical valueis the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample [Ref. 26, p. 6].Notes:*Maximum values (italicized) were used for determination of observed release.Highlighted results indicate observed release concentrations.Table 2Background and Observed Release ConcentrationsPhase II Sediment Sampling - August 2009Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Nassau, NYBackground ConcentrationsObserved Release Concentrations (continued)Field Sample No.DLL-SED08ADLL-SED18ADLL-SED27ADLL-SED09ADLL-SED10ADLL-SED11ADLL-SED12ADLL-SED26AEPA Sample No.B5Q38B5Q48B5Q57B5Q39B5Q40B5Q41B5Q42B5Q56Date8/7/20098/6/20098/8/20098/7/20098/8/20098/8/20098/8/20098/7/2009Depth (inches)0-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-6CommentBackgroundSample - streamBackgroundSample - streamBackgroundSample - streamstreamstreamstreamstreamstreamReferencesRef. 13, pp. 21,41; 15, pp. 5, 11,21, 23Ref. 13, pp. 21,33; 15, pp. 6, 11,15, 17Ref. 13, pp. 21,47; 15, pp. 7, 11,25, 27Ref. 13, pp. 21,41; 15, pp. 5, 11,21, 23Ref. 13, pp. 21,45; 15, pp. 5, 11,25, 27Ref. 13, pp. 21,46; 15, pp. 5, 11,25, 27Ref. 13, pp. 21,46; 15, pp. 5, 11,25, 27Ref. 13, pp. 21,39; 15, pp. 6, 11,22, 27PCBs (μg/kg)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLAroclor-123247 U4743 U4340 U4020083Aroclor-126047 U4743 U4340 U406803970039560393,300 C8374068% Moisture3024171615152152ReferenceRef. 17, pp. 23,41-44; 37, p. 17Ref. 17, pp. 50,69-72; 37, p. 22Ref. 17, pp. 7­11; 37, p. 13Ref. 17, pp. 24,41-44; 37, p. 17Ref. 17, pp. 3, 8­11; 37, p. 11Ref. 17, pp. 4, 8­11; 37, p. 12Ref. 17, pp. 5, 8­11; 37, p. 12Ref. 17, pp. 31,41-44; 37, p. 19Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)11,6003,3502,0001,460<1200<1200<120035,500% Gravel0.169.214.432.746.716.817.58.9% Sand8778.379.866.252.681.979.640.2% Silt, Clay, Colloids12.912.55.71.10.741.42.950.9ReferenceRef. 21, p. 14Ref. 20, p. 16Ref. 22, p. 17Ref. 21, p. 13Ref. 22, p. 13Ref. 22, p. 14Ref. 22, p. 15Ref. 22, p. 12μg/kg - micrograms per kilogrammg/kg - milligrams per kilogramSQL - Sample quantitation limitCRQL - Contract required quantitation limitU - The substance was analyzed for, but no quantifiableconcentration was found at or above the CRQL [Ref. 26, p. 6].C - Result confirmed by GC/MSJ - The substance was positively identified; the associated numerical valueis the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample [Ref. 26, p. 6].Notes:*Maximum values (italicized) were used for determination of observed release.Highlighted results indicate observed release concentrations.Table 2Background and Observed Release ConcentrationsPhase II Sediment Sampling - August 2009Dewey Loeffel Landfill, Nassau, NYBackground ConcentrationsObserved Release Concentrations (concluded)Field Sample No.DLL-SED08ADLL-SED18ADLL-SED27ADLL-SED34ADLL-SED47AEPA Sample No.B5Q38B5Q48B5Q57B5Q64B5Q77Date8/7/20098/6/20098/8/20098/6/20098/7/2009Depth (inches)0-60-60-60-60-6CommentBackgroundSample - streamBackgroundSample - streamBackgroundSample - streamlakespringReferencesRef. 13, pp. 21,41; 15, pp. 5, 11,21, 23Ref. 13, pp. 21,33; 15, pp. 6, 11,15, 17Ref. 13, pp. 21,47; 15, pp. 7, 11,25, 27Ref. 13, pp. 21, 27; 15, pp. 7, 11, 16-17Ref. 13, pp. 21, 42;15, pp. 8, 11, 22-23PCBs (μg/kg)ResultSQLResultSQLResultSQLResultBiasAdjustmentFactorAdjusted ResultCRQLSQLResultSQLAroclor-123247 U4743 U4340 U40Aroclor-126047 U4743 U4340 U401,700 JUnknownDivide by 10170331501,00050% Moisture3024177835ReferenceRef. 17, pp. 23,41-44; 37, p. 17Ref. 17, pp. 50,69-72; 37, p. 22Ref. 17, pp. 7­11; 37, p. 13Ref. 17, pp. 32, 41-44; 37, p. 20Ref. 17, pp. 74, 81­84; 37, pp. 27-28Total Organic Carbon (mg/kg)11,6003,3502,00053,30017,300% Gravel0.169.214.4021.1% Sand8778.379.89656.7% Silt, Clay, Colloids12.912.55.790.422.1ReferenceRef. 21, p. 14Ref. 20, p. 16Ref. 22, p. 17Ref. 20, p. 7Ref. 21, p. 9μg/kg - micrograms per kilogrammg/kg - milligrams per kilogramSQL - Sample quantitation limitCRQL - Contract required quantitation limitU - The substance was analyzed for, but no quantifiableconcentration was found at or above the CRQL [Ref. 26, p. 6].C - Result confirmed by GC/MSJ - The substance was positively identified; the associated numerical valueis the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample [Ref. 26, p. 6].Notes:*Maximum values (italicized) were used for determination of observed release.Highlighted results indicate observed release concentrations.24 SWOF-Observed Release

Attribution

From 1952 to 1968, Loeffel operated the DLL facility as a di sposal facility for waste materials generated by several industries [Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 16]. Waste ma terials were dumped into a lagoon area, oil pit, and drum burial area; drum contents were pumped onto the ground surface; and some waste materials were burned [Ref. 6, p. 8; 8, p. 16]. The waste materials dumped at the facility included solvents, wa ste oils, PCBs, scrap materials, sludges, and solids [Ref. 6, pp. 5, 8; 7, p. 7; 29, pp. 1, 28-30]. GE reported that approximately 37,530 tons of waste materials from GE manufacturing facilities were deposited at the facility [Ref. 7, p. 7; 29, pp. 28-30]. NYSDEC reported that at least 8,790 tons of waste materials were deposited at the facility fro m other industrial sources, including Bendix Corporation and Schenectady Chemicals, Inc. [Ref. 6, p. 8; 7, p. 7; 8, p. 16; 29, p. 30; 30, pp. 4-5; 31, p. 2].

GE collected soil samples from the disposal area in 1981, prio r to installation of the clay cap and slurry wall, and reported that concentrations of individual PCBs (Aroclo r-1016, Aroclor-1254, and Aroclo r-1260) ranged from 0.6 ppm to 979 ppm [Ref. 7, pp. 37-38, 77]. A landfill leachate sample collected by GE in 1996 indicated the presence of the PCB Aroclor-1260, and GE reported that Aroclor-1260 exists as a DNAPL at the facility [Ref. 10, pp. 23-24, 74, 90-97].

From 2001 to 2004, GE removed approximately 15,000 tons of PCB-contaminated soil and sediments from the drainageway between the facility and Nassau Lake, including the area immediately adjacent to the disposal facility, Mead Road Pond, Tributary T11A, and Valatie Kill [Ref. 12, pp. 5-7; 40, p. 7; 41, p. 9]. However, recent fish tissue data (2008) indicate that PCBs still affect several species in surf ace waters downstream of the facility [Ref. 12, pp. 20-91].

PCBs belong to a broad family of man-made organic chem icals known as chlorinated hydrocarbons [Ref. 27, p. 1]. PCBs were manufactured domestically from 1929 until their manufacture was banned in 1979 [Ref. 27, p. 1]. Once released, PCBs do not readily break down and therefore remain in the environment for long periods of time [Ref. 27, p. 2]. There are no other known PCB sites within 1 mile of th e facility, including along the drai nage pathways [Ref. 28, pp. 2-45].

Hazardous Substances Released:

PCBs (Aroclor-1232 and Aroclor-1260)

[Tables 1 and 2]

=================================================================================== Observed Release Factor Value: 55025 SWOF/Food Chain-Waste Characteristics

4.1.3.2 Human Food Chain Threat - Waste Characteristics

4.1.3.2.1 Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Hazardous Substance Toxicity

Factor

Value* Persistence

Factor

Value** Food Chain

Bioaccumulation

Factor Value* Toxicity/Persistence/

Bioaccumulation Factor Value (Table 4-16) Ref. 2 Page PCBs [Aroclor-1232 and Aroclor-1260] 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 BI-10

* Fresh water values for toxicity and bio accumulation are used [Ref. 2, p. BI-10]. ** PCBs are assigned the same persistence factor value (i .e., 1.0000) for both water body types (river and lake) within the target distance limit [Ref. 2, p. BI-10].

PCBs are associated with the highest toxicity/p ersistence/bioaccumulation factor value of 5 x 10 8

.

4.1.3.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source Hazardous Is source hazardous Waste Quantity constituent quantity

Source Number Value (HRS Section 2.4.2.1.5) data complete? (yes/no)

1 > 0 no

Sum of Values: > 0

The sum corresponds to a hazardous waste quantity factor va lue of 1 in Table 2-6 of the HRS [Ref. 1, p. 51591]. However, based on the fact that targets are subject to Leve l II concentrations [see Section 4.1.3.3.2.2], a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned if it is greater th an the hazardous waste quantity value from Table 2-6 (i.e., 1) [Ref. 1, p. 51591-51592]. Therefore, a h azardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned for the surface water pathway [Ref. 1, p. 51591-51592].

4.1.3.2.3 Calculation of Human Food Chain Threat - Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value

One hazardous substance [PCBs] associated with the wast e source, which has a surface water pathway containment factor greater than 0 for the watershed, corresponds to a Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value of 10,000 and Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value of 50,000, as s hown previously [Ref. 1, pp. 51618, 51620; 2, p. BI-10].

(Toxicity/Persistence Factor Va lue) x (Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) = 10,000 x 100 = 1 x 10 6

(Toxicity/Persistence Factor Value x H azardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) x (Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value) = (1 x 10 6 ) x (50,000) = 5 x 10 10

The product of 5 x 10 10 corresponds to an assigned Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 320 in Table 2-7 of the HRS [Ref. 1, p. 51592].

=================================================================================== Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumu lation Factor Value: 5 x 10 8
Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 32026 SWOF/Food Chain-Targets

4.1.3.3 Human Food Chain Threat - Targets

Nassau Lake and the Valatie Kill between County Route 18 and Na ssau Lake are fisheries that have been closed due to the site-related PCB contamination; New York State Depa rtment of Health (NYSDOH) has issued “Eat No Fish” advisories [Figure 2; Ref. 8, pp. 21, 26; 23, pp. 13, 17, 21]. Local residents occasionally ate fish from both water bodies prior to implementation of the advisories, but stopped consum ption due to the PCB contamination [Ref. 24, pp. 1-50].

These fisheries are both within the zone of contamination fo r the Dewey Loeffel Landfill site [Figure 2]. The HRS says to consider a closed fishery (or portion of a fishery) within the target distance limit (TDL) of the watershed to be subject

to actual human food chain contamination if a hazardous subs tance for which the fishery has been closed has been

documented in an observed release to the watershed from the site and at least a portion of the fishery is within the boundaries of the observed release [Ref. 1, p. 51620, Section 4. 1.3.3]. Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target closed fishery is evaluated for Actual Hu man Food Chain Contamination. Level I targets were not established because doing so would not change the site score, so the target fishery is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51620-51621].

Sediment Samples for Observed Release

Bioaccumulation

Distance Hazardous Potential Sample ID from PPE Substance Factor Value Reference(s)

DLL-SED26A 0 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED12 400 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 1; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED12A 400 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED11 650 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 1; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED11A 650 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED10 850 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 1; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED10A 850 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED47A 1500 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED09A 2000 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED06A/7A 2000 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED05A 4000 feet PCBs 50,000 Figure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED02A 2.6 miles PCBs 50,000 Fi gure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED01A 3.1 miles PCBs 50,000 Fi gure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

DLL-SED34A 3.4 miles PCBs 50,000 Fi gure 2; Table 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-1027 SWOF/Food Chain-Targets/Food Chain Individual

4.1.3.3.1 Food Chain Individual

Sample ID: NC-SD34A

Hazardous Substance: PCBs Bioaccumulation Potential: 50,000 References: Figure 2; Ref. 1, p. 51620; 2, p. BI-10

Type of Dilution Identity of Fishery Surface Water Body Weight Reference(s)

Valatie Kill/Nassau Lake Small to moderate stream 0.1 1, p. 51613; 8, p. 19

There is an observed release of a hazardous substance (i.e., PCBs) with a Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value of 500 or greater and there is Level II Actual Contamination of th e Valatie Kill and Nassau Lake closed fisheries [Figure 2, Tables 1 and 2; Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51620; 2, p. BI-10]. Therefore, a Food Ch ain Individual Factor Value of 45 is assigned [Ref. 1, p. 51620].

=================================================================================== Food Chain Individual Factor Value: 4528 SWOF/Food Chain-Level I/Level II Con centrations/Potential Contamination

4.1.3.3.2 Population

4.1.3.3.2.1 Level I Concentrations

There are no fisheries subject to Level I concentrations and the Level I Concentrations Factor Value is 0 [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51620-51621].

================================================================= ==================== Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0

4.1.3.3.2.2 Level II Concentrations

Nassau Lake and the Valatie Kill between County Route 18 and Nassau Lake are fisheries that have been closed due to the site-related PCB contamination; New York State Depa rtment of Health (NYSDOH) has issued “Eat No Fish” advisories [8, pp. 21, 26; 23, pp. 13, 17, 21]. Local resi dents occasionally ate fish from both water bodies prior to implementation of the advisories, but stopped consumption due to the PCB contamination [Ref. 24, pp. 1-50]. These

fisheries are both within the zone of contamination for the Dewey Loeffel Landfill site [Figur e 2]. Level I targets were not established because doing so would not change the site score, so the target fishery is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51620-51621]. The fish c onsumption rate for the Valatie Kill and Nassau Lake fishery is not well-documented, so the fishery is assigned to the category “Greater than 0 to 100 pounds per year” [Ref. 1, p. 51621; 24, pp. 1-50]. The category corresponds to the a ssigned Human Food Chain Population Value of 0.03 in Table 4-18 of the HRS, which is assigned as the Level II Concentrations Factor Value [Ref. 1, p. 51621].

================================================================= ==================== Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 0.03

4.1.3.3.2.3 Potential Human Food Chain Contamination

The water bodies along the remainder of the 15-mile TDL (Valatie Kill downstream of Nassau Lake; Kinderhook Lake) are suitable for some fish consumption according to NYSDOH [Ref. 23, pp. 11, 17]. Local residents mention Kinderhook Lake as a fishing location [Ref. 24, pp. 1-50]. Th e fish consumption rate for the downstream fishery is not well-documented, so the fishery is assigned to the categor y “Greater than 0 to 100 pounds per year” , which corresponds to the assigned Human Food Chain Population Value of 0.03 in Table 4-18 of the HRS [Ref. 1, p. 51621].

Type of Average

Annual Surface Annual Identity of Production Water Flow Population Dilution Fishery (pounds) Body (cfs) Value (P i ) Weight (D i ) P i x D i

Valatie Kill 0-100 Small to mod. stream 11 0.03 0.1 0.003

Sum of P i x D i : 0.003 (Sum of P i x D i )/10: 0.0003

[Ref. 1, pp. 51613, 51621; 8, p. 19]

======================================================================== ============ Potential Human Food Chain Contamination Factor Value: 0.000329 SWOF/Environment-Waste Characteristics

4.1.4.2 Environmental Threat - Waste Characteristics

4.1.4.2.1 Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bioaccumulation

Hazardous Substance Ecotoxicity

Factor

Value* Persistence

Factor

Value** Environment

Bioaccumulation

Factor Value* Ecotoxicity/Persistence/

Bioaccumulation Factor Value (Table 4-21) Ref. 2 Page PCBs [Aroclor-1232 and Aroclor-1260] 10,000 1 50,000 5 x 10 8 BI-10

* Fresh water values for ecotoxicity and bi oaccumulation are used [Ref. 2, p. BI-10]. ** PCBs are assigned the same persistence factor value (i .e., 1.0000) for both water body types (river and lake) within the target distance limit [Ref. 2, p. BI-10].

PCBs are the hazardous substances associat ed with the highest ecotoxicity/persistence/ bioaccumulation factor value of 5

x 10 8

.

================================================================= ==================== Ecosystem Toxicity/Persistence/Bio accumulation Factor Value: 5 x 10 8

4.1.4.2.2 Hazardous Waste Quantity

Source Hazardous Is source hazardous Waste Quantity constituent quantity

Source Number Value (HRS Section 2.4.2.1.5) data complete? (yes/no)

1 > 0 no

Sum of Values: > 0

The sum corresponds to a hazardous waste quantity factor va lue of 1 in Table 2-6 of the HRS [Ref. 1, p. 51591]. However, based on the fact that targets are subject to Leve l II concentrations [see Section 4.1.4.3.1.2], a hazardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned if it is greater th an the hazardous waste quantity value from Table 2-6 (i.e., 1) [Ref. 1, p. 51591-51592]. Therefore, a h azardous waste quantity factor value of 100 is assigned for the surface water pathway [Ref. 1, p. 51591-51592].

4.1.4.2.3 Calculation of Environmental Threat - Wa ste Characteristics Factor Category Value

A hazardous substance (i.e., PCBs) associated with the wa ste source, which has a surface water pathway containment factor greater than 0 for the watershed, corresponds to an Ecotoxicity/Persistence Factor Value of 10,000 and Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value of 50,000, as show n previously [Ref. 1, pp. 51618, 51620, 51624; 2, p. BI-10].

(Ecotoxicity/Persistence Factor Value) x (Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) = 10,000 x 100 = 1 x 10 6

(Ecotoxicity/Persistence Factor Value x Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value) x (Bioaccumulation Potential Factor Value) = (1 x 10 8 ) x (50,000) = 5 x 10 10

The product of 5 x 10 10 corresponds to an assigned Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value of 320 in Table 2-7 of the HRS [Ref. 1, p. 51592].

================================================================= ==================== Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Value: 100 Waste Characteristics Factor Category Value: 32030 SWOF/Environment-Targets

4.1.4.3 Environmental Threat - Targets

There are 1.7 miles of wetland frontage located within the zone of contamination [Figure 2; Ref. 25, p. 1; 38, pp. 1-2]. Therefore, Actual Contamination is documented, and the target sensitive environment is evaluated for Actual Contamination. There are no media-specific benchmarks for se diment, so the target sensitive environment is subject to Level II concentrations [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51624-51625].

4.1.4.3.1 Sensitive Environments

4.1.4.3.1.1 Level I Concentrations

There are no media-specific benchmarks for sediment. Theref ore, there are no sensitive environments subject to Level I

concentrations and the Level I Concentrations Factor Value is 0 [Ref. 1, pp. 51592-51593, 51624-51625].

============================================================ ========================== Level I Concentrations Factor Value: 0

4.1.4.3.1.2 Level II Concentrations

Sensitive Environments There are approximately 1.7 miles of wetland frontage located along the contaminated portion of Valatie Kill [Figure 2; Ref. 25, p. 1; 38, pp. 1-2].

Distance from PPE Sensitive

to Sensitive Environment

Sensitive Environment Environment Reference Value(s)

N/A 0.00 mile 1, pp. 51624-51625 0

Sum of Sensitive Environments Value: 0

Wetlands

Wetland Wetland Frontage Reference(s)

Valatie Kill 1.7 miles Figure 2; Ref. 25, p. 1; 38, pp. 1-2

Total Wetland Frontage: 1.7

Wetland Value: 50

Sum of Sensitive Environments Value + Wetland Value: 50

======================================================================== ============ Level II Concentrations Factor Value: 50

4.1.4.3.1.3 Potential Contamination

Since a maximum score of 100.00 was achieved for the surface water migration pathway, the Potential Contamination Factor Value within Environmental Threat-Targets was not scor ed (NS) [Ref. 1, p. 51608, Table 4-1, Section 4.1.4.3.1.3].

============================================================ ========================== Potential Contamination Factor Value: NS