HomeMy WebLinkAboutHydrogeologic Investigation ReportI
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PART 360 AND PHASE II
HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION REPORT
Southold Landfill
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
I
I
I
I
Dvirka and Bartilucci
Consulting Engineers
OCTOBER 1991
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
$
PART 360 AND PHASE H
HYDROGEOLOGIC I]qVF__.STIGATION REPORT
SOUTHOLD LANDFH.L
PRF-I)AI{RD FOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUI',fI'Y, ~ YORK
PR.Ep,~J~ m BY
DV]RKA A_ND BARTII..UCC~
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
syOSSEF, NEW YORK
Section
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Titl~
SUMMARY
PURPOSE
SCOPE OF WORK
3.1
3.2
General Investigation Procedures
3.1.1 Health and Safety Program
3.1.2 Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program
3.1.3 Data Validation
3.1.4 Air Monitoring
3.1.5 Decontamination
Subsurface Investigation
3.2.1 Soil Gas Survey
3.2.2 Geophysical Program
3.2.3 Monitoring Well Program
3.2.3.1 Monitoring Well Locations
3.2.3.2 Monitoring Well Depths
3.2.3.3 Monitoring Well Construction and Installation
3.2.3.4 Monitoring Well Development
3.2.3.5 Borehole Abandonment
3.2.3.6 Borehole and Monitoring Well Logging
3.2.3.7 Groundwater Level Measurements
3.2.4 Selection of Sampling Locations
3.2.5 Surveying
3.2.6 Analytical Procedures
3.2.7 Sampling Procedures
3.2.7.1 Subsurface Soil (Split Spoon)
3.2.7.2 Groundwater
$~-r~ ASSK~SI~r
4.1 Background and History
4.1.1 Site Location and Background Information
4.1.2 Site History and Previous Investigations
4.1.3 Site Reconnaissance
4.1.4 Literature Search
4.1.5 Water Well Survey
4.2 Geology
4.2.1 Regional Geology
4.2.2 Local Geology
4.2.2.1 Soils
4.2.3 Site Geology
4.2.3.1 Soil Gas Survey Results
4.2.3.2 Geophysical Survey Results
4.2.3.3 Site Topography
4.3 Groundwater Hydrogeology
4.3.1 Regional Hydrogeology
4.3.2 Local Hydrogeology
Page
1-1
2-1
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-2
3-2
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-4
3-4
3-6
3-6
3-9
3-10
3-11
3-13
3-13
3-13
3-14
3-15
3-15
3 -23
3 -23
3-23
4-1
4-1
4-I
4-4
4-6
4-6
4-6
4-10
4-10
4-15
4-20
4-21
4-23
4-27
4-27
4-27
4-27
4-28
S 1466~ i
I
TABLE OF CON'i'I~FS
5.0
6.0
Title
4.4
4.5
4.3.3 Site Hydrogeology
4.3.3.1 Permeability
4.3.3.2 Groundwater Flow Patterns
4.3.3.2.1 Shallow Water Table
4.3.3.2.2 Deep Groundwater
Surface Water
Sampling Program Results
4.5.1 Introduction
4.5.2 Data Validation Results
4.5.3 Soil Sampling
4.5.3.1 Organic Sampling Results
4.5.3.2 Inorganic Sampling Results
4.5.4 Groundwater Sampling
4.5.4.1 Organic Sampling Results
4.5.4.2 Inorganic Sampling Results
4.5.4.3 Leachate Parameter Sampling Results
CONCLUSIONS
RBCY)MM]~NDATIONS
Page
4-31
4-31
4-35
4-35
4-35
4-40
4-40
4-40
4-40
4-40
4-40
4-44
4-51
4-51
4-69
4-76
5-1
6-1
Appendices
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX H
APPENDIX !
APPENDIX $
APPENDIX K
Field Forms
Data Validation Report
Soil Gas Survey Results
Geophysical Report (Vol. Il)
Well Construction Diagrams (Vol. II)
Boring Logs (Vol. Il)
Previous Investigation Results (Vol. II)
Aerial Photographs (Vol. Il)
Well Completion/Construction Logs - Wells in Vicinity of Landfill (Vol. I1)
Boring Logs - Wells in Vicinity of Landfill (Vol. II)
Slug Test Results (Vol. II)
Number
1-1
1-2
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-23
4-24
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Site Location Map
Site Plan
Soil Gas Monitoring Locations
Monitoring Well Cluster Locations
Plan for Construction of Monitoring Wells
Zoning Map
Landfill Operations Map
Previous Groundwater, Water Supply and Soil Sampling Locations
Monitoring Wells Located in Vicinity of Landfill
Generalized Isometric Geologic Cross Section of the Southold
Peninsula
Longitudinal Geologic Cross Section of North Fork
Cross Section Locations
Geologic Cross Section in Vicinity of Site
Hydrogeologic Cross Section in Vicinity of Site
Hydrogeologic Cross Section Through the Landfill
Soil Map
Location of Landf'fll Site Cross Sections
Cross Section A-A'
Cross Section B-B'
Regional Water Table Contour Map
Groundwater Flow Patterns in Vicinity of Site
Groundwater Flow Direction in Vicinity of Site
Special Groundwater Protection Areas in the Town of Southold
Water Table Contour Map
Potentiometric Surface Map
3-D Clay Surface Elevation Map
Organic Compounds Exceeding Class GA Groundwater Standards in
Groundwater
Conductivity Logs and Screen Intervals
Inorganic Constituents Exceeding Class GA Groundwater Standards/
Guidelines in Groundwater
Page
1-2
1-3
3-5
3-7
3-12
4-2
4-3
4-7
4-8
4-12
4-14
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-22
4-24
4-25
4-26
4-29
4-30
4-32
4-33
4-37
4-38
4-41
4-68
4-72
4-75
s ~4~ iii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3-1
3-4
4-2
4-5
4-]I
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
6-1
6-2
$14~
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Description of Monitoring Wells
Parameters and Detection Limits of Volatile Organic Compounds
Methods 8240, 601/602
Parameters and Detection Limits of Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Methods 8270, 601/602
Parameters and Detection Limits of Pesticides/PCBs
Parameters and Detection Limits of Inorganic Constituents
Method 200.7
EP Toxicity - Parameters and Detection Limits
Leachate Parameters and Detection Lhnits
Monitoring Parameters - Method of Analysis, Preservation and
Holding Times
Leachate Parameters - Method of Analysis, Preservation and
Holding Times
Well Construction Data
Geologic and Hydrogeologic Units in the Town of Southold
Slug Test Results
Groundwater Elevations - July 22, 1991
Vertical Hydraulic Gradients at Each Well Cluster
Soil Sampling - Volatile Organics
Soil Sampling - Method 601/602 - Volatile Organics
Soil Sampling - Semivolatile Organics
Soil Sampling - Pesficides/PCBs
Soil Sampling - Inorganic Constituents
Results of Organic Analyses from USEPA Soil Sampling
Results of Inorganic Analyses from USEPA Soil Sampling
Groundwater Sampling - Volatile Organics
Groundwater Sampling - Method 601/602 - Volatile Organics
Groundwater Sampling - Semivolatile Organics
Groundwater Sampling - Pesticides/PCBs
Organic Compounds Detected in Groundwater - Part 360 and Phase II
Investigation and USEPA Site Inspection Results
Groundwater Sampling - Inorganic Constituents
Metals Exceeding Standards/Guidelines in Groundwater - Part 360 and
Phase 11 Investigation and USEPA Site Inspection Results
Baseline and Routine Parameters to be Analyzed
Compounds/Analytes Detected Above NYSDEC Class GA Standards/
Guidelines and/or NYSDOH Drinking Water Standards
iv
Page
3-8
3-16
3-17
3-19
3-20
3-21
3 -22
3-24
3-32
4-9
4-13
4-34
4-36
4-39
4-42
443
4-45
4-47
4-48
4-49
4-50
4-52
4-54
4-57
4-65
4-67
4-70
4-74
6-2
6-5
Section I !
m mm mm m mm m m m mm mm m m m m m m m m m
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
1.0 S~Y
The Town of Southold operates a municipal solid waste landfill for the disposal of
approxhnately 150 tons per day (winter months) to 300 tons per day (summer months) of
municipal waste. The existing Southold landfill comprises approximately 45 acres (excluding the
17 acres on Town property and north of the landfill area which was previously used as a borrow
area for landfill cover material). The landfill site is situated between Oregon Road and North of
Middle Road (County Road 48) to the north and south, respectively, and Cox Lane and Depot
Lane to the east and west, respectively, in Cutchogue, Suffolk County, New York. A site location
lnap is shown in Figure 1-1. A site plan is presented in Figure 1-2.
The Town of Southold plans to close the existing Southold (Cutchogue) landfill and
construct a new landfill in the future. In order to implement these actions, the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) required that a hydrogeologic
investigation be conducted as part of a Part 360 landf'fll permit application for both closure and
construction. The purpose of this Part 360 Hydrogeologic Investigation as defined in the
NYSDEC, Division of Solid Waste Regulations (6NYCRR Part 360), is to define the site geology
and hydrogeology, and groundwater and surface water (if present) flow at the site, and to establish
an environmental monitoring system capable of detecting a contaminant release from the landfill
which will form the basis for facility design and a remedial contingency plan.
The objective of this Part 360 investigation, as requested by the Town of Southold, is to
obtain additional information in the vicinity of the site to document the nature and extent of
contamination (if present) caused by possible releases from the landfill. Specifically, the
investigation is to determine the presence of chemical compounds specified on the New York
State Target Compound List (+30) in samples obtained from soil, groundwater and leachate (if
present) in the area of the landfill, as well as landfill leachate indicator parameters in groundwater
and leachate (ff present).
In addition, this study is intended to clarify site-specific hydrogeologic conditions, obtain
background (baseline) groundwater quality data upgradient and downgradlent of the landfill prior
to closure and construction, and relate this data to regional and local hydrogeologic pattems. This
investigation was conducted in accordance with a Work Plan approved by NYSDEC.
1-1
I
!
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
, ~ .. ~ ~ ~ -..~ ~ LANDFILL ~
... ') :"5--.',
'~. ., -
SOURCE: U~, MATTITU~K HILL~ ~ ~O~THOL~ QUA~AN~LE~
TOWN 0~ 80UTHOLD
80UTHOLD LANDFILL
~ ~ SITE LOCATION MAP
~ ~IGU~E I-I
~0~0
DRUM
STAGING
APPROXIMATE (
LOCATION OF
DECONTAMINATION
PAD
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF ~7 687
TRAILER
\
EXISTING M~II~tNG AREA
E~(ISTING ..:
L A NDrlL~ ?, ~E~A
\
STORAGE
GARAGE
OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC
LINES--
~STE OIL
STORAGE
COLLECTION
CENTER
STATION
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
ON LANDFILL 81TE
~--* ...... EXISTING FENCE LINE
$-69761· EXISTING GROUND WATER
MONITORING WELL
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
SITE PLAN
FIGURE I-2
Under the New York State Superfund Program, a Phase II Investigation at a potential
inactive hazardous waste site may be required by NYSDEC based on the findings of a Phase I
study, or from other information or determinations arising from within the Department, or from
requests from other agencies or governmental entities, such as the Town of Southold, subject to
the Department's evaluation.
Since the objectives of both the Pan 360 Hydrogeologic Investigation and Phase II
Investigation are similar, and since the Southold landfill is a Class 2a site (potential hazardous
waste site) which will need to be addressed as required by Part 360 prior to future use of the site or
land adjacent to the site, the purpose of this document is to provide a report that will jointly
address the regulatory requirements of both the Solid Waste Management Facility/landfill and
New York State Superfund programs.
The hydrogeologic investigation consisted of a soil gas survey, installation of 14 new
monitoring wells at 7 well cluster locations, subsurface soil sampling and logging, groundwater
sample collection, downhole geophysical logging and permeability testing. The locations of the
site trailer, decontamination pad and dram staging area used during this investigation are shown in
Figure i-2. Split spoon samples collected during borehole construction were screened in the field
for the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A a result, one subsurface soil sample
was collected during the investigation for laboratory analysis.
All samples were analyzed for TCL+30 parameters utilizing EPA SW846 Methods 601/602,
8240, 8270 and 8080 for TCL organics and NYSDEC 1989 Analytical Services Protocol (ASP)
for TAL inorganics. These parameters include volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, base
neutrals, acid extractables, pesticides/PCBs, metals and cyanide.
As a result of groundwater sample data collected during the Pan 360 and Phase II
investigation, it appears, based primarily on leachate indicators and a few metals, that there is a
weak, limited plume emanating from the Southold landfill. The TCL list parameters exceeding
either NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards/guidelines or New York State Department of
Health (NYSDOH) drinking water standards were 1,2-dichloropropene and 1,2-dichloroethane in
low concentrations, and iron, magnesium, manganese and sodium in concentrations not
substantially above ambient conditions. The leachate parameters, ammonia, nitrate, and phenols
were also found at levels exceeding standards, but not at significant levels. All of these
parameters were found at levels exceeding standards at upgradient well locations except for
1,2-dichloroethane, which was found above standards in only two wells located just downgradient
sl203o 1-4
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
!
of former scavenger waste lagoons. Previous private well sampling conducted off-site and
downgradient of the landfill, including a recent (December 1990) site inspection by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), show results indicative of background
(upgradient) groundwater quality conditions.
Based on soil samples obtained during this investigation and the recent USEPA sampling,
only a few organic contaminants in low concentrations (toluene, 4-chloroanaline, aldrin and
4,4'DDE) and some inorganic contaminants at elevated levels (aluminum, barium, copper, iron
and zinc) were found on-site in the former scavenger waste lagoons. However, none of the
organics and relatively low concentrations of inorganics were found in the groundwater underlying
and downgradient of the landfffi.
As a result of these f'mdings, which found only a very limited number of contaminants
which exceeded standards/guidelines in relatively low concentrations, it is recommended that the
Southold landfill be removed from the list of potential hazardous waste sites, as a Class 2a site,
and that the landfill be delisted entirely. Also, as a result of the trmdings of this Part 360/Phase II
investigation, it is recormnended that sample analysis, as part of the long-term monitoring program
for the landfill as part of closure, be limited to the select list of parameters found to exceed
groundwater standards/guidelines during this investigation, and that the sample frequency be on an
annual basis.
sl2o3o 1-5
Section 2
,-, m m mm mm m ,,m mm m m mm ~, mm m mm m m m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.0 PURPOSE
The purpose of this investigation, which was conducted in accordance with the Part 360 and
Phase II Hydfogeologic Investigation Work Plan approved by the New York State Department of
Env~onrnental Conservation (NYSDEC), was to obtain detailed hydrogeologic information at the
Southold landfill located in the Town of Southold, Long Island, New York, as well as to determine
if the landfzll is a source of groundwater contamination. The Part 360 portion of the investigation
was to characterize subsurface soil and groundwater conditions for the purposes of closure of the
existing landfill and development of a new landf'fll, while the Phase II part of the investigation was
to determine the presence of chemical compounds specified on the New York State Target
Compound List, as well as leachate parameters. The results of this investigation were reviewed
and compared to information obtained from previous investigations in the area to determine what
impact, ff any, landf'fll leachate has had on groundwater quality in the vicinity of the Southold
landfill. Based on this review, a long-term monitoring program was developed in order to meet
the Part 360 requirements for landfill closure and development of a new landfill and
recommendations provided to classify the site.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
3.0 SCOPE OF WORK
3. I General Investigation Procedures
3.1. i Health and Safety Program
The Health and Safety Plan, as de£med in the Work Plan for the Southold landf~ll site and
approved by NYSDEC, was implemented during the Part 360 and Phase II field investigation.
Since the principal chemical hazards of concem consisted of volatile organic chemicals
(VOCs), and since the potential hazards were restricted to specific work areas where drilling and
sampling activities occurred, routine monitoring was required only at the drilling/sampling sites.
All monitoring and surveillance equipment (Century OVA, Photovac MicroTip, Miniram
Particulate Dust Monitor, and EXOTOX portable combustible gas/oxygen detector) was operated,
maintained and calibrated each work day in accordance with the manufacturer's manual and
Dvirka & Bartilucci (D&B) Consulting Engineer's Quality Assurance (QA) procedures. Organic
vapor monitoring and particulate monitoring was undertaken prior to and following sampling at
the site, as well as throughout the soil gas survey and drilling operations.
During the field investigation, total VOC vapors exceeded background levels (less than 1
ppm) in the breatlfing zone at two locations. During drilling of wells MW-3S and MW-3D, levels
in the area were encountered in excess of 50 ppm as measured by the OVA. Background readings
as measured by the MicroTip remained at "zero" throughout the drilling. Since this portion of the
site is a methane gas venting area, and the MicroTip is not capable of detecting methane, it was
determined that these elevated VOC levels were due to methane. Data obtained during the drilling
program showed methane levels lower in the borehole and soil samples than in the ambient air.
Since methane is a simple asphyxiant and ambient oxygen levels were normal, level C personnel
protection measures were not implemented while drilling at this location.
Level C protection was used during the drilling of abandoned soil boring MW-6SA due to
elevated OVA and slightly elevated MicroTip readings, both in and immediately around the
borehole while drilling. Methane was encountered at abandoned soil borings MW-6SA, MW-6SB
and MW-6SC at concentrations of 100% of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) These borings were
eventually sealed with bentonite grout and abandoned.
s]2o~ 3-1
3.1.2 Ouali _ty Assurance/Quality Control Program
The Quality Assmance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan, as defined in the Work Plan for the
Southold landfdl site and approved by NYSDEC, was implemented during the Part 360 and Phase
II field investigation.
All environmental samples collected as part of the field investigation were obtained in
accordance with the decontamination procedures outlined in Section 3.1.5 of this report and the
sampling procedures outlined in Section 5.7 of the QA/QC Plan contained in the Work Plan.
Field management procedures included preparation of Sample Information Record Forms,
Chain of Custody Record Forms, Daily Field Activity Reports and maintenance of a Daily Field
Log Book. These records are contained in Appendix A of this report.
QA/QC checks, including utilization of trip blanks, field blanks, matrix spikes, matrix spike
duplicates, laboratory method blanks and spike blanks, were performed as described in the QA/QC
Plan and in conformance with the NYSDEC September 1989 Analytical Services Protocol (ASP).
The analytical laboratory which was utilized as pan of this investigation (NY'rest Envixonmental,
Inc.) is New York State Department of Health approved (Environmemal Laboratory Approval
Program [ELAP]) and approved by NYSDEC to meet the requirements of the 1989 ASP.
3.1.3 Data Validation
All Pan 360 and Phase II investigation analytical sample data was validated to ensure
laboratory compliance with the 1989 NYSDEC ASP. In general, all data was found to be within
NYSDEC requirements and included evaluation with regard to holding times. A more detailed
discussion of data validation is contained in Section 4.5.2. The data validation report prepared as
pan of this investigation is provided in Appendix B.
3.1.4
Air monitoring with a portable organic vapor analyzer, either a Century OVA, and/or
Photovac MicroTip, was conducted at each sample location, as well as throughout the soil gas
survey, and the well drilling and installation program. In addition, monitoring with an EXOTOX
portable combustible gas/oxygen detector was performed during borehole construction at all
monitoring well locations for detection of methane in the breathing zone and within the borehole
st2om 3-2
and elevated dust levels, respectively. No significant levels of methane gas were detected within
the borehole at six of the seven of the monitoring well locations. As previously discussed,
elevated levels of methane were detected only at well location MW-6 during the drilling program.
At no time during sampling/drilling activities did total volatile organic chemical vapor
concentrations, as measured by the MicroTip, exceed I ppm in the breathing zone, nor did dust
levels exceed 0.01 Ug/ln3.
LELs of 100 percent were encountered during the soil gas survey but were limited to areas
underlain by fill. Elevated MicroTip readings were also encountered in soil gas in these areas, but
breathing zone readings remained at background throughout the soil gas investigation.
3. 1.5 Decontamination
Prior to sample collection, all reusable field sampling equipment was decontaminated
according to NYSDEC approved protocol as follows and in the following sequence:
1. Equipment was washed thoroughly with nonresidual detergent (alconox) and tap water
using a brash to remove any particulate matter or surface film.
2. Rinsed thoroughly with tap water.
3. Rinsed thoroughly with distilled water.
4. Rinsed with hexane (pesticide grade) or methanol (pesticide grade) and air dried.
5. Rinsed thoroughly with distilled water and air dried.
6. Wrapped completely with aluminum foil (shiny side out) to prevent contamination
during storage and/or transport to or in the field.
7. Rinsed thoroughly with tap water in the field as soon as possible aher use.
Submersible pumps, used to develop the monitoring wells, were decontaminated by steam
cleaning or alconox washing the external surface of the pump and placing the pump in a clean
plastic bucket and pumping ten volumes of potable water through the unit, including all
appurtenances. New robing was dedicated to each well and discarded after each use. Care was
taken to observe safety precautions since the pump was connected to a power source.
3-3
Drilling rig and split spoon decontamination procedures were as follows:
Equipment was washed thoroughly with nonresidual detergent (alconox) and tap water
ushag a brush to remove particulate material or surface film.
Steam cleaned at 212°F.
Sampling and drilling equipment was decontaminated at the "decon" pad located on the
landfill site. Split spoon samplers were decontaminated directly over a 55-gallon drum at the
drilling location.
3.2 Subsurface Investigation
3.2.1 Soil Gas Survey
Individual soil gas samples were not collected as part of the investigation; however, total
organic vapors were field-recorded using a flame ionization detector (Century Foxboro OVA),
photoionization detector (Photovac MicroTip) and a methane meter. A soil gas sun, ey was
conducted in areas of the site where waste was known to have been disposed based upon a
100-foot grid network. The spacing between the soil gas sampling stations was reduced'from a
100-foot to 50-foot grid network downgradient of former scavenger waste lagoons, waste oil
storage tanks and an old automobile storage area.
A total of 120 grid node/survey points were sampled during the soil gas investigation. At
each grid node/survey point, a stainless steel probe, with a removable inner rod, was driven into
the ground to a depth of approximately 3-1/2 feet. The inner metal rod was removed and
immediately replaced with a stainless steel cap covering the top of the steel probe. After allowing
gas to collect within the probe for a period of approximately five minutes, the stainless steel cap
was removed and total organic volatile organic compound (TVOC) readings were taken. Soil gas
survey locations are shown on Figure 3-1. The results of the soil gas survey are presented in
Appendix C and discussed in Section 4.2.3.1 of this report.
3.2.2
A downhole geophysical survey was performed on all of the deep monitoring wells installed
as part of this investigation. The logging was performed by Hager-Richter Geoscience, Inc. with
oversight provided by D&B personnel. Natural gamma ray and conductivity (EM39) logs were
s~2o5o 3-4
DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION
· SOIL GAS MONITORING LOCATION
DIRECTORY: C:~1027
FII.E NAME: SOItDAS
DALE: SEPT. 1991
SCALE: $:1
DESIGNER: S.P.B.
Dvirka
and
~.~.'~l~'rti"'"'"i..s S OIL m A S
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL
MONITORING LOCATIONS
0 400 800
FIGURE 5-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
obtained for each well and incorporated into a report. The Hager-Richter August 1991 report is
included in Appendix D. The results of the geophysical survey are discussed in Section 4.2.3.2 of
this report.
3.2.3 Monitoring Well Program
The primary purpose of the installation of monitoring wells at the landfill site was to obtain
and evaluate subsurface data. Subsurface data includes groundwater quality and soil information
which will assist in establishing current/background conditions, identifying in greater detail the
geology and hydrogeology of the site, and determining if there has been a release of
contamination, as well as to support a closure plan and landfill construction permit application,
and fulfill the requirements of a Phase II Investigation. As part of this investigation, 14 new
monitoring wells were constructed at seven locations and grouped as pairs.
Although there are several existing monitoring wells on the landfdl site, it is not known
whether these wells were constructed in conformance with current NYSDEC policy. The
NYSDEC requirements for Part 360 and Phase II investigations require that PVC-cased wells be
constructed without adhesives and contain seals above the well screen. In addition, there was the
need for additional wells downgradient from the landfall. Therefore, new monitoring wells were
constructed in accordance with NYSDEC requirements; however, the existing wells were used to
supplement information obtained from the new wells.
3.2.3.1 - Monitoring Well Locations
This section of the report provides a brief discussion of the rationale for the selection of the
monitoring well locations. One well cluster (MW-I) was placed upgradient of the landffil, four
well dusters were installed immediately downgradient of the existing landfill (MW-2, MW-3,
MW-6 and MW-7), and two well clusters were installed downgradiem of the planned landfill area
(MW-4 and MW-5). The well locations and sampling intervals are shown in Figure 3-2, and the
depths are summarized in Table 3-I.
The rationale for the well cluster locations was based on the Part 360 requirements for a
hydrogeologic investigation in preparation of a landfill permit application, requirements for a
Phase II Investigation and data obtained from prior investigations.
st2o~o 3-6
m mmm m m mm m m mi mm mm m mm m mm m m, m m
STORAGE
GARAGE
MW-4
MW-5 , ',
MW-3
LAND/FI/L, AREA
, % 'x MW-7
WASTIr OIL
STORAGE
OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC
LINES
COLLECTION
CENTER
WEIGHING
STATION
LEGEND
8-697610
EXISTING BUILDING
ON LANDFILL SITE
EXISTING FENCE LINE
EXISTING GROUND WATER
MONITORING WELL
MW- 1 ('~ GROUND WATER
MONITORING WELL CLUSTER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
MONITORING WELL CLUSTER LOCATIONS
FIGURE 3-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Well No.
MW-IS
MW-ID
MW-2S
MW-2D
MW-3S
MW-3D
MW-4S
MW-4D
MW-5S
MW-5D
MW-6D
MW-7D
Table 3-1
DESCRIFrlON OF MON1TORIlqG WELLS
Shallow (glacial)
Deep (glacial)
Shallow (glacial)
Deep (glacial)
Depth Groundwater
(feet)* Sampling Point
52 Water Table
152 Clay Interface
27 Water Table
85 Clay Interface
Shallow (glacial)
Deep (glacial)
Shallow (glacial)
Deep (glacial)
Shallow (glacial)
Deep (glacial)
Shallow (glacial)
Deep (glacial)
Shallow (glacial)
Deep (glacial)
Soft Sampling
*Approximate depth below ground surface.
$120~O
Continuous
Every 5'
Every 5'
Every 5'
starting at 32'
3-8
55 Water Table Every 5'
125 Clay Interface Every 5'
starting at 60'
73 Water Table Every 5'
starting at 45'
150 Clay Interface Every 5'
starting at 75'
77 Water Table Every 5'
starting at 56'
136 Clay Interface Every 5'
starting at 80'
56 Water Table Continuous to 42'
145 Clay Interface Every 5'
starting at 45'
50 Water Table Every 5'
125 Clay Interface Every 5'
starting at 55'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
Well cluster MW-I (wells MW-IS and MW-ID) is upgradient of the existing landfill and is
located in an area where groundwater quality is expected to be representative of ambient
conditions in the vicinity of the site. This well cluster is also important in locating the divide
between groundwater that flows north-northwest beneath the landfill and the special groundwater
protection zone that lies southwest of the facility.
Monitoring well clusters MW-2 (wells MW-2S and MW-2D), MW-3 (wells MW-3S and
MW-3D) and MW-7 (wells MW-7S and MW-7D) are located approximately 500 feet apart
downgradient along the northern and eastern boundaries of the existing landfill. Existing
monitoring wells (S-68916 and S-68831) (see Figure 3-1) may be used to supplement these new
wells maintaining a 500-foot spacing between well locations. Monitoring well cluster MW-7 is
also located downgradient of the existing waste oil storage tanks. Monitor'mg well cluster MW-6
is located approximately 300 feet upgradient (south-southeast) of existing monitoring well
S-68916 and immediately downgradient of the former scavenger waste lagoons and the old
automobile storage area along the western boundary of the existing landfill. These monitoring
wells will also serve as the upgradient wells for the planned landfill.
Monitoring well clusters MW-4 (wells MW-4S and MW-4D) and MW-5 (wells MW-5S and
MW-5D) are situated approximately 500 feet apart downgradient (north-northwest) of the planned
landfill area.
With regard to fulfilling the requirements of a Phase II Investigation, the monitoring wells
described above should more than meet the intent of such an investigation which typically requixes
the installation of four wall clusters: one upgradient of the site and three downgradient. In
addition, the 14 new monitoring wells installed as part of fids investigation should also satisfy the
requirements for closure of the existing landffil and construction of a new landfill under the Part
360 regulations.
3.2.3.2- ~ Wll t~
Each monitoring well cluster consists of two individual monitoring wells screened at
different depths at the same location. The purpose of the monitoring well clusters in this
investigation is to de£me the three-dimensional flow system within the water-bearing unit of the
critical stxatigraphic section, which in the area of the Southold landfill is the upper glacial aquifer
(above the North Fork glacial clay layer), as well as the quality of groundwater in this formation in
the immediate area of the landfill.
s I2ox~ 3 -9
The shallow/water table wells were installed at each cluster location at an average depth of
approximately 55 feet below ground surface in the surficial glacial deposits. The water table at the
site lies an average of approximately 40-45 feet below ground surface.
The deep glacial aquifer wells were installed at each cluster location at an average depth of
approximately 130 feet below ground surface in the Pleistocene glacial deposits, and were placed
at the lithologic interface with the underlying clay layer in the area of the landfill. These borings
were advanced to the North Fork glacial clay to demonstrate the continuity of the clay. Presence
of the clay was established upon initial contact with one additional split spoon sample advanced
into the clay.
3.2.3.3 - Monitoring Well Construction and Installation
Six of the seven shallow wells were constructed using the hollow stem auger method. At
the six clusters, borings were advanced for the shallow wells to a depth approximately 15 feet into
the water table. Sampling at 1VIW-4S and MW-5S began at approximately 50 feet due to the fact
that they were both constructed on the clifftop (northern side) of the mining area of the landfill.
Borings were advanced to a depth equal to the elevation of the bottom of the mined pit prior to
sampling. Since the stratigraphy of the cliff side was exposed to visible observation, no geologic
logging was considered necessary in the upper visible layers at MW-4 and MW-5. This procedure
was approved by the NYSDEC on-site supervisor.
Six of the seven deep wells were constructed using the cable tool method. These deep
boreholes were advanced to the clay layer. The clay layer contact was established by split spoon
sampling approximately eveN five feet with more frequent sampling, as necessary.
Monitoring well cluster MW-6 was constructed using the mud rotary method. The change
in drilling method was required because of excessive levels of methane gas encountered during the
drilling of soil borings MW-6SA, MW-6SB and MW-6SC. The levels of methane exceeded 100%
of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) at these soil boring locations. Because of these explosive
levels, mud was used to suppress the methane to safe levels.
3-10
Well construction consisted of a 2-inch diameter stainless steel screen and threaded, flush
joint PVC casing. Ten feet of stainless steel wire wrapped screens with 0.02 inch openings were
installed in each deep borehole and 20-foot screens were installed in each shallow borehole (5 feet
above the water table and 15 feet below) except for MW-6S, which, in order to mitigate methane
from entering the screen zone, the screen length was modified to 15 feet, most of which was
installed in the saturated zone, in order to minimize the amount of screen exposed to the vadose
zone.
A 2-inch diameter PVC riser extends from the top of the screen to 2-1/2 feet above ground
surface and is contained in a steel protective casing with a locking cover, except for MW-IS and
MW-1 D, which were installed with flush mount protective casings.
I
I
I
The annulus of the borehole in the area of the screen was sand-packed to a height of 2 feet
above the screened interval with clean silica sand in conformance with Part 360 requirements. A
finer grained sand pack material (100% passing the No. 30 sieve and less than 2% passing the No.
200 sieve) 6 inches in thickness was placed on top of the sand pack between the sand and the
bentonite seal. A 3-foot seal of thick PUREGOLD bentonite slurry was placed immediately above
the filter material using a tremie pipe. The remaining annulus was grouted to the surface with a
PUREGOLD bentonite slurry. PUREGOLD bentonite is tested and warranteed to be free of
organic and inorganic contaminants.
!
I
I
I
I
I
;I
A 4-inch diameter protective outer steel surface casing with locking cover and a surface
cement pad was installed around each well casing/riser pipe. Figure 3-3 provides an illustration of
well construction. More detailed well construction and installation diagrams are contained in
Appendix E.
3.2.3.4 - Monitoring Well Development
All monitoring wells were developed using a 2-inch diameter Gmndfos Redi-flo 2
submersible pump. Surging of the wells was performed periodically by lowering and raising the
pump rapidly similar to a surge block. Monitoring wells were pumped at a rate of approximately 5
gallons per minute (gpm).
AH wells were developed until a turbidity of 50 NTUs (nephelometric turbidity units) was
attained. Well development was supplemented by measurement of temperature, pH and specific
conductance, and continued until stabilization of these parameters was achieved. Extensive
development occurred at MW-6S and MW-6D to ensure that all excess mud was removed from
the screen interval.
s[20m 3-11
5"I.D. STEEL CAP
MINIMUM 9
VENTED PVCC
NEAT CEMENT S'O.ED
$'- 6
---- 2" I.D. SCHEDULE 40 PVC
THREADED FLUSH JOINT RISER
CEMENT' BENTONITE GROUT
~ENTONITE SEAL
~ 6"-FINER GRAINED S~ND
SAND PACK -~f-ii PACK~ 6" ~ICK~ PLACED AT
EXTEndING 2 F[ABOVE 2~0 TOP OF SAND PACK BE~EEN
AND 2'-BELOW WELL ~ BENTONITE SEAL AND SAND
SCREEN ~ PACK
~ ~ 20~X 2"STAINLESS STEEL
~ SLOTTED SCREEN WITH
BOTTOM PLUG FOR DEEP
WELL ,
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION
~~ OF MONITORING WELLS
3.2.3.5 - Borehole Abandonment
All soil borings which were not completed as monitoring wells were fully sealed to prevent
contaminant migration through the borehole. A total of three boreholes were abandoned during
this investigation. Three borings were attempted in the vicinity of proposed monitoring well
cluster MW-6 downgradient of the former scavenger waste lagoons. The fkst was located
adjacent to the lagoon and was advanced to a depth of 29 feet. The second location was
approximately 100 feet north paralleling the landfill perimeter fence and was advanced to a depth
of 15 feet. The third location was adjacent to the two existing Suffolk County wells (S-68831 and
S-68916), and was advanced to a depth of 20 feet. As previously discussed, all three boreholes
had to be abandoned due to Lower Explosive Limits (LELs) exceeding 100% at each location. A
decision was made to al/ow the third boring to vent over a weekend in the hope that LELs would
subside to a safe level. Although LELs were found to be zero within the augers on the following
Monday morning, turning the augers caused the LELs to climb quickly to 100%. All three
locations were abandoned by grouting with PUREGOLD bentonite grout utilizing a tremie pipe as
approved by the NYSDEC on-site representative.
3.2.3.6 - Borehole and Monitoring Well Logging
All boreholes and monitoring wells were logged and documented by a geologist. Notes
were kept in both bound field books and on a Boring Log and Well Construction Log. Boring
Logs are included in Appendix F and Well Construction Diagrams are provided in Appendix E.
The Modified Burmeister Classification System or Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) was
used to describe soil samples recovered from the borings. A Daily Field Activity Report was
completed whenever there were drilling activities (or any other field activities) undertaken as part
of this investigation.
3.2.3.7 - Groundwater Level Measurement
Stabilized groundwater level measurements were obtained from each of the 14 wells
installed as part of this investigation and all readily accessible existing wells in the vicinity of the
landfill. Measurements from wells installed during this investigation were obtained prior to well
purging and sample collection. The static water level was measured to the nearest one-hundredth
(0.01) foot using a Hunter-Keck electronic water level indicator. Groundwater level data was used
to construct groundwater contour maps to determine local flow conditions.
3-13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.2.4 Selection of Sampling Locations
Groundwater samples were obtained for chemical analysis from all 14 monitoring wells
installed as part of the investigation. One subsurface soil sample was collected at monitoring well
cluster MW-6 for chemical analysis. All other soil samples were collected for geologic logging
and organic vapor screening. Monitoring well locations are shown in Figure 3-2.
Subsurface Sampling
At a minimum, 5-foot soil sampling was performed at all well cluster locations to the clay
layer. At six of the seven clusters, the shallow well borings were sampled f'u'st with sampling
continuing at each associated deep well boring. Exceptions to this were MW-IS, which was
sampled continuously, MW-4S and MW-SS, where sampling commenced at approximately 50
feet, and MW-6D, which was sampled continuously to a depth of 42 feet and at 5-foot intervals
thereafter. These samples were collected to provide detailed stratigraphic information on the
landf'dl site.
Soil samples obtained from the split spoons were observed for geologic characteristics and
screened with a Century OVA and a Photovac MicroTip. As a result of this screening, one soil
smnple was collected from MW-6S from a depth of 11 to 13 feet. This soil sample was analyzed
for Target Compound List (TCL) +30 parameters and was retained for EP Toxicity analysis if the
EP Toxicity parameters were detected in significant concentrations. Selection of this soil sample
for chemical analysis was made with the approval of the NYSDEC on-site representative based on
elevated levels of total organic vapors and visual staining.
Each of the 14 wells installed as part of this investigation were sampled and analyzed for
TCL +30 and landfill leachate indicator parameters which are described in Section 3.2.6. Prior to
sampling, a minimum of four well volumes were removed or until pH, specific conductance and
temperature stabilized. Wells were sampled only when the turbidity was less than 50 NTUs.
Although provisions were made for the collection of up to four leachate samples, no samples
were collected due to the absence of any visible leachate seeps. The absence of leachate was
confirmed by inspections performed by NYSDEC personnel.
3-14
3.2.5 Surveying
The location and elevations of all existing monitoring wells were surveyed to obtain the
exact location and plotted on a map. The elevation of the ground surface and the top of the
monitoring well riser pipe was accurately measured to the nearest one-hundredth (0.01) of a foot.
3.2.6 Analytical Procedures
Samples collected as part of this investigation were initially analyzed for TCL+30
parameters utilizing USEPA Methods 601/602 and USEPA SW846 Methods 8240, 8270 and 8080
for TCL organics, and NYSDEC 1989 Analytical Services Protocol (ASP) for Target Analyte List
(TAL) inorganics (Method 200.7) and Method 335.2 for cyanide. These parameters include:
volatile and semivolatile organic compounds (base neutrals and acid extractables) pesticides and
PCBs, metals and cyanide.
In addition, groundwater samples from all monitoring wells were analyzed for NYSDEC
field and leachate parameters (indicators) as specified in the NYSDEC Part 360 List of Expanded
Parameters. Because there is no suspected hazardous waste disposal at the landfill, no samples
were analyzed for dioxin or furans.
Due to the different analytical requiremems for a Phase II Investigation and Part 360
Hydrogeologic Investigation, analysis for volatile organic compounds required two separate
methods. The Phase II Investigation requires Method 8240 to be used for volatile organics, while
the Part 360 requires Method 601/602. As a result, all volatile organic samples were analyzed by
both methods.
Parameter lists and detection limits for Methods 8240, 601/602, 8270, 8080, 200.7 and EP
Toxicity extraction are shown in Tables 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 3-5 and 3-6, respectively. A list of leachate
parameters and detection limits are shown in Table 3-7.
It should be noted that the Expanded Parameter List includes approximately 85 organic
compounds listed in Appendix 33 of Pan 373-2 that are not analyzed for in TCL+30 analyses.
However, there is provision in TCL+30 for analysis of 30 additional compounds provided that
these compounds are detected in significant concentrations. TCL+30 includes analysis of
compounds that coincide with the 30 highest peaks (10 volatile and 20 semivolatile), which may
include some of the 85 Appendix 33 parameters not formally analyzed for in TCL+30. The extra
3-15
Table 3-2
PARAMIxI'P_,RS AND DETECTION LIMITS OF
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
MEci'HODS 8240, 601/602
TCL*
(Method 8240) Method 601 Method 602
(Detection (Delection (Detection Part 373-2*
Parameters Limits..vpb~** Limits_~.b~**~** __AgL~endix
Acetone X (10)
Benzene X (5) X (0.2) XX
Bromodichloromethane X (5) X (0. I)
Bromoform X (5) X (0.2) XX
Bromomethane X (10) X (1.18)
Carbon disulfide X (5)
Carbon tetrachloride X (5) X (0.12)
Chlorobenzene X (5) X (0.25) X (0.2)
Ch oro thane X (10) X (0.52) Xx
Chloroform X (5) X (0.05)
Chloromethane X (10) X (0.08) XX
Dibromochloromethane X (5) X (0.09)
1,1-Dichloroethane X (5) X (0.07)
1,1-Dichloroethene X (5) X (0.13)
i ,2-Dichloroethane X (5) X (0.03) XX
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) X (5) X (0.10)
1,2-Dichloropropane X (5) X (0.04) XX
Cis-l,3-Dichloropropene X (5) X (0.34)
Trans-l,3-Dichloropropene X (5) X (0.20) XX
Ethylbenzene X (5) X (0.2)
2-Hexanone X (10) XX
Methylene chloride X (5) X (0.25)
4-Methyl-2-pentanone X (10)
Styrene X (5)
1 ,l,2,2-Tetrachloroethane X (5) X (0.03)
Tetrachloroethene X (5) X (0.03) X
Toluene X (5) X (0.2) X
I
I
!
I
I
!
1,1,1-Trichloroethane X (5)
1 ,l,2-Trichloroethane X (5)
Trichloroethene X (5)
Vinyl acetate X (5)
Vinyl chloride X (10)
Xylene (total) X (5)
2,-Chloroethyl vinyl ether X (10).
Trichlorofluoromethane X (5)
x (0.03) x
X (0.02) X
X (0.12) X
X
X (0.18) X
X
X (0.13)
x (ND)
Note that there are approximately 85 additional parameters (not listed in this table) that are
included in the Part 373-2 Appendix 33 list of parameters that axe not analyzed for in TCL
(Method 8240) analyses.
** Detection limits are the same for both water and soil.
3-16
Table 3-3
PARAMETERS AND DETECFION LIMITS OF
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
M~IHODS 8270, 601/602
Parameters
TCL*
(Method 8270) Method Method
(Detection 601 602
Limits ppb) (Detection (Detection
~ ~** Limits
Acenaphthene X (10,330)
Acenaphthylene X (10,330)
Anthracene X (10,330)
Benzo(a)anthracene X (10,330)
Benzo(b)fluoranthene X (10,330)
Benzo(k)fluoranthene X (10,330)
Benzoic acid X (50,1600)
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene X (10,330)
Benzo(a)pyrene X (10,330)
Benzyl alcohol X (10,330)
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether X (10,330)
Butylbenzylphthalate X (10,330)
4-Chloroanaline X (10,330)
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane X (10,330)
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)ether X (10,330)
Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl)ether X (10,330)
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol X (! 0,330)
2-Chloronaphthalene X (10,330)
2-Chlorophenol X (10,330)
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether X (10,330)
Chrysene X (10,330)
Dibenzo( a,h)anthracene X (10,330)
Dibenzofuran X (10,330)
Di-n-butylphthalate X (10,330)
1,2-Dichlorobenzene X (10,330)
1,3-Dichlorobenzene X (10,330)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene X (10,330)
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine X (20,660)
2,4-Dichlorophenol X (10,330)
Diethylphthalate X (10,330)
2,4-Dimcthylphenol X (10,330)
Dimethylphthalate X (10,330)
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol X (50,1600)
2,4-Dinitrophenol X (50,1600)
2,4-Dinitrotoluene X (10,330)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene X (10,330)
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate X (10,330)
Fluoranthene X (10,330)
Fluorene X (10,330)
Hexachlorobenzene X (10,330)
Hexachlorobutadiene X (10,330)
Hexachlorocyclopent adiene X (10,330)
Hexachloroethane X (10,330)
Indeno(!,2,3-cd)pyrene X (10,330)
Isophorone X (10,330)
s~2o~o 3-17
X (0.15) X (0.4)
X (0.32) X (0.4)
X (0.24) X (0.3)
Part 373-2*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 3~3 (continued)
PARAMETERS AND Dt~I't~CTION LIMITS OF
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
TCL*
(Method 8270)
(Detection
Limits ppb)
~Wamr. Soft)
Pa~ 373-2*
~ 33
2-Methylnaphthalene X (10,330) X
2-Methylphenol . X (10,330) X
4-Methylphenol X (10,330) X
Naphthalene X (10,330) X
2-Nitroaniline X (50,1600) X
3 -Nitroaniline X (50,1600) X
4-Nitroanftine X (50,1600) X
Nitrobenzene X (10,330) X
2-Nitrophenol X ( 10,330) X
4-Nitrophenol X (50,1600) X
N-Nitrosodiphenytamine X (10,330) X
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine X (10,330) X
Di-n-octylphthalate X (10,330) X
Pentachlorophenol X (50,1600) X
Phenanthrene X (10,330) X
Phenol X (10,330) X
Pyrene X (10,330) X
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene X (10,330) X
2,4,5 -Trichlorophenol X (10,330) X
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol X ( 10,330) X
Note that there are approximately 85 additional parameters (not listed in this table) that are
included in the Part 373-2 Appendix 33 list of parameters that are not analyzed for in TCL
(method 8270) analyses.
** Detection limits are the same for water and soft.
3-18
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
i
i
I
Table 3-4
PARAMEFERS AND DETECTION LIMITS OF
PESTICIDES/PCBs
Parame~rs
TCL*
(Method 8080)
(Detection
Limits ppb)
Part 373-2*
Aldrin X (0.05,8.0) X
AROCLOR-1016 X (0.5,80)
AROCLOR- 1221 X (0.5,80)
AROCLOR- 1232 X (0.5,80)
AROCLOR- 1242 X (0.5,80)
AROCLOR-1248 X (0.5,80)
AROCLOR- 1254 X (1.0,160)
AROCLOR-1260 X (1.0,160)
Alpha-BHC X (0.05,8.0) X
Beta-BHC X (0.05,8.0) X
Delta-BHC X (0.05,8.0) X
Gamma-BHC X (0.05,8.0) X
Alpha-chlordane X (0.5,80) X
Gamma-chlordane X (0.5,80)
4,4'-DDD X (0.10,16) X
4,4'-DDE X (0.10,16) X
4,4'-DDT X (0.10,16) X
Dieldrin X (0.10,16) X
Endosulfan I X (0.10,16) X
Endosulfan II X (0.10,16) X
Endosulfan Sulfate X (0.10,16) X
Endrin X (0.10,16) X
Endrin-Ketone X (0.10,16)
Heptachlor X (0.05,8.0) X
Heptachlor Epoxide X (0.05,8.0) X
Methoxychlor X (0.05,8.0) X
Toxaphene X (1.0,160) X
Total PCBs X (1.0,160) X
Note that there are approximately 85 additional parameters (not listed in this table) that are
included in the Part 373-2 Appendix 33 list of parameters that are not analyzed for in TCL
(method 8080) analyses.
S 12050
3-19
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium (total)
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
S 1205(t
Table 3-5
PARAM~f~I, tS AND D~J'v,:CTION LIMITS OF
INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
METHOD 200.7
TCL*
(Method 200.7)
De--on Limit~
X (200, 20,000)
X (60, 6,000)
X (10, 1,000)
X (200, 20,000)
X (5,500)
X (5,500)
X (5,000, 500,000)
X (10, 1,000)
X (50, 5,000)
X (25, 2,500)
X (100, 10,000)
X (5,500)
X (5,000, 500,000)
X (15, 1,500)
X (0.2, 20)
X (40, 4,000)
X (5,000, 500,000)
X (5, 50O)
X (10, 1,000)
X (5,000, 500,00O)
X (10, 1,000)
X (50, 5,000)
X (20, 2,000)
X (10, 1,000)
Part 363-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3-20
Part 360 Metals*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 3-6
EP TOXICTI~- PARAMETERS AND Dt~I'EL-~ON LIMITS
1. Arsenic
2. Barium
3. Cadmium
4. Total Chromium
5. Lead
6. Mercury
7. Selenium
8. Silver
9. gamma-BHC (Lindane)
10. 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid; (2,4-D)
11. Endrin
12. Methoxychlor
13. 2,4,5 -Trichlorophenoxypropionic acidi
(2,4,5-TP; Silvex)
14. Toxaphene
1,0~
i0,000
100
1,000
1,~0
50
1,0~
100
1,000
5
1,0~
* Extraction Procedure Toxicity (concentrations in extract)
S 12050 3-21
1
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
!
!
Table 3-7
LEACHATE PARAMETERS AND D~ON LIMITS
Parmn~t~r~
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Ammonia, as N
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen, as N
Nitrate-Nitrite
Sulfate
Total Organic Carbon
Chloride
Alkalanity
Specific Conductance
Chromium (Hexavalent)
MBAS
Color
Odor
Hardness
Total Volatile Solids
Turbidity
Boron
Dissolved Oxygen
2,000
1,000
10,000
50
100
100
5,000
2,000
5,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA - Not applicable
S 1205(/
3-22
compounds in Appendix 33 are the less common contaminants that are not likely to be found
during this investigation. Therefore, it was determined that the library search (+30) would be
significant enough to include any of the Appendix 33 compounds that could be present at the site.
The rationale for selection of the analytical procedures was contained in the Work Plan approved
by NYSDEC.
3.2.7 Sampling Procedures
Procedures that were used to collect the subsurface soil (split spoon) and groundwater
samples are discussed below. Descriptions of sample containers, preservative techniques and
maximum holding times can be found in Tables 3-8 and 3-9.
3.2.7.1 - Subsurface Soil (Split Spoon)
Sample procedures for subsurface soil (split spoon) were implemented according to Section
5.6.1 of the Work Plan QA/QC procedures. Each split spoon was decontaminated according to the
procedure outlined in Section 3.1.5 of this report. Chain of Custody Records, Sample Information
Records and Boring Log Forms were prepared for each sample.
3.2.7.2 - Groundwater
Sample procedures for groundwater were implemented according to Section 5.6.2 of the
Work Plan QA/QC procedures. Teflon bailers were decontaminated at the laboratory as per the
procedure outlined in Section 3.1.5 of this report and dedicated to each well. Nylon cord was
dedicated to each well sampled and used only once. Location Sketches, Chain of Custody Forms
and Sample Information Records were prepared for each sample.
s ~20~o 3-23
Table 3-8
I~lITORI~ PARAMETERS
HETflOD OF AI~LYSIS, PRESERVATZON AND MOLDING TIMES
Number
Sum~le Location Samole Typ~ Samole Metr~x Sample Fraction of Samples Frequency
Monitoring Well Grab Soil Volatile Organics 1 1
Boreholes
Container Sample
Tvoe/Size/No. Preservation
Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/2
Volatile Organics 1' 1
Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/2
Grab Soil Sase Neutral 1 1
and Acid
Extractable
Organics
Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
150 mL/1
Grab Soil Pesticides/PCBs 1 1
Glass, amber/ Cool to 40C
150 mL/1
Grab Soil Metals 1 1
Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
1SO mL/1
Grab Soil Cyanide 1 1
EPTOX
Metals
Pesticides/
Herbicides
'Analysis depends on Method 8240 results.
Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
1S0 mL/1
Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
150 mL/1
Glass, amber/ Cool to 40C
150 mL/1
**and SW-84G Methods for: Selenium (7740), Lead (7421), Thallium (7841), Mercury (7470), Arsenic (7060).
***Analysis depends on TCL+30 results.
VTSR - Verified Time of Sample Receipt at the laboratory
S1205G
HQldlng Time
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
aealysls
26 days after
VTSR for Hg
analysis, 6
months after
VTSR for
analysis of
others
12 days after
VTSR for
anal ysi s
N/A
N/A
Analvtlcal Method
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8240
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 601/602
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8270
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8080
1989 NYSDEC ASP,
Method 200.7**
1989 NYSBEC ASP,
Method 335.2
1986 USEFA SW846
Method 1310
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 1310
Samole Location Sample Tvoe
Monitoring Grab
~ells
Grab
Table 3-8 (continued)
HONITORING PAR~ETERS
METHO0 OF ANALYSIS, PRESERVATION AHO HOLDING TIMES
Samole Matrix Samole Fraction
Groundwater Volatile Organics 14
Nmaber Container Sample
of Samoles Frequency Type/Size/No. Preservation
Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/3
Volatile Organics 14' 1 Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 eL/3
Groundwater Base Neutral 14 1 Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
and Acid 1L/2
Extractable
Organics
Grab Groundwater Pesticides/PCBs 14 1 Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
1L/2
Grab Groundwater Metals 14 1 Plastlc/1L/1 Cool to 4°C
Grab Groundwater Cyanide 14 1 Plastic/IL/1 Cool to 4°C
Grab Groundwater Leachate 14 1 See Table See Table
Parameters No. 5-2 No. 5-2
H91dlnq Time
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysls
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days
after VTSR
for analysis
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
extraction
26 days after
VTSR for Hg
analysis, 6
months after
VTSR for
analysis of
others
12 days after
VTSR for
analysis
See Table
No. 5-2
Analytical Method
1986 USEPA $W846
Method 8240
1986 US£PA SW846
Method 601/602
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8270
1986 USEPA S~846
Method 8080
1989 NYSOEC ASP,
Method 200.7""
1989 NYSOEC ASP,
Method 335.2
See Table
No. 5-2
*Analysis depends on Method 8240 results.
"and S~846 Methods for Selenium (7740), Lead (7421), Thallium (7841), Mercury (7470), and Arsenic (7060).
VTSR - Verified Time of Sample Receipt at the laboratory
S1205G
Samole Location Samle Type Samole ~atrix
Site/Study Area Field Blank Water
Table 3-8 (continued)
MONITORING PARAMETERS
METHO0 OF ANALYSIS, PRESERVATION ~ HOLDING TIMES
Samole Fraction
Number Container Sample
of S~les Frequency Type/Size/Me. Preservatlon
Volatile Organics 2' 1 Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/3
Volatile Organics 2" 1 Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/3
Field Blank Water
Base Neutral 2' 1 Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
and Acid 1L/2
Extractable
Organics
Field Blank * Water
Pesticide/PCBs 2" 1 Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
1L/2
Field Blank Water
Metals 2* 1 Plastic/IL/1
Field Blank Water
HNO3 to
pH <2,
Cool to 4°C
Field Blank Water
Cyanide 2' 1 Plastic/IL/1 NaOH to
pH >12,
Cool to 4°C
Leachate 2* 1 See Table See Table
Parameters No. 5-2 No. 5-2
'One for each of the sample matrices (soil [7 samples], groundwater [14 samples] and leachate [3 samples]).
'*Analysis depends on Method 8240 results.
'**and SW846 Methods for Selenium (7740), Lead (7421), Thallium (7841), Hercury (7470), Arsenic (7060).
VTSR - Verified Time of Sample Receipt at the laboratory
S1205G
Maximum
HQldinq Time
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
26 days after
VTSR for Hg
analysis, 6
months after
VTSR for
analysis of
others
12 days after
VTSR for
analysis
See Table
No. 5-2
Analytical Method
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8240
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 601/602
1986 USEPA SW84§
Method 8270
1986 USEPA SW84§
Method 8080
1989 NYS§EC ASP,
Method
1989 NYSDEC ASP,
Method 335.2
See Table
No. 5-2
Table 3-8 (continued)
HONITORXNG PARAMETERS
HETHOD OF AJ~LYSIS, PRESERVATX(~I AND HOLDING TINES
Sample Location Semele Tyne S~le
Site/Study Area Trip Blank Water
Number Container Sample
Semele Fraction of Sameles Freauoncv Tyne/Size/No. Prq~ervatlon
Volatile Organics 3 1 Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/i
~ximum
Holdlng Time
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
Analytical Hethed
1986 USEPA S~846
Hethod 8240
*One for every 48-hour sampling period for liquid samples only (anticipate about one [1] week for sample collection).
VTSR - Verified Time of Sample Receipt at the laboratory
S1205G
Table 3-8 (continued)
MONITORING PARAHET ERS
METHOD OF ANALYSIS, PRESERVATION AND HOLDING TIMES
Samole Lo¢a&ion Sample Tyne Saeole Matrix
Laboratory Method Blank Water
Samole Fraction
Volatile Organics
N~er Container Sable
of Samoles' Freauencvt Tree/Size/No? Preservatlon~
Volatile Organics 3**
Method Blank Water Base Neutral
and Acid
Extractable
Organics
Method Blank Water Pesticides/PCBs 3*
Method Blank Water Metals 3*
1 Glass, clear/ Cool to 4aC
40 mL/3
1 Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/3
1 Gl&ss, amber/ Cool to 4°C
1L/2
1 Glass, amber/1 Cool to 4aC
1L/2
1 Plastic/IL/1 HNO3 to
pH<z,
Cool to 40C
Method Blank Water Cyanide 3" 1 Plastlc/1L/1 NaOH to
pH>12,
Cool to 4°C
Method Blank Water Leachate 3" 1 See Table See Table
Parameters No. 5-2 No. 5-2
Maximum
Holdinq Time
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysls
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
26 days after
VTSR for Mg
analysis, 6
months after
VTSR for
analysis of
others
Analytical Hethod
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8240
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 601/602
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8270
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8080
1909 NYSDEC ASP,
Method
12 days after
VTSR for
analysis
See Table
No. 5-2
1989 NYSDE£ ASP,
Method 335.2
See Table
No. 5-2
"As required in accordance with 1989 NYSOEC ASP (based upon 7 soil samples, 14 groundwater samples and 3 leachate samples
~*Analysis depends on Method 8240 results.
***and SW846 Methods for Selenium (7740), Lead (7421). Thallium (7841), Mercury (7470), Arsenic (7060).
VTSR - Verified Time of Sample Receipt at the laboratory
[total of 24]).
St205G
Table 3-8 (continued)
MON~TORTNG PARAMETERS
HETHOD OF ANALYSTS, PRESERVATION ArID HOLDING TIMES
Samle Location
Site/Study Area
Sammle Type
Matrix Spike
and Matrix
Spike
Duplicate
SamoleHatrix
Liquid
Semele Fraction
Volatile Organics
Number
of Samles
Volatile Organics
Liquid Base Neutral 1'
end Acid
Extractable
Organics
Liquid Pesticides/PCBs 1'
Liquid Hetals
Container Sample Maxlmtm
Frequency Type/Size/No. Preservation Holdlnq Time Analytical Hethod
1 Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C 7 days after 1986 USEPA SW846
40 mL/3 VTSR for Method 8240
extraction
and analysis
1 Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C 7 days after 1986 USEPA SW846
40 mL/3 VTSR for Method 601/602
extraction
and analysis
1 Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C 5 days after 1986 USEPA SW846
1L/2 extraction, Method 8270
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
1 Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C 5 days after 1986 USEPA 5W846
1L/2 VTSR for Method 8080
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
1 Plastic/IL/1 HNO3 to 26 days after 1989 NYSDEC ASP,
pM <2, VTSR for Hg Method 200.7'*'
Cool to 4°C analysis, 6
months after
VTSR for
analysis of
others
Liquid Cyanide 1" 1
Liquid Leachate 1' 1
Parameters
Plastic/IL/1
NaOH to
pH >12,
Cool to 4°C
12 days after
VTSR for
analysis
1989 NYSDEC ASP,
Method 335.2
See Table See Table See Table See Table
No. 5-2 No. 5-2 No. 5-2 No. 5-2
'One for the liquid sample matrices (groundwater [14 samples] and leachate [3 samples]).
"*Analysis depends on Method 3240 results.
*"*and SW846 Methods for Selenium (7740), Lead (7421), Tha11ium (7841)o Mercury (7470), Arsenic (7060).
VTSR - Verified Time of Sample Receipt at the laboratory
S1205G
Sample Location Samele Tvoe
Site/Study Area Matrix Spike
and Matrix
Spike
Duplicate
Table 3-8 (co~tlnued)
MONITORING PARAMETERS
METHOD OF ANALYSIS, PRESERVATION ~ HOLDING TIMES
Number
Samole Ha~rlx Samole Fraction of Samoles Frequency
Solid Volatile Organlcs 1" 1
Volatile Organics 1'" 1
Solid Base Neutral 1' 1
and Acid
Extractable
Organics
Solid Pesticides/PCBs 1' 1
Solid Metals 1' 1
Container Sample
Type/Size/No. Preservation
Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/3
Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/3
G1 ass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
150 mL/1
Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
150 mL/1
Glass, amber/ Cool to 4°C
1SO mL/1
Solid Cyanide 1" 1 Plastic/IL/1
Maxlu
Holding Tiee
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction.
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
26 days after
VTSR for Hg
analysis, §
months after
VTSR for
analysis of
others
Analytlcal Method
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8240
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 601/602
1986 USEPA SWB46
Method 8270
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8080
1989 NYSDEC ASP,
Method 200.7**"
NaOH to pH>12
Cool to 4°C
12 days after
VTSR for
analysis
1989 NYSDEC ASP,
Method 335.2
'One for the solid sample matrix (soil [1 sample]).
**Analysis depends on Method 8240 results.
***and SW84G Methods for Selenium (7740), Lead (7421), Thallium (7841), Mercury (7470), Arsenic (7060).
VTSR - Verified Time of Sample Receipt at the laboratory
S1205G
Sazmle Location Samole Type Sample Matrix
Laboratory Spt ke B1 ank Water
Table 3-8 (continued)
~ONITORING PAPJU4ETERS
METHOD OF ANALYSIS, PRESERVATION AND HOLDING TIMES
Samole Fraction
Number Container Sample
of Sables' Frequency' Type/Size/No.* Pre~ervati
Volatile Organics 3*
Volatile Organics 3**
Spike Blank Water Base Neutral
and Acid
Extractable
Organics
Spike Blank . Water Pesticides/PCBs 3'
1 Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/3
1 Glass, clear/ Cool to 4°C
40 mL/3
1 Glass, amber/ Cool to 40C
1L/2
1 Glass, amber/1 Cool to 4°C
1L/2
1 Plastic/IL/1 HNO3 to
pH(Z,
Cool to 4°C
Spike Blank Water Metals 3*
Spike Blank Water Cyanide 3* 1 Plastlc/1L/1 NaOH to
pH>12,
Cool to 4°C
Spike Blank Water Leachate 3* 1 See Table See fable
Parameters No. 5-2 No. 5-2
Maxiu
Holdinq Time
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
7 days after
VTSR for
extraction
and analysis
5 days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
§ days after
VTSR for
extraction,
40 days after
VTSR for
analysis
26 days after
VTSR for Hg
analysis, 6
months after
VTSR for
analysis of
others
Analytical Method
1986 USEPA SW$C5
Method 8240
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 601/602
1989 NYSDEC ASP,
Method 8270
1986 USEPA SW846
Method 8080
lg8g NYSDEC ASP,
Method 200.7***
12 days after
VTSR for
analysis
See Table
No. 5-2
1989 NYSOEC ASP,
Method 335.2
See Table
No. 5-2
*As required in accordance with 1989NYSDEC ASP (based upon 7 soil samples, 14 groundwater samples, and 3 leachate samples
**Analysis depends on Method 8240 results.
'='and SW846 Methods for Selenium (7740), Lead (7421), Thallium (7841), Mercury (7470), Arsenic (7060).
VTSR - Verified Time of Sample Receipt at the laboratory
[total of 24]).
S1205G
Table 3-9
METHOD OF ANALYSIS, PRESERVATION AND HOLDING TIMES*
Ammonia
Method 350.3
Total Organic
Carbon
H2SO4 to pH <2;
Cool to 4°C
Container
Plastic or Glass
Method 415.1 HCI or H2SO4 Glass
to pH <2;
Cool to 4°C
Holding Time
26 days
5 days
S 12050
*Taken from the 1989 NYSDEC ASP.
Total Dissolved Method 160.1 Cool to 4°C Plastic or Glass 26 days
Solids
Alkalinity Method 310.1 Cool to 4°C Plastic or Glass 12 days
Chloride Method 325.3 None Requited Plastic or Glass 26 days
pH Method 150.1 None Required Glass Field Measurement
Specific Method 120.1 None Requited Glass Field Measurement
Conductance
Total Kjedahl Method 351.3 H2SO4 to pH <2; Plastic or Glass 26 days
Nitrogen Cool to 4°C
Nitrate Method 352.1 H2SO4 to pH <2; Plastic or Glass 26 days
Cool to 4°C
BOD (5-day) Method 405.1 Cool to 4°C Plastic or Glass 24 hours
COD Method 410.1 H2SO4 to pH <2; Plastic or Glass 26 days
Cool to 4°C
Section 4
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
4.0 SI'rE ASSESSMENT
4.1 Background and History
4.1.1 Site Location and Background Infonnatio!!
The Town of Southold operates a municipal solid waste landfill for the disposal of
approximately t50 tons per day (in winter months) to 300 tons per day (in surmner months) of
municipal solid waste. The existing Southold (Cutchogue) landfill comprises approximately 45
acres (excluding the 17 acres on Town property and north of the landfill area which was
previously used as a mining/borrow area). The landfill site is located between Oregon Road and
North or Middle Road (County Road 48) to the north and south, respectively, and Cox Lane and
Depot Lane to the east and west, respectively, in Cutchogue, Suffolk County, New York (see
Figure 1-1). A site plan of the Southold landfill is shown in Figure 1-2.
The Southold landf'fll is situated in a rural, agricultural area in Cutchogue, approximately 2.5
miles east of Mattituck and 8 miles west of the Incorporated Village of Greenport. The landfill is
located in an agricultural-industrial zoned area, with the existing landfill and planned landf'fll both
zoned LI (Light Industrial) as illustrated in Figure 4-1. Directly adjacent to the northern, eastem
and southem boundaries of the landfill is LI zoned land, and LIO (Light Industrial/Office Park)
zoned land is located adjacent to the western boundary. Further to the north, south, east and west
of the landfill is A-C (Agricultural Conservation) zoned land.
The Town of Southold initiated operations at the landffil site in 1920 for the disposal of
municipal solid waste, refuse, debris and scavenger (septic system) waste. Figure 4-2 shows the
location of past and present landfill operations. As shown in this figure, the landfill site includes a
large excavated area in the northern comer of the site (the planned landfill site), which was used to
obtain cover material for the present landfdling operation, and two abandoned scavenger waste
lagoons along the western border of the landfill. The lagoons formerly accepted septic system
waste from both commercial and residential sources.
Since the present landfill initiated operation prior to the promulgation of the Part 360
requirements, it was constructed without a liner. Also, portions of the currently required 100 foot
buffer zone between the land£dl and its property boundaries have been used for landfflling solid
waste in the past prior to the current requirements. In 1984, the Town of Southold requested a
variance for an exemption from these requirements as specified in the Part 360 regulations
S 12060 4-1
I
!
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
A-C
LIO
LI ,
-- $OU'THOLD L~
LEGEND
~ AGRICULTURAL CONEERVATION
~'~ REEIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AA
~ RESIDENTIAL .LOW DENSITY A
~'~ RESORT/RESIDENTIAL
~'~ LIMITED BUEINE88
~ LIQHT'INDUETRIAL/OFFICE PARK
r-~ L,Q.T ,.D..T"'AL
80URCE:TOWN OF $OUTHOLD ZONING MAP,198I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
~ ~ ZONING MAP
U (.~) ~
FORMER
COMPOSTING
AREA -
FORMER
SCAVENGER
WASTE LAGOONS
MUNICIPAL
,~ts~)
\
STORAGE
GARAGE
CLEARING
AND
)MOBILES
CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
AND MUNICIPAL
SOLID WASTE
· ?.~- - PLANNED
,~ ~ LANDFILL
AREA
OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC
WASTE OIL
STORAGE
TION
CENTER
WEIGHING
STATION
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
LANDFILL OPERATIONS MAP
FIGURE 4-2
THOI~S H. WICK}lAM
SUPERVISOR
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P. O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1889
October 18, 1994
Raymond E. Cowan, P.E.
Regional Director, Region I
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bldg. 40, Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
Re: Cutchogue Landfill
Town of Southold
D&B No. 1314
Dear Mr. Cowan:
In accordance with the Stipulation of Settlement executed between the Town of Southold and the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation on October 5, 1994, the Town is
submitting in compliance with IIB of the Technical Requirements, the following existing reports
and data relative to landfill gas and hydrogeologic conditions at the site.
The reports/data comprise the following:
1. Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report, October 1991
2. Groundwater Quality Assessment Report July 1992 Sampling Event, December 1992
3. Groundwater Quality Assessment Report January 1993 Sampling Event, March 1993
As presented in the reports, Baseline Parameters were afialyzed for the groundwater samples
collected from the 16 on-site monitoring wells sampled in July 1991 and July 1992, and from
downgradient private water supply wells in July 1992. Routine Parameters were analyzed for the
groundwater samples collected from the monitoring and water supply wells in January/February
1993. . -
Raymond E. Cowan, P.E.
Page 2
O~ober 18, 1994
Based on the results of the initial Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation, ground-
water was found not to be significantly impacted by the landfill on-site and the landfill does not
appear to impact off-site private water supply wells. As a result of these findings, the Cutchogue
Landfill was delisted by NYSDEC as a potential (Class 2A) hazardous waste site. A good base-
line of groundwater quality has been established.
The results of the last sampling program conducted for the landfill (in early 1993), in general,
indicated lower levels of contaminants than previously detected in July 1991 and 1992.
As a result of these findings, we request a waiver of the Stipulation requirement ora second
round of Baseline Parameters one (1) year from the date of initial baseline monitoring and a
waiver of the second year of quarterly routine monitoring, provided there are no significant
changes in water quality detected in the first round of Baseline Parameter sampling.
Very tml~¥6urs,
Thomas Wickham
Supervisor
nl-W:rbw
Enclosures
cc: Frank Isler, Esq.
Thomas Maher
(Section 360-1.7). The variance was requested on the basis of compatible surrounding land use,
which is predominandy agricultural, vacant land, sand mining and only lhnited residential land,
and the significant adverse economic and environmental impacts which would be associated with
excavating landfilled refuse. This variance, however, was not granted by NYSDEC.
Upon termination of operations at the existing landfill, the Town plans to close the landfill
in accordance with NYSDEC Part 360 requirements and begin operation of the planned landfill,
which will be constructed in accordance with the current Part 360 regulations.
The planned landffil site consists of approximately 17 acres of almost entirely excavated
land, which was the borrow area located immediately north of the existing landf'fll (see Figure
4-2). The planned site is located adjacent to an inactive and closed portion of the existing landfill,
and consists of predominantly excavated and disturbed soil and sand that was used for clean cover
material for the existing landfill.
4.1.2 Site History_ and Previous Investigations
As previously discussed, the Town of Southold began operation of the landf'ill in 1920 for
the disposal of municipal solid waste, refuse, debris and scavenger waste. Subsequent to the
hurricane of 1938, large quantities of construction and demolition debris, land clearing debris, as
well as other materials, were landf'illed in the southern portion of the site. This area was also used
for burying old automobiles.
In 1974, Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. (H2M), under contract to the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), conducted a subsurface investigation at the
Southold landfill in order to determine the depth of fiil material and municipal sanitary waste at
the site. Three borings were drilled at separate locations within the existing landfill area
(approximately at the center and south-central portions, and west-central border of the currant
landfall). Information obtained from the borings indicated that the landfill had been excavated to
depth of approximately 3 feet above the water table and subsequently landfilled with municipal
wastes and other fill material.
In October of 1976, a methane gas survey was conducted at the landfill. Well points were
driven into the ground in the nonhero, southeastern and southwestern portions of the landfill and
measured for methane. The results of this survey showed low levels of gas in comparison to the
Lower Explosion Level (LEL) for methane..
s~20c, o 4-4
In 1985, Woodward-Clyde Consultants prepared a Phase I investigation at the landffil for
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The results of this investigation
have been used in the preparation of th/s report.
In the summer of 1986, the scavenger waste lagoons at the landfill were abandoned upon
commencement of operations at the Southold Scavenger Waste Pretreatment Plant. Sludge
removal from the scavenger waste lagoons was performed during the summer of 1987. The sludge
removed from the lagoon was disposed of in the landfill.
Between 1980 and 1984, five monitoring wells (S-76687, 71045, 69761, 68916 and 68831)
were installed on the landfill site and sampled by SCDHS. Surveillance of these wells continued
in 1985 and the most recent sampling was conducted in 1989.
On December 4 and 5, 1990, NUS Corporation performed a site inspection of the Southold
landfill for the United States Environmemal Protection Agency. During the inspection, five
groundwater and three soil samples were collected off-site, and three groundwater and six soil
samples were collected on-site.
The results of prior on-site sampling, and other groundwater and water supply quality
monitoring conducted by SCDHS in the area of the Southold landfill, have shown that
groundwater in the vicinity of the landfill has been contaminated primarily by fertilizers and
pesticides originating from agricultural activities surrounding the site. Groundwater and water
supply quality studies indicate that many wells in the vicinity of the landfill, including water
supply, irrigation/agricultural and monitoring wells, have been found to be contaminated with the
insecticide aldicarb. Other wells have been found to be contaminated by the agricultural chemical
fertilizers, nitrate and (potassium) chloride, and the insecticide dichlompropane. All of these
contaminants are pervasive within the upper glacial aquifer upgradient, below and downgradient
of the Southold landfill site, and are found in concentrations that exceed groundwater and drinking
water standards. These results indicate that the landfill is not a source of this contamination.
Although one shallow well on the landfill site does indicate that leachate from the landfill is
impacting groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the landfall, the inorganic chemical results
from previous investigations indicate a weak (and limited) leachate plume, and only trace amounts
(<10 ug/1) of nonpesticide organic compounds are found occasionally in concentrations exceeding
standards. Based on this information, it appears that the Southold landfall is not a significant
s~20c, o 4-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
source of contamination. A detailed description of the results of previous sampling efforts at the
Southold landfill can be found in Appendix G. All of the monitoring wells, private wells and soil
sampling locations for the previous sampling programs are shown in Figure 4-3.
4.1.3 Site Reconnaissance
Site visits and reconnaissance were conducted to collect infon-nation regarding past and
present operations at the landfill, observe the existing conditions at the landfill and to verify
background information and accessibility to the site for the purpose of conducting this
investigation. Activities included locating existing monitoring wells, estimating the placement of
proposed wells and sampling points, locating past, present and future landf'xlling operations,
excavation areas, and landfill closure and construction areas. Also, photographs were taken of the
existing site conditions and current landfilling operations in order to document observations. In
addition, other information was obtained from the Town of Southold including tax maps, zoning
maps, site maps, as well as aerial photographs and other pertinent information.
4.1.4 Literature Search
A comprehensive search was made for pertinent and reliable existing information
concerning regional and site-specific hydrogeologic and water quality conditions. The literature
search included, available records, reports and maps of the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services (SCDHS), U.S..Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), New
York State Deparhnent of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Town of Sonthold and reports
prepared by several engineering consultants. In addition, aerial photographs of the landfill site and
surrounding area were obtained at scales of 1 inch equals 100 feet and 1 inch equals 200 feet, and
are enclosed in Appendix H of this document. Well completion/constxuction logs and boring logs
of wells formerly constructed in the vicinity of the landfill are included in Appendices I and J,
respectively.
An initial survey of monitoring wells, and public and private water supply wells within 1
mile downgradient and 1/4 mile upgradient of the landfill site was conducted. The locations of the
monitoring wells in the vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 4 4. Table 4-1 lists the available
well construction data for these wells. Wells located within approximately 1/4 mile upgradient of
s ~20~o 4-6
WELL NO.5
OW-5
WELL NO.
WELL
GW-6
WELL NO.1
OW-7
WELL NO.4
WS-IO
FORMER
SCAVENGER
WASTE
lAGOONS
S-68916--
.' SOUTHOLD i
· ' LANDFILL
DIRECTORY: C:%1027
FIlE NAME: PGWATER
DATE: SEPT 1991
· · · S-5 ...........
S-7668 WS-~ ..... GW-2 .
' s-30 · .~
S-l, ' ' ¢)
WS-8
~ORI~ (u~oo~-) RoAO
LEGEND
DESIGN A'nON DESCRIPTION
· GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL AND
WELL NO. 1 SAMPUNG LOCATION FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES
· WATER SUPPLY WELL AND SAMPLING
WS-1 LOCATION FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES
· GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL AND
S-69761 SAMPLING LOCATION ON LANDF1LL SITE
· APPROXIMATE USEPA GROUNDWATER
OW-1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
0 APPROXIMATE USEPA SOIL
S1-S2 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
0 400
SCALE IN FEE-r
d)Dvirka
and
Bartilucci
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
PREVIOUS GROUNDWATER, WATER SUPPLY AND
SOIL SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4-5
-71287
S-71285
$-71284,
'$-71044
· " S-68831
~£'6ee'16
"$-7668?'
_~'. ~-53326
$OUTHOLD
LANDFILL
-69761 --
;-71045"'
' '~t :h. '-~
INFERRED DIRECTION OF
!UND..WATER FLOW
$-71170.
UL~'
8-71191'
S-53824
~-71281
p,$:6542
8-10890
8-71279~
8-71289
C., , $-7~,74
~'.; 8-71275~
SOURCE: USGS. MATTITUCK HILLS & SOUTHOLD QUADRANGLE8
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL
MONITORING WELLS LOCATED IN
VICINITY OF LANDFILL
SCAI1~ IN FEET
0 IOOO 2000
FIGURE 4-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Well Number
S-76687'
S-75113'
S-71289
S-71287
S-71286
S-71285
S-71284
S-71283
S-71282
S-71281
S-71280
S-71279 (~stboring)
S-71278
S-71277
S-71276
S-71275
S-71274
S-71191
S-71171
S-71170 (~stboring)
S-71045'
S-71044(~stbo~ng)
S-69761'
S-68916'
S-68831'
S-65606
S-65605
S-53327
S-53326
S-53324
S-32390
S-10390
S-6542
*Wells located at landfill.
**Feet Below MSL
$1206~
Table 4-1
WELL CONSTRUCTION DATA
Date Completed
5/1/84
9/4/81
8/25/81
7/30/81
7/29/81
7/27/81
7/20/81
7/22/81
7/8/81
6/24/81
9/23/81
9/10/80
4/24/80
4/17/80
99
80
24
23
95
23
11
(feet)**
91
14
330
52
19
25
30
285
22
310
60
102
51
260
4-9
Screened Interval (feet)**
23-33
94-99
75-80
20-24
19~23
90-95
19-23
86-91
9-11
48-52
15-25
28-30
20-22
52-57
97-102
3848
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
the landfill are wells S-71170, S-71171 and S-71191. One well located approximately 1/4 mile
laterally west of the landfill is well S-71282. Although there are no NYSDEC-designated
(numbered) wells shown within this area, there exists several private water supply wells located
within this area, as well as several private wells located upgradient within 1/4 mile and adjacent to
the site. These private wells were identified and discussed along with all other wells that had
available water quality records in Appendix G of this report.
4.2 Geology
4.2.1
This section describes the general hydrogeologic conditions on Long Island as it relates to
the regional hydrogeology of the North Fork in Suffolk County, and the Town of Southold and the
vicinity of the Southold landfill.
Long Island is composed of consolidated tilted basement rocks overlain by unconsolidated
sediments that dip in a southeasterly direction. The consolidated rocks, known as bedrock, are
dense crystalline metamorphic and igneous rocks of Precambrian age. Overlying the bedrock is a
series of unconsolidated deposits that form Long Island's principal aquifers and confining units.
During the Cretaceous period, unconsolidated sediments including sands, silts, gravels and
clays were deposited on the bedrock platform. Cretaceous deposits are a terrestrial origin and
were probably deposited by prograding shores and coalescing deltas. These Cretaceous sediments
are divided into two formations, the Raritan formation and the Magothy formation - Matawan
group, undifferentiated. The Raritan formation is probably a continental coastal plain deposit and
is composed of the Lloyd sand member and an overlying unnamed clay member (Raritan
confining unit) commonly referred to as the Raritan clay. Above the Raritan formation lies the
Magothy formation - Matawan group, undifferentiated which is composed of continental and
shallow marine or deltaic deposits.
After the Cretaceous period, a long period of nondeposition or deposition followed by
erosion occurred. Geologic activity by streams flowing across Long Island cut deep valleys into
the Cretaceous sediments of the Magothy. These valleys were filled with glacial sediments during
Pleistocene glaciation almost completely covering the older Cretaceous (Magothy formation)
deposits.
4-10
The Cretaceous deposits are overlain by glacial outwash and morainal deposits of
Pleistocene age, as well as Holocene deposits. The Pleistocene formations consist of several
glacial, periglacial and interglacial units, including a marine clay known as the Gardiners clay.
The Pleistocene or glacial deposits are believed to have been deposited during the Wisconsin stage
of glaciation. This was the last stage of the glacial advance to reach Long Island.
Prior to the southward movement/advance of the Pleistocene ice sheets to Long Island, an
extensive clay unit (Gardiners clay) was deposited in shallow mar'me and brackish waters along
the shores of what is now Suffolk County. This unit overlays the Magothy group and acts as a
conf'ming layer 100 to 300 feet thick. The nortbem portions of the Gardiners clay were
subsequently eroded by advancing ice and glacial meltwaters, and Gardiners clay beds are now
found only in the south shore area.
The Pleistocene glaciation created the hilly Ronkonkoma moraine and the Harbor Hill
moraine. The Ronkonkoma moraine forms the "spine" of Suffolk County and the South Fork.
The Harbor Hill moraine encompasses the north shore and forms the North Fork of Long Island.
As the glaciers began to melt and retreat, these deposits (sand, gravel and boulders) were eroded
and carried by the melt water, creating extensive outwash plains of sand and gravel in the
intermorainal areas and south to the Atlantic Ocean. These highly permeable deposits comprise
the upper glacial aquifer and represent the majority of Suffolk's surficial sediments which average
100 to 200 feet thick. In general, the surficial geologic units in the study area consist of
Pleistocene outwash and recent or Holocene deposits. Holocene deposits include soil zone, shore,
beach and salt-marsh sediments.
A generalized isometric geological cross section of the Southold Peninsula is shown in
Figure 4-5. The geologic and hydrogeologic units on the North Fork in the Town of Southold are
summarized in Table 4-2. The sequence of stratigraphic units on the North Fork is similar to that
found on the main body of Long Island. The stratigraphic sequence from youngest to oldest rocks
and deposits, and water-bearing properties of deposits underlying the project site and vicinity are
described in Table 4-2.
A longitudinal cross section of the North Fork is depicted in Figure 4-6. As shown in Figure
4-6, the contact between upper glacial aquifer and Magothy aquifer deposits varies in depth from
about -200 to 430 feet mean sea level (MSL). A thick clay layer is found at varying depths and
flficknesses, but it is not certain whether the clays encountered are all part of a continuous layer
that underlies the entke North Fork, or whether they occur as isolated lenses.
4-11
-APPROX.
SALT WATER
FRESH WATER
INTERFACE
UNCONFORMITY
-- $00
UNCONFORMITY
-500
--600
SOURCE: USGS, W.8.P. 1619-GG,1963
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL
GENERALIZED ISOMETRIC
I~,~-~ ~ GEOLOGICAL CROSS SECTION OF
~"~-~ ~ THE SOUTHOLD PENINSULA FIGURE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-2
GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS IN THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Hydrogeologic
Unit
Upper glacial
aquifer
Gardiners clay
Magothy aquifer
Radtan clay
Lloyd aquifer
Bedrock
Geolo~c Nam~
Holocene and
upper Pleistocene
deposits
Gardiners clay
Matawan group and
Magothy formation,
undifferentiated
Unnamed clay
member of the
Raritan formation
Lloyd sand member
of the Raritan
formation
Undifferentiated
crystalline rocks
De. script~_ 'on and Water-Bearing Character
Mainly brown and gray sand and gravel of
moderate to high hydraulic conductivity;
also includes deposits of clayey glacial
till and lacustrine clay of low hydraulic
conductivity. A major aquifer.
Green and gray clay, silt, clayey and silty
sand, and some interbedded clayey and silty
gravel; low hydraulic conductivity. Unit
tends to confine water in underlying
aquifer.
Gray and white frae to coarse sand of
moderate hydraulic conductivity. Generally
contains sand and gravel beds of low to
high hydraulic conductivity in basal 100
to 200 feet. Contains much interstitial
clay and silt, and beds and lenses of clay
and low hydraulic conductivity. Not a
highly developed aquifer in the study area.
Gray, black and multicolored clay and some
silt and fine sand. Unit has low hydraulic
conductivity and tends to confine water in
underlying aquifer.
White and gray frae-to-coarse sand and
gravel of moderate hydraulic conductivity
and some clayey beds of low hydraulic
conductivity. Not developed as a source
of water in the study area.
Mainly metamorphic rocks of Iow hydraulic
conductivity; surface generally weathered;
considered to be the bottom of the ground
water reservoir. Not a source of water.
Source: USGS W-RI Report 84-4271, 1986
S 12060
4-13
m m .m m mm m m m mmmm m m Imm m m m m ---- --, m
LANDFILL
.,,, ......
SOURCE: SCDHS, 1982
-?--
cA'
KEY MAP
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
LONGITUDINAL GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
OF THE NORTH FORK
FIGURE 4-6
Fresh groundwater under the North Fork is believed to exist as a series of four separate,
irregularly shaped lenses as shown in Figure 4-6. The position of the freshwater-saltwater
interface, however, has only been measured in a few places and appears to be located at
approximately -250 to -300 feet MSL in the vicinity of the existing and planned Southold landfill
site.
4.2.2 Local Geology
The Town of Southold is located on the northeast protrusion of Suffolk County known as the
North Fork. As discussed previously, this region of Long Island is an extension of the Harbor Hill
moraine (along the north shore) which was produced during the advance of the last period of
continental glaciation. The existing and planned Southold landfill is situated on an outwash plain,
south of the Harbor Hill moraine. The topographic features of the site area are described as that of
rolling moraines and level to gently sloping outwash plains.
The landfill site lies on unconsolidated deposits of Pleistocene age associated with glacial
outwash from the Wisconsin glaciation, as well as Holocene or recent deposits. These deposits
overlie the Magothy formation. The Pleistocene deposits constitute the upper glacial aquifer and
consist primarily of stratified sand and gravel containing little clay or silt, except for a clay layer
sometimes referred to as the North Fork glacial clay. The Holocene or recent deposits include soil
zone, stream bed, shore, beach and salt-marsh sediments, as well as fill material.
A series of geologic cross sections were constructed based on previously obtained
information. The location of each cross section is shown in Figure 4-7. Figures 4-8 and 4-9 are
geologic and hydrogeologic cross sections, respectively, in the vicinity of the landfill. A geologic
cross section through the landfill based on available information, is shown in Figure 4-10. The
thickness of Pleistocene deposits and the upper glacial aquifer below the landfill is approximately
250 to 300 feet. The North Fork glacial clay layer appears to lie approximately 150 feet below the
surface of the landfill and is estimated to be approximately 40 feet thick below the site.
Groundwater in the upper glacial aquifer (overlying the North Fork glacial clay) is under
unconfined (water table) conditions. The water table lies approximately 4045 feet below the
surface of the site. The upper glacial aquifer constitutes the most important source of water for
numerous small domestic private wells in the area.
Well S-32390, situated approximately in the middle of the North Fork, approximately 3,500
feet southwest of the landfill (see Figure 4-7), penetrates the Magothy aquifer at a depth of 356
feet. Well S-33775, located 4.5 miles northeast of well S-32390, penetrates the Magothy
4-15
80UTHOLD./
LANDFILL-
8-71170
8-32300-"
8-71278
80URCE: USGS, MATTITUCK HILL8 & $OUTHOLD QUADRANGLES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
CROSS SECTION LOCATIONS
$CAL~ IN FEET
0 I000 2000
FIGURE 4-7
I
I
I
I
AI
-200 -
~ ~. · ....
~ ~se sand a~d
~ ' ., sancy and sol:~' , ~.
~ -. .'
SOURCE: 8CDHS, 1982
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
IN VICINITY OF SITE
FIGURE 4-8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
./
8OURCE: $CDHS, 1982
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL
.HYDROGEOLOGICCROSS SECTION
IN VICINITY OF SITE
FIGURE 4-9
N
C A'
SOU THOLD LANDFILL
top SOiL
BROWN FINE-
SAND
GREY CLA~Y
,~e~D GRAVEL
UPPER GLACIAL AQUIFER
BROWN GREy
VERY FINE-FINE
BROWN FINE-
S
BROWN SILTY
VERY FINE SAND
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
THROUGH THE LANDFILL
FIGURE 4-10
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
at a depth of 205 feet accordh~g to a report prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Little
detailed data are available at the present time on the vertical extent and water quality of the
Magothy aquifer ou the North Fork in the vicinity of the site. There are no production wells
tapping the Magothy on the North Fork near the la,~dfill; however, groundwater is believed to be
salty in a large portion of this aquifer. The exact position and thickness of the zone of diffusion
and the movement of the saltwater in the vicinity of the landfill site is not known.
As shown in Figure 4-9, the freshwater-saltwater interface appears to occur at
approximately -280 to -300 feet MSL below the landfill. Cores from well S-32390 located
southwest of the site showed the interface to be at about -290 feet MSL. Thus, there may be some
fresh water below the North Fork glacial clay layer (below -228 feet MSL) just south of the
landfill at well S-71170, but the quantities would be extremely limited (if any) and any attempts to
pump this water and use this portion of the glacial aquifer as a source of water supply would
probably cause upconing of salt water from below.
4.2.2.1 - Soils
The central part of the North Fork is covered with softs classified as Haven-Riverhead
Association, and described as deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained, medium textured
and moderately coarse textured soils on outwash plains. Softs of the Carver-Plymouth-Riverhead
Association are found on the northern shore of the North Fork and on the middle part of the south
shore. These softs axe deep, rolling, excessively drained and well-drained, coarse textured and
moderately coarse textured softs on moraines.
In general, the North Fork softs are highly permeable and allow relatively rapid groundwater
recharge. This condition is beneficial in terms of groundwater replenishment; however, it also
provides fairly direct access of surface pollutants to the aquifer.
A soil map of the existing and planned landfill site and vicinity is shown in Figure 4-11.
The map shows that there are seven specific types of soils that exist on the site, namely,
HaA-Haven Loam (0 to 2 percent slopes), Ha.B-Haven Loam (2 to 6 pement slopes), Ma-Made
Land, PLA-Plymouth Loamy Sand (0 to 3 percent slopes), PIB-Plymouth Loamy Sand (3 to 8
percent slopes), PIC-Plymouth Loamy Sand (8 to 15 percent slopes and RdC-Riverhead Sandy
Loam (8 to 15 percent slopes). Descriptions of each of these softs are as follows:
s ~ 2o~ 4- 20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HaA-Haven Lo,un (0 to 2% slope~%L These soils are deep, well drained and medium
textured, and are mostly nearly level generally found on outwash plains. They were
formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. The available
moisture capacity hq this soil is high to moderate. Natural fertility is low. Internal
drainage is good, while pemaeability is moderate in the surface layer and subsoil and
rapid or very rapid in the substratum. The hazard of erosion is slight.
HaB-Haven Loa~n (2 to 6% _slopes). These soils are deep, well drained and medium
textured and is found on outwash plains and moraines, commonly along shallow,
intermittent drainage channels. Slopes are short. They were formed in a loamy or silty
mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. The hazard of erosion is moderate to
slight.
Ma-~. Made land includes m~ that are mostly covered with pieces of
concrete, bricks, trash, wi~e, metal and other nonsoil material. Some areas are on the
surface of the original soil, others are in large holes dug for disposal purposes, and still
others are in old gravel pits converted to this use. Included with this unit in mapping
are sanitary landfills that have been excavated and subsequently filled with trash and
garbage. After these areas are filled, they are covered with several feet of soft material.
PI.A-Plymouth Loamy Sand (0 to 3% slopes). These soils are deep, excessively drained
and coarse textured. They formed in a mantle of loamy sand over thick layers of
stratified coarse sand and gravel. These nearly level soils are found on broad, gently
sloping to level outwash plains. The available moisture content is low to very low.
Internal drainage is good. Permeability is rapid. The hazard of erosion is slight.
PIB*Plymouth Loamy Sand (3 to 8% slopes). These soils are deep, excessively drained
and coarse textured. They are found on moraines and outwash plains. Slopes are
undulating, or they are single along the sides of intermittent drainage ways. The hazard
of erosion is slight. (See PlA soils for other soil properties.)
PIC-Plymouth Loamy Sand (8 to 15% slot>e_s). These soils are deep, excessively
drained and coarse textured. They are moderately sloping and found on moraines and
outwash plains. The hazard of erosion is moderate to severe because of slope and the
sandy texture of this soil. (See pLa, soils for other soil properties.)
RdC-Riverhead Loamy Sand (8 to 15% slot)es). These soils are deep, well drained and
moderately coarse textured. They formed in a mantle of sandy loam or fine sandy loam
over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. These soils occur in narrow bands on
outwash plains along the side slopes of deep intermittent drainage ways. Slopes are
short. These soils have moderate to high available moisture capacity, internal drainage
is good, and permeability is moderately rapid. Thc hazard of erosion is moderately
severe.
4.2.3
Stratigraphic logs were developed from information collected as part of the Part 360 and
Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation monitoring well drilling program in order to specifically
define subsurface geology of the Southold landfill site. These boring logs can be found in
Appendix F.
s{20r, o 4-21
OREGON ROAD
80UTHOLD
LANDFILL--
HQA
HaA
PlA
~C.R. 45)
ROAI
NoRT~
80URCE: SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
LEGEND
CpE Carver and Ply~uth sands, 15 to 35 percent slopes
HaA Haven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
HaB Haven loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
HaM land
PIA Ply~uth loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes
PIB Ply~uth loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes
PIC Plymouth loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes
RdA Riverhead sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
RdB Riverhead sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes
RdC Riverhead sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL
SOIL MAP FIGURE ,-il
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Two cross sections were constructed for the site based on data obtained during this
investigation. The location of the cross sections are shown in Figure 4-12. Cross section A-A'
incorporates monitoring well clusters MW-I, MW-7, MW-3 and MW-5 and is shown in Figure
4-13. Cross section B-B' runs perpendicular to cross section A-A' and includes monitoring well
clusters MW-6, MW-2 and MW-3. Cross section B-B' is illustrated in Figure 4-14.
The lowest geologic unit of the site consisted of gray-brown silty clay and was encountered
at an average depth of approximately 130 feet below ground surface at all locations drilled.
Overlying the clay is a unit composed of medium to coarse sand and gravel with an average
thickness of approximately 15 feet, except for cluster locations MW-1 and MW-4 (not shown in
the cross sections [see Appendix F for boring logs]), where the clay was overlain by a roughly
10-foot thick transitional zone consisting of Frae sand with thin intermittent layers of clays and
silts. At monitoring well cluster locations MW-6 and MW-7, the clay was overlain by the next
most prevalent stratigraphic unit composed of medium to f'me sand with traces of gravel and mica.
At the MW-1 cluster, this unit was not vertically continuous but was interrupted by a layer of
medium to coarse sand and gravel. This same condition occurred at the MW-6 cluster location.
This medium to fine sand unit is approximately 50 to 60 feet in thickness.
Overlying this unit and extending to the surface is medium to coarse sand and gravel, similar
to that found overlying the clay. Some isolated lenses of brown silty fmc sand were encountered
within this layer at well cluster MW-1. Silty sands were also encountered within this unit in
isolated lenses at cluster MW-6. Throughout drilling operations, isolated pockets of reddish
brown to orange-brown (iron-stained) sand were encountered indicating a high natural
concentration of iron bearing minerals.
The results of the soil gas survey indicate a close correlation between areas of elevated
MicroTip readings and high lower explosive limits (LELs). In general, readings were relatively
elevated in fill areas and the area of former land clearing debris and automobile disposal areas.
Readings taken from the bottom surface of the former scavenger waste lagoons were very low
compared with those obtained from the landftll for both VOCs and explosive gas. No significant
anomalies were encountered. Results of the soil gas survey were submitted to NYSDEC on
June 20, 1991. No additional soil boring investigations were recommended by NYSDEC at that
time. Two maps were generated showing the results of the MicroTip and percent LEL
measurements and are included in Appendix C.
4-23
m mm m mm m m
MW~4D
FORMER MINING
AREA
STORAGE
I
I
I
I
/
/
WEIGHING
STATION
OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC
LINES
DESIGNAllON DESCRIPllON
· MONITORING WELL LOCATION
MW-4D
DIRECTORY: C:¥027
FILE NAME: LOCSEC
DA~: SEPT lggl
SCALE: 1=1
DESiGN[R: LV.G.
Dvirka
and
Bartilucci
LOCATION
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
OF LANDFILL SITE CROSS
0 400 800
SECTIONS
FIGURE 4-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
lO0
MW-5D.
=ROPERTY
LINE
ROAD , HOUSE
75
5O
25
<{
Z Ld -25
0 f../'~
.2 '~ -50
-75
-100
-125
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
SW
Dvirka
and
Bartilucci
1600 1800 2000
DISTANCE iN FEET
2200
2400
2600
2800
30OO
3200
NE
GEOLOGIC
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
CROSS-SECTION A - A'
LEGEND
MED-COARSE
SAND AND
GRAVEL
MED-F!NE SAND
TR. GRAVEL
AND MICA
BROWN SILTY
FINE SAND
BROWN GREY
CLAY
F~NE SAND
WITH CLAY
STREAKS
FINE SAND
FIGURE 4-13
6O
4-O
20
-20
-40
-60
-8O
- 1 O0
-120
0 1 O0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300
SW
DISTANCE IN FEET
Dvirka
and
Bartilucci
GEOLOGIC
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
CROSS-SECTION B - B'
LEGEND
MED-COARSE
SAND AND
GRAVEL
MED-FINE SAND
TR. GRAVEL
AND MICA
MED-COARSE
GRAVEL
BROWN GREY
CLAY
NE
MED-COARSE SAND
AND GRAVEL WITH
BLACK SILT
I t
MED-FINE SAND
FIGURE 4-14
I
4.2.3.2 - Geophysical Survey Resul,,3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The results of the downhole geophysical survey conducted during this investigation indicate
that, based on the natural gamma ray logs, bedding dips gently from north to south. This slope
corresponds closely with the general dip of the clay surface underlying the landfill.
The results of the geophysical investigation also indicate that the conductivity measured for
the groundwater in the two wells located upgradient of the landfill (MW-1 and MW-7) and the
wells located downgradient of the former scavenger waste lagoons (MW-6), was distinctly
different from the four wells located downgradient of the landfill (MW-2, MW-3, MW-4 and
MW-5). The conductivity in monitoring wells MW-2 and MW-3 was elevated starting at the
water table, whereas the conductivity of wells MW-4 and MW-5 located further north was
elevated starting at a depth of 40 feet below the water table. In all cases, these anomalies seem to
extend down to the deep well screening zone, just above the clay surface. This data infers that a
conductive fluid with a density greater than water is emanating from the landfill. The data also
indicates that leachate present in this plume should be detected in the deep monitoring wells
located downgradient of the landf'fll. The geophysical report is included in Appendix D.
I
4.2.3.3-
!
I
I
In general, the natural topography of the landfill site slopes gently upward in a northward
direction, from a low of approximately 45 feet (MSL) near County Road 48 to a high of
approximately 66 feet (MSL) along the northem boundary of the site near monitoring well cluster
MW-5. This natural gradual slope has been interrupted by both the Southold landfill in the center
of the site and the area north of the landfill which has been excavated to an elevation of
approximately 10 feet (MSL).
4.3 Groundwa~r Hydvogeology
4.3.1
I
I
The primary groundwater aquifer on the North Fork is the upper glacial or water table
aquifer. The saturated thickness of this aquifer ranges from approximately 50 to 200 feet. Most
wells drawing freshwater from these permeable deposits are between 10 and 100 feet deep, and
extend about 10 to 35 feet below MSL.
I
4-27
Upper glacial regional groundwater flow in the Town of Southold in the vicinity of the
existing and planned Southold landfill is shown in Figure 4-15. Groundwater elevations are
highest near the center of the North Fork and lowest near the shoreline. The horizontal component
to groundwater flow is shown in the regional water table contour map. As this map indicates,
regional horizontal flow is toward the noah-northwest in the vicimty of the landfill.
As shown in Figure 4-15, regional groundwater flow is separated into north and south
groundwater flow regimes by the groundwater divide that runs generally northeast to southwest
across generally the center of the North Fork. Flow moves outward from the central groundwater
divide toward either shoreline (northward toward Long Island Sound and southward toward Great
Peconic Bay and Little Peconic Bay). Near the center of the divide, downward, nearly vertical
flow and recharge of groundwater occurs (with velocities of approximately 0.1 ft./day). Moving
north or south away from the divide, shallow groundwater flow becomes increasingly horizontal
(with velocities of 0.2 to 0.4 ft./day) until groundwater discharge occurs near the shorelines.
Within approximately 1/4 mile of the shoreline, the vertical component of flow is upward as
groundwater is influenced by the boundary effects of the saltwater interface and is discharged via
seepage and undefflow to surface waters.
4.3.2
Based upon previous information, groundwater flow within the upper glacial aquifer, in the
area of the existing and planned landf'dl site, is generally in a north-northwesterly direction. This
flow continues in this direction until it reaches the Long Island Sound. Direction of groundwater
flow may be influenced by local well withdrawals and proximity to the North Fork groundwater
divide. The average hydraulic conductivity of the glacial aquifer is approximately 1,950 gallons
per day per square foot (gpd/sf) and transmissivity is approximately 300,000 gpd/ft.
As previously discussed in Section 3.2.1, within the upper glacial aquifer is an extensive
clay layer referrexl to as the North Fork glacial clay (the upper surface of which varies from I00 to
150 feet below sea level), and separating the Magothy from the underlying Lloyd aquifer is a
semipermeable layer of Raritan clay which somewhat inhibits the vertical flow of water from the
Magothy to the Lloyd aquifer. Figure 4216 shows the groundwater flow patterns beneath the
landfill and surrounding area.
The Magothy (in general) and Lloyd aquifers in this area are not usable for potable water
purposes because of saline conditions.
4-28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/~ 06~0~5
ouND
//~ o
/ oC-=(__ -
// fl -47233 ~ 016780
.............. LANDFILL SIT/ ~ E
/
~ LITTLE PECONIC
BAY
0 gsz~$ ~>
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
G~EAT
P£CONIC
BAY
LEGEND
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GROUND WATER DIVIDE
0 71045 OBSERVATION WELL AND WELL NUMBER
WATER TABLE CONTOUR LINE INTERVAL
(DATUM 18 MEAN SEA LEVEL)
APPROXIMATE DIRECTION OF GROUND WATER FLOW
80URCE: 8CDHG,MARCH 1989
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL
REGIONAL WATER TABLE
CONTOUR MAP
0 0.5 I
SCALE: I I J MILE
FIGURE 4-15
4O
3O
~.z.a' / I I
~ / I I
I I
\ / .os I
\./ .zs
· · /I
~e ~ J.l i
~ /
I ~
).o I
I ~ I /
~ ~ / /
t ~ / I
% I I
I i el
SOURCE; SCDHS, 1982
/ I i
,
-/
.15
.Z5
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUND WATER FLOW PATTERNS
IN VICINITY OF SITE
FIGURE 4-16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Groundwater elevation data was obtained from the SCDHS for on-site well S-69761 and
two nearby off-site wells (S-53326 and S-65606). The locations of these monitoring wells are
shown in Figure 4-17. This data reflects water table elevations of June 1988 which indicates that
groundwater flow in the upper glacial aquifer is in a north-northwest flow direction, as illustrated
in the figure, which is consistent with the regionally defined groundwater flow direction. This
groundwater elevation data was used for the purposes of selection of monitoring well locations for
the hydrogeologic investigation.
The Southold landfill is located in Hydrogeologic Zone IV, as defmed in the Long Island
Waste Treatment ('208') Management Plan. Zone IV is characterized by generally shallow,
horizontal groundwater flow and groundwater discharge near the shorelines. Zone IV was
described in the '208' study as an area that has local water quality problems caused by agricultural
practices, but has potential for groundwater development.
Figure 4-18 shows the landfill site to be located outside of the Special Groundwater
Protection Area (primarily deep flow recharge area) defined for the Town of Southold. Thus, any
comaminant releases from the existing landfill, or extremely unlikely releases from the planned
landf'fll which would be constructed with double liners and leachate detectinn/collection systems
according to NYSDEC Part 360 requirements, would have an insignificant impact on the water
supply of the Town.
4.3.3
As previously discussed, the principal aquifer of interest in the study area is the upper
glacial aquifer. Intersecting the upper glacial aquifer is the North Fork glacial clay which
represents a laterally continuous flow boundat~ underlying the Southuld landfall. Therefore, the
Part 360 and Phase H Hydrogeologlc Investigation was focused primarily on that portion of the
upper glacial aquifer overlying the North Fork glacial clay.
4.3.3.1-Etllllr~hil~
Slug tests were performed at eight monitoring wells consisting of shallow and deep wells
located at clusters MW-l, MW-2, MW-5 and MW-7. The results of the slug test analysis are
shown in Table 4-3. Hydraulic conductivities within the water table wells were relatively high and
ranged in value from 2.2 x 104 to 8.6 x 10.2 cm/sec. The average hydraulic conductivities at the
deep wells were higher and generally more uniform, and ranged from 1.8 x 10'3 to 3.1 x 10.2
4-31
/
Duc~
>/
S-53326(3.16')
· ..~
90UT.O'O:
LANDFILL
;' 8-69761(6.0d)
-INFERRED DIRECTI01~ OF
,,GROUND WATER FLOW~
S-65606(,
\ Cern
'..~-~'CUtc:
NOTE: WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS OBTAINED IN JUNE, 1988
SOURCE: H2M, 1988
)D~rka
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUND WATER FLOW DIRECTION
IN VICINITY OF SITE
SCA[~ iN FEET
0 ~000 2000
FIGURE 4-17
SOUTHOLD
LITTLE
PECONIC
BAY
GREAT
PECONIC
BAY
SPECIAL GROUND WATER PROTECTION AREA
8OURCE: LIRPB,1990
0 8000
SCALE IN FEET
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
SPECIAL GROUND WATER PROTECTION
AREAS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHHOLD
16000
FIGURE 4-18
Table 4-3
SLUG TEST RESULTS
Monitoring Well
Shallow Wells 1:
Rising Head
Test Hydraulic
Conductivity (K)
ecru/s)
Falling Head
Test Hydraulic
Conductivity (K)
Average
Hydranlic
Conductivity (K)
(cra/s}
MW-IS 2.2 x 104 -- 2.2 x i0"~
MW-2S 3.8 x 10.2 -- 3.8 x lO'2
MW-5S 2.6 x 10'~ - 2.6 x 10'~
MW-7S 8.6 x 10-2 -- 8.6 x 10-2
Deep Wells:
MW-iD 2.5 x 10'3 1.1 x 10'3 1.8 x 10'3
MW-2D 4.8 x lif2 1.3 x 10'2 3.1 x 10.2
MW-5D 1.1 x 10.2 1.3x 10.2 1.2x 10.2
MW-7D 3.4 x 10.2 1.2 x 10.2 2.3 x 10-2
Falling head tests wen not performed in the shallow wells since the screen intercepted the water
table. Perfonxfing a test of this type under these conditions would measure the hydraulic
conductivity above the water table within the unsaturated zone and would not be representative
of formation permeability.
4-34
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
cra/sec. The lower hydraulic conductivity values found in both MW-1S and MW-ID are probably
due to the presence of silty sands found within the screen zones. Appendix K contains graphs and
calculations used to derive hydraulic conductivities for each slug test conducted.
4.3.3.2 - Groundwater Flow Pattem~
4.3.3.2.1 - Shallow Water Table
Measurements of groundwater elevations in all monitoring wells were obtained on
July 22, 1991, and are presented in Table 4-4. Based on these data, a water table groundwater
contour map was prepared and is illustrated in Figure 4-19.
The water table contour map indicates a general north to northwesterly flow of groundwater
through the site conf'uming previous regional and local findings. The groundwater gradient across
the site varies from 7.8 x 10-2 feet of head loss per foot of horizontal distance to 3.6 x 10.4 foot of
head loss per foot of horizontal distance. The shallower gradient is found between monitoring
well MW-IS and monitoring well MW-7S. The gradient becomes steeper north of MW-7S. Such
flat hydraulic gradients are expected in areas which are located relatively close to a hydraulic
divide believed to exist south of the Southold landf'ffi.
4.3.3.2.2 - Deep Groundwater
Based on the water level measurements obtained from the deep monitoring wells on
July 22, 1991, a potentiometric surface map was consmacted and is presented in Figure 4-20.
Based on this data, it appears that groundwater along the clay interface flows in the same direction
(north to northwesterly) and under approximately the same hydraulic gradient (2.3 x 10.4 foot of
head loss per foot of horizontal distance) as the shallow groundwater at the site.
The difference in hydraulic head between each shallow and deep well at each well cluster
was calculated in order to determine the vertical gradient at each location, the results of which are
presented in Table 4-5. This data indicates that a very slight downward gradient exists at the site.
The slight upward gradient found at well cluster MW-3 and MW-6 is too small to be considered
significant and may be the result of a local topographic high in the clay surface between these two
monitoring wells which may be acting to divert groundwater flowing northward along the clay
4-35
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4 4
GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONS
JULY 22, 1991
(m~asured in fee0
D~pth to
Groundwater
Monitoring Well (firm top of riser)
MW-tS 38.84
MW-ID 38.68
MW-2S 12.85
MW-2D 11.85
MW-3S 43.05
MW-3D 43.16
MW4S 58.81
MW4D 58.57
MW-5S 63.41
MW-5D 62.81
MW-6S 47.01
MW-6D 47.16
MW-7S 42.54
MW-7D 41.48
S-697611 40.32
S-689162 47.85
Well Elevation
eMiL) Top of
44.38
44.39
18.15
17.23
48.50
48.63
63.60
63.76
68.44
67.89
52.50
52.59
48.07
47.03
45.69
53.23
1Corresponds to a shallow water table well.
2Corresponds to a deep clay interface well.
S 12060
4-36
5.54
5.71
5.30
5.38
5.45
5.47
4.79
5.06
5.03
5.08
5.49
5.43
5.53
5.55
5.37
5.38
4.7
4.8
FORMER MIIiING
AREA
4-.9
5.0
MW-5S
STORAGE
GARAGE
?
FORMER LAND CLEARING''-~ "---..
DEBRIS AND AUTOMOBILE
/MW-2S
5.1
~ ~ ACTIVE
', ~,NDF LL
/
/....
M W - - 7
/-OVERHEAD
/ ELECTRIC
LINES
WASTE OIt
CENIER SlOP, AGE
WEIGHING
STATION
(cOON/_¢ ¢,OAB
LE(;END
DESIGNATION DESCRIP'RON
· MONITORING WELL LOCATION
MW-4S
5.0 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR
~ GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTIOn___
DATE: SEPT 1991
SCALE: 1=1
Dvirka
and
Bartilucci
WATER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TABLE CONTOUR MAP
0 4.00 800
FIGURE 4-19
,/
AREA
)
~ MW-6D // ~ ACTIVE
//
STORAGE
GARAGE -
?
FORMER LAND CLEARING
DEBRIS AND AUTOMO[31[E
I DISPOSAt AREA
~C~ Iici
OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC
LINES
SOLLECTIOrl - - WASTE OIL
CENTER STORAGE
WEIGHINO
SIATIOH
ROAP 48)
LEGEND
DESIGNATION t DESCRIPTIOH
· [ MONITORING WELL LOCATIOH
MW-4D
~ J. GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION
DIRECTORY: C:%1027
FILE NAME: PSURMAP
DAllY: SEPT 1991
SCALE: 1=1
DESIGNER: L.V.C.
Dvirka
and
Bartilucci
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP
0 40O 800
FIGURE 4-20
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-5
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
VERTICAL HYDRAULIC GRADII~.NTS
AT EACH WELL CLUSTER
Difference Between
Shallow and D~p Well Direction of VelXical
Weft Cluster Number Elevations (ft.) Hydraulic Gradient
MW- 1 0.16 Downward
MW-2 1.00 Downward
MW-3 -0,11 Upward
MW-4 0.24 Downward
MW-5 0.60 Downward
MW-6 -0.15 Upward
MW-7 1.06 Downward
SI2060
4-39
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
interface toward well clusters MW-3 and MW-6. A three-dimensional representation of the clay
surface was created based on data obtained during the drilling program and is presented in
Figure 4-21.
4.4 Surface Water
As discussed in Section 3.1.3, Long Island Sound is the closest surface water body, and is
located approximately 3,500 feet north of the Southold landfill. The closest freshwater body, East
Creek, lies approximately 1.3 miles to the southeast of the landfill site. No surface water bodies
are located within or immediately adjacent to the landfill. Since groundwater in the vicinity of the
landfill flows north-northwesterly, and there are no other surface water bodies located between the
landfill and Long Island Sound, no surface water bodies should be impacted by the landf'fll.
4.5 Sampling PrOm~l, Results
4.5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this section of the Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report
is to present the analytical results of samples collected from monitoring wells installed during this
investigation. The goal of the subsurface sampling program is to determine whether or not there
has been a release of hazardous chemicals from the landfill into either soil or groundwater or both.
4.5.2 Data Validation Results
All sample data was evaluated to ensure that analyses were performed according to the 1989
NYSDEC ASP. The semivolatile organic fraction analyzed was not in complete compliance with
the ASP Quality Control and Quality Assurance requirements due to low surrogate recoveries for
selected compounds and/or from exceeding holding time requirements. Data is estimated but
usable. All other organic and inorganic fractions analyzed yielded acceptable data. Completed
review sheets used to evaluate both the organic and inorganic data can be found in Appendix B.
Data validation summaries and data user advisory tables can also be found in Appendix B.
4~5.3 ~5~[LSamlglh~
4.5.3.1 - Organic Sampling Results
The volatile organic compounds (VOCs) detected in soil sample MW-6A are presented in
Table 4-6. Method 601/602 volatile results are presented in Table 4-7. The MW-6A soil sample
was collected from a depth of 11-13 feet due to slightly elevated MicroTip/total organic
sl20(,o 440
I
! °°
I _1~ ~gi~ka SOUmOm ~ND~
J ~~ ~,jp~, 3-D C~Y SURFACE ELEVATION MAP ~uR~~-~ I
I
!
TABLE 4-6
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
SOIL SAMPLING
VOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MW6A FB01 TB711 5 NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/15/91 7/15/91 7/15/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/I) (ucj/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
Chloromethane U U U 5 ST 5
Bromomethane U U U 5 ST 5
Vinyl Chloride U U U 2 ST 2
Chloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
Methylene Chloride ~!??~i??:~:.i~::!~::'::~ii::~::i' I J 1 J 5 ST 5
2-Propanone 34 U U .... 50
Carbon disulfide U U U .... 50
1,1 -Dichloroethene U U U 5 ST 5
1,1-Dichloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
1,2-Dichloroethene (total) U U U 5 ST 5
Chloroform U U U 5 ST 5
1,2-Dichloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
2-Butanone U U U .... 5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
Carbon Tetrachloride U U U 5 ST 5
Vinyl Acetate U U U .... 5
Bromodichloromethane U U U 50 GV 5
1,2-Dichloropropane U U U 5 ST 5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U U U .... 5
Trichloroethene U U U 5 ST 5
Dibromochloromethane U U U 50 GV 5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
Benzene U U U ND ST 5
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene U U U .... 5
Bromoform U U U 50 GV 5
4-Methyl-2~Pentanone U U U .... 5
2-Hexanone U U U 50 GV 5
Tetrachloroethene U U U 5 ST 5
,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
Toluene U U U 5 ST 5
Chlorobenzene U U U 5 ST 5
Ethylbenzene U U U 5 ST 5
Styrene U U U 5 ST 5
Xylene (total) U U U 5 ST* 5
QUALIFIERS
U: analyzed for but not detected
J: compound found below detection limit
NOTES
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
ST*: Applies to each isomer
iiiiiii!i!iiiiiii!iii;iii~iiiii!iiiilili?~i: value exceeds standards/guidance
TABLE 4-7
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
SOIL SAMPLING
VOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MW6A FB01 TB 7/15 NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7115191 7/15191 7/15191 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ugll) (ug/I)
Chloromethane U U U 5 ST 5
Bromomethane U U U 5 ST 5
Vinyl Chloride U U U 2 ST 2
Chloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
Methylene Chloride U U U 5 ST 5
2-Chloroethylvinyt ether U U U ........
Trichlorofluoromet hane U U U 5 ST 5
1,1-Dichloroethene U U U 5 ST 5
1,1-Dichloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
1,2-Dichloroethene (trans) U U U 5 ST 5
Chloroform U U U 5 ST 5
1,2-Dichloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
Carbon Tetrachloride U U U 5 ST 5
Bromodichloromethane U U U 50 GV 5
1,2-Dichloropropane U U U 5 ST 5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U U U .... 5
Trichloroethene U U U 5 ST 5
Dibromochloromethane U U U 50 GV 5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
Benzene U U U ND ST 5
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropen U U U .... 5
Bromoform U U U 50 GV 5
Tetrachloroethene U U U 5 ST 5
1,1,2,2-Tet rachloroethane U U U 5 ST 5
Toluene U U U 5 ST 5
Chlorobenzene U U U 5 ST 5
Ethylbenzene U U U 5 ST 5
Xylene (total) U U U 5 ST* 5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2 U U 4.7 ST 5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 2 U U 5 ST 5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene U U U 4.7 ST 5
QUALIFIERS
U: analyzed for but not
detected
NOTES
ST: Standard
GV: Guidance Value
.... : Not established
ST': Applies to each isomer individually
vapor readings, as well as visibly stained soil. Methylene chloride, a common laboratory
contaminant, was found below the detection limit. 2-Propanone was found at a low concentration
of 34 ug/kg. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene and 1,3-dichlorobenzene were both detected at a very low
concentration of 2ug/kg. 2-Propanone and 1,3-dichlorobenzene were not found in any
groundwater samples obtained during this investigation. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene was detected at four
monitoring wells but at a very low concentration of 1 ug/1.
Table 4-8 lists the semivolatile compounds detected in soil sample MW-6A. The only
semivolatiles detected were di-n-butylphthalate, butylbenzylphthalate and bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate. Di-n-butylphthalate was the only compound found above the detection limit. This
compound was found at a concentration of 2,500 ug/kg and was also found present in the
laboratory method blank at a 518ug/kg. Phthalates are common laboratory contaminants.
Pesticides/PCBs were not detected in soil sample MW-6A. The results of the pesticide/PCB
sampling are shown in Table 4-9.
4.5.3.2 - Inorganic Sampling Results
The results for the metals analysis for soil sample IVlW-6A is presented in Table 4-10.
Metals detected include aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, magnesium,
manganese, sodium, vanadium and zinc. Of these, only iron (3,980 mg/kg), magnesium
(490 mg/kg), manganese (53.8 mg/kg) and sodium 373 mg/kg) were detected above NYSDEC
Class GA Standards/Guidelines in groundwater samples collected as part Of this investigation.
A total of nine soil samples (SI and S2 are duplicates) were collected as part of the USEPA
site inspection in December 1990. Results for organic and inorganic analyses resulting from the
USEPA sampling program are presented in Tables 4-11 and 4-12. The soll sample locations are
shown in Figure 4-3. All samples were collected from the surface (0-6 inches) except for sample
S7 (10-16 inches) and sample S8 (16-24 inches), which were collected just below the ground
surface. The results indicate the presence of elevated levels of aluminum, barium, copper, lead,
silver, zinc and 4-chioroanaline. Toluene was detected in soil sample S7 at a low concentration of
7 ug/kg. Pesticides such aa aldrin, 4,4'DDE and 4,4'DDT were also detected.
The distribution of contaminant concentrations among both the on-site and off-site soil
samples are generally uniform except for sample S6 collected from within one of the former
scavenger waste lagoons which showed relatively higher levels of metals. Samples S7 and S8,
also collected from within the former lagoons, showed levels of contaminants in the same range as
4-44
I
I
I
TABLE 4-8
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
SOIL SAMPLING
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
IVlW6A FB01 NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/15/91 7/15/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
Phenol U U 1 ST 50
Bis(2- Ch Ioroet hyl)Et her U U I ST 5
2-Chlorophenol U U I ST 5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene U U 5 ST 5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene U U 4.7ST 5
Benzyl Alcohol U U .... 50
1,2-Dichlorobenzene U U 4.7ST 5
2-Methylphenol U U .... 50
bis-(2-C hloroisopropyl)Et her U U .... 5
4-Methylphenol U U .... 50
N-Nitroso-Di-n-Propytamine U U .... 50
Hexachloroethane U U 5 ST 50
Nitro~enzene U U 5 ST 5
Isof3horone U U 50 GV 50
2-Nitrophenol U U .... 50
2,4-Dimethylphenol U U .... 5
Benzoic Acid U U .... 50
Bis-(2- Chloroet hoxy)Met hane U U 5 ST 5
2,4-Dichlorophenol U U I ST 5
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene U U 5 ST 5
Naphthalene U U 10 GV 50
4-Chloroaniline U U 5 ST 50
Hexachlorobutadiene U U 5 ST 5
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol U U 1 ST 5
2-Methylnaphthalene U U .... 50
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene U U 5 ST 5
2,4.6-Trichloroph enol U U 1 ST 5
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol U U 1 ST 5
2-Chloronaphthalene U U 5 ST 5
2-Nitroaniline U U 5 ST 50
Dimethyl Phthalate U U 50 GV 50
Acenaphthylene U U 20 GV 50
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
1
I
I
I
I
QUALIFIERS:
U: analyzed for but not detected
J: compound found below detection limit
NOTES:
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
I
I
,I
TABLE 4-8 (cont.)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
SOIL SAMPLING
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MW6A FB01 NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/15/91 7/15191 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/l)
i2,6-Dinitrotoluene U U 5 ST 5
3-Nitroaniline U U 5 ST 50
Acenaphthene U U 20 GV 50
2,4-Dinitrophenol U U .... 5
¢-Nitrophenol U U .... 50
Dibenzofuran U U .... 50
2,4-Dinitrotoluene U U 5 ST 5
Diethylt3hthalate U U 50 GV 50
¢-Chlorophenyl-phenylether U U .... 50
Fluorene U U 50 GV 50
¢-Nitroaniline U U 5 ST 50
¢,6-Dinit ro-2-Met hylphenol U U .... 50
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (1) U U 50 GV 50
¢-Bromophenyl-phenylether U U 1 ST 50
Hexachlorobenzene U U 0.35ST 5
Pentachlorophenol U U I ST 5
Phenanthrene U U 50 GV 50
Anthracene U U 50 GV 50
Di-n-Butylphthalate 2500 B U 50 ST 5
Fluoranthene U U 50 GV 50
Pyrene U U 50 GV 50
Butylbenzylphthalate 230 J U 50 GV 50
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine U U 5 ST 5
Benzo(a)Anthracene U U .002 GV 50
Chrysene U U .002 GV 50
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 310 BJ 13 B 50 ST 50
Di-n-Octylphthalate U U 50 GV 50
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene U U .002 GV 50
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene U U .002 GV 50
Benzo(a)Pyrene U U ND ST 50
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene U U .002 GV 50
Dibenz(a,h)Ant hracene U U .... 50
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene U U .... 50
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
QUALIFIERS:
U: analyzed for but not detected
B: compound found in blank as well as sample
J: comDound found below detection limit
NOTES:
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
'1
I
!
I
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
TABLE 4-9
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
SOIL SAMPLING
PEST/PCB'S
NYSDOH
MW6A FB01 NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/15191 7/15/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/kg) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/l)
alpha-BHC U U .... 5
beta-BHC U U .... 5
delta BHC U U .... 5
gamma-BHC (Lindane) U U ........
Hepatachlor U U ND ST 5
Aldrin U U ND ST 5
Heptachlor epoxide U U ND ST 5
Endosulfan I U U .... 50
Dieldrin U U .... 5
4,4'-DDE U U ND ST 5
Endrin U U ND ST 5
Endosulfan II U U .... 50
4,4'-DDD U U ND ST 5
Endosulfan sulfate U U .... 50
4,4'-DDT U U ND ST 5
Methoxychlor U U 35 ST 50
Endrin Ketone U U ........
alpha-Chlordane U U 0.1 ST 5
gamma-Chlordane U U 0.1 ST 5
Toxaphene U U ND ST 5
Arochlor-1016 U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1221 U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1232 U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1242 U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1248 U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1254 U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1260 U U 0.1 ST 5
QUALIFIERS NOTES
I
I
I
U: analyzed for but not detected
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
ND: Not detected
TABLE 4-10
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
SOIL SAMPLING
INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
NYSDOH
MW6A FB01 NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING NYS
7115191 7115/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS BACKGROUND LEVELS
(mg/kg) (mg/I) (mg/I) (mg/I) (rog/kg)
CONSTITUENTS
Aluminum 1640 U ............
Antimony U U 0.003 ST ........
Arsenic 1.7 B U 0.025 ST 0.05 3-12
Barium 12.2 B U I ST I ....
Beryllium U U ............
Cadmium U U 0.01 ST 0.01 0.21-1.8
Calcium U U ........ 778-3532
Chromium 7.4 U 0.05 ST 0.05 ....
Colbalt U U ............
Copper 5.9 B 23.3 0.2 ST .... AVG.=74.8
Iron 3980 U 0,3 ST 0.05
Lead 3.1 U 0.25 ST .... 15 -36
Magnesium 490 B U 35 GV ........
Manganese 53.8 U 0.3 ST ........
Memury U U 0.002 ST 0.002 ....
Nickel U U ........ AVG.=19.5
Potassium U U ........ 47.5-117.5
Selenium U U 0.01 ST 0.01 ....
Silver U U 0.05 ST 0,05
Sodium 373 U 20 ST ........
Thallium U U 0.004 ST ........
Vanadium 7.6 B U ............
Zinc 12.6 U 0.3 ST .... AVG.564
Cyanide U U 0.1 ST ........
QUALIFtERS:
~or but not detected
B: Value is less than contract
required limits but greater
than the instrumen[detection limit
NOTES:
L~V: L~uidance value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
Volatiles:
Acetone 3
Toluene U
S~ivola[iles:
4-Chloroanallne U
Phenanthrene U
Di-n-Butylphthalate U
Fluoranthene U
Pyrene U
Butylbenzlyphthalate U
Benzo(a)anthracene U
Chrysene U
Benzo(b)fluoranthene U
Benzo(d)fluorenthene U
genzo(e)pyrene U
Pesticides/PCBs:
gamma-BHC (Lindane) U
Aldrin U
4,4'-DOE g3E
Endrin J
Endosulfansulfate U
4,4'-DDT 410E
gamma-Chlordane 3
Endosulfan II U
Table 4-11
SO~THOLD LANDFILL HVDROGEOLOG[C INVESTIGAT[O#
RESULTS OF ORGANEC ANALYSES FROf~
USEPA SUXL SA~PLXNG
(all results in ug/kg)
S11 S2 (Dup.)1 S~3 S~ Sj S62 S72 S~82
J U U U U U U U
U U U U J 7 U U
U U U U 1,000 J U U
U U U 3 U U U U
U U U U U U J U
U U U J U U U U
U U U J J U U U
U U U U J U U U
U U U 3 U U U U
U U U 3 3 U U U
U U U 3 U U U U
U U U 3 U U
U U U 3 J U U U
U U U J U U U U
U U U U U ll U U
120 J 3 U J 24 U J
U U U U U U U U
57 J U U U U U J
450 71E U 76E U U U 32
3 3 J U 3 3 U U
U U U 3 U U U J
1 _ Off-site sample
2 _ Sample collected from bottom of former scavenger waste lagoons.
U - Analyzed for but not detected.
3 - Estimated value - present below CRQL but above IDL
E - Estimated value
NOTE: Only detected compounds shown.
S1483G
Hera1 s:
Table 4-12
SOU[HOLD LANDFILL IJYDRO~EOLO~IC II~/ESTI~TIOg
RESULTS OF IgORGANIC ANiLYSES FR0fl
USEPA SOIL SAMPLING
(all results in rog/kg)
S11 S2 (Dup.)1 S3 S4 S5 S62 S_,Z72 S82 S~9
Aluminum 4640 5320 2140 4030 4310 12700 3080 1010 5280
Arsenic 8.3 8.7 3 3.2 3.7 15.6 6.8 3 8.5
Barium 3 3 3 3 52.2E 693E 61E J J
Beryllium J U U U U 1.7 3 U U
Cadmium U U U U U 8.5 U U U
Calcium J 3 3 3 1300E 5180E 1500E J J
Chromium 6.g 7.3 3.3 6.3 5 40.9 6.6 2.6 4.7
Cobalt U ~ U U U J U U U
Copper 19.7E 16.7E 8.4 lO.SE 16.7E 3020E 51.7E 12.8E 7.8
Iron 6370 7280 5010 4940 6120 15200 6640 1590 7800
Lead 85.8 74.1 49.5 2036 117 412 24.5 13.2 28.1
Magnesium 3 J 3 J J ~ ~ J J
Manganese 102E 106E 75.7E 45.7E 69.7E 57.2E 45.5E 20.9E 36.7E
Mercury R R R R R 10.9 R U U
Potassium 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Selenium U U g $ J g.lE J U U
Silver J 2.7 U J g 24.3 2.2 U 3.1
Sodium 3 3 3 3 3 J J J 3
Vanadium 13 13.8 3 J J ~ J J 17.9
Zinc 44.6E 44E 75.9E R 134E 1060E 215E R R
1 _ Off-slte sample.
2 _ Sample collected from bottom of former scavenger waste lagoons.
U - Analyzed for but not detected.
3 - Estimated value - present below CRQL but above IDL
E - Estimated value
R - Analysis did not pass EPA QA/QC
NOTE: Only detected metals shown
S1483G
I
I
I
I
I
!
other on-site and off-site soil samples. Of the metals detected in the soil samples, iron,
manganese, magnesium and sodium were the only metals found in groundwater at levels
exceeding standards. Volatile and semivolatile compounds and pesticides/PCBs detected in soil
were not found in any groundwater sample collected during the Part 360/Phase II investigation.
4.5.4 r war am1'
4.5.4.1 - Organic Sampling Results
The VOCs detected in groundwater samples collected as part of the Part 360/Phase II
investigation are listed in Table 4-13 and Method 601/602 VOCs in Table 4-14. Compounds
detected include methylene chloride, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, chlorobenzene and
the Method 601/602 vnlatiles, 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,4-dichlorobenzene. As mentioned
previously, methylene chloride is a laboratory contaminant. 1,2-Dichlorobenzene and
1,4-dichlorobenzene were also detected in the trip blank. In all cases, each compound was
detected at a low level of 1 ug/1. Therefore, the presence of these compounds cannot be confirmed
since their presence could be the result of either laboratory contamination or contamination in the
field. VOCs were detected in trace amounts (below standards) in all monitoring wells except for
well MW-6D where 1,2-dichloroethane (12 ug/1) and 1,2-dichloropropane (11 ug/l) were found to
contravene the NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standard of 5 ugtl for both compounds. MW-6D
is immediately downgradient of the former scavenger waste lagoons.
1,2-Dichloropropane (an insecticide) has been found in elevated concentrations in previous
sampling efforts both up and downgradient of the landfill. 1,2-Dichloropropane was found at
monitoring well S-68916 at a concentration of 15 ug/l and at private well GW-6 at a concentration
of 9 ug/1. It must be noted that dichloropropane was found in concentrations as high as 68 ugtl in
an upgradient well (S-76687), indicating that the presence of this insecticide in groundwater is due
to local agricultural activities and is not readily attributable to the landfill. 1,2-Dichloroethane has
been detected previously on one occasion at a concentration of 2.0 ug/1 in on-site well S-68916,
although it was not detected in subsequent sampling events.
Previous groundwater sampling efforts have detected chlorobenzene in concentrations
exceeding the New York State Class GA groundwater standard of 5 ugtl. Two samples collected
from on-site well S-68916 showed concentrations of 9 ug/l and 23/24 ug/1 (USEPA investigation
result) in two different sampling events. Since chlorobenzene was not detected in well cluster
MW-6, which is further upgradient and closer to the former lagoons, it apl~ars that the lagoons are
not a source of this compound in groundwater.
4-51
TABLE 4-13
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
VOLATILE ORGANICS
MW1S MWID MW2S MW2D MW3S MW3D MW4S MW4D NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7125/91 7125/91 7/24/91 7124191 7/25/91 7125/91 7126/91 ?/26/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
VOLATILE COf~POUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/0 (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
Vinyl Chloride u u u u u u u u 2 ST 2
Methylene Chloride 2 J 2 J U u u 1 J u u s sT 5
2-Propanone U u u u u u u u -- 5o
Carbon disulfide u u u u u u u u -- 5o
1,1 -Dichloroethene u U U u u u U U 5 ST 5
1,1 -Dichloroelhane u u u u u u u u s ST 5
1,2-Dichloroeihene (total) u u u u u u u u 5 ST 5
Carbon Tetrachloride u u u u U u U u 5 ST 5
Vinyl Acetate u U U u u u u U 5
1,2-Dichloropropane u u u u u u u u s ST 5
cis-1,3- Dichloropropene U U u u u U u U 5
Benzene u U u U u U U U ND ST 5
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene u u u u u u u u ---- s
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone u u u u u u u u ---- 5
Xylene (total) u u u U u u u u 5 ST' 5
NOTES
U: analyzed for but
not detected
B: compound found in blank
as well as sample
J: compound found below
detection limit
J*: estimated value
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
ST*: Applies to each isomer individually
NP: not present
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
TABLE 4-13 (conf.)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
VOLATILE ORGANICS
NY~L)UH
MW5S MW5D MW6S MW6D MW7S MWTD FB TB NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7125/91 7125191 7/24/91 7/24/91 7/25191 7126/91 7/25191 7/26/91 TANDARDS/GUIDEUNE STANDARDS
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
Chloromethane u u U U U U u u s ST S
Bromomethane u U u u u U u u 5 ST 5
Vinyl Chloride u U u u u u u u 2 ST 2
Chloroethane u u u u u u u u $ ST 5
Mefhylene Chloride u u u 2 J u u 2 J u 5 ST 5
2-Propanone u u u U u U u u -- 5o
Carbon disullide u u u u u u U u -- 5o
1,1 -Dichloroethene u u u u u u u u s ST S
1,1 -Dichloroethane u U u u U u u u 5 ST S
1,2-Dichloroethene (fofal) u u u u u u u u s ST 5
Chloroform U u u u u u u u SST s
1,2-Dichloroethane u u u i !!::!!ii:.!:::!:: ::!!i.:. ~ ~ :!! :: ::. !!:L::!! ?: u u u u s ST 5
2-Butanone u u u u u u u u -- s
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane U u U u u u u u s sT 5
Carbon Tetrachloride u u u u u u u u 5 ST S
Vinyl Acetate u u u u u u u u -- 5
Bromodichloromethane u u u u u u u u 50 GV
1,2-Dichloropropane u u u !i! !i! !.!i!:.! ~ ~ !i!i! !i!i!i!i!i! u u u u 5 ST 5
C/S-1,3-Dichloropropene U U U U U u U U -- 5
Trichloroethene u u u u u u u u s ST S
Dibromochloromethane u u u u u u u u 5o GV s
1,1,2-Trichloroethane u u u u u u u u s ST
Benzene u u u u u u U U ND ST 5
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropene u u u u u u U u s
Bromoform u u U u u u u u 5o GV S
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone u u u u u u u u
2-Hexanone u u u u u u u u 5o Gv s
Tetrachloroethene U u U u u u u u s ST S
1,1,2,2-Tet rachloroet hane u U U U U U u U 5 ST 5
Toluene u u u u u u u u 5 ST s
Chlorobenzene u U u U u U U u 5 ST 5
Ethylbenzene u u u u u u u u 5 ST 5
Styrene u u u u u u u u 5 ST S
Xylene (total) U u u U u u u u $ ST' 5
Unknown NP 7 jo Np NP NP NP NP NP
Freon 113 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP NP
QUALIFIERS
U: analyzed for but
not detected
B: compound found in blank
as well as sample
J: compound found below
detection limit
J': estimated value
NOTES
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
ST*: Applies to each isomer individually
NP: not present
: value exceeds standards/guidelines
TABLE 4-14
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
METHOD 601/602 VOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MW1S MWID MW2S MW2D MW3S MW3D MW4S MW4D ' MW5S NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7125/91 7125/91 7/24/91 7124191 7125/91 7125191 7126/91 7126191~7125191 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
Chlorometl3ane U U U U u U U U U 5 ST 5
Bromomethane U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Vinyl Chloride U U U U U U U U U 2 ST 2
Chloroethane U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Methylene Chloride U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether U U U U U U U U U ........
Trichlorofluoromelhaoe U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,1 -Dichloroethene U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,1-Dichloroethane U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,2-Dichloroethene (trans) U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Chloroform U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,2-Dichloroethane U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,1,1-Trichloroethane U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Carbon Tetrachloride U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Bromodichloromethane U U U U U U U U U 50 GV 5
1,2-Dichloropropane U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U U U U U U U U U .... 5
Trichloroethene U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Dibromochloromethane U U U U U U U U U 50 GV 5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Benzene U U U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropen U U U U U U U U U .... 5
Sromolorm U U U U U U U U U 50 GV 5
Tetrachloroethene U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,1,2,2-Tet rachloroethane U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Toluene U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Chlorobenzene U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Ethylbenzene U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Xylene (total) U U U U U U U U U 5 ST* 5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U U U U U 4.7 ST 5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U U U U U 4.7 ST 5
QUALIFIERS
U: analyzed for but not
detected
NOTES
'5'TFS"~dard
GV: Guidance Value
.... : Not established
ST*: Applies to each isomer individually
m m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
TABLE 4-14 (cont.)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
METHOD 601/602 VOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MW5D MW6S MW6D MW7S MW7D TB 7125 FB GW NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7125/91 7124191 7125/91 7/25/91 7/26/91 7/25/91 7125/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS tug/I) tug/I) tug/I) tug/I) tug/I) tug/I) tug/I) tug/I) tug/I)
Chloromethane U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Bromomethane U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Vinyl Chloride U U U U U U U 2 ST 2
Chloroethane U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
'Methylene Chloride U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
2-Chloroethylvinyl ether U U U U U U U
Trichlorofluoromethane U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,1-Dichloroethene U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,1 -Dichloroethane U U U U U U U · 5 ST 5
1,2-Dichloroethene (trans) U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Chloroform U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,2-Dichloroethane U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,1,1 -Trichloroet hane U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Carbon Tetrachloride U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Bromodichloromethane U U U U U U U 50 GV 5
1,2-Dichloropropane U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene U U U U U U U .... 5
Trichloroethene U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Dibromochloromethane U U U U U U U 50 GV 5
1,1,2-Trichloroethane U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Benzene U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Trans-1,3-Dichloropropen U U U U U U U .... 5
Bromolorm U U U U U U U 50 GV 5
Tetrachloroethene U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Toluene U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Chlorobenzene U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Ethylbenzene U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
Xyiene (total) U U U U U U U 5 ST* 5
1,2-Dichlorobenzene U 1 I I U I U 4.7 ST 5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,4-Oichlorobenzene U I U I U 1 U 4.7 ST 5
QUALIFIERS
U: analyzed for but not
detected
NOTES
ST: Standard
GV: Guidance Value
.... : Not established
ST*: Applies to each isomer individually
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 4-15 presents the results of the semivolatile analyses of groundwater. Naphthalene
and bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate were both found in trace levels below the detection limit. As
previously discussed, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is a laboratory contaminant. Naphthalene was
found in trace quantities below the guidelines at only two wells (MW-3S and MW-6D). As shown
in Table 4-16, pesticides/PCBs were not detected in groundwater.
A table showing the results of all organic compounds detected in groundwater samples
collected as part of this investigation, as well as groundwater samples collected as part of the
recent USEPA site inspection, is presented in Table 4-17. All organic compounds found to exceed
NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards are listed in this table and presented in Figure 4-22.
Organic compounds known to be common laboratory contaminants such as methylene chloride
and phthalates are not included in Figure 4-22.
1,2-Dichloropropane was detected at a concentration exceeding standards during both
investigations. Dichloropropane was present above standards in downgradient wells MW-6D,
S-68916 and GW-6. MW-6D and S-68916 are located immediately downgradient of the former
scavenger waste lagoons. Well GW-6 is located along Oregon Road approximately 2,000 feet
downgradient of well S-68916. As previously mentioned, 1,2-dichloropropane is an insecticide
and was found during other sampling investigations at levels exceeding standards both upgradient
and downgradient of the landfill. Therefore, the presence of this compound in supply well GW-6
is not attributed to the landfill.
Chlorobenzene was found to exceed standards in well S-68916 but was not found in any
downgradient supply wells and was detected in only one other well (MV~-2D) at a very low
concentration. 1,2-Dichloroethane, although found to exceed standards in well MW-6D, was only
found in three other wells (MW-3S, MW-4D and S-68916) at very low concentrations that were
below the detection limit. Trans-l,2-dichloroethene (total), tetrachloroethane and toluene were
detected in wells sampled during the USEPA site inspection (wells S-68916 and GW-7) but at
nonquantifiable concentrations below the detection limit. Naphthalene, a semivolatile compound,
was detected during the Part 360/Phase II investigation at wells MW-3S and MW-6D. In both
cases, the concentrations were low and below the method detection limit. Naphthalene was not
found in any well sampled during the USEPA site inspection. These results indicate that the
landfill is not causing an impact to downgradient water supply with respect to organic
contaminants.
4-56
TABLE 4-15
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MW1S MW1D MW2S MW2D MW3S NYSOEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/25/91 7/25/91 7/24/91 7/24/91 7/25/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARD.c
SEMIVOLAT]LE COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
Phenol U U U U U 1 ST 50
Bis(2-Chloroet hyl)Ether U U U U U 1 ST 5
2-Chlorophenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U 4.7ST 5
Benzyl Alcohol U U U U U .... 50
1,2-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U 4.7ST 5
2-Methylphenol U U U U U .... 50
bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether U U U U U .... 5
4-Methylphenol U U U U U .... 50
N-Nitroso-Di-n-Propylamine U U U U U .... 50
Hexachloroethane U U U U U 5 ST 50
Nitrobenzene U U U U U 5 ST 5
Isophorone U U U U U 50 GV 50
2-Nitrophenol U U U U U .... 50
2,4-Dimethylphenol U U U U U .... 5
Benzoic Acid U U U U U .... 50
Bis-(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane U U U U U 5 ST 5
2,4-Dichlorophenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene U U U U U 5 ST 5
Naphthalene U U U U 7 J 10 GV 50
4-Chloroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
Hexachlorobutadiene U U U U U 5 ST 5
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
2-Methylnaphthalene U U U U U .... 50
H exachlorocyctopentadiene U U U U U 5 ST 5
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
2-Chloronaphthalene U U U U U 5 ST 5
2-Nitroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
Dimethyl Phthalate U U U U U 50 GV 50
Acenaphthylene U U U U U 20 GV 50
2,6-Dinitrotoluene U U U U U 5 ST 5
3-Nitroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
Acenaphthene U U U U U 20 GV 50
2,4-Dinitrophenol U U U U U .... 5
QUALIFIERS:
U: anatyzed for but not detected
J: compound found below detection limit
NOTES:
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
TABLE 4-15 (cont.)
TOVVN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MWIS MW1D MW2S MW2D MW3S NYSOEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/25/91 7/Z5/91 7/24/91 7/24/91 7/25/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
4-Nitrophenol U U U U U .... 5O
Dibenzofuran U U U U U .... 50
2,4-Dinitrotoluene U U U u U 5 ST 5
Diethylphthalate U U u U U 50 GV 50
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether U U U U U .... 50
Fluorene U U U U U 50 GV 50
4-Nitroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
4,6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol U U U U U .... 50
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (1) u u u u u 50 GV 50
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether U U U U U I ST 50
Hexachlorobenzene U u U u U 0.35ST 5
Pentachlorophenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
Phenanthrene u u U U U 50 GV 50
Anthracene U u u u U 50 GV 50
Di-n-Butylphthalate U u u u U 5O ST 5
Fluoranthene u u U U U 50 GV 50
Pyrene U U U U U 5O GV 5O
Butylbenzylphthalate U U U U U 5O GV 5o
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine U U U U U 5 ST 5
Benzo(a)Anthracene U U U U U .OO2 GV 50
Chrysene U U U U U .o02 GV 5O
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 2 J 4 BJ 2 J U 2 BJ 50 ST 50
Di-n-Octylphthalate U U U U u 50 GV $0
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene U U U U u .002 GV 50
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene U U U U U .002 GV 50
Benzo(a)Pyrene U U U U u ND ST 50
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene U U U U U .002 GV 50
Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene u U u u u .... 50
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene u U u u u .... 50
Unknown NP NP 20 J* 9 J* 31 J* - .......
Unknown NP NP 10J' 12J* 29J* - .......
Unknown NP NP 10J* 59J* 11 J* - .......
Unknown NP NP 9 J* 9 J* 8 J' - .......
Unknown NP NP 9 J ° 13 J* 11 J' - .......
Unknown NP NP NP 21 J° 14 J' - .......
Unknown NP NP NP 13J* 10J' - .......
Unknown NP NP NP 11 J* 11 J* - .......
Unknown NP NP NP NP 10 J* - .......
Unknown NP NP NP NP 8 J' - .......
Unknown NP NP NP NP 9 J* - .......
Unknown NP NP NP NP 34 J* - .......
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP 17 j* Np ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP 13 J* Np ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP 11 J* 38J* 11 J* - .......
Unknown Aromatic NP NP 14 J* 10 J* 15 J* - .......
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
Hexadecanoic Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
QUALIFIERS:
U: analyzed for but not detected
B: compound found in blank as well
as sample
J: compound found below detection
limit
NOTES:
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
ND: not detected
NP: not present
I
I
I
TABLE 4-15
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MW3D MW4S MW4D MW5S MW5D NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/25/91 7/26191 7/26/91 7/25/91 7/25/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINE.~ ~TANDARDS
SEMIVOLAT1LE COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
Phenol U U U U U 1 ST 50
Bis(2-Chloroet hyl) Ether U U U U U 1 ST 5
2-Chlorophenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
1,3-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U 5 ST 5
1,4-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U 4.7ST 5
Benzyl Alcohol U U U U U .... 50
1,2-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U 4.7ST 5
2-Methylphenol U U U U U .... 50
bis-(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether U U U U U .... 5
4-Methylphenol U U U U U .... 50
N-Nitroso-Di-n-Propylamine U U U U U .... 50
Hexachloroethane U U U U U 5 ST 50
Nitrobenzene U U U U U 5 ST 5
Isophorone U U U U U 50 GV 50
2-Nitrophenol U U U U U .... 50
2,4-Dimethylphenol U U U U U .... 5
Benzoic Acid U U U U U .... 50
Bis-(2-C hloroethoxy)Methane U U U U U 5 ST 5
2,4-Dichlorophenol U U U U U I ST 5
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene U U U U U 5 ST 5
Naphthalene U U U U U 10 GV 50
4-Chloroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
Hexachlorobutadiene U U U U U 5 ST 5
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
2-Methylnaphthalene U U U U U .... 50
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene U U U U U 5 ST 5
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
2-Chloronaphthalene U U U U U 5 ST 5
2-Nitroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
Dimethyl Phthalate U U U U U 50 GV 50
Acenaphthylene U U U U U 20 GV 50
2,6-Dinitrotoluene U U U U U 5 ST 5
3-Nitroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
Acenaphthene U U U U U 20 GV 50
2,4-Dinitrophenol U U U U U .... 5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
QUALIFIERS:
U: analyzed for but not detected
J: compound found below detection
NOTES:
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
TABLE 4-15 (cont.)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~I~DFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
i NYSDOH
MW3D MW4S MW4D MW5S MW5D NYSOEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/25/91 7/26/91 7/26/91 7/25/91 7/25/91 ~TANDARDS/GUIOELINES STANDARD:
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (Ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
I 4-Nitrophenol U U U U
U
50
Dibenzofuran U U U U U .... 50
2,4-Dinitrotoluene U U U U U 5 ST 5
I Diethylphthalate U U U U u 50 GV 50
' 4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether U U U U U .... 50
Fluorene u u u u U 50 GV 50
i 4-Nitroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
~l,6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol U u U U U .... 50
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (1) U U U U U 50 GV 50
~*-Bromophenyl-phenylether U U U U U 1 ST 50
I Hexachlorobenzene U U U U U 0.35ST
5
!Pentachlorophenol U U U U u 1 ST 5
Phenanthrene U U U U U 50 GV 50
I Anthracene U U U U U 50 GV 50
Di-n-Butylphthalate U U U U U 50 ST 5
Fluoranthene U U U U U 50 GV 50
i Pyrene u U U U U 50 GV 50
Butylbenzylphthalate U U U U U 50 GV 5O
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine u u U U U 5 ST 5
Benzo(a)Anthracene U U U U U .002 GV 50
I Chrysene U U U U U .002 GV 50
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 2 BJ 2 BJ 2 BJ 2 BJ 3 BJ 50 ST 50
Di-n-Octylphthalate U U u u U 50 GV 50
i Benzo(b)Fluoranthene u U U u U .002 GV 50
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene u U u u U .002 GV 50
Benzo(a)Pyrene U U U U u ND ST 50
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene U U U U U .002 GV 50
I Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene U U .... 50
U
U
U
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene U U U U U .... 50
I Unknown 23J' 25J* 16J* 15J* 320J* - .......
Unknown 26 J' NP 35 J* 11 J* 15 J* - .......
Unknown 10 J' NP 9 J* NP 49 J * - .......
Unknown 12 J* NP 13 J* NP 26 J* - .......
I Unknown 29J* NP 9J' NP 13J* - .......
Unknown NP NP 9 J' NP 43 J* - .......
Unknown NP NP 28 J* NP 39 J* - .......
Unknown NP NP 10 J* NP 8 J* - .......
I Unknown NP NP 17 J* NP 18 J' - .......
Unknown NP NP NP NP 13 J' - .......
Unknown NP NP NP NP 260J* - .......
Unknown NP NP NP NP NA ........
I Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP NP 9 J' - .......
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP NP NA ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP NP NA ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP NP NA ........
I Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP 13 J' - .......
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP 26 J' - .......
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP 290J* - .......
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP 89 J* - .......
I Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP 51 J* - .......
Hexadecanoic Acid NP NP NP NP 67 J* - .......
IQUALIFIERS:
U: analyzed for but not detected
B: compound found in blank as well
as sample
I J: compound found below detection
limit
NOTES:
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
NP: not present
ND: not detected
TABLE 4-15
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MW5DRE MW6S MW6D MW6DRE MW7S NYSOEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/25/91 7/24191 7124/91 7/24/91 7/25191 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
Phenol U U U U U 1 ST 50
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether U U U U U 1 ST 5
2-Chlorophenol U U U U U I ST 5
,3-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U 5 ST 5
,4-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U 4.7ST 5
Benzyl Alcohol U U U U U .... 50
,2-Dichlorobenzene U U U U U 4.7ST 5
2-Methylphenol U U U U U .... 50
Dis-(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether U U U U U .... 5
4-Methylphenol U U U U U .... 50
N-Nitroso-Di-n-Propylamine U U U U U .... 50
Hexachloroethane U U U U U 5 ST 50
Nitrobenzene U U U U U 5 ST 5
Isophorone U U U U U 50 GV 50
2-Nitrophenol U U U U U .... 50
2,4-Dimethylphenol U U U U U .... 5
Benzoic Acid U U U U U .... 50
Bis-(2-Chloroethoxy) Methane U U U U U 5 ST 5
2,4-Dichlorophenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
,2,4-Trichlorobenzene U U U U U 5 ST 5
Naphthalene U U 5 J U U 10 GV 50
4-Chloroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
Hexachlorobutadiene U U U U U 5 ST 5
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
2-Methylnaphthalene U U U U U .... 50
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene U U U U U 5 ST 5
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol U U U U U 1 ST 5
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol U U U U U I ST 5
2-Chloronaphthalene U U U U U 5 ST 5
2-Nitroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
Dimethyl Phthalate U U U U U 50 GV 50
Acenaphthylene U U U U U 20 GV 50
2,6-Dinitrotoluene U U U U U 5 ST 5
3-Nitroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
Acenaphthene U U U U U 20 GV 50
2,4-Dinitrophenol U U U U U .... 5
QUALIFIERS:
U: analyzed for but not detected
J: coml~ound found below detection
NOTES:
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
TABLE 4-15 (cont.)
'rOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MW5DRE MW6S MW6D MW6DRE MW7S NYSOEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/25/91 7/24/91 7/24/91 7/24/91 7/25/91 STANDAROS/GUIDELiNE~ STANDARD~
SEMtVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
4-Nitrophenol U U U U U .... 50
Dibenzofuran U U U U U .... 50
2,4-Dinitrotoluene U U U U U 5 ST 5
Diethylphthalate U U U U U 5o GV 5O
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether U U U U U .... 5o
Fluorene U U u U u 50 GV 50
4-Nitroaniline U U U U U 5 ST 50
4,6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol U U U u U .... 50
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (1) U U U U U 50 GV 50
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether U U U u U I ST 50
Hexachlorobenzene U U U u U 0.35ST 5
Pentachlorophenol U u U U U 1 ST 5
Phenanthrene U U U U U 50 GV 50
Anthracene U U U U U 50 GV 50
Di-n-Butylphthalate U u U U U 50 ST 5
Fluoranthene U U U U U 50 GV 50
Pyrene u U U u U 50 GV 50
Butylbenzylphthalate U u u U u 50 GV 50
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine U u U U U 5 ST 5
Benzo(a)Anthracene u U U u U .002 GV 50
Chrysene U u U U u .002 GV 50
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate U 4 J 8 BJ U 3 J 50 ST 50
Di-n-Octylphthalate U U U U U 50 GV 50
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene U U U U U .002 GV 50
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene U U U U u .002 GV 50
Benzo(a)Pyrene u U U U U ND ST 50
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene U U U U U .002 GV 50
Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene U U u U u .... 50
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene U U U U U .... 50
Unknown 10J* 11J' 10J* 11 J* 34J' - .......
Unknown 8 J* Np 28 J* 10 J* Np ........
Unknown 37 J' Np 27 J' 30 J* Np ........
!Unknown NP NP 19 j' Np NP ........
~Unknown Np NP 29 J* Np NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Aromatic 10 j* Np NP NP NP ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
Hexadecanoic Acid NP NP NP NP NP ........
QUALIFIERS:
U: analyzed for but not detected
B: compound found in blank as well
as sample
J: compound found below detection
timit
NOTES:
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
NP: not present
ND: not detected
TABLE 4-15
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
MW7D MW7DRE FB NYSOEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/26/91 7/26/91 7/25/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINE.~ STANDARDS
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I)
Phenol U U U 1 ST 50
Bis(2-Chloroethyl)Ether U U U 1 ST 5
2-Chlorophenol U U U 1 ST 5
,3-Dichlorobenzene U U U 5 ST 5
,4-Dichlorobenzene U U U 4.7ST 5
Benzyl Alcohol U U U .... 50
,2-Dichlorobenzene U U U 4.7ST 5
2-Methylphenol U U U .... 50
~)is-(2-Chloroisopropyl)Ether U U U .... 5
4-Methylphenol U U U .... 50
N-Nitroso-Di-n- Propylamine U U U .... 50
Hexachloroethane U U U 5 ST 50
I Nitrobenzene U U U 5 ST 5
Isophorone U U U 50 GV 50
2-Nitrophenol U U U .... 50
2,4-Dimethylphenol U U U .... 5
Benzoic Acid U U U .... 50
!Bis-(2-Chloroethoxy)Methane U U U 5 ST 5
12,4-Dichlorophenol U U U 1 ST 5
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene U U U 5 ST* 5
Naphthalene U U U 10 GV 50
i4-Chloroaniline U U U 5 ST 50
iHexachlorobutadiene U U U 5 ST 5
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol U U U 1 ST 5
2-Methylnaphthalene U U U .... 50
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene U U U 5 ST 5
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol U U U 1 ST 5
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol U U U 1 ST 5
2-Chloronaphthalene U U U 5 ST 5
2-Nitroaniline U U U 5 ST 50
Dimethyl Phthalate U U U 50 GV 50
Acenaphthylene U U U 20 GV 50
2,6-Dinitrotoluene U U U 5 ST 5
3-Nitroaniline U U U 5 ST 50
Acenaphthene U U U 20 GV 50
2,4-Dinitrophenol U U U .... 5
QUALIFIERS:
U: analyzed for but not detected
J: compound found below detection
NOTES:
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
TABLE 4-15 (cont.)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS
NYSDOH
MW7D MW7DRE FB NYSOEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/26/91 7/26/91 7/25/91 ~'q'ANDARDS/GUIDEM N ES STANDARDS
SEMIVOLATILE COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (Ug/I) (Ug/I) (Ug/I)
4-Nitrophenol U U U .... 50
Dibenzofuran U U u .... 50
2,4-Dinitrotoluene U U U 5 ST 5
Diethylphthalate u U u 50 GV 50
4-Chlorophenyl-phenylether U U U .... 50
Fluorene U U U 50 GV 50
4-Nitroaniline U U U 5 ST 50
4,6-Dinitro-2-Methylphenol U U u .... 50
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (1) U U U 50 GV 50
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether U U u I ST 50
Hexachlorobenzene U U U 0.35ST 5
Pentachlorophenol U U U I ST 5
Phenanthrene U U U 50 GV 50
Anthracene U U u 50 GV 50
Di-n-Butylphthalate U U u 50 ST 5
Fluoranthene u U U 50 GV 50
Pyrene u U U 50 GV 50
Butylbenzylphthalate U U U 50 GV 50
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine U U u 5 ST 5
Benzo(a)Anthracene U U u .002 GV 50
Chrysene U u u .002 GV 50
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate 2 BJ U U 50 ST 50
Di-n-Octylphthalate U U U 50 GV 50
Benzo(b)Fluoranthene U u U .002 GV 50
Benzo(k)Fluoranthene U U u .002 GV 50
Benzo(a)Pyrene U u U ND ST 50
indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene U U U .002 GV 50
Dibenz(a,h)Anthracene U U U .... 5o
Benzo(g,h,i)Perylene U U U .... 5O
Unknown 130 j* 130 j* Np ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown NP NP NP ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP NP ........
Unknown Aromatic NP NP - Np ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP ........
Unknown Acid NP NP NP ........
Hexadecanoic Acid NP NP NP ........
,. QUALIFIERS:
' · U: analyzed for but not detected
i ~ B: compound found in blank as well
as sample
I J: compound found below detection
limit
NOTES:
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
NP: not present
ND: not detected
mm mm m m
TABLE 4-16
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
PESTIPCB'S
MWlS MW1D MW2S MW2D MW3S MW3D MW4S MW4D NYSDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7/25/91 7125/91 7124/91 7/24/91 7125191 7125/91 7/26/91 7/26/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ugll)
alpha-BHC U U U U U U U U .... 5
beta-BHC U U U U U U U U .... 5
lelta BHC U U U U U U U U .... 5
gamma-BHC (Lindane) U U U U U U U U ........
Hepatachlor U U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Aldrin U U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Heptachlor epoxide U U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Endosulfan I U U U U U U U U .... 50
Dieldrin U U U U U U U U .... 5
4,4'-DDE U U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Endrin U U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Endosuifan II U U U U U U U U .... 50
4,4'-DDD U U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Endosulfan sulfate U U U U U U U U .... 50
4,4'-DDT U U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Methoxychlor U U U U U U U U 35 ST 50
Endrin Ketone U U U U U U U U ........
alpha-Chlordane U U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
gamma-Chlordane U U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Toxaphene U U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Arochlor-1016 U U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1221 U U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1232 U U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1242 U U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1248 U U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochior-1254 U U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1260 U U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
QUALIFIERS
U: analyzed for but nol detected
NOTES
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
TABLE 4-16 (cont.)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
PESTIPCB'S
MW5S MW5D MW6S MW6D MW7S MW7D FB N¥SDEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7125191 7/25/91 7124/91 7124/91 7/25191 7126/91 7125/91 STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/I) (ug/i)
alpha-BHC U U U U U U U .... 5
beta-BHC U 0.24 U U U U U .... 5
delta BHC U U U U U U U .... 5
gamma-BHC (Lindane) U U U U U U U ........
Hepatachlor U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Aldrin U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Heptachlor epoxide U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Endosulfan I U U U U U U U .... 50
Dieldrin U U U U U U U .... 5
i4,4'-DDE U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Endrin U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Endosulfan II U U U U U U U .... 50
4,4'-DDD U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Endosulfan sulfate U U U U U U U .... 50
4,4'-DDT U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Methoxychior U U U U U U U 35 ST 50
Endrin Ketone U U U U U U U ........
alpha-Chlordane U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
gamma-Chlordane U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Texaphene U U U U U U U ND ST 5
Arochlor-1016 U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1221 U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1232 U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1242 U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1248 U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1254 U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
Arochlor-1260 U U U U U U U 0.1 ST 5
QUALIFIERS
U: analyzed for but not detected
NOTES
GV: Guidance Value
ST: Standard
.... : Not established
m m
Chloro- 1,2-DJchloro-
benzene benzene
(5 ST) (4.7 ST)
New Monitorlno Wells:
~b/-1S (U) ND ND
MW-lO (U) ND NO
MW-2S iD) ND NO
MW-2D (0) 33 NO
MW-3S iD) ND NB
MW-3D iD) ND ND
MW-4S iD) ND ND
MW-4D iD) ND ND
MW-SS iD) ND ND
MW-5D iD) ND ND
MW-6S (O) ND 1
MW-6D iD) ND 1
MW-7S iD) ND 1
MW-7D iD) ND NO
USEPA Samole Locations:
GW-1 (U) ND NA
GW-2 (U) ND NA
GN-3/GW-4 24/23* NA
(S-68g16) (D)
GW-S (O) ND NA
GW-6 iD) ND NA
GW-7 iD) ND NA
GW-8 iD) ND NA
Table 4-17
ORGANIC COHPOUNOS DETECTED IN GROUND~ATER - PART 360 AND
PHASE II INVESTIGATION AND USEPA SITE INSPECTION RESULTS
(all results in ug/1)
1,4-Oichloro- 1,2-Dichloro- 1,2-Oichloro-
benzene ethane propane Freon 113
(4.7 ST) (5 ST) (5 ST) 0
ND ND ND NA
ND ND ND NA
ND ND ND NA
ND 43 ND NA
ND 43 ND NA
ND ND ND NA
ND ND NB NA
ND 4J NO 83
ND ND ND NA
ND ND ND NA
1 NO ND IdA,
ND 12' 11' NA
I ND ND NA
ND NO ND NA
Trans-l,2- Tetrachloro-
Oichloroethane ethane Toluene Napthalene
(Total) (5 ST) (5 ST) (5 ST) (10 GV)
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND 7J
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND NO ND
ND ND ND ND
ND ND ND 5J
ND NO ND ND
ND ND ND ND
NA ND ND NA ND
NA ND ND NA ND
NA 3/3 15/15' NA ND
NA ND ND NA ND
NA ND g* NA ND
NA ND ND NA 3
NA ND NO NA ND
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
ND ND/J ND
ND NO ND
ND ND ND
3 ND ND
ND ND ND
ST - Standard
GV - Guidance Value
J - Below Detection Limit
NA - Not Analyzed
ND - Not Detected
U - Upgradient
D - Oowngradient
S1483G
COMPOUND CONCEN~ATION COMPOUND CONCENI~A~ON COMPOUND CONCENI~A~ON
DCA ND I 2 DCA ND 3,2 DCA ND
COMPOUND ~ALLOW DEEP
CH~ENZENE' NO-- ~ ~ '~ / COMPOUND SHALLOW' DEEP
~ OW- 3,G~-4(5 -68916) / CHBENZCNE HD ND
~ ~RHTWA/b ~ ~ COHCENmA~ON
~NDFILL SH*~°w
~ 1,2 DCA ND ND
MW-7
COMPOUND SHALLOW DEEP
~CP ND ND
~ ND ND
MW-1 L m
~/~ /~ LEGEND
....~ ~ HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER
J S-68916 MONITORING WELL AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS
~ USEPA GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATIOHS
GW-1
1,2 DCA 1,2 DICHLOROETHANE
1,2 DCP 1~2 DICHLOROPROPANE
CHBENZENE CHLOROBENZENE
ND NOT DETECTED
· PRESEHT ABO~ STANDARDS
DIRECTORY: C:X1027 J ESTIMATED VALUE BELOW DE~C~ON LIMIT
FILE NA~E: OR~ST 0 400
SCALE: ~::~ SCALE IN ~ ALL RESULTS IN ug/I
TOWN OF SO.HOLD
Ovirka SOUTHOLD ~NDFILL
~ and ORGANIC COMPOUNDS EXCEEDING C~SS GA
~}[~i}~Ei[., GROUNDWATER STANDARDS IN GROUNDWATER F~URE
CONCENTRA~nON
COMPOUND
SHALLOW DEEP
1~2 DCA ND ~- J
1,2 DCP ND ND
CHBENZENE ND ND
CONCENTRA~ON
COMPOUND
SHALLOW DEEP
1~2 DCA ND 4 J_
1,2 DCP ND ND
CHIBENZENE ND ND
CONCEN1RA~ION
COMPOUND
GW-3 GW-4
1,2 DCA J __ J
(;HBENZENE 24 * 23 ·
CONCENTRA'flON
COMPOUND
SHALLOW DEEP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.5.4.2 - Inorganic Sampling Results
The inorganic constituents detected in groundwater samples are listed in Table 4-18. Iron,
manganese, magnesium and sodium were the metals found to exceed New York State Standards
Guidelines for Class GA groundwater in a number of samples.
The highest concentrations of magnesium and sodium were found in monitoring well
MW-2D, while the highest level of manganese was found in well MW-3D. Both of these wells are
directly downgradient of the existing landfill. Elevated levels of these metals were also found in
the corresponding shallow wells, MW-2S and MW-3S, but in lesser concentrations. The highest
level of iron was found in monitoring well MW-7D and to a lesser degree in MW-6S. No metals
were detected exceeding standards in the northernmost shallow wells MW-5S and MW4S. This
confirms the geophysical findings of a dense but chemically weak plume of conductive
groundwater emanating from the landfill and sinking beneath the screen zones (water table) of
shallow wells MW4S and MW-5S as the groundwater migrates off-site in a northwesterly
direction.
The concentrations of metals in MW4D and MW-5D are consistently lower than those
found in the downgradient wells located adjacent to the landfill (MW-2 and MW-3 well clusters),
which indicates attenuation of the plume with distance downgradient. Data collected from
monitoring well clusters MW-2 and MW-3 show consistently higher levels of metals in the deep
wells at these locations which indicates that the bulk of the plume has migrated downward to the
top of the clay surface. The well screen intervals were superimposed onto the conductivity logs
and included on the site plan as shown in Figure 4-23. The results indicate that the plume extends
down to screen zones at both MW4D and MW-5D, which makes these wells effective for
monitoring the plume at the site boundary.
The results of previous private well smnpling investigations downgradient of the landfill
along Cox Lane and Oregon Road confirm attenuation of the leachate plume and little or no
impact on groundwater quality off-site. Magnesium and manganese were all found in
concentrations below the New York State Class GA standards and guidelines in off-site wells.
Sodium was found to contravene standards at private well GW-7 (27.4 mg/l), which is roughly six
time less than the concentrations found at the site boundary (MW4 and MW-5). Sodium was also
present in upgradient wells IVlW-IS and MW-ID at a concentration of 41.6 mW1 and 16.3 mg/1,
respectively, which indicates that groundwater quality downgradient of the landfill is
representative of background conditions.
s ~2o6o 4-69
TABLE 4-18
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
I MWI$ MWID MW2S MW2D L4W3~ MW3D MW4~ MW4O NYSOEC C~ GA DRINKING
7/2~1 7/2~1 7/2~1 712~1 712~1 712~1 7/2~1 712~1 ~ANDA~GUID~INES
PAR~ERS (mgll) (mg/I) (mgm) (m~l) (m~l) (mgfl) (mgm) (mgll) (mgfl) (mgll)
Turbidity, N.T.U 255 26 2~ 17.5 1820 75 700 24 .-
~i~hemical Oxygen Demand 5 U 3 U 6 U U U
~ONSTITUENTS (m~)
~Umony U U U U U U U U 0.003 ST
mic U U U U U U U U 0.025 ST 0.05
Be~lium U U U U U U U U
:hr~ium U U U U U U U U 0.05 ST 0.~
:opper U 0.0128 0.021 B U U U U U 0.2 ~
Mercury U U U U U U U U 0.~2 ST 0.~2
~lenium U U U U U U U U 0.01 ~ 0.01
~il~r U U U U U U U U 0.05 ~ 0.0~
'h~lium U U U U U U U U 0.~ ~
lanadium U U U U U U U U
C~nide U U U U U U U U 0.1 ST
Results in mgAg
IQUALIFIERS; ed NOTES:
U: Analyzed for but no~ detect GV: Guidanoe value
TOC: Total Organic Carbon ST: ~andard
I B:value les8 than contract ~: Nd iltabli~hed
TABLE 4-18 (coe~t.)
I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS
NYSOOH
MWSS MWSO MWe8 MW~D MW7S MW7D F'~ NYSOEC CLASS GA DRINKING
7125/91 7/25/91 7/24/gl 7/24/91 7/25/91 7/2~91 7/25Jgt STANDARDS/GUIDELINES STANDARDS
~OARAM ETERS (rog/I) (mg/I) (mgll) (mg/1) (rog/l) (mg/I) (mg/I) (mg/I) (rog/I)
Loloc Pt/Co. 15 15 35 50 15 250 10
iTurbidity, N,T.U 495 13.5 113 3.8 154 516 0.28
I Results in mg/I
!Alkalinity 8 230 267 401 46 60 1 -- ---
?mmonia Nitrogen U U iiii~iiiiiiii ?:!iiii~i~iiiiiiil 0.15 0.10 U 2 ST
3iochemical Oxygen Demand U 353 U 5 U U U --
=hemical Oxygen Demand 24 492 41 41 U 32 U
.~hloride 14 115 42 150 13 74 U 250 ST
Hardness 10 290 160 38~ 75 50 U
Nitrate U 0.21 0.13 0.05 1.39 ::::::::::::::::::::::: 0.17 10
~ullate 11 70 125 157 20 49 2 250 ST
Total Kjeidahl Nitrogen 0.23 1.18 13.15 21.6 1.56 12.7 U
',ONSTITU ENTS (mg~l)
eduminum 0.460 0.319 0.754 U 0.664 8.88 U
~nOmony U U U U U U U 0.003 ST
~'eenic U U U U U U U 0.025 ST 0.05
Barium U O.05aB 0.140B 0.134B 0.072B 0.110B U 1 ST
Beryllium U U U U U U U
:edmium U U U U U U U 0.01 ST 0.01
:alcium U 51.1 42.3 80.4 15.6 109 U
Chromium U U U U U 0.021 U 0.05 ST 0.05
:olbalt U U U U U U U
:opper U U U U U 0.022 B U 0.2 ST
............................. i:;iiiii~i!~ii!i!i!i
O.3
ST
earl 0.005 0.005 0.01S U U 0.018 U 0.25 ST 0.05
~agnesium 2.18B 28,7 11.1 iii: ~:i?! ~ ii:!i~i::! 3.49B 6.27 U 35aY
...................... .............. ....
Uanganese 0.11o :!::i~:~i !i!i!i~!::~!~iiiiiii U
aercury U U U U U U U O.OO8 ST 0.002
lickel U U U 0.051 U U U
Potassium U 3.77 42.5 44.8 5.31 3.92 B U
;elenium U U U U U U U 0.01 ST 0.01
iilver U U U U U U U 0.05 ST 0.05
Sodium 8.12 .......... ........ i::::iii~i!ili;iii! le.e ~?.r:~::::~::[ U 20 ST
'hallium U U U U U U U 0.004 ST
tanadium U U U U U 0.031 B U
Zinc U 0.049 0.020 0.014 B U 0.067 U 0.3 ST
:yanide U U U U U U U 0.1 ST
Io~a~ U .221 .158 .393 U U .538 I ST
Results in mg/kg
TOC 2.2 149 02.g 78.8 48.6 12.9 U
U: Analyzed fo~ but no~ detected GV: Guidance value
f 3C; Tolal Organic Carbo~ ST: S~andard
:value less than contract : No~ established
required limits but greater than ::[i[:ii[??:![::!i[iii!ii~alua exceeds allowable standard/guidance value
instrument detectlo~ limits. :::'::: ...........
AREA
MW-5
$-6883
Source: HAGER - RICHTER
GEOSCIENCE, INC.
GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
AUGUST~ 1991
OVERHEAD
ELECTRIC
LINES
WASTE OIL
STORAOE
LEGEND
EXISTING BUILDING
ON LANDFILL SITE
--x--x--x-- EXISTING FENCE LINE
EXISTING GROUND WATER
MONITORING WELL
GROUND WATER
MONITORING WELL CLUSTER
S - 69761 ·
MW-I
WELL SCREEN INTERVAL
o 3oo
SCALE IN FEET
;TION
CENTER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL
CONDUCTIVITY LOGS AND
WELL SCREEN INTERVALS
FIGURE 4-23
Iron was found at a concentration of 1.55 mg/l at private well GW-7, which is directly
downgradient of monitoring well MW-4D where it was found at a concentration of oniy
0.518 mg/1. Similar to sodium, iron concentrations in the upgradient wells MW-1S and MW-ID
are elevated and above standards (1.35 mg/1 and 0.99 mg/l, respectively). Although it is possible
that the elevated levels of iron and sodium present in well GW-7 are the result of the leachate
plume, the presence of these metals at similar elevated concentrations in upgradient wells makes it
appear more like ambient conditions.
Selenium was found to exceed the NYSDEC Class GA standard of 0.01 mg/l in wells
S-68916, WS-6 and WS-10 (see Figure 4-3) during previous sampling investigations. Selenium
was undetected in groundwater samples collected as part of this investigation. Selenium was
detected in two rounds of sampling in well S-68916 but was not detected in two subsequent
sampling rounds. Relatively high levels of 12.0 mg/1 and 23.0 mg/l of selenium were found in
wells WS-6 and WS-10, respectively. Well WS-6 is located upgradient of the landfill. Well
WS-10 is located too far west of the landfill to be considered either up or downgradient of the
landfill. The presence of selenium in wells WS-6 and WS-10 is, therefore, due to other sources or
was an isolated occurrence.
A comparison of upgradient water quality (MW-IS) to downgradient water quality at the
site boundary (MW-4S and MW-5S) indicates higher levels of metals (iron, manganese and
sodium) exceeding standards upgradient of the landfill in the water table wells as compared to
downgradient. Although metal concentrations were elevated at the downgradient site boundary at
the deep well locations, the levels were generally lower or equal to those found in the remainder of
the on-site monitoring wells.
Table 4-19 shows the metals found to contravene NYSDEC Class GA standards and
guidelines in groundwater samples collected a part of this investigation as well as the recent
USEPA site inspection. All inorganic constituents found to exceed standards were summarized
and presented in Figure 4-24. Phenol was not included in this figure because it was found in
uniform concentrations in all wells sampled (both upgradient, on-site and downgradient) and,
therefore, does not aid in the characterization of the plume. Copper was detected slightly above
standards in upgradient well GW-I but was not found elsewhere contravening standards.
Similarly, zinc was detected at a concentration above NYSDEC standards in downgradient supply
well GW-5 but at a low concentration throughout the remainder of the study area. The results of
the USEPA sampling program indicate that there is no impact from the landfill due to metals in
downgradient water supply wells. As previously discussed, the only metals found to exceed
s ~20~o 4-73
Table 4-19
NETALS EXCEEDING STANDARDS/GUIDELINES IN GROUNgdATER
PART 360 AND PHASE II INVESTIGATION AND
USEPA SITE INSPECTION RESULTS
(all results in rog/l)
Iron ~agneslum~ Hanganese Sodium Copper Z(nc
NewNonltorinoWells (0.3 ST) (35 GV) (0.3 ST) (20 ST) (0.2 ST) (0.3 ST)
HW-1S (UT 1.35' 7.74 0.620* 41.6' ND 0.016
liV/-1D (UT 0.988* 9.22 0.243 16.3 0.012 0.036
MW-2S (D) 5.85* 22.0 4.0* 75.9* 0.021 0.017
Ft~-2D {0) 1.78' 63.2* g.89' 202* ND 0.017
HW-3S (D) 1.55' 32.8 21.7' 135' ND ND
F~I-3D (D) 5.39* 57.8* 23.5* 155' ND 0.019
NV-4S (D) O.07g 1.g5 0.040 2.40 ND ND
HV/-4D (D) 0.518' 60.3* 1.42' 167' ND ND
H~-SS (D) 0.757* 2.16 O.110 8.12 ND ND
NV-SD (D) 1.03' 28.7 0.627* 62.6* ND 0.049
HW-6S (D) 17.5' ll.1 1.59' 85.7* ND 0.020
Ft~-6O (O) 0.758* 3g.3' 13.4' 114.0' ND 0.014
F~/~TS (D) 2.24* 3.49 0.455* 16.6' ND ND
1~-7D (D) 19.2' 6.27 1.Og* 88.6* 0.022 0.067
Well
Depths (ft)
52
152
27
85
55
125
73
150
77
136
56
145
50
125
USEPA Sample Locati~n~:
GW-1 (UT 0.335* J 0.367* 27.1' 0.213' 0.024 90
GW-2 (UT 3.44* 9.57 3 21.7' 0.084 0.297 --
GW-3/GW-4 (S-68916) (D) 10.1'/9.72' 43.4*/42* 3.02'/2.9' 158'/153' 0.031/0.031 0.197/0.195 102
GW-5 (D) 0.246 12.4 3 12 0.156 0.405* --
GW-6 (O) 0.284 9.14 3 8.73 0.185 0.038 85
GW-7 (D) 1.55' 19.2 J 27.4* ND 0.214 lO1
GW-8 (D) J J ND 8.67 0.059 0.022 90
ST - Standard
GV - Guidance Value
O - Downgradlent
U - Upgr&dient
*Exceeds Standard/Guidance Value
ND - Not Detected
J - Below Detection Limit
S14830
mm mm m mmmm imm mm mm
CONSTITUENT CONCENTRA3]ON CONS~IUENT CO~CENTRA~ON I CONSTI~JENi I COflCEN~A~ON
Zn -- 0.405 * ~ Zn ..... 0.038 ~ Zn ~ 0.022
C~LORIDE NA ~ ~L~C CHL~IBE NA
CONSnmENT m CONCENmAnO)~ '[ gW 6
CHLORIDE ~X - '
O -7
~_ ~-- ND ~ ~ ~ ' '~ ' --
CHLORIDE ~ 5 290; ~MW-4
Mq 22 63.2~ AMMONIA ND ND
Ne ~5.~; 202. CHLORIDE '~ 115
~~ J -~ _~ _ SHADOW DEEP
CONC[m~TJO,
COUS~EUT CW-~ ~W-4 ~ ~
Mq 0.064 ~.~{ ] ~ AMMONIA 38.3 * 26.1
j Mn 3.02 * 2.90 * ' gW--3,GW-4(S-6B916) NI~A~ 0.89 NP
N~ 158 * 153 * MW-6 MW-3
Zn 0.020 0.014
J ~ .q 9.57
m ~ ~n J
No - ~ ~ CHLORIDE HA
NmmA~ ~ ' LEGEND
~ ~ DESIGNATION DESCRIP~ON
~o~T~ou ~ HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION GROUNDWATER
CONS~ENT ~ ~ S~68916 MONITORING WELL AND SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Fe ~ ~* ~ USEPA GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
~ ~ ~n ~;' ~ Fe IRON
j ~~--JJ Zn 0.016 0.036 Mn MANGANESE
---~M~NIA ~ 0.17 0,09 No SODIUM
~E 24 Zn ZINC
~ AMMONIA AMMONIA
NITRA~ NITRA~
CHLORIDE CHLORIDE
ND NOT DETEC~D
NA NOT ANALYZED
d PRESENT BUT BELOW DE~C~ON LIMIT
DIRECTORY: C:~1027 0 400 * PRESENT ABOVE STANDARDS/GUIDELINES
DA~: SEPT lggl ~
SCALE: 1~1 SCALE IN FE~ ALL RESULTS IN ug~
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD ~NDFILL
Dvirka
~ and INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS EXCEEDING C~SS GA
~,[tiJy,~,~[~.~ GROUNDWATER STANDARDS/OUIDELINES IN OROUNDWATER Fi8URE 4-24
CONCENTRATION
CONSIlTUENT
Mn 0.040 1,42_
No 2.40 167 *
Zn ND ~I_D_ _
AMMONIA ND 34~6 *
NITRA1E 0.64 0.91_
CHLORIDE 5 290 *
CONCENTRATION
CONS~TUENT
l SHALLOW DEEP
AMMONIA _g_~ :_B_ * 88~0 *
CHLORIDE 133 333 *
I
!
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NYSDEC Class GA standards, excluding zinc, were iron and sodium, which were found in supply
well GW-7; however, these metals also exceeded standards in the upgradient wells. Therefore, it
appears that the plume is fairly limited in areal extent and does not extend a significant distance
downgradient of the landfill boundary.
4.5.4.3 - Leachate Parameter Sampling R¢sults
Leachate parameters found to comravene NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards
include ammonia, chloride, nitrate and phenol. Sample results are shown in Table 4-18. Phenol
was found to contravene standards in all of the monitoring wells sampled. Phenol was found in
uniform concentrations ranging from 0.010 to 0.030 rog/l, as compared to the NYSDEC Class GA
groundwater standard of 0.001 mg/l, but is well below the New York State Depax~ent of Health
(NYSDOH) drinking water standard of 0.050 mg/l. Previous analytical data for phenols is quite
limited but was found in slightly elevated concentrations in Suffolk County wells S-68916
(0.002 rog/l) and S-68831 (0.004 rog/l). Both these wells are located downgradient of the former
scavenger waste lagoons. Since phenol was found in elevated concentrations both upgradiem and
downgradient of the landfill, and in both the shallow and deep portions of the aquifer, it is likely
that its presence is indicative of background conditions at the site.
Ammonia was found exceeding the NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standard of 2 mg/1 at
monitoring wells MW-2S and MW-2D (92.8 and 88.0 mg/l), MW-3S and MW-3D (38.3 and
26.1 mg/1) and MW4D (34.6 mg/1). Ammonia was undetected in shallow well MW4S. These
elevated levels are most likely due to the leachate plume identified previously in the discussion
concerning metals in groundwater. It is important to note that the concentration found in
monitoring well MW-4D (located directly downgradient of MW-2D) is roughly half that found in
monitoring well MW-2D. Again, this indicates an attenuation of the plume as it migrates off-site.
Chloride, although not toxic, is a good leachate indicator since its presence corresponds closely
with areas of elevated metal concentrations as well as areas of elevated ammonia. Chloride was
found in concentrations contravening the NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standard of 250 mg/l at
monitoring wells MW-2D (333 mg/l), MW-3S (293 mgtl), MW-3D (274 mg/l) and MW-4D
(290 mg/1).
Nitrate was found in contravention of the NYSDEC guideline of 10 mW1 in monitoring well
MW-7D (11.9 mg/l). The concentrations in the remaining wells were generally low and ranged
from undetected in wells MW-2D, MW-3D and MW-SS, to 1.69 mg/l in upgradient well MW-ID.
s ~2060 4-76
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
Groundwater samples collected during the USEPA site inspection were not analyzed for
leachate parameters except for phenol. Phenol was not detected in any groundwater sample
collected during the site inspection. However, previous analytical results obtained four
downgradient private supply well Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (see Figure 4-3) show levels of ammonia, nitrate,
chloride and phenol below NYSDEC Class GA standards. Nitrate was found above groundwater
standards in upgradient wells S-69761 and S-76687, as well as upgradient private supply wells
WS-4, WS-6, WS-7 and WS-9. Therefore, based on the results of this investigation, leachate has
not caused an impact on downgradient water supply.
s ~20~ 4-77
mm m mm mm m m, mm mm m mm
!
I
I
!
I
i
I
t
!
!
I
I
!
!
I
!
!
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analytical results of the Part 360 and Phase ri Hydrogeotogic Investigation
groundwater and subsurface soil sampling programs presented in Section 4.5 of this report, the
following conclusions are presented.
O
O
Groundwater - The only organic compounds found to exceed NYSDEC Class GA
groundwater standards/guidelines were 1,2-dichloroethane and 1,2-dichloropropane at
low levels. 1,2-Dichloropropane was found is previous investigations upgradient and
downgradient of the landfill. 1,2-Dichluroethane was found only in deep wells
MW-6D and S-68916 located just downgradient of the former scavenger waste lagoons.
With regard to TAL inorganics, only iron, magnesium, manganese and sodium were
found to exceed groundwater standards/guidelines. The distribution of these metals is
well defined and appears to indicate a weak plume emanating from the landfill. It must
be noted, however, that essentially all of these metals were present in upgradient wells
in contravention of standards/guidelines, and downgradient water supply sampling
results were indicative of background conditions.
Iron and sodium were found to exceed standards in downgradient supply well GW-7
sampled during the USEPA site inspection. Zinc was also found to exceed standards in
downgradient supply well GW-5 but was not found in any on-site water samples. Well
GW-7 is located directly downgradient of well MW-4D where iron, magnesium,
manganese and sodium were all found to exceed standards. The elevated levels of iron
and sodium in well GW-7 may be attributable to the leachate plume emanating from
the landfill, although the presence of elevated levels of these metals upgradient suggest
ambient water quality.
Leachate parameters which exceeded groundwater standards/guidelines included
ammonia, nitrate and phenol. As with the metals, the distribution of these parameters
del'me a limited plume from the landfdi. Nitrate was found to contravene standards
only in downgradient well MW-7D, whereas phenol was found in all monitoring at
relatively uniform concentrations indicating background conditions.
Soil - Only one subsurface soil sample was collected as part of this investigation. The
sample was colleted from well cluster MW-6 from a depth of 11-13 feet. Volatile
compounds detected include 2-propanone, 1,2-dichlorobenzene and 1,3-dichloro-
benzene although at levels considered insignificant for soil. No toxic metals were
detected at levels posing a threat to groundwater.
As a result of samples obtained during the Part 360/Phase II investigation, based on leachate
indicators and a few metals, it appears that there is a weak, limited plume emanating from the
Southold landfill. The plume is dense and appears to be migrating along the clay interface.
Previous water quality sampling of off-site private wells indicate groundwater quality comparable
to background (upgradient) conditions, although elevated levels of iron and sodium were found
5-1
Iff
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
above standards in downgradient well GW-7. It is uncertain whether the presence of these metals
is due to the leachate plume or representative of background conditions since these metals were
found in elevated concentrations in upgradient wells MW-IS and MW-ID.
Contaminants found in soil samples obtained from the former scavenger waste lagoon as
part of the USEPA site inspection show elevated levels of one semivolatile compound
(chloroanaline) and a few metals. Although the elevated metals were found to contravene
standards/guidelines in some on-site wells, none of the organics found in soil in the former lagoons
were found in groundwater beneath the landfill site.
Sl4710 5-2
6.0 RECOMM]~]~DATION$
The March 1991 USEPA site inspection report gave the Southold landfill site a
recommendation of "Low Priority for Further Action." This recommendation was based on an
analysis of the potential for contamination of domestic supply wells in the area, the potential for
nearby residents to be exposed to hazardous substances through air releases (primarily methane)
and the potential for direct contact with contaminated soil.
The results of the Part 360 and Phase 12[ Hydrogeologic Investigation confirm the f'mdings of
the USEPA site inspection report, as well as those of previous investigations. The findings of the
Part 360/Phase 11 investigation indicate that a weak plume is emanating from the landfill, but is
limited, in that the plume has not caused any observable impacts to downgradient water quality in
any off-site water supply wells. It is felt that the 14 newly installed monitoring wells as part of
this investigation provide an adequate and comprehensive groundwater monitoring network,
eliminating the need for further drilling and sampling activities in the foreseeable future.
Therefore, continued routine, long-term sampling of this monitoring network is recommended in
order to provide sufficient data to fulfill the Part 360 landfill closure and expansion requirements.
The long-term monitoring plan is designed to fulfill the Part 360 requirements for landfill
closure. In developing this plan, all sampling data obtained from the Part 360 and Phase II
investigation, as well as all previous investigations, was evaluated to determine the most
reasonable and cost-effective approach to continued monitoring at the Southold Landfall.
The Part 360 requirements call for all environmental monitoring points not previously
sampled to be sampled and analyzed for two rounds of quarterly sampling. The first round of
sampling was performed for baseline parameters. The second round of sampling will be
performed for routine parameters. Although elevated levels of contaminants were detected just
downgradient of the landfill calling for additional rounds of baseline sampling (as specified in Part
360), the existing data base is considered sufficient so that the second and subsequent rounds of
sampling be performed for select routine parameters. Sampling frequency will be semiannually
for the first year and annually thereafter. This second round of sampling is primarily designed to
confirm the results of the f~rst (baseline) round of sampling. Sampling parameters for both and
subsequent rounds are presented in Table 6-1.
s~ac, ao 6-1
I
I
!
I
1
I
1
I
i
I
I
1
I
i
Table 6-1
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
BASRI INE AND ROUTINE PARAM~I'~RS TO BE ANALYZED
Parameters to be Analyzed(1)
1. Field Parameters
First Round Closure
of Existing Landfill
(Baseline) - Completed*
Second and Subsequent
Rounds Closure of
Existing Landfill
(Routine ~
Static Water Levels X X
Specific Conductance X X
X X
Temperature. -(2)
Floaters or Sinke~ X
pH X X
Eh X X
Field Observations(3) X X
2. Leachate Indicators
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) X
Ammonia X X
Nitrate X X
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) X
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) X
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) X
Sulfate X
Alkalinity X
Phenols X
Chloride X X
Total Hardness (as CaCO3) X
Turbidity X X
Color X
Boron X
3. Metals
Potassium X
Sodium X
Iron X
Manganese X
Magnesium X
Lead X
Cadmium X
Aluminum X
Calcium X
X
X
X
X
Toxic Metals
I
!
Antimony X
Arsenic X
Beryllium X
Barium X
Cadmium X
Chromium (total) X
s~r,4o 6-2
,!
Table 6-1 (continued)
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
BASI~I.FNE AND ROUTINE PARAMETERS TO BE ANALYZED
First Round Closure
of Existing Landfill
Parameters to be Analyze0(1) ~*
Chromium - Hexavalent(4)
Copper X
Lead X
Mercury X
Nickel X
Selenium X
Silver X
Thallium X
Zinc X
Second and Subsequent
Rounds Closure of
Existing Landfill
CRoutine)
Cyanide X
4. Volatile Organics(5) X
X
(1) All samples must be whole and unfdtered, except as otherwise specified by NYSDEC.
(2) Any floaters or sinkers found must be analyzed separately for baseline parameters.
(3) Any unusual conditions (colors, odors, surface sheens, etc.) noticed during well
development, purging or sampling must be reported.
(4) Since chromium has not been detected in previous sampling, hexavalent chromium was not
analyzed for as part of this investigation.
(5) Volatile organics are to be analyzed using EPA Methods 601/602.
*Not all parameters in Part 373-2, Appendix 33 are analyzed under TCL+30.
6-3
All compounds/analytes detected hi groundwater during this investigation that were found at
concentrations exceeding standards are included in Table 6-2. All compounds/analytes detected
above standards in any previous sampling event that were either not found or in exceedance of
standards during the baseline sampling are also included in Table 6-2.
For the purposes of continued monitoring at the landfill, it is recommended that the
NYSDEC Part 360 Routine Parameter list be modified to target specifically those compounds and
analytes that are proven to be present as a result of landf'dl operations. The leachate indicator list
was modified to include only ammonia, nitrate, chloride and turbidity. The metals list was
modified to include only sodium, kon, manganese and magnesium since these were the only
metals found to contravene NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards and/or guidelines and
NYSDOH drinking water standards. Volatile organic compounds will continue to be analyzed
using Method 601/602 as per landfill closure investigation requirements.
Since the number of compounds and analytes that are indicative of the leachate plume
emanating from the Sonthold landfill is small and contaminant levels ave shown to approach
background (upgradient) conditions in samples collected off-site and downgradient, it is
recommended that the sampling frequency be modified from quarterly to semiannually for the first
year and annually thereafter. Long Island landfill closure under Part 360 calls for continued
monitoring for a 30-year period subsequent to closure, with the NYSDEC reviewing the sampling
program every five years. A summary report showing all sampling results will be submitted to the
NYSDEC annually.
The results of this Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation, as well as the findings
of the most recent USEPA site inspection and previous sampling programs, indicate that, based on
comparison to the NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standards/guidelines and the NYSDOH
drinking water standards, the Sonthold landfffll is not a threat to human health or the environment
and should be removed from the list of potential hazardous waste sites (Class 2a site) and be
delisted entirely.
S 14640 64
[I
I
I
I
i
t
I
i
I
ti~
il
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 6-2
$OUTHOLD LANDFILL HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
COMPOUNDS/ANALYTES DE'UEt:~'ED ABOVE
NYSDEC CLASS GA STANDARDS/GUIDELINES
AND/OR NYSDOH DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
Volatiles
1,2 Dichloroethane (D)
1,2 Dichloropropane (U,D)
Benzene* (U)
Total Xylenes* (U)
Chlorobenzene* (D)
1,1,1 Trichlorotrifluoroethane* (D)1
Tetrachloroethene* (U)
1,2,3 Trichloropropane* (U)
Metals
Iron (U,D)
Magnesimn (U,D)
Manganese (U,D)
Sodium (U,D)
Selenium* (U,D)
Copper* (U,D)
Zinc* (U,D)
PesticidesYPCBs
Toxaphene* (D) 1
Atdicarb* (U)
Carbofuran* (U)
PCB Arochlor-1260* (D)1
Ammonia (U,D)
Nitrate (U)
Phenol (U,D)
Chloride (D)
*Compounds/analytes found to exceed standards/guidelines only in previous rounds of sampling
and mostly in off-site areas.
U - Upgradient
D - Downgradient
1Compounds found to contravene standards only during one sampling round.
$146d~ 6-5