United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-86/026
June 1986
£EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleae rtGd Inftnlctionf on the ,evene /HIOTt completing)
,. REPORT NO. \2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-86/026
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION June 27, 1986
vestal Water Supply Well 1-1, NY 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORISI 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM EL.EMENT NO.
". CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SUPPL.EMENTARY NOTES
145. ABSTRACT
The vestal Water Supply Well 1-1 is located in the Town of Vestal, Broom County, NY-.
on the south bank of the Susquehenna River with an industrial park immediately tQ.. the
southeast of the well, and several marsh areas and drainage ditches encompassing .and
interlacing the industrial park. well 1-1 is one of three production wells in water
District 1 intended to provide drinking water to several water districts in the Vestal
area. In 1978 a chemical spill at the IBM plant in Endicott, a town across the
susquehenna River, led to a testing program for all drinking wells in the vicinity for
synthetic compounds. As a result of this testing, significant concentrations of
chlorinated solvents were discovered in well 1-1, and the well pumpage was diverted to
the Susquehenna River where it presently continues to discharge under a SPDES permit.
Subsequent investigation has since indicated that the presence of chlorinated solvents
in the well is not related to the spill at the IBM plant. In la te 1982 an
investigation, contracted by the Town of Vestal, implicated, in part, the area around
the southeast corner of Stage Road as a suspected source. This is an area which borders
with the industrial park along Stage Road. In July 1985 the EPA rejected a FFS
recommendation to construct a large capacity water main between Water Districts 1 and 5
in order to improve the reliability of the District 1 supply. This recommendation was
rejected because the agency believed that a sufficient capacity of good quality water
(See Attached Sheet)
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Record of Decision
Vestal water Supply Well 1-1, NY
Contaminated Media: gw
Key contaminants: VOCs, TCE, chlorinated
solvents
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (T/lis Repo,,) 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 51
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pagel 22. PRICE
None
!PA '0''" 2220-1 (R.... .-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-86/026
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1, NY
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
still existed for the service area, and that no short-term threat of losing
this capacity was present. The primary contaminants of concern include:
VOCs, TCE .
The selected remedial action includes: restoration of District 1 water
supply capacity to the level that existed prior to loss of-well 1-1;
provision of a water supply to the district that exceeds applicable or
relevant and appropriate standards, thereby providing a very high level of
public health protection; hydraulic containment of the plume of contaminants
via pumping well 1-1, thereby protecting other District 1 water supply
wells; cessation of untreated discharge from well 1-1 to the Susquehenna
River. The estimated capital cost is $389,400 with annual O&M costs of
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
-
.~
-
SITE:
-
Vestal Water Supply Well 1-1, Vestal, Broome County,
New York
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents
describing the analysis of cost effectiveness of remedial
alternatives for this site:
- Well Field Contamination
- Vestal Water Supply Well
- Vestal Water Supply Well
Feasibility Study
- Staff Summaries, Letters and
- Responsiveness Summary
Investigation (R.J. Martin)
1-1 Focused Feasibility Study
1-1 Remedial Investigation/
Recommendations
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
This Record of Decision calls for the following actions:
o Construction of a packed column air stripping system on well
1-1 in order to return the well to full service as Vestal
Water District 1'5 primary water supply. This cost effective
alternative will have the following positive impacts:
1)
restoration of District 1 water supply capacity to the
level that existed prior to loss of well 1-1,
3)
provision of a water supply to the district that exceeds
applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, thereby
providing a very high level of public health protectiOOJ
hydraulic containment of the plume of contaminants via
pumping well 1-1, thereby protecting other District 1
water supply wells, and
2)
. .
cessation of untreated discharge from well 1-1 to the
Susquehanna River.
o Initiation of a supplemental Remedial Investigation and Feasi-
bility Study to further investigate the extent of soil contami-
nation in suspected source areas and to evaluate possible source
control measures.
-------
.
.
-2-
DECLARATIONS
Cnn~i~r.p.nt with the Comprehensive Environmental Respo~e, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the national
Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have determined that the -
construction of an air stripping system to treat Vestal water
supply well 1-1 and its subsequent use as the Town's primary
water supply is a cost-effective remedy and provides adequate
protection of public health, welfare and the environment.
r-urthc~uvic, r have determined that it is necessary to undertake
a supplemental Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study to
investigate the extent of soil contamination in suspected source
areas and to evaluate possible source control measures. A
determination regarding future source control actions will be
made upon completion of this work.
-
The State of New York has been consulted and agrees with the
approved remedy. In addition, the action will require future
operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities to ensure
the continued effectiveness of the remedy. These activities
are presently considered eligible for Trust Fund monies for a
period of one year: however, pending CERCLA legislation may
affect this eligibility and/or the period of eligibility.
Funding of this remedial action will occur at the time of CERCLA
reauthorization: moreover, I have determined that the action
being taken will be appropriate when balanced against the future
availability of Trust Fund monies for use at other sites.
.
.
.:Iv,.;? l~, (9il
-------
£!!:
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
-
. .;..
:!
Vestal Water Supply Weill-I, Vestal, Broome County,
New York
-
.
.
DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
I am basing my decision primarily on the following documents
describing the analysis of cost effectiveness of remedial
alternatives for this site:
- Well Field Contamination
- Vestal Water Supply Well
- Vestal Water Supply Well
Feasibility Study
- Staff Summaries, Letters and
- Responsiveness Summary
Investigation (R.J. Martin)
1-1 Focused Feasibility Study
1-1 Remedial Investigation/
Recommendations
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
.
This Record of Decision calls for the following actions:
o Construction of a packed column air stripping system on well
1-1 in order to return the well to full service as Vestal
Water District 1's primary water supply. This cost effective
alternative will have the following positive impacts:
1)
restoration of District 1 water supply capacity to the
level that existed prior to loss of weIll-I,
provision of a water supply to the district that exceeds
applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, thereby
providing a very high level of public health protectioOJ
2)
3)
hydraulic containment of the plume of contaminants via
pumping weIll-I, thereby protecting other District 1
water supply wellsJ and
cessation of untreated discharge from well 1-1 to the
Susquehanna River.
4)
o Initiation of a supplemental Remedial Investigation and Feasi-
bility Study to further investigate the extent of soil contami-
nation in suspected source areas and to evaluate possible source
-------
-4-
Trichloroethylene also has been shown to affect the same target
organs in laboratory animals and humans in the workplace as do
the other 'three chlorinated compounds of concern. In ~ddition,
there is som~ evidence from animal studies to suggest~he pos-
sibility that trichloroethylene is a potential human ciTcinogen.
Most of the exposures to contaminants associated with the plume
of contamination have been or will be at low levels. Since
carcinogenic effects are often related to low level exposures,
trichloroethylene is therefore considered the major contaminant
of concern.
Exposure to these contaminants is almost non-existent at the
present time, since well 1-1 has been taken out of service and
~he pumpage to waste discharges from a pipe beneath the surface
of the Susquehanna River. Possible exposure routes and receptors
could change, however, with implementation of various remedial
alternatives. These potential exposures have been analyzed in
the risk assessment performed for this site and will be discussed
in the alternatives evaluation.
ENFORCEMENT
.
No negotiations with potentially responsible parties (PRP) have
been conducted up to the present time. Information request let-
ters were sent out in May, 1986, to two companies in the Stage
Road industrial park, namely, Chenango Industries and Neil Guiles
Asphalt Company. The latter presently leases its property from
O'Brian Oil and Supply, who will also be receiving an information
request in the near future.
Enforcement efforts have been hampered by the lack of obvious
sources of contamination. The RI/FS has succeeded in determin-
ing the two most likely locations where contamination entered
the groundwater, therefore, enforcement activity is now ex-
pected to increase as a result. The supplemental RI/FS which
will further investigate suspected source areas will be designed
to facilitate this enforcement effort.
The Town of Vestal has also initiated a claim against Chenango
Industries pursuant to Section 112 of CERCLA for loss of weIll-I.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
The public health and environmental objectives of the RI/FS were
as follows:
o Contain the plume of contamination to mitigate further contami-
nation of public water supplies,
o Provide a safe, reliable water supply to the Town of Vestal, and
o Ensur~ that the quality and best use of the Susquehanna River
-------
I
,
-5-
The objective of the proposed supplemental source control RI/FS
will be to determine which, if any, source control measures would
be feasible and cost effective.
-
Ir.iti3l S~~~ening of Alternatives
~
General remedial technologies that were initially considered in
the feasibility study were a variety of contaminant source con-
trols, groundwater decontamination methods and alternative
drinking water supplies (table 2). Since a supplemental source
control RI/FS will be performed in the near future, source
cnntrnl tQrhnnlogies were eliminated from further consideration
at the present time.
Feasible remedial technologies were further developed into an
array of ten alternatives (table 3) which were then subjected to
a preliminary screening based on environmental" public health
and cost criteria. All of the alternatives were considered to
meet or exceed applicable or relevant and appropriate standards
as measured at the water supply well. An off-site disposal
alternative will be developed as part of the supplemental RI/FS,
since source control technology might involve off-site disposal
of contaminated soils.
.
The preliminary screening of alternatives resulted in the elimi-
nation of six alternatives. Installation of extraction (inter-
ceptor) wells was eliminated based on technical problems in
modeling the complex subsurface hydrogeology, with no guarantee
that extraction wells in combination with well 1-1 would effect
aquifer clean-up significantly faster than the continuation of
pumping well 1-1 alone. At the present time, it is estimated that
continued pumping of well 1-1 will cleanse the aquifer in 20+
years. Also, there would be significantly higher costs to imple-
ment an extraction well alternative, with minimal benefits gained
through its implementation.
Provision of a supplemental water supply from either Johnson City
or Binghamton was eliminated because they would be an order of
magnitude higher in cost with no additional environmental benefits.
Installation of a new water
the uncertainty in siting a
that it would not encounter
1-1 and 1-3.
supply well was eliminated due to
new well. There is no guarantee
similar problems to those of wells
The use of granular activated carbon to remove volatile organics
from well 1-1, either alone or in conjunction with a packed
column air stripper, was removed from further consideration
because of higher costs and greater difficulty of operation and
maintenance. At the present time, the environmental benefits of
air stripping with activated carbon over air stripping alone
are questionable; however, if the detailed design phase of this
project indicates a possibility of unreliable performance of
-------
~
-6-
then the use of activated carbon with air stripping will be're-
examined at that time. At a minimum, the packed column air strip-
per will be designed with the capability of future addition of
an activated carbon system should the Town of Vestal ~entually
decide to implement additional treatment. ~
Detailed Analysis of'Alternatives
The initial screening, therefore, refined the lis~ of remedial
alternatives to the following:
o No action;
I
o Air stripping of well 1-1 as a primary water supply;
o Air stripping of well 1-1 as a secondary water supply; and
o Provision of supplemental water supply from District 5.
A detailed analysis of these alternatives was then performed,
consistent with 40 CFR Part 300.68(i). The detailed analysis
of each alternative included refinement and specification of
alternatives in detail, with emphasis on use of established
technology; detailed cost estimation, including operation and
maintenance costs, and distribution of costs over time, evalua-
tion in terms of engineering implementation, reliability, and
constructabilitYJ assessment of the extent to which th~ alterna-
tive is expected to effectively prevent, mitigate, or minimize
threats to, and provide adequate protection of, public healthJ
and an analysis of any adverse environmental impacts.
.
~
Applicable or relevant and appropriate standards for this site
include this Agency's Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), which
have been proposed pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act, and
New York State's groundwater quality standards established pur-
suant to the Clean Water Act. The applicable proposed MCLs are
for trichloroethylene (5 ug/l) and l,l,l-trichloroethane (200
ug/l). The applicable State standard is for trichloroethylene
(10 ug/l).
Complete costs associated with the alternatives are presented
in table 4. A summary of the alternatives evaluation follows.
No Action
The'no action alternative is the continuation of the present
situation, which involves pumping well 1-1 to waste into the
Susquehanna River and using well 1-2 as the primary District
-------
-7-
This altarnative has been proven to be technically feasible
and effective since" it has alr~ady been implemented and has
been reliable over six years in terms of controllin~ the migra-
tion of the contaminant plume. Operation and maintanance (O&M)
i~ straig:1Lforward and approximates the normal opera1tion of a
water supply well. This alternative also provides a source of
drinking water, i.e. well 1-2, whose water quality exceeds
applicable or relevant and appropriate standards. However, the
long-term reliability of using well 1-2 with 1-) as reserve
capacity is questionable because of the limited options avail-
able in the event of mechanical failure or future contamination
of well 1-2. Also, this alternative includes the continued dis-
charge to the Susquehanna River of low levels of volatile
organic chemicals (VOCs) which, although not expected to create
a significant adverse environmental impact, is nevertheless a
negative feature of this alternative.
The present worth costs of the no action alternative are the
least of the four alternatives, although the costs of all four
alternatives are very similar and are not expected to playa
significant role in selection of a remedial alternative.
.
Air Stripping as Primary Water Supply
This alternative involves the installation of an air stripping
column approximately 40 feet in height (figure 7) near well
1-1, combined with retrofitting of the well's pump for the
desired flow rate and discharge pressure. To provide stripping
air to the column, a blower would be installed with the column.
A wet well and new effluent pump would be provided to pump the
treated water into the water supply distribution system. The
present discharge of well 1-1 into the Susquehanna River would
therefore be eliminated. Preliminary design calculations were
based on maximum expected influent VOC concentrations of approxi-
mately twice the maximum levels of contaminants found in the
last three years. To provide flexibility in the unlikely event
that VOC levels should rise above design levels, the column
would be designed so that either the column height could be in-
creased or activated carbon technology could be added as second-
ary treatment.
The technical feasibility and effectiveness of a properly de-
signed packed column air stripper is well documented for vola-
tile organic contaminants. O&M is not complicated, and actual
construction would be relatively easy and rapid. Since well
1-1 would continue to be pumped as it is under the no action
alternative,. the plume of contamination would still be effec-
tively controlled. The effluent from the stripper would provide
capacity for the average daily demand of District 1, with well
-------
-8-
to achieve an effluent limit which will approximate the level
associated with a 10-6 increase in cancer due to chronic tri-
chloroethylene exposure. The system will also be capable of
achieving an effluent limit of less than 1 ug/l for trichloro-
ethylene, which is considered the detection limit. .~erefore,
this alternative will exceed applicable or appropriate and rele-
vant standards, providing a very high level of public health
protection with no significant increase in cost. The long-term
reliability of District lis water supply will a1so be returned
to the level that existed prior to contamination of weIll-I.
Emissions from the air stripper will consist of extremely low.
levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons which will pose no chronic
or sUb-chronic health threats to downfield receptors. Any
, potential impacts to the biota of the Susquehanna River will
also be eliminated.
The present worth costs of this alternative are slightly greater
than the no action alternative, but less than the other alterna-
tives that survived preliminary screening.
Air Stripping as Secondary Water Supply
.
This alternative involves the same air stripping technology,
design criteria and operation and maintenance as the previously
discussed alternative. It would differ primarily in that well
1-1 would Supplement well 1-2 as reserve capacity and would
function as a primary water supply only in the event of a shut-
down of well 1-2. At times when well 1-1 was being pumped to
the distribution system, it would first be treated by the
packed tower aeration system. At other times, well 1-1 would
be pumped to the Susquehanna River without treatment.
. .
The technical feasibility and effectiveness of this alternative
do not vary from the previous one. The reliability of the
system in exceeding applicable or appropriate and relevant
standards is slightly greater, since the treated water from
well 1-1 would only be used occasionally, and at those times it
would be blended with uncontaminated water from well 1-2. How-
ever, reliability of air stripping technology is high enough
so that this advantage is considered minor.
Periodic untreated discharge of well 1-1 into the Susquehanna
River might have minimal adverse environmental impacts. Emis-
sions from the air stripper would be similar to those associated
with the previous alternative, but on an intermittent basis.
. .
This alternative is greater in present worth costs than the
operation of well 1-1 as a primary water supply due to the
additional power costs associated with periodic pumping to
-------
-9-
Supplemental Water Supply From District 5
Under this alternative, well 5-1 would be retrofitted~ith a pump-
ing capacity of 1 MGD, and Districts 1 and 5 would be~ntercon-
nected with an additional transmission pipe to make one district.
Wells 1-2 and 5-1 would then act as backup to each other with
each having the capacity (1 MGD) to supply the current peak
demand of beth districts. A new 10-inch diameter transmission
pipe would be installed between Districts 1 and 5 (figure 8) to
supplement the existing connection. The new pipe would be
sized to carry approximately 500 gpm, while the existing pipe
carries approximately 200 gpm. The exact pipeline route would
be determined during the design phase in addition to a more
detailed evaluation of the pressure differentials and water
usage. Well 1-1 would continue to be pumped to waste into the
Susquehanna River.
The technical feasibility and effectiveness of this alternative
is virtually guaranteed. O&M would be straightforward and
would approximate the normal operation of a water supply well.
In addition, it would provide a high degree of long-term relia-
bility for District l's water needs. However, this reliability
is contingent upon well 5-1, presently untreated, continuing to
produce high quality water. This alternative would also take
somewhat longer to implement than the a~r stripping alternatives,
and would involve temporary construction impacts along the pipe-
line route, which would mostly traverse previously disturbed
rights-of-ways. Untreated discharge of well 1-1 into the
Susquehanna River would continue under this alternative, which
would not be expected to create a significant adverse environ-
mental impact.
This is the most expensive of the four alternatives in terms
of total present worth.
.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The appropriate extent of remedy shall be determined by EPA's
selection of a cost-effective remedial alternative that effec-
tively mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides adequate
protection of public health and welfare and the environment.
This will normally require selection of a remedy that attains
or exceeds applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and
state public health and environmental requirements that have
been identified for the site.
Each of the al~ernatives selected for detailed evaluation is
considered an appropriate extent of remedy within the above
de.finition. Based on meetings with New York State, its con-
-------
, '
"
-10-
it is recommended that air stripping of well 1-1 with subsequent
distribution of the treated water as District l's primary water
supply be s~lected as the remedial action for this project.
Detailed capital cost estimates for the recommended ~ernative
are given in table s.
This alternative is only slightly higher in cost than the low-
est cost alternative i.e. no action, yet provides greater relia-
bility and flexibility for the District 1 water supply by means
of the restoration of District lis water supply to full capacity,
discontinues the present untreated discharge of well 1-1 to the
Susquehanna River, and has a wide measure of Town and public
support.
.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Community perception of the Vestal well 1-1 contamination
problem has been an important factor in placing this site on
the Superfund National Priorities List. Chlorinated solvents
were discovered in water from well 1-1 in April 1980. In.
response to several groundwater contamination problems in
Vestal, the Purity of Waters Committee was set up. Numerous
public meetings were held to discuss the issue and a large
measure of public concern was expressed. Considerable local
press regarding the issue contributed to public awareness.
Since the NPL listing in December 1982, public concern has
sUbsided, and the townspeople have been generally satisfied
that appropriate action is being taken and that no contaminated
water is being consumed. However, there is still concern
regarding the potential spread of contamination. In order to
avoid additional public concern, the Vestal Town Board adopted
a,l ug/l cleanup criterion for any single VOC prior to putting
well 1-1 back on/line. The selected alternative will be capable
of aChieving that criterion.
Specific concerns that were raised during the public comment
period, including comments made at the public meeting held on
June 10, 1986, at Town Hall in Vestal (figure 9), are answered
in the Responsiveness Summary. ,
.
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS
At the present time, there are no federal environmental laws
other than the Safe Drinking Water Act which are applicable to
implementing the selected remedial action at this site.
Trichloroethylene has been chosen by EPA for evaluation and
possible future regulation pursuant to the Clean Air Act's
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
-------
.
-11-
years. At the present time, EPA believes that the risk assess-
ment performed for the operation of the packed column .ir strip-
per has sufficiently demonstrated the extremely low r~k associ-
at~d ~ith the predicted level of air emissions on 1ik~ receptor
areas, using worst case assumptions throughout the a~'lysis.
FUTURE ACTIONS
A second operable unit consisting of source control remedial
measures may be implemented following the supplemental RI/FS and
issuance of a subsequent EPA Record of Decision. Source control
measures may be a cost-effective means of expediting the treatment
of the contaminated groundwater. .
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Preliminary cost estimates for the O&M of the packed column
air stripper are given in table 6.
A detailed description and schedule of O&M procedures, including
such activities as instrument readings, influent/effluent
sampling, equipment inspections, and maintenance of a spare
parts inventory will be developed as part of the design phase
of the project.
.
Once CERCLA trust fund eligibility for O&M costs expires, O&M
costs will then be borne by either the Town of Vestal or the
State of New York or both.
-------
00
, .
-12
SCHEDULE
-
Record of Decision 6/30/86
Initiate Negotiations with PRP's 7/86
;.
NegotiatiOnj Successful"
Negotiations Unsuccessful**
I
Amend Cooperative Agreement
I
Select Contractor
I
Sign Administrative Order
on Consent
Design
Approve Contract and
rnitia7 Design
Initiate Construction
I
Construction
Complete Construction
9/86
12/86
.
8/87
12/87
6/88
*Subsequent activity dates are subject to length of negotiations.
**Assumes State lead on design and the availability of funds in
-------
.
L
ICAU
,.
-
J
, 1111&.1
~
t IU LOMITIR
,
-
Figure
1
WELL 1-1 SITE STUDY AREA
I8CyCIld PIper
...., 88MI _.~
-------
---- ..
00
Figure
2
o
.
3CIO
,
o
EmllAnD IeALI
eGO 800 1200
,.111
1800'IET
.00 METeM
100
1
200
-
300
VESTAL WELL 1-1 STUDY AREA AND ENVIRO~S
. ...... .--'p '. ....... .'--".'. ""'.
.
-------
i
I
!
DO
I
1
1
..
1
...
.111
. 300
.... -
o
ESTIMAtED ICALI!
800 .. 1200
'00
200
300
'IOOUE'
400METEM
Figure
3
WATER TABLE CONTOUR MAP, APRIL 1985
. -.
.
-------
CURRENT MAX DAILY
DEMAND. 0.'" MOD
DISTRICT NO. .
1-1, '...IIOD
Figur8
t
I
CURRENT MAX DAIL V
DEMAND. lAG MOD
DISTRICT NO. 1
1-1, CONTAMINATED
1-2, UI MOD
1-3, UlMOD ICOIIROSIVEt
I
I
CURRENT MAX DAtL V
DEMAND. 2.82 MOD
DISTRICT NO. 4
4-1, REMOVIED
" 4-2, CONTAMINATED
4-3, 1,01MOD
4-4, 1." MOD
I
I SUNY
I IINGHAMTON
CITY DF
_NOHAIITON
TOWN OF VESTAL WATER DISTRICT INTERCONNECTIONS
.
-------
. .
'.
"
. a. -:-
,
~
.:,j. :...': --.~
..
.. ..
." .
. -
..
",- ...
,.
-
--
- ,
"
"
- .
-
.
- -
-
. -
, ..
- .
.-
',,' - . '.
. .
I .. .
Date
06-16-80
06-Z7-80
D7-GZ-8D
02-18-81
09-11-81
10-22-81
11-G&-81
01."..a
0%-1s-a
04-1 J-I2
0S-1o-a
0S-,,-12
06-1J-1Z
OS-M-U.
""1'"
..,....
~r.11nftS't~~Z""
1,1,1-
TrichIoN-
eth8n8
1,&00/1,500
1,600
1J
620
..
160
1U
US
,,.
..
1.,
,,,
,.,
28
,ao
.7
Table ~
t:.
WELL 1-1 HISTORICAL vac tlitLS
",11
Ta;
1,1,-
Dichloro-
eth8n8
1,2-
T,..". -
Dichlora-
ethylene
-
.
I
58
.
1X1/"O
.70
,
150
Z2
16
11
101
M
-
1"
"
"
"
7S
170
"
"0
81
-------
.#
. .
14-
11
'-J
..
1-2
.J..2IA
'.28
B'
e
B'
NOTf: U""'.IMd........ - ""~1uI ........
o 300
- -
IeALe
800
.100 fEEf
400 MI! TE'"
800
1200
300
o
100
200:
I I
, I
II
Figure
S
. AREAL EXTENT OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION - TOTAL
VOLATILE ORGANICS (ppb)
.
-
411.11t
-------
..
r
// ..
~
r-.t -
//"" ....
'-J.' 1"f 1-28A
. l~
..... ,.;S
'.aM ~{'
1-1' ~~
.. _,I.&A ior7
1-2 ... /fI/
..,.J8A i",,! ...12
'.21 I.He Ii -/1
'-21. . '/1
,.17. .4;' .,.JJ
. ~
AREAJ II .~
'~:~~
. .....--'.
.u
14-
81
. "-jI'
,..----~ IUAfACE
WAnR
DISCHARGE
BZ
(i)
IWAW
AREA
-;
BI
2
8
-
300
100
ICAI..
808
1200
300
IIG8 fliT
400 MlTIIII
41' ,III
.
100
2U8
Fipe
{,
lOCATIONS OF SURFACE DISCHARGES APPARENTLY RESULTING IN
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION .
-------
Table
2-
CtNER1t. RESPONSE ACTIO~ NaJ
ASSOCIATED REMEDIAL TECHNOlOCIES
Conhlllinent Source Control Method.
. In.taU groundwater M-orr ..11.
. Souree .li8ination
Croundwater Deeont8lllination Methodl
. InehU 8n interceptor -11
. Conti".. to pUIIp VeU 1-1 to ,-ute (NIl action)
. Treat Ve11 1-1
. Treat the 80Urce
Alternetive DrinkinG Water SuDDlie.
8 Treat Ve11 1-'
. Water ..pply 'I'. D18tr1ct No. ,
. Vater aupply ,,.. Jahnaon CU,
. Vat.er auppl, 'I'. 8ingh88ton
. Inahl1 8 ... -ter auppl, -11 i" Vater D18trict No. 1
-
;.
-------
. .
Tlbl.
S
WA1[1 DISllln III. 1 IftRAflfIi DlARAtJ£RISIICS
.
~,
.
Nt..n.tw.
W.ter Suppl, Sour..... In OpenUon
Well 1-1
to W.t.
"'11 1.1
to DIetrl-
butlon
Suppl888nt.1 .
W.ter Supply
W.lI 1-2
to DIehl-
but I...
WeU 1-'
to Dietrl-
but ion
[drectlon
Well
to W..te
,
.. Adlon
Air Shlppl",
11811 1-1.
Air Stripping
.11 1-1"
CAt Ad80rpt Ion
"'11 1-1
tClllblned Air
Str ippinglGAl:
Ad80rptlon Well
1-1
AI.. Stripping
htr8Ctlon Well
... ".11 1-1
Wete.. s..1, ft.
Wetrlef No. s
...t.r 5tJpp1, r...
Jahneon tit,
Water 5tJpp1, r...
81,....on
.... Wat... 5.lpp1,
...11
.
.
,
I
.
I
,
.
,
.
I
,
.
I ' . I
I I ,
I . ,
I I . ,
I I , 411 ,I II
~. I. At rull alp8CU,.
, . A8 euppl.....tel euppl,.
."'Ing W.II 1-2 . the prlur, .....1, ... ".11 1.1 . ..ppllt88f1t.
.."'1","'11 1-1 . tt. prl_rr ....1, end lfel1 1-2 . euppl888nt.
-------
. .
. .
..:.
"
.~
Tlbl.
5
ESTIMATE!) CApn-. D3ST 'iF AIR STRIPPING WElL 1-1 -
iuilding COnetructian .nd Mat.rial. "35,500
£quJpllent (Peeked COlum, Blowra, 10'._00
Pu8P8. COntrol., .te.)
Inatl'188ntauon .nd EJectrJcal .9,500
Subtot81 218,~0
£ngi...rlng and Cant Ing.ncy . ,,. 101 .000
-------
-
;.
T8bl.
,
ESTIMATm a , M CDSTS CF Alii STRIPPING WELl. 1-1 -
PD..,. $ 1.:5,300" $ 'O.,ISOt
: : S.pll"!1 2,500 2,500
Llbar 1.oaa 1,DDO
Malnten8nC8 Mat.rlala 11.400 " .400
$ 158,200/yr S 119,750/yr
.
Pr...nt tIIorthtt $ 1,.91,300 $1,128,900
. .ror blown, heIUr'Q, .tnUlIUon, l1ghUr'Q, ...
Incr...nt81 eoste for punplr'Q Wit" to tap 0' eol....
"Baaed on Well 1-1 aa the aupp1..nt81 eupply ('r.
Tml. ).1). =
tBaed on Well 1-1 .. the ,ri8ar, aupply «(r. Tel.
).1).
ttBued on '0 y.a,. . ,.. (PIA. 9.&269)".
~
f8C'ydId peper
-------
. ,
. ,
-
~
Tele
tt
ESTIMATED CDSTS FOR REMEDIAL ALTER~TIVES
Preeent
Worth- or Total
06" 06" Pruent
C8pihl Coat Coate Coate Worth
AUemath. '(S) (S/yr) ($) (S)
ND Actian 0 160,500 1,5",000 1,5",000
t .
Air Stripping W.ll 1-1-- )89..00 158,200 1..91.)00 1.880,700
.
All' Stripping Wall 1-1t 389..00 "9.750 1,1%8.900 1.518,300
Wahl' Suppl, rrlll Di8trict '.89'.'00
No. 5 .26.)DO 155.'00 '''''.800
"r...nt ..rth bead 0" )0 ,.a... at 101 (PIA. 9.4269).
UU81ng W.11 1-2 - t... pri..ry auppl, and W.11 1-1 - auppl...,t.
tUaing W.ll 1-1 aa the praar, auppl, and W.ll 1-2 a. .uppl-"t.
f'Kyded ..per
-------
'.
....
WILL
" ,~.1. ~:,I:,-:
Figur8
1
rKydId ......
RAW
WAT'"
TCI
~ PACKID
~ COLUMN
ILDWI"
lLL
T"IATID WATI"
CLlA" WILL
0"
"'II "YOI"
-
;.
TRIATID
WATt"
TD
DIIT"IIUTION
IYITIM
.
.----
--.--- .
SCHEMATIC OF PACKED COLUMN AERATION PROCESS
-------
I
I
1
1
I
/
~
/
I
o
SCALE 4000
anoGFU:T
.
1600METEAa
1000
2000
o 200 400
000
1200
Figure
8
PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY TRANSMISSION MAIN FROM WELL&-1 TO
DISTRICT NO.1
I'
. .
-------
- '.'
FUBL.Cm9MEETING
7:00 PM-June 10, 1986
TOWN HALL
Vestal Parkway West-Vestal, N.Y.
-
.~
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
. (DEC) will be holding a public meeting to explain and discusa the
remedial invest1g~Uon and feasibility study (RI/FS) that was carried
. out to determine the sourct and extent of contamination that was
identified in one of the town of Vestal's water supply wells. In 1980
volatile organic chemicals, primary trichloroethane (TCA).
dichloroethylene (DCE), dichloroethane (DCA) fAnd trichloroethylene
(TCE) D11 common- deQTeasera, were found In the town'. water .upply
well 1-1 located between the end of pump house road and the
Susquehana River. a Uttle west of North Main Street. The well wa.
taken out of service and not used to avoid introducing contaminanta
Into the town'a drinking water supply.
.
.
During the remedial {nveatfrltlon. Ecology. Environment. Inc..
. an engineering firm under contract to DEC, fnstsl1ed .even monitoring
wells. seven so11 borings, and collected sRmples of Dir, .urlace water,
groundwuter snd S0118 for chemical analysl.. 1t Wl8 found that
. contamination was primarily Umfted to groundwater In an area to the
northwest of Stage ROld. It was determined that the contamination
. was not migrating toward the town', two ,other municipal .upply "el18
Jocnteato the west of well 1-1:.. . Currently, the posslbUity of pubUc
contact with the contaminant. I' very limited. Th. town wUI,
however. continue to monitor the water .uppty wen. cl08ely to 1ft.un
that they remain uncontaminated.
In addition to theneld Inve.tigatlon, . Fe.RslbUity Study .a. '
conducted to evaluate various remedial plans for containlnr tbe plume
and. ensurinr a life. adequate supply of drinklng'water for tb. Town
of Vestat. 8e,y'er81 plans capable of achieving these obJectlv.. ..~
developed and 11'0 presented In . report entitled. "RemecUal,
InvestfgaUol:' Report, RiskAlsessme"t. and FeasibiUty Study for
Water Supply \Vc111-1 SUe. Vestal. Ne.w York". The report 18 ,
, IvaUable for review In the Vestal Public Library and the Ve.tal Town
Clerk's office. '
.1 '
"
Durin g the next month these altemativel wUl be evaluat.d and
one wUJ be selected al the recommended alternative. You are
encour~ged 10 attend the publfc aneetfng. read the report and provld.
any Input that may help to select the beat alternative. '
It you blve ony questions or need addIUonaJ.1ftformltlon pI....
call Jf:ftrey Brandow'P.E. at 518/451-5677 or ca11 1-800-342-828& and
, leave a recorded meslage and .e wUJ get back to )'ou.
':,
..
'.. ...
, .
.........."';":.. ..".:. ..:..~ ..
, .
. ' ,
. -.. ...--'-: .. ..0."
. . .'... ..,
, "
. . . .""...
. .. ,"."'-"'.
, . ;:' ,..,~,..~,!
,~,-.':.,:;' :::'.;. ~ ,". ".'.'.. 8
' ~. .j: ., ......~.~, :'"... '-" " " ,,_.. ,:, .;,~.' 'f:, . ~
.... \.". .." .... .
-------
Question No.
2.
3.
1
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
VESTAL WATER SUPPLY WELL 1-1
Vestal Public Meeting
June 10, 1986
-
. .,;.
What are the interrelationships between USEPA, NYSDEC,
and the Town of Vestal?
Answer: NYSDEC is the lead agency for the Vestal Well
1-1 RI/FS
,
USEPA is funding the study through the Superfund
program.
Town of Vestal is participating in the project as a
reviewer of the study.
.
Several questions were asked about the emissions from
the air stripping tower and the means for
controlling the emissions.
Answer: The risk assessment that was performed as pa~.
of this project determined that the expected levels of'
chlorinated hydrocarbons that will be emitted from the
tower will be extremely low and will pose no significant
level of risk to the highest impact receptorsJ therefore,
no controls of air emissions are considered necessary
at this time.
How will the installation of the remedial alternative
be funded?
Answerl. Funding of the remedial alternative is broken
down 48 follows:
90\ USEPA
10\ NYSDEC
The Town of Vestal would operate the system as its own
treatment plant after installation.
Will Vestal be reimbursed for the manpower used in
operation of the system?
Answer: EPA will pay for operation and maintenance
costs for a period of time to be specified at a later
date. The actual long term agreements for operation
the remedial system will be worked out between NYSDEC
-------
Question No.
5
6.
/
7
8.
.
-2-
Who makes the decision on selection of the a1ter:pative?
;.
Answer: The ultimate decision is made by USEPA, but they
will consider all information including comments and suggestions
by NYSDEC, The Town of Vestal, and the public.
What are the time frames for implementation that apply in
this case?
Answer:
o EPA will issue a record of decision (ROD) by June
30, 1986.
o The next phase is the detail design phase which will take
approximately one year to complete. However, I must
point out Federal Superfund Program has not been re-
authorized. So, some delays will occur as a result..
o Construction of the remedial alternative should begin
within 18 months of initiation of the
design phase.
.
.
Are there air strippers presently in place and operating
effectively right now?
Answer: Yes, there are 13 Superfund sites uSing this
technology for removal of volatile organics from water.
The techno logy is not new, a.1though th is app 11 ca t i on is
new.
Several questions were asked regarding analytical results.
How many water samples were taken? Was any gasoline detected?
What analyses were conducted? What is the long term trend for
pollutants? Are your results comparable with previous
results? .
Answer: Thirty-two water samples were collected. Twenty-
six samples were collected from groundwater monitoring
wells, one sample was collected from the public well 1-1,
and five surface water samples were collected from the wet- .
land area east of Chenengo Industries. All samples were
analyzed for priority pollutant volatile organics and three
samples (including well 1-1) were analyzed for all priority
pollutants. There was no evidence of gasoline detected in
-------
Question No.
8
(Cont'd~)
9
, .
10
11
12
-3-
-
The general long term trend for groundwater~ntamination is a
gradual, but continual decline. Initial concentrations were
on the order of 1.5 - 2 parts per million (ppm); the levels
detected in April 1985 were 241 parts per billion (Ppb). The-
analytical results to date are all comparable. The labora-
tories involved have been certified by the state and must meet
stringent Quality Control/Quality Assurance programs.
Several questions were asked about the contaminant
problem and the pumping of well 1-1.
Answer: Well 1-1 acts as a curtain to prevent migration of
contaminants down gradient to wells 1-2 and 1-3. A cone
of influence is developed near well 1-1 drawing in ground-
water and contaminants from the contaminated plume. If
well 1-1 is shut off, the contaminated groundwater could
move in the direction of wells 1-2 and 1-3. ~
.
.
Are you aware of the gasoline problem at ROdriquez's
Restaurant? What direction is the gasoline migrating?
Answer: Yes, we are aware of the problem. This particular
problem is being handled under NYSDEC's Gas and Oil Spill
Program. NYSDEC's regional oil spill engineer is currently
developing a program to address localization and remediation
of the problem.
Several questions were asked regarding the source of the
groundwater aquifer supplying the public well field.
Answer: The majority of the groundwater supplying the
well field comes from percolation of surface runoff into
the underlying soils beginning in the hills to the south of
the Susquehanna River. In addition. some water ;s pulled
in from the Susquehanna River, although this source is very
minor. The public wells draw water from 120-130 feet below
ground surface which is decidedly deeper than than the
bottom of the Susquehanna River.
. .
Are water districts 1 and 5 currently connected by a water
main?
Answer: Yes. However. the water main is quite small and
has a very limited capacity for meeting the demands of either
-------
Question No.
l~
.'
14
15
16 'I
.'
17
~4-
-
Are pollutants being pulled to the well field ~om the
Endicott area?
Answer: There is a very low likelihood that contaminants
are being drawn from the Endicott area. -Groundwater does
flow toward the river, which is the lowest point in the
hydrogeological plane, and there is a down valley flow of
water which would restrict the groundwater from flowing to
the Vestal well field.
Why does cost effectiveness playa role in selection of
a remedial measure?
Q
Answer: All options identified in th~ feasibility study are
capable of rectifying the water supply problems of Vestal.
However, t~e cost of implementing these alternatives vary
and, i;,',some cases, are extrem~ly hi gh when compared tC1\.other
feasible ~~tions. Consequently, cost 'becomes a ~eciding factor
in screen1ng some of the alternatives.
.
Was there any evidence obtained which indicated surface spills
may have occurred or certain material may have corroded through
sewer lines?
.
Answer: We conducted an evaluation of soils in the near sur-
face area around the "hot spots" and found no evidence of
spills. An additional survey will analyze the soils near
the sewer line on stage road for evidence of contamination.
Has there been any check on contaminant migiat10n between
wells 1-1 and 1-2? Are there monitoring wells in this area?
What analyses were conducted?
Answer: R.J. Martin Engineers installed at least 15 monitoring
wells in the well field area around wells 1-1 and 1-2. We
sampled all of these wells and conducted priority pollutant
volatile organic analyses on the samples. All sampling re-
sults confirm that contamination is currently being captured
by well 1-1.
II" .
Several questions were asked regarding safety devices on well
1-1 and monitoring water quality of well 1-1 during operation.
Answer: The specific details of any operation, maintenance,
and monitoring programs will be developed during the detailed
design phase and is dependent upon the specifications of the
system. It is planned that there will be some means of con-
t~r.ually checking the operation of the well pump and air
-------
.
.
-5-
Question No.
18
What are the maintenance costs associated with operation
of the air stripping tower? ~
-;.
Answer: Those costs are provided in the Feasibility
Study and estimated to be $ll,OOO/year without a granular
activated carbon filter.
19
Has a responsible party been determined? Are they bound
to respond to the letter?
Answer: The RP (responsible party) has not been identified
at this point in time. USEPA has sent out letters requesting
information on the processes and operations of Chenango
Industries and Guiles Asphalt to determine whether the
materials and chemicals used by these industries are the
same compOunds found in the groundwater. The purpose of
this effort is to recoup costs associated with the remedial
investigation, design and implementation of the selected
I .
alternative. The addressees are required to respond to
the letters.
20
Will you proceed with the project if no responsible party
is identified?
21
Answer. USEPA is prepared to fund the design and ultimately
the construction of the selected alternative.
Will there be any further testing?
22
Answer: Yes. We need to define the precise extent of
contaminated soils in the areas near the .hot spots..
Are we sitting on a time bOmb? Won't this project have
funding problems because of passage of the Gramm Ruddman
Act? .
Answers We do not anticipate a problem with funding
once Superfund is reauthorized. In 1980 the Superfund
program was funded for $1.6 billion for five years. Both
the House and the Senate intend to fund the Superfund
program at about the $9 billion level Over five years.
The main question that needs to be resolved concerns the
source of funding.
23
How was the pOllution originally discovered?
Answer: In 1978, there was a spill of a vOlatile, organic
compound and as a result, all the pUblic supply wells
were checked. As it turned out, the Contamination
discovered in wells 1-1 and 4-2, were unrelated to the
-------
Ouestion NO.
24"
25
26
27
28
-6-
Your survey of the sewer pipes ind!cates they are
in good shape. Do you think cont~nation could
have come from these lines? Are there any dis-
charges to the sewer lines that can cause leaks
in these lines?
Answer: The sewer lines were recently replaced
and presently there is no contamination leaking
from the lines. It is hard to say what historical
leaks occurred from the sewer lines. Part of the
additional study will look at the soils near the
sewer lines. The analyses we ran on samples
taken in the sewer, confirmed tetrachloroethylene
was present, however, no caustic materials were
identified.
Is there a SPDES permit that has been issued for
the discharge of Well l-l? If so, could DEC be a
responsible party?
.
Answer: Yes, there has been a SPDES permit issued.
DEC would not be considered a responsible party.
Are there any underground tanks in the area?
Answer: We have no indication that underground
storage tanks are present in the area.
Risk assessments are very confusing, and never
straight forward. Did you evaluate health problems?
Were there any direct health studies?
Answer: We did undertake to protect human health by
selecting an alternative that will meet the criterion
of trichloroethylene in drinking water corresponding
to a 10-6 cancer risk, which approximates the non-
detectable goal of the Town of Vestal. We did not
undertake any epidemiological studies. The
results of these studies are difficult to interpret
and should be left in the hands of research institu-
tions.
What is the final recommended remedial alternative?
Answer: Well 1-1 will be continually pumping, it
will be the primary water supply for water distri-
bution. The water will be treated with an air
stripping system to remove the volatile organics to
below detectable levels. Well 1-2 will be used as
a supplemental supply when peak demand exceeds the
-------
. ,
Question No.
29
Comments:
1
2
3
..
-7-
-
Why are the two artesian wells ~ast of the wel~field not
considered in the feasibility study as a possible alternative
source?
Answer: Town engineers adressed this question and indicated
the information available on the wells was too limited and
extrapolation of production capacities from the data would
be too misleading. There have been no formal detailed
hydrological studies performed on the area. These studies
would be necessary before the capacities of the wells could
be fully as~essed.
Several people urge including a granular activated carbon
filter as a polishing system on the water from Well 1-1
prior to distributing it to water district 1. ,
There are 68 housing units ~cheduled to be built in the
~stle Gardens area in Water district 5. I don't think -
we (Town of Vestal) can afford to pump well 1-1 continually
without using the water. I don't think the water supply
would hold up.
.
.
A comment was made regarding the success of the superfund
program and mention was made that the program was not
very effective.
Response: USEPA indicated their program was very success-
ful to date and had numerous remedial actions already func-
tioning. NYSDEC indicated the comment was probably addressing
the state superfund program and indicated the governor had
raised the funding level to $30 million per year and had
proposed a $1.4 billion bond program as a long term funding
source for the superfund problems.
-------
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
written comments were received from four parties during the public
comment period: The Town of Vestal, Mrs. Roger Kilmer, Susquehanna Sierra
Club, and the Vestal Conservation Advisory Commission. Several of the
comment~ r~ntained in these letters duplicate remarks made at-the
JUrl~ iO, i986 pu~lic meeting; however, separate responses will be provided
in this section.
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
All four letters urge that an adsorption unit of granular
activated carbon (GAC) be added to the water treatment system
as a supplement to the recommended air stripper. The principal
reasons given are that the GAC unit would ensure non-detectable
levels in the treated water in the event of unanticipated
increases in contaminant levels at the wellhead or the
appearance of previously undetected contaminants. The four
commentors indicate that the use of GAC is imperative if there
is to be public confidence in the treatment system.
The final treatment system which will be installed on Well 1-1
will be designed to achieve non-detectable levels of organic
compounds in the treated water under any forseeable situat{on.
It is currently anticipated that an air stripper alone can be
designed to accomplish this goal. During the design phase
of the project. this question will be examined in greater
detail. If there is any reason, at that point, to believe that
an air stripper alone will not be capable of achieving the
stated goal, then the use of GAC would be re-evaluated. In
any event, the system will be designed with sufficient
flexibility to allow a GAC adsorption unit to be added at a
future date, if necessary.
.
A commentor suggested that "al1 appropriate measures be taken
to retain air qua1ity" in regard to the air emissions from the
air stripper.
As part of the risk assessment which was part of the study,
a very conservative analysis of the air emissions from the
stripper indicated that contaminant concentrations will be .
substantially below acceptable ambient levels (aal's) for the
compounds present. It was therefore concluded that no action
would be required.
Two commentors indicated concern about trace levels of
contamination near monitoring wells 1-20 and 1-22 and felt
that more investigation was needed in this area.
Response: A supplementary field investigation is planned to further define
potential source areas. This field investigation will include
-------
. .
Comment:
Three commentors indicated concern over the appearance of
several organic compounds in recent sampling of Well 5-1 and
felt that the situation should be investigated.
This study was intended to address the contamination problem
at Well 1-1. Well 5-1 was indirectly involved bec~se of its
consideration as an alternate water supply to Dist~t 1. Any
evaluation of Well 5-1 is beyond the scope of this study and
it is suggested that Questions regarding the quality of water
from Well 5-1 be addressed to the Broome County Health
Departmer.t.
Response:
Comment:
One commentor indicated that it would be desirable to be able
to see the Well 1-1 discharge to ensure that the well is pumping
continuously.
Response:
Under the proposed remedial plan, this discharge will be
eliminated. Presently, the Town of Vestal has indicated that
they regularly monitor the discharge to ensure that it continues
uninterrupted.
Comment:
Two commentors wondered if the Well 1-1 discharge to the
Susquehanna River was contaminating downstream wells.
.
Response: The organic compounds in the Well 1-1 discharge are immediately
diluted to well below detectable levels; therefore, there would
be no measurable impact on downstream wells.
Comment:
One commentor suggested that further investigation i~ necessary
to define Source areas and determine responsible parties.
Response: Additional investigation is planned for this purpose.
Comment:
One commentor suggested that a rigorous monitoring program would
be required after the air stripper is installed.
Response: An extensive monitoring program will be developed during the
design phase and will be implemented following installation
of the air stripper.
Comment:
One commentor suggested that the ent;re Vestal area should
have been studied.
Response: While this may be a good idea, it is clearly beyond the scope
of this study.
Comment:
One commentor felt that Choconut Creek should have been studied.
Response: Choconut Creek is too far downgradient to be affecting Well 1-1
-------
, .
Comment:
Response:
Comment~
Response:
One commentor indicated that she was very concerned about health
problems in the area and felt that, in general, more needs to be
done to protect groundwater.
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and tqe Hew York
State Department of Environmental Conservation agre~that
prct~ction of our groundwater resources is extremel~important.
Progress has been made and both agencies are cQmmitted to
expanding on these efforts. In regard to health problems in the
Towr. of Vestal, ;t is suggested that the commentor contact
either the Broome Cou~ty Health Department or the New York State
Department of Health with any questions she may have.
nn~ ~~mmentor indicated her disappointment with the lack of
participation by elected and local officials at the public
meeting.
State and local officials were given advance notice of the
public meeting. Respresentatives of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency were involved in the
presentation at the meeting. In addition, representatives.
of the Town of Vestal and the Broome County Health Department
were present in the audience. If the commentor feels that other
individuals should have been present at the meeting, it is
suggested that she contact those people directly. .
-------
Jeffrey Brando P.E.,
Suggestions and com~ents were asked for at the meeting June, 10, at
The Vestal Town Hall. Here are my concerns..
June 16, 1986
The meeting was sincere and interest1ng, and instructive.: One thln~
I quest1on? ~ we have Pos1t1ve proof that the Air Fi1~rat10n sys-
tem proposed,- w111 work on this great amount of Tox1c'~11ut10n, in
such a polluted area, or are we mak1ng an educated guess, and exper-
imenting? Even if the above statement may be true, I st111 8ay try
it, but add the Charcoal f11tration also.
As we all know,. the Tox1c POl1ut10n in that area is almost 1mposs1ble
to correct, w1th present Government funds. I was appaled to hear OUr
Town Supervisor say no one drank the toxic polluted water. No one
knows how long Well 1-1 has been polluted, or how long people 1n
well d1str1ct1, drank the water.
1
This whole area has only one sole source Acqu1fer, and it 1s time
Federal, State, and Local Governments, along w1th Health Departments,
EPA, and D~C, real1ze the seriousness of that Acqu1fer, be1ng per-
mant1y polluted. There is an old adage, "A st1tch 1n t1me saves n1ne".
Out or ignorance and neglect, no one took thoae etitchea. Ir that Acqu-
fer 1s not protected, this whole area w111 become a d1saster'area.
.
Yesl We need we111-1, d1str1ct 1 on 11ne. If you are Pos1t1ve the
proposed pr8cess w111 work, proceed post haste. There must also' be
1nst1tuted, along w1th the 1nstal1at10n, a constant te8t1ng, of the
water,> at least, once a month.
The Susquehannah river 1s over much of the Aqu1fer, and even DEC g1ves
SPEDI perm1t8, without proper superv1slon. It is wrong that you
are llmlted to the Pollutlon, only 1n the Stage Road area. Vestal 1s
surrounded by hills. Water runs down hill. It my knowledge 18 correct,
all of Vestals well district8, follow the aqu1fer, in low lying.. areas.
It is not your fault, but the whole area should have been stud1ec, for
P08sible pOllution.
1.3 .
It was sald at the meeting, that well 1-J draws 1ts water fro~ the
river. However a Gentleman, highly qua11fied, told me well 1-3 draws
most of 1ts water, from Choconut Creek. That creek a rew yeara back
waa called the mOlt polluted creek, in New York State. '!'here 1s a
drainage ditch at the North end ot C1rcle Dr1ve, a 8hort d1stance
above well 1-3, wh1ch flows into the creek. In h~t 8ummer months,
the ditch reek. with the odor of raw lewage. We not1f1ed the Town,
they turned 1t over to the County Board Of.Health, and later we con-
tacted our Represenative on the County Board of Superv180rs, yet to
date, nothing has been done to correct the s1tuat10n. Do you wonder
Some of us worry about our wells?
-. .
\. ... ~ ---'
&.. .;. .0
, . ' ,,::-.'~'~
,;; ~ - '.' :- J'.
.. - .
.1...
-------
Yes, I questioned that well -5 could be of help 1f necessery. My
reaeons- I heard a discussion by the Town CouncIl, s~metime back,
that a conect10n should be made with Distr1ct 1, in case well -5
ran out of water. I do not know the exact location of well -5. Whet
I do know 18, that to the right, as you enter Caetle Garden, there
was a mun1ciple dump. Also much of that area is subject ~o floOd1~.
Now 68 un1ts of housing are beIng built where many In~hat area re-
ported barre~s being buried. Some bel1ve they had contai~ed Totic
ChemiCAls. I u~derstand both the Town and D~C took the word of the
owner, that they were emptyp a~d harmless. I greatly doubt that well
-5, has ever been tested for Toxic Chemicals.
The handtul of concerned Citizens thet met with you, are very know-
legable ab~ut moet of Vestals polluted areas. Some have for yeere,
stud1ed, checked, researched, and pleaded for help. A precious few
f1nally Succeeded 1n getting DEC and EPA to help us. We stl11 have
much we are concerned about, such as the State spraylng near our
wells, Chemlawn and similar Companyies spraying Toxic Chemicals on
Lawns, which later drain into our water supply, and etc..
Can anyone, DE a, EPA, or whomever keep up wIth or ahead of all the
Toxics being made and Bpread acrOBS OUr Land? Hopefully the A1r Pur-
iter will work, but it is only a band-aid applied to a amall area,
when a Major Operat1on should be performed.
The hope that this Cbuntry will not succeed 1n its own self destruc-
tion, lies with our Younger Generation. r found new hope, aB I 118-
tened to you 5 Young Ken, who conducted the meeting. Only when the
people we elect to Govern us, fully SUpport and work wIth thoBe try-
ing to solve these problems, will they be corrected. Wbl1e you are
answering questions, rec1eving criti81zism, working under adverse
conditions, Picture a Dr11l Sargent, saylng, Heads up, chest ou"
stomach in, Forward March. Good Luck.
.
Slncere1!, . " )
'tt)~ K~...~~N
Wanni ta K11mer
804 Circle Dr., N.,
Vestal, N.Y. 13850
phoBe-607- 785- 5973
-------
, .
~~J , ,
,J /~; '1 ~~~'~ 2I~~~v:~.,./
-c~ ~~ . {I /i
/: . ~ ~~ ~:,--Z~~- /L./ I
~ p~ :!!i:i ,-' " .
~ , .J ;"-,,...4 . -,..of g....c; / -I
- -'r- ..;..;;Z;; .~t'j7 7..1u..<:'
~~~ ,t; ;zI~ ~.-;r:";f~;~~.A~ J
L.lt:;v , ~ . ,/t'
.?
'hJ-<.£!, ..s-:- I - B '- # L' / : .. ./
~...c....-r~~--.. - , t.Y J
~,i ~ l: 2 J":: I - I CI c. t - 1'" - -'
........, , J - ~~ .> ......c-c:./...",,\./
~~~.~ rL., .;r:;",,: V ~~~ .;~ ~~
e-c-.",,-<';;-l'-''''''' / ;(,.(" R.-t:",v, ti--V .4.;.)
~~~'~~ ~
~ .- " .' ,"'-1.
~ ~ - I ~..., C/~~~,t- !'p'z.:.~~v
./;i ,j.J,dt - I ~/. ~ ~ ~~ ;'.v' :d---
.J ~ ') . I A...{!: ..,'
C:_~/~~J~ ;r-~ I - . " I. /! '<~'''~''~I .':
--- 7 r..l ,,/ . .
M' .~~ !..VII
~'~4c ,~ C-I~--I- (J~,A_'~-«'
~~~~/:tZ
'"1'~ k I (.
~ ~~ ~ ~~JL. ~ ~~~~
, .
.e".
-------
~
~-
I' ' .
---L.'u ~ ./.i.....v
,. .it. .
,..........\.~~.L
~
,
;; / - .. /';-,
.....V-<..AJ ,t.,h.-- '..A/..;....t.~~-1,J". )... .../~~i ,,'
..,... / I. -1..."", ~
;:;rA-l... tj.,~/'/",..L ~~~~' ;;. :/~
/ I "'.c..-- / ' - I
, .) ../..' ~',-' t =. '--- '" y,'..-!... .
Vf: ~J/.A"""'// ,,>"1~ ~i,-<.l' I; {/Ij
I f"'"';..-/f J . ~
/':.. ,.,' ,_" - - ~' ,.~., - -vi ..~. ~J ., J, ;- .
"....-...(.- ~~ ,~- -;.....-"'-
- - 1 I ~. .-".' -
./,-",-ru./J, Lf-v ,~H'J ~4-!' ,a.:~..,_'
,I; -.' .;.,
()-1~ "r/~" ~~d-;; .
':"\ r ;,,1,' ---
-,., :," .r I .J 7 .
..~",~ uL/v """'j,A) ~.A.AA. ~ '>'~"..'~.J"u,'oJ<.JI~:,..L",.,
-;-1 ."... -",' .T.V"
~v ~~., l!Yv ~..,i.v j',. "':--.Jy ~.A..I'-'/Vo'
-------
. .
(
3
-4-n,. ~~ ~~ f'h-tv / r 7 t) 2; /7 5--~;.,-
., , ,. - ." . --' /
...z~ ~ ~~~t..d ~'4-<~~ ~(,'.~,,-
,... l t7 (7...
f~Y~' ~ ~~z;;:'~hL-r ..'-rL.,&",.~... '. '
"7'/ ,,--: I Ii ~ ~ , ~ - : , ~ /' .
~~ y ~~~ ~~-'1,y~~ . o~...~,.;<...~;...-'
d,,'Jl.A:? .;,::/.-~,vl-,.p~~~-:
1/
~
)4,1
(j
, \ ) '\
',' .. ' . i
[.t,/':A.'.'vzV.I~ /\ '.A../.~':'f.Ah/
.
,."
-------
. .
TOWN OF VESTAL
SCPER VISOR
ROle M. Fairbrother
60S Vettal Park""I)' Welt
Ve.taJ, Ne,,' York 13850
~--:-~.~::::.- - -.~--
r I : !: ~ . .' ~'; ~ .;: I~ Co' ~ :. ~ ~ r i
. "'-' . . ! '. .:. """.:.;. .; .. t' .~ . . . . ~~. .~. ~ . :,
_..... . ~.""&...""""".-.-_~'.~:_~~~ ....-'" ,........ .-.- 'fL..:-. :. -: .1..."
- -.--.----
TOWN C01.:NCIL
Harold Bennett
JoyCf! Hochdoerfer
. Sandra Tillotaon
- Frank VaJletu
TELEPHONE. 148.1514
AREA CODE. 601
-
-
June 18, 1986
,,'
Mr. Jeff Brandow, Sr. Sanitary Engineer
DEC
50 Wolff Road
Albany, NY 12233-0001
JUt' (\ (. «~
\. : ~ ," I.......J,,'
". . .'-
Dear Mr. Brandow:
The Vestal Town Board has carefully reviewed the "Remedial Inves-
tigation Report, Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study for Water Supply
Well 1-1 Site, Vestal, Nev York" as prepared for the Nev York State
Depert~ent of Environmental Conservation by Ecology and Environment, Inc.
Board members were also present at the Public Hearing held June 10, 1986
~n the Vestal Town Hall.
.
To re-establish the confidence of the residents within the community,
emphasis must be to provide safe water with non-detectable levels of con-
taminants. Residents of Vestal demand quality water.
The To'WI1 Board is of the opinion that Well 1-1 should be used as the
primary source of supply for the distribution system. By treating Well 1-1,
it would prevent further migration of the plUme of the contamination and
also provide safe drinking water.
The position of the To'WI1 Board remains firm in providing water with
non-detectable levels of contamination and is convinced that treatment
for present and future use of Well 1-1 would be the installation of an Air
Stripper and Carbon Adsorption System. Federal and State standards for
acceptable levels of contaminants will, in all probability, change and
any remedial action to upgrade the requirements must be satisfied.
An air stripping/granular carbon adsorption system is being installed
to treat Well 4-2. This well has been pumped to waste since 1980. A
remedial action plan was determined through litigation. The concentration
of volatile organics in Well 4-2 was less than the levels in Well 1-1. The
determination to use the dual system was to be sure the level of contamina-
tion is non-detectable, and to provide quality water to the residents of
the area.
Installing the Air Stripper/Carbon Adsorption System on Well 1-1 vould
insure non-detectable levels of contamination, provide the confidence that
~~~ ,,0..'" L
10.. ~
. rI:
~
~ .,-1
'(' , ."
~ .
-------
. .
Mr. Jeff Brandow
June 18, 1986
Page 2
residents need, and would be consistent with Well 4-2.
:
-
The Town Board also favors a plan to continue the investigation to
identifY the source of the contamination as a means to protect the aquifer
and to prevent the migration of the pollutants.
;.
Air qUality was another factor discussed by the Town Board. The
Study states that "treatment of the air discharge from the air stripping
tower is not anticipated to be necessary" but it was the opinion of
a Councilman that all appropriate measures be taken to retain air quality.
The report was very comprehensive, and the Town Board appreciates
all that is being done to aid the Town of Vestal to remedy a complex
problem. Thank you.
~
Sincerely, .'i
) l,' ' "
" >. '--" I
)'~' '. .7;',
~~~~ ~'7(,V.UV'd"l.-/~ 'L,
Rose M. Fairbrother,
Supervisor
Town of Vestal
.
-------
'0 808 572. Endicott. N.Y.. 13780
..... ~ -:'I .,'" c - ...,
.June 18, 1986 .,' :' ". :,' .
L ~ .:. ,''::::; ';"",' ~ ". £.......,.,.,
So
-
JU~~ 2~: \S)O
Jeffrey E. Brandow P.!.
Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action
Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste
SO Wolf R.d.
Albany, N.Y. 12233-0001
. .....
--
,'.. .; .~.. ~. - 4....
'.w':"i,t:..:';.;',~, -~';".: '. ;. 'J
r.~..,i\.\J-"". ' 'i~.;'
RE: Remedial Investigation Report, Risk Assessment and Feasibility Study
for Water Supply Well 1-1 site, Vestal, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Brandow,
The Susquehanna Group Sierra Club would like to submit the following
comments concemiDg the Well 1-1 study. .
The town of Vestal does not do a full 127 priority pollutant scan
on their wells because of the tremendous expense involved and it is not
known exactly what pollutants are present at any given time, therefore
we strongly recommend combined air stripping and GAC adsorption on
WeIll-I. The air stripping would remove the volatile organics we know to
be present and the carbon adsorption would poli8h off any rema1n1n1 pollutants.
CAe would also remove DOn-volatile organic8.
There was concern at the public hearing that the effluent being pumped
from Well 1-1 i8 DO longer visible above the water surface to ease the
public's mind that Well 1-1 i8 cODtinually pumping to waste to protect the
iDtegrity of working wells 1-2 8D.d 1-3. The chemicals in the effluent
would receive further aeration and treatment above the water .urface. The
people are worried that there may be an electrical or pump failure. On a
previous occasion the well pumpina was 8hut off for a period of three weeks.
(Sept. 18, 1980 clipping attached.) If this vi8ual pumping would cause a
safety problem, hazard signa could be posted in the area. It i8 a cammon
sight to see people fi.hing iD the di8charge area. Perhaps p08ting of
.tlft.i8 a necessity to protect public health and welfare. Are the8e fish
8afe to consume7
.
-
Well 1-3 18 thought to recharge from the river. Isn't it p088ible that
the di8charae from WeU 1-1 pumpina to waste could show up in 1-37 Where
i8 the trana. 1,2 dichloroethylene coming from iD WeU 1-37 Where is the
chemical .oup coming from in Well 5-17 (last page iD your report) (1-3 data
on page 1-12).' .
In aerial contamination maps of volatile organic., trichloroethylene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, toluene, benzene, etc. are appearing in cIo..
prozfm1ty to Wella 1-2 and 1-3. There could possibly be . correlation
between the present Dept. of EnviroDJDental Conservation/Rodriguez restaurant
-------
. ..
investigations ahould be combined.
-
Further investigation is necessary to pinpoint the source~d find
the responsible party or parties. ~
The public information hearing waD 1iIOst informative and we thank
you for the privilege of commenting.
Youra truly.
.
~~~
Vivian Stevens. Chairman
Susquehanna Group Sierra Club
820 North Circle Drive
Veatal. New York 13850
(607) 748-9865
.
-------
. w
, .
.
Well punJping resumes after halt
B,' PAl'LSJlUKO\'SK1' raJ 'nood rontrol engineer discovered -Ulat water
A highly. polluted Vestal municipal well that 15 being pumPt'd from the ,,'ell had seriously eroclt'd
i Supr"~l-d 10 Ix- conlinua/l)' pumping wattr into the.' tht Il'vec afong the Susquehann:l kivcr. ' ,
i Susquehanna Ri\'er to pre\'ent the spread o( poilu. ". wasdeOllhl)' alraid lhallhe whole levt'C would
I ticn 1= (.,':: :~'::::, ::::Q:'~;" tz',;'u ,,'eUs was shut 0(( for slip, "said nood control engineer Henry CarToU, .
more than three weeks before pumping resume( CarroU asked that the Well 1.1 'pump be shut off
~'ednc~i!ay ,- . ',until the levee could be repaired fly Vestal's water
I Vestal "'0111.1, IOC3tcd Just of( North Main Street department.
' and Stage Road Dear the \cslal.Endicott bridge, has . CarrolJ said yesterday that the Ie\'ee WIS rl'plired
bfoen called one of the most poUuted wells in Ne'''' to his satisfadion, within I "'eet of his requeS\.
\'ork, by state officials, , But it took Vestal officials two IDOl'! weeks to put.
Well 1.1 has been out or service since June, 1980, the Det'eSsary pipe for !be pump outDow into place
i ..'hen the, exttnsi\'e chemical poUutiOD became and turn the pump back OD.
known, In an e({~rt 10 tt'ep the pocket of pollUtiOD Dr. Katherine Gaffney, Broome cOunty's Icting
from spreading thro"ghout the groundwater in the beaJth commissioner, expresstd concern about tht
area, "'at~r is being pumped from tt.e "'ell into the possible sprearl of poUulion to the two other Vestal
Swgueh3r.na Rh'er, said 'tom Goettel, \'estaJ ToWli municipal wells nearby,
eng1n~r, . She said th.1t Vestal officials were told that the
The w!lI pump WI5 turDed off Aug, 24 wileD I mte .coun1a e~tM lhflm to test t,t.e wells to check for I
DepartmeDt of Environmental CoDSe~a~oD region. iprea of pollution. -.-
--
.
,
:
-
-
.~.
~.,.
f""
~
~....
~. .
~.
~
J:...
~
~
t'
.-.. .
.
- .
-
-------
.
,
~ ~ 0,..
.c..'1:'~~ ~
,II ~
~!~. ~
$.. .
~"'40' "
#". It"
" .
... -- .
..I L'I ~
, . ,
. I.. .",'
:
-
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COMMISSION
Jeffrey E. Brandow, P.E.
Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
50 Wolf Rd.
Albany, N.Y. 12233-0001
. .;.
June 19, 1986
Dear Hr. Brandow:
The Vestal Conservation Advisory Commission wishes to make the
following comments on the NYSDEC/USEPA Remedial Investigation
Report, Risk Assessment, and Feasibility Study for Water Supply
Well 1-1 Site, Vestal, N.Y. I
It is reassuring to learn that the prompt action taken by Vestal.
otficials in shutting Well 1-1 off from the Vestal mains and
pumping it to waste has not only protected the aquifer supplying
Wells 1-2 and 1-3 from degradation by the contamination affecting
Well 1-1 but has also substantially lowered levels of pollutants
in that part of the aquifer which supplies water to WeIll-I.
.
As regards the problem of assuring an adequate backup supply for
Water District 1, the Vestal Conservation strongly supports the
position taken by Town of Vestal officials that air stripping of
water from Well 1-1 should be followed by treatment with granu-
lated activated charcoal. As Richard Pastore, a CAC member,
pointed out in the hearing on JUDe 10, 1986, air stripping may
remove 99~ of the total volatile organics, but when TVO levels in
water from Well 1-1 are at 241 ppb (P. 3), the 1~ of TVO not
removed by air stripping translates to 2.4 ppb TVO. Risk projec-
tions for TCA and TCE (both substances found in water from Well
1-1) indicate that these substances may be hazardous at very low
levels (PP. 3-4, 3-6). In view of public sensitivity to such
risks, it is clearly desirable to treat water from Well 1-1 with
GAC to remove any volatile organics remaining after air strip-
ping. GAC treatment will also remove other pollutants (some not
tested for but possibly present) not completely removed by air
stripping.
The Report raises a number of other questions which the CAC feels
must be answered.
1. We are concerned about traces of contaminants (including
benzene, a known carcinogen) found in water from monitoring wells
1-20 and 1-22 (see table on p. B-13 and Figure F-7). These wells
-------
.
- 2 -
lie within the drawdown ar~a for Vestal Well 1-2 (see F'igurc 1-41,
and it appears that contaminants are bein~ pulled in from a
Source of pollution lYing to the east. Well 1-2 is ~t pres~nt
the only dependable source for Vestal Water District:1.: It is
VP,rv i~r'~\!"'t:a~t, that contamination in this area be investigated a~
soon as possible and that remedial measures be taken if neces-
sary, so that this water source is not jeopardized.
2. We are concerned about high levels of chloroform appearing
suddenly in water samples from Well 5-1. One ppb of 1,1-
Dichloroethane was noted in samples taken on November 8, 198~,
and analyzed nn November 21, 1985. However, samples taken on
March 12, 1986 (analyzed on April 6, 1986) show 7 ppb of chloro-
.form, 1 ppb of benzene. 1 ppb of toluene, and 1 ppb of chloro-
benzene, along with 2 ppb of methylene chloride. Ron Slotkin of
the Broome County Health Department tells us he knows of no
incident which might have caused this abrupt rise. The CAC feels
that this report should be rechecked immediately, with new samp-
ling of water from Well 5-1 if necessary, so that immediate
measures may be taken if contamination is substantiated.
The Vestal CAC wishes to express its appreciation to the Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation and Ecology and Environment,
Inc. for the thoroughness of this study and the clarity of its
p~esentation. These are not always virtues found in consultants'
reports. The CAC hope~ that this Report will quickly be followed
by remedial action, so as to eliminate possible problems caused
for residents of Vestal by breakdown or contamination of Well 1-2
or contamination of Well 5-1.
.
-
Sincerely,
tJ,~~.-. O~:-c
{t l!.~ ~,.~ ~A..C~..J-'
---
Virginia Oggins, for the',Vestal
Conservation Advisory Commis~ion
Vivian Stevens, Chairman, Vestal
------- |