United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-86/027
September 1966
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions all the revene before completillg)
1. REPORT NO. \2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-86/027
4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE 5. REPORT OATE
SuPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION Seotember 30. 1986
Kentucky Avenue Well Field, NY 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
-
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD ReDOrt
401 M Street, S.W. 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Washington, D.C. 204 60 800/00
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The Ken tucky Avenue Well Field, par t 0 f the 'Elmira Water Board (EWB) public water .'
supply system, cover s approximately 12 square miles in the south central part of ahemung
County, New York. The site is at the confluence of two major valleys within the Chemung
River Ba s in and is boardered by Newton Creek on the eastern per imeter. The major part
of the valley is primarily residential and cammer c ial, with little or no agricultural
usage. The Kentucky Avenue Well Field, par t 0 f the EWB networ k of wells and reservoirs
serv ing area residents, was closed in September 1980 following the discovery of elevated
levels of TCE. The Chemung River and the Newton Creek aquifer are the primary sources
of dr ink ing wa ter. Resul ts of continued ground water sampling conducted by the Chemung
Coun ty Heal th De par trnen t, New Yor k State Department of Health, New York De par trnent of
Environmental Conservation, and EPA, showed that the TCE was found throughout the Newton
Creek aquifer. EPA initiated a r emoval action in March 1985 to provide alternate water
supplies to impacted residences not connected wi th the public water distr ibution
system. Be tween March 1985 and March 1986 a two-phase hookup connected 43 homes to the
public wa ter distr ibution system. Studies to identify cur r en t private well residences
requir ing public water distr ibution system hookup and plume migration investigations are
con t inu ing. The pr imary contaminants of concern include: TCE, VOCs, and chlor ina ted
solven ts.
(See Attached Sheet)
17. KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. OESCRIPTORS b.IOENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Record of Dec is ion
Kentucky Avenue Well Field, NY
C on tam ina ted Media: gw
Key contaminants: TCE, VOCs, chlor inated
solvents
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (Tllis Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 64
20. SECURITY CLASS I Tilis pagel 22. PRICE
J:.ione
EPA Fo,m 2220-1 (Re... ~-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-86/027
Kentucky Avenue Well Fiela, NY
16.
ABSTRACT (continued)
The selected remedial action includes: investigation of all residences
in the study area to identify private well use. Upon completion, all
private well users will be connected to public water supplies; installation
of monitoring wells upgradient of the Sullivan Street wells, with sampling
at ana upgradient of the wells to be performed on a quarterly basis;-
preparation of a supplemental source control RI/FS to identify the source of
contamination and to determine appropriate source control measures. The
source control RI/FS will be a composite of both ongoing and proposed
studies at various potential source sites within the study area. The
-------
. ,
SITE
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
Kentucky Avenue Well field, Town of Horseheads,
Chemung 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: -
Remedial Action Master Plan for Kentucky Avenue Well
Site
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield Groundwater Contamination
Report
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield Site Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study
Staff Summaries, Letters and Recommendations
Responsiveness Summary
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
This Record of Decision calls for the following actions:
~
o
An investigation to identify all residences in the study
area currently using private wells. Upon completion of
the investigation, all private well users will be
connected to public water supplies.
o
Installation of monitoring wells upgradient of the
Sullivan Street wells, with sampling at and upgradient
of the wells to be performed on a quarterly basis.
o
Conduct a supplemental source control Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to identify the source of
contamination and to determine which, if any, source
control measures would be feasible and cost effective.
The source control RI/FS will be a composite of both
ongoing and proposed studies at various potential source
sites within the study area.
DECLARATIONS
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), and the
National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300), I have deter~ined
-------
-2-
currently using private wells to public water supplies, and
monitoring at and upgradient of the Sullivan Street wells are
cost effective remedies and provide adequate protection of
public health, welfare, and the environment. Furthermore,
I have determined that it is necessary to undertake a Supple-
mental Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study to identify
the source of contamination, and to evaluate possible Source
control measures. A determination regarding future source
control actions will be made upon completion of several
proposed or ongoing investigations of potential sources within
the Kentucky Avenue Wellfield study area.
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.
7~..\ ,~ti- f'l.~L \
Date
7C,I9ft
-------
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
KENTUCKY AVENUE WELLFIELD
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The study area for the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) covers approximately twelve (12) square ;i1es
at the confluence of two major valleys within the Chemung
River Basin in the south central part of Chemun9 County, New
York. The area includes the Town and Village of Horseheads,
and the Village of Elmira Heights. The Kentucky Avenue well
is situated east of New York State Route 14 and about 1.0
mile south of the intersection of Routes 14 and 17. Other
significant features of the area include Newtown Creek which
runs along the eastern perimeter of the study area, and
several major industrial operations situated along the western
and southern portions of the site boundary. The major part
of the valley is primarily residential and commercial, with
little or no agricultural usage. The study area is outlined
in Figure 1.
The primary sources of drinking water for the Elmira-Horseheads
area are the Chemung River and the Newtown Creek aquifer.
The Elmira Water Board (EWB) , which serves the City of Elmira,
Village of Elmira Heights, and parts of the Town of Horseheads
supplies water through a network of wells and reservoirs to
over 60,000 area residents. Four additional EWB production
wells are located on Sullivan Street, approximately 1.0 mile
downgradient of the Kentucky Avenue well in the southeastern
part of the aquifer. There are still several houses known to
be on private wells.
The aquifer underlying the study area is extremely permeable,
resulting in high production capacities as well as raoid
contaminant migration. The regional geology is illustrated
by bedrock overlain by glacial deposits of outwash sand and
gravel. The outwash unit constitutes the primary aquifer
supplying most of the groundwater for the Elmira-Horseheads
region. The general direction of groundwater flow is
identified to be southeasterly, down the valley and towards
-------
-2-
, ~
SITE HISTORY
The Kentucky Avenue Wellfield is part of the EWE public water
supply syste~. The 1.0 ~gd capacity well was developed to
provide water directly to a local food processing plant.
Constructed in 1962, the Wellfield provided about 10 percent
of the water produced by the EWE until it was closed in 1980
following the discovery of elevated levels of trichloroethene
(TCE). The Wellfield, which overlies the Newtown Creek
aquifer includes three test wells and a production well.
The food processing plant has closed its operations, prior
to the closing of the Kentucky Avenue well.
Conta~ination of the Kentucky Avenue Wellfield with TCE was
first detected in May 1980, during a "hot spot" inventory
of local wells initiated by the New York State Depart~ent
of Health (NYSDOH). Further sa~pling of the area by the
Che~ung County Health Depart~ent (CCHD) in July 1980,
showed elevated levels of TCE detected in the Kentucky Avenue
well, several private residences and co~~ercial facilities.
The Wellfield was sUbsequently closed in Septe~ber 1980.
In July 1982 the Kentucky Avenue Wellfield site was proposed
for inclusion on the National priorities List.
Results of continued groundwater sa~pling conducted by CCHD,
NYSDOH, New York State Depart~ent of Environ~ental Conservation
(NYSDEC), and the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) of private residential wells through June 1985
showed that TCE was found throughout the Newtown Creek aquifer.
The highest TCE concentration observed at the Kentucky Avenue
production well was 130 parts per billion (ppb). The Sullivan
Street wells had a TCE concentration of 6 ppb when sampled in
Nove~ber, 1980. Other TCE concentrations found include
levels as high as 368 ppb in a residential well and 40 ppb as
far south as the Facet Enterprises, Inc. well. Volatile
organic compounds such as trans-l,2-dichloroethene, tetra-
chloroethene, l,l,l-trichloroethene, trans-l,2-dichloroethene,
benzene, and chloroform were also found to be sporadically
present in private well samples, but in lower concentrations.
These sa~pling rounds indicated the existence of a plu~e oriented
fro~ the northwest to southeast with the greatest concentrations
found in the residential area i~mediately north of Lenox Avenue
-------
-3-
. ,
Past Actions
USEPA initiated a re~oval action in March 1985 for the purpose
of providing alternate water supplies to impacted residences
not connected to the public water distribution syste~. Those
residences whose private wells were found to be contaminated
with TCE in excess of the NYSDOH Per~issible Drinking-Water
Guideline for any single organic chemical of 50 ppb or 100 ppb
for total organic chemicals were supplied with bottled water,
and ultimately connected to public water supply. Phase I
hookup included 20 ho~es.
A groundwater study was conducted under EPA's Removal Progra~
to determine areas of risk emanating from movement of contami-
nants in the aquifer. The study, completed in April 1986,
consistently identified elevated levels of organic contaminants
throughout the study area. Water quality data from groundwater
monitoring wells and residential. wells showed TCE and trans-l,2-
qichloroethene detected in concentrations up to 140 ppb and
39 ppb respectively. To mitigate the threat to public health
to those residents still on private wells, EPA initiated in
May 1986, a Phase II hookup of all residences to municipal
water supply. The hookup was concentrated in the area bounded
on the north by Denver Street, on the west by Oakwood Avenue,
on the south by Lenox Aveunue, and on the east by South Main
Street (see Figure 1). Phase II hookup included 23 homes.
CURRENT SITE STATUS
During the Re~edial Investigation (RI), 12 cluster wells and
7 point sampling devices were installed (see Figure 2), and
a total of 36 groundwater samples were collected and analyzed.
In addition, 14 surface water samples and 11 sediment samples
were collected. Surface water and sediment sample locations
are shown in Figure 3. All samples were analyzed for indicator
parameters including: volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total
organic carbon (TOC), fluoride, chromium, cadmium, zinc, copper,
silver, arsenic, mercury, and selenium. Five selected wells
(CW-10D, CW-7D, CW-5D, PS-2D, and PS-4D) were analyzed for
complete priority pollutant compounds. These wells were chosen
to evaluate potential sources of contamination. PS-4D and CW-7D
were selected to evaluate the Westinghouse facility, CW-IOD
was to evaluate Old Horseheads Landfill, and PS-2D was chosen
to evaluate the LRC Electronics Company as potential sources.
CW-SD was sa~pled to characterize the contamination at the
-------
-4-
, ,
The monitoring wells were separated into three groupings:
regional wells; potential wells; and souther.n perimeter
wells. Wells CW-l, CW-2, CW-3, CW-4, CW-S and PS-I,
designated as regional clusters, are located upgradient of
the study area to ~onitor background water quality. The
potential source wells (CW-7, CW-9, CW-IO, PS-2, PS-3, PS-4,
PS-S, PS-6, and PS-7) were located both up and downgr~dient
of potential conta~ination sources, and the southern peri~eter
wells (CW-12, CW-13"CW-14, and CW-1S) ~easure the extent of
contamination moving southward towards the Sullivan Street
wells.
The RI confir~ed the presence of a groundwater contamination
plume throughout the shallow aquifer. Table I lists the ground-
water conta~inants and their maximum reported concentrations
discovered within the study area during the RI, and other
investigations. Based on the measured concentrations and known
health effects, the primary contaminants are the chlorinated
solvents, TCE and trans-I,2-dichloroethene. TCE is a suspected'
carcinogen and has a damaging acute toxic effect on the liver,
kidneys, and the central nervous system in humans and laboratory
animals. Trans-I,2-dichloroethene has also been shown to affect
the same target organs in laboratory animals and humans as do TCE.
However, there is little evidence that trans-l,2-dichloroethene
produces carcinogenic effects in humans. Both benzene and
l,l-dichloroethene were detected in 2-3 private well samples, but
not in any of the RI ~onitoring wells. These contaminants are
expected to be a result of a more localized problem. Inorganics
detected in the groundwater were found in concentrations below
regulatory standards.
TCE and trans-I,2-dichloroethene were detected in several
potential source and southern perimeter wells (CW-3, CW-S,
CW-7, CW-IO, PS-3, and CW-1S), yet were not found in any of
the upgradient regional wells. These results indicate that
the organic contaminants are originating fro~ within the
study area, as outlined in Figure 1. Noticeable TCE and
trans-l,2-dichloroethene concentrations are located on a
map of the study area in Figure 4.
The highest level of TCE was detected in cluster wells CW-7
and CW-3 at concentrations of 130 ppb and 87 ppb respectively.
Contamination of wells CW-7 and CW-3, both located immediately
downgradient of the Westinghouse facility show that Westinghouse
is a likely conta~inant source. PS-4, the Westinghouse
upgradient well did not show any detectable levels of TCE or
trans-I,2-dichloroethene. The plume, originating from the
-------
-5-
:... .. ""
narrow with low dispersivity. Groundwater flow lines move
southeast through Old Horseheads Landfill toward Newtown Creek.
A representative contaminant plume is illustrated in Figure 5.
Although low levels of TCE were detected in two downgradient
landfill wells, CW-10 and PS-3, it is not conclusive whether the
landfill is a contributing contaminant source. The monitoring
well downgradient of LRC Electronics (PS-2) did not show
detectable levels of contamination.
Based on hydrogeological findings (groundwater modeling) and
water level monitoring, a groundwater table contour map was
constructed. The potentiometric surface, as shown in Figure 6
indicates that groundwater travels relatively fast in the north-
central portion of the aquifer, and slows down in the area
i~~ediately north of Lenox Avenue, which corresponds to the
area of highest TCE concentration in residential wells.
Noticeable TCE concentrations were found at sampling locations
SW-3-85, SW-3-86, and SED-4 at levels- of 7 ppb, 3 ppb, and
4 ppb respectively. Sample SW-3-86 was taken in storm sewer
culvert on Chemung Street which could potentially be associated
with discharge from the Westinghouse facility. SED-4 was
taken from a brook which emanates from a pond downgradient of
the Old Horseheads Landfill, and SW-3-85 was taken from Newtown
Creek downgradient of the study area.
Sediment samples from the ponds and streams south of the Old
Horseheads Landfill (SED-4, SED-5, and SED-7) showed high
concentrations of inorganic contamination. The highest
detected concentrations were 2530 parts per million (ppm),
180 ppm, 144 ppm, and 86.5 ppm for zinc, cadmium, chromium,
and copper, respectively. Metals contamination of this nature
is commonly associated with landfilling activities. Inorganics
detected in the groundwater were below the regulatory standards.
The highest levels of TCE and trans-l,2-dichloroethene,
detected in concentrations of 4.2 ppb and 6 ppb, respectively,
in the southern perimeter wells, CW-5 and CW-15, indicate that
the contamination of the Kentucky Avenue area may be migrating
southward. However, the area near Lenox Avenue is characterized
as having a relatively low hydraulic conductivity and may be
responsible for retarding the southerly migration of contaminant
within the aquifer, allowing the contaminants to infiltrate into
Newtown Creek. Groundwater modeling also indicates that the
contaminant plume discharges into Newtown Creek before reaching
the Sullivan Street wells. TCE and trans-l,2-dichloroethene,
detected at concentrations of 19 ppb and 7 ppb respectively
in the infiltration waters into Newtown Creek at sampling
-------
-6-
'. -
are located dir.ectly east fro~ those private wells in the
Lenox Avenue area with the highest level of conta~ination.
These concentrations of contaminated groundwater discharginq
into Newtown Creek, as detected in the re~edial investigation,
are not expected to present a significant environmental impact.
Sediment sa~ples taken from Newtown Creek did not show
detectable levels of conta~ination. Surface water sample
SW-3-85, taken from Newtown Creek at a location corresponding
to the southern portion of the study area, showed 7 ppb of
TCE. The volatile organic conta~inants are expected to
volatilize once the compounds have entered into the creek.
Newtown Creek is classified as a NYSDEC Class C water body,
suitable for fishing and all other uses except as a source of
water supply for drinking, culinary or food processing purposes
and primary contact recreation. No contamination was found
east of the creek. Monitoring well PS-7 was placed on the
other side of Newtown Creek. PS-7 did not show detectable
levels of contamination.
The investigation did not include the Sullivan Street wells
area. As a result, no definitive conclusion may be drawn as
to whether the low levels of TCE reported fro~ the Sullivan
Street wells are a direct resuJt of the Kentucky Avenue Well-
field contamination proble~. However, groundwater modeling
and water quality information indicate that the contamination
plume, originating in the northern portion of the aquifer,
travels in a southeasterly direction and discharges into
Newtown Creek before reaching the Sullivan Street wells
(see Figure 5). Therefore, TCE contamination at the Sullivan
Street Wells may be orginating from a source other than the
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield plu~e. Information currently
being developed at the Facet site RI/FS could be useful for
an inquiry concerning potential sources of contamination at
the Sullivan Street wells and whether corrective actions is
warranted.
ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Objectives
The primary public health and environ~ental objectives of the
proposed remedial actions are to provide the residences of
the Elmira-Horseheads area with a safe and reliable drinking
water supply, and to ensure that the quality and best use of
Newtown Creek aquifer is not impaired. At this site, the level
-------
-7-
'risk set at a 10-6 level at which no known or anticipated
adverse effects occur and which allows an adequate margin of
safety. Applicable and relevant appropriate standards for this
site include EPA's Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL), which
have been proposed pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and New York State's Groundwater Quality Standards established
pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The applicable proposed MCL
for TCE is 5 ppbj the applicable state groundwater standard
for TCE is 10 ppb. Therefore, it is recommended that these
guidelines for TCE be utilized for the remedial action.
The objective of the proposed supplemental source control RI/FS
will be to identify the sources of contamination, and to determine
which, if any, source control measures would be feasible and
cost effective and whether any additional corrective actions
are warranted at this site.
Alternatives Screening Process
Several remedial action alternatives were evaluated to determine
which alternatives would cost-effectively minimize the risk to
public health and the environment resulting from contamination
of the Kentucky Avenue study area. .
Remedial alternatives were initially classified into four
categories: public water supplies, private water supplies,
contaminated groundwater controls, and source controls.
Table 2 lists the general response actions for each of these
four categories. Potentially applicable technologies were then
developed, including a "no action" alternative, and alternatives
which exceed, achieve, and do not achieve appropriate levels
of remediation for each of the four categories. A list of all
potentially applicable technologies are presented on Tables
3A, 38, and 3C. Those actions which were not technically
feasible due to their ineffectiveness in removing VOCs to a
desired concentration of 5 ppb, or inability to meet remedial
action objectives, were eliminated at the onset of the development
process.
All feasible remedial action alternatives were then screened
using a two-phase process. Phase I screening was based
primarily on engineering judgment. Alternatives were evaluated
based on cost, technical feasibility, public health risk, and
environmental impacts. A list of all feasible remedial
technologies to be evaluated using these criteria is presented
in Tables 4A through 4C. These response actions consisted
of a variety of groundwater contaminant migration controls,
decontamination methods, and development of alternate drinking
-------
-8-
, ~
The preliminary screening of remedial action alternatives
resulted in the elimination of the fOllowing technoloqies:
o Although the Sullivan Street wells have consistently identified
the presence of TCE at concentrations of 5-6 ppb, treat~ent
of the Sullivan Street wells to reduce TCE concentrations to
less than 5 ppb was rejected since groundwater modeling and
water quality information from the RI/FS presently indicate
that the contamination plume discharges into Newtown Creek
before reaching the Sullivan Street wells. The source of
contamination of these wells is suspected to be different
than the source of contamination at the Kentucky Avenue well.
Further action will be determined pending review of the results
from the on-going RI/FS at the Facet Enterprises site.
o Alternatives which propose the use of bottled water for
residents with conta~inated private wells were also eliminated
from further consideration. The possible health risk from
exposure to contaminants thr.ough skin contact and inhalation
of volatile organic compounds during showering and other hot
water usage would still exist after the implementation of
this alternative. Therefore, use of bottled water is not
considered a permanent long-term viable solution to contaminated
groundwater supplies.
o Various treatment, collection and containment processes such
as filtration, flocculation, sedimentation, ion exchange,
reverse osmosis, liquid-liquid extraction, biological treat~ent,
chemical treatment, collection trenches, slurry walls, and
in-situ treatment were deemed unreliable or unsuccessful in
reducing already low concentrations of volatile organic
compounds and therefore were eliminated.
o Development of new water supplies and expansion of existing
public water. supplies were rejected because present water
supplies are adequate to meet current needs of the Elmira
water district and therefore not necessary at this time.
o Disposal of treated groundwater to municipal waste water
treatment plants was also rejected. The local waste water
treatment system is currently hydraulically overloaded and
cannot handle additional flow without expansion. An expansion
of the treatment plant to handle the increase capacity would
-------
-9-
. pETAlLED ANALYSIS
Re~edial action alternatives re~aining following preli~inary
screening were further developed and subjected to a more
detailed qualitative and quantitative evaluation. The
detailed evaluation of alternatives included a review of the
technical feasibility of the alternatives, public health
impacts, environmental impacts, project costs (capital, annual
O&M, and present worth), and institutional issues. Cost-
estimates for each alternative were developed to the same
level of detail. Present worth calculations, as summarized
in Table A, should be used to compare the cost-effectiveness
of these alternatives. These calculations include capital
and annual O&M costs and assume a 30-year life span. The
project life span may change as a result of future source
control analysis.
Public Water Supplies
The following alternatives addressing public water supplies
were retained following preliminary screening:
o The "no action" alternative consists of continued operations
as under present situation: i.e., the continued pumping of
the Sullivan Street wells for use as a public water supply,
and continued operation of its existing treatment facilities.
At present, there is no regular ~onitoring program at the
Sullivan Street wellheads. In the event of any future increase
in contaminant concentration, the Sullivan Street wells ~ay
need to be shut down without having adequate time to secure
an alternate water supply. Shut down of the Sullivan Street
wells could cause serious repercussions since it currently
supplies approximately 30 percent of the EI~ira Water Board's
water.
o Existing treatment facilities at the Sullivan Street wells
would continue to operate as at present with sa~pling of the
wells to be performed on a quarterly basis for VOCs. The
reliability of this alternative in protecting public health
is dependent on any changes in VOC concentrations which may
occur in the Sullivan Street wells. Monitoring of water
quality alone may not provide sufficient advance warning
against increases in contaminant concentrations, and the
possibility for short-term exposure would still exist.
o Existing treatment facilities at the Sullivan Street wells
would continue to operate, with monitoring, at and upgradient
of the Sullivan Street wells. Six monitoring well clusters
-------
TABLE A
-10-
, -
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Description
Public Water Supplies:
o No action
o Continued operation of existing
treat~ent facilities with
~onitoring at Sullivan Street
wells.
o Continued operation of existing
treatment facilities with
~onitoring at, and upgradient
of the Sullivan Street wells.
Private Water Supplies:
o No action
o Monitor all ho~es with private
wells, provide in-line carbon
adsorption units to ho~es as
required.
o Monitor all ho~es with private
wells, provide public water to
ho~es as required.
o Provide public water supply to
all ho~es in the study adea.
Further investigation to identify
users of private wells.
o Monitor all ho~es with private
wells, provide public water to
all ho~es adjacent to existing
water ~ains, provide in-line
carbon adsorption units to
other homes as required.
Capital
( $ )
o
o
25,200
o
0-183,000
0-187,800
187,800
9,500
197,300
36,000-
127,500
Operation and
Maintenance
Costs
( $/yr.)
o
3,100
10,900
o
92,600-
339,000
0-92,600
o
o
o
46,300-
169,500
Present
Value
t$ )
o
29,000
128,000
o
872,900-
3,378,600
187,800-
872,900
187,800
9.500
197,300
472,500-
1.725.400
Annual
Cost
( Sly r )
o
3.100
13,600
o
92,600-
358,400
19,900-
92,600
19,900
1,000
20,900
50,900-
-------
TABLE 1
. -
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
IN THE NEWTOWN CREEK AQUIFER
COMPARED TO RELEVANT NYSDEC
STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE VALUES
Contaminant
Maximum
Concen tra tion
in Study Area
(ug/I)
NYDEC Groundwater
Quality Standard
or Guidance Valuea
(ug II)
T richloroethene (T CE)
368
Trans-l,2-dichloroethene
(T-l,2-DCE)
86
10
50 b
Benzene
25
1,1-Dichloroethene O,1-DCE)
3
ND
6.07 b
Chromium
20
50
Copper
Lead
30
1,000
6
25
Zinc
70
5,000
a6NYCRR Part 703, Amended July 24. 1985.
bGuidance value.
-------
r-
UJ
~
::>
\!)
-------
Dt
::>
~
~
-------
Ci)
0:>
~
lU
~
J
.tr
~
PREDICTED TCE CONCENTRATIONS
5 YEARS FRO.. PRESENT UNDER
-------
<.)
Q)
uJ
Ci
-:::>
-b-
~
----
-------
Q
rQ
W
D!
:)
~
~
- -
,
; .............J
-------
- l, LL
~I
r l~~ /
JL~
~
Ll[ ~l
J
QI
r r 4
r-I \~
r-- 0 0
0 0
on t
~ i
I')
N
/ II~,
r
[J 0
I
FiqueE q A
9:P
~ II
II! I
~t
"111111
I ',Il
'I
I -
16000.
12000.
8000.
4Q()0.
I
I
.
.
.
I
I
.
WESTINGHOUSE SOURCE. 12 YEARS AFTER END OF DISCHARGE
NOI[: Westinghouse Souru . ISO sal/yr dllCh."ge frOffl 1960 to 19'1,
and 50 9&1/.,., dl"herg. 'rOlfl 1971.. 10 1986
F' .
r-i .
I '
L-.l..-
I
Ci
I I
, I
I '
I I ','
, 1-
'1 i'-
r~L
~
I ;::-
I :.
,- C
I C
I
I
-g
"-
I
I !
J I
:_, I
f--. I
'--'--- ,
r-I
I
I .
I ~
,- ;
I .
I
I
I :.
-::
I .
t
! '
1- ~
-------
V\C:f \)~ £
96
,~ LJ !
I
I
r Ei
\ 1r
c
r- L1r
1111 q,
0 0 t I..~:
c
o
00 'II
0 I~
~ 6
c-
i :-
N f
/
00
0
c
-Co
~
16000.
12000,
I
I
.
.
.
I
I
.
.
qp
8000.
~ooo.
LANDFILL SOURCE. 10 YEARS AFTER END OF DISCHARGE
NOT[: lend'lll Souru.. 100 'Ally, dhch.,ge 'rOM "SO CO 1'86
A
C
C
eo
p
c
C
-------
'F\ 9" URE g C.
---!
i
I
l I
- , , l ! 0
CJ
I;
--~\ \) 'I" I
I
,I D r-
L L ~I
LJ -
[' I
q, -I..
o
0 l'- -
o
CtJ
0
~ I.~
N
I
~
- ~
-
c:
IbODO.
12000.
8000.
I i
r
I
.
.
) i
.
,;r: ,"'.
c.;
LRC SOURCE. 5 YEARS AFTER ErlD OF DISCHMGE
fIIOH, LJIC rl.coo",l" Sourc. . 100 ;.1/." dlsc".,V- rrOfl'l 1968 ro 1,81
-
~.. .' '.
-------
\J
c.t
::>
~
\.L
o
""..IICI:IIII 8" 'U.I .- 1.1.1.1. "'''"'"It "P.
8.1111"'1. " ",,,-, IIJ,.
.
.
-.
....
.... .."
...
~ PROPOSED RECOVERY WELL LOCATIONS
PROPOSED RECOVERY WELL
LOCATIONS NEAR POTENTIAL
-------
\U
Dt
":)
cr-
...l-
-
1/fIlIlU,'." ..f 'UII ,. I.' 1.1. '''''WIIC ....,
."U."". II ......."'. '''1.
q
.
..
.
.....
""
.... '11'
~ PROPOSED RECOVERY WELL LOCATIONS
PROPOSED RECOVERY WELL
LOCA TIONS NEAR AREA OF HIGHEST
-------
2-
. ~
0000
.C&1.1
'000
.000 'UT
'000
EXPLANATION. TION
~ POINT SAMPLER WELL LOC"
~ CLUSTER WELL LOCATION
J J'CROSS SECTION LOCATION
L-1.
a
.
I
.
.
.
I
o
o
I
.
STUDY AREA
WELL AND CROSS SECTION
SHOWIIiG LOCATION
from U S.G.S. 7.5' 8
RErHENCE: Base Map taken d rj~ Quadrangle, 197 .
-------
FI (TURf. 3
EXPLANATION,
=
I
.
.
.
I
g
.
.
*
....
.
o
SURFACE wATER SAMPLE LOCATION
SEOIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION
INFILTR~TION WATER
MINI-PIEZOMETER LOCATION
REFERENCE: B
ase map taken from U.S.G.S 7 S'
Horseheads, NY Q ,adrangle, '1978. Topographic Map
.-
-000 'U,
STUDY AREA
-------
FIC:fvRc +
, ~
TCE CONCENTRATION
TRANS-J,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
CONCENTRATION
I
I
.
.
.
I
.
.
STUDY AREA
SHOWING TCE AND TRANS-J.2-DICHLOROETHYLENE
CONCENTRATIONS
REFERENCE: Base Map t.ken form U.S.G.S. 7.5'
-------
F1
-------
'. "<
-------
-11-
TABLE A (cont.)
. .
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR
REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Description
Groundwater Migration Control:
o No action
o Groundwater extraction,
treat~ent, and discharge to
Newtown Creek:
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D
o Groundwater extraction,
treat~ent, and discharge to
public water supply:
Option A
Option B
- Option C
. Option D
o Groundwater extraction,
treatment, and reinjection:
Option A
Option B
Option C
Option D
Source Control:
o No action
o Further investigation of
potential sources
Note:
Option A:
Option B:
Option C:
Option D:
Capital
( $ )
o
2,014,500
412,800
5,331,100
1 ,062 ,30.0
1,923,700
411,200
5,126,400
1,380,100
2,016,000
414,300
5,360,700
1,375,700
°
81,300
Operation and
Maintenance
Costs
($/yr)
o
310,000
115,400
785,800
256,100
338,400
143,800
860,300
330,600
325,500
130,900
829,800
300,100
o
8,100
Present
Value
( $ )
o
4,939,900
1,500,700
12,738,800
3,476,600
5 ,113 ,800
1,766,800
13,236,400
4,496,700
5,084,500
l' ,648 ,300
13,183,200
4,204,700
o
163,300
Annual
Cost
($/yr)
o
523,700
159,700
1,351,300
368,800
542,470
187,400
1,404,100
477,000
539,400
174,900
1,398,500
446,000
o
17,300
Four recovery wells, activated carbon treat~ent of groundwater.
Four recovery wells, air stripping of groundwater.
Twelve recovery wells, activated carbon treat~ent of groundwater.
-------
-12-
'~uarterly. Proposed monitoring well locations are shown on
Figure 7. Monitoring at, and upgradient of the wellfield
would allow more time for addressing and implementing treatment
of contaminated water, and to secure an alternate water supply,
if necessary, should the Sullivan Street wells become impacted.
This alternative does not totally eliminate the possibility of
short-term exposure to VOCs, however, it may reduce the public
health risK of potential exposure to contaminat~d grounqwater.
An increased scope of sampling also results in higher capital
and O&M costs.
Private water supplies
Five alternatives were retained for detailed analysis. These
alternatives can be grouped into the following categories:
o The "no action" response is as follows: private wells users
within the study area would remain on private water and continue
to be threatened by the contaminant plume. This alternative
is not feasible from a public health perspective. Since
previous observed levels of TCE contamination in the private
wells sampled were as high as 368 ppb, this scenario would
result in public health riSKs well above the 10-6 risk level.
o Monitoring of all homes on private wells, and providing either
a carbon treatment system or connection to public water supply
on an "as needed" basis was retained for detailed analysis.
Sampling of private wells for VOCs would be performed on a
quarterly basis. Installation of an in-line carbon adsorption
unit or connection to public water supply would be initiated
if organic contaminants such as TCE were detected in the private
wells at a concentration exceeding 5 ppb. These a~ternatives
reduces but does not eliminate the possible risk of short-term
exposure to VOCs which may appear between sampling events, or
at the end of the carbon treatment system's life cycle.
Frequent monitoring and maintenance is necessary to reduce
possible short-term exposure to VOC's, but significantly
raises O&M costs.
o Connection of all private well users in the study area to the
public water supply is the most cost-effective alternative.
Under this alternative, an estimated 60 homes and businesses
in the study area, currently on private wells, would be
connected to a public water supply. This includes an estimated
30 homes in the Mayfair section of Horseheads in the north
central portion of the study area, as well as an additional
30 homes in the area north of Lenox Avenue and west of Lake
Street. Extension of approximately 2400 feet of 6-inch
water main will be required. Existing public water system
-------
-13-
. -
The extension of water ~ains to all private wells in the study
area, perfo~ed in a single operation, is more cost efficient
than installing water mains on an "as needed" basis. This
alternative requires a higher capital cost, but is less
expensive over the life of the project since monitoring costs
are eli~inated. Since the contaminant source has not been
defined or controlled, this alternative is also most e(fective
in eli~inating the risk of exposure of VOCs to 'those currently
using private wells.
This alternative will require that an additional investigation
be conducted to identify the number of homes and businesses
in the study area still using private wells. Efforts have
been undertaken by both EPA and CCHD to identify all
potentially impacted private water supplies in the study
area; however, it is likely that not all private well users
have been identified. Under this alternative, a syste~atic
search of local tax and water billing and utility records,
and any other records available on private water users would
be conducted. Upon compiling the information gathered, a
house-to-house survey will be conducted to assure that all
users of private wells in the study area have been identifed.
By identifying all ho~eowners and businesses potentially
affected by conta~inated groundwater, this alternative used
together with connecting all private well users to municipal
water provides a reliable cost-effective ~ethod of reducing
public health risk from exposure to contaminants.
Conta~inated Groundwater Migration Control
o The "no action" alternative was retained following preli~inary
screening. A series of predictive computer runs which si~ulate
the impact of the no action alternative on the TCE concentration
profile in the aquifer over a 100 year time period was perfor~ed.
Computer simulations were generated for aquifer conditions
assu~ing a continuing TCE release using concentrations identified
in the RI. Figures 8A-8D show that the aquifer quickly reaches
a steady-state condition in which the assu~ed contaminant
contribution from potential sources equals the rate at which
conta~inants are purged fro~ the aquifer through losses to
Newtown Creek. Computer simulations were also generated for
conta~inant releases where the source of contamination had been
eli~inated. Figures 9A-9C show that the Newtown Creek aquifer
responds relatively rapidly to changes in source contributions
due to its high hydraulic conductivity in the northern portion
of the aquifer. The contaminant plume is expected to purge
itself of detectable concentrations of contaminants within
-------
-14-
.Therefore, if potential contamination sources can be defined
more fully and eliminated, TCE concentrations in the aquifer
will decrease and should be less than detectable levels in
approxi~ately 10 to 12 years.
The no action alternative is feasible only when used with a
remedial action alternative which eliminates potential
TCE sources, and minimizes adverse public health and environmental
impacts. There are no capital or O&M costs ass0ciated ~ith
this alternative.
o The remaining alternatives include groundwater extraction,
and treatment with disposal of treated groundwater either by
discharge to surface water, discharge to public water supply,
or reinjection to Newtown Creek aquifer.
Extraction of contaminated groundwater is practical only through
the operation of multiple recovery wells. Two options were
considered for the placement of these wells. A series of four
recovery wells were lpcated downgradient of the Westinghouse
facility, close to a suspected conta~inant source to intercept
any continuing releases. Based on aquifer characteristics,
each of the wells shown in Figure 10 would pump an esti~ated
400 gpm in order to intercept the contaminant plume. These
wells however will not recover the the contaminants which have
already migrated downgradient of the potential source. Once
source control measures have been implemented, it is estimated
that it could take 10 to 12 years for the TCE plume to disperse
and discharge to Newtown Creek. During this time, those
homeowners relying on private wells downgradient of the
conta~inant source may continue to be exposed to unacceptable
levels of volatile organic contaminants in the groundwater.
An alternative location for recovery wells is north of Lenox
Avenue and west of Lake Street, in the area of greatest known
contamination (see Figure 11). It is estimated that 12
recovery wells, each pumping 400 gpm is necessary to recover
conta~inated groundwater containing TCE at concentrations
exceeding 1 ppb. Installing and maintaining 12 wells is not
cost-effective, and will not necessarily provide substantially
increased public health benefits. The capital and O&M costs
for this alternative is substantially higher.
Demonstrated technologies for treatment of groundwater
contaminated with volatile chlorinated solvents such as TCE
include air stripping and activated carbon adsorption.
Conceptual design of both a packed tower air stripper and
packed bed granular activated carbon adsorption unit each
used in conjunction with the 4 recovery wells, and 12 recovery
wells pump and treat sche~es were prepared. A maximum TCE
-------
-15-
, ,
of less than 5 ppb were used for both designs. Although the
highest reported TCE concentration detected in any well was
368 ppb, the average value of TCE is expected to be considerably
less. A design value of 250 ppb was used as a conservative
esti~ate of the long-ter~ TCE concentration of groundwater
subjected to treat~ent. The carbon adsorption syste~, while
technically feasible, has a much higher capital cost and is
also ~ore expensive to ~aintain than air strippers.
The lack of site specific infor~ation on the ~hree potential
sources identified in the RI increased the uncertainty in the
design of an effective recovery and treat~ent syste~.
Source Controls
The re~edial action alternatives retained following the
preli~inary screening include "no action", and further
delineation of potential sources.
o Under the "no action" alternative, no further action would
be undertaken with respect to source control in the Kentucky
Avenue Wellfield study area. Newtown Creek and Newtown Creek
aquifer would continue to be adversely i~pacted by volatile
organic conta~ination. This ~ay have unacceptable public
health i~pacts if the public continue to be exposed to VOCs
through private wells and ~unicipal water supplies. Portions
of the aquifer would continue to be unsuitable for use as
potable water supplies.
o The second alternative involves an investigation to delineate
potential sources. The re~edial investigation identified
three potential sources; Westinghouse, Old Horseheads Landfill
and LRC Electronics. However, the maqnitude and specific
location of conta~inant sources have not been identified. It
is therefore difficult to develop effective re~edial action
alternatives when the contaminant source has not been properly
defined.
Investigations are either proposed or underway to further
delineate the sources of conta~ination. NYSDEC will be
conducting a Phase II investigation of Old Horseheads Landfill
to identify and further evaluate potential proble~s associated
with heavy ~etals and possible contribution of VOCs to the
Newtown Creek aquifer. A soil and groundwater investigation
at the Westinghouse facility, under a Consent Agree~ent with
EPA, should provide further definition of potential volatile
organic conta~ination emanating from the plant vicinity.
LRC has conducted a field investigation to deter~ine the nature
and extent of conta~ination at its facility, under a Consent
Order signed with NYSDEC. The only conta~ination detected as
-------
-16-
Facet Enterprises, Inc., also under a Consent Agreement with
,~EPA, is undergoing an RI/FS to deter~ine the nature and extent
of contamination at the site. The Facet site may be a possible
source of conta~ination of the Sullivan Street wells.
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES
The recommended alternative is the lowest cost-effective
alternative that is technically feasible and reliable afid
provides adequate potection of public health, welfare and
the environment. Table B contains a cost breakdown
of the recommended alternative.
The recommended alternative consists of monitoring at, and
upgradient of, the Sullivan Street wells. The sa~pling and
monitoring progra~, performed on a quarterly basis, will
provide continuing water quality info~ation at the Sullivan
Street wells. An investigation of all available local tax
and water billing and utility records will be conducted,
and a house-to-house survey will be performed to identify all
users of private wells in the study area. Upon co~pletion of
the study, all private well users will be connected to public
water supplies.
The major public health risk and environmental impacts believed
to be assocaiated with the contaminated groundwater is the
human consumption of volatile organic contaminants. Since
private water supplies represent the only major exposure route
for contaminated groundwater, the connection of all private
well users to public water supplies will eliminate the risk
of VOC exposure to the public and is believed to provide
adequate protection to public health.
Source control actions, which ~ay include options such as
treatment, removal or containment of contaminant sources,
will be evaluated following further investigation of potential
sources of volatile organic conta~ination in the aquifer.
EPA has determined that the information available on contaminant
sources is insufficient to facilitate an adequate treatment
design. Further investigation of potential contaminant sources
is therefore necessary in order to develop an effective progra~
of source controls and contaminated groundwater migration
controls. A decision of future source control actions will
be made following the completion of several ongoing or proposed
investigations of potential sources within the study area.
Upon imple~entation of any source control measures, a re-
evaluation of recovery and treatments systems should be
performed on conta~inated groundwater ~igration controls to
choose, if warranted, a cost-effective method of remediating
-------
-17-
~ decision regarding the continued use of the Sullivan Street
'wells as a ~unicipal water supply will be deferred until
infor~ation presently under develop~ent on potential sources
of volatile organic conta~ination south of the Kentucky Avenue
Study area beco~es available. Current water quality data
indicate that TCE concentrations on the order of 5 ppb have
been consistently observed in the Sullivan Street wells since
1981. A sa~ple collected in January 1986 from these wells
contained 5.9 ppb TCE in the raw water and 5.6 ppb TCE after
chlorination. These concentrations are within the New York
State Groundwater Quality Standards of 10 ppb for TCE.
However, these concentrations are greater than the Safe
Drinking Water Act proposed MCL of 5 ppb for TCE. If the
proposed MCL is promulgated into an enforceable standard,
water fro~ the Sullivan Street wells will not be acceptable
for human consumption without additional treat~ent to reduce
volatile organic concentrations. Once the potential sources
of contamination have been identified, possibilities of
treating the groundwater to reduce volatile organic conta~ination
or of securing alternate water supplies, if necessary, should
be evaluated.
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
Two industrial facilities in the Elmira-Horseheads area have
been identified as potential sources of volatile organic
groundwater conta~ination in the Kentucky Avenue Wellfield
site. One source is the Westinghouse Electric Corporation
facility. Westinghouse has entered into a consent agree~ent
with EPA, under Section ~3013 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) to perform a groundwater and soil
investigation to deter~ine the nature and extent of any
conta~ination at the Westinghouse facility.
The second source identified here, LRC has conducted a
field investigation and remedial progra~ to eli~inate any
environmental threat, under an order on Consent signed with
NYSDEC in January 1985.
An RI/FS is being conducted by Facet Enterprises, Inc. under
Section ~106 of the Co~prehensive Environ~ental Response,
Co~pensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to deter~ine nature
and extent of contamination at the Facet site. Information
developed under this study will help define Facet's role, if
any, in connection with the Sullivan Street well contamination
-------
-18-
TABLE B
SUMMARY OF OVERALL RECOMMENDED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
. ~
. Recommended Remedial Action
Capital
Cost
($)
Operation
and
Main tenance
Cos ts
($/yr)
Present
Value
($)
Annual
Cost
($/yr)
PUblic Water Supplies:
Monitoring at and up gradient
of the Sullivan Street wells 25.200 10.900 128.000 13.600
Private Water Supplies:
Further investigation of
users of private water
Supplies in the study area 9.500 0 9.500 1.000
Provide public water supply
connections to all current
users of private water
Supplies in the study area 187.800 0 187.800 19.900
Groundwater Migration Control:
No action 0 0 0 0
Source Controls:
Further investigation of
potential sources with
future implementation of
Source controls 81,300 8,100 163,300 17,300
-------
-19-
.~OMMUNITY RELATIONS
In general, local residents and officials have not voiced
concerns regarding contaminated groundwater at the Kentucky
Avenue wellfield study area. Community concerns to date
have been limited to several residents within the study area,
formerly on private wells who have requested a reimbursement
from EPA for their costs incurred in connecting to public
water supplies. The local community supports the decision
to connect all private wells within the study area to public
water supply.
Specific co~~unity concerns that were raised during the public
comment period are listed in the Responsiveness Summary in
Appendix B
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 of the selected remedial action at this site.
All facets of the alternatives evaluated were consistent with
the technical requirements of other environmental laws.
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M)
Activities:
Public Water Supply:
o Quarterly sample analysis for VOCs.
Private Water Supply:
o Maintenance and miscellaneous repairs to water line,
as necessary.
Reporting:
o Quarterly consolidation and reporting of sampling data.
Annual O&M costs are summarized in Table B. A more detailed
capital and annual O&M cost breakdown is provided in Appendix A.
-------
-20-
-Once CERCLA trust fund eligibility for O&M costs expires, O&M
costs will then be borne by the State of New York.
FUTURE ACTIONS
A second operable unit consisting of source control remedial
,measures may be conducted following the supplemental RIfFS and
issuance of a subsequent Record of Decision. Source control
measures may be a cost effective means of expediting the
treatment of the contaminated groundwater. Upon implementation
of source control measures, contaminated groundwater recovery
and treatment systems should be re-evaluated in order to choose
a cost-effective method of remediating the aquifer.
SCHEDULE*
o Approve Remedial Action
9/86
o Amend Cooperative Agreement
.9/86
o Select Contractor
12/86
2/87
o Negotiate Contract
o Approve Contract
8/87
o Complete Design of Recommended Alternative
with Plans & Specs.
12/87
o Construction Initiated
4/88
12/88
o Construction Completed
*
This schedule assumes the availability of funds in
-------
f'C,UItE 1-
. .
....... LOCATION OF MODELLING GRID
D
»
r
.
"
o
r
g R£FEAENC£: Base lIap laken from U.S.G.S. 7.5'
: ToPOurophic lIap, liorseheaJs, flY Q..odrangle, 197B.
STUDY AREA
-------
TABLE 2
IDENTIFICATION OF GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS
FOR PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES,
P RIV A TE WATER SUPPLIES,
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION CONTROLS,
AND SOURCE CONTROLS
Public Water Supplies:
No Action
Monitoring of Existing Water Supplies
Expansion of Existing Water Supplies
Development of New Water Supplies
Treatment of Existing Water Supplies
Private Water Supplies:
No Action
Provision of Alternative Water Supplies
IndiVidual Onsite Water Treatment
Further Determination of Potentially Impacted Users of Private
Wells
Groundwater Migration Controls:
No Action
Collection
Containment
Groundwater Treatment
Groundwater Disposal
Source Controls:
No Action
-------
TABLE
JA
TI-:f:IINO"OOY sCn":":N'NO t.O" pun','e WAT..:n surrl.lI-:S
Technulo~y
No IIcllon
A.."licllhilily
Commcnts
Not n PllllcAhle
No IIct/on reprellrnts potenl/A' puhlle helllth risk.
PUhlle wnter Rupplleft by Sulllvnn Stre.!t well:n-
Inmlnoll' 'eve's.
":xpnlll' exl!llltl~ WA'er supplll'II
SurrAce wn'er
I:roullflwlIll!r
Not IIpplleA hIe
Current wnter RUPI)IIen nrr IIftr.llulI'e '0 meet curren'
rlemAnft.
Bevr'l)p new wn 'cr IIupplies
SurfAce wn'l!r
OrounllwA'er
No' n,'p'icAhle
Current wllt..r Rupplles lire Rdel,un'c to mee' currl'n'
.Iemllnft .
~
»
b:!
t-'
IT!
Tr"lIlrno!h' of cxlsl/II~ WA'er
supplies
AppllcAhle
w
»
t"loeeulll I/on
No' Appllcnhl..
'nrrrecl/ve removAl or volntlle orgAnic contllmlnnl/on.
Serlimen'"t/on
Nol npP'h!nhle
Inefrl'cl/ve removAl or voilltile orgllnle contnmlnollun.
Acl/vo 'e" en rhon ndRorvl/oll
A I.plll!nhl..
VoInti..! or~nnle compouII"s III st lII'y Arell Art" rl!orlUv
lllisorhell, resulting In low ernllen' coneellt rlll/uns.
Air s'rlpphlR
Applll'nhie
VO'AtIIl! orgllnle compoundn of conl!l'rn IIr.. ,,"sily
IItrlpIII'Ii, !I!J+ I,ercellt removAl pon,.lhle.
11111 r.xehAIIC'!
Not "I)pllcohle
IIIerrcctive removIII or volllllle orgAllle contAmllllll/oll.
UeVI!rSI! o!lmu!lls
Not IIppllcllhle
I IIdrp.cI/v.! removAl or volllllle orgllnlc L'olltllmhllll/on.
1,IIIIIII'-lIllnll' extrnel/on
Not 1I,11'lieAhlc
Not Am'!lIlIhle '0 rcmovnl or low COllel'n'rlll/ollll or orgnnle
cumpunnrl!l .
Stl'nlll !I' ripping
Applll!lIh'l!
Vnlntlle or!!:lInle compmlllf'S or COIICI!"II very f!n!llly
rl.'.novf!.I.
"illrlliinn
Not npl'lil~lIhlr.
Inr.Hr.cllve removn' fir vuln'iI.! flr~Allie eon'"mlllAllon.
IIlo'''I:II'nl """"'"1"'"
N..I 1I""lie"It'.!
In"rr"I'liv,! r"mnvn' ..r v"'"Ii'" nrl:"""~ eu"l"mi""'i..n
n' .tilll'" 1'''''c'''''r:t'j.."'I.
- -- --- -----------------.---- -- --------- ----'---L______-- -----.
- - - - - - -
-------
TABLE 3B
TRVIINOLOGY SCrUmNING FOR PIUVATE WATF.U SUPPLIES
Tech nolo~y
AppliCRbility
Comments
No RCt ion
Not nppllcnhle
RepreRents 8 possible puhlic heolth risk due to the
present and lor future public consumption of contomi-
nAted ~roundwAter.
Use of botlled wAter for
drinking purposes
Applicnble
Inconvenient but could provide uncontnmlnnled wnler
for drinking purposes.
Instnllation of individual
cnrbon I rentment units
A ppllcRble
In-line carhon treRtment units hAve been used for
trenling contaminated groundwater in short-Ierm
situations.
~
>
tx:1
t"'"
trJ
W
tx:1
Provide puhlic woter supply
conneclions to resi<1enls
ApplicRble
TechnologicAlly feasible, wnler mnins presenl in most
R reos.
Additionnl delineation of
polenli,.IIy hnpReted Users
of private wells
Applicohle
Would ensure all potentially ImpActed users of ground-
-------
TABLE
3C
TECHNOLOGY SCREENING FOR GROUNDWATER MIGRATION CONTROLS
TecnnoloiY
Applicability.
Commenu
. tlo action
Applicable
Groundwater collection
Applicable
Applicable
Recovery welJs
Collection trenches
Not applicable
Groundwater containment
Gener&lJy not
applicable
Slurry wall
Not applicablt
Grout curtain
Not applicable
Steel Iheet pUl."'i
Not Ipplicable
Reinjection
Applicable
Groundwater tr..tment
Applicable
Bioloric:al treatment
Not applicable
Chemical tnatment
Not applicable
Physic&! trealment
Applicable
Activated carbon Idlorption
Applicable
Air ItriPPlni
Applicable
In situ trtatment
Not applicablt
Dispolal
ReInjection
Applicable
Surface water
A pplic:a ble
Waattwater tr..tment plant
Applicable
Water aupply
Applicable
May be reasible if (round water il not used for public
conaumption.
Aquifer ia relatively permtablt With hi(h ytel~ '0
recovery ia rtuible.
wr(t and dlaptrat area of contamination nOI amenable
to I"tCOvery by thia lIIethod. Zone of in!luence bmlted
by availablt aaturated thicknt... Allo. a lar(e number
of hOlllel would be impacttd by COnltrucho".
Vertical barrien \0 contaminant ml,ntion are no:
rusible due to the larlt and dispene contamlnltlO:1
plume.
Vertical barritn to conttminant mi(ntion are not
r"lible dut to the larle and dilperae conttmin8lion
plume.
Vtrtical btrriers to contaminant mi(:oation are not
rtasible due to the lar(e and di.perse contamination
plume.
Not renlble ror the entire plume due to
injection weUs which would be requtred.
now ra tes involved. May be reasible in
areal.
the !">~~erou!
ar.~ IS:'l;e
localIZed
Chlorinlted volatile or(lnic componentS are Ilowly
deiraded by bloloiical treatment but treatme!">t ~rocesses
are di!ficult to lustain 81 low conetntra tions.
Chemical treatment mtthods ror diJute volltile organIc
contaminltion tr..tment are unproven.
VOlltiJe or(lnic: compounds Ire Imenable to some forms of
J:-hysic&! tr..tmen~.
VolatiJe or,anic compounds or concern are rudily
adsorbed. resultin( in low emuenl concentra:ions.
Volatile organic eompounC1, or concern af"! euCy
Itripped. 99. percent removil.
Inl...ible lor large quantities 01 (",undwater contaIn-
Ing 10". concentra tions of vola :ile organIc compou1'lC: s.
Chlorinlted compounds de,raded rellt:veiy sJowly.
The high permeabiJity 01 the subsurface woul~ per:!:l:
IUlle quantities of wlter to be In)ecteC tnto the
(round. ReinJection may &Iso pronde a iroundwater
barrier to protect the SuUivan S:reet wells.
Diacharge o( low volumes 01 watn to t;ewtown Creek
would bt applicable.
Disposal 01 treated ernuent with the treated elr.uen:
from WWTP ia leuible. TreatlDent of the water at tne
WWTP ia allo theoretically p08aible.
Treated iroundwatn may be clean enou(h (or dMnkj::~
purposes. <houi!1 add1t1onal water lupphes are no:
-------
TABLE
pnt-:I,IMINAIIV SCRn;NINC~ 01: AI:n:IINATIVt-:S FOIt PtllH,IC WATlm SIII'I'I,IES
4A
Allt~r'l/Ilive
r.llvlrOll-
m"IIlnl
I",!,nct
Puhlle
lIt'nllh
III!tk
Co!tt of
Teehlllcni Im"lem"n-
Ft~II!tlhilll y 11111011
Commr.l1ts
I. Contlmwfi opt!rllllol1 of
exl!tlllln trentml'nC
f"ellillt'll wllh mOlll-
Coring nt Sulllvnn
S I recl well!t.
2. COlltlnued 0l>ernllon or
exl!ttillR trenCtnenl
flldlltle!t wllh monl-
torlnl! nt .111<1 upt! rncllent
of SlIlIivnll Str.!ct w.~I1".
:J. Aclivnlt,.1 cllrhon tr.!nlm'!lIt
of ,vnter from SlIlIivnn
S t rr.et wf~II!t.
4. Air stripping of wnt.!r from
5. SIt'nm stripping of wilier
rrom SlIlIIv"n Stret!t wdls.
I}
o
o
I}
o
=
.
o
fllYorohle
fnlr
unfllvornhl..
.
+
I}
I}
Puhlle h..llith orrlclnl!l IIlerlett 10 contuml-
110 linn nt w(!I1...
. NI) cnplh.1 cosl!l.
. I,ow cost of Implem,,"tlltlon.
. P rovldell no n"vullccfl wn rnlllg of Impenfilng
IIIcr.!nscs In cOlltnmlnn tioll.
. I'uhlic henlth offlclnls olertect 10 I'otcnllol
ineri.oses In cOlllllmlnlltion.
. 1It"I"lrt'!I con!ttructlon of nt'.v monltorlllg
. R.'l:Ilively low L'USt of Intplemr.nl:tlioll.
. f.xlsllllg wells could he used for some
mOllitorlnl{ .
wells.
COllcr.p"".1 fipslgn risky nt I>resellt until
n.hlillollnl dnlll Oil !iouret'!! orr. ovnilllhic.
. COlllnminnnis IImennhlt' 10 tr'eutml~nl.
. l'olt'1I1I1I1 USf! ttererrr.tt unlll lI.htltk",nl
.Ialn on RoureC8 lire HVRllnhle.
. r.onlnmhll1nt!l nmlmuhlc to trl'ulml'nt.
. Polellllni "Ir IlOlh.llon prohlem. mRy require
1I.I!;orption or vnllor Ilhnse.
II"" Rnmr. nrtvonh'gcs 011 elr !il rlpl'ln". wit It
hllthl!r cnpUnl CO!!ts nnd ollcrnllllg nllrt
",nlnl"IInner. cost!!.
. COII,..."lu,,1 dpslr,1I risky et prcs"IIt unlll Rddl-
tlnllnl dotn 011 ROtlrt!"!t nrt' nvnilnhl.e.
IIclnlll
Allernntivt'7
V('s
VI'S
t-'!
):-
b:!
t'"'
trI
Nn .t-
):-
No
-------
TABLE
pnEI.IM'NAItV SCRI':J-:N'N(j nt. A'.Tt:JtJ.lAT'VI~S I'on "U'VATF. WAT,.:n NlJl'I".IES
48
Alternollve
------
,. Monllor oil homes with
prlvnte well~, ,'rovif'e
holll.." 'Irlnklng wAter
A~ r...,ul r,!,I.
2. Monitor oil home~ with
p..tvnle well~, provide
hi-line elll.hon Ad~orl'lIon
1111119 10 IIOAIC~ liS rPllulrcd.
J. MOllltor oil hOlne!! wilh
privnle wrlln, I'rovicle
Pllhlle woler 10 hOIl"~~ AS
r'!'luirelt .
4. I'rovhle puhlle wolp.r to
HII homell In IIrred,'d ArCA.
5. Monitor All hom,!!! wilh
prlvllte well!!, provide
puhlie wol er to 1111 h"'A'~!!
11,1 jll"'~nl 10 ex Istillg '''A Icr
IIIlIill" , provi,',! in -lillf>
':III'''on Adsorpllon IInlt!!
10 ollwr hom,'~ II~ rr"oire,l.
fi. Monitor oil hORle" wll h
prlvllie wp.lln, provillc
pllhlie WAI.,r 10 1111 hOIll'~!!
A"j'If:,!nt 10 p.xl"lIlI~ wnh!r
moln8, prnvlrl,~ "nlll.:..
wllter 10 oll..:r hOnll!H II!!
rellnlre" .
7. Fllrthp.r 'nvr.Hti~IIlion of
IIser.. of prlvllh' w"'ls.
------------.-
II
rnvorllh',!
Inlr
IIlIrllvo'.II"lp
I.:nvlron -
ml:nlll'
ImpAei
II
o
II
II
o
II
II
!'lIhlle
lIenl! h
Itisk
COR t of
l'rr.hnlco' IRlplcm"n-
F'~Aslhilil y 1011011
COmAlI'lIt"
Helnln
I\lIer"'tlivc?
.
No
II
o
PotentiAl hrAlth risk ,llIe to 'nhA'ntion of
VOCs I1l1rln~ hot ,yoter usoRe.
. Nol II InnR-It'rm !!o'ution.
. IIIgh IInolylleR' Anlt mnintellllnce C'I!!'S.
. nirrlcult to predlcl hrellklhrough If con,:en-
Irlilionll vllry.
. lIi!!h cosl.
. lIi~h copllll' co~t.
. MOllilorlnK required.
. lIil:h enpllnl CO!It.
. Monitoring nol r'~'1l1lrr",
No OIIl!rAling Anlt IIIlIinlennnce
eo!!ts.
.
o
. I."n~-Irrm Anlllyticni ond mnlnt..nnnr.c cosls.
. lIi!!h 0PCI"lItin!! eo!!t.
. lIiHi':1I1t 10 pr.!,lIeI hrcllkthrmlgh If ,:on,:en-
trAlion!! vllry.
I'ntr.ntinl hClllth risk due to Inho'nllon of
voc~ "nrlng hot wAler uSIICe.
. Nol II long-fl'rrn su'"tion.
. Som.. illll,"c:I..,1 wc'lI" mAY nllt hllve Iwen
i,Io'nllrird 10 dn'e.
---- ----------
.
II
fI
.
V,!"
Ye~
>-i
Y..~ G;
r--
trI
.to-
OJ
V.~s
No
VI'S
-------
TABLE
I'Ht-:I.IMINAIIY SCltl-:l-:NINti 01-' AI:ramNATIVI-:S FOIt GUOIINOWATIm MIOItATION CON1'UO(.
4C
I-:nvlroll- 1'lIhlle Cnsl or
melllni lI{'nllh TechnlCli1 I mplmnp.lI-
Altp.rllnllve Iml'ncl IUsk I'enslhllil y 1"lIon
.. No nclio". f) 0 f)
COAlmp.nls
2. Hrolllletwnlp.r ex I rnclioll.
Ir..nlm"nl, ,..ul dl~lI'hllrgp.
10 Rllrrll.~e wnler,
o
J. HrolllHlwnler ex I rll,'lIolI,
IrrllllllCIII. nnlt dls.~hllrge
10 pllhlle wn ler supply.
.
n
4. tirOllllllwiller exlrllcllon.
Irenln",,,I. nlllt r..lllj..ction.
.
I)
5. (lrolllulwnier exlrncllon.
IrellIAle"I. IIIIIt .lisr.hnq~c
10 IIIlInldpnl WWTP,
n
6, (;rlllllulwnler exlrnelloll,
.1";chArle'! 10 mllnldl',,1
WWTI',
.
+
---. --- _.-
-----..--
II
Illvornhie
1,,1,.
IIlIrnvor"hl,'
. "'nv hc III}pllellhle Ir pllhlic cXI,oslIre 10
eOlllnmlnAlelt grolllldwnier Is ellmlnAlell.
. I'r.'senl!'! I'llblic heAlth risk Ir eonlAmlnnlelt
g r.,un.lwnlr.r (.'Onllllu..s 10 be eonsUlne.l.
. !.OVl cosl or Impl..mcnlnlion.
. I,ollr.-I,','m commllmenl 10 R'1uir..r rehllhlllllliion.
. t-:H,'.~lIvellrS!'l "e....nets on eliml"nllon of con-
Inminnnl sOllrcc's.
. !.nlllC-lerm cOInmllmenl 10 A'1l1lr..r rdlllhllillllinn.
. l~rr"clivl!n"slI "ependR 011 elimlnlllloll of con-
Inmillnlll sOllre..!'!.
, COIII.I hr. IIst'.1 10 !lu"I}I..m..nl ..xlsling w..I,'r
Ruppli"!I.
. I.oIIR -Ic'rm eommlhnelll 10 n'IlIirer rehnhllitnlion,
. I-:rr",'livenc's!'! d"l'p.nltfl on eliminlllloll ..r COII-
Inllllllllnl !louree!l.
. lIir.III'r cnl'lIni nn" opernllng nllli mnllliellnn".!
co,ts,
. Could he tlesignett 10 prolecl SlIlIIvlln Slrp.c!1
w.-lIs rrom pllllllC mlRrnlion.
I,c"'R -Ierm conl/nllm.!nl 10 A'1I1Jr,'r r.!hnhlli IIIlIon.
. Err.!elivell'!SK dc..p.nds on "linllllnlion of con-
IIlInln,,"1 flOllrCp.s.
. Mllllldl'ni WWTI' is III cnpllcll y,
I...nft -I..rm commitmenl to 1I'1l1lrr.r r.!hnhllltlllion.
. Err..dlvcllcss ""pcn"s on c'limillnlion or (.'On-
IIIlIIillllnl snllrc.'!!.
. I.nw..r cllpitnl IIn.1 0l}CrRlillg nn.1 IRlllnlennllcr.
.!..,cl!'l.
. Munlcll}III "'1TI' Is III
en pnell V,
.L_-
Itelllin
Alterllnllve?
Yes
V.!s
Yes
~
~
tJ:I
t-'
tt1
Yes .to-
n
No
-------
. ~
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
COST ESTIMATE
. SHEET NO.
1
OF --2-
JOB NO.
AI. TUNA""I"- '1 ~Dfl. i'v",e,.,c:. WAra ~PPI!' - to,,/1'IAl(,l£D OP£RA T'1{)f,j ()~ £.tIST'IIJII BY 'J?,,-r DA TE 8130
71tYnJiNr-1'AC/4./rt4S .1'T'1I HOAIlrD/flI,.l6 /fiT' T''1'~ ..sv'''IIAN ~T7i:£Er W£Lt.:S CHKD. BY_DATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT TOT AL COST
COST
, ~A PlrA I.. Co~r 0
-
.
-- --
2 ANNc)~ '- OPERATllv6 AiJl) M/911vTENANCE ~7':)
204 I..A~ 1'- I-/D()~~ ~ Ie /~Il. 1"0
..
26 A NAJ. yrlcAt.. ("Jc.'/')DE~ QA/QC. BIJ/AJlCS) 8 :!JAHPLE~ t. zso (.) 2 000
.--
z.c ..5wIPP/lVG 4- ~MP'c .6'00t:. 400
l>A"'~
- -
zp A IVNLlA '- RE. POll r 1 REPCR..r -I> So~ 5" ()
----- -
'Tt>TA I. E~TI""ATEO AlVA/vAl.. C~T:S ~ O(QO
- -
-- -
_. --
---- .-
I-
.
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
COST ESTIMA ~rE
SHEET NO.-L ~F ..!L-
JOB NO.
AL.TECNAT/\1£ 2. ~ AJ~c. ~re.~ ~",L.IES-t'c,,"IAJOa> OPERATICrJ OF" e:CI:'T'''';~ BY 1>C;J" DATE 2/30
, ~
~EA"T')4 Eo.) T' FA'" L.IT! E~ .J,~ NotJ,'rol2.lNC:. AT' AND UP6AAOI£NT" OF ~u~"JA~ ~T. WEI.I.~ CHKD. BY_DATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT TOTAL COST
COST
I C"P'T'~L.. CO~'" - 4 r.JEL.t..~
-
fA t>~It..I.'~" CO~~ -4 c.JEi.L.~ ~ 7'5 F'T /~EI.I.. 300 I. . F. $f.JDk~ 18 000
-- -'-
Ie t>1ZJ L 1.',.)6 :5vP~uI510tJ -LAP.OR. B DAY':; ~300/D"y Z 400
..- -
IC 'PE12. DIE~ 8 ~'(5 .'S!PAY "00
..
,D ~oo.)TI,Jr:.E.~'" (,o%., OF IA"i!> Ie:.) 4 zoo
.--
TOTAl. '5TIMATED CAP,TAI. Co~r5 z.~ Zoo
---- - -
2. ANNUA.l. OPE:AAnlllu hJo ~A'~ENA~ com
..
ZA LAeo"- b4 t-/ o/)Il~ .$, 0 /HI2. {,40
--
26 MAI.."TIc.A L. (,,J('L.UDE"$ QA Ice. eu.N"~) 3b ..sA~ PLe:5 .z~@ 9 oeo
.--
2'- ?HIPPINb 8 -SAMPI.E ~IOO@ i'oo
-. CAVS
ZD ANNV~i.. Re~'" I IO!E,PceT' ~_sco 500
-.-.
7CfA. t. Es TII./ATEO ~I\/III"'AL eo,T5 10 940
--- _.
I
,
a
I ""'-'M
-------
ENGINEERING. SCIENCE
COST ESTIMATE
. SHEET NO. 3
OF~
JOB NO.
ALTE.r;:.NA/IIJE.. 2. ~12. ~h)J\TE. WAT~ S;PPI..I!~- MON/'rM.. ALL. 110M£" ~7U ~/"'I\TE. BY 't>~J"' DATE 9/~
W~u.SPIWIlIDE 1~-ll"E. CA~..I AOSOIZP"rION ullJ,r P£QuiReD CHKD. BY_DATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT TOT AL COST
COST
I CAPITA-I- Co~,..
- -
MAx.
IA tA ~ON AJ:>~O"PT101\J ()A.JIT~ {,AlC,'-t.lD£.S ~O I}"',-rs 'o~O 1~3 DCO
E,v61,vE f!:f.2.' N~" CONTIIII6 t:.Nc.. Y" ~ OIl/7"R,t:/ C. T"OIZ. - -
OVfZPJoIcAO J P.eoF,.,.., ANO /./:",,""" ,qNO
...--- -~ P"'i ul.h~ 7JUtrJ II ~ -
.-
2. A IIJlIlvA L. ()PEItATllvG AND M/i"IIl,£"),/,,ke. C#ll!
-- --
.
Al.r~~Ar,II£ ZA - Ak Cil1C/J4,.) At,$DllPr~A/ ,JA/!.!Lf!!tT"At.up --
2A (,j""MPLE. ~'LECrloA1-~ 1I,,~£5 ~4SA."'111.C1).t1l ,,1""%...,. Z40 HoUfl.$ "It) iN *!. 2 4cc
---... .. -
2~ ~ If M Pt..£, ~HIPM£l\Jr- -~/IMY If 30 -YS ~D DAYS .I'0A>...f I rco
--
7.C AI\JIltt..'Is/~ -'z4<;+ 20% W~ ..1<&SA/V'PUIIJ6 z~t . r.$AWfPI.~ ~zrD @ 7Z- 000
-- - --
Z-D flE~LnN6 (((VA~/EIZ.I.,Y) 4. R.~PcIDS ~~co 8' ~oo
.---. -
ZE.. ~/~Ct;"L.LANE<;)uS (10% ()F ZA -zp) ~ 40c
---
7bTI'/'- ANIII"'AL. C()5~ /T,£. 4H'EhJllrlllE ZA 92 "00
---.. -..
ALr~"'rfllE' Le - ~() (AIl~N Ap-j()~T10Al Vii/Irs
ZF 5AMPLE. ~L'-£CTI(),J -j,o ,/c,.,es It ,£tlOIT3/' I(, "z..lltkvc...r '00 HD(m~ .J'Q J,.1l. I; "'OG
- U.- .,j/4 MPL.E. 15,",1 P,I,f£Ni 7~ t>A Y'.s ~~JDM" 4 S"oc
-.
,J
2;/ AN'lIl'lS/5 -3 $"'~Pt..E'S/f;"~ ~ ~)(I<. .r~O HOAIE'S of' ~ % It ro .5AI1PLC~ I.SlJ ~ Z?o ,,00
2X CAR.eOAl RrrPtJf~ME.Nr 27700 L8 Iv I< ~ I I J.J:) 1.7 700
2:1' MI~ c'E.L.(..,qI'J£(;;tJ'S (ICC./o CF 2F - z...r) 30 SOli
I()T" t.. "''''/Vt.lA'- Cos~ ~*!. AL.iE~IIT1I1E. "" J3~ DCO
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
COST ESTIMATE
. SHEET NO.
4
OF -3---
JOB NO.
I AI.TEJVJATlv!. ~ FelIZ.. rtzllJATE. ,.)ATU '5vPPuES - ~O""TOIZ. ~Lt. HOME.'"J tJ,TI1 tUplATE. BY D~ DATE 9/z.
WEu..S Prtovl~ ?l.J6uC t.JA~ TO ~.....e:$ A~ ~ul~D CHKD. BY _DATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT TOT AL COST
COST
I CAPI r-A L. C o.s.,.
--
-
IA £AlJ.rJ/ wORK. I '.' . 20 000
.-- -- _.-
I~ PA II£.N1ENf R~DIIIIL IIrJD I(£.PIIIIl. I ,.J, 1t:J- 000
. ..--- _. -
IC P, PIIJ6 UOO LF '/Z/~ Z8 too
..
10 F,rrol", ANO vAlllES I LS Z Deo
--
I~ I?E~ 1 DEli/rIll L UAlIIJ£ "II()NS (;0 UAJ,J£(.7~ ~~ :,"& .l!f'1 000
.-
- -
Ii: . 1I.!61NE £lIv6 (/S% OF 1.11 -1£) 17 ')co
---.- ' -
1/1 ~o";"IZ.VC TI()AI eCNr/~c,,'I (zS'% O~ IA -IE) ZB Soo
. -
/H t:D~T,tlACTO£. ()II£~;/&AD IlAlo ft(;~r (20% 4~ 111'1£) zz 8~o
--
IX L£&II' ANO ,fDHINlsnIlTlv~ (S"% ~"'/A-I£) 5 700
.---- -
leTA L £'5/,M~ T~O CI'/p,rAL COST /~7 ~CO
......- .--
----. ---
Z. AA/NIIA L ~PE~ATIN6 ANO #IiINTEN"AICE. ~~rs (51- M As A /.1: ZA) 9Z "00
--- f-
\
f---
I
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
COST ESTIMATE
. SHEET NO.
!;"" OF-.!i.--
AI..~A.nllf. 4 FoR. 'Fk,VA~ t.JATEI2..SJPPuf.S - ~IIIDE. 'RJe.uc. ..)A.iEe. SvWC.V To AC.I. BY Dl:I.T DATE 9A.
.j:jCit-4£S IN ~"nJ DV AU-A CHKD. BY_DATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT TOT AL COST
COST
I CAPlr~L. (;OS T (SJlfIV/£ A-' 4Li£MIITI/IE 3) li7 8"0(:)
--
-.-
-
..
-- -
.-- - -
.
. .
- --~ - - -
--
- -- --
---
- .-.-
~
-------
ENGINEERING.SCIENCE
COST ESTIMATE
. SHEET NO.~ ~F 3-
JOB NO.
.A~Th)f. -$ FDe ~I.!A.TE WA-n:e. Svp\)uES - .4o~ I 'Tn I:. Au.. ~OME:5 .,)'Tw ~"AT£. JELLS . BY j) (,T DATE 9/z..
~VI~'~Uc.. ~~'Tt) Au. HO~!~ ADJlC£tJT TtI f)(I">TlIII6 ~TEI<. MII/NS ThO-I'Df. IN-LINE. '
CHKD. BY _DA TE
CCUZ~ON AI)~"PT10tJ IJNIT~ "Tb OTHE f<. HCME~ A<. R'QiJ'~
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT TOT Al COST
COST
I CRPIT4J.. COST
--
I'4'NIM/J1V! cc~r- ~O ~/IIRit: #\1", 7EIZ. $()~i.'I IIZDO
I~ eOIVNEc.TlONS 30 tcNAI~1IMJS j' 000
-- -.-
J,f 11# )£ ,1&4/1"" A)/I M~ E~ Ct=" 11V-t.IN£ e.1'i~/3t;N A~R.PrloN
I~ 5Y'ST£~S - ~ 30 :S'lsT~M5 I 30~o 91 ~oo
.. -
,I11/)(I,."VM E~rIMfI1r£" t:::/lfP1r/ifi. cos., 1,7 ~oo
..-
-. -
:2. AIIIIII t.I A I. OPE~A"N6 "'1'/0 #/J'NTE"NAIIICE. c()5TS -'
.--- - -
. < AlTeRNATlvC 5'<4 - NC (..QRPJcw ;./~CAI vAlIT'3 III/STALLED
---.- ' -
2. It ~AMPL£. U)L L£C nON - 30 HoM£$ I~C) HcuR3 ~/tJj;.R I zeo
..
28 ~/lfI&fPL~ ..$HIP"'£/II7 IS .sAMP4~ "Io@ 900
- OIttt$ --
2C AllhHYSIS - Iz.c ~ ~e %. 144 ~PLE5 ~zso@ 3'" oeo
. ----.
Zr> I?EPoflTIN6 4 R~PC~~ 'l(Joe 4 cce
.--
ze: Mt'SCE '-'lir./~ou:. (,/0 % C,: 7A -Zl)) 4 2.00
---- --.,.
ID714L e,r'A4lliEO AIl/NvA' ~ I'SE. A'7'C/(rJItTn/c 5"A 4(,. 3(';>0
Al.Tt;'1::.NA7ri/. 5'~ - ~() CA~I3DN A;,:O~TIOIV VN1rs
2~ 0"1MPI.£ eo"ECTlOAJ 30() ;/-&1£.5 1,1) "II. 3 (Joe
f-- -
I
2(, ...5A"1PLE ...:"', ~M£ IIIr ;8 p",,~ $VJ@ , 300
2H A"'ALt~/S S'4<; ~LE~ ~Z5'"C @ 13S' coo
ZI &Am,oIV I'fEPLACEH£ftJr /,~ LfJ!y,< 13 8"0
2.:T' I4I~CE u.AIIIEou$ (,O°,.{. otC' Z':-ZZ) I~ ~o
-r"7AL. c~ T,,,,,,FliCO AII/III"11#'- eosrs I'Qe 1/lJ'ER/
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
COST ESTIMATE
. SHEET NO. ?
~FL
AI..TE£NAnIlE 7 fi)t<:, ~,I\}ATf. LeJ,.TER SvPPUES - FIJ£.TIo4£R. INVC:=-TIf.:>"T'IOtJ OF V~£~ BY t>~~ DATE 9/!
OF P.lal\JATE. WELL."5 CHKD. BY_DATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT TOT AL COST
COST
I ?APlr4/. Co~rs (~O~ CONr~"CrOIt.)
_.
IA 'A 80R.. 1"0 JoI" VIeS ' 4f' II'(~ 7 2.00
-- . - -
I~ ~ /}()~ t" Hc".e s 10 htL 'co
--- _. . -
Ie. fA ~()L IC ~,,~ ~C"1f. 40
..
10 R/!.PoleTIN6 I/IIID II,/,:C£ Ll.AAI£OuS I LS I 100
-- --
icTAL. E~""""ATEP eIfPI;I9L CD~rs 9 S"co
- ~ -
,
---.- - -
-
-
--
---- -.-
1-.
f-
;:~
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
COST ESTIMATE
. SHEET NO.
8
~F --3-
JOB NO.
I
.A I T'F.Q.I\!AT'VE. Z
F~IZ. s-,.. ,r.C.F COo.\T!201.'=:.- FU£:Tt<4~2. lNU~'T1l:AT10~ or:: R>'T'e"-'TIAL.
BY L:>t;.T
DATE 9/z..
~f1~£~
CHKD. BY_DATE
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QUANT. UNIT
COST
TOT AL COST
I CAPITAL. CO~T' - '0 c.JEL.t..~
-
IA Delt..LINC CO~'T'S - 10 WEL.I.~ @ 7~ FT /&Je.u.. 750 t.F Is60AF= 45- 000
Ip'> D", I.U ~6 SUPEIZUI=>IOrJ 20 C>AYS ~3(X)/Po\Y ~ DC 0
'-
,,, 'P~E. 'DI£''''' 20 DAYS ~ lS/Wtv I S"GCI
"-
IJ) CO rJTj N~EJJe.Y (%0% OF lA-Ie.) 10 500
.u
IE WEI.t.. .:5A"'\PL.1 rJ~ 3 D~"S .. ?cc/ ~~ 900
- -
IF A~AL.\fTICAI.. ('''''-WDE.~ ~/4.IQc.. B"""..)I'.~) 13 .s"MPL£~ $z,s-o@ :3 zt;()
----- - --.
1(, '5H.PP'Nb , :SAa.c~£ .. ,00 (i) .300
OA""-
.. --
1/04 PER C>1£foo1 3 t>...YS .$ 7'$/DA'I 2Z.~
- -- -
/1:. ~O'L. AND ~//oIIEt.,/T S-I'1Pt.f"'~ 5' J)AY~ $ 3oo!oA'f I 5"cc
.~
IT ,0\,,-, ~Id..'f 'iI'AL. ('IIJ'..vc>C-, ~/Qc.. 'l>UPI.lc."T'E'5) ~3 '::""MPLE~ {> ZSO/ ~ 2S0
.-
IK ~H/PPI~b 5" .s~~~E "OO@ S"co
---- ..-
-
II.. "PE ~ t> I E.t.1 5 DAyS ~) /rUi '/ 37S'
,,.. REPOIZTINb , t---IOI"'L. E~T1MATE.O c...PlTA I.. ~TS. tit :,co
u
. -
-
~
.
-------
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE
COST ESTIMATE
. SHEET NO.~ ~F L
JOB NO.
AI.T~I2.~T'IIE '2. fO~ ~OI4:E. Cc~TQ.O(.OS - F"vrz.THEe ".JUE.OSTltATlo,J tJF H,T~TII1'- BY D(pT DATE 9/z..
..:50 I) laCE. ~ CHKD. BY_DATE
ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANT. UNIT TOT AL COST
COST
2. ANNc.JA.L CPEI'tATlN~ ANO M A' NTl:NAr.k:c c.c:sr~
-
2.A t.Aeo,,- 48 ,",DOes f to/He. 45Q
. .--.?~ ANA,t..'/TI "'~ (,..JC~vD~~ QA IQc. ~I..ANIC.~) Z, SAMPLES f$z s-o(? e 5cc
u. ~M'PP'Nb " SAMr'Le£ ./OO@ {;OO
O"Y'~
".
2D ANl\JlJ~1.. R£Pt>eT I I< £ R;>Q.r $ S"oo 5"00
--
TOTAl. e:~j tvlATEO AN~h;AL.. Co~TS e C80
-- -
-'--.- ' -
.. -
- - --
.
'--
--
--- -_.
1--
-------
Appendix B
u
-------
--, '-'UV
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
On September 4. 1986. the New York State Department of Environmental
Con~rvation (NYSDEC) made available for public review. the draft Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RIfFS) for the Kentucky Avenue Wellfield
Inactive Hazardous Waste Site. Town of Horseheads. New York.
The official period for the receipt of comments expired on September 25. 1986.
A public informational meeting was held on September 17. 1986 to discuss the
findings and recommendations of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
with interested officials and the general public. Copies of the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study were made available for review at the Steele
Memorial Library. Elmira. New York and the NYSDEC Region 8 Headquarters. Avon.
New York.
The following are questions and comments raised by the public regarding the
findings and recommendations of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study.
Q.
Have responsible parties been identified?
A.
The Remedial Investigation has identified areas from which contamination is
believed to be originating. Detailed investigations into these areas are
needed. Investigations into these areas are either presently underway or are
planned for the near future.
Q.
Has legal action been started against the responsible parties?
Administrative Consent Orders have been executed with some of the potentially
responsible parties. Further investigations are needed into other possible
sources before legal actions can be taken against those responsible parties.
A.
Q.
Why are the estimated remedial costs different in Table 8.5 of the draft
Feasibility Study on review. from those on Table 8.5 of the (public meeting)
presentation?
A.
r.;
Revisions have been made to Table 8.5 since it was released for public review.
-------
"
~
~
, Q.
-2-
Does the Remedial Investigation make recommendations into the future use of
the Kentucky Avenue well?
The RI/FS defines the nature and extent of hazardous waste contamination to
the Newtown Creek Aquifer and recommends remedial actions to deal with the
contamination. It does not specifically address the future use of the Kentucky
A~enue well. Whether the well can be used again will depend on the quality
'of the aquifer in the vicinity of the well, in the future.
A.
Q.
Have the wells upgradient of the Sullivan Street Wells been installed?
A.
The Feasibility Study recommends the installation of monitpring well~ upgradient
of the Sullivan Street wells, as an early warning mechanism to detect any
contamination which could enter the Sullivan Street wells. These wells have
not been installed yet. Their proposed location would be in an area
approximately one half mile north of the Sullivan Street wells. Monitoring
wells have been installed upgradient of Sullivan Street, in the vicinity of
Lenox Avenue. The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study refers to these
wells as the "Southern Perimeter Wells.11 These wells do not specifically suit
the purpose of the proposed upgradient wells because they are located too far
from the Sullivan Street wells.
Q.
Are the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)
being followed on this project?
The Kentucky Avenue Wellfield Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
is not subject to SEQRA.
A.
Q.
Who has funded the cost of providing public water to those residences with
contaminated private wells?
A.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has provided the funds through
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, more
-------
-3-
Q.
A.
Have all homes been provided with public water?
The USEPA has provided public water to all residences with private wells in
th~ area to the south and southeast of the Kentucky Avenue well and the Old
~6rseheads landfill, with the exception of those who declined public water.
Those homes with private wells in the area east of the landfill have been
provided with public water if they showed contamination above acceptable levels.
Q.
Will the investigations being performed on those areas beli.eved to b~
contaminant sources be made available for public review?
A.
,
These investigations are being performed by the potentially responsible parties
under an Administrative Consent Order with either the USEPA or the NYSDEC.
The investigations being performed under a Superfund Consent Order are required
to be made available for public review. One investigation is being performed
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which does not require
public review.
Q.
A.
Will those residents who paid for a public water hook up be reimbursed?
Superfund regulations are very clear on this issue.
not given by EPA, reimbursement is not possible.
If prior approval was
Q.
Is there a timetable for future sampling of monitoring wells installed during
the Remedial Investigations?
Whether future samples will be take~ from these wells has not been determined
yet. If they are not needed for further monitoring, they will be removed.
.A.
w
Q.
What is the criteria or action level for providing public water hook ups to
those homes with private wells?
Our recommendation is to provide public water to all homes with private wells,
regardless of the level of contamination.
v
-------
"
-4-
Q.
What was the level of trichloroethylene (TCE) in wells south of thE Old
Horseheads landfill?
A.. Two monitoring wells were installed south of the landfill, these are CW-9 and
C~~10. Neither well showed any contamination of TCE. CW-10 did show the
. ~resence of Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene at levels of 5 and 10 parts per billion.
Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene is produced by the degradation of TCE.
Q.
One remedial alternative is to pump contaminated groundwater from the ground,
and treat it. Describe how this will work?
A.
Under this alternative, recovery w~lls would be installed at the leading edge
of the contaminant flow. The contaminated groundwater would be withdrawn from
the ground and treated and then discharged to an uncontaminated area, either
a stream, the public water supply or back into the ground. Given the levels
of contamination in the groundwater, and the degree of dispersion, many recovery
wells would be needed to withdraw all the contamination and the treatment costs
would be high.
Q.
The proposed Groundwater Migration Control alternative is "No Action." How
long has the contamination been there, and how long will be take to flush itself
out?
A.
The contamination source or sources may have been present for the past 30 to
40 years. Our estimate is that the contamination will be flushed from the
aquifer in 5 to 10 years provided the source or sources are removed.
Q.
Where will the contamination flush itself into?
A.
Our sampling shows that in the area north of Lenox Avenue, the groundwater
changes direction from a north-south direction to a west-east direction. This
means it flows toward Newtown Creek. Samples collected from the creek show
TCE to be entering the creek from the aquifer. At the levels of contamination
we are finding, the contaminants entering the creek will be diluted and removed
-------
-5-
Q.
A.
Where will the money to fund these remedial actions come from?
The USEPA will provide 90% of the funds from the Federal Superfund program,
the remaining 10% will be provided by the State.
, ~
Q.
A.
Will the local municipalities be expected to provide any money?
No.
Q.
TCE has been shown to cause cancer.
in the study area?
Is there any increase in cancer occurrences
A.
The Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study contains a health risk assess-
ment which determined the potential for cancer to occur in the study area given
the level of contamination, the exposure pathways and the age and size of indiv-
iduals living in the study area. This assessment showed the potential for
cancer to be well below the. acceptable levels for cancer occurrences.
Q.
Will any money go to cancer victims in the study area from the State or Federal
government?
A.
There is no evidence to believe that incidences of cancer in the study area
are in any way related to the TeE contamination. It has never been proved
that TCE causes cancer in humans.
Q.
Could New York State fund the cost of reimbursing residents who paid for a
hook up to the public water supply on their own?
A.
-------
o
Q
-6-
Q.
A~
How long before the Federal Superfund program is reauthorized?
, ,
Presently, Congress is working out the details of the tax plan through which
Superfund will obtain its funding. Final approval of a Superfund bill is not
expected until late Fall 1986 or Winter.
Q.
A.
What will happen if the Federal Superfund program is not reauthorize~?
Reauthorization will occur, it's just a matter of when.
Q.
Can NYS provide the funds if the Federal Superfund program cannot?
The conditions of the Federal Superfund law prohibit the use of money from
a similar fund (of which the State Superfund is) on sites eligible for federal
money.
A.
Q.
A.
Is there a plan for the monitoring of Newtown Creek?
Not at the present time but it is a good idea. Such details will be worked
------- |