United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-87/039
July 1987
£EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
-------
'"
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pftfllt fttId l'UlfUCIlO"S 0" lltt ,ntnt btfOl't co,""ftti"I)
1. A...OAT ""0. 12. 3. AECI"ENT'S ACCESSION NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-87/039
.. TITLE AND SU8TITL. 5. RE'ORT DATE
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION July 13, 1987
GE Moreau, NY I. 'EAFORMING OROAN'ZATION CODE
First Remedial Action - Final
7. AUTHORISI 8. pEAFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
I. pe'''OAMI''''G OROANIZATION NAME AND ADDRess 10. PROGRAM EL.EMENT NO.
11. I;ONT..AI;T/U..AN T NO.
12. SPONSORING AGeNCY NAME AND ADDRESS 13. Type 0'" RepORT AND peAIOO coveReD
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final ROD Report
401 M Street, S.W. 1.. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
Washington, D.C. 20460 800/00
15. SU"PLeM.NTAAY NOTES
11. A.STRACT
The GE Moreau site, located in the Town of Moreau, Saratoga County, New York, is
situated is a semi-rural setting with single family houses nearby. These houses r~ly on
individual drinking watei wells as their water supply. From 1958 to 1968, the site was
used as an industrial waste disposal site. An evaporative pit received approximately
452 tons of waste material generated by the General Electric Company (GE). The waste
materials include trichloroethylene (TCE), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), spent
solvents, oils, sludge and other miscellaneous waste. In late 1982, elevated levels of
TCE were found onsite in the ground water. The Town of Moreau installed activated
carbon filter systems on the drinking water systems of 70 homes believed to be
downgradient of the site and therefore affected, or potentially affected, by
contaminants eminating from the site. In the summer of 1983, EPA initiated negotiations
with GE to address the offsite contamination problems. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the ground water, surface water and river include: TCE,
dichloroethylene, VOCs and organics. Approximately 8,600 cu. yds. of soil are
contaminated with PCBs.
The selected remedial action includes: Utilize the soil-bentonite cutoff wall
constructed in 1984 around the former disposal area to contain the source of offsite
ground water contamination; utilize the air stripping system installed in fall 1985 to
(See attached sheet)
17. I(EY WOAes AND OOCUMINT ANAL YSIS
~. O.'C'''PTOAS b.IOINTIFleAS/O"EN eNOEO TEAMS c. COSA TI Field/Group
Record of Decision
GE Moreau, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: gw, sw, so il,
river
Key contaminants: TCE, PCE, trans -
1, 2-dichloroethylene, VOCs
1'. 0lSTRI8UTION STATEMENT II. SECURITY CLASS ;TI,il Rtport/ 21. NO. OF PAGES
None 75
20. SECURITY CLASS ITI.i' PtllW/ 22. PRICE
None
G
I!'A ,..... 2220-1 (It.". .-77)
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-87/039
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
GE Moreau, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
16.
ABSTRACTS (continued)
remove VOCs offsite at Reardon Brook; remove 8,600 cu. yds. of PCB-contaminated
soil adjacent to the disposal area and place within the slurry wall containment area
(This was completed in late summer 1985); capping of the disposal area in conformance
with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation requirements; and extensior
of public water mains to approximately 100 homes. The estimated capital cost of the
-------
u
;;;
"'ECORD Of DEC I S IOtJ
Site:
GE tloreau Site, tlareau, Saratoga County, tJew York
Documents Reviewed:
. I' am basing my decision on the following documents describing
the analysis of cost-effectiveness of remedial alternati~s for
the GE iloreau Site:
- Remedial Investigation, GE/rtoreau Site, Oct6~r 1984;
- Addendum, Remedial Investigation, GE/ltoreau Site, Harch
. 198 5 ;
- Feasibility Study of Remedial Alternatives, Moreau Site,
August 1985;
- Regional Uater Supply Evaluation for the General Electric
Co., April 30, 1984
- The attached Site History, Alternatives Evaluation, and
Se lect ion;
- Public Comments and Responsiveness Summary; and
- Staff summaries and recommendations.
- Quantity and' Quality of Uater From Public-Supply \lells
and Springs in the Village of South Glens Falls, New
York, 1987 (USGS Administrative Report)
Description of Selected Remedies:
This Record of Decision (ROD) for thE! GE ttoreau site calls
for the following actions:
o
Utilize the soil-bentonite cutoff wall constructed in 1984
atound the former disposal area to contain the source of
offsite groundwater contamination. The wall was constructed
in compliance with an Order on Consent between the General
El ectric ,Company (GE) and the [Jew York State Department of
Environmental Cons~rvation dated September 23, 1980. It is
1600 feet in circumference, 30 inches thick, 100 feet deep and
keyed a minimum of 6 feet into the underlying natural clay
confining layer.
Continue to monitor 18 downgradient wells to assure that the
slurry wall is containing the source of groundwater contamina-
tion and monitor 29 wells to determine if changes are occurring
in the size and direction of the plume.
o
o
Continue trea~~ent of the plume where it exits at Reardon
. Brook. This water is currently treated by the air stripping
system for the Village of Fort Edward public water supply.
The degree of lateral dispersion of the plume is dictated
by existing hydrogeologic features. Therefore, it is not
anticipated that further significant lateral dispersion of
the plume will occur. Consequently, active pumping of the
plume prior to its discharge at Reardon Brook does not
appear to be necessary to control further widening of the
plume. Although active pumping may accelerate aquifer
restoration it may also adversely affect groundwater flow
feeding the resevoirs which comprise the Village of Fort
Edward resevoirs. In addition, evaluations indicate that
-------
2
o
Utilize the air stripping system installed in fall 1985 to
remove volatile organics frem Reardon Brook feeding New
Reservoir which is one of 4 reservoirs making up the public
Water supply system of the Village of Fort Edward. This
work was performed as a remedial measure under the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabili~y Act
with the agreement of EPA, NYSDEC, and the Village of Fort
Edward. This air stripping system is sized f~.r J"lows' up to
400 gallons per minute and volatile organic contaminant
concentrations up to 100 parts per billion. It has been
operating since late fall 1985 and effectively removes
contaminants to non-detectable (less than 1 part per billion).
This also provides for the treatment of both the downgradient
plume and the aquifer as well as the surface water streams
which form Reardon Brook.
o
Remove 8',600 cubic yards of PCB-contaminated soil adjacent
to the disposal area and place these soils within the dis-
posal site, which is contained by the slurry wall described
above. This work was completed in late summer 1985 in
compliance with an Administrative Order between GE and EPA
dated July 12, 1985 which found that the removal of these
' materials would prevent and/or mitigate immediate and
s ignif icant risk of ha rm to human health. Construct an
impermeable cap over th~ disposal area in confonnance with
tht! NYSDEC/GE Administrative Order. This has also been
completed.
Provide a public water supply for residences affected by the
plume of contaminated groundwater identified in the Remedial
Investigation and modified by EPA's comments, by extending
public water supply mains from the Village of South Glens
Falls. The institutional requirements of this alternative
include the formation of a water district which is ordinarily
created by local goverrunent; alternatively GE may be the
purveyor of water to the affected area, if necessary.
Approximately 100 homes will be provided with public water.
They are along Bluebird Road, Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, and
Myron Road. These mains will be sized to.be consistent with
the Town of Moreau \eter Service Comprehensive Plan. EPA is
also recommending that the Town of Moreau establish institu-
tional controls for restr icti ng the wi thdrawal of ground-
water within the groundwater plume.
o
o. Revi ew the remedi al act ion no less than each 5 yea rs afte r
the ini tiation of such act ion to assure that human heal th
and the environment are being protected by the remedial
action. Require additional action as EPA deems appropriate
-------
G-
- 3
v
Declarations:
Consistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Respons~,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (CERCLA), 42
U.S.C. S9601, et~, and the National Oil and:.Ha.zardous
Substances ContIngency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, I have
determined that the following remedies implemented at the GE
lloreau Site, constitute cost-effective remedies and would
provide adequate protection of public health, welfare, and
the environment.
o the already-installed soil bentonite cutoff wall in
conjunction with continued groundwater monitoring;
o the currently-operating air stripper system on Reardon
Brook;
o the previously-removed PCB contaminated soils; and
o the extension of the South Glens Falls water supply to
the residences deemed by EPA to be affected or potentially
affected by the plume of contaminated gr,oundwater.
The State of New York has been consulted and agrees with the
approved remedies. GE has performed the Remedial Investigation/
Fe~sibility Study activities in conformance with an Administrative
Order between EPA and GE dated November 21, 1983. The results
of these studies have provided a basis for the selection of the
remedies contained in this Record of Decision. Pursuant to the
above-referenced Adcinistrative Order, GE has agreed to provide
for those operation, maintenance, and monitoring activities
necessary to assure the future effectiveness of the selected
remedies.
.J (ic..y 13. Ift7
-------
4
SITE HISTORY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
AND
SELECTION
SITE: GE Moreau Site
r
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The GE Moreau Site is located on Fort Edward Road in the Town
of Moreau in Saratoga County, New York, approximately 20 miles
north of Albany and 18 miles south of the Hudson River. See
Figure 1.1, attached. The site is located in a semi-rural
setting with single-family houses nearby. These houses rely on
. individual drinking water wells as their water supply. These
wells tap the Moreau sand aquifer which is some 60 feet thick
at the site. Groundwater in the area flows in a southerly
direction and the aquifer decreases in thickness in the southerly
direction. Eventually, the aquifer discharges into surface
,streams which feed the Village of Fort Edward public water
supply reservoirs.
SITE HISTORY
The GE Moreau site was used as an industrial waste disposal
site from 1958 to 1968. An evaporative pit at the site received
approximately 452 tons of waste material generated by the
General Electric Company. The waste materials included trichloro-
ethylene (TCE), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), spent solvents,
oils, sludge, and other miscellaneous waste. In 1978, the Town
of Moreau and the New York State Department of Health tested
groundwater, surface water, soil, and air at and around the
site. In September 1980, the site was included in an Order on
Consent with the NYSDEC whereby GE would conduct investigations
at seven waste disposal sites in the area and contain the waste
materials at these sites. In late 1982, it was determined that
there were elevated levels of TCE in the groundwater at this
site. The site was proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in December 1982. The Town of Moreau
installed activated carbon filter systems on the drinking water
systems of 70 homes believed to be downgradient of the site and
.therefore affected or potentially affected by contaminants
emanating from the site. In the Summer of 1983, after meetings
with the Town of Moreau and New York State representatives, EPA
initiated negotiations with GE to address the off-site contamin-
ation problems. These negotiations resulted in an Administrative
Order between EPA and GE whereby GE would (1) install and
maintain activated carbon filter systems on homes whose wells
exceeded contaminant levels established by EPA and specified in
the Order; (2) sample and analyze drinking water well water in
homes downgradient of the site on a monthly basis until full
remediation is completed; (3) conduct a Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study; (4) design and construct the EPA-selected
remedy; and (5) conduct post-remediation monitoring and operation
-------
5
~
Immediate Corrective Action
v
As a result of GEls testing program, GE has installed activated
carbon filter systems on six homes whose drinking water..has
exceeded the volatile organic contamination established in the
Administrative Order. GE is also monitoring the influent and
effluent of these carbon filter systems to assure that the
units continue to reduce contaminants from the well water to
acceptable levels until the final remedy is implemented.
Remedial Investigation
The Remedial Investigation focused on groundwater contamination.
It consisted of a complete characterization of the aquifer
including groundwater flow and contaminant transport phenomena.
This entailed the installation of groundwater monitoring well
clusters at 25 locations along with the installation of single
monitoring wells at 5 other locations to fully identify and
define the groundwater flow pathways as well as the horizontal
and vertical extent of contamination emanating from the GE
.t10reau site. In all, 72 monitoring wells were installed from t1ay
. through November, 1984. See Plate 1, rtarch 1985 Remedial Investi-
gation, Study Area, Hell Locations & Location of Geologic Cross
Section for the well locations: not attached because of large
size. This plate is part of the Remedial Investigation report
and is available for viewing at the EPA Region 2 offices.
Ha~er level measurements were obtained monthly for several
months from the monitoring wells and groundwater samples were
analyzed for volatile and semivolatile organics as well as
PCBs for several months. This included over 200 groundwater
samples obtained between June 1984 and February 1985. In
addition, water samples were obtained from 160 private resi-
dential drinking water wells and analyzed for these contamin-
ants on a monthly basis. These data were used to supplement
the monitoring well sampling and to provide a basis for the
provision of activated carbon filter systems under the auspices
of the Administrative Order.
A plume of volatile organic contaminants has been identified
emanating fror:\ the GE rtoreau site. The p1ur:\e consists of
trichloroethylene, trans-l,2-dichloroethylene, vinyl chloride,
l,l,l-trichloroethane, l,l-dichloroethylene, tetrachloroethy-
"lene, methylene chloride, chlorofqrm, chlorobenzene, and -
dichlorobromomethane. The plume is approxir:\ately 4800 feet
long and about 2000 feet at its widest point. The plume
originates at the GE l10reau site and follows the regional
groundwater flow, extending southeastward to the point where
the rtoreau aquifer decreases in thickness, restllting in
surface water streams feeding the New Reservoir. Trichloro-
ethylene is the most prevalent organic contaminant detected
in the Rer:\edial Investigation and its highest level can be
found within the center of the plume. The highest levels are
-------
6
for trichloroethylene and 46 to 52 ppm for trans-1,2-dich1oro-
ethylene in monitoring well TM 4. These levels decrease to
16 ppm for trichloroethylene and 11 ppm for trans-l,2-dichloro-
ethylene in monitoring well DGC 3 after travelling a distance
of 3200 feet downgradient due to dilution and dlspe~sion. See
Table 6.1, Summary of Analytical Results, Groundwat~r Monitoring,
March 1985 Remedial Investigation, attached. The level of
cont~mination is lower on the outskirts of the plume and some
10's of micrograms per liter or parts per billion (ppb) of
trichloroethylene have been detected in monitoring wells (DGC
15, near Terry Drive) on the western edge of the plume. See
Plate 1, not attached. EPA sampling, conducted on January 30
and 31, 1985, detected trans-1,2~dichloroethene at 140 ppb and
trichloroethylene at 200 ppb in monitoring well DGC 24. Four GE
sampling events and one other EPA sampling event of monitoring
well DGC 24 have detected no contamination. Some of these
sampling events occurred prior to the EPA January 30 and 31,
1985 event and some occurred after that event. One sampling
event was on the same date. Monitoring well DGC 24 is 800 feet
west southwest of monitoring well DGC 15. This level of contam-
ination has not been detected in monitoring well DGC 15.
Subsequently, EPA ordered GE to install seven piezometers to
confirm the western boundary of the'plume. The results of
water level measurements from these piezometers indicate that a
groundwater mound exists in the area which precludes the movement
of contaminants further west than DGC 15. .
The Remedial Investigation identified contamination in Reardon
Brook which feeds the Village of Fort Edward public water
supply reservoirs which are along Reservoir .Road. Reardon
Brook had been diverted by the Village of Fort Edward in
early 1984. Surface water samples were collected and analyzed
some 40 times from nine stream locations as well as New Reservoir
and the Village's three other reservoirs. Trichloroethylene
and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene have been identified in Reardon
Brook. The highest level of trichloroethylene detected in
Reardon Brook was 900 ppb, at its origin. Contamination has not
been detected in New Reservoir which is fed by Reardon Brook
nor in 'the other reservoirs of the Village of Fort Edward
public water supply. See Table 7.1 and Figure 7.2, Stream
and ~. servoir Analytical Results, Fort Edward, New York,
March 1985 Remedial Investigation, both attached.
The Remedial Investigation also identified PCB-contaminated
soils within the dirt roads leading to the GE Moreau site
from Fort Edward Road. About 8600 cubic yards of contaminated
soils were identified with varying concentrations of PCBs.
512 locations on these dirt roads were sampled and 76 locations
showed detectable concentrations of PCBs. The highest level
detected was 3000 ppm at the ground surface. Lower levels, up
to 42 ppm, were detected down to a depth of 6 inches below
the surface. See Plate 10, not attached, and Figure 8.1,
-------
~
7
o
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
AND
SELECTION
Objectives
:. ..
,
The ~ost important objective of the proposed remedial actions
is to provide a safe drinking water supply for residents
whose drinking water wells have been adversely impacted by
groundwater contamination emanating from the GE Moreau site.
This objective includes the continued monitoring of the
groundwater quality in the area to assure that the existing
groundwater plume does not adversely affect other areas.
Part of this objective is to insure that the soil-bentonite
slurry cut off wall is effective in containing the hazardous
substances within' the site. A second objective is to remediate
the water quality of Reardon Brook feeding the New Reservoir
which is one of the public water supply reservoirs of the
Village of Fort Edward. A third objective is to reduce the
'potential for exposure to PCB contaminated soils adjacent to
the GE Moreau site.
The level of response for NPL sites is determined by the
requirements of CERCLA Section 104, which mandates that EPA
protect public health and welfare and the environment. At
this site, the response is dictated by the desire to minim-
ize the public health risk presented by exposure to drinking
contaminated water and exposure through direct contact with
contaminated soils.
Initial Screening Process
Remedial alternatives for the GE Moreau site can be divided
into the following categories: Surface Water Supply, Residential
Water Supply, Aquifer Restoration, and Soil Remediation. All
remedial alternatives were screened accordirtg to three criteria.
These were cost, effects of the alternative, and engineering
acceptability. The cost of installing or implementing the
remedial alternative is considered including operation and
maintenance costs. An alternative that far exceeds the cost
.of other alternatives and does not provide greater health or
environmental benefit is excluded from further consideration
in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Contingency Plan (NCP). The effects of each alternative are
evaluated in two ways. These are whether the alternative or
its implementation has any adverse environmental effects and
whether the alternative is likely to effectively mitigate and
minimize the threat of harm to public health, welfare, or the
environment. The engineering acceptability means that the
alternative must be feasible for the location and conditions
at the site and present a reliable means of addressing the
problem. The level of technological development is also
-------
8
Alternatives passing the initial screening process were then
evaluated in greater detail. All considered alternatives are
listed in Table 2, Potential Remedial Action Alternatives at
the Moreau Site, August 1985, attached, and alternatives
which passed the initial screening process and'then. subjected
to a detailed evaluation of alternatives are lisie~ on page
53 of the Feasibility Study, also attached. A discussion
follows for describing the process whereby alternatives
identified in Table 2 were either eliminated from or included
in the detailed evaluation of alternatives. This discussion
is organized according to the site problems they are intended
to mitigate.
Surface Water Supply
Surface water at .the Site is used for drinking water, therefore,
the proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established
under the Safe Drinking Water Act will be considered relevant
and appropriate standards. The New York State Ambient Water
'Ouality Standards and Guidance Values will be considered relevant
and appropriate where proposed MCLs do not exist. Trichloro-
ethylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene have been detected at
ReaLdon Brook. The proposed.MCL for trichloroethylene is
5 ppb. An MCL has not been proposed for trans-1,2-dichloro-
ethylene; the State Guidance Value for this contaminant is
5~ ppb.
-No Action
Water in Reardon Brook contains trichloroethlyene and trans-
1,2-dichloroethylene in excess of the appropriate and relevant
requirements described above. The Village of Fort Edward
public water supply depends on Reardon Brook to meet its water
supply needs, therefore, remedial alternatives are required.
Accordingly, the no action alternative was eliminated.
-Diversion
Early in 1984, Reardon Brook was diverted to bypass New Reser-
voir and continue on and discharge into the Hudson River.
Under this alternative, that diversion would be maintained.
Reardon Brook, however, supplies approximately 40 percent of
- the Village's total water supply demand. Therefore, during
'extended periods of low precipitation, without the Reardon
Brook supply, the Village's water supply demand would exceed
the amount of water available. Thus, stream diversion as a
long term remedy is eliminated because it would lead to a water
supply shortage for the Village.
-Treatment by Carbon Adsorption
Activated carbon treatment has the advantage of high adsorption
potential, tolerance of fluctuation in concentrations and
flows, and has high flexibility in operation and design. The
suspended solids in Reardon Brook water and its microbial
content would cause premature fouling of the activated carbon.
-------
q
9
organic chemicals found in this water, which by causing
competition for adsorption sites on the carbon, can result in
reduced removal efficiency of organic contaminants. This would
necessitate pretreatment of the influent water prior to the
carbon adsorption process. The appropriate and. relevant-
requirements discussed above, could be met by this ~iternative.
-Treatment by Air Stripping
Air stripping provides an effective means of removing the
trichloroethylene and trans-I,2-dichloroethylene from Reardon
Brook water. The appropriate and relevant requirements discussed
above, could be met by this alternative.
-Treatment by Resin Adsorption
.Resin adsorption is another effective means for removing
organic contaminants. The method is not that widely employed
for potable water ~reatment because of the difficulty of
selecting the appropriate resin and adsorbant/regeneration
combinations. Disadvantages of resin adsorption include
high initial cost due to its lower adsorption capacity
relative to activated carbon. Resin adsorption was therefore
eliminated from further analysis.
-T-reatment by Ion Exchange
Ion exchange will remove a limited number of organic contam-
inants from aqueous solutions. The nonpolar organic compounds
found in the water of Reardon Brook are inappropriate for
this treatment technology and therefore ion exchange was
eliminated from further analysis.
-Reverse Osmosis
The technology of reverse osmosis is not well suited for
treatment of Reardon Brook water. It would require pretreatment
to remove colloidal and suspended solids, rigid pH control,
and may lead to routine fouling of the expensive reverse
osmosis membranes due to the precipitation of insoluble
salts. Reverse osmosis is better suited to a water "polishing"
operation following conventional treatment. Therefore, reverse
osmosis was eliminated from futher consideration.
Residential Water Supply
~lthough the water supplies affected by the site are private
and not public supplies, the proposed MCLs will be considered
relevant and appropriate standards. Trichloroethylene has been
detected in private wells. As stated above, the proposed MCL for
trichloroethylene is 5 ppb.
-No Action
Concentrations of trichloroethylene in some residential
drinking water wells along Bluebird Road have exceeded the
proposed MCL thus necessitating further action. In addition,
the no action alternative would not assure that residential
drinking water wells in areas adjacent to the currently-defined
-------
10
These wells are along Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, and Myron Road.
The no action alternative for the Bluebird Road area ~~ elimina-
ted from further consideration and the no action alternative
for the Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, and Myron Road'area is given
further consideration and addressed in the Detailed Analysis
section of this document.
-Monitoring
The monitoring of residential drinking water wells would not
provide any control on groundwater movement; it would only
provide the capability to detect contamination. This alternative
would allow the proposed MCt for trichloroethylene to be exceeded.
This alternative was therefore eliminated from further consider-
ation. Monitoring of groundwater monitoring wells is considered
in greater detail in connection with long term operation and
maintenance of the slurry wall containment along with continued
monitoring in the Detailed Analysis section.
-Groundwater Pumping and Recharge
The pumping of groundwater would not remedy the currently
contaminated residential drinking water wells along Bluebird
Road (i.e., the MCt for trichloroethylene would still be exceeded).
It would only prevent wells along Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive,
and Myron Road from eventually becoming contaminated. Groundwater
pumping and recharge is a viable option for rehabilitation of
the aquifer. For these reasons, a more detailed analysis of
the groundwater pumping and recharge option is given further
consideration in the Detailed Analysis section.
-Individual Whole House Treatment
The use of activated carbon filter systems to treat the water
coming from residential wells is a viable way of reducing the
concentration of trichloroethylene in drinking water to meet
the proposed MCt. This option is given further consideration
in the Detailed Analysis section.
-Alternate Water Supply (Pipeline)
An alternate water supply to residents whose wells do not
meet water quality standards may be accomplished by extending
a pipeline from a nearby public water supply system. This
option would meet the proposed MCt for trichloroethylene and
is given further consideration in the Detailed Analysis section.
-New Domestic Wells
This option is eliminated from further consideration because,
at certain locations, the contaminants are d~stributed through-
out the entire thickness of the Moreau sand aquifer and changing
the well depth will not provide safe potable water (i.e., below
the proposed MCt for trichloroethylene). Wells completed in
the bedrock aquifer and disturbing the integrity of the confining
layer could provide a pathway for movement of contaminants into
the bedrock aquifer. Even if wells could be safely installed
to preclude this possibility, the option would have to include
long term monitoring to assure water quality. The new domestic
-------
d
11
~
-Cisterns
With the use of cisterns, precipitation water is collected from
the roof and piped to a holding tank in the base~ent or elsewhere
underground. Filters are used to eliminate dust 'and debris
from the collected water. Although the proposed MCL for tri-
chloroethylene would not be exceeded by this alternative with
respect to private wells, it was eliminated from further
consideration because water quantity may not be sufficient
and cisterns could also present hydraulic and sanitary problems.
-Bottled Water
The use of bottled water would require 210 five-gallon con-
tainers on a weekly basis for each house and would also re-
quire a system for pumping the water through the house distri-
bution system. Although this alternative would not exceed
the proposed MCL for trichloroethylene with respect to private
wells, it would not eliminate direct contact with contaminated
water during bathing. This option was eliminated from further
consideration.
Aquifer Restoration
The aquifer at the GE Moreau site may be used as a potable
~ater supply, therefore, the proposed MCLs are considered
relevant and appropriate requirements. Absent a proposed MCL,
the New York State Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance
Values will be considered relevant and appropriate.
-No Action
Water within the groundwater plume emanating from the site
contains significant concentrations of volatile organic
contaminants which exceed proposed MCLs and State standards
and guidelines. The no action alternative would rely upon
the ability of the Moreau sand aquifer to dilute and attenuate
these contaminants under natural conditions. The GE Moreau
site was contained with the installation of the soil-bentonite
slurry wall. In the absence of source control, contaminants
would continue to flow from the site and dilution and attenuation
would not be effective. For these reasons, the no action
. alternative was eliminated from further consideration.
-Containment Barriers
Except for source containment purposes at the GE Moreau site
itself, additional downgradient containment barriers are
eliminated from further consideration. This is because the
contaminant plume has already migrated to its full areal extent,
as evidenced by groundwater sampling, water level measurements
and surface water sampling conducted at Reardon Brook.
Therefore, these barriers would be ineffective at this point
-------
12
-Source Containment, Groundwater Honitoring and Air Stripping
Groundwater Discharge -
This alternative would include the combination of groundwater
containment barriers to restrict groundwater mov~ent, sampling
and analysis of selected monitoring wells to assess the degree
of natural aquifer restoration over time, and air stripping the
volatile contaminants from groundwater discharges leading to
Reardon Brook. This alternative would not meet the appropriate
and relevant requirements described above. As the GE Moreau
site already has a containment barrier and air stripping the
groundwater discharge can provide a cost effective means of
treating the contaminants, this combination of remedial alterna-
tives passes the initial process and is considered in the
Detailed Analysis section.
-Source Containment, Groundwater Pumping and Recharge
This alternative includes the containment system described
above along with the installation and operation of groundwater
recovery wells to capture the downgradient contaminant plume,
treatment to remove the groundwater contaminants, and either
discharging the effluent from the treatment system to the
streams feeding Reardon Brook or discharging the effluent
back to the aquifer through recharge basins or injection
wells. Although this alternative could meet the relevant and
appropriate requirements described above, is not considered
further because it could adversely affect the distribution
pattern of water flowing to the reservoirs which comprise the
Village of Fort Edward reservoirs. Injection wells are prefer-
red over recharge basins in the second case because many basins
would be required which would require the utilization of land
in a residential neighborhood. The alternative of source
containment, recovery wells, and treatment and reinjection
wells is considered in the Detailed Analysis section.
-Permeable Treatment Beds
Permeable treatment beds require the installation of a trench
filled with permeable treatment materials that would passively
intercept and treat contaminated groundwater flows emanating
from a site. The trench would have to be long enough and deep
enough to intercept the entire contaminant plume. Such a trench
for the GE Moreau site would have to be some 100 feet deep and
filled with activated carbon for organics removal. This depth
would prohibit installation and the volume of carbon would also
be large. Therefore this alternative is eliminated from further
consideration.
-No Action
This alternative would not eliminate the threat of public
exposure to the highly-contaminated soils at the GE Moreau
site. The no action alternative is therefore eliminated from
further consideration.
-------
a
13
-Sealing
Surface sealing or capping the contaminated soils wouLd
eliminate the possibility of public exposure as well as
minimize water infiltration and erosion runoff~ ~.
-Excavation and Removal
Excavation of the PCB-contaminated soils and removal to a
secure chemical landfill is an appropriate alternative. The
ultimate disposal site could be the GE Moreau site itself,
within the slurry wall or other secure chemical landfills in
western New York State. These alternatives are considered
further in the Detailed Analysis section.
-Treatment
Incineration, either on site or off site for some 8600 cubic
yards of materials would be prohibitively expensive compared
to the the other two alternatives described above. Inciner-
ation was therefore eliminated from further consideration.
Detailed Analysis and Alternatives Selection
Each alternative and combination of alternatives passing the
initial screening process was evaluated in detail. The de-
tailed analysis consisted of evaluating the following aspects:
technical feasibility, public health protection, institutional
requirements, environmental effects, and cost. This analysis
is in accordance with Section 300.68 of the NCP and Section
121 of CERCLA.
The technical feasibility of a remedial action was evaluated
for performance, reliability, implementability, safety and
level of technological development. Two aspects of performance
determine desirability on the basis of performance, namely
effectiveness and useful life. Effectiveness refers to the
degree to which the action will prevent or minimize substantial
danger to public health, welfare, or the environment. The
useful life is the length of time this level of effectiveness
can be maintained. The cost of installing and operating
remedial alternatives, and the importance of protecting
public health and the environment factor into reliability.
The frequency and complexity of operation and maintenance are
also considered in evaluating the reliability of alternatives.
Implementability is the relative ease of installation and the
time required to achieve a given level of response. The time
requirements are generally classified according to the time
required to implement a technology and the elapsed time
before results are actually realized. The safety evaluation
considered threats to nearby communities and environments as
well as those to workers during implementation. The major
risk considered was exposure to hazardous substances. A proven
and widely used technology was rated high for technological
development, and those technologies considered experimental
were rated lower.
In addition to being technologically feasible and reliable, a
remedial action must adequately protect public health. Remedial
-------
14
they mitigate health and environmental impacts, and for each
remedial alternative evaluated, any negative environmental
effects resulting from the implementation of that alternative.
Alternatives requiring federal, state or local permits are
identified where relevent.
As specified in Section 300.68 (i) (2) (B) of the NCP,;.'remedial
alternative cost estimates, including distribution of costs
over time were developed. In developing detailed cost estimates,
the following steps were performed;
1. Estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs
for remedial action alternatives.
2. Present worth analysis was calculated assuming 10
percent interest and 5 percent inflation. This
analysis allows evaluation of expenditures that OCcur
over a length of time by discounting all future
costs to the present. This allows the cost of remedial
action alternatives to be compared on the basis of a
single figure representing the amount of money, that,
if invested in the base year and disbursed as needed,
would be sufficient to cover all costs associated
with the remedial action over a thirty year life.
Surface Water Supply
From the initial screening of alternatives, activated carbon
adsorption and air stripping the water in Reardon Brook are
the two alternatives considered. Both alternatives can meet
the appropriate and relevant requirements for surface water
supply.
-Carbon Adsorption .
Carbon Adsorption is technically feasible for removing the
volatile organic contaminants from the waters of Reardon Brook.
The carbon adsorption capacity tor trichloroethylene and trans-
1,2-dichloroethylene is 28 mg/gm and 3.1 mg/gm respectively.
For the streamflow of Reardon Brook and its contaminant loading,
the rate of carbon usage would be 22 pounds per day. A standard
carbon unit, holding 20,000 pounds of carbon, would have a life
span of 2-1/2 years.
Public health would be protected by this alternative because
the effluent water quality would meet or exceed the MCL for
trichloroethylene and State guidelines for trans-1,2-dichloro-
ethylene.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
permits would be required for construction and operation of a
carbon adsorption water treatment facility.
There should be no adverse environmental effects from the
-------
g
15
The capital costs of a 20,000 pound carbon adsor~tion unit is
$600,000. The annual operation and maintenance costs are
$150,000 which converted to a 30-year basis would be $2,306,000.
Therefore, the total costs are $2,906,000 for such a unit.
There are so~e disadvantages to a carbon adsorption unit which
should be considered. It has some inherent inflexibility as
far as conta~inant loading which can reduce the useful life
of the carbon. In addition, the carbon, when saturated with
organic contaminants, has to be replaced. This operation is
labor intensive.
-Air Stripping
Removing volatile organic contaminants from water by air
stripping is a well proven and available technology. Because
trichloroethylene and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene have high
vapor pressures compared to water, these organic compounds
can be removed from the water phase by exposure to air in
a packed stripping column. Air stripping can remove the
contaminants in Reardon Brook to levels less than 1 part per
billion which meets and exceeds the tlCL for trichloroethylene
'and the State guideline for trans-l,2-dichloroethylene.
A permit to construct an air stripping tower on Reardon Brook
has been granted by Region 5 of the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation. This initial remedial measure
complies with Section 300.68(e) of the NCP whereby remedial
activities may be instituted prior to the selection of the
final remedy.
There is no detrimental environmental impact associated with
an air stripping water treatment facility.
The air stripping tower costs $90,000 and the entire treatment
facility including pumps, supplementary air heating for extreme
cold weather operations, and supplementary back up equipment is
$500,000. The annual operation and maintenance costs for the
facility is $16,000 and, when converted to a 30-year present
cost, is $246,000. The total cost for the air stripping
facility is therefore $746,000.
Comparison of Alternatives for Surface Water Treatment-
Carbon adsorption and air stripping are both technically feasible
and available alternatives for treating Reardon Brook waters.
Carbon adsorption, costing $2,906,000, is some $2.2 million more
expensive than air stripping which costs $746,000. The Environ-
mental Protection Agency hereby selects air stripping as the
cost effective alternative for treating Reardo~ Brook waters.
As the air stripping facility has been operational since fall
1985, the EPA decision is therefore to continue to utilize
the air stripping facility initial remedial measure as the
-------
16
Res ident i a I Wa te r Supply
The options for residential water supply in the Cheryl Dr-ive,
Terry Drive, and Myron Road areas are the no ac~ion alter-
native, groundwater monitoring alone, and groundwa.t$r pumping
and recharge. For the Bluebird Road area, the alternatives are
individual whole house treatment and alternate water supply
from an existing public water supply which both can meet the
appropriate and relevant requirements for residential water
supplies.
-Individual Whole House Treatment (Bluebird Road)
The in-line whole house treatment unit consists of two activated
carbon filter canisters in series with the incoming water from
the individual domestic well followed by an ultraviolet disin-
fecting unit. Monthly sampling and analysis to assure the
proper operation of these units is inclued within this altern-
ative. It is also assumed that the carbon units would be
. c~anged annually.
The whole house treatment alternative is technically feasible
and achieves a high. level of deconta!t'inationalmost immediately.
The whole house treatment alternative effectively reduces the
risk of consuming contaminated drinking water. A small risk
still exists for contaminant breakthrough to occur between .the
sampling events and therefore the potential for consumption of
contaminated water exists during that time period.
There are no institutional requirements for the whole house
treatment alternative!
No adverse environmental effects
treatment alternative. The only
to environmental concerns is the
spent carbon.
are related to the whole house
negative aspect with respect
disposal or regeneration of
The costs for whole house treatment units are strictly linear
with re$pect to the number of treatment units ultimately needed.
For eight units the capital costs would be $24,000. The annual
operation and maintenance costs are $32,000 and converted to a
30 year basis are $492,000. Therefore, the total cost for this
alternative is $516,000. Again, if more domestic wells need
treatment, this cost would escalate linearly.
-Alternate Water Supply (Bluebird Road)
This alternative involves the extension of the public water
supply mains to the Bluebird Road area. Public water supplies
in the area include Village of South Glens Falls supply to the
north and the Town of Moreau Water District No.2 to the west.
Water could also be obtained from the Town of Oueensbury Water
District No.1 and the Village of Hudson Falls. Water could
also be obtained from a new, not yet constructed, public water
supply. Water mains. would be sized to be compatible with the
-------
17
water supply pipeline is both technically feasible and achieves
a high level of performance and reliability in a short ti~e.
The pipeline alternative would effectively isolate residents
from exposure to conta~inated drinking water and would therefore
eliminate risks to public health.
Permits to install the pipeline may be required"fr~m the Town
of Moreau and New York State Depart~ent of Health approval to
extend water supply mains ~ay be required. If the Queensbury
supply is the source of alternative water, permission from the
New York State Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard would have to be granted
for a water main to be installed on the I 87 bridge across the
Hudson River.
No adverse environmental effects can be attributed to this
alternative.
The capital cost for extending water supply mains to the Bluebird
Road area range from a low of $463,000 to a high of $692,000
'depending on pipeline sizing and compatibility with the Town
of t-1oreau \Jater Service Comprehensive Plan. Operation and
maintenance costs would be covered by water usage fees: i.e.,
the operation and maintenance expenses for this alternative
are contained within the water bills collected from all water
supply users within the water district.
-N'o Action (Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, Hyron Road)
The no action alternative for the Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive,
and Byron Road area would not mitigate any potential impact
from the existing groundwater contaminant plume and further,
selection of this alternative alone would not provide verif-
ication that the plume has remained unchanged from its present
condition. .
~,
This involves no analysis of technical feasibility, institu-
tional requirements, or cost.
-Groundwater Honi tori ng (Cheryl Dri ve, Terry Dri ve, r1yron Road)
This alternative involves the regular sampling and analysis
of groundwater moni tori ng wells between the GE r10reau site
and the Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, and Hyron Road area. Four
-monitoring wells, sampled on a semi-annual basis, would provide
for the implementation of additional remedial measures in
this area.
This alternative is technically feasible and well established.
The monitoring wells were installed under the Remedial Inves-
tigatipn and already exist.
This alternative would only provide a warning system for this
area. It would not, o.n its own, provide public health protection.
Access to the four monitoring wells would have to be assured
-------
18
This alternative would have no adverse environmental effect.
The capital cost of the four monitoring wells is zero because
they already exist. The annual operation and maintenance of
semi-annual monitoring and analysis is $22,000. That cQst, when
converted to a 30-year term, is $338,000 which. means th~ total
cost of this alternative is also $338,000. . .
,.
"
-Groundwater Pumping and Recharge (Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive,
llyton Road)
This alternative would involve the installation of four ground-
water production wells placed between the GE rtoreau site and
the Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, and Myron Road area. Pumping,
treating, and returning this water to the aquifer would provide
a barrier between the contaminants at and downgradient of the
GE Horeau site and the Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, and llyron
Roads area. The system would include eight recharge wells,
southeast of the .withdrawal production wells, to return treated
water to the aquifer. The treatment system would be an air
stripping water treatcent facility.
'This alternative is technically feasible and commonly used to
control groundwater contaminant plumes.
This alternative would provide a barrier betwe~n the GE Moreau
site and the Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, and ltyron Road area
to prevent groundwater contaminants from migrating to the
w~lls in this area.
The institutional requirements for this alternative include
the purchase of land for the production wells, treatment plant,
and the reinjection wells. Permits would have to be obtained
under the Clean Air Act for the air stripping treatment plant,
and under the Underground Injection Control program of the Safe
Drinking Water Act for the injection wells.
The detrimental environmental effects are drawdown of resi-
dential drinking water wells, creation of groundwater sinks
and mounds, and drawing groundwater contaminants closer to
the Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, Myron Road area by pumping
groundwater.
The capital cost of this alternative is $1,100,000. The annual
'operation and maintenance costs are $74,000 which converted
to a thirty year base is $1,144,000. The overall cost of the
groundwater pumping and recharge alternative for this area is
$2,244,000. This is not a cost effective alternative.
-Individual Hhole House Treatment (Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive,
rtyron Road)
This alternative involves installing activated carbon water
treatment units and ultraviolet disinfection units on residential
-------
19
r!yron Road area. This alternative is technically feasible
and easily installed. It also effectively mitigates public
health risks.
There are no institutional requirenents for this alternative.
This alternative has no adverse environnental ef£e~t except for
the regeneration of spent activated carbon. .
The 'capital costs for the installation of whole house treatnent
units is, for 22 houses, $63,000. Operation and maintenance
is $72,000 annually and for 30 years is $1,107,000. If more than
22 houses are involved, the costs will increase on a linear basis.
-Alternate Hater Supply (Cheryl brive, Terry Drive, ttyron Road)
This alternative is the sane as that described for the alternate
water supply alternative for Bluebird Road previously; nanely
the extension of ~ater mains from an existing public water
supply or a new, not yet constructed, public water supply.
The analysis of technical feasibility, public health effects,
institutional requirements, and environmental effects are
'identical. The capital cost of this alternative is between
$527,000 and $755,000 once again depending on pipeline sizing.
The operation and maintenance costs are again within the u~er
fees.
The alternate water supply alternative for the Cheryl Drive,
Terry Drive, l1yron Road area can be combined in an effective
manner with the alternate water supply alternative for Bluebird
Road. This combination would result in a significant cost
saving. The combined alternative cost is between $695,000
and $974,000. This range is again dependent of pipe sizing.
Connection to the Town of Queensbury Hater District No.1
would cost an additional $1,403,800 beyond the cost of connection
to the Vi llage of South Glens Falls or the Town of t10reau
~later District No.2 sources. The connection to Queensbury
involves the installation of an additional 29,700 feet, or
roughly six miles, of water main as well as d crossing of the
Hudson River. These cost figures were derived from the
Feasibility Study and the Regional Water Supply Evaluation
reports.
.-Comparison of Alternatives for Residential Water Supply:
(Bluebird Road and Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, rtyron Road)-
Comparison of Alternatives for Bluebird Road results in the
selection of the alternate water supply as the cost effective
solution. The technical feasibility and public health protec-
tion aspects are higher for a water supply pipeline than for
whole house treatnent units and the costs are the same. For
the Cheryl Drive, Terry Driv~, ltyron Road area, the alternate
water supply is also the cost effective alternative. The no
action alternative alone would not assure public health
protection and groundwater monitoring would only indicate the
need for other remedial action. Groundwater pumping and
-------
20
individual whole house treatment is even more expensive than
that. The alternate water supply pipeline provides a high
degree of public health protection and is also a technically
feasible solution. The Environmental Protection Agency-hereby
selects an alternate water supply as the cost~ffective
alternative for contaminated or potentially contami~ated
residential drinking water wells on Bluebird Road and in the
Chery 1 Drive, Terry Dri ve, and tlyron Road area. The re are
several existing public water supplies that can provide the
necessary water. The Village of South Glens Falls has stated
that its supply has an excess capacity of approximately
100,000 gallons per day. The ability of this water supply to
provide water to the 100 additional homes contemplated by
this alternative is further supported by the USGS Adminis-
trative Report. The Town of rloreau vlater District No.2 was
reported to have an excess capacity of 100,000 gallons per
day in the FS. However, subsequent comments from the Town of
tloreau in addition to discussions with the New York State
Department of Health, have revealed that sufficient capacity
,does not exist. The Town of Queensbury Water District No.1
- has a potential excess capacity of 1.8 million gallons per
day. Discussion with the New York State Department of Health
indicate that modifications to the existing system would be
necessary to increase the supply. The Village of Hudson
Falls has an excess capacity of 250,000 gallons per day.
lQO,OOO gallons per day can supply water for approximately
263 homes. This is based on the following accepted engineering
assumptions. The average per capita water use is 100 gallons
per capita per day and the average household is comprised of
3.8 residents.
The Town of Queensbury Water District No.1 alternative would
cost an additional $1.4 million beyond the selection of the
Village of South Glens Falls supply or the Town of r10reau
Water District No.2 supply. (This estimate does not include
the added expense of the river crossing and extending the main
from the Queensbury Regional Plant to the river).
The cost effective alternative that would supply water to
houses on Bluebird Road and Cherly Drive, Terry Drive, and
rIyron Road is the Village of South Glens Falls supply. The
-Environmental Protection Agency hereby selects the Village of
South Glens Falls as the water supply source.
The water supply main sizes will be compatible with the Town
of tloreau Hater Service Comprehensive Plan. The attached
Figure 3 (modified) of the Regional Water Supply Evaluation
report describes the location and sizing of the water mains
for Bluebird Road and Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, and Myron
Road.
The institutional requirements for this alternative include
-------
21
by local government; alternatively, GE may be the purveyor of
water to the affected area, if necessary.
Aquifer Restoration
The two remedial alternatives to be evaluated in de~ail are
source containment, groundwater monitoring and air s~ripping
groundwater discharge; and source containment, groundwater
pumping and recharge. The aquifer restoration alternative is
considered for the groundwater contaminant plume defined by the
Remedial Investigation, namely the plume emanating from GE
lIoreau site and migrating south-southeasterly ultimately dis-
charging as surface water flow at the lIoreau sand aquifer
escarpment. Both alternatives caa meet the appropriate and
relevant requirements with respect to aquifer rehabilitation.
-Source Containment, Groundwater rtonitoring, and Air Stripping
Groundwater Discharge
~;ithin this alternative, the soil-bentonite cutoff wall con-
structed in 1984 around the disposal site is utilized to contain
. the source of off site groundwater contamination. The wall was
designed and constructed to prevent the further release of
contaminants from the site. The aquifer should be restored to
accep~able conditions within a time ~eriod of decades.
This should occur because the sourCe is eliminated from further
contributing contaminants to the aquifer, regional groundwater
flo~ will dilute by advection, dispersion, sorption, and degrad-
ation of the contaminants within the plume on either side of
the plume below grade, and precipitation will also dilute these
contaminants from above. Groundwater monitoring under this
alternative will determine the rate at which aquifer restoration
will proceed. In addition, groundwater monitoring will assure
that the direction of plume migration does not change. Eighteen
groundwater monitoring wells are included in this alternative
for groundwater monitoring on a semi-annual basis. They are
DGC 2S, I, D; DGC 155, I, D; DGC 16 5, D: DGC 18 5, I, D; DGC
25 la, Ib; Tlt 2; TH 5; Tli C; Tlt G; and FE 1. In addition,
water level will be measured in monitoring wells DGC 19, DGC
20, DGC 21, DGC 28 and DGC 31-37. These groundwater monitoring
wells define the existing boundaries of the plume and monitoring
of these wells will identify changes in groundwater quality and
flow direction.
The third element of this alternative is to utilize the air
stripping water treatment facility at Reardon Brook to treat
the aquifer discharge flow. This facility has been operating
since fall 1985 and is effectively removing volatile contaminants
from the brook.
The three technologies within this alternative are well
established and commonly used. These are in fact in place at
-------
22
The public health effects associated with this alternative
are those for removing contaminants from Reardon Brook which
is one source for the Village of Fort Edward public water
supply.
The institutional requirements for the soil-bent0ni~e cutoff
wall and the air stripping treatment facility have already been
satisfied. Easements for the wall were obtained from the
property owners and the wall was installed with the approval
of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Permits for the water treatment facility were obtained from
the same agency as well and the facility was considered an
initial remedial measure under the NCP.
Since treatment at Reardon Brook will continue, no adverse
environmental effects are forseen for this alternative.
The capital cost for all elements of this al~ernative are
$2,600,000. The annual operation and maintenance costs are
$40,000 and converted to a 30 year basis are $615,000. The
total cost of the source containment, groundwater monitoring,
and air stripping alternative is $3,215,000.
-Source Containment, Groundwater Pumping and Recharge
The source containment element of this alternative is the same
as discussed within the previous alternative. The groundwater
pumping and recharge element would utilize production wells
with the plume to remove contaminated groundwater. This water
would then be passed through an air stripping water treatment
facility to remove volatile organic contaminants and then
returned to the aquifer through recharge wells. There are
various pumping schemes that could be used to remove the
contaminant plume from the aquifer. For this alternative,
placement of nine pumping wells along the logitudinal axis of
the plume was evaluated. The combined pumping rate would be
390 gallons per minute. The treated water would be returned
to the aquifer through 21 recharge wells located along the
outer boundaries of the plume. Groundwater monitoring wells
would be sampled on a periodic basis to determine the effective-
ness of groundwater pumping, treatment, and recharge in the
way this alternative would affect the size and quality of the
plume.
This alternative is technically feasible because the cutoff
wall already exists, groundwater monitoring wells exist, and
a great deal is known about the Moreau sand aquifer. The
source containment, groundwater pumping and recharge alter-
native would restore the quality of the Moreau sand aquifer.
The public health effects for this alternative are those
related to the operation of air stripping facilities.
The institutional requirements for this alternative are the
need to purchase land or obtain agreements for access. The
treatment plant would need a Clean Air Act permit and the
-------
,23
The environ~ental effects of the source containment, ground-
water pumping and recharge alternative are that it would
facilitate the restoration of the l10reau sand aquifer. The
amount of time that would be saved by this alternative compared
to the time for unfacilitated restoration within the source
containment, groundwater monitoring, and air stripping'ground-
water discharge alternative is unknown. Possible detrimental
effects associated with this alternative are an alteration of
the 'groundwater flow regime with possible reduction of water
flow to Reardon Brook. This would effect the Village of Fort
Edward public water supply.
The capital cost of the source containment, groundwater pumping
and recharge alternative is $4,251,000. The operation and
, maintenance costs are $240,000 annually and $3,689,000 on a 30
year basis. Therefore the total cost is $7,940,000.
Comparison of Alternatives for Aquifer Restoration-
Both the source containment, groundwater monitoring, and air
stripping groundwater discharge alternative and the source
'containment, groundwater pumping and recharge alternative are
- technically feasible. The source containment, groundwater
pumping and recharge alternative has the disadvantages of
posdibly al tering the groundwater f low system, in the ltoreau
sand aquifer and affecting the flow to Reardon Brook. In
addition, the cost of source containment, groundwater pumping
a~d recharge alternative is Some $4.7 million more expensive
than source containment, groundwater monitoring, and air strip-
ping groundwater discharge. The possibly shorter time period
for restoring the quality of groundwater in the Moreau sand
aquifer does not justify this since absent this additional
pumping, the groundwater quality will ultimately be restored to
appropriate and relevant standards with respect to aquifer
restoration. The Environmental Protection Agency hereby selects
source containment, groundwater monitoring, and air stripping
groundwater discharge as the cost effective alternative for
aquifer restoration at the GE .rtoreau site.
Soil Remediation
The initial screening process identified excavation/on site
disposal and excavation/off site disposal for the PCB-contam-
'inated soils along with surface sealing the soils to minimize
public exposure.
-Excavation/On Site Disposal
This alternative involves the excavation of 8,600 cubic yards
of PCB-contaminated soils and redeposition of these soils within
the soil-bentionite slurry wall of the GE Moreau disposal site.
This is technically feasible and involves the well established
techniques of earth moving engineering. An impermeable clay
cap would be installed on top of the GE itoreau si te after the
-------
24
This achieves a high degree of public health protection as the
contaminated soils are removed from possible public exposure
immediately.
. .
The New York State Department of Environmental Congervation and
the United States Environmental Protection Agency have already
approved soil removal and on site disposal within the slurry
wall.
This has beneficial environmental effects because
the land would become uncontaminated.
The cost of excavation/on site disposal is $500,000. There is
no operation and maintenance cost for this alternative.
-Excavation/Off Site Disposal
This is the same alternative as described above except that the
soils would be transported off site to a secure chemical landfill.
This alternative is also a well established technically feasible.
The only disadvantageous public health element associated with
this alternative is the possible public exposure to contaminated
materials during transport.
This also requires state and federal approvals as does the
excavation/on site disposal alternative.
It results in the same beneficial environmental effect of land
restoration.
The cost of this alternative is $2,500,000 with no operation and
maintenance costs. .
-Surface Sealing
This alternative has three choices. The in-place contaminated
soils could be sealed with natural soils, asphalt, or synthetic
membrane. The contaminated soils are covered to prevent public
exposure and to minimize surface infiltration and erosion. All
of these choices include fencing of the sealed areas to restrict
access.
All of these surface sealing choices are technically feasible
and can be implemented in a timely fashion.
These soil remediation alternatives all provide public health
protection because the soils can no longer come in contact with
people or the environment.
-------
25
Soil sealing costs $160,000 with $8,000 annual operation and
maintenance or $123,000 for 30 years resulting in a $283,000
total cost. Asphalt sealing costs $286,000 with $14,000.annual
operation and maintenance or $215,000 for 30 years resulting in
a $501,000 total cost. Synthetic sealing costs $230,000 with
$12,000 operatiion and maintenance or $185,000 for 30 years
resulting in a $415,000 total cost.
Evaluation of Alternatives for Soil Remediation -
The excavation/removal alternatives have the advantage of
completely isolating the contaminated soils from public and
environmental exposure. In addition, the decontaminated
land again becomes usable. The General Electric Company
has already excavated and redeposited the PCB-contaminated
soils within the slurry wall during mid-summer 1985 in com-
pliance with an EPA Administrative Order signed July 12,
1985. The United States Environmental Protection Agency
hereby selects the excavation/on site disposal alternative
as the cost effective alternative for the PCB-contaminated
'soils at the GE Moreau si tee
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
The General Electric Company has already installed and is
op~rating the Reardon Brook air stripping water treatment
facility since fall 1985.
The General Electric Company has
contaminated soils at the Moreau
of these soils within the slurry
during summer 1985.
already removed the PCB-
site and has already disposed
wall at the GE Moreau site
The General Electric Company will be required to extend the
water supply mains from the Village of South Glens Falls
to provide public water supply to residences along Bluebird
Road and along Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, and Myron Road.
All of these remedial alternatives are in accordance with the
Administrative Orders between the General Electric Company and
the Environmental protection Agency dated November 21, 1983
and July 12, 1985. The General Electric Company is required
to continue to provide for the operation and maintenance of
the Reardon Brook air stripping facility. In addition, the
General 'Electric Company is required to maintain the GE
Moreau Site. That is, the slurry wall surrounding the GE
Moreau Site is to be maintained to prevent the release of
hazardous substances from the site. The cap above the GE
Moreau site is to be maintained to prevent the"infiltration
of precipitation waters which may lead to hazardous substances
-------
26
COl1rIU~aTY RE LAT IONS
The Environmental Protection Agency has conducted numerous
community relation activities since the GE iloreau facility
was first listed as an NPL site. The agency has ~e~ with the
Citizens of Horeau Against Contar;'lination (C.O.rl.A.~.) and
elected officials on nu~erous occasions. These meetings were
intended to describe the Superfund process and to inform
these groups of the progress of the Remedial Investigation
activities. f1eetings were held to inform the groups of the
GE Moreau soils removal activities and the Reardon Brook air
stripping water treatment plant activities. t1eetings were
also held when the Feasibility S~udy was first presented to
the regulatory agencies. A public comment period starting on
September 9, 1985 and continuing to February 4, 1987, was
utilized to solicit comments from these groups on the Feasibility
Study as well as other aspects of the GE Moreau site. The
Environmental Protection Agency has attempted to respond to
all the comments during these meetings. In particular, specific
concerns raised during the comment period are addressed in
'the Responsiveness Summary which is attached.
CONSISTENCY HITH OTHER ENVIRONr1ENTAL LAtlS
The remedial activities described in this Record of Decision
are consistent with the technical requirements of both s~ate
and federal environmental laws. The Reardon Brook air stripping
water treatment facility has already been issued an air
permit from the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. The removal of the PCB-contaminated soils and
the disposal of these soils within the slurry wall at the GE
Moreau site was performed with the approval of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. The extension of public water
supply mains to Bluebird Road and to Cheryl Drive, Terry
Drive, and Byron Road may require permits from the Town of
Moreau and the New York State Department of Health as well as
-------
~,. ..' I~,~~, ~~ \.~~\\'~--- "I ~ ,...'''~ ~. I"
, .- - 1''' ~~"').. '-' "" . ,>OW.",.. " '. ,.
I, ... ~ - ¥" ",~ f(~.z..;t. -- --r'T ~ . 1t, ~ ~,' ~~:i
, .... ~ ~.lIlJ"~-~ .....-......-~. /;#:- , \ '~~ ,~t !~
fA I! ~/'~~~ ~"\ - ~\' - ..' i>,~~ 'u<, J;P:'" 5:".J ,/Fuimo~'.,
51 . \ ~ =-. "t'- \ \.\ ~l1$ .. - I ',.:
" . . "'. ~
. ~\ \. ,'t.. ~., I\~ " : . : ~ /r' . i " ',,:' : ,
- " ~ . 7 . 114.- :~ I '. .:' '
, . , '"
~ ;\1 ......., I , ~-M"'" I" , ...
C )4 " .. \, ", -'.' ,
0; ~ \ \,.=0 H rY ~t~.l d.,! '-'. \ :.1 \ ;" :,;j~ooo ~
~ - i \ \~ J,I . ~r'\. \.\,\\ .'\:' ~,--' '.""': "rr-- - ,:1J7IO' .
(I ~/ 'I I~ \ " " ~:". \ "--~J"---." ,r -, -,: \,
~ J. ~ ~ J . ," "P - '... ~,..._.J8e' ;' ~!..I ,- i. ,-
'~" LI I \ 'J ~ r...~ ~'~~""'\'\ :~\ /2 ~ """ ;..,'~ ,.f .-;or: -;
J ~.. , J~~ :,:~, ~~' ' t . - \, ... /' G : ~,-~,: ~', ~j; /
.r\/' .. P1I oJ ' - . " ,,' "\1;) ""-J I
- ~ ~ ", '~, .. c:... . ' .,'\, " I .... ',\ -=--1-1".
tc.~' CP JU, '~" ", .', ~ ~~:.., '., ~ ; ~ I~. :s.... ,', d~/)f~ K
~~"-",,.... ,'(.I' ' ",. ,..' .:.: ~ ... \\'....., 'l"J r': . I" \,) ~
~ , /' ~ ~ ... . . " .' , " " 1! J~
~-...~ ~'r~, t1.-;IrJ"\,~ + ~.., J,' ~_. :'~" .:~:-.....":..I,t\ ':~:,..!~.':' " '~II .') ...., "!'I" .
..... "-= """::;:'~ r' --., .,- [-~.. !"':"" .r,-. ':" . - ,"'= ~ ," ..~ ....,"i" ~
10, ", - '1A.~ " ~ ~ J.. -=--:;......,01 ...~ \', . ~' ~
J ,... " . ' . .. . ... . . & .
'-:' ~...:. ~ "t" .' !.. ,~ , .'. . JI ~
......... ..... ..... '. . -~.JI .",....
... , " . '. ~. . . . , , . Q:
....>o:~.![ ° ~~ . . \x;~. o;1.i~ '\~;r1 : ,~_o.n_';-'-'T~ +1
~j I t """h ,~.f;~. (\ I <-~t:u~,"
, '-J Ii " '~:' f1/,:,. ,,' -1 r., ", ~ :~ -,' '...11:,.., ~ f ': ~ / J,:,
V :' of " \"", \,' v tIP ,t ~, ':" ~,oJ ~ '~' ~
~ ~" .,,~:, - ',. . ' :'J' !:', '.: ... " -1i I ' ( .
7 I " ,,' . , "\~,.,, " ....,
... ," ./ - ..' " ,.~ f '\ . ~ ;;. ',- -..
, .,' ",' . ~ " -' -" '. ' , ' ,
~ . ',A ,~". .:--...-~. . ~:',., " ~
" I ", . ., - - " . ' , '''101
J ,j\., "~~,,. ..~" JII ~"A REA" ~ . i' ',',..' ~"J ':, ' -
od ",." ~" ~ L I I .2:', ') '~,~ \ \.4
,..'L~,," @ \ ,l;D' M 0 E E. Af \1\ ~':' ~
':},. ,." -","J M- u ~'., ". '~~ -~I I ~"tt~
(LJ/ ~ (~\ r\~ <"- . - - ' ,~ ..~ /'-~, f- //11/'1' ,,0 I. ~!J-'/~
". 1 lLJ, :" \', ~ ~'~"...' e. " ., I. '//~ ~-
, / 0 " , ~'r\' ' I ' ' - -' ill~ -
... ,!" :.\ :'i,t' _r-:' . l r-'.... ~ .-.,~
.. " #'!. \ ~u t . . " 1.J ~
"I' it .(.~. \- - ,- --=-. ' " I ' 1"'.,.'" '... .- - ,~ ~\ ~r
i" i!' ~' ".' !.OJ'~ ."",.-.::/"...
~' . \ ., _J ' ~" " , ': ~ ~-' ~' i;;; ...,
,:' '. \ - - :)i! , -:7 "\~.
'."l' r:~ J ~ ~!;..~ s._...., ...--~ .1!!..' i J ','- ~.. - '~"
~, , ~P../ .,,' .... . ..""-",, ...j u.'" U . ' ~I - - ,-,
!' '\" '- ~ j' ... . ----. ' 4''''''' - -003~... or ~~'\fr- ~ ~ '
"""" t?,J '1 '. f~~~~~t:I~~/ :.~' ~. ../ . ~~,~~~, <~~~1"\. ~~1r
~.~... ....~ Q "/1W9"?S"Jr'( / , ~"~.." ~~ ~ ~ l \' ~ .'"
. , ~ --. 'J'~~, -" '. j r
. , . ~ ~':~,,~ ' ;00\. 1]"
l~ d~\ .... I ~~.~~ ~~o.&oo ......;~~W~
-- ~ '\:;: . ~..~) ~ STUDY AUA I
~ ~\ -'~' ~, .
-.. ... , J ' ~ ' CE/KORE.AU SITE
. i , . ~ . I @).' -:.s Koruu - S8ratoR8 Countx. New York
:./. ,~l"De,.. '--:'. ' . . .. '" t.. Hud,on rall,
~ ,.JJ lI'lljf ,-,~ - ~ \: Contour Interval 10 feet
~ }~/l-7 ~/ - '\~») fFrI) r; Scale: 1". 2000'
, "..~ l r. ~~,~I\ ~.:
-------
note: all r, Jlts l..'1 Fd---:.s ?2=
----':'::--.
Table 6.1
'~.ry or A~.ly\~tal .ea~lta
Crowndwater "on~\or1nl
!
~
.
~ !
! ! .
.. " ! c
! ~ .& ~ . "
.. z.
.& ! . ~ ~ ..
1 ~ ~ II .& . I
. " " " .& "
i ... .. ~ ! 0 I
.& .. .. ..
. .. t 0 .& .. ! e .
& ... :i: " 0 .. ! " "
. . .. ~ .. ~
.. .. .! ! J
~ 0 .. "" .! 0
.. ' " " .& ..
.. . .. . ; e 0 0
i .& .. .. .. ~ .. .. ~
~ . ~ ' .. " 0 ~
.. .. .. II .. ..
...11 110. .. .. .. . . . .. .. e e ;;
.. .. .. :. I
11 I
2
.
II I
2 '.S
-------
~J
4.4
Su~arv of Initel Screenina ~esults
. .
~.ln; the 8creenln; proc.s. previously di.cu..ed in S.ction 4.1,
the ~am.dlal alternative. that v.re initially developed were
,
8creened ~o .liminate intea.ibl. or Don co.t-et.tect1ve
alternative.. .. .'
~
. ft. tollov1n; li.t pre.ent. the al t.rnativ.. which pa..ed the
initial 8cr.enin; pha.e. !be.e alternatlve. are cat.;orized
into vroup. accorcSln; ~o whIch 8lt.: pro))l.:. the ~emedy
844r..... (i..., a;uIfer ~am.4iation, ~..i4ential vater 8upply).
Nbte: the following is a modification of p. 53
ALTERNATIVE .
COST
-
Surface Water
. -Treatment by Carbon Adsorption
-Treatment by Air Stripping
$2,906,000
746,000
Residential Water Supply
Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, Myron Road-
-No Action
o
-Monitoring
338,000
2,224,000
-Groundwater Pumping and Recharge
-Alternate Water Supply
527,000 to 755,000
Bluebird Road-
-Individual Whole-House Treatment
-Alternate Water Supply
64,500 per house
463,000 to 692,000
Cheryl Drive, Terry Drive, Myron Road
.and Bluebird Road together-
-Alternate Water Supply
695,000 to 974,000
or
2,098,000 to 2,377,800
Aquifer Restoration
-Source Containment, Groundwater Monitoring
and Air Stripping Groundwater Discharge
3,215,000
-Source Containment, Groundwater Pumping
and Recharge
Soil Remediation
7,940,000
-Excavation and Removal
500,000 to 2,500,000
-Sealing
283,000 to
-------
Table :2
Potential Reme~ial Action Alternatives
At the Moreau Site
SUJU'A9E WATER
No Action
Diver.ion
Treatment
Carbon ad8orption
Air .tripping
Resin adsorption
Ion exchange
Rever.e oamosi.
RESIDENTIAL WATER SUPPLY
.'
No Action
Monitoring
Groundwater Pumping and Recharge
Individual Whole-House treatment
Alternate Water Supply (pipeline
New Well.
Cistern.
Bottled Water
from existing municipal .ystem)
AOUIFER RESTORATION
No Action
Containment Barrier.
Source Containment, Groundwater Monitoring and Air
Groundwater Discharge ,
Source Containment, Groundwater Pumping and Recharge
Permeable Treatment 8e4.
,
Stripping of
'OIL REMEDIATION
Ne:» ActiC)ft
Sealing
Excavation and Re.oval
Treatment
%ncineratiC)n
Wet Air Oxidation
Biological Degradation
-------
T,ac; ",' 6. I
S-Jrv of AnJhttCJl '.1101
"". ...to,u";... L...r ho'r'\J,L",rln.
P~I' 2
I
.
-
.
J:
.. I
I ! .
. c
.. I -
.! J: . ~
I ... '; .!: .., ..
eo . 1 .1: .. I
1 " eo . ..
.. .. : .. .. .1: ., I
I . . .! ! i 6'
.. .
.. , .. J: ..
. ! ~ .. ! ..
... .. . .
. . J: :& .! I I
.. - \,I ... . 0
.! .! , .. u .l: .. ..
, .. .! . ..
.. . . - - . ¥ .. "
r u c ... . , ... . . J:
. C .. .
.. .. .. - - .. .. - a "
...11 81.. .. .. .. . . . . ! e 0
.. - - ..
ID I
2
4
71 I 100 no 4.) '1
2 1400 II 10
7J I. 5)00 )000 )1 . 77
2 nooo SOOO U S.S 2.'
70 I )700 410 '.t
2 )200 "0 '1
IS I U
2 " 2.7
IJ I no
2 450
10 1 J. ).1.1
2 J.'
ts ...
'I I "
2 J2 1.2
tD I 1)00 660
2 1200 450
10S 1 110 -
2 . 1200 '.t 1.7
J.. UOO '70
10! I 700 II
2 noo 52 - 2.' '.7
I:. UOO 170
JOII 1 II .1
2. 2)00 Jt '.J " U
,.. UOO 170
JII I "00 70 J.' -I
2. '70 II J.I J2 2.1
I ... 2400 110 to U S.'
1U I 6100 1100 ItO
2 21000 noo 61 6.1 ... 10 20 '.1 U
I:" 2600 .10 to U S.'
liD I .* 110 1.7 I' "I
2 22000 7)0 I.J 1.1 t.' 2S 6.'
J I.. 2400 110 to U S.I
121 I
2 -
121 I -
2
lID I 2.2
2 110 -
n I
I -I
.
"1 I
.
161 I
.
-------
T~bl. 6.1
'-wry oC "n~lnl.~1 au......
'ro",oGw'I,r "onllorln.
,.., J
r
.!
.
~
.. I
I r !
.. J !
r .! " .
.. .. .
~ I ~ . I-
J . ~ . .I: - ..
.. ~ f
. .. .. I. ..
~ . - 0 I !!. I
.. .. ... !
. I ' 0 .1: .. e ..
.. ~ .. 0 J ..
! .. . - :; .! j "
0 '" .. 1 0
:; ' .. .. .I: ..
i .. ... I ; ¥ ! 0 .!
~ I ... ... ..
. . , .. ... .! 0 .I:
"-11 110. r. .. - ... ... .. I. :; ~
tit " . " ..
... ... :. I e '" iD
&51 J
J
,
ISI J
J ,..
, '.1 '1 '1
' IS '.f I
ISD J JS ... '1
J 14
, U '1 '1
161 2 -
,
liD 2
,
17 2
III 2
, -.
III J
,
lID J
,
It J ~ 1.2 '1
J
, -
20. 2
J
,
201 J
oJ
,
201) 2
I -
6 - - -
211 2 120 -I 1 U
J
,
In 2 6.'
I
6
,
211 2 '.J
J
, -
IU , 12 -I
IU 2, "00 .,0 '" -.
".. ZOOO 160 fI
2ID t uooo no no '1
1000 260 - ..
54
-------
T..ldl 6. I
1.-~r7 01 .''I.1I,t&c.l .",....~t.
'roWhw...c.ar """ILOnnl
,... "
I
.
-
.
.&
w .
I c . .
.. . c : c
.. .& . ~ .
I .. - ~
~ I . .! .. w
I .! .. . '& . .. .
.. :! .. .. I
. .. I .& .. :. I
.& . .. ~ .. ~ I
i ' .. .. I .
. .. ~ .! ~ ! .. ..
:i .. .
.. . .. I>
.. - ~ " '& J . ~ ..
: .:! , .. ~ :i .. ..
- .& . - I .. . .. .
c ... .. . .. ..
! .. . . . ... . .&
. : .. .
- .. - - .& a a ..
~.u :00. .. .. . . . .. ..
.. - - . . G
..
21$ " II
5
7
2)1 . II II II
5
,
2.10 . -I II
S
,
241 .
S
.
7
241 .
S
. .. -
7
24;) .
S
4 -
7 -
an. .
5
7
151~ ..
5 J.7
,
~ 2 5.1 -I
J
1N 2 1.5 1.2
"'" 2 - - - -
.. - - - -
I
7 -
'MI 2 2.J
~ 2 .-
W 2 110 1.1
~J: a no I.' -
~ 2 -
.
J - -
.
J
'III' 2 II '.J
~ J 11000 ..000 '10 "0 II 200 no
J' 70000 12000 210 1.0 uo
1»1) J
. -
5 -
7 -
-------
.. ~...... ....
5'-'H" uC A""J"t Ie"I ItrIW!t,
'1I/W"J",j~...r 'WII.1wr.,,-
''';c: )
..
C
to
-
.
.I:
.. ..
to
. C . II
.. . C .. C
.I: to ..
r . .. - C . ~
- to ..
.r: .. ,.. ..
.. . .I: - . - II
. - " .. .. .' .. r
I . - .. .. .. ~ . I
. - . .. .. III
4: .. - . - "' :
. .. I . 4: .. " e III
. .. P. - " . 0 e Of ..
. . .I: .. - .. C I>
. .. - '" .. .I: . ! .! .. 0
C . - ..
- - . .. ~ .I: ,..
. - . . 0 .!
- 4: . " - ..
. V C .. - . ... .. 0
. " C . I . .1:
.. .. - - - .. .I: - - "
~cu I:e. .. to . . . .. .. e e -
WI .. - - :. ! 0
nl 2 'Of) I.' - .1 ,.,
' 620 I.' 1.1
S "0 2.' - 2.1
1.lIoJ1111 Itoulld lil/llh r Dun
-
. JUII, 2S . Jul, '. I'"
2 St,c...., 5 . 17, .,.,
) Oceo", .1 . I'. .,.,
, Dec'''.r S . 21. I'"
S J08Yar, .S . 17. ."S
I Joowo" '0 . 'a. 11'S
7 ,.hu." IS . II. a,1S
.
UA "uh04 124. CC/", _1,1&1
c..,.lle. .1 ClUIC" .
..
...
Zaaufllel..c ~c., I., ...,11..
Ioc DUocce4
t
. ,
All. "c.cc.. ..,. ".,... (""'~) .D~ .ele... (laO,,~)
~.. 'oe..eo' ... ...c... (IZOOr'~)
.
~.. '.elcel' --rl ....... (2~O,,~) "b,1 ....... (IZ,,~). ell¥1ft1 (110 p,b) I.' ICICOO. C,~oo ppb)
~--
--
-------
note: all results in parts per billion
'a'i. '.1
mrM .. l!SthOll UALnlCAL atllL1t
fOIl' £DUAaD. .01 TOU
..,t....r' ........, It OI:tokr Jt6 OI:tokr It """"r I ~""r I' ~...., It DK..., II he...... It J8nuu, , Ja""uy n
".. .. JlDt . ".t ".t
.. ........Ir c-:.I . eel - JID .
. .. . ".t .t ,.,t
C8l1ecU- ... I - . - .. . JID lID
. .t . .t ".t .
C8l1ectl- ... I . . lID . ". lID l1li lID
.t .t .t . . .
~,..... ........Ir e-I.I . .. lID ". JID l1li lID
ret .- . ""t 8 ,.,'
18ft,...- ....,..Ir - . ,.,. ... lID lID lID
".t .t .t - - .
..,It, ....,..Ir e-I." . .. -C-. ,., "'CIIII) lID lID
~
I'" a .,0 100 100 170 110 1.0 110 180 tI 110 100
I 10 J.t t.J t.J J.I I.' II J.t ,., II 11
1-' a IIC.,. " "CII . JOcln . " .. 81 61 110 110
I ,.6U.'. 1.1 1.'U.6) I.tel.)) l1li J.O '.1 J.' I.' II I'
I'" a It IIOUIO) J60 1110 1 lOCI 110) 110 ItO 160 I,.UJO) nOOIO) 1"(1'0)
I II "U') n It II CII. J) 16 n I' 11(16) lOelll) JUJl)
1-' a II Jt 10 ,. II " ]I 10 " ]t ..
I . ". ". lID . . el lib . lID lID
fS-1 a 1'0 ., 160 " J.O n
I II JO 61 U J.O "
n-I a 1'0 tOO 6J0C'9O) '9OCII'O) "0(6110)
I 1110 160 IIOU]O) "0(1110) nOIl 10)
n-J a lID .. . . lID lID
I . . lID lID 110 ''0
n-6 a t.O .. .Cel) lID lID lID
I lID 110 .CIID) liD lID ''0
Toe .r Ita..... . lID JID JID JID II. -I lID
a lID el lID lID "" .. lID . . ~ lID
Clu, .... I lID . ". lID lID lID lID lID lID lID lID
C lID .1 6.' 6.' 1.1 lID I.' 6.1 1.1 ~: "I -,
. lID .1 lID lID . ,., . . lID 110 110
,., .
.,..., a Ttlrhl.....h,l... -.t t'... J Rial. .r 1'..,..1..- 8f c.....It.t.
I .....-I.I-4lrhlo,oeth,l... .. .... "'.U"
C OII...r... ... "'t ,,"Uco.l.
-------
I
/
DGC-3
.
(nD' ID $CQ/.)
II!r ~ ~
~
C'o'ru.... .1\8-
-
,- ',",~. ,..-
OGC-2
DGC-/3
.
~
REMElXAL INVEST/GAr/eN
GE /MOREAU SITE
Z-CERCLA-~0201
SlJRFACE WArE"
Appt'Oxlmal. Sampling Loco/Ions
..
-------
,11-
.z'8-
8
o
--
..
: .--
,
,
e _II
~~-
.
o
I~-
I .
lj ..-
4211-
...11-
84--
...
I I
.,
12
II
Vef '11:0" ,". "
Scale . ."
tb'ronhl'" . 100
10
SECTION
,
.
A
1
.
5
..
2
I . S"...
,
Extent
,~
Qf Soli Contamination
Cross e'Sectlon
AI- A 14
Legend
. - OJnfuminated
C - Non- Contaminated
* - Soils collected down to 8" below
groundleW!l may be anywhere
olano a lateral transect I soils
collected below 8" ore always
lie" points olonQ aKis 0' mod.'
. ,
-------
--.
" r
LEGEND
-----
-
COUNTY BOUNDARIES
TOWN SERVI'CE AREAS
WATER DISTRICT
EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES
EXISTING DISTRIBUTION LINES
PROPOSED TRANSMISSION a DISTRIBUTION LINES
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
WATER STORAGE '
KNOWN OR POTENTIAL CONCERN AREAS
IMPACT AREA(S) SERVED
12
8
--------
12
. WTF
. WS
A
f
L
NOTES :
I. THE EXISTING WATER SYSTEM PLAN WAS DEVELOPED AS SHOWN
THROUGH MEETINGS AND INTERVIEWS WITH THE VARIOUS WATER
SUPERINTENDANTS.
2. PIPE SIZES RANGE FROM 2 INCH TO 24 INCH, ONLY 8 INCH AND
LARGER ARE NOTED.
BLUEBIRD ROAD IMPACT AREA
ISHORTI LONG TERM ALTERNATIVE No.2A
, SCALE IN FEET
-- .
2000' 0'
~
2000'
f
4000.
~
%
"'''811''.'--. I
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
. .
QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF WATER FROM PUBLIC-SUPPLY WELLS AND SPRINGS
IN THE VILLAGE OF SOUTH GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK
Adm1n1atraUve Report
Prepare" for the
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TME INTERIOR
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
QUANTITY ANlJ QUAlITY UF WATEk FKOn PUBLIC-SUPPLY WELLS AND SPRINGS
IN tHE VILLAGE OF SOUTH GLENS FAlLS, N~~ YORK
Iy Daniel C. Hahl and E~ward F. lujl1081
Adm1nl.trat1ve Report
Prepared for the
u.s. ENVIRONl-IENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Albany, New York.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TH~ INTEKIOR
DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary
u.s. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Dalla. l. Peck, Director
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
C;ONTJ::NTS
Abstract[[[~............
Introduction[[[~~......
Quantity of water...............................................-........
Sources of .water..................................................
Potential yield of aquifer.........................................
Quantity used by village...........................................
Quality of w.ter[[[
Conclu8ion[[[
Reference. cited[[[
TABLE
T.bla 1.--Concentration. of .elected ground-water and .urf.ce-water
con.tituent. at South Glen. Fall., N.Y.......................
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figura 1.--Hap .howing bedrock geolog1 and major geographic feature.
of the Villaga of South Clena Fall. and vicinity.............
2.--Ce010Iic .ection A-A' through Village of South Glena Fall.
-------
CONVtRSION FACTORS ~~D A!~REVIATIONS
Factors for converting the metric (International System) unitl used in
this report to 1nch-pound units are shown belove
Divide metric (51) unitl
.!t
Length
lIeter (.)
kilometer (b)
0.304~
1.609
Area
-
Iqulre kilometer (b2)
hectlre (hI)
2.59
0.405
Flow
-
lit~r per aecond
liter per lecond
liter per .econd
cubic ceQtilletar
per day (cIII/d)
cubic metar par .acond
"(.3/.)
(L/.)
(L/. )
(L/.)
28.32
0.06309
43.81
3784
0.0283
Hydraul1c Dnie.
.eter per day (mId)
. .eter per kUolD8tar (m/b)
0.3048
0.1894
VolulD8
cubic metar (m3)
cubic meter (m3)
35.31
264.2
10 obtain inch-pound unit.
fOOt (ft)
mile (111)
.qulre 1I11a (ld2)
acre (a)
cubic feat par aecond (ft3/a)
11110n per 1I1nuta (111/111n)
1I111ion Ill10n. per dlY (Mgll/d)
.llllonper day (Ial/d)
cubic faat per .acond (ft3/.)
hydraulic conductivity.
foot per day (ft/d)
foot par 1I11a (ft/ld)
cubic foot (ftl)
Illlon (181)
Nlttonal Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD of 1929): A leodetic datum
!er1ved from 8 leneral adjuatment of tha fir.t-order nets of both tha United
Stat.. and Canada. formerly ca11ad -Mean Sea Leyel.-
-------
0,
QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF WATER FROM PU1iL"':-SUPPLY \.lE:LLS ANLI SPRINGS
IN THE VILLAGE OF SOUTri CLENS FALLS, NEW YORK
By
Daniel C. Hahl and Edward F. Bugl1081
r
ABSTRACT
The Village of South Clenl Fall., N.Y. hat not collected
luff1c1ent data to describe, in detatl, the quantity and quality
of vacer available from veIl. and .pr1ngl that are u.ed for it.
vaCer .upply. The area contain. a .and aquifer thac i. underlain
by Ihale of the Snake Kill Formation. Data from .everal conaultanta'
reporta indicate that vella drilled in .hale can yield 0.65 a1llion
gallonl per day, and the Iprinl gallery can yield up to 0.20 million
gallon. per day. The alsumed range of horizontal hydraulic conduc-
tivity of the bedrock .hale and the Ple1atocene aand aquifer thac
feedl the .prinl" togecher with the vacer-table gradient in the
.and aQuifer, suggelt that the publ1lhed yield value. are correct
to within en order of maln~tude. Calculation. ba.ed on the analy.1.
,ulse.t that relular u.e of the vella could provide the additional
0.03 Hial/d of vater for the 100 home. in the ToVD of Moreau.
Water from the veIl. cODtain. an elevated CODceDtrat1on of
hydrogen aulf1de which .upport. the conclulioD that the v.cer 1.
directl, or indirectly .upplied from the .h.le bedrock, vh1ch 1.
charactert.ticall, high in hydrogeD .ulfide. The available data
.ugge.t, hovever, that if the velll are pumped at a rate necel.ary
to .atilfy the 100 additional home. in Moreau, the effect OD the
quality of the vater .uppl, vill be .mall.
INT10DUCTION
ID September 1986, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formall,
requested the U.S. Ceololical Survey to evaluate the quantity and chemical
quality of &round vater in the Village of South CleD' Fall. (f1l. 1) thet
ha. been propoled for u.e a. a lupplemencal .ource of public .uppl, for about
100 resideDce. 18 the nearby Town of Moreau. The evaluation va. ba.ed on
information extrapolated from .everal engineeriDg conSultaDt.' report. for
nearby area., data from the New York State Department of Health, leolol1c map.
by the Nev York State Ceolol1cal Survey, vell-operatioD record., and a leo-
10lic reconnai..ance.
rbi. report identif!e. the a..umption. made, de.cribe. the method. u.ed
to e.timate potential yield of the .hale aquifer, and prelentl the data
available on chem1cal quality of vater from bedrock vella and .priDiI.
-------
4:J8
".
30"
73° 38' 30"
.. .
or
Ogf
South Glena Felli
Mt.r-IlIPply weill
end trMtment plent
A'
08h -
z
c
U
~
8
BEDROCK UNITS
Osh SNAKE HILL FOfNATION
Ogf GLENS FAu.s LIMESTONE
Oil ISLE LAMOTTE LIMESTONE
Ofe FORT ANN FOIMt.TION
At---t A' GEOLOGIC SECTION
-
08h
.f+++f+
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
&PRING GALLERY
SOUTH GLENS FALLS
WATEPrSlJItfILy FACILITY
AREA
-.--
.
E> WelL-Location with
225 bedrock-IuFfec. .'titude.
in fMt .bove NGVO
of 1929
o
I
o
.
~
~
.
I
1 KILOMETER
1 MILE
.
,y
SURFACE-WATtR OUALITY
SAMPLING SITE
DUNN GEOSCIENCE 'WEU
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
DGC-9
e... from U.S. Geological Survey. GI.". Felli
(1966'.nd HYeS.on FeUI 016lt.1 :24.000
Figure 1.--Bedrock '801017 and major ,eo,raph1c feature. of
the Villag. of South Clen. Fall. and vicinity.
GeOlogy.nd atr.tig'.phic nomencl.tur. from Fi8hef, 1185
-------
./
QU~~TITY OF WATER
~ces of Water
The South Glens Falls public water supply is derived .from a series of
springs that flow from a Pleistocene sand aquifer east of th~ present pumping
and water-treatment plant (fig. 1). The supply is supplemented tD lummer by
two wells that are about 600 feet southwest of the plant and about lCO feet
louth 01 the Hudson River. Each well t. 210 feet deep and 1. reportedly
finished in .hale of the Ordovician Snake Hill FormattOD (fig. 2). Although
the well. are in aD area that 1. mapped a. the Ordovician Glena Fall.
Limestone (Ftlher, 1985), compar1lon of the driller.' log. for the .upply
well., Itrat1graph1c data from .elected well. east of the .1te. and me.lured
Itrat1graphic lect1on. in the limestone quarry to the Dorthea.~ (fig. 3)
luggest that the lupply well. are cumpleted, at least partially, 1D .hale.
Potential Yield of~~~
The .prtDg. reportedly yteld aD average of 0.2 Hgal/d (millloD gallOD.
pet day) (StearD. aDd Wheler, 1968, p. VI-72). A dilcharge from the .pring.
1D the .and aquifer wa. calculated from the equatioD:
vhere :
Q . X1A
Q . total dI,charie, in Mlal/d.
K . hydraulIc cODductlvlty of .and aquIfer, in ftld (f..~ per day);
1 . hydraulic Brad1eDt, 1D ft/mi (feet per mile); aDd
A . crol.-..ctional area of the aquifer, in ft2 (feet .quared).
. ~
The d1.charge of the .pring. vould range from 0.014 to 0.14 ~al/d, a.
calculated from (1) horizontal hydraulic-coDduct1v1ty value. of 18.4 aDd 21
ftld (DuDn CeoscieDce, 1985 and 1984, re.pecttvely), (2) hydraulic grad1eDt.
of 0.0123' aDd 0.0015 (DuDn Geo.c1ence, 1984, 1985) for an area 1.5 mile.
.outhea.t of the village vater .upply, and (3) a liDeal .eepage face of 1,400
feet and an a..umed .aturated thickne.. of S5 feet.
The velll reportedly ara pumped at a rata of 0.65 Hlal/d or 450 gal/min
(gallonl par minute) (George Gonyea, South Glen. Fall. vatar-treatment plant
operator, oral commun., 1986) duriDg the .ummer oDly. Pumpage waa firlt
recorded in Hay-Aulu.t 1986, during which time an average of 0.65 Hgal/d va.
pumped. Tha vella vere pumped from 12 to 165 hour. each month (George GoDyea,
oral commun., 1986). Whethar the pumping wa. continuou. or intermittent t.
uDcertain. A veIl-capacity te.t conducted 1D 1968 (R1.t-Fro.t £a.oc1ate.,
1968) 1ndtcated that the bedrock aquifer ha. a .pec1ftc capacity of S
(gal/=1n)/ft (Iallon. per minuta per foot) of drawdoVD and a calculated
transm1l.1vIty of 3.2 x 10' to 4.3 x 10' ft3/(ft/d) (feet cubed per foot-day).
Well log. 1nd1cata that 165 feet of .hale va. penetrated. On the a.lucpt1oD
that the .hale i. the aquifer that 1. being tapped, the horizoDtal hydraulic
conductivIty of the .hale can be e.t1mated from the equatIon:
T . Xb
-------
en
S1
~
o
!
..
t(
Q
..I
tS 250
~
a:
~
U
5
Q
2
CI
..I
t(
! 200
~
~
~
i
t(
..
'"
'"
~
~ 150
u1
Q
~
I:
..I '
C
, 0
350
A i
~
i
ii
~
'i
'"
en-
ui
C>-
C~
-J'g
irlA
&
A'
300
I
(;
:
J
Wlter table
(Issumed I
Reponed atltic
. - wlter le"'el
in bedroQ
Confining layer
- 35 feet !hi.eII.
/
-- Bedrock
!
i
o
~
100
e
z
g
'"
5
::
~
~
i!
Q
50
o 1000 2000 3000 FIET
, J I I
, ,
o 100 1000 "'ITEItS
VERTICAL £XAGGERATION X80
Figure 2.--Geolog1c aection A-A' through Village of South Glena r.lla
water-supply are.. (Location ShOVD in fig. 1.)
-------
vhere:
T . aquifer transmissivity, in ft2/d;
K . hydraulic conductivity, in ft/d; and
b . saturated thickness of the aquifer, in feet.
then:
K . T/b
From an assumed saturated thickness of 165 ft (drillers' logl a6d fig. 2), and
the two reported transmissiv1t1e. of 2.250 and 2.974 ft2/d (Rist-Fro.t,
Associate., 1968), the horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the Ihale would
range from 14 to 18 ft/d. Horizontal hydraulic conductivity of fractured
shale generally range. from 0.001 to 0.00001 ft/d (Heath, 1983). thu., the
estimated tran,mi..iv1ty range of 14 to 18 ft/d would appear at lea.t 4 to 6
order. of magnitude too large. One rea. on may be that bedrock 1. expo.ed in
the river about 1 mile dovnltream and, aCC4rding to veIl log. of the .upply
well., is at mo.t 20 feet below the river bottom near the veIl., which would
allow direct infiltration froa the river. Data are insufficient, hovever, to
delineate the cone of depression lenerated by pumping of the well. or to
describe the extent to which pumping induce. river water to enter the aquifer,
or to predict the effect. of pumping on discharle of the .prinl'.
.
lit .
-
~350
~
.C
C
.J
~
i
U300
~
WI
8
WI
C
.J
C
~
~
c
~ 250
i
c
~
~
...
!
..
~f
dI
8-
IC-
~I
;1
8-
ledrock uni' no,
djff.renti~'8d in
/_"'''\
- -
-
tLimes'one?'-
--
" ...j"'" :hi d;. .. tho
SOUth ,from Filher '.5'
PI.istDC8M Send
"'- -?
- - J .
- -?- --
- "
-?-
Snek.
Hill
FoI'm8,jon
GI.ns F.II.
Limestone ..........:
- -
o '000 JOOO JOOO 'In
..; I. I I
Q . I
E 200 0 100 '000 Wrnltl -
~ VERTICAL. EXAGGERATION X80
C
- ?-
.'
~
~
~
i
s
'I
I
.
.
..
.~
011
~
j
Figure 3.--Ceologic .ection I-I' through Villale of South Clen. Fa11.
water-.upply area. (Location .hown in fil. 1.)
-------
The rough calculations of seepage from the springs and the transmissivity
and hydraulic conductivity of the shale aquifer near the supply wells
(assuming infiltration from the river to the aquifer) indicate that the ranges
given in consultants' reports for the discharge of the sp. ngs and for a
"safe" yield for the wells are reasonable.
Quantitt -~~ Village
Water dem.nd by the Village of South Glen. Falls during the fall, wiDter,
and .pr1ng 1. met by the 0.2-Mgal/d dlscharie from the spring-collection
gallery (fig. 1) and i. .upplemented during the .ummer by 1Dtermittent pumping
from the .upply well. at a rate of 0.6 Hial/d. Rough calculation. ba.ed OD
.everal as.umption. .ugge.t that regular use of the veIl. could provide the
additional 0.03 Mgal/d of vater for the 100 bome. in the Town of Moreau.
r
"
QUALITY OF WATER
Too fev chemical analy.e. of ground vater from the .pr1ng. and vater-
.upply veIl. of the Village of South Glens Fall, are available to predict the
effect of 1ncrea.ed pumping on water quality. Table 1 .hov. the raDge. 1D
concentration of con.tituent. measured in flni.hed vaterl at South Glen. Falla
during 1974-81. Only one .et of aDaly.e. va. available for vater comiDI
directly from the .pr1ng gallery and from the veIl.. For refereDce, the range.
in corre.pond1Dg cOD.tituent. found 1D Bud,oD River vater during 1975 are
given. Some leneralization of the vater quality may be made from the fev
analy.e. available, however.
A compari.on of vater from the 'upply veIl. with vater from the .pring
gallery (table 1) 1Ddicates that the vell vater i. harder aDd cODtaiD' le..
chloride than the .prlDg water; it 81.0 contains a .lgDlflcant amoUDt of
hydrogen .ulf1de. (The .pr1ng vater .hov. Done.) The pre.ence of hydrogen
.ulf1de 1~ the vell vater 1. typical of vater from the .hale unit of the SDake
Hill Formation (FI.her, 1985) and 1. probably derived from tbe pyrite depo.lt.
1D the .hale.
Tbe lack of data OD major cat10D. and an1oD' in veIl and .prlng vater
pr-eclude. determination of the relation between ground vater aDd .urface vater
in the South Glena 'all. vater-.upply area. The available data .ugse.t,
hovever, that if the veIl. are pumped ae I rate nece..lry to ..t!.fy tbe 100
additional home. in Hbreau, the effect OD water quality of the two .y.tema
vilL be .mall. Bardne.. may be expected to increa.e and chloride COD-
centracion to decrea.e, aa the ratio of vell vater to .pr1ns vater Increa.e.,
but th1. ...umption 1. ba.ed OD only one data set and 1. IncoDclu.1ve.
I
The ,term "f1n1.hed- vater appl1e. to the vlter that ha. pa..ed through
the publlc-.upply treatment proces. and 1. delivered to the South Gle08
'all. d1.tr1but10n .ystem. The treatment con.1.t. of aeration and
chlorlnaUon.
6
. - - . -.- -
-------
~
T.~I. 1.--CDnc.ntr.tlon. 01 ..l.rled .roundevlt.r .nd lurl.c.ev.t.r
con.tltY8nt. .t Soutn 'l.n. ,.11.. ..T.
[Concenn.tlonl h alllll1U" par Ueer.
d...... Indlclt. nu 'It..J
---.--
Coutltu'Dt
'ID18I1.11 ".ur
(un,. JD
CODc.nnu 1011
1"10-.1')
----!!"_,,.t.r,oce. II, t!!~'---
5~rl", .111.ry Su~~ly ~.ll.
~iu-;;r;c-
Chu rub. .
(UIII' 10 ~
CDnC.ller.tIDD
1975 "Iur Ylar'l-.
M8D1IJ., .. II
&I.OO~-o.O'
Qlori..
2"40
0.0' 0... 0.14-0.15
1.' .1 .IS-.n
so '.0 2.2-6.0
174 200 f-IS
.16-."
1.8-'.'
41-77
.'4C_-
IIU rue ,188
UUU., .. II
2.2-'.'
Toe.l IIIr'.",
.. c:.cu,
21-11
Ir.
.02-.11
...t-
I~I'
Total .....1...
..111.
lI:rdr.... .1111".
(tr.. )
a 'e.."" 1,,11 lue. DeportM.t ., .altll, ~U.-. flcera.
. 'r.. D.I. ,"lepeal ..n.,., I.,.. I
C rr.. G80r.. Goa,..., 'tll.,. of ".ell Cl... ,.11., ,r..C88.t.,18at .,.ro,.r.
wric,.. ........ a....
CONCLUSIONS
No reliable eltlmate of the quantity of vater available from the
Plelltoeene land and underlying bedrock aquifer. can be given beeau.e (1) too
few data are prelent to calculate the amount of vater available. (2) hydraulic
propertiel .ueh a. .aturated thieknel. and hydraulic gradient of the .aDd
aquifer are only inferred. (3) aquifer-pumplD1 te.t. have DOt been don.; and
(4) data indicative of the hydraulic propertie. of the bedrock aquifer are not
available. A report by Stearn. and Wheler (1968) indicate. that a -.&fe-
ylel4!1 of 0.6 .~al/d for the .upply veIl. aud aa average di.cbarge from tbe
.prlng gallery of 0.2 Mgal/d vould be withia an order of magnitude of gro..
calculated value. that vere ba.ed on .lmplifled a.,umptlon. of aquifer proper-
ti88 .
The .ffect of iacrea.ed pumping on vater quality of the .prlaSI and the
.upply vella cannot" predicted beeaule too fev vater-quality data are
avaliable. lucrea.ed pumplal for the additional 100 home. probably would not
caule a .lgnlflcaat chanle la vater quality, however. If the treatment for
hydrogen .ulflde were adju.ted to compenlate for the 1ner.a..d volume of veIl
water withdrawa.
2
The term -.af.- yield 1. imprecl.ely d.flned but commonly v.ed by
con.ulting firm. to indicate the amount of water available for
withdrawal from a well on a regular ba.i.. The reference 1. u.ually
related only to well d1ameter. type of .creenins. and amount of
development and rarely include. aquifer characteri.tic. or variation.
In recharle.
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Dunn Geoscience Corporation, 1984, Remedial investigation of GE/Moreau .ite
l1-CERCLA-30201: Albany, N.Y., Dunn Geoscience Corporation, 2 v.:~
1~85, Addendum--remedial investigation GE/twreau site ~~I-~£RClA-30201:
Albany, N.Y., Dunn Geoscience Corporation, 2 v.
Fisher,.D. W., 1985, Bedrock geology of the Glens Falls-Whitehall region,
New York: Albany, N.Y., New York State Huseua lup and Chart Seriel
No. 35, 58 p.
Heath, I. C., 1983, Basic ground-water hydrololY:
Water-Supply Paper 2220, 84 p.
U.s. Geololical Survey
R1st-Frolt, ~sociatel, 1968, Village of South Glenl 'alll, Saratola County,
. New York--technical report for proposed water faci1itiea: Glen~ Falll,
N.Y., I1st-Frolt ASlociatel-Consultinl Enlineera, 58 p.
Stearnl and Wheler, 1968, Comprehen.ive 1ntermunicipal public water lupply
. Itudy, Saratoga County, New York. No.6: Cazenovia, N.Y., Stearnl and '
Wheler, Civil and Sanitary Enlineerl, p. VI-66-73.
V.S..Geological Survey, 1976, Water Relourcel data for Ne~ York--Water Year
1975: V.S. Geololical Survey Water-Data Report NY-7S-1, p. 35'
-------
J
RESOLUTION OF NOVEMBER 20, 1985
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF
SOUTH GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK. " ;'
WHEREAS, inquiry has been made of the Village of South
Glen. Pall. by representative. of the General Electric Company
concerning the capacity of the Village of South Glens Palll water
lupply and the interest of the Village, if any, in .elling water
to the Town of Moreau, and
WHEREAS,
it hal been determined that the Village of
South Glens Pall. can .upply up to a maximum of 100,000 gallonl
per day to the Town of Moreau, NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Village of South Glen. Pall. is
willing to enter into an agreement upon term. and conditionl to be
mutually agreed upon by the partie. thereto to .ell water to the
Town of Moreau up to a maximum of 100,000 gallons per day, and
BE
IT
FURTHER
RESOLVED,
that
the Hayor
i.
hereby
authorized to enter into negotiation. with the Town of Moreau andl
or it. repre.entative., including repre.entative. of the General
Electric Company for the aforesaid purpo...
. .
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
GE MOREAU SITE
TOWN OF MOREU
SARATOGA COUNTY, NEW
FOR THE
. .
YORK " r
JUNE, 1987
Introduction
This Responsiveness Summary for the GE Moreau Site outlines key
community concerns regarding the Remedial Investigation/Feasibi-
lity Study (RI/FS) Report and the proposed alternatives for
site cleanup. rhese public COmments will pe taken into consider-
ation when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) makes its
final selection of the preferred Remedial Actions. The Respons-
iveness Summary is prepared by the EPA to addresss these comments
and is incorporated into the Record of Decision, which states
the selected Remedial Actions.
This Responsiveness Summary' is di~ided into the following sections:
Section A:
Background on Community Involvement and Concerns:
This section provides a brief history of community
relations activities conducted by the EPA during
the RI/FS.
Section B:
Summary of Major Questions and Comments Received
During the Public Comment Period and EPA Responses:
This section summarizes significant questions
and COmments made to the EPA during the public
comment period, including the public meeting of
September 19, 1985. Comments with the EPA
responses are categorized under separate topics.
A.
Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
The GE Moreau Site, also known as the Caputo Landfill, is located
in the Town of Moreau in northeastern Saratoga County, New York.
Waste materials were scattered over approximately 30 acres of
the site, a portion of which included a small evaporation
lagoon and drum disposal area. The evaporation lagoon was
previously an open sand pit that was used for the disposal of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The drum disposal area
consisted of approximately 100 drums and associated contaminated
soil.
In 1978, town and state officials began testing the air, surface
water, groundwater, and soil on and near the site for possible
PCB contamination. The evaporation pit was covered in May 1979.
Also, several barrels of liquid PBC and some PCB-contaminated
-------
o
-2-
In November 1983, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) determined that there was a high .~oncentr-
ation of trichloroethylene (TCE) in the groundwater system and
suggested that an alternative water supply be located for several
homes. The Town of Moreau purchased and installed carbon filters
for 70 homes as a protective health measure. The Citizens of
Moreau Against Contamination (COMAC) citizen's group was formed
in 1983, consisting of over 70 families living in proximity of
the site and using water via private wells from the contaminated
Moreau aquifer.
Also, in November 1983, the Environmental Protection Agency and
General Electric entered into an Administrative Order on Consent.
The Order called for General Electric to perform a Remedial Investi-
gation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and to. implement the selected
remedial actions for offsite contamination at the GE Moreau Site.
. Information repositories were established at the following loca-
tions: Crandall Library, Glens Falls: Ft. Edward Free Library,
Ft. Edward: and the Offices of the Town Supervisors of Moreau and
Ft. Edward.
A 30-day comment period was established from December 2, 1983 to
January 2, 1984. Comments were received concerning the Order and
incorporated into a "Summary of the Final Administrative Order" -
Index No. II-CERCLA-30201.
A Remedial Investigation was initiated in May 1984, and a Remedial
Investigation Report, with added information, was completed in
March 1985. An informational meeting concerning the status of the
Remedial Investigation was held on June 21, 1985, to present the
findings of the Remedial Investigation Report. Major citizen
concerns revolved around the provision of an alternative water
supply, with regard to quality, quantity, and cost.
A Feasibility Study Report, which evaluated remedial alternatives
for the GE Moreau Site, was completed in August 1985. A public
comment period was opened from September 9, 1985, to September
28, 1985, to receive input on the Feasibility Study Report. The
EPA presented the findings of the Feasibility Study Report and
. received verbal comments at a public meeting on September 19, 1985,
at the Town Hall in the Town of Moreau. At the request of the
Town Board of the Town of Moreau, the EPA agreed to extend the
public comment period to October 28, 1985.
EPA agreed to the Town's request for a second extension of the
publi~ comment period for a reasonable period of time beyond
November 12, 1985, so that after considering the results of a
technical meeting scheduled for that date, the Town would have
-------
-3-
The technical meeting was in fact held on November 12, 1985;
the EPA, representatives from the NYSDEC and General E~ectric
met with members of the Town Board of the Town of Moreau in
Albany, New York, to answer any questions containea in the Town
Board's draft response to the Feasibility Study Report.
On'December 31, 1985, the Town submitted its comments on the
outcome of the November 12 meeting. In this package, the Town
asserted that there was new evidence demonstrating that the
plume emanating from the site had migrated to the west and
south and contaminated the Jamaica Avenue and Nolan Road areas.
On January 2, 1986, EPA received a letter from the Town's
attorney, Louis Oliver, requesting permission to review the ROD
before it was finally approved by EPA and released to the public.
EPA responded to the December 21 and January 2 letters on
. January 13, 1986, stating that the western edge of the plume
had been defined: and that chemicals characterizing the plume
did not appear in the Jamaica Avenue and Nolan Road areas. EPA
further informed the Town that it had ordered,GE to place addi-
tional wells west of the site to determine whether the possibility
of westward migration existed. Finally, EPA stated that it
would probably deny the Town's request for permission to review
the ROD prior to its issuance.
EPA met with the citizens from the community on February 20,
1986, in order to address their concerns.
The Town submitted further comment on February 27, 1986, reiter-
ating its concerns.
In EPA's April 1, 1986 letter, EPA's Regional Counsel agreed to
hold the remedial decision in abeyance until the Town Supervisor
met with Mr. Daggett to present the evidence claimed to be in
his possession that other areas of the Town are affected by the
plume. On the third page of the letter, the Regional Counsel
reiterated that EPA would be open to any data or evidence that
indicate that EPA has incorrectly assessed this situation, and
that the plume has contributed to contamination in that area.
As late as the May 14, 1987 public meeting, the Town Supervisor
alleged that sampling of homes in the disputed area evidenced
that General Electric was responsible for the contamination in
the Jamaica Avenue and Nolan Road areas, but has as yet still
not shared the information with EPA. Finally, EPA informed the
Town that data from the piezometer wells installed by GE under
subsequent direction from EPA indicated, on the contrary, that
westward expansion of the plume was physically precluded, due
to the existence of a groundwater mound.
On June 17, 1986, members of the Town Board of the Town of Moreau
and representatives of COMAC met with Mr. Daggett to discuss
information in the RI Report-specifically, the size and shape
-------
~
-4-
Members of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, the Department of Health, and the Department of
Law were also present at this meeting, as well. as.EPA project
personnel. . ~
Another meeting was held in Mr. Daggett's office on August 5,
198~, at which Mr. Daggett expressed his intention to select
the Village of South Glens Falls as a source of potable water.
In order to address the quality and quantity concerns raised
by the Town, Mr. Daggett agreed to retain the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) to examine existing data on those
issues. Mr. Daggett stated that if the USGS agreed with EPA
experts that the Village supply is capable of providing water
to the homes in the effected area, EPA would select the Village
supply as the cost effective remedial action.
On August 15, 1986, the Town's attorney submitted a package
critiquing the results of the water level measurements taken at
the newly installed piezometer wells which evidenced a ground-
water mound underlying the Jamaica Avenue area. Further, the
attorney registered his dissatisfaction with EPA's decision
'to order GE to sink additional piezometers without first consult-
ing with the Town. In addition, the Town requested sampling
results of all homes, beyond even those located in the plume.
On October 6, 1986, Mr. Daggett disputed Mr. Oliver's contention
that EPA did not consult with the Town before directing GE to
do additional analysis in the area. Rather, Mr. Daggett pointed
to several instances where the record shows that there was
consultation with the Town on this topic. Melvin Hauptman, the
Project Officer, wrote on November 24, 1986, that pursuant to
the Freedom of Information Act regulations, the requested.
sampling data could be supplied, but that the Town would have to
pay a modest copy and search. charge. The Town never responded,
and has never obtained the requested data.
The Town submitted another package on November 5, 1986, again
asserting that General Electric's retained consultants, Dunn
Geoscience Corp. (Dunn), had not properly defined the plume,
and that it reached as far west as Jamaica Avenue.
EPA responded on February 4, 1987, stating that the mapping of
the plume was accurate. EPA formally closed the comment period
with its February 4 letter.
B. Summary of Major Questions and Comments Received During the
Public Comment Period and EPA Responses
Major comments and questions raised during the GE Moreau Site
public comment period are summarized in this section. Examples
of the specific comments and questions raised and EPA responses
are also provided. The comments are organized by the following
-------
( 1 )
( 2 )
( 3 )
1 .
-5-
Comments from the Town Board of the Town of Moreau;
Verbal comments expressed at the public meeting of
September 19, 1985; and
Written comments sUbmitted to the EPA durin~ the comment
period. .
Comments From the Town Board of the Town of r10reau
The Town Board had requested that the EPA require either a new,
mOdified, or amended RI/FS Report to address relevant concerns
and to comply with certain requirements of the Superfund act.
The Town Board felt that the RI/FS Report was inadequate in
three areas: the provision of alternative water supply sources,
the definition of the contaminated area, and the restoration of
the aquifer.
The EPA, however, is completely satisfied with the results of
the RI/FS Report and adopts it as conclusive. The report meets
,the requirements of the Administrative Order between General
Electric and the EPA. At this time, the EPA does not intend to
request that General Electric modify or amend its reports.
However, as a result of a meeting held at the Town's request on
June 17, 1986, the EPA did direct General Electric to install
piezometers in the area between the GE Moreau site and the
Jamaica Avenue/Nolan Road areas of town.
GE, through its consultant, Dunn, installed seven additional
piezometers, as directed. Water level measurements obtained
from the additional piezometers confirmed the existence of the
groundwater mound west of DGC 15, and thus enforced the conclusion
that DGC 15 locates the western-most edge of the contaminant .
plume.
Topic:
Issue:
Response:
Alternative Water Supply Provisions
The Feasibility Study Report does not adequately
address alternative water supply provisions or the
source(s) of such water supply. Also, the report
does not address items of concern such as water
quality, water quantity, costs, and water pipe
size. It therefore did not meet the requirements
of the Superfund Act.
The Feasibility Study Report does mention alternative
water supply sources on pages 66 and 78. The sources
of water are the public water supplies of the Town
of Moreau and the Village of South.Glen Falls.
Public water supplies in New York State are regulated
by the New York State Department of Health; these
sources of water meet the quality standards.
The pipe sizes identified in the Regional Water
-------
o
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
-6-
native No. 2A) for the General Electric Company in
April 1984 are consistent with the pipe sizes out-
lined in the Town of Moreau Watei ,Service Comprehensive
Plan. .' ~
The Feasibility Study Report does meet the require-
ments as stated in the National Contingency Plan,
(40 CFR, Section 300.68(a)-(j), because it does
evaluate (1) technical feasibility (2) public
health (3) institutional requirements (4) environ-
mental effects (5),cost evaluation and (6) comparison
of alternatives.
The Feasibility Study Report does not contain cost-
estimates for the provision of an alternative water
supply. It also does not consider the capital,
annual, and 30-year operation and maintenance cost.
The costs are explained in the cost evaluation sect-
ion in the report on pages 67 and 79. There are no
figures in the opera~ion/maintenance of the water
pipeline because those costs are contained in user
charges.
It is not technically feasible to use either the
Town of Moreau Water District No.2 or the Village
of South Glen Falls as a source of water supply for
residences. Also, the water district in the Village
of For.t Edward does not have sufficient source
capacity to serve as a permanent alternative water
supply for the affected area.
The EPA realizes that Water District No.2 in the
Town of Moreau has questionable available capacity.
However, the Village of South Glen Falls has more
than enough water and is able to supply 100,000
gallons per day. (Refer to attachment of resolution
dated November 20, 1985. Refer also to attachment
of Resolution dated February 27, 1986, reiterating
that the capacity exists, but that the Village was
rescinding its offer to sell excess water for
reasons other than quantity. Finally, refer to the
Quantity and Quality of Water From Public-Supply
Wells and Springs in the Village of South Glens
Falls, New York, 1987 (USGS Administrative Report),
confirming that the supply can be utilized to
provide potable water to the 100 or so homes in the
contaminated area.) The EPA does not believe that
270 homes are effected by the plume: it is likely
that the number of homes that may be potentially
impacted is closer to 120 homes. General Electric's
FS does not propose to tap the Village of Fort
-------
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
-7-
The 1100 acres of land affected by the plume will
be subject to sparse development or no development
at all because of the limitations imposed by using
the municipal water supply of the Village of- South
Glens Falls. .
General Electric has offered (as indicated in the
Feasibility Study Report) to provide public water
for future development.
Supplying outside water to the homes in the plurne-
affected area will cause additional contaminant
flows in the direction of the South Glen Falls
wells.
General Electric investigated whether the drinking
water wells in the Cheryl, Terry, and r1yron Road
area could possibly affect the contaminant plume.
The results of that investigation did not show such
an effect. General Electric has performed an
additional investigation to determine whether the
addition of imported water to the area of the
aquifer could have an effect. The EPA believes that
any effect is negligible.
The Feasibility Study Report failed to include fire
flow capacity in the alternative water supply cost
estimates.
The EPA does not discuss fire flow capacity because
this area of the town did not have provisions for
such service before the GE Moreau site. If the
town desires fire protection capability in the
area, that issue may be included in discussions
between the Town and General Electric.
The Feasibility Study Report failed to evaluate in
detail at least one alternative water supply that
does not involve connection with an existing municipal
water district.
Such an alternative was not evaluated because it
would exceed the costs of connecting with an existing
water supply. However, the EPA may allow the construc-
tion of a new pUblic water supply if all existing
supplies could not supply water to the plume-impacted
area.
The Feasibility Study Report does not identify the
number and location of the residences included in
the proposal for a water distribution system.
Everyone in the Cheryl, Terry, and Myron Road area
-------
Topic:
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
-8-
water system. Refer to the Feasibility Study
Report and the Short/Long Term Alternative No. 2A
in the Regional Water Supply Evaluation Report for
General Electric, dated April 30, 1984.
Contaminated Area Definition
"
General Electric failed to adequately define the
area affected by the contamination from the GE
Moreau site and to scientifically justify its
definition of the affected area.
General Electric addressed this in both versions of
the Remedial Investigation Reports--October, 1984
and March, 1985. Refer to plate 12 of the October
1984 Remedial Investigation Report (along with
plates 6, 7 and 8) and to plates 4, 5, 6, and 7
(groundwater table countour maps) of the March
1985 Remedial Investigation Report for discussion
of groundwater flow and contaminant locations. Also,
refer to the text of both reports. The area was
further defined in EPA's review of the RI Reports.
Finally, refer to EPA' s February 7, f 1987, letter to
the Town of Moreau. ,
The RI/FS failed to identify the location and the
extent of contamination in the plume because General
Electric's consultant used 30-foot-long screens on
its monitoring wells.
At each monitoring well location, General Electric
installed th~ee monitoring wells--one shallow, one
intermediate, and one deep--with 30-foot-long screens.
The reason for this was to intercept every depth of
the aquifer at that location to determine the loca-
tion of the contaminants. Water analyses conducted
to a detection limit of one part per billion served
as an indication of either the presence or absence
of contaminants at every location and elevation
within the aquifer. '
The depiction of contamination by isoconcentration
lines in plate 12, Dunn Report, 1984, shows the
detectable limit of TCE. Although 100 ppb was the
outside countour drawn, concentrations were non-
detect at very short distances (less than 100 feet)
from the 100 ppb line in most cases, except in the
Cheryl, Terry, Myron area, where concentrations
range from extremely small to non-detect, and which
area will be provided, as a precautionary measure,
with potable water. EPA believes that the plume is
accurately defined by the data generated by Dunn,
and that concentrations for the major part of the
-------
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
-9-
depicted by the 100 ppb contour. It should be
noted that plate 12 depicts wells outsida of the
100 ppb contour, and lists the levels of contamin-
ation detected at those wells. . .
The RI/FS failed to identify the exact location
and the extent of the contaminatant plume because
of the exclusive use of TCE as an indicator
chemical. Also, if TCE was not detected in
samples taken from a particular residence, then
the well at that residence was not counted as
contaminated. .
Incorrect. General Electric conducted sampling
anq analysis of all monitoring wells and all
possibly affected drinking water wells for 50
purgeable organics and PCBs. This analysis
includes approximately 50 priority pollutants.
TCE was the predominant contaminant appearing in
these analyses.
The RI/FS failed to demonstrate that
evidence of radial flow of the plume
water supply wells of the Village of
Falls.
there is no
toward the
South Glens
The RI Report defined the plume as moving in a
south, southeasterly direction and not in a
northerly direction toward the South Glens Falls
supply wells. The supply wells for the Village
of South Glens Falls are upgradient from the
site; in addition, there is a naturally occuring
groundwater mound north of the site that is also
upgradient. I~ order for contamination to reach
the South Glen Falls supply wells, the groundwater
would have to overcome the groundwater mound and
the regional groundwater flow pattern, which is
in a southerly direction. Both situations are
highly unlikely to occur.
What is the possibility of contaminants traveling
from the plume to the deep wells used by South
Glens Falls through the extensively fractured
rock in which the wells are located?
The GE Moreau Site is underlain at a depth of
approximately 100 feet by a minimum of 13 feet
of a naturally occurring clay layer. The slurry
wall around the site is keyed into this clay
layer and is, therefore, a separation between
the waste material and the fractured bedrock that
in which the Village of South Glens Falls wells
-------
~
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
Topic:
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
-10-
There have been no monitoring wells or other tests
to determine whether contamination exists .-in the
groundwater flowing into the Fort £dward watershed
in and around the Reardon Brook ai~a:
Among others, monitoring well DGC 13 is located in
the Fort Edward watershed. This well has not
shown any contamination.
General Electric failed to generate a working model
of the groundwater.aquifer that has been contaminated.
Failure to develop a working model is not relevant
in this situation. The model would be used only to
simulate field conditions, and we feel that General
Electric has fully defined actual field conditions.
Aquifer Restoration
General Electric failed to adequately address the
restoration of the aquifer that has been destroyed
by the contamination.
The EPA is requiring General Electric to provide an
alternative water supply to areas that currently do
not show signs of contamination but may show signs
in the future, i.e., the Cheryl, Terry, and Myron
Road areas. Although aquifer pumping is not required
at this time (due in part to concern over alterations
in groundwater flow patterns which may result in loss
of water to the Fort Edward Water Supply), aquifer
resoration should ultimately be accomplished by natural
forces. Furthermore, since the aquifer is being
treated at its point of discharge analysis indicate
that additional aquifer treatment would not be cost-
effective.
The Feasibility Study Report rejects the pump and
recharge alternative for aquifer restoration because
of cost factors.
Source containment is included in the pump and
recharge alternative. The separate cost for source
containment is $2.3 million; the cost for pump and
recharge is $5.7 million. Providing an alternative
source of water via a pipeline is a more cost-
effective solution than pumping and recharging the
aquifer. In addition, the aquifer is being treated
at the Reardon Brook Water Treatment Facility. The
National Contingency Plan requires the most cost-
effective solution. Furthermore, as explained above,
such pumping and recharge may result in loss of water
-------
Issue:
Response:
-11-
The construction of a water treatment plant utili-
zing the Hudson River in the Town of Morea~ should
be considered as an alternative iri .the.Feasibility
Study Report. . .~
General Electric is not required to consider this
approach, which would be considerably more expensive
than the solutions already proposed. It is, therefore,
not cost-effective, as required by the National
Contingency Plan.
Verbal Comments Expressed at the Public Meeting of September
19, 1985
2.
The following comments were made by citizens at the public meet-
ing. Robert Buttles, Sr., and Elizabeth Wimette served as
representatives of the Citizens of Moreau Against Contamination
(COMAC).
Topic:
Issue:
NYSDEC
Response:
Issue:
Response:
Technological Concerns
With regard to the air stripping remedy, does that
mean that contamination would be released into the
air?
The air stripper itself, when that was proposed to
be put in by EPA, the State Health Department, and
the DEC, was to require an air permit. The opera- .
tion of an air stripper does involve air emissions,
if you will. General Electric applied to our
agency through our regional office and received a
permit to discharge into the environment within
certain limits, given that kind of loading rate.
General Electric was issued the permit: the air
stripper has been tested and is in compliance with
the operating certificate from the Division of
Air. So yes, the air stripper is putting things
in the air, but General Electric has a permit
allowing for the operation of the air stripper.
What were the houses affected by when General Elec-
tric determined the plume of contamination? Were
you looking for one chemical?
No. We dictated to General Electric that those are
all the homes that should be addressed as needing
a remedy. We weren't looking for one chemical.
There is a whole list of volatiles that we asked
GE to test for, primarily in newly installed
-------
D
Issue:
Response:
Topic:
Citizen
Comment:
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
Response:
Issue:
-12-
On page 15 of the Feasibility Study Report, could
you comment about the concern that the Town Board
expressed in regard to the small-sized pipes,
which do not include an accurate flow' capacity?
The report tends to give the feeling "that the pipe
size is substandard in terms of its capacity.
We were concerned about the size of the pipes, and
we want to check that out. One of the other items
of interest that we tried to check out with General
Electric was hook-ups to individual homes, because
that's not delineated in the report. General
Electric agreed to the hook-ups: they agreed to
put in pipes that could handle a full-size water
district. It's not a pipe that would only be able
to handle particular homes.
Administrative Concerns
I would agree, as it has already been phrased, that
the Feasibility Study Report should be modified or
amended. I don't feel that it needs a great deal
of extensive research to amend it, but the people
have waited long enough. We need water and we need
it quickly.
Was an environmental impact statement (EIS) done?
A formal EIS was not done on this site: the primary
reason from the department's office of counsel was
that this action is being conducted pursuant to an
enforceable document. We have the State Order on
Consent and the General Electric/U.S. EPA (Federal
Superfund) CERCLA Order. The substantive require-
ments for what we consider in the environmental
impact analysis were complied with by GE in its
application to our agency.
According to this, GE failed to define the affected
area. When will that be done? And when will we
know what is considered to be the affected area?
How will EPA deal with that?
There was an opportunity under the Remedial Inves-
tigation for GE to define the affected area. The
firm limited itself to Bluebird Road at the time,
with some westerly migration. We pushed that
westerly migration even further to Cheryl, Terry,
and Myron Roads. So, in effect, we defined the
area for General Electric, and that area will
include all of the houses in the area.
Do you know actually which homes General Electric
-------
Response:
Issue:
-13-
All of the homes in the area--Cheryl, Terry, and Myron
Roads and down to the school. If th is is ..the ma nda ted
alternative and if the Town Board .approves it, or Some
facsimile of it, there will be a design report that
will specify individual homes in the area. The
Feasibility Study Report is not really a design
document; it is a scoping document to look at altern-
atives.
Issue:
Response: About 60-70 homes, counting Bluebird Road.
Approximately how many homes are we talking about?
When you say counting Bluebird, what do you mean by
that?
Response: I mean counting homes on Cheryl, Terry, and Myron
Roads. Maybe 80 homes altogether.
Issue:
Response:
What kind of time frame are we looking at?
been waiting for 3 years.
We've
If this document goes through, with no further work
on it, there's no reason why work should not begin a
month from the signing of the document on September
29, 1985.
NYSDEC
Response: Realistically, you are talking around the first of
the year.
Issue:
Response:
Who :ets to choose where we get the water from?
That is included as part of the proposals in the
report. EPA will recommed where the water should
corne from or whether General Electric should go back
and look at other alternatives taking into consider-
ation your comments here tonight.
. Topic: Health Concerns
Issue:
Response:
I'm very concerned about the sampling. Analysis of
the sampling performed by NUS revealed so many
chemicals, yet with the samples from Dunn GeoScience,
my well has always been clean.
We were concerned also with the differences in data.
We had our own labs do the recent samples because we
were wondering about that inconsistency, which we
explained to you last time. That's why we had them
-------
o
-14-
.
o
particular problem, whether Dunn GeoScience was in
fact toeing the line as they should. Our most
recent samples are from NUS. The samples .~re sent
out to contract labs. The EPA contracts a whole
host of labs, as they can't do all...th~ analyses on
their own. Even though those other tabs are
backed up, we'll see what we can do regarding
those NUS samples.
3. Written Comments Submitted to the EPA During the Comment Period
The EPA received letters from the Citizens of Moreau Against
Contamination (COMAC): the New York State Department of Environ-
. mental Conservation (NYDEC): the law firm of Pattison, Sampson,
Ginsberg, and Griffin, P.C.: Congressman Gerald B. Solomon:
and Frank J. Kottman of South Glens Falls.
o Robert Buttles, Sr., and Elizabeth Wimette, representatives
of the COMAC citizens' organization, expressed concern over
alternative water supplies, regarding their availability,
quality, and cost, as well as fire protection capability.
They suggested that the Town of Queensbury be considered as
a source for an alternative water supply. . It was also
requested that .Mr. Frank Hardick, engineer for the Town of
Moreau, act as the lead agency responsible for final construc-
tion procedures, so that construction would be compatible
with a final comprehensive water system implemented at a
later date.
The EPA has previously addressed the issues related to the
alternative water supply in this Responsiveness Summary.
The Town of Queensbury was not considered as a source of
alternative water in the Feasibility Study Report but the
Queensbury supply is considered in the Record of Decision.
Also, General Electric is responsible as the lead agency for
construction procedures. However, the Town of Moreau may
utilize Mr. Hardick as its advisor.
o Mr. Gerald H. Katzman, representing the law firm of Pattison,
Sampson, Ginsberg, and Griffin, P.C., submitted a letter
outlining the following concerns. The Feasibility Study
Report does not acknowledge that the plume has affected the
Cheryl, Terry, and Myron Roads area. Specifically, technical
evaluation of the plume is not believed to be precise in terms
of its location and identification of contaminants. (To
support this claim, a deposition of Mr. Theodore Clark,
division director and senior hydrologist with the Dunn
GeoScience Corporation, was attached to the letter.)
The EPA believes that the Remedial Investigation Report did
address these concerns. The EPA has previously addressed this
-------
-15-
o The NYDEC requested that a permanent water hook-up to the
Moreau Elementary School be included in the alternative water
supply alternative. The DEC also felt that Gen~ral Electric
did not adequately address the aquifer restoia~ion issue,
specifically, with regard to the pumping and recharge altern-
ative.
The EPA believes that General Electric did adequately address
the issue of aquifer restoration because G.E. has agreed to
supply alternative water for homes in the affected area and
also for any future development in the plume affected area
and because aquifer restoration presents potential negative
impacts and is not a cost-effective remedial action in this
situation. EPA's letter of September 25, 1986, explains
that the plume does not extend as far west as the school
building. General Electric will not be ordered to hook up
the school to the alternative water source. It will be
ordered, however, to continue monitoring for at least thirty
years, in orded to ensure that the size and shape of the
plume does not change over time.
In addition, EPA will review the selected remedy no less then
each five years after implementation begins. EPA has the
authority to require additional corrective measures if it
finds that the remedial action is not protective of human
health or the environment.
o Congressman Gerald B. Solomon, representing the 24th District
of New York, requested that the EPA "act expeditiously and
in a manner favorable to the residents of the town by selecting
an alternative water supply that provides immediate yet
permanent relief to the entire affected area without undue
added cost to the property taxpayers of the town."
o Mr. Frank J. Kottman of South Glens Falls requested an expla-
nation as to why he is not eligible for a water hook-up: his
home is only 42 feet from the access to the entrance road
leading to the dump site.
The EPA stated that the plume is downgradient of his house
and, therefore, his water supply is not affected by the plume.
The plume is moving in a south, south-easterly direction, and
-------
. ',I .
v
-.. - -
CLER~'S CERTIFICATION
,.
I, Joyce M. LeombrUDo, Clerk of the Board of Trustees of
the Village of South Glen. Pall., Saratoga County, New York, do
hereby certify that the foregoing i. a true copy of . Re.olution
duly adopted by the Board of Trustee. of .aid Village on the
20th day of November, 1985.
IN WITNESS WHEREOP, I have hereunto .ub.cribed my name
and aff ixed hereto tbe official .eal of .ald Village of South
Glen. Palla, this 20th day of November, 1985.
,..~
-------
r
'-
\
. \
!
/
RESOLUTION OF AUGUST 6, 1986
OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF SOUTH GLENS FALLS, NEW YORK
RESCINDING RESOLUTION OF NOVEMBER 20, 1985
\
WHEREAS,
" ,.
the Board ot Trustees ot the Village ot South Glen,
I
Falls, ~ew York, On November 20, 1985, adoPted a Resolution wherein it
. .
was stated that the Village ot South Glens Falla has excess water
SUPply, whieh the said Village would be willing to sell outside the
/
Village to the Town ot Moreau up to 100,000 gallons ot water per day;
-
and
,
WHEREAS, upon turther eonsideration ot the matter by the Board ot
Trustees it hss been determined that it is not in the PUblie interest
to sell water to the TOwn ot Moreau pursuant to the request ot the
General Electric Company,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Resolution ot November 2
1985, i. hereby rescinded; and'
BE IT PURTHER RESOLVED that Water tor sale to the Town ot Moreau
pursuant to the request ot General Eleetrie is no longer available.
This Resolution shall take etteet immediately.
-------
-.- ...,.--. ..--.-....-----...
o
" .
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT the ~oregoing is a true cbp~ o~ a record on.~il.
- .1" the OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE CLERK, VILLAGE OF SOUTH 'GLE:iS FALLS, NEW YOi
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THIS Certificate has been duly Signed and Sealed
by the VILLAGE CLERK, VILLAGE OF SOUTH GLIJI/S FALLS, NEW.. YORK,
':?hh~
"~
. .
~
a
Q
. "" ... .
_..:..; .,':~':>~.: .{
--.- --... .4~ -'_&,~
-'.~
Nfl" .. .,'.. .o'
r;,'
..-. ..o. ". '..', ,--
.. ,....,........ .t.. -,',.. (
",:"!
. '."':,'.r.' .
."'~. 'f'.. ...,.,~~:,;" ,'., ,
'~
oj
"
: .
!
"
~.. :;" -
. i
. .. . . .., ~.....;:;. ._.
',; , "~I"''''.,_-",,,,
. .. ...-..._~...- .
' ................., ""''''''''
,.._......~. .......-.
. --.......,.,.,.
............."..
......~ ......"",. t. t . '''H',,,.
... .
.. .'
.. . . """ .....-........ ................. .
. It It.,." I'''''""",,,,.,
"....', '~. '.""..",,,,.. 'If''''', .,
., .: ,. ". I . I I"""~' I"" .. a"" ff It '
. "","1'11"""'"'''''''' .,.
. ,.,....." I"" I
II"
. .
. . "...1. .............. ....-...... h. ......
. ':""""1'1"'"""",
".,..;.,.,.,.......,......,. . '
-
- ...---
.
':"":'-~':'\f.":IiII
':"~~4.,..-.::..~
.~:.:~;\;~,;~
~~1r.,;~....'t,,~.
-- ': n '-"'''\.:..'':
'C ..~,~~
. . . ."Y"""~i'.
~~".."'i' ~,
0:;. ~ -'.:'~' I
-------
UNlTEf'I ~TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO:
-:'ENCY
..~... "'.~"':f\.," 'J.
.~ ~."'! .'"
'"'-:-.. '."-,1
...., ~ :"'~~ (-:.~.
'. ~
- ,
.. ~ .; 7"
.~,. t',.~n t
.- ~!. t ~I (:]. ':~ 1~..~ r ~] i ~ ,
:"'c,.~ ~-.....:"
. . ~ .. .
J ,",0 .; I
, 'l'~: r.
'~r.. i:r~"'Il'
,.,. h i < I" r,,,,.,,", 0 t~ Y""r 1.0 tf>r .~f ~ ~~ t".- ~r.~ ", J.' '..: t '."'H '! -"
t "~ -:..," ire ",r t '> ~ '''.r,' "f r'~v~. t1 00 "f t'!~ o~'!t,~ 1 C"" ~..,). b
r,," 'roJ "",.,,,J "t'trl~t tc; c'>"">ct ti,~ "..,n,.u Cb'''''L'''',. ~~'I"'.l
tr~ P-r: 2') tl'!r~.,t'~ wtlt!?r (;lir",ly.
!.r.t -,.> 'rio', Y"'1 '1:> to 'hto c'" ti. r.t ""ro.,., ''''''''to,,~< "it,,- T"
':;°""01 rt~ctrlc C"~"'"v (r:L:) h.. "~"'f"r,",p,' 0 D~"';,.'j'1 I~v~,.;,r.'_!,"
.c>0 t',.. ~it~ :'vr."". t" th. "Ioti"""l ,,11 Or,,-' ","-3r1'.." ~"'n.-,"..,.
r""t!r,"ory "100, t... 1""',Uf', t'.> ~Hur~ .0" ~.to~t "f 1r ",,,.),,,..,.
~O.,t;.r',L"..t{!')" ~~t',.,~t1'1' fr-tT., t!hJ '~!:' 'ior~c.iJ "1 t(,. T"1'-! \o;"~t:>r}\,
~1r:~ ..,f the "r...~~~....'tcr rCOnt"'';Mtl''n 01'1-''' ~... ~<'C-'1 I"co"'f..". '.
-'>d t.~r 1 0.' ...~!!. or,,:: 1., "~I ~h 10 1.>eHo.1 21 rj C (~. t n~rt" "".~ r.;.,
r. '.. nf t~" ~1~"''''"'''r', S~"c~1 ~III HI~~- ':'h~ "lu",,, of "oot...,! o,~:,'"
"""0 "'Ot ~..t"M '''rthnr weH t~on H,.t ,",ooitcrl"1 "011. '0' t:",r'~'~'.,
th p e 1"'".ot. ry ~e",,,, 1 . ~ oj"l 0" I OJ "'-"~l" "<'11 10 Mt c"rr~:'t1 v, n"<
10 1 t "'r ". ot er1 t? "", h.,. ct "'.' i1-,' t t.l 0 n u"'~ - n".... ve r, ,~r I,
rc-'wlrnrl t" I'Mt! 0'.'9 .." "'''"1tor t-.. ~r",,"cJ"Otor n!'1"" O"'r .t 1.""
'":', Ve"t"~ tntf') th~ ~ut'J!"~ lo ""S~wrp. t:~i':t t:-:o :~i~p. c."~; R:;~-" ,-,f t:,.:.
nl'J.~':' ':O~a') I'~.:t ch"n")~ OV~r t i.~~.
"/') a~~ 11")i' ltt t.he I"c"d"t ~~ ~H:'..i~.., ~L' i"!:st~ll ...,...tc~ ~u;')i'ly -:=!i~!j
t.0 ~rl")'d.nl' ~ltAl"j)l\t~ "'!ttf!r t~ t.'H:> !"l'J"'::o-i"':H'-:-tC?'i "'r~-!. '!'h-:- ~:-i",~
"i!1 h~ h.t311e~ 00 ~'or"n ~',"cI, ".,.rIV ~r1vn, ClonrvI "rlvn. DO<
r.. 1 U,.h i rd ~",,":- I 0 f."t. r." "n t. .,1 t h t~e "'0"-0 "0 "nr:t,,~~c t 1?, I" ,. ,
t,., ')~!n Y"18~~ f~r tho ""at<.i:!:' '~in in~tal1.!\tL:'Hl.
""'.7>r~ In'1 \,onr CC"c"rn :)V~r '11 'uhr; thp. '!~!'''IJ !OJ.. ""nt .r-- "C""',l
~" "')nne"t to th9>;" \#~ t,,< ,," t r., P~". ::,,-',j cr.. ,.,f! it-"r, --". "'" ",..",
>."" ~ 1 roo "y .. he'1" ".." t 1'1. "'1 t" ,,~ ,;" 1 ~t ,,, ".'u"~ .,.~" t" t .,.. 0"
a- CC).'''''!'.:'t':!r,;:') Ci'!n hI! "'~~~. .'"!f r.'OlJr~~ t'1:) .~~~'~,')l ;.!c;tl"'ict "'ill h.
'':''':~:'''.:r.r.....: t" ".." !:)r i"~l.':lti.,~ t~i'" \,"'t!:'l" li"l~ tr~'""! t"':~~ ~tr.r.-~,. ~r,
t~;~, ~t' "',",:-. 1 k: 1l.!; r'~ .
S"".OL
=
SU"NAI8£
"
.PM"t
-------
()
-2-
o
r.:) c..H.,d:-: ~0'1jtl,):-:.:d i~f):::"tj.::-: "'"": t"\~ '.;crJ'''~ul-:..' to:' j;.'5tall:;tj,.).~
ct t;!(: \,Ir1t,~:.. ::'i:d:-:~), !..)l;,>~:)-:, C'C'.-:t.=!Ct i..'.l'. L'_",) C..)) lir.s, Na;.u I~:-,
c.;;.'Jj:":>r:.:tt:;.t=ll~u,;lit'l" ~~~~':'"Id::;~ 71'?-:~i-;1, ~'.~"::.>::~l £lec::.t.:."ic
C.., ;!),;~.~, .it (r;lj) 33:;-~'UJ 01: '1;.-. 1.~c'tl.'1;.,=':: .:0r;:j 10;', Supcrviso~:,
'~.,")...~ ")f "),,".:~iJ .it ('')1.;) 7J2-1.\;.J. .'
1 t1:1':<;(
triat
t h.~ .: '')j\l~ i ~ tr)~"'~'L~ t i '):":
i ~ ~'''''.~r.0~.'':; i V~
.> i r",C':'>.."t! 1. ''/,
<.:!',z.' j.:: t nj.tHH" .1. f)a'1-;t~ t. t
!~C!~1 i or:al A;1.:1 j r: i 5 tr., to''')::
...,...
.... - .
~,=ra"y G. :;j lli02:'s, :a,-,'.li5:;i:>r:a::
;'Jew Yo;,:" Stt!te nd~"'l"t~@r:t cf
Er.v1l"~r:~e;.tal Co:-:s~rvatio;.
,1:- . T . LEO 0 Co 11 i r:.s, ;1 a ;. " '1 e r
~;.v i Z:Or:"H~r:tal JUa 1 i t Y & I<~sour~~
~er:e~al El~ctr1c CO~Qar:y
J>l.!~r:i~y
!'ir. ':;a:-~nel: CO~Qd::>~,
rown of Horeau
Suparvisor
-
------- |