United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/135
March 1991
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Colesville Municipal
Landfill, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-91/135
3. Recipient1* Accession No.
4. THle and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Colesville Municipal Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
03/29/91
7. Author!*)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
8. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/TMk/Work UnH No.
11. ContractfC) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
15. Supplementary Note*
16. Abstract (UmH: 200 words)
The 35-acre Colesville Municipal Landfill site is a former municipal and industrial
landfill in Colesville, Broome County, New York. Land use in the area is rural, and
wetlands and woodlands are present in the vicinity of the site. Many of the 1,921
residents living within three miles of the site use ground water from shallow and deep
aquifers and springs as their drinking water. From 1969 until its closure in 1984, the
landfill accepted primarily municipal solid waste, although some drummed industrial
wastes were accepted from 1973 to 1975. The majority of the 468,000 cubic yards of
waste was disposed within three trenches at the site, and the drums were either buried
intact, punctured, or crushed. In 1983 and 1984, private investigations identified
that upper portions of the ground water beneath the site and in the vicinity of the
site were being contaminated by the landfill. The county provided temporary water
supplies and carbon filters to affected residences, and conducted well monitoring.
This Record of Decision (ROD) provides a final remedy for the landfill waste and soil,
leachate seeps, associated contaminated sediment, and ground water. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, debris, and ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, TCA, TCE; and metals including arsenic.
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Colesville Municipal Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCA, TCE, toluene, xylenes), metals (arsenic)
b. KtenttnOfwOpotvEnood Twins
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Qsss (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. ol Pages
260
22. Price
(SMANSU3B.18)
See Instruction* on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
D*pwtm0fit of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/135
Colesville Municipal Landfill, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes cutting and regrading the sides and
surface of the landfill; constructing lined leachate collection trenches; installing a
multi-media cap over the existing landfill; installing a gravel gas venting layer in the
landfill, with a filter fabric layer placed over the gravel; seeding and mulching the
top soil layer of the landfill; pumping and treatment of the contaminated ground water
beneath and downgradient of the landfill using air stripping and metals treatment, and
discharging the treated water onsite to surface water after disinfection by an
ultra-violet disinfection, if required; constructing a water supply system for present
and future affected residences, and providing temporary water supplies and carbon
filtration units to affected residences until construction is completed; conducting
long-term ground water monitoring; and implementing institutional controls including
deed restrictions, and site access restrictions such as fencing, as necessary. The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $5,135,000, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $250,000 for 4 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific ground water cleanup goals are based
on the more stringent of State or Federal MCLs including benzene 5 ug/1 (State),
PCE 5 ug/1 (State), TCE 5 ug/1 (State), toluene 5 ug/1 (State), and xylenes 5 ug/1
(State) .
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date):
NPL Rank (date):
ROD
Date Signed:
Selected Remedy
Containments:
Groundwater:
Capital Cost:
O & M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Colesville Landfill
Town of Colesville, Broome County, New York
II
30.26 (June 86)
984 (February 91)
A multi-media cap complying with New York
State Part 360 Solid Waste Regulations with
leachate collection and treatment
Pumping at landfill and downgradient,
groundwater treatment, and new water supply
for affected residents
$4,273,000
$250,000/yr
$5,135,000
State Enforcement
Primary Contact (phone): Eduardo Gonzalez (212) 264-5714
Secondary Contact (phone): Sharon E. Kivowitz (212) 264-2211
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Groundwater - 1,1 dichloroethane, 1,1,1
trichloroethane, trichloroethene, trans-1,2-
dichloroethene, and benzene.
Sediments - low levels of benzene,
chlorobenzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethene, and trichloroethene.
Sediments and groundwater
Pollution originated as a result of disposal
of industrial wastes at the landfill. Drums
and liquid wastes were dumped into trenches.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
COLE8VILLE LANDFILL SITE
TOWN OF COLESVILLE
BROOKE COUNTY, NEW YORK
PREPARED BY THE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MARCH 1991
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Site Name and Location
Colesville Landfill site
Town of Colesville, Broome County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Colesville Landfill site (the "Site"), located in the Town of
Colesville, Broome County, New York, which was chosen in accor-
dance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as
amended by the Super fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
and, to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision
document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the
remedy for the Site.
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy. The
information supporting this remedial action decision is contained
' in the administrative record for the Site. The administrative
record index is attached.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present a current or
potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This operable unit is the final action for the Site. The selected
remedy will provide containment through the installation of a cap
over the landfill material and leachate collection, which will
eliminate the potential for direct human or animal contact with the
leachate seeps discharging to the North and South Streams.
Contaminated groundwater underlying the Site will be restored to
levels consistent with state and federal requirements by pumping
at .and downgradient from the landfill and by treating the extracted
groundwater by using air stripping. In addition, the human health
risks from potable use of contaminated groundwater will be
controlled under the existing quarterly residential well monitoring
program along with the temporary water supply and carbon filtration
program for the affected residences until a new water supply is in
operation. Also included in the selected remedy are groundwater
monitoring, fencing, and deed restrictions. Five-year reviews will
be conducted as required by the NCP due to the fact that waste will
remain on-site. The purpose of the five-year review is to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
-------
The landfill will be regraded as necessary prior to installation
of the cap to establish slopes which will encourage runoff and
minimize erosion. The cap will contain the landfill material and
minimize infiltration of precipitation into the landfill materi-
al. This will minimize the potential for future contamination of
the groundwater.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
Cutting the existing sides of the landfill to slopes of no
greater than approximately 33%. The top surfaces of the
landfills would be regraded to slopes of no less than 4% to
provide for proper drainage.
Construction of lined (filter fabric) leachate collection
trenches.
Installation of a multimedia cap over the landfill material.
Water -infiltrating through the vegetative and protective
layers of the cap will be intercepted by the impermeable
flexible membrane layer and conveyed -away from the landfill
material.
Installation of a gravel gas venting layer, with a filter
fabric layer placed over the gravel. The flexible membrane
liner (FML) will be placed over the filter fabric, and
another layer of filter fabric will be placed on top of
the FML.
Seeding and mulching of the top soil layer to prevent erosion
and provide for rapid growth of vegetation.
Pumping the contaminated groundwater beneath and down-
gradient of the landfill.
Treatment of the extracted groundwater, using metals treat-
ment and air stripping.
j
Discharge of the treated water to surface water. . >
. Construction of a new water supply system for the present
and future affected residences (with the continuation of
existing quarterly residential well monitoring and temporary
water supply and carbon filtration programs until the new
water supply is in operation). It is contemplated that the
new water supply system will utilize a new well or wells
northwest of the affected area.
Fencing to further protect the integrity of the caps by
restricting access to the Site.
Periodic inspection of the cap and maintenance as necessary
ii :
-------
will provide for long-term effectiveness and permanence of
the alternative.
;;
Imposition of property deed restrictions, if necessary. The
deed restrictions will include measures to prevent the
installation of drinking water wells at the Site and restrict
activities which could affect the integrity of the cap.
Initiation of a monitoring program upon completion of the
closure activities. The monitoring program will provide data
to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial effort over
time.
The groundwater treatment will continue until federal maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) and state groundwater and drinking water
standards for the organics have been achieved in the groundwater.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore groundwater to its
beneficial use, which is, at this site, a drinking water source.
Based on information obtained during the field investigations and
on an analysis of all remedial alternatives, EPA and NYSDEC believe
that the selected remedy involves using the best available and most
appropriate technology to achieve this goal. It may become
apparent, during the operation of the groundwater extraction system
that, at a certain point, contaminant levels have ceased to decline
and are remaining constant at levels higher than the remediation
goal. In such a case, the system performance standards and/or the
remedy will be --.evaluated.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction and
treatment for at least 4 years, during which the system's perform-
ance will be carefully monitored on a regular basis and adjusted
as warranted by the performance data collected during operation.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environ-
ment, complies with federal and state requirements that are legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and
is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practica-
ble. The contaminated groundwater and leachate is being treated,
addressing the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedy. However, the size of the landfill and the
fact that there are no identified on-site "hot spots" that
represent the major sources of contamination preclude a remedy in
which the landfilled material could be excavated and treated
effectively.
iii
-------
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site, a review will be conducted no later than five years after
completion of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
nstantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
Date
iv
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date)
NPL Rank (date):
ROD
Date Signed:
Selected Remedy
Containments:
Groundwater:
Capital Cost:
0 & M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Colesville Landfill
Town of Colesville, Broome County, New York
II
30.26 (June 86)
984 (February 91)
A multi-media cap complying with New York
State Part 360 Solid Waste Regulations with
leachate collection and treatment
Pumping at landfill and downgradient,
groundwater treatment, and new water supply
for affected residents
$4,273,000
$250,000/yr
$5,135,000
State Enforcement
Primary Contact (phone): Eduardo Gonzalez (212) 264-5714
Secondary Contact (phone): Sharon E. Kivowitz (212) 264-2211
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Groundwater - 1,1 dichloroethane, 1,1,1
trichloroethane, trichloroethene, trans-1,2-
dichloroethene, and benzene.
Sediments - low levels of benzene,
chlorobenzene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-
dichloroethene, and trichloroethene.
Sediments and groundwater
Pollution originated as a result of disposal
of industrial wastes at the landfill. Drums
and liquid wastes were dumped into trenches.
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
COLESVILLE LANDFILL SITE
TOWN OF COLESVILLE
BROOME COUNTY, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
MARCH 1991
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY 2
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 4
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 9
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 13
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 17
THE SELECTED REMEDY. 21
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 26
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 29
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX 1 - TABLES
APPENDIX 2 - FIGURES
APPENDIX 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX 4 - NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX 5 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
The Site, which is located in the Town of Colesville, Broome
County, New York (see Figure 1), is characterized as very rural,
and includes large tracts of undeveloped woodlands, as well as
large-scale agricultural tracts and scattered residential par-
cels. Of the 113 acres on which the landfill is situated, the
site occupies approximately 35 acres that have been used for
waste disposal. The largest and nearest residential development
is Doraville, just south of the Site.
Topography at the Site ranges from approximately 1,400 feet above
mean sea level in the eastern portion of the study area, to about
970 feet above mean sea level in the west. The Susguehanna River
lowland valley is at an elevation of approximately 940 feet.
Surface water in the area drains to the Susguehanna River, (see
Figure 2). However, the terrace upon which the landfill has been
developed is dissected by streams on the north, east, and south.
Drainage in the vicinity of the Site is via two unnamed tribu-
taries of the Susguehanna River . Tributary SR-120, the North
Stream, is located north of the Site and flows westerly to the
Susguehanna River. To the east and south is Tributary SR-119A,
the South Stream, which flows to the south-southwest into a low-
lying wet area. Both tributaries join the Susguehanna River
approximately 0.5 miles above Doraville.
The Susguehanna River is classified as Class B surface water in
the vicinity of the Site. Class B waters are suitable for both
primary1 and secondary2 contact recreation, as well as for fish
propagation. Tributaries SR-120 and SR-119A are Class C and D
waters, respectively. These waters are suitable for secondary
contact recreation and fish propagation only.
Existing flood insurance maps (Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 1983) indicate that no portions of the Site are located
in either the 100- or 500-year flood zone.
Primary Contact Recreation—recreational activities where the
human body may come in direct contact with raw water to the point
of complete body submergence (i.e., swimming, diving, water
sports, and surfing).
2 Secondary Contact Recreation—recreational activities where ;
contact with of water is minimum and where ingestion of water is'
not probable (i.e., fishing and boating).
-------
During the field investigation, three small wetland areas in the
vicinity of the Site were encountered. These areas were all less
than one acre in size and appear to be connected to surface
drainage swales in the area.
Vegetation patterns at the site are a mixture of herbaceous
field, weed, and grass species. Both open field and forest
habitats characterize the surrounding area. These habitats
support a large variety of avian and mammalian species. No New
York State Department Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Signif-
icant Habitat Areas are found on-site, although the Site is
located within the range of several migratory endangered or
threatened species. The predominant aquatic species found in the
Susquehanna River include small mouth bass, rock bass, and white
suckers.
Many of the residents of the Town of Colesville use private water
supply wells to obtain domestic water supplies. These wells
utilize groundwater from both shallow and deep aquifer systems.
Other homes utilize groundwater obtained from springs.
The nearest homes to the landfill are located to the west and
southwest along East Windsor Road. The home closest to the
landfill is at distance of approximately 380 feet, and is sepa-
rated from the landfill by a steep-sided ravine with a small
steam flowing through it. Another home, which is not separated
by a ravine or stream, is at a distance of 500 feet. Two other
homes are at a distance of 640 feet from landfill.
The Town of Colesville has a population of 4,965 persons. The
estimated population within a one-mile radius of the Site is 191
persons; 754 persons within two miles; and 1,921 persons within
three miles.
SITE HISTORY
Waste disposal operations at the landfill commenced in 1969. The
landfill was owned and operated by the Town of Colesville between
1969 and 1971. Broome County took ownership of the landfill in
1971, operating the landfill from 1971 to 1984. The landfill has
been closed since 1984.
The trench method of sanitary landfilling was primarily utilized
for waste disposal purposes. The area method was used to a
limited extent. The Site was primarily used for the disposal of
municipal solid waste, although drummed industrial wastes from
various sources were also disposed of between 1973 to 1975.
Operational records indicate that these drummed wastes consisted
of aqueous dye waste and organic solvent waste. Known waste
constituents included benzene, cyclohexane, acetone isopropyl
alcohol, methanol, ethanol, n-hexane, toluene, xylene, methyl
cellosolve, dimethyl ether, zinc, aluminum, iron, tin sulfate,
-------
and chloride. In practice, drummed wastes were randomly codis-
posed with the municipal solid wastes and disposed of in segre-
gated areas. These drums were either buried intact, or were
punctured and crushed prior to burial.
Approximately 468,000 cubic yards of wastes was disposed within
three trenches and the area landfill. Nearly 93 percent of the
waste was placed within the trenches.
In 1983, samples collected from residential wells in the vicinity
of the Site by the Broome County Health Department indicated that
the Colesville Landfill was contaminating the groundwater beneath
and in the immediate vicinity of the Site. The samples results
prompted the Broome County Department of Public Works to provide
temporary water supply and carbon filters with a quarterly
residential well monitoring program for the affected residences,
and to perform two investigative studies of the Colesville
Landfill. These studies were performed by Wehran Engineering
(Wehran) in 1983 and 1984.
Wehran's 1983 study indicated that the groundwater quality in the
vicinity of the Colesville Landfill demonstrated a strong indica-
tion of contamination by landfill leachate. Volatile organic
levels, measured as total volatile organics (TVOs), ranged from
48 to 2,800 parts per billion (ppb) within and around the land-
fill. Residential wells ranged from 32 ppb to 415 ppb, expressed
as total volatile priority pollutants (TVPP).
Wehran's 1984 investigation confirmed the findings of the 1983
study with respect to the immediate landfill vicinity. Total
volatile priority pollutant concentrations ranged from "not
detected" in upgradient monitoring wells to 7,795 ppb immediately
downgradient. Contamination was confined, primarily, to the
upper portions of the glacial outwash aquifer that underlies the
Site.
The Site was proposed for inclusion on the Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) in October 1984 and it was listed on the
NPL in June 1986.
In 1988, Wehran completed a remedial investigation (RI) at the
Site on behalf of the Broome County Department of Public Works,
Binghamton, New York and GAF Corporation, Wayne, New Jersey, the
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), pursuant to an Order on
Consent (Index No. T010687) with NYSDEC. In 1990, Wehran com-
pleted a confirmatory sampling program which confirmed the
findings of the 1988 RI.
In December 1990, Wehran completed a feasibility study (FS)
report which presented an analysis of the potential alternatives
for the remediation of contamination observed at the Site.
-------
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
On May 20, 1987, an Order on Consent (Index No. T010687) was
signed by the Commissioner of the NYSDEC. The Order required the
Broome County Department of Public Works and GAF Corporation, to
conduct an RI/FS to determine the nature and extent of the
contamination at the Site and to evaluate alternatives for site
remediation. Once the remedial alternative is selected for the
Site, the design and construction of such remedy will be imple-
mented as provided for under NYSDEC's Order.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released
to the public for comment on January 5, 1991. These two docu-
ments were made available to the public in the administrative
record and an information repository maintained at EPA Docket
Room in Region II, New York, at the Town of Colesville Town Hall
in Harpursville, New York, and at NYSDEC1s offices in Albany, New
York. A public comment period on these documents was held from
January 7, 1991 through February 6, 1991. In addition, a public
meeting was held at the Broome County Office building, Bingham-
ton. New York on January 30, 1991. At this meeting, represen-
tatives from EPA and NYSDEC answered questions about problems at
the Site and the remedial alternatives under consideration.
Responses to the comments received during the public comment
period are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is
appended to this ROD.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION •
The purpose of this response is to reduce the risk to human
health and the envrionment due to the release of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from the Site to the underlying glacial outwash
aquifer, to eliminate the leachate seeps and discharges, to
ensure protection of human health and the environment from the
migration of contaminants in the groundwater and direct contact
with leachate seeps, to ensure protection of the groundwater,
air, and surface water from the continued release of contaminants
from the landfill, and to restore the groundwater to levels
consistent with state and federal water quality standards.
This remedial action will utilize permanent solutions and alter-
native treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
However, because treatment of the principal threats of the Site
is not practicable, this remedial action does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
remedy. The size of the landfill and the fact that there are no
identified on-site hot spots that represent the major sources of
contamination preclude a remedy in which contaminants could be
excavated and treated effectively.
-------
This response applies a comprehensive approach (i.e., one opera-
ble unit) to remedial action at the Site. In other words, this
project has not been segmented into incremental portions.
NYSDEC is the lead agency for this project; EPA is the support
agency.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Colesville Landfill was used for the disposal of municipal
solid waste throughout its operational life. Between 1973 and ;
1975, industrial wastes were also disposed of at the facility.
Table 1 lists the nature and amount of industrial wastes disposed
of at the landfill.
It has been reported that wastes received in drums were randomly
codisposed of with the municipal solid wastes and disposed in
segregated areas. The drums were either buried intact, or
punctured and crushed prior to burial. Facility records indicate
that a narrow trench along the south-central landfill boundary
was designated for drum disposal. Based upon the estimated total
volume of the trenches, it was estimated that approximately
468,000 cubic yards of municipal solid wastes and industrial
waste have been disposed of at the Site.
The key findings of RI and confirmatory sampling program are as
follows:
The Site is currently releasing low levels of VOCs.
Over the last six to seven years, it has become apparent that
the extent of groundwater contamination is limited in area and
not increasing in severity.
The current data suggest a slight advancement of a plume
southwest of the landfill, with an overall decrease in VOC
concentrations at the landfill border.
VOCs in the part per billion (ppb) range have been detected in
wells at three residences downgradient of the landfill. * This
contamination has been consistent over different sampling
efforts, indicating that the contaminant profile has not
changed since 1987.
Historical and current data have failed to confirm contamina-
tion of the bedrock aquifer.
.. The only bedrock well currently used within the path of the
VOC plume is not affected.
The available data suggest that VOCs currently being released*
from the landfill via the groundwater pathway are not expected
-------
to have a measurable impact on the Susguehanna River.
The only measurable surface water contaminated discharge
points are in leachate seeps discharging to the North Stream,
South Stream, and in sediments in the tributaries immediately
adjacent to surficial outbreaks of landfill seeps.
Groundvater recharge to the tributaries has not resulted in
any measurable VOC levels in surface water flowing to the
Susquehanna River.
The areas affected by the seeps, as measured by VOC and metal
concentrations, are limited to sediments proximate to the see-
ps.
. No significant releases of VOCs to the air pathway were
suggested by the available data.
Soil Investigation
In order to determine the location and extent of waste landfilled
within the trenches and investigate the potential extent of
groundwater contamination, a multi-phase geophysical investiga-
tion was conducted in soils. The techniques utilized were a
magneto-meter survey, which defines local variations in the
soils' magnetic field due to buried ferromagnetic material
(i.e., drums), the terrain conductivity, which measures the
conductivity of subsurface materials and areas of buried waste,
and earth resistivity sounding, which measures the resistivity of
subsurface materials and the depth and thickness of buried
ferromagnetic materials. Based on the results of the magnetome-
tric survey and the terrain conductivity, a number of anomalies
were detected which are interpreted as trenches. The results of
the earth resistivity sounding indicated that the trenches are
generally 30 to 35 feet deep. Furthermore, the off-landfill
terrain conductivity survey did not detect any significant areas
of high conductivity which might have been associated with
groundwater contaminant plumes.
Groundwater Investigations
In December 1987 investigations, Wehran sampled 27 groundwater
monitoring wells and 4 residential wells. Data from these
sampling efforts are included in Tables 2 through 4. The land-
fill was found to be releasing low levels of VOCs into the
groundwater. In general, five VOCs, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane, trichloroethene, trans-l,2-dichloroethene and
benzene, were the major contaminants•in the contaminant plume.
Analyses of data provided from the monitoring wells and Residen-
tial Well No. 1 indicate that the center line of the VOC plume
extends from the landfill through well W-5 and Residential Well
No. 1. No contamination was found in the bedrock aquifer. The
-------
southern extent of the VOC plume reached beyond wells W-18 and W-
16S, with low levels of 1,1-dichloroethane (24 and 67 microgram
per liter (ug/1)), and 1,1,1-trichloroethane (53 and 6 ug/1)
detected in these wells southwest of the landfill. The extent of
the benzene plume was somewhat more limited compared to the other
VOCs. Detectable levels of benzene were found in a monitoring
well in the center of the landfill at 55 ug/1, and in wells along
the west and south perimeters of the landfill ranging from 7 to
85 ug/1. It was not detected along the northern perimeter, in
the residential wells, or in monitoring wells to the west of the
Site. Low levels of benzene were also detected in monitoring
wells located to the south of the landfill.
Groundwater monitoring data obtained during the 1989 confirmatory
sampling program defined a VOC plume very similar to the plume
defined by in the 1987 sampling efforts. The landfill is still
releasing low levels (ppb) of hazardous substances to the ground-
water. With the exception of vinyl chloride and benzene, the
VOCs identified in the confirmatory sampling program were present
at comparable levels and at the same monitoring well locations as
were observed during the 1987 sampling effort (see Tables 2
through 4).
Analyses of on the 1987 groundwater samples showed elevated
levels of dissolved metals, in particular, arsenic, cadmium, and
silver in monitoring wells affected by the VOC plume. Levels of
lead and zinc throughout the Site in 1987 were variable and did
not fit a particular contamination pattern. Analyses of ground-
water samples taken during the 1989 confirmatory sampling effort
did not show the presence of lead, .cadmium, and silver on the
Site. Levels of dissolved zinc were once again variable and did
not fit a particular pattern of contamination. Dissolved arsenic
levels in the VOC plume range from 13 ug/1 to 24 ug/1, but were
comparable to the 13 ug/1 arsenic detected in the upgradient well
(MW-25). Elevated levels of dissolved iron were noted at in
monitoring well W-24 in the center of the landfill (36,400 ug/1)
and within the VOC plume along the southwest perimeter (120,000
ug/1 in monitoring well W-6, and 3,270 ug/1 in monitoring well W-
7). , , .
Surface Water and Sediment Investigations
The surface water and sediment samples collected in 1987 during
the RI were obtained from five locations in the North Stream,
four locations in the South Stream and three locations along the
east bank of the Susguehanna River. No VOCs were detected in any
of these samples and no widespread contamination of the surface
water in the vicinity of the site was noted. However, leachate
seeps were noted as potential sources of localized water quality
impacts on both the North Stream and South Stream. Therefore,
the surface water samples taken during the 1989 confirmatory
sampling program were obtained directly from the seeps, and then
-------
10 feet and 100 feet downstream of the seep locations (see Figure
3).
In the North Stream, several VOCs were detected in water samples
taken in 1989 from the seep at SW-8 and downstream from this area
(see Tables 5 through 7). Levels of 121 ug/1 of 1,1-dichloroeth-
ane were detected at the seep and levels of 4 ug/1 and 3 ug/1 of
1,1-dichloroethane were detected 10 feet and 100 feet downstream,
respectively. Low levels of 1,1,1-trichloroethane, chloroethane,
and chlorobenzene were also detected at the seep. No VOCs were
detected at seep locations on the South Stream. Samples of
leachate seeps along the hillside, south of the landfill showed a
very low level of 1,1-dichlorpethane (4 ug/1) at SW-18.
Detectable levels of total iron, arsenic, and zinc were present
in surface water samples from both streams (see Table 6).
Cadmium, lead, and silver were not detected. With the exception
of iron, total metal concentrations in the surface waters were
not significantly elevated at or downstream form the seeps when
compared to samples taken upstream of the seeps. Elevated levels
of total iron were noted at and downstream from the seep at SW-
8. Levels of total iron at SW-5, SW-6 and SW-7 (upstream) were
274 ug/1, 122 ug/1, and 101 ug/1, respectively, as compared with
levels of 7,200 ug/1 at the seep and 1,500 ug/1 and 1,200 ug/1,
10 feet and 100 feet downstream of the seep, respectively, as was
the case with surface water samples taken in 1987, elevated total
iron levels wer- also noted at SW-2 in the area of a pond north
of the landfill. Acidification of the pond water by nearby bog
vegetation and the resulting mineral leaching is the likely
source of the elevated iron content of the waters at SW-2. Total
arsenic was detected only at the seep in the North stream (24
ug/1) and at the seep area south of the landfill at SW-18 (34
ug/1). In the South Stream, levels of total iron were also
elevated at the SW-12 seep (22,600 ug/1) and 10 feet downstream
from the seep (12,100 ug/1) as compared with upstream levels of
2,630 ug/1. The highest level of iron was noted in leachate
seeps emanating from the hillside south of the landfill (266,00
ug/1).
Only low levels of two VOCs (1,1-dichloroethane and
chloroebenzene) were detected in sediment samples obtained from
any of the seep areas (see Table 7). A sample taken at SD-8 on
the North stream contained 11 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) of 1,1-
dichloroethane and 0.9 mg/kg of chlorobenzene (see Figure 4). No
VOCs were detected downstream from this point. No VOCs were
detected in the sediments of the South Stream. Samples from seep
areas SD-16 and SD-17, located, south of the landfill, also
contained very low levels of 1,1-dichloroethane. Total cadmium,
lead, and silver were not detected in any of the sediment sam-
ples. Total iron, arsenic, and zinc were detected in sediment
samples from both streams and the hillside south of the landfill
(see Table 8). No pattern of elevated metals was observed at or
8
-------
downstream of the seeps, and no widespread contamination of
stream sediments was observed. In the North Stream, levels of
total zinc ranged from 128 to 1,510 mg/kg, and were variable
along the length of the stream. Levels of total arsenic were
also variable ranging from 8.3 to 79.7 mg/kg. Comparable levels
of total iron were observed above and below the seep on the South
Stream (see Table 8). By comparison with levels found in the
stream sediments, elevated levels of total arsenic (276 mg/kg)
and iron (242,000 mg/kg) were detected at the seep at SD-18 south
of the landfill.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Wehran conducted a Risk Assessment (part of the RI) of the "no-
action" alternative to evaluate the potential risks to human
health and the environment associated with the Site in its
current state. The risk assessment focused on the groundwater
contaminants which are likely to pose the most significant risks
to human health and the environment (indicator chemicals). The
indicator chemicals included 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethane, benzene, chlorobenze-
ne, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1, 2-dichloroethane, and vinyl chloride.
The risk assessment evaluates the potential impacts on human
health and the environment at the Site assuming that the contami-
nation at the site is not remediated. This information is used
to make a determination as to whether remediation of the Site may
be required.
The RI report presented a detailed site specific risk assessment
which addressed site conditions and exposures. The risk assess-
ment qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated the hazards to
human health and the environment at the landfill. The qualita-
tive analysis characterized the potential human exposure pathways
while the quantitative analysis determined the risk of the
complete pathways.
The human exposure pathways considered were ingestion and inhala-
tion of contaminated well water, and dermal contact with contami-
nated surface water and sediments near the leachate seeps. The
potential exposure pathways and the population potentially
affected are presented in Table 9.
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)'1,
are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen,
in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake
level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate
-------
of the risks calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes
underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely.
Cancer potency factors are derived from the results of human
epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which
animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been
applied.
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating
the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to chemi-
cals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are ex-
pressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals.
Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g.,
the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking
water) can be compared to the RfD. RfDs are derived from human
epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncertainty
factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal
data to predict effects on humans). These uncertainty factors
help ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential
for adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur.
EPA considers risks in the range of 10~* to 10* to be acceptable.
-This risk range can be interpreted to mean than an individual may
have a one in ten thousand to a one in a million increased chance
of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure
conditions at the Site.
For groundwater, a comparison was made between observed well
contamination levels (Confirmatory Sampling Program, 1989) and
existing health-based standards for the indicator chemicals
identified. The standards selected for this evaluation were the
MCLs for volatile organics established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, National Primary Drinking Water Standards (40 CFR .
141), and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)
Drinking Water Standards for Volatile Organic Compound (January
1989). Observed groundwater contaminant levels exceeded these
standards and guidance values for trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloro-
ethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and 1,2-dichloroethane. The
maximum concentrations of VOCs detected in either groundwater
monitoring or residential wells and surface water are presented
in Table 10. Table 11 compares the MCL for each indicator
chemical with the maximum observed contaminant levels in the
groundwater at the baseline exposure points (the residential
wells).
Based on this comparison of exposure point concentrations to
federal and state health-based standards, the existing conditions
for the groundwater in the shallow aquifer at the Site are not
adequately protective of human health.
The total baseline carcinogenic risk associated with exposure to
10
-------
potable well water at the Site is 2.85 x 10". This value is at
the high end of the range considered acceptable by EPA for
carcinogenic risk (lO'4 to 10"6) . Combined pathway specific in-
takes (ingestion and inhalation) were calculated using the Hazard
Index (HI) approach. The HI for the noncarcinogenic compounds
present in the groundwater at the Site is 3.85. An exceedance of
1.0 in the HI indicates that conditions existing at the Site are
not adequately protective of human health.
Table 12 summarizes the carcinogenic risks associated with the
intake of contaminated groundwater containing VOCs at the maximum
concentrations observed in Residential Well No. 1 under baseline
conditions. This table also illustrates the risks associated
with exposure to the noncarcinogenic compounds present.
No elevated human health risk is anticipated from the consumption
of aquatic or terrestrial game species due to the low bioconcent-
ration factors associated with the indicator chemicals. No
significant adverse toxicity impact to terrestrial or aquatic
wildlife is anticipated based on the levels of the indicator
parameters measured at the Site.
Exposure to the chemical substances identified at the Site may
result from the consumption of contaminated well water and the
inhalation of indoor air contaminated by the VOCs present in the
water.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
CLEANUP LEVELS FOR CONTAMINATED MEDIA
Cleanup levels based on public health and environmental concerns
and on a review of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Re-
quirements (ARARs) were developed for the Site. ARARs were used
to determine the appropriate extent of site remediation, to scope
and formulate remedial response actions, and to govern the
implementation and operation of the selected action. CERCLA
requires that primary consideration be given to remedial response
actions that attain or exceed ARARs. The purpose of this re-
quirement is to make CERCLA response actions consistent with
other pertinent federal and state environmental requirements.
A requirement under CERCLA may be either "applicable" or "rele-
vant and appropriate" to a site-specific remedial action, but not
both. Currently, the only enforceable regulatory standards
promulgated under the Safe Drinking Hater Act are MCLs for the
protection of human health. For each indicator chemical se-
lected at the Site an MCL has been specified to a level that is
protective to human health. Since MCLs exist for those indicator
11
-------
chemicals ,therefore, regulatory guidelines were not used for
comparative purposes to infer health risks and environmental
impacts. However, Relevant regulatory guidelines as Ambient
Water Quality Criteria, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs),
and EPA Drinking Water Health Advisories were considered during
the development of cleanup levels. The ARARs identified for the
contaminated media at the Site are summarized below.
Soil
Since the landfill soils contain Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) listed hazardous wastes, regulations speci-
fied in 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F and G would be considered
relevant for the installation of the multi-media cap. However,
the implementation of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations
(NYCRR) Part 360 final cover (cap) in lieu of a "RCRA Cap" will
meet or exceed the performance requirements of Part 264 Subparts
F and G at this Site. Based on the size of the landfill and the
fact that there are not identified on-site "hot spots" that
represent the major sources of contamination preclude any remedi-
al response actions in which the landfilled material could be
excavated and treated effectively. Therefore, the remedial
'action objective is to eliminate any direct contact with soil and
to reduce or eliminate the infiltration of precipitation through
the Site
Groundwater
The groundwater at the Site is classified by NYSDEC as class
"GA", which indicates that the water is suitable as a drinking
water supply. The RI has determined that contaminants from the
Site have contaminated the groundwater. The remedial response
objectives, therefore, include the following:
Protect human health and the environment from current and
potential future migration of contaminants in groundwa-
ter; and
. Restore on-site groundwater to levels consistent with
federal and state groundwater standards.
The federal and New York State ARARs associated with quality of
groundwater suitable for drinking at the Site are listed in Table
13. A comparison of the concentrations of the contaminants of
concern in the groundwater to these ARARs reveals that most
volatile organic compounds exceed the regulatory concentrations.
As a result, the groundwater cleanup levels should meet the most
stringent of the federal MCLs or the New York State Department of
Health (NYSDOH) MCLs listed in Table 13. For those compounds
having only non-carcinogenic effects, cleanup levels have been
derived so that the total non-carcinogenic risk (HI) does not
exceed unity (i.e., a value of 0.9 was used as the target HI).
12
-------
The sources of each of the various cleanup levels are provided in
footnotes to Tables 13.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Sediments
The sediments in the streams at the leachate seeps contain low
levels (ppb) of VOCs. The contaminants of concern found in the ..
sediments at the leachate seeps are benzene, chlorobenzene, 1,1-
dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, and trichloroethene. Direct
contact with the soil and sediments near the leachate seeps on
the Site is a potential route of exposure. No chemical-specific
ARARs for sediment are available at this time. The remedial
action objective associated with the sediments is to eliminate
the leachate seeps from the Site and any associated leachate
discharges to the North and South Stream to prevent further
contamination of sediments.
Since the health risk associated with direct contact of
existing sediments is within the acceptable range, remediation
of the existing sediments is not necessary.
DESCRIPTION OP ALTERNATIVES
The FS report evaluates, in detail, nine remedial alternatives
for addressing the contamination associated with the Site.
These alternatives are:
Alternative 1: No Action vith Monitoring
Capital Cost: $0
Operation and Maintenance (0 & M) Cost: $14,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $128,000
Time to implement: 0 yrs
The Superfund program requires that the "no-action" alternative
be considered as a baseline for comparison of other alternatives.
Under this alternative, no remedial action to control the source
of contamination would take place. However, long-term monitoring
of the Site would be necessary.
This alternative would involve a continuation of the present
groundwater monitoring and water supply program provided by
Broome County.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
13
-------
on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, remedial actions nay be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative 3a; Limited Action* Existing Water Supply, and Use
Restrictions
Capital Cost: $0
0 & M Cost: $71,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $672,000
Time to Implement: 6 months
This alternative would involve a continuation of the present
groundwater monitoring and water supply program provided by
Broome County. Maintenance inspections would be upgraded to
ensure that the carbon/UV filters that are currently provided at
the residences are properly operated for all household needs. In
addition, a sampling program will be implemented utilizing the
existing monitoring wells which were installed as part of remedi-
al investigations and sampled in the confirmatory sampling
program. If the County is able to purchase the affected proper-
ties , the deeds for these properties would be restricted with
respect to future use of groundwater and the property.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative 3b: Limited Action and New Water Supply
Capital Cost: $150,000
O & M Cost: $53,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $648,000
Time to Implement: 1 yr (includes design)
This alternative would provide new water supply wells upgradient
of the landfill, and a distribution system to the residences
within the affected area would also be installed.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
14
-------
Alternative 4bl: Landfill Cap. Dovnaradient Pumping. Groundvater
Treatment, and Existing Water supply
Capital Cost: $4,163,000
O & M Cost: $268,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $5,595,000
Time to Implement: 1.5 yrs (includes design)
This alternative would involve the installation of a multi-media
cap that combines a number of layers of different materials, such
as a synthetic membrane or a compacted clay layer, sand drainage
layer, and topsoil/vegetation. The cap would be designed to be
in compliance with New York State Part 360 Solid Waste Regula-
tions. Groundwater would be collected downgradient using pumping
wells, and treated using air stripping. Treated effluent would
be discharged to North Stream or the Susguehanna River. Potable
water would be supplied to residents via the current program, as
described under Alternative 3a.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative 4b2: Landfill Cap. Dovnoradiant Pmnpinq* Groundvater
Treatment, and Nev Water Supply
Capital Cost: $4,313,000
O & M Cost: $250,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $5,646,000
Time to Implement: 1.5 yrs (includes design)
This alternative would involve the placement of a multi-media cap
complying with New York State Part 360 Solid Waste Regulations,
the pumping of groundwater downgradient of the landfill using
pumping wells, and the treatment of the groundwater. Treated
effluent would be discharged to North Stream or the Susguehanna
River. A new water supply would be provided as described in
Alternative 3b.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, remedial action may be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
15
-------
Alternative 4clt Landfill Cap. Pumping at Landfill and Dovnqrad-
ient. Groundvater Treatment, and Existing Water Supply
Capital Cost: $4,193,000
O & M Cost: $268,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $5,040,000
Time to Implement: 1.5 yrs (includes design)
This alternative would involve the placement of a multi-media cap
complying with New York State Part 360 Solid Waste Regulations,
the pumping of groundwater downgradient of and within the land-
fill using pumping wells, and treatment of groundwater. The
existing water supply program, upgraded as described in Alterna-
tive 3a, would be continued.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, remedial action may be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
lent* Groundvater Treatment, and Nev Water Supply
Capital Cost: $4,273,000
0 & M Cost: $250,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $5,135,000
Time to Implement: 1.5 yrs (includes design)
This alternative would involve the placement of a multi-media cap
complying with New York State Part 360 Solid Waste Regulations,
and the pumping and treatment of groundwater at the landfill and
downgradient. A new water supply and distribution system would
be constructed as described in Alternative 3b.
Long-term monitoring, fencing and deed restrictions would be
included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, remedial action may be imple-
mented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative 4dl: Landfill Cap* Dovnqradient Cutoff, and New Water
Supply
Capital Cost: $8,811,000
O & M Cost: $230,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $10,977,000
Time to Implement: 1.5 yrs (includes design)
16
-------
This alternative would involve the placement of a partial ground-
water slurry cutoff wall downgradient of the landfill and pumping
and treatment of groundwater within the containment wall. A
multi-media cap complying with New York State Part 360 Solid
Waste Regulations would be constructed to cover the entire
landfill and the limits of the slurry wall downgradient of the
landfill. Attainment of groundwater standards outside the cutoff
wall would occur naturally over the long-term. A new water
supply would be provided as described in Alternative 3b.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years, if justified by the review, remedial actions may be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative 4d2; Landfill Cap. Dovngradient cutoff. and Existing
Water Supply
Capital Cost: $8,701,000
O & M Cost: $268,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $11,230,000
Time to Implement: 1.5 yrs (includes design)
This alternative would involve the placement of a partial ground-
water cutoff wall downgradient of the landfill, as described in
Alternative 4dl, and pumping and treatment of groundwater within
and outside of the cutoff wall. A multi-media cap complying with
New York State Part 360 Solid Waste Regulations would be con-
structed to the limits of the slurry wall downgradient of the
landfill and to the limit of the landfill on the upgradient side.
The existing water supply program would be continued as described
in Alternative 3a.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on-site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be*
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
SUMMARY OP COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OP ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each
alternative is assessed against nine evaluation criteria, namely
overall protection of human health and the environment, compli-
ance with ARARs, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduc-
tion of toxicity, mobility or volume (including the statutory
preference for treatment), short-term effectiveness,
implementability, cost, state acceptance, and community accep-
tance.
17
-------
A comparative analysis of these alternatives based upon the
evaluation criteria note above, are as follows:
Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and Environment
The no-action alternative would not be protective of human health
and the environment. Alternatives involving the utilization of
the existing water supply system (Alternatives 3a, 4bl, 4cl, and
4d2) are protective of the human health, since each of these
alternatives call for the provision of carbon filters to the
present and future affected residences.
Alternative 3a would not be protective of the environment since
no provision is provided for source containment, treatment, or
leachate seepage control. Alternatives 4bl, 4b2, 4cl, 4c2, 4dl,
and 4d2, which provide.for source containment, groundwater
treatment, and leachate seepage control, are equally protective
of the environment.
Under Alternatives 4cl and 4c2, the carcinogenic risk associated
with exposure to VOCs in the groundwater from the Site would be
expected to reach an acceptable range after the first year of
pumping. Further decreases in the carcinogenic risk to 10* would
be expected during the subsequent 3 years of pumping. The HI is
anticipated to decline from a baseline of 3.85 to 0.27 after 1
year of pumping.
Compliance with ARARs
The no-action alternative would not ensure compliance with
chemical-specific ARARs within a reasonable or predictable time
frame. Alternative 3a, which addresses actual current groundwa-
ter use, would immediately comply with health-based ARARs at the
point of use, but would provide no action to ensure compliance at
the groundwater source. The pumping and containment alternatives
(Alternatives 4bl, 4b2, 4cl, and 4c2) also would ensure immediate
point-of-use compliance with health-based ARARs. However, these
alternatives differ in their estimated time to compliance at the
groundwater source. Nevertheless, each containment alternative
has the potential to meet chemical-specific ARARs at the ground-
water source (i.e., outside the landfill boundary). The contain-
ment alternatives involving a cutoff wall (Alternatives 4dl and
4d2) would ensure immediate point-of-use compliance with health-
based ARARs, but will not result in compliance at the groundwater
source within a reasonable time frame.
All containment alternatives can be o-signed to meet action-
specific ARARs with conventional technology.
The estimated time to meet ARARs after implementation of each
alternative is presented in Table 14.
18
-------
Lona-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The no-action alternative would be neither effective nor perma-
nent in the reduction of the magnitude of risk associated with
the Site.
Alternative 3a would be effective in the reduction of risk, but
the permanence of this alternative would depend on the strict en-
forcement and frequent monitoring and maintenance of the carbon
filters. By comparison, Alternative 3b would be effective in the
long-term reduction of risk to residences provided with the new
water supply system.
Alternatives 4bl, 4cl and 4d2 provide for controlled source
containment, and groundwater treatment, which would reduce risk,
but long-term maintenance and monitoring would be required. The
limited action component of these alternatives would reduce the
adequacy and reliability of these options when compared to the
remaining alternatives.
Alternatives 4b2, 4c2, and 4dl provide for the reduction of risk
by virtue of the provision for a new water supply, source con-
tainment and groundwater treatment. These alternatives are
similar in their ability to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time, once cleanup levels have
been met. The proposed controls would require long-term, O&M,
but system adequacy and reliability are relatively greater as the
local water supply will be unaffected by the remedial action.
In addition, Alternatives 4bl, 4b2, 4cl, and 4c2 should provide
long-term effective attainment of ARARs at the groundwater source
after several years.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or volume through Treatment
The no-action alternative involves no treatment, and consequent-
ly, would not contribute to the reduction of contaminant toxici-
ty, mobility, or volume at the Site. This assessment is also
applicable to Alternatives 3a and 3b.
All- of the containment alternatives (Alternatives 4bl, 4b2, 4cl,
4c2, 4dl, and 4d2) would reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume
through containment and the treatment of the groundwater using
air stripping. For these alternatives, emissions from the air
stripper would be at allowable limits for discharge to the
atmosphere or destroyed through the use of a catalytic destruc-
tion unit.
Short-Term Effectiveness
In the short-term, the no-action alternative would not be effec-
19
-------
tive in protecting human health and the environment. Improve-
ment of groundwater quality would only occur through natural
recovery, which is predicted to require at least 20 years.
Alternative 3a, Limited Action, would be effective in the short-
term only for the existing residents. No significant community
or worker exposure during the remediation would be anticipated.
No improvement in environmental quality would be envisioned. The
same assessment also applies to Alternative 3b.
All of the containment alternatives (Alternatives 4bl, 4b2, 4cl,
4c2, 4dl and 4d2) would provide immediate point-of-use compliance
with health-based ARAR limits. Alternatives 4cl and 4c2 are
predicted to provide aquifer cleanup to ARAR limits in four
years. Aquifer cleanup under Alternatives 4dl and 4d2 would take
much longer.
Protection against community and worker exposure will be required
with all of the containment options. For Alternatives 4b2, 4c2,
and 4dl to protect the residents, interim measures, such as
maintenance of the existing filters, would be required until the
new water supply system is installed and is operational. Addi-
tional worker protection measures, pursuant to Occupational
Safely and Health Administrative requirements under Alternatives
4dl and 4d2, would be required.
Environmental ir~acts during the construction of the groundwater
pumping and treatment components of the containment options could
be mitigated readily. Relatively greater potential environmental
impacts are envisioned with Alternatives 4dl and 4d2, and these
impacts would require more involved mitigation measures during
the installation of the cutoff wall.
Implementability
All of the alternatives are implementable.
Alternative 3a presents added administrative requirements for
successful implementation due to the need to purchase additional
affected residences and to institute and enforce land and ground-
water use controls. This same factor must be considered with
each containment option that includes limited action as a sub-
alternative component.
The containment options calling for a downgradient cutoff wall
would involve some difficult construction on steep slopes, but
Alternatives 4dl and 4d2 can be constructed. In contrast, the
pumping components of all the containment options can be imple-
ments quickly and efficiently. No problems are envisioned with
any of the alternatives with respect to the availability of
services and materials.
20
-------
The estimated time to implement each alternative is presented in
Table 14.
Cost
The no-action alternative has the lowest estimated present worth
cost of $128,000. Alternatives 3a and 3b have slightly greater-
estimated present value cost of $672,000 and $646,000, respec-
tively.
Alternatives 4bl, 4b2, 4cl, and 4c2 have present value costs
ranging from $5,040,000 to $5,646,000.
Alternatives 4dl and 4d2, which call for a partial downgradient
cutoff wall, are the most expensive at $10,977,000 and $11,230,-
000, respectively.
The capital, annual O&M, and present value costs for each alter-
natives are presented in Table 14.
State Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the selected alternative.
Community Acceptance
EPA and NYSDEC believe that the selected remedy has the support
of the affected community. The community comments and concerns
received during the public comment period were identified and
addressed in the responsiveness summary which is attached as
Appendix 5 of this document. None of the comments from the
public raised substantive objections or concerns about the
selected remedy. Therefore, EPA believes that the selected
remedy has the support of the affected community.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of the alternatives, and public comments,'both
EPA and NYSDEC have determined that Alternative 4c2, Landfill
Cap, with Pumping at Landfill and Downgradient, Groundwater
Treatment, and New Water Supply, is the most appropriate remedy
for the Site. The selected remedy will provide containment
through the installation of a cap over the landfill material and
leachate collection, which will eliminate the potential for
direct human or animal contact with the leachate seeps discharges
to the North and South Streams. Contaminated groundwater under-
lying the Site will be restored to levels consistent with state
and federal requirements by pumping at and downgradient from the
landfill and by treating the extracted groundwater by using air
stripping. In addition, the human health risks from potable use-
of contaminated groundwater will be controlled under the existing
21
-------
quarterly residential well monitoring program along with the
temporary water supply and carbon filtration program for the
affected residences until a new water supply is constructed.
Also included in the selected remedy is groundwater monitoring,
fencing, and deed restrictions. Five-year reviews will be
conducted as required by the NCP due to the fact that waste will
remain on-site. The purpose of the five-year review is to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
The landfill will be regraded as necessary prior to installation
of the cap to establish slopes which will encourage runoff and
minimize erosion. The cap will contain the landfill material and
minimize infiltration of precipitation into the landfill materi-
al. This will minimize the potential for future contamination of
the groundwater.
The major components of the selected remedy include the follow-
ing:
Cutting the existing sides of the landfill to slopes of no
greater than approximately 33%. The top surfaces of the
landfills would be regraded to slopes of no less than 4% to
provide for proper drainage.
Construction of lined (filter fabric) leachate collection
trenches.
Installation of a multimedia cap over the landfill material.
Water infiltrating through the vegetative and protective
layers of the cap will be intercepted by the impermeable
flexible membrane layer and conveyed away from the landfill
material.
Installation of a gravel gas venting layer, with a filter
fabric layer placed over the gravel. The FML -ill be placed
over the filter fabric, and another layer of filter fabric
will be placed on top of the FML.
Seeding and mulching of the top soil layer to prevent erosion
and provide for rapid growth of vegetation.
Pumping the contaminated groundwater beneath and down-
gradient of the landfill.
Treatment of the extracted groundwater, using metals treat
ment and air stripping.
Discharge of the treated water to surface water.
Construction of a new water supply system for the present
and future affected residences (with the continuation of
22
-------
existing quarterly residential well monitoring and temporary
water supply and carbon filtration programs until the new
water supply is in operation). It is contemplated that the
new water supply system will utilize a new well or wells
northwest of the affected area.
Fencing to further protect the integrity of the caps by
restricting access to the Site.
Periodic inspection of the cap and maintenance as necessary
will provide for long-term effectiveness and permanence of
the alternative.
Imposition of property deed restrictions, if necessary. The
deed restrictions will include measures to prevent the
installation of drinking water wells at the Site and restrict
activities which could affect the integrity of the cap.
Initiation of a monitoring program upon completion of the
closure activities. The monitoring program will provide data
to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial effort over
time.
The multi-media cap will be consistent with applicable regula-
tions that require that when a FML is used in place of clay, the
FML may have a permeability no greater than 1 x 10'u cm/sec. The
design requirements contained in the 6 NYCRR Part 360 standards
would be incorporated into the cap design.
The cap considered above would also attain the performance
requirements for caps at hazardous waste landfills as specified
in 40 CFR Part 264.310. These requirements, promulgated under
the RCRA, specify that the cap should:
1. Provide long-term minimization of migration of liquids
through the closed landfill;
2. Function with minimum maintenance;
3. Promote drainage and minimize erosion or abrasion of
the cover;
4. Accommodate settling and subsidence so that the cap's
integrity is maintained; and
5. Have a permeability less than or equal to the permea-
bility of any bottom liner present or natural subsoils
present.
the first RCRA performance requirement would be attained by
establishing proper slopes for drainage of precipitation, vege-
23
-------
tated topsoil to promote evapotranspiration, as well as the
installation of a FML with a permeability of 1 x 1012 cm/sec or
less.
A minimum amount of maintenance would be required for the cap.
Maintenance activities would primarily consist of periodic
mowing. Proper slopes and the vegetated topsoil would be estab-
lished to promote drainage and minimize erosion of the cover.
It is expected that settling and subsidence has already occurred
at the Site due to its age and would not occur in the future.
However, an FML is considered to typically accommodate settling
satisfactorily.
It is assumed that the effluent from the groundwater treatment
system will be discharged by gravity to the North Stream in the
vicinity of Residential.Well No. 1, and that disinfection of this
effluent will not be required. Should disinfection be required,
an ultra-violet disinfection system would be included. In the
final design, sufficient area will be allocated at the location
of the groundwater treatment system for the inclusion of this
disinfection system in accordance with the 6 NYCRR Parts 700-
'705.
The groundwater treatment will continue until federal MCLs and
state groundwater and drinking water standards for the organics
have been achieved in the groundwater. The goal of this remedial
action is to restore groundwater to its beneficial use, which is,
at this site, a drinking water source. Based on information
obtained during the field investigation and on an analysis of all
remedial alternatives, EPA and NYSDEC believe that the selected
remedy involves using the best available and most appropriate .
technology to achieve this goal. It may become apparent, during
the operation of the groundwater extraction system that,.at a
certain point, contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are
remaining constant at levels higher than the remediation goal.
In such a case, the system performance standards and/or the
remedy will be reevaluated.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction and
treatment for at least 4 years, during which the system's per-
formance will be carefully monitored on a regular basis and
adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected during
operation. Air monitoring will be performed during construction
at the Site. Air emissions from the treatment units during
groundwater remediation will meet the air emission ARARs.
Environmental monitoring will be required during the life of the
treatment process. In addition, monitoring of the groundwater at
the Site will be conducted for a period of thirty years after
completion of the remedial construction, to ensure that the goals
of the remedial action have been met.
24
-------
The new water supply system will be designed to serve the affect-
ed residences with the continuation of existing quarterly resi-
dential well monitoring and temporary water supply and carbon
filtration programs until the new water supply is in operation.
It is contemplated that the new water supply system will utilize
a new well or wells northwest of the affected area.
The selected remedy will be designed to avoid significant impacts
to the North and South Streams. The discharge to the North
Stream should be designed to minimize impacts associated with
scouring. If the leachate seeps have not significantly subsided
or improved in quality within 1 year after remedial construction
is completed, collection and treatment of the seeps will be
reevaluated.
The groundwater cleanup levels at the Site are based primarily on
the classification of the groundwater as a drinking water source.
Therefore, the MCLs for volatile organics established under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, National Primary Drinking Water Stan-
dards (40 CFR 141), and the New York State Department of Health
(NYSDOH) Drinking Water Standards for VOCs are relevant and
appropriate.
A wetlands delineation (utilizing the "three parameter method"),
and a Stage 1A cultural resources assessment will be undertaken
during the remedial design phase in accordance with Executive
Order 11990. A wetland assessment and restoration plan will be
required for any wetlands impacted or disturbed by remedial
activity.
The capital, annual O&M, and present value costs for the selected
remedy are presented in Table 14.
Remediation Levels
Remediation levels are derived for concentrations of contaminants
for each exposure route that is believed to provide adequate
protection of human health and the environment based on available
site information (55 FR 8712, March 8, 1990). , ,
The media of concern identified for the Site are groundwater from
the glacial outwash aquifer and leachate seeps in the North
Stream and on the south side of the landfill.
The purpose of the response action for the Site are as follows:
. Control the release of VOCs from the Site to the glacial
outwash aquifer that underlies the
project area;
Properly close the landfill and eliminate the leachate
seeps, and any associated leachate discharges to the
25
-------
North and South Streams;
Eliminate the potential for direct human or animal
contact with any active leachate seeps;
Continue the existing quarterly residential well monitor-
ing program along with the temporary water supply and
carbon filtration program for the affect residences until
a new water supply is constructed; and
Restore the groundwater underlying the Site to levels
consistent with state and federal ARARs.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve
protection of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory re-
quirements and preferences. These specify that when completed,
the selected remedial actions must comply with applicable or
relevant and appropriate environmental standards established
under federal and state environmental laws unless a statutory
waiver is justified. The selected remedy also must be cost-
effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treat-
ment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a
preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following
sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory
requirements.
Protection of Hiitnan Health and the Envi.roy*1"**^^
Since a new water supply is to be provided under the selected
remedy, human health will be protected. Control of the leachate
seeps by the capping the landfill will also prevent human contact
with contaminated seeps and sediment, and will mitigate any
environmental effects.
The selected remedy will protect human health and the environment
through the removal and treatment of the organic contaminants in
groundwater, using air stripping and metals removal.. Risk
reduction will be provided by the selected remedy. The carcino-
genic risk associated with exposure to VOCs in the groundwater
from the Site would be expected to reach an acceptable range
aftar; the first year of pumping. Further decreases in the
carcinogenic risk to 10*6 would be expected during the subsequent
3 years of pumping. The HI is anticipated to decline from a
baseline of 3.85 to 0.27 after 1 year of pumping. An HI below
unity is indicative of conditions which would be protective of
26
-------
human health for carcinogenic effects. Further declines in the
HI to 0.10 would be anticipated during the first 3 years of
remediation.
There are no short-term threats associated with the selected
remedy that cannot be readily controlled.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will not result in immediate compliance with
federal and state drinking water MCLs in the groundwater.
However, as predicted by contaminant transport modeling, the
contaminant concentrations will be within the MCLs after at least
four years of pumping and treatment. The discharge to surface
water will be treated to conform to State Permit Discharge
Elimination System limits (6NYCRR Part 750 through 758). pis-
charges to the air from stripping will comply with the Ambient
Guideline Concentrations in the New York State Air Guide and the
standards presented in 6 NYCRR Part 212. If it is determined
during detailed design that vapor phase treatment is required, it
will be supplied. Installation of a cap and some downgradient
pumping wells will require temporary or permanent alterations to
the stream bed of the North Stream. Construction, filling, and
stream relocation will be designed to comply with relevant
requirements of NYSDEC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (33
CFR Parts 320 through 330).
Since the landfill contains RCRA listed hazardous wastes, regula-
tions specified in 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F and G would be
considered relevant for the cap. However, the implementation of
the NYCRR Part 360 final cover (cap) in lieu of a MRCRA Cap" will
meet or exceed the performance requirements of Part 264 Subparts
F and G at this site. Therefore, RCRA capping requirements are
not appropriate, since they do not address all facets of a
municipal landfill including landfill gas controls. Landfill gas
controls are addressed in NYCRR Part 360. In addition the
selected remedy will comply with all chemical, action, and
location-specific ARARs.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective because it has been deter-
mined to provide overall effectiveness proportional to its cost.
The total capital and present worth costs for the selected remedy
are $4,273,000 and $5,135,000, respectively. The 0 & M cost for
the selected remedy is $250,000 per year.
The selected remedy is the least expensive of all the alterna-
tives which provide for active restoration of the groundwater
resources and establish a new supply of drinking water. The most
expensive alternatives (Alternatives 4dl and 4d2) are up to 119
per cent higher than the present worth cost of the selected
27
-------
remedy. Likewise, the selected remedy provides the same degree
of certainty with regard to the effective removal of all the
organic and inorganic contaminants.
The capital, annual O&M, and present worth cost for the selected
remedy is presented in Table 14.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maxima11" Extent Practicable
EPA and NYSDEC have determined that the selected remedy repre-
sents the maximum extent practicable to which permanent solutions
and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost-effective
manner for the final source control operable unit at the Site.
Of those alternatives that are protective of human health and the
environment and comply with ARARs, EPA and NYSDEC have determined
that the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs
in terms of long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in
toxicity, mobility, or volume achieved through treatment, short-
term effectiveness, implementability, and cost, also considering
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element to
the maximum extent practicable and considering state and communi-
ty acceptance.
The selection of treatment of the contaminated groundwater is
consistent with program expectations that indicate that highly
toxic and mobile wastes are a priority for treatment and often
necessary to ensure the long-term effectiveness of a remedy. All
the alternatives that consider remedial action are reasonably
comparable with respect to implementability, therefore, the major
trade-offs that provide the basis for the selection of the remedy
are the estimated time to meet the ARARs after implementation,
reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume, and cost effective-
ness. The selected remedy can be implemented with less risk to
the area of residents and at less cost than the other remedial
.action alternatives and is, therefore, determined to be the most
appropriate solution for the contaminated groundwater at the
Site.
With regard to implementability, the components of the selected
remedy are easily implemented, proven technologies and are
readily available.
Preference for Treatment aa a Principal Element
By treating the groundwater by air stripping and by the installa-
tion of a landfill cap, the selected remedy addresses the princi-
pal threats posed by the Site through the use of treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the envi-
ronment, complies with federal and state requirements that are
28
-------
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. The contaminated groundwater and leachate is
being treated, addressing the statutory preference for treatment
as a principal element of the remedy. However, the size of the
landfill and the fact that there are no identified on-site "hot
spots" that represent the major sources of contamination preclude
a remedy in which the landfilled material could be excavated and
treated effectively.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are not significant changes from the preferred alterative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
29
-------
APPENDIX 1 - TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
NATURE AND AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES
RECEIVED AT THE COLESV1LLE LANDFILL
Waste Type
Aqueous Dye Wastes
Organic Solvent Mixtures
Mixed Chemical Solvents
Description
pH - neutral to alkline
0.18% sulfate (average 10%)
Density - 8.3-9 Ibs/gallon
15% total solids at 110° C
Traces of Zn, Al, Fe, Sn
Density - 6.8 - 8.3 Ibs/gallon
5% total solids at 110° C
Heating value - 8,000 BTU/lb (min)
Included benzene, cyclohexane,
acetone isopropyl alcohol,
methanol, ethanol, n-^hexane,
toluene, xylene, methyl,
cellosolve, 10% chlorinated
solvents and water, diethyl
ether
Density - 8.3 Ibs/gallon
5% total solids at 110"C
15% chloride
Heating value - 6,500 BTU/lb
(min)
Included isopropyl alcohol,
methanol, methylene chloride
acetone, minor amounts of other
hydrocarbons and solvents
Amount
Drums/
Month
10
10
10
Source: Wehran Engineering, "Hydrogeologic Investigation," September 1983.
-------
Table 2
IlKOOMKCOUNTY -COLKSVII.LK LANDFILL
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN MONITORING WELLS
Volatile Compounds
two
ChUxomethan*
ViityKhtoiid*
Cliloiorlhjnf
Mrlhytrr* Chloixt*
M DitMoiotlhrn*
I.I DifMotorltMn*
lunt I.J Dichloioelhen*
Chlwoloffn
1.7 Onhloio»lh*ne
1 Bul«non«
I.l.l-Iinhloio»lh«n*
1.2 D«htoiop>op»n*
tiuMmorlhrn*
Brntent
1 uluenf
ChloiobirnMi/»nt
lolol Xylrnvt
1 IK hloiufluo>omrili«n«
lrli*
-------
Table 3
HliOOME COUNTY - COLESVILLK LANDFILL
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN PRIVATE WELLS
Volatile Compounds
-------
Table 3a
BROOME COUNTY - COLESVILLE LANDFILL
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN PRIVATE WELLS
Volatile Compounds
(M9/1)
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
1 , 1 -Dichloroeth one
Trans- 1,2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1,2 Dichloroeth ane
2-Butanone
1,1.1 Trichloroethane
1 ,2 Dichloropr opane
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethyl benzene
Total Xylenes *
Trichlorofluoromethane
Residential Well No. 2
4/21/83
NYSDOH
EPA 601
2
1
6
7
2
10
4
-
12/29/83
H?M
EPA 601
4
11
5/7/84
H2M
EPA 601
4
11
10
6/8/84
Chemlech
EPA 624
15
15 ;
9/28/87
H,M
EPA 601
5
7
1
34
12/16/87
HjM
EPA 601
11
4
13
46
40
82
31
5
12/11/87*
Nanco
EPA 624
6
6
BMRL
8/15/89
NY Test
EPA
8010/8020
Mores'* .
Blank cells indicate not detected. BMRL = Below Minimum Reportable Level
•Samples taken by Wehran ~
-------
Table 3b
BROOME COUNTY -COLESVILLE LANDFILL
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN PRIVATE WELLS
Volatile Compounds
(iig'O
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
Methylene Chloride
1,1-Dichloroethene
1.1-Dichloroethane
Trans 1,2:Dichloroethene
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
1.1,1-Trichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Trichloroethene
Benzene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Trichlorofluoromethane
Residential Well No. 3
3/31/83
NY Testing
EPA 624
100
1
12
4/21/83
NYSOOH
EPA 601
12/29/83
H;M
EPA 601
5/7/84
H;M
EPA 601
6/8/84*
Chemtech
EPA 624
9/28/87
H,M
EPA 601
12/16/87
H2M
EPA 601
2
72
13
2/11/87*
Nanco
EPA 624
8/1S/89
NY Test
EPA
8010/8020
Mores
Blank cells indicate not detected. BMRL - Below Minimum Reportable I imit
* Samples taken by Wehran
-------
Table 4
imOOME COUNTY - COI.KSVII J ,K IJVNDFIIX
COUESVIUJJCONFIRMATORY SAMPLING PROGRAM IttKM
DISSOLVED METALS IN MONITORING WELLS*
AUGUST 1919
Metal
wn
Aitenu
Cadmium
ChiOfnium
Coppei
hon
le«d
NMk*l
Vfvci
/KM
MIW-)
17 »
MW4
Ml
JSS
•nw-s
22
217
266
4?B
MW6
IM.OOO
SI 6
MWT
24
1.270
SO?
MWS<
MW10
22
MW11
MW1IO
MW 1)
Mfc
MS
MW14S
MW14O
MW 1i
MWUS
II
•49
480
MOM: BUnk <«lh trxfcoi* not delected
• Vimpln liken by Wehran
I Noi Sampled
-------
Table 4 a
Y COLKSVILLK LANDFILL
COI.KVII.I.CCONI-IHMAKHlYSAMri.INC; I'lKKJMAIM I'JH!)
TOTAL METALS IN MONITORING WELLS
AUGUST 1989
Melalt
flg/l|
Aiiemc
Cadmium
Cltioniiuin
Copper
l> on
if Ml
N.«k«l
Mvr«
lint
MW 3
7
24}
617
42.400
79
378
716
MW-4
7
206
464
17.800
198
347
I9/
MW50
3)
144
396
7.860
71 5
177
MW-t
767
I2S.OOO
47 7
IbS
MW-7
74
796
76 1
76.400
4(14
I/I
MUV 10
8
108
37 1
17.400
704
1 Id
MW 11
74 4
101
117.000
•J67
178
7.010
MW I6S
74 3
S.S70
714
11.3
MW-16O
78
IS9
796
7/1.000
143
}79
103
HII
MW US
71
77 3
3.6RO
•)t 8
MW.17I
33
7.8SO
7 7
113
MW 77$
57
108
37
17.700
IDS
77
9'J 7
MW 77O
77
SO?
979
7BS.OOO
6S7
•m
7.41.0
MW-74
14
41S
8H9
7S4.0IIO
16.700
6')6
/. Kill
MW 7S
77
19 ;
II 0
30.4(111
J4 /
IM
(Vote. UUnK t*IU indKdted not detected
• S jnip'f»I4t en Ity Weliean
-------
Table 5
IWOOMKCOUNTY-COLKSVII,I.KLANI>KILI,
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN SURFACE WATER*
AUGUST 1989
Volatile Compounds
«i«»<0
Cltlo>oai*lh«iic
Vinyl Chloodr
Ctilorocthtn*
MtihyteneChlofid*
1 1 OK him or then*
1:1 DKMoforlhan*
lunt I.J DKhltMOCthen*
Chlototorm
1.? DKhlotoflhMic
1 BuUnone •
I.I.I TtKhtoioelhMt*
1.2 OKhlotopiopant
1ii(hk>foelh«n«
Bemtni
loluvne
Chh>iob*ni*ne
llhylbrnienc
loUlXytrtx-t
ln
-------
Table *
I1KOOMK COUNTY-COLKSVILLE LANDFILL
t.OlJCSVIU.KrONKIIlMATOHY SAMPLING l>lt(K;HAM 1989
TOTAL METALS IN SURFACE WATER*
AUGUST 1989
Metal
two
Artcmt
Ctdmium . .
Chromium
lion
lewt
Nifkrl
SilvM
2lCM
SWM
1.240
114
SWWOI
1.1/0
101
41
SW-01
SW-O4
SWOS
J7«
18]
SW«»
u?
14S
SWOT
101
4S 1
SW4M
14
i.iao
11 1
SWOT
6
1.SOO
ib 1
SW10
8
1.?JO
716
JS
SW11
166
604
SW11
2.610
867
989
iWll
22.600
US
2S
S4S
SW14
12.100
sai
SW1S
297
287
6S2
SW16
SW17
SW18
.14
766.000
671
S6
Ktol*: Bunk tfti «dit*»* not detected
• fempto t«k«n by Wctwan
-------
Table 7
K COUNTY COI.KSV1I,I.KI,ANI)KII.I.
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN STREAM SEDIMENTS*
AUGUST 1989
Volatile Compounds
<*CM
Chlotomclhan*
Vmyl Chloiid*
ChlofO*th«ne
MtlhylrnrChkxid*
1.1 DicMoicwlhtn*
1.1 DxhlCMOCttun*
1c«m 1.1 DKhkxovtnww
CMotofotm
1.} DKhkMOtlhan*
1 Buunonc
l.t.t liitMotoelhanc
1.) OMhkMOp«op*ne
liKhlwoclhcnt
Semen*
lotucnc
Chlotobcnienc
1 thylbcnicn*
Iol*l Xytenct
liuMotollumocncllun*
to-oi
71
SOU
1
SOOI
M>04
SOXft
SO 04
21
u»o;
k
wot
I
11
09
wot
s
UMO
n
SO 11
1
son
21
SO-1J
4
SO-14
101
so-«
J
sou
i)\
SO 17
u
u
sau
}1
)
Molrt * "
•Unit
-------
Table R
BROOMECOUNTY-COLKSVII.LK LANDFILL
COLKSVILLKCONHUMATOKY *;AMI*I.IN<; PROGRAM IBHB
TOTAL METALS IN SIMf AM SEDIMENTS*
AUGUST 1989
Meul
WO
Aitrim
Cadmium
Cii>omium
If on
lead
Nickel
Silver
2mt
S041
• 1
11 1
21.100
249
Ml
JSS
SO-02
Ilk
14 »
30.700
21.9
S.I
191
SD-OI
SD-04
SOOT
2SS
IIS
29.900
41 7
it 9
1.SIO
soot
28 /
IS 6
i;.4oa
l]9
2S2
IS9
SO 07
797
14 i
JO.iOO
Ub
m
21;
soot
148
142
2S.MM)
10 1
12 S
1.170
SO 09
1S1
n.soo
104
2S6
161
SO 10
12 i
80
20.000
IS4
12S
12D
S&11
119
113
10.400
107
289
144
SO-11
28
181
11.800
101
114
886
sail
168
142
29.400
1 1
214
140
SO-14
104
129
34.900
is;
2S
161
SO-1S
108
109
IS. 100
99
290
138
SOU
2%;
199
44.2UO
428
31 2
261
S&17
124
8 7
81.800
1 1
149
197
sty 18
24.200
119
21 1
IS1
Mote: Blank i*III indKM* noi delected
• Sample* uk*nb»W«tti»o
t Not Sampled
-------
Table 9
imOOMK COUNTY -COLKSVILLE LANDFILL
CONFIRMATORY SAMPLING PROGRAM I9H9
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Release Medium
GioundwA'.er
Surface Watet
Steam/Seep/SedimenU
Release Source
Buried waste
Seeps/groundwater
Seeps/groundwater
Exposure Point
Nearest residences less
than 0.5 mile
Direct (oni.ul
Din-el cont.iit
Exposure Route
digestion of drinking
walei
Di-imal
Dffin.il
Number of
People
13'
1.921'
1.9?1«
Pathway
Complete*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Notes:
* Pathway K considered complete if the release medium, souue enposuie points, and exposure routes all exist.
' Source: 1980 U.S. Census da t.i lor Town ol Coleswille estimated J 18 peisons per household.
' Population within a three mile radius of the landfill
-------
Table 10
BROOME COUNTY - COLESVILLE LANDFILL
CONFIRMATORY SAMPLING PROGRAM 1989
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Compound
Benzene
Olorooenzene
Chloroethane
1.1-dicnioroethane
1.1-O'Ciloroetnene
Trans- 1.2-oicnloroetnene
1.2-dicnloroethane
1.2-d'CrioroDrooane
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1.1.1. -tncnioroethane
Tetracnloroethene
Tnchioroetnene
To:ai Xyiene
Vinyl Chlorine
Groundwater
(mg/f)
0.120
0035
0.048
0320
0.015
0 140
00-3
0003
0.008
0021
0.270
0.005
0 160
0.020
0.134
Concentration
Surface Water
(mg/f)
ND
0062
0009
0 121
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0004
0005
ND
ND
ND
Soils*
(mg/kg)
ND
0001
ND
0.012
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Notes:
Samples taken by Wehran-New York, Inc. 1989
• Sediments m the immediate vicinity of leacnate seeps
ND = Detected
-------
TABLE II
IWOOME COUNTY -COIJCSVILLK LANDFILL
CONFIRMATORY SAMPLING IMtOCHAM 19H9
COMPARISON OF MCLsTO ESTIMATED EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS
Compound
1.1-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
letrachloroethene
Ben/ene
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1 . 1 . 1 -trichloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chlorobenzene
1.2 dtchloroethane
Value of MCI*
ivgin
7
S
S
S
S
S
2
S
•>
Exposure Point'
Concentration
(win
11
160
N'O
N/h
320
270
N/D
N/O
N/D
Concentration/
Standard Ratio1
16
320
640
S40
-•
--
Notft:
* New York State Department ol Health Drinking Water Standard* (or Volatile Organic Compounds. January 1989.
t Maximum concentrations measured in homeowner wells (Weluan. 1989 Samples)
t Ratios greater thanone indicate exceedanie of theiequirements.
N/D = not detected
-------
TABLE 12
BROOME COUNTY - COLESVILLE LANDFILL
CALCULATION OF BASELINE CARCINOGENIC RISK ASSOCIATED WITH
INTAKE OF CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
DRINKING WATER INGEST1ON
Compound
1,1-Dkhloroelhene
Trkhloroelhene
I.I.I -Trkhloroethane
1,1-Dichloroelfune
1,2-DkMQroelhene
Water Cone.
aiK/l
0.01 1
0.16
0.27
0.32
0.14
Intake
aiR/kg/day
3.I4E-04
4571- -01
7.7IE-03
9. ME -03
4.00E-03
Oral
Slope Factor
-
LIE 03
•
-
-
Oral
RID
0.021
2.IE-OI
0.09
I.2E-OI
0.25
Total:
Carcinogenic
Ritk
5.03E-06
5.03F.-O6
Hazard
Index
I.50E-02
2.I8E-02
I.57E-02
7.62E-02
I.60E-02
2.15E-01
INHALATION FROM TAP WATER
Cotnpotaad
1 . 1 -Dkhtoraethene
Trkhloroelhene
1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroelhane
1,1-Dichloroe thane
Water Cone.
»H/I
0.01 1
0.16
0.27
0.32
0.14
Intake
m*/M'
-------
Table 13
COLESVELLE LANDFILL
POTENTIAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC GROUNDWATER ARARS
Compound
Benzene
ChJorobenzeoe
Chloroe thine
1 , 1 -Dichloroethaae
1 , 1 -Dichloroetbenc
Trans- 1 ,2-dichJoroetbene
1,2-Dichloroethaae
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
retrachloroetbene
ThchJoroelbcne
Toul Xylene
Vinyl Chloride
Number
of Detects/
Number
of Wells
8/32
5/32
3/32
12/32
3/32
4/32
1/32
1/32
1/32
1/32
10'32
2'28
8 '32
1/32
2 '32
Cooceatnb'oo
Range (ugl)
5-62
0.05-35
8-48
3-320
4-15
0.5-140
43
3
8
21
2-270
0.5-5
0.9-160
20
39-134
Chemical-Specific ARARS/SCGs
NYS
DEC
703 Side
(1)
ND
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
NA
5
Fed
MCL>
(2)
5
NA
NA
NA
7
100 *
5
5 *
700 *
NA
200
NA
5
10000*
2
NYS
DOH
MCLt
(3)
5
5
[ 5
5
L 5
5 =::
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
NYS
Guidance
Value*
(«)
0.7 (A) .
20 (C)
NA
5(E)
0.07 (A)
5(E)
0.8 (A)
S(E)
5(E)
5{E)
5(E)
0-7 (A)
3 (A)
5(E)
0.3 (A)
ARAR
Range
ND-5
5-20
S
5-50
0.07-7
5-50
0.8-5
5-50
5-50
5-50
5-200
0.7-5
3-10
5-50
0.3-5
Number of
Exceadeacec/ '.*=
Number of Wells
(of lowest
ARAR)
8/32
3/32
3/32
10/32
3/32
1/32
1/32
0/32
1/32
1/32
6/32
1/28
6.'32
: 1/32
2/31
(of higbeci
ARAR)
8 '32
2/32
-
4/32
2/32
1/32
1/32
0/32
0^2
0/32
1.32
1/28
532
0-32
2/32 |
Notes:
• All values in u|/l; 1989 confimaiory sampling round data :
U - below detection limits
NA No Standard Available
ND Non-Detectable Level
(1) 6 NYCRR Pin 703
(2) 40 CFR Part 141.61
(3) 10 NYCRR Part 5
(4) NYSDEC Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values, September 25, 1990
(A) 6 NYCRR Part 701.4
(C) 6 NYCRR Part 701.6
(E) 6 NYCRR Part 701.15(e)
(M) 6 NYCRR Part 701.12
* Phase II MCLs promulgated 1/30/91 in 56 FR 3526 and will take
effect for PWSS in 7/92. THese MCLs must be adopted or made
more stringent by the States by 7/92.
-------
Table "'
COLESVILLE LANDFILL
DETAILED ANALYSIS
COST AND TIMING SUMMARY TABLE
Alternative
1
3a
3b
4bl
4b2
4cl
4c2
4dl
4d2
Estimated
Capital
Cost
($000)
$0
$0
$150
$4,163
$4.313
$4.193
$4.273
$8.811
$8.701
Estimated
O&M
Cost
(per year)
($000)
$14
$71
$53
$268
$250
$268
$250
$230
$268
EslimaK1
Present
Value
Cost*
($000)
$128
$672 +
$648
$5.595
$5,646
$5.040
$5.135
$10.977
$11.230
Estimated Time
to Implement
(Design/Construct)
0
6 mo
lyr
l.5yr
l.5yr
.l.5yr
l.5yr
1.5 yr
l.5yr
Estimated Time to
Meet ARARs after
Implementation
>20 yrs
>20 yrs
>20 yrs
8 yrs
8 yrs
4 yrs
4 yrs
>20 yrs
>20 yrs
The praert voflk fclor WM bMed on n interert rale of 10%/yor for the duration of cleanup (30 yrt it UMX) for >20yri)
-------
APPENDIX 2 - FIGURES
-------
PROPERTY i HE { — *'.—
11
f. -
\ "APPROXIMATE
^ ^N
•'_•«<. '' ^JPROJECT AREA^
SOURCE:
TOPOGRAPHY TAKEN PROM
1987 AFTON. N.Y.
U.S.Q.S. QUADRANGLE
7.5 MINUTE SERIES
FIGURE 1
SCALE: 1* « 2000'
-------
FIGURE 2
', ••. \'>\ v vx\ V \ /
•\\j-.X\\\\V 6
Y.W-A '••. \\\}N n '
-------
FIGURE 3
-------
FIGURE 4
/WftU\\\TVt
V\ ^Wv'&
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
-------
COLESVILLE MUNICIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
SITE IDENTIFICATION
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT REPORTS
P. 1 - 9 Report: Summary of History and Management Options.
prepared by the Broome County Department of Public
Works, Division of Sanitation, September 28, 1983.
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 10 Meao to Mr. David King, NYSDEC, from Mr. Larry
Lepak, NYSDEC, Re: Colesville as a NPL site.
December 4, 1984.
P. 11 Memo to Larry Lepa&, NYSDEC, from Mr. Frank
Ricotta, NYSDEC, Re: Response to memo. December
11, 1984.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS
P. 12 - 284 Report: Confirmatory Sampling Program Report
-Volume 2- Appendix B - Analytical Data
fiuwTna-ry Report, prepared by Wehran Inc., February,
1990.
P^ 285 - 296 Report: Confirmatory Sampling Program Report -
Volume 3 - Maps and Figures, prepared by Wehran
Inc., February, 1990.
P. 297 - 413 Report: Confirmatory Sampling Program Report -
Volume I. prepared by Wehran Inc., July, 1990.
P. 414 - 418 Outline of sampling techniques. *
P. 419 - 420 Two naps of proposed sample locations.
-------
SAMPLING & ANALYSIS DATA/CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS
P. 421 - 426 Data: New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)
- Wadsworth Center for Laboratories and Research.
November 24, 1986.
P. 427 - 447 Data: Inorganic & Organic Data Samples from Enesco
Labs. November 23, 1987.
P. 448 - 541 Data: Inorganic Analyses Data Package, Rocky
Mountain Analytical, January 20, 1988.
P. 542 - 549 Data: Analysis Water data, January 22, 1986.
P. 550 - 975 Data: Analytical results from Enesco Labs.
November 30, 1987.
P. 976 - 1434 Data: Analytical Results from Enesco Labs, January
21, 1983.
1435 - 1528 Data: Organic Data Review Summary, Case no. 2225,
Sample Matrix - Water, CCJM and Wehran, August,
1989.
P. 1529 - 1542 Data: Inorganic Data Review Summary, Case no.
2119, Sample Matrix - 1 Low Water, CCJM and
Wehran, August, 1989.
P. 1543 - 1579 Data: Organic Data Review Summary, Case no. 2207,
Sample Matrix - Water, CCJM and Wehran, August,
1989.
P. 1580 - 1613 Data: Organic Data Review Summary, Case no. 2198,
Sample Matrix - Water, CCJM and Wehran, August,
1989.
P. 1614 - 1650 Data: Organic Data Review Summary, Case no. 2225
and 2207, Sample Matrix - Sediment, CCJM and
Wehran, August, 1989.
P. 1651 - 1662 Data: Organic Data Review Summary, Case no. 2119,
Sample Matrix - Water, CCJM and Wehran, August,
1989.
P. 1663 - 1753 Data: Inorganic Data Review Summary, Case no.
2207, Sample Matrix - 19 Low Water, CCJM and
Wehran, August, 1989.
P. 1759 - 1804 Data: Organic Data Review Summary, Case no. 2207,
Sample Matrix - 16 sediments CCJM and Wehran,
August, 1989.
-------
P. 1805 - 1853 Data: Inorganic Data Review Summary, Case no.
2207, Sample Matrix - Low Water, CCJM and Wehran,
August, 1989.
P. 1854 - 1869 Data: Inorganic Data Review Summary, Case no. 2201
and 2225, Sample Matrix - Water, Soil, CCJM and
Wehran, August, 1989.
P. 1870 - 1882 Data: Inorganic Data Review Summary, Case no.
2119, Sample Matrix - Water, Soil, CCJM and
Wehran, .August, 1989.
P. 1882A - 2311Report: Organic Analytical Data Report Package.
prepared by NYTEST Environmental Inc., Vol. I,
August 20, 1989.
P. 2312 - 2643 Report: Organic Analytical Data Report Package.
prepared by NYTEST Environmental Inc., Vol. II,
August 20, 1989.
P. 2644 - 2899 Report: Organic Analytical Data Report Package.
prepared by NYTEST Environmental Inc., Vol. Ill,
August 20, 1989.
P. 2900 - 2929 Report: SuTTinarv Package for Wehran. prepared by
NYTEST Environmental Inc., Vol. I, August 31,
1989. .
P. 2930 - 3136 Report: Summary Package for Wehran. prepared by
NYTEST Environmental Inc., Vol. II, August 31,
1989.
P. 3137 - 3586 Report: Inorganic Analytical Data Report Package.
prepared by NYTEST Environmental Inc./ Vol. I,
September 21, 1989.
P. 3587 - 3910 Report: Inorganic Analytical Data Report Package.
prepared by NYTEST Environmental Inc., Vol. II,
September 21, 1989.
P. 3911 - 3943 Data: Additional CLP Backup - Colesville, Wehran,
October 13, 1989.
P. 3944 - 3962 Data: Volatile Organic Compounds in Monitoring
Wells.
P. 3963 - 4408 Report: Inorganic Data Review Summary,, prepared by
CCJM, November 13, 1989.
-------
P. 4409 - 4426 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Messrs,
Michael O'Hara and Anthony Savino, Re: Results of
Well W-12D Investigations, November 29, 1990.
Detailed Attachments.
WORK PLANS
P. 4427 - 4434 Report: Work Plan - Feasibility Study. Colesville
Landfill,. Brooroe County. New York, prepared by
Wehran Engineering P.C., December, 1985.
P. 4435 - 4444 Report: Work Plan - Supplemental Investigation at
the Colesville Landfill. Broo~e County. New York.
prepared Wehran Engineering, December, 1985.
P. 4445 - 4455 Report: OA/OC Plan. Colesville Landfill. Broome
County. New York, prepared by Wehran Engineering,
December, 1985.
P. 4456 - 4462 Report: Site Safety Plan for -Supplemental
Investigation at the Colesville Landfill, Broome .
County, prepared by Wehran Engineering, December,
1985.
P. 4463 - 4464 Letter to Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, from Mr. Bob
Senior, NYSDEC, Re: Work Plan Comments, January 7,
1986
P. 4465 - 4488 Letter to Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, from;Mr.
William Soukup and Mr. Gary DiPippo, Wehran
Engineering, P.C., Re: Enclosed documents - Work
Plan - Supplemental Investigation, Work Plan -
Feasibility Study. Documents attached. February
20, 1986.
P. 4489 - 4497 Report: Wehran Engineering Site Safety Plan for
Supplemental Investigation at the Colesville
Landfill. Broome County. New York/ prepared by
Wehran Engineering Inc., revised April, 1986.
P. 4498 - 4522 Letter to Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Randall C. Mills, We—an and Mr. .Gary DiPippo,
Wehran, prepared by Wehran Engineering P.C., Re:
Documents attached. July 9, 1986.
P. 4522A-4556
Report: Remedial Program - Colesville Landfill.
Broome County. New York, prepared by Wehran
Engineering Inc., August, 1986.
-------
P. 4557 - 4558 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
James Madigan, NY State Department of Health, Re:
RI/FS Confirmatory Sampling Workplan, December 13,
1988.
P. 4558A-4723 Report: RI/FS - Confirmatory Sampling Program Work
Plan; Part 1; Sampling Plan; Part 2; Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Plan, prepared by Wehran
Engineering, P.C., Revised April, 1989.
P. 4724 - 4725 Letter to Mr. Irving Kagan, GAF Corporation and
Mr. Timothy M. Grippen, from Mr. Brian Davidson,
NYSDEC, Re: Revised Confirmatory Sampling Program
Work Plan, May 2, 1989.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS
P. 4726 - 4797 Report; Phase II- Hvdroqeoloaic Investigation ar.d
Reaedial Alternative Evaluation - Volur.e l - Text.,
prepared by Wehran Engineering, November, 1984.
P. 4797A-5015 Report: Phase II - Hvdroaeoloaic Investigation and
Remedial Alternative Evaluation -..Volume 2 -
Appendices A-l. .prepared by Wehran Engineering,
November, 1984.
P. 5016 - 5023 Report: Scope of Services - Supplemental
Investigation at the Colesville Landfill - Broone
County. New York, prepared by Wehran Engineering,
September, 1985.
P. 5024 - 5059 Report: Remedial Program - Colesville Landfill -
Brooroe County. New York, prepared by Wehran
Engineering, August, 1986. >
P. 5059A-5278 Report: Colesville Landfill - 6A - PC Report.
Volume l - Report, prepared by Wehran Engineering,
Revised September, 1986.
P. 5279 - 5285 Report: Colesville Landfill Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study - Exhibit C •»
Basis of Compensation, prepared by Wehran
Engineering, September 11, 1987.
P. 5285A-5305 Report: Colesville Landfill - Remedial
Investigation Report. Volume 2 - Maps & Figures.
prepared by Wehran Engineering, April, 1988.
-------
P. 5306 - 5640 Report: Colesville Landfill - Remedial
Investigation Report. Volume 3 - Appendices.
prepared by Wehran Engineering, April, 1988.
P. 5641 - 5831 Report: Colesville Landfill - Remedial
Investigation Report. Volume 4 - appendices.
prepared by Wehran Engineering, April, 1988.
P. 5832 - 6174 Report: Colesville Landfill - Remedial
Investigation Report. Volume 5 — Appendices.
prepared by Wehran Engineering, April, 1988.
Revised September, 1988.
P. 6175 - 6377 Report: Colesville Landfill - Remedial
Investigation Report, prepared by Wehran
Engineering, April, 1988. Revised September, 1988.
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 6378 - 6381 Memorandum to Mr. Walt Demick, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Larry Lepak, NYSDEC, Re: Proposed capping of
Colesville Landfill, December 3, 1984.
P. 6382 - 6384 Memorandum to Mr. Marsden Chen, NYSDEC, from Mr.
.-oseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Review by the Division
of Solid & Hazardous Waste of files of the
Colesville landfill, February 5, 1985.
P. 6385 Memorandum to Mr. John lannotti, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Morelli, NYSDEC, Re: NCP Deficiencies of the
Hydrogeologic Investigation and Remedial
Alternative Evaluation at.the Colesville Landfill,
February 20, 1985.
P. 6386.- 6387 Memorandum to Mr. David Donoghue, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Waste at site is a
health hazard, March 5, 1985.
P. 6388 - 6389 Memorandum to Mr. John lannotti, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Morelli, NYSDEC, Re: Colesville Landfill
RI/FS Deficiencies, March 20, 1985.
p. 6390 Memorandum to Mr. John lannotti, NYSDEC, from
Mr. John Morelli, NYSDEC, Re: Phase II and RI/FS
deficiencies of Wehran Engineering, March 21,
1985.
P. 6391 - 6394 Letter to Mr. Michael Wright, Esquire, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Review of Hydrogeologic
Investigation and Remedial Alternative Evaluation
of the Colesville Landfill, April 26, 1985.
-------
P. 6395 Letter to Mr. John Murray, Esquire, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Confirm Conversation
with David Donoghue regarding remediation of
Colesville Landfill, May 7, 1985.
P. 6396 Memorandum to distribution, from Mr. Joseph Forti,
NYSDEC, Re: Status Report of clean-up of the
Colesville Landfill, June 10, 1985.
P. 6397 Memorandum to Mr. John lannotti, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Robert Senior, NYSDEC, Re: US EPA visit, September
25, 1985.
P. 6398 - 6406 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC from Mr.
David Donoghue, Broome County, Department of
Public Works, Re: Review and comments on
Supplemental Colesville Landfill Investigation,
September 30, 1985.
P. 6407 - 6409 Letter to Mr. Ed Murray, Court Attorney, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: September 9th meeting
between NYSDEC and Broome County, October 29,
1985.
P. 6410 - 6421 Letter to Mr. Anthony Marchetta, Hannoch, Weisman,
from Mr. Edward Hurray, County Attorney, Re:
Development of proposed workplan, November 18,
1985.
P. 6422 - 6423 Memorandum to Mr. John lannotti, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Robert Senior, NYSDEC, Re: November 14th meeting
between GAF, NYSDEC and U.S. EPA, November 19,
1985.
P. 6424 - 6428 Letter to Mr. A. Clough, public citizen, from Mr..
Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic results, December 5, 1985.
P. 6429 - 6433 Letter to Mr. A. Cower, public citizen, from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic results, December 5, 1985.
P. 6434 - 6440 Letter to Mr. C. Scott, Senior, public citizen,
from Mr. Robert Denz, Broome County, Health
Department, Re: Inorganic and organic results,
December 5, 1985.
P. 6441 - 6445 Letter to Mr. C. Nagle, public citizen, from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department, R.e:
Inorganic and organic results, December 9, 1985.
-------
P. 6446 - 6449 Letter to Mr. Claude Scott, ST., public citizen,
from Mr. Robert Denz, Broome County, Health
Department, Re: Inorganic and organic test
results, December 9, 1985.
P. 6450 - 6455 Letter to Ms. Hills, public citizen, from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic test results, December 9,
1985.
P. 6456 - 6457 Letter to Mrs. LaVare, public citizen, from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic test results, January 3,
1986.
P. 6458 - 6460 Letter to Mr. E. Lee,. Public Citizen, from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broom County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and Organic results for the Raw Water,
January 9, 1986.
P. 6461 - 6463 Letter to Mr. C. Scott, Jr., public citizen, froD
Mr. Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department,
Re: Inorganic and organic test results, January
14, 1986.
P. 6464 - 6466 Letter to Mr. J. Smith, public citizen, from Kr.
Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorg?nic and organic test results, January 16,
1986.
P. 6467 - 6468 Letter to Mrs. LaVare, public citizen , from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department,. Re:
Inorganic and organic test results, January 16,
1986.
P. 6469 - 6470 Letter to Mr. John Rankin, NYSDEC, from Mr. Bob
Senior, NYSDEC, Re: Near approval of scope of work
for a remedial investigation, January 31, 1986.
P. 6471 - 6472 Memorandum to Mr. Bob Senior, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Rankin, NYSDEC, Re: Work plan and QA/QC
protocol, February 6, 1986.
P. 6473 - 6476 Letter to Mr. C. Nagle, NYSDEC, from Mr. Robert
Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic results, March 6, 1986.
P. 6477 - 6480 Letter to Mrs. Smith, public citizen, from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic results, March 6, 1986.
8
-------
P. 6481 - 6485 Letter to Mr. C. Scott Sr., public citizen, from
Mr. Robert Denz/ Broome County, Health Department,
Re: Inorganic and organic results, March 6, 1986.
P. 6486 - 6489 Letter to Mrs. Hills, public citizen, from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broome County Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic results, March 6, 1986.
P. 6490 - 6492 Letter to Mr. Claude Scott Sr., from Mr. Robert
Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic results, March 6, 1986.
P. 64 S3 - 6496 Letter to Mr. Cower, public citizen, from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic results. March 6, 1986.
P. 6457 - 6500 Letter to Mr. Lee, public citizen,, from Mr. Robert
Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic results, March 6, 1986.
P. 6501 - 6507 Letter to Mr. Gaines, public citizen-, from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broome county, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic results, March 11, 1986.
P. 6503 - 6548 Letter to Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, .from Mr.
William Soukup, Wehran Engineering, Re: Attached
Colesville Landfill Workplans, April 11, 1986.
P. 6549 - 6550 Letter to Mr. David Donoghue, Broome County, from
Mr. Robert Senior, NYSDEC, Re: Modification of
RI/FS worXplans, July 10, 1986.
P. 6551 - 6553 Letter to Mr. Gary DiPippo, Wehran Engineers, from
Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Revision of
RI/FS workplans, July 23, 1986.
P. 6554 - 6555 Letter to Mr. Randy Mills. Senior Geologist, from
Mr. Robert Senior, NYSDEC, Re: QA/QC Protocol,
August 14, 1986.
P. 6556 Memorandum to Mr. David Engel, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Norman Nosenchuck, NYSDEC, Re: Reimbursement
costs, September 8, 1986.
P. 6557 - 6560 Letter to Mr. Gaines, public citizen, from Mr.
Robert Denz, Broome County, Health Department, Re:
Inorganic and organic results, January 29, 1987.
P. 6561 Letter to Ms. Caroline Cappello, Legislator, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Public Meeting,
February 6, 1987.
-------
P. 6562 Letter to Ms. Mary Clark, NYCAN, from Mr. Brian
Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Public meeting, February 6,
1987.
P. 6562 Memorandum to distribution, NYSDEC, from Mr. David
Engel, NYSDEC, Re: Order of consent, April 20,
1987.
P. 6564 Memorandum to Ms. Donna Weigel, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: RI Work Plan, August
14, 1987.
P. 6565 Memorandum to Mr. Norman Nosenchuck, NYSDEC,. from
Mr. Stephen Hammond, Re: Project status, September
1, 19S7.
P. 6566 - 6579 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Douglas Tomchuk, US EPA, Re: Sampling of homeowner
wells, November 25, 1987.
P. 65SO - 6592 Letter to Mr. Irving Kagan, GAF Corporation, and
Carl Young, Brooae County, from Mr. Earl Barcomb,
NYSDEC, Re: RI Workplan Modifications, December
15, 1987. Attachments.
P. 65=3 Letter to Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Anthony Savino, Re: Project schedule included in
RI Workplan, December 16, 1987.
P. 655-4 - 6595 Letter to Mr. Anthony Savino, Wehran Engineering,
from Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Three surface
water samples, December 21, 1987.
P. 6555 - 6597 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Anthony Savino, Wehran Engineering, Re: Selection
of monitoring wells for second round of
groundwater sampling, February 11, 1988.
P. 6598 - 6601 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Douglas Tomchuk, U.S. EPA, Re: Copy of memo
regarding confirmatory sampling plan, January 26,
1989. Attachments.
P? 6602 - 6603 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
James Madigan, State*of New York- Department of
Health, Re: RI/FS confirmatory sampling vorkplan,
April 14, 1989.
10
-------
P. 6604 - 6605 Letter to Messrs. Irving King and Timothy Grippen,
from Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re:' Revised
confirmatory sampling program work plan, May 2,
1989.
p. 6606 Memorandum to distribution, Wehran Inc., from Mr.
Anthony Savino, Wehran, Fe: RI/FS, confirmatory
sampling work plan, bids received, June 14, 1989.
P. 6607 - 6614 Letter to Mr. Irving Kagan, GAF Corporation and
Mr. Carl Young, Broome County Executive, Re: RI
report, June 27, 1988. Attachments.
P. 6615 - 6616 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Michael O'Hara and Anthony Savino, Wehran
Envir'otech, Re: Well W-12D Investigation, June 29,
1990.
P. 6617 Memorandum to Mr. Michael O'Hara, CCJM, from Ms.
Susan Delia, CCJM, Re: Draft data validating
summaries for Colesville Landfill RI/FS, November
10, 1989.
P. 6618 Letter to Mr. Eduardo Gonzalez, U.S. EPA, from
Wehran, Re: Documents regarding Colesville
Landfill Files, October 9, 1990.
P. 6619 - 6636 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mrs.
Michael O'Hara, Mr. Anthony Savio, Wehran
Envirotech, Re: Weil-12 D Investigation, November
29, 1990. Attachments.
P. 6637 - 6640 Letter to Mr. Joel Singerman, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Robert Cozzy, NYSDEC, Re: Draft PRAP, December 21,
1990.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FEASIBILITY STUDY WORK PLAN .
P» 6640A-6702 Report: Colesville Landfill RI/FS. Revised
Feasibility Study and Landfill Gas Evaluation Work
, prepared by Wehran Envirotech, June, 1990.
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTS
P. 6702A-6871 Report: Hydrogeologic Investigation, ;
Colesville Landfill, Town of Colesville/ Broome
County, N.Y., prepared by Wehran Engineering,
September, 1983.
11
-------
P. 6872 - 7199 Report: Feasibility Studv for Colesville Landfill.
prepared by Wehran Envirotech, December, 1990.
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 7200 -7204 Letter to Mr. Edward Murray, County Attorney, from
Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Colesville Landfill,
January 13, 1986.
P. 7205 - 7213 Letter to Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Mary Walsh,
Broome County, and Leonard Pasculli, GAF
Corporation, from Mr. Anthony Savino, Wehran
Engineering Corporation, Re: Formalization of
recent discussions, December 3, 1987. Detailed
attachments.
P. 7214 - 7225 Letter to Mr. Irving Kagan, GAF Corporation, and
Mr. Carl Young, Broome County, from Mr. Earl
Barcomb, NYSDEC, Re: Modifications to the August
1986 work plan, December 15, 1987. Detailed
assessment attached.
P. 7226 ;'imorandum to Chittibabu Vasudevan, NYSDEC, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Review of site
characteristics Fact Sheet and draft revised
feasibility study, May 1, 1990.
P. 7227 - 7230 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Eduardo Gonzalez, U.S. EPA, Re: Colesville
Landfill RI/FS - Draft Revised Feasibility Study
and Landfill Gas Evaluation Work Plan, May 30,
1990.
P. 7231 - 7234 Letter from Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from
Messrs. Michael O'Hara and Anthony Savino, Wehran
Envirotech, Re: Colesville Landfill RI/FS -
Response to comments on the Confirmatory Sampling
Program Report WE Project No. 07522 EB, June 7,
1990.
P. 7235 - 7242 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Messrs.
Michael O' Kara and Anthony Savino, Wehran
Envirotech, Re: Colesville Landfill RI/FS -
Feasibility Study Meeting - September 13, 1990 -
WE Project 07522 FS, October 1, 1990.
12
-------
P. 7243 Letter to Mr. Eduardo Gonzalez, U.S. EPA, from Kr.
Anthony Savino, Wehxan Envirotech, Re: Colesville
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, October
12, 1990.
P. 7244 Memorandum to distribution, from Mr. Brian
Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Draft feasibility study,
November 1, 1990.
P. 7245 Letter to Mr. Joel Singerman, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Draft feasibility
study, November 2, 1990.
P. 7246 Letter to Mr. Joel Singerman, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Robert Cozzy, NYSDEC, Re: U.S. EPA will prepare
PRAP, November 8, 1990.
P. 7247 -7250 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Eduardo Gonzalez, U.S. EPA Re: EPA review of
Feasibility Study. Detailed summary. November 26,
1990.
P. 7251 - 7255 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Messrs.
Michael 0' Kara and Anthony Savino, Wehran
Engineering, Re: Colesville Landfill .- Draft
Feasibility Study Report Revisions, November 27,
1990.
P. 7256 - 7262 Letter to Mr. Irving Kagan, GAF, and Mr. Timothy
Grippen, Broome County Executive, from Mr. Brian
Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Draft feasibility report,
November 30, 1990.
P. 7266 - 7267 Letter to Mr. Irving Kagen, GAF Corporation, and
Mr. Timothy Grippen, Broome County, Re: Draft
feasibility study report, December 7, 1990.
P. 7268 Letter to Mr. Robert Cozzy, NYSDEC, from Mr. Joel
Singerman, U.S. EPA, Re: Soliciting comments on
the draft proposed plan, December 7, 1990.
P. 7271 Letter to Mr. Steve Hammond, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Ronald Tramontane, NYDOH, Re: Review of proposed
plan, December 19, 1990.
P. 7282 Letter to Mr. Constantine Sidanon-Eristoff, U.S.
EPA, from Mr. Edward Sullivan, NYSDEC, Re:
Proposed plan, January 4, 1991.
P. 7283 Letter to Mr. Richard Rhodes, Town of Colesville,
from Mr. Eduardo Gonzalez, U.S. EPA, Re: Copies of
the Proposed Plan, January 7, 1991.
13
-------
P. 7285 Letter to Mr. Richard Rhodes, Town of Colesville,
from Mr. Eduardo Gonzalez, U.S. EPA, Re: Copies of
the Proposed Plan, January 10, 1991.
P. 7287 - 7289 Memorandum to Mr. Vallabh Thakkar, NYSDEC, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Colesville
Landfill, January 25, 1991.
RECORD OF DECISION
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 7290 - 7293 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Anthony Savino, Wehran, Re: ROD, February, 2,
1990.
P. 7294 Memorandum to Mr. Joel Singerman, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Dennis Santella, U.S. EPA, Re: Review of the
Risk Assessment for the Colesville Landfill Site,
November 30, 1990.
P. 7295 - 7298 Letter to Mr. Robert Cozzy, NYSDEC, from Mr. Joel
Singerman, U.S. EPA, Re: ROD, December 13, 1990.
Attachments.
P. 7299 Letter to Mr. Joel Singerman., U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Robert Cozzy, NYSDEC, Re: Coj.esville Landfill -
Draft ROD, February 22, 1991.
STATE COORDINATION
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 7300 Letter to Mr. John Murray, Brooroe County, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Plan of action for
future work, May 7, 1985.
P. 7301 - 7305 Letter to Mr. Edward Murray, Broome County Office
Building, from Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re:
State/Federal funding, May 28, 1985. Attachments.
P. 7306 - 7309 Letter to Hon. Al D'Amato, from Mr. Christopher
Daggett, Re: Response to Mr. Tony Fouguet's letter
- reference to Remedial Action at the Colesville
Landfill, January 3, 1986.
14
-------
ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
P. 7310 - 7318 Notice of Hearing, October 16, 1985.
P. 7319 - 7338 NYSDEC, 1986 Environmental Quality Bond Act, Title
3 Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites
Remediation Program State Assistance Contract.
P. 7339 - 7355 Agreement, 1987
P. 7356 - 7389 NYSDEC, Order of consent, January 7, 1987.
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 7390 - 7391 Letter to Mr. Jeffery Teitel, Hannoch, Weisman,
from Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Review of
department's records, April 26, 1985.
P. 7392 Letter Mr. George Malchak, Malchak Garbage
Service, from Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re:
Potential PRP, March 1, 1985.
P. 7393 Letter to Mr. Samuel Heyman, GAF Corporation, fron
Mr. Joseph Forti, Re: Potential PRP, March 1,
1985.
P. 7394 - 7397 Letter, to Mr. Edward Shea, GAF Corporation, and
Mr. Edward Murray, County Attorney, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, Re: Meeting, June 17, 1985.
Attachments.
P. 7398 Memorandum to Mr. Michael Tone, NYSDEC from Mr. .
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Colesville Landfill,
September 11, 1985.
i
P. 7399 Letter to Mr. Walter Mugdan, U.S. EPA, from, Mr.
James Sevinsky, Environmental Protection Bureau,
Re: Colesville Landfill, September 13, 1985.
P. 7400 Letter to Messrs. Edward Shea, GAF Corporation,
and Edward Murray, County Attorney, Re:
Remediation of Colesville Landfill, September 13,
1985.
P. 7401 Memorandum to Mr. Norman Nosenchuck, NYSDEC, from
Request for information, NYSDEC, Re: Request for
information, December 18, 1985.
15
-------
P. 7402 Memorandum to Mr. Norman Nosenchuck, NYSDEC, from
Mr. Request for information, Re: Request for
information, December 19, 1985.
P. 7402A Letter to Mr. Anthony Marchetta, Esq., GAF
Corporation; Mr. Edward Murray, Broome County; Mr.
Philip H. Gitlen, Whiteman, Osterman & Hanna; Mr.
Sidney Manes, Tri-Cities Barrels, Inc.; and Mr.
Sidney Manes, Manes, Rifken, Frankel, and
Greenman, Re: Colesville site, January 13, 1986.
P. 7403 - 7435 Letter to Hon. Andrew Pearlstein, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Colesville Landfill,
February 21, 1986.
P. 7436 - 7438 Letter to Ms. Sandra Hills, public citizen, from
Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Governor Cuomo's
letter, May 13, 1986.
P. 7439 - 7441 Memorandum to Mr. Norman Nosenchuk, NYSDEC, from
Mr. David Engel, NYSDEC, Re: Colesville Landfill
site, August 15, 1986.
P. 7442 - 7443 Memorandum to Mr. Joe Forti, .NYSDEC, from Mr.
Stephan Henriquez, NYSDEC,- Re: Colesville
Landfill, February 25, 1987.
P. 7444 Letter to Ms. Mary Walsh, Broome County, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: RI Woik, August 6, 1987.
HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
ATSDR HEALTH ASSESSMENTS .' .
P. 7445 - 7452 Memorandum to Mr. Doug Tomchuk, NYCCB,.- from Mr.
William Nelson, Department of Helath & Human
Services, Re: Enclosed copy of Preliminary Health
Assessment for the Colesville site, July 12, 1989.
Attachment.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
P. 7454 - 7455 Newspaper article, unidentified newspaper, April
10, 1985.
16
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANS
P. 7456 - 7465 Report: Citizen Participation Plan.
P. 7466 - 7472 Letter to Ms. Ethel Oliver, public citizen, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Citizen
participation plan, May 9, 1989.
PUBLIC NOTICES
P. 7473 - 7475 Notice of public comment period and public meeting
by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
FACT SHEETS AND PRESS RELEASES
P. 7476 News Release, NYSDEC, April 16, 1987.
P. 7477 News Release: Reactions vary to Colesville dump
Plans, January 31, 1991, The Press & Sun Bulletin.
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 74/8 - 7479 Letter to Mrs. Sandy LaVare, public citizen, from
Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Sept. 13 letter,
September 26, 1985.
P. 7480 - 7481 Letter to Mr. Joel Singerman, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Administrative Record,
January 8, 1991.
17
-------
APPENDIX 4 - NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
SO Vrott Road, Albany, N»w York 12233 - 7010
Thomas C. Jorilng
Comml»»lon»f
Kr. Constantine Sidamon-Eristcff ...^ r . ^
Reg'cr.cl Administrator •"•'*••• %> ± £^
United States Er.vironnent«l Protection
Agency, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
Ne* York, New York 1C27S
Dear Mr. Sidancn-EHstcff:
RE: Cclesv-me Landfill - Site No. 70401C
Record of Decision
The New York State Departn-.er.t cf Envirsnr.e-tal Conservation (KYSDEC) has.
reviemed the Record of Decision fcr the CcUs/Hle Landfill, and the
Depa-ttfent concurs with the selection of Alterr.it-/e flc2. Alternstive
«4c2 consists of & landfill cap, gas centre,"-, Uacraze centre!, ara'nagc
control, Icr.g-tertr. post-closure monitoring and na/'ntenance, pur.pir;
wells at anrf dowrgradient of the landfill. src-r-d»sster treetrr.e^t,
discharge of the treated ;rounc'K8ter tc the north strear cr the
Sus3uehann£ River, ard a ner; water supply fcr affected res'de-ts. The
Department concurs that the Record cf Decision adequately cccursnts and
justifies the selection of this rer.eiy.
Should GAf Corporation and Brooke Ccunty successfully n'c-jotiate the
purchase of the remaining affected properties, construction of the new
water supply system wo^lo not be necessary.
Furthermore, as is documented in the Record of Decision, this sitevwilV
be subject to five year reviews as required by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and liability Act as amended by the
Superfund Anerdnerts and Reauthorization Act.
Sincerely,
Edward 0. Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
cc: K, Callahan, USEPA
(i. H*v1ou, USEPA
J. Singerman, USEPA
-------
APPENDIX 5 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
Responsiveness Summary
Prepared By: Brian H. Davidson, Project Manager
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Colesville Landfill Record of Decision - Site No. 704010
A responsiveness summary is required by Superfund policy. It
provides a summary of citizens' comments and concerns received during
the public comment period, and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) responses to those comments and
concerns. All comments summarized in this document will be considered
in NYSDEC's and EPA's final decision for selection of a remedial
alternative for the Colesville Landfill site.
The public comment period for the Colesville Landfill Proposed Plan
began on January 7, 1991. The Proposed Plan is attached in Appendix A.
A public meeting was held at the Broome County Office Building at 7:00
pm on January 30, 1991. The public comment period and public meeting
were announced in legal notices which appeared in the January 7, 1991
and January 28, 1991 Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin. The legal
notice is attached in Appendix B. A press release was also issued by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC),
and a newspaper article appeared in the January 11, 1991 Binghamton
Press and Sun-Bulletin which provided information on the project and
announced the public comment period and public meeting. A copy of.the
Press Release and January 11, 1991 newspaper article are attached in
Appendix C. Residents, interested public, and local officials listec on
the contact list in the Citizen Participation Plan for the Colesville .
Site were mailed letters to encourage their participation and s'olicit
their comments. A copy of the Citizen Participation Plan and a sample
of the letter mailed to residents is included in Appendix D.-
The public comment period closed on February 6, 1991. Attached is
the transcript from the public meeting. About 45 people attended the
public meeting. Most of the questions asked at the public meeting were
adequately answered by the responses given at the public meeting and are
included in the attached transcript. A January 31, 1991 newspaper
article that summarized the meeting is attached in Appendix C. The
transcript and attendance list is attached in Appendix E.
The written comments essentially reiterated technical concerns that
were raised at the public meeting. The. one concern that was expressed
at the public meeting that was not reiterated in the written comments
was the protection of water supply for the Hamlet of Doraville. The
Hamlet of Doraville is located south of the south stream and south of
the area effected by the site. All of the data collected to date
indicates that residential water supply wells in Doraville have not been
-------
impacted by the landfill. The data also indicates that residential
supply wells in Doraville are not likely to be impacted in the future.
Groundwater discharges to the south stream, and groundwater monitoring
wells between Doraville and the landfill have been clean. Nevertheless,
there will be long-term, 30 years monitoring of monitoring wells located
between Doraville and the landfill. Should the data collected from
these wells indicate that contamination is moving toward Doraville,
appropriate response action will be considered during the five year
reviews.
Response action would most likely Include an expansion of the new
water supply system. The new water supply system will be designed to
have sufficient capacity to accommodate some future expansion. However,
we do not anticipate, based on the existing data, that future expansion
of the new water supply system will be necessary to protect Doraville.
Mr. Thomas O'Meara asked at the public meeting (Page 69 of the
transcript), whether affected residents would ever have to pay for their
water. The long-term operation and maintenance of the water system
provided to the affected residences is the responsibility of the
responsible parties, and therefore, affected residents will not have to
pay for their water in the future. It should be noted, however, that
since Broome County is a responsible party there will be some cost to
all Broome County taxpayers (including the affected residents)
associated with the installation and long-term operation and maintenance
of the new water system.
Ms. Mary Clark testified at the public meeting (Pages 44 through 49
of the transcript.included in Appendix E) that a number of intermittent
streams exist •in the vicinity of the site. She indicated through her
statements that these streams were not mapped or sampled during the
Remedial Investigation.
Site reconnaissance and sampling occurred during various times of
the year and as was indicated by Mr. O'Hara on Page 47 of the
transcript, "We sampled the streams we saw..." The surface drainage in
the vicinity of the site is properly characterized in the Remedial >
Investigation Report, and as is indicated on Page 57 of the transcript,
the south stream was repeatedly sampled at various locations along the
stream. No contamination was detected in the south stream.
Copies of the written comments that were received are included in
Appendix F. The concerns raised in written correspondences, and the
response to those concerns is included below.
Correspondence from the Broome County Division of Solid Waste Management
Dated February 5. 1991
1. Suggested amendment (a.) recommends purchasing affected properties
rather than installing a new water system.
-2-
-------
Response:
Clearly, there are advantages to the County and GAP purchasing the
remaining affected properties. Construction of the water supply
system would not be necessary if the remaining affected properties
could be purchased. However, purchasing the remaining affected
properties becomes difficult if the property owners are not
receptive to that option. The decision of whether to construct the
new water supply or negotiate the purchase of the remaining
affected properties is GAF's and Broome County's. Either option is
acceptable to the NYSDEC and the USEPA. Should GAF and Broome
County successfully negotiate the purchase, of all the affected
properties, they are still obligated to install and maintain the
landfill cap and groundwater pump and treat system.
Suggested amendment (b.) recommends recirculating treated
groundwater under the cap. The concern is raised that the model
does not account for unbroken drums that may rupture in the future
and Broome County does not want to treat this site for 100 years.
Response:
The Feasibility Study Report estimates that the landfill cap
will reduce infiltration from the current. 500 gallons per acre, per
day to 10 Gallons per acre, per day. Since the watertable is
beneath f refuse, this will essentially eliminate l.eachate
generation at the site. Although it is possible that unbroken
drums of chemicals are buried on site, and will rupture in the
future causing slugs of contamination to enter the groundwater,
this scenario is not likely for the following reasons:
1. Although we do not have, much in the way of disposal records,
the records we do have indicate that many of the drums were
crushed or dumped and emptied off the back of trucks.
2. :Aiiy intact drums would have been buried for 16 to 18 years,
ana mucn of their contents would probably have leaked out.
3. A number of Intact drums should have Indicated anomalies
during the geophysical surveys. However, the geophysical data
did not indicate any such anomalies.
4. Groundwater monitoring well data collected from 1984 to 1989
Indicates that contaminants on-site and immediately
downgradient have become less concentrated over time. No
spikes or sporadic sharp increases of a given contaminant have
been observed. The overall pattern from the groundwater data
tends to Indicate bulk of contamination from the drums has
been released, and is dispersing and diluting in the
groundwater.
-3-
-------
Recirculating treated groundwater under the cap would defeat
the purpose of the cap, and the effectives of such a systerc
would be hampered by stratification in the upper portion of
the outwash aquifer.
Obtaining Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) within four years,
as predicted by the contaminant transport model, is probably
an optimistic prediction. Factors, such as stratification in
the outwash aquifer, may hamper the achievement of that goal.
However, the effectiveness of the pump and treat system will
be reevaluated in five years as required by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). If it does not seem to be
achieving the program goals as predicted, alternatives will be
evaluated at that time.
Correspondence from Mr. Franklyn P. Cism. Jr.
General Comment:
Alternative 4c2 is an acceptable and efficient procedure to follow,
and with good fortune, will work.
Response:
Thank you for your comments. We concur that Alternative 4c2 is an
appropriate and highly protective remedial alternative for the site.
Comnents Included in the February 5, 1991 Correspondence from Eroone
County Environmental Management Council (EMC)
Hydrogeologic Issues:
Comment No. 1:
General Concern - Wehran Engineering contradicted the vertical
profiles at the Public Meeting, log data should be verified, the model
is sensitive to one data point which may not be representative of the
disposal area.
Response:
The stratigraphic cross-sections from the Remedial Investigation
(RI), which were updated and revised as part of the Confirmatory
Sampling Program, clearly Indicates that the outwash aquifer Is In
direct contact with the refuse (refer to cross-sections F-F' and 6-G1).
This fact was correctly stated by Wehran at the public meeting and there
Is no contradiction between that statement made by Wehran and the
geologic cross-sections.
-4-
-------
The two-dimensional solute transport model evaluates changes in
concentration over time caused by the processes of convective transport,
hydrodynamic dispersion, mixing and chemical retardation. Preliminary
model input variables for the steady-state base simulation included both
hydraulic and transport properties that were determined from available
boring log and well data, existing watertable maps, cross-sections and
published sources. Therefore, the model is sensitive to more than one
data point. The model does require that basic assumptions be made.
Those assumptions, and the limitations of the model are discussed in the
RI Report and Appendix C of the feasibility study. The results of any
groundwater model must be viewed with same degree of skepticism as it is
very difficult (if not impossible) to accurately predict contaminate
transport in a somewhat complex and variable groundwater flow system.
Nevertheless, the groundwater modeling effort used at the Colesville
Landfill represents a legitimate attempt to predict contaminate
transport.
Comment No. 2:
The RI fails to discuss the source of the stream seeps. In order
for the remediation to be effective, the source of the seeps must be
substantiated.
Response:
Based on the RI data the North Stream seeps on the north side of
the landfill seem to be contaminated springs, or an intersection of the
groundwater table and the ground surface. The seeps along the south
side of the landfall are close to the watertable,.but may actually be
due to water perched on thin discontinues clay seams in the upper
portions of the outwash aquifer. The seeps are contaminated by landfill
leachate. The refuse is above the watertable. The contamination of the
seeps is due to infiltration through the landfill mass. Regardless of
the exact origin and relation of the seeps to the watertable, they will
be remediated by the landfill cap. They should dry up over time due to
the combined effect of the landfill cap and the 13 pumping wells. Once
the pumping wells are shut off, the seeps on the north side of the >
landfill may return, but they should be clean due to the landfill cap
preventing infiltration through the landfill mass. At this point, we
are confident that we know enough to go forward with the remediation.
There would be no real benefit from attempting to recalculate stream
loading.
Comment No. 3:
The proposed plan does not evaluate the remedial alternative of
capping the site and providing a new drinking water supply exclusive of
the pump and treat option.
-5-
-------
Response:
True. The cost of capping and a new water supply alone can be
obtained by subtracting the costs associated with pump and treat from
Alternative 4c2 on Table E-l. However, landfill capping with a new
water supply without pumping and treating groundwater would not be an
acceptable alternative to the NYSDEC or the USEPA.
The outwash aquifer is considered a valuable resource. It has been
contaminated by the uncontrolled release of hazardous wastes emanating
from the Colesville Landfill. Groundwater quality standards have been
violated and an off-site plume of contaminated groundwater has been
identified. An attempt must be made to remediate the aquifer and
restore the resource.
Comment No. 4:
EMC recommends the inclusion of run-off provisions in all capping
alternatives.
Response:
The proper management of run-off of precipitation from the site due
to the landfill cap will be addressed during the remedial design.
Managerial Issues:
Comment No. 1:
The cost estimates in the proposed plan do not include inflation
factors. Ignoring the effects of inflation can bias the present worth
analysis to favor alternatives with large operating and maintenance
costs. EMC recommends revising the economic analysis to account for
inflation.
Response:
Although cost Is considered during the development and initial
screening of alternatives, the overall protection of human health and
the environment is the driving force behind the selection of remedy.
Typically, cost estimates made during feasibility studies are
expected to provide an accuracy of +50 percent to -30 percent, and are
prepared using data available from the RI. In conducting the present
worth analysis, assumptions must be made regarding the discount rate and
the period of performance. Like groundwater models, the results of a
present worth analysis must be viewed with some degree of skepticism,
since no one can really accurately preset how our economy will perform
over the next 30 years. However, it is generally recommended that a
discount rate equivalent to the 30-year US treasury bond rate before
taxes and after inflation be used in determining the present wor.th of an
alternative. A discount rate equivalent to the 30-year US treasury bond
rate before taxes and after inflation would result in a higher present
-6-
-------
worth factor than used by Wehran. However, Wehran's present worth
factor provides present value costs of remedial alternatives for
relative comparison, and recalculating present value costs using an
inflation factor or higher present worth factor will not affect the
selection of remedy.
Comment No. 2:
Issues relating to the responsible .entities for operation,
permitting and monitoring of remedial actions were not addressed.
Response:
Broome County and GAP are responsible for the operation,
maintenance, and monitoring of the remedial action. Since the
Colesville Landfill is a designated hazardous waste site, no actual
permits for on-site remedial activities will necessary, although
regulatory permit requirements and standards will be satisfied. The
NYSDEC will review and oversee the remedial design, construction,
operation, maintenance, and long-term monitoring with input from the
NYSDOH and USEPA in accordance with the Order on Consent, the .State
Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), and the Federal CERCLA.
Preferred Alternative:
General Comment:
EMC generally agrees with Alternative 4c2, however, EMC's position
is that the remediation of the groundwater will take more than four
years to accomplish. EMC is concerned that the pump and treat system
will be in operation for many years at a significant cost to the
taxpayers of Broome County. EMC recommends a phased remediation with
cap and water supply first, and then pump and treat only 1f necessary..
Response:
The Feasibility Study Report predicts, based on the solute
transport model, that MCL's will be achieved within four years by
Implementing the pump and treat system with the landfill cap. It is
entirely possible that this prediction 1s overly optimistic due to the
assumptions and limitations of the model. Nevertheless, the pump and
treat system is a necessary and integral part of the remediation.
Restoration of the groundwater resource at this site 1s feasible,
warranted and must be attempted.
The pumping wells also enhance the landfill cap by providing
hydrologic control. There will be some-flexibility during design, and
even during remedial construction, to amend the system as necessary
based on actual site conditions. The duration and pump rates of various
wells can be varied once the system is in place.
-7-
-------
This site will be subject to five year reviews established by
CERCLA. If, in fact, MCL's are not achieved within four years as
predicted by the FS Report, alternatives will be considered during the
five year review. It is premature to discuss the alternatives that
might be appropriate at that time.
-8-
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Colesville Landfill Site
Town of Colesville,
Broome County, New York
EPA
Region 2
January, 1991
NYSDEC
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes the remedial alternatives
considered for the Colesville Landfill Superfund site
located in the Town of Colesville, Broome County, New
York, and identifies the preferred remedial alternative with
the rationale for this preference. The Proposed Plan was
developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(=?Aj in consultation with the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). EPA is issuing
the Proposed Plan as part of its public participation
responsibilities under Section 117(a) of the Comprehen-
sive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, 42 USC Section 9617(a) as
amended, anrj the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
The alternatives summarized here are described in the
remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) report,
which should be consulted for a more detailed descrip-
tion of all the alternatives. The RI/FS report has been
prepared by Wehran-New York, Inc., Middletown, New
York on behalf of the Broome County Department of
Public Works, Binghamton, New York and the GAP
Corporation of Wayne, New Jersey pursuant to the
requirements of an Order of Consent (Index No. T010687)
with the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC). The NYSDEC is the lead
agency for this project; EPA is the support agency.
This Proposed Plan is being provided as a supplement
to the RI/FS report to inform the public of EPA's and
NYSDEC's preferred remedy and to solicit public com-
ments pertaining to all the remedial alternatives evalu-
ated, as well as the preferred alternative.
Changes to the preferred remedy or a change from the
preferred remedy to another remedy may be made if
public comments or additional data indicates that such a
change will result in a more appropriate solution. The
final decision regarding the selected remedy will, be
made after EPA and NYSDEC have taken into consider-
ation all comments from the public. We are soliciting
public comment on all of the alternatives considered in
the detailed analysis phase of the RI/FS because EPA
and NYSDEC may select a remedy other than the
preferred remedy. ' - _
Copies of the RI/FS report, Proposed Plan, and support-
ing documentation are available.at the following reposito-
ries:
- Town of Colesville
Town Hall
Harpursville, NY 13787
- New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road. Room 222
Albany, NY 12233-7010
- U. S. Environmental Protection Agency .
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 29-30
New York, NY 10278
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA and NYSDEC rely on public input to ensure that the
concerns of the community are considered in selecting
an effective remedy for each Superfund site. To this end,
the RI/FS report has been made available to the public
for a public comment period which concludes on Febru-
ary 6, 1991.
Pursuant to Section 1l7(a) of CERCLA, a public meeting
wiO be held during the public comment period in the
Broome County Office Building, 44 Hawley Street, second
floor auditorium, Binghamton, New York, on January 30,
1991 at 7:00 p.m. to present the conclusions of the
RI/FS, to further elaborate on the reasons for recom-
mending the preferred remedial alternative, and to receive!
public comments.
-------
A P P C«Q'X IM AT E^
PROPERTY- VJNE *
M \ V \ \ V
-------
the surface water body most sensitive to potential
impacts from the landfill. Most groundwater contamina-
tion in the aquifer eventually enters this tributary. The
second potential impact is direct groundwater discharge
to the southwest and the river.
SITE HISTORY
Landfill operations at the Colesville site commenced in
1969 and continued until 1984. Throughout its operation-
al life, the Colesville Landfill was used for the disposal
of municipaJ solid waste (MSW). Between 1973 to 1975,
drums of industrial wastes were disposed of along with
the MSW. The industrial wastes that were disposed of
consisted primarily of organic solvents. A total of approx-
imately 468,000 cubic yards of MSW and industrial
wastes are estimated to have been disposed of at the
site. The landfill has not been closed in accordance
with. New York State Part 360 landfill closure require-
ments.
In 1983, samples collected by the Brcome County Health
Department from homeowner wells near the site indicated
that the Colesville Landfill was contaminating the ground-
water beneath and in the immediate vicinity of the &te.
There are four residential wells located downgradient
from the Colesville Landfill within the maximum zone of
groundwater contamination. Based on the analytical
results from groundwater samples taken from home-
owner wells, groundwater was found to be contaminated
with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as 1,1-
dichloroethene (11 ug/I), trichJoroethene (160 u§T),
1,1,1-trichloroethane (270 ug/I), 1,1-dichloroethane (320
ug/l), chloroform (8 ug/I), and trans 1,2-dichloroethene
(140 ug/I).
This results prompted the Broome County Department
of Public Works to install granular activated carbon filters
on private well supplies and to perform two investigative
studies of the Colesville Landfill. These studies were
performed by Wehran Engineering in 1983 and 1984.
Both of these studies also indicated that the groundwster
was being contaminated with VOCs from the landfill
leachate. The contamination was found to be moving
southwest toward the Susquehanna River.
The Colesville Landfill site was listed on the Superfund
National Priorities List in June, 1986.
In 1988, Wehran completed an RI at the site. In 1990,
Wehran completed a confirmatory sampling program
which verified the conclusion of the 1988 RI. This
additional investigation further defined the nature and
extent of groundwater and surface water contamination.
The key findings of these investigations are as follows:
. The Colesville Landfill is currently releasing low levels
(parts-per-billion) of volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
. Over the last six seven years, it has became apparent
that the extent of groundwater contamination is limited
in area and not increasing in severity.
. The current data suggest a slight advancement of a
plume southwest of the landfill, with an overall decrease
in VOC concentrations at the landfill border.
. Part-per-billion levels of VOCs have been detected in
wells at three residences downgradient of the landfill.
This contamination has been consistent over time.
. The only bedrock well currently used within the path of
the VOC plume is not affected.
. Historical and current data have failed to confirm
contamination of the bedrock aquifer. '
. No VOC contamination has been detected downgradi-
ent of the Lee property.
. The available data suggest that VOCs currently being
released from the landfill via the groundwater pathway
are not expected to impact the Susquehanna River.
. The only measurable discharge points to surface water
are in leachate discharging to the North Stream and in
sediments in the tributaries immediately adjacent to
surficial outbreaks of landfill seeps.
Groundwater recharge to the tributaries has not
resulted in any measurable VOC levels in surface water
flowing to the Susquehanna River.
. The areas affected by the seeps, as measured by VOC
and metal concentrations, are limited to sediments proxi-
mate to the seeps.
. No significant releases of VOCs to the air pathway
were suggested by the available survey data
SUMMARY OF SHE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was performed as part of the
RI for the Colesville Landfill site. The risk assessment
evaluates the potential impacts on human health and the
environment assuming that no remedation occurs.
This baseline risk assessment considered the identity
and the number of chemicals found in the various
environmental media- sampled, potential human and
animal exposure pathways, site conditions as related to
chemical migration, chemical toxicity, and appropriate
environmental standards.
Indicator chemicals for the baseline risk assessment were
selected based on their known or potential toxicity and
-------
relative environmental fate and mobility characteristics.
They inciude VOCs such as: 1,1-dichloroethene; 1,1,1-
tncrjorocthene; trichloroethene; tetrachloroethene ben-
zene; chlorobenzene; 1,1-dichloroethane; 1,2-dichlo-
roetnane: and vinyl chloride.
The human exposure pathways were: exposure to
groyndvi-ster; dermal contact with contaminated surface
water and sediments near the leachate seeps; and
inoestbn of game species from the vicinity of the site.
E?A considers risks in the range of 1CT4 to 10"6 to be
acceptable. This risk range can be interpreted to mean
than an individual may have a one in ten thousand to a
one in a million increased chance of developing cancer
as result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over
a 73-year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions
3. the site.
The risk assessment indicates that the most significant
pcbiic health risk results form the exposure to potable
we! water at the site. At this time, the total baseline
carcinogenic risk associated with exposure to potable
we] water at the site is 2.85x1 CT*. This indicates that an
incTvicuai has approximately a three in ten thousand
increased chance of developing cancer as a result of
dnrJcng this water for 70 years. The baseline carcino-
c-=-iC -isfc has been significantly reduced by the provision
cf carocn filters and bottled water to the affected resi-
der-ces.
For non-carcinogenic compounds, combined pathway
specSc intakes (ingestion and inhalation) were calculated
using the Hazard Index (HI) approach. The HI for the
noncarcnogenic compounds present in the groundwater
at trie site is 3.85. An exceedence of unity, that is 1.0,
in the HI indicates that conditions existing at the site are
not adequately protective of human health.
The nsx assessment concludes that exposure to potable
wster from wells in the. vicinity of the site represents a
significant risk to human health and the environment
Furthermore, since the landfill has been a continuous
source cf groundwater contamination, contaminants are
found in excess of federal and state standards in the site
grcuncwater plume. EPA policies and regulations allow
remedial actions to be taken whenever impacts result in
the exceedance of Applicable or Relevant and Appropri-
ate Requirements (ARARs). EPA has promulgated
drinking water regulations designed to protect human
hearth from the potential adverse effects of drinking water
contaminants. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
ARARs include Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs),
which are enforceable standards that apply to specified
drinking water contaminants which EPA has determined
have an adverse effect on human health. The MCLs are
set to levels that are protective of human health.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances
from this site, if not addressed by the preferred alterna-
tive or one of the other remedial measures considered,
may present a current or potential threat to public health,
welfare, and the environment through the groundwater
pathway.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be
protective of human health and the environment, be cost
effective, comply with other statutory laws, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technolo-
gies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum
extent practicable. In addition, the statute includes a
preference for the use of treatment as a principal element
for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances.
The overall objective of the remediation is to reduce the
concentrations of contaminants to levels which are
protective of human health and the environment. The
RJ/FS report contains the detailed information and data
used in determining the nature and extent of the contami-
nation, and the development of remedial alternatives to
address the contamination.
The remedial response objectives. for the Colesville
Landfill site are as follows:
. Control the release of VOCs from the Colesville Landfill
to the underlying aquifer;
. 'Eliminate the leachate seeps from the Colesville Landfill,
and any associated leachate discharges to the North and
South Streams; • ' ' •„ •
. Eliminate the potential for direct human or animal
contact with any active leachate seeps; and
. Eliminate the potential risk associated with the exposure
to contaminated potable well water. '
•: ' > ' i
Accordingly, the FS report evaluates, in detail, nine
remedial alternatives for addressing the contamination
associated with the Colesville Landfill site.
These alternatives are:
Alternative 1- No Action with Monitoring
Capital Cost: $0
Operation and maintenance (0 & M) Cost: $14,000
Present Worth Cost: $128,000
The Superfund program requires that the 'no-action'
alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison
of other alternatives. Under this alternative, no remedial
-------
action to control the source of contamination would take
place. However, long-term monitoring of the site would
be necessary.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years, If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat
the wastes.
Alternative 3a-Limited Action with Existing Water Supply
and Use Restrictions
Capital Cost: $0
O & M Cost: $71,000
Present Worth Cost: $672,000
This alternative would involve a continuation of the
present groundwater monitoring and water supply
program provided by Broome County. Maintenance
inspections would be upgraded to ensure that the
carbon/UV filters that are currently provided at the
residences are property operated for all household
needs. The deeds for these properties would be re-
stricted with respect to future use of groundwater and
the property.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat
the wastes.
Alternative Sb-LJmited Action with New York Water Supply
Capital Cost: $150,000
0 & M Cost: $53,000
Present Worth Cost: $648,000
This alternative would provide new water supply wells
upgradient of the landfill, and a distribution system to
the residences within the affected area would also be
installed.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat
the wastes.
Alternative 4b1-Landfill Cap with Downqradient Pumpino
and Existing Water Supply
Capital Cost: $4,163,000
O & M Cost: $268,000
Present Worth Cost: $5,595,000
This alternative would involve the installation of multi-
media cap that combines a number of layers of different
materials, such as a synthetic membrane, compacted
clay layer, sand drainage layer, and topsoil/vegetation.
The cap should be designed in compliance with New
York State Part 360 Solid Waste Regulations. Groundwa-
ter would be collected downgradient using pumping
wells, and treated using air stripping. Treated effluent
would be discharged to North Stream or the Susquehan-
na FUver. Potable water would be supplied to residents
via the current program, as described under Alternative
3a
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat
the wastes.
Alternative 4b2- Landfill Cap with Downgradient Pumping
and New Water Supply
Capital Cost: $4,313,000
0 & M Cost: $250.000
Present Worth Cost: $5,646,000
This alternative would involve the placement of a multi-
media cap complying with New York State Part 360 Solid
Waste Regulations, the pumping of groundwater downgr-
adient of and within the landfill using pumping wells, and
treatment of the groundwater. A new water supply would
be provided as described in Alternative 3b.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the re^ew,
remedial action may be implemented to remove or treat
the wastes.
Alternative 4c1-Landfill Cap with Pumpino at Landfill and
Downqradient with Existing Water Supply
Capital Cost: $4,193,000
0 & M Cost: $268,000
Present Worth Cost: $5,040,000
This alternative would involve the placement of a multi-
media cap complying with New York State Part 360 SoQd
Waste Regulations, the pumping of groundwater downgr-
adient of and within the landfill using pumping well, and
treatment of groundwater. The existing water supply pro-
-------
gram, upgraded as described in Alternative 3a, would be
continued.
Long-term monitoring would included.
(Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial action may be implemented to remove or treat
the wastes.
Alternative 4c2-Landfill Cap with pumping at Landfill and
Downoradient with New Water Supply
Capital Cost: $4,273,000
O & M Cost: $250,000
Present Worth Cost: $5,135,000
Tiiis alternative would involve the placement of a multi-
media cap complying with New York State Part 360 Solid
Waste Regulations, and the pumping and treatment of
groundwater at the landfill and douwngradient A new
water supply and distribution system would be con-
structed as described in Alternative 3b.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years. If ; ;-ified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat
the wastes.
Alternative 4d1 -Landfill Cap. Downqradient Cutoff, and
New Water Supply
Capital Cost: $8,811,000
O & M Cost: $230,000
Present Worth Cost: $10,977,000
This alternative would involve the placement of a partial
groundwater slurry cutoff wall downgradient of the landfill
and pumping and treatment of groundwater within the
containment wall. A multi-media cap complying with New
York State Part 360 Solid Waste Regulations would be
constructed to cover the entire landfill and the limits of
the slurry wall downgradient of the landfill. Attainment of
groundwater standards outside the cutoff wall would
occur naturally over the long-term. A new water supply
would be provided as described in Alternative 3b.
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat
the wastes.
Alternative 4d2-Landfill Cap. Downaradient Cutoff. Existing
Water Supply
Capital Cost: $8,701,000
0 & M Cost: $268,000
Present Worth Cost: $11,230,000
This alternative would involve the placement of a partial
groundwater cutoff wall downgradient of the landfill, as
described for Alternative 4d1, and pumping and treatment
of groundwater within and outside of the cutoff wall. A
multi-media cap complying with New York State Part 360
Solid Waste Regulations would be constructed to the
limits of the slurry wall downgradient of the landfill, and
to the limit of the landfill on the upgradient side. The
existing water supply program would be continued as
described in Alternative 3a
Long-term monitoring would be included.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants
remaining on-site, CERCLA requires that the site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat
the wastes.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives,
EPA and NYSDEC recommend Alternative 4c2 as the
preliminary choice for the site remedy. This alternative
consists of a landfill cap, groundwater pumping from
wells at and downgradient of the landfill, treatment of the
extracted water by air stripping, discharge of the treated
water to the North Stream or the Susquehanna River,
and the provision of a new water supply for the affected
residents. The cap will eliminate leachate seeps from
the landfill. The pumping system will provide contain-
ment and removal of the VOC plume, and is predicted to
reduce the risk to acceptable levels within one year and
to attain groundwater standards within four years. The
preferred alternative will be immediately protective of
human health by utilizing a new water supply. Long-
term monitoring would be utilized to verify the effective-
ness of the groundwater remediation and the cap.
The preferred alternative is protective of human health
and the environment, complies with federal and state
requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective.
This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practica-
ble. However, because treatment of the principal threats
of the site is not practicable, this remedy does not satisfy
the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedy. The size of the landfill and the
fact that there are no identified on-site hot spots that
-------
represent the major sources of contamination preclude a
remedy in which contaminants could be excavated and
treated effectively.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives,
each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation
criteria, namely short-term effectiveness, long-term effec-
tiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility
or volume, implementability, cost, compliance with,
ARARs overall protection of human health and the
environment, and state and community acceptance.
The evaluation criteria are explained below.
o Overall protection of human health and the environ-
ment addresses whether or not a remedy provides
adequate protection and describes how risks posed
through each exposure pathway (based on a reasonable
maximum exposure scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
o Compliance ARAR's addresses whether or not a
remedy would meet all of the applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements of federal and state environ-
mental statutes and requirements or provide grounds for
invoking a waiver.
o Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the
ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of
human health and the environment over time, once
cleanup goals have been met It also addre-^ses the
magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that may
be required to manage the risk posed by treatment
residuals and/or untreated wastes.
o Reduction of toxicitv. mobility, or volume through
treatment is the anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies, with respect to these parameters, a remedy
may employ.
o Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time
needed to achieve protection and any. adverse impacts
on human health and the environment that may be
posed during the construction and implementation period
until cleanup goals are achieved.
o Implementability is the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materi-
als and services needed.
o Cost includes the estimated capital, O&M, and the
present worth costs.
o State acceptance indicates whether, based on its
review of the RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan, the
State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the
preferred remedy at the present time.
o Community acceptance will be assessed in the ROD
and refers to the public's general response to the,
alternatives described in the Rl/FS report and the Pro-
posed Plan.
A comparative analysis of these alternatives based upon
the evaluation criteria note above, are as follows:
Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and Environment
The no-action alternative is not protective of human
health and the environment. Alternatives involving the
utilization of the existing water supply system (Alter-
natives 3a, 4bl, 4c1, and 4d2) are protective of the
human health, since each of these alternatives call for the
provision of carbon filters to the affected residences.
Alternative 3a is not protective of the environment since
no provision is provided for source containment, treat-
ment, or leachate seepage control. However, with
Alternatives 4b1, 4b2, 4c1, 4c2, 4d1, and 4d2 source
containment, groundwater treatment and leachate
seepage control are provided, protecting the environment.
Compliance with ARARs
The no-action alternative will not ensure compliance with
chemical-specific ARARs within a reasonable or predict-
able time frame. Alternative 3a, which addresses actua^
current groundwater use, will immediately comply with*
health-based ARARs at the point of use, but provides no
action to ensure compliance at the groundwater source.
The pumping and containment alternatives (Alternatives
4b1, 4b2, 4c1, 4c2) also ensure immediate point-of-use
compliance with health-based ARARs. However, these
alternatives differ in their estimated time to compliance at
the groundwater source. Nevertheless, each containment
alternative has the potential to meet chemical-specific
ARARs at the groundwater source (i.e., outside the landfill
boundary). The containment alternatives involving a
cutoff wall (Alternatives 4d1 and 4d2) ensure immediate
point-of-use compliance with health-based ARARs, but
will not result in compliance at the groundwater source
within a reasonable time frame.
All containment alternatives can be designed to meet
action-specific ARARs with conventional technology.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The no-action alternative is neither effective or permanent
in the reduction of the magnitude of risk associated with
the Colesville Landfill site.
Alternative 3a is effective in the reduction of risk, but
-------
permanence of this option will depend on the strict en-
forcement control. By comparison, Alternative 3b is
effective in the long-term reduction of risk to existing
residents, but not to future residents.
Alternatives 4b1, 4c1 and 4d2 provide for controlled
source containment and groundWater treatment, which
will reduce risk, but long-term maintenance and monitor-
ing will be required. The limited action component of
these alternatives reduces the adequacy and reliability of
these options when compared to the remaining alterna-
tives.
Alternatives 4b2, 4c2, and 4d1 provide for the reduction
of risk by virtue of the provision for a new water supply,
source containment and groundwater treatment. The
proposed controls will require long-term operation and
maintenance, but system adequacy and reliability are
relatively greater as the local water supply will be unaf-
fected by the remedial action.
In addition, Alternatives 4b1, 4b2, 4c1, and 4c2 will
provide long-term effective attainment of ARARs at the
groundwater source after several years.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume through
Treg:n-,:nt
The no-action alternative involves no treatment, and
consequently, will not contribute to the reduction of
contaminant toxicity, mobility, or volume at the site.
This assessment is also applicable to Alternatives 3a and
3b.
All the containment alternatives (Alternatives 4b1, 4b2,
4c1, 4c2, 4dt, and 4d2) reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume through containment and the treatment of the
groundwster using air stripping. For these alternatives,
emissions from the air stripper will be at allowable limits
for discharge to the atmosphere or destroyed through the
use of a catalytic destruction unit
Short-Term Effectiveness
In the snort-term, the no-action alternative is not effective
in protecting human health and the environment.
Improvement of groundwater quality will only occur
through natural recovery, which is predicted to require at
least 20 years.
Alternative Sa, Limited Action, is effective in the short-
term only for the existing residents. No significant
community or worker exposure during the remediation is
anticipated. No improvement in environmental quality is
envisioned. The same assessment also applies to
Alternative 3b.
4c2, 4d1 and 4d2) will provide immediate point-of-use
compliance with health-based ARAR limits. Alternatives
4c1 and 4c2 are predicted to provide aquifer cleanup to
ARAR limits in several years. Aquifer cleanup under
Alternatives 4d1 and 4d2 will take much longer.
Protection against community and worker exposure will
be required with all of the containment options. For
Alternatives 4b2, 4c2, and 4d1, interim measures, such
as filter maintenance, will be required until the new
water supply system is installed and is operational, to
protect existing residents. Additional worker protection
measures, pursuant to Occupational Safely and Health
Administrative requirements under Alternatives 4d1^ and
4d2, will be required.
Environmental impacts during construction of the ground-
water pumping and treatment components of the contain-
ment options could be mitigated readily. Relatively
greater potential environmental impacts are envisioned
with alternatives 4d1 and 4d2, and these impacts will
require more involved mitigation measures during the
installation of the cutoff wall.
Implementabilitv
All of the alternatives are implementable.
Alternative 3a presents added administrative requirements
for successful implementation due to the need to pur-
chase additional affected residences and to institute and
enforce land and groundwater use controls. This same
factor must be considered with each containment options
that inc jde limited action as a subaltemative component
The containment options calling for a downgradient cutpff
wall will involve some difficult construction on steep
slopes, but Alternatives 4d1 and 4d2 can be constructed.
In contrast the pumping components of all the contain-
ment options can be implements quickly and efficiently.
No problems are envisioned with any of the alternatives
with respect to the availability of services and materials.
Cost •>•,'•
The no-action alternative has the lowest estimated pres-
ent value cost of $128,000. Alternatives 3a and 3b have
slightly greater estimated present value cost of $672,000
and $646,000, respectively.
Alternatives 4b1, 4b2, 4c1, and 4c2 have present value
costs ranging from $5,040,000 to $5,646,000.
Alternatives 4d1 and 4d2, which call for a partial down-
gradient cutoff wall, are the most expensive at'
$10,977,000 and $11,230,000, respectively.
All the containment options (Alternative 4b1, 4b2, 4c1, State Acceptance
8
-------
NYSDEC concurs with the preferred alternative.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred remedy will be
assessed in the ROD following a review of the public
comments received on the RI/FS report and the Pro-
posed Plan.
CONCLUSION
EPA and NYSDEC believe that the preferred remedy
described above is fully protective of human health and
the environment, meets all ARARs, offers the best
balance among the evaluation criteria discussed above,
and satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element in remedy selection.
It is important to note that the remedy described above
is the preferred remedy for the site. The final selection
will be documented in the ROD only after consideration
of all comments on any of the remedial alternatives
addressed in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS report.
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
cs cf °ublic Comment Period and
Pjblic Meeting by the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
Notice is hereby given that at the time and place designated below the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) will be
holding a public meeting to solicit public comments on remedial alternatives
for the Colesyille Landfill Inactive Hazardous Waste Site (#704010) on East
Windsor Road in the Town of Colesville. Written comments will be accepted
during a public comment period that will begin on January 7, 1991 and will .-
continue until February 5, 1991.
The Colesville Landfill is a 35-acre landfill which was operated by
Brooke County from 1969 to 1984. Between 1973 and 1975 drums of industrial
wastes were codisposed with municipal solid waste. In 1983, Broome County
Health Department homeowner well samples indicated groundwater contamination
in the immediate vicinity of the landfill. The landfill gates were closed
in 1984 and the site was subsequently listed on the National Priority List
(NPl.).
A two phase hydrogeologic investigations of the Colesville Landfill
tite was completed in 1984. In April 1987, Broome County, GAP Corporation
and trie NYSDEC entered into an Order on Consent which required a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to be performed on the
Coleiville site. The work plan for the RI/FS was presented to the public at
two (2) public meetings held on February'4, 1987 at the Broome County Office
Building in Binghamton, New York. The Remedial Investigation (RI) was
completed in September 1588. The RI Report concluded that: .
• The landfill is currently releasing low levels of volatile
organic compounds to the groundwater.
- An off-site plume of contaminated groundwater exists southwest
of the site. . ,
- Three (3) homeowner wells have been contaminated by volatile
organic compounds.
- Impacts from the site to air, surface water and sediments arei
not significant. , t
A Confirmatory Sampling Report completed 1n February 1990 essentially
confirmed the RI findings and provided additional data validated data.
A Landfill Gas Evaluation Report, dated August 1990, indicated only low
levels of methane in one area on the.southwest perimeter of the site.
The Feasibility Study (FS), which evaluates remedial alternatives for
the site, was completed in December 1990.
The FS Report evaluates the following nine (9) alternatives in detail:
- Alternative 1 - No Action with Monitoring •'
- Alternative 3a - Limited Action with Existing Water Supply and
Use Restrictions. This Alternative would upgrade existing carbon/UV
filters, purchase properties and restrict deeds if possible.
-------
- Alternative 3b - Limited Action with New Water Supply. Thii
would provide new water supply wells upgradient of the
landfill and a distribution system.
- Alternative 4bl - Landfill Cap with Downgradient Pumping and
Existing Water Supply. This Alternative includes a cap with-
downgradient pumping and treatment of groundwater.
- Alternative 4b2 - Landfill Cap with Downgradient Pumping and
New Water Supply. This Alternative includes a cap, pumping and
treating downgradient, and a new water supply.
- Alternative 4cl - Landfill Cap with Pumping at Landfill and
Downgradient with Existing Water Supply. The Alternative includes a
cap, pumping groundwater downgradient and within the landfill,
treatment and upgrading existing water supply treatment systems.
- Alternative 4c2 - Landfill Cap with Pumping at Landfill and
Downgradient with New Water Supply. This Alternative includes a
cap, pumping at the landfill and downgradient, treatment and a new
water supply.
- Alternative 4dl - Landfill Cap, Downgradient Cutoff and a New
Water Supply. This Alternative Includes a cap, a partial
groundwater slurry cutoff wall, pumping and treating within the
.containment wall and a new water supply. .
- Alternative 4d2 - Landfill Cap, Downgradient Cutoff, and
Existing Water Supply. This Alternative includes a cao, a
partial grjundwater cutoff wall, pumping and treatment of groundwater
with and rt.tside the cutoff wall, and upgrading existing water supply
systems. •
The FS Report recommends that Alternative 4c2 above be implemented.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in
consultation with the NYSDEC, has issued a Proposed Plan for the Colesville
Landfill as part of its public participation responsibilities under Section
117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and .
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, and Section 300.430'(f) af the
National Contingency Plan (NCP). The Proposed Plan summarizes the findings
of the Rl/FS. The administrative record file, which contains the
information upon which the selection of the remedial response action will be
based, is available at the following location:
Colesville Town Hall
Box 27
Harpersvilie, New York
Telephone: (607) 693-1174
Hours: Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm
Saturday 9:00 am - Noon
Ths Proposed Plan, the RI Report, PS Report and other reports generated
on th*> Colesville site are also available for public review of the NYSDEC
offices in Kirkwood and Albany, and the USEPA office in New York City.
-------
Location of Public Meeting Date and Time
Second Floor
Conference Roo:Ji
P-roome County Office Building January 30, 1991
44 Holly Street 7:00 pm
Binghamton, New York
Written and oral comments will be documented in the Responsiveness
Summary Section of the Record of Decision (ROD), the document which
formalizes the selection of the remedy.
Written comments should be sent to:
Mr. Brian Davidson
Project Manager
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road - Room 222
Albany, New York 12233-7010
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
News Release Region 7
jVeu> York State Department of Environmental Conservation _
^--^ .^
THOMAS C. JORUNG. Commiwioner 615 Ens Boul«v»:i W««
WTJJAM KR;CHBAUM. ««;iono.' Oineior SVT»CUM. Ne» York 13204
January 22, 1991
PRESS ADVISORY /BACKGROUND
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation .,
will conduct an informational meeting on January 30th at
7:00 p.m. to update local citizens on cleanup plans for the
Colesville Landfill. The meeting will be held in the second"
floor auditorium of the Broone County Office Building at 44
.Holley Street, Binghamton
The primary purpose of the meeting will be to present
results of a comprehensive Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) conducted under the supervision of
both the State DEC and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The RI/FS was prepared by Wehran-New York, Inc. or,
behalf of the Broorce County Department of Public Works and.
the GAF Corporation. CAF and the County signed a Consent
Order with the DEC in April 1987. Under terms of the1 agree-
V
aent, the County and GAF will split the cost of the cleanup.
The County will be eligible for reimbursement of 75% of
»
their cost from the New York State Hazardous Waste Superfund
which is funded through the voter approved 1986
•
Environmental Quality Bond Act..
'd ' ''.'ti Sini-si'-r. J. tlvH-Sd !>3] iT:U Ti. r? LT.'
-------
2.
The designated hazardous waste site is a 35 acre portion of
the 113 acre former municipal landfill property. The Bite,
located on East Windsor Road just north of the hamlet of
Doraville, served as the town's landfill from 1969 until
1984. During most of that time it received usual
municipal waste. However, records show that between 1973
and 1975, drummed industrial wastes from various sources
were disposed at Coleeville. These industrial wastes
consisted primarily of organic solvents.
In 1983 the Broone County Department of Health sampled
homeowner wells in the vicinity of the landfill and verified
contaminated groundwater in the area immediately adjacent tc
the landfill. The groundwater was contaminated with
volatile organic compounds (VOC's). The Broome County
Department of Public worXs performed two hydrogeologic
investigations in 1563 and 1984. Based on the information
gathered, the Colesville Landfill was listed on the Kew York
State Registry of Inactive Waste Sites and subsequently (in
1986) was added to the National Priority List (commonly
called Superfund List).
*
Under terms of the agreement signed by the County, CAF, and
r
the DEC, a Remedial Investigation (RI) was required at the
site. The work plan for that investigation was described to
local citizens at public meetings in a February 1987, and
E'ci V'H 3i.ri:-*d'« j, Hvl-.jd I-30 ?T:T1 Tt. r? '."r;
-------
3.
'the RI worX was completed in September 1986. The RI report
concluded that the landfill continues to release low levels
of volatile organic compounds to the jgroundwater and that
three homeowners' veils have been contaminated. Testing
confirmed an off-site plume of contaminated groundwater
southwest of the site. The report also described impacts to'
air, surface water and sediments as "not significant." A
Sanpling Report completed in February 1990 essentially
confirmed the RI findings.
A Feasibility Study (FS) based en all the sampling data was
completed in December 1990. The FS evaluated nine possible
alternatives for remediating the Bite. The FS recommends
that the landfill be capped,, that wells be installed to pump
and treat the contaminant plume and that a new water supply
and distribution system be constructed, The treated water
would be discharged to the Susquehanna River. The pumping
system is predicted to reduce the risk to acceptable levels
i
within one year and to attain groundwater standards within
four years. The selected alternative would provide
immediate protection of human health by utilizing a new
water supply.
•
The January 30th meeting will include presentations by DEC
, • »
and EPA staff as well as by the engineers who prepared the
reports upon which the proposed Remedial Action Plan is
-------
based. The presenters will welcoae both comments and
questions during the public meeting. Additionally, written
comments will be Accepted until February 5th. Following
receipt of oral and written public comments a Responsiveness
Summary will be prepared. That document will include
evaluation of any new information and answer to any Issues
raised by public comments. If no major revisions in the
selected remedial alternative, a record of decision could be
issued in the spring and the process would move to the
.design and construction phase.
The administrative record which contains information or.
selection of the remedial plan is available for review at
the Colesville Town Hall in Harpursville from 9-4 weekdays
and from 9 until noon on Saturday. Additional technical
documents, including the Remedial Investigation, the
Feasibility Study, and the Proposed Plan are available at
the DEC offices in Kirkwood. Written comments should be
•ent to:
Brian Davidson, Project Manager
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
NYS DEC
50 Wolf Road, ROOD 222
Albany, New York 12233*7010
For additional information contact Katie Lacey, Regional
Citizen Participation Specialist, (315) 426-7400.
S'd ' *.'.'H 2:.i"::*f='r J. UOHGd ?3'3 ?T:TT It. r~ KT:
-------
. . •'• • »••'
Dump-cleanin
hearing planned
ByDONSBARRA , -~..:;•,-.-.«..:-jgo, starting a process that
'Start writer -. •*.;•'?;?;••''- Tprompted study after study,
contamTnated 'propert^in M.d » county buyout of several
Broome County is the sch«J- kpnvaiebones. ... •-.:.:
uled topic of a public bearing'; "i'Much'of the pollutioD at the
.Jan. 30.
I State Department of Envi-
ror.mntal Conservation offi-
cial: are seeking' public com-
mt.-.i on a $5.14 million
rerr.:diation plan for the coun-
Vs old Colesville landfill. The
30-::re durcp, operated by
Brq:r.« County from 1969
unti: December 1984, is con-
sidled a hazardous waste site
• and is on the federal Super-
fur, d list.
County health officials first
found chemical contamination
in tht drinking water of homes
near tte site abou: sever, \ears
'.old dump was traced back to a
period between 1973 and
, 1975, when the county legally
buried thousands of drums of
'•industrial waste from the for-
mer OAF Corp. plant in Bing-
,-hamton. The burial was a)-
: lowed at the time under the
county's landfill permit from
the DEC. • :. >•••
Kate Lacey, spokeswoman
for the DEC'S regional office
in Syracuse, said the cleanup
could brpn this spring if no
s'ignificam problems anse out
See HEARINIG'Paoe 2E
Hearing planned on Colesville dump
Continued from Page IB
of the hearing process. The DEC is
accepting written comments on the
remediation plan until Feb. 5, and
will accept oral comments at a 7 p.m.
hearing Jan. 30 in the second-floor
auditorium of the county office build-
ing.
Lacey said GAP and the county will
split the cost of ihe cleanup, and that
75 percent of the county's cost will be
reimbursed through the state Envi-
ronmental Quality Bond Act. That
would leave (lie county paying about
$535,000.
The old dump is along East Wind-
sor Road, about a mile from Dortville ••
•nd a short distance from the Susque-
banna River.- ;•,-.•..•• ..•'/'/. .:,
' The cleanup plan, selected from
several proposals developed through a
series of studies at the site, would in-
clude placing an impermeable cap'
over the dump to prevent rain and
snow runoff from percolating through
the waste and leaching into the,
ground water below, and installing a
pumping arid treatment mechanism.
that strips contaminants from the
ground water. The plan would also
include drilling new wells up gradient
of the contaminated water field, with
a distribution system connecting the
affected homes near the site.
According to DEC projection*, the
installation is expected to take about
18 months, with treatment taking up
to four years to return ground water
quality to acceptable levels.
One of the homes closest to the
. dump belongs to Charles A. Scott,
who has lived next to the landfill all of
his 60 years and "long before the
landfill came." Scott, who has been
drinking bottled water supplied by the
county for about six years, said Thurs-
day he fears the remediation plan, es-
•. pecially the cap, will only make mat-.
ters worse. .• . • •••.;
' He said the dump was built over a
creek-crossed piece of property fed by •
natural underground springs, and that
capping it won't stop the contami-
nated water pouring out from under-
neath. He believes the cap would pre-
vent the site from "breathing,"
creating downward pressure that
would forte chemicals into the ground
water.
"It's an underground lake where
they put that landfill; water came out
from the hills long before they put it
there, the woods are all swampy
They're not coing to dry it up (with
cap)." said Scott, a retired Delawar
&. Hudson Railway Co. worker. "V\
was here long before that landfill, an
we had nothing to say; the people i
town had the votes."
More than a dozen homeowners i
the area filed civil actions against tr
county because of tht damage tr
contamination did to their properv
Several properties have been bougi
by the county using a $500,000 fun
set aside by legislators. •
Scott, who can see the old dum
from his front door, said he refuse
the county's $82.000 offer for the t»
parcels be owns partly because 1
"couldn't put a price" on proper
that has been in his family since i.
1930s,.ancj,partly because "yc
couldn't begin to replace it for. thai.'
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
^WeuanEnginerinc
""
-.ptnmrat of Eavironmrau] Conser-* tb^e t&i
vtuop ud the federal Enviromnen^ noUea water ioto t
.*ttl ProtouonM^ncy.tp discuss .£strippcuopurifviuand
.^ckanup ffleanires for tbe'old Colesnefie*'wellTloTe^eWafTe
-5-viUe Itndfill, •^roperfiujd;;$ite>>t
Tbe 35.icre d«Sp
i-,.-.? twt.-^Mfci-iifc.-M n ..Mt^wjMtrj •: •,« t
Dump'Cleanupidiscussecl
Continued from Page IB.
nearer the landfill — tesu have sho^n
Donville's water is unaffected. .-.. .•..'
Thomas O'Meita, chairman of the
Broorae County Environmental Man-'
agement Council, questioned whether
pumping and treating the water might
tail to reduce contaminants to levels
considered ufe for drinking water.
Joel A_ Singennan, acting chief of
the EPA's New York and Caribbean
superfund branch, acknowledged that
no superfund cleanup efforts have yet
restored an aquifer to drinking-water
standards. "We're in the process of it.
. T- » .rr 'i'^i -
1 don't think Wvereachedihepoirft*!*
^ •-;•••'• -'" * » .^•'••'••rV>'T-' "*
; Jon P. Lraicvice presidenfof EnvJ'-? '
ronmental Control Technologies in"*',
Sidney, asked whether anyone consid-lV>
ered a future surge of contaminants"-'*
after buried barrels rust apart. M\- \
cbael W. O'Hara, senior engineer for
the county's consultants, Wehran Eri-,;
tineehng of Middletown, replied: *'.
•Good question. We're not sure--;
what's in here, what's still in there to *
be released." . . •.*•*.'
Documents detailing studies at the';';
landfill are available for public review'. •«
at the Colesviile Town Hall in -".
HarpursviUe and at the DEC offtce on •,
Route 11 in Kirkwood. •• •':•
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
."•M:en Participation 'Tar
Colssville LardfiTi (I.D. Ko. 704&10)
T. Introduction to Plan
U. Ba«ir Site Information and Project Description
III. Identification of Affected and/or Interested Public (Contact
List)
TV. Identification of Department Contacts
V. Idrntification of Document Repositories
VI. Description of Specific Citizen Participation Activities
VII. Glossary pf Key Terms and Major Program Elements
Section I Introduction to Plan
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is
comrr.ittea to a citizen participation program as a part of its
responsibilities for the inactive hazardous waste site remedial
program. Citizen participation promotes public understanding of
the Department's responsibilities, planning activities, .and
remedial activities at. inactive hazardous waste disposal sites.
It provides an opportunity for the Department to learn from the
public information that will enable the Department to develop a
comprehensive remedial program which is protective of both public
health and the environment.
-------
?I Basic Site Information and Project Description
Colesville Landfill is a 35-acre former municipal landfill in
the Town of Colesville, Broone County, just north of the hamlet of
Doraville. Landfill operations at the Colesville site commenced in
1969 and continued until 1984. The site was used primarily for the
disposal of municipal solid waste, although drummed industrial wastes
from various sources were also disposed between 1973 and 1975.
In 1983, homeowner well samples collected in the vicinity of the
landfill by the Broome County Health Department indicated contaminated
yroundwater in the immediate vicinity of the landfill. This prompted
the 8roome County Department of Public Works to perform two
hydrogeologic investigations in 1983 and 1984.
Based on available information, the Colesville site was listed on
the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites and
subsequently was listed on the National Priority List (NPL). The
listing of the site on the New York State Registry and the NPL requires
that, sp'ecific procedures be followed to thoroughly investigate and
remediate the site. After considerable negotiations between GAP
Corporation, Broome County, and the NYSDEC, agreement on a Consent
Order and Work Plan for further investigation and -remediation of the
Colesville Landfill was reached. The Consent Order also allowed for up
to 75 percent of Broome Counties costs for site remediation to be
reimbursed by the State under Title 3 of the Environmental Quality Bond
Act. (EQBA), making this Consent Order the first of its kind in the
St?te.
On February 4, 1987, two public hearings were held at the Broome
County Office Building to present the Work Plan for the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to the public. In October
1937, field work for the remedial investigation began, and the RI '
Report was completed in September 1988. After the RI was completed,
confirmatory sampling was performed, and a Confirmatory Sampling
Report, completed in February 1990, essentially confirmed the findings
in the RI Report. A Landfill Gas Evaluation Report, dated August 1990,
presented the findings of a perimeter methane gas survey which
indicated only very low levels of methane in area on the southwest
of the landfill. '
-------
Section III Identification of Affected and/or Interested Public
(Contact List - the contract list will be expanded as
affected or interested public are identified)
Mr. Richard Rhodes
Supervisor
Town of Colesville
Box 27
Harpursville, New York 13787
607-693-1174
T',tizens Action of New York
?93 Cheningo Street
Binghamton, New York
Attention: Ms. Mary Clark
607-723-nuO
Mr. Charles Scott Sr.
P.D #1 -Box 197
Nineveh, New York H813
Mr. Claude Scott Sr.
Box 98 RD #1
';>eveh, New York 13813
Mr. Charles R. Scott
*ox 51A RD #2
Harpursville, New York 13787
i^irs. Janet Smith
Box 196 RD #1
Nineveh, New York 13813
Mr. Marvin Gaines
RD #1 Box 194
Nineveh, New York 13813
Mrs. Sandra LaVare
RD #1 Box 193
Nineveh. New York 13813
Harry and Mildred Jones
RD #2 Box 50
Harnurs»ille, New York 13787
-------
Mr. Larry T. Hu^gins
Box 201 RD #1
Nineveh. New York 13813
Rudolph and Ella DeFreitas ,
?n Stoneleight Avenue
Carmel, New York 10512
Aniia Valeric Mastellone
fl2 Lakewood Avenue
Lake Ronkorkoma, New York 11779
tfrs. Marjorie Kitchen
"79 Charles Street
Ashley, PA. 18706
Gregory Bidwell
RD #2 Box. 53 River Road
Hupursville, New York 13787
Elwoou Lee
RH *1 Box 584
Afton, New York 13730
Albert J. Laplaca
10 £eth Lane
Hic^sville, New York 11801
Gerda Doran
c/'o Phoebe A. Brundin
5161 - fi9th Avenue North
Pinellos Park, PA 34665
Harry R?y Scott
49 Main Street
Afton, New York 13730
Hon. Edward Mosher
Council Member
RD #2
KarpursvUle, New York 13787
Hon. Gary Rhodes
Council Member
RD #1, Box 186
Harpursville, New York 13787
Hon. Margaret Wicks
Council Member
RD #2, Box 305
Harpursville, New York 13787
-------
c Leon
il Member
3D 41, Box 35
''arpuvsville, New York 13787
Hon. James Malley
County Legislator
17 Third Street
Deport, New York 12754
Senator Thomas Libous
NYS Senate
34 Court Street
Binghamton, New York 13901
Hon. James Tallon, Jr.
19 Chenango Street
Press Building, Room 404
Binghamton, New York 13901
-------
eOLESVILLE LANDFILL MEDIA LIST;
.Madia
WBNG - TV
Front Street
Binghamton, NY 13905
WIC2 - TV
Vestal Parkway
Binghaaiton, NY 13903
WMCC - TV
Ingraham Rd.
Binghamton, NY 13903
WEBO - Radio
119 McMaster St.
Owego, NY 13827
WINR - Radio
Windy Hill
Bingha»ton, NY 13905
WSXG Radio
531 Gates Rd.
Vestal, NY 13850
WENE Radio
2721 £. Main
ZndiCOtt, NY 13760
Bingharoton Press/Sun Bulletin
Vestal Parkway East
Binghamton, NY 13902-9982
-------
Section TV Identification of Department Contacts
NYiDEC Project Manager:
Brian H. Davidson
NYSD of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road - Room 224
Albany, New York 12233-7010
518-457-1641
NYSDEC Regional Contact:
Scott Rodabaugh
NY.SD of Environmental Conservation
RD n Route 11
VM kwood, New York 13795
607-773-7763
NYSDEC Citizen Participation Specialist:
Susan Miller
NYSD of Environmental Conservation
615 Erie Boulevard West •
Syracuse, New York 13204
315-426-7400
NYSDOH Contact:
Gary Robertson
NYSD of Health
67"* South Sal ina Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
315-426-7612
Albany, New York 12203
County Health Department Contact:
Robert W, Denz
Director of Environmental Health
Broome County Department of Health
1 Wall.-Street
Binghamton, New York 13901
607-772-2887
NYSDEC Toll Free Information Phone:
1-800-342-9296
-------
Section V Identification of Document Repositories
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
P.D #1 Route 11
Kirkwood, New York 13795
Town Clerk
Town of Colesville
Box 27
•harpersvilU, New York 13787
60-693-1174
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
50 Wolf Road
Aloany, New York 12233-7010
United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region II
Western New York Remedial Action Section
Room 29-102
?6 ?ederal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
-------
Section VI Description of Citizen Participation Activities
1. The Consent Order was described, the. RI/FS process was
explained, and the RI/FS Work Plan was presented to the
public at two (2) public meetings on Feoruary 4, 1987.
2. When the RI/FS is completed a Public Notice of the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) will be published. The Public
Notice will include a description of the problems identified
at the site, a description of and reasons for the selection
of the proposed remedial action, identification of the
document repository, identification of a contact person, and
a announcement of public meeting.
3. The RI/FS report, preferred remedial action plan, and
tentative schedules for design and construction will be
presented at the public meeting. The public meeting will be
held January 30, 1991 at the second floor Auditorium, Broome
County Office Building, 44 Holly Street, Binghamton, New York
at 7:00 pm. The PRAP will be available on January 6, 1991,
and the public comment period will be from January 6, 1991 to
February 5, 1991.
4. A Responsiveness Summary listing significant public comments
received and demonstrating how these comments were taken into
account will be written.
5. A Public Notice of the Final Remedial Plan selected will be
published. The Public Notice will include a brief analysis
of the remedial action selected, a discussion of any
siijf,ificant changes from the plan presented to the public at
the Public Meeting, and a notice of availability of the
Responsiveness Summary.
-------
l?efi:iiticn» of Significant Elemoiv.: ano V.;-:r.s of the Remedial Pro^rar.
KOTE: The first eight definitions represent major elements of the remedial
process. They are presented in the order in which they occur, rather
than in alphabetical order, to provide a context to aid in their definition.
Site Placed on Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites - Etch inactive
cite known or suspected of containing hazardous waste must be included in
the Registry. Therefore, all sites which state or county environmental or
public health agencies identify as known or suspected to have received ^
hazardous waste should be listed in the Registry as they are identified.
Whenever possible, the Department carries out an initial evaluation at the
cite before listing.
Phase 1 Site Investigation • Preliminary characterizations of hazardous
substances present at a cite; estimates pathways by which pollutants might
be migrating away from the original cite of disposal; identifies population
or resources which might be affected by pollutants from a cite; observes
how the disposal area was used or operated; and gathers information
regarding who might be responsible for wastes at a cite. Involves a
search of records from all agencies known to be involved with a cite,
interviews with cite owners, employees and local residents to gather
pertinent information about a site. Information gathered ia summarized in
a Phase I report.
After a Phase I investigation, DEC may choose to initiate an emergency
response; to nominate the cite for the National Priorities List; or, where
additional information is needed to determine cite significance, to conduct
further (Phase II) investigation.
Phase II Site Investigation - Ordered by DEC when additional information
is still needed alter completion of Phase I to properly classify the cite. A
Phase II investigation is not sufficiently detailed to determine the full
extent of the contamination, to evaluate remedial alternatives, or to prepare
a conceptual design for construction. Information gathered is summarized
in a Phase II report and is used to arrive at a final hazard ranking score
and to classify the cite.
Remedial Investigation (RI) - A process to determine the nature and extent •-
of contamination by collecting data and analyzing the cite. It includes
campling and monitoring, as necessary, and includes the gathering of
sufficient information to determine the necessity for, and proposed extent
of, a remedial program for the cite.
Feasibility Study (FS) - A process for developing, evaluating and selecting
remedial actions, using data gathered during the remedial inveatigttion to:
define the objectives of the remedial program for the site and broadly
develop remedial action alternatives; perform an initial acreenlng of these
alternatives; and perform a detailed analysis of a limited number of alternatives
which remain after the initial screening ctage.
-------
Remedial Design - Once a remedial action has been selected, technical
drawings and specifications for remedial construction at • site are developed,
as specified in the final Rl/FS report. Design documents are used to bid
and construct the chosen remedial actions. Remedial design is prepared
by consulting engineers with experience in inactive hazardous waste disposal
site remedial actions.
Construction - DEC selects contractors and supervises construction work
to carry out the designed remedial alternative. Construction may be as
straightforward as excavation of contaminated soil with disposal at a permitted
hazardous waste facility. On the other hand, it may involve drum sampling
and identification, complete encapsulation, leachate collection, storage and
treatment, groundwater management, or other technologies. Construction
costs may vary from several thousand dollars to many millions of dollars,
depending on the size of the site, the soil, groundwater and other conditions,
and the nature of the wastes.
MonitoringfMaintenance - Denotes post-closure activities to insure continued
effectiveness of the remedial actions. Typical monitoring /maintenance
activities include quarterly inspection by an engineering technician;
measurement of level of water in monitoring wells; or collection of ground
water and surface water samples and analysis for factors showing the
condition of water, presence of toxic substances, or other indicators of
possible polh ron from the site. Monitoring /maintenance may be required
indefinitely a: many sites.
Consent Order - A legal and enforceable negotiated agreement between the
Department and responsible parties where responsible parties agree to
undertake investigation and cleanup or pay for the costs of investigation
and cleanup work at a site. The order includes a description of the
remedial actions to be undertaken at the site and a schedule for implementation.
Contract - A legal document signed by a contractor and the Department to
carry out specific site remediation activities.
Contractor - A person or firm hired to furnish materials or perform services,
•specially in construction projects.
Delisting - Removal of a site from the state Registry based on study which
•hows the site does not contain hazardous wastes.
Potentially^ Responsible Party^Lead Site - An inactive hazardous waste site
at which those legally liable for the site have accepted responsibility for
investigating problems at the site, and for developing and implementing the
site's remedial program. PRP's include: those who owned the site during
the time wastes were placed, current owners, past and present operators
of the site, and those who generated the wastes placed at the lite.
Fenec!:;.' ;-ror:v ">.- *•• ••c!tot"5 nr.c! irrpU rented by PRP's generally result
from an enforcement action taken oy the State and the costs of tht remedial
program are generally borne by the PRP.
-------
Bunking System - The United States Environmental Protection Agency uses
B hazard ranking system (HRS) to assign numerical scores to each inactive
hazardous waste site. The scores express the relative risk or danger from
the site.
Responsible Parties - Individuals, companies (e.g. site owners, operators,
transporters or generators of hazardous waste) responsible for or contributing
to the contamination problems at • hazardous waste site. PRP is a potentially
responsible party.
Site Classification - The Department assigns sites to classifications
established by state law, as follows:
o Classification 1 - A site causing or presenting an imminent danger
of causing irreversible or irreparable damage to the public health or
environment —immediate action required.
o Classification 2 - A site posing a significant threat to the public
health or environment—action required.
o Classification 2a - A temporary classification for a site known or
suspected to contain hazardous waste. Most likely the site will require a
Phase I and Phase II investigation to obtain more information. Based on
the results, the site then would be reclassified or removed from the state
Registry if found not to contain hazardous wastes.
o Classification 3 - A site which has hazardous waste confirmed, but
not a significant threat to the public health or environment—action may be
deferred.
o Classification 4 - A site which has been properly closed—requires
continued management.
o Classification S - A site which has been properly closed, with no
evidence of present or potential adverse impact—no further action required.
State-Lead Site - An Inactive hatardous waste aite at which the Department
has responsibility for investigating problems at the site and for developing
and implementing the site's remedial program. The Department uses money
available from the State Superfund and the Environmental Quality Bond Act
of 1986 to pay for these activities. The Department has direct control and
responsibility for the remedial program.
-------
January 22, 1991
S*M
Dear Mr.
*
On January 30th local citizens will be updated on remedial ;
plans for the Colesville Landfill which is a listed inactive
hazardous waste site. I have included the press announce-
ment which has been forwarded to the media in order to
inform local residents of the meeting, As required by law,
a complete legal notice appeared in the Binghar.ton Press anc
a copy of that notice is also enclosed.
The encouragement of public participation in decisions
regarding inactive hazardous waste sites is an integral part
of both the State and Federal programs to locate,
investigate, and remediate hazardous waste sites. Staff
from both the EFA and the DSC are available to answer
questions by phone if you are unable to attend the January
30th meeting.
I would encourage you to attend the public meeting and to
raise any questions or objectives you have regarding the
studies or the chosen remedial alternative. A Responsive-
ness Summary will be prepared to answer any questions raised
by the local community during this public review process.
Most of the documents you might want to view are available
at the Colesville Town Hall. Additional, more technical
data may be reviewed at the DEC suboffice in Kirkwood.
Scott Rodabaugh of the KirXwood stff would be able to
arrange for your access to this material (607-773-7763). if
you have any questions or concerns you wish to raise prior
to the meeting, you may contact me at our DEC regional
headquarters in Syracuse (315-426-7400}.
Sincerely yours,
Kate Lacey
Citizen Participation Specialist
KLrfn
Enclosures
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BROOME
In the Matter of a
Public Meeting
Re: Cplesville Landfill Site
NYSDEC Superfund
and
EPA Superfund
A public meeting held in the above-entitled
matter at Broome County Office Building, Second
Floor, Binghaint on, New York, on the 30th day of
January, 1991, commencing at 7:00 PM.
REPORTED BY:
APPEARANCES:
CZERENDA COURT REPORTING
Binghamton - (607) 723-5820
- (800) 633^9149
RANDALL A. CZERENDA
Certified Shorthand Reporter
Brian Davidson, DEC
Robert Cozzy, DEC
Katie Lacey, DEC
Joel Singerman, EPA
Eduardo Gonzalez, EPA
Michael 0/Hara, Wehran Engineering
Anthony Savino, Wehran Engineering
-------
Ms. Lacey's Introduction . 2
1 MS. LACEY: Okay, we might just
2 as well get started here.
3 I am Kate Lacey. I'm the citizen
4 participation specialist for the
5 regional Department of Environmental
6 Conservation office.
7 Before we get into the actual
8 informational part of the meeting, there
9 is a little bit of housekeeping that has
10 to be taken care of for the legal
11 record.
12 This is Randy Czerenda, who is
13 taking the official transcript. For the
14 purpose of the transcript, we need to
15 have it in the record that this is a
16 public meeting to receive comment on the
17 Colesville landfill federal and state
18 Superfund site, that it is the required
19 meeting as part of the public review,
20 public participation regulations, and
21 that the meeting has been properly
22 noticed in the local newspaper of the
23 legal recordon January 7 and on
24 January 28. The legal notice appeared
-------
Ms. Lacey's Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
in the Binghamton newspaper announcing
the public comment period, which began
on January 7 and which will last until
February 6, and this meeting is an
integral part of that public review -
process.
End of housekeeping.
Now, so that you know who the people
are that are going to be up here in
front giving you some information first
and then answering questions or
receiving questions from you, the people
on my left are from the State Department
of Environmental Conservation. You have
to get used to initials when you're
dealing with government people.
The DEC is the state • environmenta 1
group. The EPA are the federal
environmental people. So, if you can
just remember that these are the federal
people, these are the state people..
On my far left is Brian Davidson,
who is the project manager for the
Colesville landfill site. He is the
-------
Ms. Lacey's Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
direct state person involved in oversite
of the Colesville landfill..
Next to him is Robert Cozzy, who is
the section chief for the Title III
program. The Title III program, in case
that term comes up again, is the fun'ding
program, the funding mechanism under
which the state will be reimbursing the
county for a portion of the clean-up
expenses. And if there is a question
about that later on, maybe anyway it
will be a good idea to give some
explanation of the way that works, .the
dollar involvement of the state.
On my right is Joel Singerman, who
is the acting chief of the New York and
Carribean Superfund branch for the EPA.
Anyone who Is in charge of.' New York and
the Carribean and chooses to be in
New York in January, I don't know as I
would go with his judgment.
Eduardo Gonzalez is on the far right
and he is the overseeing project manager
for the federal EPA.
-------
Ms. Lacey's Introduction
>
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24
The people who are g.oing to be doing
the bulk of the presentation on the
technical information are from Wehran
Engineering. If you want to just stand
up - - the bulk of the information win
be presented by Michael O'Hara, who is
the senior engineer with Wehran
Engineering. And Anthony Savino is also
with Wehran Engineering.
Seated over 'here in the front, we
have a county representative David
Donahue, who is with the commissioner of
public works, who will be available to
comment or answer questions as far as
the county involvement is concerned.
We also have a representative from"
the New York State Department of Health,
Gary Robertson, who is over therewith
i
i
h i s h a n d r a i s e d . ; » • '\
IT i
And the oversite of Superfund sites
and of programs such as this are a joint
responsibility, in this case of the
federal and the state government, and of
the Department of Health and the
-------
Ms. Lacey's Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Department of Environmental
Conservation. So, the Department of
Health does have a role in reviewing
information, making sure that the health
issues are properly dealt with in the
course of the remediation process.
As you came in, I hope that you
signed up oh the back table. There is a
sign-up list with a place for you to put
a name and an address. If there is a
need afterward to send out additional
information, we would like to keep an
updated mailing list of people who have
an interest, either a direct or an
indirect involvement with the Colesville
site.
So, if you put your name and address
on the sheet at the back, if there is
additional information sent out or if
there is any reason to contact people
who have expressed an interest, we would
like to have as accurate and up-to-date
list as possible. So, if you didn't
sign up on the way in, please do during
-------
Ms. Lacey's Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the course of the meeting at some point
do that.
Also, on the back table were some
blue sheets, which are fact sheets,
particularly pertinent to this meeting
because what we're going to be talking
about mainly tonight is a remedial
investigation feasibility study and the
results of that work for the Colesville
site. The blue sheet here will give
you a pretty good description of exactly
what a remedial investigation and a
feasibility study, what they are so
that -- I know sometimes the technical
terms can get to be a bit confusing.
And if you grab ahold of some of these,
they do give you a little bit of a
background to understand what some of
the initials and the terms are tha.t
people are talking about.
I think with that, I will just point
out that one of the requirements of the
Superfund was -- is that there be a
concerted effort to encourage citizen
-------
Ms. Lacey's Introduction
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
input, to inform the public and to allow
the public and encourage the public to
comment back both to bring additional
information to the process and to
comment on activities that take place,
to criticize, to ask questions, to make
us, in effect, accountable for the
decisions that are made by asking
questions at any point in the process.
We now are at the point of having a
considerable amount of data on the
Colesville site, and as you'll hear
tonight, getting close to the point in
the process where some significant
decisions are made. So, it is important
that the people of the immediate area
and of the general area be aware of
what's being done and involved in the
decision itself.
Following this meeting, there will
be until the 6th of February written
comments received on the proposals that
are going to be discussed here tonight.
Those comments can be sent to the DEC
-------
Ms. Lacey's Introduction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
office. There is an address -- a name
and an address for forwarding any
comments that you have or any additional
questions that you have. Before any
final determination is made on '
remediation, it will be necessary to .
have a responsiveness summary of the
questions th-at are raised, will have to
be dealt with, and that will occur in
the time after the close of the public
comment period.
I think with that, I will introduce
the project manager, Brian Davidson, who
is going to give a brief overview, a
history of some of the activities that
have taken place and try to get all of
us up to speed on what has occurred over
the course of the last several years in
the process. Brian.
MR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Kate.
The Colesville landfill is a 113-aere
parcel of property owned by Broome
County. It's actually 35 acres of
landfilled area. It is operated by
-------
Statement of Mr. Davidson
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Brooroe County from 1969 to 1984. Other
companies that contributed waste to the
landfill were GAP Corporation and
Tri-City Barrels and Malchak Salvage
Corporation. Municipal waste was
primarily what was disposed of at the
landfill.
Between 1973 and 1975, drums of
industrial waste were co-exposed with
municipal solid waste. The industrial
waste included hickories dyes, organic
solvents and mixtures, mixed chemical
solvents.
They were primarily disposed of in
trenches, in approximately 468,000 cubic
yards of material was disposed of in the
trenches.
The landfill is in a rural area over
large tracts of undeveloped woodlands,
large agricultural tracts and scattered
residential parcels.
In 1983, the Broome County Health
Department sampled homeowner wells and
they indicated -- the results indicated
-------
Statement of Mr. .Davidson
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
groundwater contamination in the
immediate vicinity of the landfill.
Broome County then provided bottled
water to homeowner wells in the
immediate vicinity of the landfill. -i
In 1984, the landfill gates were
closed and then the county provided
granulated activated carbon treatment
with ultraviolet disinfection to eight
homeowners at their request in the
immediate vicinity of the landfill.
In 1983 and 1984, a two-phase
hydrogeologic investigation was
completed by Wehran. In 1985, the site
was accepted to the national priority
list. . '•".•'
On February 4, 1984, we held two
public hearings out here in the Broome
i
County offices to present a proposed .;,
> ;
work plan for the remedial investigation
and feasibility study at the Colesville
site, and in April of 1987, an order on
consent was signed between Broome
County, GAF and the Department of
-------
Statement of Mr. Davidson
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Environmental Conservation which calls
for the investigation and remediation of
the landfill.
Under the terms of that agreement,
Broome County is paying for 50 percent
of the cost of the investigation and
remediation, GAF Corporation is paying
for 50 percent and the state is
reimbursing Broome County 75 percent of
their cost under the 1986 Environmental
Quality Bond Act.
Remedial investigation was completed
in September of 1988 and a confirmatory
report was completed in February of
1990, which essentially confirmed the
findings of the remedial investigation
and provided additional data --
validated data. A methane gas study was
completed in August of 1990 and: in
December 1990, the feasibility study was
comp1eted.
Mike, I think I'd like to turn it
over to Mike O'Hara from Wehran
Engineering to present the findings of
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the remedial investigation and the
feasibility study.
MR. O'HARA: Thanks, Brian. Just
to orient the site, first. This shows
the location of the site. The shaded
area is a 35-acre landfill site. It's
located north of Doraville, east of --
Windsor Road runs nearby and there are
several residential parcels, as Brian
mentioned, in this area.
Just as some preliminary
definitions, the remedial investigation
that we're talking about is an
investigation of the site so that we can
define the occurrence of contamination,
and the feasibility study is a study to
look at alternatives to remediate the
site or clean the site up. So, it's a
two-phase type study. So, we can.look
at the slides.
First, I will go over the components
of the remedial investigation so you can
get an idea of what we've done over the
years with these various phases. There
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
23
24
were various phases done and what I'll
do is summarize the results of all the
phases.
Basically, we reviewed the available
site history, the operations and the
setting of the landfill. We looked at
soil borings at 27 locations around the
site', at various locations and depths to
get a. handle 'on the geology of the site,
the definition of the different
formations, their thickness. We also
installed 27 groundwater monitoring
wells to define the groundwater
occurrence and movement.
We looked at groundwater levels and
permeability testing of the aquifers.
In total, we sampled 27 groundwater
monitoring wells, four private wells in
this area of the site, surface water and
sedimented samples from the small
streams that are located near the site.
There is a south stream and a north
stream. There are discharges of
leachate groundwater from the landfill
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
to the streams, so we looked at the
quality of the surface water and
sediments in those streams.
We actually sampled three seep
locations and the analyses that were-
performed were for volatile organic •
compounds and metals.
Based on that level of field work,
we were able to come up with a
hydrogeologic characterization, which
basically gives us a picture of the
movement of groundwater and surface
water around the site, the contaminant
assessment which tells us what
contaminants are there, where they're
located and where they might move. And
we also looked — made an assessment of
any increase in risk to human health and
the environment.
Based on those, we came up with some
preliminary remedial action objectives
or some definitions of how we could
clean up the site.
In summarizing the major RI
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
16
1
2
3
4
• 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
conclusions, the hydrogeologic
characterization, there are two aquifers
in the project area. There is a shallow
permeable glacial outwash aquifer zero
to seventy feet beneath the refuse, and
the direction of groundwater flow is
south -- basically the groundwater flow
direction is this way, flow to the
Susquehanna River, and also there is a
southwest component to the north stream.
In other words, the groundwater comes up
and surfaces at surface water in the
•
northstream.
Another aquifer is the bedrock
aquifer, which is beneath the upper
aquifer, and that occurs, at 85 to 310
feet below the refuse. And 'the
direction of the flow in t-hat aquifer is
southwest to the Susquehanna River.
The major conclusions of the
contaminant assessment, and I guess the
f-irst one is the most important, is that
the landfill .is currently releasing low
levels -- and by- that we mean part per
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
billion range, of several volatile
organic .compounds to groundwater and
streams at the site. Metals were
detected, but did not fit any similar
pattern of contamination and, therefore,
we don't believe they're attributable to
the site.
In the last few years, the extent of
the contamination has been limited to
the same area. Basically we have -- I
pointed out the direction of the
groundwater flow. What we see is a
contaminant plume that is down gradient
of the landfill in that direction of
flow and it. encompasses an area of
approximately that large (indicating). /
We haven't seen any major movement of
this plume over the several phases of
i
sampling. And we have not r e a 1,1 y s e e n •.
big increases in the levels of
contaminants.
There has been significant
contamination of a private well, which
we would call the center of the plume.
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and that was one residential well. And
there has been a trace of contamination
of two other wells, which the levels
have been consistent over time.
There was one bedrock private well,
and that has not shown any
contamination. And in conjunction with
our five other monitoring wells that we
haven't seen any bedrock contamination
and can conclude the contamination is
limited to the upper aquifer and has not
moved vertically downward to the bedrock
aquifer.
We also looked at potential impact
on the Susquehanna River from this
groundwater discharge, and based on some
mathematical modeling, using
concentrations here, we determined that
there is no impact on the Susquehanna
River. That was also confirmed with
some sampling of surface water and
sediments in the Susquehanna River.
There has been discharge to the
north stream and the south stream and
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the contamination is limited to the
exact areas where there has been
discharge. And surface water
contamination drops off significantly
from that point basically.
We also looked at sediments at those
points of discharge, and we find low
levels of VOC contamination, volatile
organic contamination. But, again, it's
limited to those areas right where the
discharge is to the surface water.
The seeps that do come from the
landfill basically present an aesthetics
problem and it's also a pathway for
direct contact of humans with those
discharges. And there has' been.no
significant release of volatile organic
compounds to the air or to the air
pathway as a result of their disposal in
the landfill.
So, basically, the contamination is
essentially limited to discharges in the
immediate area of the seeps and also the
upper aqui fer.
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Now, based on this contaminant
profile and where contaminants may be
moving, we also did an assessment of
human health and environmental health
r isk .
Basically, there are two human
pathways based on the direction of
groundwater flow and potential exposure.
One is -- the largest one is consumption
of groundwater from the shallow aquifer
where the residents have wells that are
screened in that shallow aquifer and .
where there has been contamination
documented.
The other Human pathway is direct
contact with the surface water and
sediments in the north and south stream
where there has been contamination.
The secondary pathway is consumption
of any game animals that are in this
area which themselves have direct
contact with the surface water or
sediments.
We followed a US EPA guidance
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
2 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
procedure for determining any increased
health risk and based -- just to outline
the process, we selected indicator
compounds based on their toxicity and we
make an estimate of any increased ris.k
of cancer based on these indicator ' .
compounds, possible exposure to the
materials, body weights and estimated
time of exposure. That estimated time
of exposure we used, to be very
conservative, as 70 years.
The conclusions from this exercise
was that there were unacceptable human
health risks from consumption of the
untreated ground water from the shallow'
aquifer. The maximum contaminant
levels, which are levels set by the New
York State Department of Health, were
exceeded for several of the volatile
organic compounds.
As far as the other pathways, there
is no unacceptable human health risk
from direct contact with leachate seeps
and sediments, and that's based on the
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
very low levels of contamination that
were in the surface water and sediment.
And also there is no unacceptable
human health risk anticipated from the
consumption of any game species that may
have been in contact with these surface
watersorsediments.
Up to now, I've described the
investigation portion of the RI process.
We have all the background data, we have
put together contamination profile,
we've looked at a base line risk.
Now, the next step is to look at a
feasibility study where we want to
determine what's the best way to
remediate the site, to clean up the
site, given those patterns of
contamination, base line risk and also
the requirements, regulatory
requirements, advisories, guidance that
we would have to meet to clean up the
site .
Just to outline the feasibility
study process, we summarized all the
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
remedial investigation work, and then we
defined remedial action objectives,
which tell us which media and where
media are groundwater, soil, surface
water and sediments, need to be "^
addressed.
We come up with general response
actions, and they're very general: They
can be treatment, containment of the
site or removal of the source waste. We
get into a technology screening where we
look at the various technologies that
are available to remove, in this case,
the volatile organic compounds. We
screen out those that aren't a p p1i c a b1e.
We develop alternatives and screen out '
the alternatives based on their
effectiveness in meeting the regulatory
i
requirements and their ability £ o b e , I;
» ;
implemented. In other words, can this
remedy actually be constructed at the
site and would it meet the conditions
normally required of permits?
After we narrow down the number of
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
alternatives we have, we look at those
remaining and subject them to detailed
analysis. And we use these basic --
these criteria to evaluate each
alternative.
The protectiveness of human health
and the environment is looking at what
kind of risk reduction do we get from
the base line risk in implementing a
remedial alternative. We look at
•compliance with applicable requirements.
For example, do we meet -- after
implementing the alternative, do we meet
the groundwater requirements? We look
at long-term effectiveness. Once we
institute the remediation and start to
clean up the site, will this alternative
provide a long-term effectiveness or
will there be some reversability after
some initial treatment?
We look at reduction of toxicity,
mobility and volume of the contaminants.
There is a preference for reducing the
amount of contaminants on site and not
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
simply containing them because we like
to have a permanent remedy.
Short-term effectiveness, we look at
whether or not there is any potential
risk to the community during the
construction period. If we're doing
things to remediate the site that could
have some short-term impacts during
construction.
We look at imp 1ementabi1ity. Again,
can the alternative actually be
constructed and are there any
administrative barriers to implementing
the alternative?
We look at cost, we look at capital,
operating and maintenance costs and we
express the costs, the present value
cost .
And the last two criteria are.done
after our technical analysis, basically
the regulatory agency acceptance and
what we're doing -- part of what we're
doing tonight, the community acceptance.
Now, the major conclusions from the
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
2 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
feasibility study for the remedial
action objectives, which is the starting
point for looking at different
alternatives. The objectives are to
control the release of the volatile
organic compounds from the landfill to
the glacial outwash aquifer, or the
shal'low aquifer that is contaminated.
We want to eliminate the leachate seeps
from the landfill and any associated
discharges to the streams.
Just cutting off those seeps should
be adequate for the surface water and
sediments. The levels of contamination
in surface water and sediment were not
high enough so that we had to look at
actual remediation, possible removal of
sediments. But cutting off the seeps
will mitigate any further contamination
of the sediments and surface water.
We want to eliminate the potential
for direct human contact or animal
contact with these seeps. And we also
want to continue the existing homeowner
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
well monitoring program that's been done
by Broome County, along with a temporary
water supply and filtration program to
the affected residents down here until
the remediation of the site is compl'ete.
One thing that came out of the
technology screening was, when we were
looking at various techniques to treat
the site, to remove the VOCs, was that
treatment of the mass of the landfill
itself, trying to treat the source by
various methods such as bioremediation,
chemical extraction of VOCs. And vacuum
extraction of VOCs from the whole mass
of the landfill was impractical because
of the way materials were disposed in
the landfill. The VOCs are contained in
waste that was in drums disposed in the
trenches and also co-disposed randomly
through the site so we could not —
really it would not be practical to
subject the whole mass of the waste and
landfill to any treatment in situ
because we have discrete pockets of
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
contamination and we don't know where
they are at this point. So, that was
one conclusion that came out of the
technology screening as.far as
techniques for treating the waste in
place.
We developed a total of 14
•alternatives to look at. A lot of these
are variations — some of these are
variations on a similar alternative,
just that they have different components
to them.
But these are the general categories
of alternatives. There is no action
alternative, which we always have to
include based on guidance for doing
these studies. And we use that as a
base line in which to compare any other
remediation.
We determined that that was not
effective in meeting the regulatory
requirements because that would do
nothing to meet our remedial action
objective of dealing with the volatile
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
organic compounds in the shallow
aquifer. However, we continue this
alternative through the process, even
though we determine at this point it's
not effective, again to use it as a base
. line alternative.
We came up with a couple of limited
action alternatives, and these are
basically continuing the existing water
supply and filtration program, putting
deed restrictions on future groundwater
use so no one can go in there and start
using this groundwater without anyone
knowing and also the variation on that
would be to supply water to the affected
residents instead of using the existing.
filtration program.
And both of those alternatives we
l
considered potentially applicable to ; ''
1 > ' ;
look at in further detail.
We came up with a number of
groundwater containment and treatment
options. Basically, by implementing
containment, what we would do is prevent
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the flow of groundwater from moving
further. We wouldn't arrest the
movement of this plume further down
gradient in time by putting in
interceptor wells, a ring of interceptor
wells in the most contaminated area of
the plume. And we had several
variations on that which I'll get into
in the next slide.
The next general type of alternative
that we had was to actually go in and
remove the waste, remove the source of
the volatile organic compounds. The
basic problem with that, the fatal flaw
in those types of alternatives was that
we have mixed refuse in here along with
the drums and the co-disposed waste. We
could have a lot of bulky material that,
when we exhumed it, we would ha.ve
contaminated bulky waste which we would
have to decontaminate, stage in
different areas and either dispose of it
or decontaminate it and leave it at the
landfill site. Essentially, it becomes
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
31
1
2
3
4
5
. 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a very extensive materials handling
problem. And because of the inclusion
of the bulky waste in the landfill,
those types of alternatives were not
considered practical.
The things that we had considered
along with the removal were incineration
of all the waste, chemical treatment of
all the waste. But, again, it wasn't
the treatment, it was the material
handling problem that really made those
types of alternatives impractical.
So, after screening all of those
alternatives, we came down to basically
nine alternatives that we looked at in
detail. And I'll just describe in a
little detail what each of these is.
The no-action alternative, aga,in, is
basically not doing anything at the
site. It's a base line alternative.
But what we would do is we would monitor
the groundwater to determine if there
was any movement of this plume. This
sort of would be an analytical program
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
3 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
where we would monitor groundwater
basically quarterly and for VOCs.
The limited action, first limited
action one we have here, we would again
have that same monitoring program, we-
would restrict groundwater usage at the
site.'and we would use the existing water
supply and filtration program.
This basically would be protective
of human health because no one would be
ingesting the groundwater, the
filtration -- supplied water would be
still in effect. And no one would be
using groundwater inadvertently there.
The variation on that is limited
action B where we would restrict the
groundwater use and, instead of
continuing the existing water supply and
filtration program, we would develop a
new water source, upgrading of the site
and supply water to the affected
residents .
As far as the containment
alternatives, what we would do to
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
contain .groundwater would be downgrading
of the site, we would intercept the
contaminated groundwater with a series
of pumping wells, and conceptually
we had basically ten wells pumping 10
gallons per minute, a total of 100
gallons per minute. That would be
collected. This would — any ground —
contaminated groundwater flowing from
the landfill would be intercepted and.
removed from the groundwater and we
would also reverse the gradient for
contamination that has gotten further
down gradient, we would reverse that
gradient and start to pick up that
contamination and remove it from the
aquifer.
We would collect that groundwater
and the technique for treating that
would be air stripping, which would
strip these volatile organic compounds
from the groundwater. We might have to
look at metal precipitation because of
the natural high levels of iron and
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
manganese in this groundwater. And also
before discharge to the area of the
volatile organic compounds, we may need
to use a catalytic incinerator or
catalytic convert to destroy those. We
couldn't simply emit those to the
atmosphere. • •
Those issues on the treatment will
be decided in the detailed design phase
where we actually look at the amounts of
metals coming into the system and the
amounts of volatile organics being
emitted as they're stripped.
mhe other aspect of the down grading
pumping, to reduce the amount of •
groundwater that goes through the site
and picks up contaminants in the site is
to cap the site, is to cut off the
infiltration of rain water through the
site. And here we would use a
multi-layered cap that would meet
New York State solid waste regulations
for caps. Anci that is a component of
all the remaining alternatives that we
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
have there.
A variation of the pumping would be
to accelerate that pumping by not only
pumping down gradient of the site but
pump also within the landfill. We .'
looked at placing two pumping wells
within the landfill, and that would
accelerate the removal of contaminated
groundwater from the landfill. And
again, we have variations just with
the — using the existing water supply
and coming in with a new water supply.
Another variation of containment was
to put in a cut-off wall to actually
.physically cut off the flow of /
groundwater down gradient and here we
would use what's called slurry wall. We
i
would trench around the site and
» > •
' > i
backfill the trench with a soil and
vermiculate fixture which would provide
a physical barrier to groundwater flow.
And then we could pump outside the wall
and also we could pump inside the wall.
It's just a variation we looked a t ; t o
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
3 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
see if that would speed up the
remediation.
As far as evaluating these
alternatives, some of the features are
that we used a mathematical model to
simulate the contaminant transport or
the movement of the contaminants under
these different scenarios. Where I said
we had ten wells pumping at ten gallons
per minute, we used a model to predict
how long it would take to reach the
required groundwater concentrations
using those pumping wells. And we also
recalculated from the base line risk.
We also recalculated the reduction in
risk after implementing these
alternatives. In other words, as the
contaminant levels decreased under the
pumping, we looked at the risk that
would remain at the receptor areas or
the residential areas with time.
This table also, the columns
basically give you a good idea of the
relative effectiveness of each
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
alternative. But we have cost and time
to implement the alternative, which
would consist of designing the
alternative and then constructing it and
starting it up.
And also the estimated time to meet
the groundwater concentration limits.
You see an acronym there, ARARS. I'll
just say that what it stands for in this
case, basically is meeting the maximum
contaminant levels for VOCs in
groundwater as set by.the New York State
Department of Health.
As you can see, the no-action
alternative, which is just the
monitoring, is the least expensive
alternative. We could implement it
right now because the monitoring wells
are out there.
However, if we were to just rely on
natural flushing of the landfill, our
modeling predicts that it would take
greater than twenty years to ever reach
the maximum contaminant levels that are
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23.
24
allowed down gradient.
With the limited action, again,
there are two alternatives, one using
the existing water supply and one with
the new water supply. Those could be
imp 1emented.in six months to a year.
Howe.ver, again, while it is protective
of human health, no one is drinking
contaminated groundwater. To meet the
levels that we want to get to to
remediate the groundwater, again, relies
on natural flushing and natural recovery
of the aquifer, and we predict that that
would take, agcin, greater than twenty
years.
The down gradient pumping is
basically the ten wells and groundwater
treatment and discharge of the treated
groundwater to the Susquehanna River.
The present value cost of that is
$650,000. Take approximately -- sorry.
I'm reading the wrong one there. That's
a little over five and a half million
dollars. It will take approximately a
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
year and a half to design and construct.
And based on our modeling, it would take
eight years to meet the groundwater
requirements in this area.
If we accelerated the pumping by
having the down gradient pumping and
pumping in the landfill, we would meet
the groundwater requirements in
approximately four years. Of course,
the models are approximate. These are
not exact times. But it gives us an
idea that we're talking in the order of
years for us to meet the clean-up
criteria in the groundwater.
When we looked at putting in the
cutoff wall, we actually ended up
predicting that it would take longer
than twenty years to meet the
groundwater requirements because putting
in the cutoff wall limited the rates.
that we could pump at outside and inside
the wall. And, therefore, it did not
accelerate the pumping rates and removal
of contaminants. So, as far as
-------
Statement of Mr. O'Hara
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
containment, that was actually the worst
one .
So, basically, there was more to the
detailed analysis than these columns,
but it's a basic summary and gives you
the basic idea of the relative
trade-offs of each alternative. This i"s
basically where our study concluded.
So, I think Brian wants to discuss
the alternatives more.
MR. DAVIDSON: Thanks, Mike. Based
on the detailed analysis and the
feasibility study, the New York State
Department of Health, EPA and the DEC
independently arrived at the same
conclusion that alternative 4C-2 was the
preferred alternative. Alternative 4C-2
consists of the landfill cap, pumping
wells at and down gradient of the
landfill, air stripping at the
groundwater, discharge of the treated
groundwater to the north stream or the
Susguehanna River and construction of
new watersupply. It has it all.
-------
Statement of Mr. Davidson
4 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
It's important to note that the
remedy — that 4C-2 is the preferred
remedy for this site. The final
selection will be documented only aft^r
the record of decision, which is
referred to as the ROD, only after
consideration of all comments on any of
the remedial alternatives addressed in
the proposed plan or the remedial
investigation and feasibility study.
Written comments and any oral comments
will be documented in the responsiveness
summary section of the record of
decision, which is the document which
formalizes the selection of the remedy.-.
Kate?
MS. LACEY: All right. Before we
get down to questions that you 'may wish
> ' ; .'
to raise, or statements that you may ;
wish to make, I'd point out that the
documents that have been produced as a
result of the investigation that's taken
place are available for your review at
the town hall. Also, the major
-------
Statement, of Kate Lacey
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
documents are at the Kirkwood DEC
suboffice which may be as convenient for
some of you. Also at the DEC office in
Albany and the EPA regional office in
New York City, if those are convenient
for you.
Almost the entire file is at the
Kirkwood office. All of the documents
are at the -- all of the studies and the
back-up documentation are available in
the town hall.
On the back table, along with the
blue sheets which describe a couple of
the technical terms that you hear thrown
around a lot, remedial investigation,
feasibility study, also in the back of
the room is a stack of copies of a PRAP,
P-R-A-P, which is a proposed remedial
action plan. This is a description of
the alternatives and the process for
determining which of those alternatives
is at this point preferred. Any of you
who haven't picked up copies of this, it
gives a more detailed description of
-------
Statement of Kate Lacey
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
each of the alternatives that were
described by Mr. O'Hara and the one that
was selected as described by Brian
Davidson.
At this point, any of you who have
questions or statements, you're more
than welcome to make them. Also, keep
in mind that written comments can be
forwarded between now and February 6 to
Brian Davidson and his address and the
way to get in touch with him to properly
get those comments in is on the bottom
of the PRAP. And also, I'm sure if you
approached him, he would give you an
address so you can make sure that he
gets the material.
If you have any questions or if you
have any comments that you wish to make,
the only thing I would ask is that you
identify yourself clearly and with a
general address, if you're from the
town, just a general address. You don't
have to go into great detail. But we
would like the stenographer to get an
-------
Question by Public
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
.12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
accurate name and identification of the
people who are making comments.
MS. CLARK: My name is Mary
Clark. I'm with Citizen Action of New
York. I've worked for a number of years
with many of the residents who are
living in the Doraville area and around
the site.
I have a number of questions and
concerns that maybe you can answer and
comme nt.
First, in terms of the surface water
and the streams, we've written the DEC,
and a number of things, back in 1985, of
pointing out some real discrepancies
with the Wehran report which left out a
number of creeks, one that flows
directly from the landfill. Is that on
your map? I believe you said that it
is. I'm not sure if -- from your
pointing, that you referred to the south
stream. Could you explain to me where
you see the south stream?
MR. O'HARA: Here is the north
-------
Question by Public
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
stream and the south stream and there
are also some seeps along this part of
the landfill .
MS. CLARK: Because some of the
concerns with, particularly the
Doraville residents, are at different
times of the year that maybe aren't
visible in the summer and the spring is
that there are actually streams that
come out of the seep area on what you
would refer to as, I believe, what it
looks -- right there.
MR. O'HARA: This area?
MS. CLARK: Right in that area.
There is a main stream that comes"out of
that and the landfill, there-'is a stream
that comes out where you referred to as
the south stream. That leads one to --
that comes all the way down and connects
to the thing that goes -- the stream
that goes by the Doraville area. It
comes all the way down.
MR. O'HARA: All the way down.
MS* CLARK: And there is also the
-------
Question by Public
4 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
stream that comes out of the main seep
area that isn't identified. That leads
people to be very concerned,
particularly in the Doraville area, t^h a t
you're indicating that everything is
going in a south, southwest manner when
we actually have surface streams that
are coming out of the other ends that
come down towards the Doraville side.
And that's very disturbing to people and
leads one to question some of the
accuracies in terms of the report.
MR. O'HARA: Okay. What we did was
we sampled the streams that we .saw in
thisarea. . -.
MS. CLARK: They're not visible all
year round. I mean, clearly in the
spring and the fall, they're v e,r y , very.
» • .
visible. These streams are -- *
particularly the one to the right, our
right there, is actually quite a large
stream in the fall and in the spring
with the other one, it really dries up
in the summer. And that's some of .-the
-------
Question by Public
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2?
23
24
concerns in terms of how this testing
occurred, did it occur for all of these
things, throughout like -- all different
seasons, through all different years.
That's, you know, when it was dry, when
it was, you know, extremely, you know,
wet, a lot of precipitation, -things like
that.
MR. O'HARA: Okay. We sampled
streams where we saw them here and the
outbreaks where we saw them. And we
also looked at the results.
As I mentioned, the levels of
contaminants in the surface water and
the sediments were basically restricted
to the area where the seep was coming
out.
MS. CLARK: So, you did n-ot sample
the streams that you did not see, then,
the ones that we're talking about
because they do exist. I mean it's very
obvious in the spring and the fall and
that's some of the concerns in terms of
the accuracy of this report.
-------
Question by Public
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. O'HARA: Based on the levels
that we saw, I guess if we had seen
higher levels here, we would have
expanded -- we would have looked
further. But, based on the levels that
we saw, which are closest to the
landfill which would be the highest.
MS. CLARK: The one stream comes
directly out of the landfill. And I
guess that leads one to be concerned
about — and particularly with the
concept of capping, not that people
are necessarily against it. But there
is also concerns that there are springs
that flow and percolate up which a
capping does not necessarily, you
know —
MR. O'HARA: In conjunction with
the cap, we will have the groundwater
pumping, which will cause any springs -•
cause the water levels in the landfill
to go down. So, we --
MS. CLARK: And where would the
pumping be with this one proposal?
-------
Question by Public
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. O'HARA: Basically in this area
,just down gradient of the landfill. And
also two wells approximately here in
this portion of the landfill.
THE COURT: Where would your
monitoring wells be?
••MR. O'HARA: We would use the
existing monitoring well systems here to
monitor the effe.ct.
MS. CLARK: Okay. The concern is
particularly in the Doraville residence
area because we've neglected to actually
sample the streams that do exist at
certain times _. f the year is for there
to be monitoring wells down in the
Doraville area. That's critically
important.
MR. O'HARA: There are monitoring
wells that go all the way down to
Doravilie.
MS. CLARK: Will they continue to
be monitored? That's the question.
MR. O'HARA: No. We looked at
these in .the past and basically have not
-------
Question by Public
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
found contamination.
MS. CLARK: The concern is once we
start capping, pumping different things
with the residents that there could be,
without monitoring of these -- of th-is
whole area, that things could change
and, like the other things haven't
really been looked at, that we would
really prefer that the monitoring of the
wells on that side heading, you know,
and protecting of the Doraville
residents still be maintained.
MR. O'HARA: Basically with the cap
and the groundwater pumping, we will be
forcing any groundwater to move in this
direction much more strongly than is
going right now. This is the direction
of the groundwater flow now, south to
southwest. But when we put the
groundwater containment system in, we
will design the pumping rate so that
we're able to really reverse -- not
reverse, but more strongly get
groundwater to go in this direction.
-------
Question by Public
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
And that should alleviate any concern
about groundwater flow.
MS. CLARK: What would be the
problem with continuing to monitor those
wells or some of those wells facing that
area in terms of protecting a number of
citizens -- a larger number of people
who live in that area in addition to
those who live in the other?
MR. DAVIDSON: Excuse me, Mike.
They will be. As part of -- after the
construction is complete, there is an
operation and maintenance plan referred
to as O&M. Part of the O&M will be
selecting monitor wells to monitor long
term and perhaps on a quarterly basis.
That will be decided in part of the
design which wells will b.e monitored
where, how often and for what
parameters. So, there will be long-term
monitoring. I think that's what you're
driving at. And the wells that are
between the landfill and Doravilie will
certainly be included.
-------
Question by Public
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. CLARK: Okay.
MR. DAVIDSON: There will either be
new wells installed or we will utilize
monitoring wells that were installed'^as
part of the remedial investigation.'
MS. CLARK: That's the assurance-I
think people want to see that there are"
monitoring —
MR. DAVIDSON:. Absolutely. That's
part of every remedial program.
MS. CLARK: The additional question
I have is, looking at the water system,
when we refer to creating a new water
system, which I think is -- you know, I
commend that choice rather, than keeping'
with the existing system because
currently there is serious problems with
break down of the filter system,', not
> ' :
being reimbursed for the cost ovf the '
electricity or extreme delays in terms
of reimbursement for people. Some
people have actually even given up the
filter system and are just not dealing
with it and dealing with the
-------
Question by Public
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
contaminated water.
What area of the residents are you
looking for the new water system or will
that also include the area in Doraville?
MR. O'HARA: Basically, we've
talked about a new water supply on the
conceptual level. Basically we're
talking about supplying the residents in
this area and not going down to
Doraville. Again, the contamination has
not been detected.
MS. CLARK: Although in Doraville,
two residents are on bottled water.
There is also -- the LeVare residence
also has a water system put in by the
county, a filter system put in by the
county. Indeed at some point, there has
been some contamination to warr.ant that
action in the past and the concern is
that these residents be included as
well.
MR. O'HARA: I guess that would be
considered in the design of the water
supply system.
-------
Question by Public
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. DAVIDSON: Thewater supply
system is anticipated to take in three,
or actually now two, since the county
has purchased one property, the two
residences that have been impacted by
the landfill. The LeVare residence or
residences in Doraville may have been
provided treatment by the county, but
there is no evidence in any of the
sampling data that any of the residences
in Doraville have been impacted by the
landfill.
So, there may — you know, this
system will hopefully be sized such that
it could be expanded to some degree, but
it's not the intent of this remedial
program to provide municipal water
supply to everyone in the area. We're
looking to remediate the site and to
provide a new water supply to the
residents that have been impacted by the
landfill.
MS. CLARK: The concern is that
obviously there was some past history
-------
Question by Public
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and some warranting of providing this
costly thing to the county to put in
these filter systems, to provide bottled
water and there is also some concerns in
a number of reports throughout --
throughout the years that this has been
goin.g on. Any time there has been any
kind of level that has been unacceptable
or beyond the standards, there has been
a statement that says laboratory
contamination. And that's been
consistent rather than saying that, gee,
there may be something here. It's
+
always been.basically brushed aside as
if there is laboratory contamination.
And some of the residents there and
Betty Springfield, whose daughter just
actually died of cancer this last week,
who is 42 years old, could not make it
here. She has had private well testing
that indicates different levels than the
levels that were indicated by the county
test ing.
And so there is real concern of
-------
Question by Public
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
residents in that area that things,
particularly when streams aren't
indicated, aren't even tested, that
there may be some real contamination.
there. There has been in the past.
It's been just removed as we'll just
write that off as laboratory
contamination, that there is real issues
and real concerns of the drinking water
in the Doraville residents and they
would like to be included in terms of
the new water supply as well.
Because it seems almost absurd in
terms of putting in a whole new water
system to provide things for three
families when, less than a quarter mile
down the road, there is another ten
families that can benefit by that,
whether you want to admit or not or
whatever the situation may be in terms
of just their peace of mind to include
them and incorporate them on the water
system as we 11.
MR. DAVIDSON: Well, I think, you
-------
Question by Public
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
know, we have to go on the evidence we
have .
First of all, with respect to your
first comments on the streams not being
included, the first two-phase
hydrogeo1ogic studies done by Wehran in
1983 and 1984, there was a sketch map in
there that did not include all of the
south stream. And that was noted by one
of the residents. It was also noted in
our review and it was, in fact, correct,
that stream wasn't on there. It was
included in the subsequent remedial
investigations.
That stream has been sampled
continually at various locations along
that stream. I have more, .perhaps,
peace of mind that that stream is
cleaner than others because I personally
took one of the samples. I mean, I can
show you the analytical results if you
really wanted to see them about midway
in that fielc- in the south stream.
Wehran Engineering also took samples
-------
Question by Public
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
repeatedly throughout that south stream
and along the seeps on the south edge of
the landfill. And that, combined with a
n.umber of cluster wells that we have,—
deep, shallow and intermedial depth'
monitoring wells, repeated sampling
.indicating the limits of the plume do
not extend beyond the south stream.
We're fairly certain of that. I
think all studies that have been done on
this landfill, incidentally, have come
to the same conclusion that the boundary
of any possible influence of that plume
is that south stream. Once you get
beyond the south stream, you're in a
different drainage basin. You're still
in the Susquehanna River drainage b a sin,
i
but you're beyond the limits of; the
* *
influence or the possible influence ol
the landfill.
MS. CLARK: That's how the stream
goes .
MR. DAVIDSON: Excuse me. The
county may have provided -- well, I
-------
Question by Public
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
believe eight residences out there
with filters and UV systems. That --
at their request. In other words, if
a resident lived out there and
requested -- they were near the
landfill. Whether or not their well was
impacted down gradient, up gradient, the
county responded by providing treatment
estimates. That doesn't necessarily
mean their well was contaminated, or if
it did have some contamination, that was
in any way related to the landfill.
That was the purpose — one of the main
purposes of the remedial investigation
is to very clearly bear out where the
extent of the contamination that was
related to the landfill was.
I know that, for example, it's not
uncommon to see, and I don't remember
specifically which residents, but in one
case, they had extremely high lead
levels in one of the samples, I believe
taken by the Broome County Health
Department, and it was just after their
-------
Question by Public
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
system was installed. I believe they
had a Culligan system that was installed
backwards. It was probably -- or could
have been due to the soldering — lead
solder being used on the pipes.
In any case, in the landfill, we
have been using volatile organics to
monitor groundwater contamination
because they migrate much faster than
anything. And we look for certain
organics as a fingerprint along with
groundwater contour maps. And that
hasn't shown up in Doraville.
MR. O'MARA: My name is Tom O'Mara.
I'm with the Broome County Environmental
Management Council. Just a series of
questions based on the hydraulics and
some environmental -- the environmental
assessment and the management
applications to this study.
First, was the vertical profiles
that are in the reports. They seem to
lead the reader to believe that there is
a continuous till layer below the
-------
Question by Public
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
refuse, is that correct?
MR. O'HARA: No. There are areas
where the refuse is in direct contact
with the glacial outwash aquifer.
MR. O'MARA: Secondly, also in the
reports, it states that the refuse --
the -entire refuse area is below the
groundwater table. Is that accurate?
Or is above the groundwater level.
MR. 0'KARA: Yes.
MR. O'MARA: Is there a water table
in the till area, that's in the refuse
area?
MR. O'HARA: No. The two aquifers
that were identified were the glacial
outwash and the bedrock.
MR. O'MARA: So, somehow that till
is draining into the outwash, is that
accurate?
MR. O'HARA: Well, no, we believe
that we're getting the contamination to
the glacial outwash where there is no
till. In other words, where the refuse
is in contact with the glacial outwash.
-------
Question by Public
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. O'MARA: The till is a very
impermeable layer. Therefore, the water
is running off the site as opposed to
percolating down, is that what you're
saying?
MR. O'HARA: Right. The till layer
is not saturated.
MR. O'MARA: The groundwater under
this site and the seeps, what is the
relationship there? Is this a discharge
for the glacial outwash? Is that what's
causing the seeps or is this a run off
of the till?
MR. O'HARA: The seeps, we believe,
are discharge of leachate from the
landfill. So, it would be discharge
from the till.
MR. O'MARA: From the till?
MR. O'HARA: Not from the till.
But from the landfill and the flow w.ould
be over the till .
MR. O'MARA: It's not an
outcropping of the glacial outwash then?
MR. O'HARA: I don't believe so,
-------
Question by Public
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
no .
MR. O'MARA: There is a silt clay
layer under the glacial outwash. Is
that continuous? And if so, is that act
being as a confining layer to migration
moving downward?
MR. O'HARA: Yes. That is
continuous. And that is probably why
we're not seeing migration vertically to
the bedrock.
MR. O'MARA: Also, the
interpretation of the hydrology, it
appears that there is a downward
vertical gradient. Is that accurate?
MR. O'KARA: Yes.
MR. O'MARA: From an environmental
perspective, was there any •• modeling
done, looking at the loading to the two
creeks or to the Susquehanna?
MR. O'HARA: Yes, there was.
That's why we measured the flow in the
north stream to see what kind of
discharge there was of groundwater to
the north stream.
-------
Question by Public
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. O'MARA: So, from a modeling
standpoint, it is insignificant, t.he
discharge to those water bodies, from an
environmental standpoint? • .-
MR. O'HARA: To the north stream,
yes .
MR. O'MARA: And to the
Susquehanna?
MR. O'HARA: We also looked at the
discharge there. And we determined,
based on the initial concentrations back
at the landfill, that the discharge to
the Susquehanna of contaminants would be
negligible I believe.
MR. O'MARA: From a management • •
perspective, who would be operating --
this is open to the panel as well-- who
would be operating the groundwajter pump.
1 > ; .'
and treat systems once a remediation ;
action has taken place? Would that be
the county's responsibility, the DEC as
the lead agency? Who would be there for
the routine maintenance, filter changes
orwhatever?
-------
Question by Public
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. COZZY: It would basically
be between the county and GAP. Our
agreement with the county is that they
will take responsibility for O&M. I
don't know what their arrangement is
with GAF. Basically from our
perspective, it's the county's
responsibility.
MR. O'MARA: In looking at the
economic analysis, how come inflation
wasn't included as a factor? How come
there was no inflation rate put into the
O&M charges?
MR. O'HARA: Well, that's correct.
We didn't use inflation and we didn't
use that through all the alternatives.
So, it's still valid as a comparative.
THE COURT: Would that be biased if
you were looking at a long-term
treatment operation where, if you did
not include maintenance for the O&M, the
O&M charges could sort of skew the
results for the net present value
analysis?
-------
Question by Public
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. O'HARA: Well,, we could go back
and do the costing, including inflation,
but we didn't do it in this particular
case.
MR. SILVERMAN: Also it's a plus or
minus 15 percent accuracy in this study.
It's not a ballpark process.
MR. O'MARA: It's just for the
county, should the groundwater not be
below the MCL after four years, the
county is stuck with this albatross 'and
this pumping system, which I'm sure the
DEC is not going to allow them to turn
off if the groundwater does not meet the
MCL. That could be a significant issue
with the O&M charges associated with
this remedial action. That's all of my
questions.
MS. LACEY: Okay. Anybody else?
MS. CLARK: I have a question about
the air stripping. That was a question
people had. You made some reference
to -- in regard to like the heavy metals
and things. The air stripping would not
-------
Question by Public
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
work for that -- or could you explain
the air stripping process and what
alternative, if that would not alleviate
that and how it would affect cost?
MR. O'HARA: Basically, we can use
the air stripping to remove the volatile
orga-nic compounds for the site. What I
was referring to is possible
interference wit-h the metals
concentrations. There are high natural
iron and manganese concentrations there
and that would tend to foul the air
strip.
In t h a t. c a : e , what we would do is
simply precipitate the metals out ahead
of the air strip to take care of that
problem. Or if the levels were
intermediate levels, we could use a
sequestering agent to prevent the metals
from -- it would keep the metals in
solution as it went through the air
strip so it wouldn't foul the medium.
Basically what you're doing is
running the groundwater -- you're
-------
Question by Public
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
running the groundwater through a tower,
you're pumping it up to the top of the
tower where it's filled with some
plastic-type media, and you're forcing
air upward through it. And that strips
the volatile organic compounds from the
groundwater. And then you have
discharge downward and that's what would
be sent to the Susquehanna or north
stream.
With those rings or plastic medium,
if you have metals, they could
precipitate on to the medium and reduce
the efficiency of the stripping of the
volatile organics. And so, if the
levels are high enough, you would simply
remove the metals or keep them in
solution as it went through the tower.
There are techniques to deal with
that.
In other words, we wouldn't have a
situation where we couldn't deal with
that and we would have to go to another
removal technique.
-------
Question by Public 69
1 MR. O'MARA: In terms of the water
2 system for the residents as they are
3 preparing, would they ever have to pay
4 for their water? I think that'sa
5 guarantee people would like to see with
6 the new water system, that it will never
7 .be created a situation where they'll
8 have to actually pay for the actual
9 water system.
10 MR. COZZY: If there is any way for
11 us to guarantee, I don't know if we can
12 do it administratively. We'll get an
13 answer in the responsive summary.
14 MR. O'MARA: And we'd like to
15 register the comment that we wouJd like
16 thesystemtobeexpanded.
17 MS. LACEY: Way in the back.
18 MR. O'MARA: My name, is John Link
19 from Binghamton. My question is about
20 the modeling that you used to come up
21 with, how long it might take to get
22 under the maximum limits for VOCs in the
23 water. Do you have a handle on the
24 total amount that are in that landfill?
-------
Question by Public
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
And secondly, are you assuming that
you've got a consistent percentage that
leeches out? I mean, one of the
concerns that Tom brought up, the cos-t
of possibly pumping this ad infinitum,
if you have barrels in that with this
compound, I assume at the time these
barrels would rust through. It would
create an influx of these chemicals into
the water again. Are these things taken
into account or do you have a standard
deviation how long it might take to get
these levels down?
MR. O'HARA: Basically, that is a
good question. We don't -- we're not
sure what has been and what's still in
here that needs to be released in the
i
future. Basically, the reason we -we re.)
> i
applying the model is that over the
different sampling periods, we really
haven't seen much difference in the
levels of contaminants. Basically, we
went from that, I guess, assumption.
»
MR. O'MARA: This assumption i
-------
Question by Public
7 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
based on four to five years or so that
you have looked at it. You're saying
that the mental picture is a sponge
that's letting this stuff out as the
water is going through it. You're
basing that consistency of release on
four or five years, ami correct?
MR. O'HARA: Well, basically, what
we did is we picked the wells, we picked
the pumping rate. Based on modeling, we
determined how many years it would take
to get down to the MCL levels at the
receptors.
MR. O'MARA: And that's assuming —
I guess I still don't have a good, clear
concept on it. It's coming out at a
fixed rate. And you're pumping at a
fixed rate. I can see at a certain
point in time where the rate of' pumping
overcomes the rate coming out and so the
levels are now below, but it's still
coming out, isn't it, leaching out of
the landfill. I know it's slower,
but
-------
Question by Public
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. O'HARA: Basically, we have a
data point in the landfill. We have pne
well and that gives us the source of
concentration. That was the initial
concentration used in the model. And
based on the dilution, we come out with
lower concentrations out here. So, that
was — this concentration that we have
data for here was assumed as the initial
condition.
MR. O'MARA: There isn't -- is
there any factor in this model that
takes into account the possibility that
perhaps 155-gallon drums with
trichloroethylene in it that is sitting
in there and no one knows about it, and
at some point in time, 10 years or 15
years, they finally give up and start
releasing all of that? You have no
idea?
MR. O'HARA: We're limited in that
point.
MR. O'MARA: Right.
MR. O'HARA: If we don't know
-------
Question by Public . '73
1 something is in here, we can't take that
2 into account. We did attempt to find
3 out where there were areas where drums
4 were located. We used the geophysical
5 techniques. And that really was not
6 successful in determining clusters of
7 drums or pockets like that.
8 'MR. O'MARA: And I understand that
9 that is very limited as to what went
10 into the landfill. That's why Tom's
11 question particularly distresses me to
12 think about if we put all this money in
13 and do this and the landfill will start
14 bleeding again and we'll be in the same
15 boat that we're in right now.
16 MR. O'HARA: Well, that will be
17 dealt with in terms of impact by
18 continuing to monitor. We're not saying
19 that after four years, this is going to
20 ^hut off. The operation is based on
21 monitoring to prove that --
22 MR. O'MARA: So, the model says
23 this is what's there, this is what we
24 think is there. This is how long it's
-------
Question by Public
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
going to take to release the
concentrations. You don't know anything
about what else might show up, which is
a big que st i on.
MR. O'HARA: We don't know exac.tly
what might show up, that's correct.
MR. O'MARA: The bedrock aquifer
that is -- you use the term aquifer.
I'm assuming that that means that that
has the capacity to be utilized at a
future date, that has the groundwater
flow velocities to be utilized as an
aquifer, is that correct?
MR. O'HARA: Yes.
MR. O'MARA: And what would be
the -- were two alternatives selected
and screened out, one being to utilize
the deeper aquifer as a drinking water
source at the site? I mean at the down
gradient locations if it is not
contaminated?. .
MR. O'HARA: Basically, we stayed
away from that because we were concerned
about carrying contamination from the
-------
Question by Public
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
upper aquifer down to the lower aquifer
during that well installation. So,
that's why we were considering more of a
sand and gravel well out towards the
Susquehanna River. At this point,
that's conceptually where we think that
would be located. Andthe exact
location of that would be decided in the
detaildesign.
MR. O'MARA: I guess I'm -- has the
EPA in any of the Superfund sites
remediated a drink i.ng water aquifer to
drinking water standards?
MR. SILVERMAN: We're in the
process of it. I don't know if any
action has been completed where we
actually reached drinking water
standard.
MR. O'MARA: There is a lot of
information that's coming out that it
may be impossible to pump an aquifer
long enough to ever clean it to drinking
water standards. And I'm wondering if,
since we're providing private water
-------
Question by Public
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
source anyway, are we just pouring more
money down the drain by trying to
remediate something that might not ever
be remediated?
MR. SINGERMAN: We're providing"
water because the people's wells are
impacted. So, we're providing alternate
water supply. The site itself, we're
under an obligation to try to contain
the source and prevent further
degradation of the groundwater and the
leachate seeps and whatever. So, we're
attempting to contain the site so that a
further degradation of the environment
doesn'toccur.
MR. O'MARA: So, the alternative "of
capping and providing a private drinking
water source was not evaluated .because
> ',
you felt it did not satisfy th£ ARARs.;,•.
is that accurate?
MR. SINGERMAN: They're being
violated. If you have groundwater that
exceeds the state and federal standards,
it's being violated. If the groundwater
-------
Question by Public
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
is impacted and it exceeds the ARAR, we
have to address the problem. And the
remedy we're proposing will accommodate
that. We're trying to eliminate the
source.
MS. LACEY: The purpose of the
Superfund program is the reclamation of
the resource itself as a resource, not
just because people are drinking it,
just because it is a groundwater source.
MR. O'MARA: As a nation, shouldn't
we be looking at whether this policy is
effective and if these aquifers are not
being remediated, aren't we just
spending money?
MR. SINGERMAN: The leachate is
entering — the contamination is
entering the groundwater. The
groundwater is being contaminated.
That's a resource. Granted we may never
reach the levels we're attempting to
reach, but at least we're doing some
good. We're attempting to clean up the
aquifer. I mean just to leave it as it
-------
Question by Public
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
is now, we'll never clean it up that
way. It's going to take perhaps 20
years to degrade by > i tself.
MR. 0 ' H A R A : In this case, where
the limits of the plume are basically in
this area, we don't try to contain the
plume, it will move. That's what Joel
is getting at, that we're trying to
contain and reverse the flow and also
remove the contaminants. We will remove
a large mass of contaminants through
pumping.
MS. LACEY: Here in the middle.
Sir?
MR. ROSE: I'm Richard Rose,
Supervisor for the Town of Colesville.
We are concerned if we are going to be
involved in this procedure or not in any
way in the cost of or responsibility.
MR. DAVIDSON: No.
MS. LACEY: The party to the
consent order is the county.
MR. COZ2Y: Only as county
taxpayers.
-------
Question by Public
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. LACEY: Right. A different
pocket of the same pair of pants.
MR. DAVIDSON: We elected to use
your town hall as a document repository
because we felt it was the most
available to the citizens in the area.
MR. ROSE: There was rumors that we
would be responsible for these wells
that you install. That's why I asked.
MS. LACEY: ' In the back?
MR. CARUBIA: Paul Carubia, Sidney.
I just had a question about, if you look
at the potential that air stripping will
not remove all the contaminants that
would make it a -- being able to dump
the water once you treated it into the
Susquehanna, which I assume that's where
it's going to go, I have an
understanding that we're putting a cap
on the landfill and reducing the flow of
water. You may increase the water
contaminants that are coining out such as
heavy metals which the air stripping
won't remove. Have you addressed any of
-------
Question by Public
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
those possibilities of the contingencies
in the pumping scenario in --
MR. O'HARA: Well, basically, we've
looked at -- we've looked at the
concentrations we've seen in the
landfill and here. And we've set the
pumping rates so we have contaminant
concentrations and flow rates. And
based on those concentrations going to
the air stripper, there will be no
problem. All of the compounds that
we're trying to remove are very volatile
based on Henry's Law. So, they're very
strippable.
MR. SINGERMAN: Also anything
discharged in surface water would have
to comply with federal and state
requ irements.
MR. CARUBIA: That's what I'm
saying. What happens if the air
stripping effluent doesn't meet the
requirements, what contingencies are
there? Does it shut off or more air
strips?
-------
Question by Public
8 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
MR. O'HARA: Basically, there are
things that you can do to fine tune the
operation. You can add more air. If
you really had to, you can put in
another unit and split the flow. But
based on the concentrations and the
compounds involved, we don't expect any
problems. The metals, if we think they
would be a problem fouling the air
strip, we can remove them.
MR. SILVERMAN: Also the organics
stripped off will be collected as well.
So, no discharge from any treatment unit
on site would violate any federal or
state standards. If it does, at that
time, it would be shut off and we would
correct the problem.
MS. LACEY: Way in the back?
MR. FISHER: Bob Fisher from
Binghamton. I want to ask, how many
data points do you have in the landfill
from which we can get an idea of what
exactly w e ' r _ dealing with?
MR. O'HARA: Well, within the
-------
Question by Public
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
landfill, we just have -.- we have one
well basically.
MR, FISHER: One data point. What
type of geophysical survey have you done
with that?
MR. O'HARA: It was a magnetometer
survey to look for drums.
MR. FISHER: Did you do a
resistivity survey?
MR. DAVIDSON: Yes, conductive
survey. It was an EM-34 conductive
survey done to try to trace the plume,
the contaminated groundwater and --
MR. FISHER: Has anybody looked
into the possibility of using
ground-penetrating radar? It's a
technique that allows very good
resolution for shallow surface
i
i
exploration like this, which in£ght al.iow
you to detail what's in there more
effectively.
MR. O'HARA: Okay. The studies
that we did with the magnetometer,
terrain conductive and Earth
-------
Question by Public 83
1 resistivity. One of the problems was
2 because of the large amounts of scrap
3 metal disposed in the landfill, there
4 were a lot of interference with those
5 methods. And the ground-penetrating
6 radar, even though it could be effective
7 to a depth of about 40 feet, which is
8 basically the bottom of the refuse, we
9 would expect to have the same kinds of
10 'interference due to the metals.
11 MR. FISHER: With the metal?
12 MR. O'HARA: Yes.
13 MR. FISHER: You don't think you
14 can shoot around those?
15 MR. O'HARA: Well, we don't know
16 where it 'is.
17 MR. FISHER: You could stack your
18 data in a way you can't do when you use
19 the resistivity or magnetics and
20 eliminate the effects of those metals.
21 In fact, a lot of metals is what you're
22 looking for, right? When you're looking
23 for buried drums in a lot of cases.
24 MR. O'HARA: Right. We're looking
-------
Quest'ion by Public
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
for --
MR. FISHER: You're looking for
little anomalies.
MR. O'HARA: The ground-penetrating
radar would give us profile where we can
see shapes of drums. But as you can
imagine, there are refrigerators, there
are car bumpers, everything in here.
And we would get a lot of interferences.
MR. FISHER: So, you don't have any
idea what's in this thing is, I guess,
what I'm saying. One data point, you
said, and you've sampled the soils
within the landfill. Based on that one
data point, you said that this is what
the contaminants we have to deal with
are, right?
MR. O'HARA: Well, not just this
one data point. We also have things off
the landfill site.
MR. FISHER: But you're only
measuring what's presently coming out of
the landfill.
MR. O'HARA: Yes. With these other
-------
Question by Public 85
1 monitoring wells.
2 MR. FISHER: And the contaminants
3 to the groundwater that are external to
4 the landfill at this point, you're not
5 measuring anything that may be slowly
6 moving out of the landfill?
7 MR. O'HARA: Yes. We have the
8 periphery covered. There is also some
9 information from -- as I said, we would
10 be looking at the site history. There
11 is also some information on what
12 materials were put in the landfill.
13 MR. FISHER: But not much, from
14 what I gather.
15 MR. O'HARA: It's not very
16 definitive. It doesn't tell us exactly
17 how many drums or exactly where they
18 were put or exactly what was in them.
19 MR. FISHER: You don't think it
20 would be feasible to trench some of
21 these drums and remove them?
22 MR. O'HARA: Basically, since these
23 drums were put in trenches and also
24 co-disposed, put in randomly, basically
-------
Question by Public
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
they would be all over the place.
MR. FISHER: I guess what concerns
me is what you said is you have a steady
stay situation here. We have a little
bit of volatile organics leaching out of
this thing and they're showing up in.
these wells. What you're going to dc is
alter the conditions around this
landfill and you're going to start
pumping these wells down gradient and
you're going to increase the flow out of
the landfill. And I don't think you
really considered what that may do to
other contaminants that are present in
that landfill and how that may mobilize
those.
MR. O'HARA: Well, basically, what
we're going on is what we've seen here.
MR. FISHER: Which isn't much when
it comes right down to it.
MR. O'HARA: Well --
MR. FISHER: I mean, you're looking
at what's going on now. And you're
saying that if everything stays the
-------
Question by Public 87
1 same, and we start pumping this
2 landfill, and maybe we can clean it up.
3 But you have no -- I mean, you haven't
4 made any contingency for if something
5 changes. You really don't know what's
6 in there. I mean you really don't have
7 a clue as to what's in -there.
8 MR. O'HARA: That's not entirely
9 true .
10 MR. FISHER: I mean there could be
11 drums of heavy metals in there. There
12 are plenty of sources of it around here
13 with all the photographic and computer
14 processes that go on. I mean there are
15 tremendous amounts of heavy metal
16 pollutants. :
17 -MR. O'HARA: Basically, when these
18 programs of investigation have gone on
19 for seven years, we're no:t just looking
20 at a sample. So, we do have a good idea
21 from when the industrial waste was put
22 in in 1974. We basically have 16 years
23 of -- an oppc-tunity over 16 years for
24 things to come out. And we have looked
-------
Question by Public
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
at different snapshots over seven years.
MR. FISHER: Have you looked at --
now, there is a vertical hydraulic
radiant in this landfill, right?
MR. O'HARA: Yes.
MR. FISHER: We're not just looking
at a horizontal component. There is
also a vertical component.
MR. O'HARA: Right.
MR. FISHER: Have you analyzed the
water at the bottom of that vertical
hydraulic gradient to see what's coming
straight down, because it's not -- I
mean it's not a given that all
pollutants move in the same direction; > .
They can differentially separate out.
MR. O'HARA: Right,
MR. FISHER: Heavy metals and
i
things like that can go right -to the ," '•
bottom and you still have a -- there
will be different effects than volatile
organics can be swept along in a more
horizontal direction. Have you examined
that possibility?
-------
Question by Pub, lie • 89
1 MR. O'HARA: We've had -- we've
2 looked at — we've had five monitoring
3 wells, bedrock monitoring wells analyzed
4 for metals and VOCs.
5 MS. LACEY: I'd like to suggest
6 that those of you with the kind of
7 technical background and knowledge to
8 really want to get into some o-f the
9 information that is contained in the
10 files that are in the town hall, the
11 test results and the locations of the
12 monitoring wells and the kinds of data
13 " that we received are all available for
14 those who want to -- who have a better
15 understanding than I do of parts per
16 million and those kind of things. But
17 all of that is available for those of
18 you who have these very technical kinds
19 of concerns and the background "to really
20 get into some of the data.
21 There was another question far in
22 the back there.
23 MR. BRIDGE: John Bridge from
24 Binghamton. I just wanted to reiterate
-------
Question by Public
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
. 22
23
24
the point that he made about one sample
from the landfill itself, and you're
basing mathematical model, initial
concentrations on that one sample. You
actually admitted in the beginning that
they could be — the concentrations
could vary quite a lot through that
landfill. How valid is the mathematical
model based on one initial
concentration? That's one question.
The other question I have is if you
have some knowledge of the total amount
of the contaminant that was put in that
landfill, and you have some knowledge of
the rate of discharge of the
contaminants, can you calculate how long
it will take for those contaminants at
that particular discharge rate to move
out of the landfill? Do the discharge
rates vary seasonally? Did you monitor
the wells at different times of the
year?
MR. DAVIDSON: I can respond. As
far as there being one monitoring point
-------
Question by Public
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20;
21
22
23
24
in the landfill, there is one monitoring
well near the center of the landfill
that has had -- that we've used for
worst-case scenarios as far as it's been
one of the worst wells. We installed
another boring in another location in
the landfill because we wanted to get
more definition and we got no refuse
whatsoever because the refuse was
deposited in trenches. We know -- we
have a series of aerial photographs that
show the waste being deposited at
various times during the operation of
the landfill. We looked at records
from — of disposal, the records that we
do have. But it's a fairly big area and
the waste is deposited in trenches.
We also have a lot of information
around the periphery of the landfill.
Drilling through refuse is a difficult
thing to do at times and not always the
wisest thing to do. It can be dangerous
sometimes.
In this case, where we did try,
-------
Question by Public
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
because of the trench method of
disposal, we actually put that boring
and missed refuse. So, it's difficult
to define over the entire 35-acre area
that was used for disposal. But we did
thebestjobwecould.
And as far as the two dimentional
groundwater model that was used, it
takes into account a number of things,
convective transport, hydrodynamic
dispersion, mixing, chemical
retardation, a lot of things. It's not
perfect. It was.an attempt
to --as any modeling is not perfect.
It was an attempt to give us parameters
to use. Groundwater flow rates were
attempted to be calculated based on the
data we had from various monitoring
wells.
££
And I believe in the AIUlR report,
rates were estimated that groundwater
could be moving from 50 to 250 feet in a
year. Something like the rate varied
from .1 to .7 feet per day. It's quite
-------
Question by Public
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a range. It's variable. But we felt
that at the conclusion of the remedial
investigation, we had installed enough
wells and had enough data that we could
go ahead with the remediation.
The other key element in this
remediation!s the cap. It will be a
multi-media landfill cap that we
estimate will reduce infiltration from
500 gallons per acre per day to 10
gallons per acre per day. I mean
theoretically, it shouldn't leak at all.
Evidentally, there is some leakage
through the cap. That's the main
control over groundwater movement or
continued leachate generation will be
the landfill cap.
The ten down gradient wells are
essentially a hydraulic barrier. And
then there will be three additional
wells within the landfill mass which
will also act as hydraulic barriers.
So, I think ;t's a good remediation
compared to what I've seen done at other
-------
Question by Public
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
sites. It's very conservative. We're
doing everything that we can.
If we can get 130 gallons per minute
out of those total 13 wells, I think
we'll be doing great. But that combined
with the cap over a 35-acre area, I
think we're doing everything we can to
control the hydraulics.
MR. BRIDGE: But can you tell how
long, with the present rates that you
have mentioned, how long it will take
all of the contaminants that you think
are in the landfill to flow out? How
many years would it take?
MR. O'HARA: How many years would
it take for all the contaminants in the
landfill-- i.
MR. BRIDGE: All the contaminants
, » -,
that you think are in the landfill to' -.
^ •»
flow out, how many years will that take?
MR. DAVIDSON: I don't know if
anyone can give that number
definitively. My impression is it would
take a long, long time. They would
-------
Question by Public 95
1 continued to leach and continue to leach
2 and, you know, you would see more
3 dilution and dispersion in the lower
4 levels. But they would be there for a
5 long, long t ime.
6 And if you just go out to the
7 landfill, I mean the landfill is not
8 covered by any kind of impermeable cover
9 or impermeable till. It's covered by
10 -just cover and it's very permeable. And
11 an awful lot of -- there is an awful lot
12 of infiltration that will be cut off by
13 the cap.
14 MR. COZZY: I think the point we're
15 attempting to show here is that we may
16 not know the exact amount of the source.
17 What we're proposing is a way to isolate
18 the source from continuing to leach.
19 You keep asking how long is it going to
20 take to leach out. What we want to do
21 is to stop the leaching and create an
22 inward gradient so it doesn't migrate.
23 That's the whole point of the
24 remediation. It's not to study it for
-------
Question by Public
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
another five years so we can find every
single barrel while the rest of the
plume migrates away from us. We want to
clean it up now and not five years from
now .
MR. BRIDGE: If it hasn't been
released yet, how can you clean it up?
MR. COZZY: Because what we're
going to capture is what is mobile.
What we know is mobile is by our
perimeter wells. If it's not mobile,
leave it there.
MR. FISHER: What happens if you
mobilize something that is presently
immobile and you disturb it? You're
going to alter the physical parameters
there that controls what flows in and
out of this landfill. You don't have
any idea what that's going to do t0 the
landfill, do you, to the chemical
potability in the landfill? You're
putting a cap on the landfill so you're
changing the amount of water that's
flowing i-nto it. And then you're going
-------
Question by Public . 97
1 to start sucking on these pumps down
2 gradient so you're going to be
3 increasing the hydraulic gradient.
4 You're accelerating the discharge from
5 the landfill at the same time you're
6 going to be cutting off the in flow.
7 MR. DAVIDSON: I think in the
8 feasibility study, the radius of
9 influence of the pumping wells is
10 predicted. And you know it will
11 gradually spread over the landfill. But
12 it will help to capture anything that's
13 there or comes through. But in terms of
14 drawing water down, it's not going to
15 draw water down below —
16 MR. FISHER: I didn't say that. I
17 just said you're increasing the rate at
18 which you're drawing water out.
19 MR. COZZY: But that's only
20 until --
21 MR. FISHER: You're not drawing
2 2 any --
23 MR. COZZY: That's only until the
24 mound is dewatered. Once it's dewatered
-------
Ques.tion by Public
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
and we have a cap over the top, we're
not going to have those transport paths.
The groundwater -- the refuse will be
above the groundwater.
MR. FISHER: So, you're saying }that
all of the infiltration of this landfill
occurs through the -- directly above it?
MR. DAVIDSON: Right.
MR. FISHER: That there is no
infiltration that occurs through the
sides?
MR. DAVIDSON: The water table is
beneath the refuse, that's correct.
MS. LACEY: The gentleman in the
back. '
MR. DONNELY: Brian Donnely from
Binghamton. My concern is kind of a
follow-up on some of this other, but if,
say, your four years works out, the
contamination is down to a level which
is acceptable, and let's assume that it
gets shut down or whatever as far as
having to remove the water, I presume
that the monitoring will continue at
-------
Question by Public 99
l least for a number of years. And say.
2 ten years from now, you come to another
3 problem. Who is going to pick up the
4 cost or is this something that will
5 continue to be split up by GAF and the
6 state and however it's set up now or
7 will that, be 'something that also the
8 county is going to be totally
9 responsible for?
10 MR. COZZY: At this point, it would
11 be between the county and GAF. If ten
12. years from now or twenty years from now,
13 there is a similar state bond act, the
14 state may reconsider its position.
15 MR. O'MARA, just as a follow-up to
16 that point, when does the relationship
17 where the state is contributing
18 75 percent of the county's' cost, when
19 does that dissolve?
20 MR. COZZY: Shortly after the
21 completion of construction. We allow
22 about a six-month start-up period.
23 MR. BRIDGE: So, the capital cost
24 would be included, but not the O&M
-------
Question by Public
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
costs?
MR. COZZY: Right. Basically
that's it.
MS. LACEY: Are there other
questions? Okay. Any of you who come
up with other questions or if you take a
look at technical data and something
'else occurs to you, avail yourself of
the opportunity to make written
comments. The white copies in the back
of the room on the table have the
address, where to send in and mail your
comments. The last date for comments is
February 6. . Following that, a
responsiveness summary will be produced
answering any questions that have been
raised tonight or any that are raised in
writtencomments.
i .
Anything else anyone wants Jt o r a i s; e',
questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
(Whereupon the meeting was adjourned
at 8:50 PM)
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
101
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BROOME
I, RANDALL A. CZERENDA, a Certified Shortand
Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
true and correct transcription of my stenographic
notes made in the above-entitled matter.
RANDALL A. CZERENDA, CSR
-------
~ ^ U
&
-------
o6
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
Brume County
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Broom* County Office Building / Government Plait / Box 1766 / Binghamton, New York 13902 / (607) 778-2116
Claudia Sullman, Director
Timothy M. Grippen, County Executive
February 5, 1991
Brian Davidson, Project Manager
Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action
NYSDEC
SO Wolf Road
Albany. NY 12233-7010
SUBJECT: PROPOSED REMEDIAL PLAN FOR THE COLESVILLE LANDFILL
Dear Mr. Davidson:
In response to the proposed remedial action plan for the •Colesville
Landfill Site.* the Broome County Environmental Management Council (EMC) has
the following comments and recommendations regarding the plan:
HYDROGEOLOGICAL ISSUES
1) The vertical profiles presented in the remedial investigation indicated
that the refuse area was encapsulated by the glacial till. However, at
the public meeting Wehran Engineering contradicted the vertical profiles
by stating that portions of the area where refuse was deposited were in
direct contact with the glacial outwash layer: The limited number of
borings in this area makes either generalization difficult to verify.
• EMC recommends that the log data from the boring located
within the landfill boundary be verified. We are concerned
that the modeling done for the site is extremely sensitive
to that one data point. We wonder whether there is reason
to believe that this single observation is representative of.
the situation in the rest of the disposal.area. (Additional
borings are not requested as any borings in the.landfill
have the potential to be conduits for contaminant migration
into the glacial outwash aquifer. )
2) The remedial investigation fails to discuss the source of the stream
seeps. In order for stream remediation activities to be effective, the
source of the stream seeps must be substantiated.
1 >
• EMC recommends a review of the remedial investigation data
to determine if the seeps are originating from run-off from
the glacial till layer or from discharge from the glacial
outwash zone. Once the source is verified, the stream
loading calculations should be revised accordingly.
3) The proposed plan does not evaluate the remedial alternative of capping
the site and providing a new drinking water supply (excluding the pump
•nd treat option).
-------
• EMC recommends the inclusion of • remedial alternative that
involves a landfill cap and a new drinking water aupply.
This alternative would address the immediate concern of
local residents by providing a nev drinking water supply and
allow time to monitor the groundwater to determine the
impacts and effectiveness of the landfill cap. It appears
to be premature to design a pump and treat- system without
first knowing the impacts of the cap on groundwater flow and
solute migration.
X4> The remedial alternatives proposed that involve capping do not address
provisions to manage the increased run-off of precipitation from the -^
site.
• EHC recommends inclusion of run-off provisions in all
capping alternatives.
MANAGERIAL ISSUES
1) The proposed plan does not include inflation factors for future charges
in any of the remedial alternatives. Ignoring the effects of inflation
can bias the present worth analysis to favor alternatives with large
operating and maintenance cost requirements in future years.
• EHC recommends revising the economic analysis to account for
inflation.
2) Issues re.,ting to the responsible entities for operation, permitting.
and roomie, ing of remedial actions are not addressed.
• EHC recommends inclusion of a clear definition of the future
responsibilities of PRPs and state and federal agencies in
the remedial plan that is selected.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
1) The EHC agrees with the alternative that is selected and described in
the Superfund Proposed Plan; however, the EHC requests that the issues
described above be addressed prior to finalizing the plan. The
preferred alternative (4c2> consists of a landfill cap, groundwater
pumping from the wells at and down-gradient of the landfill,' treatment ;
of the extracted water by air stripping, discharge of the treated water
to North Stream or to the Susquehanna River, and provision of a new
water supply to the affected residents. The pump and treat aspects of
the remedial plan were calculated to take four years to bring the ground
water near the site up to groundwater standards.
• EHC's position is that remediation of the groundwater may
take many more years to accomplish, if indeed it is
possible. We are not aware of any Superfund site at which
groundwater remediation has restored an aquifer to drinking
water standards. The more likely scenario is that the pump
and treat system will be in operation for many years at .a
-------
significant cost to the taxpayers of Brooite County. Since a
nev drinking water supply vill be installed for the area
residents and the capping vill significantly alter the
current groundvater system, it appears prudent to conduct
the remediation program in a series of phases. In this vay,
a pump and treatment system can be designed, if needed, to
meet the nev hydrological conditions.
The EMC recognizes the effort that the DEC and EPA have put into this
project and support the agencies' goal of remediating the site. Kovever, the
EHC feels that the additional analysis of the data is required to fully
address the environmental concerns brought up in the remedial investigation.
Furthermore, an additional remedial alternative is proposed here. It may be
more prudent to perform the remedial activities in a step-vise fashion. This
vill ensure that any remedial actions taken are effective and help protect the
financial resources of the County's tax payers.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this most important subject.
Please direct any questions regarding the EHC comments and recommendations to
Claudia Stallman, Director of the Broome County EHC. She can be reached at
the Broome County Office Building at (607) 776-2116.
Sincerely,
H.
Thomas H. O'Heara
Chairperson, Broome County
Environmental Management Council
TOH/nt
cc: T. Grippen, BC Executive
L. Augostini, BC Legislature Environmental Committee
H. HcElhare, BC Solid Waste Division
R. Rhodes, Tovn of Colesville
EHC members
-------
«~.
-------
tr^c-^t- /
c*~
J
£/ZL^i>ce<-c4 '>exfc*-**-t^Le^ ,^5^ L/c~£<^*^£^
~£c*Z^Z- •**- '^-t&t^-J^V £^*^4 ' J
. 0
l*6uL -^*^ -*£
-------
Broome County
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Broome County Office Building/Government Plaza/Box 1766/Bingh»mton, New York 13902 / (607) 778-2482
John P. KowaJchyk, Director Timothy M. Grippeo. County Executive
February 5, 1991
3 / 1^:
Brian Davidson
Project Manager
Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action
NYSDEC
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-7010
RE: COLESVILLE LANDFILL REMEDIATION
Dear Mr. Davidson:
The Broome County Division of Solid Waste Management would like to
make the following comments on the FS/RI report:
We agree with the suggested alternative with the following
amendments: •
a. Instead of installing a new water system, purchase
the remaining properties in the area that have
contamination. We feel this would be most
protective of human ' health and more cost effective
since there is no way to accurately determine how
long contamination will continue to leak out of the
landfill.
b. We would like to incorporate recirculation of
treated groundwater into the design of the landfill
cap. We think this would accelerate stabilization
of the landfill and help break down any remaining
barrels quicker. It is our opinion tha¥t the
modeling used does not account for more
contamination entering the groundvater from as yet
unbroken barrels. A "dry tomb" capping scenario
would extend future barrels breaking indefinitely,
but they would eventually break. Broome County does
not want to have to treat this site for the next
hundred (100) years. Accelerating the break down
will help ensure this-does not occur.
i-EJLA.
FCHLABLEY-N
SITE NAME
SITE CODE
SUBSECTIONS
PRO ELEMENT
OPERABLE UNIT NO. DESC.
DRAFT OR FINAL
PU SECTION
„ 1
B
IV
V
-------
Brian Davidson
February 5, 1991
Page 2
Broome County is appreciative of the help and support the NYSDEC
and EPA have given, and hope to resolve this situati-on as soon as
possible.
erely,
John P. Kowalchyk
Director
JPK/MKM/cas
cc: David Donoghue, Commissioner, Public Works
Bob Behnke, Chief Assistant County Attorney, Law
Anthony Savino, Wehran Engineering
Anthony tenBraak, GAF
------- |