United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/136
March 1991
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Conklin Dumps, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO. 2-
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/136
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Conklin Dumps, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(s)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
03/29/91
6.
8. Performing Organization RepL No.
10. Project^ ask/Work Unit No.
1 1. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 8.5-acre Conklin Dumps site is an inactive municipal landfill in Conklin, New
York. Land use in the area is rural. The site consists of two municipal landfills
referred to as the upper and the lower landfills. The lower landfill is adjacent to
the 100-year floodplain of the Susquehanna River, and is bordered by wetlands.
Portions of the landfill were operational between 1964 and 1975, and approximately
80,000 cubic meters of waste material were disposed of onsite during this time. In
1985, private investigations identified the presence of leachate seeps from the site
and low levels of contaminants in ground water. This first Record of Decision (ROD)
addresses containment of landfill leachate, and remediation of contaminated ground
water as a final remedy. The primary contaminant of concern affecting the leachate
and ground water is chloroethane, a VOC.
The selected remedial action for this site includes cutting and regrading the
landfill; installing a gravel gas venting layer and multi-media cap over the landfill
material; installing a leachate collection system and leachate collection trenches or
toe drains at the upper landfill, and discharging leachate discharged offsite to a
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Conklin Dumps, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: leachate, gw
Key Contaminant: VOC (chloroethane)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Claas (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
133
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/136
Conklin Dumps, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) with or without pretreatment; allowing natural
degradation to reduce the contamination in ground water; monitoring ground water; and
implementing institutional controls including deed, land, and ground water use
restrictions, and site access restrictions such as fencing. If the POTW is not
available, the leachate will be treated onsite using air stripping, followed by
discharging the treated effluent onsite to surface water. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $4,352,078, which includes an annual O&M cost of
$86,669 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Natural degradation is expected to reduce the
concentration of chloroethane to below the State level of 5 ug/1 within 7 to 9 years.
Leachate treatment levels were not specified, but will meet NPDES requirements.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name: Conklin Dumps
Location/State: Conklin, Broome County, New York
EPA Region: II
MRS Score (date): 33.93 (March, 1989)
NPL Rank (date): 774/1189 (March, 1989)
ROD
Date Signed: ZfMarch, 1991
Selected Remedy
Source Control
Component: Capping of the Landfill utilizing a multimedia cap.
Groundwater: Leachate wells at the Upper Landfill, interceptor trench at the
Lower Landfill, and discharge to the Binghamton-Johnson City
Joint Sewage Treatment Plant.
Capital Cost: $ 3,145,703
O & M: $ 86,669/yr
Present Worth: $ 4,352,078
LEAD
State Enforcement
Primary Contact: Richard Ramon, P.E. (212) 264-1336
Secondary Contact: George Shannahan, Esq. (212) 264-5342
PRP: Town of Conklin
PRP Contact: Mark Gorgos, Town Attorney, (607) 723-9511
WASTE
Type: Volatile Organics
Medium: Groundwater
Origin: Pollution originated as a result of illegal disposal of hazardous wastes
at this location.
-------
, ,_A RECORD OF DECISION EPA
\^£>3 Region 2
^W v^
%P«J^
Conklin Dumps Site
Town of Conklin,
Broome County, New York
March, 1991
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Conklin Dumps Site
Town of Conklin, Broome County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE environment.
This decision-document presents the selected
remedial action for the Conklin Dumps Site (the
'Site'), located in the Town of Conklin, Broome
County, New York, which was chosen in accordance
with the requirements of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund
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.
The landfills will be regraded as necessary prior to the
installation of the caps to establish slopes which will
encourage runoff and minimize erosion. The caps will
contain the landfill material and will minimize
infiltration of precipitation into the landfill material.
This will minimize the potential for future
contamination of the groundwater.
The major components of the selected remedy
include the following:
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 caps over the landfill material and
leachate collection. Leachate will be discharged to
the Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage
Treatment Plant, with or without pretreatment, as
appropriate. If the sewage treatment plant is not
available, then the leachate will be treated on-site and
the treated effluent will be discharged to the nearby
Carlin Creek. Also included in the selected remedy is
groundwater monitoring, fencing, and deed
restrictions.
The selected response action does not provide for
active remediation of groundwater contamination from
the Site since the natural degradation of the
contaminants in the groundwater will result in an
earlier attainment of groundwater standards than
would be the case with groundwater extraction and
treatment. 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
Cutting the existing sides of the landfills to
slopes of no greater than approximately
33%. The top surfaces of the landfills will
be regraded to slopes of no less than 4% to
provide for proper drainage.
Installation of leachate collection wells and a
leachate collection trench or toe drain at the
Upper Landfill and leachate collection
trench at the lower landfill to a depth
sufficient to eliminate leachate seeps.
Installation of multimedia caps 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. The multi-media
caps will be consistent with applicable
regulations that require that when a flexible
membrane liner (FML) is used in place of
clay, the FML may have a permeability no
greater than 1 x 10~12 cm/sec. The design
requirements contained in the 6 NYCRR
Part 360 standards will be incorporated into
the cap design.
Installation of a gravel gas venting layer,
with a filter fabric layer placed over the
gravel. The 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 topsoil layer to
prevent erosion and provide for rapid
growth of vegetation.
-------
Collection of the leachate followed by either its
discharge to the Binghamton-Johnson City
Sewage Treatment Plant for treatment or its
treatment on-site via an air stripping treatment
plant and discharge to Carlin Creek. (If discharge
to the sewage treatment plant is not possible,
then the leachate treatment system will be
constructed concurrently with the cap. The
system will be located adjacent to the Lower
Landfill. Leachate collected at the Upper Landfill
will be transported to the Lower Landfill through a
gravity flow pipe.)
Installation of fencing to further protect the
integrity of the caps by restricting access to the
Site. Periodic inspection of the caps, 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 and will act as an early warning
system to protect private wells in the area.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy 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
practicable. However,.this remedy only partially satisfies the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of the remedy. The treatment of contaminated groundwater was found to be impracticable.
Furthermore, the size of the landfill, and the fact that no on-site hot spots have been identified that represent the
major sources of contamination, preclude a remedy in which contaminants can be excavated and treated
effectively.
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.
>eonstantine Sidamon-Enstoff
Regional Administrator
-------
Decision Summary
Conklin Dumps Site
Town of Conklin,
Broome County, New York
EPA
Region 2 March, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND
DESCRIPTION (2)
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES (2)
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION (3)
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE
UNIT (3)
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
(4)
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS (5)
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES (6)
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
(10)
THE SELECTED REMEDY (14)
REMEDIATION LEVELS (16)
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS (17)
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT (17)
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT
AND APPROPRIATE STANDARDS (17)
COSTrEFFECTIVENESS (18)
UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS AND
ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PRACTICABLE (18)
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A PRINCIPAL
ELEMENT (19)
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
(19)
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX 1 - TABLES
APPENDIX 2 - FIGURES
APPENDIX 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX 4 - NYSDEC LETTER OF
CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX 5 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE PLAN
XICTINO CONDITIONS
»ro*m* **«w»iri«t '
wn •! Co*tfcHn
Figure 1 - Conklin Dumps Site Plan
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND
DESCRIPTION
The Site (see figure 1), located in the Town of
Conklin in Broome County, New York, is an
8.5-acre landfill situated in a sparsely
populated area within the perimeter of the
Broome Corporate Park in Broome County.
The Site is located approximately one mile
north of the Kirkwood Interchange of Interstate
Route 81 and approximately ten miles
southeast of Binghamton, New York
(population approximately 55,000, 1980
Census). The Site consists of two inactive
municipal landfills (the "Upper and the "Lower
Landfill"), both owned by the Town of Conklin.
The Lower Landfill was operated by the Town
of Conklin from 1964 to 1969. this landfill was
used to dispose of municipal refuse, and is
estimated to contain a total fill volume of
approximately 25,000 cubic meters. The
Lower Landfill is located adjacent to the 100
year floodplain of the Susquehanna River,
about 0.5 miles to the east of the river.
Designated wetlands surround a large portion
of the Lower Landfill.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT
ACTIVITIES
The Upper Landfill was operated by the Town
of Conklin for the disposal of municipal wastes
from 1969 until 1975, when a closure order
was issued by the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
The Upper Landfill is estimated to contain a
total fill volume of approximately 55,000 cubic
meters of waste material.
In 1984, O'Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc.
initiated a two phase hydrogeologic
investigation of the Broome Corporate Park for
the Broome Industrial Development Agency.
The purpose of the investigation was to
determine whether the Broome Corporate Park
could be developed. A phase I hydrogeologic
investigation was completed in March 1984.
This investigation evaluated the potential for
-------
contamination and development limitations of
the area. A Phase II hydrogeologic
investigation was completed in February 1985.
This investigation characterized the local
hydrogeology and identified the hydrogeologic
conditions that would affect development of
the industrial park. The investigations
identified the presence of leachate seeps from
the Site. In addition, groundwater monitoring
wells located within the perimeter of the
dumps indicated the presence of low levels of
contaminants.
In 1985, a work plan for conducting a remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) was
prepared by O'Brien and Gere and was
submitted to NYSDEC. In June 1986, the field
efforts were completed, but negotiations
between the Town and the State on the
Consent Order for funding of the project
continued until June 1987 (the Consent Order
was signed by the NYSDEC Commissioner on
June 12, 1987), causing delays in finalizing the
results of the investigations. The Site was
proposed for inclusion on the National
Priorities List in June, 1986 and was listed on
the NPLon March 30, 1989.
An Rl report was completed in December
1988. The Rl Report was approved by
NYSDEC on February 12, 1990, contingent
upon the inclusion of additional groundwater
sampling to obtain validated data-at critical
locations, methane monitoring, and field
delineation of the wetlands in the vicinity of the
Lower Landfill.
The required round of sampling was
completed in June 1990. Groundwater
samples from both the Upper and Lower
Landfills were analyzed for volatile organics
and selected metals.
Most of the contamination was found directly
downgradient from the Upper Landfill in one
well. Only inorganics were found in
groundwater downgradient from the Lower
Landfill. Leachate emanating from both the
Upper and Lower Landfills was found to
contain detectable levels of volatile organics
and inorganics.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY
PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan for
the Conklin Dumps Site were released to the
public for comment on February 4, 1991.
These two documents were made available to
the public in the administrative record and in
information repositories maintained at the EPA
Docket Room in Region II, New York, at the
Conklin Town Hall, 1271 Conklin Road,
Conklin, New York, and at NYSDEC's offices in
Kirkwood and Albany, New York. Notice of
the availability of these documents and a
public comment period.were published in the
Press and Sun Bulletin, a newspaper of
general circulation in Broome County. A
public comment period on these documents
was held from February 4, 1991 through
March 6, 1991. In addition, a public meeting
was held at the Town of Conklin Town Hall on
February 25, "1991. At this meeting,
representatives from the 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, and a part of, this
ROD.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
The purpose of this response action is to
reduce the risk to human health and the
environment due to the contamination of the
on-site groundwater, to restore the
groundwater underlying the Site to levels
consistent with state and federal regulations,
and to ensure protection of the air, and
ground and surface water in the vicinity of the
Site from continued release of contaminated
leachate.
-------
Human health and the environment will be
protected through containment of the landfill
material and collection and treatment of the
leachate.
This response action applies a comprehensive
approach (i.e., one operable 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 the project,
EPA is the support agency.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Shale/siltstone bedrock underlies the entire
site, with depth to bedrock varying from 80
feet (ft) below the surface of the Upper Landfill
to 130 ft below the surface of the Lower
Landfill. The bedrock is covered by a varying
thickness of glacial till and other glacial
deposits.
The depth of refuse at the Upper Landfill
varies from approximately 10 ft to 30 ft. The
refuse contained in the Upper Landfill is in
direct contact with the underlying glacial till
formation except along its eastern border.
The east side of the landfill is underlain by a
lens of low permeability silt and fine sand.
This silt layec varies in depth from
approximately 10 ft to 30 ft and extends
downgradient from the base of the refuse.
The depth of refuse at the lower landfill varies
from approximately 6 ft to 12 ft. Refuse
contained in the Lower Landfill is underlain by
sand and gravel glacial outwash. This sand
and gravel layer is approximately 20 ft thick
and is underlain by the glacial till. Ground-
water is encountered at 1 and 14 ft below the
ground surface except under the Upper
Landfill, where the groundwater is
approximately 24 ft below the surface.
The horizontal groundwater flow direction
beneath the Site is from west to east toward
the Susquehanna River. The hydraulic
gradient is approximately 0.07 ft/ft in the
upland portion of the Site where the Upper
Landfill is located. The hydraulic gradient in
the lower area of the Site, including the Lower
Landfill and the sand and gravel outwash, is
approximately 0.01 ft/ft.
The upland area encompassing the Upper
Landfill is underlain .predominantly by glacial till
which has a low permeability (2.3 x 107 to 1.4
x 10^ cm/sec), resulting in an estimated
groundwater flow velocity of approximately 1.3
x 10U ft/day to 0.05 ft/day. The Lower Landfill'
is underlain by outwash sand and gravel
which has a relatively high permeability (4.3 x
10"1 to 6.0 x 103 cm/sec). This, when
combined with the low flow gradient, results in
an estimated ground water velocity beneath
the Lower Landfill ranging from 0.05 ft/day to
0.70 ft/day.
The Rl report summarizes the data collected
during the Rl and from previous studies
conducted at the Site. These data established
the basis for completing the site risk
assessment and were used in conjunction with
the June 1990 groundwater data to evaluate
remedial options for the Site.
The chemical analytical data resulting from the
on-site investigation indicate that the
groundwater at the Upper Landfill contained
detectable levels of volatile organics and
inorganics. Most of the contamination was
found directly downgradient from the Upper
Landfill in Well #11 (located at the toe of the
Landfill). Only inorganics were found in
groundwater downgradient from the Lower
Landfill. Leachate emanating from both the
Upper and Lower Landfills was found to
contain detectable levels of volatile organics
and inorganics. A comparison of the analytical
data from leachate samples indicates that the
disposal of hazardous substances in the
Lower Landfill was probably minimal compared
to that in the Upper Landfill.
-------
Certain compounds in the ground water and
leachate exceed New York State Class GA
Groundwater Standards. Chloroethane, 1,2-
dichloropropane, and xylene have been
detected at concentrations above Class GA
standards at the Upper Landfill. Xylene (7
parts per billion (ppb) in 1990) has historically
been below or just above the Class GA
standard (5 ppb). The concentration of 1,2-
dichloropropane (9 ppb in 1990) has been
decreasing over the past four years, and most
recently was detected just above the Class GA
standard (5 ppb). Chloroethane was observed
at a concentration of 68 ppb in 1990.
Chloroethane was utilized as the constituent of
concern at the site. No detectable
contaminants were found in Carlin Creek
waters.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
O'Brien & Gere conducted a Risk Assessment
(part of the Rl) 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 risk assessment evaluates the potential
impacts on ftuman health and tfie environment
at the site assuming that the contamination 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 Rl report presented a detailed site specific
risk assessment which addressed site
conditions and exposures. The risk
assessment qualitatively and quantitatively
evaluated the hazards to human health and
the environment at the Landfills. The
qualitative analysis characterized the potential
exposure pathways while the quantitative
analysis determined the risk of the complete
pathways.
The air pathway for existing site conditions
was identified in the Rl report as incomplete.
This determination was based upon the low
levels of volatile organics detected in the Site
ground water and leachate. Air monitoring
conducted during the Rl, soil vapor monitoring
conducted during the Phase I Hydrogeologic
Investigation, and methane monitoring
conducted in June 1990 confirmed this
determination.
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)', 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 chemicals
exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs,
which are expressed 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.
The direct contact exposure pathway was
identified as functional due to the presence of
detectable contaminants in the landfill leachate.
Under future site development scenarios, the
pathway was considered complete.
The human exposure pathways are ingestion
of groundwater and dermal contact with
leachate. 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.
The quantitative assessment evaluated
intentional ingestion of groundwater by
humans and dermal contact with leachate by
humans. It was determined, based on the
evaluation of sample concentrations from the
most recent sampling round (June 1990), that
neither pathway posed an unacceptable health
risk.
Although current health risks are in the
acceptable range, state and federal
groundwater standards are being violated in
the vicinity of Well #11 (See figure 2). Actual
or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from the Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in
this ROD, may present a current or potential
threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Therefore, remedial action is
required.
DESCRIPTION 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
CONKLIN DUMPS SITE
LMKA Of CD*M"*hT \» AT mL • 11
•4^
Figure 2 - Contamination Level at Well # 11
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.
Remedial action objectives are specific goals
to protect human health and the environment;
they specify the contaminant(s) of concern, the
exposure route (s), receptor(s), and acceptable
contaminant level(s) for each exposure route.
These objectives are based on available
information and standards such as applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) and risk-based levels established in
the risk assessment.
The risk assessment concluded that the risk to
human health due to site-related exposure to
groundwater, landfill leachate, or surface water
(sediments) was at the upper bounds (10^) for
acceptable exposure levels. However, certain
compounds in the groundwater and leachate
exceed New York State Class GA
Groundwater Standards which have been
determined to be ARARs for the Site.
Chloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, and xylene
have been detected at concentrations above
Class GA standards at the Upper Landfill.
-------
Xylene (7 ppb in 1990) has historically been
below or just above the Class GA standard (5
ppb). The concentration of 1,2-dichloro-
propane (9 ppb-in 1990) has been decreasing
over the past four years and most recently
was detected just above the Class GA
standard (5 ppb). Chloroethane was observed
at a concentration of 68 ppb in 1990. The
recent xylene and 1,2-dichloropropane
concentrations are considered insignificant
when compared to the standards (5 ppb).
The groundwater contamination is confined to
a small area around Well #11. It appears
that due to the nature of the soil, very little off-
site migration of contaminated groundwater
has.occurred since the closure of the landfill.
The following remedial action objectives were
established for the FS:
o Prevent ingestion of groundwater
containing site-related constituents of
concern (chloroethane) at concen-
trations significantly exceeding Class GA
standards.
o Prevent the migration of constituents of
concern from the landfill material that
could result in groundwater concen-
trations above Class GA standards.
o Restore the aquifer to concentrations
that meet Class GA standards for site-
related constituents of concern
(chloroethane).
Accordingly, the FS evaluates in detail, six
remedial alternatives for addressing the
contamination associated with the Site.
These alternatives are:
Alternative 1: No Action with Monitoring
Capital Cost: none
O & M1 Cost: $15,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $111,446
Time to Implement': 7-9 years
* Assuming Natural Degradation
'Operation & Maintenance
Alternative 1 is the no-action alternative. This
alternative would provide for an assessment of
the environmental conditions if no remedial
actions are implemented. The no-action
alternative would require implementation of a
groundwater monitoring program. This
program would be used to monitor
groundwater conditions and provide a data
base for future remedial actions which may be
required. Five-year reviews would be
conducted as required by the NCP due to the
fact that the landfilled material would remain
on-site. The purpose of the five-year reviews
is to ensure that adequate protection of
human health and the environment is
maintained.
Alternative 1 would rely upon natural
degradation of the constituent of concern
(chloroethane) to reduce the concentration of
chloroethane in the groundwater near Well
#11 to below Class GA groundwater
standards (5 ppb).
Alternative 2: Multi-Media Cap on Both
Landfills, Active Leachate Collection, and either
discharge to the Binghamton-Johnson City
Joint Sewage Treatment Plant or On-Site
Treatment (Air Stripping)
Time to Implement': 7-9 years (includes
remedial design)
' Assuming Natural Degradation
-------
8
There are four options associated wrth
Alternative 2
Option A: Leachate Wells at the Upper
Landfill, Interceptor Trench at the Lower
Landfill, and On-Site Treatment (Air Stripping)
Capital Cost: $3,256,773
0 & M Cost: $92,901/yr
Present Worth Cost: $4,558,947
Option B: Leachate Wells at the Upper
Landfill, Interceptor Trench at the Lower
Landfill, and Discharge to the Binghamton-
Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant
Capital Cost: $3,145,703
0 & M Cost: $86,669/yr
Present Worth Cost: $4,352,078
Option C: Interceptor Trenches at the Both
Landfills, and On-Site Treatment (Air Stripping)
Capital Cost: $3,327,098
O & M Cost: $93,871/yr
Present Worth Cost: $4,644,183
Option D: Interceptor Trenches at Both
Landfills, and Discharge to Binghamton-
Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant
Capital Cost: $3,204,428
O & M Cost: $87,479/yr
Present Worth Cost: $4,423,255
This alternative would provide containment
through the installation of caps over the landfill
material and, unlike the other alternatives,
active leachate collection at the Upper Landfill
Active leachate collection under options A and-
B at the Upper Landfill would be accomplished
through the installation of leachate collection
wells. The leachate collection wells would be
drilled to the bottom of the fill material. It is
anticipated that each well would have a deep
and shallow well screen, with a removal seal
separating the well screens. Initially, the
shallow screened intervals would be pumped
to remove leachate from refuse above the
groundwater table. At some point in the
future, the lower screened intervals located
within the fill below the groundwater table may
also be pumped. The leachate collection
system at the Upper Landfill would also
include a perimeter toe drain. Leachate would
be collected at the Lower Landfill through a
leachate collection trench installed to a depth
sufficient to eliminate any future leachate
seeps. Leachate would be treated on-site
using air stripping, or at a nearby activated
sludge sewage treatment plant (Binghamton-
Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant).
Under options A and C, treated effluent would-
be discharged to nearby Carlin Creek. Under
options B and D, leachate collected at the
landfills would be discharged into on-site
sanitary sewer lines following any necessary
pretreatment.
Also included in Alternative 2 would be
groundwater monitoring, fencing, deed
restrictions, and five-year reviews as required
by the NCP. The landfills would be regraded
as necessary prior to installation of the caps to
establish slopes which would encourage runoff
and minimize erosion. The caps would
contain the landfill material and minimize
infiltration of precipitation into the landfill
material. This would minimize the potential
for future contamination of the groundwater.
Under options A and C, air emissions would
be in compliance with all applicable standards.
Pre-treatment for removal of iron and
manganese would likely be necessary. The
on-site treatment plant would be located
adjacent to the Lower Landfill. Leachate from
the Upper Landfill would be transported to the
treatment system at the. Lower Landfill through
a gravity-flow pipe. Treated effluent would be
discharged to Carlin Creek. The treatment
system would be operated 24 hours per day
until the leachate generation rate drops below
a predetermined practical treatment rate. At
that time, leachate would be temporarily stored
on-site and then treated by the air stripper
-------
whenever sufficient quantities were
accumulated.
Alternative 2 would also rely upon natural
degradation of chloroethane in excess of the
Class GA groundwater standard in the
groundwater in the vicinity of Well #11.
Alternative 3: Multi-Media Cap on Both
Landfills, Leachate Collection, Groundwater
Extraction (10,000 gallons per day (gpd)), and
On-Site Treatment (Air Stripping)
Capital Cost: $3,392,130
0 & M Cost: $111,468/yr
Present Worth Cost: $4,934,726
Time to Implement: 14-24 years (includes
remedial design)
In addition to the actions comprising
Alternative 2, Alternative 3 includes
groundwater extraction and treatment.
The groundwater extraction system would
remove impacted groundwater in the vicinity of
Well #11 through extraction wells. The
extraction wells would be located between Well
#11 and Wells #3 and #4. The groundwater
extraction system would be operated 24 hours
per day until such time that the concentration
of chloroethane is at or below Class GA
standards. It is believed that the^ groundwater
extraction process would interfere with the
natural degradation process since the dilution
of contaminant levels would inhibit biological
degradation of such contaminants by the
microbes in the soil. Therefore, an active
system of groundwater extraction would
actually take longer than the passive process
of natural degradation in attaining Class GA
groundwater standards.
Unlike Alternative 2, the groundwater and
leachate treatment system (air stripping) for
Alternative 3 would be located at the Upper
Landfill, adjacent to an extraction well.
Leachate from the Lower Landfill would be
either pumped up to the treatment system or
temporarily stored and then transported by a
tanker truck to the treatment system. The
treatment system would be designed to
achieve effluent limitations established pursuant
to the requirements of the State Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
program. Pretreatment for iron and
manganese in the groundwater and leachate
would be required to prevent fouling of the
stripping system. A backwash system would
also be incorporated into the stripper design
to obviate any fouling that might result from
residual metals passing through the stripper.
The treatment system would be operated 24
hours per day until the groundwater being
extracted attained Class GA groundwater
standards. At that time, leachate would be
temporarily stored on-site and then treated by
the air stripper whenever sufficient quantities
were accumulated. Treated groundwater and
leachate would be discharged to Carlin Creek.
Long-term monitoring and five-year reviews as
required by the NCP would be included.
Alternative 4: Multi-Media Cap on Both
Landfills, Leachate Collection, Groundwater
Extraction (10,000 gpd) and On-Site Treatment
(Oxidation)
Capital Cost: $3,480,580
0 & M Cost: $138,188/yr
Present Worth Cost: $5,113,678
Time to Implement: 14-24 years (includes
remedial design)
Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3,
except that Alternative 4 would utilize on-site
treatment by chemical oxidation instead of air
stripping. A leachate collection system would
be installed around the toe of each landfill and
collected leachate would be treated with the
groundwater. The groundwater extraction
system would be as described in Alternative 3.
Long-term monitoring and five-year reviews as
required by the NCP would be included.
-------
10
Alternative 5: Multi-Media Cap on Both
Landfills, Leachate Collection, Groundwater
Extraction (10,000 gpd) and Treatment Off-
Site
Capital Cost: $3,237,850
O & M Cost: $619,140/yr
Present Worth Cost: $10,893,217
Time to Implement: 14-24 years (includes
remedial design)
Alternative 5 is the same as Alternatives 3 and
4, except it would utilize off-site treatment at a
publicly owned treatment works (POTW) or a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) approved facility, if discharge to the
Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage
Treatment Plant is not approvable.
The groundwater and leachate would be
temporarily stored on-site and then transported
to an approved facility for treatment and
disposal. Approximately 40 tanker loads per
week would be required during the period
when both leachate and groundwater are
being collected. Pump and treat operations
would continue until the groundwater being
extracted attained Class GA groundwater
standards. At that time, only collected
leachate would need to be transported to an
approved facility for treatment and disposal.
Long-term monitoring and five-year reviews as
required by the NCP would be included.
Alternative 6: Consolidation of Both Landfills,
Multi-Media Cap on Upper Landfill, Leachate
Collection, and On-Srte Treatment (Air Stripper)
Capital Cost: $3,800,794
0 & M Cost: $100,405/yr
Present Worth Cost: $5,218,316
Time to Implement': 7-9 years (includes
remedial design)
Assuming Natural Degradation
Alternative 6 would provide containment of the
landfill materials through consolidation of the
Lower Landfill material with the Upper Landfill
material at the Upper Landfill site and the
installation of a cap over the consolidated
material. Leachate collection would be
implemented at the Upper Landfill. Leachate
would be treated on-site at the Upper Landfill
using air stripping. Treated effluent would be
discharged to Carlin Creek. Also included in
Alternative 6 would be groundwater
monitoring, fencing, deed restrictions and five-
year reviews as required by the NCP.
This alternative would involve excavating the
material in the Lower Landfill and transporting
it to and placing it on the Upper Landfill.
Samples of the Lower Landfill material would
have to be analyzed using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test
to insure that the material is not hazardous.
Any material deemed hazardous would have to
be transported off-site to a RCRA facility for
treatment and/or disposal. Additionally,
dewatering of the landfill excavation would
need to be performed in areas where the
landfill material is located below the water
table. It is assumed that the water would be
managed as hazardous and would be
transported to and disposed .of at a RCRA
facility.
Alternative 6 would rely upon natural
degradation of chloroethane to reduce
chloroethane levels to below Class GA
standards in the groundwater in the vicinity of
Well #11.
Long-term monitoring and five-year reviews as
required by the NCP would be included.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
OF 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, compliance with ARARs, long-
term effectiveness and permanence, reduction
of toxicity, mobility or volume, short-term
-------
11
effectiveness, implementability, cost, and state
and community acceptance,
Each criteria will, be briefly addressed with
respect to the alternatives for remediation of
the site.
o Overall Protection of Human Health and
the Environment
Alternative 1 would provide for overall
protection of human health and the
environment through natural degradation of
constituents of concern in the groundwater.
Alternative 1 would not include capping of the
landfill material or leachate collection. While
natural degradation of constituents of concern
in groundwater could be expected to occur,
the potential would remain for future migration
of constituents of concern from the landfill
material.
Alternative 2 would provide for overall
protection of human health and the
environment with capping of landfill materials
and active leachate collection to prevent
migration of constituents of concern from
landfill materials to groundwater, and deed
restrictions to prohibit potable use of
groundwater. Natural degradation of
constituents of concern in the groundwater is
expected to reduce concentrations of those
constituents to groundwater standards in the
short term.
Alternatives 3 through 5 would provide for
overall protection of human health and the
environment with capping of landfill materials
and leachate collection to prevent migration of
constituents of concern from landfill materials
to groundwater, extraction and treatment of
groundwater to reduce concentrations of
constituents of concern in the aquifer to
groundwater standards, and deed restrictions
to prohibit potable use of groundwater.
Alternative 6 would provide for overall
protection of human health and the
environment with capping of landfill materials
and leachate collection to prevent migration of
constituents of concern from landfill materials
to groundwater, to reduce concentrations of
constituents of concern in the aquifer to
groundwater standards, and deed restrictions
to prohibit potable use of groundwater.
o Compliance with ARARs
All technologies proposed for use in
Alternatives 2 through 6 would be designed
and implemented to satisfy all ARARs. Federal
and state regulations dealing with the handling
and transportation of hazardous wastes to an
off-site treatment facility would be followed.
The off-site treatment facility would be fully
EPA-approved. RCRA wastes would be
treated using specific technologies or specific
treatment levels, as appropriate, to comply
with land disposal restrictions.
o Long-Term Effectiveness and
Permanence
Alternatives 2 through 6 would be equally
effective over the long-term. Each of
Alternatives 2 through 6 employ adequate and
reliable controls to prevent future migration of
constituents of concern from landfill materials
to groundwater and reduce constituent
concentrations in groundwater to Class GA
groundwater standards. Alternative 1 would
provide for reduction of constituent
concentrations in groundwater to Class QA
standards and would employ an adequate and
reliable control to monitor groundwater
conditions, but would not provide for
prevention of migration of constituents from
landfill materials to groundwater.
o Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or
Volume Through Treatment
Alternative 1 would not include the use of any
treatment method. Concentrations of
constituents of concern in groundwater would
be expected to be reduced, however, through
-------
12
natural degradation processes in the aquifer.
Alternative 2 includes treatment of leachate
with an on-site air stripper system (options A
and C) or discharge to the Binghamton-
Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant
(options B and D), satisfying the statutory
preference for treatment. Nearly complete
removal of organic constituents in the leachate
would be expected with air stripping. Air
stripping is an irreversible treatment method.
Further, concentrations of constituents of
concern in groundwater would be expected to
be reduced through natural degradation
processes in the aquifer, and mobility of
constituents of concern in the landfill materials
would be reduced with capping and leachate
collection.
Alternatives 3 and 6 would satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment with the inclusion of
air stripping of groundwater (Alternative 3 only)
and leachate. Air stripping would provide for
nearly complete removal of volatile organics in
groundwater and leachate. Air stripping is an
irreversible treatment method. Minimal levels
of residual constituents of concern in treated
groundwater and leachate and in the aquifer
would be further reduced through natural
degradation processes. Further, a reduction
in the mobility of constituents of concern in
landfill materials would be expected with
capping and leachate collection.
Alternative 6-would provide an additional
reduction in mobility through consolidation of
Lower Landfill material with the Upper Landfill.
Alternative 4 would satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment with the inclusion of
chemical oxidation of groundwater and
leachate.. Chemical oxidation would provide
for nearly complete destruction of volatile
organics in groundwater and leachate as
would the off-site treatment that would be
required under Alternative 5. Chemical
oxidation is an irreversible treatment method.
Minimal levels of residual constituents of
concern in treated groundwater and leachate
and in the aquifer would be further reduced
through natural degradation processes.
Further, a reduction in the mobility of
constituents of concern in landfill materials
would be expected with capping and leachate
collection.
o Short-Term Effectiveness
Although the remedial objective concerning
prevention of migration of constituents from
landfill materials to groundwater would not be
achieved through Alternative 1, the remedial
objectives related to prevention of ingestion of
groundwater and the restoration of the aquifer
to Class GA standards would likely be
attained. Although it would be highly unlikely,
the potential would exist for unrestricted
installation of potable wells near the Site.
Natural degradation processes are expected to
reduce concentrations of constituents of
concern to groundwater standards within
approximately 7 to 9 years. Protection of
workers during monitoring activities would be
achieved through the use of appropriate
protective equipment.
Alternative 2 would be effective over the short-
term. There would be no short-term impacts
on the community during remedial actions.
Protection of workers during remedial activities
would be achieved through the use of
appropriate protective equipment. There
would not be any environmental impacts
during remediation; contaminant transport via
fugitive emissions during cap construction
would be minimized through appropriate
methods such as dust control. Installation of
a cap would prevent generation of additional
leachate. Restoration of the aquifer to
groundwater standards would likely be
achieved within approximately 7 to 9 years
through natural degradation. Prevention of
ingestion of groundwater would likely be
attained following implementation of deed
restrictions.
-------
13
Alternatives 3 through 5 would be effective
over the short-term. There would be no short-
term impacts on the community or the
environment during remedial action. Protection
of workers during remedial activities would be
achieved through the use of appropriate
protective equipment during remedial activities.
Contaminant transport via fugitive emissions
during cap construction would be minimized
through appropriate methods such as dust
control. Installation of a cap would prevent
additional leachate generation. Restoration of
the aquifer to groundwater standards would
likely be achieved within approximately 14 to
24 years through extraction and treatment of
groundwater. The groundwater extraction
process would interfere with the natural
degradation process since the dilution of
contaminant levels would inhibit biological
degradation of such contaminants by the
microbes in the soil. Therefore, an active
system of groundwater extraction will actually
take longer than the passive process of
natural degradation in attaining Class GA
groundwater standards. Prevention of the
potential for ingestion of groundwater would
likely be attained following implementation of
deed restrictions.
Alternative 6 would be effective over the short-
term. There would be no short-term impacts
on the community during remedial actions.
Protection of workers during remedial activities
would be achieved through the use of
appropriate protective equipment
Contaminant transport during excavation of the
Lower Landfill and consolidation with the
Upper Landfill and during cap construction
would be minimized through appropriate
methods such as dust control. Consolidation-
of the two Landfills and installation of a cap on
the Upper Landfill would prevent the
generation of additional leachate. Restoration
of the aquifer to groundwater standards would
likely be achieved within approximately 7 to 9
years through natural degradation of
contaminants in groundwater. Prevention of
the potential for ingestion of groundwater
would likely be attained following
implementation of deed restrictions. However,
excavating the Lower Landfill might create an
environmental and public health threat as a
result of runoff and air emissions. In light of
the relatively low groundwater contamination at
the Lower Landfill, excavation is not warranted.
o Implementability
There would be no construction or operation
required for implementation of Alternative 1.
Groundwater monitoring is a reliable method
which would indicate changes in aquifer
conditions. If the need for further action were
identified through groundwater monitoring, the
alternative evaluation and remedy selection
process might need to be repeated for the
Site. Sampling personnel, equipment, and an
analytical laboratory would be readily available.
The cap and leachate collection system called
for in Alternative 2 could be readily
constructed and maintained. The air stripping
system for leachate treatment could also be
readily installed and operated. Diversion to
the POTW via nearby sanitary sewer lines
could also be readily constructed and
maintained. Capping, leachate collection, air
stripping, and treatment at a POTW (activated
sludge) are reliable technologies. If additional
remedial action were determined to be
necessary, a groundwater extraction and
treatment system could be designed and
installed. Operation of the air stripping system
could be readily extended if necessary.
Discharge to the POTW could also be readily
extended. The effectiveness of Alternative 2
could be readily monitored; groundwater
monitoring would indicate changes in aquifer
conditions, and discharge monitoring would
indicate leachate treatment effectiveness.
Coordination with the local government would
be necessary to implement deed restrictions.
Sampling equipment, sampling personnel, an
analytical laboratory, construction equipment,
cap materials, and an air stripping system
would be expected to be readily available.
-------
14
The cap and leachate collection system called
for in Alternatives 3 through 6 could be readily
constructed and maintained. The extraction
system (Alternatives 3 through 5), air stripper
(Alternatives 3 and 6), and chemical oxidation
system (Alternative 4) could be readily
constructed and operated. Capping, leachate
collection, extraction, air stripping, and
chemical oxidation are reliable technologies. If
additional remedial action were determined to
be necessary, the groundwater extraction
system could be extended. Operation of the
air stripper or chemical oxidation system could
be readily extended if necessary. The
effectiveness of Alternatives 3 through 6 could
be readily monitored; groundwater monitoring
would indicate changes in aquifer conditions,
and discharge monitoring would indicate
groundwater and leachate treatment
effectiveness. Coordination with the local
government would be necessary to implement
deed restrictions. Sampling equipment,
sampling personnel, an analytical laboratory,
construction equipment, cap materials, and
drillers would be expected to be readily
available.
o Cost
The total present worth of the alternatives
evaluated ranges from $111,446 (no action) to
$10,893,000 (groundwater extraction and off-
site treatment). Present worth considers a 5%
discount rate,'and a 30-year operational
period. Only Alternative 1 would not require
any capital costs. Alternative 2 is the least
costly of the action alternatives ($4,352,078 -
$4,644,183).
o State Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy.
o Community Acceptance
One written comment regarding the selected
remedy was received by EPA during the
comment period. The one written comment
and the comments received at the public
meeting are addressed in the Responsiveness
Summary. Neither the written comment nor
the comments at the public meeting, however,
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'
2, Option B, Multi-Media Cap on Both Landfills,
Active Leachate Collection and discharge to
the Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage
Treatment Plant constitutes the appropriate
remedy for the Site. If the Binghamton-
Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant
cannot accept the collected leachate, then
Option A, on-site treatment, would be
implemented in place of Option B. The major
components of the selected remedy are as
follows:
Containment through the installation of caps
over the lancmll material and leachate
collection. The leachate would be treated at
the Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage
Treatment Plant. If the Treatment Plant is not
available, leachate would be treated on-site
using air stripping and discharged to Carlin
Creek.
The selected remedy also includes fencing,
deed restrictions, and a groundwater
monitoring program, which will provide data to
evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial effort
and will act as an early warning system to
protect private wells in the area. Five-year
reviews will be conducted as required by the
NCP due to the fact that waste would 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.
-------
15
A multimedia cap will be considered for
containment at this site, since it is more
resistant to cracking due to settlement than
asphalt and concrete. Clay was not chosen
because it is not readily available locally.
Capping will minimize surface water infiltration,
provide for control of erosion, and isolate and
contain certain wastes.
The multi-media cap will be consistent with
applicable regulations that require that when a
FML is used in place of clay, the FML may
have a permeability no greater than 1 x 10IZ
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 abrasiorvof 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 permeability 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, vegetated topsoil to
promote evapotranspiration, as well as the
installation of a FML with a permeability of 1 x
10" 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 established to promote drainage and
minimize erosion of the cover.
It is expected that settling and subsidence
have already occurred at the Site landfills due
to their age and would not occur in the future
to any substantial degree. However, FMLs as
considered here typically accommodate
settling satisfactorily.
The permeability of the natural subsoils
beneath the landfills ranges from
approximately 1.4 x 10^ to 2.3 x 107 cm/sec at
the Upper Landfill to approximately 6.0 x 103
to 4.3 x 10"4 cm/sec at the Lower Landfill. The
40 mil FML considered for the cap would have
a permeability of no greater than 1 x 10"12
cm/sec. Therefore, the fifth RCRA
performance requirement will be attained by
the Part 360 design requirement.
Leachate collection systems will be installed in
conjunction with the caps. A leachate
collection system will be installed around the
toe of each landfill and collected leachate will
be discharged to the Binghamton-Johnson
City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant, or if the
Plant is not available, leachate would be
treated on-srte in an air stripper package
treatment plant. At least two leachate
collection wells will be installed at the Upper
Landfill and will be connected to the leachate
collection system.
The leachate collection wells will be drilled to
the bottom of the fill material. It is anticipated
that each well will have a deep and shallow
well screen, with a removal seal or plug
separating the deep and shallow screen
zones. Initially, the shallow screened intervals
will be pumped to remove leachate above the
-------
16
groundwater table, which occurs at
approximately 16 ft below the surface of the
landfill. If the Upper screened intervals dry
out, the plug separating the screened zones
may be removed to allow pumping deeper
within the fill beYieath the groundwater table.
This will ensure effective removal of the
leachate and protection of human health and
the environment.
A collection trench will be installed along the
toe of the Lower Landfill. The bottom of the
trench will be located at approximately the
same elevation as the groundwater table, or at
a depth sufficient to eliminate seeps in the
wetland areas. The edge of the cap will be
keyed into the outer edge of the collection
trench.
Off-site treatment at the Binghamton-Johnson
City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant will involve
discharging leachate into on-site sanitary
sewer lines. Leachate collected at the Upper
Landfill will be discharged into an 8-inch
sanitary sewer located approximately 20 ft
west of the Broome Parkway. Leachate
collected at the Lower Landfill will be
discharged into an 18-inch sanitary sewer
located approximately 130 west of the
northwest corner of the Lower Landfill.
Effluent from the sewage treatment plant is
discharged to the Susquehanna River.
If discharge-to the Binghamton-ttohnson City
Sewage Treatment Plant is not possible, then
leachate would be treated at an on-site
treatment plant. The on-site treatment plant
would be located adjacent to the Lower
Landfill. Leachate from the Upper Landfill
would be transported to the treatment system
at the Lower Landfill through a gravity-flow
pipe. Pretreatment for the removal of iron and
manganese would likely be necessary.
Treatability studies would be necessary during
design to evaluate both system performance
and potential fouling problems due to metal
scaling and/or bacterial growth. The plant
would be operated 24 hours per day until the
leachate generation rate drops below a
predetermined practical treatment rate. At that
time, leachate would be temporarily stored on-
site and then treated by the air stripper
whenever sufficient quantities of leachate were
accumulated. Treated effluent would be
discharged to Carlin Creek.
Stripping is a physical treatment process in
which air or steam is used to remove
dissolved volatile organic compounds from
water. Air stripping involves transferring a
dissolved substance from the liquid phase to
the gas phase whereas steam stripping is
essentially a distillation process in which the
volatile compounds are removed from the
wastewater as distillate. An evaluation of the
suitability of a stripper for treatment of a
wastewater typically includes an evaluation of
any treatment that may be needed for the air
emissions which would be produced.
A wetlands delineation (utilizing the "three
parameter method"), and a 500-year flood.
plain assessment will be undertaken during the
remedial design phase. A Stage 1A cultural
resources assessment has already been
performed. A wetland assessment and
restoration plan will be required for any
wetlands impacted or disturbed by remedial
activity.
REMEDIATION LEVELS
The purpose of this response action is to
restore the groundwater underlying the Site to
levels consistent with State and Federal
ARARs, and to ensure protection of the air,
and the ground and surface water in the
vicinity of the Site from continued release of
contaminated leachate.
The risk assessment concluded that the risk to
human health or wildlife due to site-related
exposure to ground water, landfill leachate, or
surface water (sediments) is at the upper
bounds of the acceptable risk range.
However, certain compounds in the ground
-------
17
water and leachate exceed New York State
Class GA Ground Water Standards.
Chloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, and xylene
have been detected at concentrations above
Class GA standards at the Upper Landfill.
Xylene (7 ppb in 1990) has historically been
below or just above the Class GA standard (5
ppb). The concentration of 1,2-dichloro-
propane (9 ppb in 1990) has been decreasing
over the past four years and most recently
was detected just above the Class GA
standard (5 ppb). Chloroethane was observed
at a concentration of 68 ppb in 1990. For the
purpose of the study, Chloroethane was
considered the constituent of concern at the
site.
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
requirements and preferences. These specify
that when completed, the selected remedial
action for this site 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 treatment 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 HUMAN HEALTH AND
THE ENVIRONMENT
The selected remedy protects human health
and the environment through containment of
the landfill material and collection and
treatment of leachate. The implementation of
the selected remedy will not pose
unacceptable short-term risks or cross-media
impacts. Containment will be provided
through caps installed over the landfill material.
The multimedia capping system will limit
infiltration of water by promoting controlled
surface runoff and evapotranspiration. Natural
degradation is expected to reduce the
concentration of Chloroethane to Class GA
groundwater standards within approximately 7-
9 years.
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE OR
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
STANDARDS
ARARs identified for the selected remedy
include the New York State Class GA Ground
Water Quality Standards (6 NYCRR Part 703),
SPDES program requirements (6 NYCRR Part
750-758), New York State Ambient Water
Quality Standards (6 NYCRR Part 701), the
NAAQS for particulate matter (40 CFR Part
50), Solid Waste Management Facilities Landfill
Closure and Post-Closure Criteria (6 NYCRR
Part 360-2.15), freshwater wetlands
requirements (6 NYCRR Part 663), air
emissions and guidelines (6 NYCRR Part 212
and New York Air Guide-1) and guidelines
establishing test procedures for the analysis of
pollutants (40 CFR 136). The selected remedy
will rely upon natural degradation for
compliance with Class GA ground water
standards; it is estimated that compliance will
be achieved in approximately 7 to 9 years.
Capping and leachate collection/treatment is
expected to prevent future groundwater
impacts from constituents of concern in landfill
materials., Leachate will be treated to levels
which, when discharged to the Susquehanna
River (off-site treatment) or Carlin Creek (on-
site treatment), will comply with SPDES
-------
18
program requirements and will not cause
contraventions of New York State Ambient
Water Quality Criteria. Emissions from the air-
stripper will be, addressed as provided by New
York Air Guide-1. Fugitive emissions during
cap construction will be minimized through the
use of dust suppressants and temporary
cover, as needed, to comply with the NAAQS
for particulates. Capping of the Site will be
performed in compliance with New York State
landfill closure and post-closure criteria (6
NYCRR Part 360-2.15). The use of EPA-
certified Contract Laboratory Program
analytical facilities will ensure that guidelines
establishing test procedures for pollutant
analysis will be complied with during the
ground water monitoring program.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
The selected remedy is cost-effective, since it
provides overall effectiveness proportional to
its cost. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedy is $4,352,078. The total present
worth of the alternatives evaluated ranged from
$111,446 (no action) to $10,893,000
(groundwater extraction and off-site treatment).
Present worth considers a 5% discount rate,
and a 30-year operational period. Only
Alternative 1 would not require any capital
expenditures. Alternative 2, Option B is the
least costly of the action alternatives
($4,352,078)'.
UTILIZATION OF PERMANENT SOLUTIONS
AND ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PRACTICABLE
EPA and New York State have determined that
the selected remedy represents the maximum
extent to which permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies can be
utilized in a cost-effective manner for the
Conklin Dumps 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 best balances the goals of long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction in
toxicrty, mobility, or volume achieved through
treatment, short-term effectiveness,
implementability, and cost-effectiveness, while
also considering the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element and
considering state and community acceptance.
The selected remedy will provide for long-term
effectiveness and permanence. Capping and
leachate collection would minimize the potential
for the migration of. constituents of concern
from landfill materials to groundwater.
The selected remedy is also implementable.
Both on-srte treatment through air stripping
and off-site treatment at a POTW are
appropriate and dependable treatment
methods for leachate. Natural degradation
processes are expected to degrade the
constituents of concern present in the aquifer
to levels at or below New York State Class GA
standards. The controls utilized in the
selected remedy are both adequate and
reliable. With appropriate maintenance,
capping and leachate collection will be
adequate and reliable containment measures
for prevention of migration of constituents of
concern from landfill materials. Air stripping
will likely be an appropriate and dependable
treatment method for leachate at the Site.
Deed restrictions and fencing will be adequate
and reliable in prohibiting well development
and activities impacting cap integrity.
Groundwater monitoring is a suitable and
reliable means of following conditions in the
aquifer and provides an early warning system
to provide downgradient residential supply
wells.
The selected remedy will be effective over the
short-term. The alternatives do not differ
significantly with respect to the ability to
minimize" impacts to the community during
remedy installation. The natural degradation of
contaminants in the groundwater provided by
Alternative 2 is expected to result in a shorter
-------
19
term attainment of groundwater standards than
would be the case for the alternatives utilizing
groundwater extraction.
PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT AS A
PRINCIPAL ELEMENT
The selected remedy addresses one of the
principal threats posed by the site through the
use of treatment technologies by treating the
leachate at the Binghamton-Johnson City Joint
Sewage Treatment Plant, or if the sewage
treatment plant is not available, by on-site air
stripping. The statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment as a principal
element is only partially satisfied, however,
since treatment of contaminated groundwater
was not found to be practicable and since the
size of the landfill, and the absence of on-site
"hot spots" of contaminants, precluded
excavation and treatment of fill material as a
means of source control.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT
CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Site was released
to the public on February 4, 1991. The
Proposed Plan identified Alternative 2, Option
B as the preferred alternative; stating further
that, in the event that Option B is not feasible,
then Option A, on-site treatment, would be
implemented in place of Option B. EPA
reviewed all written and verbal comments
submitted during the public comment period.
Upon review of these comments, EPA has
determined that no significant changes to the
selected remedy, as it was originally identified
in the Proposed Plan, are necessary.
-------
APPENDIX 1 - TABLES
-------
List of Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS) for the Selected Remedy
Groundwater
Regulatory Level -Description
State
New York State Groundwater Standards (6 NYCRR
Part 703)
Standards for Class GA Groundwater (6 NYCRR
Part 703.5)
New York State MCLs for Public Water Supplies (10
NYCRR Subpart 5-1)
Federal
Standards for Sources of Water Supply (10 NYCRR
Part 170)
Groundwater Monitoring (40 CFR Part 136)
MCLs listed in the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR
Part 141)
Other
State
Federal
Capping in Place - Municipal' Waste (6 NYCRR Part
360-2.15), 40 CFR 264.301 (f), & 6 NYCRR Part 373-
2.14(c)(6)
Protection of Adjacent Wetlands (6 NYCRR Part
663)
Treated Effluent Discharge to Surface Water (6
NYCRR Parts 701 and Parts 750-758)
Air Emissions (6 NYCRR Part 212)
Site Air Quality During Remedial Activities (40 CFR
Part 136)
Ambient Air Standards (40 CFR 50)
Regrading and Excavations (Waste Piles) (40 CFR
264.251 (f)) & 6 NYCRR Part 373-2.214 (b)(6)
-------
TABLE 18
G80UW5UATER • LOWER LANDFILL
SELECTED INORGANIC AMD INDICATOR PARAMETER ANALYSES
Utll Nurt»r
PARAMETER, Uiitl
Standard- S«* Exhibit •
Arsenic, eg/I
NT Cta»* GA Grndwater
Std • 0.025 BQ/1
Arsenic-F, a«/l
Cadaiua, ng/l
NT/FED Std- 0.01 BQ/l
Iron, iig/l
NT/FED Std> 0.3 Bg/l
Iron-F, BB/I
Manganese, ng/l
MY/FED Std- 0.3 oa/l
Manganese- F, ng/l
pH, s.u.
NY/FED Std- 6.5-8.5 SU
Conductivity, ixftos/ca
TCC, «B/I
Date
8/83
9-11/83
1984
1/86
4/86
1/88
6/90
8/83
11/83
6/90
8/83
11/83
11/84
1/86
4/86
1/88
8/83
11/83
11/84
1/86
4/86
1/88
8/83
11/83
11/84
1/86
4/86
1/88
6/90
8/83
11/85
11/84
1/86
4/84
1/88
6/90
S/S3
11/83
11/84
1/86
4/86
5
0.020
0.01
<0.01
<0.001
--
<0.01
0.0045
O.01
O.01
O.003
O.01
0.02
--
0.05
..
1.36
1.40
1.9
--
0.26
--
3.32
7.1
8.3
• -
6.3
• •
5.7
8.1
190
161
—
75
• •
110
100
..
14
«
9
-•
6
<0.01
0.08
0.01
--
—
<0.01
"
<0.01
O.01
..
2.4
38
.-
..
* •
0.947
2.80
4.1
--
--
..
3.67
5.9
6.6
-•
--
--
7.4
-•
140
115
—
—
--
90
••
..
19
••
-.
--
7
O.01
0.07
0.01
--
.-
<0.01
• •
O.01
<0.01
"
<0.01
7.80
..
..
• •
4.03
4.10
4.3
«
--
..
2.77
6.2
7.1
-•
—
—
7.1
—
90
94
..
..
-.
80
••
..
4
• •
..
—
8
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.002
..
O.01
<0.003
<0.01
<0.01
<0.003
<0.01
10
--
5.7
..
4.51
4.40
4.8
--
1.59
..
1.33
6.2
7.1
--
6.5
--
5.8
8
90
84
--
75
..
95
90
.„
4
..
2
—
9
<0.01
<0.01
-•
<0.001
--
<0.01
0.0111
<0.01
<0.01
0.003
<0.01
0.03
--
<0.01
..
<0.10
1.70
2
--
1.74
--
1.14
6.2
7
•-
5.8
• •
7.2
8.3
90
100
-.
65
..
80
80
..
2
.-
1
--
10
-------
TAJIE 19
UUBFIU
KJNXAILE PtIO«irr POLLUTAJIIS UULTSES SMW1T
V«ll luitotr: t* t" 7*** 8*** 8(1) «• 9(») 10* 10(») 18» 18(3up} 21* ll«nk ll»m 11 ink ilank
1—^lt 0«tt: 1/88 I/eg 1/ffl 1/88 6/90 1/88 6/90 1/88 6/90 1/83 1/88 1/tg 1/88 6/90 6/90 6/90 6/90
V»im VIUCZ3 VSIO6 VBLCB4
rAJLUCTCT (Stmd»rt -S*« Exhibit »-) Cerctntntlom txprtutd n ug/l (pet>)
2 limtthint (5 ug/l) <1 <10 <10 «1 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <1CA <10A <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10
3 Vinyl O\lorld* (5 ug/l*> <1 <10 <10 <1 <10 <10 <10 «10 <10 «10* <10A <10 <10 <10 <10 «10 <10
I Oilorathan* (5 ug/l) «1 rrsBOM propocod ttirdirdi lliltlng Org«nle Ovo»leil Contmln«tlon In CHnklng U.nr, unlm nottd.
Ill *n Utttr Ouollty »t«r«l«rdi for Cl«« U tutors
(ff) «TJ/f£D «L for iu« of Totll Trlh»loj»thin»»
) *rwlau« >Hvllr« rttulti fro* 8/83, 11/13 mri 1/86 cor firm th» ibow niulti for 1/8S.
•*) Prrrleui M^tlrq raultt fro* 8/83 vd 11/B3 eenfln th« •bow* rnutti for 1/88.
} Frvvlaui ••vllna mutts frcv 8/83 «nd 11/83 conflm th» ttxfrt rmults for 1/88, uupt for bmm.
«) rrrrlou* w^tlfi] rwults frt« 1/86 conf Ira ttM otDM rmulti for 1/88.
I*p»t «nolr*l* •*• pvrfomd •• orglnol did net BMt splko r*cav*nr ro^jIroMnti for 1,2 Dldtloro>tham. Itptat niulti «r« rvportod.
lotdlng tio» unnlifl for sralytls.
b»*ntntlan *t«ct«d li b»lav dttictlen llslt.
lurregit* S rccvnrr outild* ac/tlalt*.
-------
TABLE 20
GIOUNOUAIE* • UPPER IAWJFIU
PUHGEAILE PKIORIlr POUUIANtS ANALYSES SUMHAIU
Utll Muabtr: 1* 1 2"
Sample Oatai 1/88 6/90 1983
Ikgd Ikgd
PARAMETER (Standard -Set Eihlblt t")
I Chloromethane (5 ug/l)
2 Bromomethane (5 ug/l)
3 Vinyl Chloride (5 ug/lt)
t Chloroelhane (S ug/l)
5 Nethylene Chloric*. (10 uf/|>
6 Acetone (SO ug/l)
7 Carbon Oliulddt
8 1.1-Olrhloroethena (5 ug/l)
9 1,1 Dlchtoroethene (S ug/l)
10 1.2 Olchloroethene (S ug/l total)
It Chlorofona (100 ug/IM)
12 1,2-Dlchloroethane (5 u«/l)
II 2-lutanone CO ug/l)
H 1,1.1-lrlchloroetherw (5 ug/l)
15 Carbon letrnchlorld«
16 Vinyl Acfltit* (50 ug/l)
17 Irnnodlchlornmlhm (100 ug/IM)
18 1,2-Olchloropropana (S ug/l)
19 c-I.J-Olchloropronene (I ug/l>
20 Irlchloroelhen* (to uj/II)
?1 DlbromochloroMlhene (100 ug/IM)
22 1,1.2-lrlchloroethsne (S ug/l)
2) Srnicne (9 ug/l»)
24 t-l,3-0lchloroprop»ne (S ug/l)
25 2-Chloroethylvlnyl*lher (5 ug/l)
26 iromoforai (100 ug/lff)
17 t-M»lhyl-Z-P«nt»ooo. (50 ug/l)
28 2-He»anone (SO ug/l)
29 letrachloroethene (S ug/l)
30 l.1,?.2-letr«hloroethaoe(5 ug/l)
31 Toluene (S ug/l)
32 Chlorobeniene (5 ug/l)
33 Ethylbeniene (5 ug/l)
34 Styrene (S ug/l)
35 lol.l Kyltnei (S ug/l)
3* ** 4 II 11 11 11 11
1/88 1/M 6/90 B/U 11/8] 2/86 1/88 6/90
Concentration* expreated aa ug/l (ppb)
12* 12 22. U 3f 390
1/88 6/90 1/8(1 1/88 1/88 1/88
Ikgd
3RD 3M US(«) 11 ant Hank Hank
6/90 1/88 6/90 1/M 6/90 6/9"
VIU01 V8U2*
• 10
oo
oo
"
.S
«10
t meet tplke recovery re^iulrements for 1,2 Dlch!oroelhen«. Repeat reiulti are reported.
A Holding tlaw aicseded for analysis.
J Concentration detected la tnlcw dntoctlon limit.
K Surrogate X recovery outside oc/llailts.
• Constituent found In tha blank.
« H... c^iM-trtM ciAta
-------
TABLE 21
LEACKATE CHARACTERIZATION DATA SUMMARY
Lower Landfill Upper Landfill
Leadtate Veil Muter: 13 13 15 15 14 14 14 14 16 16
Sample Date: 8/8/83 8/20/83 8/8/83 8/20/83 8/8/83 8/19/83 2/13/86 1/88 8/53 1/83
VOLATILE ORGANICS (Standard") UNITS
1 Chloromethane (5 ug/l) ug/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 <10 <10 <1 <1
2 Bromomethane (5 ug/l) ug/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 <10 «1 <1
3 Vinyl Chloride (5 ug/li) ug/l <1 <1 <1 <1 36 25 <10 <10 <1 <1
4 Chloroethane (5 ug/l) ug/l <1 <1 <1 <1 19 15 <10 <10 «1 1
5 Nethylene Chloride (50 ug/l) ug/l <1 2 2 4 1600 2100 150 <10 4 <1
6 Acetone (50 ug/l) ug/l 1500
7 Carbon Disulfide ug/l
8 1,1-Dichloroethene (5 ug/l) ug/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 <10 <1 <1
9 1,1-DiChloroethane (5 ug/l) ug/l <1 <1 <1 <1 62 80 <10 <10 <1 <1
10 1,2-Dichloroethene (5 ug/l total) ug/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <10 <10 «1 4
11 Chloroform (100 ug/lM) ug/l <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 "B/1 3.6 0.84 <0.01 0.03 190 640 6200 110 - 53
39 Manganese (0J m«/lf) "0/1 16 15 7.2 15 110 120 16.2 1.2 0.8 3.4
40 pH (6.5-8.5 SUV) «.". 6.8 6.6 6.8 - 6 5.9 6.7 6.7 7.7 6.3
41 Sp. Conductance umhos/(* 430 272 330 -- 10342 11458 3300 2800 4586 550
42 Total Organic Carbon «0/l - - 1760 32 - 320
See Exhibit A for listing of State and Federal .Water Quality Standards
C) IYSDOH Standards Limiting Organic Chemical Contamination in Drinking Water, unless otherwise noted.
(f) ITS Water Quality Standards NCL or Naximua Allowable Concentration (MAC)
(ff) na for sum of Total Trihalomethanes
(•) Average of two analyse* performed 8/8/83 and 8/20/83.
Revised 12/13/90
-------
APPENDIX 2 - FIGURES
-------
n—~~v-
-*— — t -.. • — ^
FIGURE 4
GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION MAP
LEGEND
-------
Ul
WEST
1000
990
MO
MO
920
900
eeo
860
840
820
800
780
760
74O
720
FIGURE 3
HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
TOWN OF CONKLIN
UPPER ft LOWER LANDFILLS
TOO
•UPP£R LANDFILL
TO SUSQUEHANA RIVER
LOWER LANDFILL
[_ SHALE/SILT3TONE BEDROCK
NOTE: Ground Wot* Eltvotkxw or* M«on Vdlum
and Th»r«for« or* ApprtwImoU.
SHALE/SILTSTONE BEDROCK
CLAY
TILL
EAST
94O
92O
900
880
86O
84O
820
800
780
7«0
740
720
'700
400
BOO
1200
1600 2000 2400 28OO 32OO 3GOO 4OOO 44OO
-------
APPENDIX 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
-------
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC
101 PARK AVENUE • NEW YORK. NY 10178 • TELEPHONE:'(212) 697-1900 • FAX: (212) 697-2626 • TELEX: 620196
March 18, 1991
Conklin Town Hall
1271 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
Subject: Conklin Dumps Site, Administrative Record File
Dear Sir/Madam:
The Administrative Record File for the Conklin Dumps Site is
being sent to you at the instruction of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Please make this file available to the public
for review.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions,
please contact Ms. Jennie Delcimento, Environmental Specialist,
U.S. EPA, at (212) 264-8676, or Mr. Richard Ramon, Project
Manager, U.S. EPA, at (212) 264-1336.
Very Truly Yours,
' C^i rtL ' -f^ " 6L/-- j /^
BOOZ, ALLEN & HAMILTON Inc.
Eric Sean Goldstein
Researcher
cc: Ms. Jennie Delcimento
Mr. Richard RaTnon
-------
CONKLIN DUMPS SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
SITE IDENTIFICATION
BACKGROUND - RCRA AND OTHER INFORMATION
P. 1 - 2 Letter to Ms. Patricia Ingraham, Broome County
Planning Board, from Mr. Patrick Snyder, NYSDEC,
Re: Environmental Impact Statement, April 18,
1985.
.P- 3 - 4 Letter to Mr. Langdon Marsh, NYSDEC, from Mr. Carl
Young, County Executive, Re: Background
Information, October 9, 1985.
P. 5 Fact sheet on the Conklin dump site, 1988.
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 6 - 7 Letter to Mr. Henry Williams, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Carl Young, County Executive - Broome County, Re:
History of the site, March 19, 1985.
P. 8 - 9A Letter to Mr. Carl Young, Broome County, from
Mr. Henry Williams, NYSDEC, Re: Broome County
Corporate/Industrial Park, April 4, 1985.
Attachments.
P. 10 Letter to Mr. William Librizzi, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Norman Nosenchuck, NYSDEC, Re: Hazard ranking
scoring packet, July 3, 1985.
P. 11 - 48 Memorandum to Mr. Michael J. O'Toole, Jr., NYSDEC,
from Mr. Earl Barcomb, NYSDEC, Re: History of the
dump*. October 13, 1989. Attachments.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
CAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLANS
P. 49 - 50 Letter to Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, from Mr. James
Madigan, NYS Department of Health, Re: Detailed
plans for Preliminary report, August 25, 1987.
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS DATA/ CHAIN OF CUSTODY FORMS
p. 51 - 179 Report: Hydroqeologic Investigation, prepared by
O'Brien and Gere, March 1984.
-------
p. 180 - 227 Data sheet for the Broome County Health
Department, prepared by H2M, October 31, 1984.
P- 228 - 311 Report: phase II - Hvdrogeologic Investigation.
prepared by O'Brien and Gere, February, 1985.
P. 312 - 313 Memorandum to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Munn, NYSDEC, Re: Data Validation,.August 11,
1989.
P- 314 - 319 Summary of June 1990 Ground Water Sampling Events.
P. 320 - 707 Report: Volatile Analysis Analytical Data Package.
prepared by Versar Inc, July 19, 1990.
P. 708 - 884 Report: Analytical Data Package - Metals Analysis.
prepared by Versar Inc., July, 25, 1990.
P. 885 - 891 Site Characteristics fact sheet, Prepared by
O'Brien & Gere, November 28, 1990.
P. 892 - 903 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Paul Fox, O'Brien & Gere, Re: Enclosed revised
tables 20 and 21, December 13, 1990. Attachments.
P. 904 - 926 Letter to O'Brien and Gere, from Ms. Judy Harry,
Data Validation Services, Re: Validation of data,
December 26, 1990. Attachments.
WORK PLANS
P. 927 - 928 EPA's Comments on Conklin Dump RI/FS Workplan.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS
P. 929 - 1220 Report: Preliminary Report, prepared by, O'Brien
and Gere, July, 1987.
P. 1221 -. 1224 Letter to Mr. Mark Gorges, Coughlin and Gerhart,
from Mr. Brian Davidson, Re: Preliminary Report,
October 2, 1987.
p. 1225 Memorandum to Mr. Joseph Slack, NYSDEC, from Mr.
William Webster, NYSDEC, Re: Review of draft RI
report. August 15, 19S8.
P- 1226 - 1923 Report: Town of Conklin Landfills Remedial
Investigation. prepared by O'Brien and Gere,
December, 1988.
-------
rn^RESPONDENCE
P. 1924 - 1935 Letter to Honorable John Guinan, Broome County,
from Mr. Raymond Lupe, NYSDEC, Re:
ReClassification, April 4, 1985.
P. 1936 Letter to Mr. Carl Young, Broome County, from Mr.
Henry Williams, NYSDEC, Re: Broome County
Corporate/Industrial Park, April 4, 1985.
P. 1937 Memorandum to Mr. Charles Goddard, NYSDEC, from
Mr. David King, NYSDEC, Re: Conklin Landfills, May
2, 1985.
P. 1938 - 1939 Memorandum to Mr. John lannotti, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Morelli, NYSDEC, Re: Conklin Landfill meeting
- May 5, 1985, May 10, 1985.
P. 1940 Letter to Mr. Perry Katz,. U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Raymond Lupe, NYSDEC, Re: Hydrogeologic.
Investigation of Broome County Industrial Park,
July 5, 1985.
P. 1941 - 1943 Letter to Mr. Edward Murray, Broome County, from
Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: List of issues,
August 6, 1985.
P. 1944 Letter to Ms. Lynn Wright, NYSDEC, from Mr. Joseph
Forti, Re: Allowing work on the RI before the
consent order, January 23, 1986.
P. 1945 - 1946 Letter to Mr. Robert Senior, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Frank Hale, O'Brien and Gere, Re: Town of Conklin,
January 21, 1986.
P. 1,947 Letter to Mr. Frank Hale, O'Brien and Gere, from
Mr. Robert Senior, NYSDEC, Re: Remedial
investigation work, January 24, 1986.
P. 1948 Letter to Mr. Barry Kogut, Bond, Schoeneck & King,
from Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Conklin consent
plan and work plan, March 7, 1986.
P- 1949 Memorandum to Mr. Joseph Slack, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Earl Barcomb, NYSDEC, Re: RI/FS work plan, 1987.
P. 1950 - 1953 Letter to Mr. Mark Gorges, from Mr. Joseph Forti,
NYSDEC, Re: RI/FS revisions, August 28, 1987-
P- 1954 Memorandum to distribution, from Mr. Joseph Forti,
NYSDEC, Re: RI/FS workplan, September 1, 1987.
-------
P- 1955 Memorandum to distribution, from Mr. Joesph Forti,
NYSDEC, Re: RI/FS workplan, September 11, 1987.
P. 1956 - 1957 Letter to Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, from Mr. Barry
Kogut, Bond, Schoeneck & King, Re: Preliminary
report, October 30, 1987.
P. 1958 Memorandum to Mr. Joseph Slack, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Earl Barcomb, NYSDEC, Re: RI/FS work plan,
November 24, 1987-
P- 1959 - 1965 Memorandum to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Frank Trent, NYSDEC, Re: Remedial investigation
review, August 11, 1988. Attachments
P. 1966 - 1967 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr..
James Madigan, NY State Department of Health, Re:
RI report, August 16, 1988.
P. 1968 - 1971 Letter to Mark Gorgos, Coughlin and Gerhart, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: RI Report,
September 15, 1988.
P. 1972 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Mark Gorgos, Coughlin & Gerhart, Re: Remedial
investigation report, September 23, 1988.
P. 1973 - 1975 Memorandum to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Arthur Newell, NYSDEC, Re: Review of workplans,
September 27, 1988. Attachments.
P. 1976 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Mark Gorgos, Coughlin & Gerhart, Re: Remedial
investigation report, October 3, 1988.
p. 1977 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Ms.
Caroline Kwan, U.S. EPA, Re: RI report comments,
October 11, 1988.
P. 1978 - 1982 Memorandum to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
W.J. Webster, NYSDEC, Re: Revised RI report,
December 14, 1988. Attachments.
P. 1983 - 1984 Letter to Mr. Mark Gorgos, Coughlin and Gerhart,
from Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Revised RI
report, December 16, 1988.
P. 1985 - 1986 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
James Madigan, NYS Department of Health, Re:
Comments on Final RI report, December 20, 1988.
-------
P. 1987 - 1992 Memorandum to Mr. Arthur Fossa, NYSDEC,. from Mr.
Joseph Slack, NYSDEC, Re: Review of RI report,
January 6, 1989. Attachments.
P- 1993 - 1994 Memorandum to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Joe Kelleher, NYSDEC, Re: Revised Remedial
investigation report, January 6, 1989.
Attachments.
p. 1995 Memorandum to Ms. Maureen Serafini, NYSDEC, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Revised RI report,
January 9, 1989.
P. 1996 Memorandum to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Frank Trent, NYSDEC, Re: Remedial Investigation -
Revised, January 9, 1989.
P. 1997 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
James Madigan, NY State Department of Health, Re:
Project status, January 24, 1989.
P. 1998 - 1999 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from
Mr. Mark Gorges, Coughlin & Gerhart, Re: RI
Report, February 3, 1989.
P. 2000 - 2002 Letter to Mr. John Tomik, O'Brien & Gere, from Mr.
Douglas Sheeley, NYTEST Environmental Inc., Re:
Data Validation report, May 19, 1989.
P. 2003 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Tomik, O'Brien & Gere, Re: RI Report, June 5,
1989.
P. 2004 - 2005 Letter to Mr. John Tomik, O'Brien & Gere, from Mr.
David Hill, OBG Laboratories Inc., Re: Comments
made by NYTEST, June 16, 1989.
P. 2006 Memorandum to Ms. Maureen Serafini, NYSDEC, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Data validation
report, July 6, 1989.
P. 2007 - 2009 Letter to Mr. John Tomlik, O1 Brien & Gere, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, Re: Town of Conklin landfills,
August 22, 1989. Attachments.
P- 2010 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Abram Miko Fayon, U.S. EPA, Re: RI/FS, October 25,
1989.
P. 2011 - 2012 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Mark Gorges, Coughlin & Gerhart, Re: RI/FS project
and EQBA funding, January -31, 1990.
-------
P. 2013 - 2014 Letter to Mr. Mark Gorges, Coughlin and Gerhart,
from Mr. Michael O'Toole, NYSDEC, Re: Town of
Conklin Landfill, February 12, 1990.
P. 2015 - 2016 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSEDC, from Mr.
Mark Gorgos, Coughlin & Gerhart, Re: RI/FS project
and EQBA funding, February 31, 1990.
P. 2017 - 2018 Letter to Mr. Mark Gorgos, Coughlin & Gerhart,
from Mr. Michael O'Toole, NYSDEC, Re: Town of
Conklin Landfills, April 25, 1990.
P. 2019 - 2022 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Tomlik, 0' Brien & Gere, Re: RIFS, May 23,
1990. Attachments.
P. 2023 - 2024 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Tomlik, O'Brien & Gere, Re: RIFS, June 12,
1990.
P- 2025 Memorandum to Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Joseph Kelleher, NYSDEC, Re: Draft proposed plan,
January 2, 1991.
P. 2026 - 2028 Letter to Mr. Joel Singerman, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Robert Cozzy, NYSDEC, Re: Draft PRAP, January 4,
1991. Detailed assessment.
P- 2029 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Paul Fox, O'Brien & Gere, Re: Enclosed copies of
documents, January 11, 1991.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 2,030.- 2031 Memorandum to Mr. Raymond Lupe, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Comments on a report
March 22, 1985. '
P. 2032 - 2033 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Tomlik, O'Brien & Gere, Re: Data validation
report, June 22, 1989.
P. 2034 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Tomlik, O'Brien & Gere, Re: Feasibility
study, October 11, 1989.
P. 2035 Letter to Distribution, from Mr. Brian Davidson,
NYSDEC, Re: Draft feasibility study, November 20
1990.
-------
P. 2036 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
John Toislik, O'Brien & Gere, Re: Draft feasibility
study, November 20, 1990.
p. 2037 Letter to Mr. Joel Singerman, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Draft feasibility
study, November 28, 1990.
p. 2038 Memorandum to Distribution, from Ms. Debra Hebert,
NYSDEC, Re: Scheduled project review, December 13,
1990.
P. 2039 - 2043 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Richard Ramon, U.S. EPA, Re: EPA review of FS,
December 13, 1990. Detailed assessment
P. 2044 - 2045 Memorandum to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Scott Rodabaugh, NYSDEC, Re: Review of draft FS,
December 14, 1990.
P. 2046 Letter to Mr. Robert Cozzy, NYSDEC, from Mr. Joel
Singerman, U.S. EPA, Re: Copy of draft proposed
plan, December 14, 1990.
P. 2047 Memorandum to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC,
from Mr. Joseph Kelleher, NYSDEC, Re: Review of
draft FS, December 14, 1990.
P- 2048 - 2056 Letter to Mr. John Tomlik, O'Brien & Gere, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Draft feasibility
study report, December 17, 1990.
P. 2057 - 2058 Memorandum to Mr. William McCabe, U.S. EPA, from
Ms. Dore LaPosta, U.S. EPA, Re: Feasibility study,
December 19, 1990.
P. 2059 - 2060 Memorandum to Mr. Joel Singerman, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. William Lawler, U.S. EPA, Re: ARAR for FS,
December 20, 1990.
P. 2061 - 2065 Letter to Mr. Bill Horrigan, Binghamton - Johnson
City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant, from Mr. Paul
Fox, O'Brien and Gere, Re: Feasibility of
discharging leachatr from the landfills, January
7, 1991. Attachments.
P. 2066 - 2067 Memorandum to Mr. Richard Ramon, U.S. EPA, and Mr.
Raymond Werner, U.S. EPA, from Ms. Alison Devine,
U.S. EPA, Re: Draft feasibility study and draft
proposal plan, January 9, 1991.
-------
P. 2068 Memorandum to Mr. Richard Ramon, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Stephen Gould, U.S. EPA, Re: Draft feasibility
study, January 10, 1991.
p- 2069 Memorandum to Mr. Joel Singerman, U.S. EPA, from
Ms. Dore LaPosta, U.S. EPA, Re: Proposed remedial
action plan, January 10, 1991.
P. 2070 - 2071 Memorandum to Mr. William McCabe, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Andrew Bellina, U.S. EPA, Re: Branch review of
the Draft Proposed Plan for the Conklin Dump Site
January 10, 1991. '
P. 2072 - 2073 Memorandum to Mr. William McCabe, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Andrew Bellina, U.S. EPA, Re: Draft
feasibility study, January 14, 1991.
p- 2074 Memorandum to Mr. Joel Singerman, U.S.. EPA, from
Mr. William Lawler, U.S. EPA, Re: ConJclin dump
site, January 16, 1991.
p- 2075 Memorandum to Mr. Richard Ramon, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Stephen Gould, U.S. EPA, Re: FS, January 17,
1991.
p- 2076 Memorandum to Mr. Richard Ramon, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Stephen Gould, U.S. EPA, Re: Draft PRAP,
January 18, 1991.
p- 2077 Letter to Mr. Ronald Tramontano, New York State
Department of Health, from Mr. Stephen Hammond,
NYSDEC, Re: Final Proposed Plan, February 7, 1991.
RECORD OF DECISION
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 2078 Memorandum to Ms. Maureen Serafini, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Data validation report,
July 6, 1989.
STATE COORDINATION
CORRESPONDENCE
P- 2079 - 2080 Letter to Honorable John F. Guinan, Deputy County
Executive, from Mr. Langdon Marsh, NYSDEC, Re:
Proposed Broome County Industrial Park, May 7
1985. '
-------
P. 2081 - 2082 Letter to Mr. Langdon Marsh, NYSDEC, from Mr. Carl
Young, County Executive, Re: Broome County
Corporate Park, October 9, 1985.
P. 2083 Letter to Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, from Ms.
Caroline Kwan, U.S. EPA, Re: Transfer to
Superfund, March 21, 1989.
P. 2084 Letter to Mr. Phillip Marks, Town of Conklin, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Amendment 1 to
State Assistance contract, April 7, 1989.
P. 2085 - 2086 Memorandum to Mr. Richard Lynch, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Michael O1 Toole, NYSDEC, Re: Financial
information, June 19, 1989.
P. 2087 Letter to Mr. Joel Singerman, U.S. EPA, from Mr..
Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Administrative record
file, January 9, 1991.
P. 2088 Letter to Mr. Stephen Hammond, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Ronald Tramontane, New York State Department of
Health, Re: Enforcement, February 14, 1991.
ENFORCEMENT
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 2089 - 2090 Letter to Mr. John Morelli, NYSDEC, from Ms.
Patricia Ingraham, Broome County Department of
Planning and Economic Development, Re: Meeting May
8th in Broome County, May 21, 1985.
P. 2091 Letter to Mr. John Morelli, NYSDEC, from Ms.
Patricia Ingraham, Broome County Department of
Planning and Economic Development, Re: Completion
Of EiS, May 24, 1985.
P. 2092 - 2094 Memorandum to Mr. David King, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Charles Goddard, NYSDEC, Re: Conklin dump, May 30,
1985. Attachments.
P. 2095 - 2096 Letter to Mr. Langdon Marsh, NYSDEC, from Mr. John
Guinan, County Executive, Re: Response to letter
of May 7, June 6, 1985.
P. 2097 Memorandum to Mr. Ray Lupe, NYSDEC, from Mr. John
Morelli, NYSDEC, Re: Consent orders, June 18,
1985.
-------
P. 2098 - 2111 Memorandum to Mr. Langdon Marsh, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Norman Nosenchuck, NYSDEC, Re: Negotiation of
consent order, July 9, 1985. Attachments
P. 2112 - 2113 Memorandum to Mr. Langdon Marsh, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Meeting on August 14,
1985, August 8, 1985.
P. 2114 Letter to Ms. Lynn Wright, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Consent order, January,
23, 1986.
P. 2115 - 2117 Letter to Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, from Mr. Barry
Kogut, Bond, Schoeneck & King, Re: Draft consent
order, June 6, 1986.
P- 2118 - 2119 Memorandum to Commissioner Williams, NYSDEC, from
Mr. Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re; Proposed order on
consent, June 8, 1987.
P. 2120 - 2122 Letter to Mr. Eric Schaaf, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
David Engel, NYSDEC, Re: Conklin landfill site,
June 18, 1987. Attachments.
P. 2123 Letter to Ms. Caroline Kwan, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
Joseph Forti, NYSDEC, Re: Order of consent, August
3, 1987.
P. 2124 - 2125 Memorandum to Ms. Janice Corr, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Dave Engel, NYSDEC, Re: Reimbursement of 75% of
DEC settlement, August 31, 1987. Attachments
P. 2126 - 2129 Letter to Mr. Barry Kogut, Bond, Schoeneck & King,
form Mr. Earl Barcomb, NYSDEC, Re: Order of
Consent, November 13, 1987. Attachments.
P. 2130 - 2131 Letter to Mr. Mark Gorges, Coughlin & Gerhart,
from~Mr. Michael O'Toole, NYSDEC, Re: Town of
Conklin Landfills, February 12, 1990.
P- 2132 - 2133 Letter to Mr. Mark Gorges, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Michael O'Toole, NYSDEC, Re: Past disposal
activities, April 25, 1990.
P. 2134 Letter to Mr. Michael O'Toole, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Mark Gorges, Coughlin & Gerhart, Re: Letter of
April 25, April 26, 1990.
10
-------
HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 2135 Letter to Mr. William Horrigan, Binghamton. -
Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Alternatives to
leachate, January 4, 1991.
NATURAL RESOURCES TRUSTEES
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 2136 - 2137 Memorandum to Mr. Brian Davidson,Division of Fish
and Wildlife from Mr. Richard Koeppicus, Division
of Fish and Wildlife, Re: Draft report feasibility
study of Conklin Landfill site, December 11, 1990.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
P. 2138 - 2144 Letter to Mrs. Carol Osterhout, Town Clerk, from
Mr. Brian Davidson, NYSDEC, Re: Citizen
participation plan, May 9, 1989. Attachments.
P. 2145 Article "State calls dump hazardous, will keep
funding cleanup." Binghamton Press, Page B-l, May
1, 1990.
P. 2146 Article "Conklin to meet with EPA on dump." Press
and Sun Bulletin, Page 3, February 19, 1991.
P- 2147 Article "Conklin to air dump cleanup options
today." Press & Sun Bulletin, Page 2B, February
25, 1991.
DOCUMENTATION OF OTHER PUBLIC MEETINGS
P- 2148 - 2149 Summary of Broome Corporate Park Meeting Regarding
Environmental issues, August 14, 1985.
FACT SHEETS AND PRESS RELEASES
P. 2150 News Release: NYSDEC, Immediate release.
Wednesday, June 17, 1987, Re: Conklin site.
11
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
SO Woff Road, Albany, N«w York 12233 . 7010
Tnoniii C. Jorllng
Commit »ten«r
for. Constantine Siclamcr.-Eristcff
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection. Ag*ncv. Region II
26 Federal Plaza "
New York, New York 10278
Dear Mr. Sidarrcn-Eristof f:
RE: ConJclir, Landfills - Site No. 704013
Record of Decision
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviews-:!
the Record of Decision for the Conklir Landfills sra the Department
concu-s with tr,= selection of Alternative 2 with Leachate Option E.
Alternative 2. witr Lfcachate Option B consists of a landfill cap with
leachate collection, at the O'pper anc Lower Landfills, leachate
collection wells within the Upper Landfill, discharge cf leachate tc the
sanitary sewer lines, treatment at the Birgharton-Johnscr. City Joint
Sewage Treatment Plant, groundwater non-itorinc, fencing and deed
restrictions. The Department concurs that the Record cf Decision
adequately documents and justifies the selection of this remedy.
Should the discharge of leachate to the on-site sanitary sewer lines
with treatment at the Binghaston-Johnson City Joint Sewage Trest.T!ent
Plant prove tc bt impractical, Alternative 2 with leachate Option A
would then be iir.plen.ented. Leachate Option A involves en-site treatment
and discharge of treated water to Carl in Creek.
T ^
Furthermore, as is documented in the Record cf Decision, this site will
be subject tc five year reviews as required by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liab'nty Act as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthcrization Act.
Sincerely,
Edward 0. Sullivan
Deputy Corarissicner
cc: K. Callahan, USEPA
G. Pavlou, USEPA
J. Singer-man, USEPA
-------
APPENDIX 4 - NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
APPENDIX 5 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Prepared By: Brian H. Davidson
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
Conklin Dumps Site Record of Decision - Site No. 704013
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 the United States Environmental Protection Agency 's
(USEPA) final decision for selection of a remedial alternative for the
Conklin Dumps Site.
The public comment period on the Conklin Dumps Site Proposed Plan
began on February 4, 1991. The Proposed Plan is attached in
Appendix 5.1. A public meeting was held at the Conklin Town Hall at
7:00 pm on February 25, 1991. The public comment period and public
meeting were announced in legal notices which appeared in the
February 5, 1991 and February 22, 1991 Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin
attached in Appendix 5.2. A press release was also issued by the
NYSDEC, and newspaper articles appeared in the February 19, 1991 and
February 25, 1991 Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin which provided
information on the project and announced the public comment period and
public meeting. Residents, interested public, and local officials
listed on the contact list in the Citizen Participation Plan for the
Conklin Dumps Site were mailed letters to encourage their participation
and solicit their comments. The press release, newspaper articles,
Citizen Participation Plan and a copy of the letter mailed to residents
are attached in Appendix 5.3.
T
The public comment period closed on March 6, 1991. Attached in
Appendix 5.4 is the transcript and attendance list from the public
meeting. About 25 people attended the public meeting, including
government officials and members of the press. A February 26, 1991
article, in the Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin summarized the public
meeting and is included in Appendix 5.3. 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.
The public meeting lasted about one hour and relatively few
questions were raised. One concern that was raised regarded the
derivation of the annual operating and maintenance cost estimates for
-------
the preferred alternative. In response, it was noted that the operation
and maintenance costs include leachate sampling, leachate treatment,
five year reviews and an Insurance Fund and Reserve Fund which was
estimated at 1 percent (1%) of the Direct Capital Cost. The Reserve
Fund could be used to correct problems that could arise.. The Reserve
Fund may, in fact, not be needed at this site since there is one
documented owner of the site (the Town of Conklin), who will be
available to take care of any problems. The Insurance Fund will be used
for liability insurance. Furthermore, cost estimates in feasibility
studies generally assume an accuracy of plus 50 to minus 30 percent.
The other concerns raised at the meeting were primarily requests
for clarification or further explanation. These concerns were addressed
by NYSDEC and O'Brien and Gere personnel at the meeting and do not
require further supplementation in the summary.
Written Comments
The only written comments received were from the Broome County
Environmental Management Council (EMC), attached in Appendix 5.5. It is
the opinion of the Broome County Environmental Management Council that
the preferred alternative is protective of human health and the
environment, and the EMC is in support of the feasibility study. The
EMC feels that discharge to the on-site sanitary sewer lines and
treatment at the Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewerage Treatment Plant
can be supported, provided the following four conditions are met:
1. chemical composition and concentrations of leachate will not
significantly increase over time;
2. organic constituents of the leachate will be effectively
detoxified through the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
biodegradation treatment process (dilution is not an
acceptable remedial treatment as it impacts the loading
capacity of surface waters);
3. POTW sludge and discharges are not adversely impacted; and
4. storm conditions do not cause untreated leachate to be
discharged to surface waters (i.e., the Susquehanna River).
Response
If leachate is discharged to the on-site sewer lines for treatment
at the POTW, all of these conditions will be met. The chemical
composition and concentrations of leachate will probably not
significantly increase over time since the landfill has been closed for
16 years. Nevertheless, leachate will be sampled periodically.
Extended dilution oxygen uptake inhibition testing has been performed,
and additional testing will be performed to ensure that all the
constituents of the leachate will be effectively detoxified through the
-2-
-------
treatment plant treatment processes. Treatment plant sludge and
discharges will be monitored. No adverse impact on sludge or discharges
are anticipated. Storm conditions will not cause untreated leachate to
be discharged to surface waters since the site will be capped and will
include leachate collection systems.
It should be noted that leachate management Option A, on-site
treatment, may be employed instead of leachate management Option B, even
though all of the above conditions could be met. The USEPA, New York
State Department of Health and NYSDEC concur that discharge of leachate
to the on-site sanitary sewer lines and treatment at the POTW is the
preferred leachate management option. However, the POTW, which is under
the control of the Binghamton-Johnson City Sewerage Authority has no
obligation to accept the leachate.
-3-
-------
APPENDIX 5.1
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Conklin Dumps Site
Town of Conklin, FFR 4 I9bi
Broome County, New York
EPA
Region 2
February, 1991
NYSDEC
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes the remedial alternatives
considered for the Conklin Dumps Superfund site and
identifies the preferred remedial alternative with the
rationale for this preference. The Proposed Plan was
developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) 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
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
amended, and Section 300.430(f) of 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 description of all the
alternatives.
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
comments pertaining to all the remedial alternatives
evaluated, 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 indicate that such
a change will result in a more appropriate solution.
The final decision regarding the selected remedy will
be made after EPA has taken into consideration all
public comments. 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
supporting documentation are available at the following
repositories:
Conklin Town Hall
1271 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
Telephone: (607) 775-3454
Hours: 9:00 am - 12:30 pm, 1:30 pm - 4:00 pm
Monday - Friday
- New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Room 222
Albany, N.Y. 12233
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 29-102
New York, N.Y. 10278
COMMUNFTY 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 begins
on February 4, 1991 and concludes on March 6, 1991.
Pursuant to Section 117(a) of CERCLA, a public
meeting will be held during the public comment period
at the Conklin Town Hall on February 25, 1991 at 7:00
p.m. to present the conclusions of the RI/FS, to further
elaborate on the reasons for recommending the
preferred remedial alternative, and to receive public
comments.
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.
All written comments should be addressed to:
Brian Davidson
Project Manager
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, N.Y. 12233
-------
Figure 1 - Conklin Dumps Site Plan
SITE BACKGROUND
The Conklin Dumps site (see figure 1), located in the
Town of Conklin in Broome County, New York, is
situated in a sparsely populated area within the
perimeter of the Broome Corporate Park in Broome
County. The site consists of two inactive municipal
landfills (an Upper and a Lower Landfill), both owned
by the Town of Conklin. The Lower Landfill was
operated by the Town of Conklin from 1964 to 1969.
This landfill was used to dispose of municipal refuse,
and is estimated to contain a total fill volume of
approximately 25,000 cubic meters. The Lower Landfill
is located in the floodplain of the Susquehanna River,
about 0.5 miles to the east of the river. Designated
wetlands surround a large portion of the Lower Landfill.
The Upper Landfill was operated by the Town of
Conklin for the disposal of municipal wastes from 1969
until 1975, when a closure order was issued by the
NYSDEC. The Upper Landfill is estimated to contain a
total fill volume of approximately 55,000 cubic meters of
waste material. There is no evidence that hazardous
wastes were ever disposed of in the Lower Landfill.
However, there is a preponderance of evidence that
hazardous wastes were disposed of in the Upper
Landfill. Also, the nature of contamination in the
vicinity of well #11 is further evidence that hazardous
wastes may have been disposed of in the Upper
Landfill.
SFTE HISTORY
In 1984, O'Brien and Gere Engineers, Inc. initiated a
two phase hydrogeologic investigation of the Broome
Corporate Park for the Broome Industrial Development
Agency. The purpose of the investigation was to
determine whether the Broome Corporate Park could
be developed. A phase I hydrogeologic investigation
was completed in March 1984. This investigation
evaluated the potential for contamination and
development limitations of the area. A Phase II
hydrogeologic investigation was completed in February
1985. This investigation characterized the local
hydrogeology and identified the hydrogeologic
conditions that would affect development of the
industrial park. The investigations identified the
presence of leachate seeps from the site. In addition,
groundwater monitoring wells located within the
perimeter of the dumps indicated the presence of low
levels of contaminants.
In 1985, a Work Plan for conducting an RI/FS was
prepared and submitted to NYSDEC. The field
investigations outlined in the approved Work Plan
began in January 1986. In June 1986, the field efforts
were completed, but negotiations between the Town
and the State on the form of the Consent Order for
funding of the project caused delays in finalizing the
results of the investigations. Between November 1986
and June 1987, work was suspended pending the
-------
renewal and completion of negotiations on the form of
a Consent Order. The site was listed on the National
Priorities List (NPL) on March 30, 1989.
One requirement of the negotiated Consent Order was
the preparation of a Preliminary Report. The
Preliminary Report included a review of the data
generated to date, and proposed supplemental studies
for the characterization of the contamination at the site
and revisions to the Work Plan. The Rl Report was
approved by NYSDEC on February 12, 1990,
contingent upon the inclusion of additional groundwater
sampling to obtain validated data at critical locations,
methane monitoring, and field delineation of the
wetlands in the vicinity of the Lower Landfill.
The required round of sampling was completed in June
1990. Groundwater samples from both the Upper and
Lower Landfills were analyzed for volatile organics and
selected metals.
Most of the contamination was found directly
downgradient from the Upper Landfill in one well.
Only inorganics were found in groundwater emanating
from the Lower Landfill. Leachate emanating from both
the Upper and Lower Landfills was found to contain
detectable levels of volatile organics and inorganics.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline health risk assessment was developed as
part of the Rl for the Conklin Dumps site. The risk
assessment evaluates the potential impacts on human
health and the environment at the site assuming that
the contamination 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 Rl Report presented a detailed site specific risk
assessment which addressed site conditions and
exposures. The risk assessment qualitatively and
quantitatively evaluated the hazards to human health
and the environment at the Landfills. The qualitative
analysis characterized the potential exposure pathways
while the quantitative analysis determined the risk of
the complete pathways.
The human exposure pathways were ingestion of
groundwater and dermal contact with leachate. EPA
considers risks in the range of 10"* to 10"5 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.
The quantitative assessment evaluated intentional
ingestion of groundwater by humans and dermal
contact with leachate by humans. It was determined,
based on the evaluation of sample concentrations from
the most recent sampling round (June 1990), that
neither pathway posed an unacceptable health risk.
Although the risks are in the acceptable range, State
and Federal groundwater standards are being violated
in the vicinity of well #11 (See figure 2), therefore
remedial action is required.
CONKLIN DUMPS SITE
Figure 2 - Contamination Level at Well # 11
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
technologies 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.
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect
human health and the environment; they specify the
contaminants) of concern, the exposure route(s),
receptor(s), and acceptable contaminant level (s) for
each exposure route. These objectives are based on
available information and standards such as applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and
risk-based levels established in the risk assessment.
The risk assessment concluded that the risk to human
health due to site-related exposure to groundwater,
landfill leachate, or surface water(sediments) was at the
upper bounds (10"4) for acceptable exposure levels.
However, certain compounds in the groundwater and
leachate exceed New York State Class GA
Groundwater Standards which have been determined
to be ARARs for the Site. Chloroethane, 1,2-
dichloropropane, and xylene have been detected at
-------
concentrations above Class GA standards at the Upper
Landfill. Xylene (7 ppb in 1990) has historically been
below or just above the Class GA standard (5 ppb).
The concentration of 1,2-dichloropropane (9 ppb in
1990) has been decreasing over the past four years
and most recently was detected just above the Class
GA standard (5 ppb). Chloroethane was observed at a
concentration of 68 ppb in 1990. The recent Xylene
and 1,2-dichloropropane concentrations are considered
insignificant when compared to the standards (5 ppb).
The groundwater contamination is confined to a small
area around Well # 11 (located at the toe of the upper
landfill). It appears that due to the nature of the soil,
no off-site migration of contaminated groundwater has
occurred since the closure of the landfill.
Accordingly, the following remedial action objectives
were established for the FS:
Prevent ingestion of groundwater containing
site-related constituents of concern
(chloroethane) at concentrations significantly
exceeding Class GA standards.
Prevent the migration of constituents of concern
from the landfill material that could result in
groundwater concentrations above Class GA
standards.
Restore the aquifer to concentrations that meet
Class GA standards for site-related constituents
of concern (chloroethane).
Accordingly, the FS evaluates in detail, six remedial
alternatives for addressing the contamination
associated with the Conklin Dumps site.
These alternatives are:
Alternative 1: N"o Action
Capital Cost: none
0 & M Cost: $15,000/yr
Present Worth Cost: $111,446
Time to Implement*: 7-9 years
* Assuming Natural Degradation
Alternative 1 is the no-action alternative. This
. alternative would provide for an assessment of the
environmental conditions if no remedial actions are
implemented. The no-action alternative would require
implementation of a groundwater monitoring program.
This program would be used to monitor groundwater
conditions and provide a data base for future remedial
actions which may be required. Five-year reviews
would be conducted as required by the NCP due to
the fact that the landfilled material would remain on-
site. The purpose of the five-year reviews is to ensure
that adequate protection of human health and the
environment is maintained.
Alternative 1 would rely upon natural degradation of the
constituent of concern (chloroethane) to reduce the
concentration of chloroethane in the groundwater near
Well #11 to below Class GA groundwater standards (5
ppb).
Alternative 2: Multi-Media Cap on Both Landfills, Active
Leachate Collection and On-Site Treatment (Air
Stripping) or Discharge to the Bingh.amton-Johnson
City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant
Time to Implement*: 7-9 years
* Assuming Natural Degradation
Option A; Leachate Wells at the Upper Landfill,
Interceptor Trench at the Lower Landfill, and On-Site
Treatment (Air Stripping)
Capital Cost: $3,256,773
O & M Cost: $92,901/yr
Present Worth Cost: $4,558,947
Option B: Leachate Wells at the Upper Landfill,
Interceptor Trench at the Lower Landfill, and Discharge
to the Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost: $3,145,703
O & M Cost: $86,669/yr
Present Worth Cost: $4,352,078
Option C: Interceptor Trenches at the Both Landfills,
and On-Site Treatment (Air Stripping)
Capital Cost: $3,327,098
O & M Cost: $93,871/yr
Present Worth Cost: $4,644,183
Option D: Interceptor Trenches at Both Landfills, and
Discharge to Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage
Treatment Plant
Capital Cost: $3,204,428
O & M Cost: $87,479/yr
Present Worth Cost: $4,423,255
This alternative would provide containment through the
installation of caps over the landfill material and unlike
the other alternatives, active leachate collection.
Leachate would be treated on-site using air stripping,
or at a nearby activated sludge sewage treatment plant
(Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment
Plant). Treated effluent would be discharged to Carlin
Creek under options A and C. Under options B and D,
-------
leachate collected at the Landfills would be discharged
into nearby sanitary sewer lines. Also included in
Alternative 2 would be groundwater monitoring, fencing,
deed restrictions, and five-year reviews as required by
the NCR.
The landfills would be regraded as necessary prior to
installation of the caps to establish slopes which would
encourage runoff and minimize erosion. The caps
would contain the landfill material and minimize
infiltration of precipitation into the landfill material.
This would minimize the potential for future
contamination of the groundwater.
OPTIONS A and C
Air emissions would be in compliance with all
applicable standards. Pre-treatment for removal of iron
and manganese would likely be necessary. The on-
site treatment plant would be located adjacent to the
Lower Landfill. Leachate from the Upper Landfill would
be transported to the treatment system at the Lower
Landfill through a gravity-flow pipe. Treated effluent
would be discharged to Cariin Creek. The treatment
system would be operated 24 hours per day until the
leachate generation rate drops below a predetermined
practical treatment rate. At that time, leachate would
be temporarily stored on-site and then treated by the
air stripper whenever sufficient quantities were
accumulated.
Alternative 2 would also rely upon natural degradation
of chloroethane in excess of the Class GA groundwater
standard in the groundwater in the vicinity of Well #11.
Alternative process options potentially suitable for this
alternative include: 1) use of an alternative landfill
capping system; and 2) treatment of leachate through
carbon adsorption. Special consideration may be
necessary for capping the Lower Landfill since it is
located in a flobd plain.
Alternative 3: Multi-Media Cap on Both Landfills,
Leachate Collection, Groundwater Extraction (10,000
gpd) and On-Site Treatment (Air Stripping)
Capital Cost: $3,392,130
0 & M Cost: $111,468/yr
Present Worth Cost: $4,934,726
Time to Implement: 14-24 years
In addition to the actions comprising Alternative 2,
Alternative 3 includes groundwater extraction and
treatment.
The groundwater extraction system would remove
impacted groundwater in the vicinity of Well #11
through two extraction wells. The extraction wells
would be located between Well #11 and Wells #3 and
#4. The pumping rate would be approximately 10,000
gpd per well. The groundwater extraction system
would be operated 24 hours per day until such time
that the concentration of chloroethane is at or below
Class GA standards. The range of time required is
estimated to be approximately 14 to 24 years. The
groundwater extraction process would interfere with the
natural degradation process since the dilution of
contaminant levels would inhibit biological degradation
of such contaminants by the microbes in the soil.
Therefore, an active system of groundwater extraction
will actually take longer than the passive process of
natural degradation in attaining Class GA groundwater
standards.
The groundwater and leachate treatment system
(stripping) would be located at the Upper Landfill,
adjacent to an extraction well. Leachate from the
Lower Landfill would be either pumped up to the
treatment system or temporarily stored and then
transported by a tanker truck to the treatment system.
The treatment system would be designed to achieve
effluent limitations established pursuant to the
requirements of the State Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES) program. Pretreatment for
iron and manganese in the groundwater and leachate
would be required to prevent fouling of the stripping
system. A backwash system would also be incorporat-
ed into the stripper design so as to remove any fouling
that might result from residual metals passing through
the stripper. The treatment system would be operated
24 hours per day until the groundwater being extracted
attained Class GA groundwater standards. At that
time, leachate would be temporarily stored on-site and
then treated by the air stripper whenever sufficient
quantities were accumulated. Treated groundwater
and leachate would be discharged to Cariin Creek.
Alternate technology process options potentially
suitable for this alternative include: 1) groundwater
extraction through subsurface drains; 2) groundwater
and leachate treatment through activated carbon
adsorption; and 3) use of an alternate landfill capping
system.
Alternative 4: Multi-Media Cap on Both Landfills,
Leachate Collection, Groundwater Extraction (10,000
gpd) and On-Site Treatment (Oxidation)
Capital Cost: $3,480,580
O & M Cost: $138,188/yr
Present Worth Cost: $5,113,678
Time to Implement: 14-24 years
Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 3 except that
Alternative 4 would utilize on-site treatment by chemical
oxidation instead of air stripping. A leachate collection
system would be installed around the toe of each
-------
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 practicable. However, since the contaminant
source, the landfill itself, could not be effectively
excavated and treated due to its large size and the
absence of hot-spots representing major sources of
contamination, none of the alternatives considered
satisfied the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element of the remedy with respect to source
control.
RATIONALE FOR SELECTION
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives,
each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation
criteria, namely short-term effectiveness, long-term
effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume, implementability, cost, compliance
with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements ("ARARs'), overall protection of human
health and the environment, and state and community
acceptance.
Alternative 1 (no action) would achieve the FS
objectives of preventing ingestion of contaminated
groundwater and restoring the aquifer through deed
restrictions and natural degradation, respectively.
However, it would not prevent the potential for
contaminant migration since future contamination of the
groundwater would still be possible through the
generation of leachate in the landfills that could enter
the groundwater.
All of the remaining alternatives would achieve the
remedial objectives as they all would employ both
containment (capping) of the landfill njaterial and some
method of groundwater remediation. These methods
include natural degradation, air stripping, and chemical
oxidation. While air stripping and chemical oxidation
would accomplish the same task as natural
degradation, as explained above, extraction and
treatment would take a longer time to achieve Class
GA groundwater standards and would result in a
higher remedial cost Alternative 2 offers equal or
better protection and is the least costly of the treatment
alternatives. Alternative 2, Option B is the alternative
which is recommended for implementation. Option A
would be the second choice if a POTW is not available
to accept the leachate.
The evaluation criteria are noted below and explained
below.
Overall protection of human health and the
environment 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.
Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) addresses
whether or not a remedy would meet all of
the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of other Federal and State
environmental statutes and requirements or
provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
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 addresses the
magnitude and effectiveness of the measures
that may be required to manage the risk
posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated
wastes.
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.
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.
Implementability is the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services
needed to implement a particular option.
Cost includes estimated capital and operation
and maintenance costs, and net present
worth costs.
State acceptance indicates whether, based on
its review of the RI/FS and Proposed Plan, the
State concurs with, opposes, or has no
comment on the selected remedy at the
present time.
Community acceptance will be assessed in
the Record of Decision (ROD) and refers to
the public's general response to the alterna-
-------
landfill and collected teachate would be treated with the
groundwater. The groundwater extraction system
would be as described in Alternative 3.
Alternate technology process options potentially
suitable for this alternative include: 1) groundwater
extraction through subsurface drains; and 2) use of an
alternate landfill capping system.
Alternative 5: Multi-Media Cap on Both Landfills,
Leachate Collection, Groundwater Extraction (10,000
gpd) and Treatment Off-Site
Capital Cost: $3,237,850
0 & M Cost: $619,140/yr
Present Worth Cost: $10,893,217
Time to Implement: 14-24 years
Alternative 5 is the same as Alternatives 3 and 4,
except it would utilize off-site treatment.
The groundwater and leachate would be temporarily
stored on-site and then transported to an approved
facility for treatment and disposal. Approximately 40
tanker loads per week would be required during the
period when both leachate and groundwater are being
collected. Pump and treat operations would continue
until the groundwater being extracted attained Class
GA groundwater standards. At that time, only collected
leachate would need to be transported to an approved
facility for treatment and disposal.
Alternate technology process options potentially
suitable for this alternative include: 1) groundwater
extraction through subsurface drains; 2) use of an
alternate landfill capping system; and 3) use of a deep
well injection system or a sewage treatment plant for
groundwater and leachate discharge.
Alternative 6: Consolidation of Both Landfills, Multi-
Media Cap on Upper Landfill, Leachate Collection, and
On-Site Treatment (Air Stripper) ~"
Capital Cost: $3,800,794
0 & M Cost: $100,405/yr
Present Worth Cost: $5,218,316
Time to Implement*: 7-9 years
* Assuming Natural Degradation
Alternative 6 would provide containment of the landfill
materials through consolidation of the Lower Landfill
material with the Upper Landfill material at the Upper
Landfill site and the installation of a cap over the
consolidated material. Leachate collection would be
implemented at the Upper Landfill. Leachate would be
treated on-site at the Upper Landfill using air stripping.
Treated effluent would be discharged to Carlin Creek.
Also included in Alternative 6 would be groundwater
monitoring, fencing, deed restrictions and five-year
reviews as required by the NCP.
This alternative would involve excavating the material in
the Lower Landfill and transporting it to and placing it
on the Upper Landfill. Samples of the Lower Landfill
material would have to be analyzed using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test to insure
that the material is not hazardous. Any material
deemed hazardous would have to be transported off-
site to a RCRA facility for treatment and/or disposal.
Additionally, dewatering of the landfill excavation would
need to be performed in areas where the landfill
material is located below the water table. It is
assumed that the water would be managed as
hazardous and would be transported to and disposed
of at a RCRA facility.
Alternative 6 would rely upon natural degradation of
chloroethane to reduce chloroethane levels to below
Class GA standards in the groundwater in the vicinity
of Well #11.
Alternative process options potentially suitable for this
alternative include: 1) use of an alternative landfill
capping system; 2) placing the Lower Landfill material
in a commercial landfill; and 3) treatment of leachate
through carbon adsorption.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives,
EPA and NYSDEC recommend Alternative 2, Option B,
capping of the landfills, perimeter leachate collection
systems, 3 leachate extraction wells at the Upper
Landfill, and discharge Binghamton-Johnson City Joint
Sewage Treatment Plant. The remedy also includes
natural degradation of impacted groundwater, fencing
of the landfills, deed restrictions, and groundwater
monitoring as the preliminary choice for the Site
remedy. If discharge to the Binghamton-Johnson City
Joint Sewage Treatment Plant is not possible, then
Option A would be the secondary choice for the site
remedy. Option A is the same as Option B except that
Option A involves on-site treatment (air-stripping).
The preferred alternative achieves the ARARs more
quickly, or as quickly, and at less cost than the other
options. Therefore, the preferred alternative will provide
the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with
respect to the evaluating criteria EPA and the
NYSDEC believe that the preferred alternative will be
protective of human health and the environment, will
comply with ARARs, will be cost effective, and will
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. The remedy also will
meet the statutory preference for the use of treatment
as a principal element.
-------
tives described in the Proposed Plan
and the RI/FS reports.
A comparative analysis of these alternatives based
upon the evaluation criteria noted above, is as follows:
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Alternative 1 would provide for overall protection of
human health and the environment through natural
degradation of constituents of concern in the
groundwater. Alternative 1 would not include capping
of the landfill material or leachate collection. While
natural degradation of constituents of concern in
groundwater could be expected to occur, the potential
would remain for future migration of constituents of
concern from the landfill material.
Alternative 2 would provide for overall protection of
human health and the environment with capping of
landfill materials and active leachate collection, to
prevent migration of constituents of concern from
landfill materials to groundwater, and deed restrictions
to prohibit potable use of groundwater. Natural
degradation of constituents of concern in the
groundwater is expected to reduce concentrations of
those constituents to groundwater standards in the
short term.
Alternatives 3 through 6 would provide for overall
protection of human health and the environment with
capping of landfill materials and leachate collection to
prevent migration of constituents of concern from
landfill materials to groundwater, extraction and
treatment of groundwater to reduce concentrations of
constituents of concern in the aquifer to groundwater
standards, and deed restrictions to prohibit potable use
of groundwater.
o Compliance with ARARs
All technologies proposed for use in Alternatives 2
through 6 would be designed and implemented to
satisfy all ARARs. Federal and State regulations
dealing with the handling and transportation of
hazardous wastes to an off-site treatment facility would
be followed. The off-site treatment facility would be
fully EPA-approvea. RCRA wastes would be treated
using specific technologies or specific treatment levels,
as appropriate, to comply with land disposal
restrictions.
o Lona-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 2 through 6 would be equally effective over
the long-term. Each of Alternatives 2 through 6 employ
adequate and reliable controls to prevent future
migration of constituents of concern from landfill
materials to groundwater and reduce constituent
concentrations in groundwater to Class GA
groundwater standards. Alternative 1 would provide for
reduction of constituent concentrations in groundwater
to Class GA standards and employ an adequate and
reliable control to monitor groundwater conditions, but
would not provide for prevention of migration of
constituents from landfill materials to groundwater.
o Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Alternative 1 would not include the use of any
treatment method. Concentrations of constituents of
concern in groundwater would be expected to be
reduced, however, through natural degradation
processes in the aquifer.
Alternative 2 includes treatment of leachate with an
on-site air stripper system (options A and C) or
discharge to a POTW (options B and D), satisfying the
statutory preference for treatment. Nearly complete
removal of organic constituents in the leachate would
be expected with air stripping. Air stripping is an
irreversible treatment method. Further, concentrations
of constituents of concern in groundwater would be
expected to be reduced through natural degradation
processes in the aquifer, and mobility of constituents of
concern in the landfill materials would be reduced with
capping and leachate collection.
Alternatives 3 and 6 would satisfy the statutory
preference for treatment with the inclusion of air
stripping of groundwater and leachate. Air stripping
would provide for nearly complete destruction of
volatile organics in groundwater and leachate. Air
stripping is an irreversible treatment method. Minimal
levels of residual constituents of concern in treated
groundwater and leachate and in the aquifer would be
further reduced through natural degradation processes.
Further, a reduction in the mobility of constituents of
concern in landfill materials would be expected with
capping and leachate collection. Alternative 6 would
provide an additional reduction in mobility through
consolidation of Lower Landfill material at the Upper
Landfill site.
Alternative 4 would satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment with the inclusion of chemical oxidation of
groundwater and leachate. Chemical oxidation would
provide for nearly complete destruction of volatile
organics in groundwater and leachate as would the off-
site treatment that would be required under Alternative
5. Chemical oxidation is an irreversible treatment
method. Minimal levels of residual constituents of
concern in treated groundwater and leachate and in
the aquifer would be further reduced through natural
degradation processes. Further, a reduction in the
mobility of constituents of concern in landfill materials
-------
would be expected with capping and leachate
collection.
o Short-Term Effectiveness
Although the remedial objective concerning prevention
of migration of constituents from landfill materials to
groundwater would not be achieved through Alternative
1, the remedial objectives related to prevention of
ingestion of groundwater and the restoration of the
aquifer to Class GA standards would likely be attained.
Although it would be highly unlikely, the potential would
exist for unrestricted installation of potable wells near
the Site. Natural degradation processes are expected
to reduce concentrations of constituents of concern to
groundwater standards within approximately 7 to 9
years. Protection of workers during monitoring
activities would be achieved through the use of
appropriate protective equipment.
Alternative 2 would be effective over the short-term.
There would be no short-term impacts on the
community during remedial actions. Protection of
workers during remedial activities would be achieved
through the use of appropriate protective equipment.
There would not be any environmental impacts during
remediation; contaminant transport via fugitive
emissions during cap construction would be minimized
through appropriate methods such as dust control.
Installation of a cap would prevent generation of
additional leachate. Restoration of the aquifer to
groundwater standards would likely be achieved within
approximately 7 to 9 years through natural degradation.
Prevention of ingestion of groundwater would likely be
attained following implementation of deed restrictions.
Alternative 3 through 5 would be effective over the
short-term. There would be no short-term impacts on
the community environment during remedial actions.
Protection of workers during remedial -activities would
be achieved through the use of appropriate protective
equipment during remedial activities. Contaminant
transport via fugitive emissions during cap construction
would be minimized through appropriate methods such
as dust control. Installation of a cap would prevent
additional leachate generation. Restoration of the
aquifer to groundwater standards would likely be
achieved within approximately 14 to 24 years through
extraction and treatment of groundwater. The
groundwater extraction process would interfere with the
natural degradation process since the dilution of
contaminant levels would inhibit biological degradation
of such contaminants by the microbes in the soil.
Therefore, an active system of groundwater extraction
will actually take longer than the passive process of
natural degradation in attaining Class GA groundwater
standards. Prevention of the potential for ingestion of
groundwater would likely be attained following
implementation of deed restrictions.
Alternative 6 would be effective over the short-term.
There would be no short-term impacts on the
community during remedial actions. Protection of
workers during remedial activities would be achieved
through the use of appropriate protective equipment.
Contaminant transport during excavation of the Lower
Landfill and consolidation with the Upper Landfill and
during cap construction would be minimized through
appropriate methods such as dust control.
Consolidation of the two Landfills and installation of a
cap on the Upper Landfill would prevent the generation
of additional leachate. Restoration of the aquifer to
groundwater standards would likely be achieved within
approximately 14 to 24 years through extraction and
treatment of groundwater. As discussed above for
alternative 3, the extraction system is anticipated to
take a longer period of time than the natural
degradation process in attaining Class GA standards.
Prevention of the potential for ingestion of groundwater
would likely be attained following implementation of
deed restrictions. However, excavating the Lower
Landfill may create an environmental and public threat
as a result of runoff and air emissions. There is no
indication of contaminated groundwater at the Lower
Landfill and it is best left undisturbed.
o Implementability
There would be no construction or operation required
for implementation of Alternative 1. Groundwater
monitoring is a reliable method which would indicate
changes in aqu-er conditions. If the need for further
action were identified through groundwater monitoring,
the FS and Record of Decision (ROD) process may
need to be repeated for the Site. Sampling personnel,
equipment, and an analytical laboratory would be
readily available.
The cap and leachate collection system in Alternative 2
could be readily constructed and maintained. The air
stripping system for leachate treatment could also be
readily installed and operated. Diversion to the POTW
via nearby sanitary sewer lines could also be readily
constructed and maintained. Capping, leachate
collection, air stripping, and treatment at a POTW
(activated sludge) are reliable technologies. If
additional remedial action were determined to be
necessary, a groundwater extraction and treatment
system could be designed and installed. Operation of
the air stripping system could be readily extended if
necessary. Discharge to the POTW could also be
readily extended. The effectiveness of Alternative 2
could be readily monitored; groundwater monitoring
would indicate changes in aquifer conditions, and
discharge monitoring would indicate leachate treatmer
effectiveness. Coordination with local government
-------
10
would be necessary to implement deed restrictions.
Sampling equipment, sampling personnel, an analytical
laboratory, construction equipment, cap materials, and
an air stripping system would be expected to be
readily available.
The cap and leachate collection system in Alternatives
3 and 6 could be readily constructed and maintained.
The extraction system and air stripper could be readily
constructed and operated. Capping, leachate
collection, extraction, and air stripping are reliable
technologies. If additional remedial action were
determined to be necessary, the groundwater
extraction system could be extended. Operation of the
air stripper could be readily extended if necessary.
The effectiveness of Alternatives 3 and 6 could be
readily monitored; groundwater monitoring would
indicate changes in aquifer conditions, and discharge
monitoring would indicate groundwater and leachate
treatment effectiveness. Coordination with local
government would be necessary to implement deed
restrictions. Sampling equipment, sampling personnel,
an analytical laboratory, construction equipment, cap
materials, and drillers would be expected to be readily
available. The air stripping technology should be
readily obtainable.
The cap and leachate collection system in Alternative 4
could be readily constructed and maintained. The
extraction system and chemical oxidation system could
be readily constructed and operated. Capping,
leachate collection, extraction, and chemical oxidation
are reliable technologies. If additional remedial action
were determined to be necessary, the groundwater
extraction system could be extended. Operation of the
chemical oxidation system could be readily extended if
necessary. The effectiveness of Alternative 4 could be
readily monitored; groundwater monitoring would
indicate changes in aquifer conditions, and discharge
monitoring would indicate groundwater and leachate
treatment effectiveness. Coordination with local
government would be necessary to implement deed
restrictions. Sampling equipment, sampling personnel,
an analytical laboratory, construction equipment, cap
materials, and drillers would be expected to be readily
available. The chemical oxidation technology should
be readily obtainable.
o Cost
The total present worth of the alternatives evaluated
ranged from $111,446 (no action) to $10,893,000
(groundwater extraction and off-site treatment). Present
worth considers a 5% discount rate, and a 30-year
operational period. Only Alternative 1 would not
require any capital costs. Alternative 2 is the least
costly of the action alternatives ($4,352,078 -
$4,644,183). Even assuming that natural degradation
will not be affected by pumping groundwater in
alternatives 3 - 6, alternative 2 is still the least costly of
the action alternatives.
o State Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the preferred alternative.
o Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative will
be assessed in the ROD following review of the public
comments received on the RI/FS report and the
Proposed Plan.
CONCLUSION
Based on information currently available, EPA and
NYSDEC believe that the preferred remedy described
above is fully protective of human hearth and the
environment, meets all the ARARs, offers the best
balance among the evaluation criteria discussed above
and justifies 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 5.2
-------
Notice of Public Copnent Period
and Public 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 Conk!in Dumps Inactive Hazardous Waste Site
(#704013) located within the perimeter of the Broome Corporate
Industrial Park south of Powers Road and approximately one mile north of
the Kirkwood Interchange of Interstate Route 81 in the Town of Conklin.
Written comments will be accepted during a public comment period that
began on February 4, 1991 and will continue until March 6, 1991.
The Conklin Dumps consist of two (2) landfilled areas totaling
about 8.4 acres, referred to as the Upper and Lower Landfills. The
Lower Landfill was operated between 1964 and 1969 and contains
approximately 25,000 cubic yards of wastes. It is believed that only
municipal solid waste was disposed of in the Lower Landfill. The Upper
Landfill contains approximately 55,000 cubic yards of waste. It is
believed that some industrial wastes were codisposed with municipal
solid waste in the Upper Landfill. The Landfills are owned and were
operated by the Town of Conklin. In 1975, a closure order was issued by
the NYSDEC.
A two phase hydrogeologic investigation was completed by O'Brien
and Gere Engineers for the Broome County Industrial Development Agency
in 1984 and 1985. Additional field work was performed in 1986, and in
June 1986 the site was nominated for the National Priority List (NPL).
In June 1987, a Consent Order was signed between the Town of Conklin and
the NYSDEC which required a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
(RI/FS) to be performed on the Conklin Dumps site. The Consent Order
also requires that the remedial measures agreed upon after completion of
the RI/FS be implemented at the site.
The Remedial Investigation (RI) was completed in December 1988.
The RI concluded that presently the landfills do not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health or wildlife. The RI also indicated
only very limited groundwater contamination in the immediate vicinity of
the Upper Landfill. Confirmatory sampling, performed in June 1990,
confirmed the RI findings and provided additional data validated data.
A methane gas survey, also performed in June 1990, indicated no methane
gas at either landfill.
-------
The Feasibility Study (FS) which evaluates remedial alternatives
for the site was completed in January 1991. The FS Report evaluated the
six (6) following alternatives for the site:
Alternative 1 - no action alternative - groundwater monitoring
and five year reviews.
Alternative 2 - Cap both landfills, perimeter leachate
collection, monitoring, fencing, deed restrictions, and four
options for enhanced leachate collection and treatment:
Leachate Option A - Three leachate extraction wells
within the Upper Landfill with on site treatment,
discharge to Carlin Creek.
Leachate Option B - Three leachate extraction wells
within the Upper Landfill with discharge to the sanitary
sewer lines and treatment at the Binghamton-Johnson City
Joint Sewage Treatment Plant.
Leachate Option C - A downgradient interceptor trench at
the Upper Landfill with on site treatment, discharge to
Carlin Creek.
Leachate Option D - A downgradient interceptor trench at
the Upper Landfill with discharge to the sanitary sewer
lines and treatment at the Binghamton-Johnson City Joint
Sewage Treatment Plant.
Alternative 3 - Cap both landfills, perimeter leachate
collection, collection of groundwater through two extraction
wells immediately downgradient of the Upper landfill, treat by
air stripping, discharge to Carlin Creek.
Alternative 4 - Cap both landfills, perimeter leachate
collection, collection of groundwater through two extraction
wells immediately downgradient of the Upper landfill treatment
by chemical oxidation at Upper Landfill.
Alternative 5 - Cap both landfills, perimeter leachate
collection, collection of groundwater through two extraction
wells and off-site treatment of collected groundwater and
leachate at a RCRA facility.
Alternative 6 - Consolidation of the Upper and Lower Landfills
at the Upper Landfill, a cap, perimeter leachate collection,
air stripping and discharge to Carlin Creek.
The FS Report recommends that Alternative 2 with Leachate Option B
above be implemented.
If discharge of leachate to the sanitary sewer lines and treatment
at the Binghamton-Johnson City Joint Sewage Treatment Plant is not
possible, then it is recommended that Alternative 2 with leachate Option
A be implemented.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in
consultation with the NYSDEC, has recently issued a Proposed Plan for
the Conklin Dumps site 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) of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The
Proposed Plan summarizes the findings of the RI/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:
Conklin Town Hall
1271 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York
Telephone: 607-775-3454
Hours: 9:00 am - 12:30 pm, 1:30 pm - 4:00 pm
Monday - Friday
The Proposed Plan, the RI Report, FS Report and other reports
generated on the Conklin site are also available for public review at
the NYSDEC offices in Kirkwood and Albany and the USEPA Region II office
in New York City.
Location of Public Meeting Date and Time
Conklin Town Hall February 25, 1991
1271 Conklin Road 7:00 pm
Conk!in, 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 5.2
-------
! News Release Region 7
' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
*Wi*" 14 • C ** "^^ ' "M/* ?*
«!-L.A.y Kr.ICHBAvM. /?«ff!ciwi u:fec:of c.„.......,. \,tw v0fK
February 4, 1991
PRZSS ADVISPRY/5ACXGaOUSD
The .Sew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
will conduct an information meeting on February 2 = th at 7:00
p.m. to update local citizens on clean up plans for the
ConXlin landfills. The meeting will be held at the Conklin
Town Hall, 1271 Cor.klin Road. The meeting is one part of
the effcrt to solicit public comment on a proposed remedial
plan for the sits. The TEC will also receive written
comments from now until March 6th.
The purpose of this public review period and the
informational meeting is to present the results of a
comprehensive Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/?S) conducted under the supervision of both the State
3EC, ar.d the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The RI/FS
was completed by O'Brien & Gere Engineers, which was hired
by the Town o'f Cor.klin, owner and farmer operator of both,
landfills-.
The two landfills (Upper and Lower) are located on
approximately 8 1/2 acres, within the perimeter of the Brooms
Corporate Industrial ParX south of Power.s Road and
approximately one mile north of the Kirkwocd Interchar.ge of
Interstate Route 81. The Lower Landfill was operated by the
Tcwr. between l£€4 and 1965 and contains abcc-t 25,000 cubic
-------
yards of municipal waste. The Upper Landfill contains
more ^han S5,COC cubic yards of municipal waste and seme
industrial waste. The Landfills were closed in 1375 under
•an order issued by the DEC.
C'Erien & Gere began investigation of the site in 1284 for
the Brcome County Industrial Development Agency. After
field work conducted in 1586, the sita was nominated for the
National Priority List (Superfund List). In June 19S7 the
Town cf Ccnxlin signed.a Consent Order with the State DEC
which required the Town to complete a RI/~S and to implement
the remedial measures agreed upon after those studies.
Those studies are new complete and remedial measures to
contain z-he sites and remove contaminated ie&chate from the
area are recommended. Seepage from the si_e contains
detectable levels of volatile crganics and inorganics which
have leached into grcundwacer directly downgrade of the
landfills.
Eased or. the data presented in the KI/FS and recent
confirmatory sampling and methane testing, the SPA has
prepared a Proposed Remedial Action Flan (?RAF). The PRAP
calls for capping both landfills, collecting the le&chate
and discharging to the nearby sanitary sewer lines
-------
F.7
3..
connecting to the Singhamton-Johnson City Joint Sev.-age
Treatment Plant. This plan also calls for fencing the
landfills and monitoring groundwater at the site.
The clean up will be the responsiblity of the Town of
Conklin as owner/operators of the landfills. The Town will.
receive reimbursement from the State for 75% of their costs.
The State funds are from the voter-approved 1956
Envircn.-er.tal Quality Bond Act. The cost of the remediation
is estimated at more than S4 million.
This remedial plan is subject to change based on comments by
the public during the next thirty days. The RI/FS, the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan, and supporting data are
avallab-e for review at the Ccnklin Town Kail from 9 a.m. to
12.-3C and 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Copies
are also available for review at the DEC sub-office in
T
Kirkwocd. Written comments should be sent to:
Brian-Davidson, Project Manager
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
NYS DEC
50 Wolf Road, Room 222
Albany, New York 12233-7010
For additional information contact Kate Lacey, Regional
Citizen Participation Specialist, (315) 426-74CC.
-------
Timothy M. O'Hwm
Tc mer. wiin DEC iisO
^ i i> ^
Conklin
to meet
with EPA
on dump
», EC • L*U
Se^r. )tt:\ the: Ki:ru:s
\DMZ ty.ttza of hazard::;
, waste ir. 1*0 clc Conkl.D
! '^'t^'st'
! K^ii'r.--t't"t^'.:"iref- I
irj i:hed'j:f.' for " ; r-. |
M.-rdi\ r. if.eCcr.nl:: Tor. '
H,:. ' |
I Tr.t sale Dejinir.e.-.: c: '
| j.-,--;--tr:a: fsnie--i:'or. '
1 af: feiera. Er.vrsr.raer.u: :
' Pro'.e;:.:.-. Acen:- recctr.- I
! rT.:-:a$-3-::;.cr:c.ar.:-i:
! :-•:..» iKlirj ihe iir.i::: '
St( CONKLIN. P*gt4S
•»;e- «•; .try U. 1911
Conklin —
Canrin-c: i'uin Pagi IB
lu.'farn *::r: inpemeib.e Sips. :o!-
iKi.r.g .j.-.cf'L iear-sii uid ciiifcsrt-
:r.g;: ;;• .a: pu'riic it*er.
Tr;tfquir.;.T 0.' :.-.; ;... ~'>:^'-
pa.d b) ::.e lu'.c :trc-.>". -'.; !?sr
E.-.viro-xer.ta: Qii!.:.- Bc.rx A.-;
Th= Tc^r. c!' CorJlir. :s :Kperj.:ii
Corpiy-.slito'.rirrcuErte:.
Bt(i';K ihe icur. ha.* M«i nptct-
ing th: :sj«ne and. z»d« arra-p-
r.:-:s \'j m«i ii io*n S^rvifo
Txoir.;- M O'Hej-n u;c/.sxpajt-?
»•>.: be a(Tec::d z:t:*3!ri, if«'£;.'"!
set '.hi! u Uvua nc c:Tei
e: or, tht tax me, he u:d
I
Vr.ce: ar. agrKT.:r;: rote; *•):.•,
Brocms Cc'jr.;> »he:. :r.e toj-:; ,^
sa;, de-elopip-g Brecaie Ccrpc-.'aie
Firk r. Car.*]..-, "'ffi tov-r: S3^ bc'-
r;« cr '.o S:..' m^..or. 1C ::;a: :ht
» The loa; i» :o :s
. ,
:c.,c::!;':; it: lo»r. f—.n corpo-j'.e
p«:ic •.er.a.r.i. Tht !»•; dunr! a:c
roujh.v in 'Jie :e.-.!;r c.'lie co:p::a!;
'
Stars ».c, r. is Jirnwl! :o
•nc; no.-j; o:i.-j far.aeltd »»-!v
fr:r -vr.;r :c»r. us:;. f;:b ai ,^prj\-
;r.j tr.c ciparjir.g se»:r and »a:t:
T.1-.: ta»r hat tper.: r.:rt laa-
rrM«j a::c:T;r.; :c fij.rf fro''.
1C*: Bc-okkee;;: 'es:: R. Wiikrtscn
; Tr.t -,c-r sas beer, reimbursed
Sel..»:•;• ^r?-.f. the s:ate tsr.i a;:.
The :piO ;-.T.;S si: or, a::ui ! ?
' s:r;: j.-wlt si ?c^.jrs Rosi ir.d rcri'.
c." C:nxi:r. F;rk- S.C2C Tr.e lr*t:
L!r.:H" •»« -.»ed b> :fc.e icv ;;:T
:5f«:? ly:«,ar.: ir.e L';perUr.;f':
:'icrr. i9f5 is ;9~.' T.~; :*v :'e be-
....
:•-;-. !:ai.e! :> 0'3:.e.- ar.: G;'t
-.:::> b: r:" S;:a;:;.- -'s.:; :.
pi-i ft/ b:!..o; ;as; Jc.-;;. Tr.t frc-^-i
Tr.: ::r..a-.na:i2n is not telievtc
v.o.-. i..: f:.:c ij.:r:!i ihe ;ou- r.
1^55 B> 3: hcr.eo^T.cr! near ^c
lar.df.:. vni feared iht;rpr:.ate -i.!;
were po'Ji^ed »^s stilled :»c >e»rs
cess:o?utL;»a'.e: I
The Svrici'ie er.tir.etrs' iud:es i
over me >ears ha%e sho»s 'Jic con- (
TC*T. Auomej Ma'k S G*'irsc; s:.d '
ih.j i:iM.-s ic*r. o.T:;:ili ^."'•.rd -o '
op: f;: ::,: i.ap.3! ar.: :••:*;;.•• i
cvt- :t: r.cxi wve.; is j
.
o!^ ik; lini:'.:. its
i'.ai.atls to- psi';; re.ie-* ..-. !.T
io»r, r.'ai: a: ll": C:ca;.r. ^ud
».-^cli ,s oyti »etki?.v! :'r?- 9 i.ri
;: :: :0 p r.. aid :.3C ;.r.. u 4 r T..
Cc-^.rser.'.s rai;. ie nude ir. ;rrjr: a:
''
I
-------
2B Pr«M * Bun-auiUIln Monday, fUmmy M. | hauid-
out waste «ilt be aired II < public
meeltni 7 p.m. lodiy ii Coaklin
Town Hill.
Tht tuic Department gf Environ-
r.ienial Conservation and federal En-
vironmental Protection Aftncy IK
ommcnd a $4.1 million plan that
involve! sealina, Iht landfill nirfkn
wiik impermeable tapi. colleciint
landfill leachaie ud duchui>nj it iu
Ike public mm.
Three-quartcre of Iht bill may Ix.
paid by Ihe sine 1986 Eo«in>uicDlil
QiulilV Bond Act. The Toon of Con-
Uin ii coponsiMc for UK bilancc.
The dumm lit on «tAu 1.3 tcm
off Route 1 bclwitn Powtn ud Con-
klin Forts roads in Bioomc Coiporale
Put. Tht town Unilfill »u uud by
Ibc (own (fom 1964 lo 1%}. and Ibe
Uppct Undfill. from 1969 lo 197V
Tht main conlarainanl hu been iden-
tified u chloroelhane, Ihe produci of
an induUnJl toNenl, IcKhloroclbane,
Ibe linpteu and leas) cipouive
ckanup option — estimated lo cnl
Jill ,446 — would be to monitor the
pound water over the neti Kveo lo
line yean while Ibe buirdous sub-
tunco rulunlly detndc Yiors of
Hudy by (own coosullanu O'Snen
and Gere Eoiinttn Inc. of Syracuse
have shown Ihe coniamiiuiiod U Ml-
unity cbbini Cbjoroethine wat
found in concentration] of 170 parti
Mr billion in January 1988: inilysei
30 monihs later found it bad declined
lo68ppb.
Town officials are ternpled by Ibis
option, but believe active cleanup it
beller. laid Town Attorney Mark S.
Gorioi. "You really don't know
what s in an old landfill. Who's to lay
(whether) yean from now, some other
coniaTiinanl will spnnt fbnhT' be
laid. •
Mark E. Turner, dircdor of Ihe
Bioomc County Industrial Devel-
opment Atency. *n'cl< i> in cluric of
Brooroe Corporate Park, ilia Iht
cleanup plan advocated by Kale lod
federal cnvironmeal officui u rea-
tooable, bul disappoinlini.
The IDA had hoped cleanup would
involve eicavalini Ihe Lower Landfill
to Ihe land, which fronts UK railroad
inckj, could be reclaimed (or ue.
Tuner uid. Tbal option, however.
cotli in cdimated 15-1 •illioat. "Ii
attms . . . il'i not ta the tcovmic
cajdi," Turner uid.
Documend on the landfill arc
availabk for review in Ihe town kail i,
1271 Cooklin Road, open wcekdat
from 9 a.m lo 12:10 p.m. and |4
p.m. to 4 p.m. Cornmenli nay bt
made al Monday'i meelint or stni ir,
wriiinf lo Brian Davidson, projeci
manaitr. New York Slate Depart-
meal of Environmental Conservation
JOWolf Road, Albany, N.Y. I2J».
Doctor: Don't look to Canada
Canadian physician cites low pay, few health specialists
~B»UEE SHEPHERD eare and provide an eniry into the There'i anolrjcr hitch. dowr Sim: then, demand for »erv-
*Ei>HWrtiK . . Iwalili care »y«tn>. . Tlicre ire too ftw primary cire doc- KM h« soared and remains unmet,
-~*-..l- l-» i i 1 i-'ii - if »i i iia-a'i^'* lia ^U-Jft ,^ , -^ |Ll ^ i*y;;jal*f "• -Jf1 (t*V??i t **** 'VJM*. t" Wral *"* **"'
-------
Citizen Participation Plan
Town of Conklin Landfills (I.D. No. 704013)
I. Introduction to Plan
II. Basic Site Information
III. Project Description
IV. Identification of Affected and/or Interested Public (Contact
List)
V. Identification of Department Contacts
VI. Identification of Document Repositories
VII. Description of Specific Citizen Participation Activities
VIII. Glossary of Key Terms and Major Program Elements
Section I Introduction to Plan
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation is
committed 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.
-------
Section II Basic Site Information
The Town of Conklin owns two inactive municipal landfills (upper
and lower) located south of Powers Road, and approximately one mile
north of the Kirkwobd Interchange of Interstate Route 81. The two
landfills are located within the perimeter of the Broome Corporate Park
in Broome County, New York. The lower Tandfill was operated by the
Town of Conklin from 1964-1969, and the upper landfill, also operated
by the Town, was operated from 1969-1975.
Section III Project Description
O'Brien and Gere Engineers completed a two phase hydrogeologic
investigation for the Broome County Industrial Development Agency in
February 1985. In 1986, the Town of Conklin Landfills were nominated
for the National Priorities List (NPL). The listing of the site on the
NPL requires the specific procedures be followed to thoroughly
investigate and remediate the site. The site was officially listed on
the NPL in March 1989.
On June 12, 1987, a Consent Order was signed between the Town of
Conklin and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
requiring a thorough investigation and remediation of the site. The
Consent Order required, as a first step, the preparation of a
Preliminary Report. The Preliminary Report, issued in October 1987,
included all previous data generated as well as a work plan for
additional remedial investigation and a feasibility study. The Consent
Order also allowed for up to 75 percent of the Town of Conklins costs
for site remediation to be reimbursed by the State under Title 3 of the
Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA).
The Remedial Investigation (RI) was completed in December 1988.
The RI concluded that presently the landfills do not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health or wildlife. The RI also indicated
only very limited groundwater contamination in the immediate vicinity
of the Upper Landfill. Confirmatory sampling of select monitoring
wells in June 1990 essentially confirmed the RI findings and provided
data validated data. A methane gas survey, also performed in June
1990, indicated no methane at either landfill. The Feasibility Study
(FS) Report was completed in January 1991 and evaluated six (6)
remedial alternatives for the remediation of the landfills.
The preferred alternative includes landfill capping, leachate
collection and treatment, fencing, deed restrictions, and groundwater
monitoring.
-------
Section IV Identification of Affected and/or Interested Public
(Contact List - to be expanded as interested public or
affected parties are identified)
Phillip R. Marks
Supervisor, Town of Conklin
PO Box 182
Conklin, New York 13748
607-775-4114
Mark Gorges
Cough!in and Gerhart
1 Marine Midland Plaza
PO Box 2039
Binghamton, New York 13902-2039
507-723-9511
Mr. C. Miller
Box 350, Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
Mrs. D. Hamrn
PO Box #53
Conklin, New York 13748
Mr- J. Ferry
PO Box 174
WestView Station
Binghamton, New York 13905
Mr. R. Rowse
1258 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
Mr. S. Ryall
1256 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
Mr- J? Villano
1262 Conklin Road
Conk!in, New York 13748
E. Smith
1275 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
Graydon Tomkins
1282 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
-------
0 Eckelberger
Box 339 RD #2
Conk!in, New York 13748
R. Edminster
1287 Conk"! in Road
Conk!in, New York 13748
M. Smith
1285 Conklin Road
Conk!in, New York 13748
0. Kernan
1253 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
0 Desirone
1248 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
A. Dahteria
1251 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
R. Johnson
1281 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
A. Allen
1.279 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
R. Pessarchick
1283 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
R. Gleason
Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
Mr. and Mrs. McGee
1269 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
L. Brown
1278 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
Mr. and Mrs. Petrick
1250 Conklin Road
Conklin, New York 13748
Mr. and Mrs, Petrick
1248 1/2 Conklin Road
Conklin. New .York 13748
-------
£QNKLIN_DUMPS MEDIA HIST.:.
WBNC - TV
Front Street
Binghaaton, NY 13905
WIC2 - TV
Vestal Parkway
Binghamton, NY 13903
WMCC - TV
Ingraham Rd.
Binghanton, NY 13903
WEBO - Radio
119 McMaster St.
Owego, NY 13827
WINR - Radio
Windy Hill
Binghaaton, NY 13905
WSK5 Radio
531 Gates Rd.
VtStal, NY 13850
WENE Radio
2721 E. Main
Endicott, NY 13760
Binghanton Press/Sun Bulletin
Vestal Parkway East
Binghamton, NY 13902-9982
-------
Section V Identification of Department Contacts
NYSDEC 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
NYSD of Environmental Conservation
RD #1 Route 11
Kirkwood, New York 13795
507-773-7763
NYSDEC Citizen Participation Specialist:
Kate Lacy
NYSD of Environmental Conservation
615 Erie Boulevard West
Syracuse, New York 13204
315-426-7400
NYSDOH Contact:
Gary Robertson
NYSD of Health
577 South Salina Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
315-426-7612
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 VI Identification of Document Repository
Conk!in Town Hall
1271 Conklin Road
Conk!in, New York 1374S
Telephone: 607-775-3454
Hours Monday - Friday
9:00 - 12:30
1:30 - 4:00
Documents are also available at NYSDEC Offices in
Kirkwood, Albany, and at the USEPA, Region II Office in
New York City.
-------
Section VII Description of Citizen Participation Activities
1. When the RI/FS is completed a Public Notice of the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan will be published. The Public Notice
will include a description of the problems identified at the
site, a description of the proposed remedial action,
identification of the document repository, identification of
a contact person, and a announcement of public meeting. The
public comment period has been scheduled to begin on
February 4, 1991 and extend until March 6, 1991. A public-
meeting has been scheduled for February 25, 1991 at the
Conklin Town Hall on Conklin Road (Route 7) at 7:00 pm.
2. The RI/FS report, preferred remedial action plan, and
tentative schedules for design and construction will be
presented at the public meeting. There will be a public
comment period of at least 30 days to receive public
comments.
3. A Responsiveness Summary listing significant public comments
received and demonstrating how these comments were taken into
account will be written.
4. 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
significant changes from the plan presented to the public at
the Public Meeting, and a notice of availability of the
Responsiveness Summary.
-------
Defi:uticn» of Significant Elements &nu 'i^:-:r.s of the Remedial Program
NOTE: The first eight definitions represent major elements of the remedial
process. They ire 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 - Bach inactive
site known or suspected of containing hazardous waste must be included in
the Registry. Therefore, all cites 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
site before listing.
Phase I Site Investigation - Preliminary characterizations of hazardous
substances present at a site; estimates pathways by which pollutants might
be migrating away from the original site of disposal; identifies population
or resources which might be affected by pollutants from a site; observes
how the disposal area was used or operated; and gathers information
regarding who night be responsible for wastes at a site. Involves a
search of records from all agencies known to be involved with a site,
interviews with site owners, employees and local residents to gather
pertinent information about a site. Information gathered is summarized in
a Phase I report.
After a Phase I investigation, DEC may choose to initiate an emergency
response; to nominate the site for the National Priorities List; or, where
additional information is needed to determine site significance, to conduct
further (Phase II) investigation.
Phase II Site Investigation - Ordered by DEC when additional information
is still needed after completion of Phase I to property classify the site. 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 site.
Remedial Investigation (RI) - A process to determine the nature and extent
of contamination by collecting data and analyzing the site. It Includes
sampling and monitoring, as necessary, and includes the gathering of
sufficient information to determine the necessity for, end proposed extent
of. s remedial program for the site.
Feasibility Study (PS) - A process for developing, evaluating end selecting
remedial actions, using data gathered during the remedial investigation to:
define the objectives of the remedial program for the site and broadly
develop remedial action alternatives; perform an initial screening of these
alternatives; and perform a detailed analysis of a limited number of alternatives
which remain after the initial screening stage.
-------
Remedial Design - Once a remedial action has been selected, technical
drawings and specifications for remedial construction at a cite are developed
M specified in the final Rl/FS report. Design documents art used to bid
and construct the chosen remedial actions. Remedial design is prepared
by consulting engineers with experience in inactive hazardous waste disposal
s;te 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.
Monitoring/Maintenance - Denotes post-closure activities to insure continued
effectiveness ol 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 pollution from the site. Monitoring /maintenance may be required
indefinitely at 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 tht 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,
respecially in construction projects.
Delis ting - Removal of a site from the state Registry based on study which
shows the lite does not contain hazardous wastes.
Potentially Responsible Party Lead Site - An inactive hazardous waste site
•t which those legally liable lor the site have accepted responsibility for
investigating problems at the site, and for developing and implementing the
tite's remedial program. PRP's include: those who owned the aite during
the time wastes were placed, current owners, past and present operators
of the site, and those who generated the wastes placed at the site.
Reme^.' ;-rorr: :*>.- *•' "choc-d tn'd irrplr-r^nted by PRP's generally result
from an enforce mem action UKen oy the State and the costs of the
program are generally bome by the PRP.
-------
Ranking System - The United States Environmental Protection Agency uses
a hazard ranking system (HRS) to assign numerical scores to «ach 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 a hazardous waste cite. 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 «ite will require a
Phase I and Phase II investigation to obtain more information. Based on
the results, the cite 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 5 - A site which has been properly dosed, with no
evidence of present or potential adverse impact—no further action required.
State-Lead Site - An. Inactive hazardous watte lite at which the Department
has responsibility for investigating problems at the aite 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.
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Cons&rvatlon
616 Erie B|vd. W., Syracuse, NY 13204-2400
February 4, 1991 A
\s Thomas C. Jortlng
Commi$»lon»r
Dear Interested citizen:
On February 25th local citizens will b« updated on remedial
plans for the Town of Conklin landfills which are included
on the New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Site List.
The landfills are also on the National Priority List
(Superfund sites). I have included the press announcement
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 Binghamton Press on
February 5th.
The encouragement of public participation in decisions
regarding inactive hazardous waste sites is an integral parr
of both the State find Federal programs to locate,
investigate, and remediate hazardous waste sites. Staff
from both the EPA and the DEC are available to answer
questions by phone if you are unable to attend the February
25th 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 ar.y questions raised
by the local community during this public review process.
Most of the documents you might want to view are available
'at the Conklin Town Hall. Additionaldata may be reviewed at
the DEC suboffice in Kirkwood. Scott Rodabaugh of the
Kirkwood staff 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 youra,
Kate Lacey
Citizen Participation Specialist
KL:fn
Enclosure
-------
APPENDIX 5.4
-------
:" - & I99i
CONKLIN DUMPS SITE
Town of Conklin,
Broome County, New York
Proceedings held at the Town
Hall, Town of Conklin, 1271 Conklin Road, Conklin, New
York on the 25th day of February, 1991, commencing at
7:00 p.m.
CARLEEN J. TAYLOR
3408 BRENTWOOD PLACE
VESTAL, NEW YORK 13850
-------
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: Good evening. I'm Kate
Lacey. I'm with the State Department of
Environmental Conservation. I'm involved in
the citizen participation part of the
department. The role of the people in citizen
participation is to oversee the public
meetings, public notice and to assure that the
public has the opportunity to both find out
and to participate in the decision making
process with regard to hazardous waste sites.
As we get started, I'm going to circulate
a yellow pad with just names and addresses
please so that we have can have a record of
who attended. Mainly to see how the mailing
list is. If there are further informational
mailings to go out, we want to make sure that
we have all the people who are directly
affected and interested.
There are a couple of housekeeping chores
which have to be taken care of up front. We
have a steno here tonight taking an official
record and the stenographer is Carleen Taylor.
She will be keeping a stenographic record and
we ask when we get to the comment part of the
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
UB
19
20
21
22
23
24
hearing of the meeting tonight that you would
please make sure that you clearly state your
name. That is the most difficult part of her
job tonight is getting everybody's name
straight. So that is one courtesy I think we
can probably manage.
The people at the table up here generally
represent the governmental agencies involved
in the Conklin site. The two groups that you
really have to be careful to separate just for
the sake of realizing that one is Federal and
one is State. The DEC is the State agency
involved with overseeing the site and tonight
at the end of the table is Brian Davidson who
is the project manager for the site for the
DEC.
Next to him is Bob Cozzy who is the
director of the special projects office of the
DEC which deals with the sites that are
involved with receiving some municipal funding
reimbursement of the cost of the cleanup.
Bidden in the audience is Scott Robaugh
who works out of the Kirkwood office. And if
you really — if you're really irate and have
-------
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 get in touch with somebody nearby fast he
is the person you should see. Okay.
I work out of the Syracuse office. If
there's any need to get in touch with me, I
can be located in Syracuse and can usually
sort out anyone who would really know an
answer. I don't know anything but I can
usually find someone who has them.
As I say, the information sheet is going
around to sign up. The other part of
housekeeping we have to take care of is that
we have a couple of informational handouts
which will explain briefly hopefully some of
the technical terms that we will hear. The
first talks about remedial investigations and
feasibility studies and that is the reason
that we are here tonight to discuss a remedial
investigation and feasibility study.
The other that we are talking about is a
record of decision and that is as it sounds is
the step in the process where an actual
determination is made as to what's going to be
the chosen remediation and that's a little bit
of a step down the way.
-------
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 this particular seat we are dealing
also with the Federal environmental branch
which is the Environmental Protection Agency.
And representing the EPA tonight is Joel
Singerman who is the acting chief of the
Superfund branch for New York for this region,
for the region that includes all of New York
State. And with him is Richard Ramon who is
the project manager for the EPA for this site.
Okay. Let's see. As far as
introductions people who have actually done
the technical investigation, remedial
investigation work are from the engineering
firm of O'Brien and Gere. The project manager
for this site is Jonn Tomik and he'll be
explaining the remedial investigation, the
work that was done to investigate the site.
And Douglas Crawford who is a managing
engineer with O'Brien and Gere and he will be
talking about the feasibility study portion.
Also here from O'Brien and Gere is Paul Fox
who is a design engineer. I don't know where
he went to.
As with any site there is certainly a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
V
19
20
21
22
23
24
local government interest and in this case
since the landfills were owned by the — and
still are owned by the Town of Conklin — the
local officials have an especially acute
interest in what has been investigated, what
the findings have been and what the
alternatives may be for dealing with the site.
The town supervisor, Timothy O'Hearn — you
probably already know these people. I am
introducing them to these people I guess. And
town board members if you're here Raymond
Edmister, town councilman, Frank Strew, Mark
Dedrick, Tom Gillett. And the attorney for
the town Mark Gorges. Mark is over here.
Are there any plain ordinary citizens who
came? Is there anybody who hasn't been
introduced?
The first thing that we are going to do
is a brief overview of the process of how we
got where we are tonight and what stage in the
remediation we are right now. Just to give a
brief overview Brian Davidson who is the
project manager for the DEC will give you some
background information — Brian.
-------
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1-8
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. DAVIDSON: The landfills are located
just west of the Town Hall, the other side of
Route 7 right out this way. They are about
eight and a half acres in size all together.
The landfills were owned and operated by the
Town of Conklin. The lower landfill was
operated from 1964 to 1969. The upper
landfill was operated from 1969 to 1975. The
lower landfill accepted primarily municipal
solid waste, about twenty-five thousand cubic
meters. The upper landfill some industrial
waste were codisposed with municipal wastes.
The upper landfill is about fifty-five
thousand cubic meters total.
The landfills are located within the
perimeter of the Broome Corporate Industrial
Park. Currently most of the land around the
landfills is vacant agricultural land and
forrest. The lower landfill is adjacent to
approximately forty acres designated wetlands
and there is some industrial and residential
development in the area.
In 1975 a closure order was issued by the
DEC. And a two phase hydrogeologic
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
investigation was completed by O'Brien and
Gere Engineers for the Broome County
Industrial Development Agency in 1984 and
1985.
In June 1986 the site was nominated for
the NFL based on those studies. And some
additional field work was done in 1986. In
June 1987 a consent order was signed between
the Town of Conklin and the department which
provided for funding under the Environmental
Quality Bond Act of 1986 whereby the town is
reimbursed 75 percent of their costs in
investigating and remediating the landfills
under the bond act.
The remedial investigation was completed
in December of 1988. There was a confirmatory
sampling done in June of 1990 and a methane
gas survey was also done in June of 1990. The
feasibility study was recently completed in
January of 1991 and a proposed plan was issued
by the USEPA in February this month 1991.
John, are you going to — John Tomik from
O'Brien and Gere will now discuss the remedial
investigation feasibility study.
-------
L
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. TOMIK: As Brian indicated, site
investigations were initiated back in 1984 as
part of the proposed development of the
Industrial Park. Investigations were
conducted which included the installation of
monitoring wells around both the upper and the
lower landfill. For orientation purposes,
this is a map showing the location of the
upper landfill. The lower landfill is this
"U" shaped area just to the west of Route 7.
This map shows Route 7 — the north
orientation is to the right of the map. The
Town Hall we are located in is just right
about in this area right here.
As Brian indicated, the upper and lower
landfill are located in the vicinity of
designated wetlands which are identified in
the map in blue. Based on the initial site
investigation work that was conducted in 1984
and 1985 we identified there was some
contaminants detected in the groundwater
monitoring wells downgradient from the lower
and the upper landfill. These contaminants
included volatile organic compound as well as
-------
10
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
118
19
20
21
22
23
24
a number of inorganic heavy metal compounds.
They were detected at low levels at a few of
the monitoring wells and at high levels in
leachate samples that were collected from the
upper landfill.
Based on the results of the leachate
analyses and the groundwater analyses and the
close proximity of homeowner wells along Route
7 and the municipal supply well which is
located to the northeast of the site, the
landfills were nominated on the NPL list as
Brian Davidson had indicated. This initiated
the remedial investigation and the feasibility
study that has been ongoing since 1986.
As part of the remedial investigation a
number of monitoring wells were installed.
Sediment samples were collected. Leachate
samples were collected to identify the
constituents that were identified within the
leachate and within the groundwater and also
to evaluate potential impacts on human health
in the environment.
What I would like to do is briefly
summarize the results of investigations that
-------
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
were conducted to date and then turn it over
to Doug Crawford to discuss some of the
remedial evaluations that we are evaluating.
This slide just lists some of the types
of investigations that were conducted at both
the upper and the lower landfill. In 1985 a
magnamometer survey was conducted of the upper
landfill to delineate the boundaries of the
fill area. In addition, two monitoring wells
have been installed as part of the initial
investigations conducted in '84 and '85 and as
part of the remedial investigation. These
wells are installed in the vicinity of both
the upper and lower landfill and throughout
the Industrial Park area.
Permeability tests were conducted on
several of the monitoring wells to determine
the rates of groundwater flow beneath both the
upper and lower landfill sites. Three sets of
analyses were initially conducted in '83 - '84
and '86 but these are also supplemental later
on with analyses of the groundwater that were
conducted in 1988 and 1990. Two sets of
leachate analyses were conducted from wells
-------
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
X8
19
20
21
22
23
24
that were actually installed within the
landfill material and also from seeps that
were detected at both the upper and lower
landfill. In addition, homeowner wells were
sampled and analyzed that were located along
Route 7.
In addition to some of the subsurface
investigations surface water samples were
collected along Carlin Creek and also wetland
samples were collected within the designated
wetland areas just to the east of the lower
landfill. And in addition, sediment samples
were collected along with the surface water
samples of both the wetlands areas and within
Carlin Creek.
Since the work that was done in '86,
supplemental investigations were completed
which included replacing a few wells that were
run over by snow plow. The additional surface
and investigations were conducted at the upper
landfill. The extent of the refuse was
defined for the lower landfill area which
conducted testing and excavating of test
trenches and initial surface water samples as
-------
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
well as resampling in some of the homeowner
wells.
This map illustrates a closer picture of
both the upper and the lower landfill sites.
Again, north is to the right of the page.
This map identifies specific locations of
groundwater monitoring wells that are
identified in red on the map showing the wells
that are installed downgradient from the upper
landfill.
During the initial phase in the
investigations groundwater monitoring wells
were installed and groundwater elevations were
measured at each of the monitoring wells to
define the direction of groundwater flow.
Based on this determination it was assessed
that the groundwater floater action is
primarily in an eastward direction towards the
Susquehanna and towards Route 7. As a result,
additional ground monitoring wells were
installed — from those areas identified
detectable levels of volatile organic
compounds within the groundwater.
As I mentioned, also sediment samples and
-------
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
surface water samples were collected at the
locations shown by the squares and also
leachate samples were collected at the
triangles for both the upper and the lower
landfills.
Based on the results of the site
investigation it was determined from the risk
assessment that the potential risk posed by
both the landfills were within acceptable
ranges of EPA and as a result the landfills
are not having a significant impact on the
environment or human health. However, we did
identify elevated levels of a few organic
compounds in well eleven which is located
immediately downgradient from the upper
landfill.
The compounds identified at this well
included chloroethane, dichloropropane and
xylenes. The only compound where the levels
were of significant concentrations were for
the chloroethane where on the most recent
analyses in 1990 we detected concentrations of
sixty-eight parts per billion. The other
compounds we detected in monitoring well
-------
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
eleven were organic solvents xylene and the
dichloropropane but the levels were either at
or slightly above groundwater standards and
the concentrations weren't significant when
compared to groundwater.
The results of additional monitoring data
revealed wells within a few hundred feet
downgradient from monitoring well eleven show
the same compounds were not detected in the
monitoring wells further downgradient. As a
result, the chloroethane concentrations that
were detected in monitoring well eleven were
confined to the close proximity of the well
itself and were within less than a. hundred
feet of the wells downgradient.
In addition to the groundwater samples we
also collected leachate samples from both the
upper and lower landfill. The leachate sample
did detect levels of a number of additional
organic compounds that exceeded the water
quality standards and samples identified in
organic compounds that exceeded the quality
standard. Based on this information the prime
objective of the feasibility study was to
-------
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
evaluate remedial alternatives that would
restrict the migration of the organic
compounds that were detected in monitoring
well eleven and also to prevent any future
migration of some of the compounds that were
detected in the leachate sample for both the
upper and lower landfill, to restrict the
migration of leachate from the fill areas to
get into the groundwater. And those were the
primary objectives of the feasibility study
were to evaluate remedial alternatives to
address these conditions and also to restore
the groundwater quality in the vicinity of
monitoring well eleven — to restore that
groundwater quality back to water quality that
meets State standards — State and Federal
water quality standards.
This slide just illustrates in cross
section the different types of deposits that
were encountered in the vicinity of both the
upper and lower landfill. This is going west
to east going towards the Susquehanna River to
the right showing locations of specific
monitoring wells. In the vicinity of the
-------
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
upper landfill we indicated that the sub
surface geology consists of unconsolidated
materials primarily of a glacial till which
has a very low groundwater transmitting and as
a result they are very low beneath the lower
landfill and this is attributed to the very
localized migration of the volatile organic
compounds that were detected at monitoring
well eleven.
In the vicinity of the lower landfill,
the geologic deposits consist of a sand and
gravel material where groundwater flow levels
are relatively high. However, we did not
detect any hazardous constituents in the
groundwater monitoring wells from the lower
landfill. So that primary area of concern was
the organic compounds that were detected again
immediately downgradient of the upper landfill
of monitoring well eleven.
What I would like to do is turn it over
to Doug Crawford to discuss the evaluation of
remedial alternatives based on the results of
the remedial investigation.
MR. CRAWFORD: What I would like to do
-------
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
first is to give you an overview of the FS
process/ the feasibility process and then get
into some of the specifics regarding the site.
Briefly, the feasibility study is that portion
of the remedial investigation feasibility
process that evaluates technologies and
alternatives that are applicable to the site
relative to the remediation.
The feasibility study that was conducted
at the landfill was consistent with the laws
that govern that process, the national oil and
hazardous substances pollution contingency
plan also known as the NCP and also consistent
with EPA's guidance on conducting FS's. The
steps that are involved in a feasibility study
are basically three steps. The first is the
identification screening technologies. The
second is the development and screening of
alternatives and the third, the alternatives
are analysed in detail.
During the first step of the FS process
there are within this one step three separate
sub steps if you will. The first is to define
the objectives'of the remedial action. In
-------
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
this case there were three as John mentioned.
One, the first one was to prevent ingestion of
groundwater that was in excess of the state
and federal standards. The second was to
prevent any future migration of constituents
from the landfill into the groundwater which
would then cause problems within the
groundwater and the third was to restore that
groundwater to the state and federal
standards.
The second step was to identify response
actions which are basically classes of
technologies that are used to address the
remedial action objectives. In this instance
there were five diiierent responses that were
identified as applicable. They included
institutional actions which include such
things as deed restrictions and fencing,
groundwater monitoring — those types of
things. Containment technologies which would
include things such as caps on the landfill.
Collection technologies, things such as
groundwater and leachate collection.
Treatment technologies which are used to treat
-------
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
the material once it's been collected —> the
leachate and groundwater. And finally,
discharge. What do you do after you have
collected and treated the groundwater
leachate.
The other portion or the other thing that
we need to identify at this stage of the game
are the areas or volumes of media — that we
need to deal with at this site. They included
three different media. The landfills
themselves, the leachate that was being
generated by the landfills and groundwater
that has been impacted.
And then the final part of this process
was to identify specific technologies that
could be used that were applicable to the
landfill or to the landfills. And those
technologies are identified through a
screening process that consists of three
different criteria, effectiveness,
implementability and cost.
From there the screening, the
identification screening of technologies
basically identifies those technologies that
-------
21
1
-------
22
1
•»
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
L8
19
20
21
22
23
24
of human health and environment down through
cost are evaluated in the feasibility study.
The support agency acceptance are being — are
evaluated through the public comment period.
Just to give you a quick overview of what
these criteria mean, the overall protection of
human health and the environment criteria
basically is mandated by law that any
alternative, any remediation action that is
implemented must be protective of human health
and environment. And basically the
alternatives are evaluated to identify just
exactly how protective they are. Varying
degrees of protectiveness.
The next criterion is compliance with
ARARs. They are applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements. These are things
such as drinking water standards, criteria
that have been promulgated by the State and
Federal governments that need to be met.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence.
That criteria is used to assess how effective
in the long-term the various remedial
alternatives are in addressing the objectives.
-------
23
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
M
19
20
21
22
23
24
Reduction in toxicity, mobility or volume
which is used to address how the alternatives
reduce these components of the constituents
that are problems at the site.
Short-term effectiveness is used to
evaluate such things as how long does it take
for you to achieve the objectives and are
there any short-term problems associated with
the alternatives, with implementing the —
worker health and safety and protectiveness of
off site receptors those types of issues.
Implementability is essentially a review
of how constructable the alternatives are.
And cost is evaluated with respect to
three different issues one capital costs are
estimated. Secondly, annual operation and
maintenance costs are identified and thirdly
each of a alternatives are evaluated on a
present worth basis.
And finally, after each alternative is
evaluated individually against these criteria,
they are looked at in a comparative basis
using the same criteria to try and basically
get a feel for the balance of the
-------
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, how they compare with one
another.
Now, let me show you what the
alternatives were that were identified and
were sent through process. If you remember
one of the earlier slides was general response
actions. This column here identifies the
responses that were developed and within each
response action the various technologies that
were a part of those response action.
Containment actions included landfill caps and
disposal of landfill material on-site. The
guidelines required that a no action
alternative be evaluated and that's what we
are calling alternative one. The no action
alternative here. In reality that includes
some action of groundwater monitoring. The
groundwater is monitored to provide a base, a
data base in the event that we need to
reevaluate alternatives in the future.
The second alternative that was developed
included groundwater monitoring, fencing the
landfills, the institution of deed
restrictions on the land to prevent ingestion
-------
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
of groundwater that may be contaminated. And
again, that — just to reiterate — the
groundwater that was found to be a problem was
associated with monitoring well eleven here at
the upper landfill. Chloroethane was found in
this well at concentrations that were in
excess of the drinking water standard and
chloroethane — neither chloroethane nor any
of the other constituents that had been seen
historically at the site were identified at
any of the surrounding wells. So it appears
to be a static condition here. Essentially
the plume, if you will, does not appear to be
moving and we have been tracking it overtime
and it has been stationary.
The next alternative also included the
installation of a cap over both the upper and
lower landfills and within that cap there is
also leachate collection. The landfills are
presently generating leachate and this would
be a method to collect that leachate for
treatment.
Within alternative two there are several
options for management of that leachate once
-------
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
it's been collected. They include on-site
treatment through metal precipitation and air
stripping as well as treatment at the
Binghamton Johnson City Treatment Plant.
Alternative three — alternatives three,
four and five are generally basically
variations on a theme. Each of those
alternatives includes monitoring, fencing and
deed restrictions and it also includes
placement of a cap on both the landfills with
the leachate collection systems. In addition,
there is active groundwater treatment
collection and treatment at the upper
landfill. Let me back up just a second,
explain how the groundwater is dealt with in
alternative two.
The data base that has been generated
over the years indicates that degradation
processes are occurring naturally. The way
the groundwater is addressed in that is that
in alternative two and one actually is that
those natural processes will be left to
continue to degrade the chloroethane in place.
Alternatives three, four and five address
-------
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
the groundwater through pumping and treating
that water. In three, four and five both the
leachate and groundwater would be either
treated on-site through air stripping or
chemical oxidation which is alternatives three
and four or through alternative five where the
leachate and groundwater is discharged to the
treatment plant.
Finally, alternative six is an
alternative where we considered consolidation
of the landfills into one landfill basically
excavating the contents of the lower landfill,
transporting them up to the upper landfill and
placing the cap on the upper landfill along
with leachate and groundwater collection and
treatment.
The screening — these six alternatives
were subjected to the screening and the
outcome of that screening process as I
indicated before was that four of the
alternatives were passed through to the detail
analysis and those four alternatives consisted
of one through four. And those four
alternatives then were analyzed in detail
-------
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
using the seven criteria that I went over a
few minutes ago both individually and then
collectively, compared against one another.
And at this point I guess I'd like to
turn the program over to Brian. He can
discuss where things have gone from the
feasibility study.
fiS. LACEY: Before Brian goes on with the
next stage here of the explanation I'm going
to hand out copies of a proposed plan. This
has a summary of the alternatives which were
just described to you and there's an overview
of each one of the proposals, each one of the
alternatives, a cost estimate and it might be
helpful for you to be looking at the
appropriate sections as Brian describes the
rest of the process here. Actually we've gone
through the now the remedial investigation the
background material, the feasibility study
which looks at proposed alternatives. And
then the way this works is that the various
technologies are evaluated and presented and
the agencies take a look at those alternatives
and try to agree on a selected alternative.
-------
29
r
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The real purpose of this meeting tonight
is to add in the public input, to give the
public an opportunity to question the
technology, question the results, question
some of the judgments that have been made and
to voice their own opinion as to the
alternatives available or criticize some of
the choices made at various points in the
process. And all of the materials aside from
this brief summary all of the technical
background materials are available for
viewing. And there is a provision for public
comment to still get into this process both
written not just tonight but written comments
up to March 6th. And when we get further
along I will give you the address and way to
get the comments in and also the locations of
where additional material can be examined
including the town hall. There is a set of
all the material here. Brian, do you want to
go through the —
MR. DAVIDSON: Based on the results of
the feasibility study, the USEPA and DEC
concurred that alternative two, option B was
-------
30
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the preferred alternative for the Conklin
site. Alternative two consists of the
multi-media cap on both landfills, leachate
collection wells at the upper landfill and
interceptor trench at the lower landfill. And
option B is discharged to the Binghamton
Johnson City joint Sewage treatment plant for
the leachate collected from the landfills.
The fall back to that option would be option A
which would be the multi-media cap, leachate
collection wells at the upper and lower
landfill — excuse me — leachate collection
wells at the upper landfill, interceptor
trenches at the lower landfill and on-site
treatment by metals treatment and air
stripping for the leachate discharged to
Carlin Creek.
It's important to note that the remedy is
the preferred remedy for the site and the
final selection will be documented in the
record of decision for the Conklin site only
after consideration of all comments on the
remedial alternatives address in the proposed
plan and in the feasibility study report.
-------
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
MS. LACEY: Okay. Now, just to make sure
we have this all properly recorded, the
comment period began on February 4th. There
were two legal notices published in the
Binghamton Press for the purpose of notifying
people of the availability of information on
the site. There are technical records
including the complete remedial investigation,
the feasibility study and the proposed
remediation action selection here at the town
hall. Also over at the DEC office in
Kirkwood. There is also a set of the
information at the DEC office in Syracuse, one
in Albany at 50 Wolf Road if it is more
convenient for you and one in New York City if
it's really convenient for you.
There will be additional comments
accepted as I said until March 6th in writing
to Brian Davidson and his address is given on
the front sheet right-hand side of the paper
that you were just given — the white sheet
you were given.
What we're going to do now is open up for
any questions that anyone has. Questions,
-------
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1-8
19
20
21
22
23
24
comments? I just ask that you do identify
yourself for our stenographer who will try to
keep a record of what everyone has to say.
MR. DEWITT: Tom DeWitt. Brian's
statement is page four, option B. Is that
what you're proposing?
MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
MR. DEWITT: So people don't get lost.
Thank you. Page four, option B.
MR. DAVIDSON: Alternative two, option B.
MS. LACEY: If you look up here, you can
see alternative two which is this column and
it will have the checkoff list of what is
included in alternative two. Groundwater
monitoring, fencing, deed restrictions,
multi-media cap. Then the leachate treatment
down here is the option — is one would be the
sewage treatment plant going to the Binghamton
Johnson City sewage treatment plant. If that
does not prove out to be acceptable, then the
fall back is with treatment up here which is
stripping and discharge to --
MR. DAVIDSON: Carlin Creek.
MR. DEWITT: Which would be A.
-------
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
•Y
19
20
21
22
23
24
MS. LACEY: Right. Anyone else?
Comments, questions?
MR. O'MEARA: Tom O'Meara with Broome
County Environmental Management Counsel. Why
was option five omitted? Alternative five.
MS. LACEY: Five would be —
MR. O'MEARA: Is that any different?
MS. LACEY: Well, the difference is —
MR. TOMIK: You're adding groundwater
extraction in that alternative.
MR. O'MEARA: As opposed to collecting
the leachate.
MR. TOMIK: Right. Because it was
identified that the concentrations of
chloroethane that were detected downgradient
from the local landfill were localized and the
concentrations have been reduced over the last
year. We felt it would degrade naturally.
MR. O'MEARA: One other — where is the
groundwater that's perculating through the
site now -- where is it going? It appears
that if it's caught in this perch zone is it
perculating out through the leaching or is
there something about the hydrological — that
-------
34
r
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
is unknown?
MR. TOMIK: The case of the upper
landfill the underlying materials consists of
a very low perc — glacial till material and
within this material the groundwater flow
velocities are very low. And as a result, the
upper landfill you're creating what they term
a bathtub effect where much leachate that's
generated within the upper landfill is perched
above that natural formation beneath the
landfill. And that's actually accumulated
within the fill material itself. And it's
part of the proposed remedial alternative we
would be effectively directing it out of the
leachate material. So you would be reducing
that threat for groundwater quality. And
because the groundwater flow velocity is so
low we feel the water quality impacts have
been just localized to the close proximity of
the upper landfill and as a result you're only
seeing that impacted at monitoring well eleven
and not any other monitoring wells that are
further downgradient.
MR. O'MEARA: There was no contaminants
-------
35
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
associated with the lower landfill?
MR. DAVIDSON: We did see some low levels
of inorganic nonhazardous constituent such as
iron/ maganese and based on the level we
detected there was no need for groundwater
collection.
MR. O'MEARA: How about the sediment
sampling that was done in the wetlands? Was
anything beyond —
MR. DAVIDSON: We felt that all the
analyses from the sediment samples were within
background levels that were detected.
MS. LACEY: Yes.
MR. FOULKE: Thomas Foulke. Under your
option B how many gallons do you anticipate
would be discharged and would this go through
the sewer system — would the separate lines
have to be run? Can you give us some
information about that? Gallons of flow?
What do you anticipate there you're going to
discharge to the Binghamton Johnson City —
MR. DAVIDSON: Under the preferred
alternative?
MR. FOULKE: Correct.
-------
36
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: Initially the amount of
flow generated would be less than a few
gallons per minute. And once you collect and
treat the bulk of the leachate from the
landfill those flows would probably be further
reduced to less than a gallon per minute. And
because of the low permeability of the
materials not only beneath the landfill but
the low permeability of the fill itself once
the material is capped where you are isolating
any leachate generation from precipitation
from infiltrating the surface of the landfill
you're able to go in there and extract the
leachate that has been accumulated within the
fill material and those volumes would be less
than a few gallons per minute.
MR. FOULKE: We are talking extremely low
MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
MR. FOULKE: And there would be no
problem with that going into the treatment
plant, correct?
MR. DAVIDSON: It's not believed to pose
a problem to the treatment plant.
-------
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. FOULKE: We would be utilizing the
sewer system that we put into the park now?
MR. DAVIDSON: Yes.
MR. FOULKE: Okay.
MS. LACEY: Additional questions?
Comments? Would you spell your last name?
MR. FOULKE: F-o-u-l-k-e. One more
question. What is your operating and
maintenance, eighty-six thousand a year? Can
you break that down for us? If we are talking
low volume of water is that for the come back
for the testing — how do you arrive at that
figure?
MS. LACEY: This is Paul Fox who is a
design engineer with O'Brien and Gere.
MR. FOX: Let me just go to the book here
and I can actually give you a quick rundown.
When we say it comes to eighty-six thousand
dollars that's on an annual basis but that
also includes ten thousand dollars for
five-year review which has to be done due to
the fact that fill material is being left
on-site.
In addition to that approximately eleven
-------
38
3,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
thousand one hundred dollars worth of leachate
sampling — eleven thousand one hundred
dollars worth of leachate treatment cost. We
estimated that the treatment plant would
charge seven cents per gallon for leachate
treatment. So that's eleven thousand dollars
there.
MR. FOULKE: Per year?
MR. Fox: Yes. Additionally, we
estimated insurance per year for the site to
cost twenty-one thousand dollars. And also a
reserve fund of twenty-one thousand dollars
also per year. This reserve fund is something
which is included in all cost estimates which
is the money that is put aside for future use.
If there is ever a problem at the site, this
money will be available to use to correct any
problems that could arise. This probably will
not be needed at this site simply because
there is a documented owner of the site who is
available to take care of any problems.
Whereas on many superfund sites there is no
owner of record or owner that is financially
responsible for the site.
-------
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
MR. FOULKE: How many gallons does that
come out to — eleven thousand dollars?
MS. LACEY: I'm dividing by .07.
MR. FOULKE: Can you give me that?
MR. FOX: Not off the top of my head. I
don't have my calculator with me. It comes
out to —
MS. LACEY: Fifteen.
MR. FOULKE: Seven cents a gallon. We
are talking eleven thousand dollars. How many
gallons? Eleven thousand divided by seven
cents.
MS. LACEY: I get a hundred fifty-seven
thousand approximately — roughly a hundred
fifty — between one fifty one sixty.
MR. TOMIK: Cost estimates in feasibility
studies are generally assumed to be accuracy
of plus fifty to minus thirty percent. So.we
are ballparking here as best we can based on
the remedial investigation data.
MR. GILLETT: Everybody understands that.
That was the question I was going to ask. It
is an estimate.
MS. LACEY: Right. It is a cost estimate
-------
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
MR. BROFCAK: What are we buying? What
type of insurance are we buying for twenty-one
thousand dollars a year?
MR. FOX: People working at the site,
maintenance workers.
MS. LACEY: So it's liability insurance?
Anyone else?
MR. O'MEARA: Just is there is recharge
zone in this area at all? Once you cap the
site and it's an effective cap would you
expect the leachate to decline significantly
over time?
MR. TOMIK: Yes. Based on the
permeability of the materials that are there
today and we've, you know, detected that there
is quite a bit of leachate within the fill
material right now from the standpoint the
water level within the fill material is well
above the groundwater elevation which
demonstrates that you have had a significant
accumulation of leachate within the fill. And
once that the landfill is capped you will
eliminate the amount of precipitation that
infiltrates and the cap and generates that
-------
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
leachate. So as a result we believe that it
will be significantly reduced.
MR. DeWITT: Have you done any modeling
to look at how long a period you would have
leachate or you don't have —
MR. TOMIK: We don't have enough
information of how long that would take.
MS. LACEY: Other questions?
MR. SMITH: Patrick Smith. Time to
implement, the seven to nine years. What does
that mean? Does that mean that after nine
years things are going to be okay or is this
going to be nine years to do all this work?
MR. CRAWFORD: That number is based
primarily on the time that we have estimated
for the groundwater to degrade to below
drinking water standards — to within drinking
water standards. The caps would be there —
the landfill caps would be there essentially
forever. So really that number is an estimate
as to the extent of time to achieve the
objective of restoring --
MS. LACEY: Anyone else? Questions?
Comments?
-------
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
MR. EDMISTER: Raymond Edmister. Maybe I
misunderstood Pat Smith's question. He
mentioned a seven to nine years but that's on
alternative one, is that correct?
MR. CRAWFORD: That's correct. It's on
alternative — it's also on alternative two.
MR. EDMISTER: Okay-
MS. LACEY: Okay?
JOHN DOE: You're going to be taking the
groundwater and pumping it into the sewer
system?
MR. TOMIK: The leachate that is
collected within the fill material.
JOHN DOE: The sewer system is in the
county park — Industrial Park. Is there a
grade problem there? Are you going to have to
have like a pumping station or —
MR. CRAWFORD: We haven't gotten into
design right now. We expect that it will be
able to utilize gravity flow but I can't say
that for sure until the design is conducted.
MR. GORGOS: I'm the attorney for the
Town of Conklin. I just want to clarify for
those of the media that our engineers, O'Brien
-------
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
and Gere have submitted data to the Binghamton
Johnson City Sewage plant based on comparative
studies which would indicated the leachate
would have no effect whatsoever on their
capacity to treat sewage at their facility.
MS. LACEY: Right. And that is the —
that is how that works. They would have to
approve the Binghamton Johnson City sewer
district. Anyone else?
MR. STRUBE: Did you say the erosion of
the contaminants is — could be predicted?
MR. CRAWFORD: That's correct.
MR. STRUBE: What about if you went with
number one without a cap? Could you also
predict erosion of the contaminant?
MR. TOMIK: It would be predicted at the
same time frame but that also assumes you
wouldn't have migration in the fill material
into the groundwater. The primary purpose of
the cap is to prevent any leachate generation
within the fill material so that you don't
have future groundwater quality impacts from
the leachate that is generated within the fill
because the contaminations that are detected
-------
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
T
19
20
21
22
23
24
within that leachate are significantly lower
than what we are seeing.
MR. STRUBE: What I wanted to get at the
contaminents are deteriorating or eroding now?
MR. TOMIK: Correct.
MR. STRUBE: Without the caps you
couldn't predict that that would continue?
MR. TOMIK: If we were to assume there
was no other leachate recharge to the
groundwater system, then we would predict it
would take the same time frame for two
compounds that were seen in the monitoring
well eleven to degrade to water quality
standards.
MR. STRUBE: What about just with the
caps on or off if you had contaminents in
there in a container, would that erode and
give way? And you wouldn't — your
predictions would go awry then, wouldn't they?
MR. TOMIK: Correct. If you did have
recharge of the leachate from the fill
material into the groundwater then those
calculations would no longer be valid.
MR. STRUBE: With or without the cap.
-------
45
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
More apt to be without the cap than it could
be even with the cap, right?
MR. CRAWFORD: It could be, yeah.
MR. TOMIK: That's possible but with the
cap we are also proposing leachate collection
to remove the volume of leachate that is
within the fill material.
MS. LACEY: Any other comments? Okay, as
I said before, the comment period lasts until
March 6th. Written comments can be sent to
Brian Davidson. The address is on the front
page. Following evaluation of these comments
and whatever written comments are received, a
record of decision along with a responsiveness
summary giving the answers to any questions
that have remained. If there are comments
that are turned in or questions that need to
be addressed, they will also be addressed in a
responsivenes summary which will accompany a
record of decision which is the document that
actually finalizes the choice when it comes to
the alternative selected. As of right now
it's open to reevaluation. If there is some
significant issue raised and if there is some
-------
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
question that someone should raise in the next
between now and March 6th that — I urge you
to get your written comments in. Let see if
there is anything else that — is there
anything we haven't mentioned?
I think that's it. Thank you very much
for attending.
(WHEREUPON, the meeting was concluded at
8:01 p.m.)
*************
-------
47
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
CERTIFICATION
I, CARLEEN J. TAYLOR, do hereby certify that I
attended the foregoing proceedings and the foregoing
is a true and correct transcript of my stenographic
notes taken in the above-entitled matter at the time
and place first above mentioned to the best of my
ability.
CARLEEN J. TAYLOR
DATED:
-------
"
^^L. vy,v
-------
APPENDIX 5.5
-------
Broome County
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Broome County Office Building / Government Plaz* / Box 1766 / Binghamton, New York 13902 / (607) 778-2116
Claudi. Sunman, Director
Harch 6, 1991
Brian-Davidson
Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action
NTS Dept. of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-7010
Timothy M. Grippen, County Executive
Q 'CGI
O iwwl
SUBJECT: PROPOSED REMEDIAL PLAN FOR CONKLIN LANDFILL
Dear Mr. Davidson:
The Broome County Environmental Management Council (EMC) has reviewed
and is in support of the Feasibility Study for the Conklin Landfill Inactive
Hazardous Waste Site. The preferred remedial alternative of capping the site
and installing a leachate collection system appears to be protective of human
health and the environment. The recommended treatment of the landfill
leachate at the Binghamton/Johnson City publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
can be supported, provided that the regulatory agencies demonstrate the
following:
1) chemical composition and concentrations of leachate will not
significantly increase over time;
2) organic constituents of the leachate will be effectively detoxified
through the POTW biodegradation treatment process (dilution is not an
acceptable remedial treatment as it impacts the loading capacity of
surface waters);
3) POTW sludge and discharges are not adversely impacted; and
4) storm conditions do not cause untreated leachate to be discharged to
surface waters (i.e., the Susquehanna River).
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Conklin Landfill
Feasibility Study. Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the
EMC's comments, please direct them to Broome County EMC Director, Claudia E.
Stallman. She may be reached at the Broome County Office Building at (607)
778-2116.
Sincerely,
/ /
Thomas M. O'M««ra
Chairperson, Broome* County
Environmental Management Council
B.E.R.A.
-I- NAME
DECODE
aUB SECTIONS
FRO. ELEMENT
OPERABLE UNIT NO. DESC
DRAFT OR FINAL
FILE SECTION
. I
. n
' iv
v
VI
cc: T. Grippen, BC Executive
L. Augostini, BC Legislature Environment Committee
K. Wagstaff, BC Legislature
EMC Members
------- |