United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/RQ2-90/099
December 1989
AEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Forest Glen Subdivision, NY
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-90/099
3. Recipients Accession No.
4. TWeandSublM*
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Forest Glen Subdivision, NY
First Remedial Action
1 Report Date
12/29/89
| Firs
|Hphon>
8. PtHorming Organization Kept No.
9. Performing Orgalnlzalion Name and AoHress
10. Project/Taskwork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(0)
12.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
IX Typs of Report A Period Covered
800/000
14.
15.
ntaryNota
18. Abstract (Limit: 200
The Forest Glen Subdivision site consists of 21 acres of developed residential
properties and undeveloped land in Niagara Falls, Niagara County, New York. Land in the
area surrounding the Forest Glen subdivision is used for residential and industrial
purposes, including a mobile home park, small shopping mall> and the CECOS Landfill.
Also, northwest of the subdivision is the New Road Landfill, which is currently under
investigation by the State. Chemical companies reportedly disposed of wastes onsite
om the early 1950s to the early 1970s. Evidence of past waste disposal became
parent in 1973 when utility installation workers encountered resinous and powder-like .
wastes, drums, and battery casing parts. Residents also encountered wastes on their
properties and contacted the county, which responded to complaints regarding drum tops
and resinous materials in June 1980. Ten truckloads of a yellow, resin-like material
were subsequently excavated and transported to the CECOS Landfill by the property owner
at the time. Sampling by EPA's Field Investigation Team revealed the presence of high
concentrations of unknown and tentatively identified compounds (TICs) in August 1987,
and further soil sampling was conducted to identify the TICs. EPA has executed interim
measures to stabilize site conditions including collecting, staging, and securing drums
in areas north and east of the subdivision and temporarily covering visibly contaminated
soil with concrete. .This remedial activity is the first of (Continued on next page)
NY
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Forest Glen Subdivision,
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, debris
Key Contaminants: organics (PAHs), metals (lead), other inorganics
D. iu0flttn6fwOp0(VEnO0Q TttflVM
c. COSAT1 FMd/Group
18. AvailabUty Statement
19. Security das* (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Psge)
None
21. No. ol Page*
162
22. Price
(SeeANSt-Z39.18)
SM Jratructfon* on Rt
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-3S)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-90/099
Forest Glen Subdivision, NY
16. Abstract (Continued)
o planned operable units and addresses resident relocation only. A subsequent operable
unit will address the remediation of site contamination once the relocation is complete.
The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil are organics including PAHs,
metals including lead, and other inorganics.
The selected remedial action for this site includes permanently relocating all Forest
Glen subdivision residents; sampling and, if necessary, decontaminating, salvaging, or
disposing of mobile homes remaining onsite after completion of resident relocation; and
implementing site access restrictions. The estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action ranges from $4,710,000 to $6,020,000, depending on the relocation options
selected. No O&M costs are associated with this first operable unit.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location:
HRS Score:
NPL Rank:
ROD
Date signed:
Remedy:
Capital Cost:
0 & M/Year:
Present Worth Cost:
LEAD
EPA Remedial
Primary contact:
Secondary contact:
Main PRPs:
PRP Contact:
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. quantity:
Forest Glen Subdivision
Niagara Falls, N.Y.
12/29/89
Permanent relocation of all site
residents; continuation of temporary
relocation while permanent relocation
is being implemented
$4.71 - 6.02 million
$0
$4.71.- 6.02 million
Lisa Carson, (212) 264-5712
Gloria Sosa, (212) 264-2110
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.
Non-TCL Organics
Soil
Unauthorized dumping prior
subdivision development
Unknown
to
-------
DECLARATION FOR TEE RECORD OF DECISION v
BITE KAME AMD LOCATION
Forest Glen Subdivision Site
Niagara Falls, Niagara County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AMD PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the first operable unit of the Forest Glen Subdivision site, in
Niagara Falls, 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 (SARA) 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
first operable unit remedy for this site.
The Mew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) concurs with the selected remedy. A letter of concurrence
from NYSDEC is appended to this document. The information
supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the
administrative record for this site. The administrative record
index is also appended to this document.
ASSESSMENT OF THE BITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This operable unit is the first of at least two operable units for
the site. At present, the principal threat posed by the site is
to the health of site residents. Therefore, the relocation of site
residents comprises the first operable unit which has been
accelerated to provide protection of site residents. A future
operable unit, which will address the remediation of contamination
at the site, will follow. The remedial action for this first
operable unit, resident relocation, will eventually result in the
clearing of the site to allow access for second operable unit
investigations. Long-term management and use of the site,
following the completion of future remedial activities, will be the
responsibility of the State of New York.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
Permanent relocation of all site residents, which
includes the acquisition of land and the movement of
-------
existing mobile homes or the acquisition of all real
property and purchase of comparable new homes. Also
included is an option for individual or group relocation
as best meets the needs of. the community in accordance
with the NCP and all applicable lav's, regulations, and
standards ;
Continuation of the temporary relocation program during
the permanent relocation process;
Limited property maintenance and site security during the
permanent relocation process;
Sampling and, if required, decontamination of all mobile
homes; and
Salvage or disposal of all mobile homes which are not
moved to new locations.
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 (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable for this operable
unit. However, because treatment of the principal threats- of the
site was not within the limited scope of this action, this remedy
does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a
principal element. This remedy, permanent relocation of residents,
is necessary to protect the public health or welfare, and addresses
the principal threat to the health of site residents. Future
operable units will address other threats posed by the site and
will evaluate treatment of these threats.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
on site above health based levels, a review will be conducted
within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure
that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
^
L/o.
_
Constantine Sidamon-Eristof t Date
Regional Administrat
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION SITE
NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ......... 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION ..... 4
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 5
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES . 8
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 14
SELECTED REMEDY 17
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 17
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 19
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX 1 - FIGURES
APPENDIX 2 - TABLES
APPENDIX 3 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX 4 - NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX 5 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
BITE NAME. LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Forest Glen Subdivision site is located on the border of the
City of Niagara Falls and the Town of Niagara in Niagara County,
New York. It is approximately one-half mile north of Porter Road
and is situated between the Conrail Foote Railroad and a rail car
staging area to the west and Interstate 190 and a residential area
to the east (See Figures 1 and 2 in Appendix 1).
Land use in the area surrounding the Forest Glen Subdivision
consists of nixed residential and industrial areas. A mobile home
park (Expressway Village), a small shopping mall, and the CECOS
Landfill are located south of the site. West of the railroad is
the New Road Landfill which is presently under investigation by the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).
The Forest Glen Subdivision site consists of 21 acres of developed
residential properties and undeveloped land. An estimated 150
people occupy a portion of the site, the Forest Glen Subdivision,
in 51 mobile homes and 2 permanent residences located on
approximately 8 acres, which are bordered to the east and north by
vacant land. The undeveloped land consists of wooded lots to the
east and a large open field to the north. These areas are also
being included as part of the study area. East Gill Creek flows
to the southwest through the open field to the north where it
eventually joins the main branch which flows to the Niagara River.
For the most part, mobile hone lots at the site are owned by the
residents. The mobile homes at the site have been substantially
improved and altered, in part to comply with local codes. Most do
not have axles and many residents have added skirts and decks to
their residences. The mobile homes at the site are located on Lisa
Lane, Carrie Drive, and T-Mark Drive, all of which are within the
City of Niagara Falls. The two permanent dwellings are located on
Edgewood Drive in the Town of Niagara. Residents of the community
include retired citizens and children.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Based on the review of historical aerial photographs, prior to
1950, the area which is now the subdivision, was wooded and
partially divided by East Gill Creek. Sometime during the early
1960's, partial clearing of the area took place and East Gill Creek
was rerouted to the northern portion of the site. Unauthorized
disposal activities in the area may have begun in the early 1950's
and continued during the 1960's and through the early 1970's. It
is believed that wastes from area chemical companies were disposed
by waste haulers in low-lying areas of the site.
Prior to 1973, portions of the area were owned by Michigan-Mayne
Realty, the Power Authority of the State of New York, and three
individuals, Ernest Booth, James Strong, and Sanford Brownies. In
-------
1973, the land which now comprises the subdivision was purchased
by Thomas G. Sottile, who, with his wife, Betty Sottile, formed
Niagara Falls U.S.A. Campsite Inc. Shortly thereafter, the
property was subdivided. The development of the property, which
included clearing and the installation of roads and utilities, took
place during the mid-1970's. The sale of the properties in the
Forest Glen Subdivision to individuals began in 1976.
Evidence of past waste disposal was apparent during the
installation of utilities which took place as early as 1973.
During the installation of sewer and water lines, workers
encountered resinous and powder-like waste, drums, and battery
casing parts. There is also a history of reports indicating that
residents encountered waste on their properties. In June 1980, the
Niagara County Health Department (NCHD) responded to a complaint
concerning the presence of drum tops and resinous material on the
property of a resident living on Lisa Lane. Samples collected by
the NCHD indicated that this material was a phenolic resin. Thomas
Sottile was ordered by the NCHD in July, 1980 to remove any wastes
present at the site to an approved landfill. It was subsequently
reported to NCHD that approximately 10 truckloads of a yellow
resin-like material were excavated and transported to the CECOS
Landfill in Niagara Falls.
EPA first became involved with the Forest Glen Subdivision site in
1987 when both NY S DEC and NCHD brought it to the Agency's
attention. On August 6, 1987, as part of an initial site
investigation, members of EPA's Field Investigation Team (FIT)
collected four soil samples in the northern portion of the
subdivision. Analytical results for these samples indicated that
volatile and semi-volatile organic chemicals and heavy metals were
present at varying concentrations. In addition, numerous
tentatively identified and. unknown compounds which were difficult
to analyze and quantify were noted at considerably higher
concentrations. In an effort to determine if these compounds were
present at other locations within the subdivision, an expanded site
investigation was conducted in September 1988. A total of 63 soil,
waste, and sediment samples were obtained at this time to a maximum
depth of 3.0 feet. Analytical results for these samples concluded
that high concentrations of unknown and tentatively identified
compounds (TICs) were present at additional locations in the
northern portion of the subdivision.
In a March 9, 1989 Health Consultation, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) classified the Forest Glen
Subdivision site as posing a potential health threat to residents.
ATSDR did not recommend relocation at that time, but, instead,
indicated that TICs should be positively identified so that their
health effects could be determined.
-------
On March 25, 1989, EPA issued an Administrative Order, pursuant to
Section 106 (a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) , requiring that three
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) , Thomas Sottile, Niagara
Falls U.S.A. Campsite Inc., and Ernest Booth, <6arry out actions to
reduce the immediate threat posed by conditions at the site. Based
on information available at the time EPA issued the Order, these
three parties vere viable and potentially . responsible for
contamination in the residential portion of the site addressed in
the Administrative Order. EPA ordered the three parties to secure
drums and containers at the site which vere leaking or in immediate
danger of leaking and to submit a detailed Work Plan to EPA for
construction . and seeding of a cover to prevent contact with
contaminated soil. The Administrative Order also directed that the
Work Plan include fencing of the undeveloped areas east of the
subdivision on either side of Edgewood Drive and the off-site
disposal of all drums and their contents present at the site. To
date, the three parties have not complied with the Order.
EPA has since executed interim measures to stabilize conditions and
protect the public at the site, including collection, staging, and
securing drums of waste that were located in the areas north and
east of the subdivision. EPA also installed temporary fencing
around areas of suspected contamination in the two wooded areas
north and south of Edgewood Drive. In addition, an area where
contaminants were visibly observed in surface soils was temporarily
covered with concrete.
In April 1989, EPA re sampled approximately fourteen x>f the
locations that previously exhibited the highest concentrations of
compounds. An air sampling program was also implemented in April
1989 and included the collection of samples of ambient air at
locations throughout the subdivision and beneath several mobile
hones and from the basement of one permanent residence. The air
sampling activities did not identify any of the target compounds,
however, several compounds were detected that appeared to be
originating from an upwind source.
In June 1989, the analysis of the soil samples collected in April
of the same year positively identified aniline, phenothiazine,
mercaptobenzothiazole, and benzothiazole. Based on this
information, on July 21, 1989, ATSDR issued a Preliminary Health
Assessment for the Forest Glen Subdivision which indicated that the
site poses a significant threat to public health because of
possible contact with contaminated soils and wastes and advised
that immediate action be taken to relocate residents of the entire
subdivision beginning with the most contaminated areas. On June
22 and 23, 1989, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH)
conducted an exposure survey at the Forest Glen Subdivision. In
that survey, 39 people from 23 households reported having contact
with chemical wastes, and 45 people reported health problems that
-------
they believed were associated with chemicals on the site. NYSDOH
is continuing more detailed follow-up health surveys at the site.
On July 26, 1989, EPA, in conjunction with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), began a program which provides for the
temporary relocation of residents from the Forest Glen Subdivision.
To date, approximately 28 families have agreed to temporary
relocation. The temporary relocation program includes provision
of child care during daytime hours. Security, winterization, and
maintenance of vacated properties are also being provided. EPA and
FEMA maintain offices at the site.
EPA has compiled a more complete list of PRPs for the Forest Glen
Subdivision- site. This list includes Goodyear Tire and Rubber
Company, Carborundum Company, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company,
International Paper Company, Occidental Chemical Company, U.S.
Forms Division, Allied-Signal Inc., Union Carbide Corporation, Olin
Corporation, Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, Hasely Trucking
Company Inc., Walter S. Kozdranski Company, Inc., Mew York Power
Authority, Thomas G. Sottile, and Niagara Falls U.S.A. Campsite
Inc. These parties have been notified as to their status as PRPs.
EPA is currently continuing negotiations with these PRPs. On
November 29, 1989, EPA issued special notice to the PRPs pursuant
to Section 122 of CERCLA. A sixty day moratorium on EPA
implementation of remedial action at the site was initiated by the
issuance of the special notice.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
%
EPA has had extensive involvement with the community at the Forest
Glen Subdivision. In addition, to holding several public
availability sessions, EPA and FEMA have maintained offices at the
site. The Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) report and the Proposed
Plan for the Forest Glen Subdivision site were released to the
public for comment on November 17, 1989. These two documents were
made available to the public in the administrative record, which
was located at the EPA trailer at the site, at EPA's Region II
office in New York City, and at information repositories maintained
at the EPA Public Information Office in Niagara Falls and at the
NYSDEC offices in Albany and Buffalo. The notice of availability
for these two documents was published in the Niagara Gazette on
November 17, 1989. A public comment period on the documents was
held from November 17 to December 18, 1989. A public meeting was
held on November 30, 1989. At this meeting, representatives from
EPA and FEMA answered questions about problems at the site and the
remedial alternatives under consideration. In addition, EPA and
FEMA representatives attended a separate meeting on November 30,
1989 in which interested residents and consultants presented
proposals for group relocation. A response to the comments
received during the public comment period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is appended to this Record of
Decision (ROD).
-------
SCOPE MTD ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT WITHIK BITE STRATEGY
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Forest Glen
Subdivision site are complex. As a result, EPA has organized the
remedial work into at least one emergency action and at least two
remedial actions. This ROD addresses the first planned remedial
action at the cite.
In July, 1989, EPA initiated an emergency action at the site which
consisted of temporary relocation of site residents. At present,
approximately twenty-eight families in the subdivision have agreed
to temporary relocation. This first operable unit remedial action
supplements the ongoing emergency action and addresses the threat
posed to site residents through permanent resident relocation from
the site. A future operable unit will be initiated once the
permanent relocation process is underway which will more fully
assess the nature and extent of site contamination and analyze
alternatives for remediation of the site. The remediation of the
site will be the subject of a future ROD.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
On August 6, 1987, EPA conducted an initial site inspection at the
Forest Glen Subdivision. Several of the soil and waste samples
collected at that time showed elevated levels of volatile organics
and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), including anthracene, pyrene,
and benzo(b)fluoranthene. In addition, aniline was detected in one
sample at 230 ppm. Aniline is classified as a probable human
carcinogen and several PAHs are classified as potential human
carcinogens. Elevated levels of lead and mercury were also
detected in 2 samples. Of particular interest were tentatively
identified compounds (TICs) which were detected at very high levels
in the samples. These TICs included benzothiazole,
benzothiazoline, phenothiazine, molecular sulfur and several PAHs.
Because of the presence of TICs at high concentrations, the
difficulty encountered in identifying the TICs, and the potential
threat posed by direct contact or inhalation of these contaminants,
EPA decided to resample the site.
On September 27-29, 1988, 40 soil/sediment and 23 solid waste
samples were collected as part of an expanded site inspection. A
summary of analytical results from these samples is given in Table
1 in Appendix 2. Again, several soil samples showed evidence of
contamination with volatile, inorganic, and semi-volatile
contaminants, including PAHs. Contamination was found in the
undeveloped areas north and east of the site, posing an additional
potential direct contact threat to residents. Several of the
samples of waste from the site were contaminated with PAHs. Again,
a number of TICs were found across the site. The identity of the
TICs could not be positively established through conventional
analytical methods.
-------
On April 13, 1989, seven soil and seven solid waste samples were
collected from locations previously sampled in September, 1988 for
identification of TICs. Analyses were performed to confirm the
presence of aniline, benzothiazole, and phenothiazine (see Table
2 in Appendix 2). In addition, 2-mercaptobenzothiazole,
benzothiazolone, and elemental sulfur were positively identified
by matching spectra and gas chromatograph retention times with
those of standards. Benzothiazole and aercaptobenzothiazole may
cause allergic contact dermatitis. Finally, 2-
aethylbenzothiazole, 2-methylthiobenzothiazole, 2-methyl-N-
phenylbenzenamine, N-N'-diphenyl-l,4benzendiamine, and N-
phenylformamide vere tentatively identified in several samples.
Samples which were analyzed were extremely contaminated. In a few
cases, nuggets and minute pockets of almost pure waste were seen
by the operator, causing problems with concentrating several
samples.
On May 22, 1989, 55 soil samples were collected from the site.
Although subsequent analyses did not indicate the presence of
volatile organics or semi-volatile organics, several targeted
compounds were identified in the samples including benzothiazole,
2-mercaptobenzothiazole, aniline, N-nitrosodiphenylamine, perylene,
and benzothiazolone. It was noted during analysis that the
compound N-nitrosodiphenylamine was indistinguishable from
diphenylamine in the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis.
In order to confirm that the analyte n-nitrosodiphenylaraine was not
present, samples of waste were shipped to EPA's laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio and to the Food and Drug Administration laboratory
in Las Vegas, Nevada. The results of these analyses confirmed that
n-nitrosodiphenylamine was not the compound present and that
diphenylanine was the compound of concern.
Based on the results of these sampling events and on historical
aerial photographs of the area, EPA concluded that the northern
area of the site was used for unauthorized disposal of industrial
wastes and that subsequent activities associated with the
development of the site may have dispersed contamination throughout
the residential area of the site. ATSDR concluded, in its July 21,
1989 Health Assessment, that residents could be exposed to these
contaminants, which included carcinogens and noncarcinogens,
through contact with contaminated surface and subsurface soil.
On August 1, 1989, indoor samples were taken from all residences
in the Forest Glen Subdivision. These included composite wipe
samples, loose "dust ball" sampling, and composite vacuum samples.
The goals of this sampling were to determine whether or not
contamination from the site had been transported into the sampled
houses and whether personal property required replacement or
cleaning. Samples were taken using a biased sampling approach
which oversampled those areas most likely to be contaminated, such
as dust balls, high traffic areas, or areas containing the greatest
-------
amounts of dust. Benzothiazole was detected at low ppn levels in
several dust ball samples and at fractional nicrogram per square
foot levels in a substantial number of wipe samples. No other
compounds were present at detectable levels.
SUMMARY OF BITE RISKS
On March 9, 1989, ATSDR issued a Health Consultation for the Forest
Glen Subdivision site. Based on the information available at that
time, ATSDR classified the Forest Glen Subdivision site as posing
a potential health threat to residents. On July 21, 1989, ATSDR
revised its previous conclusions and issued a Preliminary Health
Assessment for the Forest Glen Subdivision site. This Preliminary
Health Assessment is the basis for EPA's determination that site
conditions pose a risk to residents of the site.
Contaminants of Concern
The following contaminants of concern in site surface and
subsurface soils were considered by ATSDR in formulating its
Preliminary Health Assessment for the Forest Glen Subdivision site:
aniline, phenothiazine, benzothiazole, nercaptobenzothiazole, and
PAHs.
Exposure Assessment Information
In its Preliminary Health Assessment, ATSDR identified several
pathways which could result in residential exposure to contaminants
at the site. The primary routes of exposure at the site are
related to the contaminated surface and subsurface soils at the
site. These pathways include direct ingestion, dermal contact,
inhalation, or dermal absorption. Residents might be exposed to
buried wastes at the site during gardening, construction,
excavation, or other activities which disturb the soil cover at the
site. Because ground water monitoring wells have not been
installed at the site, ATSDR could not evaluate potential ground
water contamination. Although the site is supplied with public
water, ATSDR identified ingestion of contaminated drinking water
as a potential threat at the site. This is because on previous
occasions, lateral connections from the public water supply lines
to some residences have deteriorated, possibly due to corrosion.
ATSDR determined that, at the present time, the potential for
surface water and sediment contamination through erosion is
moderate because of existing soil cover and vegetation on the site.
Additional sampling is required to determine whether contaminated
sediment and surface water are of concern at the site. ATSDR could
not determine whether contaminants were being ingested in home
gardens. Based on EPA air sampling data, there is currently no
evidence of residential exposure via inhalation of ambient air.
-------
Toxicity Assessment Information
ATSDR evaluated the health implications of exposure to several
chemicals detected in site soil, including aniline, phenothiazine,
benzothiazole, mercaptobenzothiazole, and PAHs. Of these
chemicals, aniline is classified as a probable human carcinogen and
PAHs are classified as potential human carcinogens. Occupational
exposure to aniline has resulted in elevated concentrations of
methemoglobin in the blood which can lead to cyanosis and asphyxia.
Phenothiazine exposure has resulted in skin sensitization and may
precipitate allergic contact dermatitis. Benzothiazole and
mercaptobenzothiazole may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Based
on this information and on the high concentrations of these
chemicals found in surface soils, all of the above compounds are
considered contaminants of concern at the present time.
Risk Characterization Information
ATSDR determined that residents of the subdivision might be exposed
to significant levels of contamination during normal work or play
activities, and that the risk of exposure to contaminants might be
increased by on-site remedial or removal operations. In addition,
ATSDR documented the potential for contamination of the public
water supply if buried wastes cause deterioration of water supply
lines. Finally, ATSDR determined that subsidence of the fill
underlying parts of the site posed a potential physical hazard as
well as a potential health threat because of the potential for a
release of hazardous gases to the environment. ATSDR recommended
that residents be relocated from the Forest Glen Subdivision site
until the finding of a significant risk to human health is shown
to be unfounded and/or the significant risk to human health has
been eliminated or substantially mitigated.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment
to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Forest Glen Subdivision site Focused Feasibility Study of
Relocation Options (FFS), released for public comment on November
17, 1989, evaluates, in detail, three alternatives for relocating
residents from the site. These alternatives are summarized below.
Alternative 1; NO ACTION
Present Worth Cost: $2,050,000 (estimate)
Months to Implement: None
EPA is required to analyze a no-action alternative as part of the
Feasibility Study process to provide a basis of comparison to be
8
-------
used in evaluating other alternatives. The no-action alternative
presented here assumes that no further action takes place at the
site to protect the health of site residents. Under the no-action
alternative, the temporary relocation which is currently being
offered to residents would be ceased and residents that have not
been relocated would remain living on the site. At present,
approximately one-half of the Forest Glen Subdivision residents
have agreed to temporary relocation. Temporary relocation of all
residents would cease in April 1990 after the expiration of the
temporary relocation program currently being implemented under EPA
emergency authorities.
Under the no-action alternative, no actions would be taken in the
short-term to mitigate the potential threat to residents.
Residents would continue to be exposed to contaminated moil and the
migration of contaminants from the site would continue. Potential
methane gas generation and subsidence of the landfill would not be
addressed. In addition, Gill Creek would continue to be a
potential contaminant migration pathway to the Niagara River.
This remedy could be implemented immediately and would require no
time to complete. The costs associated with this alternative would
include those for monitoring and review of the site and the money
set aside, to date, for interim measures such as fencing, site
cover, and drum removal and temporary relocation of residents
through April 1990.
ARARS
V
There are no ARARs associated with this alternative.
Alternative 2: CONTINUED TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS
Present Worth Cost: $5,717,000 - $11,065,000 (estimates)
Months to Implement: 60 to 120 (estimates)
Under this alternative, EPA would continue to offer temporary
relocation to residents at the site through FEMA until such time
as residents could move back to the site. At present,
approximately one-half of the families in the Forest Glen
Subdivision have agreed to temporary relocation. Under this
alternative, EPA and FEMA would continue to offer temporary
relocation to those residents who have not yet agreed to
relocation. For purposes of cost estimation, it is assumed that
all residents are temporarily relocated for a period of five to ten
years.
The site would be fenced and secured to prevent trespassing after
temporary relocation of residents was completed. In addition, a
program of site security and property maintenance would be required
to ensure against vandalism, theft, and deterioration of the homes
at the site.
-------
As it is currently being implemented, FEMA provides assistance to
individuals who are being displaced from their primary residence.
The program allows individuals to relocate by covering reasonable
expenses which are additional to expenses iincurred prior to
displacement. Although assistance varies with individual need,
typical types of assistance offered to date include temporary
housing, subsistence payments, rental furniture, a utility subsidy,
utility connection costs, expenses for transportation of household
goods, decontamination and/or acquisition of personal property, and
kennel costs.
This alternative is estimated to cost between $5,717,000 (five
years temporary relocation) and $11,065,000 (ten years temporary
relocation). The majority of these costs result from the rental
of replacement residences and the maintenance and security of
residences during the period after resident relocation has
occurred.
ARARs
There are no environmental laws associated with this alternative.
However, the major guidelines associated with federal
implementation of this alternative are the requirements of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 & sea.) and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 4.1 ££ seq.
Alternative 3; PERMANENT RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS
Present Worth Cost: $4,705,000 - $6,023,000 (estimates)
Months to Implement: 12 - 18 (estimate)
Under this alternative, EPA, in conjunction with FEMA and the State
of New York, would permanently relocate all residents from the
Forest Glen Subdivision site. FEMA administers permanent
relocation activity under Superfund in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970 as amended. This act provides for uniform and equitable
treatment of persons displaced from their homes by federal
programs.
Under FEMA, permanent relocation projects are carried out in two
phases: property acquisition, in which residents are compensated
for the value of real property which is being acquired, and
relocation assistance, in which residents are assisted in
identifying and moving into replacement residences. EPA has
evaluated two options for property acquisition (acquisition of land
and moving mobile homes, and acquisition of all real property)
and two options for relocation assistance (individual relocation
and group relocation).
10
-------
Property Acquisition
The property acquisition phase nay include acquisition of land or
land and hones because several of the hones in the subdivision are
nobile and others are not. All residents at*' the site would be
relocated. Relocation would include the acquisition of developed
land at fair narket value, as will be explained below. Mobile
hones at the site would be acquired or, depending on resident
preference and feasibility, noved to a new location.
Option A: Acquisition of Land/Movement of existing Mobile Homes
Based on resident preference and other considerations, nobile hones
at the site could be noved to a new location. Mobile hones which
are to be moved would be tested to determine the extent of chemical
contamination and the feasibility of moving the home. If the home
was found to be uncontaminated or was able to be decontaminated and
was in good structural condition and if it proved economically
favorable to do so, only land would be acquired and the home could
be moved to a new site. If the home was found to be contaminated
such that it could not be economically cleaned or if it was found
to be structurally impaired so that moving the home would be
impractical, the home would be purchased and the residents assisted
in locating replacement housing.
Option B: Acquisition of All Real Property
For those residents who do not wish to move their mobile homes,
both land and home would be acquired. All real property^in the
Forest Glen Subdivision would be appraised in accordance with
Department of Justice standards to determine its fair market value.
Based on fair market value of the property, an offer to purchase
would be made to each property owner. This offer could be accepted
or contested by the property owner who would present evidence
substantiating his or her reasons for contesting the offer. When
agreement is reached, the property owner would receive the agreed
upon amount less any encumbrances on the property.
Residents would be offered just compensation for any real property
to be acquired. Property would be appraised disregarding any
decrease in the fair narket value of the real property caused by
chemical contamination at the site. In addition, under Option A,
acquisition of land/movement of existing mobile homes, or Option
B, acquisition of all real property, residents would be reimbursed
for the replacement of personal property which EPA determined to
be immobile or which was not able to be decontaminated.
General Information on Property Acquisition
EPA and FEKA would continue to offer temporary relocation to
residents until permanent relocation could be completed. As will
be explained below, FEMA would assist residents in locating
11
-------
replacement residences and in moving to those residences or in
noving homes to replacement lots.
During permanent relocation activities, the site would be secured
to prevent trespassing. Zn addition, a program of site security
and property maintenance would be required to ensure against
vandalism, theft, and deterioration of the homes at the site while
permanent relocation activities were ongoing. This program would
continue until permanent relocation was completed and real and
personal property remaining at the site were either disposed of or
salvaged.
Following the permanent relocation of all residents, the. site would
be fenced and secured to prevent trespassing. Real and personal
property remaining on-site would be decontaminated, if necessary.
Following successful decontamination, property would be disposed
of or salvaged. Title to all properties acquired during the
permanent relocation would be transferred to the State of New York
following the completion of remedial actions at the site, as
required by law. Field work for the second operable unit would
begin once permanent relocation was completed and the site was
sufficiently cleared to allow access for sampling activities.
Resident Relocation
In the resident relocation phase of this alternative, residents
would be offered assistance in locating and/or moving to
replacement residences or in moving mobile homes to replacement
lots. Based on input from residents at the site, EPA has included
two options under the relocation phase of this alternative.
Option C: Individual Relocation of Residents
Under Option C, households would be relocated on an individual
basis according to the requirements of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Zn
the relocation phase, FEMA would provide assistance to individuals
in locating replacement homes or replacement lots. Additional
information on the types of relocation assistance available are
discussed in the section below entitled, "General Information on
Resident Relocation."
Option D: Group Relocation of Residents
Under Option D, residents would be relocated to a new neighborhood
in circumstances which are comparable to conditions in the Forest
Glen Subdivision. Residents would either move their existing
mobile homes or would purchase new comparable housing. Because of
the number of residents involved, this option could include
purchasing, subdividing, and developing a parcel of land so that
individual lots could be comparable to those in the Forest Glen
Subdivision.
12
-------
Although this option has been termed "group relocation" by the
residents and EPA, actual moving payments and relocation assistance
vould be provided on an individual basis. The amounts of any
payments for relocation assistance would be determined for each
individual household in the same Banner as for Option C.
Therefore, the amounts of these payments vould depend on the
individual circumstances of each homeowner before and after
relocation as explained in the next section.
At present, EPA and FEMA are investigating ways in which the
federal government could assist interested residents in
implementing group relocation. Residents night require assistance
in rezoning or in obtaining zoning variances -and/or in engaging a
developer. EPA would work with the community to determine the
other types of support required to implement group relocation.
General Information on Resident Relocation
Dnder either Option C, individual relocation of residents, or
Option D, group relocation of residents, the types and amounts of
relocation assistance available are governed by the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970. Eligible individuals could receive: compensation for the
added cost of a comparable replacement dwelling; a payment to
offset any increased mortgage interest costs; a payment for those
reasonable costs connected with the purchase of a replacement
dwelling; limited moving costs; rental assistance; information on
the availability of suitable replacement housing; assistance to
help overcome any discriminatory practices that may be encountered
in obtaining housing of choice; inspection of replacement housing
to insure that the property is decent, safe, and sanitary;
assistance - in filling out claim forms; counseling about other
sources of assistance that may be available; and such other help
as may be appropriate.
Implementation of this remedy would take approximately 12 - 18
months. This alternative is estimated to cost between $4,705,000
and $6,023,000. This range represents the minimum and maximum
costs for permanent relocation based on the options discussed
above. EPA and FEMA would work with residents to determine the
option which best suits the circumstances of each resident.
These costs are somewhat higher than the costs presented in the
Forest Glen Subdivision Proposed Plan published on November 17,
1989. Based on public input and other information presented to
EPA, the estimate of the cost of acquiring an individual lot in
the Forest Glen Subdivision has been increased approximately 210%
and the cost estimates for the acquisition of mobile and permanent
hones have been increased approximately 30% - 40%. These increases
have, in turn, raised the overall cost range of Alternative 3 by
approximately 11% - 12%. In addition, the estimated implementation
time for permanent relocation has been modified to a range of 12
13
-------
to 18 months to reflect the additional time which may be required
to implement group relocation. These increases, reflected in this
ROD, were not considered significant changes by EPA.
ARARs
There are no environmental laws associated with this alternative.
However, the major guidelines associated with federal
implementation of this alternative are the requirements of the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601 fit sea.) and its implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 4.1 fit sea. Depending on the options
implemented during permanent relocation, State or local zoning or
subdivision laws may also be applicable to this action.
SUMMARY or COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
This section of the ROD profiles the performance of the three
alternatives discussed above against EPA's nine evaluation
criteria. This evaluation is the basis for EPA's selection of an
alternative for the relocation of residents from the Forest Glen
Subdivision site.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 3, permanent relocation, is protective of human health.
The protectiveness of Alternative 2 may vary since temporary
relocation would be a voluntary program. Both alternatives provide
protection by eliminating the pathway for exposure to residents and
the public. Alternative 1, no action, is not protective because
residents would remain on the site and there would be the potential
for continued exposure to site contaminants.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs)
There are no environmental laws associated with any of the
alternatives; however, Alternatives 2 and 3, temporary and
permanent relocation, comply with all identified federal relocation
requirements. Therefore, no ARAR waivers would be required.
Alternative 1 has no ARARs.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 2, temporary relocation, and Alternative 3, permanent
relocation, are both effective in the long term provided there is
100% resident participation in both programs. However, Alternative
2 relies on continuance of the temporary lodging arrangements made
by EPA and on continued support by residents, which is unlikely
over a period of five to ten years. In addition, the long-term
effectiveness of Alternative 2 is only assured if site can be
remediated such that future risks to residents can be mitigated.
14
-------
If this is not the case, residents vill have to be permanently
relocated to assure long-term effectiveness. Alternative 3 does
not have such constraints. Therefore, the degree of long term
management of relocation efforts is less for Alternative 3 than for
Alternative 2. All of the alternatives would Require a review of
the site at least every five years. This requirement vill be met
through subsequent investigations at the site. Both Alternative
2, temporary relocation, and Alternative 3, permanent relocation,
also require site security and fencing to minimize future exposure
to site contaminants by trespassers.
Alternative 1, no action, is not effective in the long term since
the potential risk to remaining residents would still exist.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Yolym^ Through Treatment
None of the alternatives being considered utilize treatment.
Remediation of the cite, including the need for treating
contamination at the site, will be considered in a future operable
unit.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 2, temporary relocation, and Alternative 3, permanent
relocation, are protective in the short-term provided the same
number of residents agree to temporary relocation under both
alternatives. This is because, under both alternatives, temporary
relocation could be implemented immediately through FEMA and
because EPA would continue to offer temporary relocation to
residents until permanent relocation is complete.
ImpleTnentabil ity
In the short-term, Alternative 2, temporary relocation, is
potentially most easily implementable because it is a continuation
of temporary relocation activities currently being conducted at the
site. However, if some residents continue to resist temporary
relocation, the implementability of Alternative 2 could be
completely eliminated. In addition, if it is later determined,
through the second operable unit Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS), that on-site source materials could not
be removed or treated to eliminate the risk to site residents, the
implement ability of this alternative would be very low since
permanent relocation would then be required.
Alternative 3, permanent relocation, is expected to be easily
implementable since an Interagency Agreement between EPA and FEMA
for FEMA assistance with permanent relocation is currently in
place. Resident cooperation is essential to the implementation of
both Alternatives 2 and 3. In addition, in the case of
Alternatives 2 and 3, future investigations and actions at the site
15
-------
would be very easy to undertake since relocation of residents would
provide unlimited access to the site.
There is no need to consider implementabilityv for Alternative 1,
no-action. This alternative would not facilitate any future
remedial work at the site.
Cost
Depending on the options selected under Alternative 3 and the
duration of temporary relocation activities under Alternative 2,
either Alternative 3, permanent relocation or Alternative 2,
temporary relocation, would be the least costly of the action
alternatives considered. In some cases, the potential cost
differences between Alternatives 2 and 3 could be insignificant.
However, the cost of Alternative 2 is very sensitive to changes in
the assumption that residents would be temporarily relocated for
five to ten years. In addition, the costs of Alternative 2 would
increase significantly if it is later determined, through the
second operable unit RI/FS, that on-site source materials could not
be removed or treated to eliminate the risk to site residents. In
this case, residents would have to be permanently relocated after
several years of temporary relocation and the costs associated with
Alternative 2 could potentially double.
The costs associated with Alternative 1, no action, are $2,050,000.
The costs associated with Alternative 2, temporary relocation are
between $5,717,000 and $11,065,000. The costs associated with
Alternative 3, permanent relocation, are between $4,705,000 and
$6,023,000.
State Acceptance
An alternative that does not provide for the permanent relocation
of all residents would not be acceptable to the State.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance will be judged after formal comment on these
alternatives. However, some residents of the Forest Glen Subvision
have refused offers of temporary relocation in the past and have
indicated they will do so in the future. Other residents have
indicated that they will accept temporary relocation only as an
interim measure while permanent relocation is being implemented.
In addition, several residents strongly support Alternative 3,
Option D, permanent group relocation, and have indicated that they
are unwilling to accept permanent relocation unless it includes
group relocation. Other residents have expressed a preference for
Alternative 3, Option C, individual relocation.
16
-------
REMEDY
EPA has selected Alternative 3, permanent relocation, as the
relocation alternative for the Forest Glen Subdivision residents.
Within Alternative 3, EPA prefers an option that would include a
combination of individual relocation and group relocation to best
meet the needs of the community in accordance with the National
Contingency Plan and all applicable laws, regulations, and
standards.
Under Alternative 3, all residents of the site will be permanently
relocated from the site. This will result in the elimination of
all risks to the residents posed by the site. Temporary relocation
will continue while the permanent relocation process is being
implemented to mitigate short-term risks to the residents. In
addition, Alternative 3 includes sampling and, if required,
decontamination of the mobile homes at the site. Mobile homes
which are not moved to new locations will be salvaged or disposed
and the site will be fenced and secured.
The costs associated with Alternative 3, permanent relocation, are
itemized in Tables 3 through 8 in Appendix 2. Some modifications
may be made to the selected remedy as a result of the planning
activities which will be performed prior to the permanent
relocation and as a result of the implementation of the permanent
relocation process.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
V
This section of the ROD describes how the selected remedy,
permanent relocation, meets the statutory requirements of Section
121 of CERCLA.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy, permanent relocation, is necessary to protect
the public health or welfare, and will protect the health of
residents by permanently removing them from the source of
contamination. Thus, the risk to the residents' health will be
essentially eliminated. While the permanent relocation process is
being implemented, the risk to residents will be eliminated through
the use of temporary relocation. During the permanent relocation
process, the site will be secured to reduce risks to non-residents.
Once the permanent relocation process is substantially complete,
the site will be fenced and security will be maintained to protect
human health.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
The selected remedy will comply with all federal and any more
stringent state requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to this action. Although there are no environmental
17
-------
laws, associated with this alternative, the major action-specific
guidelines associated with federal government implementation of
this alternative are the requirements of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42
U.S.C. 4601 et fififl.) and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 4.1
et seq. Depending on the options implemented during permanent
relocation, State or local coning or subdivision lavs may also be
applicable to this remedial action.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy affords overall effectiveness proportionate to
its costs. Based on the order of magnitude cost estimates prepared
by EPA, the range of costs associated with the selected
alternative, permanent relocation, is considerably less than that
of temporary relocation. Even if temporary relocation concluded
after five years, the costs of temporary relocation would be
roughly equal to the highest cost estimate for permanent
relocation. This, in combination with the fact that the long-term
effectiveness and implement ability provided by permanent relocation
are higher than those for temporary relocation and the fact that
the community strongly prefers permanent relocation warrant any
potential additional costs associated with the selected
alternative.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable fMEPl
The selected remedy, permanent relocation of site residents,
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
to the maximum extent practicable. However, because the selected
remedy addresses the immediate threat to the health of residents,
it includes relocation only and no treatment of wastes. The use
of treatment for site wastes will be addressed in a future operable
unit.
Permanent relocation assures protection of human health and is most
effective in the long term because the health of residents would
be protected regardless of the type of remediation which is
performed at the site in the future. Although it will require
approximately one to one and one half years to implement, the
short-term effectiveness of Alternative 3 is increased if residents
agree to temporary relocation while permanent relocation is being
implemented. In addition, Alternative 3 is more implementable in
the long term since it does not require indefinite temporary
relocation of families. Finally, the range of costs of permanent
relocation is considerably less than that of Alternative 2,
temporary relocation. In fact, the high cost estimate associated
with permanent relocation roughly equals the lowest cost estimate
associated with temporary relocation. Long-term effectiveness and
implementability were the most decisive factors in EPA's selection
18
-------
of Alternative 3, permanent relocation. Both the State and the
community strongly preferred permanent relocation.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element.
The preference for treatment as a principal element of this remedy
is not satisfied. Treatment is not within the limited scope of
this relocation action. The possible use of treatment to address
the principal threats posed by this site will be addressed in
future operable units.
DOCUMEKTATION OP SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Alternative 3, permanent relocation, was the preferred alternative
identified by EPA in the Forest Glen Subdivision site Proposed Plan
released for public comment on November 17, 1989. No significant
changes were made to the selected remedy from the date the Proposed
Plan and FFS were released for public comment and the date of this
ROD.
19
-------
APPENDIX 1
FIGURES
-------
YTp - • • . ^ _. -v. ^^ ; •i- . i «it !•••
g FOREST-GLEM SU3DIV1SION
I vVf.-xr -_—
""*• * *•"* » '
l|M*
^niKr
r-\i
.r«
.. i*>-..^.^ ...^..........
!0^
<7>
IOT
ri.-T=5
1*:^.-.»
•a"-"
m
•{Sl'r
fe?
^K_
^
tr1^-^. >^
s?^33-1-^^
*r??r»
J
"^•WJ
~\4
IOUA01KUOAIIA FALLS
't1,
i« >n;
ah- r
• IM •
;'"T]?
/
43
u
n K-
NI
t
tnrafam
FIGURE 1
FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION, NY
LOCATION MAP
SCALE: I"- 2000* "
-------
I APfnOXIMATE SCAUE : f- l*r )
FOREST OLE:
-BDZVZSZOK, NY
PLAN
• '••.'***£*';?*$;£•':
-------
APPENDIX 2
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF 9/27-29/88 SAMPLING
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION MEDIA OCCURRENCES1
RANGE' fPPirO
Semi-Volatiles
Acenaphthene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine4
N-nitrosodiphenylamine4
Phenanthrene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(X)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(g, h, i)perylene
Benzo(g,h,i}perylene
24
47
5300
0.9
33
32
1.1
2.9
0.98
33
0.95
28
,1
30
0.83
30
0.95
25
0
30
0.9
28
0.84
30
9 -
260 W
S§
w
57 S
880 W
350 W
85 S
1300 W
87 S
1100 W
74 S
890 W
74 S
880 W
4500 S
820 W
60 S
630 W
59 S
840 W
31 S
420 W
31 S
370 W
2/23
1/38
2/23
10/38
5/23
2/23
15/38
6/23
15/38
5/23
15/38
5/23
13/38
5/23
15/38
5/23
11/38
5/23
10/38
5/23
8/38
3/23
7/38
3/23
NOTES
Occurrences is the ratio of the number of positive analyses
of a particular chemical to the number of samples taken.
Some compounds were present below contract-specified detection
limits, but above instrument detection levels. TIC
concentrations are estimated values.
V «= solid waste sample
The method used to analyze these samples does not distinguish
between n-nitrosodiphenylamine and diphenylamine. Subsequent
analyses have concluded that diphenylamine is the actual
compound present.
S « soil sample
-------
TABLE 1 (continued)
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF t/27-29/88 SAMPLING
CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION MEDIA OCCURRENCES
RANGE fPpnO
Inorganics
Cadmium 1.7 - 12 S . 2/38
Chromium 15.2 - 285 S 38/38
Chromium 57 - 294 W 20/23
Lead 13 - 1450 8 38/38
Lead 110 - 339 W 10/23
Mercury 0.1 - 61 S 38/38
Ties
Benzothiazole 0.69 - 560 S 5/38
Benzothiazole 8 - 46000 W 9/23
2-mercaptobenzothiazole 2.4 - 64000 W 9/23
Molecular Sulfur 12 - 27 S 2/38
Molecular Sulfur 3.6 - 8400 W 9/23
Benzo(c}phenanthrene 0.79 - 14 S 3/38
Benzo(j)fluoranthene 0.69 - 31 S 8/38
Benzo(ghi)fluoranthene 17 S 1/38
Benzo(k)fluoranthene 9.9 S 1/38
Benzo(a)pyrene 11 - 14 S 2/38
Aniline 3.2 - 4000 W 4/23
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS O? 4/13/89 RE-SAMPLING
CHEMICAL' CONCENTRATION MEDIA OCCURRENCES1
RANGE8
TICs
Aniline 2600 - 5700 W* 3/7
Aniline 0.01 - 0.35 S* 2/7
Benzothiazole 0.15 - 2000 W 7/7
Benzothiazole 0.35 - 90 S 6/7
Phenothiazine 3.3 - 5500 W 5/7
Phenothiazine 0.70 - 19.5 S 5/7
NOTES
Occurrences is the ratio of the number of positive analyses
of a particular chemical to the number of samples taken.
TIC concentrations are estimated values.
W » solid waste sample
S - soil sample
-------
TABLE 3
BANGE OF TOTAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PERMANENT RELOCATION
k
ALTERNATIVE COST
I« Option A - acquisition of land $ 4,705,000
Option C - individual relocation: move
existing mobile hones to
comparable mobile home parks
One year temporary relocation
Fencing
II. Option A - acquisition of land $ 4,705,000
Option D - group relocation: move existing
homes to new parcel of land;
purchase and develop land
One year temporary relocation
Fencing
III. Option B - acquisition of all real property $ 6,023,000
Option C - individual relocation: move
residents to comparable homes
One year temporary relocation
Fencing
%
IV. Option B - acquisition of all real property $ 6,023,000
Option D - group relocation: move residents
to new parcel of land; purchase and
develop land
One year temporary relocation
Fencing
-------
TABLE 4
BREAKDOWN OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PERMANENT RELOCATION
PROPERTY ACQUISITION PHABEv
OPTION A: ACQUISITION OF LAND/MOVEMENT OF EXISTING MOBILE HOMES
ITEM COST
Decontamination of Mobile Homes $ 179,000
C $3,500/home'
Testing and Analysis of Samples from $ 612,000
Homes £ $lf200/sample and 9 10 samples/
mobile home
Moving Mobile Homes € $6,000/home $ 306,000
Acquire Permanent Residences f $ 130,000
$65,000/home
Acquire Land Only § $10,000/51 lots $ 510,000
Contingency for Damage to Homes Caused $ 31,000
By Moving (Assume 10% of cost of
moving mobile homes)
SUBTOTAL $ 1,768,000
CONTINGENCY (10%) $ 177,000
SUBTOTAL $ 1,945,000
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (10%) $ 194,000
TOTAL $ 2,139,000
NOTE
* Based on 51 mobile homes and 2 permanent homes
-------
TABLE' 5
BREAKDOWN OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PERMANENT RELOCATION
PROPERTY ACQUISITION PHASED
OPTION B: ACQUISITION OF ALL REAL PROPERTY
HEM COST
Decontamination of Mobile Hones $ 179,000
C $3,500/homet
Testing and Analysis of Samples from $ 612,000
Homes § $l,200/sample and § 10 camples/
mobile home
Purchase of Mobile Homes* $ 1,785,000
§ $35,000/home
Purchase of Permanent Homes* $ 130,000
f $65,000/home
Decontamination/Acquisition of
Personal Property % $l,500/household $ 80,000
Disposal of mobile homes (assuming 70%
of homes are scrapped § $3,500/home) $ 125,000
Salvage of mobile homes (assuming 30%
of homes are salvaged § $3,500/home) $ ( 54,000}
SUBTOTAL $ 2,857,000
CONTINGENCY (10%) $ 286,000
SUBTOTAL $ 3,143,000
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (10%) $ 314,000
TOTAL' $ 3,457,000
NOTE
Based on 53 households (51 mobile homes and 2 permanent
homes), unless otherwise noted
Includes the cost of acquiring both the land and the home
Does not include the value of utilities left in place.
-------
TABLE 6
BREAKDOWN OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PERMANENT RELOCATION
RELOCATION PEASE
OPTION Ct INDIVIDUAL RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS1
ITEM COST
Moving Expenses i $l,250/household* $ 66,000
Relocation Assistance * $20,000/household $ 1,060,000
SUBTOTAL $ 1,126,000
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (10%) $ 113,000
TOTAL $ 1,239,000
NOTE
1 Funds for purchasing replacement properties are included in
Tables 4 and 5.
' Based on 53 households (51 mobile homes and 2 permanent
homes), unless otherwise noted
-------
TABLE 7
BREAKDOWN OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PERMANENT RELOCATION
RELOCATION PEASE
OPTION D: GROUP RELOCATION OP RESIDENTS1
ITEM COST
Land Development and Preparation t $ 1,060,000
$20,000/lotf
Moving Expenses § $l,250/household $ 66,000
SUBTOTAL $ 1,126,000
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS (10%) $ 113,000
TOTAL: $ 1,239,000
NOTE
* Funds for purchasing replacement properties are included in
Tables 4 and 5.
* Based on 53 households (51 mobile homes and 2 permanent
homes), unless otherwise noted
-------
TABLE 8
BREAKDOWN OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PERMANENT RELOCATION
OTHER COSTS COMMON TO ALL OPTIONS
ITEM COST
Temporary Relocation of Residents for $ 1,201,000
One Year during Permanent Relocation
Process1
Fencing § $2I/ft/5,500 ft $ 115,000
SUBTOTAL $ 1,316,000
CONTINGENCY (10% for fencing) $ 11,000
TOTAL $ 1,327,000
-------
APPENDIX 3
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
APPENDIX 4
NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
Ntw fork Stite D«p«rtm$nt of Environmental Conservation
M YYWf (toad, Albany, Ntw Ybrfc 12233
Mr. Stephen D. Luftlg, P.E. r>r.-. A n
Director- btb 2 2
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Luftlg:
Re: Forest Glen Subdivision, Site
No:" 9-32-097 - Record of Decision
The Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the first operable unit of the
Forest Glen Subdivision Sit*, received by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on November 28, 1989, has been reviewed.
The NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy, as presented In the Draft ROD,
for permanent relocation of the residents of the Forest Glen Subdivision.
If we can be of further assistance, please contact Mr. Michael J.
O'Toole, Jr., P.E. at 518/457-5861.
Sincerely,
o,
Edward 0. Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
-------
APPENDIX 5
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY FOR THE RECORD OP DECISION
FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION SITE
NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
OVERVIEW
On November 17, 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the New York State Department^ of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) released a Focused Feasibility Study of
Relocation Options (FFS) and a Proposed Plan for relocation of
residents from the Forest Glen Subdivision site in Niagara Falls,
New York. EPA's and NYSDEC's preferred relocation alternative,
outlined in the Proposed Plan, was permanent relocation of
residents, including options for acquisition of land only and
movement of mobile homes, acquisition of all real property,
individual relocation, and group relocation. The exact options to
be implemented in the permanent relocation would be determined
during the permanent relocation process, considering what best
suited the needs of the community in accordance with the National
Contingency Plan and all applicable lavs, regulations, and
standards.
Based on comments received at several public availability sessions
held prior to the release of the FFS and Proposed Plan and on
written and verbal comments received after these documents were
released, residents of the Forest Glen Subdivision prefer permanent
relocation. Approximately one-half of the residents have indicated
an interest in group relocation and several residents have
indicated that they will not relocate if they are not moved as a
group. The remaining residents prefer individual relocation. A
committee of residents has presented a group relocation proposal
to EPA and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Several Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) associated with the
site have, in written comments on the FFS and Proposed Plan
submitted to EPA, questioned the legitimacy of the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry's (ATSDR's) Preliminary Health
Assessment (PHA) of the site which determined that the site posed
an immediate danger to residents and EPA's subsequent determination
to immediately relocate site residents. As a result, these PRPs
have suggested that EPA take no action at the site until a full
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the site
is completed to determine more fully the nature and extent of site
contamination and the risks posed by the site.
The Proposed Plan for the Forest Glen Subdivision site is
Attachment 1 to this Responsiveness Summary. The written comments
submitted to EPA during the public comment period are Attachment
2. A transcript of the public meeting held on November 30, 1989
is Attachment 3 to this document.
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEKENT
EPA has conducted an extensive community relations program at the
site to inform and involve all residents in the activities taking
place at the site. EPA held a public availability session on June
-------
14, 1989 when data revealed contamination at the site. At that
time, several residents expressed a desire for buyouts and health
testing. At the issuance of the ATSDR PHA in July 1989, EPA held
an availability session to inform residents of the temporary
relocation program being initiated under EPA emergency removal
authorities. At that time, several residents expressed a desire
for permanent relocation and refused to participate in the
temporary relocation program. In addition, residents of Expressway
Village, a mobile home park which adjoins the Forest Glen
Subdivision expressed concern about the possibility of
contamination and health effects in their community. EPA has since
performed two rounds of sampling in Expressway Village.
EPA and FEMA held another availability session in September 1989,
to answer questions about the federal relocation process. Prior
to that session and at that session, several residents expressed
an interest in "re-establishment" or relocation as a group to a new
subdivision. EPA and FEMA agreed to study the residents' group
relocation proposal. EPA and FEMA held availability sessions to
announce the listing of the site on the National Priorities List
on November 15 and the beginning of the FFS and Proposed Plan
comment period on November 17. On November 16, residents presented
a group relocation proposal to EPA and FEMA and indicated that
approximately half of the families in Forest Glen were interested
in group relocation. On November 30, EPA held a public meeting to
accept comments on the FFS and Proposed Plan.
To date, residents at the site have participated in all aspects of
EPA's involvement at the site. EPA maintains offices at the site
and has a public information office in downtown Niagara Falls.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS XNP LEAD AGENCY RESPONSE
Oral and written comments submitted during the public comment
period for the Forest Glen Subdivision site relocation operable
unit are summarized below. The public comment period was held from
November 17, 1989 through December 18, 1989.
COMMENT: Several residents stated that they would like to be
permanently relocated as soon as possible because of the danger
posed to their health.
EFA'S RESPONSE: EPA has expedited the listing of the site and the
FFS process and will continue to expedite the permanent relocation
of residents. EPA recommends that residents agree to temporary
relocation while permanent relocation is being implemented.
COMMENT: A resident requested that Tony Girasole, a local
appraiser, be one of the appraisers.
EPA'S RESPONSE: EPA does not select the appraisers to be used in
the permanent relocation process. FEMA has selected an appraiser
-------
based on federal competitive procurement requirements. Mr.
Girasole has been selected by FEMA. FEMA was not aware of the
resident's request.
COMMENT: Several residents stated that land, mobile homes, and
permanent residences in the Forest Glen Subdivision are worth far
more than estimates which were given in the FFS. In addition, a
resident stated that the developer of Forest Glen sold the last two
lots for $10,000 and that he would not accept less for his land.
Another resident stated that the developer of Forest Glen said that
he would sell a lot for $15,000 and that every lot in Forest Glen
is worth that. He also stated that he would not move from the
Forest Glen Subdivision unless he got exactly what he wanted.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: Based on public input and other information
presented to EPA, the estimate of the cost of acquiring an
individual lot in the Forest Glen Subdivision has been increased
approximately 210% and the cost estimates for the acquisition of
mobile and permanent homes have been increased approximately 30% -
40% from the estimates given in the FFS. In the Record of
Decision (ROD), the estimated value of land is $10,000/lot. The
estimated value of mobile homes in the ROD is $35,000/home and .the
estimated value of the two permanent homes is $65,000/home. These
figures are, however, estimates, developed by EPA for cost
comparison purposes. The actual value of land and homes in the
Forest Glen Subdivision will be determined through appraisals.
These appraisals will form the basis for the determination of just
compensation for each home. The cost estimates developed by EPA
have no bearing on the appraisal process.
COMMENT: A resident requested a separate appraisal for her home.
EPA'S RESPONSE: Each home in the Forest Glen Subdivision will be
appraised separately. Land and homes will be appraised together,
providing the homeowner owns both the land and the home.
COMMENT: A resident stated that she feels residents who move'
should be reimbursed as long as they have receipts of their
expenses.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: Eligible moving expenses are reimbursable. Any
moving expense that falls outside of stated guidelines should be
approved in advance by FEMA and EPA.
COMMENT: A resident demanded that she receive $22,500 relocation
assistance regardless of whether she is an owner or a renter. She
stated that anyone who buys property should be entitled to $22,500
relocation assistance.
EPA'S RESPONSE: Federal regulations state that property owners are
entitled to relocation assistance up to a limit of $22,500.
Renters are entitled to up to $5,250 in relocation assistance. In
-------
addition, federal regulations authorize certain assistance to help
renters who desire to become owners. Individual circumstances will
be evaluated by EPA and FEMA in light of applicable federal
regulations. i
COMMENT: A resident stated that she is entitled to $20,000 in
business losses because she will lose proximity to the interstate
on/off ramp in relocating.
EPA'S RESPONSE: Federal regulations state that up to $20,000 in
business losses nay be paid if losses are substantiated.
Individual circumstances will be evaluated by EPA and FEMA in light
of applicable federal regulations.
COMMENT: A resident stated that the no action alternative does not
eliminate the hazard to residents.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: EPA agrees that Alternative 1, no action, is not
protective of human health.
COMMENT: A resident and several PRPs stated that temporary
relocation is not appropriate for the foil owing, reasons:
it is not a mandatory program;
it is not protective of health;
it is unreasonable in its cost; and
- it is unreasonable in its treatment of residents.
EPA'S RESPONSE: EPA agrees with this comment and has discussed
these factors in its evaluation of Alternative 2, temporary
relocation in the FFS and the Record of Decision (ROD).
COMMENT: Two residents stated that Alternative 3, Option A,
acquisition of land/movement of existing mobile homes has many
problems including:
the homes would have to be certified clean;
most of the homes in the development are immobile for
various reasons; *
there is no land available for purchase in Niagara Falls
which is zoned for mobile homes;
area mobile home parks are full; and
area mobile hone parks are unwilling to accept Forest
Glen Subdivision trailers.
EFA'S RESPONSE: EPA agrees that homes which are moved from the
Forest Glen Subdivision would have to be tested and, possibly,
decontaminated to ensure that they are free from chemical
contamination prior to moving. EPA also agrees that many of the
homes in the subdivision have been significantly altered so as to
render them immobile. EPA also agrees that if there is no
available zoned land at the time of the move or if mobile home park
space is not available, movement of mobile homes within the Niagara
Falls area will be impossible.
-------
COMMENT: A resident stated that Alternative 3, Option D, group
relocation of residents, is not feasible because residents can not
get along with each other.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: Approximately 25 families have indicated an
interest in group relocation. EPA and FEMA will continue to assess
the desirability and feasibility of group relocation. No final
decision on group relocation will be made until after the appraisal
process is complete.
COMMENT: A resident stated that Alternative 3, Option C,
individual relocation, is the most feasible option available.
EPA'S RESPONSE: EPA and NYSDEC have selected Alternative 3,
permanent relocation, as the remedy for the relocation of Forest
Glen residents. Within Alternative 3, EPA acknowledges several
options which may be implemented depending on what best meets the
needs of the community in accordance with the NCP and all
applicable laws, regulations, and standards.
COMMENT: Several residents stated that they are concerned that
they will not be in a comparable economic situation after
relocations. They also stated that they will not consider a
"trailer park" comparable to their current situation.
EPA'8 RESPONSE: EPA and FEMA have stated that, per regulation,
residents' economic situation after relocation will be equivalent
to their current economic situation. Comparability of housing is
a determination which is based on many factors, including the
ability to own land at the Forest Glen Subdivision and at other
locations.
COMMENT: A resident asked for clarification of a statement on the
FFS that, under group relocation, relocation assistance payments
would be pooled by residents to finance a new subdivision.
EPA'S RESPONSE: The statement in the FFS refers to the fact that
under group relocation, some costs which may be associated with the
development of a new subdivision, may be financed through the
relocation assistance payments received by residents. In addition,
EPA and FEMA are continuing to investigate ways to assist residents
who choose group relocation. The statement has been removed from
the ROD since it may not be entirely accurate.
COMMENT: A resident who currently owns her trailer and rents her
land inquired as to whether the relocation assistance payment can
be used for purchasing land under group relocation.
EFA'S RESPONSE: Generally, the relocation assistance payment may
not be used for this purpose. Federal regulations do provide for
certain assistance to renters who desire to become owners.
-------
COMMENT: A resident asked how long the appraisal process would
take before residents received an offer.
EPA* 8 RESPONSE: After the appraisal process begins, it nay take
up to three months before FEMA is prepared to nake an offer to
purchase. Appraisers are given up to sixty days to complete
appraisals. Appraisals oust then be reviewed before they can be
used as the basis on which an offer to purchase is nade.
COMMENT: Several residents expressed a preference for group
relocation. Several also stated that group relocation offered them
continued security. In addition, some of these residents also
stated that they would not accept anything other than group
relocation.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: In response to residents' concerns, EPA has
included an option for group relocation in Alternative 3, permanent
relocation.
COMMENT: A resident asked whether mobile homes (especially those
which had been improved and altered in ways which made them
substantially immobile) would be appraised as homes or as mobile
homes.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: The appraiser will determine whether the State of
New York classifies the structures in the Forest Glen Subdivision
as real property (homes) or as personal property (mobile homes).
COMMENT: A resident commended the government for its efforts to
date at the Forest Glen Subdivision site. He also expressed a
preference for group relocation.
COMMENT: A resident stated that individual relocation should be
considered.
EPA'8 RESPONSE: EPA's and NYSDEC's preferred alternative is for
permanent relocation, with a combination of individual and group
relocation as best meets the needs of the community in accordance
with the NCP and all applicable laws, regulations, and standards.
COMMENT: A resident requested that the ROD for permanent
relocation be signed immediately. He asked whether EPA could
guarantee ROD signature by December 15, 1989.
EPA'S RESPONSE: EPA can not guarantee ROD signature by December
15, 1989. By law EPA is required to take public comment on the FFS
and Proposed Plan for at least 21 days. The public comment period,
scheduled to end on December 8, 1989, was extended to December 18,
1989, at the request of PRPs. EPA must respond to all comments
received during the public comment period. The ROD will be signed
as soon as possible after EPA has responded to all comments.
-------
COMMENT: A resident inquired about the possible delay of permanent
relocation while EPA reviews and approves the State of New York's
Capacity Assurance Plan.
EPA'8 RESPONSE: By law, EPA cannot initiate ,fcew remedial actions
within the State of New York until the New York State Capacity
Assurance Plan (CAP), which confirms hazardous waste disposal
capacity within the State, has been approved. This plan was
submitted in October, 1989.
Appraisals of the homes in the Forest Glen Subdivision will
continue through March, 1990. Therefore, if the CAP is approved
by March,; there will be no delay in the purchase of homes in the
Forest Glen Subdivision. In addition, EPA is pursuing enforcement
actions against PRPs. Approval of the CAP does not affect the
initiation of privately funded remedial actions. In the meantime,
EPA encourages residents to enroll in the temporary relocation
program to ensure protection of health until property in the Forest
Glen Subdivision can be purchased.
COMMENT: A resident asked whether EPA had intentions of
redeveloping the Forest Glen Subdivision once the relocation is
complete. He stated that he would hate to see the example of Love
Canal repeated with people trying to keep contaminated places from
going on the market.
EPA'S RESPONSE: Once relocation of residents is complete, a RI/FS
will be performed to evaluate options for remediating the
contamination at the Forest Glen Subdivision site. This study will
result in a proposed plan for cleanup of the site. This plan may
include complete removal and/or treatment of all contamination,
containment of contamination, or a combination of these two
methods. Public comment will be a factor in determining the
cleanup plan for the site. The redevelopment of the site will
depend on whether contamination is removed or contained at the site
and will be determined following remediation of the site.
COMMENT: A resident inquired %s to whether EPA or ATSDR had
determined anything further about the health effects of the
chemicals buried at the Forest Glen Subdivision site.
EPA'S RESPONSE: ATSOR has reviewed the results of all sampling
performed by EPA. ATSOR has not determined anything more about the
chemicals discovered at the Forest Glen Subdivision site at this
time.
COMMENT: The same resident asked for an update on EPA activities
with PRPs for the site.
BPA'S RESPONSE: EPA is currently negotiating with several PRPs.
On November 29, EPA issued a special notice to all known PRPs.
-------
PRPs have been given sixty days to respond to EPA with a good faith
offer to implement the permanent relocation outlined in this ROD.
COMMENT: A resident whose family had been temporarily relocated
for two and one half months commented that health problems
experienced by her son had stopped since relocating and that she
would not move back to Forest Glen. She also asked when appraisers
would be at the site.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: Appraisers began to contact residents of the site
in December, 1989. Appraisers are developing a reference book of
properties comparable to the properties in the Forest Glen
Subdivision.
COMMENT: A resident asked whether land and homes would be
appraised together or separately.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: EPA will appraise whatever is owned by the
resident. If the resident owns both the land and the home, they
will be appraised as one unit.
COMMENT: A resident asked that a copy of the transcript of the
meeting held on November 30 be given to all residents that attended
the meeting.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: A copy of the transcript has been distributed to
all residents who attended the meeting.
COMMENT: A PRP requested an extension of the public comment period
to have time to adequately respond to the FFS and Proposed Plan.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: The public comment period for the FFS and Proposed
Plan were extended to December 18, 1989.
COMMENT: A number of parties who have been identified as PRPs have
submitted comments disputing the basis of their being identified
as PRPs. •
EPA'6 RESPONSE: EPA continues to respond, on an individual basis,
to the PRPs regarding the basis of their identification as PRPs.
COMMENT: A PRP commented that there is inadequate factual and
legal support for the Agency to determine that there is a risk to
the health of residents which should cause the site to be listed
on the National Priorities List (NPL) or to provoke actions by EPA
as proposed in the FFS.
EPA16 RESPONSE: EPA based its decision for permanent resident
relocation outlined in this ROD on the ATSDR PHA issued on July 21,
1989. This document stated that the site posed an imminent threat
to residents and that residents should be relocated from the site
until the site was remediated or the threat was shown to be
8
-------
unfounded. As explained, a subsequent RI/FS will be performed to
further assess the danger posed by the site. Remediation of the
site will follow. These events are estimated to require five to
ten years to complete. In the interim, residents must be relocated
to ensure protection of their health. As explained in the ROD,
permanent relocation is the preferred method to achieve this
relocation.
COMMBHT: The same PRP stated that EPA has failed to demonstrate
why the Forest Glen Subdivision requires such unusual
administrative action. Further, they stated that this "fast-track"
decision process sets a dangerous administrative precedent.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: The use of a FFS rather than a full RI/FS is not
unusual at sites when EPA wishes to investigate and analyze limited
remedial options for a discrete operable unit. For example, EPA
has performed FFS's which lead to the selection of alternate water
supplies for communities whose water supply has been contaminated.
In the same manner, EPA has chosen to perform an FFS at the Forest
Glen Subdivision site to evaluate the limited relocation options
available for the Forest Glen Subdivision residents. The FFS
outlines why options other than relocation options were not
considered at this time. Non-relocation options require further
information which will be acquired through a later RI/FS. In the
interim, however, relocation is required to protect the health of
residents. Based on these facts, EPA disagrees that the use of an
FFS in this instance sets a dangerous administrative precedent or
is an unusual administrative action.
COMMENT: The same PRP stated that EPA has failed to demonstrate
why a full RI/FS need not occur before remedial action is taken at
the Forest Glen Subdivision site . They stated that a full RI/FS
would allow adequate data to be taken which would permit all of the
parties to make an informed decision about relocation of residents
as well as a plan for final remediation of the site.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: EPA believes that, in order to protect the health
of residents during RI/FS activities and remedial actions which may
take five to ten years, some type of relocation is required.
Therefore as explained in this ROD and in the Proposed Plan, EPA
has selected permanent relocation of residents for this first
operable unit at the Forest Glen Subdivision site.
COMMENT: Several PRPs commented that EPA's action is based
entirely on the PHA performed by ATSDR in July, 1989.
EPA'S RESPONSE: EPA's actions are based on information contained
in the administrative record for the Forest Glen Subdivision site
which includes ATSDR's PHA.
COMMENT: The same PRPs stated that the PHA is inadequate to
support the actions proposed in the FFS. They also stated that the
-------
PHA is not based on scientific standards or protocols for
conducting health risk assessments.
I PA'S RESPONSE: The PHA is not meant to be equivalent to the risk
assessments commonly used by EPA to assess current and future risks
at Superfund sites. As defined in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability, Act (CERCLA), health assess-
ments include preliminary assessments ef the potential risk to
human health posed by individual sites and facilities. Based
on data collected by EPA, ATSDR, using methods consistent with
guidelines on performing health assessments, determined that a
significant risk to human health exists at the Forest Glen Sub-
division. ATSDR's protocols are based on established scientific
standards and protocols for conducting health assessments.
COMMENT: The same PRPs asserted that subsequent to the PHA, EPA
has undertaken several precautionary steps to reduce perceived risk
at the site through contact with any contaminated soils. They also
state that these measures include collecting and securing drums of
waste located in certain areas outside the residential area,
installation of fencing around areas of contamination, and covering
with concrete areas where contaminants were visibly observed.
EPA'S RESPONSE: The precautionary steps taken by EPA subsequent
to the FFS include securing waste located outside the residential
area, installation of fencing around suspected areas of
contamination, and covering one hotspot of contamination with
concrete. These actions alone do not address the threats discussed
in the PHA, namely the direct contact threat associated with other
contaminated soils at the site or related to subsurface activities
at the site, the potential for contamination of water lines, and
the potential for subsidence of the site.
COMMENT: The same PRPs pointed out the lack of residential
exposure to contaminants by inhalation and the lack of
contamination in the homes.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: Inhalation of contaminants and contamination in
the homes at the Forest Glen Subdivision are not the basis for the
PHA findings at the Forest Glen Subdivision.
COMMENT: The same PRPs stated that the routes of potential
exposure to contaminants cited by ATSDR in the PHA (direct contact
during routine domestic activities such as gardening, playing, and
lawn care) can be addressed by precautionary measures and that
there is no history of documented health problems relating to any
such exposure to soil contamination.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: EPA does not agree that any remedial measures can
be implemented on-site which will eliminate the direct contact
threat at the site until a more thorough investigation of the site
can be completed. In the interim, residents on the site are
10
-------
threatened by contamination which can not be completely controlled.
For example, while it nay be possible to cap hotspots of
contamination as they are found, it is impossible to cap the entire
site to prevent exposure to undiscovered soil contamination while
residents remain on the site.
EPA agrees that more studies must be performed to relate health
problems at the site to exposure to contaminated soil. The New
York State Department of Health is presently conducting such work.
COMMENT: The same FRPs assert that ATSDR's concern appears based
on anecdotal exposure. They also state that this type of
information is not relied upon for scientifically valid
conclusions.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: ATSDR relies on several sources of information in
preparing PHAs. These sources include data on the nature and
extent of contamination at the site, toxicity data from the
literature, and anecdotal exposure data from residents. On the
basis of these and other available data, ATSDR made a judgement
about-the actual and potential health risk presented by a site.
COMMENT: The same PRPs stated that potential exposures at the site
could continue to be addressed through covering areas of
contamination as EPA has done as well as cautions against engaging
in activities which might result in exposure during the RI/FS
period.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: Extensive sampling will be required to determine
the extent of all areas of contamination at the Forest Glen
Subdivision site. Therefore, all actual and potential threats
posed by the site could not be addressed through on-site control
measures until an RI/FS had been completed for the site which more
fully identifies all areas of contamination. In the interim,
relocation will protect residents from all real and potential
threats at the site. Cautions to residents against engaging in all
routine outdoor domestic activities such as gardening, playing, and
lawn care is impractical, and quite likely, unenforceable.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that ATSDR's PHA was based upon
second-hand data and that no evidence of adequate quality assurance
and quality control (QA/QC) of data was available in the
administrative record for the site.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: The QA/QC information for the data used in the PHA
is located in the administrative record in the items numbered 1
through 5 in the index.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that ATSDR failed to demonstrate
associations between exposures and health effects.
11
-------
EPA'6 RESPONSE: ATSDR's PHA assumed that residents could
potentially be exposed to contaminated soil. The PHA discussed
the relationship between exposure and health effects as best as
possible given the limitation of the toxicity data base.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that ATSDR does not appear to
have consulted all available information with respect to
contaminants of concern at the site.
EPA'S RESPONSE: ATSDR relies on available toxicity data which are
the result of a thorough literature search.
COMMENT: The same PRPs pointed out that aniline, a potential
carcinogen at the site is rapidly biodegraded and unlikely to be
persistent in the environment. They also stated that PAHs are
unlikely to be available through common human exposure pathways.
In addition, they stated that, in interpreting literature data,
ATSDR failed to account for significant differences between the
situations being reported in the literature and the site.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: The fact that aniline was detected at significant
concentrations at the site points to the fact that it has not been
completely biodegraded and poses a direct contact threat at the
site. ATSDR relied on available animal and human studies in its
discussion of the effects of PAHs on residents. These are common
sources of toxicological data. Studies of workers exposed to PAHs
in coal tar and pitch were useful sources of human data in the
determination of the carcinogenicity of PAHs.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that the occupational studies
referred to in the PHA do not link aniline to cancer, but to
increased levels of methemoglobin in the blood.
EPA'S RESPONSE: The classification of aniline as a possible human
carcinogen is based on animal studies which are recognized sources
of toxicological information.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that site-specific exposure
pathway modeling is needed to construct a valid assessment of any
potential health risk. They also commented that without such
analyses, a scientifically valid health assessment is not possible
and applicable legal standards cannot and have not been met.
EPA'S RESPONSE: Based on data collected by EPA, ATSDR, using
methods consistent with guidelines on performing health
assessments, determined that a significant risk to human health
exists. ATSDR's protocols are based on established scientific
standards for conducting health assessments.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that ATSDR has not demonstrated
that exposures to high concentrations of chemicals of concern have
12
-------
occurred or that any likely exposure would lead to significant
health risks.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: The PHA assumes the potential^ for exposure to the
high concentrations of contaminants present <>in samples taken by
EPA. Toxicity data indicate that chemicals of concern at the
Forest Glen Subdivision site pose a threat to human health.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that residents of the site are
supplied with public drinking water, and there is no evidence that
it is contaminated.
EPA'8 RESPONSE: In the PHA, ATSDR cited the potential of a
possible breach in the water lines which night allow subsurface
contamination to enter water lines at the site. This poses a
potential threat to site residents.
COMMENT: The same PRPs stated that the possibility of subsidence
cited by ATSDR in the PHA appears based entirely on speculation.
They also state that no reported evidence of subsidence appears in
the administrative record.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: Several items in the administrative record cite
reports of semi-liquid material which oozed to the surface during
digging. Since mobile semi-liquid material has been found at the
site, it is possible that additional mobile semi-liquids exist
there. The presence of these mobile materials below the ground
upon which the Subdivision has been built creates the possibility
of subsidence. The risk of potential subsidence is based on these
reports.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that the EPA appears to have
prejudged the results of any RI/FS in its analysis of options in
the FFS. They state that EPA's analysis of options proceeds on the
assumption that the RI/FS will confirm its view that a significant
health risk exists at the site and that extended relocation will
be necessary.
EPA'S RESPONSE: EPA has not prejudged the results of any future
RI/FS at the Forest Glen Subdivision site. The need for some type
of action to protect the health of the residents is based on the
PHA and its finding that the site poses an immediate threat to
residents. ATSDR has stated that residents should be relocated
until the site is remediated or the threat to residents has been
shown to be unfounded.
In addition, EPA's analysis of alternative 2 is based on the
assumption that residents would be relocated for a period of five
to ten years. As explained in the FFS, this assumption is based
on the period required to complete temporary relocation, conduct
an RI/FS, and conduct remedial actions at the site. Based on the
levels of contamination already detected at the site, it is a
13
-------
reasonable and conservative assumption that some type of
remediation will be required at the site.
COMMENT: The sane PRPs commented that EPA has summarily dismissed,
without adequate justification, the option of doing the RI/FS
without relocation or with limited relocation.
EPA'6 RESPONSE: Non-relocation options require further information
which will be acquired through a later RI/FS. In the interim,
however, based on ATSDR's determination that a significant health
threat currently exists at the site, relocation at this time is
required to protect the health of residents. In addition, as the
FFS states, field activities required to determine the extent of
contamination could expose subsurface wastes and further endanger
human health.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that EPA failed to consider the
possibility of limited, temporary relocation during any period
during the RI/FS when intrusive activities are conducted.
Therefore, relocation is the only possibility that reasonably
prevents potential exposure of residents during the RI/FS and any
future remedial action.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: Limited temporary relocation during those periods
of the RI/FS when intrusive activities take place would not be
fully protective of human health, since the threat of residential
exposure to soil contamination will continue until the site has
been remediated.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that it would be most consistent
with CERCLA and development of an overall effective remedy to await
the results of an RI/FS as well as an acceptable health risk
assessment before jumping to the conclusion that extended
relocation is necessary.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: EPA's approach is consistent with CERCLA and the
NCP. EPA has expedited its response to an immediate threat to
residents at the Forest Glen Subdivision through the development
of the FFS and through its proposal to permanently relocate site
residents.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that the situation at the site
affords means of access other than Edgewood Drive.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: Edgewood Drive is presently the only road which
connects the Forest Glen Subdivision to the Service Road east of
the site. EPA has installed its offices on Edgewood Drive. Field
activities conducted to date by EPA have not required large
equipment which would limit access to the site.
14
-------
COMMEHT: The same PRPs commented that a citation to Department of
Justice appraisal standards, discussed in the FFS and ROD, should
be provided.
EPA'8 RESPONSE: Appraisal standards are discussed in Uniform
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisition published by the
Government Printing Office in Washington, D.C. in May 1973. Copies
of these standards have been distributed to site residents and are
available at the EPA Public Information Office in Niagara Falls,
New York.
COMMENT: The same PRPs commented that the FFS fails to include any
explanation or justification to substantiate costs.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: As explained in the FFS on page 37, cost estimates
presented in the FFS are based on a variety of information,
including quotes from suppliers in the area of the site, generic
unit costs, vendor information, conventional cost estimating
guides, and prior experience.
COMMENT: Several PRPs commented that EPA implies, in the FFS, that
the cost of group relocation is equivalent to that of individual
relocation. They ask EPA to explain how it would ensure that if
group relocation is selected, the cost would not exceed the cost
of individual relocation.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: The costs given in the FFS are estimates used in
evaluating alternatives. In estimating the cost of group
relocation, EPA assumed that the unit costs associated with
development of land would be borne by residents who would pool
individual relocation assistance payments to finance the
development. While this is one possible way to finance the
development of a new subdivision for group relocation, it is not
the only approach. For example, federal regulations do provide for
the development of a new subdivision in certain cases. Actual
costs for development of a new subdivision for group relocation
will be developed, as necessary, during the design of the new
subdivision.
COMMENT: A PRP commented that the ATSDR PHA should be appended to
the FFS. They also stated that any EPA reports which evaluate the
data sampling program and the accuracy of results as well as the
conclusions drawn from raw data should be referenced in the FFS.
EPA'8 RESPONSE: The ATSDR PHA along with the other EPA data
reports referenced above are available in the Forest Glen
Subdivision Site Administrative Record.
COMMENT: The same PRP commented that the FFS should discuss the
effect, if any, that the large open field to the north had on EPA's
determination to relocate residents of the subdivision.
15
-------
EPA*6 RESPONSE: Data used by ATSDR in support of its PHA include
data taken in the undeveloped parcel north of the subdivision.
This area is being included in the site study area. A complete
investigation of this area will be conductedv in the full RI/FS
which will be performed at the site following completion of
relocation activities.
COMMENT: The same PRP commented that EPA's statement in the FFS
that the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) owns the
undeveloped land north of the subdivision is erroneous.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: Information submitted by the New York Power
Authority, formerly PASNY, indicates that the undeveloped land
north of the subdivision was sold by PASNY to Thomas Sottile. EPA
is continuing to investigate ownership of the land north of the
subdivision.
COMMENT: The same PRP commented that EPA should give further
information on the drums of waste which were the subject of the
Administrative Order to certain PRPs and which were later secured
by EPA.
EPA'S RESPONSE: Drum fragments located in the undeveloped areas
north and east of the site were secured by EPA. An Administrative
Order did direct certain PRPs to secure drums and containers at the
site which were leaking or in danger of leaking. This
Administrative Order was based on sampling data which showed
contamination north of the site in areas of suspected drum dumping.
COMMENT: The same PRP commented that a figure showing September
27-29, 1988 sampling locations reveals that no sampling was
undertaken in the undeveloped area north of the subdivision.
EPA'B RESPONSE: Figure 2A in the report on the September 27-29,
1988 data shows two sampling locations near the berm in the
undeveloped area north of the site.
COMMENT: The same PRP commented that the FFS should include sample
locations and the basis for selecting samples taken on April 13,
1989. They also state that the FFS should define extremely
contaminated and state whether the contamination was from hazardous
waste. In addition, they state that the FFS should indicate
confidence levels associated with tentatively identified compound
(TIC) concentrations.
EPA'S RESPONSE: Information in the Administrative Record
identifies sampling locations for the April 13, 1989 sampling.
Samples were collected from locations sampled in September, 1988.
The sample numbers for both sampling events were identical.
Therefore, the sampling locations for the April sampling are shown
in figures included in the report on the September sampling event.
Some samples analyzed as a result of the April, 1989 sampling were
16
-------
reported by the operator to be "extremely contaminated."
Analytical results for the samples are given in the FFS and these
demonstrate the degree of contamination found in the samples.
COMKEKT: The same PRP commented that the FFS should reconcile
inconsistencies between the September 27-29, 1988 sampling results
and the May 22, 1989 sampling results. They also stated that
results of the Hay 22, 1989 and August 1, 1989 sampling should be
tabulated in the FFS.
EPA'B RESPONSE: In the future, data will be taken to further
characterize contamination at the site. Detailed results of the
May, 1989 sampling event are given in the Forest Glen Subdivision
site Administrative Record.
COMMENT: The same PRP commented that EPA should indicate whether
ATSOR had considered the results of all sampling events.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: ATSDR has considered the results of all sampling
events at the Forest Glen Subdivision site. The findings in the
ATSDR-PHA remain unchanged.
COMMEHT: The same PRP commented that the development of a new
subdivision will require compliance with several local and state
land use and environmental laws and regulations.
EPA*8 RESPONSE: EPA has included state and local zoning and
subdivision requirements as potentially applicable to the
development of a new subdivision for relocation.
COMMENT: The same PRP commented that the environmental impacts
associated with the use of undeveloped property instead of existing
land should be discussed.
EPA*s RESPONSE: Any environmental impacts associated with the
development of previously undeveloped land will be considered upon
selection of a parcel of land for relocation.
COMMENT: The same PRP questioned whether both the claims of
absentee landlords and owners are addressed in the EPA cost
analysis. They also questioned whether the costs estimates are in
1989 dollars or current dollars.
EPA*6 RESPONSE: The permanent relocation selected by EPA generally
applies to residents and owners of permanent homes in the Forest
Glen Subdivision. Cost estimates in the FFS have not been
discounted.
COMMENT: The same PRP questioned how EPA arrived at a purchase
price of $25,000 for a mobile home and lot when mobile homes have
been estimated to have a resale value of $3,500 and lots are
estimated to have a fair market value of $3,200.
17
-------
EPA*6 RESPONSE: The estimated purchase price of a mobile home and
lot in the Forest Glen Subdivision has been increased to $35,000.
This figure is based on average prices of mobile homes in the
Niagara Falls area and on information provided by area real estate
professionals. The fair market value of land in the Forest Glen
Subdivision has been increased to $10,000. The mobile home salvage
value of $3,500 given in the FFS is a conservative estimate of the
value of the mobile homes at the Forest Glen Subdivision to a
dealer who would haul the homes avay from the cite, restore them,
and resell them.
COMMENT: The same PRP commented that the FFS fails to list the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements for permanent
relocation.
EPA'8 RESPONSE: No federal environmental lavs were found to be
applicable or relevant and appropriate to the permanent relocation
of residents. However, depending on the options selected during
implementation of permanent relocation, state or local zoning or
subdivision laws may be applicable. This fact is reflected in the
ROD.
COMMENT: The same PRP stated that the description of disposal
activities at the site is incomplete.
EPA'8 RESPONSE: EPA continues to investigate the history of
disposal activities at the Forest Glen Subdivision site.
COMMENT: A PRP commented that EPA's issuance of special notice
to PRPs prior to the release of the ROD was premature. They also
requested that special notice be withdrawn.
EPA'S RESPONSE: EPA policy is to issue special notice following
the release of the proposed plan.
18
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT 1
FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION SITE PROPOSED PLAN
-------
PROPOSED PLAN
FOR
FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION SITE
.NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK
PREPARED BY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOVEMBER 1989
-------
INTRODUCTION
This Proposed Plan identifies the preferred option for relocating
residents of the Forest Glen Subdivision site (Forest Glen site).
In addition, the Plan includes summaries of other alternatives
analyzed for this site. This document is issued by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the lead agency for site
relocation activities, and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), the support agency for this
response action. EPA, in consultation with NYSDEC, will select a
final remedy for the site only after the public comment period has
ended and the information submitted during this time has been
reviewed and considered.
PURPOSE OF TEE PROPOSED PLAN
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its public
participation responsibilities under Section 117(a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act. (CERCLA). This document summarizes information that can be
found in greater detail in the Focused Feasibility Study of
Relocation Options (FFS) and other documents contained in the
administrative record for this site. EPA and the State encourage
the public to view these other documents in order to gain a more
comprehensive understanding of the site and Superfund activities
that have been conducted there. The administrative record file
which contains information upon which the selection of the response
action will be based, is available at the following locations:
D.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edgewood and T-Mark Drives
Forest Glen Subdivision
Niagara Falls, New York 14304
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 747
New York, N.Y. 10278
In addition, the FFS and the Proposed Plan are available at
additional information repositories which have been set-up at the
following locations:
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Room 222
Albany, N.Y. 12233
-------
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
600 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14202
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Office
Carborundum Center, Suite 530
345 Third Street
Niagara Falls, New York 14303
EPA, ia consultation with NYSDEC, Bay modify the preferred
alternative or select another response action presented in this
Plan and the FF8 Report based on new information or public
comments. Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and
comment on all the alternatives identified here.
SITE BACKGROUND
The Forest Glen Subdivision is located approximately one-half mile
north of Porter Road, adjacent to U.S. Interstate 190 in Niagara
Falls, New York. The 21-acre Forest Glen Subdivision site consists
of, among other things, a subdivision of 51 mobile homes and 2
permanent residences, -providing housing to approximately 150
people. The mobile home lots are owned by the residents.
Residents of the community include retired citizens and children.
Prior to I960, the area of the site which is now the subdivision
consisted of a wooded wetland. East Gill Creek flowed through the
property to the southwest where it eventually joined the main
branch which flows to the Niagara River. Sometime during the early
1960's, partial clearing of the area took place and East Gill Creek
was rerouted. It appears as if the area was first used for
unauthorized waste disposal in the 1950's. Disposal activities
continued during the 1960's and through the early 1970's. Records
show that a dump fire occurred at the site in 1972.
Prior to 1973, portions of the area were owned by Michigan-Mayne
Realty, the Power Authority of the State of New York, and three
individuals. In 1973, the entire area which became the subdivision
was purchased by Mr. Thomas G. Sottile, who formed the Niagara
^Falls USA Campsite Corporation. Shortly thereafter, the property
'was subdivided. The development o' -,e property took place during
-------
the mid-1970's. The sale of the properties in the Forest Glen
subdivision to individuals began in 1979.
In September 1987, September 1988, and April 1989, EPA conducted
investigations at the site, collecting soil, surface water, and
sediment samples. The results of the sampling indicated that
hazardous substances were present in soils at the site. These
substances include polyaromatic hydrocarbons, aniline,
phenothiazine, benzothiazole, and mercaptobenzothiazole.
SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of EPA's investigation, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) issued a Preliminary Health
Assessment for the area on July 21, 1989. The ATSDR has
determined that there is a significant risk to human health for
persons living in the Forest Glen subdivision due to conditions
which are known to exist and due to conditions which, at present,
are unknown but plausible. These include the potential for adverse
human health effects resulting from exposure to high levels of soil
contaminants during routine outdoor domestic activities (such as
gardening, playing, and lawn care), the uncertainty regarding the
physical stability of the ground upon which the mobile homes were
located, and the potential for contamination of the public water
supply under certain conditions. For these reasons, ATSDR
recommended that actions be taken immediately to relocate residents
of the subdivision.
SCOPE OF OPERABLE UNIT
In order to address the immediate health threat to residents of the
Forest Glen subdivision, EPA has divided its response at the site
into components called "operable units (OU)." The relocation of
residents makes up the first operable unit for the Forest Glen
Subdivision site. This first OU has been accelerated to protect
the health of residents of the site. Future OUs will address the
remediation of contamination at the Forest Glen Subdivision site.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The FFS evaluates, in detail, three alternatives for relocating
residents from the site. These alternatives, which are summarized
in the following table, are:
Alternative 1: NO ACTION
Present Worth Cost: $2,050,000 (estimate)
Months to Implement: None
The Superfund program requires that the "no-action" alternative be
evaluated at every site to establish a baseline for comparison.
Under the no-action alternative, no further action would take place
-------
*******************************************************************
ALTERNATIVES ARRAY
FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION, NY
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION - - COST
1. Ko-Action - No further actions taken $ 2,050,000
- Temporary relocation no
longer offered
• Residents currently relocated
would continue to be relocated
until April 1990
- Site is monitored
2. Temporary - Temporary relocation $ 5,717,000 •
Relocation continues $11,065,000
- FEMA implements temporary
relocation
- Temporary relocation
continues until site is
remediated or deemed safe
- Site is fenced and secured
- Property is maintained
3. Permanent - Residents are permanently $ 4,251,000
Relocation relocated $ 5,370,000
- Temporary relocation
continues while permanent
relocation is being implemented
- Site is fenced and secured
- Property maintained until
purchased
-------
at the site to protect the health of site residents. The temporary
relocation which is currently being offered to residents would
cease and residents that have not been relocated would remain
living at the site. At present, approximately one-half of the
Forest Glen families have agreed to temporary relocation.
Temporary relocation of all residents would cease in April 1990
after the expiration of the temporary relocation program currently
being implemented under EPA emergency authorities.
Alternative 2; CONTINUED TEMPORARY RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS
Present Worth Cost: $5,717,000 - $11,065,000 (estimates)
Months to Implement: 60 to 120 (estimates)
Under this alternative, EPA would continue to offer temporary
relocation to residents at the site through its agent, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). EPA and FEMA have offered
temporary relocation to residents at the site as part of an
emergency response action prompted by ATSDR's Health Assessment
for the site. At present, approximately one-half of the Forest
Glen families have agreed to temporary relocation. Relocation
would continue for a period of five to ten years until the site has
been remediated and the risk to residents has been mitigated.
The site would be fenced and secured to prevent trespassing after
temporary relocation of residents was completed. In addition, a
program of site security and property maintenance would be required
to ensure against vandalism, theft, and deterioration of the homes
at the site.
Alternative 3: PERMANENT RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS
Present Worth Cost: $4,251,000 - $5,370,000 (estimates)
Months to Implement: 12 (estimate)
Under this alternative, EPA, in conjunction with FEMA and the State
of New York, would permanently relocate all residents from the
Forest Glen Subdivision site. Permanent relocation projects would
be carried out in two phases: property acquisition and relocation
assistance. EPA and FEMA would continue to offer temporary
relocation to residents until permanent relocation could be
completed. A program of site security and property maintenance
would be required to ensure against vandalism, theft, and
deterioration of the homes at the site while permanent relocation
activities were ongoing.
Under FEMA, permanent relocation projects are carried out in two
phases: property acquisition, in which residents are compensated
for the value of real property which is being acquired, and
relocation assistance, in which residents are assisted in
identifying and moving into replacement residences. This FFS
evaluates two options for proper acquisition, (acquisition of
-------
land and moving mobile homes, and acquisition of all real property)
and two options for relocation assistance, (individual relocation
and group relocation). The final alternative (will be a combination
of one property acquisition option and one relocation assistance
option.
Property Acquisition Options
Because several of the homes at Forest Glen are mobile, based on
resident preference, the property acquisition phase may include
acquisition of land or land and homes as described below.
Option A: Acquisition of Land/Movement of Existing Mobil* Homes
Mobile homes which are to be moved would be tested to determine
whether they are chemically contaminated and whether they can
withstand a move. If the home is found to be uncontaminated or
able to be decontaminated and in good structural condition, only
land would be acquired and the home could be moved to a new
location. If the home is found to be contaminated such that it
cannot be economically cleaned or if it is found to be structurally
impaired so that moving the home would be impractical, the home
would be purchased by the government and the residents offered
replacement housing.
Option B: Acquisition of All Real Property
In the acquisition phase, real property in the Forest Glen
subdivision would be appraised in accordance with Department of
Justice standards to determine its fair market value. Based on
fair market value of the property, an offer to purchase is made to
each property owner.
Relocation Assistance Options
In response to resident requests, EPA has included individual and
group relocation in its analyses.
option c; Individual Relocation of Residents
Under Option C, households would be relocated on an individual
basis according to the requirements of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970.
In the relocation phase, FEMA would provide assistance to
individuals in locating replacement homes or replacement lots.
Option D: Group Relocation of Residents
Under Option D, residents would be relocated to the same
neighborhood in circumstances which are comparable to conditions
in the Forest Glen subdivision. Residents would either move their
existing trailers or would purchase new comparable housing.
-------
Because of the number of residents involved, this option could
include purchasing, subdividing, and developing a parcel of land
so that individual lots are comparable to those in the Forest Glen
subdivision.
At present, EPA is investigating ways in which the federal
government could assist residents in implementing group relocation.
Residents might require assistance in rezoning or in obtaining
zoning variances and/or in engaging a developer.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The preferred alternative for relocation of Forest Glen residents
is Alternative 3, permanent relocation. Based on current
information, this alternative would appear to provide the best
balance of trade-offs among the alternatives with respect to nine
criteria that EPA uses to evaluate alternatives. This section
profiles the performance of the preferred alternative against the
nine criteria, noting how it compares to the other options under
consideration. Within Alternative 3, EPA prefers an option that
would include a combination of individual relocation and group
relocation to best meet the needs of the community.
Overall Protection of H^^an Health and the EnviroftBient
Alternative 3, permanent relocation, is protective of human health.
The protectiveness of Alternative 2 is dependent upon residents
agreeing to participate in the temporary relocation program. Both
alternatives provide protection by eliminating the pathway for
exposure to residents and the public. Alternative 1, no action,
is not protective because residents would remain on the site and
there would be the potential for continued exposure to site
contaminants.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Alternatives 2 and 3, temporary and permanent relocation, comply
with all identified applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). No waiver from ARARs would be required.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 3, permanent relocation, provides long-term, permanent
removal of residents from the site. Alternative 2, temporary
relocation, relies on continuance of the temporary lodging
arrangements made by EPA and on continued support by residents,
which is unlikely over a period of five to ten years.
In addition, Alternative 2 will only remain effective if the site
is remediated to a level which ensures that residents are not at
risk when they return to the site at the end of temporary
relocation activities. If this is not the case, residents would
-------
8
have to be permanently relocated after the temporary relocation
program ends to ensure long-term effectiveness.
Alternative 1, no action, is not effective in the long-term since
the potential risk to remaining residents would still exist.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
None of the alternatives under consideration utilize treatment.
Remediation of the site, including the need for treating
contamination at the site, will be considered in future
investigations of the site.
Short-Tern Effectiveness
Alternative 3, permanent relocation, is protective in the short-
term provided residents agree to temporary relocation while
permanent relocation is being implemented. Alternative 2,
temporary relocation, is effective in the short-term provided
residents agree to temporary relocation. This is because temporary
relocation _ could be implemented immediately through FEMA and
because EPA would continue to offer temporary relocation to
residents until permanent relocation is complete.
Implementability
In the short-term, Alternative 2, temporary relocation, is
potentially most easily implementable because it is a continuation
of temporary relocation activities currently being conducted at the
site. However, there are several long-term considerations which
would seriously decrease the implementability of this alternative.
If residents continue to resist temporary relocation, the
implementability of Alternative 2 could be completely eliminated.
In addition, if it is later determined that on-site source
materials can not be removed or treated, residents yould have to
be permanently relocated after years of temporary relocation. This
would significantly decrease implementability.
Alternative 3, permanent relocation, is considered to be more
implementable since an Interagency Agreement for FEMA assistance
with permanent relocation is currently in place. In addition, in
the case of Alternatives 2 and 3, future investigations and actions
at the site would be very easy to undertake since relocation of
residents would provide unlimited access to the site. ,
There is no need to consider implementability for Alternative 1,
no-action. However, this alternative would not facilitate any
future remedial work at the site.
-------
Cost
V
Depending on the options selected under Alternative 3 and the
duration of temporary relocation activities under Alternative 2,
either Alternative 3, permanent relocation or Alternative 2,
temporary relocation, would be the least costly of the action
alternatives considered. In some cases, the potential cost
differences between Alternatives 2 and 3 could be insignificant.
The cost of Alternative 2 is very sensitive to changes in the
assumption that residents would be temporarily relocated for five
to ten years.
Coi"munitv Acceptance
Community acceptance will be judged after formal comment on these
alternatives. However, some residents of the Forest Glen
subdivision have refused offers of temporary relocation in the past
and have indicated they will do so in the future. Other residents
have indicated that they will accept temporary relocation only as
an interim measure while permanent relocation is being implemented.
In addition, several residents strongly support Alternative 3,
Option D, permanent group relocation and have indicated that they
are unwilling to accept permanent relocation unless it includes the
possibility of group relocation, as well as individual relocation.
State Acceptance
An alternative that does not provide for the permanent relocation
of all residents would not be acceptable to the State.
SUMMARY OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
EPA has identified Alternative 3, permanent relocation, as its
preferred relocation alternative for Forest Glen residents. Within
Alternative 3, EPA prefers an option that would include a
combination of individual relocation and group relocation to best
meet the needs of the community. Permanent relocation assures
protection of human health and is most effective in the long-term
because the health of residents would be protected regardless of
the type of remediation which is performed at the site in the
future. Although it will require approximately one year to
implement, the short-term effectiveness of Alternative 3 is
increased if residents agree to temporary relocation while
permanent relocation is being implemented. In addition,
Alternative 3 is more implementable in the long-term since it does
not require indefinite temporary relocation of families. Finally,
the range of costs of permanent relocation is considerably less
than that of Alternative 2, temporary relocation.
EPA considers the preferred remedy for the site, Alternative 3,
permanent relocation, to represent the best balance among the
-------
10
evaluation criteria ancL anticipates- that, if will satisfy the
following statutory requirements to:
protect human health and the environment;
comply with ARARs;
- be cost effective; and
• utilize permanent solutions or alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
TEE COMMUNITY*8 ROLE IN TEE 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.
EPA has set a public comment period from November 16 through
December 8, 1989, to encourage public participation in the
selection process. The comment period includes a public meeting
at which EPA, with NYSDEC, will present the FFS and Proposed Plan,
answer questions, and accept both oral and written comments.
A public meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m., November 30, 1989, and
will be held at the Niagara Fire Company No. 1, 6010 Lockport Road,
Niagara Falls, New York.
Comments will be summarized in writing and responses provided in
the Responsiveness Summary appended to the Record of Decision
(ROD). The ROD is the document that presents EPA's final selection
of a relocation alternative. To send written comments or obtain
further information, contact:
Lisa Carson
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 29-100
New York, N.Y. 10278
(212) 264-5712
Messages may also be left for Ms. Carson at the EPA Niagara Falls
Public Information Office at (716) 285-8842 or the EPA trailer in
Forest Glen at (716) 297-0930.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT 2
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
-------
6INA DIFRANCO
5710 EDGEWOOD DRIVE .Vf :i: :. "":
NIAGARA FALLS, NEW YORK..; 3,4304
(716) 297-7484
MY COMMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1ST: My family wants to perminatly relocate as soon as
possible. Each and every day we stay in the home at forest
glen it' siVdangering our health.
2nd: I want Tony Girasole to be one of the appraisers for
Forest Glen.
3rd: In your feasibility study it states that the mobile
home trailers are worth $25,000.00 and the 2 homes are worth
$50,000.00. That in reality is just not fair. They are well
worth way more than your study shows out to be. I demand it
should be much higher.
4th: I want and expect a seperate appraise! done in my home
in which I live. I feel for many reasons for myself and the
other residents this shall be done.
5th: I feel that if someone moved they should be reimbursed
as long as they have their receipts of all the expenses.
6th: Now in my situtation I demand that my family receives
the. $22500.00 whether or not we own our property or rent. We
are no different from anyone else and why should one person
get it and not the other. I feel that if I was to rent a
place or anyone else, then they would be entitled to
$5000.00. I feel if myself or anyone else buys property,
then they or anyone should be entitled to the $22500.00.
Thats the way it should work. As for your compariable
housing there is no place compariable in the school district
in which we live, for the amount of rent that I am paying.
So how are you going to work out my situtation? Are you
" going to throw my family in the street or are you going to
bend a little and help us get a home to live? Your
the rules for the reastablisment of the group reloc-stitth , £C^
why not us too! . £.: § ™
7th: As for the $20000.00 business loss, I feel
of the on and off ramp for back and forth to work and
one exit away from the disbatch office, would be
worth the $20000.00 itself. What kind of fighting do.' wgj
to do to get the right help? Your giving us the hardes^ time'--
about everything and your treating us like were the ^
-------
criminals but the fact is were the victums and the
wittnesses to the dumpings.
Sincerely,
6INA DIFRANCO
C
-------
r
Terry L. Freiermuth
12 Carrie Drive
Niagara Falls,New York
November 28,1989
Ms. Lisa Carson
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal PLaza, Room 29-100
New York, New York 10278
Dear Lisa,
The following are my comments on the final draft of the
Focused Feasability of Relocation Options released November
14, 1989.
Alternative number one, no action, is not a pliable alt-
temative because first, it does not eliminate the hazard to
residents. Secondly, it is not cost effective.
Alternative number two, temporary relocation, Table
5-2, is completely inappropriate. Since this relocation
is on a volutary basis, it leaves open the option for resi-
dents to return if they so choose. This would no longer
provide protection from the health hazard. Continued tempor-
ary relocation-on a projected five to ten year basis is a
coralpete waste of tax payers money. It would cost less for a
permanent relocation immediately than a continuous temporary
relocation. *'•'.
With regards to Alternative Three, Option A: Aquisition
of Land / Movement of Existing Mobile Homes, there are many
problems. First, the homes would have to be certified clean.
Even if this is the -case, most of the homes in this develop-
ment are unsuitable for a road trip because of lack of axles
tongues, age, and permanent alterations which make them im- .
possible to move. Another problem is that there is no land
zoned in this area for mobilehorae+land ownership. For those
who wish to move their horr _o a park and rent land there is
-------
continued from page 1
no park in the area who has space to accept another home, nor
are they willing to accept a mobile from Forest Glen.
v
As for as I am concerned withOption D of Alternative
three: Group Relocation of Residents, there is no feasable
vay that these people can be relocated as a group because
they could not get along with each other. They cannot get
along now in Forest Glen! They will battle each other over
their settlements, which place will belong to who, who will
live next to whom. These people are convinced that the
government will just drop a new development on their laps.
In conclusion,Alternative three, Option C: Permanent
Relocation with Individual Relocation of Residents is the
most feasable option available. It provides for the elim-
ination of the hazard to the residents. It allows for re-
mediation of the site in a relatively short period of time.
It is the most cost effective for the outcome that is de-
sired.
Thankyou for the oportunity to comment. I will expect
an answer to these comments within thirty days.
Sincerely,
Terry Freiermuth
Forest Glen
-------
Mr. & Mrs. Edward S. Buffamonte
35 Lisa Lane
Niagara Falls, New York 14304
U.S. EPA
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
Nev York, New York 10278
To Whom it May Concern:
My husband and I own a mobile home and the lot at 35 Lisa
Lane, Niagara Falls, Forest Glen, New York. We bought our
mobile hone brand new in 1985. We bought our land in 1986.
We deliberately took a 5 year loan to enable ourselves to
be mortgage-free in 1991. I went back to school part-time
taking pre-requiste courses for a full-time curriculum at the
Universtiy of Buffalo in 1991. All of this was to coincide
with our mortgage being paid off in 1991.
Now, as you are aware, our situation is changing. The assess-
ments you quoted in your bulletin are very unrealistic as
veil as offensive. We've had a real estate appraiser assess
our land. The land value is now 11,500$ (you had the land
assessed as 2,500$). At this point in time, a new mobile
home like ours cost 32,000 and up. That does not include
an attached 1^ car garage/ concrete driveway, and patio.
My husband also installed an awning and built a wood frame
around the bottom of our mobile home.
We have been told we will be put in the same situation we are
in now. Where are you going to find a situation where our
home is paid for in 1991? We will not consider a mobile home
in a "trailer park" because that is not where we are now. That
is why we bought this land because we did not want to live in
a trailer park.
At this time we are concerned about our health and what the
future holds as a result of these unknown chemicals.
It is your responsibility to be aware of the disruption in our
lives and the considerations that are necessary to satisfy our
needs. How would you like to be dealt with or see your family
taken care of in this situation?
This situation is so bizarre. We, here at Forest Glen are
victims of an atrocious crime. A crime not only to us, as
people at this subdivision, but a crime to our environment,
to our planet Earth, which we are taking advantage of.
How ironic that we the victims of this crime are having to
justify our Ic-'-os!
Sincerely yourr.-
*M
-------
BP AMERICA 8PA«ric.tne
200 Public Square. 39-5300-8
Ctovrtvti, Ohio 44114-2375
(216)M6-«141
December 7, 1989
BY EXPRESS MAIL
Ms. Lisa Carson
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 29-100
New York, New York 10278
Re: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Plan
and Focused Feasibility Study of Relocation Options
Regarding Forest Glen Subdivision, Niagara Falls, New York.
Dear Ms. Carson:
These comments, on the above captioned plan, are filed are filed
for The Carborundum Company and for its corporate parent, BP
America Inc. The Carborundum Company ("Carborundum") and BP
America Inc. ("BP America") are participating in the Forest Glen
Subdivision Superfund Site Ad Hoc Response Group which is also
filing comments on this matter.
Although Carborundum and BP America recognize that the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA") desires to quick-
ly respond the Forest Glen Subdivision Site, Carborundum and BP
America received the Proposed Plan and Focused Feasibility Study
on December 4, 1989 with a deadline for filing comments of Decem-
ber 8, 1989. Therefore, in order to have sufficient time to
adequately respond, Carborundum and BP America request that the
Agency extend the comment period.
As a preliminary matter, Carborundum and BP America object to the
Agency's action of identifying Carborundum as a potentially re-
sponsible party ("PRP") for this Site. Based on the current
information in the administrative record and other Agency files,
there is not any credible evidence for the Agency to determine
that Carborundum is in any way responsible for the Forest Glen
Site. Carborundum and BP America submit these comments because
the Focused Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan contain factu-
al flaws as well as innappropriate legal determinations. These
comments are made to preserve Carborundum's and BP America's
procedural rights and to record their objections to the Study and
-------
the Proposed Plan. These comments not intended to be.an admission
of liability nor are they a waiver of any rights, privileges-or
defenses by Carborundum or BP America.
v
As set forth in more detail in comments filed by the Ad Hoc Re-
sponse Group, there is inadequate factual and legal support for
the Agency to determine that there is a risk to the health of the
residents which should cause the Site to be listed on the National
Priorities List or to provoke actions by the Agency as proposed in
the Feasibility Study. Moreover, the Agency has failed to demon-
strate why this Site requires such an unusual administrative
.action and. why a full remedial investigation and feasibility study
("RI/FS") need not occur before remedial action is undertaken.
This * fast-track" decision process sets a dangerous administrative,
precedent and may cause an improper remedy to be implemented for
the Site. In contrast, a full RZ/FS would allow adequate data to
be collected which would permit all of the parties to make an
informed decision about relocation (temporary or permanent) of the
residents as well as a plan for final remediation of the Site.
Carborundum and BP America request that these comments be placed
in the administrative record for the Site. Further, the Proposed
Plan as well as the Focused Feasibility Study should be revised in
accordance with these comments and the more detailed comments
filed by the Ad Hoc Response Group.
A
Jack L. Litmer
a:litm0430.1tr
-------
LAW DEPANTMCNT
December 8, 1969
Ms. Lisa:Carson
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 29-100
New York, New Tork 10278
Re: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Proposed Plan
and Focused Feasibility Study of Relocation Options
Regarding Forest Glen Subdivision, Niagara Falls,
New York
Dear Ms. Carson:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA")
has solicited public comment on its Focused Feasibility Study
of Relocation Options concerning the Forest Glen Subdivision
located in Niagara Falls, New York dated November 1989
("FFS") and the Proposed Plan for the Forest Glen Subdivision
Site, Niagara Falls, New York dated November 1989 ("Proposed
Plan'1).
EPA has identified more than a dozen individuals
and entities as potentially responsible parties with respect
to th« Forest Glen Subdivision Site ("Site") under the Com-
prehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended ("CERCLA"). These PRPs received spe-
cial notice letters from EPA early in December. A list of
the PRPs is attached to the notice letter. Some of these
PRPs have met with EPA to discuss conditions at the Site and
EPA's actions; and, after separate review of information with
EPA, some of these PRPs intend to meet again with EPA. We
are advised that EPA prefers to negotiate with PRPs as a
group. Some of the PRPs have expressed an interest in form-
ing a group for further discussions with EPA, but not all of
the PRPs have concluded their review of information with EPA.
The comments herein are on behalf of The Goodyear Tire & Rub-
ber Company ("Goodyear"), The Carborundum Company
-------
-2-
("Carborundum") and its corporate parent, VBP America, Inc.
("BP America"),^ and on behalf of other PRPs who wish to
participate in the Ad Hoc Response Group and join in these
comments.
Based on information made available to date,
Goodyear does not believe that a valid basis exists for
treating it as a potentially responsible party with respect
to the Site. The following comments are being submitted
because the FFS and the Proposed Plan appear flawed. Neither
these comments nor their submission is intended or should be
construed as an admission, acceptance or acknowledgment of
any fault, responsibility or liability on the part of
Goodyear, BP America or Carborundum, or as a waiver of any
rights, privileges or defenses by Goodyear, BP America or
Carborundum or any of its officers, employees, agents or
representatives.
Summary
Available information is inadequate to support a
determination under CERCLA or otherwise that there is a
health risk to residents sufficient to warrant listing the
Site on the National Priorities List or taking the actions
set forth in the FFS. Assuming further investigative efforts
are undertaken, a remedial investigation and feasibility
study ("RI/FS') should be conducted to develop the necessary
information to make an informed decision regarding health
risk, and any appropriate remediation at the Site. The FFS
fails to demonstrate why the RI/FS cannot be done (a) without
relocating residents, particularly in view of the preventive
measures already taken by EPA and EPA's findings of no con-
tamination in the mobile homes or ambient air, or alterna-
tively, (b) without short term, temporary relocation limited
to periods during the RI/FS when intrusive activities are
conducted for which there is no other feasible means to pro-
tect residents from any significant health risk. The types
of RI/FS activities cited by EPA as justifying relocation,
e.g., drilling and sampling, should occur only for brief
periods during the estimated 18 month time the RI/FS will
take.
Once the RI/FS is completed and an adequate data
base exists, all parties will be in a position to make an
informed decision whether relocation or other actions are
necessary. If a significant health risk were present and
Carborundum and BP America have submitted additional
comments by letter dated December 7, 1989.
-------
-3-
other cost effective remedies were not available, then relo-
cation would certainly warrant full and fair consideration —
but this does not appear at present to be the case.
EPA's Proposed Action Is Not Supported By the Record
EPA'a proposed action is based entirely on the Pre-
liminary Health Assessment ("PHA") performed by the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ("ATSDR") in July
of this year.2
The PHA is inadequate to support the actions pro-
. posed in the FFS. The PHA is not based on accepted scien-
1 } tific standards or protocols for conducting health risk
assessments, as more fully demonstrated below.
Moreover, subsequent to the PHA, EPA has undertaken
several precautionary steps to reduce perceived risk at the
Site through contact with any contaminated soils - which was
the principal risk cited by ATSDR. These measures include
collecting and securing drums of waste located in certain
areas outside the residential area, installation of fencing
around suspected areas of contamination in wooded areas north
and south of the subdivision, and covering with concrete
areas where contaminants were visibly observed.
EPA has also determined, based on air sampling
data, that there is "no evidence of residential exposure by
inhalation of ambient air...,' FFS (p. 15), and following
extensive analysis of samples taken inside residences at the
Site, including dust tests and vacuum samples, EPA has deter-
mined there is no threat of exposure from contamination in
the residences.. In light of these developments, EPA has
stated that
•one would not expect to find contamination in
homes because areas of Forest Glen with high
levels of chemicals are covered, the chemicals
are not very soluble, and the area is not
dusty .... In order to get into homes, ...
EPA's proposed action is not, and could not be, based
upon qualification of the Site as a proper subject for
remedial action under the normally utilized CERCLA haz-
ard ranking system ("HRS") for identifying priority
sites. An assessment of the Site was made under the HRS
and it scored well below the threshold level (6.5 vs.
the threshold level of 28.5) necessary for it to qualify
as a priority site.
-------
-4-
it would have to be tracked in and that's not
likely since the hot spots are covered."
Niagara Gazette, September 2, 1989 at 1A.
EPA' s findings' and precautionary measures were not
reflected in the PHA which EPA is relying on to justify relo-
cation now.
As earlier noted, ATSDR cited potential exposure to
contaminants in soil during routine outdoor domestic activi-
ties such as gardening, playing and lawn care as the primary
health risk at the Site. Not only are precautionary mea-
sures available to address this risk, but there is no docu-
mented history of any health problems or concerns relating to
any such exposure to soil contamination.
EPA's contractor, NUS Corporation, found when
assessing the Site under the HRS that "[T]he site was not
scored for an observed incident, as there are no documented
reports of injury, illness or deaths from exposure." Final
Draft Hazard Ranking System Report, Forest Glen Subdivision,
Niagara Falls, New York at 18 (as revised August 3, 1989).
("NUS HRS Report"). ATSDR's concern appears based princi-
pally on anecdotal data of exposure. While this type of
information may be useful in conducting an analysis of poten-
tial exposure and its effects, it most certainly would not be
relied upon for scientifically valid conclusions. Under
established scientific standards, self-reported instances
would not be viewed as probative of potential health risks.
Rather, independent and objective health data, including
verification of claimed exposures and any related health
problems, would normally be developed and relied on by health
authorities.
Further, even were potential exposure a problem, it
has been and could continue to be addressed through covering
the areas of contamination as EPA has done, as well as cau-
tions against engaging in activities which might result in
exposure during the RI/FS period.
ATSDR's assessment was also based upon second-hand
data. ATSDR assumed that "adequate quality assurance and
quality control measures were followed" in developing the
data base used for the PHA. PHA at 3. However, there is no
evidence of this in the available administrative record.
One of the most serious faults in ATSDR's approach
was its failure to demonstrate associations between exposures
and health effects - a finding necessary to establishing that
-------
-5-
a health risk exists. Although ATSDR concluded from EPA's
sample analyses that there were chemicals at elevated concen-
trations in soils, and from anecdotal accounts, that there
may have been direct contacts with certain chemicals in the
soils, it did not link these alleged direct contacts with any
particular chemicals or any particular levels of concentra-
tion. Nor were any potential exposures linked to specific
health problems among Forest Glen residents.
ATSDR also does not appear to have consulted all
available information with respect to contaminants it
regarded of concern at the Site. This information casts
considerable doubt on ATSDR's conclusions regarding potential
health risks. For example aniline, which ATSDR cited as a
/ possible source of cancer risk, is rapidly biodegraded by
' chemical transformations in water, air and soil. In addi-
tion, because the half-life of aniline in soil is known to be
less than one week, it is unlikely to be persistent in the
environment and bioavailable. See Health and Environmental
Effects Profile for Aniline, USEPA (September 1985, at 18).
Similarly PAHs, the other chemicals about which
ATSDR expressed a concern regarding potential cancer risk,
have very low water solubility and high rates of adsorption
to soil. Therefore, they would not be expected to have a high
mobility in soils, nor be readily bioavailable through common
human exposure pathways.
Even when ATSDR did discuss certain literature on
health effects, its interpretation failed to account for sig-
nificant differences between the situations being reported in
the literature and the Site. As ASTDR acknowledged, the evi-
dence on which it relied that allegedly links human health
effects to aniline, PAHs, phenothiazine, and mercapto-
benzothiazole is derived primarily from studies of workers in
occupational settings and others experiencing high exposures.
PHA at 6,7. Circumstances and levels of exposure in the
workplace, however, are very different from the circumstances
and levels of exposure possible at the Site. For example,
the asserted cancer concern with respect to humans and PAHs
is derived from studies of coke-oven workers who inhaled lev-
els of PAHs at least a thousand times higher than any inhala-
tion exposure which would appear even possible at the Site.
Indeed, as EPA's contractor NUS Corporation found, volatil-
ization is apparently not a problem at the Site — NUS found
air at background levels and discovered no hazardous sub-
stances in any samples collected beneath trailers at the Site
and from other selected locations on Site. NUS HRS Report at
1, 12. Further, the skin contact cancer risk purported to be
associated with PAHs is not with the PAHs per se, but with
-------
-6-
coal tar and pitch which contain these compounds. Health
.Effects Assessment for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
PAHs)f USEPA (September 1984) at 28. ATSDR presented no
vidence that Forest Glen residents were exposed to pitch and
oal tar at the Site.
As regards aniline, the occupational studies to
which ATSDR referred do not link aniline to cancer but,
[ rather, to increased levels of methemoglobin in the blood.
J As to it, ATSDR stated that while exposure to aniline in
j areas where high concentrations were found at the site "could
I possibly" result in a "slight increase" of this substance in
V the blood, this "may not be of any clinical significance."
PHA, at 6, 7.3 '
These considerations highlight the necessity for
conducting site-specific, exposure pathway modeling based
upon detailed site information to construct a valid assess-
ment of any potential health risk. This was not done by
ATSDR here, although such procedures have been followed at
other sites, such as Times Beach, Missouri.4 Without such
analyses, particularly in light of the precautionary measures
that have .been taken since ATSDR issued its assessment, a
scientifically valid health risk assessment is not possible,
and applicable legal standards cannot and have not been met..
In sum, ATSDR did not demonstrate that exposures to
high concentrations of identified chemicals of concern has in
fact occurred at the Site or that any likely exposure would
lead to significant health effects or health risks.
In addition to potential exposure to soil contami-
nation, ATSDR cited possible contamination 'of drinking water
as a basis for its health advisory. However, the residents
are supplied with public drinking water, and there is no evi-
dence that it is contaminated.
A final risk alleged by ATSDR relates to the possi-
ility of subsidence of fill underlying parts of the Site.
No direct evidence exists that aniline causes cancer in
humans. The only studies even arguably linking aniline
to cancer are animal studies in which laboratory rats
were fed "large doses" of aniline. PHA, at 6.
Lack of such an analysis is also contrary to EPA's
development and use of baseline risk assessments in
CERCLA matters. See, e.g., EPA Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual (October 1986).
-------
-7-
This appears based entirely on speculation. No reported
instances of any subsidence appear in the administrative
record, and the Site had been occupied for over ten years.
Available Options
EPA's analysis of options appears to proceed on the
assumption that the RI/FS will confirm its view that there is
a significant health risk at the Site and that extended relo-
cation will be necessary. In effect, EPA appears to have
prejudged the results of any RI/FS ~ an approach which is
unwarranted and at odds with CERCLA.
EPA also has summarily dismissed, without adequate
justification, the option of doing the RI/FS without reloca-
tion or, alternatively, with limited relocation during any
-specific activities for which other protective measures are
unavailable. The FFS merely states that on-site options
would not protect public health during field operations or
allow adequate access to the Site. We believe this option
warrants detailed analysis and full consideration since it
would minimize short-term disruption of the residents and
appears best suited to develop the necessary information for
all concerned to make informed decisions.
While an RI/FS will likely include subsurface soil
sampling and drilling, which may generate some volatile
vapors and expose some wastes at the Site, these activities
should only occupy a small part of the estimated 18 months
for the RI/FS, and means appear available to eliminate any
risk of exposure from these activities. EPA, however,
assumes potential exposure from these activities will occur
over the entire RI/FS period and that protective measures are
not available. It also fails to consider the possibility of
limited, temporary relocation during any period intrusive
activities are conducted for which no other protective mea-
sure is available.
The purpose of an RI/FS is to gather sufficient,
.scientifically valid information from which to assess whether
there is in fact a significant risk and, if so, what the most
appropriate measures would be to address any such risk. An
RI/FS also should be accompanied by a health risk assessment
which meets accepted scientific standards and the require-
ments of CERCLA. It would thus be most consistent with
CERCLA and development of an overall effective remedy to
await the results of an RI/FS as well as an acceptable health
risk assessment before jumping to the conclusion that
extended relocation, whether temporary or permanent, is
-------
-8-
necessary.5 EPA has a clear obligation under CERCLA and to
the residents to examine this option fully.
A final basis cited by EPA to relocate residents
before conducting the RI/FS is that such action is necessary
to obtain access to the Site.6 Indeed, EPA alleges in the
FFS that Edgewood Drive is the only means of access to the
subdivision. This appears contrary to the situation at the
Site, which appears to afford other means of access and ways
to avoid substantial intrusions on the residents. For exam-
ple, there is a substantial area to the north of the subdivi-
sion which is clear and there is a service road bordering the
Site, both of which would appear available for use in storing
machinery and equipment necessary to conduct the RI/FS.
Again, EPA has not provided a detailed examination of the
option of on-site activities, but rather has dismissed it in
a manner which is not consistent with the dictates of CERCLA
or its responsibilities to the public.
Other Comments
If the only options under consideration were those
presented in the FFS, Goodyear, BP America and Carborundum
believe that the second option - that of temporary reloca-
tion, followed by later returns to the Site, should be
clearly rejected; it is unreasonable not only as a matter of
cost, but also in its treatment of the residents.
In discussing the property acquisition phase of the
proposed permanent relocation, EPA states at page 26 of the
FFS that real property would be appraised in accordance with
Department of Justice standards to determine its fair market
value. A citation to these standards should be provided
and/or a copy appended to the FFS so that the public has an
opportunity to review them.
The FFS provides tables which purport to list the
basic cost items associated with the options under
Any decision to undertake epidemiological or other
health studies, surveys, registries, etc. are premature
and unwarranted unless and until an acceptable health
risk assessment is completed and evaluated.
EPA and FEMA have already installed two trailers at the
Site, and EPA contractors have collected over 150 sam-
ples, as well as gathered and secured waste drums and
concreted over Site areas - all with no apparent diffi-
culty in gaining access to the Site.
-------
conaideration, Howavar, it faile to include any datailed
axplanation or justification aithar to aubetantiate or avaiu°
ate how thaae coats were datarminad, what alternativas wara
considirtd in selecting tha idantified costs/ and how tha
coats relate to applicable ragulatlon and guidelines, With-
out thia type of datailad Information/ it la not possible
meaningfully to evaluate aithar tha altarnativaa or tha
alleged eoata associated with than.
At paga 28 of tha F75, IPX inpliaa that tha coat of
group relocation, if adopted, would be no nora than tha coat
of individual relocation, However, it doaa not aat out in
any datail tha btaii for thia conclusion, for example, group
relocation would likely involve development of a new aite/
including a variety of common coata for aita development, If
individuala relocated to eatabliahad areae* thaaa ooata would
not ba involved, IPA ahould explain more fully how it would
«n«ure that if group relocation ia aalectad (and it doaa not
appear to be authoriied under tha applicable atatut.e or regu-
lationa), the coat doea not exceed tha coat of relocation
were each individual houaaheld to ralocata under tha appli-
cable requirement*.
It ia requested that thaae comment! be placed in
the administrative record for the Site, and that tha FFS and
Pr ope i id Plan ba raviaed in accordance with than.
81ne«p«ly, x^
~rnf&iMwu-
Heal T. Rountree
Attorney
-------
«33 Broadway
NewVb*. New Ybrtc 10019
20 468.6131
NewYorkRower
Authority
December 8, 1989
Ms. Gloria M. Sosa
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region II - 2-ERRD
26 Federal Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10278
Dear Ms. Sosa:
I enclose the New York Power Authority's comments to the
Environmental Protection Agency's Focused Feasibility
Study of Relocation Options (FFS) and Proposed Plan for
Forest Glen Subdivision Sites (Proposed Plan) .
EPA designated the Power Authority a Potentially
Responsible Party on the basis of prior ownership of the
land north of the Forest Glen Subdivision and not as a
generator, hauler or disposer of hazardous substances.
The Power Authority owned the open field to the north of
the Forest Glen Subdivision from May 1958 to July 5, 1973.
Throughout the discussions and correspondence between the
EPA and the Power Authority, we have documented the lack
of any basis for EPA's associating the conditions on the
northern open field area with the Subdivision. Though the
FFS states that it includes the area north of the
Subdivision as part of the study area (FSS page 2),
neither the FFS nor the Proposed Plan establish any
• connection between conditions on the open land and the
need for remedial action at the Subdivision. The Power
Authority requests EPA to address these concerns.
Finally, the nine (9) days allowed by EPA to comment was
inadequate. This objection is based, in part, on the fact
that the FFS and Proposed Plan were released on November
17, 1989 and only sent to the Power Authority on November
29, 1989.
Very truly yours,
cc: Stephen D. Luftig - EPA
rLisa Carson'- EPA
-------
NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY COMMENTS ON
EPA FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY OF
RELOCATION OPTIONS FOR FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION
Chapter 1 - Introduction
The first paragraph (FFS page 1) states that the
ATSDR's Health Assessment for Forest Glen was based upon
sampling data taken by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The ATSDR Health Assessment should be appended to
the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS). Also any reports
prepared by EPA which evaluate the data sampling program and
the accuracy of the results as veil as the conclusions to be
drawn from the raw data should be referenced in the FFS and
available for comment.
Chapter 2 - Site Background
In the first paragraph (FFS page 2) EPA describes the
•entire site" as consisting of 21 acres of residential and
undeveloped land. The second paragraph refers to 51 mobile
homes and 2 permanent residences that are the subject of the
FFS are located on approximately 8 acres. EPA includes the
large open field to the north of the Subdivision as part of
the study area. The FFS should therefore discuss the
effect, if any, that conditions in the field to the north
had on EPA's determination to relocate residents of the
subdivision. EPA has included the large open field in the
study without any documentation of impacts of contamination,
if any, on the subdivision. This EPA action contradicts
-------
. information supplied to EPA by the present"site owner and
the Power Authority.
The third paragraph (FFS page 2) states that
•unauthorized disposal activities in the [subdivision] area
by waste haulers nay have begun in the early 1950's and
continued during the 1960's and through the early 1970•s."
In fact, EPA obtained witnesses' statements indicating that
illegal dumping occurred during that period at the'end of
Edgewood Drive and may have continued through the 1970's.
Moreover, since little investigation of the site history
beyond the mid-1970's has taken place, there is no
indication of what occurred from the mid-1970's to date.
In the fourth paragraph (FFS page 2) EPA states that
"[p]rior to 1973, portions of the area [subdivision] were
owned by Michigan-Mayne Realty, the Power Authority of the
State of New York, which owns the undeveloped land north of
the site residences, and three individuals, Ernest Booth,
James Strong and Sanford Brownies." This is an erroneous
statement. The Power Authority does not own the land north
of the subdivision. As stated in the Power Authority
*
responses to EPA information requests, the Authority
transferred the property north of the subdivision to Mr. Guy
Sottile and U.S.A. Campsites in 1973. As stated to EPA by
the Forest Glen Subdivision developer, M[t]he Power
Authority land has nothing to do with the Forest Glen
- 2 -
-------
Subdivision." fSee Sottile April 26, 1989 response to EPA
Information Request).
In both the eighth (FFS page 5) and tenth (FFS page 6)
paragraphs EPA describes the presence of drums of waste on
the site. In the eighth paragraph it is noted that EPA
ordered the PRPs (Sottile, U.S.A. Campsites and Ernest
Booth) "to secure drums and containers at the [subdivision]
site which were leaking or in immediate danger of leaking."
The FFS should reference the location of the drums and
containers and EPA's analysis which determined that they
contained hazardous waste or pollutants that would endanger
the public health. In the tenth paragraph (FFS page 6) the
FFS refers to "securing drums of waste that were located in
the areas north and east of the subdivision." This
statement is contrary to the information provided by the EPA
to the Power Authority. EPA stated that only drum fragments
were discovered and not intact drums containing any
materials. If that is the case the FFS should so indicate.
If intact drums were uncovered, the FFS should indicate the
location, condition and quantity of drums found and whether
they contained waste which was hazardous.
Chapter 3 - Site Characterization
The second paragraph (FFS page 8) discusses EPA's soil
sampling program of September 27-29, 1988. EPA states that
"[contamination was found in the undeveloped areas north-
- 3 -
-------
and east of the site." However, a figure shoving the
sampling locations reveals that no sampling was undertaken
in the undeveloped areas north of the subdivision.
The third paragraph (FFS page 8) describes on-site
tests performed on April 13, 1989. This description of the
tests should include the sample location and the basis for
selecting the locations. The FFS also states that
"£s]amples which were analyzed were extremely contaminated.
In a few cases, nuggets and minute pockets of almost pure
waste were seen by the operator, causing problems with
concentrating several samples." The FFS should define
"extremely contaminated" and particularly state whether the
contamination was from hazardous waste or non-hazardous
waste. Similarly the FFS should indicate the type of "pure
waste" that was seen by the operator and whether it was
hazardous waste. Finally, in light of EPA difficulty in
collecting samples and the apparent sample variances, the
FFS should indicate the confidence level associated with the
estimated TIC concentrations.
The fourth paragraph (FFS page 8) describes EPA's May
22, 1989 soil sampling program. It notes that, unlike the
September 27-29, 1988 sampling, no volatile organics or
semi-volatile organics were found. It does not, however,
indicate the reason for this discrepancy and the
significance of these results. These sampling
- 4 -
-------
Inconsistencies should be reconciled. The fifth paragraph
(FFS page 9) describes the results of samples taken August
1, 1989 from all residences in the Forest Glen Subdivision.
As vith prior sampling, the results of the May 22, 1989 and
August 1, 1989 sampling should be tabulated in the FFS. The
FFS should also indicate whether ATSDR has considered the
results of these samplings and their impact on ATSDR's
previous determinations.
Chapter 4 - Site Risks
As noted in the first paragraph (FFS page 15) ATSDR
determination on March 9, 1989 was based upon information
available "at that time." Similarly ATSDR's Health
Assessment "is the basis for EPA's determination that site
conditions pose a risk to residents of the site." There is
no indication in the report that the results of EPA's May
22, 1989 sampling was considered by ATSDR prior to its July
21, 1989 recommendation. Moreover the results of EPA's
August 1, 1989 sample certainly were not considered by
ATSDR. Since the results of the May and August sampling
appear to differ from previous results upon which ATSDR's
recommendation is based, the FFS should discuss ATSDR's
evaluation of recent data and the resulting consequences to
the ATSDR's July 21, 1989 recommendation.
- 5 -
-------
Chapter 5 - Development and Screening of Alternatives
Under "Option D: Group Relocation of Residents," (FFS
page 27) the FFS notes that this option could include
purchasing the property, subdividing property and developing
a parcel of land. Group relocation may also require
installation of water, sewer, gas and electric utilities and
roads. EPA has estimated that both the group relocation
option and the individual relocation option which would
allow use of existing housing stock will cost the same.
This conclusion is not supported by the FFS.
Under the heading "ARARs" (FFS page 29) the FFS
indicates that there are no environmental laws associated
with the group relocation alternative. However the
development of a new subdivision will require compliance
with several local and state land use and environmental laws
and regulations. The environmental impacts associated with
the use of undeveloped property instead of existing housing
stock should be discussed. As noted there is no
substantiation in the FFS for the costs presented in Table
5-3. Moreover the description of the costs is inadequate.
For example, some of the properties in Forest Glen are owned
by absentee landlords. Are both resident's and owner's
claims addressed in EPA analysis? Since the entire process
may take 1-1/2 to 3 years minimum are the costs calculated
- 6 -
-------
in 1989 dollars or current dollars? What does EPA estimate
vill be site development costs for a new subdivision?
Table 5-5 indicates that a mobile home that is
/
decontaminated would have a resale value of $3,500. Table
5-4 indicates that a value of $3,200 was assumed for the
lots. If the mobile homes have a resale value of $3,500 and
the estimated fair market value of a parcel value is $3,200,
how does EPA arrive at a purchase price of $25,000 for a
mobile home and lot?
Chapter 6 - Detailed Analysis ef Alternatives
On page 41, in reviewing "Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment," the FFS fails to discuss the
environmental impacts of developing a new subdivision
instead of utilizing existing housing stock or space in
existing developments.
On page 42 the FFS fails to list the Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) which EPA has
"identified" as applicable. These state and federal
requirements, standards and criteria and/or limitations
considered applicable by EPA should be listed to assure that
they indeed have been considered.
- 7 -
-------
HEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY
COMMENTS ON EPA PROPOSED PLAN
FOR POREST GLEN SUBDIVISION SITE
These comments incorporate and supplement NYPA's
comments on EPA Focused Feasibility Study of Relocation
Options on the Forest Glen Subdivision site (FFS).
Site Background
The introduction to the Proposed Plan EPA defines the
Forest Glen site as the Forest Glen Subdivision site. The
FFS confuses the subdivision site with the more expansive
site that EPA has designated a CERCLA site. fSee Power
Authority's comment on Chapter 1 of the FFS). That
confusion and expansion continues in the Proposed Plan.
The description of disposal activities on the site
appears to be incomplete. There is no indication that any
hazardous waste disposal took place on the open land to
the north before July 5, 1973. Moreover the information
provided to the Power Authority by EPA indicates that
dumping may have occurred through the 1970's and possibly
into the 1980's.
Site Risks
See NYPA'S comments on the FFS Chapter 4.
summary ef Remedial Alternatives
NYPA's comments on the FFS Chapters 5 and 6.
-------
LAW DCPAJTTMCNT
December 18, 1989
Us. Lisa Carson
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 26-100
Hew York, NY 10278
Re: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Proposed Plan and Focused Feasibility
Study of Relocation Options Regarding
Forest Glen Subdivision, Niagara Falls,
New York
Dear Ms. Carson:
Gloria Sosa of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region II ("EPA") has informed us that the period for
submitting comments on EPA's Focused Feasibility Study of Relo-
cation Options ("FFS"), and the Proposed Plan (Proposed Plan")
for the Forest Glen Subdivision Site in Niagara Falls, New York
("Site") has been extended to and including December 18, 1989.
The following comments are submitted by The Goodyear Tire d
Rubber Company ("Goodyear") as a supplement to its comments
submitted to EPA on December 8, 1989.
On November 29, 1989, prior to receiving comments on
the FFS and the Proposed Plan, EPA issued Special Notice Let-
ters to alleged potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") pursu-
ant to The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S 9622(e).
The Special Notice Letters initiated a 60 day period during
which the PRPs are encouraged to organize and negotiate with
EPA concerning the conduct and/or financing of the Proposed
Plan. We believe issuance of Special Notice Letters was prema-
ture and unwarranted. The principal reason for this is that
the Proposed Flan has not been finally selected by EPA; rather,
EPA has solicited public comments on the FFS and Proposed Plan,
and comments have been submitted to EPA by Goopdyear and other
PRPs which raise significant questions concerning EPA's recom-
mended action. EPA is bound to consider these comments fully
and to reflect them in any final decision it makes.
-------
»*-
To initial* nagotiationa on t proposal which haa not
btan finally aalacttd and abont which aigniiicant iaauoa havo
baan raiaad !• not only fundaaantally unfair to PRPt, but ii
not ccat-tfftctin or in acoordanca with othor ra^uiramanti of
C1XCLA. Goodyaar thtrafero rvquaiti that th« Ipteial Notiet
Lotttra b« withdrawn by I?A and that any negotiation! conctrn-
ing PR? involvaatnt in rvawdial action at wit 8it» await IPA'I
rinai ivitotion of a roawdial action in aooordanco with
Noithor thaaa eooMnta nor thair aubattaaion ia
inundod or ahould to eonatrwd aa an admiiaion, acoaptanct or
acXnowladgiMnt of any faulty roapcnaibility or liability on tha
part of Geodyoar, or aa t waivtr of any righta, privilagtf or
dafanaaa by Goodyvar or any of its off loan, wploytM, agonta
or r»prtaantatiVM.
Xt ii rtqutatt* that tha§a ooavwnta to plaeod in tha
adniniatrativt rwoord for tha lito and to fully eonaidarad by
•PA.
linoaroly/
X.
••al T. Rountr»«
Attomty
-------
LAW OFFICES OF
COHEN SWADOS WRIGHT HANIFIN BRADFORD ft BRETT
IMQMAf J. MAN1PIN
MbARY P. •MADFOMD
JAT t. mcrr
F. MAMUt NICHOL*
COUOCAi & KIKKPATIUCK
•BUkO L. KOMN
JAMS L ROU-t
JAM r. CUMINS
MANCT M, WKKPATM1CK
•UOCNC A. NUBONCKI*
•ART r. MOWNCU.
1AUWNCX ft. OfftMHtUltff
uunrr KRUAN
•NteONT T. rVANQC
•OMKT W. MTTIMSON
•ACTHIJ. •UMKAKC
MCLIM A.MUW
OtAKLD W. Om*AN-
«ITH D. HAMTIN
IMOTMr O. MeCVOT
CMAHLH «. TtLFOTO
SEVENTY NIAGARA STREET
BUFFALO. NEW YORK 142O2-3467
(716) •86-46OO
December 18, 1989
OOUNUL
•oaorr o. •WAOO*
- k. FLCMING
MUL P. OOHCN I1IM-1C71)
MIUIUN L. WWOMT. JM. OM8-IM2J
M1AOAHA FALL* OPriCB
*•• TMIMD STNCrr— P. O. BOH G<3«
MIAOAMA FAi-0. N. T. IOOS-OO4*
•AOMITTCO ALSO IN PLORI^A
••ADMITTED ALSO IN TCXAC
EXPRESS MAIL
Us. Lisa Carsonr Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza
Room 29-100
New York, New York 10278
Re: United States Environmental Protection
Agency Proposed Plan and Focused
Feasibility Study of Relocation Options
Regarding Forest Glen Subdivision,
Niagara Falls, New York
Dear Ms. Carson:
We are counsel to Moore Business Forms, Inc. ("Moore")
We are in receipt of a letter dated November 29, 1989
with respect to a special notice concerning the Forest Glen
Subdivision ("Site"). In this letter, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") indicated that our client
is considered a potentially responsible party ("PRP") under
§107(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act of 1980, as amended ("CERCLA"). The EPA has
also solicited public comments, including those from PRPs, on its
-------
Ms. Lisa Carson, Project Manager
December 18, 1989
Page 2
Focused Feasibility Study of Relocation Options ("FFS") and
Proposed Plan for the Forest Glen Subdivision Site ("Proposed
Plan*).
In prior written correspondence and during informal
meetings with EPA representatives, we have stated our concern
regarding the EPA's impropriety in continuing to characterize
Moore, as a PRP under §107. In this regard, the EPA has confirmed
that there is scant and insubstantial evidence in the Agency's
possession in support of its characterization of Moore as a PRP.
Moreover, this alleged inconclusive evidence is itself
contradictory with respect to any connection our client might
have with the Site.
Under the EPA Interim Guidance on Notice Letters,
Negotiations and Information Exchange under $122 of CERCLA, 53 FR
5298, February 23, 1988, the EPA is required to first establish
sufficient evidence of potential liability under $107 of CERCLA
before notice letters are to be sent to a "party." On the basis
of the information which the EPA has made available to us to
•
date, it is apparent that there is clearly insufficient evidence
to support a designation of Moore as a PRP. Therefore, as a
result of its objection to its characterization as a PRP and as a
result of the limited information provided to it by the EPA,
-------
Ms. Lisa Carson, Project Manager
December 18, 1989
Page 3
Moore does not feel it is in a position to provide detailed
comment, at this time, to the EPA's proposed remediation efforts
which are reflected in the FFS and Proposed Plan. However, and
notwithstanding the above, we note that we are in receipt of
copies of comments submitted by companies also designated as PRPs
which question the testing protocols, test results and the basis
upon which the Proposed Plan has been developed. These comments
confirm that little, if any, PRP involvement was solicited in the
preparation of the FFS, Proposed Plan or, for that matter, the
testing and analysis which preceded the publication of such FSS
or Proposed Plan. We concur with their suggestion that the EPA
should conduct a more careful and detailed anaylsis of the Forest
Glen Site before the Proposed Plan is accepted or implemented.
Further, based upon the information provided to us from
the EPA, the EPA has, at the present, sought to identify only
approximately a dozen entities/individuals as PRPs in connection
with the Site under the authority of CERCLA, notwithstanding the
fact that a number of other companies should properly be
classified as FRPs. Urging the approximately twelve alleged PRPs
to fund the Proposed Plan without conducting a comprehensive PRP
search is, in our opinion, an abuse of the EPA's statutory
authority.
-------
Ms. Lisa Carson, Project Manager
December 18, 1989
Page 4
We request that this letter be placed in the
administrative record for the Forest Glen Site.
Very truly yours/
COHEN SWADOS WRIGHT HANIFIN
BRADFORD £ BRETT
By
LBO:mat
>enheimer
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT 3
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 30, 1989
-------
Jtck W.Hun!
CAK.R.P.R
C£0
K»vinR.Hunt
CAR. R-P.R.
Pnt&nt
TbnothyM.Hunl
CJ-V.S.
0»nWC.Hunt
Nancy CCwteon
I TrtMunr/S»cr»wy
ill
ru
Court Rtporting
Utlgttlon Support
VUiotMping
Photocopying
Htcort* en
Coatfutfrtution
THE RECORD NEVER FORGETS
IN RE:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
POCDSED FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION..
Public Hearing held at the Niagara
Fire Company flf 6010 Lockport Road, Town of
Niagara, New York, on November 30, 1989,
commencing at 7:45 p.m., before JOAN M.
METZGER, C.S.R., Notary Public.
PRESENT:
WILLIAM McCABE, EPA,
LISA CARSON, EPA,
CHARLES ROBINSON, FEMA,
ROBERT VOLLAND, FEMA.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
SUITE 1420 • LIBERTY BUILDING, 424 MAIN STREET • BUFFALO, NEW YORK 14202-3664 • (716) 853-5600
-------
Forest Glen Public Meeting/November 30,1989
LIST OF ATTENDEES (PUB L1C AND OTHERS)
Name
Address
Agency/Affiliation
V'^J
tiAS -fr \\J
) 7
-------
Forest Glen Public Meeting/November 30,1989
Name
Address
Agency/Affiliation
.,
TO
T
7 ,7^:-
!) v
M*,+- I/ s*x
77
9
r ' JA.-IS) i ^ f(Ls}rfu/.
-------
Forest Glen Public Meeting/November 30,1989
Name
Address
Agency/Affiliation
-------
1 MR. McCABE: Good evening, ladies and
2 gentlemen. My name's Bill McCabe. I'm with
3 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
4 With me at the table are Lisa Voigt, to my
5 left, the project manager for the site, and
6 to — Lisa Carson, sorry, project manager for
7 the site; and to my right, two representatives
8 of FEMA, Bob Volland and Charlie Robinson.
9 We are here to discuss and to receive
10 input from you concerning the Superfund site,
11 Forest Glen subdivision Superfund site. As I
12* say, the purpose of the meeting is to get your
13 input such that EPA can make an informed
14 decision concerning the site. What we're
15 looking for is, after the alternatives are
16 presented to you by Lisa, that you make
17 comments; and what we have to do, since this
18 is a public meeting, it's a formal process, we
19 have a court stenographer here who is
20 recording this, and there will be a transcript
21 which is part of the official record. I have
22 to ask that everyone stand up to the
23 microphone there and identify themselves so
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
that we can have a proper transcript.
As part of our community relations
process/ the -- we have held — we're holding
this public meeting. The process started wi
the public comment period which was opened on
November 17th, 1989. The comment period is
expected to close on December 8th, 1989. This
meeting, as I said, is part of our community
relations program.
The — our best information at this point
and that — we will get into the reasons for
this, but our present schedule is to sign a
record of decision, which is the agency's
documentation with the concurrence of the
State of New York, to sign a record of
decision about December 15th. We're hoping to
keep that date. We have mentioned that before
at the public availability session that we
held, and we're still intending to keep that
date.
After that time we would then get into
the — and concurrent actually — the
appraisal process which I'm sure you'll have
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
questions about later for our FEMA
representatives.
Earlier today we had a group relocation
presentation. I can't get — and we can't
into the specifics of the —- of that
presentation, but what we will do is go back
to our respective offices, FEMA and EPA, and
get together and discuss it in more detail; so
for now that's about all I think we can say
about it.
One thing actually I would like to say
about it, which I mentioned earlier today, was
that at some point in time both EPA and New
York State and, of course, FEMA, will need a
commitment of some sort from those who are
interested in group relocation, should that be
the selected alternative which is, of course,
the way we're heading now; and as I stated
earlier today, the commitment would be at the
time that you have sufficient information to
make such a commitment, that information
including things like the appraisals, the
amount of money that's available, what options
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1 you have, et cetera.
2 The reason for that is that if — EPA
3 cannot expend public funds/ building, as, for
4 instance, an infrastructure like sewers,
5 roads, et cetera, for, as an example, 40
6 people and only ten people decide at the last
7 minute that they're interested in relocation,
8" so anyway, we will — I have to get together
9 with my attorneys and decide exactly what we
10 need to do; but it is something that's needed
11 by EPA, FEMA, and the State of New York.
12 Before I turn the presentation over to
13 Lisa"who will go through the alternatives,
14 which I think most of you are familiar with, I
15 would just like to mention that we did make
16 copies, and I believe quite a few of them
17 picked them up before, of the uniform
18 appraisal standards for federal land
19 acquisitions. There are a few copies
20 available over here at the table, and should
21 you need any others, you can contact Mike
22 . Easile and he will have more copies made for
23 you.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
6
^
1 So with that I'd like to turn it over to
2 Lisa. After she is finished, then we would
3 like to open the floor to questions and
4 . proceed on from there. Thank you.
5 MS. CARSON: Good evening. I'm going to
6 run through basically what was covered in the
7 focused feasibility study and the proposed
8 plan that we released here on November 17th.
9 That was almost two weeks ago now, and I know
10 that all the residents got a copy and most
11 interested parties have also seen it; so I'm
12 going to go through it rather briefly so we
13 can have the most time available for questions
14 and comments for the record, which is the
15 purpose of our meeting here tonight.
16 The public comment period closes on
17 December 8th. I'm just going to repeat that,
18 because that's a very important date, and I'll
19 be happy to answer any questions that you have
20 informally while I'm here. I'll be here also
21 tomorrow.
22 We have some visual aids, but you can
23 even hear the speech without seeing them
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
because I know it's hard for you guys seated
on my right to see. I want to go through just
very quickly the process that we had to
develop the alternatives, what they are, and
why we picked the one we picked.
We had two objectives when we started
here, the first one being to protect the
health of the residents of the site. He have
the finding that there's an imminent hazard to
health at the site and we have a temporary
relocation program going on, but we knew that
we needed something more; so first and
foremost we have to protect the health of the
residents.
And the second objective is then to gain
and keep site access, because there's a
long-term plan going on here, and that's
eventually we want to clean the site up. We
don't want to leave it; so in the future we
need to have access to the site, and we need
to not be able to disrupt residents' lives
while we're trying to do work at the site. So
we have two purposes here.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
8
/•
\
•$
>
1
2
3
4-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Working under the knowledge that
temporary relocation was already being
implemented, that gave us a couple of
options. The first one is no action. No
action is required for us by law, gives us a
way to compare our alternatives to nothing, so
that we can make a true comparison to how
things are now and how they would be in the
future.
The second one was temporary relocation;
and the third one is some sort of permanent
relocation. On that -- on the figure up there
you can see we screened out some other
alternatives, things like giving alternate
water supplies or capping the site or doing
something on site, and that's because it
wouldn't do the second objective, it wouldn't
handle that, which is to provide site access.
We need to be able to get there in the future,
so we have to protect residents' health. We
can protect residents' health sometimes
without moving everyone, but we also need to
get to the site so we can clean it up, so
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
there were two-fold.
All right. Our three alternatives then
are no action, continuing temporary
relocation, and permanent relocation of
residents.
No action means no further actions are
taken at the site. Now, this site is a little
bit special in that we're already out there
doing temporary relocation, and some of your
neighbors have already left the site. They've
moved temporarily. So we had to give a time
frame by which they would have to move back,
so what we said is— we basically allocated
some money to be spent on temporary relocation
until April 1990. He go ahead and spend the
money we've allocated, we leave them out until
April 1990, but then they have to move back;
so it's a no action once April would come,
because now everyone's back on site just like
they were before.
He would monitor the site, and tj
costs associated with that. The
1
alternative is 2,050,000 approxim
— jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
10
that covers the money that we've allocated
through April 1990 to continue temporary
relocation and then monitoring costs.
The next option is to continue the
temporary relocation program, and the most
important information under that is how long
would people be temporarily relocated. Under
just a reasonable worst case scenario, let's
say, what we did there is we said, okay,
people are on the site, we're still going to
have to study the site to see what to do in
terms of cleaning it up; so that's a year and
a half, and then we're going to have to do
some — some other work to actually clean the
site up. So you're talking about two and a
half to seven and a half years of clean-up.
That's reasonable on a larger site. We have
no idea what we would find underneath this
site, so we're talking about a period of five
to ten years that people would be temporarily
relocated, families and people in hotels or
temporary apartments, and we thought that was
reasonable; and we use that for the basis of
t
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
our cost estimation.
We would continue to maintain the site;
we would winterize the homes; we would have to
cut the grass; we would have to make sure that
the homes weren't vandalized; and we estimated
costs somewhere between 5.7 and $11 million.
The last one is permanent relocation. We
realized after being here not very long that
Forest Glen people always have opinions, and
that there were some options that we would
have to consider under permanent relocation;
and anybody who's looked through the FS knows
that there are four options under there and
they're not necessarily mutually exclusive.
That means people can go with different
options.
Option one was that there might be some
people who were interested in keeping the home
that they have but simply moving to a new plot
of land away from the site that they're at
now.
Option B — that was option A — option B
included EPA acquiring with FEMA the trailer
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
• 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
12
and the land, and the people being moved to a
new location with a new structure to live in.
Option C looked at the other end; that
is, once we decide whether we're going to buy
your house or buy your land, where you're
going to go. And that was, do you want to go
individually, which is option C, or the famous
group relocation, which is option D.
So all those things are included under
permanent relocation, and you might pick
option A and pick option D. I mean, we
have — you have to pick either option A or B
and option C or D; because people have to movg
and then they have to have somewhere to go.
Now, while the permanent relocation is
being implemented, and EPA estimated one year
for that to happen, temporary relocation would
continue to be offered. That's because we
know that there's an immediate health threat,
and people need to be able to get out now
while the process of moving them is going on.
In addition, the site would continue to
be secured as people moved out because we
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
wouldn't want to stop securing the homes while
there are people living there. Once the site
was completely finished or mostly finished, we
would look towards getting rid of the homes/
salvaging them, demolishing them, testing thsra
to determine the amount of contamination so
that the site is clear.
The title to the land will eventually go
to the State of New York by law. The site
would be fenced, and then the real work would
start, which is cleaning up the site; and that
was estimated to cost between 4.2 and 5.3,
$5.4 million.
EPA looked at these alternatives, not
very many, so it wasn't too hard. We have
certain criteria that by policy and regulation
we use to evaluate alternatives. The most
important one is protection of health again.
The second most important one is that we
is
have to make sure we meet all regulations. We
also have to worry about whether or not
there's a short-term impact to the community,
t
long-term impacts to the community, the cost
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
14
of the remedy, implementability of the remedy,
and then what the community wants and what the
State wants.
We looked at all those things, and it's
explained in the proposed plan, and we decided
that option C — excuse me, alternative three,
permanent relocation, was the best for this
site.
Tonight's meeting is to take comments on
permanent relocation and all the other
alternatives that were presented so that we
can judge what the community wants. We've had
lots of meetings at this site, but they were
informal. Tonight's meeting is a formal
opportunity for comment.
With that I think we're ready to open it
up.
MS. SLUSSER: And I must use this this
time, right?
MR. McCABE: And please identify yourself
for the record.
MS. SLUSSER: My name is Tricia Slusser.
I live at 56 Lisa lane. My questions are to
t
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Charlie. I'm going to ask you the same
questions I asked you a few weeks ago just so
I can have them on the record.
Page 28 of your focused feasibility
study, do you have a copy of it?
MR. VOLLAND: Yes, we have a copy.
MS. SLUSSER: First paragraph, I'm going
to read you a sentence, and I'd like you to
explain it to me: A portion of these
relocation assistance payments would then be
pooled by residents to finance a new
subdivision. Pooled what assets by the
residents?
MR. ROBINSON: Well, I see the sentence,
but there is no pooling of resources. The
amount of money that a resident would have to
contribute toward the purchase of a new
property, either on an individual basis or a
group basis, is basically the same. That
would be determined at the time by how much
the replacement property costs versus how much
the government paid for your property, and —
there there may be a difference, there may not
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
16
be a difference. I don't know at the time,
but whatever rules that are — the same rules
that are used on an individual basis would be
used in this group relocation basis for
residents making payments either at the time
of purchase or closing on a property; and the
rule remains the same, that under the
permanent relocation it's the aim of the
federal government to keep everybody —
everyone in the same economic state they were
before the program came. You're not supposed
to be in any worst state and you're not
supposed to be in a better state.
MS. SLUSSER: So the mortgage that I have
now, when we move, and this is all over and
done with, is the same mortgage I will have
when we're done?
MR. ROBINSON: That's the .
know what mortgage you have now,
why we speak of it in general term*
economic condition. There migj
things that contribute to yc'
economic state that, when it w
jack w. hunt and associates, incT
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8.
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
17
move, you'd still be in the same economic
state. I don't know, I can't say that it
would be right to the penny one way or the
other on your mortgage or whatever.
MS. SLUSSER: Okay. As you know, I rent
my land and own my trailer. Can I use the
twenty-two-five — can that be used for land
if I moved into a group relocation situation?
I think that was one of the questions I asked
you that you said it would have to go to the
contractors.
MR. ROBINSON: Well, the $22,500 limit on
relocation assistance is what you're referring
to.
MS. SLUSSER: Yes.
MR. ROBINSON: That $22,500 is used for a
number of things. In there there's a — money
that's provided for such things as moving
expenses, what we call cost incidental to
purchase; that is, having title search in your
new property. And there is an interest
differential* payment.
UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: I can't hear.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MR. ROBINSON: And there's an interest
differential payment, if needed; and what I
mean by that, you say you have a current
mortgage. I don't know what the interest rat©
is —
MS. SLDSSER: 12.
MR. ROBINSON: — on the mortgage, but
this payment is used so that the interest rate
on your next mortgage isn't any higher, okay?
And there can be what we call replacement
housing payment also, and that's a payment
that may be required in some instances to make
up the difference between the house we buy
from you and the replacement house you get, if
the two are comparable.
So the $22,500 is a maximum amount of
money that's available. It is not the amount
that everyone receives.
MS. SLUSSER: Right.
MR. ROBINSON: It varies.
MS. SLDSSER: But because I do not own my
land, if I went into group relocation, would
part of that money be able to be used for
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
19
m
•#*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
land, because I do not own mine now?
MR. ROBINSON: Well, under — the idea of
group relocation, what we were talking about,
the building of roads, the purchasing of land,
that generally is not a cost that would fall
on the homeowners, so that — I mean, so the
answer to your question is really the
twenty-two-five wouldn't apply, because that's
not a cause that you would be generally faced
with.
MS. SLUSSER: Okay. Can you also tell me
how long the appraisal process will take in
months, years, whatever it's going to take?
How long will the appraisal process take
before I get an offer?
MR. ROBINSON: Before you get an offer?
I think once it starts, it could take up to
three months. I think that's what my
estimate —
MS. SLUSSER: Is that a maximum or
minimum? Did you say that was a maximum?
MR. ROBINSON: Well, basically it
takes — I mean, here's the outline that the
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
20
contractors use to judge their work. They
generally, when they're — as you know, I told
you that our contractor will subcontract for
appraisals. When they ask for an estimate of
price for doing the work, they generally, as &
rule of thumb, give the subcontractors 45
days.
Now, they don't always take their entire
45 days, but they can't come right down to the
time, so they generally give them 45 days.
Once they — and then, on top of that, after
the appraisals are done, the contractor has to
review those appraisals; so we have an
appraisal, and we have the appraisal reviewed
by the contractor's person who we call review
appraisal, and that's to ensure that the
appraiser meets the standards as set forth in
the document I think that some of you already
have.
MS. SLUSSER: Yes, I haven't had a chance
to read it.
MR. ROBINSON: Well, that's the thing,
and he's making sure it's a good appraisal;
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
and if it is, then it's finished. I mean,
there's always cases, and hopefully it will be
low, we always hope that there won't be too
many send-backs, that is, where the review
appraiser sends it back to the appraiser to
correct mistakes or whatever might be wrong
with it. Sometimes that happens, but
generally it's 45 days, two weeks to three
weeks for review; and if nothing's wrong, then
we have the basis on which to make an offer to
buy, just compensation for the property.
So if you add that in, we're in the area
of 60 days before we get to the stage where
we're in a position to make an offer to
purchase, generally, okay? And so what
happens is, also, there are other — they're
not doing one appraisal at a time.
MS. SLUSSER: No.
MR. ROBINSON: So, I mean, there's a
number of things happening at the same time.
MS. SLDSSER: Okay, and I also just want
to make the statement that I am for group
relocation, and I do not believe I will take
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
22
anything less. Thank you.
MR. WILLIARD: My name is Willis
Williard. I live at 63 Lisa lane. You were
asked a question, I forget which gentleman it
was, but was asked a question the .last time,
mobile means moveable. Now, my home is not
moveable, because there's a porch on it and it
is attached to it, it's considered a home, not
as being appraised as a mobile home.
That question was asked here the other
meeting, and there was no answer to whether i
would be appraised as a home or as a mobile
home.
MR. ROBINSON: I remember the question.
I think my answer then was, and it's going to
have to be now, also, that when the appraiser
comes to appraise it, they will be doing it
based on what the State identifies it to be,
the local rules. If the local rules say it's
a home, then it will be appraised as a home.
MR. WILLIARD: Okay, thank you.
MR. ROBINSON: I can't — you know, I'm
not sure what the appraisers will find out
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
when they come to appraise, but it will be
done by the local rules, or the State rules
•
rather.
MR. MILLIARD: Thank you.
MR. SCHUECKLER: Good evening. My name's
Chris Schueckler. I live at 31 Lisa Lane. Of
course, you know I'm going to get on camera.
The first thing, I'd like to commend the
government, when this whole thing started, I
ranked this government as being the lowest in
the world with all the red tape and, like,
rumors going back and forth.
When I was handed that feasibility study
last — beginning of, I think it was this
month, I'll tell you, it opened up my eyes
that this government really does seem to be
for the people.
Now, to follow through with that, as far
as all the promises that seem to have been
made, it would delight myself and I think all
of my neighbors immensely, I am very much for
the group relocation; and since this is on the
record, I'd like to state that, once again,
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
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 security aspect that all of us feel as
moving as a group, we feel that we can move as
a group/ we can leave our doors open like we
have in the past/ go shopping/ come back in
two hours, and nothing's going to be missing
from our homes because we have watch dogs
living next door to us either side.
I'd like to commend the government panel
and all the people from EPA and FEMA for a lot
of work that I know you've done. These last
few months you really have rushed things along
and told us back in July a year or two, a year
and a half/ to get on the national priorities
list; and four and a half months later, maybe
by a little prodding by us/ got it to be a
little bit quicker than that. But I'd like to
commend you people on that/ and hopefully in
the upcoming months we can get together and
meet on this group relocation issue and hammer
the differences out/ and at this time next
year sit down in our new homes and have you
people in as our guests.
Thank you very much.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
25
1 * MR. McCABE: Are there any other
2 questions or comments or concerns? Well, if
3 no one else —
4 MS. SUMBLER: Helen Sumbler, 17 T Mark
5 Drive,,
6 I'd just like to say that I am definite
7 for group relocation, and I'm not going
8 - nowhere unless you give it to me.
9 MR. McCABE: Are there any other
10 comments?
11 MR. FREIERMUTE: Good evening. My name is
12 Terry Freiermuth, I live at 12 Carrie Drive,
13 Forest Glen.
14 I was reading your focused feasibility
15 study. Your first alternative, no action, is
16 completely ignorant of the situation that we
17 have. If you were to do no action on this
18 site, you would be putting every life that is
19 in there in jeopardy in the near future, maybe
20 in the — further in the future.
•
21 The group relocation is a viable option.
22 It should be considered, but the other options
23 '•Hat should be considered are the single
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
people that want to move on their own to a
separate house.
I believe permanent relocation is the
only viable solution you have for this area to
minimize the exposure that these people have
to the chemicals, at which time I feel that
should be expedited, that the ROD should be
signed as fast as possible and shouldn't be
dragged out over the next half a month or
month or two months down the line that the EPA
usually does.
I was also told this evening that nothing
can be done until the State has their
compliance for their future storage of
hazardous wastes in position and that is
signed. That shouldn't make any difference.
If that's going to put us in a site that we're
going to be sitting there for the next two
years while we are waiting for that to come
about, you are endangering our health and our
welfare of everyone in there.
I feel that as soon as the ROD is signed,
that the buy-outs or the group relocation at
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
27
V
1 that time be put into motion as fast as
2 possible. Even though you have expedited the
3 time on getting us on the NPL, you still are
4 not moving fast enough for my sake, the
5 children's sake, or the people there. You
6 have to move a lot faster. These people don't
7 need to be exposed to the chemicals any longer
8 than what they are
9 The only solution I see is permanent
10 relocation for everyone. If that means group
or individual, they should have that option,
12 and it should be presented to them as soon as
13 possible.
14 Thank you very much
15 MR. McCABE: Okay. Terry, I'd like to
respond to your comments in the order you gave
17 them.
18 First, you disagreed with the no action
19 alternative. Well, so do we. However, as
20 Lisa pointed out, by law we have to present
21 that as one of our alternatives so we have a
22 point of comparison. So we agree it's not a
23 oood alternative, and that's why it's not
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
e
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
28
being chosen.
You mentioned that group relocation is a
good idea but you want individual relocation
included in there, and that's exactly what
we've done. The third alternative is a
combination of group and individual
relocation, so I believe we're satisfying that
concern.
You have another concern about the record
of decision, that you feel that it's being
delayed too long. Well, the public comment
period does not close until December 8th. We
then have to finalize or prepare — I should
say prepare, a responsiveness summary. We're
giving ourselves a week for that, and we're
still hoping to finalize the ROD by December
15th.
That's a very optimistic schedule, and
I'm still pushing for it, and I certainly hope
it will happen; but there's no way that it can
be pushed up any sooner than that, because we
still have a public comment period open, which
is why we're here tonight, to receive input
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
from the public.
MR. FREIERMUTH: Are you going to
guarantee December 15th for the ROD? .
MR. McCABE: I'm not going to guarantee
anything.
MR. FREIERMDTH: You can't guarantee it
for the sole reason because, as in past times/
the EPA has failed to meet their deadlines,
completely failed.
MR. McCABE: I'll tell you why, but I
can't guarantee it, Terry. There's a few
things that can happen. Number one, anyone —
a potentially responsible party, one of the
citizens, could request an extension of the
public comment period. If they request an
extension, we automatically grant it. If we
automatically grant it, the public comment
period remains open for another month.
Therefore, we can't sign a ROD in the
intervening time. That would be one reason.
• Another reason would be if the
potentially responsible parties, any of them,
were to sv.^rr.it a significant amount of
jack •• Hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
30
. ^
documentation which required our review and
comment for the responsiveness summary, we
have to answer all comments. -Sometimes the
responsible parties on the last day submit
volumes of comments. I don't expect that to
happen in this case/ but it might.
If it does happen, we will answer them as
quickly as we can, and we will sign the record
of decision at that point in time. For those
two reasons, and probably a few others, I
can't guarantee it. The best I can tell you.
The third — the fourth item you
mentioned concerned the capacity assurance
plan. Well, by law we cannot —• we being EPA
— cannot sign a Superfund State contract
which is required for this action or for any
remedial action, because it provides a ten
percent State cost share for this work. We
cannot sign that Superfund State contract
until the State capacity assurance plan, which
is basically New York State's plan showing how
that — how over the next 20 years they're
going to handle their waste properly.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
31
1 Their plan has been submitted, it's under
2 review. We expect to have an answer by
3 January 17th, but by law we cannot sign one of
4 those contracts. I've talked to our regional
5 administrator. He will not sign the contract
6 and even forward it to the State.
7 What we have done in the meantime is send
8 - a draft contract to the State. They have
9 reviewed it, submitted comments to us. We've
10 made the changes, and we're about to, when we
11 get back, write the State a letter concerning
12 it saying, okay, look, we can't sign it, no
13 one is, it's illegal but it's — get it ready
14 for signature, ready being State, distribute,
15 get it ready with your three agencies.
16 The State has to sign it with the
17 Department of Environmental Conservation, the
18 Attorney General's office, and the State
19 Comptroller, all three have to sign it. We
20 will be ready to sign it the very day — we
21 being EPA — the very day that the capacity
22 assurance plan is approved, I can assure you
23 of that.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4-
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
32
MR. FREIERMUTH: Yes, *but the very day
that they sign that could be 1994. If you
people do not agree with the State's capacity
plan, this could drag on for years, which
means you have temporary relocation for your
•>
five to ten years, and everyone's life is in a
turmoil.
MR. McCABE: We certainly don't expect it
to take any lengthy amount of time. Again, I
can't give you any guarantees, although I know
New York has submitted a plan which is — they
originally were in a 14-state compact. They
dropped out of that compact because they
wanted to do it by themselves to show their
self-sufficiency; so we believe that it will
be approved, or approved with conditions such
that we'll be allowed to go ahead with our
work.
In the meantime I certainly do recommend
that everyone go with the temporary relocation
just for that purpose, to protect the public,
your public health; but I don't expect the
capacity assurance plan will take that long,
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
33
1 but I can't guarantee it, no.
2 MR. FREIERMOTH: No, you can't guarantee
3 how long the capacity assurance plan will be
4 bouncing back and forth. I know with a lot of
.5 hazardous waste companies or a lot of chemical
6 companies, just for permit issuance, some of
7 their permits take up to five or ten years
8 before they're even received.
9 MR. McCABE: They don't need a permit for
10 this plan. It's merely a plan that says how
11 they will go about doing this business.
12 MR. FREIERMUTH: Right. It's a plan, but
13 if the EPA does not like that plan, they could
14 ' kick that plan back to New York State and it
15 has to be rewrote which could take another
16 six — one month, six months, a year, two
17 years, which means that the people of Forest
18 Glen that do not want to leave, that want
19 their group relocation, are going to be
20 sitting in contamination for another summer
21 where the highest exposure rate is at; so that
22 means just because of a law, that these people
23 have to suffer ill health effects from the
jack w. hurt and associates, inc.
-------
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IP
20
21
22
23
chemicals.
MR. McCABE: You're presuming that that
will happen; and, as I said, since I can't
guarantee it, I'm not going to tell you it
can't happen. But I did say, and I will say
again, that I don't expect it to happen; and
my best information is that the plan will —
the plan will be — EPA will have completed
its review at the very latest by January 17.
I expect that it will be approved, but,
no, I am personally not reviewing it, so I
can't guarantee it, no.
MR. FREIERMUTH: Well, the reason I'm
stating this fact is because these people have
been told deadlines before, the deadlines have
not been kept, and they have hopes of having
their assessors out to do their homes and the
buy-out to come into effect for the location
coming this summer; and if We have a problem
with this capacity assurance plan, it's not
going to happen this year.
MR. McCABE: Given that the appraisals
have not yet begun and the process is expected
— jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
35
to take at least 60 days I'd say, I don't
expect that the enter — that the State
capacity assurance approval will be a limiting
factor.
MR. BARLEY: My name is Bob Barley. I
live at 45 Lisa lane.
I will — I have one question that I
would like to ask. In the event — once we
are out of there, do you people have any
intentions of redeveloping that Forest Glen
and submitting it up for bids for houses
again, or are you going to just set it off to
the side?
MR. McCABE: We have to do a study of
that area, which it's unknown at this time
exactly what that study will encompass since
we don't know the extent of contamination
under the ground.
The study — a typical study would take
in the neighborhood of 18 months to two
years. A design would then — we would then
sign a record of decision, just like we're
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
36
relocation. A design could then take,
depending upon what the solution was, another
18 months; and then you would get into the
remedial action which could take — again,
this is a guess — but another year to 18
months.
So you could be talking about -- you
probably are talking about a five-year
process. If that process — there are a
couple of directions the process could go.
The process could either result in complete
clean-up of the site, complete being as a for
instance incineration of all the contaminated
soil and replacement with clean soil such that
it would then be capable of being
redeveloped.
On the other hand, the other side of that
coin could be that the site would merely be
contained for any number of reasons, including
the feasibility of incinerating or of treating
permanently the soils, the cost of it,
whatever. There could be a lot of reasons for
:*•••
-------
.i-w.
^:
£
w
L4
. i -
L5
.16
IT
as
19
to
•21
23
37
be an open forum and everybody will be able to
comment on; but if it is contained then, no,
we would not be redeveloping the site. We
would not anticipate any kind of
redevelopment.
MR. BARLEY: I would hate to see another
example of Love Canal where the people ten
years from now are still going through a
procedure to try and — try and keep toxic
wastes placed from going back on the market
and redeveloped for people — for the State to
make money to get their money back off of what
happened, transpired in the past.
That's the reason I'm asking. I don't
like to see that happen again. Those people
are still in a turmoil; and it's what, ten
years or better since it happened. That
should not happen again.
MR. McCABE: He agree. I think we've
learned a lot of lessons from Love Canal, and
I would hope that it wouldn't be repeated.
MS. SLUSSER: Tricia Slusser, 56 Lisa
Lane.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
11,
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I don't know if you guys can answer
this. I think Bill Nelson's going to have to
answer this one. I want to know if you've
gotten any farther on the health effects of
the chemicals that are buried there. I know
you don't know a lot about them. I just want
to know if you've gotten any farther on them.
Where did you go, Bill?
MR. NELSON: Right here. As you know —
I'm Bill Nelson with ATSDR. No, the
Environmental Protection Agency did their last
round of sampling, and those particular
chemicals were the ones that we looked at that
we examined and, to the best of my knowledge,
no further sampling will occur until after all
the residents are out.
So as far as our health evaluation is
concerned, and in terms of the types of
chemicals and our .knowledge of the degree of
chemical contamination that's there, we have
not done anything more because we do not have
any more information about the chemicals.
Since I am indicating that, I would like
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
39
V
1 to call to your attention one thing; actually
2 two things. When I first stood up here and we
3 discussed — well, better yet, when I first
4 stood up here and we were talking about how
5 severe the issue was/ the issue of times came
6 up a lot; and I want to indicate that I didn't
7 think — if you would have bet me two months
8 f or three months or four months ago that Forest
9 . Glen would have been on the NPL list, I would
1.0 have bet against it.
11 And I do think that EPA and FEMA and
12 yourselves, as well as our health agency, did
13 really an outstanding job of getting this site
14 listed on the NPL. In fact, I think it's
15 probably the fastest any site has ever been
16 listed on the NPL in history.
17 At the same time, I want to recall your
18 attention to the issue of our health
19 advisory. We did very clearly state that this
20 was a significant and imminent and immediate
21 health threat, and that's why you are being
22 relocated. This is why you are being
23 temporarily relocated.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
40
It disturbs me quite a bit to stand up
here and listen to people voice complaints
about how long these things might continue
faking. I think you're getting an idea from
the people from FEMA, as well as from EPA,
that this is not going to be a short-term
process; and regardless of whether you are
actually going to be allowed group relocation
or not, your health is important„ And it's
your decision to stay at Forest Glen at this
particular point in time, and it's you,
yourselves, right at this particular point in
time, that are putting your health in more and
more danger the longer you stay there; and as
a health person, I think that it's necessary
that 1 mention that.
Thank you.
MS. SLDSSER: Thank you, Bill. Okay. I
have one more question to Bill McCabe. What's
happening with the companies that did the
dumping? Have you gotten any farther with
them, are you doing anything with them?
MR. McCABE: EPA is currently negotiating
jack w. hunt and as*•- -fates, inc.
-------
41
1 with some of the companies. The negotiations
2 are, of course, confidential; but those
3 negotiations are for the temporary
4 relocation. We have not yet opened full-seal®
5 negotiations with that whole laundry list of
6 companies that you see in the various reports
7 because we don't have enough information on
8 the various chemicals; and we will be getting
9 that information when we do the full study/
10 and at that time we would again go after those
11 companies. But we are negotiating, as I've
12 been informed by my enforcement counterparts,
13 that the negotiations are proceeding pretty
14 well concerning this group relocation option.
15 MS. SLUSSER: Thank you.
16 MS. RYCHEL: Tony Rychel, 4 Carrie Drive,
17 Forest Glen.
18 I got one question. I have something to
19 . tell you as well. I took a temporary
20 relocation. We've been gone two and a half
21 months. In that two and a half months my
22 son's headaches have stopped, his sick cough
23 that he had has stopped. His daily nosebleeds
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1.2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
R 22
23
that he's had since we lived there have
stopped. It's going to be a cold day in hell
before I move back to Forest Glen. When are
the appraisers going to be there?
MR. ROBINSON: As I said earlier, our
contractor expects to have bids in from the
group that she sent the information to.
Supposedly all of them have come by Forest
Glen to see what the job is so they could make
estimates. She expects to have them back, her
word to me Wednesday, was any day; so
hopefully she'll have them next week, and
hopefully she can make a selection as quick as
possible and have them on board for doing the
appraisals. As soon as she hires them, then
they can come to start appraisals at Forest
Glen.
Now, as I mentioned at the last meeting,
the first thing that they have to do in doing
appraisals is to put together what they call a
comparable book. It's a reference book that
they compile of comparable properties to the
ones in Forest Glen in the area; and once they
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
43
1
a
>'
i
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
L3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
have that, I think — well, that's the basis
on which they can start making appraisals.
They will contact each home owner before
coming to make the appraisal to give you an
opportunity to accompany them when they do
/
it.
I encourage you to do just that, to go
with them to — and that ensures or helps
ensure that they don't miss something when --
if they do it by themselves, you know, if
you're not there with them when they do it.
MS. RYCHEL: They can't get in my house
unless I'm there anyways. No one has the keys
but me.
MR. ROBINSON: So when they contact you,
I encourage you to accompany them on the
appraisal, particularly if they need —
they're not going into anybody's house without
them being there, number one, but I would
encourage you to accompany them when they do
it.
MS. JANICKI: My name is Oottie Janicki,
and I live at 19 T Mark Drive.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
I'm all for group relocation 100
percent. I am very secure with the
neighbors. I live alone with a daughter. My
mother-in-law lives a few doors away. She's
by herself. The security is there, and this
is what we want to continue with our whole
group.
MS. FREIERMUTH; My name's Kathy
Freiermuthr and I live at 12 Carrie Drive in
Forest Glen/ and the only comments I wanted to
make were on the estimates for the value of
the mobile homes. I'm sure that everyone will
agree that we felt they were much too low, and
since we are on the record I want to make that
comment.
Also, there was a part on page 31 on
table 5-4 where it mentions the acquiring of
land only at $3,200 per lot. I believe the
last lot in the development went for almost
$10,00, so I think that's very unrealistic.
The other comment I wanted to make was on
one of the options would be on possibly moving
the mobile homes to a new site, and that's
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
'
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
45
totally not feasible. Most of the mobile —
there are a few that could be moved with no
problem, they're newer mobile homes. Most of
the mobile homes in there are almost 20 years
old and have additions put on them; and my own
home/ in particular/ is just like a
three-bedroom ranch. There's no way you're
going to move it. Walls are gone and
everything else. I don't know how you're
going to do it, you know, if you thought you
would; but I just wanted to make those
comments since that was one of the options.
Thank you.
MR. McCABE: Yes. The estimates are
there just for that, for comparative
purposes. They apparently are — we've heard
from a number of folks — they apparently are
a little low. I think we're raising them in
the record of decision, but be assured that
those numbers really don't matter when it
comes to your appraisals. That's the — FEMA
will take care of that. They don't care what
our estimates say, and whatever they say is
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
I
•?
X»
•'X
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
•
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
46
what we're going to — is what we're going to
be funding.
As far as moving the mobile homes, that
is an option we're offering, not requiring.
If you're not interested, that's — that's
fine.
MR. FREIERMUTH: Terry Freiermuth. Mr.
McCabe, on the movement of existing mobile
homes, that option should have never been put
in there in the first place because there was
contamination found in the homes; whether it
be minute or not, it was found in the homes.
As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't want
to take my home with me. As far as trailer
parks are concerned that I have talked to,
they don't want our homes at all. That option
should have never even been put in there.
It's not even feasible; wasn't even worth the
paper to write it on.
Your acquisition of real property, the
values, I hope none of these people come in
and take your first offer because reasonably I
know what it will be, if it's anything out of
jack w. hunt and assr. ;ates, inc.
-------
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
this — this focused feasibility study you
have here. I hope the people stick together
and get what they want. They deserve it after
living on what they've lived on.
Like I said before, the only thing I see
that we're going to have a very serious
problem with is the State's capacity assurance
plan, and I hope that won't hinder the moving
of these people, because they deserve to be
moved as fast as possible into their group
relocation i£ that's what they want or into
permanent dwellings, be it single or group.
MR. McCABE: We left in the option of
moving your own mobile home because enough
people expressed interest in keeping just what
they had, and we also had some input from our
headquarters office that said you should
«
include that as an option. It's merely an
option. We're not — we're not trying to
force it upon anyone, and we think that there
may be one or two who are interested; and if
that's the case, then it's worthwhile having
in there. If not, it was just an option that
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
was rejected.
As far as the estimates, again, I say, if
they're low, that won't affect the price that
the appraisers come up with. That's a
completely separate process from these
estimates. These are here for comparison
sake.
MS. SLOSSER: Tricia Slusser, 56 Lisa
Lane .
I have here on page 32 that all of these
— what do you call them — these costs here,
they include the cost of acquiring both land
and home. Now, does that mean that you're
going to do the land and the home as one — as
a whole, or are they going to be done
separately, that the appraisers do?
MR. ROBINSON: We will be appraising
whatever the home owner owns. If they own
just a mobile home, and that's all we're going
to buy, then that's what we're going to
appraise.
MS. SLUSSER: Yes, I know that.
MR.* ROBINSON: If you own the land and
4
jack w. hunt and associates/ inc.
-------
49
1 the mobile home —
2 MS. SLDSSER: If I own the lot and home,
3 are they appraised separately?
4 MR. ROBINSON: They should be appraised
5 together as one unit.
6 MS. SLUSSER: As one unit. I don't like
7 it, but okay.
8 MR. FREIERMUTH: Mr. McCabe, can we get a
9 copy of these proceedings for everyone in this
10 room?
11 MR. McCABE: The transcript?
12 MR. FREIERMUTH: Transcript or whatever.
13 MR. McCABE: Sure.
14 MR. FREIERMUTH: It should be public
15 information.
16 MR. McCABE: .Oh, it is, it's public
17 information.
18 MR. FREIERMUTH: Every one of the
19 residents should have it or everyone that
20 signed in should receive a copy of it.
21 MR. McCABE: Sure, no problem.
22 MS. SLUSSER: No problem, right?
23 MR. SCHUECKLER: My name's Chris
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1L
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
50
V
Schueckler, 31 Lisa Lane.
I'd just like to add to the thing on the
appraisal part. Back in early '76 when I
moved in, my corner lot cost me $5,300. The
lot behind me that I purchased about three
years later was $4,600. Now Mr. Sottile, the
developer, sold the last few lots in there for
ten grand. My two lots are for sale for ten
grand apiece and not any cheaper than that,
and I just want to put that on record that I
do not intend to get anything less for what I
have, just land-wise, than the developer did,
whether it comes to light that there are
chemicals underneath it or not. That's
irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, because I
did not put these chemicals there. Mr.
Sottile got $10,000 per lot. I would intend
to get $10,000 just for each lot that I have.
Thank you.
MR. BARNETT: My name's Clarence
Barnett. I live at 24 T Mark Drive.
Mr. Sottile owns the lot right next to
me. Previous to the time that this thing
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
51
<.
1 started, the lot with a trailer was for sale.
2 I called Mr. Sottile, asked him how much — if
3 he wanted to sell the lot, first of all; and
4 he said, no, he hadn't even thought about it.
5 I said, well, how much would you ask for it if
6 you were going to sell it. He told me $15,000
7 is what he wanted for that lot; and I think
8 every lot in there is worth that.
9 And another thing I want to say now that
10 I'm up here — took a little courage to get me
11 up here since I don't speak too well in
12 public. I get mad at times. Here you guys
13 are setting here telling us all this stuff
14 about how much money you're spending, not
15 doing anything except spending the money, some
16 $20 million, when it's about six million to
17 relocate the whole damn trailer on another
18 piece of ground, haul sand and all.
19 But I'll tell you one thing, I'm all for
20 this permanent relocation in a group; and I'll
21 tell you right here and now, I'm standing
22 here, I told you at the outset of this thing,
23 I will not move from Forest Glen unless I got
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
52
exactly what I wanted, and the thing still
stands. I mean what I say, I will not move.
If it takes violence to keep me there, then
that will be bound because I'll be there; but
you're going to have to come up with some
money. Get me in another house if you want me
out of there. If you don't want me out of
there, set back and do nothing like you're
doing.
MR. McCABE: Are there any other
comments? If not, then we'd like to thank you
very much for your.input. Everything will be
considered, and I think we've — this is just
a conclusion for now for the record of
decision of a fairly extensive comment
period. I don't think we've had any major
changes tonight; but, again, thank you very
much.
(Hearing concluded at 8:45 p.m.)
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
-------
L
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
STATE OF NEW YORK)
ss:
0
COUNTY OF ERIE )
I DO HEREBY CERTIFY as a Notary Public in
and for the State of New York, that I did
attend and reported the foregoing hearing,
which was taken down by me in a Verbatim
manner by means of Machine Shorthand.
Further, that the hearing was then reduced to
writing in my presence and under my
direction. That the hearing was taken to be
used in the foregoing entitled action.
JOAATM. MET2GER, C.S.R.,
Notary Public.
jack w. hunt and associates, inc.
------- |