United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/137
March 1991
•r/EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Endicott Village Well
Field, NY
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-91/137
3. Recipient" a Accmaion No.
4. Tltto and Subtitle
j^SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
j^fcndicott Village Well Field, NY
f^^Second Remedial Action
7 Aiit
5. Report D«te
03/29/91
7. Author(i)
A. Performing Organization Rept No.
». Performing Organization Name and Addreaa
10. ProjecVTaak/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
to
12. Sponaorlng Organization Kama and Addreaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report ft Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notea
18. Abalract (Umil: 200 worda)
The Endicott Village Well Field site-consists of a municipal well, the Ranney Well, and
its zone of influence, and is located in Endicott, Broome County, New York. Ground
water pumped from the well serves as the primary drinking water source for the area.
Land use in the area of concern includes a golf course, a sewage treatment plant, an
airport, a few industrial tracts, two inactive landfills, and the Endicott Landfill.
The Endicott Landfill accepted municipal and industrial waste from the late 1950s until
1975, and has been used to compost sludge from the onsite sewage treatment plant since
1982. In 1981, EPA detected VOC contamination in the Ranney Well, which was confirmed
by subsequent State and local investigations from 1984 to 1987. Consequently in 1983,
local authorities installed a diffused aeration air stripping unit on the Ranney Well,
and in 1984 a purge well was installed to intercept VOCs before impacting the Ranney
Well. A 1987 Record of Decision (ROD) provided for installation of a packed column air
stripper to treat water from the Ranney Well. In 1988, EPA identified the landfilled
materials in the-Endicott Landfill as the probable source of ground water
contamination, and determined that the purge well did not adequately prevent the
movement of contaminated ground water to the Ranney Well. This ROD addresses
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyala a. Oeacriptora
Record of Decision - Endicott Village Well Field,
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE)
b. Identiflera/Open-Ended Term*
NY
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
18. Security Claaa (Thia Report)
None
20. Security Claaa (Thia Page)
None
21. No. of Pagea
72
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/137
Endicott Village Well Field, NY
Second Remedial Action
tract (Continued)
management of migration of the contaminant plume as an interim remedy. Final
restoration of the aquifer and remediation of source material will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including benzene, PCE, and TCE.
The selected remedial action for this site includes upgrading the existing purge well
system by installing an additional purge well between the landfill and the Ranney Well;
pumping ground water from the purge well and discharging the water onsite to the sewage
treatment plant, or treating the water prior to discharge, based on the results of purge
well testing; and monitoring purge well water. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action, assuming that no treatment will be required is $376,000, which
includes an estimated annual O&M cost of $24,000 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Mot provided.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location:
HRS Score:
NPL Rank:
ROD
Date signed:
Remedy:
Endicott Wellfield
Broome County, Endicott, N.Y.
35.57
666
March 29, 1991
This alternative consists of upgrading the
existing Purge Well system with the installation
of an additional Purge Well, to be installed west
of Nanticoke Creek essentially between the
suspected source of the VOCs to the aquifer
(Endicott Landfill) and the receptor (the Ranney
Well) .
Capital Cost:
O&M/Year:
Present Worth Cost;
LEAD
Responsible party
Primary contact:
Main PRP:
PRP contact:
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. Quantity:
$150,000
$24,000
$376,000
IBM, Village of Endicott, and Town of Union
Sherrel D. Henry, (212) 264-8675
IBM
Dennis Whittaker, (607) 755-6269
still investigating the source of
contamination
ground water
possible dumping
not known
-------
DECLARATION FOR RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NA.ME AND LOCATION
Endicort Wellfield Superfund Site
Village of Endicort
Broome County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial action for the Endicott
Village Wellfield Site, 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 the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan (NCP). This decision document summarizes the factual and legal basis for
selecting the remedy for this Site.
The New 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 interim remedial action decision is contained in the
administrative record for this site.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site may present an
imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the environment. The
interim remedial action selected in this Record of Decision ("ROD") will help to abate
that threat. A source control remedial action, which will further abate that threat,
will be selected in a subsequent ROD.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy will include the following activities:
• Upgrading the existing Purge Well system, located on the En-joie Golf Course,
with the installation of an additional Purge Well, to be installed west of
Nanticoke Creek between the suspected source of the VOCs to the aquifer
(Endicort Landfill) and the receptor (the Ranney Well);
• The location of the additional Purge Well will be chosen to intercept the plume
near its suspected source and to expedite remediation of the aquifer;
-------
• The proposed well is estimated to be 110 feet deep and will be screened across
the majority of the aquifer between the depths of approximately 50 and 110
feet;
• The design will be based upon a pilot hole drilled at the proposed location
during the Phase II supplemental RI;
• Implementation of a Supplemental Purge Well monitoring program to monitor
the effects of the additional Purge Well on contaminant migration in the
aquifer, of concern and to evaluate the effectiveness of the interim action. The
program will include provisions for taking chemical analysis and ground water
elevations of the Purge Well and surrounding monitoring wells;
• Continued operation and maintenance of the existing Purge Well located on the
En-joie Golf Course and;
• Following installation of the Supplemental Purge Well, a detailed aquifer pump
test will be conducted using the Purge Well as the pumping well. It is
envisioned that the discharge from the test can be routed through the Sewage
Treatment Plant. Based upon the analysis of the Supplemental Purge Well
water, the treatment requirements for the Purge Well discharge will be
determined.
DECLARATION
This selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies
with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable, given the limited scope of this action. However, because this action does
not constitute the final remedy for the Site, the statutory preference for remedies that
employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element will
not be satisfied by this interim action. The on-going second operable unit Rl/FS study
will address fully the principal threats posed by this Site.
^
Constantine STdamon-Eristoff/ Date
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION i
II.. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACnVITIES 1
A. Sire History
B. Previous Srudies
C. Previous Remedial Measures
D. Enforcement
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
A. Hydrogeology
B. Chemical Characteristics
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6
VII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 7
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 8
IX. SELECTED REMEDY 12
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 13
XI. EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 14
-------
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX 1- FIGURES 15
FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2. LOCATIONS OF GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS (PLATE 2-2,
PJ/FS INTERIM REPORT)
FIGURE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF CHLORO-ALKENE PLUMES (PLATE 4-3, RI/FS
INTERIM REPORT)
FIGURE 4. DISTRIBUTION OF CHLORO-ALKANE PLUMES (PLATE 4-4, RI/FS
INTERIM REPORT)
APPENDIX 2- TABLES 16
TABLE 1. MONITORING WELL DRILLING SUMMARY
TABLE 2. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN GROUND WATER
APPENDIX 3. NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE 17
APPENDK 4. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY 18
PART I. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
PART II. COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSES TO ALL SIGNIFICANT
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
ENDICOTT WELLFIELD SUPERFUND SITE
ENDICOTT, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
I. SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
The Endicott Well Field Site (the "Site") is located in the Village of Endicott, Broome
County, New York. The Site consists of the Ranney Well, which is a municipal
drinking water well, and its zone of influence on area ground water. The boundaries
of this zone have been generally delineated by main street to the north, the eastern
boundary of the En-joie Golf Course to the east, the Susquehanna River to the south
and the Tri-Cities Airport and Airport Road to the west. The southerly flowing
Nanticoke Creek generally bisects the area.
The project study area is comprised primarily of open land associated with the En-joie
Golf Course and the facilities of the Village of Endicon Sewage Treatment Plant
("STP") and the Endicon Landfill ("LF #1"). There are two inactive landfills ("LF #2"
and "LF #3") and a few industrial tracts in the northern portion of the study area
(Figure 1). Privates homes are not located within the study area.
'n. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACnVTITES
A. Site History
Most of the Site is on land owned by the Village of Endicott (En-joie Golf Course, the
Endicott Landfill, Sewage Treatment Plant, and the Tri-Cities Airport). Two other
inactive landfills exist just north and east of LF #1 along Nanticoke Creek. LF #2 is
to the west of Nanticoke Creek and is privately owned and is zoned heavy industrial.
The landfill to the east of Nanticoke Creek (LF #3), is reportedly a privately owned
industrial fill area and is also zoned heavy industrial.
The Village of Endicott operated LF #1 from the late 1950's until 1975 with
concurrent operation by The Town of Union during a portion of that period. During
that time, the landfill accepted primarily municipal refuse, though industrial wastes
were also disposed of there. In 1982, LF #1 was reopened for the disposal of
composted sludge from the STP. The volume of sludge and wastes disposed of at the
Endicott Landfill is not known.
The Ranney Well is generally pumped at 3,700 gallon per minute ("gpm") and
provides approximately 47 percent of the total water supply to the Village of Endicott
Municipal system. The Municipal system serves an estimated 45,000 people in the
area. The Ranney Well operated without major problems until May 1981, when the
United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") detected vinyl chloride and
trace amounts of other volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") in the well's discharge.
Subsequent sampling by the New York State Department of Health confirmed the
initial results.
-------
-2-
B. Previous Studies
Following the discovery of the VOCs in the Ranney Well, investigations were
conducted separately by the Village of Endicort and the NYSDEC. These
investigations; Kudges, (1983); Adams and Grant (1984); and Grant (1984, 1985);
evaluated the hydrogeologic setting and VOC distribution and identified preliminary
remedial measures.
Between March, 1986 and July, 1987, pursuant to a cooperative agreement with EPA,
NYSDEC conducted a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") at the
Site. The purpose of this srudy was to investigated the nature and extent of
contamination of the Ranney Well and the remedial action that should be taken to
further diminish the concentration of VOCs in the Ranney Well discharge. On
September 25, 1987, the EPA issued a ROD which selected air stripping at the Ranney
Well and the continued use of the existing Purge Well system, which is described
below.
However, the RI/FS study concluded that the information obtained to date was
inadequate to confirm the source or sources of the VOCs in the ground water reaching
the Ranney Well. Therefore, the ROD stipulated that a supplemental RI/FS be initiated
to further investigate the nature and extent of contamination in suspected source areas
and to evaluate possible source control measures.
C. Previous Remedial Measures
In March, 1983, the Village installed diffused aeration equipment in the Ranney Well
to air strip volatile organic compounds. In July 1984, a Purge Well was installed to
capture the contaminant plume before it impacted the Ranney Well. The Purge Well
currently pumps an estimated 600 gpm.
Presently, the remedial alternative (as selected in the 1987 ROD) of a packed column
air stripper to treat the raw water from the Ranney Well is in the construction phase
and is scheduled for start-up in Spring, 1991.
D. Enforcement
EPA identified four potentially Responsible Parties ("PRPs") as generators, owners,
and/or operators. Notice letters informing the PRPs of their potential liabilities were
mailed on February 1, 1988 to the Village of Endicott (the "Village"), Endicott
Johnson Corporation, and International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"), for
implementation of the September 15, 1987 ROD for the construction of the air
-------
-3-
stripper. Subsequently, notice letters were mailed to the same three PRPs on February
23, 1988, also for implementation of the 1987 ROD for conducting the Supplemental
RI/FS. EPA provided similar notice to the Town of Union ("the Town") on Marcn 24,
1988.
Several negotiation meetings were held to discuss technical and legal issues of a
Consent Decree for the construction of the stripper and an Administrative Order on
Consent ("AO") for the conduct of the supplemental RI/FS.
A settlement was reached which included a Consent Decree, Civil Action No. 88-
1067, for construction of the air stripper at the Ranney Well, between EPA, the Town,
and the Village was entered in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York on January 10, 1989. In addition, EPA issued an AO, Index No. II CERCLA-
89214, for performance of the supplemental RI/FS, to IBM, the Village of Endicott,
and the Town of Union on September 19, 1988. Endicott Johnson declined to
participate in the settlements.
Lozier/Ground Water Associates performed the supplemental RI/FS on behalf of IBM.
Field work'for Phase I of the RI/FS was initiated in October, 1989. The Interim PJ
Report for the Phase I study was approved by EPA in November, 1990. A second
phase to further delineate ground water contaminant plumes is ongoing and is
expected to be completed by the summer of 1991.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The PJ, Technical Memorandum and the Proposed Plan were released to the public in
February, 1991. These documents were made available at two information
repositories maintained at the Endicott Village Clerk's Office and the EPA Region II
Office in New York City. The notice of availability for these documents was published
in the Endicott Valley News on February 22 and on March 1, 1991. A public
comment period was held from February 22, 1991 through March 23, 1991. In
addition, a public meeting was held on March 6, 1991 to present the preferred
alternative as presented in the Proposed Plan for the Site. At this meeting,
representatives from EPA presented the Proposed Plan regarding the interim remedy.
Afterwards, EPA answered questions and responded to comments concerning such plan
and other details related to the various reports. Responses to the comments and
questions received during the public comment period are included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is included in this ROD as Appendix 4.
-------
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF INTERIM REMEDY
The RI/FS for the first operable unit determined the remedial action for the Ranney
Well. Therefore, any potential threat posed by contamination will be addressed by the
remedial action (as selected in the 1987 ROD) of a packed column air stripper to treat
the raw water from the Ranney Well discharge.
This ROD results from data collected during Phase I of the supplemental RI/FS
conducted subsequent to the first operable unit ROD. This operable unit is an interim
remedial action to expedite cleanup of the ground water aquifer and to restrict
migration of the ground water contaminant plume emanating from the Endicott
Landfill. EPA will implement an interim remedial action to increase the efficiency of
the existing Purge Well system and to aid in aquifer cleanup by reduction of the
contaminant plume. Based upon available data, the majority of the contaminated
ground water is being intercepted by the existing Purge Well located east of Nanticoke
Creek. However, it appears that the existing Purge Well is not fully effective in
capturing the VOC contaminated ground water plume emanating from the Endicott
Landfill and that migration of the plume is more controlled by the Ranney Well
influence.
Additionally, low levels of VOCs were detected down gradient of the Purge Well.
Therefore, it is also possible that VOCs may potentially be migrating around, and
under the catchment area of the existing Purge Well system under the pumping
influences of the Ranney Well. The existing Purge Well system appears to be
inadequate in fully controlling the migration of VOCs from the Endicott Landfill.
EPA's decision to address the ground water contamination problem as an interim
remedial action will serve to further reduce migration of contaminated ground water
and the potential threat to the Ranney Well. This remedy does not constitute a final
action for the ground water. To the extent possible, this interim remedial action will
be consistent with any planned future actions.
The overall supplemental RI which is ongoing will address source control and aquifer
restoration. EPA expects to select a remedy for the source control/aquifer restoration
next year.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Hvdrogeologv
In order to further evaluate the hydrogeology at the Site, 26 monitoring wells were
installed during the Phase I RI. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown in
-------
-5-
Figure 2. Data on each of the monitoring wells is summarized in Table 1.
The geologic setting of the Site is relatively complex. The Site is located in the
Susquehanna River Valley that has been filled with glacial and alluvial sediments up
to 200 feet thick. The glacial sediments consist of fine-grained sediments, coarse-
grained sediments, coarse-grained outwash and ice contact deposits, overlying a dense
heterogenous till.
The ice contact deposits and the ourwash deposits collectively make up the main
aquifer system in the project study area. This is the aquifer from which the Ranney
Well obtains its water. Ground water flow within the main aquifer has been
drastically changed by the pumping influence of the Ranney and the existing Purge
Wells. Under non-pumping conditions, ground water flow in the aquifer is from
northeast to southwest, in the direction of flow in the Susquehanna River. However,
the Ranney Well and the existing Purge Well combined pumping influence of 4,300
gpm, have locally reversed ground water flow. Ground water in the vicinity of these
"wells now flows generally from the northwest to the southeast.
B. Chemical Characteristics
The full extent of contamination at the Site is being evaluated in the Phase II of the
on-going Rl/FS. Three rounds of ground water sampling were collected from
monitoring wells installed during Phase I of the RI and from selected monitoring wells
installed during previous investigations. In addition, the existing Purge and Ranney
Wells were also sampled. The analytical results for VOCs detected are summarized in
Table 2.
Ground Water Samples collected at various locations indicated contamination by
various VOCs. It is also evident from the data that the chloro-alkene VOCs;
tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), 1,2- dichloroethene (DCE) (total), 1,1-
DCE, and vinyl chloride and the chloro-alkane VOCs; 1,1,1,-trichloroethane (TCA),
1,2-dichloroethane (DCA), 1,1-DCA, and chloroethane are the primary contaminants in
ground water.
The distribution of the chloro-alkene VOCs in ground water is shown in Figure 3 by
the lightly shaded contours. As shown, two chloro-alkene plumes were detected,
consisting primarily of vinyl chloride and 1,2-DCE. One plume is in the glacial aquifer
near the STP extending to the Purge Well; the other is in the alluvial deposit near
MW-5.
The largest chloro-alkene plume was observed in the outwash and ice contact deposits
and appears to have its core near the northern comer of LF #1 near monitoring well
EW-15. The highest chloro-alkene concentration encountered in this plume was at
-------
-6-
356 ppb (vinyl chloride, 86 ppb and 1,2-DCE, 270 ppb) in monitoring well EW-15.
Under the pumping influences of the Ranney and Purge Wells, the plume has migrated
in the aquifer, eastward toward the Purge Well. The existing Purge Well appears to
be capturing a major portion of this plume with the highest concentration encountered
of 73 ppb. Given the number of weUs monitoring this plume, its horizontal extent is
well-defined. Some questions still exist as to its vertical extent and whether
underflow under the existing Purge Well exists. Evidence of this underflow is seen in
the contamination in deep monitoring wells MW-2 (160 feet) installed during this
investigation and reported in monitoring well EW-2d.
Another chloro-alkene plume is seen near monitoring well MW-5 in the shallow
alluvial deposits. TCE '(600 ppb) and 1,2-DCE (320 ppb) are the primary constituents
of this plume. The limited number of wells monitoring this plume prevented full
definition of its extent.
As seen in Figure 4 by the lightly shaded contours, the chloro-alkanes (primarily
chloroethane) appears to be wide-spread across LF #1. A definite plume in the
glacial aquifer is apparent near the STP extending to the Purge Well. The highest
concentrations within this plume were detected in monitoring wells EW-6 (187 ppb)
and EW-8 (102 ppb). The existing Purge Well detected 54 ppb. As with the chloro-
alkene plume, the chloro-alkane plume in the glacial aquifer appears to be well-
defined. Again, underflow under the Purge Well may be occurring based on vinyl
chloride concentrations at levels above the Maximum Contaminant Levels ("MCLs")
established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, at 66 ppb in ground water monitoring
well MW-2, located downgradient of the existing Purge Well. All data gaps will be
further evaluated during Phase II of the supplemental RI.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
An analysis of the results of the Phase I RI report was conducted by EPA to determine
health impacts which could potentially result from the contamination detected at the
Endicott Well Field Site.
The data revealed that numerous VOCs were detected in ground water samples above
MCLs, EPA Health Advisories, and other criteria. Some of these chemicals are
suspected carcinogens (cancer causing) in humans or are known carcinogens in
animals ( 1,2- dichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene). Other chemicals
detected in the samples are known human carcinogens (vinyl chloride and benzene).
All of these compounds are hazardous substances within the meaning of CERCLA.
A quantitative Risk Assessment ("RA") was not performed for this interim remedial
action. However, one was performed for the first operable unit for the Site. Results
-------
-7-
of that RA determined that ingestion of contaminated Ranney Well water posed the
greatest human health risk at the Site. The Ranney Well draws water primarily from
the Susquehanna River, with the balance derived from area ground water. The start-
up of the air-stripper that is being constructed pursuant to the first operable unit ROD
will significantly reduce the risk. However, the results of the Phase I RI indicated that
the existing remedial measures may not be effective in curtailing the source of the
contamination to the Ranney Well. A detailed RA will be performed as part of the
supplemental investigation for the Site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site may present an
imminent and substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the environment. The
interim remedial action selected in this ROD will help to abate that threat. A source
control remedial action, which will further abate that threat, will be selected in a
•subsequent ROD.
VTI. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The objective of the present remedy is to enhance ground water cleanup while an
additional investigation to curtail the source(s) of ground water contamination and to
evaluate aquifer restoration is undertaken. While the purpose of this interim remedy
is to work toward the goal of restoration, it does not constitute a final action for the
Site.
ALTERNATIVE 1: No Action
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA), as amended by SARA, requires that the "no-action" alternative be
considered at every site to establish a baseline against which other alternatives may be
compared. Under this alternative, the Site would remain in its present condition with
continued operation of the existing systems (i.e. Purge Well and aeration system and
the air stripper) and associated monitoring. No remediation measures would be
implemented at this time.
Capital cost: $0
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $22,000
Estimated Present
Worth: $207,000
Time to Implement: Immediate
-------
-8-
ALTERNATIVE 2: Supplemental Purge Well
This alternative consists of upgrading the existing Purge Well system with the
installation of an additional Purge Well, to be installed west of Nanticoke Creek
essentially between the suspected source of the VOCs to the aquifer (Endicort Landfill)
and the receptor (the Ranney Well). The proposed location of the Purge Well is
chosen to intercept the plume near its suspected source and to begin remediation of
the aquifer.
The proposed well is estimated to be 110 feet deep and would be screened across the
majority of the aquifer between the depths of approximately 50 and 110 feet. This
design would intercept the majority of the flow within the contaminated portion of
the aquifer, and prevent contaminated ground water from continuing to move under
the Purge Well system, as may be happening with the existing Purge Well. However,
the actual design will be based upon a pilot hole drilled at the proposed location
during the Phase II PJ. Operation and Maintenance cost for this alternative only
applies to the additional Purge Well. The estimated present worth cost assumes that
no treatment of the water will be required.
Capital cost: $150,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $24,000
Estimated Present
Worth: $376,000
Time to Implement: 24 months (This includes the Design phase)
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each alternative is required. In
order to determine the most appropriate alternative that is protective of human health
and the environment, attains ARARs, is cost-effective, and utilizes permanent solutions
and treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable, the two alternatives
were evaluated against each other. The nine evaluation criteria against which the
alternatives are evaluated are as follows:
Threshold Criteria - The first two criteria must be satisfied in order for an alternative
to be eligible for selection.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
addresses whether a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how
risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled'
-------
-9-
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) is used to determine whether each alternative will meet all of its
Federal and State ARARs. When an ARAR is not met, the detailed analysis
should discuss whether one of six statutory waivers is appropriate.
Primary Balancing Criteria - The next five "primary balancing criteria" are to be used
to weigh major trade-offs among the different hazardous waste management strategies.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence focuses on any residual risk remaining
at the Site after the completion of the remedial action. This analysis includes
consideration of the degree of threat posed by the hazardous substances
remaining at the Site and the adequacy of any controls (for example,
engineering and institutional) used to manage the hazardous substances
remaining at the Site.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment is the
anticipated performance of the treatment technologies a particular remedy may
employ.
5. Short-term Effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve
protection and any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that
may be posed during the construction and implementation period until cleanup
goals are achieved.
6. Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of
implementing an alternative and the availability of various services and
materials required during its implementation.
7. Cost includes estimated capital, and operation and maintenance costs, both
translated to a present-worth basis. The detailed analysis evaluates and
compares the cost of the respective alternatives, but draws no conclusions as to
the cost-effectiveness of the alternatives. Cost-effectiveness is determined in the
remedy selection phase, when cost is considered along with the other balancing
criteria.
Modifying Criteria - The final two criteria are regarded as "modifying criteria," and are
to be taken into account after the above criteria have been evaluated. They are
generally to be focused upon after public comment is received.
8. State Acceptance indicates whether based upon its review of the RI/FS and the
Proposed Plan, the State concurs with the selected remedy.
-------
-10-
9. Community Acceptance refers to the community's comments on the remedial
alternatives under consideration, along with the Proposed Plan. Comments
received during the public comment period, and EPA's responses to those
comments, are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary which is a pan of
this ROD.
The following is a summary of the comparison of the two alternative's strengths and
weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The no-action alternative would not ensure that the Ranney Well will not be impacted
by VOCs emanating from the Endicort Landfill. However, the operation of the air-
stripper is designed to remove VOCs to below MCLs.
Implementation of the interim remedy should serve to expedite remediation of the
aquifer by increasing the volume of contaminants removed from the ground water. In
addition, upgrading the existing Purge Well system would be beneficial in maintaining
the protection of public health and the environment. Although the existing Purge
Well appears to be capturing a majority of the VOCs emanating from the Landfill,
results from the Phase I RI indicates that the potential exists for VOCs to migrate
under, and around the Purge Well to the Ranney Well. The additional Purge Well
will be located and designed to be more effective in intercepting and removing the
contaminant plume closer to its suspected source. This should reduce the potential, for
VOCs to migrate to the Ranney Well, thus further protecting public health and the
environment. This interim system may be incorporated into the design of the source
control remedy for the Site.
2. Compliance With ARARs
CERCLA provides that if an interim measure is conducted, certain ARARs may be
waived for the duration of the interim action, since these requirements will be
achieved upon completion of the permanent remedy. Because both alternatives
constitute interim actions, final cleanup standards for contaminants in ground water
do not have to be set or achieved during this action; the final remedy for the Site will
address source control and ground water restoration as well as potential impacts to
wetland areas, cultural resources, or endangered species.
However, other ARARs related to implementation of the interim action would have to
be achieved. At this time it is assumed that the water from the additional Purge Well
can be routed through the STP.
-------
-11-
3. Long-term Effectiveness
Uncertainties still exist in the no-action alternative's effectiveness to remediate the
aquifer. Upgrading the Purge Well system with the installation of an additional Purge
Well will be effective in controlling plume migration as long as it is operational.
4. Reduction of Toxiciry, Mobility, or Volume
The no-action alternative will not further reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
the contaminated ground water. Installation of an additional Purge Well will initiate
reduction in the volume of ground water contaminated by VOCs through its removal
from the aquifer and subsequent treatment. In addition, the Purge Well will also
reduce the mobility of the contaminants by capturing contaminated ground water
within its cone of influence.
.Data to support the extent to which the mobility, and volume are reduced will be
further evaluated following installation and testing of the additional Purge Well.
5. Short-term Effectiveness
Short-term risks associated with implementation are not expected to be a problem for
either alternative. Both alternatives will result in contaminated material being
brought to the surface. However, no appreciable risks to residents are expected, since
there is a large amount of open, publicly-owned land available, and there are no
residences in the immediate area. Additionally, workers will use conventional
personnel protective gear.
6. Implementability
Installation of the additional Purge Well can be achieved using standard and readily
available technology. The technology to monitor the performance and adequacy of
the additional Purge Well is reb'able and proven for the types of chemicals found at
the Site. Subsequent testing of the additional Purge Well would provide the data
necessary to evaluate the technical feasibility of the Purge Well system as a control for
the migration of the contaminant plume.
7. Cost
The costs for the two alternatives are listed on the previous pages. Comparison of the
present worth costs for the two alternatives indicates that the no-action alternative is
the least costly at $207,000. Capital cost is the present worth value for implementing
-------
-12-
the remedial action. Annual operation and maintenance ("O&M") costs are used to
quantify the yearly expense of O&M. The 30 year annual cost is then calculated and
expressed in current value terms.
The capital cost for the additional Purge Well include the drilling and installation of
the Purge Well and pump, well pit, electric installation, meter and controls, and a
discharge line to Nanticoke Creek. The estimated capital costs for these items is
$150,000.
The O&M of the alternative include energy cost for the pump, two sample analyses
per month, and well maintenance. These costs are estimated to be 524,000. The net
present worth of the additional Purge Well is estimated to be 5376,000. This assumes
no treatment of the discharge water will be required.
8. State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the selected interim remedy.
9. Community Acceptance
All comments submitted during the public comment period were evaluated and are
addressed in the attached Responsiveness Summary.
DC THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the results of the Phase I RI Report and the Technical Memorandum for
implementation of the Interim Remedial Measures, EPA has selected Alternative 2,
Supplemental Purge Well, as the Interim Remedy at the Endicott Well Field site. The
cost of this remedy is estimated to be 5376,000.
The selected remedy will include the following activities:
• Upgrading the existing Purge Well system, located on the En-joie Golf Course,
with the installation of an additional Purge Well, to be installed west of
Nanticoke Creek between the suspected source of the VOCs to the aquifer
(Endicort Landfill) and the receptor (the Ranney Well);
• The location of the additional Purge Well will be chosen to intercept the plume
near its suspected source and to expedite remediation of the aquifer;
-------
-13-
• The proposed well is estimated to be 110 feet deep and will be screened across
the majority of the aquifer between the depths of approximately 50 and 110
feet;
• The design will be based upon a pilot hole drilled at the proposed location
during the Phase II supplemental RI;
• Implementation of a Supplemental Purge Well monitoring program to monitor
the effects of the additional Purge Well on contaminant migration in the
aquifer, of concern and to evaluate the effectiveness of the interim action. The
program will include provisions for taking chemical analysis and ground water
elevations of the Purge Well and surrounding monitoring wells;
• Following installation of the Supplemental Purge Well, a detailed aquifer pump
test will be conducted using the Purge Well as the pumping well. It is
envisioned that the discharge from the test can be routed through the Sewage
Treatment Plant. Based upon the analysis of the Supplemental Purge Well
water, the treatment requirements for the Purge Well discharge will be
determined.
This interim remedy is not intended to replace the existing Remedial Measures, but is
designed to increase their ability to protect public health and the environment. The
goal of this action is to further reduce migration of contaminated ground water and to
collect data on aquifer and contaminant response to remediation measures. The
ultimate goal of remediation will be determined in a final remedial action for the Site.
Upon completion of the Phase II RI/FS, this interim remedy may be incorporated into
the design of the source control remedy for the Site.
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected interim remedy is protective of human health and the environment. The
interim remedy, installation of a Supplemental Purge Well with monitoring and
maintenance, will reduce the potential for VOCs to migrate to the Ranney Well. The
use of a Purge Well system in the short-term is a proven method of reducing the
concentrations of volatile organic compounds.
-------
•14-
2. Artainment of ARARs
Given the limited scope of this interim action, the selected interim remedy will attain
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements directly related to implementation
of this action.
The selected interim remedy will not effectively restore the ground water to its
beneficial uses. The restoration of ground water will be addressed when EPA issues
the final ROD for this Sire.
3. Cost Effectiveness
While Alternative 1, No Action, is the least expensive remedy, it is not protective of
human health and the environment. Therefore, Alternative 2 is the most cost effective
remedy that will provide reliable protection of human health and the environment.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions Employing Alternatives Technologies to the
• Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected interim action does not represent a permanent solution with respect to
the remediation of ground water. Since an air stripper treatment system will be
installed at the Ranney Well discharge to provide a permanent source of clean
drinking water to residents affected or potentially affected by the Site, the selected
interim remedy does utilize permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable,
given the limited scope of this action. Selection of permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable will be
addressed further in the final remedy for the Site.
5. Preference for Treatment as a Principle Element
Since this action constitutes a measure to aid in ground water clean up, and does not
constitute the final remedy for the Site, the statutory preference for treatment as a
principle element will be addressed in the selection of the final remedy for the Site.
XI. Explanation of Significant Changes
The Proposed Plan for the interim action for the Endicott Wellfield site was released
for public comment on February 22, 1991. The Proposed Plan identified Alternative
2, Supplemental Purge Well, as the preferred alternative. EPA reviewed all written
and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period. Upon review of
these comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the remedy, as it
was originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
-------
•15-
APPENDK 1
-------
NORTH —
ENDICOTT
WELLFIELD SITE
'X LT-*
cS. V:.
ACTIVE SEWER LINE
rRANNEY
END'COTT LANDFILL
~V'
FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAP
ENtxxrrr WEU/TCLO snr
ENOCOTT.NEW YO«K
BASE MAP ADAPTED FROM =
NYDOT, f9T3 ENDICOTT, N.Y.
QUADRANGLE MAP
-------
''^m
M nm^wmf
m£LM
L iZZZZm$$
ENDCOTT WELLF1ELB SITE
ENDICOTT, NEW YORK
-------
Well* mil* Afnff» COncf
Cffattr than »r f
-------
,... Av+ragf ConCfHtrotl,
«. .«,,«, tnoa or Equal t9 ~~
IH Gltctfl Aquifer
, Honifortng Mk//
, lnffall»d Monitoring Mto/7
Stream Gaging Station
Round l/f/S Cnloto - A/tone
-------
-16-
APPENDIX 2
-------
TABLE 1
PHASE 1
DRILLING SUMMARY
ENDICOTT WELLFIELD SITE
WELL
KW-1
MW-2
KW-3
KW-3d
KW-4
KW-5
KW-6S
KW-6d
KW-7
KW-8S
KW-8d
KW-9S
KW-9d
KW-lOs
KW-10d
KW-11
KW-1 2
KW-1 3s
KW-13d
KW-1 4
KW-15S
MW-15d
KW-1 6
KW-1 7
KW-1 8
KW-1 9
KW-20
DEPTH
DRILLED
100
162
33
180
100
27
24
100
25
115
182
20
100
26
150
100
100
20
100
100
15
50
50
50
34
30
47
SCREENED
INTERVAL
70
154
27
- 75
- 159
- 32
None
91
17.5
17
88
19
108
139
14
65
20
57.5
39
35
14
78
84
9
30
25
42
17
21
30
- 96
- 22.5
- 22
- 93
- 24
- 113
- 154
- 19
- 70
- 25
- 62.5
- 44
- 40
- 19
- 83
- 89
- 14
- 35
- 30
- 47
- 22
- 26
- 35
LAB SAMPLE
DEPTH
20 - 22
45 - 47
N/A
30 - 32 (Dup)
18 - 20
15 - 17
N/A
20 - 22
17 - 19
N/A
17 - 19
N/A
20 - 22
N/A
15 - 17
17 - 19
25 - 27 (Dup)
N/A
10 - 12
14 - 20
N/A
10 - 12
25 - 27
30 - 32
20 - 22
25 - 27
25 - 27
All depths referenced in feet below grade,
-------
table 2
Endicott Uellfield Site
TCI Volatile Organic* In Ground Water
Sa-ple
• 21
• •2-2
1-2-3
EU-2a-1
EW-2a-2
EU-2a-3
IU 3a 1
EU-3a 2
EU-3a-2
IU-3a-2
CU-3a-3
EU-4-1
EU-4-2
EU-4-3
EW-5-1
EM 5-2
EU 5 2
EU 5-2
EU 5-3
EU 6-1
(EU 6-1)
EU 6 2
EU 6 3
Date Vinyl 1.2-
QA/OC Sailed Chloride DCE TCE
02/22/90
(K/ 10/90
05/00/90
02/23/90
(H/ 10/90
05/00/90
02/22/90
04/10/90
US 04/10/90
MSO 04/UV90
05/00/90
02/22/90
04/10/90
05/00/90
02/23/90
04/11/90
MS 04/11/90
MSO 04/11/90
05/00/90 .
02/22/90
OOP 1 02/22/90
04/12/90
05/09/90
1 ) 2
1 J 2
0.8 J 2
6 0.0 J
8 0.0 J
9
14 0.6 J
1 J 0.5 J
0.7 J 0.6 J
2 10 3
6 1 J
6
6
5
2 3
1 i 2
4 J 3 J O.A J
Chloro 1.1- 1.1.1- Ethyl
PCE ethane OCA 1C* lent lot Bent
1 J
1 J
0.9 J
2
3
2
3
2
0.9 J
0.9 J
2 4
2 0.6 J 2
2
3
2 2
56 6 3
54 6 1
M tO 3 J
tHO 7 J 7 J
Chloro Heth
Kyi lent Chi or Other tCl VOC'a
2 •
2
3 •
3
3 •
2 •
0.6 IJ Acetone (2 J)
3 I Acetone (3 J)
0.7 IJ Acetone (3 J)
0.6 •
0.5 IJ
2 •
2 0.6 IJ Acetone (2 §J)
2 0.5 IJ Acetone (2 IJ)
2
3 21 Acetone (12)
5 21
4 61
5 0.0 iJ
9 5
All concentration* In ug/L,
Page 1 of 8
-------
I able 2
Endlcott Uellfield Site.
Id Volatile Organic* in Ground Uater
Saaple
IU-7-1
EW-7-2
IU-7-S
(EU-7-3)
EU-8-1
IU 8-2
(EU 8-2)
IW-8-3
fU 9-1
EW-9-1
EW-9-1
IU 9-2
(EU-9-2)
CU-9-S
CU 9-3
IU-9-3
EU 10-1
EU 10 2
IU-10-3
EW-11-1
EU 11 2
EU 11 3
EU 12 1
EW-12-2
EU 12 3
Date Vinyl 1.2-
OA/OC Sw^led Chloride DCE TCE
02/20/90
04/12/90
05/09/90
DUP-12 05/09/90
02/22/90
04/11/90
OOP -8 04/11/90
05/09/90
02/23/90
MS 02/23/90
HSO 02/23/90
04/11/90
DUP-7 04/11/90
05/10/90
MS 05/10/90
MSO 05/10/90
02/23/90
04/11/90
05/09/90
02/21/90
04/12/90
05/09/90
02/23/90
04/10/90
05/09/90
0.7 J
4
0.8 J
0.8 J
1 J
0.9 J 2
3
13 89 43
15 59 30
14 84 45
5 9
4 13
CMoro
PCE ethane
80
98
97
99
26
21
30
45
42
14
26
13
11 55
6 57
13 5?
39
73
1.1- 1.1.1- Ethyl Chloro Meth
OCA ICA tent Tol lent Xyl lenx Chi or Other TCI VOC'a '
4 I Vinyl Acetate (3 J)
1 I
1 J 0.9 J
0.8 J 11
2 J 12 S3!
2 J 15 4 J 4 •
2 J 17 5 J 9 8
3 16 638 trana-1.2-Dlcn%^r«.prop*ne (1)
0.9 BJ
2 8
1 •
0.7 J 0.9 8J
0.7 J 0.7 IJ
4 8
0.9 8J
10 8
4 8
5 9 0.8 J 4 0.6 BJ
1 J 9 1 J 6 2
32 4 0.8 J 2 B 1.1-Dlchloroethene (1 J)
24 2 J 2 J 1 J 0.5 J 0.8 BJ
24 3 J 11 8
2-Butanone (23000)
6 1 J 3 2 Butanone (20)
10 23 2 3 4 1 BJ
All
at Iana In ug/L. (ppb).
Page 2 of 8
-------
table 2
fndicolt Uelltield Site
ICL Volatile Orgnnict In Ground Uater
Sacple
IU 15-1
EU-15-2
EU-15-J
Date
QA/OC Sampled
02/22/90
04/11/90
05/09/90
Vinyl
Chloride
1 w
I no
| 120
1.2
DCE
270
110
200
ICE
5
3 J
5
Chloro
PCE ethane
19
18
25
1,1- 1
OCA
54
32
51
I.I.I
1CA
1 J
1 J
2
•mi
3
2 J
3
Ethyl CMoro
Tol lent Xyl lent
2
0.6 J
Meth
CM or
2 •
0.8 IJ
4 I
Other TCI VOC'a
1,1-Dlchloroethene (0
1,2-Olchloroethane (1
.J J)
J)
MU 1-1
MU-1-2
MU 1-3
MU 2-1
MU-2-2
MU-2-3
(MU-2-3)
MU-3-1
MU 3-2
MU 3-3
MU 4-1
MU-4-2
MU-4-S
MU-5-1
(MW-5-1)
MU-5-2
MU 5-3
MU 6«-|
MU-«*-2
MU o«-3
02/23/90 | 14 1 J
04/11/90 | 0.9 J
05/09/90 | 1 J
02/22/90 | 66 52
04/11/90 | 13 46
05/10/90 | 15 21
DUP-10 05/10/90 | 15 21
02/20/90 |
04/11/90 |
05/09/90 | 1 J
02/23/90 |
04/11/90 |
05/10/90 |
02/21/90 | 2 2?0 JAO
OUP-2 02/21/90 | 2?0 JAO
04/10/90 | 2 370 AOO
05/08/90 | 2 2W) jno
0?/20/90 | 0.8 J 6 2
04/10/90 | 1 J 1 J
05/10/90 | 1
66 7
27 5
22. 3
22 3
11 0.6 J
3 2 15
13
321)
3 2 16
150 1 J
73 1 J
78 0.9 i
0.« J 2
1 J
4 7 0.7 J
1 i 2
1 J 2
0.9 J
1 J 4 0.9 J
110 2
190 2
2?0 2
a 5 to
2 0.5 i
2
4 •
2 3 •
2 0.9 tJ
7 •
4 4 •
4 21
3 SI
7
3 0.6 IJ
2 •
6 4 •
0.8 4
1 J 21
1 J 2
t J 1
19 4 5 i
1 J 2 0.7 IJ
2 t fJ
Carbon Oltulflde (5)
Carbon DUulflde (1 J)
Acetone (26)
Acetone (43), 4-«wthyl-2-p«ntanone (3
Acetone (44). 4-Mthyl -2-pentanone (3
Acteone (7)
1.1-Dlchloroethene (9)
1.1-Olchloroelhene (7 J)
1,1-OlcMoroethene (13)
1.1-Dlchloroethene (16)
2-Heianone (11)
Acetone (5). Acroleln (6 J)
Acetone (20)
All concentration* In og/l,
Page ) of 8
-------
Table 2
Endicott Uettfield Site
TCL Volatile Organic* in Crotnd Water
Sa*ple
NU-6d-1
NU-6d 2
Ml-6d-l
Ml- 7-1
NU-7-2
NW-7-2
NW-7-2
-------
table 2'
fndicott Uellficld Site
TCI Volatile Organic* In Groin) Water
Sample
MU-IOd 1
HU-IOd 2
MU-IOd 3
MU 10d 3
HU-IOd 3
MU 10«-1
MU-10§-2
MU 10«-3
MU 11-1
(MU 11-1)
MU 11 2
MU 11 3
MU-12-1
MU-12-1
MU-12-1
MU-12-2
MU 12-3
MU 13d 1
MU 13d 2
MU 13d 3
MU-13« 1
MU 13f 2
MU 13»-3
Date Vinyl 1.2-
QA/OC Sailed Chloride OCE
02/20/90
04/10/90
05/08/90
MS 05/00/90
MSO 05/00/90
02/20/90
04/10/90
05/08/90
02/20/90
DUP-3 02/20/90
04/09/90
05/08/90
02/20/90
MS 02/20/90
MSO 02/20/90
04/09/90
05/08/90
02/21/90
04/10/90
05/09/90
02/21/90
04/10/90
05/09/90
4
0.6 i
3
3
3
2
0.7 J
2
2
2
3
2
16 M
12 72
14 BO
46 1?0
IB 2 TO
80
110
27
O.V J 5
2 6
2 9
Chloro
ICE PCE ethane
6 1 J
3
2
6 3
5 0.6 J
7
4
4
5
4
2
1
4 J
3
4 J
2
6 0.9 J
4 0.9 J
7 ?
1.1- 1.1.1-
OCA 1C* fern
4 1 J
4 0.9 J
4 1 J
4 1 J
3
3
3
5
7 J
1 J
3
4
7
Ethyl Chloro Meth
lot Irni Kyi lent Ctllor
3
1
0.8 J
4 •
2
2
3 •
2 •
4 •
13 3 1 J
1 J 0.9 J
1 J
5 2 J
5 J
9 I
2 IJ
9 1 J 7 41
0.9 IJ
2
Other TCI VOC's
Vinyl Acetate (3 J)
Acetone (6 •)
1,1-DlcMoroethen* (1 J)
1.1-Dlchloro«thene (1 J)
1.1-DlcMoro«thene (1 J)
1.1 Olch tor tx them (1 J)
2-lutanone (6)
Acetone (8 J)
Acetone (17 •)
All concentration* In ua/l,
re«« 5 of 8
-------
fable 2
Endicott Wellficld Site
TCI Volatile Organic* in Grmud Water
Sa«pl« OA/OC
Ml- 14-1
NU-U-2
MI-U-3
Ml- 15
-------
Table 2
Indicott Uellfield Site
TCI Volatile Organic! In Gromd Water
Saople
Ml- 19-1
Ml- 19-2
MU- 19 3
Ml- 20-1
NU-20-2
MU- 20 3
rtmcc-1
PUtGE-1
pimcc-i
PUBCC-2
PUKGE-S
Date Vinyl
CM/OC Sailed Oil or Id*
02/21/90
04/11/90
05/08/90
02/21/90
M/11/90
05/08/90
02/21/90
MS 02/21/90
HSO 02/21/90
(H/10/90
05/09/90
38
42
43
35
39
1.2
DC£ ICE
1 J
o.a j
0.8 J
35
40
41
32 0.6 J
30
Chi or o
PCE ethane
1 J
46
52
53
43
49
1.1- 1.1.1 Ethyl
OCA 1C* lent Tol Bent
2 0.9 J
1 J. 0.6 J
2
322
2 0.7 J
2 1 J 0.6 J
5
6
6
6 0.6 J
5
Chi ore Neth
Kyi feni Chi or Other TCI VOC'a
0.8 IJ
0.9 J 0.5 IJ
1 J 11
5 1 J 11 Acetone (4 J). Vinyl Acetate (26)
2 1 J 2
2
1
1
0.9 J
0.7 IJ
1 I
MNMEY-1
(RANNEV-1) OUP-4
BAMHEY-2
HAMWET-3
02/21/90
02/21/90
04/12/90
05/10/90
2
2
1 J 0.5 J
2
0.9 IJ
5 •
Acetone (13}
Equipment •lanka
mi-EI-1
HW Ei 2
mi-Et-3
mi Et-4
02/20/90 |
02/21/90 |
02/22/90 |
02/23/90 |
2 I
3 •
Vinyl Acetate (10). Carbon OliulfloV
Carbon DUulflde (2 J)
All concent rat I one In ue/l,
Page 7 of 8
-------
fable 2:
Endlcott Uellfield Site
ICL Volatile Organic* in Ground Water
Saapl* OA/OC
Irlp Blanks
MI-IB- 1
HU-TB 2
HW-TB-3
MU-lB-4
NW-1B-5
Mi-IB -6
M4-1B-7
MI-TB-8
MI-IB-9
MU-ll-10
NU-Tt-11
Oat* Vinyl 1.2- Chloro 1.1- 1.1.1- Ethyl Lhloro Meth
Sailed Chloride OCI ICE PCE ethane OCA TCA Bent lot lent kyl •em Chi or Other TCI VOC'i
02/20/90
02/21/90
02/22/90
02/21/90
M/09/90
04/10/90
04/11/90
04/12/90
05/08/90
05/09/90
0V 10/90
0.7 J
0.9 BJ
7 •
5
0.9 BJ
1
2 •
2 I
Ail concophfttlona In ug/l.
Page 8 of a
-------
-17-
APPENDLX 3
-------
New York Slate Department of Environmental Conservation
50 WoH Rend, Albany, N«w Ifertc 12233
C. Jorllng
ConmlttliMMf
J1AR I 5 1931
Ms. Kathleen C. Callahar,
Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
U.-.ited States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York' 10278
Dear Ms. Callahan:
Re: Endicott Wellfield Site, Brooroe County, Site No. 7-04-008
Th* final draft Record of Decision (ROD) for the Sr.dicott W«llfi«ld Site
received by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) on Xarch 15, 1991, hae been reviewed. The NYSCSC concurs with the •
s«lsctsd Interim Re.-noditl Measure (IRK) as presented in the draft ROD. This
IRK calls for a purge well between the Endicott Landfill and the Village of
Endiccf. Public Water Supply Well.
The :JSE?A .Test note that the Village of Endicott Sewage Treatment Piar.t may
have to irodify their SPDES perr.it if they accept the purge well discharge.
Also, L'SEPA should acknowledge in this ROD where the funding for this IRM is
corr.ing from. If a Superfur.d State contract is necessary, this process should
be initiated as soon as possible.
If you hav« any questions concerning this matter, please contact
Hr. Michael J. C'Tooie, Jr., ?.E. at (518) 457-5861.
Sincerely,
Edward $. Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
TOTA_ P.32
-------
-18-
APPENDIX 4
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN
AT THE
ENDICOTT WELL FIELD SITE
ENDICOTT, NEW YORK
Public Comment:
February 22 through March 23, 1991
March 1991
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
-------
ENDICOTT WELLFIELD SITE
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
(FOR THE
PROPOSED PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Overviev 2
Background 3
Part I: SCyj-iARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS 4
A. Technical Concerns . . .4
v
B. Other Concerns 4
Part II: COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS 5
A. Ground Water Flow 5
B. Capture Zone of Purge Well(s) 6
C. Time and Cost of the Proposed Purge Well 8
APPENDIX A 9
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ENDICOTT WELLFIELD SUPERTUND SITE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a public
comment period from February 22, 1991 through March 23, 1991 for
interested parties to comment on the Technical Memorandum for
Implementation of the Interim Remedial Measures and Proposed Plan
for remedial action at the Endicott Wellfield Superfund Site in
Endicott, New York.
EPA held a public meeting on March 6, 1991 at the Municipal
Building, Endicott, New York to describe the remedial
alternatives and to present EPA's Preferred Alternative to clean
up the Endicott Wellfield site.
A responsiveness summary is required for the purpose of
providing EPA and the public with a summary of citizens' comments
and concerns about the site raised during the public comment
period and EPA's responses to those concerns. All comments
summarized in this document will be considered in EPA's final
decision for selection of the remedial alternative for cleanup of
the site. The responsiveness summary is organized into the
following sections:
Overview; This section briefly describes the public meeting
held on March 6, 1991 and includes historical
information about the Endicott Wellfield site
along with the proposed remedial alternatives to
clean up the site.
EacXground; This section provides a brief history of community
interest and concerns regarding the Endicott
Wellfield site.
Part I; This section provides a summary of commentors'
major issues and concerns, and expressly
acknowledges and responds to those raised by the
local community. "Local community" may include
local homeowners, businesses, the municipality,
and not infrequently, potentially responsible
parties (PRPs).
Part II; This section provides a comprehensive response to
all significant comments and is comprised of the
specific legal and technical questions raised
during the public comment period.
-------
-2-
As an additional resource, the transcript to the public meeting
held en March 6, 1991 is attached as Appendix A. Some EPA
responses in the Responsiveness Summary clarify answers given at
the March 6, 1991 meeting, as reported in Appendix A.
OVERVIEW
At the time of the public comment period, EPA published its
preferred alternative for the Endicott Wellfield Superfund site
located in Endicott, New York. The public meeting for the
Endicott Wellfield site began at 7:00 p.m. on March 6, 1991 with
presentations by E?A and was followed by a question and answer
session. Approximately 13 residents and local officials attended
the meeting.
Melvin Kauptman, Chief, Eastern New York/Caribbean Superfund
Section; Sherrel Kenry, EPA Remedial Project Manager; and Cecilia
Echols, Region II Community Relations Coordinator, represented
EPA. EPA contractor personnel were represented by Gerry
Zar.za.lari, ARCS II Community Relations Specialist.
EFA screened possible alternatives, giving consideration to
nine key criteria:
Threshold criteria, including
Overall protection of human health and the
environment
Compliance with Federal, State, and
local environmental and health laws
Balancing criteria, including
Long-term effectiveness
— Short-tern effectiveness
Reduction of mobility, toxicity, or volume
— Ability to implement
cost, and
Modifying criteria, including
State acceptance, and
Local acceptance.
-------
-3-
EPA weighed State and local acceptance of the remedy prior to
reaching the final decision regarding the remedy for the site.
The Agency's selected remedy is Alternative 2, the
Supplemental Purge Well. This alternative consists of upgrading
the existing Purge Well system with the installation of an
additional Purge Well, to be installed west of Nanticoke Creek
essentially between the suspected source of the VOCs to the
aquifer (Endicott Landfill) and the receptor (the Ranney Well).
The proposed location of the Purge Well is chosen to intercept
the plume near its suspected source and to begin remediation of
the aquifer.
The proposed well is estimated to be 110 feet deep and would
be screened across the majority of the aquifer between the depths
of approximately 50 and 110 feet. This design would intercept
the majority of the flow within the contaminated portion of the
aquifer, and prevent contaminated ground water from continuing to
move under the Purge Well system, as may be happening with the
existing Purge Well. However, the actual design will be based
upon a pilot hole drilled at the proposed location during the
Phase II RI. The goal of Alternative 2 is to further reduce
migration of contaminated ground water and to collect data on
aquifer and contaminant response to remediation measures. The
ultimate goal of remediation will be determined in a final
remedial action for the Site.
BACKGROUND
Community interest and concern about the site has been
relatively steady over the past several years.
To obtain public input on the Technical Memorandum for.
Implementation of the Interim Remedial Measures and the proposed
remedy, EPA held a public comment period from February 22 to
March 23, 1991.
EPA's community relations efforts included preparation of a
community relations plan in April 1985; publication of a fact
sheet in October 1989 at the start of the field work for the
Supplemental RI/FS; and the establishment of site information
repositories located at the Endicott Village Clerk's Office which
contain the Interim RI, Technical Memorandum and other relevant
documents; and a public meeting notice that appeared in the
February 22 and March 1, 1991 edition of the Endicott Village
News . In addition, EPA prepared a Fact Sheet, describing the
Agency's proposed remedial action plan for the site. This
proposed plan fact sheet was sent to the information repository
and distributed to citizens and officials noted on EPA's site
mailing list in February 1991. A public meeting was held on
-------
-4-
February 6, 1991. Approximately 13 people attended the public
meeting. Those in attendance included local area residents,
State, County, and local officials, representatives from EPA, and
representatives from companies interested in the site activities
and cleanup decisions. EPA also maintained contact with local
officials and citizen leaders throughout the remedy selection
process.
I. SUXKARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
This section provides a summary of commentors1 major issues
and concerns, and expressly acknowledges and responds to those
raised by the local community. The major issues and concerns
regarding the proposed remedy for the Endicott Wellfield site
were received at the public meeting on March 6, 1991. These
concerns are summarized below and are organized into the
following categories:
A. Technical Concerns
B. Other Concerns
A summary of the comments and EPA's response to them is provide
below.
A. TECHNICAL CONCERNS
A local official inquired as to how the purge well
functions.
EFA Response; The existing purge well is designed to
capture contaminants in the groundwater, and our analyses
indicate that it has been relatively successful. However,
as described earlier, EPA has decided to install an
additional purge well downgradient from the existing well
and closer to the Endicott Landfill to capture low levels of
contaminants that seen to be bypassing the original well.
This additional well will be installed to a greater depth
than the original well and will take in additional
quantities of contaminated groundwater. The addition of
this purge well is aimed at preventing contamination from
reaching the Ranney Well. In addition, EPA plans to expand
our investigation of this issue as part of the Phase II
study.
B. OTHER CONCERNS:
A local official asked if EPA had experienced as great a
level of PRP and local government agency cooperation at
other Superfund sites as it has in Endicott.
-------
-5-
EPA RESPONSE; The PRP at the Endicott site has been
extremely cooperative with EPA concerning cleanups and this
level of cooperation is sincerely appreciated.
• A local official asked when the site would be available for
use in the future.
EPA RESPONSE^ EPA is currently uncertain when the site will
be available for future use since our proposed remedy
focuses exclusively on groundwater. The issue of as to the
source of the contamination is still being investigated.
If the Endicott Landfill is determined to be the source, it
will be addressed in the final Record of Decision for the
Site.
PART II: COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS
This section provides a comprehensive technical response to
comments or questions received during the public comment period.
Concerns and questions presented in this section consist of three
categories:
•
A. Ground Water Flow
B. Capture Zone of the Proposed and the Existing Purge Well
C. Tine and Cost of the Proposed Purge Well
The Village of Endicott, a PRP, through their consultant
Malcolm Pirnie, submitted comments on the proposed installation
of the supplemental Purge Well. The comments that were
submitted by Malcolm Pirnie and EPA's response to them is
provided below.
A. Ground Water Flow
The Proposed Plan indicates that ground water containing
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) may flow beneath the
existing purge well toward the Ranney well. Ground water
flow paths could be much better defined if several flow-
sections, which include the purge well and Ranney well, were
constructed. Using existing hydraulic head data, flow nets
could be constructed for these flow-section and would
provide an indication of the vertical component of ground
water.
EPA Response. Ground water flow beneath the existing purge
well will be further defined during Phase II of the
supplemental RI/FS. In addition, at the conclusion of this
-------
-6-
study , the vertical component of ground water flow will be
further defined utilizing all availabe data.
The Proposed Plan indicates that VOC-contaminated ground
water is present below and downgradient of the existing
purge well. It is implied that this ground water represents
a potential threat to the quality of water which the Ranney
well withdraws. Yet, the location of the proposed purge
well is sufficiently upgradient from this area that if will
have no appreciable effect on the movement of this
contaminated ground water. The Proposed Plan's discussion
of the short-terra effectiveness of the two evaluated
alternatives should indicate that neither alternative will
control the movement of ground water and contaminants in
this portion of the aquifer.
EPA Response. The Proposed Plan indicated that contaminants
were detected down-gradient of the existing purge well in
order to show that the purge well system may not be
effective in capturing all of the contaminants emanating
from the suspected source of the contamination (the Endicott
Landfill). The Supplemental Purge Well (SPW) is intended to
increase the'efficiency of the existing purge well system
and to aid in aquifer cleanup by reduction of the
contaminant plume.
The VOC- contaminated ground water detected downgradient of
the existing purge well does represent a potential threat to
the quality of the water the Ranney Well withdraws.
However, the first operable unit determined the remedial
action for the Ranney Well. Presently, this remedial
action (as selected in the 1987 ROD) of a packed column air
stripper to treat the raw water from the Ranney Well is
scheduled for sta'rt-up in Spring, 1991. Therefore, any
threat to the Ranney Well water supply will be addressed by
that remedial action.
The intent of the Short-tenn Effectiveness section is to
address the effects of the alternative during the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals
are achieved. While the selected alternative does not
address the part of the aquifer which is downgradient of the
existing purge well, the results of the Phase I RI sampling
did not detect any contaminant above the Maximum Contaminant
Levels established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Therefore, the selected interim remedy has no short-term
impacts on the Ranney Well quality. Clarification of this
fact is made in the ROD.
-------
-7-
B. Capture Zone of the proposed and the Existing Purge Well
To date, the capture zone of the existing purge well has not
been defined. The Technical Memorandum cites a previous
conclusion by GZA (1987) that the existing purge well's
capture zone does not extend west of Nanticoke Creek. Yet,
the interim report, Plates 3-1 through 3-3, indicates
groundwater flow paths which extend significantly west of
Nanticoke Creek. Limiting ground water flowlines, which
identify the boundaries of the capture zone, should be
plotted for the purge well and Ranney well. This will allow
the areas which contribute ground water to the purge well
and Ranney well to be identified.
EPA Response.
The Scope of Work for the Phase II of the supplemental RI/FS
includes provision for identification of the boundaries of
the capture zone. In addition, monitoring well MW-30 will
be installed at the proposed location of the SPW and it will
be used to assist in the proper design of the additional
purge well. This will include defining the capture zone for
the existing purge well.
We believe that as part of the evaluation process, the
probable capture zone of a supplemental purge well must be
estimated. Unless this determination is made, it is unclear
how the benefit of the supplemental purge well can be
evaluated. Without knowledge of its capture zone, it is not
possible to estimate what portions of the contaminated
ground water it will control. Existing data, including
potentioinetric maps and aquifer characteristics from the
1984 pumping test of the existing purge well, can be used
for this determination.
EPA Response.
The main benefit of the SPW is to expedite the clean-up of
the ground water aquifer. The probable capture zone of the
SPW will be eventually evaluated during the final FS for the
Site because it is envisioned that this interim remedy may
be incorporated into the design of the source control
remedy.
Coupled with the determination of the supplemental purge
well's zone of capture, the effect of its operation on the
zone of capture of the existing purge well should be
evaluated.
-------
-8-
Response.
The effects of the SPW operation on the zone of capture of
the existing purge well will be evaluated during the
detailed aquifer pump test' that will be conducted after the
installation of the SPW. This will be further evaluated
during the monitoring program to be implemented for the SPW.
Based on the evaluation of the capture zones for the
proposed and existing purge wells, the contaminant sources
which will be controlled by the proposed interim remedial
action should be clearly identified.
E?A Response.
Based on the results of the Phase I RI, it was determined
that the Endicott Landfill appeared to be the most
significant source of the Volatile Organic Compounds
detected at the Site. Phase II of the supplemental RI will
further investigate if a deeper plume of contaminants may be
er.anati-ng from an industrial landfill located west of
Nanticoke Creek. It is proposed that the SPW will be
installed west of Kanticoke Creek, essentially between the
suspected source of VOCs to the aquifer (Endicott Landfill)
and the receptor (the Ranney Well) . The proposed location
is chosen to intercept the plune nearest its suspected
source.
In order to more fully determine the range of options which
°are available for an interim remedial action, we believe an
alternative which includes installation of a deeper purge
well in conjunction with the existing purge well should be
evaluated.
EPA Response. The final design of the SPW will be based on
a monitoring well to be drilled at the proposed location
during the Phase II RI/FS. However, the SPW is estimated to
be 110 feet deep and the existing purge well is reported to
be approximately 65 feet deep. Therefore, the SPW will be
deeper than the existing one.
C. Time and Cost of the Proposed Purge Well
The addition of the estimated present worth of $207,000 for
the no-action alternative to the $376,000 cited for the
supplemental purge well, or a total of $583,000, appears to
reflect more accurately the estimated present worth of the
proposed purge well. This is required since the annual
operation and maintenance costs associated with the no-
action alternative will also be performed, even if a
-------
-9-
supplemental purge well is installed.
EPA Response. The annual operation and maintenance cost
associated with the no-action alternative are being expended
under an existing remedial action. Therefore, those costs
were not included in the present worth cost of the SPW. The
ROD indicates that the operation and maintenance cost for
the selected alternative only applied to the additional
Purge Well.
The Proposed Plan indicates that the time required to
implement the proposed interim remedial action is 24 months.
It would be useful to compare this period to the current
schedule for completing the Feasibility Study (FS) and the
selection and implementation of the final remedial action.
The existing Project Operations Plan indicates that the FS
will be completed approximately one year after initiation of
Phase II of the Remedial Investigation, scheduled for this
spring.
EPA Response. The schedule in the Project Operations Plan
is only an estimate for the completion of a draft FS, not
for implementation of the Remedial Action. After the FS is
finalized, a Record of Decision will be issued. The
proposed interim action will permit data to be collected
which can then be utilized in the development of a ground
water model to fully characterize the hydrologic setting of
the Site and for possible utilization as part of the overall
remedy for the Site.
-------
-10-
APPENDIX A
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
2 3
2 4
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF BROOME
In the Matter of
The Superfund Proposed Plan
Endicott Wellfield Superfund Site
Endicott, New York
A Public Hearing held at the Municipal
Building, Endicott, New York, on the 6th day of
'•'arch, 1991, commencing at 7:00 PM.
BEFORE: CZERENDA COURT REPORTING, INC
164 Court Street
Binghamton, New York 13901
Notary Public
Binghamton - (607) 723-5820
(800) 633-9149
MICHELE L. VAN ATTA, RPR
Shorthand Reporter
APPEARANCES: Cecilea Echols
Sherrel Henry
Melvin Hauptman
-------
Superfund - Endicott
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3
10
1 1
1 2
13
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
18
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
MS. ECHOLS: We're ready to begin.
Good evening and welcome. I'm Cecilia
Echols, the Community Relations
Cccrdinator for the Endicott Wellfield
Superfund Site.
Today's informational meeting is
regard i.ng the proposed interim remedial
action to restrict and reduce the volume
of groundwater contamination at the site.
Or. cur agenda today is Melvin K a u p t m a n .
He will speak about the overview of
Superfund. And we also have Sherrel
Henry. She's the Remedial Project
Manager, and she'll discuss the site
history and the interim proposed -remedy.
Before I give the floor to Mel, I
would like to tell you a little bit about
Ccr.r.unity Relations and its role in
Superfund. Community Relations is the
program that is designed as part of
Superfund to help citizens get involved
in the decision-making process.
We always look for input during
the Remedial Investigation / Feasibili
-------
Superfund - Endicott
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
2 0
2 1
•2 2
2 3
24
Study, the removal actions during
community interviews and remedial design
phases.
The Superfund Program also offers
a Technical Assistance Grant Program --
there was a handout on the table outside.
So I hope everyone took advantage of
picking up one. It is a grant that is
awarded to groups to hire a technical •
advisor, and for him to assist the group
in reviewing and interpreting documents
that are related to a specific site.
I would encourage that everyone
have signed in on the sign-in sheet so we
can always update our mailing list and
keep you abreast of all the different
activities that are happening at the
site.
And I hope that everyone took the
handouts, especially the package that was
on the table and has to do with the
overheads so you can look -on as Sherrel
will be going over it. And on that note,
I'll give the floor to Mel.
-------
Superfund - Endicott
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
15
1 6
17
IS
19
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
^ *
*^ "t
MR. HAUPTMAN: Thanks, Cecilia.
I want to thank you people for coining
tonight. Let me tell you a little bit
about Superfund so you know why we're
here tonight, and what we're doing.
Superfund was passed in 1980 by
Congress. It's one of the environmental
laws that EPA has the authority to run.
A r. d it was passed in 1SSO because of
sites like the Love Canal that were very
~ u c h in the news, sites where the
cher. i c a 1 industries have disposed of
their cher. icals that they didn't want
any-ore, not that every Superfund Site is
aloveCanal.
So, what the Congress said to EPA
was, go out and find these sites and
figure out which ones are the worst ones,
and do that by modeling the site. Figure
out, you know, who's drinking the
groundwater, who's living near the site
that might be breathing air contaminated
by chemicals, is the river being impacted
by the site, things like that.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
Superfund - Endicott
So we designed a model and scored
sites across the country, and sites that
scored above twenty-eight and a half got
placed on a program called the National
Priorities List and became eligible for
Superfund money. Now Superfund is called
the fund because the law authorized EPA
to start collecting revenues from the
industries.
And the first fund, the 1980 fund,
was funded at a level of one and a half
billion dollars. The program went for
five years, like most of the
environmental laws that Congress passes.
And there was a one-year layover from '85
to '86, and it got reauthorized in '86 at
a much higher funding level of nine and a
half billion dollars.
What was EPA supposed to do with
all this money once we found the sites?
We were supposed to do a detailed field
investigation of every one of these sites
and figure out what the chemicals were
and where they were migrating to, because
-------
Superfund - Endicott
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
S
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
13
IS
2 0
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
these chemicals tend to move because of
rain and things like that once placed in
the environment.
So Superfund Sites could have a
pool of chemicals coming out of its
bottom that might be polluting an
aquifer, people might be drinking that
water, it might be leaking chemicals into
a nearby water or a stream that might
have an affect on people or fish or
wildlife, and again people might be
-breathing air contaminated with
cher. icals .
So you people are supposed to go
cut and do a detailed study at every one
cf these sites, called a remedial
investigation, take a lot of samples of
the 'environment, the groundwater, the
area, the waste material itself, and find
out the extent of contamination at that
site.
The second part of this study
that's called the Remedial Investigation,
to find out where the chemicals are a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
2 3
2 4
Superfund - Endicott
where they're going -- the second part of
the study is called the Feasibility
Study, and that's not a field study, but
rather an office operation whereby a
consultant would figure out different
feasible remedies that can be applied:
Dig up all the.se chemicals and
take it away somewhere else maybe; dig it
all up and treat it on site; contain the
site, if that's the best thing that
should be done with the site, things like
that, different engineering remedies t h a t
could be applied to the site. A
groundwater pool may be pumped and
treated to try and reduce the
contaminates in the groundwater.
So, out of the Feasibility Study,
the EPA would then go forward and select
a remedy, and it's called a Cost Effect
Remedy. That's fancy lingo for the
cheapest of the various remedies that
will do the best job. And we're supposed
to entertain that nomination of the
remedy like before the public, and that's
-------
Suserfund - Endicott
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
Q
1 0
1 1
i 2
I 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
18
1 9
2 0
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
what we're doing tonight.
Endicott Wellfield is a Superfund
site. EPA first became aware of it
because the Ranney well was contaminated
with chemicals. We didn't know where
rhey were coming from, but we knew they
were net naturally occurring chemicals,
and they were above health-based levels.
So that was the first remedy we selected
way back when, several years ago,
S h e r r e 1 ?
MS . HENRY: Yeah.
MR. HAUPTMAN: We then went
forward and did another study to try and
figure out where the chemicals were
co-ing from. And that's part of what
we're doing tonight. We're proposing a
second remedy addressing the source of
chemicals as best as we can define it
right now. There will be a third type
remedy for this site, and that will
probably be the last of the three.
Now, another part of Superfund is
if EPA was spending its'own Superfund
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
2 3
2 4
Superfund - Endicott
money, we were supposed to try and get
that money back from the people
responsible for placing the chemicals at
the sites. Those people were called
responsible parties.
And who are they? They're the
people who made the chemicals, took the
chemicals to the site that were placed in
the ground, and/or people that owned or
operated the site when chemicals were
disposed. These are all responsible
parties under the law.
And what Congress said to EPA is,
if you're going to spend EPA funds --
when you think there's a couple hundred
sites across the country that might cost
20 million dollars a pop, you can eat up
the money real fast -- try to maintain
the level of funding in the fund and try
to get your money back from responsible
parties at every site and try to get it
back from every one of the responsible
parties as a group.
So EPA can go forward and either
-------
Superfund - Endicott
10
1
2
6
7
8
S
1 0
11
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 S
20
2 1
22
2 3
spend its own money or try to identify
responsible parties and have them do the
work themselves with government oversight
just as EPA is doing it.
For the first action at the
Endicctt Wellfield Site we spent our own
money, fund money. The subsequent
studies that are taking place now,
responsible parties came forward after we
identified them.
I'll let Sherrel take it over fjfcpm
here and tell you the specifics about 1^1 e
site.
K S . HENRY: I have a very short
presentation, and it's basically going
ever the proposed plan, which is located
outside on the desk. I hope everyone has
a copy of it. And if you want to follow
along, there's a handout of all of my
slides.
First, I'm going to give you some
background information about the site.
Can everyone see that one, see that up
there? All right.
-------
Superfund - Endicott
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
2 3
2 4
The Endicott Wellfield Superfund
Site is located in the western end of
Endicott in Broome County. The site
consists of the Ranney well and its zone
of influence on area groundwater.
The Ranney Well was designed over
30 years ago, and it provides water to
the Village of Endicott Municipal System.
It operated without major problems until
May of 1981. Here's a map to give you a
better idea of exactly where it's
located.
The project study area basically
consists of the open area associated with
the En-Joie Golf Course, and the open
area of the sewage treatment plant, and
also the Endicott landfill, which is
identified here as Landfill One.
There's also two smaller landfills in the
northern portion of the proj'ect area,
Landfill Two and Landfill Three, located
right there. And this entire area right
here (indicating), there is what's
defined as the project study area.
-------
Si'^O^^*"*"!''^ — T
W_L_-t±**.W*iw* i
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
MS. McVANNAN: May I ask what the
Tannery Sewer is on the other side
towards the southeast part of the map
there, the right?
MS. HENRY: I see what you're
talking about. That's been closed. We
did an investigation of it, and we didn't
find any contamination coming from the
sewer. That's since been closed.
MS. McVANNAN: The Tannery, as
far as I know, was' never there, that's
v r. y I ' n
MS. HENRY: There were previous
studies conducted at the site by the
Village of Endicott, and these studies
included a study in 1983 by Eugene Kudges
from the Village of Endicott, and Adams
and Grant did the study in 1984.
And these studies are basically
identified preliminary remedial measures
which ultimately resulted in the
reduction of the VOC in the Ranney Well
and remedial measures that were
implemented, including in 1983 the
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
S
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
Superfund - Endicott
13
Village of Endicott installed diffused
aeration directly in the Ranney well and
in July of 1984 a purge well was
installed. And the purge well currently
pumps at 600 gallons per minute.
In 1987 a Remedial Investigation /
Feasibility Study was done, the RI/FS
that Mel was talking about, and this was
completed in July of 1987. And this was
done by the New York State DEC. And in
1987, based on this report, EPA issued a
record of decision in which it selected
air stripping at the Ranney well and also
the performance of the supplemental RI/FS
Remedial Investigation / Feasibility
Study.
This implementation of the air
stripping is being performed by the
Village of Endicott, pursuant to a
Consent Decree entered into by the EPA,
the Village of Endicott, and Town of
Union. And this air stripping is
scheduled to begin operation in the
spring of 1991.
-------
S u o e r f u r. d - Zndicott
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
c
1 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
2 0
2 1
2 2
23
2 4
The supplemental RI/FS was
performed by IBM through their
consultants, Lozier/Groundwater
Associates. And this report, this
supplemental RI/FS, was broken up into
two phases, a Phase I and a Phase II.
The Phase I was completed in
November of 1990. And the results of
this Phase I indicated that the
grcundwater in the aquifer, from which
the Ranney well gets its water, has be
impacted by volatile organic compounds-,
ar. d it also indicated the Endicott
landfill appears to be the most
significant source of this volatile
organic contamination.
In addition, low levels of
contaminants were detected downgradient
of the e'xistent purge well which would
indicate that the purge well may not be
effective in capturing all the
contaminates emanating from the Endicott
landfill, and this is why EPA decided
to — in a sense we detected the water
-------
Superfund - Endicott
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
2 4
definitely contaminated.
EPA decided to do something about
it now, to start aquifer cleanup instead
of waiting until later, and we evaluated
two alternatives. And these' alternatives.
can include:
No action alternative, which would
entail leaving the site as it is with the
continued monitoring of the existent
system, mainly the air stripper and the
aeration system and the existent
purge well. And the cost would be
$207,000 for the monitoring program.
And the second alternative is the
supplemental purge well, and this would
entail upgrading the current purge well
with the addition of an additional well
which would better be able to capture the
contaminates emanating from the suspected
source area. And the cost of this would
be estimated to be $376,000.
EPA's proposed, we choose
alternative number two. And the
rationale for this is that this new
-------
Superfund - Endicott
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
purge well would restrict the migration
of the contaminate plume and would also
aid in aquifer cleanup, which, you kno-w
is very important, and it would increase
the efficiency of the existent
purge well.
And after, you know, after EPA --
after the comment period is over, which
would be over March 27th, and the
com-unity has submitted comments, EPA
will move forward with a record of
decision, in which we -will formalize the
selection of the remedy. And after that,
we will send special notice letters to
PRP's to ask them to participate in the
inp 1 ernentation of this remedy.
And that's the end of my
presentation. Are there any questions?
MS. ECHOLS: Before anyone has a
question, please state your name so the
stenographer can make an account of it.
MR. PALMISANO: I'm Frank
Palmisano, Trustee in the Village of
Endicott. In your experience -- anybo^
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
2 1
22
2 3
24
Superfund - Endicott
17
can answer this question. In your
experience with this kind of Superfund
situation, environmental situation with
the well, have you ever experienced the
kind of cooperation that you've seen here
in the Village of Endicott between
business and government in solving
problems?
MS. HENRY: Not really. The PRP
have been very, very cooperative on this
site.
MR. PALMISAON: Mm-mm.
MS. McVANNAN: I'm Pat McVannan
from Endicott also, and I'd like to know
just how the purge well works. Obviously
the first one didn't. You're going to
upgrade it, that's going to cost
$376,000. I'd like to know just what its
function is and how it's going to work to
make sure it's now going to be clean.
MS. HENRY: The existent purge
well has been effective, but what we're
finding is low levels of contaminates is
downgrading and the purge well was
-------
Superfund - Endicott
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
S
1 0
1 1
12
1 3
1 4
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
designed.to capture the contaminates from
the groundwater around irrigation, in
ponds and then discharged to the river.
It's been effective, we haven't
found, you know, anything in the purge
well above levels, but the problem is
that we're finding stuff downgrading,
which could be getting under the existent
purge well, and that's going to be
studied further in the Phase II study.
MS. McVANNAN: Is it going to
suck in more water and cover a larger
area or go to a deeper depth?
MS. HENRY: Yes. When the first
purge well was implemented, like we
weren't really sure where the source is,
but now we have a fairly good idea that
it's the Endicott Landfill. So this well
will be placed closer to the landfill so
that we can capture in the area where the
contaminate is more concentrated; so we
can capture most of it there.
MS. McVANNAN: So you say
supplement., but you're actually building
-------
Superfund - Endicott
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
2 0
2 1
22
2 3
24
another well?
MS. HENRY: Yeah, we are building
another well. What I want to make clear
is the Ranney well water is safe. This
is just to enhance -- you know we have to
cleanup the aquifer,' you know, the source
of contamination. That's something we
have to do even now. Right now the
drinking water is safe, but we have to do
something about the source or else
eventually it may impact.the Ranney well.
Any more questions?
MS. McVANNAN: When will that
area be available for another land use?
MS. HENRY: Say that again.
MS. McVANNAN: When will -- the
area where you have your landfill, when
will that area be available or when can
it be used for regular, you know,
municipal use, other than just sitting
there?
MS. HENRY: I'm not really sure.
We have to -- if the landfill is
contaminated, we eventually have .to do
-------
Suoerfund - Endicott
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
i 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
1 6
17
18
19
20
2 1
2 2
2 3
2 4
something about that, and then, you know,
we won't even address that until probably
later on down in the year because it's an
additional study that needs to be done
before we can even address the landfill.
This is just the groundwater.
Anything else?
Thank you all for coining, and you
still have an opportunity to submit.
formal comments by March 23rd.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
21
STATE OF NEW YORK :
COUNTY OF BROOME :
I, Michele L. Van Atta, RPR, Shorthand
Reporter, do certify that the foregoing is a true
and accurate transcript of the proceedings in the
matter of Endicott Wellfield Superfund Site, held in
Endicott, New York, on March 6, 1991.
MICHELE L. VAN ATTA, RPR
Shorthand Reporter
Notary Public
CZERENDA COURT REPORTING, INC
164 Court Street
Binghamton, New York 13901
------- |