Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
COLESVILLE MUNICIPAL LANDFILL
COLESVILLE, BROOME COUNTY, NEW YORK

APPENDIX 1

Figure 1
Figure 1.

Figure 2
Figure 2.

APPENDIX 2

Table 1.

Summary of Industrial Wastes Disposed at the Colesville Landfill in Broome County, New York.


Waste Type Waste Components Waste Properties Approximate Quantity Disposed at Site

Aqueous Dye Wastes - 0.18% sulfate
- traces of zinc, aluminum, iron, tin
- 15% total solids at 110oC
- pH is neutral to alkaline
- density: 8.3-9 lbs/gal
10 drums/month

Mixed Chemical Solvents - 15% Chlorine content
- isopropyl alcohol
- methanol
- methylene chloride
- acetone
- traces of other hydrocarbons and oxygenated solvents
- 5% total solids at 110oC
- 6,500 BTU/lb
- density: 8.3 lbs/gal
10 drums/month

Organic Solvent Mixtures - 10% chlorinated solvents and water
- benzene
- acetone
- cyclohexane
- methanol
- ethanol
- n-hexane
- toluene
- xylene
- isopropyl alcohol
- methylcellosolve
- 8,000 BTU/lb
- 5% total solids at 110oC
- density: 6.8-8.3 lbs/gal
10 drums/month

Adapted from: Wehran Engineering, 1983 and 1988.

BTU = British Thermal Units

lb = pounds

gal = gallons

oC = degrees centigrade

These data are indicators of contamination and may or may not be sufficiently high to be asignificant health concern.

Table 2.

Summary of Contaminants Detected in Groundwater at Colesville Landfill.


Chemical Highest Concentration Reported (mcg/L)

arsenic 376
cadmium 28
lead 13.6
silver 126
zinc 187

benzene 640
chlorobenzene 180
chloroform 44
chloromethane 60
1,1-dichloroethane 1600
1,2-dichloroethane 12
1,1-dichloroethene 32
ethylbenzene 70
methylene chloride 3500
trans-1,2-dichloroethene 1500
toluene 120
1,1,1-trichloroethane 950
trichloroethene 640

Adapted from Wehran Engineering, Inc.; September 1988.

mcg/L = micrograms per liter

These data are indicators of contamination and may or may not be sufficiently high to be asignificant health concern.

Table 3.

Summary of Volatile Organic Compounds Detected in Private Water Supplies Near the Colesville Landfill (1983-1987).
(all units in mcg/L)


Chemical March
1983
April
1983
December
1983
May/June
1984
September
1984
December
1987

benzene 4 31 ND 2 ND ND
2-butanone ND ND ND ND ND 13
chloroethane ND ND ND ND ND 2
chloroform 2 12 8 ND 12 72
1,1-dichloroethane ND 33 27 8 170 480
1,2-dichloroethane 7 ND ND ND ND 10
1,1-dichloroethene ND 12 12 ND 54 110
1,2-dichloropropane ND ND ND ND ND 2
methylene chloride 100 10 ND 180 8 6
toluene 12 1 ND ND ND ND
trans-1,2-dichloroethene 130 70 120 17 8 600
1,1,1-trichloroethane 460 150 >330 16 220 400
trichloroethene 440 130 140 ND 100 220
trichlorofluoromethane ND 2 ND ND 34 ND
vinyl chloride 2 6 ND ND ND 11
xylenes (total) 1 1 ND ND ND ND

ND - Not detected

mcg/L = micrograms per liter

Note: Only the highest concentration in the water supplies is given.

Adapted from: Wehran Engineering, Inc., September 1988.

These data are indicators of contamination and may or may not be sufficiently high to be asignificant health concern.

Table 4.

Summary of Contaminants Detected in Groundwater Near the Colesville Landfill.


Chemical Highest Concentration
Reported (mcg/L)

arsenic 15.3
cadmium 8
chromium 41
lead 11.7
silver 89
zinc 271

benzene 70
chlorobenzene 40
chloroethane 8
1,1-dichloroethane 140
ethylbenzene 32
toluene 57
trans-1,2-dichloroethene 72
1,1,1-trichloroethane 73
trichloroethene 34
trichlorofluoromethane 26
vinyl chloride 10

Adapted from Wehran Engineering, Inc.; September 1988.

mcg/L = micrograms per liter

These data are indicators of contamination and may or may not be sufficiently high to be asignificant health concern.

Table 5.

New York State and Federal Standards and Guidelines for Chemicals Detected in Ground Water Near the Colesville Landfill (all values mcg/L).


Chemical NEW YORK STATE U.S. EPA
Groundwater Drinking Water Drinking Water

Organic

benzene ND;0.7p 5 5
chloroform 100;7p 100d 100d
chlorobenzene 5 5 100
chloroethane 5 5 --
1,1-dichloroethane 5 5 --
1,2-dichloroethane 5 5 5
1,1-dichloroethene 5 5 7
trans-1,2-dichloroethene 5 5 100
ethylbenzene 5 5 700;30ps
methylene chloride 5 5 5p
1,1,1-trichloroethane 5 5 200
trichloroethene 5 5 5
xylenes (all isomers) 5 5 10,000i;20ps
vinyl chloride 2 2 2

Inorganic

Arsenic 25 50 50
Cadmium 10 10 10
Chromium 50 50 50
Lead 25 50 50
Silver 50 50 50
Zinc 300 5000 5000

d = drinking water standard for total trihalomethanes produced as a result of disinfection with chlorine. This standard is inappropriate for evaluating environmental contamination not associated with disinfection practices.

g = guidance value

i = total xylenes

p = proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL)

ps = proposed secondary MCL

Table 6.

Summary of Organic Compounds Detected in Sediment of Waterbodies Near the Colesville Landfill.


Chemical North
Stream
South
Spring
Susquehanna
River

toluene ND 11 6
benzene ND 13 ND
trichloroethene ND 12 ND
1,1-dichloroethane 32 ND ND
methylene chloride 340 230 ND
naphthalene 1200 ND ND
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate 2000 ND ND

All units in ug/kg (micrograms per kilogram)

ND - not detected

These data are indicators of contamination and may or may not be sufficiently high to be asignificant health concern.

Table 7.

Summary of Inorganic Compounds Detected in Sediment of Waterbodies Near the Colesville Landfill.


Chemical North
Stream
South
Spring
Susquehanna
River

arsenic 25 15 11.9
cadmium 1 5 ND
chromium 20 20 ND
copper 40 ND 18.5
lead 14 14 125
nickel 41 16 ND
silver 6 12 ND
zinc 149 75 542.5

All units in mg/kg (milligrams per kilogram)

ND - not detected

These data are indicators of contamination and may or may not be sufficiently high to be asignificant health concern.

Table 8.

Summary of Compounds Detected in Leachate Near the Colesville Landfill (October 29, 1987).



Leachate Composite at
North Stream (mcg/L)*

Organic Compounds

Vinyl chloride 61
Methylene chloride 78 B
Acetone 600
1,1-Dichloroethane 99
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 180
2-Butanone 380
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 77
Trichloroethene 8.4
Benzene 11
Toluene 33
Chlorobenzene 350
Total xylenes 27
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 25

Inorganic Compounds

Aluminum 88,900
Arsenic 227
Barium 666
Beryllium (4.6)
Cadmium 6.2
Calcium 180,000
Chromium 95
Cobalt (40)
Copper 191
Iron 463,000
Lead 306
Magnesium 54,900
Manganese 15,400
Mercury 0.3
Nickel 164
Potassium 5,090
Sodium 18,500
Vanadium 168
Zinc 460

*Sample was diluted by a factor of 10.
B - Analyte found in method blank.

Values in parentheses indicate that the result is a value greater than or equal to the instrumentdetection limit but less than the contract required detection limit.

These data are indicators of contamination and may or may not be sufficiently high to be asignificant health concern.

APPENDIX 3

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

Comments were received during the public comment period (4/17/92-6/9/92) for the ColesvilleLandfill Public Health Assessment. The comments have been summarized and numbered in theorder that they were received and similar comments have been grouped together.

Comment #1

The lack of a new water system is adversely affecting the entire Doraville Community includinghomes adjacent to the community. Residents are worried that their wells will becomecontaminated and that they will unknowingly ingest contaminants. In view of the impact uponthe Colesville Township, we request that all homes in the Doraville area be considered forinclusion into a central water distribution system.

Response

Groundwater at the Colesville Landfill site is contaminated with volatile organic compounds(VOCs) and metals. Groundwater flows from the site in a southwesterly direction towards theSusquehanna River. Several residential wells immediately downgradient of the site have beencontaminated, but private wells in the Hamlet of Doraville have not contained contaminants. Theselected remedy in the final (March 1991) Record of Decision (ROD) for the Colesville Landfillsite will protect private water supplies by 1) installation of a multi-media cap over landfillmaterial, 2) extraction of groundwater from beneath and downgradient of the landfill and 3)monitoring of groundwater quality downgradient (i.e., between the landfill and the Hamlet ofDoraville) of the site. Installation of a cap will prevent downward percolation of rain and surfacewater overflow on the landfill from migrating through waste materials. Pumping and extractionof groundwater from beneath and downgradient of the landfill will capture groundwatercontaminants and redirect groundwater flow for treatment prior to being discharged to theSusquehanna River. Monitoring of groundwater quality downgradient of the site will beconducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial actions at the site. The ROD alsoprovides for protection to those residents with contaminated water supplies by stipulatingconstruction of a new water supply system northwest of the site. Implementation of the selectedremedy is anticipated to occur during 1993. During the interim, residences with contaminatedwater supplies will continue to be monitored on a quarterly basis and have been provided withbottled water for drinking and cooking purposes and/or carbon filtration systems to removecontaminants from well water. In addition, Broome County has purchased some of the affectedproperties from residents and these homes are now unoccupied.

Comment #2

On page 14 you say NYS DOH surveyed the homeowners. I don't recall being surveyed. We hadto insist we be tested.

Response

Homeowner wells near the Colesville Landfill site have been sampled to determine if site-relatedcontaminants had migrated from the site to downgradient drinking water supplies. Initialsampling of homeowner wells focused on those residences immediately downgradient oradjacent to the landfill. Additional residential well sampling activities were subsequentlyexpanded to include other private wells at homes downgradient of the landfill along EastWindsor Road and in the Hamlet of Doraville. Only those homeowners whose wells had shownevidence of site-related contaminants in their water supply were surveyed by NYS DOH inNovember 1990 for determining the affected homeowners preference of the two alternativesproposed for their future water supply. The two proposed alternatives presented to homeownerswith contaminated water supplies during this survey were 1) upgrading the existing filter systemsor 2) a new water supply.

Comment #3

Various chemicals have been reported at high levels, but when our well was sampled they say ourwater is fine. How can this be? I have read a list of chemicals dumped at the landfill, yet otherchemicals keep showing up that were never dumped there. Where do they come from? On ourown water reports some companies show chemicals that never were dumped. We have had testsdone by EPA, Wehran and the county, all within a week of each other, and some show we havechemicals, while the other reports say we do not have any chemicals in our water. The reportswe have from the county on the chemicals and barrels are very different from yours.

Response

Existing waste disposal records may document only some of the waste types and chemicalswhich were disposed at the site during this time, while disposal of other wastes may not havebeen recorded. In preparation of this health assessment, the NYS DOH used all accessibleinformation and data about past waste disposal practices and landfilling operations. Inpreparation of the health assessment, the NYS DOH and ATSDR must rely on the referenceddocuments and assume that these summaries are complete. The NYS DOH has contacted theBroome County Health Department for copies of these waste disposal records, if available, forreview and will make any changes as needed.

Sample results of private water supplies may vary significantly from sample results forgroundwater collected from monitoring wells on-site. This may be due to several factorsincluding local groundwater flow direction; location and distance of the residential well from thesite; depth, type and condition of the well on the residential property and concentration ofcontaminants in groundwater on-site.

Analytical results of drinking water analyses may have changed over time at the samehomeowner well for several reasons. Different agencies or entities involved with samplingactivities may have used different laboratories to perform water quality analyses. There mayhave been differences in the analytical methods used by each laboratory to test the water samples as well as differences in the analytical capabilities of the equipment used by differentlaboratories. Different analytical methods may vary slightly in the list of chemicals to be testedand there may also be some variations in the detection limits (i.e., the lowest concentration atwhich the presence of a chemical in a sample is reported with confidence) of different analyticalmethods. Slight differences in detection limits between various analytical methods andequipment used by the lab may show a particular chemical to be present above the detection limiton one water quality report and not present above the detection limit on another water qualityreport. It is important to recognize that environmental conditions are constantly changing (i.e.,dynamic) and that a single sample is representative of only a very small portion of the site at aparticular point in time.

Comment #4

On page 21 the report states that the Susquehanna River does not supply water to a municipality,but Binghamton gets its water from the river.

Response

The City of Binghamton is situated along the Susquehanna River, more than 25 milesdownstream of the Colesville Landfill site. While it is true that the City of Binghamton doesobtain its drinking water from the Susquehanna River, its distance from the site does not classifyit as a "neighboring community" to the Colesville Landfill site and Hamlet of Doraville. Thisdescription was intended to describe users of the Susquehanna River in the immediate vicinity ofthe site area and has been modified for clarification.

Comment #5

Table 5, I don't understand why groundwater has a lower standard than drinking water (e.g., zinc:300 mcg/L in groundwater and 5,000 mcg/L in drinking water, arsenic: 25 mcg/L in groundwaterand 50 mcg/L in drinking water).

Response

The NYS DOH drinking water standards listed in Table 5 of the health assessment have beenestablished by the NYS DOH for protection of human health based upon anticipated andestimated water use by an individual associated with drinking (2 liters per day over a lifetime of70 years), cooking, bathing and other household uses, as well as available toxicological andhealth effects information. Drinking water standards for some chemicals such as iron andmanganese are protective of human health but are determined primarily because of aestheticpurposes (i.e., staining of plumbing fixtures, taste or odor).

The groundwater standards listed in Table 5 of the health assessment were established by theNew York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) for protection of ClassGA fresh groundwaters. The best usage of Class GA groundwater is as a source of a potablewater supply. The NYS DEC may establish a more stringent standard for a specific chemicalnecessary to prevent groundwater pollution and protection of groundwaters for their best use, as afuture potable water supply.

Comment #6

Page 38 of the report states that a new well will be put in. The local paper states that the countyis trying for a buyout. We recommend that all properties are bought from the people who wish toleave the area. The damage is already done to our bodies. What will moving solve? For thevictims of the landfill, it's too little too late!

Response

The final (March 1991) record of decision (ROD) for the Colesville Landfill presents the selectedremedy for the site, which includes construction of a new water supply for distribution to thepresent and future affected residential water supplies near the landfill. As a responsible party,Broome County offered homeowners with contaminated water supplies the opportunity torelocate at the expense of the county. To date, the County has purchased all but one of theaffected residential properties.

Comment #7

Further study of health concerns should be done, including the evidence of cancer and otherillnesses. I know of people who lived near the dump and are now deceased. Do you have theirhealth records? Are their names recorded in a registry or is something going to get done? Sincethe landfill closed, there has been serious illness, similar to those in the past. A woman died ofcancer in 1991. She died of the same type of cancer that three doctors describe as being the typefound in third world countries where contaminated water is prevalent.

Response

The area near the Colesville Landfill, including the Hamlet of Doraville, was included in a studyof cancer incidence by the Broome County Health Department (BCHD). This study evaluatedcancer incidence for the period between 1976 and 1980 in areas of the county where watersupplies were known to be contaminated with organic chemicals or where there was a publicperception that contamination had occurred. Results of the study indicated that for the Town ofColesville, cancer incidence rates were below what was expected for both males and females andthere were no cases of cancer reported within two miles of the landfill. NYS DOH will requestthat this study be updated through 1990 to determine whether cancer rates from 1981-1990 aresimilar to those found in the earlier study. In addition, the NYS DOH has developed a registry ofpersons exposed to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in drinking water. With this registry,NYS DOH will periodically receive health information and updated addresses for exposedindividuals. Families living in homes near the Colesville Landfill with contaminated watersupplies will be considered for inclusion in the registry.

Comment #8

What about the children? They are the victims. All of them have suffered some type of illness. Stress is another illness which this problem has caused. With such a high level of dangerouschemicals in the area, the children in this area cannot expect a normal lifespan. How can we notdo all possible to insure their health is protected when there is an obvious hazard near where theylive? I know of children living in the area that either have Downs Syndrome or other birthdefects. The doctors in the area are not interested in hearing that they live near a landfill becausethey say it is too controversial.

Response

The NYS DOH has a statewide registry for mandatory reporting of birth defects. Any childrenwith birth defects whose parents were living near the Colesville Landfill at the time of their birthhave been included as part of this registry.

Because the population living around any individual waste site is too small to conduct a birthdefects study, NYS DOH recently conducted a study examining birth defect rates around 590waste sites in 20 counties in New York State. The study found a small increased risk of birthdefects associated with living near the waste sites. The NYS DOH is currently involved withthree follow-up studies that assess exposure based on available environmental data, address theimpact of active industrial emissions, and examine other potential risk factors in the developmentof birth defects.

Specific health concerns should be discussed with a personal physician who may contact theNYS DOH to consult with DOH physicians regarding the possible relationship between healthconcerns and exposure to site contaminants. Physicians may contact the Bureau ofEnvironmental and Occupational Epidemiology at 518-458-6202.

Exposure to site contaminants in drinking water has been alleviated for these residents withcontaminated water supplies by installation of carbon filters and/or delivery of bottled water. Remediation of the site will include measures to minimize exposures to site contaminants,thereby reducing/eliminating the existing hazard.

Comment #9

The State has been aware of the problem for almost ten years. Something should be doneimmediately. Several people have died, and contaminants from the landfill are the suspectedcause. The area should be fenced and a safe alternate source of water should be provided for theresidents involved. The health assessment concludes that the landfill is a hazard and posespotential risk to human health from past exposure and future health impacts. We have beenwaiting since 1983 for something to be done. Why is something not being done, immediately? We are very concerned about our life expectancy and that of future generations. It seems that allthe recommendations are meaningless. A Record of Decision was signed in March 1991, and itstated that the remedy for the site was:

  • Landfill cap
  • Community water supply
  • Pumping and treatment of contaminated water

Now it is June 1992 and nothing is being done.

Response

Following initial discovery of residential well contamination near the Colesville Landfill in 1983,Broome County initiated delivery of bottled water to the affected residences as an immediate,temporary measure to minimize exposures to site contaminants in drinking water. The Countysubsequently installed carbon filters at the affected homes to remove contaminants from thepotable water supply as an interim measure, and monitored water quality on a quarterly basis toevaluate the effectiveness of the filters. Later, the county offered to purchase properties fromhomeowners near the landfill with contaminated water supplies and all but one of the five homeswith contaminated water supplies has been purchased. These measures were all executed tomitigate known exposures to site contaminants in drinking water.

At the same time, other activities to stop dumping at the landfill and investigate the extent ofcontamination around the landfill were initiated. The landfill was closed in December 1984 andan interim cover was placed on the landfill surface. A remedial investigation and feasibilitystudy (RI/FS) was initiated in 1988. An RI/FS is a focused study which is conducted tocharacterize site contaminant conditions and must be conducted in order to determine the mostappropriate measure(s) needed to properly remediate contaminants at a site. Generally, an RI/FSmay take two or more years to plan, implement, conduct and finalize.

Throughout the course of the investigation, information about progress of investigations at thesite is presented to the public for comment. All public comments are reviewed and consideredprior to selecting a remedy for the site. The selected remedy is then presented in the Record ofDecision. These efforts and studies do take time, but are necessary to ensure that the site isproperly characterized and remediated and that all exposure concerns associated with past,present and future site conditions are addressed.

Comment #10

The seven recommendations listed on pages 36 and 37 appear to be excellent recommendations,however, until they are fully implemented, residents continue to feel the direct effects of thecontaminated landfill.

Response

The recommendations of the public health assessment have been made for consideration as partof follow-up health and remediation activities at the site. The NYS DOH and ATSDR willcoordinate with the appropriate regulatory agencies to develop plans to implement therecommendations contained in this public health assessment.

Comment #11

The location of the landfill in the Town of Colesville was not properly evaluated. Locating alandfill on a hill with a residential area below shows a lack of study and concern on the part ofthe people responsible for locating the landfill.

Response

As discussed in the "Site Description and History" subsection of the health assessment report,disposal operations at the Colesville Landfill site began in 1965. Unfortunately, at this time andalso during the time when industrial wastes were disposed at the site (1973-1975), there were nofederal or state regulations to control for disposal of hazardous wastes. It is not clear if homeswhich are presently located near the site perimeter were established when landfilling operationsbegan.

Comment #12

Why was dumping allowed at night after the dump was closed?

Response

The NYS DOH is not aware that illegal dumping occurred at night after closure of the landfill inDecember 1984 and is in the process of determining if the Broome County Health Department orthe New York State Department of Environmental Conservation have knowledge of illegaldisposal activities.

Comment #13

For many years, the smell and stench from the landfill was tolerated by all the people. Wecannot know at what point in time we will be zapped again with chemicals in the water whenmore barrels rust through.

Response

Odors are often associated with landfilling operations. When the landfill was closed inDecember 1984, an interim cover was placed on the landfill surface, significantly reducing thepotential for odors to migrate from the landfill. As part of site remediation, a gas vent layer willbe installed which will provide additional controls for odors migrating from the landfill in thefuture.

As buried wastes are to remain on site, the selected remedy will control for any future releases ofcontaminants to groundwater. Groundwater will be pumped from beneath and downgradient ofthe landfill and treated. Groundwater pumping ("extraction") wells will be located such that thecontaminant plume and contaminants migrating from the landfill will be "captured" andprevented from migrating off-site to downgradient receptors.

Comment #14

The presence of methane at and around the landfill should be constantly checked and controlled.

Response

One of the recommendations of the public health assessment, calls for appropriate measures toensure that methane will not impact homes near the landfill in the future. As stated in the recordof decision (ROD), the selected remedy will include installation of a gas venting layer to addressand control for methane at the landfill.

Comment #15

In addition to living with constant fear, our residents note they have suffered a decline in propertyvalues - due to the widespread knowledge of the contaminated landfill and associatedgroundwater, and the reluctance of people to move into such an area.

Response

For those homeowners whose water supplies have been contaminated as a result of past disposalactivities at the Colesville Landfill, Broome County has offered to purchase their property. Theobjectives of the selected remedy for the site is to restore on-site groundwater to levels which areconsistent with federal and state groundwater standards, including NYS DOH drinking waterstandards. The goal of the remedial action is to restore groundwater at (and near) the site to itsbeneficial use, which is as a drinking water source.

Comment #16

This area was one of the first settled in the Town of Colesville. While the area cannot be broughtback to that pristine condition, it should not be allowed to worsen and to enlarge.

Response

The landfill was closed in December 1984 to prevent additional wastes from being disposed atthe site. Since that time, a remedial investigation and feasibility study has been conducted tocharacterize contaminant conditions at the site and evaluate alternatives for site remediation. Theselected remedy is designed to be protective of human health and the environment. Removal andtreatment of contaminants in groundwater will reduce the volume of contaminated groundwaterand toxicity of contaminants in treated groundwater. Installation of a cap at the landfill surfacewill reduce the mobility of buried waste by minimizing the potential for wastes to leach togroundwater as a result of downward percolation of rain and surface water overland flow throughwaste materials. Leachate collection trenches will control any leachate that is generated duringand after site remediation, from migrating off-site. A fence will be installed around the landfillto prevent unauthorized access. The top soil layer of the landfill cap will be seeded to promoterapid growth of vegetation. The goal of the remedial action is to restore groundwater to itsbeneficial use which is as a drinking water source.

Comment #17

We recommend that families be kept more informed of what is going on.

Response

A public meeting was held on January 30, 1991 to inform the public of US EPA's and the NYSDEC's preferred remedy and solicit public comment on all the remedial alternatives, as well asthe preferred alternative. The remedial investigation and feasibility study report and proposedplan for the site were released for public comment on 1/5/91. Information about the site history,past site investigations, including the remedial investigation and feasibility study and the selectedremedy for the site are available at the information repositories which have been established forthe Colesville Landfill site. The information repositories have been established by the US EPAto provide citizens with access to documents containing information about the site. Theserepositories are:

Town of Colesville
Town Hall
Hurpursville, N.Y. 13787

NYS DEC
50 Wolf Road, Room 222
Albany, N.Y. 12233-7010

U.S. EPA
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza
Room 29-30
New York, N.Y. 10278

Additional site-related information and reports that are generated in the future will also beincluded in the document respiratory for public access.

Comment #18

Deer and turkeys travel in about a three mile radius.

Response

Ingestion of wild animals such as deer and turkey, were identified as a potential source of humanexposure for contaminants that bioaccumulate. There is no fencing around the site at present toprevent access by animals that can be hunted for food. A fence will be installed around the siteas part of site remediation efforts and this fencing will minimize the extent to which wild animalscan forage freely on the site, thereby reducing the potential for exposure to contaminants thatbioaccumulate in animals which are hunted for food in the area.

Comment #19

Would planting trees over the affected area help? Would trees and/or other plants absorb any ofthe toxic material?

Response

Planting trees around inactive hazardous waste site may be conducted as part of the remedialeffort, but primarily for aesthetic purposes. At the Colesville Landfill, a cap is to be installedover the landfill material as part of the selected remedy for the site. This cap will be designed tomitigate downward percolation of rain and overland surface waters through underlying wastematerials to groundwater. Planting trees at the landfill surface, either before or after installationof the landfill cap, would most likely compromise the integrity (i.e., the structure) of the cap andsubsequently, the effectiveness of the cap in preventing additional leaching of wastes togroundwater.

Comment #20

Test well number 19D was filled with concrete. How can a true test be taken from it?

Response

The only monitoring wells which were backfilled with concrete as part of well abandonment atthe site were monitoring wells 12s and 12d. These wells were "abandoned" because there wassome concern regarding the construction of the wells and the appropriateness of using these wellsas monitoring points. Two new monitoring wells were installed in close proximity to the originallocation of these wells and are also referenced as monitoring wells 12s and 12d. The NYS DOHand NYS DEC do not have any information to suggest that monitoring well 19d has been filledwith concrete and the construction of this well will be verified. During development of theOperation and Maintenance (O&M) plan for the site, appropriate groundwater monitoringlocations will be identified to evaluate if contaminants are migrating off-site and to ensureprotection of downgradient residential water supplies.

Comment #21

The one person responding to health concerns was the spokesperson for all the people in the"Concerned Parents of Doraville Group".

Response

Based on the Department of Health's sign-in sheet from the public meeting held on January 30,1991, it is our understanding that the spokesperson representing the Hamlet of Doraville was arepresentative of the Citizen Action of New York.

Comment #22

What about the future?

Response

Currently, development of the conceptual design for the selected remedy is underway. It isanticipated that the remedy at the site will be started in the Fall of 1993. Once the remedy for thesite has been completed, an operations and maintenance (O&M) plan will be developed for post-remediation activities at the site.

At sites where wastes are to remain on-site as part of the selected remedy the NationalContingency Plan (NCP) requires five year reviews to be conducted to ensure that the remedycontinues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.



Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #