Submit a new question

Frequently Asked Questions
PER EMAIL FROM DEC OFFICIALS
ID Question Answer
1 When do you expect the results of the vapor testing data? Within one to two weeks.
2 When are you expecting to present the remedial action plan (I think this is referred to as the record of decision?)? Before a record of decision (ROD) can issued, the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) must be completed. So the problem must be defined (especially the source areas) during the RI and based on the magnitude of the problem, various alternatives are evaluated in the FS. The ROD selects one of those alternatives (which may be a combination of various technologies) based on evaluation by Dept. staff and comments from interested parties (e.g., the public). The remedial action plan is the nuts and bolts (design documents) of the remedy selected in the ROD and this whole process could take two to three years. Interim remedial measures (IRMs) are also possible; before the completion of the RI/FS - ROD process, an interim remedy could be implemented
3 How much time will the public have for comment after the action plan is presented and before DEC approves the record of decision? Typically, the public comment period is 30 days.
4 Per the site record in the remediation database, why is the "owner during disposal" and "operator during disposal" identified as unknown? Because the exact disposal dates are unknown, the owner/operator during the disposal are unknown.
5A What are the reasons why it took nearly 5 years since the site was listed as a significant threat (on or about 8/29/01) to the time it was referred to the division of environmental remediation for a state funded RI/FS (on or about 8/14/2006)?  Before the Department can expend State superfund monies it is required by the State Finance Law to attempt to first obtain funding from those responsible for the site's contamination. The process of seeking private funding for a site's remedial program can be time consuming particularly in the case of a small family business with limited funding as turned out to be the case with Syracusa. Over the course of a five year period at various times, the Department attempted to fulfill its legal obligation to obtain private funding from Donald Syracusa (and negotiations were complicated by his death in 2003), his widow and his two sons, all of whom at various times were represented by three different lawyers and two different consultants. We explored with them the possibility of entering into a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement was well as an Order on Consent which would require their payment of $200,000 in the State's past costs and investigation, and remediation of the contamination. It was not until all these approaches were exhausted and the Syracusas finally revealed financial information which indicated that they could not afford to fund the Modock Springs site remedial program that the site was referred to the state superfund in 2006 for the state funding of the site's remedial program.
5B How long will it take to clean up? That depends on the technologies used to clean it up. Source area treatment(s) may take several months to implement and then evaluation of effectiveness may take several more months followed by additional treatments, if needed. The difficulties of characterizing, defining, and treating deep source areas (due to complicated flow paths and distributions of dense solvents) greatly complicates cleanup efforts. The entire process of source area and groundwater treatment can take years.
6 As a participant in the inactive hazardous waste disposal site remedial program, does the department of law (i.e. DOL) have the ability to place a lien on the DLS Sand and Gravel, Inc. property until clean up has been completed? I cannot address specific legal questions but in general, once all PRPs and investigation and remedial costs are identified, cost recovery efforts generally follow.
7 What is the estimated clean up costs? Unknown until the ROD is complete but will likely be seven figures.
8 Does the legislation supporting the inactive hazardous waste disposal site remedial program guarantee to cover the complete cost of the cleanup? As I understand it, yes.
9 Why did it take so long to coordinate a public water supply hook up for my residence from the time contamination was identified (i.e. about December of '99) given the existence of the emergency removal program? (please reference question #12 under the FAQ's for cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites on the DEC web page). "FAQ's Question #12 - The Emergency Removal Program allows DEC to respond to emergency situations at locations that are not yet Registry sites. Cleanup of hazardous materials spilled from overturned trucks, removal of soil and water contaminated by leaking drums and removal of abandoned drums are examples of emergency responses. This program also allows DEC to assist homeowners whose water supply has been contaminated by a listed inactive hazardous disposal waste site. For some emergency actions (generally ones that require larger dollar amounts), DEC requests that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) perform the work under the Federal Removal Program."

The key sentence is: "This program also allows DEC to assist homeowners whose water supply has been contaminated by a listed inactive hazardous disposal waste site." Since the site was not listed until 2001, this policy would not allow it. However, an exception to this policy was made and the decision was made to proceed with your hookup in August 2000. Also note that, in light of this policy, DEC attempted to secure funding for USEPA (see attached) early on but this was frustratingly unsuccessful.
10 How long does the identified contaminant last? That depends on the contaminant mass (non-aqueous phase liquid) and its distribution in the source area but given the mass currently in the groundwater system, this problem will persist for decades if left unremediated. And technical obstacles to remediation, common to most cleanup technologies, include variable subsurface geology, complex distributions of contaminants, and the attendant difficulties in fully characterizing and contacting the contaminated media. Therefore, complete remediation of source areas are quite daunting. Here's a technical discussion of the physical properties, transport, fate of these solvents, and the resultant problems presented when released into the subsurface.

Halogenated organic compounds, such as trichloroethene, are relatively immiscible liquids known as dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL); upon release to the subsurface, DNAPL (spilled product/waste) yields both an aqueous phase (dissolved in water) and a vapor phase (volatilized in air). The properties of DNAPL (e.g., low solubility, high density, low viscosity, high vapor pressure, and slow rates of biotransformation/degradation) add considerably to the overall complexity; very persistent and mobile contaminants result. Trichloroethene (TCE), for example, has a solubility of 1100 ppm (separate phase/slow dissolution), and density of 1.48 g/cm3 (rapid infiltration below the water table). And while TCE can slowly biotransform (microbially dehalogenate to 1,2-dichloroethene, vinyl chloride, and ethene under anaerobic conditions, aerobic aquifers generally show very little biodegradation. The fate and transport of DNAPL is discussed further below; its presence in the subsurface constitute source areas from which both dissolved-phase groundwater contaminants (below the water table in the saturated zone) and vapor-phase contaminants (above the water table in the unsaturated zone) migrate under prevailing gradients.

DNAPL FATE and TRANSPORT

With a release of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPL), such as chlorinated solvents, into the subsurface, DNAPL may distribute as residual saturation in the form of disconnected blobs and ganglia as well as larger accumulations such as lenses and pools. Residual DNAPL is formed at the trailing edge of a migrating DNAPL body due to pore-scale snap-off and trapping mechanisms and, at equilibrium, is virtually immobile due to interfacial tension. Lenses and pools of DNAPL may accumulate where a migrating DNAPL body encounters a capillary barrier (i.e., changes in pore structure, such as stratification (i.e., layers) in overburden or a variable fracture network in bedrock); where pore/fracture entry pressure is exceeded, DNAPL penetrates and may migrate below the barrier. The ultimate distribution of DNAPL in the subsurface depends on such factors as the properties of the geologic media (porous and/or fractured, degree of heterogeneity, etc.) and associated fluids, the mass and type of the release (instantaneous or gradual), and the properties of the DNAPL (See, for example: Schwille, 1988, Anderson et al., 1992a,b; Johnson and Pankow, 1992; Poulsen and Kueper, 1992; Kueper et al., 1993; Barbee, 1994; Pankow and Cherry, 1996).

Due to a combination of physicochemical properties (such as, low solubility, low viscosity, high density, and slow rates of biotransformation/degradation), DNAPL are very persistent sources of dissolved contaminants. With low solubilities and low groundwater velocities, it may require up to several decades and possibly centuries before residual and pool DNAPL zones are depleted by natural dissolution alone. A further complication is diffusion of both DNAPL and dissolved-phase contaminants into fractured clays and bedrock; DNAPL may even "disappear" from fractures into such matrices by diffusion (see Parker et al., 1994 and Pankow and Cherry, 1996). Groundwater cleanup times are then controlled by extremely slow diffusion processes in addition to the processes of dissolution, advection, sorption, and dispersion.

Unless the DNAPL source areas are defined and aggressively remedied, groundwater cleanups will not be effective (indefinite cleanup times). Groundwater pump-and-treat systems have long been utilized to contain groundwater contamination but the limitations of such systems to restore groundwater have become increasingly evident (e.g., Mackay and Cherry, 1989; EPA OSWER Directive 9234.2-25, 1993; Pankow and Cherry, 1996). At many sites, the major limitation is the presence of DNAPL, which even in relatively small amounts, act as very long-term sources of dissolved contaminants (perpetual pump-and-treat). Removal or destruction of DNAPL, where possible, offers opportunities for cost and time-effective groundwater remediation.

REFERENCES:

Anderson, M.R., Johnson, R.L., and Pankow, J.F. (1992a) Dissolution of Dense Chlorinated Solvents into Ground Water: 1. Dissolution from a Well-Defined Residual Source. Ground Water, v. 30, pp. 250-256.

Anderson, M.R., Johnson, R.L., and Pankow, J.F. (1992b). Dissolution of Dense Chlorinated Solvents into Groundwater: 3. Modeling Contaminant Plumes from Fingers and Pools of Solvent). Environmental Science and Technology, v. 26, p. 901-907.

Barbee, G.C. (1994) Fate of Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons in the Vadose Zone and Ground Water. Ground Water Monitoring Review, p. 129-140.

Johnson, R.L. and Pankow, J.F. (1992) Dissolution of Dense Chlorinated Solvents into Groundwater. 2. Source Functions for Pools of Solvent. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 26, p. 896-901.

Kueper, B.H., Redman, D., Starr, R.C., Reitsma, S., and Mah, M. (1993) A Field Experiment to Study the Behavior of Tetrachloroethene Below the Water Table: Spatial Distribution of Residual and Pooled DNAPL. Ground Water, v. 31, pp. 756-766.

Mackay, D.M. and Cherry, J.A. (1989) Groundwater Contamination: Pump-and-Treat Remediation. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 23, p. 630-636.

Pankow, J.F. and Cherry, J.A. (1996) Dense Chlorinated Solvents and other DNAPLs in Groundwater: History, Behavior, and Remediation, Waterloo Press, Portland, Oregon, 522 p.

Parker, B.L., Gillham, R.W., and Cherry, J.A. (1994) Diffusive Disappearance of Immiscible-Phase Organic Liquids in Fractured Geologic Media. Ground Water, v. 32, pp. 805-820.

Poulsen, M.M. and Kueper, B.H. (1992) A Field Experiment to Study the Behavior of Tetrachloroethylene in Unsaturated Porous Media. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 26, p. 889-895.

Schwille, F. (1988) Dense Chlorinated Solvents in Porous and Fractured Media. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI. 146 p.

USEPA OSWER Directive 9234.2-25 (1993): Guidance for Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Ground water Restoration", 26 p.

 
11 Has the contamination reached a peak? If so, what is the best time estimate that this occurred? An actual peak in contamination is not clear in the data, however, a gradual downward trend has been evident over the last few years.
12 What is the best time estimate as to when contamination disposal occurred? Estimates are fraught with uncertainty but based on estimates of hydraulic conductivity testing in wells (which vary over several orders of magnitude) and hydraulic gradients (which are fairly consistent), both of which, along with porosity estimates determine groundwater velocities, disposal can be roughly bracketed between 1950s and 1970s.