You are on page 1of 26

APPENDIX J

1.9(g) REPORT
Building lifetime relationships with our
clients and employees.

6NYCRR Part 360
Area 7 Development Application

1.9(g) Report
Town of Colonie Landfill

April 2017

Prepared for:

1319 Loudon Road
Cohoes, NY 12047

1200 Scottsville Road
Building C, Suite 320
Rochester, NY 14624
(845) 695-0200
TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORT CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................... II

LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................IV

1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 2
1.1 SITE HISTORY ...................................................................................................................... 3

2 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING ......................................................... 5
2.1 GEOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 OVERBURDEN GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6
2.1.3 RECENT FILL MATERIALS ........................................................................................ 7
2.2 HYDROGEOLOGY................................................................................................................. 7
2.2.1 UPPER WATER-BEARING ZONE ............................................................................... 7
2.2.2 INTERMEDIATE WATER-BEARING ZONE.................................................................. 8
2.2.3 LOWER WATER-BEARING ZONE .............................................................................. 8
2.2.4 THREE-DIMENSIONAL PATTERNS OF GROUNDWATER FLOW .................................. 8
2.3 CRITICAL STRATIGRAPHIC SECTION ................................................................................. 10

3 EXISTING AND FUTURE REMEDIAL ACTIONS ...................................................... 11
3.1 PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS....................................................................................... 11
3.2 CLOSURE AND CAPPING – CLASS 3 SITE ........................................................................... 12
3.3 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CLASS 3 SITE .................................................... 13

4 ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL SCENARIOS .................................................................. 15

5 MONITORABILITY ................................................................................................... 16

6 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 18

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 19

FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ 20

iii
List of Figures

Figures

1-1 Site Location Plan
1-2 NYSDEC Remediation Site Boundary and Cut-Fill Plan

iv
1 INTRODUCTION
The Town of Colonie Solid Waste Disposal Facility (Site) has proposed the development of
its solid waste management facility located in the Town of Colonie, Albany County, New
York. The site location can be seen in Figure 1-1. The proposed Area 7 development will be
to the north and west of the existing operational landfill areas (Areas 5 and 6) with much of
its footprint overlying areas previously used for waste disposal. The northern portion of the
Site is listed as a Class 3 Inactive Hazardous Waste Site (Class 3 Site). The Class 3 Site
(NYSDEC Registry Site Code 401004) comprises portions of the site referred to as the
Unnamed Area and portions of the Area 1 landfill. It was the Town’s understanding, based
on previous landfill permit applications and issued permits, that the areal extent of the
Class 3 Inactive Hazardous waste site was limited to the Unnamed Area – which was at the
northernmost portion of the site and outside of the Area 7 development. However, new
information would indicate that the Class 3 Site comprises portions of the site referred to as
the Unnamed Area and portions of the Area 1 landfill. The limits of the Class 3 Site
obtained from a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (NYSDEC's)
geographic information system (GIS) database can be seen in Figure 1-2. The 6 NYCRR Part
360-1.9(g)(1) regulations require that if a landfill facility is proposed to be located at an
inactive hazardous waste disposal site classified as Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 in the NYSDEC's
Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites, that sufficient information must be
presented to allow the NYSDEC to determine whether the proposed activity would
interfere significantly with any potential, ongoing, or completed inactive hazardous waste
disposal site remedial program, or would expose the environment or public health to a
significantly increased threat of harm.

In accordance with 360 – 1.9(g), this report addresses the following data needs relative to
the proposed landfill facility proximate to the inactive hazardous waste disposal area.

• A general description of the hydrogeologic setting, including description of the
geology in the vicinity of the inactive hazardous waste disposal site, the
occurrence of groundwater in the vicinity of the site, the direction of
groundwater flow, and the extent and direction of movement of a contaminant
plume.
• Description and evaluation of the effectiveness of remedial actions taken to date
at the classified site and/or discussion and preliminary evaluation of appropriate
alternative remedial programs or supplemental remedial programs that would
provide the required remediation of the classified site.
• A discussion of the effects the proposed development may have on any
contemplated or completed remediation and a discussion of the constraints the
proposed development may have on the alternative or supplemental remedial
programs, including the preclusion of alternatives and the availability of
sufficient land to implement, monitor, operate, maintain and modify, if
necessary, an alternative remedial program.

2
• An assessment of the hydrogeologic and environmental effects that the landfill
development could have on the remediation of the inactive hazardous waste
disposal site during the landfill's operating life and post-closure period. This
assessment includes the following: (1) behavior of the groundwater flow system
under anticipated seasonal and long-term fluctuations of groundwater recharge
and discharge (including any groundwater withdrawals associated with
remediation of the inactive hazardous waste disposal site or construction of the
proposed landfill), (2) transport and fate of contaminants in the subsurface (with
particular emphasis on groundwater resources or uses), (3) ongoing
monitorability of the proposed landfill and the inactive hazardous waste
disposal site, and (4) the continued effectiveness of remediation and other factors
which may bear on the assessment of risk to public health and the environment
from any reciprocal effects between the proposed landfill and the inactive
hazardous waste disposal site.
Each of the above noted items are addressed in the following sections of the report.
Specifically, a description of the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions at the site is
provided in Section 2. Section 3 provides a discussion of the remedial investigations and
remedial actions taken to date. Section 4 discusses the effects that the proposed Area 7
Development may have on completed remediation or alternative or supplemental remedial
programs. Issues related to the ongoing monitorability of the proposed landfill and the
Class 3 Site are presented in Section 5, followed by conclusions relative to the 1.9(g) issues
in Section 6.
Briefly, the information presented in this report addresses the requirements of 6 NYCRR
Part 360-1.9(g) and demonstrates that the proposed Area 7 Development will neither
interfere significantly with any potential, ongoing, or completed remedial program at the
Site, nor expose the environment or public health to a significantly increased threat of harm.
It also demonstrates that the monitorability of the proposed Area 7 Development will
continue to be distinguishable from that of the Class 3 Site.

1.1 Site History
The Site is bordered to the north and east by Cohoes-Crescent Road and the Mohawk River,
to the west by Loudon Rd (Route 9), and to the south by an industrial park. The facility is
operating under a current 6 NYCRR Part 360 Permit and has been the subject of several site
investigations to define the site hydrogeology, critical stratigraphic section, and engineering
properties of the underlying soils as they relate to construction, management and operation
of a solid waste management facility. Likewise, groundwater monitoring programs are on-
going at the facility in accordance with the approved Environmental Monitoring and Site
Analytical Plans (EMSAP).

The portions of the Site that are within the Class 3 Site consist of the Unnamed Area at the
north end of the site and portions of the Area 1 landfill. The Unnamed Area reportedly
accepted MSW and incinerator ash beginning in the 1960s until it ceased accepting waste in

3
1972. The Unnamed Area is unlined and has a vegetated soil cover (installed in 1983)
incorporating a low-permeability soil component and comprises approximately 12 acres.
The Unnamed Area is a listed Class 3 Inactive Hazardous Waste site (NYSDEC Registry Site
Code 401004). Area 1 accepted waste from 1972 through 1980. Area 1 is approximately 24
acres in size. Although this area does not include an engineered baseliner, much of it is
underlain by natural clay deposits.

According to the 1992 Phase II Investigation by URS Consultants, Inc., (URS, 1992) the Class
3 Site (NYSDEC Registry Site Code 401004) reportedly accepted over 85,000 tons of
industrial waste from 1968 to 1980 (much of it classified as hazardous) from companies
such as Bendix Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Norton Company, and Watervliet
Arsenal. Those industrial wastes, later classified as hazardous, included waste chromium
hydroxide sludge (F006), trichloroethylene (F001), accumulated paint in 55 gallon drums
(D001), and solvent-based phenolic and urethane sludges (D001). The solvents were
toluene, xylene, ethyl alcohol, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methylene
chloride (F002, F003, and F005). In addition to the 85,000 tons of industrial waste, URS
reported that the site also accepted 170,000 cubic yards of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)
per year from 1968 to 1980.

The Sanitary Landfill Engineer’s Report from G. Alan Cruickshank (Cruickshank, 1978),
identified proposed site improvements that consisted of drainage improvements that
would divert natural drainage around the landfill areas and improve leachate generation
issues at the site, cover installation which would control blowing paper, and prohibit
dangerous wastes that were corrosive, caustic, explosive, acid, or otherwise dangerous.

The 1992 Phase II investigation performed by URS Consultants, Inc., stated that due to
concerns over leachate seepage, the NYSDEC performed three assessments from 1980 to
1982. Based on these assessments, it was concluded that groundwater was being impacted
in the area and as a result, NYSDEC and the Town of Colonie entered into a Consent Order.
The Consent Order resulted in the landfill being closed in 1983 and remedial measures
consisting of a two-foot thick cap (placed in accordance with the NYS Part 360 regulations
in effect at the time and approved by NYSDEC).

URS’ Phase II investigation also concluded that “[s]ince the site does not appear to present
an immediate threat to life or health, no Interim Remedial Measures (IRM) are needed.” As
a result, in 1992, the Inactive Hazardous Waste Site was reclassified from Class 2a to Class
3. The justification for this reclassification was in part because of the statement that: “While
the landfill is significantly impacting groundwater with levels of hydrocarbons and heavy
metals, the contamination cannot conclusively be attributed to the hazardous wastes
disposed. The contaminants are more indicative of solid waste and oil spill debris
disposal.”

4
2 GEOLOGIC AND HYDROGEOLOGIC SETTING
The following section provides a description of the hydrogeologic setting, including the
direction of groundwater flow and contaminant distribution, and is derived from the
findings detailed in the "Site Investigation Report" (SIR) prepared by Cornerstone
Environmental, June 2016, for the 6 NYCRR Part 360 Permit Application. A more detailed
discussion of the site geology and hydrogeology is provided in the SIR.

2.1 Geology
The site geology has been previously described within the Area 6 Supplemental Site
Investigation Report (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001). The information from the Area 6 report has
been combined with the data collected under the current 6 NYCRR part 360 Hydrogeologic
Investigation and is presented in sections 2.1 through 2.2. The unconsolidated deposits
underlying the facility generally consist of an upper glaciolacustrine, varved silt and clay
unit underlain by till. Where the glaciolacustrine unit is absent, till is present at the ground
surface. Also present is a limited area of Alluvium deposits at the northeast corner of the
Site. Underlying the unconsolidated deposits is shale bedrock. Each of these units is
described below.

East-west orientated geologic cross-sections representing the northern, central and southern
portions of the site are depicted on Figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 of the SIR, respectively. A
geologic cross-section oriented north to south through the center of the site is presented on
Figure 4-4 of the SIR.

2.1.1 Overburden Geology

The glaciolacustrine deposits typically consist of an upper oxidized brown silt and clay unit
containing some silt partings, and a lower gray unoxidized silt and clay to clay unit. These
units contain minor amounts of wood fragments and both units contain varves of either silt
or fine sand. The contact between the upper brown clay unit and the lower gray clay unit is
typically gradational, with mottling occurring above the transition to solid gray. In addition
to the color change between the upper oxidized portion and the lower unoxidized portion
of the glaciolacustrine clay unit, the lower portion is less compact. In the brown silt and clay
unit, the blow counts per six inches on a standard split spoon ranged from four to six. The
number of blows per six inches in the gray clay unit ranged from zero (weight of hammer
and drilling rods) to three. The thickness of the glaciolacustrine deposits varies across the
site from thin to absent to as much as 60 feet. In general, the glaciolacustrine deposits are
thickest to the east, closer to the Mohawk River and thinnest to the west at higher
elevations. At the eastern edge of the site (locations CHA-5B, B-2013-10 and B-2013-12) the
glaciolacustrine deposits directly overly bedrock (i.e., the glacial till is not present).

The Alluvium deposits generally consist of medium to coarse grained sand and fine gravels
and are found in the northeast corner of the site. Alluvium deposits were observed at

5
boring locations B-2013-8, B-2013-9, B-2013-12, well cluster locations MW-2013-2 and MW-
2013-4, and well location CW-5. These deposits are assumed to be hydraulically connected
to the Mohawk River and range in thickness from 4 to 22 feet across an area of
approximately 800 square feet.

As detailed within the Primary and Principal Aquifer Determinations document (NYSDEC,
1990), a primary aquifer is a highly productive aquifer presently being utilized as a source
of water supply by major municipal water supply systems. A principal aquifer is defined as
an aquifer that is known to be highly productive, but not currently being utilized as a
source of water by a major municipal system. The document further explains that a
principal aquifer is one that covers a minimum of 5 to 10 square miles of continuous area,
saturated deposits of highly permeable material with an average thickness of at least 20
feet, and is capable of sustained yields from individual wells of 50 gallons per minute or
greater over a 2 square mile area or greater.

Based on these criteria, the Alluvium deposits found at the site do not meet the definition of
a primary or principal aquifer.

The till unit is generally characterized as a heterogeneous mix of gravel, cobbles, boulders,
and fragments of the underlying shale bedrock, within a matrix of clay, silt and sand. It is
typically brown near the ground surface due to oxidation, and grades to gray with depth.
The till is significantly denser than the silt and clay unit. Blow counts per six inches on a
split spoon using the standard penetration test, generally range from 25 to greater than 100.
Occasional, discontinuous sand lenses, as much as five feet in thickness, are reported within
the till unit. Reworked portions of the till have also been noted (MPI-2 well location) that
are less dense and of slightly greater permeability than the surrounding materials.
The till varies in thickness across the site ranging from thin to not present near the eastern
portion of the site and greater than 89 feet to the west underlying the higher elevations.

2.1.2 Bedrock Geology

The bedrock underlying the site consists of interbedded layers of greywacke (gray, poorly
sorted sandstone) and shale, believed to be part of the Ordovician aged Austin Glen
Formation. The depth to bedrock varies from as little as 2 feet to greater than 89 feet across
the site.

Collectively, the data from reference documents and the SIR field investigation indicate that
the bedrock surface slopes downward, from an elevation high of approximately 260 feet
msl in the southwest corner of the site towards the Mohawk River to the east and north. A
top of rock surface elevation map is presented on Figure 4-5 of the SIR.

6
2.1.3 Recent Fill Materials

Much of the northern portion of the proposed Area 7 Landfill Development consists of fill
(waste) materials overlaying natural soils. Waste materials were found within borings: B-
2013-3, B-2013-4, B-2013-5, B-2013-6, B-2013-7, B-2013-8, B-2013-10, B-2013-11, B-2013-12, B-
2013-13, MW-2013-2D and MW-2013-4D all of which can be seen on Figure 3-1 of the SIR.
Waste was found to be overlaying glacial till, glaciolacustine deposits and alluvium
deposits. All waste encountered was covered with fill material consisting primarily of silt
and clays.

2.2 Hydrogeology
The geology of the site has been described in previous sections of this report. In this section,
the interrelationships between groundwater and various geologic deposits are described.

The Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation Report (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001) describes
groundwater flow beneath the facility and assigns three water-bearing zones:

• An upper water-bearing zone where the water table is present.
• An intermediate water-bearing zone at the glacial deposit/bedrock interface.
• A lower water-bearing zone in the bedrock.

The information collected under the current investigation continues to support the division
of groundwater into the three distinct water-bearing zones as described below. The water-
bearing zones and their interrelationships within the hydrogeologic framework of the site
are discussed in Section 2.2.4.

2.2.1 Upper Water-Bearing Zone

The saturated glaciolacustrine silt and clay, as well as the till, act as a single low
permeability, unconfined, hydrogeologic zone. The water table is found within the till in
the western portion of the site (i.e., PZ-3, MW-2013-1S) and in the glaciolacustrine silt and
clay in the eastern portion of the site (i.e., MW-9S, MW-2013-3). In addition, the localized
alluvium deposits, described above in Section 2.1.1, are also included within the upper
water-bearing zone. While the alluvium represents materials of higher permeability, as
compared to the glacial silt, clay and till, the rate and volume of flow into the alluvium is
controlled by the surrounding lower permeability glacial deposits and surficial cover soils
(i.e., flow in must equal flow out).

Groundwater flow in the upper water-bearing zone is generally to the east toward the
Mohawk River, which represents the regional groundwater discharge area. Historically,
localized discharge points have been reported associated with topographically low areas
across the site. However, these localized areas are no longer present following re-grading
and development of the site.

7
Water level data collected on November 8, 2013 and May 28, 2014 was used to construct the
upper water-bearing zone potentiometric surface maps as presented on Figures 4-6 and 4-8
of the SIR, respectively. Groundwater flow as mapped and presented in the SIR is
generally consistent (absent localized discharge points as described above) with mapping
completed as part of previous investigations.

2.2.2 Intermediate Water-Bearing Zone

The interface between the saturated glacial deposits and top of bedrock acts as a single,
moderately permeable, confined, hydrogeologic zone with groundwater flow to the
Mohawk River to the east. Historically, localized upward gradients were observed between
this zone and the upper water-bearing zone near topographically low areas of the site.
However, these topographically low areas are no longer present and downward vertical
gradients now dominate with the strongest downward gradients observed at the higher
elevations to the west and decreasing to the east towards the Mohawk River. Upward
gradients are present between the intermediate and upper water-bearing zones on the east
side of the site along the Mohawk River.

Water level data collected on November 8, 2013 and May 28, 2014 were used to construct
the intermediate water-bearing zone potentiometric surface maps as presented on Figures
4-7 and 4-9 of the SIR, respectively. Groundwater flow as mapped by the most recently
collected data is generally consistent with mapping completed as part of previous
investigations.

2.2.3 Lower Water-Bearing Zone

As described in the Area 6 Supplemental Site Investigation Report (Malcolm Pirnie, 2001)
groundwater flow within the bedrock is primarily contained in secondary features such as
fractures, joints, bedding and cleavage planes. Groundwater flow is to the east, with
discharge to the Mohawk River. Additional investigation of the lower (bedrock) water-
bearing zone was not conducted during the Area 7 hydrogeologic investigation as it is not
part of the critical stratigraphic section as described further below.

2.2.4 Three-Dimensional Patterns of Groundwater Flow

The preceding sections have discussed each of the hydrostratigraphic sections individually
and in detail. The objective of this section is to integrate this information in order to
accurately describe and understand the three-dimensional groundwater flow patterns
beneath the site. This understanding will dictate the definition of the critical stratigraphic
section and the groundwater monitoring plan.

The two-dimensional patterns of groundwater flow are most accurately depicted on
hydrogeologic cross-sections A-A’ through C-C’. These cross-sections were constructed
using the static water levels collected from the monitoring wells and piezometers on
November 8, 2013 and May 28, 2014 (Figures 4-10 through 4-15 of the SIR).

8
A review of the cross-sections indicates the presence of horizontal flow paths within the
intermediate water-bearing zone. Flow paths within the upper water-bearing zone are
observed to be both vertical and, to a lesser degree, horizontal, depending on the location
across the site. The relationship between horizontal flow paths in the water-bearing zones
and vertical flow paths in the lower permeability aquitards is dictated by the contrast in
hydraulic conductivity and the Tangent Law. Groundwater flow lines prefer to use the
higher permeability formations as conduits, while traversing the lower permeability
formations by the shortest possible route. When a groundwater flow path crosses a
boundary with different values of hydraulic conductivity, it will refract in a manner similar
to light rays passing from one medium to another. The amount of refraction can be
calculated using the Tangent Law. On this basis, in aquifer-aquitard systems with hydraulic
conductivity contrasts of two orders of magnitude or more, flow lines tend to become
almost horizontal in the higher permeability materials and almost vertical in the lower
permeability materials (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). This relationship holds true regardless of
the measured hydraulic conductivity and is consistent with the flow systems illustrated on
the hydrostratigraphic cross-sections.

The cross-sections thus illustrate that a flow path originating within the proposed
development area will migrate vertically downward through the upper water-bearing zone
and then horizontally in an easterly direction through the intermediate water-bearing zone.
The cross-sections also illustrate upward gradients within the intermediate water-bearing
zone on the eastern edge of the site closest to the Mohawk River and that groundwater from
each of the three water-bearing zones discharges to the Mohawk River.

The Mohawk River elevation adjacent to the site, and within the pooled water behind
Crescent Dam, is approximately 184 feet. While the surface water elevation will vary
somewhat seasonally and in response to precipitation, this elevation is roughly equivalent
to or marginally lower than the groundwater elevations observed in wells closest to the
River and clearly lower than those observed in wells further up gradient within the interior
of the site. These data demonstrate discharge to the Mohawk River and that as
groundwater approaches the River, the hydraulic gradients decline.

As discussed further in the SIR, the existing water quality data demonstrates localized
impacts associated with historical waste disposal practices. Under current conditions, these
localized impacts will discharge to the River consistent with the flow paths described
above. However, these impacts are localized and therefore do not represent the overall
groundwater quality. In the future, and under the assumption that the Area 7
Development is approved, it is anticipated that the overall water quality will improve since
development would cut off precipitation and leaching through the historical waste.

9
2.3 Critical Stratigraphic Section
A “critical stratigraphic section” is defined by the NYSDEC as the stratigraphic units into
which contaminants from the facility “might reasonably be expected to enter and cause
contamination” 6 NYCRR § 360-1.2(b)(47). On the basis of the data collected during this
and previous investigations, the critical stratigraphic section should be inclusive of the
upper water-bearing zone and the intermediate water-bearing zone. As discussed in the
previous section the lower water-bearing zone exhibits hydraulic conductivity values
approximately two orders of magnitude lower than the overlaying glacial deposits. As a
result, any potential release from the landfill would preferentially migrate within the upper
and intermediate water-bearing zones. Thus groundwater monitoring within the upper and
intermediate water-bearing zones would adequately detect a potential release.

10
3 EXISTING AND FUTURE REMEDIAL ACTIONS
The following section presents a discussion of remedial investigations, completed remedial
actions, and effectiveness of these actions (where applicable) completed on the portions of
the Class 3 Site classified as hazardous waste areas.

3.1 Previous Site Investigations
Historically, the site has been utilized for the purposes of managing solid waste, with
numerous hydrogeologic investigations of varying scope and purpose having been
completed over the years. The existing data was used in support of the recently collected
geologic, hydrogeologic and water quality information as part of the current application.
Investigations completed prior to 1994 were outlined within Clough, Harbour & Associates
LLP (CHA) Area 6 Site Investigation Report (Clough, Harbour, 1994) and are summarized
below, followed by more recent work completed by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Historical
investigations that address both the Class 3 Site, as well as the full Solid Waste
Management facility, have included:

URS Consultants, Inc. (URS) of Buffalo, New York performed a Phase II investigation of the
closed extreme northern portion (Unnamed Area) of the Town of Colonie Landfill in April,
1992. The URS Phase II field investigation included the installation of seven (7) monitoring
wells and one (1) soil boring. The monitoring wells were installed with the purpose of
monitoring different geologic units beneath the site.

Empire Soils Investigations, Inc. (Empire) conducted a hydrogeologic evaluation of the site
in 1988 and 1989. Complete results of this investigation are available in their report dated
January 1989. Empire's study was initiated by a request from the NYSDEC to conduct a
hydrogeologic assessment following the Town of Colonie's application for a permit to
continue landfilling operations. Empire's study included several borings and seismic
refraction work that occurred within the Area 6 landfill development.

In December 1993 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. completed their hydrogeologic assessment report for
the Area 5 Landfill development. This report included the installation of six monitoring
wells (MPI-1S through MPI-4D), the decommissioning of seven wells (MW-4 through MW-
10), and groundwater sampling.

During the period March 1, 1993 through May 18, 1993, Clough Harbor Associates (CHA)
conducted an extensive hydrogeologic field investigation designed to characterize the
subsurface conditions at the proposed 43 acre Town of Colonie Landfill Area 6
development. The site investigation consisted of: twelve (12) bedrock borings, seventeen
(17) monitoring well installations (CHA-1 through CHA-8 clusters), groundwater sampling
and testing, geotechnical testing, geophysical testing, test pits, and hydraulic conductivity
testing. Following this investigation, a draft Site Investigation Report was prepared and
submitted to the town in April 1994. Neither this report nor the Part 360 permit application

11
was submitted to the NYSDEC as the town postponed the development of Area 6 so that
the lateral development of the adjacent Area 5 could be constructed.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. conducted a supplemental site investigation from 2000 to 2001. The
purpose of the supplemental site investigation was to complete a 6 NYCRR Part 360 Permit
Application for the Area 6 Landfill development. This investigation included six (6) borings
(GB-1 through GB-6) within the southeastern portion of the Area 6 development as well as
three (3) monitoring wells (MW-9S, MW-9I and MW-10S) and one (1) piezometer (PZ-3).
Groundwater sampling of seventeen (17) wells was completed as part of this investigation,
the results of which were included within the Supplemental Site Investigation Report dated
November 2001 and submitted to the NYDEC.

3.2 Closure and Capping – Class 3 Site
The 1992 Phase II investigation performed by URS Consultants, Inc., stated that due to
concerns over leachate seepage, the NYSDEC performed three assessments from 1980 to
1982. Based on these assessments, it was concluded that groundwater was being impacted
in the area and as a result, NYSDEC and the Town of Colonie entered into a Consent Order.
The Consent Order resulted in the landfill being closed in 1983 and covered with a two-foot
thick cap (placed in accordance with NYS Part 360 regulations and approved by NYSDEC).

The southern portion of the Class 3 Site (which constitutes portions of Area 1 and is shown
on Figure 1-2) accepted waste from 1972 through 1980. This area is approximately 24 acres
in size. Although this area does not include an engineered baseliner, much of it is underlain
by natural clay deposits and at one time reportedly had a rudimentary provision for
leachate collection and a vegetated low-permeability soil cover. While it is possible that the
limits of Area 1 extend south beyond the limits of the Class 3 Site shown on Figure 1-2, the
proposed activities and impacts in this area associated with the Area 7 Development would
be limited to the overlying waste in Areas 2, 3, and 4 and would not likely impact Area 1
wastes. Furthermore, the conclusions of this report would be unchanged irrespective of
whether the limits of the Class 3 site encompass the exact boundaries of the Area 1 landfill.

The northernmost portion of the Class 3 Site (the Unnamed Area shown on Figure 1-2)
reportedly accepted MSW and incinerator ash beginning in the 1960s until it ceased
accepting waste in 1972. The Unnamed Area is approximately 12 acres in size, is unlined,
and was closed, capped and vegetated in 1983. The original cap included approximately 36
inches of clay underneath a 6 inch layer of vegetated topsoil. In 2006 the top soil was
stripped and significant quantities of additional low permeability clay were added above
the original clay cap and graded for positive drainage, significantly improving the cap in
this area. The topsoil was replaced.

In 1992, the Inactive Hazardous Waste Site was reclassified from Class 2a to Class 3. The
justification for this reclassification was in part because of the statement: “While the landfill
is significantly impacting groundwater with levels of hydrocarbons and heavy metals, the

12
contamination cannot conclusively be attributed to the hazardous wastes disposed. The
contaminants are more indicative of solid waste and oil spill debris disposal.” As part of
the reclassification process a Phase II investigation performed by URS Consultants stated,
“Since the site does not appear to present an immediate threat to life or health, no Interim
Remedial Measures (IRM) are needed.” This conclusion continues to be supported by
water quality data that has not shown evidence of the hazardous materials reportedly
disposed of within the Class 3 Site. Rather, the groundwater monitoring data is consistent
with typical MSW as stated above.

3.3 Proposed Construction within the Class 3 Site
Figure 1-2 shows a cut-fill plan for the portion of the Area 7 Development footprint that
overlaps with the existing Class 3 Site footprint. In areas where additional fill will be added
over the existing Class 3 Site, the cap over the Class 3 Site will not be removed or excavated.

In areas where excavation into the existing grades within the limits of the Class 3 Site is
proposed, waste may be encountered. Based on Test Pits in the area, there is generally
about 6 feet of soil above the existing waste. The test pit data from 2013 is included in the
SIR and the test pits performed in 2014 were performed only to identify the thickness of the
cover materials and therefore all of the information generated from these test pits can be
seen on Figure 1-2. While the actual soil cover thicknesses will vary across the site, it is
anticipated that waste will be encountered when grading to establish Area 7 subgrade
elevations in the South West corner of the Class 3 Site as well as the area between Test Pit –
2014 - 3 and Boring – 2013 – 12 (see Figure 1-2). The waste excavation will be performed in
accordance with a site-wide Health and Safety Plan, to be completed prior to construction,
and the waste will be screened with a PID and visually inspected during excavation. It is
anticipated that the waste will be predominantly MSW; however, in the event that
industrial waste is encountered, the following procedures will be followed.

The excavated waste will be screened with a PID for VOCs and only MSW (based on a
visual assessment) with PID readings below background would be disposed of within the
existing landfill. Industrial waste (e.g. ash, sludge’s, electroplating waste, or other waste
inconsistent with typical MSW), regardless of whether there are PID readings above
background, or not, and MSW with elevated PID readings, will either be regraded and
maintained within the footprint of the existing historical waste area or staged for testing
and disposal at a facility authorized to receive such waste. The temporarily staged waste
materials that cannot be placed back in the footprint will be subject to testing as required by
the approved disposal facility prior to off-site disposal. Although not anticipated, if drums
are encountered they will be set aside on containment pallets, tested, and appropriately
disposed of off-site, as needed.

After the waste has been removed, structural fill will be placed above the existing waste to
bring the subgrade to the proposed grading and provide a stable platform for Area 7
construction. The structural fill will provide stability as well as a temporary cap to prevent

13
odor transmission and infiltration of surface water into the waste until the double
composite liner is constructed.

As discussed in Section 2.5.3 of the DEIS, the proposed development of Area 7 would
reduce infiltration of precipitation through large portions of the historic waste from an
estimated 100 gal/acre/day to nearly zero by using a double composite liner system. The
reduction in recharge (i.e. preventing the migration of precipitation through the existing
waste) is anticipated to result in a long term improvement in water quality. Quarterly, on-
going water quality monitoring will serve to both document and monitor for potential
groundwater impacts.

14
4 ALTERNATIVE REMEDIAL SCENARIOS
At this time, there are no alternative or supplemental remedial actions planned or needed
for the Class 3 Site. However, such actions, as necessary, may include repairs and/or
upgrades to the cap on the portions not overlain by Area 7, installation of leachate
collection lines along selected perimeter areas of the waste mass, or the collection and
treatment of groundwater/leachate within selected areas. The Area 7 Development will not
impact the ability to perform these remedial actions on the Class 3 Site in the future.

As described in previous sections as well as in the SIR, the general groundwater flow
direction at the site is easterly towards Cohoes-Crescent Road and the Mohawk River. As
seen in Figure 1-2, the perimeter of the Class 3 Site that borders the Cohoes-Crescent Road
is unaffected and untouched by the proposed Area 7 Development. At a minimum there is
85 feet of space between the limits of the Area 7 Development and the edge of the Class 3
Site closest to Cohoes-Crescent Road. The 85 feet (and in most places much more than 85
feet), is sufficient space for additional remedial actions should they be deemed necessary in
the future.

These potential future remedial activities could include measures such as a cutoff wall with
collection trenches along the edge of the Class 3 Site closest to the Cohoes Crescent Road
and or localized pumping wells in the sand and gravel deposits or at the top of rock to
collect potentially impacted groundwater. While these remedial activities are not
anticipated to be required due to the previously discussed improvement in water quality
resulting from reduced infiltration into historic waste, the Area 7 Development will not
prevent appropriate remedial actions from being implemented in the future.

15
5 MONITORABILITY
6NYCRR Part 360 1.9(g) requires the ability to separately monitor the Area 7 Development
and the Class 3 Site with the objective of differentiating current or future impacts from the
existing sites from any potential impacts from the landfill development.

The ability to perform monitoring and site remediation is based on a sufficient
characterization of groundwater and surface water flow that allows the proper
identification of upgradient and downgradient locations. In turn, this allows the proper
placement of environmental monitoring points which will detect and define a release from
the landfills, including the identification of source areas. This information then would form
the basis of selecting an appropriate corrective action which would mitigate a release.

The Area 7 Development will include the construction of a double liner consistent with
current Part 360 requirements. As such, the volume and quantity of liquids in the
secondary containment system will be monitored such that a potential release from Area 7
would be identifiable and distinguishable from a release from the Class 3 Site. As described
in the SIR, groundwater impacts are currently present down gradient of Area 7 due to past
waste disposal and it is anticipated that the reduction in recharge associated with the Area 7
development will result in positive changes in water quality. However, irrespective of the
anticipated changes in water quality, the environmental monitoring program (EMP) for the
site calls for quarterly groundwater quality sampling from which a database of water
quality specific to each well will be developed. Specific to the Class 3 Site, this includes
quarterly groundwater quality monitoring at wells MW-2013-2S, MW-2013-2D, MW-2013-
4S and MW-2013-4D, all of which are directly down gradient of the Area 7 development
that overlies the Class 3 Site.

In accordance with the solid waste regulations, a minimum of four rounds of water quality
data will be obtained from each of the above wells prior to deposition of waste within the
Area 7 development. In addition, historical water quality data is available from existing
well CW-5, which has been monitored annually since 2000. Collectively, these data will
serve as historical background water quality against which future data may be compared as
called for in the EMP. Notably, the historical water quality data is characteristic of
municipal solid waste and shows no evidence of the hazardous materials reportedly
disposed of at the Class 3 Site. In accordance with the EMP, water quality data from future
sampling events will be statistically compared to the historical water quality such that
statistically significant changes can be further assessed. Further assessment may include
additional sampling, evaluation of potential changes in concentration of leachate indicator
parameters, comparison of analytical data from the wells to that obtained from the Area 7
secondary collection system, secondary collection system liquid volumes, use of graphical
methods of water quality assessment such as Stiff and Piper Trilinear diagrams, etc.
Through this suite of assessment methods, the objective of differentiating current or future
impacts from the existing areas can be met.

16
In summary, the site hydrogeology, the construction of Area 7 with a double composite
liner, and the on-going EMP allows for separate monitorability between Area 7 and the
Class 3 Site present at the site.

In the event that a detected release requires remediation, the site hydrogeology is
sufficiently characterized such that applicable remedial actions can be evaluated, selected
and implemented as needed. For example, previous sections document groundwater flow
directions, that groundwater flow is principally within the overburden/top of rock
interface, and that vertical hydraulic gradients become smaller and start to become upward
toward the Mohawk River. With this understanding, localized groundwater extraction
wells or shallow groundwater collection trenches (i.e., French Drains) may be considered as
viable remedial actions to collect impacted groundwater, both of which could be
constructed at the down gradient perimeter of the Class 3 Site.

17
6 CONCLUSIONS
In accordance with 6NYCRR Part 360-1.9(g), an evaluation has been completed to assess
impacts that the proposed Area 7 Development may have on potential, ongoing, or
completed remedial actions as they pertain to the Class 3 Site. This evaluation has led to the
following conclusions:

• The construction and operation of the proposed Area 7 Development will not have a
significant impact on the existing groundwater flow system of the Site.

• Construction of the Area 7 Development liner system over portions of the Class 3
Site will reduce infiltration in this area and represents a significant improvement to
the function of the existing Class 3 Site cap.

• Construction of the proposed Area 7 Development will have predictable effects on
the overburden groundwater flow system. These effects would be limited in aerial
extent.

• Construction of the development area will not interfere with existing or potential
future remedial actions for the Class 3 Site.

• Existing or potential groundwater impacts attributable to the existing Class 3 Site or
proposed development area can be detected and differentiated using a combination
of techniques proven to be effective under the current Environmental Monitoring
Plan (EMP).

Based on the assessment presented in this report, the proposed Area 7 Development will
neither interfere with potential, ongoing, or completed remedial programs at the Class 3
Site, nor expose the environment or public health to a significantly increased threat of harm.

18
REFERENCES
Clough, Harbour & Associates (1994) Site Investigation Report, Town of Colonie Landfill
Expansion, Colonie, New York. Albany, New York.

Cruickshank, G. Alan (1981) Finished Grade Worksheet, Town of Colonie Landfill, Albany
County, New York

Cruickshank, G. Alan (1978) Sanitary Landfill Engineers Report, Town of Colonie, Albany
County, New York

Empire Soil Investigations, Inc. (1989) Geologic Evaluations, Town of Colonie Landfill,
Colonie, New York. Ballston Spa, New York.

Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A., (1979) Groundwater. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, 604 p.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (1993) Area 5 Landfill Expansion Hydrogeologic Assessment Report,
Colonie, NY. Albany, NY.

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (2001) Area 6 Lateral Landfill Expansion Supplemental Site
Investigation Report, Town of Colonie Landfill, Colonie, NY. Latham, New York.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Primary and Principal
Aquifer Determinations. Pagano, Salvatore. October 1990.

URS Consultants, Inc. (1992) Engineering Investigations at Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites
in the State of New York–Phase II Investigation, Town of Colonie Landfill, Volume I.

19
FIGURES

20
1-2
SITE BOUNDARY (SITE ID #401004)