By Staff      

Apr. 27, 2016:  On April 14, there was a public meeting in Tuckahoe, run by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), about the Brownfield Cleanup Program ("BCP") related to a hotel development project on Marbledale Road in Tuckahoe. 

The site under discussion is a portion (3.5 acres) of a vacant lot. For about 100 years this lot was a marble quarry. When the quarry ceased operations in 1930, the site was vacant for 20 years. From the early 1950s to the 1970s, the site was used as an industrial waste dump. Waste dumped into this site included ash, construction and demolition debris, and automotive and industrial debris. Then in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, the site was used for auto repair and storage. It was noted in the meeting that the waste was dumped into two marble quarry pits, 100 feet deep. 

In the meeting, the DEC explained that an investigation of the site was conducted by the "volunteer," which is the developer of the site. The DEC then reviewed this investigation and shared the following information. 

There is no question that there was waste dumped at the site. The primary questions are--how bad is it and what is the appropriate remedy. The investigation showed that there was contamination found in some soil and groundwater samples. It also showed that there was more contamination found in the vapor samples.  

Because of the contamination found in the vapor samples, the state made a "significant threat determination." This means that, based on these findings, the state thinks there is the potential for vapor exposure in the surrounding buildings and the state will use superfund money to find out.  

The state also designated the other two areas of the quarry (approximately three acres, which are not part of the Brownfield site) as potential inactive hazardous waste sites. They explained that they have to follow a procedure to clean up this portion of the site, which includes pursuing the responsible parties who disposed of the waste. If those companies no longer exist or will not do the remediation, the state can then use superfund money to investigate. They noted that this process will take time. 

A representative from the New York State Department of Health ("DOH") was also at the meeting. She explained that the DEC and the DOH work together to make sure the public isn't exposed to hazardous waste by touch, inhalation, or ingestion.

The DOH then asked and answered these questions:

Question:  Are people drinking contaminated groundwater from the site?  
Answer:  No. People in the area drink public water from a different source that is continually tested.

Question:  Are people inhaling soil vapor at the site?  
Answer:  No. There are currently no buildings at the site. The potential for soil vapor in a new proposed building will be addressed. Vapor in outlying structures is being investigated.

Question:  Are people touching contaminated soil? 
Answer:  No, because there are no people on the site now unless they trespass.

The DOH then stated that, based on their evaluations, the remedy proposed by the DEC will be protective of human health.

The DEC then outlined its draft remedial action work plan, which includes the following elements:

1. Excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated targeted areas.

2. Backfilling the areas with clean soil.

3. Removing anything that they find that is grossly contaminated.

4. "Capping" the site so that the site will be covered with either one foot of clean soil or six inches of asphalt or concrete. 

5. Vapor Mitigation System.

6. Environmental easement that requires periodic certification of vapor mitigation system, restricts the site to commercial use, prohibits use of groundwater, and requires compliance with a site management plan.

The site management plan also details provisions for any future excavations, operation, and management of the vapor mitigation system and site cover, groundwater monitoring plan, and continued inspections of the vapor mitigation system and site cover.  

A question-and-answer session followed the presentation. Numerous individuals expressed concerns, including the following (in no particular order).

1. Conflict of interest: The developer hired the company that investigated the site and produced the report that the DEC reviewed.  Isn't this a conflict of interest?  
Answer: The DEC considers any document, but under the Brownfield Program, the developer hires the environmentalist. The DEC then reviews the report. The laboratory that does the analysis is independent. Another party does the data usability analysis.   The village hired a environmental consultant that reviews everything as well.  The developer is bound to the site management plan.

2. Shouldn't the whole site be tested?  Why wait until later to test the remainder of the site outside the Brownfield? 
Answer:  There are two different processes for the site--Brownfield and Superfund. "The other portions will be done as an offsite investigation...." 

3. Methodology of the testing. There were a lot of questions about the nature of the testing, the areas tested and conclusions drawn.

4. Why don't we just dig up all the bad stuff and remove it? 
Answer:  The state-of-the-art process with landfills is to do what we have described. Remove what we come across, cap them as best you can, and avoid getting people exposed to what might be in them. Doing something about the landfill such as digging it up and looking inside it is not a good idea.

5. Concerns about safety during excavation:  The hill to the east is one of the most densely populated areas of Eastchester. How can you guarantee the safety of the people? 
Answer:  During the excavation, we have a community air monitoring plan put in place and an alarm signals if there is dust or vapor. 

6. Does contaminated groundwater affect our drinking water? 
Answer:  No, the water supply for this municipality in located elsewhere, so it is not impacted by the site.

7. Will contaminated groundwater flow down to The Bronxville School?  Will it end up in the new tanks to be built under Hayes Field? 
Answer:   From review of a previous report, we don't think "there is a large conduit bringing contamination to the Bronx River."  There is carse in the area but there doesn't appear to be a large conduit. 

8. Could this groundwater possibly be used for irrigation?  
Answer: yes

9. Is it better to leave the site as is? 
Answer:  "Based on the remedy that has been discussed here, we believe that if the remedy takes place the site will be safer for the community than if it is left undone.... The state will also be doing its own investigation of the other pieces of the landfill....The state superfund can help take care of that." 

10. Are contaminants flowing offsite?  
Answer:  There may be some, but we have not seen any large burst flowing offsite.

11. Does the developer get reimbursed for the cost of the cleanup? 
Answer:  Yes, that's correct, but it is only a partial reimbursement. Also, the state superfund is also funded with taxpayer dollars.

12. Where does the storm water run-off go?  
Answer:  It goes into the storm water system that is specified in Tuckahoe. During construction there is a storm water pollution plan in place. The village has to approve that as well. If they get rid of any water, it has to be treated before released.

13. Bronxville had a Brownfield Project.  They used a full excavation.  How is this different?
Answer:  I think that site is on Kensington Road. It was a former gas station. I'm not sure if the site was deemed a "significant threat" or not; however, the remedy proposed was a shallow excavation down to bedrock--1.5 to 2 feet of soil across the site.  No soil is left on site.

14. What percentage of failures have you had from capping?  
Answer:  I have only capped two landfills and for both landfill caps . . . no failures that we know of.

15. What would happen if this developer decides to walk away, where does that take us from here?  
Answer: If the developer walked away, the state would pick it up as a superfund site.

16. Has there ever been a negative report?  I have watched a lot of developers come in and promise the sky. They bring in experts. In all the years you have been working in the DEC, name me one project where a developer came in with a negative report. Developers never come back with a negative report. Everything is fine. What a joke! It is a joke that upset me to no end. Name me one project where developers came in with a negative report? 
Answer:  There was no answer. 

17. From what I understand, we are in a comment period. What would it take in the comment period that would change your perspective so that the one site that the Marriott is on does not just get capped?  
Answer:  What any comments should focus on is whether the remedy proposed is not protective.    

During one part of the meeting, an 85-year-old resident who said his house was behind the quarry commented on how happy he is that this site is going to be cleaned up because he remembers when it was a beautiful quarry and saw it transformed into a dump and believes it had adverse effects on his family's health. He said he was ashamed of "my village and the elected officials who sat back for 64 years" and that he had sent numerous letters that were never answered.

The meeting ended by noting that the comment period would end on April 24. According to the portion of the DEC website that discusses Brownfield Projects, the DEC will consider the public comments, have the applicant revise the plan as necessary, and issue a final decision document. 

"The applicants may then design and perform the cleanup action to address the site contamination, with oversight by DEC and the NYS Department of Health."

Pictured here:  The vacant lot on Marbledale Avenue, once a quarry, now under review for contamination.

Photo by A. Warner