Colonie Findings With Attmt

SEQR 617.
11
State Environmental Quality Review
FINDINGS STATEMENT
Prepared by
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Permits
Region 4
Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental

Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, as Lead Agency, makes the following findings.
_________________________________________________________________________
Name of Action:
Town of Colonie Landfill (Facility ID# 01-S-26) Area 7 Development Project
Location:
1319 New Loudon Road - east side of US Route 9 (New Loudon Rd.), north of Arrowhead
Lane, and west and south of Crescent Road in the Town of Colonie, Albany County
Description of the Area 7 Development Action:
On April 16, 2014 the Town of Colonie submitted an application to modify its current 6 NYCRR
Part 360 Solid Waste Management Facility Permit to develop and operate Area 7 at the Town
of Colonie Landfill (“Area 7”).
Area 7 is a horizontal and vertical expansion of the existing municipal solid waste landfill
owned by the Town of Colonie and operated by Capital Region Landfills, Inc. (CRL), as
approved by the Department. The landfill site is bordered to the north and east by the Cohoes-
Crescent Road, to the west by US Route 9, and to the south by Arrowhead Lane and an
industrial park.
Area 7, as proposed in the Town of Colonie permit application, will comprise approximately
105 acres of the 212-acre site currently used by the Town for its solid waste management
facilities. Of the 105 acres, approximately 82 acres of the expansion will occur over previously
disturbed/landfilled portions of the landfill site and approximately 23 acres of new landfill area
located mainly to the west of the existing landfill footprint.
The proposed vertical expansion would increase the height of the landfill from the currently
permitted height of 430 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 517 feet amsl. Based upon
comments received during the public comment period and the Department’s review of the
application record, the Department determined that the proposed vertical expansion needed to
Page 1 of 54
Colonie Landfill Area 7 Findings Statement April 5, 2018
be mitigated to avoid visual impacts to the City of Cohoes and therefore the proposed height is
reduced by 50 feet to a final permitted elevation of 467 feet amsl. The Department also
determined that the dimensions of Area 7 should be reduced from 105 acres to approximately
93 acres to provide a minimum distance of 500 feet between the expansion’s deposited wastes
and the Mohawk River, rather than 100 feet, as proposed in the application.
This increased setback distance further mitigates the potential for impacts to the Mohawk River
from the landfill operation and is consistent with the siting criteria contained in the revised
6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations that became effective on November 4, 2017. Although Area 7
is not subject to the revised 6 NYCRR Part 360 siting regulations, the Department finds a basis
in the record to apply the 500-foot standard to this proposal.
The proposed design for Area 7 will consist of approximately 60 acres of a new double
composite liner system including 37 acres constructed over Areas 1-4 of the existing landfill
footprint and approximately 23 acres of new landfill footprint. Area 7 will also include
approximately 45 acres of vertical landfill development over the existing Areas 5 and 6.
The Area 7 project will remove the existing open-air leachate storage lagoons which store
leachate discharged from the landfill and replace them with two new 500,000-gallon capacity
leachate storage tanks. Collected leachate will be pumped through a force main to a sewer
connection at Green Mountain Drive that flows to the Town of Colonie municipal wastewater
collection system.
The entrance to the facility will be relocated from Route 9 to Arrowhead Lane.
The project will not increase the daily or annual waste tonnage acceptance rates from the
current level.
An ECL Article 24 NYS Freshwater Wetland permit application and Clean Water Act Section
401 Water Quality Certification application were submitted to the Department on February 27,
2015. Area 7 will impact approximately 1.33 acres of the 100-foot adjacent (buffer) area of
state wetland TN-10 which is located along the western side of Crescent Road and extends
from the landfill southward to Fonda Road.
The impacts to the buffer area are associated with the removal of the existing leachate storage
lagoons, construction of the new leachate storage tanks, and the construction of perimeter
access roads and berms. The project will also impact approximately 1.43 acres of the 2.93
federal wetlands on the site. The federal wetlands are located at the northwestern and
southwestern portions of the landfill property, and include emergent wetlands (0.13 acres),
emergent/forested (2.80 acres). This disturbance is for landfill development activities.
On February 18, 2015, the applicant submitted a Title V permit modification application to the
Department for all air emissions that will be generated by the current landfill operations and
Area 7. By letter dated March 13, 2018 the US EPA, pursuant to its 45-day Title V permit
review period, provided recommendations to the Department which stated that the EPA had no
Page 2 of 54
objections to the Department’s issuance of the Title V permit. Recommendations contained in

the letter were addressed in the Title V permit.
The applicant updated its existing DEC Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Industrial Activity (SPDES MSGP) for the landfill to incorporate Area 7 and the
new stormwater retention basins to be constructed to accommodate changes in stormwater
flows and quantity.
The landfill will run out of usable landfill space in 2018 and will need to either significantly
reduce or cease all on-site disposal operations. The reduced operating level and/or closure of
the landfill, if Area 7 isn’t approved, will require that the Town and the surrounding
communities who rely upon the landfill find other solid waste disposal options, which will result
in increased costs of waste disposal for these communities. Area 7 will extend the life of the
landfill by approximately 20 years. This extended life will by provide long-term waste disposal
stability and provide sufficient time for the Town and members of its solid waste planning unit
to consider longer term waste disposal options.
SEQR Lead Agency: NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (Region 4)
Agency Jurisdiction and Permit Numbers:
6 NYCRR Part 360, 363, 364, 365 (Solid Waste Management); 4-0126-00033/00001
6 NYCRR Part 663 (Freshwater Wetlands); 4-0126-00033/00019
6 NYCRR Part 200 & 201 (Air Title V); 4-0126-00033/00009
6 NYCRR Article 15 (Section 401 Water Quality Certification); 4-0126-00033/00020
Article 17, Titles 7, 8 and Article 70 (NYSDEC SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for
Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity); NYR00D652
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Clean Water Act Section 404 Individual Permit (Waters of the United States)
SEQRA and Public Participation:
The Department received the solid waste management permit application on April 16, 2014,
and on April 30, 2014, it initiated SEQR Lead Agency coordination with other potentially
involved agencies, expressing its intent to become lead agency. The involved agencies
consented to DEC being lead agency and on May 20, 2014, the DEC assumed that role.
On July 1, 2014 the Department issued a positive declaration of significance pursuant to

6 NYCRR 617.7 for proposed Area 7, which was subsequently revised on August 28, 2014.
On August 20, 2014, the Department initiated public scoping for the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) and the scoping document was accepted by the Department as final
on November 4, 2014.
Page 3 of 54
On February 23, 2015, the Department received a DEIS prepared by the applicant for this
action.
On August 16, 2016, after several revisions, the DEIS was accepted by the Department for the
purposes of public review and comment. On the same day, the Department issued a
combined Notice of Compete Application/Notice of Completion of DEIS/Notice of Legislative
Hearing.
The Notices identified the date for the Legislative Hearing as September 20, 2016 with the
close of the public comment period on October 7, 2016. Requests for a second legislative
hearing was granted and it was held on October 25, 2016. The close of the public comment
period was also extended until November 1, 2016.
On April 10, 2017, the Department requested that the Town submit supplemental information
related to the proposed leachate storage tanks that were initially thought to have been exempt
from air permitting requirements; and to provide an analysis of the portion of the landfill that will
contain alluvial subsoils; and identify the boundary of the area within the existing landfill that
was once used for the disposal of hazardous wastes.
On May 25, 2017, the Department issued a Supplemental Notice of Complete Application and
Public Review for the April 10, 2017 requested information. This public comment period ended
on July 3, 2017.
On March 21, 2018, the Department noticed the acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) that contains a Response to Comments section. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part
617.11(a), “Prior to the lead agency's decision on an action that has been the subject of a final
EIS, it shall afford agencies and the public a reasonable time period (not less than 10 calendar
days) in which to consider the final EIS before issuing its written findings statement.” This
findings statement is being issued in accordance with the time frames set forth in 6 NYCRR
Part 617.11(a).
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF COLONIE
LANDFILL AREA 7 PERMITS
Permit Background
On March 16, 2017, the Department received an application from the Town to renew its solid
waste permit for the landfill operations. The application was received in a timely manner and
deemed complete in accordance with regulations, and therefore, landfill operations were
allowed to continue without formal renewal of the permit under terms of the State
Administrative Procedures Act. (SAPA).
Page 4 of 54
The landfill property has been used for solid waste disposal since the late 1960’s. Solid Waste
Management Permits were issued to the Town starting in the 1970’s and have been
subsequently renewed and modified continuously since that time. The most current Part 360
Solid Waste Management permit was issued in 2015 with an expiration date of
December 31, 2017. The permit is currently SAPA extended.
1. SEQR
The Department has conducted a balanced analysis of the project by weighing and balancing
the economic and social needs for the project along with community character and the
potential for significant environmental impacts as they relate to this project, and has
determined that Area 7 will not have a significant negative environmental impact to the
environment or to the communities surrounding the facility. A history of the SEQR coordination
is described above under “SEQRA and Public Participation”.
After an Environmental Impact Statement review and extensive public review process including
two public notice and comment periods and two legislative public hearings, the Department
finds that a modified (reduced size) project may be approved, and that under the provisions of
6 NYCRR 621.8 (b) no substantive or significant issues have been raised warranting an
adjudicatory public hearing and all statutory and regulatory criteria and standards for approval
and permit issuance have been met with the reduction in scope of the project.
The impacts of the Area 7 have been fully examined and, after weighing and balancing
relevant environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations that define the
need for this project from among the reasonable alternatives, the Department has determined
that by modifying the original proposal to reduce the final height of the landfill by 50 feet and
increasing the setback of the landfill from the Mohawk River by an additional 400 feet, for a
total setback distance of 500 feet, this action avoids or minimizes adverse environmental
impacts to the maximum extent practicable; and that adverse environmental impacts will be
avoided or minimized to the maximum extent practicable by approving a reduced project scope
and incorporating, as conditions to the decision, those mitigative measures that were identified
as practicable.
2. Solid Waste Regulations
a. Part 360 Applicability
Pursuant to the transition rules of 6 NYCRR Part 360.4(o)(4), any pending application for a
landfill which was deemed complete prior to November 4, 2017 will be reviewed for
conformance with the Part 360 regulations in effect at the time of application. However, 6
NYCRR Part 360.4(o)(4) also states that for landfill permits issued following November 4,
2017, the Permittee must comply with the operational, closure, and post-closure
requirements set forth in the revised 6 NYCRR Part 360 General Requirements and the
new 6 NYCRR Part 363 Landfills effective November 4, 2017. The Town of Colonie Area 7
Development permit application was deemed complete on May 25, 2017 (prior to
November 4, 2017). Therefore, the Area 7 project must conform to the permit application,
Page 5 of 54
siting and design requirements of 6 NYCRR 360 effective October 9, 1993, and must
comply with operational, closure, and post-closure requirements of the new 6 NYCRR Part
360 General Requirements and the new 6 NYCRR Part 363 Landfills effective November 4,
2017.
The Area 7 project must conform to the permit application, siting and design requirements
of 6 NYCRR Part 360, effective October 9, 1993. These requirements include:
i) Primary Water Supply and Principle Aquifers:
Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.12(c)(1), lateral and vertical landfill expansions are
prohibited from being constructed over primary water supply or principal aquifers.
The proposed landfill expansion is not over a primary water supply or principal
aquifer.
ii) Geotechnical Analysis:
Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.12(c)(4), a landfill must not be located in unstable
areas where inadequate support for the structural components of the landfill exists or
where changes in the substrate below or adjacent to the landfill are capable of
impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components responsible
for preventing releases from a landfill. An application for expansion of an existing
landfill must demonstrate that adequate support for the structural components of the
landfill exists or can be engineered to support any additional loads that may be
generated by continued operation of the facility.
In addition, pursuant to 6 NYCRR 360-2.7(b)(7), a seismic analysis is required for
new landfills, lateral expansions of existing landfills, and subsequent development of
any landfill permitted pursuant to these provisions located in a seismic impact zone,
as defined in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph. Such analysis must use reasonable
judgement that addresses the serviceable life of the landfill, its internal components
and its related appurtenances. At a minimum, the analysis must demonstrate that all
long-term containment structures including liners, leachate collection and removal
systems, and surface water control systems, are designed to retain a minimum
factor of safety of 1.0, unless otherwise approved by the department, to resist the
maximum horizontal acceleration for the site.
An initial Site Investigation Report (SIR) was completed which noted alluvial soils at
the north end of the site. Analysis of the alluvial soils at this location indicated that
they are potentially liquefiable under seismic conditions. The liquefaction impact on
the Area 7 stability and settlement was analyzed to determine appropriate
engineering design and mitigation measures which would prevent and/or minimize
the potential for liquefaction impacts on the landfill expansion. Engineering analysis
and modeling demonstrated that the potentially liquefiable soil will be stabilized
using established, geotechnical soil improvement technologies, therefore meeting
the requirements under 360-2.7(b)(7) and 360-2.12(c)(4).
Page 6 of 54
While liquefaction induced stability is not specifically addressed in the Part 360
regulations, a factor of safety of no less than 1.0 is required for other seismically
induced stability analyses [6 NYCRR Part 360 2.7(b)(7)]. Additionally, the USEPA
RCRA Subtitle D (258) Seismic Design Guidance (EPA Seismic Guidance) indicates
that providing a Factor of Safety no less than 1.0 is satisfactory for sites where the
ground motion is extreme (which this site does not have). The EPA Seismic Design
guidance provides additional clarification that ground motions less than 0.2g
(acceleration of gravity) are not considered extreme. The regulatory horizontal
ground motion at the site is 0.109g. The EPA Guidance also provides a summary of
geotechnical soil improvement technologies. Stability analyses of the post-
improvement soil conditions show that a Factor of Safety no less than 1.0 can be
achieved in areas containing alluvial soils.
The Area 7 permit will require the submission and Department approval of
engineering plans certifying that alluvial soils are adequately stabilized prior to the
commencement of construction of any Area 7 phases or components encroaching
on alluvial soils. Therefore, the Department finds the Area 7 project conforms to the
siting and stability requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.7(b) and 6 NYCRR Part
360-2.12(c).
iii) Class 3 Inactive Hazardous Waste Site:
Solid Waste regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.9(g)(1) 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, the applicant must submit sufficient information to allow the
Department to determine whether the proposed activity would interfere with any
potential, ongoing or completed inactive hazardous waste disposal site remedial
program at the classified site or would expose the environment or public health to a
significantly increased threat of harm. This information must be submitted in the
form of a report (referred to as the 1.9(g) Report).
The proposed Area 7 development will be to the north and west of the existing
operational landfill Areas 5 and 6 and will overlie the inactive landfill Areas 1 - 4. The
12- acre area at t northern portion of the landfill site is referred to as the Unnamed
Area. The Unnamed Area and Area 1 are listed as a Class 3 Inactive Hazardous
Waste Site.
The Unnamed Area and Area 1 accepted over 85,000 tons of industrial waste from
1968 to 1980 some of which is classified as hazardous. These areas were closed in
1983 and new lined Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills were operated to the
south of Area 1. A Phase II site investigation was completed in 1992 and
environmental investigations confirmed that hazardous waste as defined by 6
NYCRR Part 371 was accepted for disposal in the Unnamed Area and Area 1.
Based on the results of the Phase II Investigation, the Department listed the site as a
Class 3 Inactive Hazardous Waste Site. The Class 3 classification is assigned to a
site at which contamination does not presently and is not reasonably foreseeable to
Page 7 of 54
constitute a significant threat to public health or the environment. This classification

is not to be used for sites where insufficient data is available to make a definitive
decision concerning significant threat.
Because the proposed Town of Colonie Landfill Area 7 expansion will overlie part of
the Class 3 inactive hazardous waste site, the applicant was required to complete a
1.9(g) Report. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that any activities
conducted during the landfill expansion will not interfere with an ongoing or proposed
remediation activities at the inactive hazardous waste landfill.
The 1.9(g) Report that was prepared notes that the closure completed in 1983 was
deemed adequate by the Division of Hazardous and Solid Waste and that the 1992
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.” In addition, the report demonstrates that the Area 7
Development will not impact the ability to perform these remedial actions on the
Class 3 Site in the future.
The Area 7 1.9(g) report has demonstrated that the Area 7 Development will neither
interfere significantly with any potential, ongoing, or completed remedial programs at
the Site, nor expose the environment or public health to a significantly increased
threat of harm. The report further demonstrates that the monitorability of the
proposed Area 7 Development will continue to be distinguishable from that of the
Class 3 Site.
Based on the above information the Department finds that the Area 7 Development
plans and reports conform to the 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulatory requirements
applicable to landfills proposed to be located at a Class 3 Inactive hazardous waste
site.
iv) Surface and Groundwater:
The Area 7 project meets the siting requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.12(c)(1)(i).
Among these requirements is that landfill expansions must be at least 100 feet from
surface waters that are used as a source for municipal water supply. While the
proposed expansion meets this requirement, the Department, after consideration of
comments received concerning potential contamination of the Mohawk River, is
requiring that the plans for the proposed expansion be redesigned so that the
deposition of solid waste is no closer than 500 feet from the Mohawk River. This
revised proposal meets the stricter requirements of new regulations 6 NYCRR Part
363-5.1(d)(1) and is more protective of the Mohawk River, as the increased distance
further mitigates the potential for surface and groundwater impacts to it.
The Area 7 landfill expansion will comply with regulatory standards and construction
design safeguards to ensure no impact to groundwater and surface water. In
addition to the regulatory requirements for engineering design and construction, the
network of groundwater monitoring wells at the landfill site will be expanded to
Page 8 of 54
adequately monitor the landfill expansion area in addition to the existing landfill
areas. These wells will be regularly sampled (quarterly) to provide another means to
identify whether landfill operations have impacted groundwater.
b. 6 NYCRR Part 360 and 6 NYCRR Part 363 Applicability, effective November 4, 2017
Pursuant to the transition provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 360.4(o)(4), a permit issued
following November 4, 2017, must comply with the operational, closure and post-closure
requirements of the new 6 NYCRR Part 360 and 6 NYCRR Part Part 363 regulations.
These requirements include:
i) Double Composite Liner System:
The design includes a double composite liner system, leak detection and leachate
collection. A similar liner system is already in place and functioning properly in Areas
5 and 6. The top portion of the liner system, i.e., primary liner system, is designed to
provide for effective leachate collection and removal. The secondary liner system
collects any leachate that passes through the primary liner system. Leak location
testing will be conducted on both the primary and secondary liners in accordance with
6 NYCRR Part 363-6.8(c)(3)(vii). With the primary liner system functioning as
designed, minimal amounts of leachate flow to the secondary collection system. The
amount of leachate collected in the secondary system is monitored daily to measure
the performance of the primary liner system. In the event daily monitoring activities
identify concerns regarding the primary liner system’s performance, a series of steps
would be initiated in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360-7.1(f)(7) to investigate and
take appropriate corrective action. The collected landfill leachate will be piped into
new storage/holding tanks then discharged to the Town of Colonie or Albany County
Municipal Wastewater collection and treatment systems.
ii) Landfill Gas Collection and Control System:
6 NYCRR Part 363-7.1(e) requires that decomposition gases generated within a
landfill must be controlled to prevent safety issues and off-site odors. The landfill
regularly installs new gas collection wells and upgrades existing wells. Horizontal
gas collectors will be installed at a minimum vertical spacing of 20 feet and a
minimum horizontal spacing of 100 feet, and must terminate at least 100 feet from
exterior slopes. Vertical gas collectors are upgraded periodically, as needed. Plans
are submitted to DEC for approval prior to any improvements to the gas collection
system being made. These plans will be in compliance with 6 NYCRR Part 363-
7.1(e)(1). Additionally, monitoring of methane and other explosive gases will be done
at a minimum of once per quarter in accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 363-7.1(e).
The Department finds that the engineering plans and specifications for the Area 7 landfill
expansion meet the siting, design and construction requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360
effective October 9, 1993 and the operation, closure, and post-closure requirements of 6
NYCRR Part 360 and 6 NYCRR Part 363 and, therefore, will not cause significant adverse
Page 9 of 54
environmental impacts due to soil stability, leachate collection, groundwater contamination,

surface water containment, air emissions, landfill gas recovery and other design criteria.
3. Local Solid Waste Management Plan
The construction and operation of Area 7 of the Colonie landfill will provide the Town of
Colonie planning unit and other capital region communities with solid waste disposal capacity
for approximately 20 more years. The Town of Colonie Planning Unit solid waste management
plan includes an increased emphasis on recycling and waste reduction in accordance with
state policy. The Town of Colonie landfill is an important local resource in that it provides a
cost-effective means of waste disposal for the residents and businesses in the Town of
Colonie as well as the surrounding communities. The Town of Colonie Planning Unit consists
of the Town of Colonie, including its two incorporated Villages of Colonie and Menands, and
the City of Cohoes. The City of Watervliet has utilized the landfill in the past and is expected to
finalize agreements to become a member of the planning unit in 2018.
An initial Local Solid Waste Management Plan (LSWMP) was prepared in July 1992 and
revised in March 1993, and called for continued provision of waste reduction and recycling, as
well for the construction of additional long-term landfill space on Town owned land adjacent to
the existing landfill. An updated plan was adopted in 2009 and included the continued goal of
waste reduction and recycling services as well as the expansion of the Colonie Landfill through
the development of Area 7.
A draft LSWMP dated December of 2015 was submitted to the NYSDEC for review and
approval. The plan was revised in April of 2017 and determined to be approvable by the
Department on July 12, 2017. The town requested and received additional time to meet the
outstanding requirements, including SEQR Lead Agency coordination, publication of the plan,
preparation of certified resolutions from the Town and its incorporated villages. The
Department granted additional time until March 15, 2018 to submit all final documents. The
revised plan was publicized and the public comment period for the plan ended January 4,
2018. No comments were received during the comment period and the town is in the process
of completing the SEQR process and finalizing agreements with the other members.
The plan discusses long-range plans for solid waste management which includes continued
waste reduction and recycling through the year 2025. Area 7 will accommodate the expected
tonnage of solid waste requiring disposal from the Planning Unit for more than 20 years. Area
7 is consistent with current state policy regarding waste management and disposal.
Without Area 7 the landfill will run out of usable landfill space in 2018 and will need to cease all
on-site disposal operations. This will require that the Town and the surrounding communities
who use the facility to find an alternative location for solid waste disposal, which will cause an
increase in the cost of waste disposal for those communities. Area 7 will extend the life of the
landfill approximately 20 years, thereby providing long-term and economically secure disposal
of solid wastes.
Page 10 of 54
The Department has determined that the Town of Colonie Planning Unit updated Solid Waste
Management Plan is approvable. The Area 7 permit will require the Updated Plan to be
implemented by July 1, 2018, and therefore meets the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360 for
communities to implement a Long-Term Solid Waste Management Plan.
4. Landfill Closure Grant Repayment:
In 2001, the Town of Colonie was awarded a State Assistance Payment for Municipal Landfill
Closure Projects in the amount of $792,092.00 to assist the Town with the closure costs
incurred in the closure of Area 4 of the landfill. The $792,092.00, figure is 50% of the total
costs of $1,584,092.00 projected for closure.
Area 4 will be reopened for additional waste deposition as part of the overall plan for Area 7.
Since the grant monies were designated for closure of Area 4, and this area will now be
reopened, the Town must repay to New York State the grant monies received for the closure of
this area prior to the commencement of any work associated with the construction of new
landfill liner in Area 4. This repayment will be a condition of the Area 7 permit. The
Department finds that the repayment of the monies to the State prior to the commencement of
activities in Area 4 to be acceptable.
5. Stormwater Pollution Prevention/Surface and Groundwater Quality
The stormwater discharges associated with the landfill operations are regulated and authorized
under a New York State SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Associated with
Industrial Activity (GP-0-06-002), also referred to as “MSGP” or “SPDES Stormwater Permit.”
The MSGP Individual Permit (Authorization Number NYR00D652) for the landfill was revised
and updated to incorporate the expanded landfill operations and the new stormwater retention
basins and drainage features that will be constructed to accommodate changes in the
stormwater flows and quantity on the property.
The MSGP permit regulates stormwater that will be generated during the construction of new
cells where these activities are addressed under the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(“SWPPP”) that was prepared in accordance with the New York State Standards &
Specifications for Erosion & Sediment Control and the New York State Stormwater
Management Design Manual. The permit requires that stormwater runoff from all disturbed
areas that is not handled as leachate must be captured and treated by post-construction
stormwater management controls that are designed, constructed and maintained in
accordance with the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual. The Area 7 permit does
allow for alternative post construction controls provided that the owner/operator demonstrates
equivalence to the design standards.
In accordance with the SPDES Stormwater Permit requirements, a revised SWPPP has been
developed by the Town to address the management of stormwater runoff during the
construction of Area 7. In order to meet the requirements for management of runoff the
SWPPP includes hydrologic and pollutant loading analyses. The report(s) conclude that
Page 11 of 54
during construction and operation of Area 7 as well as other portions of the landfill there will be
a decreased volume of stormwater runoff resulting in an overall reduction in pollutant loading
to waters of the United States. This reduction is intended to demonstrate equivalence to the
design standards and satisfies the overall goals of the SPDES Stormwater Permit. The plan
includes erosion and sediment controls and provisions for routine inspection by a qualified
inspector to ensure that the construction activities do not result in impacts to the waters of the
United States.
The SWPPP also addresses the long-term management of stormwater runoff associated with
the expanded landfill after closure. In order to meet the requirements for post construction
management, the Multi-Sector SWPPP includes hydrologic and pollutant loading analyses that
compares the runoff volumes and pollutant loadings for the landfill when closed per the 6
NYCRR Part 360 permit to that of the expanded landfill after site restoration. The SWPPP
analysis shows that the rate of runoff and pollutant loadings decreases for the expanded
landfill. These reductions are intended to demonstrate equivalence with the technical
standards and satisfy the overall goals of the SPDES permit. The SWPPP includes provisions
for routine inspection by a qualified inspector to ensure that the soils disturbance associated
with the restoration activities will not result in impacts to the waters of the U.S.
The MSGP (Sector L, Page 101 of the MSGP, ESC Inspection Frequency Section) requires
specific approval prior to the disturbance of more than 5 acres of land at one time. Therefore,
whenever construction at the project site will expose more than 5 acres of soils, the project is
subject to the Town of Colonie’s stormwater program (MS4), and a 5-acre waiver must be
requested and obtained. The Town of Colonie, as the MS4, community is responsible for
granting that approval. Compliance sampling will need to be performed to demonstrate that
the work is protective of water quality standards.
After further deliberation regarding the proximity of the landfill to the Mohawk River, and after
taking into consideration the public comments received pertaining to the potential for
contamination of the river by surface or groundwater from the landfill, the Department analyzed
sampling data of river water and determined that by increasing the distance between the
Mohawk River and the closest location of deposited waste from 100 feet, as proposed, to 500
feet, will add a measure of protection against potential groundwater contamination.
The 500-foot separation distance between deposited waste and surface waters that are
actively used as sources of municipal drinking water supply is consistent with current solid
waste regulations siting requirements 6 NYCRR Part 363-5.1(d) that became effective on
November 4, 2017. The Department determined that the increased separation distance is an
appropriate mitigating factor that will reduce the potential for surface or groundwater impacts
from Area 7 from reaching the river, and based on that analysis, the Department will require
the final plans for the landfill to incorporate a 500-foot setback from the Mohawk River.
The Department, based on these facts and circumstances, finds that stormwater generated
during the construction and operation of Area 7 and post-construction will meet all regulatory
Page 12 of 54
requirements as well as state water quality standards and therefore will not cause significant
adverse impacts to groundwater or downstream surface waters.
6. Freshwater Wetlands
Wetlands provide benefits to the environment in the form of flood protection, biodiversity, water
quality, and wildlife habitat. An ECL Article 24 NYS Freshwater Wetland permit application
and Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification application were submitted on
February 27, 2015. An analysis of the potential wetland impacts was conducted in accordance
with the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 663.
A Wetland Delineation Report was prepared by Bagdon Environmental, dated October 2012,
and confirmed by the Department and US Army Corps of Engineers. The report states that a
wetland delineation was conducted on the 167 acres of land that encompasses Area 7 project
limits and that both State-regulated and Federally-regulated wetlands are present on the site.
The delineation identified a total of 4.64 acres of wetlands present on the site. Those wetlands
are identified as approximately 0.9 acre of NYS regulated wetland, 2.93 acres of federal
jurisdictional wetlands and 0.812 of isolated (non-jurisdictional) wetlands.
The wetland types/quantities delineated are:
Wetland Type State Regulated Federally Regulated Non-Jurisdictional
Emergent 0.13 acre
Emergent/Forested: 2.80 acres
Emergent/Roadside 0.77 acre
Emergent 0.13 acre
Isolated 0.812 acre
The project proposes to impact approximately 1.33 acres of the 100-foot buffer area of state
wetland TN-10, which is a Class 1, 27.6-acre linear wetland that is located along the western
side of Crescent Road and extends from the landfill site, south to Fonda Road.
Wetland TN-10 is associated with the abandoned Erie Canal which is under the jurisdiction of
the NYS Canal Corporation. Use of the land was through an agreement with the Canal
Corporation. Portions of the wetland and its adjacent area have already been disturbed by
past landfill activities under a NYSDEC permit issued in 2000 for work associated with the
Area 6 development and are of low wetland and adjacent area habitat value. The land was
declared abandoned by the Canal Corporation and formally deeded to the town in May of
2016.
The impacts to the wetland adjacent are associated with the work involved with the removal of
the existing leachate storage lagoons, construction of the new leachate storage tanks and the
construction of perimeter access roads and berms. No new direct impacts to the state
wetland, or loss of state wetland will occur as a result of this project. The project will continue
to impact the already disturbed adjacent area.
Page 13 of 54
Since there is little opportunity for practical, quality wetland mitigation on the landfill property
itself, off-site alternatives were considered. A proposal to excavate a new 3.2-acre wetland
with 2.47 acres of adjacent area was proposed on a town-own parcel of land adjacent to the
Mohawk River. After further consideration of that plan it was decided that the resulting wetland
will not provide as a high a quality of wetland due to potential hydrology issues, and after
further consideration and discussion with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), it was
determined that the monies that would be spent constructing a new wetland area will be better
utilized by entering those funds into the wetland mitigation bank.
The Town of Colonie developed a wetlands mitigation strategy which utilizes the Wetland Trust
Approved Susquehanna Basin Headwaters and Adjacent Basins In-Lieu Fee Program (a
preferred mitigation option as set forth in the Mitigation Rule). The Mitigation Rule, which was
promulgated in 2008 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and ACOE allows for three
mechanisms to providing compensatory mitigation (listed in order of preference as established
by the regulations): mitigation banks, in-lieu fee programs, and permittee-responsible
mitigation. The Town and CRL are proposing to use the In-Lieu Fee Program to satisfy
mitigation requirements for this project. The Town and CRL will acquire, as indicated in the
federal wetland application and subsequently confirmed through additional discussions with
the ACOE, 3.2 acres of wetland credits in the Susquehanna Basin Headwaters and Adjacent
Basins In-Lieu Fee Program.
The impacts to the state wetland adjacent area were evaluated in accordance with regulations
6 NYCRR Part 663.5 (e) weighing standards.
For Class I wetlands, the weighing standards require that the proposed activity must be
compatible with the public health and welfare, be the only practicable alternative that could
accomplish the applicant’s objective and have no practicable alternative on a site that is not a
freshwater wetland or wetland adjacent area. In addition, the proposed activity must minimize
degradation to, or loss of, any part of the wetland or its adjacent area and must minimize any
adverse impacts on the functions and benefits that the wetland provides. Lastly, the weighing
standards for Class I wetlands require that a permit shall be issued only if it is determined that
the proposed activity satisfies a compelling economic or social need that clearly and
substantially outweighs the loss of, or detriment to, the benefit(s) of the Class I wetland.
Based on the above information supported by the facts and circumstances included in the
DEIS the Department finds that there is a pressing economic and social need for continuing
disposal capacity in the Capital Region and its municipalities, lack of practicable alternatives to
the impending end of capacity of the current landfill, no net loss of valuable wetland adjacent
area habitat as well as the inclusion of funds in a wetland mitigation bank for use in projects for
restoring and enhancing other wetlands in the capital district. Further, the project will not result
in any significant negative impacts to the function and benefits of wetland TN-10. The
wetland’s adjacent area has been pre-disturbed and is not of high quality wildlife habitat and,
therefore, there will not be a significant loss of valuable habitat and the displacement of wildlife
will not be significant. The project mitigates wetland impacts to the maximum extent
practicable.
Page 14 of 54
The Department further determines that after weighing and balancing, that Area 7 satisfies a
pressing social and economic need which cannot be met by the other alternatives and
outweighs the loss or detriment to the wetland; that the impacts to the wetland have been
minimized through a project footprint reduction; that there will be no net loss of wetlands and
that there will be the implementation of a wetland mitigation fee that will be used to enhance
other wetlands in accordance with an approved wetland mitigation procedure. The potential
impacts to the wetland associated with this development meet the regulatory standards for
issuance under 6 NYCRR Part 663.
7. Waters of the U.S. and Water Quality Certification
The project proposes to impact approximately 1.43 acres of federal wetlands, which are
regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). The Federal wetlands are generally
located at the northwestern and southwestern portions of the landfill property. The previous
section on Freshwater Wetlands discusses the wetland types and acreages delineated on the
site.
The wetlands are primarily linear drainages in nature and are the result of filling and grading
activities at the landfill facility. There are no mapped streams on the property.
The design process evaluated measures to avoid and/or reduce wetland impacts and were
incorporated as feasible. Impacts were carefully evaluated and weighed against factors such
as landfill design and access roadway alignment, and support structures. Best Management
Practices during the construction phase and implementation of a stormwater pollution control
plan will be protective of surface waters.
The USACOE issued a Public Notice for the project on March 30, 2016 and made a
preliminary determination that the project is not likely to affect any federally endangered or
threatened species or their critical habitat.
As discussed in the previous section, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is supportive
of, and prefers, the implementation of a wetland mitigation fee that will be used to enhance
other wetlands rather than construction of new wetlands. This fee payment is considered an
acceptable and satisfactory mitigation alternative in lieu of the creation of new wetlands for
wetland impacts.
The ACOE would issue their Section 404 permit for disturbance to waters of the U.S.
separately from the DEC.
The Department finds that the plans for Area 7 comply with all applicable water quality
standards and regulatory criteria for issuance and therefore, will not result in a significant
degradation of Waters of the U.S. This determination by the Department is supported by the
facts and circumstances discussed above, including the DEIS alternatives analysis which was
used to determine that impacts to wetlands and wildlife species have been mitigated to the
maximum extent practicable.
Page 15 of 54
8. Air Quality
Air quality is regulated on a federal and state level through several programs; the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NYSAAQS), Non-attainment New Source Review and Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(NNSR/PSD) regulations, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). These standards specify
permissible levels for various pollutants.
The landfill is subject to the Title V Permit Program pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 201 for air
emissions associated with the construction and operation of the landfill and the generation and
collection landfill gas (LFG).
The facility has a current Title V air permit which will expire on October 23, 2018. The Town
submitted a Minor Modification Application to the Department on February 17, 2015 to address
modifications associated with Area 7 which include construction of new areas within the
existing facility for additional waste deposition, expansion of the landfill gas collection system,
removal of the emission unit associated with the former composting facility because
composting is no longer conducted at the site.
The current Title V permit includes emission control for active and closed landfill areas
contributing to the generation of LFG and the apparatus necessary to collect and combust
(flare) the LFG. Colonie Landfill maintains an active Gas Collection and Control System
(GCCS) of horizontal collectors and vertical collection wells connected by a header system and
routed to either the Landfill Gas to Energy (LFGTE) Facility operated by Innovative Energy
Systems, Inc.(IES) or to a utility flare.
The IES LFGTE facility is a recovery/power generating facility located on a 1.25-acre area in
the southeastern portion of the site that is leased from the Town of Colonie. The LFGTE
facility operates engines which utilize LFG. The emissions from the IES generator engines are
authorized under a separate Air Title V permit issued by NYSDEC to IES.
The landfill’s current Title V Permit has two emission units. One unit covers the grinder used in
the former composting operations; and the other unit consists of closed and active landfill
areas contributing to the generation of LFG and the apparatus necessary to collect and
combust the LFG including the existing on-site utility flare. The flare has a permitted capacity
of 3,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm). In addition, the Title V permit covers the
processes/controls related to fugitive LFG emissions (beyond the collection efficiency of the
gas collection system) from the closed and active landfill areas. LFG is collected and piped to
the IES LGFTE facility to be used as fuel for the company’s electrical generators. Excess gas
is combusted in one open flare.
The Colonie landfill is currently subject to the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill NSPS (40
CFR 60, Subpart WWW), but is not subject to the design and operational standards of this rule
because emissions of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) are less than 50 Mg/year. In
Page 16 of 54
the event the landfill produces greater than 50 Mg/year NMOC, the landfill will then be required
to meet NSPS operational requirements.
Colonie Landfill is required to submit a GCCS Plan to the EPA/NYSDEC within one (1) year of
reporting NMOC emissions greater than 50 mg/year. The Town submitted the NSPS-required
NMOC Tier 2 Sampling and Emissions Report dated January 7, 2014 that showed NMOC
emissions will be less than 50 Mg/year through the year 2018.
The NSPS GCCS for Area 7 will be similar to the system that is currently installed. The NSPS
GCCS will be designed to manage the collection of generated LFG and mitigate the potential
for subsoil LFG migration and surface emissions to the atmosphere. The design will consist of
features to promote compliance (if needed in the future) with the gas collection standards
specified under NSPS for new MSW landfill sites (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart WWW, Standards
of Performance for New Municipal Solid Waste Landfills).
Due to the proposed increase acreage associated with the proposed development, the Title V
permit record and emissions calculations were updated to consider annual VOC emissions
which are expected to be approximately 1.46 tons/year higher than the VOC emission
estimates stated in the 2012 Title V Operating Permit Renewal Application submitted to
NYSDEC and approved on October 24, 2013. The increase is considered to be insignificant
with respect to NNSR/PSD.
Leachate is generated by the landfill and is collected and currently stored in two open-air
storage lagoons. Area 7 proposes to remove these lagoons and replace them with two
500,000-gallon capacity leachate storage tanks. Collected leachate will then be pumped via a
force main to a sewer connection on Green Mountain Drive and then on to the Town of Colonie
or Albany County Municipal Wastewater collection and treatment systems.
The Town’s application to modify the Title V permit addresses potential regulatory changes
and provided supporting calculations to add Emission Unit 2-LCHST which covers potential air
emissions from these tanks. A review of VOC emissions and the potential applicability of
6 NYCRR Subpart 231-5, New Major Facilities and Modifications to Existing Non-Major
Facilities in Nonattainment Areas, and Attainment Areas of the State within the Ozone
Transport Region (Subpart 231-5) was performed. The project emission potential (PEP) for
VOCs (0.12 ton/yr.) does not equal or exceed the applicable major facility threshold in Tables 1
or 2 of Subpart 231-13 (i.e. 50 tons/year) (see Subpart 231-5(b)), and this PEP does not result
in the facility becoming a major facility (i.e. 50 tons/year) for VOCs. Therefore, Subpart 231-5
does not apply to the facility and the emission points for the tanks can be added.
Additionally, the application provided supplemental air information which describes how NSPS
40 CFR Subpart XXX does not currently apply, but could apply to the Landfill if and when
construction commences on the horizontal or vertical expansion. The Town will be required to
comply with all applicable requirements of 40 CFR Subpart XXX, including all reporting and
recordkeeping provisions at the time of construction.
Page 17 of 54
Current landfilling operations at the site produce vehicular emissions from heavy equipment.
Dust generation will also occur during the construction of Area 7 due to the necessity of
moving and stockpiling large quantities of soils. Dust can also be generated by operations at
the working face. The operational procedures at the landfill call for the use of water trucks and
other operational measures as discussed in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans for
the facility to effectively mitigate the generation of dust.
The landfill’s active Gas Collection and Control system is routinely inspected and maintained
and collected gas is piped to the IES LGFTE facility to be used as fuel for the company’s
electrical generators. In the event there is a problem at the LFGTE facility that requires a shut-
down of the electrical generators, the LFG is diverted to a flare at the facility and combusted.
Should there be a problem with the LFGTE facility’s flare the gas will be redirected to landfill’s
flare and combusted.
The Area 7 permit will require landfill staff to respond to an outage at the LFGTE within one
hour of being notified of an unplanned downtime event.
State regulations 6 NYCRR Part 217.3 prohibit heavy-duty vehicles, including diesel trucks and
buses, from idling for more than five minutes at a time to minimize localized air pollution and
noise. Trucks entering the facility for any purpose must be in compliance with this state
regulation.
Vehicular emissions from the construction and operation of heavy equipment are not
anticipated to have a significant impact on air quality due to the emission controls installed
on such equipment and the temporary/short-term nature of construction-related activities.
The Department has determined that the emissions from the landfill meet state and federal
regulatory air quality standards which are protective of human health and the environment.
The landfill’s operational systems have been designed and constructed to ensure that the
efficiency of the landfill gas collection and control system is maximized, and that emissions to
the environment are minimized. To demonstrate that the required design criteria for the landfill
gas collection and control system are being met, the system will be monitored by the town for
compliance with operational standards.
Under the Area 7 modification the emission unit associated with the composting facility is
deleted from the permit, as composting no longer occurs at the facility.
Emissions from the leachate tanks are considered insignificant.
Impacts from construction activities are considered to be temporary, and will cease once
construction is completed.
Operational procedures will continue to use water trucks and other operational measures as
discussed in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans for the facility to effectively mitigate
the generation of dust.
Page 18 of 54
The Department, based on these facts and circumstances, finds that there will be no significant
adverse environmental impact to the air quality from the construction and operation of Area 7.
9. Traffic
Landfill-related traffic includes residents of the Town, landfill employees and contractors, and
commercial trucks transporting waste and materials to the landfill. The existing entrance and
exit to the landfill is via separate driveways on US Route 9 (New Loudon Road) and is not
controlled by a traffic signal. There is another access to the landfill from Green Mountain
Drive, but it is not open to the public.
The Area 7 project will relocate the main entrance of the landfill from Route 9 to Arrowhead
Lane and the current Route 9 entrance/exit driveways will be closed and decommissioned.
Future traffic will enter the site from Route 9 and turn onto Fonda Road via an existing
signalized intersection. From Fonda Road they will turn left onto Green Mountain Road, then
turn left onto Arrowhead Lane and then turn right to enter the landfill facility. Traffic is
controlled at the intersections by stop signs. Arrowhead lane is a two‐lane east‐west arterial
with a 30-mph speed limit. The frontage of the corridor is a mix of residential properties to the
west and commercial establishments to the east.
A Traffic Impact Study was completed to evaluate traffic patterns in the vicinity of the landfill
and to assess operating conditions on the transportation infrastructure serving the landfill site
and the potential for traffic impacts as a result of the expansion.
Area 7 does not include a change to the existing landfill permitted daily capacity, and therefore,
operational traffic (i.e., trip generation) is not expected to change. The only additional traffic
incurred from the proposed project will be from construction traffic, which was estimated to be
approximately 20 additional vehicles per day while new construction is underway.
Although increased traffic is not proposed outside of construction vehicles, intersection

capacity and level of service (LOS) was determined for six critical intersections under five peak
hour traffic conditions for existing conditions, and three future horizon years for both the build
(future with the proposed Area 7) and no-build (future without the proposed Area 7) conditions.
These future horizon years are 2017 (projected start of Area 7 construction at the time the
study was conducted), 2021 (continuation of Area 7 construction and relocation of the site
driveway to Arrowhead Lane), and 2038 (expected completion of Area 7 construction).
The traffic service and operating conditions are qualitatively expressed in terms of six (6)
LOS categories "A" through "F", where LOS "A" represents the best traffic flow condition
with little or no delay, and LOS "F" describes the worst operating condition with extensive
congestion and delays. LOS "C" represents a stable flow of good traffic operation, and is
normally used as the desirable design objective. The LOS "D" is generally considered to be
a minimum acceptable traffic operating condition in urban areas for short time periods. The
Page 19 of 54
LOS "E" represents the theoretical capacity of the particular intersection approach, and is
defined as the maximum flow volume that can reasonably be expected to pass a point or a
uniform section of a lane or roadway under the prevailing roadway, travel demand, and
traffic control conditions.
For the no build condition for the 2017, 2021, and 2038 future horizon years, all but three
peak hour intersection conditions operate at an LOS “C” or better. For the build condition,
all but the same three peak hour intersection conditions operate at an LOS “C” or better.
The results of the 2017, 2021, and 2038 traffic analyses indicate that Area 7 will not cause
significant deterioration in traffic service levels at the critical intersections in the study area.
Also, the relocation of the site entrance to Arrowhead Lane will provide a safer traffic route to
and from the landfill; vehicles entering and exiting the site will use a signalized intersection
along US Route 9 and use low-volume, 30-mph roads to reach the site.
The landfill receives about 125 to 150 vehicles per day based on the landfill traffic records.
Daily traffic volumes depend on the tonnage of solid waste entering the facility, and is not
expected to increase from current averages. The current disposal limit of 820 tons per day
limit will not change in the Area 7 modification.
The current disposal limit is based on a 25-day rolling average, with no daily maximum limit.
The new disposal limit will be based on a quarterly average (Jan-March, April-June, July-Sept.
Oct-Dec.) with a maximum daily limit of 1,400 tons.
The expansion project does not propose an increase in daily traffic or increase in average
disposal daily tonnage limits, and therefore, the truck and employee traffic is project to remain
at or near current levels.
There will be an increase in the total traffic during the construction of the Area 7, but this
increase is not considered excessive for construction activities and will be spread throughout
the day. The increase will be limited to the duration of the construction period, after which
traffic levels are expected to return to the normal levels associated with current daily landfill
operations.
The roads in the area are sufficient to maintain the current traffic flows and levels of service.
Therefore, the levels of service along Route 9, Arrowhead Lane and Green Mountain Drive will
not result in significant adverse impacts from either the construction or operation of Area 7.
The operation of the Area 7 will not cause a significant change from current operations, and
the traffic study showed no appreciable impacts from landfill truck traffic, so that the continued
operation of the landfill at the approved current levels will not have a significant adverse impact
on local traffic.
Area 7, as approved, will have no significant impact on the LOS ratings of the intersections and
will provide a safer route to the landfill, therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed
necessary.
Page 20 of 54
The Department finds, based on these facts and circumstances, that truck traffic, which will
slightly increase during the construction of Area 7, and which will not increase during the
operation of Area 7, will not cause significant adverse impacts on surrounding roads.
10. Visual
The current 6 NYCRR Part 360 permit for the landfill authorizes a maximum landfill height
(after closure) of 430 feet above mean sea level (amsl). As originally proposed by the
applicant, Area 7 would result in a final maximum height of 517 feet amsl – an increase of 87
feet.
A Visual Impact Assessment (“VIA” or “Assessment”) was prepared by Saratoga Associates to

assess what the visual impacts would be, based on a final landfill height of 517 feet amsl in a
3-mile radius from the site.
The existing landfill is currently visible/partially visible from several directions and locations
including Route 9 (New Loudon Road), Cohoes-Crescent Road, Arrowhead Lane. Green
Mountain Drive, the Mohawk River and from portions of the Towns of Waterford, Halfmoon,
Colonie and the City of Cohoes.
The Assessment found that the landfill is visible to motorists traveling in both directions along
Route 9 and Cohoes-Crescent Road. The landfill is also visible from the east from the City of
Cohoes and from the northeast from the Town of Waterford. It will also be visible from the
south along Arrowhead Lane.
The landfill is not visible from approximately 95% of areas within the 3-mile viewshed area.
Filling of the new landfill space will occur gradually over an approximately 20-year period,
depending upon the rate of waste deposition.
Therefore, in those areas where it is visible, Area 7 represents a continuation of existing view
that will be similar in height and shape from year to year rather than a new feature that is
visually different from the current views.
The areas from where the landfill is currently visible, and will be visible when the landfill
reaches its currently permitted final height of 430 feet amsl is approximately 398 acres
(including existing forest vegetation) which represents approximately 2.2% of the total lands
within the 3-mile study area.
At a final landfill height of 517 amsl the landfill would be visible from approximately 796 acres
(including existing forest vegetation) which represents approximately 4.4% of the total lands
within the study area. The Area development, as originally proposed, would double the
number of acres where the landfill will be visible, but the total number of acres of visibility
represents an increase of only 2.2% of the total lands within the study area.
Page 21 of 54
The areas of visibility are generally small geographic extensions of adjacent lands that are
already impacted by views of the existing facility. Where Area 7 will be visible, views will be
limited the upper portions of the Area 7 appearing above the foreground tree line.
Where the existing facility is visible, it is a dominant feature on the foreground landscape.
While Area 7, as originally proposed would have increased the elevation of the landfill by
87 vertical feet, the visual patterns and composition of the proposed project would be
consistent with what is already seen.
In most areas, the effect of Area 7 on the surrounding landscape will be a change in the
degree of exposure rather than a new or visually different impact. In such areas, the upper
portions of Area 7 will appear low to intervening tree line and similar in form, line color and
texture with the local landscape.
Motorists’ views of the landfill will vary due to existing intervening vegetation, the speed at
which the motorists are traveling and the motorists’ cone of vision. Area 7 will be most visible
for motorists from Route 9 and Cohoes-Crescent Road for the most prolonged time while
traveling in either direction.
Area 7 will be noticeable to the residential areas across the Mohawk River and along Mallards
Landing North, Mallards Landing South and Steamboat Landing in Waterford. Those areas
will continue to have a generally unobstructed view of the landfill. The landfill will also continue
to be visible by users of the bike trails and walkways along the Mohawk River and from the
river itself. The visual impact analysis demonstrates that due to distance, topography and
vegetative screening residential areas the development of Area 7 will not result in a significant
change in views of the landfill from what currently exist, and will not be in sharp contrast to the
existing visual setting.
Some of the visual impact will be diminished by the progression sequence and operational
phasing approach that will be taken during landfilling operations. The operation of Area 7 will
be phased to screen active operations at the working face from view to the extent practicable.
Earthen berms will be constructed around the perimeter of the cell areas for each lift above
existing visual barriers. The exteriors of the berms will be planted with vegetation shortly after
construction of them is completed to establish a vegetative cover as quickly as possible.
Filling operations will then follow so that the berms will act as a screen for the filling operations
occurring behind it. Some views of the landfill will be mitigated by the growth of existing
vegetation in the foreground and midground along Crescent Road. However, the overall views
of the landfill will be generally unchanged from current conditions, except for the increased
height and closer appearance of the landfill in the vicinity of Route 9 as filling activities
continue northward and westward.
The Department’s policy “Assessing and Mitigating Visual Impacts” (2000), states that the
mere visibility of a project should not be a threshold for decision making. Instead, a project
must clearly interfere or reduce the public’s enjoyment and/or appreciation of the appearance
Page 22 of 54
of an inventoried resource. Therefore, the mere visibility of the project will not be considered a
significant impact, absent sensitive receptors or inventoried significant resources.
The landfill is visible from several historical locations. However, the NYS Office of Parks,
Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) reviewed the assessment and confirmed that
there will be no additional adverse impacts on resources listed, or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places around the landfill.
Several mitigation techniques designed to minimize visual impact to the maximum extent
practicable have been incorporated into the Area 7 modification. In order to minimize the
duration and magnitude of operational impacts landfilling within each successive vertical lift will
be phased in a manner that will screen much of the day-to-day operations from off-site
receptors through the use of berms to be placed along the perimeter of the lift area.
As landfilling is completed, closed areas will be revegetated with a mix of native grasses
and herbaceous vegetation. The intent of this mitigation is to create the visual appearance
of a natural meadow or old-field consistent with the visual character of the surrounding
region. In addition, mowing of the completed landfill will be limited to maintain this
desired visual character.
During the public notice and comment period for the Area 7 application the Department
received comments expressing concerns about the visibility of the landfill at the proposed final
height of 517 feet amsl.
The DEC Visual Impact Policy does not specify a specific radius of the impact area to be
analyzed, but does reference a general guideline that for very large projects, a 5-mile radius
would be considered safe to use, as at that distance the visual impact would be considered to
be a background activity that is not a point of interest to the casual observer.
To more fully assess the degree of visual change, the initial Visual Impact Study was followed
up with a second viewshed analysis which extended the study area to a distance of 5 miles
from the proposed Area 7 Development high point.
Viewshed maps were also modified to identify the geographic area where the currently
permitted landfill will be visible at completion for direct comparison with the affected area
resulting from proposed Area 7 Development highpoint.
These viewshed maps were also modified to identify the geographic area where the landfill
existed when the VRA was completed in April 2016 and the currently permitted landfill (upon
completion) are/will become visible for direct comparison with the affected area resulting from
Area 7 development. This additional information directly correlates with the photographic
simulations illustrating the existing condition (April 2016), the simulated condition of the
currently permitted landfill and the simulated condition of the proposed Area 7 provided in
Appendix A of the VRA.
Page 23 of 54
VRA Figure 3 identified the geographic area expected to be substantially screened by

intervening forest vegetation. Supplemental Figure B more completely defined the affected
area by including the screening value of existing built structures as well as intervening forest
vegetation. Revised area calculations were provided for both the supplemental bare earth and
land cover viewshed conditions (Figures A and B). These calculations replaced the
information contained in VRA Table 1 - Viewshed Summary.
The supplemental information does not change the conclusions of the original visual impact
assessment prepared for the Area 7 project. Area 7 represents a continuation of the existing
visibility of Colonie Landfill operations with limited areas of new visibility. In most areas, the
effect of the proposed action on the surrounding landscape is a change in the degree of
exposure rather than a new or visually different impact. Areas of new visibility are typically
small geographic extensions of adjacent lands that are already affected by views of the
existing facility.
After further considering the public comments that were received, the Department reexamined
what the viewshed would look like if the proposed final height of the landfill was reduced by 50
feet. A 50-foot reduction in the proposed height of the landfill will result in a new final elevation
of 467 feet amsl, which will represent an increase of 37 feet from the currently permitted
elevation of 430 feet amsl, rather than an 87-foot increase. With a 50-foot reduction in the
proposed final height of the landfill, the visibility of the landfill from the City of Cohoes has been
significantly reduced.
Further, as discussed in the groundwater section of these findings, the distance between the
Mohawk River and the closest location of deposited waste within the landfill was increased
from 100 feet as proposed, to 500 feet. This change will reduce the closeness of the landfill to
Route 9 and the increased distance, in conjunction with a reduction in the proposed final height
of the landfill, will reduce the perceived size and appearance of it from what was originally
proposed, as viewed from that vantage point.
The Department determined that a final height reduction of 50 feet is an appropriate mitigating
factor that will reduce visual impacts of Area 7 from several vantage points and based on that
analysis, the Department will require the final plans for the landfill to incorporate a maximum
elevation of no more than 467 feet amsl, and a 500-foot setback from the Mohawk River.
The Department finds that the viewshed analysis was conducted in accordance with
Department policy and based upon the analysis and the required reduction of the height and
size of the landfill among the mitigating factors, Area 7 will not cause a significant visual
change from current views and therefore will not cause significant adverse visual impacts in
the existing viewsheds of the landfill.
Page 24 of 54
11. Historical/Cultural Resources
The lands to be developed under the proposed Area 7 project were investigated in a Phase
1A/1B Study conducted by Curtin Archaeological Consulting, Inc., to assess the potential
impact of Area 7 on historic and prehistoric archaeological sites.
Based on this review, the 1A study determined that the majority of the area of interest had
been previously disturbed or contains existing landfill deposits. Within the project area, the
former locations of the old Erie Canal and the Fonda cemetery were identified as possible
occurrences of historic period sites. However, the old Erie Canal is under existing fill and
the Fonda cemetery was relocated in the 1930’s to its current location on the west side of US
Route 9.
The study also documented listed and eligible sites on the National Register of Historic Places
within a one-mile radius of Area 7. Listed sites include a church, bank, and house across the
Mohawk River in the Town of Halfmoon, the Cohoes Company Dam and appurtenances along
Cohoes Crescent Road/North Mohawk Street, and the Godfrey Farmhouse located directly
across US Route 9 from the landfill.
The Phase 1B study investigated apparently undisturbed areas by shovel testing at standard
15-meter (50-foot) intervals and confirmed apparent disturbed areas through additional
shovel testing. The recommendation from this phase of the investigation was consultation
with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for future activities that could impact the old
Erie Canal or the former Fonda cemetery.
The Phase 1A assessment concluded that the area of potential effect (APE) is considered to
have low sensitivity for prehistoric and historic archaeological sites. The exceptions to this
assessment is the Erie Canal and the Fonda cemetery, as noted above.
Based on the recommendation from the Phase 1B Archaeological Survey, SHPO was
consulted to verify the conclusions of the study and state its recommendations for further
construction activities. In a response letter dated December 16, 2014, SHPO stated that it has
no concerns regarding the proposed construction activities in the area of the old Erie
Canal, as the area of concern is covered by existing fill and will not be disturbed.
Additionally, in accordance with SHPO’s recommendations, excavation in the area of the
former Fonda cemetery will be monitored by an archaeologist, and SHPO’s “Human
Remains Discover Protocol” will be implemented in the event that human remains are
encountered.
The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) reviewed
the Visual Impact Assessment that was prepared for the project and determined that Area 7
will have no adverse effect to historic or archaeological resources under Article 14 State
Historic Preservation Act. OPRHP indicated that no further archaeological investigation is
recommended and issued a letter of no effect, covering all components of the landfill
expansion with respect to ground disturbance.
Page 25 of 54
In their letter dated August 9, 2016 the OPRHP stated that the existing visual intrusion (the
landfill) in the historic landscape associated with the involved resources was present when the
historical resources were determined eligible for or listed in the Register and that it “could not
be determined that the continued change over the next several years will render historic
resources to be no longer eligible for the Register.”
As mitigation for potential visual impacts the Area 7 permit will contain a condition that will
state that Archeological Monitoring of Fonda Cemetery must occur, according to approved
protocol during construction. Further, there will be construction of berms to visually screen the
site to off-site receptors, and that mowing of the landfill site will occur not more than 1-2 times
a year.
The Department, based on these facts and circumstances, finds that pursuant to SEQR and
the State Historic Preservation Act, there will be no significant adverse historic or
archaeological impacts resulting from the construction and operation of Area 7.
12. Noise
Note: Sound Pressure Level (SPL) may also be designated by the symbol Lp or perceived
loudness, and is expressed in decibels (dB) or A-weighted decibel scale (dBA), which
is weighted towards those portions of the frequency spectrum, between 20 and 20,000
Hz, to which the human ear is most sensitive.
Average of the sound levels in an area is abbreviated as: (Leq);
A noise assessment was performed in accordance with the department’s noise policy
(“Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts”, 2000) to assess what the potential impacts of the
projected operational sound levels associated with the proposed Area 7 will have on receptors
in the area surrounding the landfill.
Existing Sound Pressure Level (SPL) measurements were recorded during current operations
at the landfill’s working face, the facility entrance, and at eight (8) additional potential receptor
locations in the surrounding area to establish current ambient levels.
Sound level measurements were taken at a distance of approximately 50 feet from the working
face of the landfill. Equipment in use included a compactor, a bulldozer, the trailer tipper, and
waste delivery vehicles maneuvering and tipping waste.
Ambient sound measurements were taken from 5 of the locations prior to the 7 AM opening of
the landfill and one following the cessation of operations in the late afternoon.
The locations nearest US Route 9, east of the intersections with Crescent Terrace and Bay
Boulevard, had the highest early morning SPLs, with Leqs of 62.4 dBA and 65.7 dBA prior to
the opening of the landfill, respectively.
Page 26 of 54
Noise measurements at the exiting entrance in the afternoon after landfill operations had
ceased resulted in a Leq of 77.8 dBA. All 3 of these locations reported SPLs above the
NYSDEC suburban daytime limit of 62 dBA.
The ambient measurements at the other 3 locations, Green Mountain Drive approximately 150
feet north of Fonda Road (61.1 dBA) and in the vicinity of the proposed new entrance on
Arrowhead Lane, and near the eastern property line of the Grace Bible Church (57.1 dBA
each) are just below the daytime limit, they are all above the nighttime (i.e. before 7 AM) limit
of 52 dBA. Ambient noise levels at all of these locations are generally related to traffic on US
Route 9 and or within the industrial park, as reflected in the higher SPLs recorded closer to US
Route 9.
Noise sources associated with the landfill operations from Area 7 will be consistent with current
conditions. Trucks traveling to the relocated landfill entrance will continue to travel on US
Route 9 as they currently do, turning onto Arrowhead Lane and into the industrial park with the
existing truck traffic to access the facility. Traffic volumes and vehicle types are not expected
to change as a result of the proposed landfill development.
Therefore, data from the existing operations was used to project the expected Leq noise levels
away from the landfill that will be expected when operations were occurring at the limits of the
landfill at any given time, as these will represent times when potential noise sources will be
closest to receptors.
Sound pressure levels at the property lines of the two nearest residential properties adjacent
to the southwest portion of the facility are projected to be up to 68.5 dBA when landfilling
operations are in the vicinity of these properties. SPLs at the property line in this area were
calculated to have been 65.9 dBA when previous operations were occurring in this area
during the filling of Area 6. As a result, the projected SPL of 68.5 dBA at the property line in
this area associated with the proposed Area 7 landfilling operations is less than a 3 dBA
increase.
For the levels it the area nearest the residential properties it is noted that these SPLs are
limited to times when operations are closest to the property lines and sound levels will be lower
as the distance between operations and the property line increase. The 10-foot high perimeter
berm, the downward slope of the ground surface away from the facility, and the generally lower
elevations of the potential receptors all result in a change in the “line of sight” between source
and receptor which, as a consequence increases the distance between the source of the
sounds and the receptor, resulting in lower SPLs.
Projected sound levels were determined for the new entrance and scale location off Arrowhead
Lane. The new entrance access roadway and the scale locations are between 240 and 320
feet from the four residential property lines to the west. However, it should be noted that the
landfill property line is closer than 240 feet, but the landfill facility owns the property
immediately west of the proposed scale location and the 240 to 320-foot distance includes this
property. The resultant SPLs when a truck is moving onto the access roadway or on and off
Page 27 of 54
the scales at 75 dBA are projected to be between 58.9 dBA and 61.4 dBA at the landfill
property lines, depending on where the vehicle is in relation to each residential parcel. The
sound levels projected when two trucks are simultaneously maneuvering on the inbound and
outbound scales and or the access roadway is between 64.9 dBA and 67.4 dBA. These sound
levels do not take into account any reduction related to vegetation in the 200 to 300 feet of
wooded area between the property lines and the new entrance roadway and scale facilities.
Calculated sound levels at the rear property lines of the 4 residential lots related to traffic
noise on US Route 9 using SPLs of 69.2 dBA (Bay Boulevard) and 75.5 dBA (existing landfill
entrance) range from 56.7 dBA to 63.0 dBA. These calculated SPLs correlate well with the
measured sound levels of 55.6 dBA to 62.9 dBA on Arrowhead Lane at the new entrance
location. The projected sound levels represent a projected increase of 1.9 dBA to 4.9 dBAs
when two trucks are maneuvering in the new entrance and scale area.
In accordance with the Department’s noise guidance, sound level increase of 3-6 dBA typically
only result in adverse noise impacts where the most sensitive receptors are present. Given
the nature of the sound levels associated with traffic on US Route 9 in this area, any minor
SPL increase associated with the entrance and scale facility will not be noticeable and have no
impact on potential receptors. Since the time when waste materials will be brought on site will
be restricted to the hours between 7:00 AM and 3:00 PM, any increase in SPL from operations
at the new entrance and the scales will be limited to these times.
An increase in truck traffic on Arrowhead Lane from US Route 9 associated with the
relocation of the landfill entrance has the potential to increase traffic related sound levels at
the residences west of the new entrance on Arrowhead Lane. While this possibility will
exist if Arrowhead Lane were used to access the new entrance, the designated truck route is
via the signalized intersection with Fonda Road and via Green Mountain Drive into the
industrial park. No significant increase in traffic associated with the relocated entrance is
anticipated in the vicinity of the residential properties at the intersection of Arrowhead
Lane and US Route 9. As such, noise levels in this area, which are related to traffic on US
Route 9 and trucks and other vehicles associated with the occupants of the industrial park,
are not expected to change.
Construction activities include the creation of access roads and drainage basins, the
transport and deposition of soil, and liner placement. Sound level increases associated with
construction activities will be temporary and are not expected to be significant as all
activities will be performed during daytime hours. At the closest locations to residential
properties in the southwest portion of the Area 7, noise levels may at times increase more than
10 dBA during initial berm construction. Once the berm is constructed, all construction will be
behind the berm and up to 40 feet below it, thereby limiting noise impacts.
The noise level increases are also expected in conjunction with the construction of the new
entrance and scale facility. As with the construction activities associated with Area 7, sound
level impacts from the scale area construction will be limited and minor considering that the
activities will be limited to daytime hours and will proceed as quickly as possible,
Page 28 of 54
and since the average noise levels generated during construction will not exceed the
NYSDEC recommended 65 dBA criterion at any receptor location.
The Department received additional noise information in August of 2017 to supplement the
original study. The supplemental information more clearly shows the project levels around the
perimeter of the landfill at any given point around the perimeter of the facility, when operations
are at the limit of Area 7.
The noise evaluation took into consideration the vertical filling of Areas 5 and 6. Since the
main effect on reducing sound levels, other than land forms or structures that act to block
sound waves, is increased distance between the noise source and the potential receptor, an
increased height does not impact SPLs, other than increasing the distance to potential
receptors.
Landfill operations will continue to employ reasonable noise mitigation measures (smart
backup alarms, properly maintained mufflers, working within the perimeter berms) to reduce
noise impacts. While projected SPL increases related to Area 7 have been
identified at two residential properties adjacent to the southwest portion of the facility, the
increases are projected to be less than 3 dBA more than sound levels that have been
experienced in this area. As such, no noticeable impact is projected.
A 10-foot high soil berm will be constructed on the west side of the landfill, which will reduce
sound levels on this side of the facility. Berms can reduce sound levels by up to 10 to 15
decibels if they are several feet higher than the "line of sight" between the noise source and
the receiver. As filling progresses and final elevations in these areas are approached,
the reductions will be less, though the distance from the source will be increased
because of the changed “line of sight”. This increased distance will result in a further
reduction in off-site sound levels from the operations.
As previously indicated, the projected sound levels represent the worst-case sound levels
when operations are closest to property lines. Actual levels will mostly be lower since all of the
equipment is typically not operating at the same time and the equipment will move farther from
the potential receptors as landfill operations progress to the east.
Short-term sound level impacts associated with construction may occur at times. However,
because construction operations will take place during the day and will be temporary,
no mitigation measures are anticipated, other than the use of equipment that complies with
New York State noise emission standards.
The NYSDEC Program Policy Memorandum (Assessing and Mitigating Noise Impacts,
October 2000) was developed to provide guidance on the procedures to be followed in
performing a noise assessment, and criteria that will necessitate mitigation actions to alleviate
unacceptable adverse noise impacts. The Policy Memorandum also provides guidance on the
procedures used to calculate the attenuation or reduction of sound over distance from the
source and where a potential receptor may be impacted.
Page 29 of 54
The Policy Memorandum was used as a basis for the performance of the noise assessment for
the Area 7. The policy stresses that the goal of any project should minimize increases in SPLs
above ambient levels. It discusses that increases in the ambient sound levels from 0 to 3
decibels generally have no appreciable effect on receptors. Increases from 3 to 6 decibels
may have the potential for adverse noise impacts, but typically only where the most sensitive
receptors are present. A sound level increase of 6 decibels or more may require a closer
analysis of impact potential depending on the existing sound levels and the character of the
surrounding land uses and receptors.
The intensity of a sound wave diminishes (attenuates) as it gets farther from the source.
This attenuation is due to a combination of factors: distance - being the length of path of
transmission and the most important factor; absorption by surfaces such as vegetation,
buildings, earth formations, atmospheric conditions etc.
The intensity of an unobstructed sound wave is reduced by 6 decibels each time the
distance from the source is doubled, provided the source is not linear in nature.
Decibel level attenuation from linear sources, such as continuous flowing highway
traffic, drops by about three decibels each time the distance from the source is doubled.
Areas surrounding Colonie Landfill are zoned for commercial, industrial, and residential
uses. Nearby residential land uses to the west of US Route 9 include homes on Crescent
Terrace near the northern limit of the facility, a single home across US Route 9 from the
existing entrance, and a new Shelter Cove development off Bay Boulevard. On the east side
of US Route 9, two residences are located adjacent to the west side of the landfill site south
of the existing entrance and a number of homes are located along US Route 9 to the
southwest and adjacent to the industrial park located south of the landfill. Residential
properties to the south and southeast along Fonda Road are located more than 1,800 feet
from the landfill site and the industrial park is located between the residential properties
and the landfill. To the east of the landfill are Crescent Road and the Mohawk River, with
residential uses in the Town of Waterford.
Based on the above information the area surrounding the landfill can be described as
suburban in nature. As such, in accordance regulation 6 NYCRR Part 360.19 (j) the daytime
SPL limit for the facility at its property lines will be 62 decibels (A).
Data collected at the existing landfill entrance and at Locations 2 and 3 (intersections of US
Route 9 and Crescent Terrace and Bay Boulevard, respectively) indicate that sound levels
along US Route 9 are well above the Suburban Leq energy equivalent sound level of 62 dBA
due to traffic. 6 NYCRR Part 360 states that if the background residual sound level (excluding
any contributions from the solid waste management facility) exceeds the limit, the facility must
not produce a Leq exceeding the background level. The projected SPL at the Godfrey
Farmhouse property line abutting the west side of the US Route 9 right-of-way associated
with landfilling sounds when the active landfilling is closest to this location is 60.9 dBA,
below the New York State Suburban SPL threshold.
Page 30 of 54
The Department finds, based on the above facts and circumstances, that the use of perimeter
berms as part of the landfill progression plan to continuously have an intervening topographic
barrier feature between the active land filling operation and an adjacent residential areas, as
well as the distance between noise sources and the property line, noise control equipment
such as mufflers and the use of noise attenuating barriers will ensure that the noise limits in 6
NYCRR 360.19 (j) are not exceeded beyond the property boundaries and any noise increases
will remain below the significant threshold in the DEC noise policy of increases greater than 6
dB(a) over the existing ambient level.
To ensure that SPLs from proposed operations in appropriate areas do not exceed 62 dBA at
the property line of the facility, temporary sound reducing barriers will be used in the vicinity of
the property boundary and in the vicinity of the working face when operations are occurring in
proximity to the Grace Baptist Church and certain residential properties to the north of the
Church to avoid potential SPLs above 62 dBA that might occur from these operations.
The sound barriers to be used are manufactured from acoustical composite materials that can
provide a SPL reduction of 8 to 14 dBA, which will reduce sound levels from facility operations.
The barriers will be positioned between the working equipment and the property line and
moved as necessary to mitigate noise levels from landfill operations. The barriers will be
temporary in nature and will be relocated as necessary depending upon the location of
operations to ensure that noise levels from landfill operations will not exceed 62 dBA at the
property lines.
The Department finds that the noise analysis was conducted in accordance with Department
policy and based upon the analysis and the required reduction in noise levels by mitigating
measures, Area 7 will not cause noise to exceed 6 NYCRR Part 360.19 (j).
13. Odors
Odors from landfilling operations are produced by landfill gas (LFG) emissions from the
deposition of wastes at the working face of the landfill and the decomposition of the deposited
wastes over time.
The main components of landfill gas (LFG) are methane and carbon dioxide, which are
odorless, other trace components of the gas, such as hydrogen sulfide and organic acids, can
produce odors.
The project is not expected to generate off-site nuisance odors. Odors are minimized and
controlled by landfill operations and control measures such as minimizing the size of the active
working face and placement of cover material over the wastes at the close of each day of
operation. In addition, an odor neutralizer is used at the working face and in the vicinity of the
existing leachate collection lagoons. The lagoons will be eliminated under the Area 7
modification, and therefore they will no longer be a potential source of odors, significantly
reducing potential odors from the site.
Page 31 of 54
The landfill also incorporates and maintains an active landfill Gas Collection Control System
(GCCS) which routes collected gas to either the Innovative Energy Systems Landfill Gas to
Energy Facility (LFGTE) to be used as fuel for the electrical generators, or to a flare to be
burned-off.
There have been complaints of odors by residents living in the vicinity of the landfill facility. In
late 2012 and early 2013, under an emergency authorization, the landfill accepted debris
resulting from Hurricane Sandy. The waste was placed in a relatively new area of the landfill
which was not yet required to have an active GCCS in place. Due to the nature of the material
(i.e., high moisture and high proportion of waste drywall) unexpectedly rapid degradation
began soon after placement and the resulting LFG was particularly odorous hydrogen sulfide
emissions. This resulted in off-site odors being identified in August 2013. Additional LFG
collectors were installed in this area and subsequently connected to the GCCS in September
2013. The response was immediately effective in controlling odors from this debris.
Continued maintenance of the active GCCS was proven to be an effective odor control
measure.
In 2014 there were a total of 11 odor complaints. Most of the odors that were the subject of
the complaints were not detected upon investigation and were therefore considered
unconfirmed, transient conditions. One was related to the leachate lagoons and was corrected
within two hours. Two other complaints were related to LFG operations and were handled
upon notification. Because of these complaints, some improvements were made to the GCCS
to increase LFG collection which have been effective in controlling offsite odors.
In 2015 and 2016, the facility received 32 and 34 odor notifications, respectively. Of these 66
total notifications, only 30 could be verified, and only 7 notifications indicated that the odor
required the caller to take significant action (e.g., close their windows). Of the seven
notifications that required significant action, two were determined to be attributable to burning
debris (which is not performed at the landfill), one was related to composting (which is no
longer performed at the landfill) and one was potentially attributable to a skunk.
Between 2014 and 2016, only three significant odor notifications were received. One involved
a reported and confirmed LFG odor. This resulted in maintenance being performed on the
LFGTE plant. In 2015 a LFG gas odor reported and confirmed. This resulted in the flare being
restarted. In late 2015 and unknown odor type was reported that was unconfirmed. This
resulted again in the flare being restarted.
The landfill GCCS will be expanded to collect gases from Area 7. The GCCS will significantly
reduce odors through the capture and destruction of odor causing components of the LFG.
The landfill is required to divert the collected gas to the landfill’s flare whenever the LFGTE
plant is not operational for an hour or more. In addition, the LFGTE facility diverts the landfill
gas it receives to its flare for combustion whenever there is an interruption of the operation of
the engine(s) and the facility is not able to use the gas as it normally does.
Page 32 of 54
Current odor control/odor management measures will be continued throughout the operational
period of Area 7. Best management practices such as daily soil cover at working face, the use
of odor neutralizers and continuous monitoring of the GCCS will continue to be used to
minimize odors at the landfill and manage the potential for odors to occur off site.
Collection and transporting of the landfill gas to the LFGTE facility to burn and generate power
further reduces and mitigates landfill gas odors. Excess gasses not used are burned off using
a flare system.
Area 7 includes the replacement of the current open-air leachate lagoons with covered tanks,
thereby eliminating the lagoons as a source of odors.
Composting activities, which had been the source of some past odor complaints, no longer
occur at the landfill site, thereby eliminating that odor source.
The landfill operates a 24-hour odor complaint hotline and notifies DEC of all odor complaints.
Complaints are responded to within an hour by landfill staff. Landfill and DEC staff perform
routine inspections of the site and any potential causes of nuisance odors are corrected in a
timely manner.
Further, the Area 7 Landfill Gas Management and Odor Control Plan dated June 2016 requires
that several measures be undertaken to control odors, including the following.
 Implement a daily landfill odor patrol at locations specified in the Odor Control Plan.
 Implement the procedures set forth in the Odor Control Plan for responding to and
investigating complaints, and communicating status with the complainant.
 Regularly inspect and maintain the Gas Collection and Control System (GCCS),
including valve adjustments as individual wells.
 Implement a formal notification response protocol. The protocol requires inspection of

the odor complaint location and, if odors attributable to the landfill are confirmed,
immediate corrective measures to be taken.
 Provide a weekly update of landfill gas odor related operations at the landfill website:
(www.townofcolonielandfill.com). This will include a discussion about scheduled
interruptions to the landfill gas management system planned for the following week as
well as unplanned events that occurred during the prior week.
These activities and mitigation measures will be monitored and enforced by the Environmental
Monitor being implemented as part of the project and permit conditions. Area 7 is not
expected to produce odors more frequently than those generated from current permitted
Page 33 of 54
activities at the facility, and further, odor reductions are anticipated with the removal of open
lagoon systems.
The Department, based on the above facts and circumstances, finds that the implementation
of daily landfill cover requirements, the effective collection of landfill gases for the generation of
power, the use of odor neutralizers, the diversion of landfill gas to flares whenever uncontrolled
or unabated off-site odors are due to equipment failures at the gas to energy recovery facility
will ensure compliance with 6 NYCRR Part 360 and 6 NYCRR Part 211 and thereby mitigate
any potential odor impacts to the maximum extent practicable.
Further, the Department, based on the above facts and circumstances, finds that odor impacts
to the nearby residential areas have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable by the
reduction of the height and size of the landfill from its original design the application of daily
cover to minimize odors, the use of berms for visual and noise screening at the working face,
improvements to the gas collection system and additional odor control requirements as well as
the maintenance of a citizen complaint notification process.
14. Dust
Area 7 is subject to the 6 NYCRR Part 360.19 (g) dust requirements that prohibit any dust from
being emitted beyond property boundaries.
The facility’s Operation and Maintenance plan incorporates procedures for managing and
controlling dust at the facility by preserving as much existing vegetation to the maximum extent
practicable between the active landfill cells and the property boundaries. The landfill uses a
water truck for wetting dry areas at the facility to reduce the potential for the generation of wind
born sand and dirt from blowing off the site.
The Department, based on the above facts and circumstances, finds that the Area 7
construction design and operational procedures along with the watering of roads will prevent
nuisance dust from leaving the property boundaries to assure compliance with 6 NYCRR Part
360.19 (g) and therefore, not cause significant adverse impacts.
15. Threatened/Endangered Species
The NYS Natural Heritage Program was consulted regarding the potential presence of
threatened or endangered species. Bagdon Environmental conducted a bald eagle survey of
the site in March of 2014, and found no evidence of current occupation in the restoration area
by eagles.
The Northern Long-Eared Bat (NLEB) and Indiana Bats were also evaluated. Indiana Bats do
not have a strong presence in Albany County, and therefore, the potential for impacts are
unlikely. Indiana Bats and NLEB utilize similar habitats in the summer, however, there is very
low potential for summer roost trees on the project site.
Page 34 of 54
As a further measure of protection, the project plans limit tree cutting to November 1 through
March 31 to prevent unintentional impacts.
Based upon the facts and circumstances discussed above and the documentary record
including the EIS, the Department finds that the project will not cause a significant adverse
environmental impact to endangered or threatened species.
16. Community Character/Property Values
The landfill has existed at this location since the early 1970’s and is located in an area which is
zoned for light industrial use. The Area 7 expansion is located within the same industrial zone
and is compatible with this type of use. The lands adjacent to Area 7 are zoned for
industrial/commercial use in the Town. Area 7 is compatible with onsite and adjacent zoning.
Area 7 will increase the height and width of the landfill and bring landfilling operations closer to
the residences and church along Route 9. However, the project does not propose to make any
changes from the way the facility is currently operated on a day to day basis.
It is acknowledged that the operation of the landfill may at times have impacts to the local
community with regard to such issues as noise, odors and views of the working face.
Whenever a problem arises the landfill operators take steps to immediately address and
correct it, which will be further ensured by the on-site monitor. The occurrence of these types
of impacts is not expected to increase under this new development.
In response to public comments regarding the potential impacts of the proposed development
to property values, an analysis of the average residential property sale prices within various
radii from the landfill was prepared. The analysis found that the average listing price within the
three-mile distance from the landfill is lower than either the two-mile or one-mile distance.
Additionally, the average price per square foot within the one-mile radii or area assessed is
higher than either the two-mile or three-mile distance (or one-to-two and two-to-three-mile
areas). This indicates that proximity to the landfill has not affected residential property values
and, based on the number of listings, owners of properties located nearest the landfill do not
appear as motivated as owners farther away to list their homes for sale.
The analysis also indicates that development in the vicinity of the Town of Colonie Landfill has
continued in recent years, suggesting the presence of the landfill has not curtailed housing
development activity. Significant residential developments within the last 10 years within a
mile of the landfill include:
• Shelter Cove in the Town of Colonie

• The western portion of Mallards Landing South in the Town of Waterford
• Widgeon Way in the Town of Waterford
• Gadwall Drive in the Town of Waterford
Page 35 of 54
The Department finds that based on the information provided, Area 7 is not expected to have a
significant adverse effect on the current character and property values of the surrounding
communities.
17. Energy use and contribution to Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
The DEC GHG policy states that the policy should be used if Energy use or GHG emissions
have been identified as significant in a positive declaration or, as a result of scoping. Although
GHG was not considered a potential significant impact, it was still evaluated.
The Town of Colonie Landfill is an existing regional operation. If the Area 7 expansion were
not approved, waste will then need to be shipped long distances to landfills outside the local
area. This would increase fuel usage, vehicle emissions, and contribute to an increase in
energy use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Providing a local alternative for waste disposal
at the existing landfill will prevent significant increases in greenhouse gas emissions resulting
from transporting wastes to other facilities.
The use of on-site Best Management Practices and the replacement of vehicles and
equipment with more energy efficient ones are practical ways to reduce energy use which also
results in GHG reductions.
The Area 7 work will result in the cutting of trees on approximately six acres of the site. Trees
sequester carbon dioxide emissions through the photosynthesis process. Greenhouse gas
emissions, since they have a global impact can be mitigated by sequestration offsite from
Area 7. The loss of trees due to the Area 7 construction will be mitigated to replace their future
sequestration value. The Solid Waste Management permit will require the Town to submit a
tree re-planting plan to offset the loss of the sequestration value from the cut trees plus an
additional 20%. The re-planting plan will require Department approval prior to implementation.
The tree re-planting plan will not include any tree plantings that have already been planned by
the Town or required as part of its land use approval process.
18. Alternatives to the Proposed Action
The following section discusses various alternatives considered to the Area 7 and discusses
both the adverse and beneficial consequences for each.
A) No-Action/Waste Exportation (Off-Site Disposal)
At the time that the DEIS was prepared the figures for the remaining permitted capacity at the
existing landfill as of December 31, 2013 was approximately 1,517,000 million cubic yards and
it was estimated that depending on the rate of utilization and in-place density, the currently
permitted landfill will reach capacity by the end of 2017 (using the currently permitted waste
acceptance rate of 255,840 tons per year (tpy). Without an option for further development, no
additional waste could be accepted at the site and will have to be disposed elsewhere.
Page 36 of 54
This no-action alternative is therefore equivalent to closing the landfill and transporting waste
to another permitted disposal site. At the time of the writing there were currently twenty-eight
permitted landfills in New York State, most of which are publicly owned and typically restricted
with respect to the origin of the waste that is accepted. With the exception of the City of
Albany Rapp Road Landfill, all of the other permitted disposal facilities are outside of Albany
County. If the Colonie landfill were to close, waste will be diverted to other facilities, thereby
requiring transfer and long-distance hauling, causing increased fuel consumption and an
increase in GHG emissions. In addition, most landfills that provide commercially available
disposal capacity in New York are already operating at or near their design capacity.
There is an element of inherent unreliability and unpredictability in a waste exportation

arrangement. Tipping fees charged at landfills are subject to market fluctuations, and
residents and businesses in the Town and surrounding communities that rely on the landfill
for disposal will be subject to the variability of the market. Waste exportation costs will also be
more sensitive to changes in diesel fuel prices.
The cost of exporting waste to other permitted disposal sites will be more expensive for
the Town of Colonie residents and businesses, and the surrounding communities than
continued disposal at the Colonie landfill. The adverse fiscal implications to the Town of
Colonie are too significant to consider the no-action alternative as a viable option. Waste
should be exported only if no other solution can be found.
B) Alternative Sites
The Town conducted a siting study which was included in the Department-approved Town of
Colonie Solid Waste Management Plan dated July 1992, Revised March 1993. The siting
study followed a four-phase siting process for selecting a site that met state and local
requirements for a landfill facility while minimizing economic, environmental and social costs.
The four phases included an exclusionary phase that identified unsuitable areas; a primary
suitability phase to identify candidate areas from potentially available areas; an evaluation
phase in which each candidate site was numerically rated relative to other candidate sites; and
a site evaluation phase to verify the suitability of the best 2 to 4 sites and choose a single
preferred site by conducting on-site field evaluations. Five top ranked sites were selected in
the study for further evaluation. The highest ranked site was the existing landfill site and that is
where the first site investigation was performed. After that investigation, the existing landfill
area was selected as the future site of the Town’s landfill. For this reason, the siting process
did not require site investigations to be conducted at the other four candidate sites. The four
lesser ranked sites are no longer available for landfill development due to other new
development as indicated below:
• Parcel L (East of Boght Road – North of Alt. Route 7 – East of Route 32 – South of City
of Cohoes/Town Line)
New development: Manchester Hgts. Subdivision (SD), Fielding Ln. SD., Morning View
Farm SD. & The Norlite Co. Mine expanded
Page 37 of 54
• Parcel O (South of Alt. Route 7 – North of Haswell Road – East of Miller Road – West of
Harvard Road)
New development: Spring Meadows SD. & North Ridge Hollow SD.
• Parcel P (South of Haswell Road –East of Swatling Road – North of Route 2 –West of
Boght Road)
New development: Archmont Knolls SD. & Charter Pt. SD., Phases 1 & 2
• Parcel S (South of Route 155 – North of Spring Street – East of Fiddlers Lane West of
Lincoln Ave.)
New development: Siena College expansion, Schuyler Meadows Country Club

improvements, Loudon Hills East SD., East Hills SD. &Schuyler Landing SD.
Therefore, the existing landfill site continues to be the best alternative for the proposed Area 7
Development.
Given the large footprint and siting criteria required to site a new landfill, it was not practicable
or economically feasible to consider other sites. The proposed Area 7 Development is
included as part of the NYSDEC-approved LSWMP for the Town of Colonie.
C) Alternative Technologies
While alternative waste disposal technologies are summarized below, the LSWMP for the
Town of Colonie Local Solid Waste Management Planning Unit indicates the landfill as the first
facility to be used for management of solid waste within the planning unit and Area 7 is
included in the LSWMP implementation schedule. The byproducts of the technologies
discussed below require landfilling for ultimate disposal.
D) Waste-to-Energy (WTE)
Waste has been converted to beneficial use on a large scale for well over 100 years.
Incineration with electric power generation was first applied to MSW in 1894 in New York
City. Since that time, the burning of municipal solid waste with energy recovery (now
known as WTE) has matured into an acceptable waste disposal technology.
While the market for incineration/mass burn WTE equipment has increased in Europe and
in Eastern Asia, procurements have declined in the United States. There are currently ten
(10) active WTE facilities in New York State, all of which were permitted and constructed
over twenty years ago.
Page 38 of 54
Although WTE facilities result in a reduction of waste to be disposed, such facilities involve
high initial construction costs, high operations and maintenance costs, and uncertainty in
revenue due to the variability associated with energy sales. These factors lead to a higher cost
of disposal for WTE facilities than for landfilling.
E) Refuse Derived Fuel
In the refuse derived fuel systems, MSW is mechanically processed in a “front end” system
to produce a more homogenous and easily burned fuel called Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF).
RDF in its simplest form, is shredded MSW with ferrous metals removed. Additional
processing can be applied to the incoming waste stream to remove other non-combustible
materials such as glass and aluminum. Additional screening and shredding stages can be
placed in the processing line to further enhance the RDF.
As with incineration/mass burn WTE systems, there have not been any new RDF systems
constructed in the United States in the past decade.
F) Emerging Waste Technologies
There are various technologies currently being proposed for the treatment and disposal of
MSW around the world. Most of these involve thermal processing, particularly those of
gasification and pyrolysis. These technologies were employed as early as the 18th century
in the thermal processing of coal and wood to produce various chemicals and fuels. However,
their application to MSW has been limited due to the heterogeneity of MSW. There are some
commercial scale plants in Japan, the United Kingdom, and certain other countries, but these
technologies are still considered to be “emerging” as a commercial scale technology for MSW
processing in the United States. Some others involve the biological or chemical decomposition
of the organic fraction of the waste to produce useful outputs like compost or energy products,
notably synthetic gas (“syngas”) for downstream combustion.
1. Pyrolysis
In the pyrolysis process, an organic waste (MSW) is heated without oxygen (or air), similar
to the generation of coke from coal or charcoal from wood. Both a char and a gas are
generated. The gas is burned out in a gaseous phase, requiring much less oxygen than
incineration, and the char will usually melt at the temperatures within the pyrolysis chamber
and will be discharged as a black gravel-like substance, termed frit. Advantages of this
process are in the lack of air entering the chamber and the resulting smaller size of system
components. Without air, there is little nitrogen oxide generation, and low particulate (soot)
formation. There have been many attempts to develop this technology outside a laboratory
or a pilot plant. In past demonstrations in the 1970’s, it was difficult to maintain a sealed
chamber to keep air out, and waste variability created problems in maintaining consistent
operation. When the pyrolysis gas is fired in a combustion chamber that is part of the
system, the system is classified as an incinerator. Currently, there are no full-scale
pyrolysis systems in commercial operation on MSW in the United States.
Page 39 of 54
2. Gasification
Gasification is the heating of an organic waste (MSW) to produce a burnable gas

(approximately 85% hydrogen and carbon monoxide mix) for use off-site. While pyrolysis
systems are primarily focused on waste destruction, a gasifier is designed primarily to
produce a usable gas.
There is a general perception that gasification technologies are more advantageous than
combustion technologies and have lower costs, greater efficiency, less emissions, and
overall reduced adverse impacts. There is merit to certain claims associated with
gasification technology, however, many of the perceived benefits are unfounded or have
yet to be confirmed through a reasonable period of operation on a commercial scale. Also,
there is no reason to believe these technologies are less expensive than conventional
combustion technologies when considering the all-in costs, particularly when in many
cases, they are more complex.
3. Mixed-Waste Composting
Composting is the aerobic decomposition of biodegradable organic matter, producing

compost from decaying vegetable and other plant materials. The decomposition is
performed primarily by aerobic bacteria, yeasts and fungi. Composting considerably
speeds up the natural process of decomposition as a result of the higher temperatures
generated. Composting has been used for hundreds of years to process a variety of
agricultural wastes.
Compost is also created by biological decomposition that eliminates oxygen (anaerobic).

Advanced anaerobic processes digest the organic waste in tanks, capturing the biogas
made from methane and carbon dioxide. This biogas can be used as a substitute for
petroleum-based fuel. The remaining physical material, compost, can be used as a soil
supplement. Compost processes can employ varying degrees of technology to convert the
organic matter into a usable soil product. Lower tech systems utilize long, outdoor piles or
rows, called windrows, in which to cure materials. Middle technology systems add features
to these windrows, such as aeration introducing additional air through fans, or flexible
coverings for the waste material during processing, like a large-scale tarp or bag, also
known as a lower tech version of in-vessel composting. Higher technology systems employ
an enclosed process in which to generate the compost, including bagged in-vessel systems
and fully-enclosed composting done in a specially-designed building. Lastly, newer high-
tech composting methods include anaerobic digestion processes where, without air,
microorganisms break down the organic waste solids, generating a gas. Mixed-waste
composting requires large land areas or high capital investment. It also can create
significant odor and the compost is limited in its application.
Page 40 of 54
4. Hydrolysis
Two types of hydrolysis have been applied to the organic components of solid waste: acid
hydrolysis and enzyme hydrolysis. They have also been used in combination. The
National Renewable Energy Laboratory developed and has operated pilot processes, which
have demonstrated technically feasibility. No production plants, however, have been built
to date.
G) Alternative Development Scenarios
The current NYSDEC-approved Town of Colonie Solid Waste Management Plan (2007-2008
Solid Waste Management Plan Update, December 2009) anticipated the design of Area 7 in
2014. Therefore, alternative on-site development scenarios were developed and evaluated
in the early stages of planning the proposed Area 7. Environmental, economic, and logistical
considerations were analyzed for each alternative to determine the practicability and feasibility
of implementing each option. Three alternative on-site development scenarios were
considered for Area 7 as discussed below.
The first alternative involves further development to the east of the existing landfill. This
scenario will have approximately 27 acres of additional landfilling (baseliner) area, with over
4 million cubic yards of additional waste volume. Although this scenario will provide an
increase to the volume of the Area 7, it has the greatest impact to wetlands on site as it
extends into the deed restricted NYSDEC wetland TN-10. In addition to the loss of wetlands,
further development to the east will remove the vegetative buffer that currently serves to limit
visibility of the landfill. Steep slopes and difficulty accessing this area makes it infeasible for
further development. For all of these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from
consideration.
The second alternative involves development further to the north of the existing landfill over the
northern most portion of the landfill site. This scenario would have consisted of approximately
16 acres of additional landfilling (baseliner) area, with over 1 million cubic yards of additional
waste volume. The concern with this alternative is that the development would impact
additional wetlands. Also, a stormwater basin is planned to be located this area. Therefore,
this alternative was not selected.
The third alternative involves extending the landfill footprint to the south of the existing landfill.
Due to the proposed relocation of the entrance facilities to this area in order to have safer
traffic route to and from the landfill, this scenario was not evaluated further.
19. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
Area 7 will cause certain irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural, man-made, and
financial resources. Although a full range of engineering design features and environmentally-
sound mitigation measures will be implemented to minimize these commitments to the greatest
extent possible, some resources will become unavailable for future use.
Page 41 of 54
a) Natural Resources
Certain natural resources will be committed and unavailable for future use as a result of
the development and operation of Area 7. The commitment of the landfill footprint to
waste disposal is considered to be an irreversible commitment of land use due to
limitations the landfill will pose to future use of the land. However, the Area 7 approved
design maximizes the use of the existing landfill, and only 23 acres of land (most of it
previously disturbed) will be “new” waste footprint.
b) Energy Consumption and Man-Made Resources
The use of fuels will be required in the construction and operation of Area 7.
Non-renewable fossil fuel, in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel will be consumed by
the machinery required to construct the landfill components and for filling operations.
Since Area 7 does not increase the landfill’s daily capacity of 820 tons, nor the hours or
days of operation per year, the facility will not increase its fuel consumption over current
levels during operations.
Labor, building materials and equipment will be necessary to construct and operate the
landfill and associated facilities. The construction of new facilities provides the
opportunity to improve their energy efficiency. Various workers employed in connection
with the construction of Area 7 will be unavailable for other construction projects during
the same time frame. The building materials and equipment utilized during the
construction/operation of Area 7 will be committed to the development of the landfill,
and therefore, will not be available for use in other development projects.
c) Financial Resources
Financial resources are those funds that will be expended before, during, and after the
development of the project. These resources include development capital as well as
operation, closure, post-closure, and monitoring costs.
Development capital refers to the costs associated with constructing the project and
includes engineering, financial, legal and other professional services, labor and
materials, and project financing. Included in these costs are the premiums for insurance
and other risks that are part of a construction/development venture. The commitment of
these resources for Area 7 will make them unavailable for other uses.
There will also be costs associated with the daily operations of the landfill project. The
commitment of these monetary resources to operate and maintain the facility will render
them unavailable for other uses.
Page 42 of 54
20. Cumulative & Growth Inducing Impacts
a) Cumulative Impacts
In addition to environmental impacts associated with the Area 7 development, cumulative

impacts to area resources previously discussed could occur as a result of existing,
proposed or future projects and activities in the vicinity of Area 7. However, due to
minimal land in the vicinity of the landfill available to be developed, and minimal additional
development that will occur as a result of the continued operation of the landfill at similar
waste acceptance rates, cumulative impacts to the surrounding are not expected to occur.
Although initial construction and operation of the Area 7 development will directly impact
only a portion of the total acreage, the environmental analyses presented in this DEIS
address the cumulative impacts associated with the initial cell construction and
subsequent development efforts over the operating life.
b) Growth Inducing Impacts
Some proposed actions have the potential to trigger further development by either
attracting a significant local population, inviting commercial or industrial growth, or by
inducing the development of similar projects adjacent to the facility. The Area 7
development does not require additional permanent work force, and therefore, will not
lead to significant, permanent growth in local population or housing. The impacts
associated with the construction workforce will be temporary in nature.
Since the existing landfill has been in operation, it has not directly induced significant
population growth in the Town of Colonie or the surrounding area. Therefore, Area 7 is
not expected to directly induce population growth within the Town. The development will
allow for continued cost-effective waste disposal for the Town and surrounding
communities and prevent a significant increase in disposal costs. Ultimately, an increase
in solid waste management costs may have some impact on where people and
businesses choose to locate.
21. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) is a group of chemicals used to make

fluoropolymer coatings and products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water.
Fluoropolymer coatings are blends of resins and lubricants used in products such as water-
repellent clothing, furniture, adhesives, paint and varnish, food packaging, heat-resistant non-
stick cooking surfaces and insulation of electrical wires. Chemicals in this group include
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). Common household
products potentially containing PFAS materials were historically disposed of at the Colonie
Landfill and all other landfills accepting municipal solid waste.
Page 43 of 54
On April 25, 2016, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(Department) completed an emergency rulemaking and concurrently proposed a formal
rulemaking that listed PFAS chemicals on the list of hazardous substances. The list of
hazardous substances is included in Department's regulation 6 NYCRR Part 597, "Hazardous
Substances Identification, Release Prohibition, and Release Reporting."
On May 19, 2016, EPA issued a lifetime health advisory (HAL) of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for
long-term exposure to PFOA and PFOS combined in drinking water. New York State does not
currently have a regulatory standard for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. The HAL provides
levels of PFOA/PFOS in drinking water at or below which adverse health effects are not
anticipated to occur over a lifetime of exposure.
The FEIS Response to Comments (Groundwater - Commenters 53, 102) reference to a 100
ppt EPA advisory standard is a typographical error which has no substantive impact on the
Department’s hard look review for SEQRA purposes. The correct citation is the EPA HAL 70
ppt limit.
The commenters were expressing concern over alleged past disposal of industrial wastes
containing PFOA at the landfill. The commenters provided no evidence or information to
substantiate their concerns. The FEIS response to comments stated, “There is no evidence
that Perfluorooctanoic acid…was disposed of at the site”. To clarify and to be more specific,
the Department was reiterating that it is not aware of any documentation showing industrial
waste containing PFOA was disposed in the Colonie Landfill. These comments were
addressing historical disposal of industrial waste. Area 7 is not authorized to accept industrial
waste without prior written approval from the Department.
A liner and leachate collection system and the replacement of the two leachate lagoons with
two 500,000-gallon tanks are required for Area 7. Also, a full-time environmental monitor is
being required to ensure proper oversight and compliance at the landfill, including the
acceptance of industrial waste.
Because the comments were based on unsubstantiated historical disposal activities unrelated
to Area 7 and the permit prohibits the acceptance of industrial waste without prior written
approval from the Department, there is no basis to consider these comments as substantive
and significant.
Notwithstanding the lack of substantive and significant comments, the Department conducted
Mohawk River water sampling in the vicinity of the landfill and the Town of Colonie’s waste
water treatment plant after the close of the comment period. The sampling was conducted
following receipt of Town of Waterford Mohawk River PFOA sampling results. The sampling
results are contained in the attached February 1, 2018 Department Memorandum, “Mohawk
River Sampling” (Memo). The Memo concludes that PFOA/PFOS levels found in the Mohawk
River are far below the EPA HAL of 70 ppt.
Page 44 of 54
The Mohawk River sampling data included in the Memo was also compared to the October 4,
2017 Town of Waterford and October 20, 2017 Town of Colonie Mohawk River water samples
and they were all found to be far below the EPA HAL 70 ppt limit. Furthermore, with the
Colonie Landfill being upstream of the City of Cohoes (City) municipal water intake, the
Department compared all Mohawk River water samples against the City’s own sampling of its
water intake and once again all sample results were similar and far below the EPA HAL 70 ppt.
The Memo concludes that the “The impact of the landfill on PFAS concentrations in the
Mohawk River appears to be insignificant”. For all the reasons stated above, the approval of
Area 7 raises no substantive and significant issues regarding PFAS and Mohawk River water
quality.
Lastly, recognizing the potential of PFAS containing materials being disposed of historically in
landfills across the state, the Department has initiated a sampling and monitoring program to
assure PFAS is not causing or contributing to significant impacts to surface or groundwater.
Specifically, at Colonie landfill, conditions have been added to the permit to require such
monitoring.
Summary of the Department’s Findings
This Findings Statement sets forth the basis for the Department’s issuance of the permits to
construct and operate an expansion to the existing Town of Colonie Landfill known and
described herein as Area 7. Area 7 will add approximately twenty years of capacity to the
existing landfill by laterally expanding it and overfilling portions of the existing landfill. The
Department details within this Finding its basis for this action which includes the following
considerations:
Alluvial Soils and Seismic Impact Zone
The landfill siting restrictions found at 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.12(c)(4) and (7) state:
(4) Unstable areas.

A landfill must not be located in unstable areas where inadequate support for the structural
components of the landfill exists or where changes in the substrate below or adjacent to the
landfill are capable of impairing the integrity of some or all of the landfill structural components
responsible for preventing releases from a landfill. An application for expansion of an existing
landfill must demonstrate that adequate support for the structural components of the landfill
exists or can be engineered to support any additional loads that may be generated by
continued operation of the facility.
(7) Seismic impact zones.

New landfills and lateral expansions shall not be located in seismic impact zones, unless the
owner or operator demonstrates to the department that all permanent containment structures,
including liners, leachate collection systems, and surface water control systems, are designed
Page 45 of 54
to resist the maximum horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material for the site pursuant to
the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.7(b)(7) of this Subpart.
Area 7 is located in a Seismic Impact Zone. The Department requested and received detailed
information from the applicant which demonstrates that Area 7 will meet the stability and
seismic requirements found at 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.7(b).
The permit application identified that alluvial soils are generally located at the north end of the
Area 7 site. The alluvial soils are potentially liquefiable under seismic conditions. The record
demonstrates that the alluvial soils can be stabilized using established geotechnical soil
improvement technologies. The improved alluvial soil areas will be engineered to support any
additional loads that will be generated by the construction and operation of Area 7. The record
also demonstrates that upon stabilization of the alluvial soil, the Area 7 design will meet the
requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.7(b)(6) and (7) which state that the landfill expansion
must be designed to address stability, bearing capacity and settlement of the waste mass and
underlying soils.
The permit will require the submission and Department approval of engineering plans certifying
that alluvial soils are adequately stabilized prior to the commencement of construction of any
Area 7 phases or components encroaching on alluvial soils.
Community Character
Area 7 will allow the operation of the landfill to continue for approximately 20 more years. It is
acknowledged that continued operation of a landfill will generate routine odors, noise and
visual impacts. The permit contains conditions and plans that mitigate these issues to the
extent practicable, as further discussed in these findings. The placement of a full time
environmental monitor, in addition to NYSDEC staff oversight, will ensure compliance with the
terms of the permit. Whenever a problem does arise at the landfill, steps will be taken
immediately to address and correct it. The occurrence of these types of impacts is not
expected to increase under this new development.
Cultural Resources
The Department consulted with the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to
determine if there were any historic/cultural resources that may be impacted by Area 7 and
SHPO responded in an August 9, 2016 letter that Area 7 will not result in any additional
adverse visual impacts.
Area 7 was investigated in a Phase 1A/1B Study conducted by Curtin Archaeological

Consulting, Inc., to assess the potential impact on historic and prehistoric archaeological sites.
Based on this review, the 1A study determined that the majority of the area of interest had
been previously disturbed or contains existing landfill deposits.
Page 46 of 54
Environmental Monitor
The Department finds that a full-time environmental monitor should be assigned to the site
(paid for by the Town of Colonie and reporting to the DEC) to ensure compliance with the
existing permit and expansion and to oversee daily operations at the landfill. The requirement
for a full time environmental monitor, consistent with the Department’s Policy CP-64, will
provide enhanced continuous compliance oversight and faster response times for public
complaints and inquiries.
Leachate Lagoons and Leachate Tank
The open-air leachate lagoons will be replaced by two 500,000-gallon tanks that will better
secure the leachate and prevent potential lagoon conditions that could cause the generation of
odors.
Long Term Solid Waste Planning
The need for Area 7 to serve the long term solid waste disposal needs for the planning unit
and other Capital Region communities was considered by the Department in its decision,
including the finding that the closest landfills, which include the Finch Waste Co. (Saratoga
Co.), the Albany landfill and the Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority’s landfill
in Ava could not accommodate the annual waste tonnage accepted the Colonie landfill. The
Albany landfill will also reach its capacity in the next several years.
The expansion will provide uninterrupted solid waste management for the Town of Colonie
Local Solid Waste Management Plan (LSWMP) that includes the Town of Colonie, the Village
of Menands, the Village of Colonie and the City of Watervliet and other Capital Region
communities. The landfill expansion will also provide time for the communities to plan for and
implement longer term solid waste management options.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention/Surface and Groundwater Quality
The stormwater discharges associated with the landfill operations are regulated and authorized
under a New York State SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Associated with
Industrial Activity also referred to as “MSGP” or “SPDES Stormwater Permit.”
The applicant updated its existing DEC Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
Associated with Industrial Activity for the landfill to incorporate Area 7 and the new stormwater
retention basins and drainage features that will be constructed to accommodate changes in the
stormwater flows and quantity on the property.
The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) was prepared in accordance with the
New York State Standards & Specifications for Erosion & Sediment Control and the New York
State Stormwater Management Design Manual. The plans demonstrate that that stormwater
runoff from all disturbed areas that is not handled as leachate will be captured and treated by
Page 47 of 54
post-construction stormwater management controls that are designed, constructed and

maintained in accordance with the NYS Stormwater Management Design Manual.
The SWPPP addresses the long-term management of stormwater runoff associated with the
expanded landfill after closure and includes provisions for routine inspection by a qualified
inspector to ensure that the soils disturbance associated with the restoration activities will not
result in impacts to the waters of the U.S.
The stormwater generated during the construction and operation of Area 7 and post-
construction will meet all regulatory requirements as well as state water quality standards and
therefore will not cause significant adverse impacts to groundwater or downstream surface
waters.
Mohawk River
That modification to the project plans for the lateral expansion be made to increase the
distance between the deposited waste in the landfill and the Mohawk River from 100 feet to
500 feet. The approved Area 7 expansion increases the applicant’s proposed separation
distance between the Mohawk River and the deposited wastes in the landfill from 100 feet to
500 feet to be further protective of the Mohawk River, and to increase “green space” between
the river and the landfill.
Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
The Department conducted sampling at various locations along the Mohawk River to assess
the presence of PFAS within the river and at the landfill. Samples were collected near the
Town’s landfill and waste water treatment plant. The sampling results from the Mohawk River
show no exceedance of the May 19, 2016, EPA issued lifetime health advisory (HAL) of 70
parts per trillion (ppt) for long-term exposure to PFOA and PFOS combined in drinking water.
The levels in the Mohawk River water samples were well below the EPA HAL as discussed in
the body of the findings and the attached Department memorandum dated 2/1/2018 (Memo).
The Memo concludes that the “The impact of the landfill on PFAS concentrations in the
Mohawk River appears to be insignificant”. The Department finds that the approval of Area 7
raises no substantive and significant issues regarding PFAS and Mohawk River water quality.
Noise
Area 7 will not cause unmitigated noise levels to exceed 6 NYCRR Part 360.19(j) noise
standards.
Noise, where need to be mitigated to ensure compliance with 6 NYCRR Part 360.19(j), will be
mitigated by temporary barriers placed prior to identified construction activities. The placement
and use of temporary barriers related to specific construction and use activities, and not the
construction of permanent barriers, was supported in the comments by nearby residents.
Page 48 of 54
Air Quality
The landfill is subject to the Title V Permit Program pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 201 for air
emissions associated with the construction and operation of the landfill and the generation and
collection landfill gas (LFG). The facility has a Title V air permit which covers all current landfill
operations. The Title V permit has been modified and updated to address modifications
associated with Area 7 which include construction of new areas within the existing facility for
additional waste deposition, expansion of the landfill gas collection system, construction of new
leachate storage tanks, and removal of the emission unit associated with the former
composting facility because composting is no longer conducted at the site.
The modified permit has been reviewed and approved by the USEPA and meets all federal
and New York State regulatory requirements.
Odors
The Department is aware of the past odor complaints received through the Landfill Hotline
(both telephone and email), and a log has been maintained to assist in the evaluation and
response to reported complaints. Investigation of odor complaints will be enhanced by the
presence of the of the full-time environmental monitor. The monitor and Department staff will
assess off-site odor complaints, determine if there is any landfill connection to the odor
complaints, and ensure that corrective measures are expeditiously taken to address the odor
complaints when warranted. Further, the removal of the open leachate storage lagoons, and
replacing them with closed leachate holding tanks will further mitigate and prevent off-site
odors.
In addition to current odor management procedures, the Area 7 Landfill Gas Management and
Odor Control Plan (dated June 2016) requires the permittee to do the following, which will be
overseen by a full time environmental monitor:
Implement a daily landfill odor patrol at locations specified in the Odor Control Plan.
Implement the procedures set forth in the Odor Control Plan for responding to and
investigating complaints, and communicating status with the complainant.
Regularly inspect and maintain the Gas Collection and Control System (GCCS),
including valve adjustments at individual wells.
Implement a formal Department notification response protocol. The protocol requires
inspection of the odor complaint location and, if odors attributable to the landfill are
confirmed, immediate corrective measures to be taken.
Provide a weekly update of landfill gas odor related operations at the landfill website:
(www.townofcolonielandfill.com). This will include a discussion about scheduled
Page 49 of 54
interruptions to the landfill gas management system planned for the following week as
well as unplanned events that occurred during the prior week.
Property Values
The applicant conducted an analysis of the average residential property sale prices within
various radii from the landfill was prepared. The analysis found that the average listing price
within the three-mile distance from the landfill is lower than either the two-mile or one-mile
distance. Additionally, the average price per square foot within the one-mile radii or area
assessed is higher than either the two-mile or three-mile distance (or one-to-two and two-to-
three-mile areas). This indicates that proximity to the landfill has not affected residential
property values and, based on the number of listings, owners of properties located nearest the
landfill do not appear as motivated as owners farther away to list their homes for sale.
Greenhouse Gas Sequestration
Area 7 will result in the cutting of trees on approximately six acres of the site. Trees sequester
carbon dioxide emissions through the photosynthesis process. The loss of the trees due to the
Area 7 construction will be mitigated to replace their future sequestration value. Greenhouse
gas emissions, since they have a global impact, can be mitigated by sequestration offsite from
Area 7.
The permit requires the Town to submit a tree re-planting plan to offset the loss of the
sequestration value from the cut trees plus an additional 20%. The re-planting plan will require
Department approval prior to implementation. The tree re-planting plan will not include any
tree plantings that have already been planned by the Town or required as part of its land use
approval process.
Solid Waste Regulations
The Department finds that the engineering plans and specifications for Area 7 meet the
requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360 for siting, design, construction, operation, closure, and
post-closure activities and therefore, Area 7 will not cause significant adverse impacts due to
soil stability, leachate collection, groundwater contamination, surface water containment, air or
other design criteria.
Solid Waste Disposal Throughput Limits
Area 7 will not increase the currently permitted daily and annual solid waste throughput limits.
Traffic and Transportation
The Area 7 permit modification will require the relocation of the main entrance of the landfill
from Route 9 to Arrowhead Lane, and the current Route 9 entrance/exit driveways will be
Page 50 of 54
closed and decommissioned. Landfill-related traffic includes residents of the Town, landfill
employees and contractors, and commercial trucks transporting waste and materials to the
landfill. A Traffic Impact Study was completed to evaluate traffic patterns in the vicinity of the
landfill and to assess operating conditions on the transportation infrastructure serving the
landfill site, and the potential for traffic impacts as a result of the expansion. The operation of
Area 7 will not cause a significant change from current operations, and the traffic study showed
no appreciable impacts from landfill truck traffic, so that the continued operation of the landfill
at the approved current levels will not have a significant adverse impact on local traffic.
Visual Impacts
The approved Area 7 expansion reduces the applicant’s proposed final landfill height by 50
feet to 467 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to avoid any visual impacts from the City of
Cohoes. Based on the definition of visual significance found in the DEC Visual Policy,
approved Area 7 with a decreased maximum height of 467 feet and with the visual mitigation
techniques to be employed to the maximum extent practicable, will not likely result in
significant adverse visual impacts.
Wetlands
Federal wetland impacts have been addressed by the Town and Capital Region Landfills Inc.
in working with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the Susquehanna Basin
Headwaters and Adjacent Basins In-Lieu Fee Program to purchase credits with The Wetland
Trust, 4729 State Route 414, Burdett, NY 14818 as mitigation for the wetland impacts.
The state wetland impacts are limited to 1.32 acres of disturbance to the adjacent area of
wetland TN-10 which has already has been disturbed by work done for the leachate lagoons
under a previous wetland permit and the berms for the ponds. The perimeter berm for Area 7
will be located on the same 1.32 acres of adjacent area to TN-10. Since the Area 7
disturbance of the adjacent area is within the previously disturbed adjacent wetland area, Area
7 will not result in any new wetland adjacent area impacts.
Alternatives
The DEIS includes an analysis of onsite and offsite alternatives including Area 7. Area 7 is
consistent with balancing social, economic and other essential considerations from among the
reasonable alternatives available, and is the action that avoids or minimizes adverse
environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the
decision those mitigation measures that were identified as practicable.
In reaching this finding, the Department compared and contrasted various alternatives such as
hauling waste to another disposal site, other locations for the landfill, denying the permit
application, and overfilling and expanding options for the existing landfill. The Area 7
alternative was chosen as the best alternative among those available under the alternatives
consideration requirements found in SEQR, ECL Article 24 6 NYCRR Part 663 Freshwater
Page 51 of 54
Wetlands regulations, 401 Water Quality Certification and 6 NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste
Management.
The transfer and transport of solid waste to another permitted disposal site was considered as
an alternative to constructing another cell at the landfill. The DEIS considered various factors
including the costs for transport and disposal, and the environmental and economic impacts
associated with this alternative.
Most landfills or waste to energy (“WTE”) facilities that provide commercially available disposal
capacity in New York are operating at or near their respective annual permitted capacity. The
record contains data that also shows that no one landfill or WTE facility has sufficient
additional capacity to replace the capacity of Area 7. In addition, the existing permitted
transfer stations in the Albany area don’t have the excess capacity to handle the volume of
solid waste handled by the existing Colonie landfill.
The landfill will reach capacity by mid-2018 at current disposal rates. The Town and the
partner communities will need sufficient lead time to develop a hauling plan, line up capacity
agreements, develop and build/upgrade hauling facilities in order to ensure such capacity is
available and cost effective including reasonable hauling costs/distances.
The construction of a transfer station at the current landfill or elsewhere nearby is

impracticable, given the time needed for the siting and permitting process. The Town already
restricts the intake of waste from outside its municipal boundaries to extend the life of the
landfill. However, this option diminishes access to the partner communities and will create the
same situation and problems for these communities as for the Town in seeking to have their
solid waste disposed of by hauling to another landfill.
SEQRA
The Area 7 approved expansion alternative is consistent with balancing social, economic and
other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives available, and is the
action that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent
practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures that were
identified as practicable.
Construction and operation of Area 7 will result in minor potential noise and odor impacts to
the existing environmental setting, that by the implementation of the measures described in
these finding the impacts will be mitigated, minimized, or avoided the greatest extent possible.
These measures include:
• Implementation of stormwater BMPs, including erosion and sediment control

measures and improved stormwater retention and treatment on site;
• Overlay liner installation which will provide a reduction in recharge anticipated

Page 52 of 54
to reduce the potential for impacting groundwater;
• Wetlands mitigation which will provide benefits, including retaining flood

waters, increased wetland habitat and improved visual aesthetics;
• Screening and camouflage to minimize duration and magnitude of visual impacts;
• Relocation of the site entrance to provide a safer traffic route to and from the landfill;
• Continued use of an active GCCS to manage the collection of generated LFG and
mitigate the potential for subsoil LFG migration and surface emissions to the
atmosphere; and
• Continued use of smart backup alarms, properly maintained mufflers, and

maintaining operations within the perimeter berm when possible to reduce noise.
The Department finds that these impacts are balanced by the social and economic need for
this project including the capital region communities being provided with a practicable solid
waste disposal alternative that provides the lead time necessary to complete a solid waste
planning process to identify and implement a feasible long-term solid waste management
solution.
The Department’s approval
The Department authorizes issuance of the DEC permits to the Town of Colonie to continue to
operate the existing landfill facility and to develop new sections identified as Area 7 in
accordance with all applicable regulatory and impact mitigation requirements under 6 NYCRR
Part 360 Solid Waste Management (disposal, recycling, intermediate/long range solid waste
management, financial assurance), Title V Air Facility, Stormwater Discharge SPDES
(construction and post construction), Article 24 ECL Freshwater Wetlands, Section 401 Water
Quality Certification, and SEQRA.
Conclusion
The impacts of Area 7 have been fully examined and after weighing and balancing relevant
environmental impacts with social, economic and other considerations that define the need for
this project from among the reasonable alternatives, this action is one that based upon this
balance avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent
practicable; and that adverse environmental impacts will be avoided or minimized to the
maximum extent practicable by incorporating, as conditions to the decision, those mitigative
measures that were identified as practicable. The Department hereby approves a reduction in
the proposed scope of the landfill, to limit the final height to a maximum elevation of 467 feet
amsl, and reducing the footprint of the expansion so that no waste will be deposited in the
landfill any closer than 500 feet from the Mohawk River.
Page 53 of 54
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation
Remedial Bureau A, 12th Floor
625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-7015
Phone: (518) 402-9625 • Fax: (518) 402-9627
Website: www.dec.ny.gov
MEMORANDUM
TO: FILE
FROM: Brian Jankauskas
SUBJECT: Mohawk River Sampling
Site Name Colonie Landfill Site Code 1707968
City Colonie County Albany
DATE: February 1, 2018
The Colonie Landfill site (site) is located in Colonie, New York, see Figure 1. Sampling
was performed along the Mohawk River and at points on the landfill by the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to assess the per- and
polyfluoroalky substances (PFAS) within the river and at the landfill. The Mohawk River
flows from west to east.
Sampling Events
 Sampling Event 1 - November 21, 2017: Samples were collected at seven

locations, as shown on Figures 2 and 3. Four water samples were collected from
the Mohawk River to assess: background conditions (Mohawk River-1), Colonie
wastewater treatment plant influence on the Mohawk River (Mohawk River-2),
Colonie Landfill influence on the Mohawk River (Mohawk River-3), and Mohawk
River downstream of the landfill/prior to the Hudson River (Mohawk River-4). Two
water and sediment samples were collected from the northern outfalls identified as
Outfall-1 and Outfall-2 to assess any impacts from landfill runoff on the Mohawk
River. These outfalls are permitted storm water outfalls associated with the
landfill’s storm water collection and conveyance system. One water sample was
collected from the landfill leachate collection pond, which discharges to the Colonie
wastewater treatment plant. A field log is included in Attachment A that
summarizes site activities/conditions and provides pictures.
 Sampling Event 2 – December 18, 2017: Samples were collected at two locations
as shown on Figure 4. The first sample was collected from Outfall-2. The second
sample was collected from a drainage ditch located upstream of Outfall-2 and just
to the east of Route 9, which receives surface water runoff from Route 9 and the
western fringe of the landfill. The drainage ditch is upstream of Outfall-2 and the
majority of the landfill’s storm water collection and conveyance system; it
represents a sample location with little influence from the landfill. Appendix B
presents the Colonie Landfill topography and drainage features and has been
modified to show the approximate storm water drainage area to the upstream
sample location. This drainage area is located on the fringe of the landfill and
receives limited runoff/impacts from landfill operations. A field log is included in
Attachment A that summaries the site activities and conditions and provides
pictures.
Sampling Method and Analysis
Staff utilized a stainless steel cup attached to a long pole (~15 feet) to obtain
representative water samples at all locations except Outfall-1 and for the two samples
collected during Event 2. The storm grate for Outfall-1 could not be removed, as a result
the sample was collected from the outfall pipe discharge directly into the laboratory
provided containers and samples from Event 2 were easily obtained utilizing the sample
containers. The flow of water at the outfall locations were low during the sampling events,
see pictures within Appendix A. Staff attempted to obtain sediment samples utilizing a
sediment sampler equipped with a butterfly valve, but due to the amount of coarse gravel
and cobbles at the sample locations adjacent to the outfall pipe discharge locations, staff
utilized stainless steel spoons and bowls to obtain sufficient material. The cobbles within
the Mohawk River at Outfall-2 were exposed during the second sampling event, see
pictures within Appendix A. Gravel was visible between the cobbles. All samples were
submitted for PFAS analysis via the modified 537 method, which analyzed for 21 PFAS
chemicals.
Field sampling equipment was decontaminated between each sample location utilizing
potable water with alconox followed by a potable water rinse. An equipment blank, was
collected from a stainless steel cup utilized for water sampling.
The samples were managed in accordance with standard field procedures. A duplicate
sample and a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate were collected for Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). After obtaining the samples they were placed in a
cooler with ice and released to Test America to be analyzed.
Analytical Results
 Sampling Event 1: The primary PFAS contaminant detected within the water
samples was perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The water from the leachate
collection pond contained 3,000 nanograms per liter (ng/l) or parts per trillion (ppt)
of PFOA. Additional PFAS identified as perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS),
perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS), perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA),
perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS),
perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), and perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) were also
detected at concentrations greater than 400 ng/l within the leachate collection
pond. Outfall-1 and Outfall-2 contained 0.79 ng/l and 59 ng/l of PFOA,
respectively. Outfall-1 and Outfall-2 contained 2.9 ng/l and 28 ng/l of PFOS,
respectively. PFOS within the Mohawk River samples ranged from 2.0 ng/l to 6.6
ng/l (Mohawk River-1). Additional PFAS chemicals were detected in the Mohawk
River samples at similar or lower concentrations. A summary of the analytical
results is provided on Table 1 and PFOA results are shown on Figure 2. The
laboratory results are included in Appendix C.
The primary PFAS contaminant detected within the sediment samples was PFOS.
The sediment immediately adjacent to the Outfall-1 and Outfall-2 contained 0.29
micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg) or parts per billion (ppb) and 0.58 ug/kg of PFOS,
respectively. PFOA was not detected within the sediment samples. Additional
PFAS were detected within the sediment, but at lower concentrations. A summary
of the analytical results is provided on Table 2 and sample locations are show on
Figure 3. The laboratory results are included in Appendix C.
 Sampling Event 2: The primary PFAS contaminant detected within the water
samples was PFOA. Outfall-2 contained 39 ng/l of PFOA and 20 ng/l of PFOS.
The upstream sample collected east of Route 9 contained 34 ng/l of PFOA and 14
ng/l of PFOS. Additional PFAS chemicals were detected in the samples at similar
or lower concentrations. A summary of the analytical results is provided on Table
3 and PFOA results are shown on Figure 4. The laboratory results are included in
Appendix C.
Analytical results (water equipment blank sample) from the equipment used during the
first sampling event had a minor detection (0.23 J) of one PFAS known as
perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS), see Table 1. An equipment blank was not
collected during the second sampling event because the sample containers were used to
obtain the samples. A Data Usability Summary Report was prepared for each laboratory
package and are included in Appendix D. The analytical results are considered to be
acceptable based on the review of the QA/QC samples and laboratory methods.
Previous Sampling
The Town of Waterford conducted sampling on October 4, 2017 and obtained water
samples from the storm water Outfalls-1 and 2 at the Colonie Landfill. They also
obtained sediment samples from the Mohawk River at the outfall pipe discharge
locations. The analytical summary table and sample location map are provided in
Appendix E.
NYSDEC obtained samples from the same locations, except the water sample for
Outfall-1. Field staff could not remove the grate at this catch basin to obtain a water
sample at the same location. Field staff did obtain a water sample directly from the
discharge pipe, which was elevated above the Mohawk River. PFOA and PFOS results
from both events are presented in the table below. Analytical results appear to be
similar.
Outfall Water Sample Results

Location Outfall 1 Outfall 2
Date 10/4/17 11/21/17 10/4/17 11/21/17
PFOA 4.45 0.79 J 68.3 59 J
PFOS 5.29 2.9 24.4 28 J
Units: parts per trillion or nanograms per liter.
J: analyte detected at a level less than the reporting limit and greater than
or equal to the method detection limit.
Outfall Sediment Sample Results

Location Outfall 1 Outfall 2
Date 10/4/17 11/21/17 10/4/17 11/21/17
PFOA 2U 0.26 U 2U 0.26 U
PFOS 2U 0.29 1.11 J 0.58
Units: parts per billion or nanograms per gram.
U: not detected at the reported detection limit for the sample.
The Town of Colonie conducted sampling on October 20, 2017 and obtained water
samples from four locations along the Mohawk River utilizing a tubing connected to a
peristaltic pump located on a boat. The analytical summary table and sample location
map are provided in Appendix F.
NYSDEC obtained samples from the Mohawk River, but at different locations. PFOA
and PFOS results from both events are presented in the table below from upstream to
downstream of the Colonie Landfill. Analytical results appear to be similar.
Mohawk River Sample Results

Location Date PFOA PFOS
West of I87 Bridge 11/21/17 1.7 J 6.6
I87 Bridge 10/20/17 2.56 6.64
Town Park 10/20/17 2.22 5.41
Route 9 Bridge 10/20/17 2.24 5.62
Route 9 Bridge 11/21/17 1.1 J 2.0
Crescent Road 10/20/17 2.52 7.82
Crescent Road 11/21/17 1.1 J 2.0
Power Plant
Cohoes Boat Launch 11/21/17 1.1 J 2.0
Summary
1. PFAS containing materials were likely disposed in the landfill. Analytical results
detected 21 PFAS chemicals within the leachate collection pond. PFOA (3,000
ng/l) and PFOS (510 ng/l) are above the EPA Health Advisory Level for drinking
water of 70 ng/l combined PFOA and PFOS. Additional PFAS chemicals,
identified as PFBS, PFBA, PFHpA, PFHxS, PFHxA, and PFPeA, were detected
at concentrations greater than 400 ng/l within the leachate collection pond.
2. It is understood that leachate from the collection ponds is discharged to the

Colonie wastewater treatment plant.
3. The flow within the outfalls was very low. Outfall-2 detected 12 PFAS chemicals
whereas Outfall-1 detected 6 PFAS chemicals. Outfall-2 detected PFOA and
PFOS above the EPA Health Advisory Level for drinking water of 70 ng/l
combined PFOA and PFOS. Water from the outfalls discharges into the Mohawk
River.
4. Outfall sediment samples detected low concentrations of PFAS adjacent to the

outfall pipe discharge locations along the Mohawk River.
5. November samples detected up to 11 PFAS chemicals within the Mohawk River.

Upstream PFOS (primary contaminant detected) concentration was 6.6 ng/l
(Mohawk River-1) and the downstream concentration of PFOS was 2.0 ng/l at
three locations. Upstream PFOA concentration was 1.7 ng/l (Mohawk River-1)
and the downstream concentration of PFOA was 1.1 ng/l at the three locations.
PFOA and PFOS were detected below the EPA Health Advisory Level for
drinking water of 70 ng/l combined PFOA and PFOS. Similar trends were
observed for the other PFAS chemicals. The impact of the landfill on PFAS
concentrations in the Mohawk River appears to be insignificant.
6. November analytical results were compared to previous sampling events

conducted by others. Based on the comparison the results appear to be similar.
7. The flow within the Outfall-2 and the drainage ditch east of Route 9 was low
during the December sampling event. The drainage ditch is located upstream of
Outfall-2 and the majority of the landfill’s storm water collection and conveyance
system. The sample collected at Outfall-2 contained similar concentrations of
PFAS as the upstream sample collected east of Route 9. PFOA and PFOS were
detected below the EPA Health Advisory Level for drinking water of 70 ng/l
combined PFOA and PFOS.
Water Sample Results
Location Outfall 2 East of Route 9
Date 12/18/17 12/18/17
PFOA 39 J 34 J
PFOS 20 J 14 J
8. Outfall 2 samples collected in December contained lower concentrations of PFAS

when compared to samples collected in November.
Outfall 2 Water Sample Results

Date 11/21/17 12/18/17
PFOA 59 J 39 J
PFOS 28 J 20 J
Legend
_
^ Colonie Landfill
!
( Water Intake
(
! Colonie WWTP
0 1,000 2,000 4,000

Feet
1 inch = 2,000 feet
_
^
(
!
(
! (
!
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,
METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,
Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Ü
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Colonie Landfill
Spill Number 1707968
Colonie, New York
Mohawk River 2
(
! 1.1 ng/l
Legend
!
( Surface Water Sample
(
! Water Intake
(
! Colonie WWTP
Outfall-1
0.79 ng/l Outfall-2
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet !
( 59 ng/l
1 inch = 2,000 feet (
!
Leachate
3000 ng/l
(
!
Mohawk River 3
1.1 ng/l
(
!
(
!
Mohawk River 1
1.7 ng/l
(
! (
! (
!
Mohawk River 4
1.1 ng/l
(
!
Ü
Figure 2
PFOA Water Sample Result - November 2017
Colonie Landfill
Colonie, New York units: nanograms per liter (ng/l) = parts per trillion (ppt)
Legend
!
. Sediment & Water Sample
(
! Water Intake
(
! Colonie WWTP
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Outfall 1

Feet !
.
1 inch = 2,000 feet Outfall 2 .
!
(
!
(
! (
!
Ü
Figure 3
Sediment Sample Location - November 2017
Colonie Landfill
Colonie, New York
Legend
(
! Surface Water
0 200 400 800
Feet
1 inch = 400 feet
Outfall 2
39 ng/l
Route 9 East
(
!
34 ng/l
(
!
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User
Community
Ü
Figure 4
Surface Water Samples - December 2017
Colonie Landfill
Colonie, New York units: nanograms per liter (ng/l) = parts per trillion (ppt)
Table 1: PFAS Water Sample Results - November 21, 2017
Colonie Landfill
Site Number 1707968
Client ID Mohawk River-1 Mohawk River-2 Mohawk River-3 Mohawk River-4 Outfall-1 Outfall-2 Leachate Leachate (Duplicate) Equipment Blank
Unit ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l ng/l
LCMS-537 (MODIFIED)-WATER Result Q MDL Result Q MDL Result Q MDL Result Q MDL Result Q MDL Result Q MDL Result Q MDL Result Q MDL Result Q MDL
WATER BY 537 (MODIFIED)
6:2FTS 6.4 J 1.9 ND U 2.0 ND U 1.9 ND U 1.9 ND U 1.7 ND U 1.9 370 J+ 19 350 J+ 37 ND U 1.7
8:2FTS ND U 1.9 ND U 2.0 ND U 1.9 ND U 1.9 ND U 1.7 ND U 1.9 56 1.9 61 1.8 ND U 1.7
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic
ND U 1.8 ND U 1.9 ND U 1.8 ND U 1.8 ND U 1.6 ND U 1.8 130 1.8 120 1.7 ND U 1.6
acid (NEtFOSAA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane
ND U 2.9 ND U 3.1 ND U 2.9 ND U 2.9 ND U 2.7 ND U 3.0 180 2.9 190 2.9 ND U 2.7
sulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 1.2 J 0.19 0.51 J 0.20 0.55 J 0.19 0.49 J 0.19 1.6 J 0.17 0.79 0.19 4100 J+ 1.9 3600 J+ 3.7 ND U 0.17
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 2.4 0.33 1.5 J 0.35 1.7 J 0.33 3.1 0.33 1.1 J 0.30 25 0.33 5700 J- CI 3.3 5300 J CI 6.4 ND U 0.30
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS) ND U 0.30 ND U 0.32 ND U 0.30 ND U 0.30 ND U 0.28 ND U 0.31 4.1 J 0.30 1.3 J 0.29 ND U 0.28
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) ND U 0.29 ND U 0.31 ND U 0.29 ND U 0.29 ND U 0.27 0.90 JI 0.30 210 0.29 210 0.29 ND U 0.27
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) ND U 0.52 ND U 0.56 ND U 0.52 ND U 0.52 ND U 0.48 ND U 0.53 25 I 0.51 22 0.51 ND U 0.48
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid (PFHpS) ND U 0.18 ND U 0.19 ND U 0.18 ND U 0.18 ND U 0.16 0.69 JI 0.18 5.9 J 0.18 11 0.17 ND U 0.16
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 1.1 J 0.24 0.65 J 0.25 0.51 J 0.23 0.65 J 0.24 ND U 0.22 15 0.24 840 2.3 880 4.6 ND U 0.22
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 3.8 B 0.16 0.98 JB 0.17 0.98 JB 0.16 1.0 JB 0.16 0.67 JB 0.15 9.3 B 0.16 640 B 0.16 670 B 0.16 0.23 JB 0.15
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 4.2 0.55 1.4 J 0.59 1.4 J 0.54 1.4 J 0.55 ND U 0.50 34 0.55 3600 5.4 3700 11 ND U 0.50
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 0.31 J 0.25 0.32 J 0.27 0.26 J 0.25 0.31 J 0.26 ND U 0.23 2.3 0.26 160 0.25 160 0.25 ND U 0.23
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA) 0.67 J 0.33 0.66 J 0.35 0.71 J 0.33 0.55 J 0.33 0.30 J 0.30 0.39 J 0.33 15 0.33 15 0.32 ND U 0.30
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 6.6 0.51 2.0 0.55 2.0 0.51 2.0 0.51 2.9 0.47 28 J F2 F1 0.52 480 0.50 510 0.50 ND U 0.47
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 1.7 J 0.80 1.1 J 0.86 1.1 J 0.80 1.1 J 0.81 0.79 J 0.74 59 J F1 0.81 3000 7.9 2800 16 ND U 0.74
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 4.4 0.46 1.2 J 0.50 1.3 J 0.46 1.1 J 0.47 ND U 0.42 21 0.47 1100 4.6 1100 9.0 ND U 0.42
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) ND U 0.27 ND U 0.29 ND U 0.27 0.31 J 0.28 ND U 0.25 ND U 0.28 5.1 0.27 4.5 0.27 ND U 0.25
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) ND U 1.2 ND U 1.3 ND U 1.2 ND U 1.2 ND U 1.1 ND U 1.2 2.2 I 1.2 2.0 1.2 ND U 1.1
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) ND U 1.0 ND U 1.1 ND U 1.0 ND U 1.0 ND U 0.95 ND U 1.1 15 1.0 13 1.0 ND U 0.95
* : Isotope Dilution analyte is outside acceptance limits.

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
CI : The peak identified by the data system exhibited chromatographic interference that could not be resolved. There is reason to
F1 : MS and/or MSD Recovery is outside acceptance limits.
F2 : MS/MSD RPD exceeds control limits
I : Value is EMPC (estimated maximum possible concentration).
J : Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal to the MDL and the concentration is an approximate value.
U : Indicates the analyte was analyzed for but not detected.
J-: The analyte was positively identified; the associated numercial value is an estimated quantity that may be biased low.
J+: The analytie was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an estimated quantity that may be biased high.
ND: Not Detected.
units: nanograms per liter (ng/l) or parts per trillion (ppt).
Page 1 of 1
Table 2: PFAS Sediment Sample Results - November 21, 2017
Colonie Landfill
Site Number 1707968
Client ID Outfall-1 Outfall-1 (Duplicate) Outfall-2

Unit ug/kg ug/kg ug/kg
LCMS-537 (MODIFIED)-SOIL Result Q MDL Result Q MDL Result Q MDL
SOIL BY 537 (MODIFIED)
6:2FTS ND U 0.21 ND U 0.20 ND U 0.19
8:2FTS ND U 0.35 ND U 0.33 ND U 0.32
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic
ND U 0.52 ND U 0.48 ND U 0.48
acid (NEtFOSAA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane
ND U 0.54 ND U 0.51 ND U 0.50
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ND U 0.035 ND U 0.033 ND U 0.032
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 0.22 J 0.039 0.32 0.037 0.16 J 0.036
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS) ND U* 0.054 ND U* 0.051 ND U* 0.050
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 0.039 J 0.031 0.041 J 0.029 0.029 J 0.028
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) ND U 0.094 ND U 0.088 ND U 0.086
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid (PFHpS) ND U 0.049 ND U 0.046 ND U 0.045
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) ND U 0.041 ND U 0.038 ND U 0.037
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) ND U 0.043 ND U 0.041 0.060 J 0.040
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) ND U 0.059 ND U 0.055 0.056 J 0.054
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ND U 0.050 ND U 0.047 ND U 0.046
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA) ND U 0.11 ND U 0.11 ND U 0.11
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ND U 0.28 0.29 0.26 0.58 0.26
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ND U 0.12 ND U 0.11 ND U 0.11
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) ND U 0.11 ND U 0.10 ND U 0.099
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) ND U 0.075 ND U 0.071 ND U 0.070
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) ND U 0.071 ND U 0.067 ND U 0.066
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 0.080 J 0.050 0.080 J 0.047 ND U 0.046

* : LCS or LCSD is outside acceptance limits.
ug/kg: micrograms per kilogram or parts per billion (ppb).
Page 1 of 1
Table 3: PFAS Water Sample Results - December 18, 2017
Colonie Landfill
Site Number 1707968
Client ID Outfall 2 Outfall 2 (Duplicate) SW Route 9E

Unit ng/l ng/l ng/l
LCMS-537 (MODIFIED)-WATER Result Q MDL Result Q MDL Result Q MDL
WATER BY 537 (MODIFIED)
6:2FTS 2.1 J 2.0 ND U 1.9 ND U 2.0
8:2FTS ND U 2.0 ND U 1.9 ND U 2.0
N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) ND U 1.9 ND U 1.8 ND U 1.9
N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) ND U 3.1 ND U 3.0 ND U 3.0
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 4.7 0.20 4.7 0.19 4.5 0.20
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 15 0.35 16 0.34 14 0.34
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS) ND U 0.32 ND U 0.31 ND U 0.31
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 1.0 J 0.31 1.3 J 0.30 1.2 J 0.30
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) ND U 0.54 ND U 0.53 ND U 0.54
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid (PFHpS) 0.28 J 0.19 0.24 J 0.18 0.21 J 0.19
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 9.1 0.25 10 0.24 9.6 0.24
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 6.2 B 0.17 6.6 B 0.17 6.2 B 0.17
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 23 0.57 25 0.56 24 0.57
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 2.0 0.27 2.5 0.26 2.0 0.26
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA) 0.35 J 0.35 0.53 J 0.34 0.36 J 0.34
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 18 0.53 20 0.53 14 0.53
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 36 0.84 39 0.83 34 0.83
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 16 0.49 16 0.48 15 0.48
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) ND U 0.29 0.60 J 0.28 ND U 0.28
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) ND U 1.3 ND U 1.3 ND U 1.3
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) ND U 1.1 ND U 1.1 ND U 1.1

B : Compound was found in the blank and sample.
ND: Not Detected.
units: nanograms per liter (ng/l) or parts per trillion (ppt).
Appendix A
Mohawk River Sample Location 4: Cohoes Boat Launch
Mohawk River Sample Location 3: Cresent Power Plant

Outfall-1: Water Sample and Sediment Sample Location
Limited Flow in Pipe
Outfall-2: Sediment Sampling

Outfall-2: Water Sampling Limited Flow in Pipe
Landfill Leachate Collection Pond

Outfall-2 – Limited Flow in Pipe, Pipe Exposed, and
Cobbles at Pipe Invert
Surface Water Sample Route 9 East Location

Appendix B
Drainage Ditch
Sample Location
Upstream of
Outfall-2
Outfall-2 Sample
Location
Approximate
Landfill Runoff
Area to Drainage
Ditch Sample
Location Upstream
of Outfall-2
Appendix C
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Job Number: 320-33574-1
Job Description: Colonie Landfill #1707968 PIN H7045
Contract Number: C008010
For:
New York State D.E.C.
625 Broadway 9th Floor
Albany, NY 12233-7258
Attention: Mr. Brian Jankauskas
Approved for release.

Judy L Stone
Senior Project Manager
_____________________________________________ 12/6/2017 4:18 PM
Judy L Stone, Senior Project Manager

10 Hazelwood Drive, Amherst, NY, 14228-2298
(484)685-0868
judy.stone@testamericainc.com
12/06/2017
The test results in this report meet all NELAP requirements for analytes for which accreditation is required or available.
Any exceptions to the NELAP requirements are noted in this report. Pursuant to NELAP, this report may not be
reproduced, except in full, without the written approval of the laboratory. All questions regarding this test report should
be directed to the TestAmerica Project Manager who has signed this report. TestAmerica Buffalo NELAC
Certifications: CADPH 01169CA, FLDOH E87672, ILEPA 200003, KSDOH E-10187, LADEQ 30708, MDH 036-999-337,
NHELAP 2973, NJDEP NY455, NHDOH 10026, ORELAP NY200003, PADEP 68-00281, TXCEQ T-104704412-10-1
TestAmerica Laboratories, Inc.

TestAmerica Sacramento 880 Riverside Parkway, West Sacramento, CA 95605
Tel (916) 373-5600 Fax (916) 372-1059 www.testamericainc.com
Page 1 of 749
Table of Contents
Cover Title Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Data Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Report Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Sample Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Detection Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Method Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Client Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Isotope Dilution Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
QC Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
QC Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Certification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Organic Sample Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
LCMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Method PFC IDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Method PFC IDA QC Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
Method PFC IDA Sample Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
69
Standards Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
288
Method PFC IDA ICAL Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
288
Method PFC IDA CCAL Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
452
Raw QC Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
586
Method PFC IDA Blank Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
586
Method PFC IDA LCS/LCSD Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
608
Method PFC IDA MS/MSD Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
632
Method PFC IDA Run Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
704
Page 2 of 749
Table of Contents
Method PFC IDA Prep Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
711
Inorganic Sample Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740
General Chemistry Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 740
Gen Chem Cover Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 741
Gen Chem MDL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 742
Gen Chem Analysis Run Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 744
Gen Chem Prep Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745
Shipping and Receiving Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 746
Client Chain of Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747
Sample Receipt Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749
Page 3 of 749
Job Narrative
320-33574-1
Receipt
The samples were received on 11/22/2017 10:15 AM; the samples arrived in good condition, properly preserved and, where required, on
ice. The temperature of the cooler at receipt was 2.0º C.
LCMS
Method(s) 537 (modified): The laboratory control sample (LCS) for preparation batch 320-197029 and analytical batch 320-197745
recovered outside control limits for the following analyte: Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS). This analyte was biased high in the LCS
and was not detected in the associated samples; therefore, the data have been reported.
Method(s) 537 (modified): Isotope Dilution Analyte (IDA) recovery is above the method recommended limit for M2-8:2FTS in the following
samples: OUT-2-11-21-2017 (320-33574-6), OUT-2-11-21-2017 (320-33574-6[MS]), OUT-2-11-21-2017 (320-33574-6[MSD]),
OUT-1-11-21-2017 (320-33574-7), OUT 2-11-21-2017 (320-33574-10), OUT 1-11-21-2017 (320-33574-11), OUT 1-11-21-2017
(320-33574-11[MS]), OUT 1-11-21-2017 (320-33574-11[MSD]) and DUP-11-21-2017 (320-33574-12). Quantitation by isotope dilution
generally precludes any adverse effect on data quality due to elevated IDA recoveries.
Method(s) 537 (modified): Isotope Dilution Analyte (IDA) recovery is above the method recommended limit for M2-6:2FTS in the following
sample: OUT 1-11-21-2017 (320-33574-11[MSD]). Quantitation by isotope dilution generally precludes any adverse effect on data quality
due to elevated IDA recoveries.
Method(s) 537 (modified): Isotope Dilution Analyte (IDA) recovery of several IDA compounds is above the method recommended limit for
the following samples: Leachate-11-21-2017 (320-33574-8) and DUPW-11-21-2017 (320-33574-9). Quantitation by isotope dilution
generally precludes any adverse effect on data quality due to elevated IDA recoveries.
Method(s) 537 (modified): Internal standard (ISTD) response for the following samples was outside control limits: Leachate-11-21-2017
(320-33574-8) and DUPW-11-21-2017 (320-33574-9). The samples were re-analyzed at dilution and the response was within control
limits in the diluted extract.
Method(s) 537 (modified): The matrix spike / matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) recoveries for preparation batch 320-196804 and analytical
batch 320-197506 were outside control limits. Sample matrix interference is suspected because the associated laboratory control sample
(LCS) recovery was within acceptance limits.
Method(s) 537 (modified): The Isotope Dilution Analyte (IDA) recoveries associated with the following sample is below the method
recommended limit for 13C4 PFBA and 13C5 PFPeA: Leachate-11-21-2017 (320-33574-8). Generally, data quality is not considered
affected if the IDA signal-to-noise ratio is greater than 10:1, which is achieved for all IDA in the sample.
Method(s) 537 (modified): The Isotope Dilution Analyte (IDA) recovery associated with the following sample is below the method
recommended limit for 13C4 PFBA: DUPW-11-21-2017 (320-33574-9). Generally, data quality is not considered affected if the IDA
signal-to-noise ratio is greater than 10:1, which is achieved for all IDA in the sample.
Method(s) 537 (modified): Isotope Dilution Analyte (IDA) recoveries of 13C3-PFBS and M2-6:2FTS are above the method recommended
limit for the following samples: Leachate-11-21-2017 (320-33574-8) and DUPW-11-21-2017 (320-33574-9). Quantitation by isotope
dilution generally precludes any adverse effect on data quality due to elevated IDA recoveries.
Method(s) 537 (modified): The matrix spike / matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD) precision for preparation batch 320-196804 and analytical
batch 320-197506 was outside control limits for Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).
Method(s) 537 (modified): In the following sample, the peak identified by the data system for Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) exhibited
chromatographic interferences that could not be resolved.
No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page.
General Chemistry
No analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described in the Definitions/Glossary page.
Organic Prep
Method(s) 3535: The following sample: DUPW-11-21-2017 (320-33574-9) was decanted and centrifuged prior to preparation due to
sediment being present. Prep Batch: 320-196804 for Method Code: 3535_PFC.
Method(s) SHAKE: The following samples after elution, were observed to be yellow in color: OUT 2-11-21-2017 (320-33574-10), OUT
1-11-21-2017 (320-33574-11), OUT 1-11-21-2017 (320-33574-11[MS]), OUT 1-11-21-2017 (320-33574-11[MSD]) and DUP-11-21-2017
(320-33574-12). Prep batch 320-197029.
No additional analytical or quality issues were noted, other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page.
Page 4 of 749
Sample Summary
Client: New York State D.E.C. TestAmerica Job ID: 320-33574-1
Project/Site: Colonie Landfill #1707968 PIN H7045
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received

320-33574-1 MR-4-11-21-2017 Water 11/21/17 08:30 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-2 MR-3-11-21-2017 Water 11/21/17 09:40 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-3 EB-11-21-2017 Water 11/21/17 10:10 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-4 MR-2-11-21-2017 Water 11/21/17 10:30 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-5 MR-1-11-21-2017 Water 11/21/17 10:50 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-6 OUT-2-11-21-2017 Water 11/21/17 13:32 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-7 OUT-1-11-21-2017 Water 11/21/17 14:25 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-8 Leachate-11-21-2017 Water 11/21/17 14:41 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-9 DUPW-11-21-2017 Water 11/21/17 00:00 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-10 OUT 2-11-21-2017 Solid 11/21/17 13:25 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-11 OUT 1-11-21-2017 Solid 11/21/17 13:50 11/22/17 10:15
320-33574-12 DUP-11-21-2017 Solid 11/21/17 00:00 11/22/17 10:15
TestAmerica Sacramento
Page 5 of 749
Detection Summary
Client Sample ID: MR-4-11-21-2017 Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-1

Analyte Result Qualifier RL MDL Unit Dil Fac D Method Prep Type
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 3.1 1.9 0.33 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 1.1 J 1.9 0.47 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 1.4 J 1.9 0.55 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 0.65 J 1.9 0.24 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 1.1 J 1.9 0.81 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 0.31 J 1.9 0.26 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) 0.31 J 1.9 0.28 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 0.49 J 1.9 0.19 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 1.0 J B 1.9 0.16 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 2.0 1.9 0.51 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA) 0.55 J 1.9 0.33 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 1.7 J 1.9 0.33 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Client Sample ID: EB-11-21-2017 Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-3



Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 2.4 1.9 0.33 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 4.4 1.9 0.46 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results.
Page 6 of 749
Detection Summary
Client Sample ID: MR-1-11-21-2017 (Continued) Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-5

Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 4.2 1.9 0.55 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 3.8 B 1.9 0.16 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
6:2FTS 6.4 J 19 1.9 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Client Sample ID: OUT-2-11-21-2017 Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-6

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 25 1.9 0.33 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 21 1.9 0.47 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 34 1.9 0.55 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 15 1.9 0.24 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 59 F1 1.9 0.81 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 2.3 1.9 0.26 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 0.90 J I 1.9 0.30 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) 7.3 1.9 0.19 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 9.3 B 1.9 0.16 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid 0.69 J I 1.9 0.18 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 28 F2 F1 1.9 0.52 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA

Client Sample ID: Leachate-11-21-2017 Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-8

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 160 1.9 0.25 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 210 1.9 0.29 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 15 1.9 1.0 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 25 I 1.9 0.51 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) 2.2 I 1.9 1.2 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) 5.1 1.9 0.27 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 640 B 1.9 0.16 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid 5.9 1.9 0.18 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 480 1.9 0.50 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS) 4.1 I 1.9 0.30 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Page 7 of 749
Detection Summary
Client Sample ID: Leachate-11-21-2017 (Continued) Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-8

Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA) 15 1.9 0.33 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
N-methyl perfluorooctane 180 19 2.9 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane 130 19 1.8 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
sulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA)
8:2FTS 56 19 1.9 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) - DL 5700 CI 19 3.3 ng/L 10 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) - DL 1100 19 4.6 ng/L 10 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) - DL 3600 19 5.4 ng/L 10 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) - DL 840 19 2.3 ng/L 10 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) - DL 3000 19 7.9 ng/L 10 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) - 4100 19 1.9 ng/L 10 537 (modified) Total/NA
DL
6:2FTS - DL 370 190 19 ng/L 10 537 (modified) Total/NA
Client Sample ID: DUPW-11-21-2017 Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-9

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 160 1.8 0.25 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 210 1.8 0.29 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 13 1.8 1.0 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) 22 1.8 0.51 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) 2.0 1.8 1.2 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) 4.5 1.8 0.27 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 670 B 1.8 0.16 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid 11 1.8 0.17 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 510 1.8 0.50 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS) 1.3 J 1.8 0.29 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA) 15 1.8 0.32 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
N-methyl perfluorooctane 190 18 2.9 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
N-ethyl perfluorooctane 120 18 1.7 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
8:2FTS 61 18 1.8 ng/L 1 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) - DL 5300 CI 37 6.4 ng/L 20 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) - DL 1100 37 9.0 ng/L 20 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) - DL 3700 37 11 ng/L 20 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) - DL 880 37 4.6 ng/L 20 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) - DL 2800 37 16 ng/L 20 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) - 3600 37 3.7 ng/L 20 537 (modified) Total/NA
DL
6:2FTS - DL 350 J 370 37 ng/L 20 537 (modified) Total/NA
Client Sample ID: OUT 2-11-21-2017 Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-10

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 0.16 J 0.26 0.036 ug/Kg 1 ☼ 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 0.056 J 0.26 0.054 ug/Kg 1 ☼ 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 0.029 J 0.26 0.028 ug/Kg 1 ☼ 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 0.060 J 0.26 0.040 ug/Kg 1 ☼ 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 0.58 0.26 0.26 ug/Kg 1 ☼ 537 (modified) Total/NA
Page 8 of 749
Detection Summary

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 0.22 J 0.28 0.039 ug/Kg 1 ☼ 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 0.080 J 0.28 0.050 ug/Kg 1 ☼ 537 (modified) Total/NA
Client Sample ID: DUP-11-21-2017 Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-12

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 0.32 0.26 0.037 ug/Kg 1 ☼ 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) 0.080 J 0.26 0.047 ug/Kg 1 ☼ 537 (modified) Total/NA
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) 0.29 0.26 0.26 ug/Kg 1 ☼ 537 (modified) Total/NA
Page 9 of 749
Method Summary
Method Method Description Protocol Laboratory

537 (modified) Fluorinated Alkyl Substances EPA TAL SAC
D 2216 Percent Moisture ASTM TAL SAC
Protocol References:
ASTM = ASTM International
EPA = US Environmental Protection Agency
Laboratory References:
TAL SAC = TestAmerica Sacramento, 880 Riverside Parkway, West Sacramento, CA 95605, TEL (916)373-5600
Page 10 of 749
Client Sample Results

Date Collected: 11/21/17 08:30 Matrix: Water
Date Received: 11/22/17 10:15
Method: 537 (modified) - Fluorinated Alkyl Substances

Analyte Result Qualifier RL MDL Unit D Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 3.1 1.9 0.33 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 1.1 J 1.9 0.47 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 1.4 J 1.9 0.55 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 0.65 J 1.9 0.24 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 1.1 J 1.9 0.81 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 0.31 J 1.9 0.26 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) ND 1.9 0.29 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) ND 1.9 1.0 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) ND 1.9 0.52 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) ND 1.9 1.2 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid 0.31 J 1.9 0.28 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
(PFTeA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 0.49 J 1.9 0.19 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
(PFBS)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 1.0 J B 1.9 0.16 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid ND 1.9 0.18 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 2.0 1.9 0.51 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
(PFOS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS) ND 1.9 0.30 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide 0.55 J 1.9 0.33 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
(FOSA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane ND 19 2.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
N-ethyl perfluorooctane ND 19 1.8 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
6:2FTS ND 19 1.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
8:2FTS ND 19 1.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Isotope Dilution %Recovery Qualifier Limits Prepared Analyzed Dil Fac
13C4 PFBA 71 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C5 PFPeA 91 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C2 PFHxA 99 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C4-PFHpA 103 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C4 PFOA 92 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C5 PFNA 100 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C2 PFDA 105 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C2 PFUnA 97 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C2 PFDoA 84 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C2-PFTeDA 69 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C3-PFBS 101 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
18O2 PFHxS 109 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C4 PFOS 105 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
13C8 FOSA 101 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 105 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 109 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
M2-6:2FTS 63 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
M2-8:2FTS 115 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:01 1
Page 11 of 749


Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 1.7 J 1.9 0.33 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) ND 1.9 0.27 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
(PFBS)
(PFHxS)
(PFHpS)
(PFOS)
(FOSA)
6:2FTS ND 19 1.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
8:2FTS ND 19 1.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C4 PFBA 68 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C5 PFPeA 88 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C2 PFHxA 99 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C4-PFHpA 103 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C4 PFOA 92 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C5 PFNA 102 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C2 PFDA 103 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C2 PFUnA 98 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C2 PFDoA 91 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C2-PFTeDA 75 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C3-PFBS 100 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
18O2 PFHxS 108 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C4 PFOS 100 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
13C8 FOSA 103 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 103 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 115 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
M2-6:2FTS 63 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
M2-8:2FTS 112 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:16 1
Page 12 of 749
Client Sample ID: EB-11-21-2017 Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-3


Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) ND 1.7 0.30 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) ND 1.7 0.42 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) ND 1.7 0.50 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) ND 1.7 0.22 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ND 1.7 0.74 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ND 1.7 0.23 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ND 1.7 0.17 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
(PFHxS)
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ND 1.7 0.47 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA) ND 1.7 0.30 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
6:2FTS ND 17 1.7 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
8:2FTS ND 17 1.7 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C4 PFBA 97 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C5 PFPeA 101 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C2 PFHxA 102 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C4-PFHpA 105 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C4 PFOA 92 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C5 PFNA 106 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C2 PFDA 106 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C2 PFUnA 98 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C2 PFDoA 94 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C2-PFTeDA 87 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C3-PFBS 102 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
18O2 PFHxS 110 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C4 PFOS 106 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
13C8 FOSA 99 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 103 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 117 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
M2-6:2FTS 52 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
M2-8:2FTS 105 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:24 1
Page 13 of 749


(PFBS)
(PFHxS)
(PFHpS)
(PFOS)
(FOSA)
6:2FTS ND 20 2.0 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
8:2FTS ND 20 2.0 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C4 PFBA 68 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C5 PFPeA 89 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C2 PFHxA 93 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C4-PFHpA 97 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C4 PFOA 89 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C5 PFNA 96 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C2 PFDA 100 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C2 PFUnA 90 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C2 PFDoA 79 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C2-PFTeDA 61 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C3-PFBS 94 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
18O2 PFHxS 106 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C4 PFOS 100 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
13C8 FOSA 95 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 93 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 103 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
M2-6:2FTS 63 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
M2-8:2FTS 107 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:32 1
Page 14 of 749


Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 2.4 1.9 0.33 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 4.4 1.9 0.46 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 4.2 1.9 0.55 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
(PFBS)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 3.8 B 1.9 0.16 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
(PFHxS)
(PFHpS)
(PFOS)
(FOSA)
6:2FTS 6.4 J 19 1.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
8:2FTS ND 19 1.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C4 PFBA 65 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C5 PFPeA 84 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C2 PFHxA 94 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C4-PFHpA 98 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C4 PFOA 87 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C5 PFNA 98 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C2 PFDA 100 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C2 PFUnA 93 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C2 PFDoA 77 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C2-PFTeDA 62 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C3-PFBS 93 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
18O2 PFHxS 107 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C4 PFOS 99 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
13C8 FOSA 96 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 94 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 102 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
M2-6:2FTS 62 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
M2-8:2FTS 104 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:40 1
Page 15 of 749


Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 25 1.9 0.33 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 21 1.9 0.47 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 34 1.9 0.55 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 15 1.9 0.24 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 59 F1 1.9 0.81 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 2.3 1.9 0.26 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 0.90 J I 1.9 0.30 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 7.3 1.9 0.19 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
(PFBS)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 9.3 B 1.9 0.16 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid 0.69 J I 1.9 0.18 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 28 F2 F1 1.9 0.52 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
(PFOS)
(FOSA)
6:2FTS ND 19 1.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
8:2FTS ND 19 1.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C4 PFBA 36 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C5 PFPeA 73 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C2 PFHxA 82 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C4-PFHpA 91 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C4 PFOA 89 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C5 PFNA 110 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C2 PFDA 119 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C2 PFUnA 109 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C2 PFDoA 87 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C2-PFTeDA 68 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C3-PFBS 97 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
18O2 PFHxS 108 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C4 PFOS 111 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
13C8 FOSA 108 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 113 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 135 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
M2-6:2FTS 125 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
M2-8:2FTS 195 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 02:48 1
Page 16 of 749


(PFBS)
(PFHxS)
(PFHpS)
(PFOS)
(FOSA)
6:2FTS ND 17 1.7 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
8:2FTS ND 17 1.7 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C4 PFBA 44 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C5 PFPeA 74 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C2 PFHxA 84 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C4-PFHpA 94 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C4 PFOA 89 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C5 PFNA 105 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C2 PFDA 109 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C2 PFUnA 102 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C2 PFDoA 87 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C2-PFTeDA 66 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C3-PFBS 93 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
18O2 PFHxS 106 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C4 PFOS 106 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
13C8 FOSA 104 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 110 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 127 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
M2-6:2FTS 98 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
M2-8:2FTS 181 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:11 1
Page 17 of 749


Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 160 1.9 0.25 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 210 1.9 0.29 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
Perfluoroundecanoic acid 15 1.9 1.0 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
(PFUnA)
Perfluorododecanoic acid 25 I 1.9 0.51 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
(PFDoA)
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid 2.2 I 1.9 1.2 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
(PFTriA)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid 5.1 1.9 0.27 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
(PFTeA)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 640 B 1.9 0.16 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid 5.9 1.9 0.18 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 480 1.9 0.50 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
(PFOS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid 4.1 I 1.9 0.30 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
(PFDS)
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide 15 1.9 0.33 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
(FOSA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane 180 19 2.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
sulfonamidoacetic acid
(NMeFOSAA)
N-ethyl perfluorooctane 130 19 1.8 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
(NEtFOSAA)
8:2FTS 56 19 1.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
13C5 PFNA 204 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
13C2 PFDA 332 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
13C2 PFUnA 372 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
13C2 PFDoA 220 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
13C2-PFTeDA 82 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
18O2 PFHxS 293 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
13C4 PFOS 424 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
13C8 FOSA 201 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 245 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 373 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
M2-8:2FTS 1658 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:19 1
Method: 537 (modified) - Fluorinated Alkyl Substances - DL

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 5700 CI 19 3.3 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 1100 19 4.6 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 3600 19 5.4 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 840 19 2.3 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 3000 19 7.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 4100 19 1.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
(PFBS)
6:2FTS 370 190 19 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
13C4 PFBA 4 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
Page 18 of 749

Method: 537 (modified) - Fluorinated Alkyl Substances - DL (Continued)

13C5 PFPeA 24 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
13C2 PFHxA 81 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
13C4-PFHpA 97 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
13C4 PFOA 90 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
13C3-PFBS 259 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10
M2-6:2FTS 278 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:34 10


Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 160 1.8 0.25 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 210 1.8 0.29 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
Perfluoroundecanoic acid 13 1.8 1.0 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(PFUnA)
Perfluorododecanoic acid 22 1.8 0.51 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(PFDoA)
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid 2.0 1.8 1.2 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(PFTriA)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid 4.5 1.8 0.27 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(PFTeA)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 670 B 1.8 0.16 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid 11 1.8 0.17 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 510 1.8 0.50 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(PFOS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid 1.3 J 1.8 0.29 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(PFDS)
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide 15 1.8 0.32 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(FOSA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane 190 18 2.9 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(NMeFOSAA)
N-ethyl perfluorooctane 120 18 1.7 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
(NEtFOSAA)
8:2FTS 61 18 1.8 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
13C5 PFNA 175 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
13C2 PFDA 261 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
13C2 PFUnA 270 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
13C2 PFDoA 171 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
13C2-PFTeDA 63 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
18O2 PFHxS 225 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
13C4 PFOS 277 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
13C8 FOSA 163 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 214 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 330 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
M2-8:2FTS 1294 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 03:51 1
Page 19 of 749

Method: 537 (modified) - Fluorinated Alkyl Substances - DL

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 5300 CI 37 6.4 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 1100 37 9.0 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 3700 37 11 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 880 37 4.6 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 2800 37 16 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 3600 37 3.7 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
(PFBS)
6:2FTS 350 J 370 37 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
13C4 PFBA 4 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
13C5 PFPeA 29 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
13C2 PFHxA 74 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
13C4-PFHpA 85 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
13C4 PFOA 81 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
13C3-PFBS 275 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20
M2-6:2FTS 238 * 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 12/05/17 07:41 20

Date Collected: 11/21/17 13:25 Matrix: Solid
Date Received: 11/22/17 10:15 Percent Solids: 78.0

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 0.16 J 0.26 0.036 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) ND 0.26 0.099 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 0.056 J 0.26 0.054 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) ND 0.26 0.037 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ND 0.26 0.11 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ND 0.26 0.046 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 0.029 J 0.26 0.028 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) ND 0.26 0.046 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) ND 0.26 0.086 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) ND 0.26 0.066 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) ND 0.26 0.070 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ND 0.26 0.032 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 0.060 J 0.26 0.040 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid ND 0.26 0.045 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 0.58 0.26 0.26 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
(PFOS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS) ND * 0.26 0.050 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA) ND 0.26 0.11 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
N-methyl perfluorooctane ND 2.6 0.50 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
N-ethyl perfluorooctane ND 2.6 0.48 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
6:2FTS ND 2.6 0.19 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
8:2FTS ND 2.6 0.32 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C4 PFBA 86 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
Page 20 of 749

Method: 537 (modified) - Fluorinated Alkyl Substances (Continued)

13C5 PFPeA 100 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C2 PFHxA 95 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C4-PFHpA 95 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C4 PFOA 88 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C5 PFNA 105 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C2 PFDA 113 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C2 PFUnA 117 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C2 PFDoA 99 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C2-PFTeDA 87 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C3-PFBS 105 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
18O2 PFHxS 103 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C4 PFOS 101 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
13C8 FOSA 103 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 135 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 146 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
M2-6:2FTS 113 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1
M2-8:2FTS 267 * 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:46 1


Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 0.22 J 0.28 0.039 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) ND 0.28 0.059 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
Perfluoroundecanoic acid 0.080 J 0.28 0.050 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
(PFUnA)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) ND 0.28 0.043 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ND 0.28 0.28 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
6:2FTS ND 2.8 0.21 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
8:2FTS ND 2.8 0.35 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
Page 21 of 749

13C4 PFBA 86 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C5 PFPeA 98 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C2 PFHxA 96 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C4-PFHpA 89 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C4 PFOA 89 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C5 PFNA 99 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C2 PFDA 114 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C2 PFUnA 117 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C2 PFDoA 99 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C2-PFTeDA 82 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C3-PFBS 94 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
18O2 PFHxS 99 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C4 PFOS 96 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
13C8 FOSA 100 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 149 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 148 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
M2-6:2FTS 125 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1
M2-8:2FTS 294 * 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:54 1


Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 0.32 0.26 0.037 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) ND 0.26 0.055 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
Perfluoroundecanoic acid 0.080 J 0.26 0.047 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
(PFUnA)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) ND 0.26 0.041 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 0.29 0.26 0.26 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
(PFOS)
6:2FTS ND 2.6 0.20 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
8:2FTS ND 2.6 0.33 ug/Kg ☼ 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
Page 22 of 749

13C4 PFBA 75 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C5 PFPeA 95 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C2 PFHxA 90 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C4-PFHpA 87 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C4 PFOA 87 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C5 PFNA 99 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C2 PFDA 112 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C2 PFUnA 114 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C2 PFDoA 87 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C2-PFTeDA 81 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C3-PFBS 92 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
18O2 PFHxS 95 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C4 PFOS 95 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
13C8 FOSA 93 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 128 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 143 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
M2-6:2FTS 139 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
M2-8:2FTS 324 * 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 07:18 1
Page 23 of 749
Isotope Dilution Summary

Matrix: Solid Prep Type: Total/NA
Percent Isotope Dilution Recovery (Acceptance Limits)
13C4 PFBA13C5 PFPeA13C2 PFHxA 13C4-PFHpA13C4 PFOA13C5 PFNA13C2 PFDA13C2 PFUnA
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID (25-150) (25-150) (25-150) (25-150) (25-150) (25-150) (25-150) (25-150)
320-33574-10 OUT 2-11-21-2017 86 100 95 95 88 105 113 117
320-33574-11 OUT 1-11-21-2017 86 98 96 89 89 99 114 117
320-33574-11 MS OUT 1-11-21-2017 80 93 88 86 84 94 104 110
320-33574-11 MSD OUT 1-11-21-2017 44 97 99 88 84 97 108 113
320-33574-12 DUP-11-21-2017 75 95 90 87 87 99 112 114
LCS 320-197029/2-A Lab Control Sample 84 99 95 100 84 91 94 95
MB 320-197029/1-A Method Blank 87 102 98 104 87 96 99 102
13C2 PFDoA13C2-PFTeDA13C3-PFBS18O2 PFHxS13C4 PFOS13C8 FOSA d3-NMeFOSAA
d5-NEtFOSAA
320-33574-10 OUT 2-11-21-2017 99 87 105 103 101 103 135 146
320-33574-11 OUT 1-11-21-2017 99 82 94 99 96 100 149 148
320-33574-11 MS OUT 1-11-21-2017 93 80 88 92 89 95 132 143
320-33574-11 MSD OUT 1-11-21-2017 88 74 102 100 98 94 112 144
320-33574-12 DUP-11-21-2017 87 81 92 95 95 93 128 143
MB 320-197029/1-A Method Blank 91 81 102 112 100 94 104 112
M2-6:2FTS M2-8:2FTS
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID (25-150) (25-150)
320-33574-10 OUT 2-11-21-2017 113 267 *
320-33574-11 OUT 1-11-21-2017 125 294 *
320-33574-11 MS OUT 1-11-21-2017 118 266 *
320-33574-11 MSD OUT 1-11-21-2017 157 * 348 *
320-33574-12 DUP-11-21-2017 139 324 *
LCS 320-197029/2-A Lab Control Sample 47 92
MB 320-197029/1-A Method Blank 48 89
Surrogate Legend
13C4 PFBA = 13C4 PFBA
13C5 PFPeA = 13C5 PFPeA
13C2 PFHxA = 13C2 PFHxA
13C4-PFHpA = 13C4-PFHpA
13C4 PFOA = 13C4 PFOA
13C5 PFNA = 13C5 PFNA
13C2 PFDA = 13C2 PFDA
13C2 PFUnA = 13C2 PFUnA
13C2 PFDoA = 13C2 PFDoA
13C2-PFTeDA = 13C2-PFTeDA
13C3-PFBS = 13C3-PFBS
18O2 PFHxS = 18O2 PFHxS
13C4 PFOS = 13C4 PFOS
13C8 FOSA = 13C8 FOSA
d3-NMeFOSAA = d3-NMeFOSAA
d5-NEtFOSAA = d5-NEtFOSAA
M2-6:2FTS = M2-6:2FTS
M2-8:2FTS = M2-8:2FTS
Page 24 of 749

Matrix: Water Prep Type: Total/NA
13C4 PFBA13C5 PFPeA13C2 PFHxA 13C4-PFHpA13C4 PFOA13C5 PFNA13C2 PFDA13C2 PFUnA
320-33574-1 MR-4-11-21-2017 71 91 99 103 92 100 105 97
320-33574-2 MR-3-11-21-2017 68 88 99 103 92 102 103 98
320-33574-3 EB-11-21-2017 97 101 102 105 92 106 106 98
320-33574-4 MR-2-11-21-2017 68 89 93 97 89 96 100 90
320-33574-5 MR-1-11-21-2017 65 84 94 98 87 98 100 93
320-33574-6 OUT-2-11-21-2017 36 73 82 91 89 110 119 109
320-33574-6 MS OUT-2-11-21-2017 36 74 87 95 93 114 120 114
320-33574-6 MSD OUT-2-11-21-2017 35 71 83 91 93 114 115 110
320-33574-7 OUT-1-11-21-2017 44 74 84 94 89 105 109 102
320-33574-8 Leachate-11-21-2017 204 * 332 * 372 *
320-33574-8 - DL Leachate-11-21-2017 4* 24 * 81 97 90
320-33574-9 DUPW-11-21-2017 175 * 261 * 270 *
320-33574-9 - DL DUPW-11-21-2017 4* 29 74 85 81
MB 320-196804/1-A Method Blank 112 114 111 118 101 112 116 106
13C2 PFDoA13C2-PFTeDA13C3-PFBS18O2 PFHxS13C4 PFOS13C8 FOSA d3-NMeFOSAA
d5-NEtFOSAA
320-33574-1 MR-4-11-21-2017 84 69 101 109 105 101 105 109
320-33574-2 MR-3-11-21-2017 91 75 100 108 100 103 103 115
320-33574-3 EB-11-21-2017 94 87 102 110 106 99 103 117
320-33574-4 MR-2-11-21-2017 79 61 94 106 100 95 93 103
320-33574-5 MR-1-11-21-2017 77 62 93 107 99 96 94 102
320-33574-6 OUT-2-11-21-2017 87 68 97 108 111 108 113 135
320-33574-6 MS OUT-2-11-21-2017 96 75 99 115 116 108 129 133
320-33574-6 MSD OUT-2-11-21-2017 92 78 93 108 115 110 116 126
320-33574-7 OUT-1-11-21-2017 87 66 93 106 106 104 110 127
320-33574-8 Leachate-11-21-2017 220 * 82 293 * 424 * 201 * 245 * 373 *
320-33574-8 - DL Leachate-11-21-2017 259 *
320-33574-9 DUPW-11-21-2017 171 * 63 225 * 277 * 163 * 214 * 330 *
320-33574-9 - DL DUPW-11-21-2017 275 *
MB 320-196804/1-A Method Blank 99 96 112 123 115 108 110 117
M2-6:2FTS M2-8:2FTS
320-33574-1 MR-4-11-21-2017 63 115
320-33574-2 MR-3-11-21-2017 63 112
320-33574-3 EB-11-21-2017 52 105
320-33574-4 MR-2-11-21-2017 63 107
320-33574-5 MR-1-11-21-2017 62 104
320-33574-6 OUT-2-11-21-2017 125 195 *
320-33574-6 MS OUT-2-11-21-2017 130 222 *
320-33574-6 MSD OUT-2-11-21-2017 123 217 *
320-33574-7 OUT-1-11-21-2017 98 181 *
320-33574-8 Leachate-11-21-2017 1658 *
320-33574-8 - DL Leachate-11-21-2017 278 *
320-33574-9 DUPW-11-21-2017 1294 *
Page 25 of 749

M2-6:2FTS M2-8:2FTS
320-33574-9 - DL DUPW-11-21-2017 238 *
LCS 320-196804/2-A Lab Control Sample 52 108
MB 320-196804/1-A Method Blank 58 122
Surrogate Legend
13C4 PFBA = 13C4 PFBA
13C5 PFPeA = 13C5 PFPeA
13C2 PFHxA = 13C2 PFHxA
13C4-PFHpA = 13C4-PFHpA
13C4 PFOA = 13C4 PFOA
13C5 PFNA = 13C5 PFNA
13C2 PFDA = 13C2 PFDA
13C2 PFUnA = 13C2 PFUnA
13C2 PFDoA = 13C2 PFDoA
13C2-PFTeDA = 13C2-PFTeDA
13C3-PFBS = 13C3-PFBS
18O2 PFHxS = 18O2 PFHxS
13C4 PFOS = 13C4 PFOS
13C8 FOSA = 13C8 FOSA
d3-NMeFOSAA = d3-NMeFOSAA
d5-NEtFOSAA = d5-NEtFOSAA
M2-6:2FTS = M2-6:2FTS
M2-8:2FTS = M2-8:2FTS
Page 26 of 749
QC Sample Results

Lab Sample ID: MB 320-196804/1-A Client Sample ID: Method Blank
Analysis Batch: 197506 Prep Batch: 196804
MB MB
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) ND 2.0 0.35 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ND 2.0 0.85 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ND 2.0 0.20 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) 0.286 J 2.0 0.17 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ND 2.0 0.54 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA) ND 2.0 0.35 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
6:2FTS ND 20 2.0 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
8:2FTS ND 20 2.0 ng/L 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
MB MB
13C4 PFBA 112 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C5 PFPeA 114 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C2 PFHxA 111 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C4-PFHpA 118 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C4 PFOA 101 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C5 PFNA 112 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C2 PFDA 116 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C2 PFUnA 106 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C2 PFDoA 99 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C2-PFTeDA 96 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C3-PFBS 112 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
18O2 PFHxS 123 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C4 PFOS 115 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
13C8 FOSA 108 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 110 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 117 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
M2-6:2FTS 58 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
M2-8:2FTS 122 25 - 150 11/27/17 14:44 11/30/17 00:50 1
Page 27 of 749
QC Sample Results

Lab Sample ID: LCS 320-196804/2-A Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample
Spike LCS LCS %Rec.
Analyte Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 40.0 38.0 ng/L 95 78 - 138
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 40.0 38.5 ng/L 96 66 - 136
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 40.0 37.7 ng/L 94 76 - 136
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 40.0 39.9 ng/L 100 78 - 138
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 40.0 41.0 ng/L 103 70 - 130
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 40.0 37.7 ng/L 94 77 - 137
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 40.0 38.3 ng/L 96 74 - 134
Perfluoroundecanoic acid 40.0 32.8 ng/L 82 68 - 128
(PFUnA)
Perfluorododecanoic acid 40.0 38.2 ng/L 95 72 - 132
(PFDoA)
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid 40.0 34.8 ng/L 87 56 - 163
(PFTriA)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid 40.0 35.8 ng/L 89 63 - 123
(PFTeA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 35.4 35.1 ng/L 99 79 - 139
(PFBS)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 36.4 33.3 ng/L 91 77 - 137
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid 38.1 38.6 ng/L 101 83 - 143
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 37.1 36.7 ng/L 99 74 - 134
(PFOS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid 38.6 37.5 ng/L 97 75 - 135
(PFDS)
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide 40.0 38.4 ng/L 96 82 - 142
(FOSA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane 40.0 38.0 ng/L 95 77 - 137
(NMeFOSAA)
N-ethyl perfluorooctane 40.0 36.8 ng/L 92 79 - 139
(NEtFOSAA)
6:2FTS 37.9 36.4 ng/L 96 82 - 142
8:2FTS 38.3 38.5 ng/L 101 80 - 140
LCS LCS
Isotope Dilution %Recovery Qualifier Limits
13C4 PFBA 99 25 - 150
13C5 PFPeA 101 25 - 150
13C2 PFHxA 101 25 - 150
13C4-PFHpA 103 25 - 150
13C4 PFOA 90 25 - 150
13C5 PFNA 103 25 - 150
13C2 PFDA 106 25 - 150
13C2 PFUnA 103 25 - 150
13C2 PFDoA 92 25 - 150
13C2-PFTeDA 93 25 - 150
13C3-PFBS 104 25 - 150
18O2 PFHxS 109 25 - 150
13C4 PFOS 106 25 - 150
13C8 FOSA 100 25 - 150
Page 28 of 749
QC Sample Results

LCS LCS
d3-NMeFOSAA 102 25 - 150
d5-NEtFOSAA 108 25 - 150
M2-6:2FTS 52 25 - 150
M2-8:2FTS 108 25 - 150
Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-6 MS Client Sample ID: OUT-2-11-21-2017

Sample Sample Spike MS MS %Rec.
Analyte Result Qualifier Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 25 37.5 56.9 ng/L 85 78 - 138
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 21 37.5 53.8 ng/L 88 66 - 136
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 34 37.5 67.9 ng/L 90 76 - 136
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 15 37.5 51.8 ng/L 98 78 - 138
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 59 F1 37.5 111 F1 ng/L 137 70 - 130
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 2.3 37.5 36.7 ng/L 92 77 - 137
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 0.90 J I 37.5 37.5 ng/L 97 74 - 134
Perfluoroundecanoic acid ND 37.5 35.4 ng/L 94 68 - 128
(PFUnA)
Perfluorododecanoic acid ND 37.5 37.8 ng/L 101 72 - 132
(PFDoA)
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid ND 37.5 30.0 I ng/L 80 56 - 163
(PFTriA)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid ND 37.5 33.4 ng/L 89 63 - 123
(PFTeA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 7.3 33.1 43.6 ng/L 109 79 - 139
(PFBS)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 9.3 B 34.1 42.8 ng/L 98 77 - 137
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid 0.69 J I 35.7 36.2 ng/L 100 83 - 143
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 28 F2 F1 34.8 82.5 F1 ng/L 157 74 - 134
(PFOS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid ND 36.1 33.7 ng/L 93 75 - 135
(PFDS)
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide 0.39 J 37.5 38.6 ng/L 102 82 - 142
(FOSA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane ND 37.5 35.1 ng/L 94 77 - 137
(NMeFOSAA)
N-ethyl perfluorooctane ND 37.5 38.8 ng/L 104 79 - 139
(NEtFOSAA)
6:2FTS ND 35.5 38.7 ng/L 109 82 - 142
8:2FTS ND 35.9 34.4 ng/L 96 80 - 140
MS MS
13C4 PFBA 36 25 - 150
13C5 PFPeA 74 25 - 150
13C2 PFHxA 87 25 - 150
13C4-PFHpA 95 25 - 150
13C4 PFOA 93 25 - 150
Page 29 of 749
QC Sample Results

Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-6 MS Client Sample ID: OUT-2-11-21-2017
MS MS
13C5 PFNA 114 25 - 150
13C2 PFDA 120 25 - 150
13C2 PFUnA 114 25 - 150
13C2 PFDoA 96 25 - 150
13C2-PFTeDA 75 25 - 150
13C3-PFBS 99 25 - 150
18O2 PFHxS 115 25 - 150
13C4 PFOS 116 25 - 150
13C8 FOSA 108 25 - 150
d3-NMeFOSAA 129 25 - 150
d5-NEtFOSAA 133 25 - 150
M2-6:2FTS 130 25 - 150
M2-8:2FTS 222 * 25 - 150
Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-6 MSD Client Sample ID: OUT-2-11-21-2017

Sample Sample Spike MSD MSD %Rec. RPD
Analyte Result Qualifier Added Result Qualifier Unit D %Rec Limits RPD Limit
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 25 36.7 57.7 ng/L 89 78 - 138 1 30
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 21 36.7 51.7 ng/L 84 66 - 136 4 30
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 34 36.7 68.7 ng/L 95 76 - 136 1 30
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 15 36.7 48.3 ng/L 91 78 - 138 7 30
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 59 F1 36.7 92.9 ng/L 91 70 - 130 18 30
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 2.3 36.7 34.3 ng/L 87 77 - 137 7 30
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 0.90 J I 36.7 36.0 ng/L 96 74 - 134 4 30
Perfluoroundecanoic acid ND 36.7 33.1 ng/L 90 68 - 128 7 30
(PFUnA)
Perfluorododecanoic acid ND 36.7 36.1 I ng/L 98 72 - 132 5 30
(PFDoA)
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid ND 36.7 28.5 ng/L 78 56 - 163 5 30
(PFTriA)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid ND 36.7 33.2 ng/L 91 63 - 123 0 30
(PFTeA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 7.3 32.4 44.0 ng/L 113 79 - 139 1 30
(PFBS)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 9.3 B 33.4 38.9 ng/L 88 77 - 137 10 30
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid 0.69 J I 34.9 33.3 ng/L 94 83 - 143 8 30
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 28 F2 F1 34.0 55.5 F2 ng/L 82 74 - 134 39 30
(PFOS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid ND 35.4 29.3 ng/L 83 75 - 135 14 30
(PFDS)
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide 0.39 J 36.7 34.3 ng/L 92 82 - 142 12 30
(FOSA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane ND 36.7 34.1 ng/L 93 77 - 137 3 30
(NMeFOSAA)
N-ethyl perfluorooctane ND 36.7 33.3 ng/L 91 79 - 139 15 30
(NEtFOSAA)
Page 30 of 749
QC Sample Results

Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-6 MSD Client Sample ID: OUT-2-11-21-2017
6:2FTS ND 34.8 35.7 ng/L 103 82 - 142 8 30
8:2FTS ND 35.1 32.9 ng/L 94 80 - 140 4 30
MSD MSD
13C4 PFBA 35 25 - 150
13C5 PFPeA 71 25 - 150
13C2 PFHxA 83 25 - 150
13C4-PFHpA 91 25 - 150
13C4 PFOA 93 25 - 150
13C5 PFNA 114 25 - 150
13C2 PFDA 115 25 - 150
13C2 PFUnA 110 25 - 150
13C2 PFDoA 92 25 - 150
13C2-PFTeDA 78 25 - 150
13C3-PFBS 93 25 - 150
18O2 PFHxS 108 25 - 150
13C4 PFOS 115 25 - 150
13C8 FOSA 110 25 - 150
d3-NMeFOSAA 116 25 - 150
d5-NEtFOSAA 126 25 - 150
M2-6:2FTS 123 25 - 150
M2-8:2FTS 217 * 25 - 150

MB MB
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) ND 0.20 0.028 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) ND 0.20 0.077 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) ND 0.20 0.042 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) ND 0.20 0.029 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ND 0.20 0.086 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ND 0.20 0.036 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) ND 0.20 0.022 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) ND 0.20 0.036 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) ND 0.20 0.067 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) ND 0.20 0.051 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) ND 0.20 0.054 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) ND 0.20 0.025 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) ND 0.20 0.031 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid ND 0.20 0.035 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) ND 0.20 0.20 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS) ND 0.20 0.039 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA) ND 0.20 0.082 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
N-methyl perfluorooctane ND 2.0 0.39 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Page 31 of 749
QC Sample Results

MB MB
N-ethyl perfluorooctane ND 2.0 0.37 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
6:2FTS ND 2.0 0.15 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
8:2FTS ND 2.0 0.25 ug/Kg 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
MB MB
13C4 PFBA 87 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C5 PFPeA 102 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C2 PFHxA 98 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C4-PFHpA 104 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C4 PFOA 87 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C5 PFNA 96 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C2 PFDA 99 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C2 PFUnA 102 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C2 PFDoA 91 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C2-PFTeDA 81 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C3-PFBS 102 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
18O2 PFHxS 112 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C4 PFOS 100 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
13C8 FOSA 94 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
d3-NMeFOSAA 104 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
d5-NEtFOSAA 112 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
M2-6:2FTS 48 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
M2-8:2FTS 89 25 - 150 11/28/17 11:40 12/01/17 06:31 1
Spike LCS LCS %Rec.
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 2.00 2.26 ug/Kg 113 81 - 133
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) 2.00 2.21 ug/Kg 110 79 - 120
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) 2.00 2.18 ug/Kg 109 75 - 125
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) 2.00 2.23 ug/Kg 112 76 - 124
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) 2.00 2.32 ug/Kg 116 76 - 121
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) 2.00 2.19 ug/Kg 110 74 - 126
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 2.00 2.29 ug/Kg 115 74 - 124
Perfluoroundecanoic acid 2.00 2.00 ug/Kg 100 74 - 114
(PFUnA)
Perfluorododecanoic acid 2.00 2.43 ug/Kg 122 75 - 123
(PFDoA)
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid 2.00 2.10 ug/Kg 105 43 - 116
(PFTriA)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid 2.00 2.09 ug/Kg 105 22 - 129
(PFTeA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid 1.77 2.11 ug/Kg 119 73 - 142
(PFBS)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid 1.82 1.85 ug/Kg 102 75 - 121
(PFHxS)
Page 32 of 749
QC Sample Results

Spike LCS LCS %Rec.
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid 1.90 2.27 ug/Kg 119 78 - 146
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid 1.86 2.12 ug/Kg 114 69 - 131
(PFOS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid 1.93 2.31 * ug/Kg 120 54 - 113
(PFDS)
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide 2.00 2.30 ug/Kg 115 62 - 135
(FOSA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane 2.00 2.20 ug/Kg 110 65 - 135
(NMeFOSAA)
N-ethyl perfluorooctane 2.00 2.15 ug/Kg 107 65 - 135
(NEtFOSAA)
6:2FTS 1.90 2.01 ug/Kg 106 65 - 135
8:2FTS 1.92 2.22 ug/Kg 116 65 - 135
LCS LCS
13C4 PFBA 84 25 - 150
13C5 PFPeA 99 25 - 150
13C2 PFHxA 95 25 - 150
13C4-PFHpA 100 25 - 150
13C4 PFOA 84 25 - 150
13C5 PFNA 91 25 - 150
13C2 PFDA 94 25 - 150
13C2 PFUnA 95 25 - 150
13C2 PFDoA 87 25 - 150
13C2-PFTeDA 81 25 - 150
13C3-PFBS 99 25 - 150
18O2 PFHxS 107 25 - 150
13C4 PFOS 95 25 - 150
13C8 FOSA 91 25 - 150
d3-NMeFOSAA 99 25 - 150
d5-NEtFOSAA 104 25 - 150
M2-6:2FTS 47 25 - 150
M2-8:2FTS 92 25 - 150
Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-11 MS Client Sample ID: OUT 1-11-21-2017

Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 0.22 J 2.78 2.96 ug/Kg ☼ 98 81 - 133
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) ND 2.78 2.70 ug/Kg ☼ 97 79 - 120
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) ND 2.78 2.90 ug/Kg ☼ 104 75 - 125
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) ND 2.78 2.74 ug/Kg ☼ 98 76 - 124
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ND 2.78 2.86 ug/Kg ☼ 103 76 - 121
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ND 2.78 2.83 ug/Kg ☼ 102 74 - 126
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 0.039 J 2.78 2.82 ug/Kg ☼ 100 74 - 124
Page 33 of 749
QC Sample Results

Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-11 MS Client Sample ID: OUT 1-11-21-2017
Perfluoroundecanoic acid 0.080 J 2.78 2.79 ug/Kg ☼ 97 74 - 114
(PFUnA)
Perfluorododecanoic acid ND 2.78 2.89 ug/Kg ☼ 104 75 - 123
(PFDoA)
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid ND 2.78 2.38 ug/Kg ☼ 85 43 - 116
(PFTriA)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid ND 2.78 2.66 ug/Kg ☼ 95 22 - 129
(PFTeA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ND 2.46 2.63 ug/Kg ☼ 107 73 - 142
(PFBS)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ND 2.53 2.30 ug/Kg ☼ 91 75 - 121
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid ND 2.65 2.70 ug/Kg ☼ 102 78 - 146
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ND 2.58 2.99 ug/Kg ☼ 116 69 - 131
(PFOS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid ND * 2.68 2.86 ug/Kg ☼ 107 54 - 113
(PFDS)
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide ND 2.78 2.85 ug/Kg ☼ 102 62 - 135
(FOSA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane ND 2.78 2.76 J ug/Kg ☼ 99 65 - 135
(NMeFOSAA)
N-ethyl perfluorooctane ND 2.78 2.76 J ug/Kg ☼ 99 65 - 135
(NEtFOSAA)
6:2FTS ND 2.64 2.75 J ug/Kg ☼ 104 65 - 135
8:2FTS ND 2.67 2.54 J ug/Kg ☼ 95 65 - 135
MS MS
13C4 PFBA 80 25 - 150
13C5 PFPeA 93 25 - 150
13C2 PFHxA 88 25 - 150
13C4-PFHpA 86 25 - 150
13C4 PFOA 84 25 - 150
13C5 PFNA 94 25 - 150
13C2 PFDA 104 25 - 150
13C2 PFUnA 110 25 - 150
13C2 PFDoA 93 25 - 150
13C2-PFTeDA 80 25 - 150
13C3-PFBS 88 25 - 150
18O2 PFHxS 92 25 - 150
13C4 PFOS 89 25 - 150
13C8 FOSA 95 25 - 150
d3-NMeFOSAA 132 25 - 150
d5-NEtFOSAA 143 25 - 150
M2-6:2FTS 118 25 - 150
M2-8:2FTS 266 * 25 - 150
Page 34 of 749
QC Sample Results

Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-11 MSD Client Sample ID: OUT 1-11-21-2017
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) 0.22 J 2.77 2.82 ug/Kg ☼ 94 81 - 133 5 30
Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) ND 2.77 2.64 ug/Kg ☼ 95 79 - 120 2 30
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) ND 2.77 2.89 ug/Kg ☼ 104 75 - 125 0 30
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) ND 2.77 2.89 ug/Kg ☼ 104 76 - 124 5 30
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ND 2.77 2.92 ug/Kg ☼ 106 76 - 121 2 30
Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) ND 2.77 2.70 ug/Kg ☼ 98 74 - 126 4 30
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) 0.039 J 2.77 2.87 ug/Kg ☼ 102 74 - 124 2 30
Perfluoroundecanoic acid 0.080 J 2.77 2.91 ug/Kg ☼ 102 74 - 114 4 30
(PFUnA)
Perfluorododecanoic acid ND 2.77 3.05 ug/Kg ☼ 110 75 - 123 5 30
(PFDoA)
Perfluorotridecanoic Acid ND 2.77 2.39 ug/Kg ☼ 86 43 - 116 0 30
(PFTriA)
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid ND 2.77 2.78 ug/Kg ☼ 101 22 - 129 5 30
(PFTeA)
Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid ND 2.45 2.50 ug/Kg ☼ 102 73 - 142 5 30
(PFBS)
Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid ND 2.52 2.22 ug/Kg ☼ 88 75 - 121 3 30
(PFHxS)
Perfluoroheptanesulfonic Acid ND 2.63 2.59 ug/Kg ☼ 98 78 - 146 4 30
(PFHpS)
Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid ND 2.57 3.23 ug/Kg ☼ 126 69 - 131 8 30
(PFOS)
Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid ND * 2.67 2.97 ug/Kg ☼ 111 54 - 113 4 30
(PFDS)
Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide ND 2.77 2.80 ug/Kg ☼ 101 62 - 135 2 30
(FOSA)
N-methyl perfluorooctane ND 2.77 2.77 J ug/Kg ☼ 100 65 - 135 0 30
(NMeFOSAA)
N-ethyl perfluorooctane ND 2.77 2.59 J ug/Kg ☼ 94 65 - 135 6 30
(NEtFOSAA)
6:2FTS ND 2.62 2.71 J ug/Kg ☼ 103 65 - 135 1 30
8:2FTS ND 2.65 2.67 J ug/Kg ☼ 101 65 - 135 5 30
MSD MSD
13C4 PFBA 44 25 - 150
13C5 PFPeA 97 25 - 150
13C2 PFHxA 99 25 - 150
13C4-PFHpA 88 25 - 150
13C4 PFOA 84 25 - 150
13C5 PFNA 97 25 - 150
13C2 PFDA 108 25 - 150
13C2 PFUnA 113 25 - 150
13C2 PFDoA 88 25 - 150
13C2-PFTeDA 74 25 - 150
13C3-PFBS 102 25 - 150
18O2 PFHxS 100 25 - 150
13C4 PFOS 98 25 - 150
13C8 FOSA 94 25 - 150
Page 35 of 749
QC Sample Results

Lab Sample ID: 320-33574-11 MSD Client Sample ID: OUT 1-11-21-2017
MSD MSD
d3-NMeFOSAA 112 25 - 150
d5-NEtFOSAA 144 25 - 150
M2-6:2FTS 157 * 25 - 150
M2-8:2FTS 348 * 25 - 150
Page 36 of 749
Definitions/Glossary
Qualifiers
LCMS
Qualifier Qualifier Description
J Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal to the MDL and the concentration is an approximate value.
B Compound was found in the blank and sample.
* Isotope Dilution analyte is outside acceptance limits.
* LCS or LCSD is outside acceptance limits.
I Value is EMPC (estimated maximum possible concentration).
F1 MS and/or MSD Recovery is outside acceptance limits.
F2 MS/MSD RPD exceeds control limits
CI The peak identified by the data system exhibited chromatographic interference that could not be resolved. There is reason to suspect
there may be a high bias.
Glossary
Abbreviation These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report.
¤ Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis
%R Percent Recovery
CFL Contains Free Liquid
CNF Contains No Free Liquid
DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference)
Dil Fac Dilution Factor
DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE)
DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re-analysis, Re-extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample
DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry)
EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin)
LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE)
LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE)
MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry)
MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry)
MDL Method Detection Limit
ML Minimum Level (Dioxin)
NC Not Calculated
ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown)
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit
QC Quality Control
RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry)
RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry)
RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points
TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin)
TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin)
Page 37 of 749
QC Association Summary
LCMS
Prep Batch: 196804
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch
320-33574-1 MR-4-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-2 MR-3-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-3 EB-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-4 MR-2-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-5 MR-1-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-6 OUT-2-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-7 OUT-1-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-8 Leachate-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-8 - DL Leachate-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-9 - DL DUPW-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-9 DUPW-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
MB 320-196804/1-A Method Blank Total/NA Water 3535
LCS 320-196804/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-6 MS OUT-2-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
320-33574-6 MSD OUT-2-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 3535
Prep Batch: 197029

320-33574-10 OUT 2-11-21-2017 Total/NA Solid SHAKE
320-33574-11 OUT 1-11-21-2017 Total/NA Solid SHAKE
320-33574-12 DUP-11-21-2017 Total/NA Solid SHAKE
MB 320-197029/1-A Method Blank Total/NA Solid SHAKE
LCS 320-197029/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Solid SHAKE
320-33574-11 MS OUT 1-11-21-2017 Total/NA Solid SHAKE
320-33574-11 MSD OUT 1-11-21-2017 Total/NA Solid SHAKE
Analysis Batch: 197506

320-33574-1 MR-4-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 537 (modified) 196804
320-33574-3 EB-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 537 (modified) 196804
320-33574-6 OUT-2-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 537 (modified) 196804
320-33574-7 OUT-1-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 537 (modified) 196804
320-33574-8 Leachate-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 537 (modified) 196804
320-33574-9 DUPW-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 537 (modified) 196804
MB 320-196804/1-A Method Blank Total/NA Water 537 (modified) 196804
LCS 320-196804/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Water 537 (modified) 196804
320-33574-6 MS OUT-2-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 537 (modified) 196804
320-33574-6 MSD OUT-2-11-21-2017 Total/NA Water 537 (modified) 196804
Analysis Batch: 197745

320-33574-10 OUT 2-11-21-2017 Total/NA Solid 537 (modified) 197029
320-33574-11 OUT 1-11-21-2017 Total/NA Solid 537 (modified) 197029
320-33574-12 DUP-11-21-2017 Total/NA Solid 537 (modified) 197029
MB 320-197029/1-A Method Blank Total/NA Solid 537 (modified) 197029
LCS 320-197029/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA Solid 537 (modified) 197029
320-33574-11 MS OUT 1-11-21-2017 Total/NA Solid 537 (modified) 197029
320-33574-11 MSD OUT 1-11-21-2017 Total/NA Solid 537 (modified) 197029
Page 38 of 749
Appendix D
Data Review Report
Colonie Landfill
Site No. 1707968 PIN H7045
Project Manager – Brian Jankauskas
Analytical Laboratory: TestAmerica – Sacramento, CA and Buffalo, NY

Job No.: 320-33574-1
Sample Date(s): 11/21/2017
Received Date(s): 11/22/2017 at 10:15 AM
Analysis Date(s): 11/30/2017, 12/01/2017, 12/05/2017
Chain-of-Custody –
All samples were collected and shipped under COC record and received within one (1) day of
sampling. All samples were received intact and in good condition. All samples met
preservation and integrity requirements. Temperature of cooler(s) at time of receipt was 2.0°C.
Twelve (12) samples were analyzed for PFCs – Modified EPA Method 537 – Perfluorinated
Hydrocarbons with an Initial Reporting Limit of 2.0 ng/L for waters and an Initial Reporting Limit
of 0.28 ug/Kg for solids.
Sample Matrix = Nine (9) Waters; three (3) Solids
Holding Times –
All samples and/or sample extracts were analyzed within the specified holding times of 14 days
to extraction from date of sampling and 40 days to analysis from day of extraction.
PFCs –
Twelve (12) field samples, two (2) method blanks, two (2) matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate,
and two (2) laboratory control samples were analyzed for PFCs using TestAmerica’s Modified
EPA Method 537. The following analytes were included in the report, but accreditation/
certification is not offered by the governing authority (ELAP):
 6:2 FTS
 8:2 FTS
 N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA)
 N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA)
 Perfluorobutansulfonic acid (PFBS)
 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
 Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS)
 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
 Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS)
 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
 Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA)
 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA)
 Perfluorotridecanoic acid PFTriA)
 Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
The following items were reviewed for compliancy –
Initial Calibration - the multi-point calibration(s) had a Percent Relative Standard Deviation
(%RSD) of <35% or <50% for all reported analytes or a coefficient of determination >0.9900 for
all reported analytes. Meeting calibration curve evaluation criteria. All reported analytes were
detected at the appropriate levels of 0.025, 0.05, 0.25, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, 10.0 and 20 ng/mL in the
multi-point calibration(s) to support the reporting limits provided.
Initial Calibration Verification – the initial calibration verification run exhibited a % Deviation less
than or equal to the Maximum % Deviation criteria of 40% or 50% for the target PFC analytes,
depending on the analyte.
Continuing Calibration Verification - the calibration verification run(s) for all analysis batches
exhibited a % Deviation less than or equal to the Maximum % Deviation criteria of 40% or 50%
for the target PFC analytes, depending on the analyte.
Method Blank(s) - the method blank associated with the analysis batches for the water samples
met the % Recovery criteria for the labeled compounds of 25 – 150%. All the native analytes
that were analyzed for were reported as non-detects at the determined Reporting Limit of
2.0ng/L except for – PFHxS. Reported results for PFHxS in samples – MR-4-11-21-2017, MR-
3-11-21-2017, EB-11-21-2017, MR-2-11-21-2017, and OUT-1-11-21-2017 should be considered
as estimated as reported results for PFHxS in the above samples may be attributable to
laboratory contamination.
The method blank associated with the analysis batches for the solid samples met the %
Recovery criteria of 25 – 150% for the labeled compounds. All the native analytes that were
analyzed for were reported as non-detects at the determined Reporting Limit of 2.0 ug/Kg.
Laboratory Control Sample(s) – the LCS % Recovery for both the labeled and native spiked
analytes were within the set quality control limits for the analytical batches associated with the
water samples.
The LCS % Recovery for both the labeled and native spiked analytes were within the set quality
control limits for the analytical batches associated with the solid samples except for the analyte
PFDS whose recovery exceeded the % Recovery Limits. This exceedance had no effect on the
reported results as all the solid samples reported non-detects for PFDS.
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate – the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate pair spiked
analyte recoveries should fall within the established control limits. If spiked analyte recoveries
are outside the established control limits, then the spiked analyte must be within the control
limits in the associated laboratory control sample (LCS).
For field sample OUT-2-11-21-2017 MS/MSD, the % Recovery for both the labeled and native
spiked analytes were within the set quality control limits except for analytes PFOA, PFOS, and
labeled M2-8:2FTS, all of which exceeded their control limits. These exceedances for field
sample OUT-2-11-21-2017 may be attributable to matrix interference because these three
analytes were within the established control limits in the LCS. Reported results for PFOA and
PFOS in the parent sample should be considered as estimated and qualified with a J.
The MS/MSD Relative Percent Difference in field sample OUT-2-11-21-2017, met the QC Limit
of 30% or less for all reported analytes except for PFOS.
spiked analytes were within the set quality control limits except for labeled analytes M2-6:2 FTS
and M2-8:2 FTS which exceeded the control limits. These exceedances for field sample OUT-
1-11-21-2017 had no effect on the reported results in the parent sample as both 6:2 FTS and
8:2 FTS were non-detects.
The MS/MSD Relative Percent Difference in Field sample OUT-1-11-21-2017, met the QC Limit
of 30% or less for all reported analytes.
Field Duplicate Precision – for Field Sample Leachate-11-21-2017 and its field duplicate DUPW-
11-21-2017, duplicate precision criteria of < 25 % RPD was met for each of the reported
analytes except –
- PFHpS Field Sample = 5.9ng/L DUP = 11ng/L RPD = 60%

- PFDS Field Sample = 4.1ng/L DUP = 1.3ng/L RPD = 104%
For Field Sample OUT-1-11-21-2017 and its field duplicate DUP-11-21-2017, duplicate
precision of < 25 % RPD was met for each of the reported analytes except –
- PFBA Field Sample = 0.22ug/Kg DUP = 0.32ug/Kg RPD = 37%
Precision is influenced by how close the analytical value is to the MDL. The percent relative
standard deviation increases rapidly as the analytic value approaches the MDL. The use of
percent relative standard deviation is limited to analytical values that are at least five (5) times
the MDL. The result for PFHpS and PFDS in the parent sample Leachate-11-21-2017, and the
result for PFBA in parent sample OUT-1-11-21-2017, should be considered as estimated
because of the analytical imprecision for these analytes in these particular samples.
Isotope Dilution Recoveries – fell within the established recovery limit of 25% to 150% for all
field samples and QA/QC samples except for –
- M2-8:2 FTS in OUT-2-11-21-2017, OUT-1-11-21-2017 both water and solid,

and solid DUP-11-21-2017
Generally, quantitation by Isotope Dilution precludes any adverse effect on data quality due to
elevated recoveries. No validation qualifiers were added to the data results for the above five
(5) field samples.
Isotope Dilution recoveries for Leachate-11-21-2017 and DUPW-11-21-2017 all exceeded the
established recovery limit of 25% to 150% except for 13C2-PFTeDA. The field samples were
re-analyzed as dilutions and the recoveries were within the established recovery limits except
for – 13C4-PFBA (recovery low), 13C3-PFBS (recovery high) and M2-6:2 FTS (recovery high).
In general, quantitation by Isotope Dilution precludes any adverse effect on data quality due to
elevated recoveries or low recoveries as long as the analytical instrument’s signal to noise ratio
for the analyte is greater than 10:1. However, since the Isotope Recovery in both the initial run
and the dilution run had labeled analyte recoveries outside the established recovery limits,
results for PFBA, PFBS, and 6:2 FTS should be considered as estimated, with PFBA qualified
with a J- and PFBS and 6:2 FTS qualified with a J+..
Miscellaneous Sample Data Info – 10:1 dilution was required for sample – Leachate-11-21-
2017. 20:1 dilution was required for sample – DUPW-11-21-2017.
Field sample DUPW-11-21-2017 was decanted and centrifuged prior to extraction due to
sediment being present in sample.
The following samples –
- OUT 2-11-21-2017 - OUT -1-11-21-2017 and MS/MSD

- DUP-11-21-2017
were observed to be yellow in color after elution.
Validation Data Qualifier Definitions
U The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the associated
quantitation limit.
J The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an approximate
concentration of the analyte in the sample.
J- The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an estimated
quantity that may be biased low.
J+ The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an estimated
quantity that may be biased high.
UJ The analyte analyzed for, but was not detected. The associated reported quantitation
limit is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.
NJ The detection is tentative in identification and estimated in value. Although there is
presumptive evidence of the analyte, the result should be used with caution as a
potential false positive and/or elevated quantitative value.
R The data are unusable. The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in
meeting Quality Control limits. The analyte may or may not be present.
EMPC The results do not meet all criteria for a confirmed identification. The quantitative value
represents the Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration of the analyte in the sample.
This report addresses analytical performance as defined in EPA’s Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids –
Method 537 and TestAmerica’s Modified EPA Method 537 – WS-LC-0025 Rev. 2.4 –
Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) in Water, Soils, Sediments, and Tissue.
All data reviewed addresses those compounds which are represented on the final laboratory
reports. Results should be considered usable with any qualifiers taken into consideration.
Validation qualifiers added to the results would be:
- OUT-2-11-21-2017 (water) - Leachate -11-21-2017 (water)

- PFOA = J - PFHpS = J
- PFOS = J - PFDS = J
- PFBA = J-
- OUT-1-22-21-2017 (solid) - PFBS
= J+
- PFBA - 6:2 FTS = J+
- DUPW-11-21-2017 (water)
- PFBA
= J
- PFBS
= J+
- 6:2 FTS = J+
Prepared by: Gail A. Dieter

Environmental Chemist II
Division of Environmental Remediation – Bureau E
e-mail: gail.dieter@dec.ny.gov
01/05/2018
Data Review Report
Colonie Landfill
Site No. 1707968 PIN H7045
Project Manager – Brian Jankauskas
Analytical Laboratory: TestAmerica – Sacramento, CA and Buffalo, NY

Job No.: 320-34552-1
Sample Date(s): 12/18/2017
Received Date(s): 12/20/2017 at 10:45 AM
Analysis Date(s): 12/29/2017
Chain-of-Custody –
All samples were collected and shipped under COC record and received within two (2) days of
sampling. All samples were received intact and in good condition. All samples met
preservation and integrity requirements. Temperature of cooler(s) at time of receipt was 3.0°C.
Three (3) samples were analyzed for PFASs by – Modified EPA Method 537 – Fluorinated Alkyl
Substances with an Initial Reporting Limit of 2.0 ng/L for waters.
Sample Matrix = Three (3) Waters
Holding Times –
All samples and/or sample extracts were analyzed within the specified holding times of 14 days
to extraction from date of sampling and 40 days to analysis from day of extraction.
PFASs –
Three (3) field samples, one (1) method blank, one (1) matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate, and
one (1) laboratory control sample were analyzed for PFASs using TestAmerica’s Modified EPA
Method 537. The following analytes were included in the report, but accreditation/
certification is not offered by the governing authority (ELAP):
 6:2 FTS
 8:2 FTS
 N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA)
 N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA)
 Perfluorobutansulfonic acid (PFBS)
 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA)
 Perfluorodecanesulfonic acid (PFDS)
 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA)
 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)
 Perfluoroheptanesulfonic acid (PFHpS)
 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)
 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS)
 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)
 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA)
 Perfluorooctane Sulfonamide (FOSA)
 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA)
 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA)
 Perfluorotridecanoic acid PFTriA)
 Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA)
The following items were reviewed for compliancy –
Initial Calibration - the multi-point calibration(s) had a Percent Relative Standard Deviation
(%RSD) of <35% or <50% for all reported analytes or a coefficient of determination >0.9900 for
all reported analytes. Meeting calibration curve evaluation criteria. All reported analytes were
detected at the appropriate levels of 0.025, 0.05, 0.25, 1.0, 2.5, 5.0, 10.0 and 20 ng/mL in the
multi-point calibration(s) to support the reporting limits provided.
Initial Calibration Verification – the initial calibration verification run exhibited a % Deviation less
than or equal to the Maximum % Deviation criteria of 40% or 50% for the target PFAS analytes,
depending on the analyte.
Continuing Calibration Verification - the calibration verification run(s) for all analysis batches
exhibited a % Deviation less than or equal to the Maximum % Deviation criteria of 40% or 50%
for the target PFAS analytes, depending on the analyte.
Method Blank(s) - the method blank associated with the analysis batches for the water samples
met the % Recovery criteria for the labeled compounds of 25 – 150%. All the native analytes
that were analyzed for were reported as non-detects at the determined Reporting Limit of
2.0ng/L except for – PFHxS. Since the reported results for PFHxS in samples – Outfall 2-12-18-
17, DUP-12-18-17, and SW Route 9E-12-18-17 are greater than five (5) times the blank
concentration an estimated qualifier does not need to be assigned to those results.
Laboratory Control Sample(s) – the LCS % Recovery for both the labeled and native spiked
analytes were within the set quality control limits for the analytical batches associated with the
water samples.
Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate – the matrix spike and matrix spike duplicate pair spiked
analyte recoveries should fall within the established control limits. If spiked analyte recoveries
are outside the established control limits, then the spiked analyte must be within the control
limits in the associated laboratory control sample (LCS).
spiked analytes were within the set quality control limits except for labeled M2-6:2FTS and M2-
8:2FTS, both of which exceeded their control limits. These exceedances may be attributable to
matrix interference because these two labeled analytes were within the established control limits
in both the associated method blank and LCS. Only result for 6:2 FTS is reported in the parent
sample and is considered as estimated and is already qualified with a J.
The MS/MSD Relative Percent Difference in field sample OUT-2-12-18-17, met the QC Limit of
30% or less for all reported analytes.
Field Duplicate Precision – for Field Sample Outfall 2-12-18-17 and its field duplicate DUP-12-
18-17, duplicate precision criteria of < 25 % RPD was met for each of the reported analytes
except –
- PFDA Field Sample = 1.0ng/L DUP = 1.3ng/L RPD = 26%
- FOSA Field Sample = 0.35ng/L DUP = 0.53ng/L RPD = 41%
- PFTeA Field Sample = ND DUP = 0.60ng/L RPD = 70%
Precision is influenced by how close the analytical value is to the MDL. The percent relative
standard deviation increases rapidly as the analytic value approaches the MDL. The use of
percent relative standard deviation is limited to analytical values that are at least five (5) times
the MDL. Therefore, PFDA’s, FOSA’s, and PFTeA’s Relative Percent Difference (RPD)
exceedances are not valid for the determination of precision. No qualification to the results in
the parent sample are required.
Isotope Dilution Recoveries – fell within the established recovery limit of 25% to 150% for all
field samples and QA/QC samples except for –
- M2-6:2 FTS and M2-8:2 FTS in Outfall 2-12-18-17, Dup-12-18-17, SW Route

9E-12-18-17, and Outfall 2-12-18-17 MS/MSD
Generally, quantitation by Isotope Dilution precludes any adverse effect on data quality due to
elevated recoveries. No validation qualifiers were added to the data results for the above field
samples, however, it is possible that these exceedances are attributable to matrix interference.
Miscellaneous Sample Data Info – all field samples were decanted prior to extraction due to
excess sediment which had the potential to clog the solid-phase extraction column.
Validation Data Qualifier Definitions
U The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the level of the associated
quantitation limit.
J The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an approximate
concentration of the analyte in the sample.
J- The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an estimated
quantity that may be biased low.
J+ The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value is an estimated
quantity that may be biased high.
UJ The analyte analyzed for, but was not detected. The associated reported quantitation
limit is approximate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.
NJ The detection is tentative in identification and estimated in value. Although there is

presumptive evidence of the analyte, the result should be used with caution as a
potential false positive and/or elevated quantitative value.
R The data are unusable. The sample results are rejected due to serious deficiencies in
meeting Quality Control limits. The analyte may or may not be present.
EMPC The results do not meet all criteria for a confirmed identification. The quantitative value
represents the Estimated Maximum Possible Concentration of the analyte in the sample.
This report addresses analytical performance as defined in EPA’s Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids –
Method 537 and TestAmerica’s Modified EPA Method 537 – WS-LC-0025 Rev. 2.4 –
Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) in Water, Soils, Sediments, and Tissue.
All data reviewed addresses those compounds which are represented on the final laboratory
reports. Results should be considered usable with any qualifiers taken into consideration. No
validation qualifiers were added to the reported results.
Prepared by: Gail A. Dieter

Environmental Chemist II
Division of Environmental Remediation – Bureau E
e-mail: gail.dieter@dec.ny.gov
02/01/2018
Appendix E
Table 1
Summary of Analytical Results - Surface Water (October 4, 2017)

Town of Colonie Landfill
Crescent Road, Colonie, New York
LOCATION OUTFALL 1 OUTFALL 2

SAMPLING DATE 10/4/2017 10/4/2017
NY-AWQS NY-TOGS-GA Units Results Qual Results Qual
1,4 Dioxane
1,4-Dioxane µg/l 2.63** 0.147 U
Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids by EPA 537
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) µg/l 0.00445 0.0683
Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) µg/l 0.00529 0.0244
Anions by Ion Chromatography
Bromide 2,000 2,000 µg/l 50 U 649
Chloride 250,000 500,000 µg/l 28,000 376,000
General Chemistry
Color A.P.C.U. 100 40
Alkalinity mg CaCO3/L 349 402
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 1,000 µg/l 410,000 1,000,000
Total Cyanide 200 400 µg/l 3J 2J
Nitrogen, Ammonia µg/l 15,000 6,020
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen µg/l 19,200 6,150
Sulfate 250,000 500,000 µg/l 10,000 U 39,000
Chemical Oxygen Demand µg/l 150,000 45,000
BOD5 µg/l 30,000 3,300
Total Organic Carbon µg/l 35,300 14,400
Phenolics µg/l 17 J 8J
Hexavalent Chromium 50 100 µg/l 10 U 10 U
Chlorinated Herbicides
2,4-D 50 50 µg/l 10 U 10 U
2,4,5-T 35 35 µg/l 2U 2U
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.26 µg/l 2U 2U
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1016 0.09 0.09 µg/l 0.083 U 0.083 U
Aroclor 1221 0.09 0.09 µg/l 0.083 U 0.083 U
Aroclor 1232 0.09 0.09 µg/l 0.083 U 0.083 U
Aroclor 1242 0.09 0.09 µg/l 0.083 U 0.083 U
Aroclor 1248 0.09 0.09 µg/l 0.083 U 0.083 U
Aroclor 1254 0.09 0.09 µg/l 0.083 U 0.083 U
Aroclor 1260 0.09 0.09 µg/l 0.083 U 0.083 U
Aroclor 1262 0.09 0.09 µg/l 0.083 U 0.083 U
Aroclor 1268 0.09 0.09 µg/l 0.083 U 0.083 U
Total PCBs µg/l 0.083 U 0.083 U
Total Metals
Aluminum 2,000 µg/l 27.2 93.9
Antimony 3 6 µg/l 0.64 J 4.31
Arsenic 25 50 µg/l 2.89 1.12
Barium 1,000 2,000 µg/l 69.02 125.2
Beryllium 3 3 µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U
Boron 1,000 2,000 µg/l 49 720
Cadmium 5 10 µg/l 0.14 J 0.2 U
Calcium µg/l 82,200 126,000
Chromium 50 100 µg/l 0.62 J 0.66 J
Cobalt µg/l 1.12 0.82
Copper 200 1,000 µg/l 4.2 1.81
Iron 300 600 µg/l 928 3,230
Lead 25 50 µg/l 1U 0.54 J
Magnesium 35,000 35,000 µg/l 11,100 34,000
Manganese 300 600 µg/l 601.2 503.5
Mercury 0.7 1.4 µg/l 0.2 U 0.2 U
Nickel 100 200 µg/l 1.47 J 6.34
Potassium µg/l 18,600 14,800
Selenium 10 20 µg/l 5U 5U
Silver 50 100 µg/l 0.4 U 0.4 U
Sodium 20,000 µg/l 44,700 241,000
Thallium 0.5 0.5 µg/l 0.5 U 0.5 U
Vanadium µg/l 5U 5U
Zinc 2,000 5,000 µg/l 17.53 5.41 J
Notes:
NY-AWQS: New York TOGS 1.1.1 Ambient Water Quality Standards criteria reflects all addendum to criteria through June 2004.
NY-TOGS-GA: New York TOGS 1.1.1 Groundwater Effluent Limitations criteria reflects all addendum to criteria through June 2004.
NA - Not available.
U - Not detected at the reported detection limit for the sample.
J - Analyte detected at a level less than the Reporting Limit and greater than or equal to the Method Detection Limit. Concentrations
within this range are estimated.
*Values in bold only exceeds NY-AWQS; highlighted only in yellow exceeds NY-TOGS-GA; and, in bold and highlighted in yellow indicates
an exceedance of NY-AWQS and/or NY-TOGS-GA.
S:\Sterling\Projects\2014 Projects\Town of Waterford - Colonie LF - 2014-38\Excel\2017-10-04_Surface Water Sample Results.xlsx

Table 2
Summary of Analytical Results - Sediment (October 4, 2017)

Town of Colonie Landfill
Crescent Road, Colonie, New York
SAMPLE ID OUTFALL 1 OUTFALL 2

SAMPLING DATE 10/4/2017 10/4/2017
UUSCO Units Results Qual Results Qual
1,4 Dioxane
1,4-Dioxane 0.1 mg/kg 0.00873 U 0.0114 U
Perfluorinated Alkyl Acids
Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) NA ng/g 2U 2U
Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS) NA ng/g 2U 1.11 J
General Chemistry
Total Solids NA % 85.8 65.6
Chloride NA mg/kg 18 190
Nitrogen, Ammonia NA mg/kg 3.6 J 39
Nitrogen, Nitrate NA mg/kg 0.92 J 1.4 U
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen NA mg/kg 920 3300
Sulfate NA mg/kg 99 J 280
Hexavalent Chromium 1 mg/kg 0.93 U 1.2 U
Chlorinated Herbicides
MCPP NA mg/kg 3.83 U 5.03 U
MCPA NA mg/kg 3.83 U 5.03 U
Dalapon NA mg/kg 0.0383 U 0.0503 U
Dicamba NA mg/kg 0.0383 U 0.0503 U
Dichloroprop NA mg/kg 0.0383 U 0.0503 U
2,4-D NA mg/kg 0.191 U 0.252 U
2,4-DB NA mg/kg 0.191 U 0.252 U
2,4,5-T NA mg/kg 0.191 U 0.252 U
2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 3.8 mg/kg 0.191 U 0.252 U
Dinoseb NA mg/kg 0.0383 U 0.0503 U
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Aroclor 1016 0.1 mg/kg 0.0378 U 0.0483 U
Aroclor 1221 0.1 mg/kg 0.0378 U 0.0483 U
Aroclor 1232 0.1 mg/kg 0.0378 U 0.0483 U
Aroclor 1242 0.1 mg/kg 0.0378 U 0.0483 U
Aroclor 1248 0.1 mg/kg 0.0378 U 0.0483 U
Aroclor 1254 0.1 mg/kg 0.00319 J 0.0483 U
Aroclor 1260 0.1 mg/kg 0.0378 U 0.0483 U
Aroclor 1262 0.1 mg/kg 0.0378 U 0.0483 U
Aroclor 1268 0.1 mg/kg 0.0378 U 0.0483 U
PCBs, Total 0.1 mg/kg 0.00319 J 0.0483 U
Total Metals
Aluminum NA mg/kg 6840 11200
Antimony NA mg/kg 1.98 J 0.579 J
Arsenic 13 mg/kg 11.1 9.92
Barium 350 mg/kg 47.8 54.8
Beryllium 7.2 mg/kg 0.338 J 0.555 J
Cadmium 2.5 mg/kg 2.95 0.941 J
Calcium NA mg/kg 21200 40400
Chromium NA mg/kg 26.9 16.5
Cobalt NA mg/kg 9.63 10.2
Copper 50 mg/kg 54 34.8
Iron NA mg/kg 89600 30200
Lead 63 mg/kg 16.6 15.1
Magnesium NA mg/kg 5090 17800
Manganese 1,600 mg/kg 998 542
Mercury 0.18 mg/kg 0.02 J 0.03 J
Nickel 30 mg/kg 42.8 22.2
Potassium NA mg/kg 360 556
Selenium 3.9 mg/kg 1.78 U 2.41 U
Silver 2 mg/kg 0.888 U 1.21 U
Sodium NA mg/kg 124 J 191 J
Thallium NA mg/kg 1.78 U 2.41 U
Vanadium NA mg/kg 12.8 17.6
Zinc 109 mg/kg 231 74
Total Organic Carbon
Total Organic Carbon (Rep1) NA % 1.82 0.943
Total Organic Carbon (Rep2) NA % 1.41 1.18
Notes:
UUSCO - Unrestricted Use Soil Cleanup Objectives per DER-10 Technical Guidance for Site Investigation &
Remediation, issued May 3, 2010.
NA - UUSCO not available for this analytical parameter.
U - Not detected at the reported detection limit for the sample.
J - Analyte detected at a level less than the Reporting Limit and greater than or equal to the Method Detection Limit.
Concentrations within this range are estimated.
*Values in bold and highlighted in yellow indicate the sample result exceeds NYSDEC UUSCO.
S:\Sterling\Projects\2014 Projects\Town of Waterford - Colonie LF - 2014-38\Excel\2017-10-04_Analytical Results_Sediment.xlsx

Sterling Environmental Engineering, P.C.
24 Wade Road ¨ Latham, New York 12110
Appendix F
Sample Results Summary
Mohawk River Sampling
Samples Collected October 20, 2017
Sample Location NYS Part 703 Surface Water

Bridges Park Nine CC Rd Standard (mg/l)
Metals (mg/l)
Aluminum 0.0655 0.0693 0.116 0.123 100000
Antimony ND ND ND ND 0.003
Arsenic 0.0009 0.00091 0.00088 0.00094 0.05
Barium 0.02535 0.02613 0.02627 0.02686 1
Beryllium ND ND ND ND 0.003
Boron .022 J .026 J .025 J .024 J 10
Cadmium ND ND ND ND 0.002
Calcium 36.1 34.8 34.7 34.7
Chromium 0.00047 J 0.00053 J 0.00057 J .00068 J 0.074
Cobalt ND ND 0.00017 J .00018 J 0.005
Copper 0.0016 0.0016 0.00146 0.00165 0.009
Iron 0.215 0.184 0.313 0.346 0.3
Lead ND ND 0.00038 J .00043 J 0.05
Magnesium 6.33 6.07 6.1 6.11 35
Manganese 0.05206 0.05247 0.06504 0.06929 0.3
Mercury ND ND ND ND
Nickel ND .00057 J 0.00075 J .00063 J 0.052
Potassium 1.63 1.63 1.58 1.51
Selenium ND ND ND ND
Silver ND ND ND ND
Sodium 21 21.2 14.1 18.3
Thallium .00034 J ND ND ND 8000
Vanadium ND ND ND ND 0.014
Zinc ND ND ND ND 2
Hardness 116 112 112 112
Gen Chem (mg/l except color "units")
Color (units) 27 29 29 31
Alkalinity 95.2 93.8 94.6 94.5
TDS 210 190 210 200 500
Cyanide ND ND ND ND 0.2
Ammonia 0.171 0.143 0.14 0.15 2.3
Nitrate 0.72 0.71 0.65 0.69 10
TKN 0.469 0.464 0.575 0.489
COD 10 12 14 12
BOD ND ND ND ND
TOC 3.92 4.04 4.06 4.13
Phenolics ND ND ND ND
Hex. Chromium ND ND ND ND 0.011
Bromide ND ND ND ND 2
Chloride 31.3 31 30.9 31 250
Sulfate 23.5 23.4 23.6 23.7 250
PFCs (ng/l)*
1.33 J 1.38 J
PFBS 1.34 J 1.38 J
1.69 J 1.79
1.39 J 1.42 J
PFHpA 1.38 J 1.40 J
1.98 1.97
1.58 J 1.62 J
PHFHxS 1.49 J 1.59 J
1.76 J 1.66 J
2.23 2.24
PFOA 2.22 2.24
2.56 2.52
0.486 J 0.457 J
PFNA 0.462 J 0.500 J
0.721 J 0.771 J
5.63 5.33
PFOS 5.41 5.62
6.64 7.82
Pesticides
All All values below detection limits.
Herbicides
PCBs
SVOCs
VOCs
* Nanogram per liter (ng/l) is also parts per trillion (ppt). Where two results are listed, the second
result is from laboratory reanalysis of the same sample.
!
>
Nine Bridge
^
!
>
CC Road
!
>
Town Park
Document Path: G:\PROJECT\22396002.0000\Mohawk River Sampling\Sampling Locations.mxd
!
>
Twin Bridges
Copyright:© 2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE, TomTom, Source: Esri,

DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
Miles CAPITAL REGION LANDFILLS, INC

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 TOWN OF COLONIE LANDFILL
1319 LOUDON ROAD
COHOES, NEW YORK 12047
Legend MOHAWK RIVER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
!
>
^
Sampling Location
Town of Colonie Landfill ± FIGURE

Colonie Findings With Attmt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Colonie Findings With Attmt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEQR 617.

Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental

Town of Colonie Landfill (Facility ID# 01-S-26) Area 7 Development Project

Description of the Area 7 Development Action:

objections to the Department’s issuance of the Title V permit. Recommendations contained in

SEQR Lead Agency: NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (Region 4)

Agency Jurisdiction and Permit Numbers:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:

SEQRA and Public Participation:

On July 1, 2014 the Department issued a positive declaration of significance pursuant to

FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND

a. Part 360 Applicability

constitute a significant threat to public health or the environment. This classification

environmental impacts due to soil stability, leachate collection, groundwater contamination,

4. Landfill Closure Grant Repayment:

5. Stormwater Pollution Prevention/Surface and Groundwater Quality

Although increased traffic is not proposed outside of construction vehicles, intersection

A Visual Impact Assessment (“VIA” or “Assessment”) was prepared by Saratoga Associates to

VRA Figure 3 identified the geographic area expected to be substantially screened by

11. Historical/Cultural Resources

Average of the sound levels in an area is abbreviated as: (Leq);

 Implement a formal notification response protocol. The protocol requires inspection of

15. Threatened/Endangered Species

16. Community Character/Property Values

• Shelter Cove in the Town of Colonie

17. Energy use and contribution to Greenhouse Gases (GHG)

18. Alternatives to the Proposed Action

A) No-Action/Waste Exportation (Off-Site Disposal)

There is an element of inherent unreliability and unpredictability in a waste exportation

New development: Siena College expansion, Schuyler Meadows Country Club

E) Refuse Derived Fuel

F) Emerging Waste Technologies

Gasification is the heating of an organic waste (MSW) to produce a burnable gas

Composting is the aerobic decomposition of biodegradable organic matter, producing

Compost is also created by biological decomposition that eliminates oxygen (anaerobic).

G) Alternative Development Scenarios

19. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

b) Energy Consumption and Man-Made Resources

20. Cumulative & Growth Inducing Impacts

In addition to environmental impacts associated with the Area 7 development, cumulative

b) Growth Inducing Impacts

21. Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) is a group of chemicals used to make

Summary of the Department’s Findings

Alluvial Soils and Seismic Impact Zone

(4) Unstable areas.

(7) Seismic impact zones.

Area 7 was investigated in a Phase 1A/1B Study conducted by Curtin Archaeological

Long Term Solid Waste Planning

Stormwater Pollution Prevention/Surface and Groundwater Quality

post-construction stormwater management controls that are designed, constructed and

Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)

Greenhouse Gas Sequestration

Solid Waste Regulations

Solid Waste Disposal Throughput Limits

Traffic and Transportation

The construction of a transfer station at the current landfill or elsewhere nearby is

These measures include:

• Implementation of stormwater BMPs, including erosion and sediment control

• Overlay liner installation which will provide a reduction in recharge anticipated

to reduce the potential for impacting groundwater;

• Wetlands mitigation which will provide benefits, including retaining flood

• Screening and camouflage to minimize duration and magnitude of visual impacts;

• Continued use of smart backup alarms, properly maintained mufflers, and