United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/219
September 1993
PB94-963820
x>EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
SMS Instruments, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/219
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. TNIe and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
SMS Instruments, NY
Second Remedial Action
5. Report Oat*
09/27/93
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Nam* and Address
10 Pro]*ct Taskwork Unit No.
11. Corrtract(C) or Grant(G) No.
12. Sponsoring Organization Nam* and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/800
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
PB94-963820
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 word*)
The 120-acre SMS Instruments site is a commercial area surrounding a military aircraft
component repair facility located in Deer Park, Suffolk County, New York. Land use in
the area is predominantly light industrial and residential. The site also is located
directly adjacent to a large ground water recharge basin and in the recharge zone of
the Magothy Aquifer, a sole-source aquifer for Long Island, which provides drinking
water for the surrounding residential population. From 1967 to-1990, SMS Instruments
used the site to overhaul military aircraft components. Site operations consisted of
cleaning, painting, degreasing, refurbishing, metal-machining, and testing the
components. These operations also involved the purchase, storage, and use of chemical
products and the generation of hazardous wastes, which were stored onsite for disposal.
From 1987 to 1989, EPA conducted studies that revealed organic and inorganic
contamination in the soil and ground water. Soil contamination was concentrated around
three areas: the former leaching pool, the vicinity of the excavated underground
storage tank (UST), and, to a lesser extent, a drum storage area. Until 1980,
wastewater from the site was discharged directly into a leaching pool. In 1980, a
leaching pool, into which untreated wastewater from site operations had been
discharged, was pumped out and filled with sand; the discharge drains and pipes were
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - SMS Instruments, NY
Second Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Idontlfiers/Open-Ended T*rms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None .
21. No. of Pages
36
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/219
SMS Instruments, NY
Second Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
filled with concrete; wastewater was drummed for disposal; and a leaking UST was emptied,
taken out of service, and later removed. A 1989 ROD addressed onsite soil and ground
water contamination and provided for in-situ steam or air stripping of contaminated soil
and extraction, treatment, and reinjection of ground water. This ROD addresses the
commercial area upgradient and surrounding the site in order to quantify potential
upgradient sources contributing to onsite ground water contamination, as OU2. Soil-gas
screening and extensive ground water investigation revealed that the previous remedial
action successfully lowered contaminant concentrations to below health-based concentration
levels; therefore, there are no contaminants of concern affecting this site.
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action because EPA, in
consultation with the State, determined that the site does not pose a significant threat
to human health and the environment. There are no present worth or O&M costs associated
with this no action remedy.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Not applicable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name: SMS Instruments, Inc.
Location/State: Deer Park, Suffolk County, N.Y.
EPA Region: II
HRS Score: 37.320
NFL Rank: 490 (06/01/86)
ROD
Date Signed: Sept. 27, 1993
Selected Remedy; In Situ steam (or if necessary air) stripping of
soil, followed by groundwater extraction,
treatment and reinjection
Capital Cost: $752,090
O & M/Year: $123,400
Periodic costs: $7,500 every 5 years
Present Worth:$l,195,800
Contingency Soil Remedy; Source removal, off-site incineration
Capital Cost: $2,036,500
O & M/year: none
Periodic costs: none
Present Worth: $2,036,500
LEAD
Remedial, EPA
Primary Contact (phone): Abram Hike Fayon (212-264-4706)
Secondary Contact (phone): Doug Garbarini (212-264-0109)
Main PRP: Sol M. Schusheim President of SMS Instruments, Inc.
PRP Contact (phone): Sol M. Schusheim (516-227-6087)
WASTE
Type: Chlorinated hydrocarbons (e.g.trichloroethene,
trichloroethane), aromatics (e.g. xylenes), metals
(e.g. chromium)
Medium: Soil and groundwater.
Origin: Cleaning, painting, and degreasing military aircraft
components: 1967 to 1980, wastes were routinely
discharged into a leaching pool without prior treatment
Est. Quantity: 35,000 gallons of liquid and sludge waste
700 containers (drums, bags, etc.)
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
SMS Instruments, Inc.
Deer Park, Suffolk County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the second operable unit of the SMS Instruments, Inc. site
(Site), which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this Site.
The information supporting this remedial action decision is
contained in the administrative record for this Site. The
administrative record index is attached (Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
concurs with the "No Further Action" remedy, as per the attached
letter (Appendix IV).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY - NO FURTHER ACTION
This operable unit represents the second and last operable unit
planned for this Site. The first operable unit addresses the
treatment of contaminated soil and groundwater underlying the
Site, which are contaminated primarily with volatile organic
compounds. This second operable unit addresses the potential
upgradient groundwater contamination at the Site. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in consultation with
the State of New York has determined that there is no evidence of
contamination upgradient of the Site contributing to the
contamination at the Site; therefore, remediation for the second
operable unit is not appropriate. Thus "No Further Action" is
the selected remedy for the second operable unit.
-------
DECLARATION
In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, as amended, and
the NCP, it has been determined that no remedial action is
necessary for the second operable unit to protect human health
and the environment at the Site. Present and future cleanup
activities conducted by EPA will remediate the significant
contamination present at the Site. Because this remedy will not
result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health
based levels, the five-year review will not apply to this action.
William J/Musiyntfci, P.E. Date
Acting Regiona^xAdministrator
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
SMS Instruments, Inc.
Deer Park
Suffolk County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO FURTHER ACTION" REMEDY 8
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 8
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The SMS Instruments, Inc. site (Site) is a 1.5-acre facility
located at 120 Marcus Boulevard in Deer Park, New York (see
Figure 1). The facility was in operation from 1967 to 1990. It
is located in a light industrial and residential area of Deer
Park and consists of a 34,000 square-foot (ft2) building on a
1.5-acre lot. About 90% of the lot is paved with asphalt. The
immediate vicinity also includes more than 50 industrial
facilities within a one-mile radius and a large groundwater
recharge basin located directly adjacent to the Site on the east
side (see Figure 2). The Site is located in the recharge zone of
the Magothy aquifer, a sole-source aquifer for Long Island, which
is the only source of drinking water for the surrounding
residential population of more than 124,000 persons.
According to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
(SCDHS), public water is used in the vicinity of the Site by the
majority of residents although some private wells may still be in
use. Private wells are most likely used for irrigation purposes;
however, the possibility of potable use remains. The nearest
public water supply well is located approximately one mile
southwest and downgradient from the Site.
The Site is not located in a floodplain, wetland, or the coastal
zone as designated by the State of New York. Additionally, there
are no federally designated endangered or threatened species in
the proximity of the Site.
The study area for the second operable unit of Site investigation
includes a 120-acre commercial area upgradient and surrounding
the Site. This area is marked by Grand Boulevard to the south
and Commack Avenue to the east. The northern boundary is just
north of Long Island Avenue, including Evergreen Place and
Prospect Place (dead end roads feeding to Long Island Avenue).
The western boundary line is CarlIs Straight Path. Figure 3
shows the extent of the study areas for the initial and second
operable units of Site investigation.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
SMS Instruments started operations in early 1967 when Mr. Sol
Schusheim (now deceased) rented the property from Marcus
Associates of Farmingdale, New York. In April 1967, the Site was
sold to Ogden Technology, and, in September 1973, Mr. Schusheim
purchased the Site property at 120 Marcus Boulevard. The
facility has been inactive since 1990.
The primary operation at the Site was the overhauling of military
aircraft components. Overhauling operations consisted of
cleaning, painting, degreasing, refurbishing, metal-machining,
-------
and testing of the components. These activities involved the
purchase, storage and use of chemical products and the generation
of hazardous wastes which were stored for disposal.
Until January 1980, wastewater from Site operations was
discharged directly, without treatment, to a leaching pool on the
south side of the property (see Figure 2) . Samples collected
from the leaching pool in 1979 and 1980 by the SCDHS contained
levels of various metals (e.g., copper, chromium, lead, cadmium,
silver, nickel and zinc), as well as aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g.,
benzene, toluene, and xylene) and halogenated aliphatic
hydrocarbons (e.g., 1,1,1-trichloroethane and methylene
chloride).
In May 1980, the leaching pool was pumped out and filled with
sand, and the discharge drains and pipes were filled with
concrete. After closing the leaching pool, SMS drummed the
wastewater for disposal. In 1981, SCDHS ordered a leaking
underground storage tank (UST) on the property to be emptied and
taken out of service. The tank was removed from the ground in
1988, in accordance with State and local regulations.
The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in
October 1984 by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation. In June 1986, EPA included the Site on the NPL.
EPA performed a remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) at the Site from May 1987 to February 1989. The RI
identified organic and inorganic contamination in the soils and
groundwater. Soil contamination was concentrated around three
areas: the former leaching pool, the vicinity of the excavated
UST, and, to a lesser extent, a drum storage area. Organic and
inorganic contamination was found in on-site and downgradient
monitoring wells. Contamination was also detected in upgradient
wells, indicating that the SMS facility may not be the sole
source of groundwater contamination found on-site.
The RI/FS and Proposed Remedial Action Plan were released to the
public in July 1989. A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in
September 1989. The remedial actions specified in the ROD
included: in-situ steam or air stripping of contaminated soil and
groundwater extraction, treatment and reinjection to restore the
upper aquifer quality to meet federal and State drinking water
standards. The September 1989 ROD also specified that a second
operable unit be designated and a second RI/FS be performed to
determine potential upgradient sources of contamination.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
This is the second and last of two operable units planned for the
Site. The objective of this operable unit was to investigate a
-------
120-acre commercial area upgradient and surrounding the Site in
order to identify potential upgradient sources contributing to
the groundwater contamination at the Site. As indicated above,
the first operable unit addresses remediation of contaminated
soils and groundwater underlying the Site.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI and the Proposed Plan for the second operable unit were
released to the public on July 15, 1993. These documents were
made available in both the administrative record file at the EPA
Documentation Control Center in New York City and in two
information repositories maintained at the Deer Park Library in
Deer Park, New York and in the Department of Environmental
Control in Babylon, New York. The notice of the public meeting
and the availability of the above-referenced documents appeared
in the Babylon Beacon on Thursday July 22, 1993. The public
comment period was held from July 15, 1993 to August 16, 1993.
On July 28, 1993, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Community
Presbyterian Church in Deer Park, New York to inform local offi-
cials and interested citizens about the Superfund process, to
present the results of the second operable unit RI and EPA's
preferred "No Further Action" remedy, and to respond to any
questions from area residents and other interested parties.
EPA did not receive any comments regarding the RI or Proposed
Plan at the public meeting, nor were any written comments
concerning the "No Further Action" remedy received during the
public comment period. As a result, a Responsiveness Summary was
not prepared. The New York State Department of Health, however,
requested that private wells in the area be inventoried and
sampled, which is outside the scope of work for this second
operable unit. Therefore, EPA will respond to this request
separately from this action.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The initial RI/FS for the Site was conducted by EPA from May 1987
to February 1989. The results of the study indicated that the
highest concentration of contaminants were found in the leaching
pool, the UST and, to a lesser extent, the drum storage area (see
Figure 2). The highest level of volatile organic compound (VOC)
contamination in the groundwater was 24,000 micrograms per liter
(ug/1) of trichloroethene. Other prevalent VOCs included xylenes
(2,200 ug/1), ethylbenzene (240 ug/1) and chlorobenzene (670
ug/1).
The second operable unit RI was planned using a two-phased
approach: 1) the Phase I investigation consisted of a grid-based,
-------
soil-gas screening to assess areas of potential contamination
upgradient of the Site and 2) a proposed Phase II investigation,
if necessary, consisting of an extensive groundwater
investigation upgradient of the Site.
The initial field investigation for Phase I consisted of a soil-
gas screening and soil-gas survey. A coarse-grid, soil-gas
screening was performed throughout the study area to identify
potential areas of concern to be investigated further during a
more detailed soil-gas survey. Figure 4 identifies the areas of
soil-gas sampling, located northeast of the Site, and Table 1
lists the HNu readings which correspond to specific grid areas.
A total of nine grid areas were screened, including three
designated as background areas (namely, Areas H-15, H-18 and I-
18). As Table 1 indicates, the most significant contamination
was found in Areas G-15, F-18 and G-18. The highest contaminant
HNu reading of 250 parts per million (ppm) was measured in Area
G-15. Areas F-18 and G-18 had maximum HNu readings of 100 ppm.
This information suggested that there may be potential sources of
contamination to the northeast of the Site that may be impacting
the groundwater underlying the Site.
In order to determine if the above-identfied upgradient
contamination was affecting groundwater underlying the Site, the
groundwater flow direction was determined by installing six
piezometers (PZ-01 through PZ-06) upgradient of the Site (see
Figure 5). Groundwater level measurements were recorded four
times during 1992 (see Table 2) and were used to determine the
direction of groundwater flow. Figure 6 is a potentiometric
surface map which shows that the relatively homogeneous,
isotropic Upper Glacial Aquifer groundwater flows in a south-
southeasterly direction beneath the study area. The water table
in the vicinity of the recharge basin shows a slight mounding
effect (as indicated by the slightly elevated water level of
55.72 at location MW-03), causing minor radial groundwater flow.
In order to verify the soil-gas survey results with respect to
potential groundwater contamination, two rounds of groundwater
sampling were conducted. Round One was conducted in August 1992
and Round Two in December 1992. Groundwater samples from two
upgradient on-site monitoring wells (MW-02 and MW-03), two
upgradient off-site monitoring wells (MW-08 and MW-09) and three
upgradient piezometers (PZ-01, PZ-04, and PZ-05) were collected
for VOC analyses (see Figure 5).
An abbreviated summary of the most significant groundwater
contaminants (1,1 dichlorethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and
chloroethane) detected in the upgradient monitoring wells is
presented in Table 3. This table also includes a summary of the
levels of the contaminants found in the upgradient piezometers.
Table 4 lists the complete analytical results for all
contaminants.
-------
The highest levels of contaminants were found in MW-03, namely
90 ug/1 of 1,1 dichloroethane, 670 ug/1 of 1,1,1-trichloroethane
and 83 ug/1 of chloroethane (see Table 3). These levels were
attributed to the mounding effect from the nearby recharge basin
mentioned above (see Figure 5). Lower levels of contaminants
were found in MW-09 which may also be due to possible mounding
from the recharge basin. MW-06S, located near the leaching pit,
was also sampled. The highest VOC-concentration found was 96
ug/1 of 1,2 dichloroethene. High semi-volatile contaminants
included 570 ug/1 of chlorobenzene, 290 ug/1 of ethylbenzene and
2000 ug/1 of xylenes. As indicated by the analytical results
shown in Table 4, nearly all of the other contaminants tested for
in monitoring wells MW-02, MW-03, MW-06S (Round 1), MW-08 and MW-
09 were reported below the method detection limit of 10 ug/1 for
most samples.
Thus, results from the two rounds of groundwater sampling
indicated some low levels of volatile organic compounds in both
the upgradient on-site wells and off-site wells. Analytical
results from the upgradient piezometers (PZ-01, PZ-04 and PZ-05)
located north/northwest of the Site revealed estimated
concentrations of VOCs below the method detection limits of 5
ug/1 (see Tables 3 and 4). These data indicate that the
upgradient groundwater is not contributing to contamination at
the Site. [The 22 ug/1 of acetone reported in Table 4 for PZ-04
was deemed to be a laboratory contaminant, as acetone was also
found in the laboratory blank.]
Groundwater sampling was also performed during the remedial
design of the groundwater extraction system which is part of the
first operable unit groundwater remedy. Samples were collected
from upgradient drive points DP-A, DP-B, DP-C and DP-P at depths
of 25, 50 and 75 feet (Figure 5). Table 5 shows the analytical
results at sampling point DP-C at depths of 25, 50 and 75 feet.
All other drive point locations can be found in Appendix A of the
RI document. The analytical results indicated that the levels of
all VOCs were below the detection limit of the analyses, the
majority of which were at 5 ug/1.
Hence, since the groundwater flows in a south-southeasterly
direction, EPA has concluded that the potential sources of
contamination to the northeast, particularly in grids F-18, G-15
and G-18 (see Table 1 and Figure 4), are not contributing to the
contamination at the Site; therefore, a detailed Phase II
groundwater investigation upgradient of the Site was not
conducted. It is also noted that any potential low level VOC
contamination upgradient of the Site, such as that found in MW-08
and MW-09, would be captured by the groundwater extraction system
which is part of the first operable unit remedy.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and
future site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates
the human health risk which could result from the contamination
at the site if no remedial action were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human
health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard
Identification—identifies the contaminants of concern at the
site based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of
occurrence, and concentration. Exposure Assessment—estimates
the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the
frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways
(e.g., ingesting contaminated well-water) by which humans are
potentially exposed. Toxicity Assessment—determines the types
of adverse health effects associated with chemical exposures and
the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severi-
ty of adverse effects (response). Risk Characterization—summa-
rizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assess-
ments to provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks.
EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the poten-
tial risks to human health associated with the Site in its
current state. The Risk Assessment focused on contaminants in
the groundwater which are likely to pose significant risks to
human health and the environment. A summary of the contaminants
of concern for human receptors in groundwater is provided in
Table 6.
EPA's baseline risk assessment addressed the potential risks to
human health by considering several potential exposure pathways
by which the public may be exposed to contaminant releases at the
Site under current and future land-use conditions. No ground-
water receptors are currently present at the site; therefore,
only potential future receptors were assessed in the risk
evaluation. Residential (adult, child) and light industrial
(adult) exposure scenarios were chosen based on projected future
land uses in the study area. For the residential groundwater
ingestion and showering pathway, adult and child (1-6 years age)
receptors were considered. For the light industrial groundwater
ingestion pathway, only adult receptors were considered.
Potential future exposure pathways are listed in Table 7. The
reasonable maximum exposure was evaluated.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals is considered separately. An assumption is made
that the carcinogenic toxic effects of the site-related chemicals
-------
would be additive. The same assumption is made for the
noncarcinogens found at a site.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
slope factors developed by EPA for the contaminants of concern.
Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcino-
genic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating excess
lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially
carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in units of
(milligrams/kilogram-day (mg/kg-day) J'1, are multiplied by the
estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-^day, to
generate an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer
risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake
level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate
of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes
the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the
contaminants of concern are presented in Table 8.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10"4 to 10* to
be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has not
greater than a one-in-ten-thousand to one-in-a-million chance of
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure condi-
tions at a site.
The highest cumulative upper-bound cancer risk at the Site,
involving the future residential adult scenario, was SxlO"6, which
is within EPA's acceptable range (see Table 9). These estimates
were developed by taking into account various conservative
assumptions about the likelihood of a person being exposed to
these media.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses (RfDs)). RfDs have
been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse
health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day,
are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are
thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive
individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental
media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) are compared to the RfD to derive the hazard
quotient for the contaminant in the particular medium. The HI is
obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across
all media that impact a particular receptor population.
An HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for
noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-
related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant
exposures within a single medium or across media. The RfDs for
-------
the contaminants of concern at the Site are presented in Table
10. A summary of the noncarcinogenic risks associated with these
chemicals across various exposure pathways is found in Table 11.
Table 11 shows that the maximum HI for noncarcinogenic effects
from groundwater ingestion and inhalation (reasonable maximum
exposure for children) is 0.06; therefore, noncarcinogenic
effects are highly unlikely to occur from these exposure routes.
The noncarcinogenic risk was attributable to several compounds,
including 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane and chloroethane.
It should be noted that, since the study area is industrial in
nature, it is unlikely that the area would be developed for resi-
dential use. The residential exposure scenario was used as a
means by which the most conservative estimate of the site risks
could be assessed.
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO FURTHER ACTION11 REMEDY
The risk assessment indicates that the levels of contaminants
present in the groundwater upgradient of the Site present risks
which fall within or below EPA's allowable risk range. In
addition, sampling results indicate that, with the exception of a
few instances above analytical detection limits in the
groundwater, the contaminants do not exceed these limits in the
groundwater.
Based upon the findings of the RI performed at the Site, EPA, in
consultation with NYSDEC, has determined that the Site does not
pose a significant threat to human health or the environment.
EPA; therefore, has selected a "No Further Action" remedy for the
Site. Since this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels, the five-year review
will not apply to this action.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative,
as presented in the Proposed Plan.
8
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
: 'Ny^t?/\ \ *: V.\ .-7- : •'* . '?«• ,
\i#J H • ^ X/^T ""...•::• ;._J<_ /^"isa „- /
~^- r>* /'v*'*. "T .- ii^-r^-. '••'.-. ^^'f j^ /**^ : i •
''
SMS INSTRUMENTS
SITE LOCATION MAP, SMS INSTRUMENTS '
DEER PARK, NEW YORK
Fir.URF 1
-------
- .. - •• ..-•••/ wil
'"•-•:•• .'\ S1U
' • \ Riir-
. ... I HI »I.IF
. , W-l "«-. ..v >
W 2 . * \ C_
i
/*-•"-",'," 7 HI,m,™,™ ' '". 'f/ •
PAVEMIiNI' '
i^'l '
O SI OHM DMAIM
SANIIAHY I'OUI
Pfll:VI()IIS WEL
SITE MAP
FinilRF 2
-------
, GROUNDWATER FLOW
OPERABLE UNIT II STUDY AREA £".'-. V.
en CH3
OPERABLE
UNIT1-
STUDY AREA
^^ ^
SMS SITE
BOUNDARY
LEGEND:
D STRUCTURE
NOT TO SCALE'
SMS OPERABLE UNTTI AND
OPERABLE UNTT H STUDY AREAS
DEER PARK, NEW YORK
FIGURES
-------
GHOUNDWATEH
R.OW DIRECTION
- G-18
i ^ ••
SMS INSTRUMENTS OPERABLE UNIT II STUDY AREA ArM ...
DEER PARK, NEW YORK a of biased Grid Sampling
DC
-------
L GROUNDWATER FLOW
DO
—9PERABLE UNIT ii STUDY AREA
II'.- 11
tu
. o
<
c.
2
UJ
IU
ir
'• C5
- E
tu
'• .>
'. liJ
J
1}
iu
- '. . . O
.3
D.
1-
. 0
11!
G.
W
•o
c
. . D.
FZ-C4,
m'
' :
•
_
D
13 fZ-r
D
-OPERABLE
•UN1T1 '
. STUDY AREA
NOT TO
SCALE
:SXT LOCATION
D s-
IDC r
Monitoring WelUPiezofneterand
'_' "nve Point Sampling Locations-
-------
GHOLMIOWAItM
FLOW DIRECTION
_.„ 55.0
SMS INSTRUMI-NTS OPI-RAHI.!: UNIT U SITI-
IMiliR PAUK. NI-W YOIIK
(iroiindwaler lilevaiions Ami Potenliomelnc
Surface Map - SMS OU2 Site
Hlevalions From May?, 1992
FIGURE 6
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
COARSE GRID SOIL GAS SCREENING RESULTS
SMS INSTRUMENTS OU2
DEER PARK, NEW TORK
GRID f/PROPERTY
SAMPLE LOCATION
HNu READING*
P-18
Auto Parts Center
C*S Auto Parts -
F-21
Ace Foreign
Auto Wreckers -
G-15
J+P Auto Wrecking
Deer Park Auto Parts -
G-18
Mid-Island Salvage
G-21
Mid-Island
Auto Wreckers -
H-21
Mid-Island
Auto Wreckers -
H-15/H-18/I-18 (Background)
Ondrovic Property
Eastern portion 30 ppm
Central portion 100 ppm
Southwestern corner" 35 ppm
Southwestern corner 240 ppm
Northwestern corner 250 ppm
Northwestern corner 120 ppm
Central portion 24 ppm
Southwestern fence 5 ppm
Southeastern fence 18 ppm
Northwest corner 4 ppm
Northwest corner 3.5 ppm
South-central portion 2.8 ppm
Eastern portion 50 ppm
Central portion 100 ppm
Central portion 7 ppm
West-central portion 14 ppm
Southern portion 5.8 ppm
Central portion 0.6 ppm
Northeast portion 8.8 ppm
* Reading expressed as total VOCs
-------
TABLE 2
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
PIEZOMETERS AND MONITORING WELLS
ROUNDS ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR - SMS OU2 SITE
MW/l'iczo.
Number
PZ-I
PZ-2
PZ-3
IPZ-4
PZ-5
PZ-6
MW-02
MW-03
MW-05
MW-06S
MW-07
MW-08
MW-09
MW-M
Cosing
Elevation
(ft MSL)
82.53
84.46
81.08
81.66
79.15
74.09
NA
75.82
75.21
74.97
76.40
74.85
74.72
71.67
4/92
Depth
l» Wnter
(ft)1
22.70
26.42
22.70
24.13
22.10
17.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4/92
Ground
Wafer
Elevation
(ft MSL)
59.83
58.04
58.38
57.53
57.05
56.99
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5/92
Depth
to Water
(ft)'
23.81
26.58
22.92
24.28
22.27
17.28
NA
20.10
19.86
19.65
21.20
19.60
19.03
17.40
5/92
Ground
Water
Elevation
(ft MSL)
58.72
57.88
58.16
8/92
Depth
to Water
(ft)'
22.95
NA
NA
57.38 II 23.45
56.45
56.81
NA
55.72
21.20
NA
19.30
18.40
55.35 I! NA
55.32 I! 18.55
55.20 II NA
55.25 1 18.00 (1C)
55.69 I 17. 50 (1C)
54.27 | NA
8/92
Ground
Water
Elevation
(ft MSL)
59.58
NA
NA
58.21
57.95 '
NA
12/92
Depth
to Water
(ft)1
23.20
NA
NA
23.45
21.42
NA
NA 19.70
57.42 | 18.90
NA 1 NA
56.42 I 18.0
NA | NA
56.85 II \&.5
56.57 | 18.0
NA 1 NA
12/92
Ground
Water
Elevation
(ft MSL)
59.33
NA
NA
58.21
57.73
NA
NA
56.92 |
NA |
56.97 |
NA I
56.35 1
56.72 |
NA |
-------
TABLE 2 (CONT'D)
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
PIEZOMETERS AND MONITORING WELLS
ROUNDS ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR - SMS OU2 SITE
MW/Piezo.
Number
MW-12
MW-13
MW-14
Casing
Elevation
(f( IVf SL)
73.94
75.18
74.84
4/92
Depth
to Water
-------
TABLE 3
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
FROM GROUNDWATER QUALITY SCREENING
ROUNDS ONE AND TWO
SMS OU2 SITE, DEER PARK, NEW YORK
SAMPLE
LOCATION
SAMPLING ROUND
COMPOUND (ug/l)
t,l-Dichroroe(!iune
1,1,1-TrichIoroethane
Chloroethane
MW-02
RD-1
7J
ND
ND
RD-2
2J
3J
ND
MW-03
RD-1
90
16
83
RD-2
90
670
27J
MW-08
RD-l
15
ND
ND
RD-2
9J
3J
ND
MW-0*
RD-1
ND
19
ND
RD-2
31
20
ND
PZ-1
RD-1
ND
ND
ND
RD-2
ND
ND
.ND
PZ-4
RD-1
ND
ND
ND
RD-2
ND
ND
ND
PZ-5
RD-1
ND
ND
ND
RD-2
ND
ND
ND
ND - Below Method Detection Limit of 10 ug/l
J - Estimated Value
RD - Round Number
-------
TABLE 4
SMS INSTRUMENTS. OU2
ONUANIC DATA
• VOLATILE DATA (ug/L)
CoiiincMts: ANALYTICAL RESULTS ROUND ONE AND TWO,
Commute: SHS INSIIIUHENIS OU2, DEER PAIIK. HEU YORK.
SAMPLE LOCATION
CASE/SAS NOt
SAMPLE NO:
SAMPLING ROUND
DATE
Chloroethone
Metliyleno Chloride
Acetone ""
Carbon Dlaulflcle
1 , 1-0 Ichloraethcne
1,1-Dlchloroethane
1.2-Dlchloroctheno (total)
Chloroform
1 , 2-D 1 ch t oroe thane
2-Outanono
1,1. l-.Trlchloraathane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Vinyl Acetate
Bromodjchlorontethone
1,2-Dlcliloropropane
ci*-1,3-Dlchloropropcno
Trlchloroethene
) 1 bromoch 1 oromethane
1,1,2-Trlchlorocthone
lenzene
:ran§- 1, 3-D Ichloropropene
Iromoform
•Methyl -Z-Pentonone
Hlexenone
etrachloroethena
, 1 ,2,2-Tctrocltlorocthane
alucne
Ihlorobcniena
thylbeiuene
tyrcne
yiene (total)
OTAL VOLATILES
MM 0 KW 0
19263 19263
OUT 39 DIIV 39
1 2
0/92 12/92
10 U 10 UJ I
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 II 10 UJ
10 U 10 UJ 1
15 9 J
10 U 10 II
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U 1
10 U 3 J
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
to u to u 1
10 U 10 U I
10 U 10 U 1
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
to u to u
to u to u
10 U 10 U
to u to u
to u to u
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U I
10 U 10 U I
to u 10 u I
to u to u 1 i
1
NU V MM 9
19263 19263
OIIY 40 BUY 40
1 2
0/92 12/92
10 U 10 UJ 1
10 U 10 U
to u to u
10 U 10 UJ I
to u to uj
10 U 31
10 U 10 U
to u to u 1
to u to u 1
to u 10 u I
19 20 1
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U 1
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
ID U 10 U
10 U 10 U I
to u to u
10 U 10 U
to u to u I
to u to u
10 U 10 U 1
0 U 10 U
0 U 10 U 1 1
0 U 10 U 1 1
I
NU 2 MM 2
19263 19263
OIIY 41 BUY 41
1 2
0/92 12/92
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
to u to u
to u to u
10 U 10 U
7 J 't. J
to u to u
to u to u
to u to u
to u 'to u
10 U 3 J
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
to u 10 u
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
to u to u
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
10 U 10 U
to u to u
10 U 10 U
o u to u
0 U 10' U
0 U 10 U
MU 3 HW 3
19263 19263
OIIY 50 BUY 50
1 2
0/92 12/92
03 27 J
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 UJ
10 U 50 U
10 U 10 J
90 90
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
16 670
10 U SO U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U SO U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 II
10 U 50 U
10 U 50 U
10 U SO U
'
KB vi
-------
TABLE 4 (CONT'D)
SMS iiisriiimniiis, UK
rillliAHIi: DAM
VdlAMIi; IIAIA (11(1/1 >
AHirncAi Hi:si/i is mmuii nm ANII im
SMS iiisiNiffiEiirs uw. niii;n I-AMK, Ni;i/YoiiK.
SAMPLI: LOCATION
CASE/SAS NO:
SAMPLE NO:.
SAHI'LI Nli ROUND
OAft
Cliluroethane
Hetliylenc ClilorlUc
Acetone
Cnrlxm 1)1 BII! ride
t,1-l)lcliluroetlicne
1 , 1 -D 1 cli 1 oroetlmne
1.2-l)lcliloroctlieiie (tutnl)
Chloroform •
1,2-Olcliloroetliuno
2-Uiitorione
1, 1, 1-Frlchloroetlione
Corboii lelrnchlorldc
Vinyl Acetate
U rwiKxl 1 cli I oroine tlinnc
1 . 2 -l» 1 cli 1 oropru|Mine
ci«- l,3-IHcliloro|>rcMc
IHcliloroetlieite
U 1 bromoch ( orwiie t linne
1, 1,2-lrlcliluroetlinnu
Beniene
t rnn.i - 1 . 3 • 0 1 ch 1 oro|>ro|iciie
Irnnufurm
i-Hctliyl -2-Pei>tnin>Me
2-llexnnone
eirnchluroethcnc
, 1 . 2 . 2 • T e t roi:h 1 ortic 1 liiinc
oluene
:hlorol>eiueiie
l-tliyllHiiiieim
Slyrciiu
Xylcne (tuliil)
IIIIAI. VOI.AIILES
PZ 4 PZ 4
1V263 19263
UIIV 45 OIIY 45
1 2
n/92 12/V2
10 (I 10 IIJ
10 U 10 U
10 U 22 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 U 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 U 11) U
10 II 10 II
10 II .10 U
10 U 10 U
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 U 10 II
10 II 111 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 U
10 II III II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
III II 10 II
III II 111 II
III II 10 II
I'Z 5 PZ 5
19263 19263
OUT 46 UIIY 46
1 2
(1/V2 12/92
10 II 10 IIJ
10 11 10 II
10 U tO II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 U 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II tO U
10 U 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 U 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II til U
III II 10 II
10 II 10 II
to ii to ii
10 II 10 II
10 II III II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 U III II
10 II III II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
III II 10 II
1(1 II III II
PZ 1 PZ 1
19263 19263
Ulir 47 UIIY 47
1 2
n/92 12/92
10 II 10 IIJ I
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II
10 II tO II I
10 II 10 II
111 II 10 U 1
10 II 10 II 1
to u 10 ii 1
10 U tO II I
10 II 1 J 1
10 II 10 II
10 II 10 II 1
10 II 10 II I
III II . 10 II 1
111 II 10 II 1
III II 10 II 1
to ii 10 ii I
10 II 10 II I
10 II III II 1
10 II III II I
10 II 10 II I
10 II 10 II I
to ii to ii I
to ii to ii 1
10 II 10 II I
10 II 10 II I
III II III II 1
III II III II I 5
III II 1(1 II I 2
III II III II 1
III II til II 1 2<
1
HW 65 HU 65
19263 19263
BUY 49 DIIY 49
t 2
n/92 12/92
10 II 25 IIJ I
10 II 25 II 1
10 II 25 II 1
10 II 25 II
10 II 25 II
10 U 25 U 1
96 25 I
tO II 25 II 1
10 II 25 II I
tO II 25 II I
10 II 25 II
10 II 25 II
tO II 25 II
10 II 25 II
10 II 25 II
III II 25 II I
10 II 25 II 1
10 II 25 II I
10 II 25 II 1
Id . 9 .1 1
10 II 25 II 1
10 II 25 II 1
10 II 25 II 1
10 II 25 II
10 II 25 II I
tO II 25 II 1
til II 7 J 1
70 30(1 1
I'll 210 I
III II 25 II 1
Mill 1 3(111 J 1
1
-------
_._. TABLE 5
DRIVE POINT VOLATILE ORGANIC DATA
.DRIVE POINT LOCATION DP-C
DEPTH • 25 FEET
IAS NO.
COMPOUND
HZSuLTS(uG/L)
_____
7s_Q i_4 ---- Vir.vi Chicride
•75-00-3 ------- Chlcrcetharve
73-OS-2-———Methvlene Ciilcri-e_
£7-54-1 Acetone "
75-15-0 Carbon bisulfide
73-23-4 1, l-C-i=hlrrcetiene_
73-24-2 l,l-Z-ich.lcrcet".ane_
hi
73-33-3 2-3utanone__ .
71-55-5 1,1,1-Trichlcrsethane,
55-23-5 Carbon Tetrachicride_
10S-05-4 Vinyl Acetate
75-27-4 Br=ncdichlcrc-iethar.e_
73-87-5 1,2-Dichlcracrapans
10061-01-5 cis-l,3-Dichlor=?rcter.e_
79-01-5 Trich.lcrcether.e_
124-4 3-1 Dibr3iacchi3rc-«tha~.e
79-00-3 1,1,2-Trichlsrcethane
71-43-2 Benzene
10051-02-S trans-1,3-DirrJ.crccrcper.e,
73-23-2—' aromc-fssra
108-10-1 4-«ethyi-2-?er.tanor.e_
591-73-5 2-Hexar.cne
127-18-4 Tetrachicrcethene_
7 =-34-5 1,1,2,2-T2trachlcr=etr.arie_
108-33-3 Toluene
108-20-7 Chlercbeazsr.e.
100-41-4 ±thvlber.2ene___
100-42-5 Stvrens
1330-20-7
11
107-02-3
107-13-1
_
330-20-7 ----- Xvenes (fetal) __
1G-75-8 ------ 2-Chlcr=e-.hvl vir.yl =--er
"10*
"13"
- r* r\
-J'J.
50
Acr-lsin
Cu
"50"
KEY:
UC-/L
U
J
- parts per billicn (?pb)
- ccmpound analyzed but net c*
- estimated value
- rejected value
-------
TABLE 5 (CONT'D)
DRIVE POINT VOLATILE ORGANIC DATA
DRIVE POINT LOCATION DP-C
DEPTH - 50 FEET
NO.
COMPOUND
RESULTS(UG/L)
74-87-3 Chloromethane
74-83-9 Bromomethane
75-01-4 Vinyl Chloride
75-00-3 Chloroethane_
75-09-2 Methylene Chloride
67-64-1 Acetone
75-15-0 Carbon Disulfide
75-35-4 1, l-Dichloroethene
75-34-3 1,1-Dichloroethane^
540-59-0 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
67-66-3 Chloroform
107-06-2 1,2-Dichloroethane
78-93-3 2-Butanone '
71-55-6 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
56-23-5———Carbon Tetrachloride
108-05-4 Vinyl Acetate
75-27-4 Bromodichloromethane
78-87-5 1,2-Dichloropropane
10061-01-5 cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
79-01-6 Trichloroethene
124-48-1 Dibromochloromethane_
79-00-5 1,1,2-Trichloroethane
71-43-2 Benzene.
10061-02-6 trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
75-25-2—• Bromoform
108-10-1 4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
591-78-6 2-Hexanone^
127-18-4 Tetrachloroethene
79-34-5 1, l, 2,2-Tetrachloroethane
108-88-3 Toluene
108-90-7 Chlorobenzene
100-41-4 Ethylbenzene
100-42-5 Styrene
1330-20-7 Xylenes (Total)
110-75-8 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
107-02-8 Acrolein
107-13-1 Acrylonitrile
95-50-1 Dichlorobenzene~TTotal)
-------
TABLE 5 (CONT'D)
DRIVE POINT VOLATILE ORGANIC DATA
DRIVE POINT LOCATION DP-C
DEPTH - 75 FEET
CAS NO.
COMPOUND
RESULTS(UG/L)
74_P7 — ^_— — _
74-83-9
75-01-4
75-00-3
75-09-2
67-64-1
75-15-0
75-35-4
75-34-3
540-59-0
67-66-3
107-06-2
78-93-3
71-55-6
56-23-5
108-05-4
75-27-4
78-87-5
10061-01-5—
79-01-6
1 9d_dR_1 ___.
79-00-5
71-43-2
10061-02-6-
75-25-2 •
108-10-1— -
50 i — 7fi_fi___
127-18-4
79-34-5
108-88-3
i OR— on i
~ 100-41-4
100-42-5
1330-20-7 —
110-75-8
107-02-fl__
107-13-1
95-50-1
^l« 1 MM«*f>iM4B V* a V*M
— Broraomethane
—Vinyl Chloride -
— Chloroethane
— Methylene Chloride
— Acetone
— Carbon Disulfide
— 1 , 1-Dichloroethene
— 1 , 1-Dichloroethane
— 1,2-Dichloroethene (total)
— Chloroform
— 1 , 2-Dichloroethane
— 2-Butanone
— 1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
— Carbon Tetrachloride
Vinyl Acetate
— Bromodichlorome thane
— 1,2-Dichloropropane
cis-1, 3-Dichlorocropene
Trichloroethene
— 1 , 1 , 2-Trichloroethane
—Benzene
trans -1,3 -Dichloropropene
Bromofonn
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
217d"*k ^f 3 f\ f\ W ("1
Tetrachloroethene
1 , 1.2, 2-Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
— — Chlorpbenzene
Ethylbenzene
- — Styrene
Xylenes (Total)
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Acrylonitrile
Dichlorobenzene (Total)
100 I
100 I
100 I
100 1
50 1
1230 |
50 1
50 1
50 1
50 1
50 1
50 1
1000 1
50 1
50 1
500 |
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
500
500
U
U
U
U
U
U
U 1
- U i
u 1 .
u
u |
^f^^ f^) 1
** ^1 1
u
u
u 1
u
U |
u 1
u
I u
u
u
1 ^ 1
I u
1 u !
50 1 U I
50 U
50 U
50
50
50
50
100
enn
3UU
500
50
"1 u 1
1 u
u
u
_ 1 -1 1 — j
_ u — —
* In cases where samples are diluted in order to ae-t the
. insrrx^ent.calibration range, detection limits above the method
ceuec-ion are reported for all compounds analyzed. This-is
^?£U7a the sa=iple detection limit has been multiplied by the'
allusion 'factor. - J
-------
TABLE 6
Summary of Groundwater Contaminants of Concern
Compound
1,1-Dichloroethane
I,I-Dichloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroetliane
Cliloroetliane
Frequency
or Detection
7/14
1/14
6/14
2/14
Range, ug/1
2-90
5- 10
3-670
5-83
95% UCL, ug/l *
46
6
85
18
Maximum, ug/l
90
10
670
83
* Upper Confidence Limit
-------
TABLE?
Potential Future Groundwater Exposure Pathways Considered
Receptor Population
Exposure Route
Residents:
Children (1-6 years)
Adults
Site Workers (Commercial/Industrial):
Ingestion
Inhalation
Ingestion
Inhalation
Ingestion
-------
TABLE 8
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC TOXICITY VALUES
• • — __
Chemical
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,1-Dichoroethene
Slope Factor
(mg/kg-day)-1
6.0E-1 (oral)
1.75E-1 (inhalation)
Weight
of Evidence
Evidence
C
C
Source
IRIS
IRIS
-------
TABLE 9
Cumulative Upper Bound Cancer Risks - Future Exposure Scenarios
FUTURE RECEPTOR
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
RESIDENTIAL CHILD
RESIDENTIAL ADULT
EXPOSURE PATHWAY
INGESTION OF GW
INGESTION OF GW
INHALATION
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK
INGESTION OF GW
INHALATION
CUMULATIVE CANCER RISK
PATHWAY CANCER RISK
1E-5
2E-5
8F.-6
3IL-5
4F.-5
9E-6
5E-5
-------
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF NONCARONOGENIC TOXIOTY VALUES (ORAL)
Oral RfD Confid. Uncart.
Chemical mg/kg-day Level Factor Source
Chronic
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 9E-2 _ 1000 HEAST
1,1-Dichloroethene 9E-3 Medium 1000 IRIS
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 9E-1 . 100 HEAST
1,1-Dichloroethene 9E-3 _ 1000 HEAST
SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC
TOXTCTTY VALUES (INHALATION)
Inhalation
RfC Uncert.
Chemical mg/kg/day Factor Source
Chronic RfCs
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2.9E-1 _ HEAST
1,1-Dichloroethane 1.43E-1 _ HEAST
Chloroethane 2.86 300 IRIS
RfCs
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 2.9 _ HEAST
1,1-Dichloroethane 1.43 _ HEAST
Chloroethane 2.86 300 IRIS
-------
TABLE 11
Cumulative Upper Bound Hazard Indices - Future Exposure Scenarios
FUTURE RECEITOR
INDUSTRIAL WORKER
RESIDENTIAL CHILD
RESIDENTIAL ADULT
EXPOSURE PATHWAY
INCESTION OF GW
INGIESTION OF GW
INHALATION
TOTAL HAZARD INDEX
ING12STION OF GW
INHALATION
TOTAL HAZARD INDEX
PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX
0.02
0.05
O.OOh
0.06
0.0-1
0.01
0.05
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
SKS INSTRUMENTS SITS
OPERABLE UNIT II .
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD PILE
INDEX O? DOCUMENTS
2.0 REMOVAL RESPONSE
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 200001 - Memo to Dr. A.M. Feyon, United States
200001 Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litvin, CDM Federal Programs Corporation, re:
Drum Sampling Summary, SMS Instruments Operable
Unit II, March 27, 1SS2.
2.7 Correspondence
P. 200002 - Letter to Abram Miko Fayon, Eng.Sc.D., Remedial
2C0002 Project Manager, United States'Environmental
Protection Agency, from Mr. James J. Earrington,
Superintendent of Highways, Town of Babylon, re:
Disposal of Drum Contents, 120 Marcus
Blva, Deer Park, New Yccr]^ April 14, 1SS2.
P. 200003 - Letter to Ms. Jeanne Litvin, Work Assignment
200003 Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation, from
Abram Miko Faycn, Eng.Sc.D., Remedial Project
Manager, United States Environmental Protecticn
Agency, re: Notification of permission granted to
discharge contents of 45 drums into recharae
basin, April 10, 1592.
P. 200004 - Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
200005 Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litwin, Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, re: SMS Instruments.
Operable Unit II, Disposal of Drums, 'April 1,
19S2.
P. 200006 - Letter to Ms. Jeanne Litvin, Work Assignment
200006 Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation, from
Mr. Abram Miko Fayon, Remedial Project Manager,
United States Environmental Protection Agency, re:
SMS RI/FS Drum Removal, December 6, 19S1.
-------
p.
20000S
200003
200007 - Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
200007 Environmental Protection Agencv, from Ms. Jeanne
Litwin, Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal
Programs corporation, re: SMS Instruments
Operable Unit II, Drum Disposal Activities,
December 5, 1951.
Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litvin, Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, re: SMS Instruments
Operable Unit II, Award of Drum Disposal
Subcontract, November 5, 1991.
200009 - Letter to Robert Goltz, P.E., Deputy Program
200009 Manager, Gasp'Dresser £ McKee, from~Mr. Patrick
Durack, Acting Chief New York Caribbean Superfund
Branch I, re: Authorization for Camp Dresser and
McKee to sign the manifests on behalf of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency for
the removal of drums of waste generated during the
Remedial Investigation of the SMS Instruments,
Inc. Site, August 2S., 1S91.
200010 - Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
200010 Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litwin, Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, re: SMS Instruments, Drum
Removal Activities, August 2£, 1991.
3.0 SZMZDIA1 INVESTIGATION
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
P. 300001 - Map: Proposed SaiuZ>'le Location Map. SMS
300001 Instruments. Or-erable Unit II. prepared by CDM
Federal Programs Corporation.
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
200002 -
300C17
Letter to Ms. Kathy Kinsella, RSCC F.egion II,
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
from Ms. Jeanne Litvin, Work Assignment Manager,
CDH Federal Programs Corporation, re: Sampling
Trip Report and original paperwork for December
16, 17, and IS, 1992 samplings of groundwater,
December 28, 1992. (Attachment: Sa~plinc Trip
Rerort. SMS Instruments OU2 Site. December 23,
1992).
-------
'. 300018 - Letter to Mr. Jonathan Rude, United States
300021 Environmental Protection Agency Contract
Laboratory Program, from Ms. Jeanne Litwin, Work
Assignment Manager, CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, re: - Completed CLP Paperwork for RAS '
Case Number 19253, December 23, 1992.
(Attachments: Chain of Custody Forms) .
?. 300022 - Report: Completed Analysis Report. SMS
300044 Instruments Site. October 25, 1992.
3.3 Work Plars •
P. 300045 - Plan: Work Plan. SMS Instruments Operable Unit
300053 II. Deer Park. Nev York. Preparation of Remedial
Investication/Feasibilitv Study Work Plan.
"voluiTie I. prepared for United States Environmental
Protection Agency, prepared by CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, May 25, 1990.
P. 300059 - Statement of Work: _. Preparation of a Work Plan for
300059 a Second Or-srable Unit. March 30, 1S90.
3 .4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 300050 - Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report _._
300219 Volume ~. SMS Instruments Operable Unit TZ. Deer
Park. Lena Island. Nev York, prepared for United
States Environmental Protection Agency, prepared
by CDM Federal Programs Corporation, July 7, 1993.
P. 300220 - Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report.
' 300557 Volume II. SMS Instruments Operable Unit II. Deer
Park. Long Island. Nev York, prepared for United
States Environmental Protection Agency, prepared
by CDM Federal Programs Corporation, July 7, 1993.
P. 300553 - Report: Phase I Investigation Interim Report.
300665 Volume I. SMS Instruments Operable Unit II. Deer
Park. Lone Island. Nev York,, prepared for United
States Environmental Protection Agency, prepared
by CDM Federal Programs Corporation, July 31,
1991..
P. 300666 - Report: Phase I Investigation Interim Report.
300733 Volume II. SMS Instruments Operable Unit II. Deer
Park, Lena Island. Nev York, prepared for United
States Environmental Protection Agency, prepared
by CDM Federal Programs Corporation, July 31,
1991.
-------
P. 300784 - Report: Phase I Investigation Interim Report
300217 Original Photocrrcphic Log, SMS Instruments
Operable Unit Two. Deer Park. Lone Island. New
York, prepared for United States Environmental
Protection Agency, prepared by CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, July 31, 19S1.
P. 300318 - Report: Field Summary Report. Coarse, Grid Soil
300837 Gas Screening. SMS Instruments Operable Unit II.
Deer Park, Long Island, Nsv York, prepared for
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation, May
30,'lSSl.
3.5 Correspondence
300S3S
30083S
200839
300842
Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and .Mr. Keith
Kollar, United States Environmental Protection "
Agency, from Robert D. Goltz, P.E., ARCS II
Program Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation,
re: Final Remedial Investigation Report, £K5
Instruments Operable Unit II, July 7, 1SS3.
Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litwin, Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, re: SMS Instruments
Operable Unit II, Sampling of Existing Monitoring
Wells and Piezometers, Round Tvo, December 9,
1952. (Attachments: sampling data).
-300843
300843
.300844
300847
Memo to A. Fayon, from Patricia Sheridan, re:
day turnaround of samples, November 25, 1952.
14
300848
300848
Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litvin, Work Assignment Manager,.CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, re: SMS Instruments •
Operable Unit II, Sampling of Existing Monitoring
Wells and Piezometers, August 19, 1552.
(Attachments: sampling data).
Memo to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litwin, CDM Federal Programs Corporation, re:
'Sampling of the Existing Wells, SMS Operable Unit
II Site, Deer Park, New. York, August 7, 1552.
-------
P.
.
300849 - Letter to Dr. A.M. Faycn, United States
2 008 3.7 Environmental Protection Agency, and Mr. Keith
Kollar, United States • Environmental Protection
Agency, from Robert D. Goltz, P. £., ARCS II
Program Manager, "COM Federal Programs Corporation,
re: Addendum to the Phase I Interim Report, SMS
Instruments Operable Unit II, June IS, 1SS2.
(Attachment : Addendum to the Phase I
Investigation Interim Report. SMS Instruments
Ooerable Unit II. Deer Park. Long Island. Nev
York, prepared for US Environmental Protection
Agency, prepared by CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, June IS, is £2) .
200833 - Letter to Ms. Jeanne Litvin, CDM Federal
201159 Programs Corporation, frcm Ms. Zenaida Esteves cf
Metropolitan Disposal Services, Inc., rs:
Enclosed second set of data, inadvertently
omitted from the first set, associated with
February 4, 1992 sampling, Data classifies •
material as non-hazardous and requests
notification of disposal plans, March 6, 1SS2.
. _- (Attachment: data report) .
201160 - Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
201160 Environmental Protection Agency, frcm Ms. Jeanne
Litvin, Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, re: SMS Instruments
Ooerable Unit II, Project Status Uodate, February
7*, 15S2.
2 Oil Si - Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
'201161A -Environmental Protection Agency, from 'Ms. Jeanne
Litvin, Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, re: SMS Instruments
Operable Unit II, Schedule Update, November 20,
1S91. (Attachment: Revised Field Schedule,
November 18, 1S91) .
201162 - Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
201162 Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litvin, Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, re: SMS Instruments
Operable Unit II, Project Status Ucdate, Septembs
6~, 1S91.
-------
301164 - Letter to Ms. Jeanne Litwin, Work Assignment
301164 Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation, from
Abram Miko Fayon, Eng.Sc.D, Remedial Project
Manager, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, re: Second Operable Unit, Direction of
Groundwater Flow, Northeast of the SMS site,
August 30, 1991.
301165 - Letter to Mr. A.M. Fayon, United States
301165 Environmental Protection Agency, and Mr. Keith
Kollar, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, from Robert D. Goltz, P.Z., ARCS II Deputy
Program Manager, CDM Federal Programs Corporation,
re: Field Summary Report, Phase I Interim Report,
SMS Instruments Operable Unit II, July 31, 1591.
301166 - Letter to Dr. A.M. Fayon, United States
.301157 Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litvin, Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal.
Programs Corporation, re: Revised Schedule, SMS
Instruments .Operable Unit II, June 6, 1551.
(Attachment: Revised RI/FS.Schedule).
301163 - Letter to Dr. A. Miko Fayon, United States
301165 Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litvin, Work Assignment Manager, CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, re: Information Required
for Drilling Invitation for Bid, SMS Instruments
Site, Operable Unit II, February 22, 1991.
?. 301170 - Letter to Mr. Shaheer Alvi, United States
301171 Environmental Protection Agency and Dr. Abram Miko
Fayon, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, from Peter W. Tunnicliffe, P.E., ARCS II
Programs Manager, CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, re: Final Work Plan for SMS
Instruments, Operable Unit II Site Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, October 5, 1990.
P. 301172 - Letter to Dr. Miko Fayon, United States
301172 Environmental Protection Agency, from Ms. Jeanne
Litwin, ARCS Site Manager, CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, re: Initial Phase I Activity, August
9, 1990.
P. 301173 - Memo to Miko Fayon, Bob Goltz, and Jeanne Litwin,
301173 from Sally Odland, re: Meeting June 29, 1950 on
SMS Operable Unit II, June 29,"1990.
-------
7.0 EOTORCEHENT
7.7 Notice Letters and Responses - I04e's
700001
700001A
700002
700013
700014
700025
Letter to Mr. Robert Pinter, Cotton Realty, c/o
Pinter Brothers Warehouse, from Ms. Princina S.
Watts, Assistant Regional Counsel , Office of
Regional Counsel, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, re: Access Agreement for the
SMS Instruments, Inc. Site, March 4, 1SS2.
Letter to Chem Star Corporation, end Mica Realty £
Construction Corporation, from Ms. Kathleen
Callahan, Director, Emergency and Remedial
Response Division, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, re: Request for Information,
October 24, 1SS1. (Attachments: Instructions for
Responding to Request for Information,
Certification of Answers to Request for
Information) .
Letter to F. and L. Coniglio Dagrosa, Param
Macaroni Company, c/o Ecrden, Inc. - Tax
Department, from Ms. Kathleen Callahan, Dir
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U
States Environmental Protection Agency, re:
Request for Information, October 24, 19S1.
(Attachments: Instructions for Responding
Request for Information, Certification of A
to Request for Information) .
700026
.700036
700037
700046
ector,
ited
to
nswers
Letter to Mr. Jonathan J. Maltese, President,
Production Spraying Company, from Mr. • Stephen D.
Luftig, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, re: Request for Information, April 9,
1990. (Attachments: Instructions for
Responding to Request for Information,
Certification of Answers to Request for
Information) .
Letter to Mr. Miles Coon, Esq., President,
. Commander Industries, from Mr.' Stephen D. Luftig,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, United States Environmental .Protection
Agency, re: Request for Information, March 12,
1990. (Attachments: Instructions for Responding
to Request for Information, Certification cf
Answers to Request for Information) .
-------
700047 - Letter to Dr. Abram Miko Fayon, Project Manager,
700047 United States Environmental Protection Agency,
'from Mr. Syd Askoff, Attorney at Lav, rel
Production Spraying and Manufacturing Corporation,
February 15, 1990.
700048 - Letter to Dr. Abram Miko Fayon, Project .Manager,
700048 United States Environmental Protection Agency,
from Ms. Anne Jones, Legal Assistant, Vernitron
Corporation, re: Readiest for Information -
rest>onse tise period extension recruest, February
13, 1S90.
'. 700049 - Letter to Dr. Abram Miko Fayon, Project Manager,
700049 United States Environmental Protection Agency,
from Ms. Anne Jones, Legal Assistant, Vernitron
Corporation, re: Request for Information -
Clarification of prooertv addresses, Februarv 9,
1990.
P. 700050 - Letter to President, Production Spraying Company,
700059 President, Vernitron Corporation, and President,
Commander Industries, from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig,
Director, Imergency and Remedial Response
Division, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, re: Request for Information, January
19, 1990. (Attachments: Instructions for
Responding to Request for Information,
Certification of Answers to Request for
Information) .
7.8 Correspondence
P. 700060 - Letter to Mr. John Grant, V.P. Operations,
700060 Vernitron, Inc., from Abram Miko Fayon, Eng.Sc.D.,
Remedial Project Manager, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, re: Confirmation
of phone conversation confirming December 16, 1992
as date two samples are to be taken from
monitoring wells MW08 and MW09, December 14,
1992.
P. 700061 - Letter to Mr. John Grant, Verriitron, Inc., from
700061 Abram Miko Fayon, Eng.Sc.D., Remedial Project
Manager, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, re: EPA requests property access
•permission to continue croundwater sampling,
Aucust 20, 1992.
-------
P. '700062 - Letter to United States Environmental Protection
700062 ' Agency Region II, .attn: Abram Miko. Fayon,
Eng.Sc.D, Remedial Project Manager, from Mr. John
Grant, V.P. Operations, Vernitron Corporation, re:
Vernitron grants .permission for EPA to obtain
samples, August 20, 1S92.
P. 700063 - Letter to Dr. Abram Miko Fayon, United States
700065 Environmental Protection Agency, Remedial Project
Manager, from C.R. Springer, Manager,
Environmental Affairs, Borden Packaging and
Industrial Products, re: Request for approval of
Agreement to Permit Entry to Premises for
Environmental Investigation, April 12, 1921.
(Attachment: Agreement to Permit Entry to
Premises for Environmental Investigation).
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 " 701°
Thomas C.
1S93 Ccmmlssicner
•Mr. George Pevlou
Acting Director
Emergency and Remedfai Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Feders! Plaza
New York, NY 1027S
Re: SMS Instruments ID No. 152026
Dear Mr. Psvlou:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation sr.d New York
State Department of Health concur with the proposed no action remedy for the SMS
Instruments site OU 2. •
If you have any further questions, Victor Cgro'ona, project Manacer for the site, can
be reached st {ElS} 457-3S76.
Sincerely,
Ann DeEerbieri
Deputy Commissioner
cc: A. Fayon, USEPA-P.egion II
D. Garfaarini, USSrA-P.egion I!
------- |