United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/138
March 1991
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Circuitron, NY
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name: Circuitron Corporation
Location/State: East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York
EPA Region: II
HRS Score (date): 54.27 (March 1989)
NPA Rank (date): #123 (March 1989)
ROD
Date Signed: March 29, 1991
Selected Remedy
Soils
Sediments
Dust-
Groundwater
In-Situ Vapor Extraction
Excavation of Contaminated Sediments from
Leaching Pools, Cesspools and Storm Drains/Off-
Site Treatment and Disposal
Removal of Dust from On-Site Building/Off-Site
Treatment and Disposal
Remediation to be addressed in a second
Operable Unit
Capital Cost:
0 & M/Year:
Present Worth:
LEAD
$643,690
$3,850
$685,675
Remedial, EPA
Primary Contact (phone): Abram Miko Fayon (212-264-4706)
Secondary Contact (phone): Doug Garbarini (212-264-0109)
WASTE
Type:
Medium;
Origin:
metals (e.g. copper, nickel, lead) and organic (1,1,1-
trichloroethane, trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethane)
Groundwater, Soils and Sediments
Contamination originated during the operation at the
Circuitron Corporation. The corporation was involved in
the manufacture of electronic circuit boards resulting in
the generation of untreated wastewater which was disposed
of in several unauthorized and unlined leaching pits.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/138
4. TNesndSUrtss
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Circuitron, NY
First Remedial Action
7. Aumorts)
9. Performing Orgalnlzation Name and Addreaa
12. Sponsoring Organization N*in> end Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Rsclplsnrs Accession No.
5. Report Date
03/29/91
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Pro|ect/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contnct(C) or Grant(C) No.
(C)
(0)
13. Type of Report « Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Note*
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 word.)
The one-acre Circuitron site is a former electronic circuit board manufacturing
facility in East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York. Surrounding land use is
industrial. A 23,500-square-foot building and a paved parking area account for 95%
of the site, and the remaining portion is a small unpaved area behind the building.
From 1961 to 1986, circuit board manufacturing operations including metal plating
were conducted onsite. Several onsite areas were used for discharge of
process-generated wastes including one authorized and two unauthorized leaching pools
located beneath the parking area, two cesspools, and storm drains. At least two
unauthorized leaching pools are located beneath the floor of the plating room. In
1984 and 1985, Circuitron agreed to remediate all leaching pools and storm drains,
remove all hazardous materials from the site, and conduct ground water monitoring.
However, before abandoning the premises in 1986, Circuitron remediated only one
unauthorized leaching pool under the building and installed monitoring wells. In
1989, EPA removed 20 waste drums and contaminated debris from inside the building and
three above-ground tanks from the rear of the building, and emptied two underground
storage tanks. Further EPA site investigations from 1988 to 1990 have characterized
(See Attached Page)
NY
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Circuitron,
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, sediment, debris
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs,
PCBs, pesticides, phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
18. A v«il«bllty Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Psge)
None
21. No. of Pages
84
22. Price
[See AKS1-ZM.18)
See Instruction* on Renne
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/138
Circuitron, NY
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
contaminants and contaminated media. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses
contaminated onsite soil and sediment. Ground water remediation will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sediment, and
debris are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics
including PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and phenols; and metals including arsenic, chromium,
and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes treating highly VOC-contaminated soil
in the southwest corner of the site using in-situ vapor extraction; treating emissions
using carbon adsorption and disposing of any spent carbon residuals offsite; excavating
contaminated soil, sediment, and debris from the leaching pools, cesspools, and storm
drains inside and outside of the building; incinerating these materials offsite, with
offsite disposal of any residuals; decontaminating the building by vacuuming,
incinerating, and disposing of 53 cubic yards of sediment, accumulated dust, and debris
offsite; replacing the concrete floor overlying the excavated leaching pits under the
building; and repaving the parking area. The estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action is $685,675, which includes an annual O&M cost of $3,850 for 4 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Performance standards for in-situ soil vapor extraction
are based on leachability modelling, and include 1,1,1-TCA 1 mg/kg and TCE 1.5 mg/kg.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Circuitron Corporation, East Farmingdale, Suffolk County,
New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action
for the Circuitron Corporation site, located in East Farmingdale,
New York, chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980,
as amended (CERCLA), and, to the extent practicable, the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for the site.
The attached index (Appendix C) identifies the items that
comprise the administrative record upon which the selection of
the remedial action is based.
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy. (See
Appendix D).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this site, if not addressed by implementing the remedial action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare,
or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This operable unit represents the first of two planned
actions for the site. The remedy presented in this document
addresses the treatment of the contaminated soils at the
Circuitron Corporation site.
The second operable unit will address area-wide groundwater
contamination.
This remedial action complements a removal action initiated
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1989. The
removal action included the removal of 20 waste drums from inside
the building, the emptying of two underground tanks containing
various volatile organic and inorganic compounds, the cleaning
and removal of three above-ground tanks from the rear of the
building, and the general clean-up of the suspected contaminated
debris from inside the building.
-------
The major components of the selected remedy include:
* In-situ vacuum extraction of the contaminated soil in
the southwest corner of the property in the area of
high volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination.
* Excavation of contaminated sediments from leaching
pits, cesspools, and storm drains outside and inside
the building.
« Off-site treatment and disposal of contaminated
sediments.
» Building decontamination via vacuuming of dust
containing elevated concentrations of inorganic
elements and replacement of the concrete floor in the
building.
» Paving of the entire site.
The remediation of site soils and sediments, which are
considered the principle threat to the site, will eliminate
crossmedia impacts of these contaminants on the site groundwater,
while the building decontamination will allow the building to be
restored to its intended use.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost effective. The selected remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
The need for conducting a five-year review will be evaluated
at the time of the second operable unit.
^po"nsf^antine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
CIRCDITRON CORPORATION SITE
EAST FARKINGDALE, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Site Name Location and Description
Site History and Enforcement Activities.
Highlights of Community
Participation
Scope and role of Operable Units Within
Site Strategy
Summary of Site Characteristics
Summary of Site Risks
Description of Alternatives
Summary of Comparative Analysis
of Alternatives ,
The Selected Remedy ,
Statutory Determination ,
Documentation of Significant Changes...,
Page
1
2
4
5
6
10
16
20
22
24
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Figures
Tables
Administrative Record Index
NYSDEC Letter of Concurrence
Responsiveness Summary
11
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Name
1 Circuitron Corporation Site location map
2 Circuitron Corporation Site plan
3 On-site and off-site sampling locations for soil
and groundwater
4 Location of sediments to be excavated
5 In-situ vacuum extraction system
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Name
Contaminant concentrations in on-site shallow
wells
Contaminant concentrations in on-site deep wells
Contaminant concentrations in off-site shallow
wells
Contaminant concentrations in off-site deep wells
Contaminant concentrations in wells installed by
the Circuitron Corporation
Surface/subsurface contaminant levels
Contaminant concentrations in the sediments
Groundwater carcinogenic risks for various
pathways
Groundwater noncarcinogenic risks for various
pathways
Detailed cost estimate of the selected remedy
IV
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Circuitron Corporation site is located at 82 Milbar Boule-
vard, East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York. The site is
situated near the Nassau County-Suffolk County border in central
Long Island. The site encompasses approximately 1 acre in an
industrial/commercial area just east of Route 110 and the State
University of New York, Agricultural and Technical College campus
in Farmingdale (Figure 1). The site is generally flat and has a
slight slope up to the southeast of less than 1 percent. The
site elevation is approximately 85 to 90 feet above mean sea
level.
The Circuitron Corporation site consists of an abandoned 23,500
square foot building that was used between 1961 and 1986 for the
manufacture of electronic circuit boards. Aside from the build-
ing, the site is primarily asphalt paved, with the exception of a
small area in the rear of the building. The paved area in front
of the building was used in the past as a parking lot for the
employees of Circuitron Corporation and is presently used for
parking by employees of nearby companies. Approximately 95% of
the site is paved or covered by the building. Figure 2 shows the
site plan and the location of above and below ground structures.
At least two unauthorized leaching pools (LP-5 and LP-6) exist
below the concrete floor in the plating room inside the building.
A circular depression in the concrete floor towards the front of
this room indicates the presence of other unauthorized leaching
pools. These are identified on Figure 2 as LP-3 and LP-4. A
series of leaching pools lies beneath the parking lot in the
front of the building. These leaching pools include an autho-
rized wastewater discharge pool (authorized via a New York State
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit) below a
manhole located on the north side of the property in front of the
laboratory, and two old abandoned leaching pools located in the
northeast corner of the site. These structures are identified as
LP-1, which is the SPDES pool, LP-2 and LP-7.
At least two sanitary cesspools, CP-1 and CP-2, have been docu-
mented to exist below the parking lot in front of the northwest
corner of the building. The sanitary cesspools were authorized
to accept sanitary wastes only. However, Suffolk County Depart-
ment of Health Services (SCDHS) analyses indicated that the
cesspools were used for disposal of hazardous materials. A line
of interconnected storm drains SD-1 through SD-3 exists on the
western portion of the site. The storm drains range from 10 feet
to approximately 13 feet in depth. The three catch basins
(identified as CB in Figure 2) did not show any evidence of
sediments and liquids and were not analyzed. They will be
-------
tested, however, during the remedial design phase to determine
the extent, if any, of contamination.
Circuitron Corporation is located in an industrial area sur-
rounded by similar small manufacturers and is several miles away
from any residential area. There are no schools or any recre-
ational facilities in the immediate vicinity.
Approximately 15 municipal wells serving over 215,000 people are
within 3 miles of the site, the nearest being approximately 1500
feet to the southeast of the site in the direction of groundwater
flow. One shallow well in this field has been closed since 1978
due to organic chemical contamination from an unknown source.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Circuitron Corporation was incorporated in New York State in 1961
and operated a manufacturing facility at the site between 1961
and 1986. Circuitron Corporation ceased operations and vacated
the site some time between May and June 1986. During this time
period, Circuitron Corporation removed all equipment of value and
left the facility in its present condition. The current owner of
the site is 82 Milbar Blvd., Inc., a New York corporation incor-
porated in 1968. Circuitron Corporation filed for bankruptcy in
1986. 82 Milbar Blvd., Inc. filed for bankruptcy in 1987. Both
of these bankruptcy proceedings were dismissed or closed in 1988.
At the request of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), an emergency response action was performed
by the EPA at the site in mid-1989, prior to the RI/FS investiga-
tion. This action included removal of 20 waste drums from inside
the building, the emptying of 2 underground tanks containing
various volatile organic and inorganic compounds, cleaning and
removing of 3 aboveground tanks from the rear of the building and
general clean-up of the suspected contaminated debris from inside
the building.
The facility had an approved SPDES permit, No. NY-007 5655, to
discharge industrial wastewater to a leaching pool located below
the parking lot in front of the building. This SPDES permit
expired on September 12, 1986, based on a July 1, 1986 inspection
by NYSDEC, indicating that the discharge had ceased.
Circuitron Corporation had received numerous warnings from
boththe SCDHS and NYSDEC concerning SPDES permit violations and
unauthorized discharges. An Order of Consent and the Stipulated
Agreement, issued by the SCDHS in 1984 and 1985, respectively,
-------
required that all leaching pools and storm drains be remediated;
all toxic and hazardous materials be removed from the site
including drums, tanks, and piping; and a groundwater quality
study be performed. Circuitron Corporation installed 5 monitor-
ing wells at the site; however, there are no engineering or well
installation reports available concerning the construction of
these wells. In addition, the analytical results from the
Circuitron Corporation and the SCDHS groundwater sampling of
these wells are in conflict with each other. To date, only the
unauthorized leaching pool in the southern part of the plating
room has been cleaned out and backfilled. This work was per-
formed by Circuitron Corporation. There are no records available
regarding the amount of waste removed from the unauthorized
leaching pool or the existence and the extent of contaminated
soil in and around the leaching pool.
In 1984, a former owner of Circuitron Corporation, Mario
Lombardo, was charged for discharging organic solvents to unau-
thorized "hidden" leaching pools between March 1, 1982 and March
22, 1984. He was indicted on 6 felony counts of unlawful dumping
of hazardous wastes, under New York State (NYS) Environmental
Conservation Law (ECL) Section 27, Subsection 09-14; 19 felony
counts of offering a false instrument for filing, under Suffolk
County Penal Law Section 175, Subsection 135; and 20 misdemeanor
counts of violating NYS ECL Section 17, Subsection 03-01 and
05-01. On May 9, 1985, Mario Lombardo pleaded guilty to unlawful
dumping of hazardous wastes, NYS ECL Section 27, Subsection
09-14. He was fined $50,000 and sentenced to 700 hours of
community service.
When Circuitron Corporation informed SCDHS that it would be
vacating the facility, SCDHS informed Circuitron Corporation that
a cleanup of toxic and hazardous materials and a groundwater
study would be required. SCDHS also required further off-site
groundwater monitoring. Circuitron Corporation refused to comply
with the off-site groundwater monitoring requirement.
EPA sent a general notice letter and a request for information to
the identified potentially responsible parties (PRPs) on July 24,
1987. EPA sent another general notice letter to the PRPs on
August 15, 1988 inviting them to conduct a Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The site was proposed for the
National Priorities List (NPL) in June, 1988 and finalized in
March, 1989. The RI/FS was initiated in September, 1988 and the
field work started in May, 1989.
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS report and Proposed Plan for the Circuitron Corporation
site were released to the public on January 31, 1991. These
two documents are made available to the public in both the admin-
istrative record, maintained by EPA, and an. information reposito-
ry maintained at the Farmingdale Public Library, located at Main
and Conklin Streets in Farmingdale, New York. A second informa-
tion repository is maintained at the Town of Babylon, Department
of Environmental Control, Town of Babylon Annex, 281 Phelps Lane,
North Babylon, New York. A press release was issued on February
4, 1991. The notice of availability for these two documents was
published in the Suffolk County edition of Newsday on February
11, 1991, and in the Farmingdale edition of Suffolk Live, a
weekly newspaper, on February 13, 1991. A public comment period
was held from January 31, 1991 to March 2, 1991. In addition a
public meeting was held on February 19, 1991 to discuss the RI/FS
and Proposed Plan and to respond to questions and concerns raised
by the community. Responses to the comments received during the
comment period is included in the Responsiveness Summary (see
Appendix E).
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Circuitron Corporation in East Farmingdale, New York, chosen
in accordance with CERCLA and, to the extent practicable, the
National Contingency Plan. The decision for the site is based on
the administrative record.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNITS WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
EPA has divided the remedial work being conducted at the Cir-
cuitron Corporation site into two operable units. This first
operable unit addresses the contamination within the soils and
sediments from the leaching pools, cesspools, and storm drains.
Based upon data generated during the RI, it has been determined
that groundwater contamination should be addressed as part of a
larger area-wide study to be conducted under a separate operable
unit. The reason for addressing the groundwater contamination
under a separate operable unit is due to the nature of the
contamination, which appears upgradient at approximately the same
order of magnitude as on the site, and would be treated more
effectively in a regional rather than site specific fashion.
A removal action was initiated by EPA in mid-1989. This action
included the removal of 20 waste drums from inside the building,
the emptying of two underground tanks containing various volatile
organic and inorganic compounds, the cleaning and removal of
-------
three aboveground tanks from the rear of the building, and the
general clean-up of the suspected contaminated debris from inside
the building.
The overall objective of this operable unit is to address the
principal threats associated with the site by reducing the
concentrations of contaminants in the soils and sediments to
levels which are protective of human health and the environment
and to prevent further deterioration of the area groundwater.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The results of the remedial investigation are discussed in detail
in the RI/FS documents. Those describe the nature and extent of
contaminants in on-site surface soils, subsurface soils, in on-
site and off-site groundwater, sediments in the underground
structures, and also within the abandoned building.
Previous investigations and the RI (Ebasco, 1990) have shown that
there were discharges of untreated process wastewater to the
identified underground liquid handling structures at the site.
These include the known leaching pools both inside and outside
the building, the sanitary cesspools in the front of the building
and the storm drains along the western edge of the property
(Figure 2). The construction of these structures was such that
the untreated process wastewater and other liquids were allowed
to percolate into the surrounding soil.
The media sampled during the RI were the groundwater, subsur-
face/surface soil, and sediments present in various leaching
pools, storm drains, and sanitary cesspools.
Groundwater
Monitoring wells were installed and screened in both deep and
shallow portions of the upper glacial aquifer, at upgradient,
on-site and downgradient locations. The deep wells were screened
at 90-100 feet, whereas the shallow wells were screened at depths
of 34 to 38 feet. The locations of these monitoring wells are
shown on Figure 3. Seven volatile organic compounds were
identified, from both a concentration and a frequency of occur-
rence basis. These include: 1,1-dichloro-ethene, 1,1-dichlo-
roethane, trans-l,2-dichloroethene, chloroform, 1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene. 1,1,1-trichloro-
ethane (1,1,1-TCA) was present at the greatest concentrations in
the groundwater, both upgradient and on-site (4.8 parts per
million (ppm)), relative to the other volatile organics analyzed.
Inorganics such as copper, chromium, nickel and lead were also
-------
detected, but to a much lesser extent (i.e., highest concentra-
tion on-site = 538 ppb for copper). Phthalates were present at
fairly high levels, upgradient and downgradient as well as on
site. Tables 1 and 2 show contaminant concentrations found in
the on-site shallow and deep wells respectively. Tables 3 and 4
present contaminant concentrations in off-site shallow and deep
wells respectively, and Table 5 shows contaminant concentrations
in wells installed by the Circuitron Corporation prior to EPA's
RI.
Surface/Subsurface Soils
Many of the contaminants found in the surface/subsurface soil
contaminants were the same as those found in the groundwater, the
prevalent volatile organic compound being TCA at a maximum level
of 100 parts per million (ppm). Copper was found at a maximum
level of 1,950 ppm at a location inside the building which might
have been the location of an unauthorized leaching pool. Phthal-
ates were present at fairly high levels in all three media and
were found upgradient and downgradient as well as on site.
The surface/subsurface contaminants are shown in Table 6. Sampl-
ing locations are shown in Figure 3 and are identified as SS and
SB for subsurface and surface locations, respectively.
Sediments
Sediments exhibited high amounts of inorganics, mostly copper at
a maximum level of 23,000 ppm. Some VOCs were also present of
which 1,1,1-TCA was the most prevalent at a maximum level of 19
ppm. Phthalates were present at fairly high levels in all three
media and were found upgradient and downgradient as well as on
site. These contaminants are presented in Table 7. Figure 4
shows the location of the sediments to be excavated.
Building Dust
As part of the EPA removal action, it was established that dust
within the on-site building contained metal contamination,
including aluminum, copper, lead and zinc.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was conducted as part of the remedial
investigation for the site. The baseline risk assessment evalu-
ates potential impacts on human health and the environment if
existing site conditions are not remediated. The assessment also
anticipates potential future risks associated with the site.
Both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks were evaluated.
-------
Based on the evaluations performed for the risk assessment,
contaminants of concern were identified for the soil, groundwater
and sediment. Several volatile organic compounds, including 1,1
dichloroethene and tetrachloroethene and 1,1,1-TCA were identi-
fied as contaminants of concern. A detailed description of the
procedures and methodologies employed in the risk assessment for
the Circuitron Corporation Site is presented in Section 8.0 of
the RI report.
Current conditions indicate that there is no complete exposure
pathway. The facility is not in operation. The site is located
in an industrial/commercial area and the Upper Glacial Aquifer is
not used for potable water supplies. EPA's risk assessment,
however, did identify the following two potential exposure
pathways by which the public may be potentially exposed to
contaminant releases from the Site under future land-use condi-
tions:
- the groundwater exposure from the Upper Glacial
Aquifer
- sediment exposure during remediation activities.
The potentially exposed populations assessed included:
- on- and off-site adult and child residents
- on-site industrial workers
- on-site remediation workers.
Ingestion and dermal contact with contaminated soil by residents
was not evaluated because of the limited possibility of this
scenario occurring due to the fact that approximately 95% of the
site is paved. The potential contamination of groundwater by the
migration of chemicals of concern in the soil was considered.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) and non-carcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that
the toxic effects of the Site-related chemicals would be addi-
tive. Thus, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks associated
with exposures to individual compounds were summed to indicate
the potential risks associated with mixtures of potential carcin-
ogens and non-carcinogens, respectively. The reasonable maximum
exposure case was assessed for potential carcinogens and non-
carcinogens. The average exposure case was also assessed for
certain pathways.
-------
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the slope
factors developed by the EPA for the chemicals of concern. Slope
factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating excess lifetime
cancer risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day) ,
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
the intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conserva-
tive estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this
approach makes the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely.
A summary of the cancer risks associated with the site is found
on Table 8.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10"* to 10 to
be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has not
greater than a one-in-ten-thousand to one-in-one-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 the Site. Overall, the potential carcinogenic risks
associated with the groundwater spanned two orders of magnitude
(104 to 10s). Two volatile compounds, 1,1-dichloroethene and
tetracholoroethene, were responsible for approximately 85-95% of
the cancer risk in the groundwater ingestion pathway. Hence, the
risks for carcinogens at the Site are in the acceptable EPA risk
range of 10"1 to 10*.
Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (reference doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of milligram per kilogram per day (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 soil) are compared with
the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the contaminant in the
particular media. The HI is obtained by adding the hazard
quotients for all compounds across all media.
A HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for
non-carcinogenic 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. A summary of
the non-carcinogenic risks associated with the site is found in
Table 9.
It can be seen from Table 9 that the HI for non-carcinogenic
effects from the ingestion of water is greater that 1 and,
therefore, non-carcinogenic effects may occur from the exposure
routes evaluated in the risk assessment. Organic compounds
(1,1,1-TCA) contributed to the potential non-cancer risk.
The risk assessment contains the conclusion that direct exposure
to the site soils and sediments does not represent a significant
risk to human health and the environment. However, the soils and
sediments do pose a significant indirect risk as a continuing
source of groundwater contamination. Contaminants in excess of
federal and state standards were detected in the site groundwater
plume. EPA policies and regulations allow remedial actions to be
taken whenever crossmedia impacts result in exceeding one or more
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) which are enforceable, health-
based standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Conse-
quently, soil and sediment remediation is warranted to remove
this continuous source of contamination into the groundwater and
expedite compliance with federal and state groundwater standards.
Based on the risk assessment, the only major potential exposure
for concern is the development of the Upper Glacial Aquifer as a
public water supply in the future. The New York State classifi-
cation for the groundwater is "GA" which means that the aquifer
is a source of potable drinking water supply. Although the Upper
Glacial Aquifer is not presently used for drinking water supply
in this region of Long Island, the risks posed by the site are
due to the possibility of the use of this aquifer as a potable
water source and the concentrations of inorganic elements and
volatile organic compounds detected in the groundwater of this
aquifer.
The risk assessment suggests that potential human health risks
are associated with the use of upgradient groundwater. Both
shallow and deep well results show the possibility that use of
groundwater in the area of the upgradient monitoring well group
could result in unacceptable risks. Although the on-site risk
levels are slightly higher, there is definitely evidence that
upgradient sources, in addition to the contaminated soils and
sediments at the Circuitron Corporation facility, are also
responsible for contaminating the on-site groundwater.
The contaminated building dust, which is above Occupational
Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace standards, will also be
removed to allow for a future use of the abandoned building.
-------
10
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evalua-
tion, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide variety
of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
environmental parameter measurement
fate and transport modeling
exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media sam-
pled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the
actual levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis error
can stem from several sources including the errors inherent in
the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being
sampled. Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to
estimates of how often an individual would actually come in
contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over
which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to
estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the
point of exposure. Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in
extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to low
doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing
the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are
addressed by making conservative assumptions concerning risk and
exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the
risk assessment provides upper bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to underesti-
mate actual risks related to the Site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by the preferred alternative or one of the
other alternatives considered, may present a potential threat to
public health, welfare or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The remedial alternatives address the contamination within the
building, soil, leaching pools, storm drains, and cesspools. As
stated previously, the contamination in the groundwater will be
addressed under a separate area-wide investigation.
The alternatives were screened based on implementability, effec-
tiveness and cost. The screening resulted in remedial alterna-
-------
11
tives upon which a detailed analysis was performed. Those
alternatives considered in detail are discussed below. "Time to
implement" is defined as the period of time needed for the
alternative to be implemented and, with the exception of the no-
action and limited-action alternatives, includes the time re-
quired for remedial design activities which is assumed to take
approximately 2 years.
Alternative 1: No Action
Capital Cost: $0
Operation & Maintenance (0 & M) Cost: $22,920 per year
Present Worth cost: $380,160
Time to implement: 6 months
The Superfund Program requires that the "no action" alternative
be considered at every site. The no action remedial alternative
consists of a long-term groundwater monitoring program in order
to provide data for the assessment of the impact on the underly-
ing groundwater of leaving contaminated materials on-site. The
groundwater monitoring program would utilize wells installed
during the remedial investigation at this site. Groundwater
samples would be taken on a semi-annual basis from upgradient,
on-site and downgradient shallow monitoring wells.
The no action response also includes the development and mainte-
nance of a public awareness and education program for the resi-
dents and workers in the area surrounding the Circuitron Corpora-
tion Site. This program would include the preparation and
distribution of informational press releases and circulars and
the convening of public meetings. These activities will serve to
enhance the public's knowledge of the conditions existing at the
site.
Because this alternative does not include contaminant removal,
the site would have to be reviewed at least every five years
pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c). These reviews would include
the reassessment of human health and environmental risks due to
the contaminated material left on-site, using data obtained from
the groundwater sampling program. If justified by the review,
remedial actions might be implemented to remove or treat wastes.
Alternative 2: Limited Action
Capital Cost: $32,000
0 & M Cost: $22,920 per year
Present Worth Cost: $412,150
Time to Implement: 6 months
-------
12
The Limited Action alternative combines a program of groundwater
monitoring and public awareness outlined in Alternative 1 with
site access and use restrictions.
The site access restriction portion of this alternative consists
of surrounding the entire site with approximately 820 feet of
conventional chainlink fencing. At appropriate intervals along
the fence, various warning signs would caution the public as to
the Superfund status of the site. In addition to access restric-
tions, institutional controls would have to be implemented by
state or local governments to restrict the use of the land and
building because of the threat of contamination.
Also, as stated previously in Alternative 1, a review of the site
status would have to be conducted at least every five years. The
five year reviews would include evaluation of sampling analytical
data, reassessment of human health and environmental risks. If
justified by the review, remedial actions might be implemented to
remove or treat wastes.
Alternative 3: Containment and Building Decontamination
Capital Cost: $221,120
0 & M Cost: $26,525 per year
Present Worth Cost: $656,695
Time to Implement: 3 years
This alternative includes repaving the site and decontaminating
the building. The purpose of this alternative would be to
prevent further infiltration of precipitation/run-off through the
contaminated site soil, thereby reducing further site-related
groundwater contamination. This would be accomplished by elimi-
nating the current pathways for infiltration; namely, the storm
drains and any gaps/cracks in the existing asphalt pavement. The
building would also be decontaminated to allow for its future
reuse by removing the metals-contaminated dust and pouring a new
concrete floor, over the current damaged floor, in the plating
room.
Under this alternative the storm drains would be filled with
clean fill material. The entire site area, outside the building,
would be repaved with asphalt using conventional construction
methods. The filled storm drains would also be paved. Approxi-
mately 1740 square yards of asphalt would be required.
Precipitation run-off from the building would be diverted into
the street for collection in existing municipal storm drains.
The site area would-also be repaved in such a way so as to direct
surface run-off to the street/municipal storm drains.
-------
13
The metals-contaminated dust inside the building would be removed
by vacuuming the walls and floors using conventional industrial
equipment adapted for use at a hazardous waste site. The contam-
inated dust would be removed to that extent necessary to comply
with OSHA requirements. Approximately 5 cubic yards of dust
would be collected and transported to an off-site Resource
Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) facility for treatment and
disposal. The plating room floor in the building, which shows
evidence of deterioration, would be covered with a new poured
concrete floor. The new floor would be approximately 4200 square
feet in area and 2-inches thick.
This alternative also includes a long-term groundwater monitoring
and five-year review program. One purpose of this program would
be to evaluate the effectiveness of the containment remedy at
eliminating the current source of site-related groundwater
contamination; that is, infiltration of precipitation through
contaminated site soils. The new pavement would also require
regular inspection and maintenance to prevent and/or repair
cracks/gaps in the pavement.
Alternative 4: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction. Excavation of
Sediments. On-Site Stabilization and Disposal.
Building Decontamination.
Capital Cost: $514,760
0 & M Cost: $3,850
Present Worth Cost: $573,945
Time to Implement: 4 years
This alternative consists of the use of in-situ vacuum extraction
(SVE) in the southwest corner area of SD-3, the excavation and
removal of the contaminated sediments within all of the under-
ground structures inside and outside the building, treatment of
the excavated sediments via stabilization and disposal on-site,
and building decontamination.
The SVE system will be used to reduce the soil levels of VOCs,
including 1,1,1-TCA, in the southwest corner of the site. The
concentration of this contaminant was found to be of the order of
100 ppm. The SVE system would be applied to an area of approxi-
mately 400 square feet. During the remedial action samples will
be taken to delineate more accurately the area to be treated. It
is expected that the SVE system would be able to reduce volatile
organic compounds, including 1,1,1-TCA and tetrachloroethene
which are the most prevalent VOC contaminants on-site, to accept-
able clean-up levels. A technical evaluation of contaminant-
leaching indicates that reduction of soil contaminant levels of
1,1,1-TCA and tetrachloroethene to 1.0 ppm and 1.5 ppm, respec-
tively, would insure protection of groundwater from cross media
-------
14
impacts. Other VOCs will also be reduced to by the operation of
the SVE but such reduction is not required by the remedy. The
exact configuration of the SVE system will be determined during
the remedial design phase of the project.
The excavation of the sediments from within the underground
structures, inside and outside the building, is intended to
remove organic and inorganic contaminants. There are several
buried perforated drums, tanks and other structures beneath the
plating room floor inside the building that were used for leach-
ing liquid wastes into the ground. In order to locate these
underground structures and then access the sediment, the concrete
floor in the plating room would be demolished during the imple-
mentation of the remedial action.
The remedial investigation shows that the contaminated sediments
are not expected to extend below 2 feet from the surface. As a
result, the sediments will initially be excavated to the approxi-
mate two-foot depth. However, if, during excavation work,
contaminated sediments are shown to extend below the two-foot
level, then further excavation will take place until no visible
signs of contamination are found in the underlying soils. An on-
site geologist will evaluate the undisturbed, clean, sandy,
native soils to confirm that the sediments have been removed.
Confirmatory soil samples will be taken at the excavated depth to
ensure that the contaminated sediments and soils have been
removed and that VOC contamination in the remaining soils meets
the soil cleanup levels of 1.0 ppm for 1,1,1-TCA and 1.5 ppm for
tetrachloroethene. If not, additional soil will be excavated
until such levels are achieved. It is anticipated that reducing
the more mobile VOC contaminants in the sediments and soils to
those cleanup levels will also result in the removal of the less
mobile inorganic contaminants. The same procedure would be
applied to all underground structures outside the building.
The contaminated sediments that have been removed would be
subjected to treatment via stabilization to reduce the leachabil-
ity of the contaminants. This stabilization process would take
place at the site due to the relatively small quantity of materi-
al involved (approximately 53 cubic yards). Once stabilized, the
sediments would be tested via the Toxicity Characteristic Leach-
ing Procedure (TCLP), to determine if they may be suitable for
use as fill and buried on-site within the now hollow underground
structures.
Building dust would also be stabilized and disposed of on-site.
If sediments and building dust do not pass TCLP, then these
materials would be disposed of at an off-site facility according
to RCRA regulations, including land disposal restrictions.
-------
15
Spent carbon from the in-situ vacuum extraction system win
either be regenerated by the vendor or stabilized and disposed
on-site.
All non-hazardous debris, e.g., broken concrete, asphalt, etc.,
resulting from the remedial action, will be removed from the site
and disposed in a sanitary landfill.
All site areas would be repaved and the replacement of the
plating room concrete floor would also be performed.
Alternative 5: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction. Excavation of
Contaminated Sediments. Off-site Treatment
and Disposal. Building Decontamination.
Capital Cost: $643,690
O & M Cost: $3,850
Present Worth Cost: $685,675
Time to Implement: 4 years
Under this alternative, the application of in-situ vacuum extrac-
tion for soil in the area of SD-3, building decontamination, and
sediment excavation from the various leaching pits and storm
drains would be performed as in Alternative 4. This alternative
differs from Alternative 4 in that the approximately 53 cubic
yards of excavated contaminated sediments, building dust and
concrete would be transported to an approved RCRA treatment and
disposal facility. For the purpose of developing a conservative
cost estimate, incineration has been selected as the method of
treatment. The excavated material would be packed into appro-
priate containers and transported off-site for treatment in
accordance with applicable regulations for handling and transport
of hazardous materials. The treatment facility would be respon-
sible for all the necessary pretreatment and post-treatment of
the contaminated material, including ash stabilization, if
necessary, to insure that land disposal restrictions are satis-
fied.
Spent carbon or any other treatment residual from the in-situ
vacuum extraction unit will be disposed off-site under with
applicable RCRA regulations, including land disposal restric-
tions.
Non-hazardous debris resulting from the remedial action will be
removed and disposed of as in Alternative 4. The repaving of the
site and the replacement of the plating room concrete floor will
also be performed as in Alternative 4.
-------
16
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
EPA has developed nine criteria (set forth in OSWER Directive
9355.3-01; and the NCP §300.430(e) and (f)) to evaluate potential
alternatives to ensure all important considerations are factored
into remedy selection decisions. The major objective of this
section is to evaluate the relative performance of the alterna-
tives with respect to the criteria so that the advantages and
disadvantages associated with each clean-up option are clearly
understood.
The evaluation criteria are noted and explained below.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Address whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and
describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway, based on
a reasonable maximum exposure scenario, are eliminated, reduced
or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or insti-
tutional controls.
Compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate require-
ments (ARARs)
Addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of the ARARs of
other Federal and State environmental statutes and requirements
or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
Short-term Effectiveness
Addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection from
any adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may
be posed during the construction and implementation period of
this alternative.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection
of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals
have been met. It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness
of the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by
treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment technolo-
gies, with respect to these parameters, a remedy may employ.
-------
17
Implementability
Addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of materials and services
needed to implement the chosen solution.
Cost
Includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs,
and net worth costs.
Community Acceptance
Refers to the public's general response to the alternatives
described in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports.
State Acceptance
Indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS report and
Proposed Plan, the State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment
on the selected alternative.
Comparison Among Alternatives
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not respond to the remedial objectives
developed for the site. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 provide source
control measures that would prevent further migration of contami-
nants from soil/sediment into groundwater. Alternative 3 would
not provide a permanent solution, since the contaminated source
(soil and sediment) would remain on-site and cracking of the
pavement would allow infiltration of precipitation and
subsequent migration of contaminants into the groundwater. Both
of the excavation and treatment alternatives (Alternatives 4
and 5) would result in permanent and effective solutions to the
contamination problem at the site in that they both involve
reduction of contaminants and thus the source for on-site ground-
water contamination from the site. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5
provide for building decontamination to allow for its future
reuse.
Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives 4 and 5 would reduce the contaminants load to the
aquifer and expedite any future groundwater cleanup. The ARARs
for groundwater will be addressed under a separate operable unit
involving the remediation of the contaminated aquifer. There are
-------
18
no chemical-specific ARARs for soils or sediments. Alternatives
4 and 5 would meet action-specific ARARs. All sediments which
are to be removed from leaching pits and storm drains (Alterna-
tives 4 and 5) are either to be treated on-site or transported to
a RCRA treatment and disposal site. Wastes sent off-site under
Alternative 5 would be treated using specific technologies or
treated to specific treatment levels, as appropriate, to comply
with land disposal restrictions. Federal and state regulations
dealing with the handling and transport of hazardous materials
would be followed. The off-site treatment facility would be a
fully EPA-approved facility.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives 4 and 5 would provide for permanent removal of the
contaminated sediment from the site and for treatment to either
destroy or immobilize the VOCs and inorganic contaminants in the
soils. This would effectively eliminate the on-site contribution
to the groundwater contamination. The No Action and Limited
Action alternatives do not provide for a long term solution to
the groundwater, soil/sediment or building contamination prob-
lems. Alternative 3 may mitigate the leaching of contaminants
from on-site soil/sediment into groundwater but would require
long-term maintenance and monitoring to ensure its
effectiveness since the contaminated soil/sediment is left
on-site and the asphalt paving may not be a permanent barrier to
precipitation infiltration. Also, fluctuations in the water
table elevation may cause some additional leaching of contami-
nants from soil directly above the average water table level.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility or Volume
The No Action and Limited Action alternatives do not include any
additional measures other than natural long-term flushing of the
soil to reduce the level of contamination in the soil. In the No
Action and Limited Action Alternatives, groundwater concentra-
tions could actually increase due to migration of contaminants
from soil and sediment into the groundwater. Alternative 3 would
reduce the mobility of soil contaminants by providing a barrier
to precipitation infiltration which is the primary cause of
contaminant leaching from soil/sediment into groundwater.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would reduce the toxicity and mobility of
the contaminants in the soil and sediment by the application of
in-situ vacuum extraction for VOCs removal, the excavation of
on-site contaminated material, and the treatment and subsequent
disposal of the waste materials either on-site or in a RCRA-
permitted facility.
-------
19
Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives 1 and 2 would require no major construction activi-
ties to be performed at the Circuitron Corporation site and,
therefore, would not present any risks to the community or
workers resulting from work at the site. Alternative 3 involves
standard on-site construction (asphalt paving), which would
present minimal risk to workers and the public. The excavation
and treatment alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5) would require
handling of contaminated sediments. Risks to the public and
on-site workers from volatile emissions during sediment excava-
tion would be minimal due to the low levels of VOCs in these
sediments. Furthermore, proper dust control techniques would be
implemented to further minimize this risk. Potential vapor leaks
from the in-situ vacuum extraction system would be reduced by
proper design and operation. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 also
involve the removal of contaminated building dust and its
treatment and disposal. Proper procedures and construction
techniques would be utilized both at the Circuitron Corporation
site and at the off-site treatment and disposal facilities
to minimize the short-term risks to the nearby public and workers
from fugitive dust and any treatment process emissions.
Implementability
Alternatives 1 and 2 involve minimal on-site activities. Fence
installation and groundwater monitoring in Alternative 2 would be
easily implemented. Alternative 3 includes more on-site activity
in order to repave the site and decontaminate the building but
this involves standard construction methods which are easily
implementable. Alternatives 4 and 5 involve on-site excavation
and removal activities which are readily implementable.
Alternative 5 also involves off-site transportation, treatment
and disposal at commercially available treatment storage and
disposal facilities. In Alternative 4, a TCLP analysis would be
conducted on the treated and stabilized material to insure
immobilization of the contaminants.
The TCLP analysis is easily implementable.
The technologies proposed for use in all alternatives are proven
and reliable in achieving the specified clean-up goals. The SVE
for Alternatives 4 and 5 is a very effective way for soil remedi-
ation and suited ideally for the sandy soil present at the
Circuitron Corporation site.
-------
20
Cost estimates were calculated for each of the five alternatives.
Present worth estimated costs for each of the alternatives, based
on an interest rate of 5%, and 30 year time interval, are as
follows:
Alternative
1
2
3
4
5
Capital
Cost
0
38,745
221,120
514,760
643,690
O&M
Cost
22,920
22,920
26,525
3,850
3,850
Present
Worth (5)
380,160
412,150
656,695
573,945
685,675
Community Acceptance
The community supports the preferred alternative (Alternative 5)
Community comments can be reviewed in the public meeting tran-
script which is included in the administrative record. A Respon-
siveness Summary which summarizes all comments received during
the public comment period is attached as Appendix E to this
document.
State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
detailed analysis of the alternatives, and public comments, EPA
and NYSDEC have determined that Alternative 5 is the appropriate
remedy for the remediation of contaminated soils and sediments at
the site. This alternative consists of in-situ vacuum extraction
(SVE) in the southwest corner area of the site, near SD-3 (Figure
2, Appendix A); excavation of the sediments from leaching pools
and storm drains inside and outside the building, followed by the
off-site treatment and disposal of soils, sediments and residues;
building decontamination; and, off-site disposal of non-hazardous
debris.
The decontamination of the building will allow for its unre-
stricted use in the future.
-------
21
In-situ vacuum extraction (see Figure 5} will reduce the soil
levels of 1,1,1-TCA and tetrachloroethene in the southwest corner
of the site, which were the most prevalent contaminants. The in-
situ vacuum extraction would be applied to an area of approxi-
mately 400 square feet. A technical evaluation of contaminant-
leaching indicates that reduction of soil contaminant levels of
1,1,1-TCA and tetrachloroethene to 1.0 ppm and 1.5 ppm, respec-
tively, would insure protection of groundwater from cross media
impacts. These are not risk-determined values but relate direct-
ly to the effect of the source contribution to the potential
groundwater contamination resulting from leaching VOC-
contaminated soils.
The sediments, containing organic and inorganic compounds, from
within the underground structures, inside and outside the build-
ing, will be removed.
Metals-contaminated dust from within the building will also be
removed to the extent necessary to comply with OSHA requirements.
It is estimated that the excavated sediments and the building
dust amount to approximately 53 cubic yards.
The excavated contaminated materials, e.g., soils, sediments,
etc., would be packed into appropriate containers and transported
by truck to an off-site treatment and disposal facility, in
accordance with applicable regulations for handling and transport
of hazardous materials. The off-site facility would be respon-
sible for all the necessary treatment of the contaminated materi-
als, to insure that all requirements, including RCRA land dispos-
al restrictions are satisfied. Similarly, spent-carbon or any
other treatment residual from the in-situ vacuum extraction unit
will also be disposed off-site, in accordance with applicable
RCRA regulations, including land disposal restrictions.
Spent carbon or any other treatment residual from the in-situ
vacuum extraction unit will be disposed off-site under with
applicable RCRA regulations, including land disposal restric-
tions.
All non-hazardous debris, e.g., broken concrete, asphalt, etc.,
resulting from the remedial action, will be removed from the site
and disposed in a sanitary landfill. The repaving of the site
and the replacement of the plating room concrete floor will also
be performed.
The treatment and off-site disposal of the VOC-contaminated soil
in the southwest corner of the site and the removal and off-site
treatment and disposal of all contaminated sediments will elimi-
nate the principal threat at the site by reducing a major source
-------
22
of groundwater degradation in the area. Groundwater contamina-
tion will be addressed in a subsequent ROD.
The selected alternative is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedi-
al action, and is cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or
volume as a principal element.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected alternative is considered fully protective of human
health and the environment. The treatment of on-site contami-
nated soil in the southwest corner of the site via soil in-situ
soil vacuum extraction and the removal of on-site contaminated
sediments will eliminate the source of groundwater contamination.
The contaminated building dust which is currently considered to
be above OSHA standards will also be removed to allow for future
use of the building. Any short-term risks associated with the
remedy would be mitigated by proper engineering controls and
health and safety procedures. This alternative involves treat-
ment which would significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility and
volume of hazardous contaminants.
Compliance with ARARs
At the completion of the response action, the selected remedy
will have complied with the following ARARs:
Action-specific ARARs:
The selected remedy calls for the transport of contaminated
sediments and treatment residuals to a RCRA facility for disposal
and will comply with the following ARARs:
RCRA 40 CFR Part 263 - Standard applicable to the
transport of hazardous wastes.
RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 - Standard for Owners and Opera-
tors of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Dispos-
al Facilities.
-------
23
RCRA 40 CFR Part 268 - Contaminated sediments and
building dust, spent carbon from the in-situ vacuum
extraction treatment system as well as any other
treatment residuals will be treated and disposed of
off-site, consistent with applicable land disposal
restrictions.
6 NYCRR Part 372 - Hazardous Waste Manifest System &
Related Standards for Generators, Transporters and
Facilities.
6 NYCRR Subpart 373-2 Final State Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and
Disposal Facilities.
During the implementation of the in-situ vacuum extrac-
tion, all resulting air emissions will be in compliance
with 6 NYCRR Parts 200, 201, 212 and 231.
29 CFR Part 1910.1000 - OSHA standards for building
dust.
Chemical-specific ARARs:
None applicable.
Location-specific ARARs:
None applicable.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective in that it provides overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost. The total capital and
present worth costs are estimated to be $643,690 and $685,675,
respectively. Although Alternative 5 is slightly more expensive
than Alternative 4, the difference is not significant, especially
in light of the fact that remedial design costs for Alternative 4
are expected to be higher than those for Alternative 5.
A detailed cost estimate of the selected remedy is shown on Table
10 in Appendix B.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected
-------
24
remedy represents the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria, especially
in regards to short and long term effectiveness, permanence and
implementability. The state and the community also support the
selected remedy.
The selected remedy employs permanent treatment of the VOC
contaminated soil in the southwest corner of the site via SVE and
excavation and off-site treatment of all contaminated sediments
from the underground structures. The potential for future
releases of contaminants to the environment will be eliminated.
The indirect and direct risks posed by the soils and sediments as
a continued source of groundwater contamination will be removed.
No short-term adverse impacts and treats to human health and the
environment are foreseen as the result of implementing the
selected remedy. However, to minimize and/or prevent worker
exposure to contaminants, personal protection equipment will be
used.
The selected remedy will require construction of on-site soil
treatment facilities. No technological problems should arise as
the treatment technology is well established, readily available
and has a proven track record.
Preference for Treatment as the Principal Element
The selected remedy fully satisfies this criterion for the
treatment of the soil and sediment contamination which are
considered the principal threats at the site. Therefore, the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element is satisfied.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Circuitron Corporation Site was re-
leased to the public on January 31, 1991. The Proposed Plan
identifies Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative.
EPA has reviewed all written and verbal comments submitted during
the public comment period. Upon review of these comments, EPA
determined that no significant changes to the selected remedy, as
originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
-------
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
-------
oo
CCQC
8°
D_
I f
V, •,
,*->:
3^^mmm
• ' " * V~ •""" J"*?^ .*'*<" '?-''*» •-
:e;di^£ \rW%£®pf
• i * "':;.-.<"-*=••*:
:V
is-.'i- r
1OS
• — ' ~i.
|i
^V^:^-7 T^--^ : -• '* :''?~2£l
-^•-7 c-— / <:^-^r^ ^
~.-4-~- •EiT>:?A(;z STATS PAP.:-: ' **^.**r •• * • •__. .>*
' "• I -~^.'-- '•'-> -r* *'^t *"
^ ' Jf ^^>'®
'•'s i . ' — ', . ,x-l ^-?>—•' • -N ^f * ^~* '-
•^-/ -^?~ ' J.\---iT; • d5»'--s=-nii=-i=:rr--'- - -~*
^ L-jSr /^C^.^^'^^j-^-^ / As^rvl^aui A-s-g.-.
ir^^jssa
;*" /•"<^v-^7A- " / i; u w * ^ > »•
'^^.•^ m»^1^:
SCUF.CE: U.S.C.S. CUADRANGJ.E WAP
KL'NTISGTCN. K.Y. AMI7yV!L.L=. N.Y.
FIGURE 1
CIROJITRON CORPORATION
SITE LOCATION MAP
-------
•«•
M I L«B A R
OULEVARD
MW-l
-M—
IiD-1
tttt
"^
MW-10
1°
MW-11
MW-12
AUOVE CHOI'1 fANKS
UT-fj
Ainvno yood
r
UCCHU
> KB MUNIWI MU (I.(.It. • II Ultll
• 1O 1IIMU MUM
• C* CAIOI IA1M
-)• i/ UAiixcroa.
•|- cr iHKutt ctitroa.
-------
.MILBAR OOULEVARO:
• ' l*».Mkll • >t I
* •»
* «
•,CAI r IN 11 r i
KIGUHL: 3
CIKCUI'TKON COUl'OKATION
.INC; LOCA'I'JONS
II 14
1VNIOIHO
Ainvno nood
-------
ABOVE GROUND TANKS-
Ainvno aood
LEGEND
111 UOMION Mil (•••.ID. » II OOSDNC)
• JO SIMM MMN
• C» CAICH »ASN
+ U tCACMNCTOOL
•f CP lAMiur cttsron.
® IUNHOU: covns
O ««Il«*IW IMAIUCHT
Ul UNOHHMOUHO IAMM
I 10 M nCAVAKD
10 ;to ?n 10 n
SCALE IN rrrr
m
UJ
il
I-'ICUUE 4
CIUCUITKON CORPOKATION
LOCATION OF SL-IDIMKNTS
12
la
14
18
17
-------
FJGUKIi Ji
C1UCU1TKON COUl'OKATJON
IN-UiTU VACUUM LXTKACTION
1VNIOIUO
Ainvno uood
I.XIKAiillDll MANII lll.U -
LXIKAi'. MuM AIH
(LUW ML ILK
I'XIKAl.llON AMI
IIYI'ASfi VALVC
VAI'OH IKLAIMLNI UNII -
—*/ SOIL LOtllAMINAIIUll
M III II II VI I III Al
I.XIKAl.llUll VI III I'll'l
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLES
-------
TADLC 1
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN OH-SI1E SIIAUOU ULLS
IN UG/L
SAHM.E I OCA MOM
UCIIIt 1NILHVAL (H)
CC-MJ2S
tt.O - 35.0
UOUMU I IIGU40 2
CC-MW.1S
2U.O - 30.0
HQUHO 1 KOUHO 2
CC-MJ-1S
24.0 - 34.0
ROUND 1 ROUND 2
WJlAllLC "pAliAHCYutS :
l,l-0lcliloro«ll.ou»
l,l-QUIilor»«ilt*ii»
1 , 1 , 1-f r 1 cl»l u ro« tluno
1,2-Olclil oi'uulliftiio
1rltJilora«llt«no
Iitr«cl1 .000
0.20011
2,470.00011
6.7JQ.OOO
„__ „
lij.oim
20.00UH
_—
6.000J
,«—
— «.
M-«.
_«»
,_-,
_—
„-
a.ourtJ
^^^^^
n
2.5«i»n
Ib.OUOU
3. 0011 1)
22.100.000
B .00000
--*.
36 .000
12.000.000
__
3.07X1.0000
474.00(1
^L.-t.
22.000(1
2,4'IO.QOOII
10.001)11
10,700.000
7.0000
—
0.600J
7ft. 000
___
—^
0.0003
I .OOOK
_^
._
^^_
10!>.OOOU
-
_—
14.6000
22.4QD.OOO
3.9000
3 .60(10
33 .800
14,900.000
__
2.SOO.OOOOJ
100.000
0.200ft
— —
2.440.000U
— ,
7,4WJ.l)Ol)
^
ni.;iioii
20.000U
I2.000J
I/.OOUJ
4,600.000U
___
I 4. 000 J
110.000
—
__
—
—
—
140 .0001)
—
34.000IIJ
1 .00011
17 ,400.01X1
I6.000J
«.--
29.000
760.000
__
2,160.0001)
w.ooo ,
— 1
22.00011
2,';eo.uuiM
10.00011
A.UIO.UUU
.— —
10.00011
«~
•
- —
__
24.000
).40U
07.000
I.OOOH
__
95.200U
—
49.3000
24.100.000
10.200
__-
2S.300
922 .000
3.4003
2.940.000DJ
16.100
0.200R
I7.7(K)0
6,030.000
—
11,700.000
—— »
|>U.fiOII
20.UIIUK
UtICCTCl) AT COHCIJNIHAriON INOlCAltO
3 CSIIHtTCO VAI.Ut
U (UHUMtmO fOtiNO IN IllAIJK
— UNOUflCTCIl Al G1VCN IHSTHUMtMl UlllCllON L1H1T (If
x.K Hr.jr.cir.ii VAI.UI:
ivNioiao
Ainvno aood
421 OK
-------
TAUI.E 2
il
I
CONIAMINAMI COMCKHIRATIOHS IH OH-SI1E DItiP UKUS
MEASUREMENTS IN UGA.
SAMPLE I
OtHII 1HILHVAL (Kl)
CC-HU2II
VO.O - 100.0
HOUND I HOUNU 2
CC-W3II
90.U - 100.0
IIUUNO I ROUNO
90.0 - 100.0
KOUNO I IUWNU 1
} I.DIchton.ttlMo*
l,1-0tchl*ro»tl»»no
1,1 ,1-Trl cMoriHitKen*
Trlcltlorootliena
T«tr*cl>lorooth**lt
Copper
Iron
L«»d
tUusitiliui
H*ntf»n«ca
rUrcury
foUitlun
S*1 tilil uai
SodluM
V»Ok4j|lMI
lino
Cyinlilo
IIUH»».lo«t ClTMtuil
S.OOO
2.000
33.000
10.000
2&.000
4. ODD
_- Tn_
2.0000
200.00011
2.7000
Ho.oonu
11,000.000
J- , -r
10.7000
2/Ki.OOOJ
A.flod
2,0fto!oo
2,oio'.ouoo
305.0(10
U.7UOK
4.32U.OOOOJ
^, . ._.
I6.60U.OOO
— -
20.00011
__
20.001IK
&.0003
1 .OOIIR
3U.004IJ
3.0COJ
7.000J
. i i
1 .OUOIt
1 .IIUOH
1 .OOOIt
1 .OOOK
42S .000
— — .
II6.00KU
2I.100.IXH)
I4.DOOJ
„
9.3000
flis.noo
5.2110
4.400.0000
I.C40.000
__
2.020.UOOO
^_ „
24,200.0(10
__
61. Mil)
I7.WI)
*--—-•-•
11.000
0.9003
61.000
2.800
9.100
I.OOOR
—
_—
— -
—
146.0000
__
I18.000O
20.600.000
11.300
0.2000
!>.(UOO
32&.OUO
14.40UJ
4.140.UUODJ
1,510.04)0
0.7UOH
3,440. OOOU
H^H.
24.70U.UOO
__
V6.IOO
—
2U.OOOII
0.900J
1.000
8.000
12.000
11.000
—
(.000
s.ooo
—
—
—
__
.1
08.4000
12.700.000
— -
9.3000
317.000
S.OOOtt
3,000.0000
32. GOO
_ —
3,250. OUOU
w
lO.t.UO.OUO
—
110.000
—
f'^^1
4.200
2.01MI
IV.OOO
2^.000
2U.OOO
I.OOOR
___
• •
IM.OOOIU
1 .400U
92 .4000
13,400.000
5. WOO
—
1.0000
318.000
10.600
3,040.0000
32.900
O.JOOH
G.U10.000J
n«-«
IO.DOO. nun
2. 5111)11
20.0UOK
• —
2U.UOQK
UCrtCTdl AT CONCliMTIlAllON IN01CA1UI
J tsrimii'.o VAI.UI;
a roricoiiiio roi'io IN IILAIIK
— HNHCIinCU AT tlVtM INSTMUMLMT UCFCCT10N LJIHT (II' llt/'UUTtll)
X.ll HI.limit VAIXIC
•4219K
ivNioiao
A invno uood
-------
lAULE J
CONIAMI HANI CCHCEHIRATIONS IN OFF-SI ti SIIALIOU UELLS
MI:ASI/IIIMI:NIS IN UG/I.
SAMPLE I.OCAIIOM
DtCIII INItllVAl (m
VOUrluri'AlLuciCK^
Ut cbUrodt M uoro»oUiiiii«
1,1-01 cli)orautlk«n«
l,l-OlcMon.«Ufl«o
l,l,I-rrlcblurm)lh«i«
1,2-alcMoroalhMi*
Trlchloroitltnn*
l«tr«cM i>ra*lli«n«
' .2,3— TrlcJi lor gyro |>*no
Action*
Tr«n»-l , 2-01 Oil oruolliuno
Chloraforn
2-Uutin9,700.000
IV.600J
—
—
10,300.000
I.200U
S.O'JO.UOO
4/0.000
—
3.3JO.OOOU
-ir_-.i
T- •
9.G70.000
___
M.600
—
1 "
.0
HUUNO 2
20,1)1X1
0.1 IX)
6.600
I.10I.OOOJ
r _ _.
i .oaou
_.tj
—
—
34.2001)
5.101)0
117. oaou
C9,900.00fl
__
1
14,900.000
— .
4,9bo.oooa
300.000
0.200K
_
4,710. OOOUJ
_
W^M.
9,7ao.oaa
).90
-------
I/MILL '.
SAMPLt IOCAI.....
DCPW IHTtHVAL (Ft)
CC-MWIO
w.o - 100.n
KOUMU I HOUND 2
CON!ANI MANt CONCENIHAtlONS IM Off-SllE DEEP UULLS
MtASUIICMrNIS IN UC/L
i
CC-MW1>0
9U.O - 100.0
KOUNU 1 KUUMU I
CC-MUW)
9U.O - IUO.O
KUUMU 1
KOUNU i
IC-MK/O
M).0 - 100.0
MOUND 1 ROUND 2
VOLAULt I'AttAHlltKS:
1,1-llicliloriHMIitiio
1 , l-Dithloroclluiio
1. l.l-TriclilorootliMiv
lYIcMoroethoiic
(•IrAcliWoeUicno
Acalono
Irtnf-l ,2-Oi till oixxitlicno
Chloroforii
UASE/NCU1RAL I'AIIAMLILUS:
0(-o-bulyl|)liUi«l*to
INOflGANlC I'AHAMCItNS:
Alumiaiui
Arionlc
lUrtuB
C*lciun
Chroiium
Cob»lt
Copp«r
Iron
l*»d
Ht0». (100
_
-
3.17.000
2!>6-.OOOJ
S .OdOft
2.GUO.OOOU
03.100
-
-
2.SOO.OOOU
I.300U
rj.6oo.oix)
-
SC...1WI
H..DUU
•"
1.UIO
1.000
6.60(1
9.300
13.000
1 .OOOH
_
-
-
520.000J
_
67 .M10U
10.100.000
3.IOIMI
-
2U/.000
2 IS. 000
13.00U
2.56U.OOOU
82.600
0 .200R
-
4.440.0000J
-
19,200.00(1
3.10011
20.0UOII
-
20.0UWI
2.000
1.000
12.000
10.000
31.000
-
9. 000
- '
-
I45.000U
_
91.600U
13,900.000
IO.OOOR
_
29.600
loo.ooon
26.600
3,620.0000
125.000
24.0000
3.93o.ooaoj
1.3(100
24.UOO.UOO
_
7O.OOUII
lo.uou
S.UJO
1.600
IV. 000
2r.ooo
38.000
I.OOOH
_
-
-
367. 000
1 .0000
96.7000
12.100.000
6.20011
6.100(1
_
311.000
3.730.0UOOJ
I2S.OOO
0.200R
18.7000
2.970.00CU
—
20.500.000
I/.200UJ
^
20.000N
7.0UOJ
I.OOOJ
37.000J
I7.0OOJ
3 I.OOOJ
-
S.OOOJ
2.000J
2.0MIJ
_
_
I2S.OOOU
16,000.000
22.700J
.
_
264.000
3.500
S.570.000
34.900
17.1000
2.670.0000
1.3000
I4.200.00U
2/.UA/J
-
S.500
ft. 900 J
19.000
11.000
la.ooo
I.OtiOK
_
-
-
I88.000BJ
-
120.0000
15. 600. 000
4.21WB
.
3.90(10
239.000
14.600
5.240.000
30.100
0.200R
_
3.6M.OOOUJ.
14.400. 000
7.4IIOII
20.0€OR
20.00011
orrrcrm AI OIMCCNIIKAIION INOICAIIO
J csi jtwiro VMM
o COHCOUNU IUUHO IN IILANK
UMUIIuitH Ar 6IVLN 1NSIIIUHLNI UCICC11UN L1HIT (If RCCCIVLU)
X. R HtJlCILl) VALUE
1VNIDIHO
Ainvno dood
42)
-------
IAULU I)
CON I AH I HAM I CONCENTRATION IN • US
INSTALLED BY THE CJKCUITROH CORPORATION
MLASUI(CMr.NIS IN 11C/I.
SAMPLE loan a*
DEPlll IMflMVAL (IT)
VOLATILE PAIlArlCTCRS;
01 chlarmlt f 1 uorootUuno
1,1-Olchlorotthon*
1,1-Olchloroellnne
1 , 1 ,l-Tr1chl«roaUun«
1 ,2-Olch1oro«lh*n«
TrlcblarooUMii*
Tctrichlorootlieivo
1,2,1-TrUMoropropino
AC«tMM
DASE/MEUIRAL PARAMETERS:
OI-o-lMitylphUul*U
INORGANIC PARAMETERS:
Alunlnua
AntlMny
Arsenic
R A full t IMI
ovi y i • • UMI
Chroalun
Coi>p«r
Iron
Lo»d
M*t;iiiit
575.0 - D05.0
..
—
_
_
_
0.600J
_
-
I .OOOR
95.0000
—
_
&.OOOR
25.6000
2,730.0000
M
00. 400 J
291 .000
12 .OOOJ
030.00011
„
_
M
^^
13.400
2.U60.00UU
42.000
CC-PW02
216.3 - 226.3
1 .OOOR
1.000
-
7.000
-
21.0110
4.000
-
1 .OOOR
-
130.000W
16.7000
-
33.5000
5, 300.000
H
101.000
57.600(13
2.1001k)
2.290.0000
70.200
_
_
I.320.00UII
1.20UUJ
6.7AO.OOO
22.IMOJ
UCICCUtl Al UmCLNIILAIlON 1UIICAII10
J isrnwico VAUIC
0 COriKHtMt fJllHU IM ULAUK
LNitirCICO Al G1VLN INSlNUMtHI UtlLCllOM L1H1T (U KLCL'WtU)
X. R HlJlCHU VALOL
1VN10IUO
Ainvno yood
42IVK
-------
TABLE 6
SURFACE/SUBSURFACE CONTAMINANT ItVELS
f »gt •) of 4
SAMPLE lOCAriON
OCPIII INriWAL (ft)
VOLATILE PARAHC1CKS: (1)
ic-nwio
' 0-97
Ffcnucncv Banco
CC-MW20
0-97
CC-MW30
0-9/
Ranoc
CC-ftMO
0-97
Frooyanfy Hanno
CC-SD01
0-42
frfojoncv lUogo
Action*
Ck'»r«Ut«iono
I, l-Dlchlorotlhona
I, t-Dlclilorootlunn
l,l,l~Trkhloro«lli»n»
Irtcklorottliano
l,l.2-'irlchloro«lh*ni>
1«'.riclilorooUi«no
I// 420.0UOJ
'in :i.OOU3
2/7 2.000J
1/7 2.000J
l/« 33.000J
3/41 Nl>-£.UOOO
6/4 NU-34.UOOJ
)/« -I2.000U
1/4 -S.UOUJ
PARAMCTiERS; (1)
rk«nol
D«nc«tc Acid
AlunlniM
Arttnlc
(Urlum
B«ry11iun
Cobtl t
Coppir
Iron
2/7 ND-42.000
6/8 NO-4'JO.OOOJ
1/8 340.000R
1/8 1600.DOOR
i/a icoo.oooft
4/8 (UMCQ.OOOJ
DutylboniylpMliiUto
Utniyl Altaic I
rcsncioES/KUi:
-------
TAOLE 6 (Cont'd)
SURFACE/SUBSURFACE CONTAMINANT LEVELS
«^^ oi
SAMPLE LOCATION
OCK1II INTERVAL (ft)
Leid
Hagneilum
Itangwtet*
Hercury
Nickel
Poteitlum
Selenium
Silver
SoOltm
V«nadlun
Z\«c
Cyinld«
llci«v*1ent Chromiun
CC-rWID CC-W2D CC-M/3D CC-HW4D
0-97 0-97 0-97 0-97
fr? _
_ _
_ _
6/7 ND-6.000B
7/7 20.000R
_ _
— —
8/8
7/8
8/8
2/8
3/8
7/8
_
_
H
6/D
0/0
M
—
0.4400J-5.000R
267.000B-SOOO.OOR
5.9000-^5.100
0.100-0.190
1.4000*2.5008
79.300-159.0008
_
^
.
1.4000-2.3000
20.000R
—
-
8/8
7/8
6/8
4/8
8/8
—
1/8
1/8
7/8
a/a
_
-
0.68083-38.300
1110.000-7070.000
15.OOOtMil.700
1.700D-3.9000
64.600D-5000.000R
M
9.500
201.0000
1.5000-6.2000
20.00011
—
-
6/8
7/8
8/6
_
2/8
6/6
6/8
2/6
8/0
5/8
8/0
I/O
CC-S001
0-42
HfOpev Rinae
7.000-56.300
13.2000-6970.000
6.200J-65.400J
_
3.5000
31.0008-133.0008
0.4300J-0.6900J
2.700-3.000
16.0000-48.0000
1.2000-7.4000
1.4000J-8.500J
2.200
""
CC-SB02
0-32
Freaucncv Rtnae
7/7
7/7
7/7
1/7
1/7
7/7
-
1/7
1/7
4/7
4/7
_
—
0.660BJ-41.400
139. 0000-3710. OOC
I1.400-170.000J
0.160
11.500
228.COOflO-5000.CO<.
—
7.100J
5000. OOOR
5. 0000-17. 000
4.300D-20.000R
-
—
EXPLAHAT10N OF COOES:
J
U
NO
X,
lit
D*t«cUd »t Conctntr«tlon Iod1c«t
-------
TAOLE 6 (Cont'd)
SURFACE/SUUSUHFACE CONIAMINANI LEVELS
3
SAMPLE LOCATION
OEP1H INTERVAL (It)
VOLATILE PARAfltlLRS:
Cltloroforn
Toluanft
1.1 ,l-Trichloro«tturi«
1 elr»ci> lor
Ucry'lluD
C*u. ooo
NO-29UU.OOOJ
43. 000 J
^
-
_
_
_
—
_
-
24.000
29.000
20.000
7.900J
24.000
25.000J
97.000
170.000
207.000-2510.000
0.3IOBJ-3.300J
1.900B-200.UOUK
_
-
CC-SBU5 CCSB-06 CC-SS01
0-42 0-42 0-0.5
Frequency Rioae Frcaucocv Range F^CWM Binae Elfii
3/9 NU-2.000J
2/9 NO-2.000J
-
1/9 7.000
-
3/9 NO- 1300 .000
— .
-.
-
_ _.
1/9 I60.000J
1/9 23D.OOOJ
« —
_ .
^ _
-
-
^ ^
~
_ _
-
-
_ —
_ _
-
9/9 1 76. 000-96 1.000
S/*> 0.400U-0.6200
9/9 7.700V-200.00UR
_
1/9 0.7000
_
5/8
1/B
2/B
—
1/B
-
-
-
_
-
-
_
_
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
7/7
7/7
7/7
_
-
_
NO-13.000
5.000J
HO- 10. 000
—
I20.000J
_
-
-
H
-
-
*
_
_
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
380.000J-1250
0. 7800-3. 000
0. 4808-8. 500K
_
-
I/I
-
I/I
1/1
~
1/1
-
-
-
—
I/I
'
-
.
_
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
—
-
I/I
.OOOJ I/I
I.I
I/I
_
-
2. OOOJ
-
3. OOOJ
4. OOOJ
™
8000.000
-
-
—
—
83. OOOJ
-
—
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
260.000
1620.000
1. 90011
7.8000
_
-
CC-SS02
0-0.5
twenc» RU)
-------
TABLE (i (Conl'd)
SURFACE/SUOSURfACE COHTAMINAHT LEVELS
P*g« 4 of 4.
SAMPLE lOCAriOM CC-SII03 CC-SIHM CC-SU05 CC-S006 CC-SSOI CC-SS02
DEPTH 1MTERVAL (fl) 0-02 0-42 0-42 0-4/. 0-0.5 0-0.5
Fr«iin>n.-« Banno fr.miiMirv HXKII Freouccicv Rinae Froaumic» Hjnuc frtauency &U1UC FrcuutnCV — Raiiue —
Ctlctu*
Cliro-lum
ColMlt
Copptr
Iron
LeaJ
HdijnetluB
Hdiiganese
Mercury
Nickel
I'oUsituM
Selcniua
Silver
Sodiua
tfinidluw
Zinc
0/U
0/U
2/0
0/0
0/0
a/o
«/0
8/8
^
3/8
0/8
^
1/0
3/0
0/3
5000. OOOH 10/10
1.3000-^2.000 10/10
I.40UU-3.5000 2/10
1 4. 700 J- 1950. 000 10/10
IOO.OOOR-16600.00 10/10
4.SOOJ-270.000J 10/10
59. 9000-5000. OOOR 10/10
I0.300J-120.000 10/10
1/10
1.6000-44.000 6/10
44. 0000-472. OOOB 10/10
w *
3.600
1/10
4.3000-26.100 6/10
2U.OOOK 10/10
5000. OOOR-4 1600. 000 J
I.600D-I 0.100
2.300U-3.900D
13.500-71200.000
913.00-5410.000
1.100J-I4SO.OOO
SO.IOUU-a70.OOOQ
S.600J-47.200J
1.5000
1. 0008-60. 200
64.100B-SOUO.OOOR
.
_
11300.0000
1.4000-6.5008
20. UOOK-10 1.000
9/9
9/9
1/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
9/9
3/9
9/9
8/9
_
_
_
7/9
9/9
500.000R
1 .0008-4.900
0.050D
20.- 100-173. OOOJ
1190.000-2960.000
I.IOOJ-10.200J
54.0000-270.0000
4.700-40.700
O.IOO-«.600J
2.0000-4.0000
40.200B-209.0000
_
_
_
1.400-2.6000
2.1UOU-v20.000R
in
4/7
1/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
7/7
_
1/7
6/7
3/7
_
7/7
6/7
7/7
25.9000-^75.0000
Z.OOOJ-3.5UUJ
1.2001)
2.400B-37.600J
916.000-6670.000
0.730R-4.600
60.1000-077.0000
8.100J-06.900J
_
2.2000
32. 7008-192. OOOB
O.S500J-0.6600J
-
13. 4008-24. 200B
1.1000-5.8000
I.90QR-1I.400J
1/1
1/1
—
I/I
I/I
I/I
I/I
I/I
I/I
_
1/1
-
-
I/I
I/I
I/I
16. 000. OOOJ
4.300J
-
67.700
6260.000
20.000
7730.000
96.SOOJ
0.150
-
570.0000
—
-
246.0000
5.3000
41.500
I/I
I/I
-
I/I
1/1
1/1
I/I
I/I
I/I
I/I
I/I
-
I/I
I/I
1/1
1/1
52600.000.
3I.400J
—
5060.000
10200.001
44.100
30700.000
94. 100 J
0.260
119. OOOJ
336.000U
-
S.SOOJ
245. OOOB
e.eooB
in. ooo
EXPLANATION Of COOLS:
J
U
HO
X, I
(I)
(2)
0«t*cteil Jt Concontratlun (nOicdtod
EitlnatcJ Vilop
Coif ound found i n bI auk
Und«tecl^J «t yivon InstfuuioDt Uctuctlon Limit (if ropurtdi))
Mot U«toe tod
(•Uctiun
V«luos In u\ «9/kq
frequency - It \\\\.\/H Sjirplos An^lyzoJ
1VNI9IHO
Ainvno yood
-------
1AOLE 7
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN Til SEDIMENTS
"IVNIDiyO
Ainvno dood
SAMPLE
CC-CP 1-SEOI CC-CP2-SEOI
CC-LP1-SEOI CC-LPl'-SEDI
CC-SW-SE01
CC-S02-SE01
CC-SOJ-SEOI
vo&TTcn*wiEiiiis~rn)
1,1-0tchlorottlun)
Utniolo Acid
N«plillift10na
4-Clt 1 aro-3-n* I by |>|ioniol
2-MtUtylf»»plilh»|»n9
UlM«Uiyl Pi.thiUU
Acviuphthyl en*
Ac«n»phlli«no
Otbtnxofurtn
Fluorco*
Ptntichl ore»)h»n«l
Ph«n*nltireA«
Artthnctn*
iM-n-ButvlplvtbtUU
F1uor40tbr«in
l'yr«nt
Uulyl Dvniyl rtitli*l,il«
0»nio( *)Ai)tlirAcon«
OU(2-Ctby1h««yl)PliitluU
Cliyritn*
01-n-Octyl Pl.tlultto
Otnio(b)F1uortr>Ui«n'JO.WIO
1.100.1)003
2. 000. UOO J
350.0003
la 2,700.0003
460. 000 J
970.0003
710.0003
400.0003
420.0003
ZI
—
S.OOOR
S.OOUR
5. (1001
S.OOOK
b.OOOR
330.000R
330.000K
330.000R
3JO.OOOR
1.600.000R
330. DOOR
330.000R
330.000R
330.000R
330.000R
330.000H
330.000R
3)0. DOOR
I.600.000R
330.000R
330.0UOK
330.000R
330.000R
330. ODOR
330.000R
330.000H
330.000H
330.000R
330.000K
330.000R
330.000R
330. DOOR
330.000H
330.000R
330.000K
^L1^a
™
TT-n-,
_
. ,„
__
— .
250.0003
20.0003
__
30.0003
_
39.0003
22.0003
___
730.000
79.0003
1,200.000
1,200.000
660.000
4)0.0003
5. UOO. 000
310.0003
790.0003
810.0003
35.0003
400.0003
— —
—
•_.,
9.000
^.ITM
l
__
__
20.0003
290.0003
MJ^j
19.0MIJ
__
160.0003
__
20.0003
14. 000 J
—
540,000
50.0003
910.000
1,200.000
940.0003
2 00. 000 J
5,700.00030
210.0003
1.300.0003
3WK0003
360.0003
270.0003
—
S.OOOK
•J.OOOR
S.OOOK
6.000R
5.0001
m_, ^
!.. , ^
—
.
4/0.0003
120.0003
120.0003
100.0003
150.0003
620.0003
391. 000 J
__
__
7,600.000
1.300.000
630.0008
4,400.01)0
27,000.0003
5,200.0003
6, 100. 0003
39,000.00030
D.500.0U03
5.400. 0000
9,100.0003
6.600.0U03
6,100.0003
S.VOO.OOOJ
0,400.0003
6.0003
_
24.000
-
no.oooj
— _
__
3,100.000
4S.0003
22.0003
31.0003
__
59.0003
210.0003
140.0003
300.0003
4,500.000
630.000
4,400.000
11, 000. 000 J
3, 000. 000 J
1,500. 000 J
17,000.00003
2, 300. 000 J
1,100.0003
3. 400. 000 J
2,200.0003
1.600.UOOJ
1,300. 000 J
3.0003
19.0UO.OUO
U.OOO
8.000
_
___
— __
—
76.0003
.. . I,
__
_ —
—
__
160.0013
I29.00PJ
160.0003
110.0003
3,500.000
300.000
> 80. 0003
4,000.000
3,100.000
220.0003
I.4UO.OOO
9.900.000
2,200.000
55.0003
1,400.000
1,600.000
1,300.000
WO. 0003
280 (IQflJ
A UV • UUUti
660. 000 J
PtStlCIOl/PCO PAHAMIiUKS: (I)
Eodgn»H»n 1 — 0.00QH
INORGANIC PARAMETER:;: (2)
AltMtnum 2,WO.000 3,130.000
2, 40.000
960.000
10,400.000
11.000
2UO.OOOR
1,320.000
-------
TftULE 7 (Coiit'd)
CONIAMI NAMI CONCENIRAIIONS IN THE SEDIMENTS
IVNIOIdO
Ainvno yood
SAHPLE ID
CC-CPl-$e01
CC-CP2-SE01
CC-LPI-SeOt CC-LPI-SEOl
CC-SD1-SEOI
CC-SD2-SE01
CC-S03-SE01
INORGANIC PARAMETERS: (2) (Cunl'd)
Artvnlg
llT\W
Udntwi
CtUiuft |,
Clvrwilwi
Copftr
Iron 11,
U*d
Mignos tun
tUngantto
Htrcury
Nickel
5.900
20.2000
•• •
«80.000
3I.200J
1.9001
80.6006
_.
6.180.000
2B.70IJ
048.000 12,900.000
400.000
210.000
931.0000
15.800
1.400
12.500J
Potaulu* 5.000.000R
SlKcr
Sodlun
V»ntdlwn
Zinc
t *ol\dt
CXPUNAriON OF COUtS:
orrecTEu AT CONCENIRATION
J ESTIMATED VALUE
• COMPOUND FOUND IN ULANK
160.000
n/.ooou
1 1 .GOOD
20.000R
69.200
1N01CAICU
— UNDETECTED AT GIVEN INSTRUMENT DETECTION
X.K REJECTED VALUE
(It HEASUItlMCN(S IN l/C/Kf.
(2) HtASUKCMLNIS IN MG/K(i
4,190.000
7,300.000
997.0000
32.100
6.600
49.200J
5,000.00011
25.200
2S4.000U
3.700
26.4000
, __,_
13.100.000
31.700J
2J.900.000J
12,000.000
S.OOOR
7.250.000
54.000
3.500
72. 400 J
6 .000. DOOR
3.5000
1*8. won
16.7001)
20.000R 20.000R
24.700
LIMIT (IF
54.500
REPORTED)
6.300
40.3001)
2.800J
16,500.000
64.100J
5,300.000]
16,200.000
2,660.000
8,340.000
75.400
5.300
109.000J
5,000. OOOK
3.1001)
2UI .00011
11.1000
20.000R
63.300
2.0000
69.0000
3.000J
20.900.000
58.300J
4.230.000
9.900.000
1,130.000
11.900.000
75.700
2.700
55. 000 J
5.000. OOOR
___
302.0000
71.400
20. OOOR
48.100
4.000
22.0000
__
6,860.000
22.200J
650.000
0.170.000
•-••-
3.660.000
50.600
0.330
17. 200 J
5. 000. OOOR
8.600J
12S.OOOU
25. WO
20. OOOR
69.300
1.5001
7.2001
—
5.300. OOOJ
8.600
802.000
7.030.000
21.200
3.090.000
40.400J
9.000
3.100J
218.0008
5.3000
66.800
V0.900
4ZW
-------
INGcSTTQN PATHWAY
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
MW
SAMPLE;
Round I:
Shallow wells
Ccrp wells
Round II:
Shallow wells
Deep wells
«L
Ave
Max
Ave
Max
Ave
Max
Ave
Max
RESIDENTIAL
UPGRAOIENT
ADULT-RES
^___
1.26 E-5
4.55 E-5
2.01 E-5
6.69 E-5
1.26 E-5
4.21 E-5 •
AND SITE WQRKFS
ON-SITE
AOULT-3ES
7. 87 £-5
2.62 E-4
2.06 £-5
6.86 E-5
7.06 E-5
2.25 E-4
3.13 E-5
1.04 £-4 '
ON-SITE
ADULT-UORKES
2.70 E-S
8.98 E-5
1.41 E-5
4.70 E-5
4.84 E-5
1.61 E-4
2.14 E-5
7.13 E-5
DOWNGRAOIENT
ADULT-3£ S
£.42 E-6
1.81 E-5
2.45 E-5
8.17 E-5
5.98 E-6
1.99 E-S
2.15 E-5 '••
7.18 E-5 •
INHALATION OF CONTAMINANTS WHILE SHOWERING
MW
SAMPLES
Round 1 :
Shallow wells
Deep wells
h, , ,
•Round 2:
Shallow Wells
Deep Wells
CASE
Ave
Max
Ave
Max
Ave
Max
Ave
Max
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
UPGRADILNT
ADULT
4.66 E-5
1.55 E-4
7.13 E-5
2.38 E-4
3.41 E-5
1.14 E-4
ON-SITE
ADULT
4.46 E-4
7.25 E-5
2.42 E-4
2.05 E-4
6.84 E-4
1.00 E-4
3.34 E-4
DOWNGSADIENT
ADULT
7.42 E-6
2.4S £-3
9.13 E-3
3. .05 £-1
1.09 E-5
3.52 £-5
5.48 E-5 r
1.63 E-4
Water
L*I£
Ave
Max
Ave
Max
DERMAL CONTACT PATHWAY
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES/SITE WQRKE3S
CARCINOGENIC EFFECT-
5.24E-09
1.85E-07
oo
ff fT"
8°
Q_
-------
HH
1VNI3IHO
Ainvno yood
ULfiBAJUIUI
Table 9
MUtKAIlCJUUiiElllL-ELLELLS.
_«!bS!IE
JJUUtGBAUEIlL
SAIIL'LES
Round 1 :
Shallow wells
Deep Wells
Ruund II:
Shallow wells
Deep wel Is
ElllULBES.
0.963
0.190
0.750
4.50
MW
S.AUU.E5.
Round 1 :
Shallow wel Is
Deep wel Is
Round 2:
Shallow Wells
Deep Wells
bAlfilX
Round 1 :
Sediments
Water
AUllLLiBES CJ|It,lJdlES
0.402 20.2
0.099 2.00
0.375 25.2
2.25 5.00
liiUALAIlfl" PF CO"! AH
IIUH-CAIICIHU
UCfiBAOJEML..._
CIULU M\lll
7.65 E-4 3.02 E-4
5.33 E-2 2.67 E-2
4.03 E-l 2.01 E-l
0.00 E-3 4.40 E-3
MLifllAI,
AJlULLdiES AUULtHOJJKEB CUUlhKES AUULOEi.
14.1 4.03 , 1.23 0.614
1.40 0.950 11.5 ' 5.74
0.950 0.651 0.269 0.135
2.94 2.01 6.30 3.19
!!l!AH[S.M|!LE.511QHEIUMi
IGEH1C EFFECTS
UlbSLlE _..I!OMIGRAU1EN[..._
CUILU AUUU UULU A11ULL
6.66 E-l 3.33 E-l 6.99 E-2 3.49 E-2
2.50 E-l 1.25 E-l 3.42 E-l 1.71 E-l
1.30 E-l 6.91 E-2 4.69 E-2 2.34 E-2
2.26 E-2 1.13 E-2 0.11 E-3 4.06 E-3
_£!!!!!ACFJ_'A1UWAY
DFMPM i Ai Arri\yiriF*w/QiTF unuKrn **
h V- 1 IE Ml ' '^ *' v 1 \ lAJ.lt»Jt_il.Lli DvnUVUJ.
CASE IJUlkCAKUHUGimiLILriCI
Ave
Hax
Ave
Hax
I.20E-03
6.7
-------
1VNI9IHO
Ainvno dood
fACILlTY/CONSlRUCTION
i. sui'pouT fAcaints
I. OfMct Trallar (»nd utilities)
2. Oacou Trallar (ami utllltloi)
3. Equipment Mobilization
II. BUILDING DECONTAMINATION
I. Vacuum Interior
2. Demolish and Renove Concrete
3. Concrete Ols|ios*l
III. IN-S1IU VACUUM CX INACTION
I. Co r form In-tltii
vacuum extraction In
moo uf Mt-J/HW-lallmj roum flour
•2. Area of SO-1. SO-2 and SD-3
•3. Aroa of CP-I. CP-Z
"4. Anui of LP-I, -2. and -7
v.
roii orr-sirc
INC I Ml II A I I UN IU SAUl.l.l, 11.
T\l Inulf I ,<)IM> M\ IIM
l.lMll " t.l. luitl.
S:i .:y •« I.!', lun/t-y - /'I.V, loir.
luii't |
-------
TAUU: 10 (COMT'D)
VII. BACKFILL
1. Backfill/Compaction
v'H. REPLACE CONCRETE FLOOR IN
I'LAIING ROOM
I. Raplaca Concrata floor
IX. SITE CONTAINMENT
I. Rapava ontiro si to
.X. DRUM DISPOSAL
254 cy
00 cy
Kay.
if - square foot
cy = cubic yards
iy => squara yardi
Nota (I) 53 cy x 1.5 ton/cv , 79.5 tons
Includos 5 cy of building dust.
"1VNI9IUO
Ainvno aood
15.00
125
3.010
10,000
10.00
100
Le.jul dud Ad.iliililrjlive V VX of IDC
Total Construction Cost
2.510
15^00
G43.6'JQ
6.350
25,?00
740 sy
300 Drums
Inch
Incl.
lolal Olrocl C«ul
CuntiiKjrncy 0 XIIX
rii.|li>r IOX
20.00
.100
(TOC)
ol 1HC
of me
34.000
90.000
ire, nm
9S.3f.O
17.f,llO
.14,000
90.000
-------
APPENDIX C
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
04/C4/91 Index Document Number Order Page: 1
CIR:UITRON CORPORATION Documents
Document Number: CIR-001-0001 To 0005 Date: 06/01/87
Title: Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Site Inspection Report - Executive Summary (Cireuitron Corporation)
Type: REPORT
Author: Grupp, David: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-OOC6 To 0072 Date: 06/18/87
Title: Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Preliminary Assessment - Cireuitron Corporation
Type: PLAN
Author: Rice, Randy: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: CIR-001-0073 To 0074 Date: 09/08/S8
Title: Action Memorandum: Authorization to Initiate Remedial Planning Activities at the Circuitrcn
Corporation, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, NY
Type: CCSRESPCKCEMCE
Author: Luftig, Stephen D.: US EPA
Recipient: Muszynski, William J.: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-0075 To 0076 Date: 02/24/89
Title: (Letter submitting Final Field Operations Plan for the Circuitron Corporation site Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: HISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Fayon, Abram Miko: US EPA
Attached: CIR-001-0077
-------
04/04/91 Index Document Number Order Pase: 2
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION Documents
Document Number: CIR-001-0077 To 0274 Parent: CIR-001-0075 Date: 02/01/89
Title: Final Field Operations Plan (FOP) for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Circuitron
Corporation Site
Type: PLAN
Author: Zarandona, Richard: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-0275 To 0276 Date: 02/17/89
Title: (Letter submitting Final Work Plan for the Circuitron Corporation site Remedial Investigation
and Feasibility Study)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Fayon, Abram Miko: US EPA
Attached: CIR-001-0277
Document Nurrier: CIR-001-0277 To 0388 Parent: CIR-001-0275 Date: 02/01/89
Title: Final Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Work Plan Circuitron Corporation Site. Suffolk
County, New York
Type: PLAN
Author: Zarandona, Richard: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-0389 To 0390 Date: 08/09/90
Title: (Letter submitting Final Remedial Investigation Report for the Circuitron Corporation site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: McGahren, John: US EPA
Attached: CIR-001-0391 CIR-001-0794
-------
04/04/91 Index Document Number Order Page: 3
CIRC'JITRON CORPORATION Documents
========= = = ===== === ========= === =========================================================================================
Document Number: CIR-001-C391 To 0793 Parent: CIR-001-0389 Date: 08/01/90
Title: Final Remedial Investigation Report, Circuitron Corporation Site, Suffolk County, New York,
Volume I of I!
Type: REPORT
Author: Zarandsna, Richard: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-0794 To 1418 Parent: CIR-001-0389 Date: 08/01/90
Title: Final Remedial Investigation Report, Circuitron Corporation Site, Suffolk County, New York,
Volume 11 of II
Type: REPORT
Author: Zarandcna, Richard: Efcasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-H19 To U21 Date: 04/27/90
Title: (Letter containing New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's comments on the
Draft Remedial Investigation Report for the Circuit Corporation site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Bologna, James J.: NY Oept of Environmental Conservation
Recipient: Fayon, AbramHiko: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-H22 To H23 Date: 07/01/89
Title: Superfund Update, Circuitron Corporation Site, Village of East Farmingdale, Suffolk County,
New York
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
04/04/91 Index Document Number Order Page: 4
CIRCUITRCN CORPORATION Documents
Document Number: CIR-001-1424 To 1424 Date: 06/09/89
Title: (Memo containing information on Circuitron Corporation site RI/FS • Field Operations Plan
and giving consent to begin sampling activities)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Scalise, Laura: US EPA
Recipient: Fayon, Abram Miko: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-1425 To 1425 Date: 10/25/88
Title: (Letter submitting a site visit trip report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Zararxiona, Richard: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Fayon, Abram Miko: US EPA
Attached: CiR-001-1426
Document Number: CIR-001-1426 To 1427 Parent: CIR-001-1425 Date: 10/14/88
Title: ARCS II Contract Circuitron Corporation site visit 10/14/88 • Trip Report
Type: REPORT
Author: none: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Nurber: CIR-OG1-142S To 1428 Date: 10/14/88
Title: Site Inspection Report, Circuitron Corporation
Type: REPORT
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Doc-jnent Number: CIR-001-1429 To 1429 Date: 03/01/88
Title: Procedure for Acidification of Aqueous Volatile Organic Samples
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
04/04/91
Index Document Number Order
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION Documents
Page: 5
========== = = = = = = = = = = = =
Document Number: CIR-001-1430 To U30
Title: Blank Water QA/CC: Field Quality Control Samples
Type: PLAN
Condition: MARGINALIA
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Date: 03/01/88
Document Number: CIR-001-U31 To 1431
Title: Procedure for Filtration of Aqueous Metals Samples
Type: PLAN
Condition: MARGINALIA
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Date: 03/01/88
Document Number: CIR-001-1432 To 1439
Date: 09/01/87
Title: 08SWCC Aquifer Test for Evaluating Hydraulic Control of Leachate Impacted Ground Uater. Old
Bethpage, Long Island, New York
Type: REPORT
Condition: MARGINALIA
Author: Barber, Andrew J.: Geraghty & Miller
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: CIR-001-1440 To 1441 Date: 01/16/91
Title: (Letter submitting a Final Feasibility Study Report for the Circuitron Corporation site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Verdibello, Mario S.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Fayon, Abram Miko: US EPA
Attached: CIR-001-1442
-------
04/04/91
Index Document Number Order
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION Documents
Page: 6
Document Number: CIR-001-1442 To 1609 Parent: C1R-001-H40 Date: 01/01/91
Title: Final Feasibility Study Report Circuitron Corporation Site, Suffolk County, New York
Type: REPORT
Author: Zarandona, Richard: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-1610 To 1619 Date: 01/01/91
Title: Superfund Proposed Plan • Circuitron Corporation Site, Town of East Farmingdale, Suffolk County,
New York
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: CIR-001-1620 To 1622 Date: 06/29/90
Title: (Memo containing the New York State Department of Environmental Conservaticn's comments on
the Draft Feasibility Study Report for the Circuitron Corporation site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Bologna, James J.: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Recipient: Fayon, Abram Miko: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-1623 To 1625
Date: 08/15/88
Title: (Letter notifying New York State Clearinghouse of Circuitron Corporation as a proposed Superfund
project, which is subject to the State Intergovernmental Review process)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Luftig, Stephen D.: US EPA
Recipient: Cowan, James: NY State Clearinghouse
-------
04/04/91 Index Document Number Order Pass: 7
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION Documents
========= ==============================================================================-==---------=======---s--=s-_====
Document Number: CIR-001-1626 To 1629 Date: 08/15/88
Title: 107(a) Notice Letter
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Condition: MARGINALIA
Author: Luftig, Stephen D.: US EPA
Recipient: various: various PRPs
Document Number: CIR-001-1630 To 1637 Date: OS/10/87
Title: Responses to EPA Request for Information
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: D'Amato, Julius J.: Circuitron Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Nunber: CIS-001-1638 To 1641 Date: 07/24/87
Title: (1C-7(a) Notice Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Luftig, Stephen D.: US EPA
Recipient: various: various PRPs
Document Number: CIR-001-1642 To 1654 Date: 01/28/91
Title: Preliminary Health Assessment, Circuitron Corporation, Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: CIR-001-1655 To 1656 Date: 06/22/89
Title: (Letter submitting the Final Community Relations Plan for the Circuitron Corporation site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Alvi, M. Shaheer: US EPA
Attached: CIR-001-1657
-------
04/04/91 Index Document Number Order Page: 8
C1RCUITRON CORPORATION Documents
Document Number: CIR-001-1657 To 1681 Parent: CIR-001-1655 Date: 06/01/89
Title: Final Community Relations Plan, Circuitron Corporation Site, Village of East Farmingdale,
Town of Babylon, New York
Type: PLAN
Author: Lotstein, Enid L.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-16S2 To 1762 Date: 02/19/91
Title: The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Superfund Proposed Plan, Town of East Farmingdale,
Suffolk County, New York - Public Meeting - Circuitron Corporation Superfund Site
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Adams, Catherine: Elite Reporting Service
Recipient: various: US EPA
Document Number: CIR-001-1763 To 1765 Date: 02/04/91
Title: News - EPA Announces Proposed Plan to Clean Up Contamination at Superfund Site in East Farmingdale,
New York
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Rychlenski, Ann: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: CIR-001-1804 To 1804 Date: 10/28/88
Title: (Letter forwarding ARCS Community Relations - on site interviews)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Lotstein, Enid L.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian: US EPA
-------
04/04/91 Index Document Nurber Order Page: 9
CIRCUITRCN CC3PCRATICN Documents
Document Number: c:R-001-1809 To 1917 Date: 02/02/90
Title: On-Scene Coordinator's Report: Removal Action - Circuitron, East Farmingdale, Mew York, Suffolk
County
Type: REPORT
Author: Magriples, Nick: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: CIR-001-1918 To 1990 Date: 03/29/91
Title: (Record of Decision for the Circuitron Corporation site)
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Sidamon-Eristoff, C.: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
APPENDIX D
KYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, AJbany, New York 12233 -~^~:
Thomas C. Jorling
Commissioner
Ms. Kathleen C. Ca'lahan • •- : - -. •-;•
Director • ''"' ~ ~ ""'
Emergency & Rerr.eciai Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 1G27S
Dear Ms. Callahar:
Re: Circuitrcn Ccrp.. Site ID No. 152082 - Draft Record of Hecision
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(.'iYSDEC) has reviewed the craft Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Circuitrcn Corp. site. The NYSDEI concurs with the document pending
resolution of the fcllcwinc concerns. These comments have already been
conveyed to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) via a
telephone conversation between Dr. Abram Miko Fayon, of your staff, and
Mr. James Bologna, of my staff, on March 1, 1991.
1. Pace 10: It is stated that in-situ vacuum extraction will be
applied to an area of approximately 400 square feet. As discussed
in Mr. Chen's letter of January 10, 1991 dealing with the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan, it is unclear how the area and volume of
soil requiring treatment was determined. If the intention is to
establish the limits of remediation through additional sampling
during the ir.-situ treatment process, this should be clearly
stated in the ROD.
2. Page 11: Please elaborate upon the method of building
decontamination.
3. Page 12, second full paragraph: The discussion related to
asphalt, concrete and leach pool structure decontamination,
removal and disposal is confusing. Please clarify how it will be
determined if this material will require decontamination, and if
necessary, hew it is to be performed. Also, will the underground
structures (i.e., leach pools) be excavated and removed or left
in place?
4. The acceptable soil clean-up level for 1,1,1-trichloroethane at
the Circuitrcn site, as proposed by NYSDEC, is 1.0 ppm.
-------
Ms. Kathleen Callahan Page 2
5. Table 1-5: The concentrations of inorganic parameters should r=
ug/1.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. James Bolocna at
(515) 457-3976.
Sincerely,
Edward 0. Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
cc: D. Garbarini, USEPA, Region II
A. Fayon, USEPA, Region II
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
APPENDIX £
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
AND EPA RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comments raised during the public comment period for the
Circuitron Corporation site are summarized below and are
organized into the following categories:
A. Nature and Extent of Contamination
B. Technical Concerns
C. Project Time Frame
D. Other Concerns
A. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
1. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding
potential contamination of drinking water resulting
from site-related contaminants.
EPA RESPONSE: Throughout our investigations, EPA has
not detected any contamination in the deeper aquifer
which is where the drinking water is taken from. In
addition, the water is monitored on a quarterly basis
by local health authorities to ensure that the water
quality meets all established federal and state stan-
dards for drinking water. Since our investigation
revealed the presence of drums on the property, EPA
conducted a removal action to eliminate any immediate
threat to the community. By removing the source of
contaminants, we are trying to prevent contamination
from the site from progressing any further than has
already occurred. EPA will conduct an additional
investigation to develop a better understanding of what
contaminants may be present in the groundwater. Upon
completion of that investigation, EPA will then develop
a preferred remedy for cleanup of the groundwater if
the investigations indicate that one is needed.
2. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that contamina-
tion from the site along with contaminants that may
exist from other similar industrial uses in the area
could eventually reach drinking water wells.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA shares this concern, however, based
on our investigations coupled with the data on deep
groundwater flow in the area, it is very doubtful that
contaminants from the Circuitron site will reach the
deeper portions of the Magothy aquifer. Since all
municipal wells are screened to a depth of at least 300
feet, it is unlikely that contaminants will reach that
depth.
-------
3. COMMENT: A resident asked about the concentration of
trichloroethane detected on the site and the acceptable
amount allowable.
EPA RESPONSE: On-site samples were taken immediately
adjacent to a storm drain where solvents are known to
have been dumped that indicated a level of 4,600 parts
per billion (ppb) of trichloroethane. The maximum
state-established standard for this compound is 5 ppb.
EPA is concentrating on the on-site soils to eliminate
the sources of contamination to prevent these compounds
from migrating off the site any further than may have
already occurred.
4. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding the
potential level of mercury in the groundwater.
EPA RESPONSE: Results of the remedial investigation
indicate that mercury was not detected at levels
exceeding standards established by the State of New
York.
5. COMMENT: A resident asked how to get their drinking
water tested.
EPA RESPONSE: The testing of drinking water is typi-
cally done by local water suppliers and county health
officials.
SCDHS RESPONSE: The County Department of Health
regularly tests all public water supply wells, at least
on a quarterly basis. The results of the testing are a
matter of public record and can be obtained by contact-
ing the department. If a resident is connected to the
municipal water supply, the supplier of that water is
responsible for testing. If the resident has a private
water supply well, the SCDHS would sample the water for
a fee of $50. However, if the sampling of the well is
done in connection with a cleanup action such as the
one here at Circuitron, the fee would most likely be
waived.
B. TECHNICAL CONCERNS
1. COMMENT: . A resident asked when the groundwater was
last tested in the site vicinity.
-------
EPA RESPONSES EPA finished RI field work in late 1989
and tested the groundwater at that time.
2. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that emissions
from the proposed vacuum extraction system may add to
contaminants being released into the atmosphere.
EPA RESPONSE: The vacuum extraction system that EPA is
proposing to implement at the site primarily addresses
volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in the
soils. This system will contain a system of filters
through which contaminants will be drawn and filtered
out of the air prior to release to the atmosphere. All
emissions will comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate state and federal regulatory requirements.
These requirements will ensure that human health and
the environment will be protected.
3. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding the
potential threat to workers on the site.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA is concerned about the health and
safety of those working on the site as well as that of
the surrounding community. Therefore, precautionary
measures will be taken (e.g., use of protective cloth-
ing, site security, use of suppressants to minimize the
generation of dust, etc.) to minimize any potential
impacts. These measures will ensure that the short
term impacts to human health and the environment are
not significant.
C. PROJECT TIME FRAME
1. COMMENT: Several residents expressed concern that
cleanup of the site appears to encompass an extreme
amount of time.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA understands this concern, however,
the remediation of any site can be extremely lengthy.
In general, the average time for site remediation
approximately eight years. Significant cleanup action
has already taken place at the site. There was a
removal action at the site in 1989 to remove contami-
nants that may have posed an immediate threat. In
general, EPA is trying to speed up remedial actions by
implementing interim actions and splitting some clean-
ups into separate units but these efforts do, in fact,
take time to implement.
-------
2. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that as addi-
tional investigations are initiated, new developments
could potentially delay remedial activities that may
have already been implemented.
EPA RESPONSE: As mentioned earlier, the investigation
is being split into separate units at the site. This
methodology allows EPA to begin cleanup of, in this
case, sources of contamination while at the same time
conducting additional investigations to determine the
extent to which contaminants may have migrated off the
site in the groundwater. The area-wide ground water
investigation will enable EPA to implement a more
effective remedy for treating the area ground water, if
necessary. However, the schedule for completing the
remediation of the sources of contamination at the site
should not be impacted by the ground water investiga-
tion.
D. OTHER CONCERNS
1. COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA had completed the
design of the vacuum extraction system proposed for the
site.
EPA RESPONSE: Design specifications will be developed
during the next stage of the investigation. This
cannot be started until we have final acceptance of our
preferred remedy. Your input is a major factor in
selecting the ultimate remedy and that is why EPA is
here tonight.
2. COMMENT: Several residents inquired as to who is
financially responsible for cleanup of the site.
EPA RESPONSE: At this point the cleanup is being
funded through the Superfund Program. The Circuitron
Corporation has filed for bankruptcy and our investiga-
tions indicate that they had little or no assets. If,
in the future a PRP assumes financial responsibility
for site-cleanup, all work would be supervised by EPA
to ensure that the remediation is conducted as called
for in the Record of Decision and design documents.
3. COMMENT: A resident requested that a copy of EPA's
Proposed Plan be made available for area residents.
-------
EPA RESPONSE: All site-related documents, including
EPA's Proposed Plan are available in the information
repositories established for the site.
4. COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA is attempting to make
on-site structures safe for future use and if it would
not be easier to just remove the building.
EPA RESPONSE: Since we are conducting a remedial
action that encompasses the entire site area, cleaning
up the on-site structures is an integral part of the
process. The Superfund Program encourages the selec-
tion of remedial actions which assure the protection of
human health and the environment.
5. COMMENT: A resident and a local official asked if EPA
coordinated its activities with local government
agencies, emergency service providers, and water
suppliers.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA establishes a mailing list for each
remedial action undertaken and, as part of that mailing
list, most local government agencies are included. In
addition, EPA publishes press releases in local newspa-
pers at various points in the cleanup. EPA is also in
contact with local emergency service providers, local
health departments, NYSDEC, civic groups, and town
boards concerning EPA activities in their community.
6. COMMENT: A resident asked how the locations of the
information repositories are chosen.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA chooses locations that are as close
to the site as possible and provide relatively easy
access to residents who ask for documents. Typically,
EPA tries to use local or state municipal facilities
and public libraries as repositories, however, they
accept the documents as a courtesy to EPA. They are
not required to accept the information and some facili-
ties choose not to.
7. COMMENT: A local official asked if the site building
remained under private ownership.
EPA RESPONSE: The building, as well as the real
estate, remains privately owned. EPA has filed a
notice of lien on the property to recover its past and
future costs.
-------
8. COMMENT: A resident asked if ADI Electronics is still
the owner of the site.
EPA RESPONSE: ADI Electronics was never an owner of
the site, only an operator at the site. ADI has been
in and out of bankruptcy but still remains an active
company but operating in another location. 82 Milbar
Blvd., Inc. is the current owner of the Site, which has
been abandoned since 1986.
9. COMMENT: A resident inquired as to the amount of money
EPA has spent at the site in conducting the RI/FS.
EPA RESPONSE: To date, EPA has spent approximately
$750,000 to conduct the RI/FS.
10. COMMENT: A resident asked what agency is responsible
for monitoring sites such as Circuitron in an effort to
prevent contamination.
SCDHS RESPONSE: The County Department of Health
Services routinely inspects firms such as Circuitron to
ensure compliance with local sanitary codes. However,
in this case, the dumping of contaminants was done
covertly and was not discovered until it was reported
to the department.
EPA RESPONSE: Additionally, depending upon the quanti-
ty of waste generated, beginning in 1978, the federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides
for the tracking of wastes from similar facilities from
the point of generation to the point of disposal. The
RCRA provisions are overseen by EPA and state environ-
mental agencies.
11. COMMENT: A resident asked who was responsible for
selecting a final remedy for the site cleanup.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA's Regional Administrator has the
ultimate responsibility of selecting EPA's remedy for
cleaning up the site. The preferred remedial alterna-
tive is described in greater detail in EPA's Proposed
Plan, which is in the administrative record. The
Regional Administrator relies on his staff, and input
from the community to provide him with information
regarding the best remedy for cleaning up the site.
-------
12. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that EPA could
potentially modify its selection of a remedy for the
site.
•
EPA RESPONSE: Once a final remedy is selected, any
significant change in that remedy would have to be
presented to the public once again and EPA would have
to provide definitive documentation to justify that
change.
13. COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA had conducted a
phased cleanup action similar to Circuitron.
EPA RESPONSE: By splitting the cleanup into separate
phases, EPA can take action quicker than if the cleanup
is to encompass the site as a whole. This procedure is
being implemented successfully at a number of sites.
14. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that the pre-
ferred remedy could be downgraded or delayed based on a
cost analysis.
EPA RESPONSE: Funding is not currently anticipated to
be a problem. Cost analysis is included throughout
evaluation of remedial alternatives. A significant
change to the site remedy would require public notifi-
cation and input. If a PRP does not assume financial
responsibility for the work, delay in funding the
remedy could potentially result. EPA must also consid-
er the potential risks posed by this site in compari-
son to other Superfund sites. If, for example, a site
in the same or other state poses a much greater risk to
public health and the environment than Circuitron, that
site would likely receive a higher priority for funding
than Circuitron. This prioritization might be a more
significant concern at a site which requires a costly
cleanup. The amount of funds required at Circuitron is
relatively small and would likely be easier to obtain.
-------
SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
AND EPA RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Comments raised during the public comment period for the
Circuitron Corporation site are summarized below and are
organized into the following categories:
A. Nature and Extent of Contamination
B. Technical Concerns
C. Project Time Frame
D. Other Concerns
A. NATURE AND EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION
1. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding poten-
tial contamination of drinking water resulting from
site-related contaminants.
EPA RESPONSE: Throughout our investigations, EPA has
not detected any contamination in the deeper aquifer
which is where the drinking water is taken from. In
addition, the water is monitored on a quarterly basis
by local health authorities to ensure that the water
quality meets all established federal and state stan-
dards for drinking water. Since our investigation
revealed the presence of drums on the property, EPA
conducted a removal action to eliminate any immediate
threat to the community. By removing the source of
contaminants, we are trying to prevent contamination
from the site from progressing any further than has
already occurred. EPA will conduct an additional
investigation to develop a better understanding of what
contaminants may be present in the groundwater. Upon
completion of that investigation, EPA will then develop
a preferred remedy for cleanup of the groundwater if
the investigations indicate that one is needed.
2. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that contamina-
tion from the site along with contaminants that may
exist from other similar industrial uses in the area
could eventually reach drinking water wells.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA shares this concern, however, based
on our investigations coupled with the data on deep
groundwater flow in the area, it is very doubtful that
contaminants from the Circuitron site will reach the
deep aquifer. All municipal wells are screened to a
depths of at least 300 feet and for the contaminants
reach that depth is unlikely.
-------
3. COMMENT: A resident asked about the concentration of
trichloroethane detected on the site and the acceptable
amount allowable.
EPA RESPONSE: On-site samples were taken immediately
adjacent to a storm drain where solvents are known to
have been dumped that indicated a level of 4,600 parts
per billion (ppb) of trichloroethane. The maximum
state-established standard for this compound is 5 ppb.
EPA is concentrating on the on-site soils to eliminate
the sources of contamination to prevent these compounds
from migrating off the site any further than may have
already occurred.
4. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding the
potential level of mercury in the groundwater.
EPA RESPONSE: Results of the remedial investigation
indicate that mercury was not detected at levels ex-
ceeding standards established by the State of New York.
5. COMMENT: A resident asked how to get their drinking
water tested.
EPA RESPONSE: The testing of drinking water is typi-
cally done by local water suppliers and county health
officials.
SCDHS RESPONSE: The County Department of Health regu-
larly tests all public water supply wells, at least on
a quarterly basis. The results of the testing are a
matter of public record and can be obtained by contact-
ing the department. If a resident is connected to the
municipal water supply, the supplier of that water is
responsible for testing. If the resident has a private
water supply well, the SCDHS would sample the water for
a fee of $50. However, if the sampling of the well is
done in connection with a cleanup action such as the
one here at Circuitron, the fee would most likely be
waived.
B. TECHNICAL CONCERNS
1. COMMENT: A resident asked when the groundwater was
last tested in the site vicinity.
-------
EPA RESPONSE: EPA finished RI field work in late 1989
and tested the groundwater at that time.
2. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that emissions
from the proposed vacuum extraction system may add to
contaminants being released into the atmosphere.
EPA RESPONSE: The vacuum extraction system that EPA is
proposing to implement at the site primarily addresses
volatile organic compound (VOC) contamination in the
soils. This system will contain a system of filters
through which contaminants will be drawn and filtered
out of the air prior to release to the atmosphere. All
emissions will comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate state and federal regulatory requirements.
These requirements will ensure that human health and
the environment will be protected.
3. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding the
potential threat to workers on the site.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA is concerned about the health and
safety of those working on the site as well as that of
the surrounding community. Therefore, precautionary
measures will be taken (e.g., use of protective cloth-
ing, site security, use of suppressants to minimize the
generation of dust, etc.) to minimize any potential
impacts. These measures will ensure that the short
term impacts to human health and the environment are
not significant.
C. PROJECT TIME FRAME
1. COMMENT: Several residents expressed concern that
cleanup of the site appears to encompass an extreme
amount of time.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA understands this concern, however,
the remediation of any site can be extremely lengthy.
In general, the average time for site remediation
approximately eight years. Significant cleanup action
has already taken place at the site. There was a
removal action at the site in 1989 to remove contami-
nants that may have posed an immediate threat. In
general, EPA is trying to speed up remedial actions by
implementing interim actions and splitting some clean-
ups into separate units but these efforts do, in fact,
take time to implement.
-------
2. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that as addi-
tional investigations are initiated, new developments
could potentially delay remedial activities that may
have already been implemented.
EPA RESPONSE: As mentioned earlier, the investigation
is being split into separate units at the site. This
methodology allows EPA to begin cleanup of, in this
case, sources of contamination while at the same time
conducting additional investigations to determine the
extent to which contaminants may have migrated off the
site in the groundwater. The area-wide ground water
investigation will enable EPA to implement a more
effective remedy for treating the area ground water, if
necessary. However, the schedule for completing the
remediation of the sources of contamination at the site
should not be impacted by the ground water investiga-
tion.
D. OTHER CONCERNS
1. COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA had completed the
design of the vacuum extraction system proposed for the
site.
EPA RESPONSE: Design specifications will be developed
during the next stage of the investigation. This
cannot be started until we have final acceptance of our
preferred remedy. Your input is a major factor in
selecting the ultimate remedy and that is why EPA is
here tonight.
2. COMMENT: Several residents inquired as to who is
financially responsible for cleanup of the site.
EPA RESPONSE: At this point the cleanup is being
funded through the Superfund Program. The Circuitron
Corporation has filed for bankruptcy and our investiga-
tions indicate that they had little or no assets. If,
in the future a PRP assumes financial responsibility
for site-cleanup, all work would be supervised by EPA
to ensure that the remediation is conducted as called
for in the Record of Decision and design documents.
3. COMMENT: A resident requested that a copy of EPA's
Proposed Plan be made available for area residents.
-------
EPA RESPONSE: All site-related documents, including
EPA's Proposed Plan are available in the information
repositories established for the site.
4. COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA is attempting to make
on-site structures safe for future use and if it would
not be easier to just remove the building.
EPA RESPONSE: Since we are conducting a remedial
action that encompasses the entire site area, cleaning
up the on-site structures is an integral part of the
process. The Superfund Program encourages the selec-
tion of remedial treatments which will restore the site
to its most beneficial use.
5. COMMENT: A resident and a local official asked if EPA
coordinated its activities with local government agen-
cies, emergency service providers, and water suppliers.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA establishes a mailing list for each
remedial action undertaken and, as part of that mailing
list, most local government agencies are included. In
addition, EPA publishes press releases in local newspa-
pers at various points in the cleanup. EPA is also in
contact with local emergency service providers, local
health departments, NYSDEC, civic groups, and town
boards concerning EPA activities in their community.
6. COMMENT: A resident asked how the locations of the
information repositories are chosen.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA chooses locations that are as close
to the site as possible and provide relatively easy
access to residents who ask for documents. Typically,
EPA tries to use local or state municipal facilities
and public libraries as repositories, however, they
accept the documents as a courtesy to EPA. They are
not required to accept the information and some facili-
• ties choose not to.
7. COMMENT: A local official asked if the site building
remained under private ownership.
EPA RESPONSE: The building, as well as the real es-
tate, remains privately owned. EPA has filed a notice
of lien on the property to recover its past and future
costs.
8. COMMENT: A resident asked if ADI Electronics is still
-------
the owner of the site.
EPA RESPONSE: ADI Electronics was never an owner of
the site, only an operator at the site. ADI has .been
in and out of bankruptcy but still remains an active
company but operating in another location. 82 Milbar
Blvd., Inc. is the current owner of the Site, which has
been abandoned since 1986.
9. COMMENT: A resident inquired as to the amount of money
EPA has spent at the site in conducting the RI/FS.
EPA RESPONSE: To date, EPA has spent approximately
$750,000 to conduct the RI/FS.
10. COMMENT: A resident asked what agency is responsible
for monitoring sites such as Circuitron in an effort to
prevent contamination.
SCDHS RESPONSE: The County Department of Health Ser-
vices routinely inspects firms such as Circuitron to
ensure compliance with local sanitary codes. However,
in this case, the dumping of contaminants was done
covertly and was not discovered until it was reported
to the department.
EPA RESPONSE: Additionally, depending upon the quanti-
ty of waste generated, beginning in 1978, the federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) provides
for the tracking of wastes from similar facilities from
the point of generation to the point of disposal. The
RCRA provisions are overseen by EPA and state environ-
mental agencies.
11. COMMENT: A resident asked who was responsible for
selecting a final remedy for the site cleanup.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA's Regional Administrator has the
ultimate responsibility of selecting EPA's remedy for
cleaning up the site. The preferred remedial alterna-
tive is described in greater detail in EPA's Proposed
Plan, which is in the administrative record. The
Regional Administrator relies on his staff, and input
from the community to provide him with information
regarding the best remedy for cleaning up the site.
12. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that EPA could
-------
potentially modify its selection of a remedy for the
site.
EPA RESPONSE: Once a final remedy is selected, any
significant change in that remedy would have to be
presented to the public once again and EPA would have
to provide definitive documentation to justify that
change.
13. COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA had conducted a
phased cleanup action similar to Circuitron.
EPA RESPONSE: By splitting the cleanup into separate
phases, EPA can take action quicker than if the cleanup
is to encompass the site as a whole. This procedure is
being implemented successfully at a number of sites.
14. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern that the pre-
ferred remedy could be downgraded or delayed based on a
cost analysis.
EPA RESPONSE: Funding is not currently anticipated to
be a problem. Cost analysis is included throughout
evaluation of remedial alternatives. A significant
change to the site remedy would require public notifi-
cation and input. If a PRP does not assume financial
responsibility for the work, delay in funding the
remedy could potentially result. EPA must also consid-
er the potential risks posed by this site in comparison
to other Superfund sites. If, for example, a site in
the same or other state poses a much greater risk to
public health and the environment than Circuitron, that
site would likely receive a higher priority for funding
than Circuitron. This prioritization might be a more
significant concern at a site which requires a costly
cleanup. The amount of funds required at Circuitron is
relatively small and would likely be easier to obtain.
------- |