United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
PB93-963802
EPA/ROD/R02-92/172
June 1992
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Action Anodizing & Plating,
NY
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement, but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document. All supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-92/172
3. Recipient1 Accession No.
4. This and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Action Anodizing and Plating, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
06/30/92
7. Author(s)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
8. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Addreaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB93-963802
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 1-acre Action Anodizing Plating and Polishing (AAPP) site is an active metal
finishing shop located in Babylon, Suffolk County, New York. Land use in the area is
primarily residential and commercial. An estimated 1 million residents use public
wells within 3 miles of the site for their drinking water supply. From 1938 to 1968, a
commercial laundry facility operated onsite; subsequently, AAPP has operated at the
site as a small metal-finishing plant. Site features include the AAPP operating
facility, an adjacent storage area, and a residence. Onsite operations involve
sulfuric acid anodizing of aluminum parts for the electronics industry, cadmium
plating, chromate conversion coatings, metal dyeing, and vapor degreasing. Liquid
wastes from these operations include rinses of spent caustic and acidic solutions
contaminated with cadmium, chromium, zinc, and sodium cyanide. Prior to 1980, these
spent solutions and rinses flowed from a concrete waste-holding trough to a septic tank
and several leaching pits for tank overflow. In 1980, the county identified elevated
levels of several metalsnotably, cadmium, chromium, and nickelin the onsite
leaching pits. That same year at the direction of the county, AAPP removed the
contaminated substances from the leaching pits, backfilled and closed the pits. This
ROD addresses
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Action Anodizing and Plating, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: None
Key Contaminants: None
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Reid/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
42
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NT1S-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/172
Action Anodizing and Plating, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
OU1, which includes the whole site. Samples of ground water, soil, and sediment taken
from onsite and offsite areas during the RI showed that contaminant levels were
generally well below state and federal standards and risk levels. Therefore, there are
no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment posed by the AAPP site.
The selected remedial action for this site includes no further action because no
significant levels of contaminants exist at the site. The 1980 remediation of the
leaching pits removed the most significant contamination known to exist at the site.
Sampling results indicate the majority of contaminants do not exceed MCLs in the ground
water, or background levels in the soil and air. A 1-year ground water monitoring
program will be established to ensure that the remedy is protective of human health and
the environment.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Not applicable.
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING AND POLISHING SITE
TOWN OF BABYLON
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date)
NPL Rank (date):
ROD
Date Signed:
Capital Cost:
O and M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Remedial, EPA
Primary contact:
Secondary Contact;
WASTE
Type and media:
Origin:
Action Anodizing Plating and Polishing
Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, N.Y.
II
36.61
Group 11 (proposed June, 1988; listed March,
1989)
June 30, 1992
Selected Remedy- No remedial action,
including a 1 year groundwater monitoring
program.
$0
$0
$0
Julia Allen- (212) 264-8476
Douglas Garbarini- (212) 264-0109
Not applicable
Not applicable
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
Site Name and Location
Action Anodizing Plating and Polishing, Town of Babylon, Suffolk
County, New York
Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Action Anodizing Plating and Polishing ("AAPP") site ("the
Site"), located in the Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York,
which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, as amended, and to the
extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 CFR Part 300. This
decision document explains the factual and legal basis for
selecting the remedy for the Site. The information supporting
this remedial action decision is contained in the administrative
record for the Site. The administrative record index is attached
(Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
("NYSDEC") concurs with the selected remedy (Appendix IV).
Description of the Selected Remedy; No Further Action
The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") in
consultation with the State of New York has determined that the
AAPP site does not pose a significant threat to human health or
the environment and, therefore, remediation is not appropriate.
This determination is based on previous cleanup activities
conducted at the Site in 1980 and the remedial investigation
activities conducted by EPA from March 1989 through March 1992.
Thus, "No Action" is the selected remedy for the Site. A one-
year monitoring program will be established to ensure that the
remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
-------
Declaration
In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, as amended, and
the NCP, it has been determined that no remedial action is
necessary to protect human health and the environment at the
Action Anodizing Plating and Polishing site. Previous cleanup
activities conducted in response to Suffolk County Department of
Health Services enforcement actions have remediated the
significant contamination present at the Site. However, a
program to monitor the groundwater beneath the Site will be
implemented. Because this remedy will not result in hazardous
substances remaining on-site above health-based levels, the five-
year review will not apply to this action.
EPA has determined that no further remedial action is necessary
at this site. Therefore, the site now qualifies for inclusion in
the "sites awaiting deletion" subcategory of the Construction
Completion category of the National Priorities List.
Constantine Sionsristof f /
Regional -^----^../^ / /
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" REMEDY 11
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 12
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ii
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING AND POLISHING SITE
TOWN OF BABYLON
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Action Anodizing Plating and Polishing (AAPP) site is located
at 33 Dixon Avenue in the Hamlet of Copiague in the Town of
Babylon, Suffolk County, New York. It is approximately one acre
in size and is one mile east of the Nassau-Suffolk County line
and one-half mile south of Sunrise Highway (see Figure 1).
The population of the Town of Babylon is estimated to be 203,483
(Bureau of the Census, 1980). The area that surrounds the AAPP
site is comprised predominantly of light industrial and single
family residential units. The Town of Babylon zoning map (May
1986) designates the area as GA-Industry (GA-Industry is defined
as light manufacturing, warehouse, storage, offices and retail
facilities) and Residential (with typical lot sizes of 7,500
square feet). Public supply wells are the primary source of
drinking water in the area and approximately one million
residents of Suffolk and Nassau Counties obtain drinking water
from public wells within three miles of the Site.
The AAPP facility occupies approximately one-half of the subject
property on the corner of Galvani Street and Dixon Avenue (see
Figure 2). The operating facility is approximately 3000 square
feet in area with an additional 2000 square feet of office space.
Attached to the operating facility is an approximate 7500 square
foot equipment storage area addition which was built in 1984.
The Site is accessed by two unpaved driveways. One driveway
enters the southern end of the property from Dixon Avenue and the
other driveway enters the eastern side from Galvani Street. On
the northern side of the facility, a dirt area, approximately 20
feet wide, separates the building from a heavily vegetated area
which extends to the property's northern border. Vegetation in
this area consists primarily of ragweed and young black locust
trees. A two-story house occupies a lot along the eastern side
of the property with frontage on Galvani Street. There does not
appear to be any significant wildlife habitat on the property.
The Site is at an approximate elevation of 30 feet above mean sea
level. The ground surface of the Site slopes down about one-half
foot from the north to the south. The shallowest groundwater in
the region, the Upper Glacial Aquifer, occurs approximately 10
feet below ground level at the Site. The thickness of the
saturated upper Pleistocene deposits under the Site is estimated
to be approximately 75 feet. The Upper Pleistocene deposits and
Mattawan/Magothy Aquifers form a thick sequence of sand with
varying amounts of silt and clay. The stratification of these
silt and clay layers impedes vertical groundwater movement. The
groundwater flows approximately one foot/day and is generally
towards the south, to the Great South Bay, but local variations
in the direction of movement occur. Amityville Creek and Woods
Creek, the nearest downgradient surface water bodies to the Site,
are located approximately one-half mile south of the Site (see
-------
Figure 1). Residential development abuts both creeks which
eventually feed into the Great South Bay. Wildlife observed in
these areas include Canada goose, snowy egret, mockingbird, song
sparrow and purple finch. Other birds and small mammals common
to the area are also likely to utilize these habitats.
SITE HISTORY AMD ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
For approximately thirty years prior to 1968, a commercial
laundry facility operated on the Site's premises. Since 1968,
AAPP has operated at the Site as a small metal-finishing shop.
AAPP's operations primarily involve sulfuric acid anodizing of
aluminum parts for the electronics industry, cadmium plating,
chromate conversion coatings, metal dyeing and vapor degreasing.
Liquid wastes from these operations include rinses of spent
caustic and acidic solutions contaminated with cadmium, chromium,
zinc and sodium cyanide. Prior to 1980, rinse water was
reportedly stored in a concrete waste holding trough in the floor
of the facility from which it was pumped into a low pressure
steam boiler. The steam was condensed and reused as process
make-up water. The solids from the rinse water were allowed to
build up in the boiler tubes until the tubes became plugged, at
which time, the boiler would be replaced with a new unit.
The concrete trough had previously been used by the commercial
laundry as part of its drainage system. The trough was connected
to a septic tank on the north side of the building. Tank
overflow fed into a series of six leaching pits on the east side
of the building. The bottoms of the pits were reportedly several
feet below ground.
During an inspection of the Site by the Suffolk County Department
of Health Services (SCDHS) in January 1980, it was discovered
that rinse water from AAPP's operation was discharging to the
leaching pits rather than the low pressure steam boiler. SCDHS
sampled the leaching pits, process tanks, surface soils, and
septic tank on the Site. The results showed elevated levels of
several metals, notably cadmium, chromium and nickel in the
leaching pits. AAPP was told by SCDHS to cease discharge to the
leaching pits immediately and remove the soils and sediments of
the entire leaching system.
In the spring of 1980, AAPP contracted with the Patterson
Chemical Company for the cleanup and closing of the leaching
system. This work was supervised and approved by SCDHS. In
September 1980, SCDHS notified AAPP that the leaching pits could
be back-filled with clean sand and gravel. The 7,500 foot
equipment storage area, built in 1984, lies directly on top of
the former leaching pits. AAPP reports that its industrial waste
is currently hauled off-site for disposal.
-------
In January 1986, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) issued a Phase 1 Investigation Report which
summarized past investigations and included a Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) score for the Site. Based on the HRS score, the
Site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List
(NPL) in June 1988 and was placed on the NPL in March 1989.
On March 7, 1989, EPA sent "general notice" letters to two
potentially responsible parties (PRPs), affording them the oppor-
tunity to conduct the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) for the Site. PRPs are companies or individuals
who are potentially responsible for contributing to the contami-
nation at the Site and/or are past or present owners of the
property. EPA did not receive any good faith proposals from the
PRPs to undertake or finance the RI/FS. Therefore, beginning in
July 1989, the necessary work was performed by EPA's contractor,
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., using Superfund monies.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI report and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released
for public comment on April 3, 1992. These documents were made
available to the public in the administrative record file at the
EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York and the information
repositories at the NYSDEC, Albany, New York, the Town of Babylon
Department of Environmental Control, Babylon, New York and the
Copiague Memorial Library, Copiague, New York. A press release
announcing the availability of these documents was issued on
April 3, 1992. Originally, the public comment period was set by
EPA to end on May 2, 1992. At the community's request, an
extension to the public comment period was granted until June 8,
1992.
A public participation meeting was conducted by EPA on April 22,
1992 at the Babylon Town Library/ Babylon, New York to discuss
the RI report and to provide an opportunity for interested
parties to present oral comments and questions to EPA. Due to
community interest, a follow-up public availability session was
held in coordination with the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services and the Town of Babylon Department of Environmental
Control on May 4, 1992 at the Copiague Junior High School,
Copiague, New York. At the community's request, a second public
meeting was held on June 2, 1992 at the Copiague Junior High
School, Copiague, New York.
A summary of the significant comments relating to the selection
of the remedy received during the public meetings and public
comment period and EPA's responses to these comments are
presented in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
-------
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This is the first and only planned operable unit for the Site.
The primary objective of this operable unit is to determine the
nature and extent of contamination at the Site and to take
measures, as appropriate, to ensure protection of human health
and the environment.
The specific objectives of the RI for the AAPP site were the
following:
to identify all potential source areas of
contamination;
to characterize the nature and extent of possible
contamination in environmental media on-site;
to determine the hydrogeologic characteristics of the
Site to assess potential present or future impacts on
downgradient receptors; and,
to assess the present and future potential risks to
public health and the environment caused by site
contamination in the absence of any remedial action.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Previous investigations (SCDHS, 1980) showed that there were
discharges of untreated process wastewater to leaching pits prior
to 1980. Under the direction of EPA, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
conducted an RI from July 1989 to April 1992 to characterize the
geology, groundwater hydrology and chemical quality of the soil
and groundwater at the Site. The investigation consisted of
drilling borings and constructing monitoring wells, collecting
soil and groundwater samples, a geophysical survey and an air-
monitoring survey. In addition, a soil-gas survey was performed
by EPA in September 1989. The results of the RI are summarized
below.
Groundwater
In February 1991, ten wells were installed at the Site. Two
wells were drilled upgradient of the Site's operations, four
wells were drilled on-site and four wells were drilled
downgradient of the Site. The wells were installed and screened
in both shallow (20-25 feet below surface) and deep (60-70 feet
below surface) portions of the Upper Glacial Aquifer. In March
and July 1991, filtered and unfiltered groundwater samples were
taken from the ten monitoring wells and analyzed for organic and
inorganic constituents.
-------
Table 1 lists the contaminants detected in the groundwater at the
Site, as well as the frequency and range of detection. In the
first round of groundwater samples, two organic compounds,
toluene and xylenes (total), were detected in one on-site well,
at 39 and 46 parts per billion (ppb), respectively, and one
downgradient well, at 14 and 20 ppb, respectively. These levels
exceed the State drinking water standard of 5 ppb for both con-
taminants, but are well below the Federal standards of 1000 ppb
for toluene and 10,000 ppb for xylenes (total). State and
Federal primary drinking water standards are often referred to as
maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs. Toluene and xylenes (total)
were not detected in the second round of groundwater samples. No
other volatile organic compounds exceeded their respective MCLs.
With the exception of the chromium analyses, results of the first
two rounds of unfiltered groundwater samples indicated relatively
low levels of inorganic contamination. In the first round,
chromium was detected in the deep upgradient well at 555 ppb,
which is significantly higher than the State and Federal MCLs of
50 and 100 ppb, respectively. This level was also significantly
higher than the highest level (11.7 ppb in a deep well) detected
on-site, where levels did not exceed MCLs, and downgradient where
chromium was detected in a deep well at 96.5 ppb. In the second
round, chromium exceeded both State and Federal MCLs in the deep
upgradient well (130 ppb) and the State MCL in one shallow on-
site well (67 ppb) and a deep downgradient well (90 ppb). The
highest level of chromium (130 ppb) was detected in the same
upgradient well as in round one. Chromium was not detected in
any of the filtered samples.
A third round of groundwater samples was taken in January 1992
and analyzed for total chromium only. Chromium was not detected
at levels exceeding MCLs in any of the samples collected in the
January sampling effort. Given that the highest levels of
chromium were detected in an upgradient well, and that the levels
decreased significantly from March 1991 to January 1992, it is
likely the chromium contamination originated from a source
upgradient of the Site or that the elevated chromium results were
due to suspended solids present in the samples.
Lead was also detected in the groundwater at levels which
exceeded its applicable standards. Lead was detected in one on-
site well at 26 ppb, which is slightly higher than the Federal
action level of 15 ppb and the New York State water quality
standard of 25 ppb. All other samples contained levels of lead
which were below the Federal action level. No other inorganic
constituents exceeded MCLs.
Both iron and manganese were detected in the groundwater at
levels which exceed the Federal secondary drinking water
standards. However, these standards are based on aesthetic
qualities rather than health concerns.
-------
In February 1992, SCDHS sampled the residential well of the
private residence adjacent to the Site to determine drinking-
water quality. Results of the sampling indicated that
contaminants were not present above State or Federal MCLs. This
is believed to be the only residential well used as a potable
water supply in the vicinity of the Site. A homeowner residing
diagonally across from the Site on Galvani Street has a well
limited to outdoor use. This well was sampled in July 1991 and
results showed no contaminants exceeding State or Federal MCLs.
Surface/Subsurface Soils
Soil borings were drilled at the Site in order to obtain
information on Site geology and to determine the extent of
subsurface contamination. The locations of the indoor and
outdoor soil borings and surface soil samples are identified on
Figure 3. Results of the subsurface soil samplings from indoor
and outdoor test borings did not indicate the presence of inorga-
nic constituents at elevated levels. Similarly, although the
results of the analyses for organic constituents indicated the
presence of a limited number of organic compounds in both the
indoor and outdoor borings, the compounds were not present in any
significant concentration or in any consistent pattern.
Surface soil samples were collected from the top six-inch strata
at twenty locations across the AAPP site. Table 2 provides a
comparison of the surface soil contaminants detected at the Site
with the background range reported in the literature for
inorganics in surface soils in the United States and typical
sandy soils. Of the metals detected in these samples, only
cadmium was detected above both the background range for surface
soils in the United States (0.01 - 2 mg/kg) and typical sandy
soils (0.07 - l.l mg/kg) (see Table 2). The highest level of
cadmium detected in on-site surface soils was 29.4 mg/kg. All
other metals detected on-site were either within or close to
reported background ranges. Some semi-volatiles were detected,
mostly compounds which are by-products of fossil fuel combustion
and are typical of what is found near road surfaces. Two
volatile organic compounds were detected in two samples at
relatively low levels.
Sediment samples were also taken from two on-site drainage
systems. A clam shell sampler was used to take two samples from
each pool for a total of eight samples from each drainage system.
The samples were composited and then analyzed for inorganic and
organic compounds and cyanide (amenable to oxidation). Two
organic compounds were detected in trace amounts. Inorganic
contaminants were detected at relatively low levels. Results
indicate that industrial materials were not being discharged to
the drainage systems from site-related operations.
-------
In February 1992, the New York State Department of Health sampled
soils in the adjacent resident's backyard to determine whether
elevated levels of metals were present. Of the metals detected
in the surface soils, two metals, lead and arsenic, were detected
at levels much higher on the residential property than on the
Site property. These results were confirmed through SCDHS
testing of the soils in April 1992. The contaminants are not the
result of site-related plating and polishing operations. The
possible application of a lead arsenate pesticide on the property
is one explanation for the high levels of lead and arsenic. As
lead arsenate does not degrade once applied, it will always
remain in the soil as lead and arsenic metals regardless of when
it was applied to the soil, unless the soil itself is removed
from the area. Cadmium was found at levels generally below those
detected on-site. No other metals were detected above background
levels. SCDHS will continue to perform additional sampling and
monitoring of the metal contamination at the adjacent homeowner's
property. SCDHS has informed EPA that, since the contaminants
found at the residence are not si^e-related, SCDHS will be
responsible for implementing any appropriate follow-up measures.
Air Monitoring and Geophysical Surveys
Air monitoring and geophysical surveys were conducted at the
Site. The air monitoring data collected at the Site are
indicative of typical urban conditions. No unusual metallic
subsurface objects, such as buried drums, were identified by the
geophysical survey.
Soil-Gas Survey
In September 1989, EPA conducted a soil-gas survey at the Site,
the results of which are presented in Table 3. Soil gas
contaminated by volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is not
widespread throughout the Site. The highest levels of VOCs
detected were in soil gas collected from the periphery of on-site
structures and paved surfaces. Subsurface soil samples and
groundwater samples collected during the RI were relatively free
of VOC contamination. Therefore, long-term release of VOCs in
the soil gas to the atmosphere is unlikely.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the
potential risks to human health and the environment associated
with the AAPP Site in its current state. The baseline risk
assessment focused on contaminants in the groundwater and surface
soils which are likely to pose significant risks to human health
and the environment. The summary of the contaminants of concern
in sampled matrices is listed in Table 4.
-------
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects, which
could result from exposure to contamination at the Site, under
current and future land-use scenarios. The potential exposure
pathways of concern for current land uses include ingestion of
chemicals in the soil, and dermal contact with chemicals in the
soil. The potential exposure pathways of concern for future land
use include those for current land use as well as the following:
ingestion of chemicals in groundwater, dermal contact with
chemicals in groundwater and inhalation of airborne chemicals in
groundwater.
A summary of the complete exposure pathways at the Site evaluated
as part of the risk assessment is provided in Table 5. Based on
current land uses, workers may be exposed to contaminants at the
Site through incidental ingestion and dermal contact with soils
during their designated work activities. Similarly, those who
trespass onto the Site may be exposed to the contaminants on-site
by dermal contact with soils and by incidental ingestion of the
soil. If the upper aquifer serves as a drinking water source for
the area in the future, the potential would exist for residents
and workers to be exposed to chemicals in groundwater through
ingestion of drinking water. Future on-site residents might also
be exposed to contaminants in groundwater through dermal contact
and inhalation of VOCs during showering or bathing.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
site chemicals are considered separately. Noncarcinogenic risks
were assessed using a hazard index (HI) approach, based on a
comparison of expected contaminant intakes and safe levels of
intake (Reference doses, or RfDs). RfDs have been developed by
EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health effects.
RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of
daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe
over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated
intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g.. the amount
of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are
compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient (HQ) for the
contaminant in the particular medium. The HQ's are then summed
to give a pathway HI. When the HI, or sum of subthreshold
exposures (HQs) exceeds one, there may be concern for potential
noncarcinogenic health effects, if the contaminants in question
are believed to cause a similar toxic effect. The reference
doses for the compounds of concern at the AAPP site and a summary
of the noncarcinogenic risks associated with these chemicals
across various exposure pathways under both current and future
land use scenarios is found in Table 6.
The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that under
the current-use scenarios, noncarcinogenic health effects are not
likely based on the potential exposure pathways and routes
evaluated for workers and trespassers. The calculated HQs for
8
-------
these scenarios, as well as the total exposure His, are
significantly less than one. Under the future-use scenario's,
noncarcinogenic health effects are unlikely based on the
potential exposure pathways and routes evaluated for workers,
trespassers and residents. As with the results of the current-
use scenarios, all calculated pathway specific HQs are less than
one. The highest calculated HQ is 0.7, which is the HQ for
ingestion of arsenic in groundwater by children in the event of
future residential development on the Site. When the pathway His
for this future land-use scenario are combined, the total
exposure HI exceeds 1; however, the critical effects of the two
contributing contaminants, i.e., arsenic (skin disorder) and
cadmium (kidney damage), are different. Consequently, the
simultaneous subthreshold exposure to these two elements would
not be expected to result in adverse health effects.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by EPA for the compounds of concern.
Cancer 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)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the SF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the compounds of concern
are presented in Table 7.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10"4 to 10"6 to
be allowable. This can be interpreted to mean that an individual
may have a one in ten thousand to a one in a million increased
chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure
to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the specific
exposure conditions at the Site.
Under current land-use scenarios, estimated carcinogenic risks
are within or less than EPA's allowable cancer risk range based
on the potential exposure pathways and routes evaluated for
workers and trespassers, respectively. The exposure pathway with
the greatest risk (1.17 x 10*) is for ingestion of and dermal
contact with chemicals in the soil by workers at the Site. None
of the fifteen exposure pathways evaluated under the future land-
use scenarios have estimated carcinogenic risks which are greater
than EPA's allowable cancer risk range; six of these pathways
have risks within the range; the estimated carcinogenic risk for
the remaining pathways are less than the range. The exposure
pathway with the greatest risk (7.25 x 10*) is for the future
ingestion of chemicals in the groundwater by an adult. This as-
-------
sumes that the aquifer beneath the Site would be utilized as an
untreated source of drinking water.
In summary, none of the current or future risks to human health
posed by carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic contaminants from the
various pathways considered exceeded EPA's allowable levels.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, 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
sampled. 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
underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
Ecological Risk Assessment
The ecological risk assessment evaluated potential exposure
routes of terrestrial wildlife and aquatic life to Site
contamination. Sampling results from Site soils and groundwater
were utilized to conduct this assessment. Cadmium was chosen as
the chemical of potential concern for surface soils at the Site
because it was detected at levels greater than typical background
soil concentrations. However, the overall risk to wildlife in
the general vicinity of the Site from exposure to contaminated
soils is considered to be low, due to the small size of the
10
-------
contaminated area and the limited habitat potential of the Site.
The chemicals of potential concern chosen for assessing
environmental risk due to exposure to contaminants in the
groundwater at the Site are: aluminum, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel and zinc, since the detected levels of these compounds
exceeded State and/or Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
marine and/or fresh water. Groundwater from the Site may
ultimately discharge into Amityville Creek and Woods Creek, both
located approximately 1/2 mile south of the Site, and the Great
South Bay, located 2 miles south of the Site. The potential risk
to aquatic life inhabiting these surface water bodies, however,
is considered low. This is due to the natural dilution of any
low levels of groundwater contamination that may be associated
with the Site. Furthermore, the streams in the Babylon area of
Long Island are only partially fed by groundwater and unlikely to
receive a large input of groundwater flowing from the Site.
State Acceptance
The State of New York, through the NYSDEC, concurs with EPA's
selected remedy. See Appendix IV.
Community Acceptance
Following a substantial community outreach effort by EPA to
explain the "no action" remedy selected for the Site, the
community in general concurs with the selected remedy. The
community outreach effort included three meetings during the
public comment period. The first was held at the Babylon Town
Library, Babylon, New York on April 22, 1992. Due to community
interest, a follow-up public availability session was held in
coordination with the SCDHS and the Town of Babylon Department of
Environmental Control on May 4, 1992 at the Copiague Junior High
School, Copiague, New York. At the May 4, 1992 availability
session, the community formally requested, through a signed
petition, an extension to the public comment period as well as
another public meeting. The community was granted an extension
to the public comment period until June 8, 1992. A second public
meeting was held on June 2, 1992 at the Copiague Junior High
School, Copiague, New York.
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION*1 REMEDY
The risk assessment indicates that the levels of contaminants
present in the soil, air and groundwater at the Site present
risks which fall within or below the Superfund remediation range.
In addition, sampling results indicate the majority of contami-
nants do not exceed MCLs in the groundwater, or background levels
in the soil and air. The 1980 SCDHS-ordered remediation of the
11
-------
leaching pits removed the most significant contamination known to
exist at the Site.
Based upon the findings of the RI performed at the Site, the EPA,
in consultation with the State, has determined that the Site does
not pose a significant threat to human health and the
environment. The EPA, therefore, has selected a no action remedy
for the Site. A one-year monitoring program will be established
to ensure that the remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. Because this remedy will not result in hazardous
substances remaining on-site above health-based levels, the five-
year review will not apply to this action.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
12
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
r .
-ii.---- \ - __ ~^-'~-fj- '
'"*""'
\ " -v- ...::
r- '^-^ -.-^-: - v
~ ?a^:
i i. . ./ _-^J§ ': ~=i5&_
* ,^:.-'-'- ' ; t°
;n > ? P-: B7 ** i V^/^'xiS^^--^^ ^ I Z^T'^J^^ uv
^,MLr^v^jf.A
MAUDOLM
P1RNIE
SOURCE: USQS AMITYVILLE OUADRANOLE
FIGURE 1
ACTION AMOOtZMQ, PLATMO AND POLISHING
SITE LOCATION MAP
SCALE: 1* = 200O'
-------
GARIBALDI AVE.
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
DRAINAGE POOLS
PRIVATE RESIDENCE
-r "^'
(^
1!
A
v* ^
n
JL
"ll
ii
^
/
r POSSIBLE LOCATION OF FORMER
\\LEACHING POOLS (4-6)
\
- .-
>" ^ \v-N
| s^ ^ 1 V 1 \ J
1 1 ^~~~ """
1 ^"x. i *~~ **. s"**
O\ O
AAPP WAREHOUSE AND
PLATING FACILITY
\
\
/
, ^-POSSIBLE
V -^ UNDERGROUND
OIL TANK
^ ^
(^
il
f i
V
n
^ls
^
A
/
w
H
EH
CO
H
|
£
O
LOCATION -
OF WASTE TROUGH
(APPROX. 4' FROM
WEST WALL)
DJXON AVE.
1984 ADDITION
MA1GOU*
PtRNIE
FIGURE 2
ACTION AMOOtZMO. PUkTTMQ AND POUSHm
EXISTING SITE PLAN 1989
APPftOKMJKTE SCAiC:
-------
LEGEND
. SS-14 SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
(DMW-3 MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
°1 INDOOR SOIL BORING LOCATIONS
+ DP-2 DRAINAGE POOL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
RNll
INDOOR SOIL BORING LOCATIONS
DESIGNATED BY "SB" IN Rl REPORT
SS-18
\
, SS-20 4.
.SS-17
i
MW-1
DP\I
,
*" s?
. ss-e
SS 13
SS-15 SS-9'.
SS-12 fl
SS-14
fSS-2
AAPP WAHtHOUSl »«U \
PI AfING FACIIM r \
,13
SS-11
SS-10
PHIVAK HtSIOtN( I
o
x
o
MW-9
PARK STREET
IMW-B
MW-
OJ
0
PHIMCt CHICO StHlEl
MW-7
FIGURE 3
ACTION ANODIZING L
SAMPLIN^LOCATIONS
NOT^TSCALE
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
u
CHEMICAL Frequency
VOLATILE ORGANICS
Acetone 0/4
Benzene 0/4
2-Bulamme 0/4
Carbon Dlsulfidc 1/4
I.l-Dichloroethane 0/4
Elhylbcnzcne 0/4
Teirachloroethene 0/4
Toluene 0/4
I.l.l-Trichlorocthane t/4
Xylencs (total) 0/4
SEMI-VOLATILES
Bii(2-elliylhcnyl)pl.thaJa(e 0/4
PESTICIDES
lleplachlor 0/2
INOKOANICS
Aluminum 4/4
Arsenic 0/4
Barium 4/4
Cadmium 1/4
Calcium 4/4
Chromium 4/4
Cobalt 4/4
Copper 4/4
TABLE 1
GROUND WATER DATA
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
FREQUENCY and RANGE of DETECTION ARARi OTHER
CRITERIA CARCINOGEN
p-iitc Ou-iite Down-iilc USEPA USEPA NYSDOII NYSDEC CLASS POTENTIAL
Range Frequency Range Frequency Range MCLi pMCLi MCLi OWQS (ORAL) CONCEHN
0-g'U 0-g/L) fog/U 0'8/U O'g'l.) O'g'U (/.g/L)
2/8 A) - S 2/8 3J , 50 D YUS
I/8 2J 0/8 555 0.7 A YES
I/8 IS 0/8 50 D . YES
44 I/8 IJ I/8 12 50 YES
I/8 2J 0/8 5 5 C YES
I/8 8) I/8 4J 700 700 55 D YES
2/8 I) 0/8 5 B2 YES^
I/8 39 I/8 14 IOOO 2000 55 D YES°
2J 4/8 IJ-4J 4/8 IJ-2J 200 200 55 D YES
I/8 46 I/8 20 IOOOO IOOOO 55 D YES
2/8 21 - 1400 2/8 3.6J - 5.4J 50 50 B2
1/8 0.042J 1/8 0.046J 0.4 0.4 5 B2
1270-3050 8/8 458-25800 8/8 496-9770
2/8 5.4J-6.6J 2/8 2.IJ-3J 50 10/5 50 25 A YES
24.6J-64.3J 8/8 18.2 - I06J 8/8 IOJ - 74.2J 1000(2000)* IOOO IOOO
2J 3/8 2.3J-4.IJ 0/8 10 5 10 10
14900-3320 8/8 13300-5840 8/8 11200-40400
11.4-555 8/8 3.IJ-67.5 8/8 3.2J - 96.5 50(100)'* 50 50 YES
4.5J-9J 5/8 5.9J-47J 1/8 I3.7J
I3.3J-47.I 6/8 7J-27.5 6/8 5.2J - 42.5 1300 1300 I000(i) 200 D
-------
TABLE 1 (CONT'D)
GROUND WATER DATA
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
CHEMICAL
lion
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
PoUitlum
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
FREQUENCY and RANGE of DETECTION
llp-iitc
Frequency Ritnge
O-J'D
4/4 1940 - 4090
3/3 4.4- 12.2
4/4 2790 - 7390
4/4 318-1340
3/4 24.91-489
4/4 2500J - 5380
0/4
4/4 6460-31700
0/4
2/4 4.4J-6.IJ
2/2 31.4-57.9
On-iite Down-iile
Frequency Range Frequency Range
0-g/U 0-g'U
8/8 586-26200 8/8 1040-19800
5/5 2.2J -26.2 8/8 3.9- 13(2
8/8 25 10) -9550 8/8 2250J - 4900J
8/8 105-1780 8/8 133-2210
8/8 6.6J-54.4 5/8 7.IJ-76.7
' 8/8 24IOJ- 11600 8/8 I770J - 7300
0/8 1/8 61.3
8/8 8750-35100 8/8 7400-42000
0/8 1/8 2.2J
5/8 5J-45.3J 4/8 3.6J - 23.2J
7/7 14. 2J- 1130 5/5 I7J - 109
ARARi OTHER
CRITERIA CARCINOGEN
USEPA USEPA NYSDOII NYSDEC CLASS POTENTIAL
MCLa pMCLi MCU OWQS (ORAL) CONCERN
0-g'l.) (cg'D 0-g'U 0-g/L) "
300(5) 300
50(I5)*»» 50 25 B2 YtS
300
50(s) 100 90(>) 300 D
100 D
20000
50 50 D
20000
2/1 D
200
SOOO(s) 5000(i) 300 D
NOTES:
ARARi - Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement!
USEPA MCL Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level
NYSDOII MCL - Stale Safe Drinking Wiler Act Maiimum Coolamln.nl Level
NYSDEC OWQS - State Water Quality Slandardi for Ground Water. Clan 6A
I cillmated value; compound preient below CRDL but above IDL
p piopotcd criteria
I icconuaiy criteria
Federal MCL for barium. 2000 ug/L. elf cell vc I2H/92
Federal MCL for chromium. JO ug/L. effective 7/30/92
Federal MCL for lead, 15 ug/L. effective 12/7/92
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE CLASSIFICATION
A = human carcinogen
Bl » probable human carcinogen, limited human data
B2 = probable human carcinogen, lufficlent evidence In aolmali or no evidence In humani
C = poniblc human carcinogen
D = not clanified at to carctnogcnicily
ND = Hut determined
- UP-SfTE wclli Include MW1 and MW2
- ON-SITE well, include MW3. MW4. MW5 and MW6
- DOWN-SfTE well, include MW7, MWI. MW9 and MWIO
-------
TABLE 2
SURFACE SOILS DATA
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
CHEMICAL
PESTICIDES
4.4 ODD
4.4 DDE
4.4 DDT
AJpha-Chlordane
Gamma-Chlordane
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Coball
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
FREQUENCY
OF DETECTION
7/20
3/20
15/20
1/20
1/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
5/20
18/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
18/18
20/20
20/20
14/20
20/20
20/20
RANGE OF
DETECTED
FREQUENCY
(mK'l«)
0018- 0.160
0054 - 0.150
0019 -0.460
0.470J
0.530J
3900 - 6600
1 5J-3.7
2I.6J-97.I
0.2IJ -047J
0.79J - 29.4
385J - 19300
7.1 -74.8
1 31 -3.31
84 -636
5880 -11100
29.7 - 235
582J - 1920
39.1 - 109
0.09 - 0.57
3.6J- 16.2
2091- 64 IJ
OTHER CRITERIA
USEPA(I)
(mg/lg)
3
2
2
80
4000
0.2
40
400
500 - 1000(4)
20
2000
BACKGROUND COMPOSITION
OF U.S. SOILS CA
TYPICAL (2) SANDY (3)
(mg/lg) (mg/kg)
10000 - 300000 0.45 - 10
0.1-40 0.1-30
100-3000 20-1500
0.01-40 1-3
0.01 -2
700-500000
5- 1500 3-200
0.05 - 0.65 0.4 - 20
2-250 1-70
2000 - 550000
2-300
-------
TABLE 2 (CONT'D)
SURFACE SOILS DATA
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
CHEMICAL
PESTICIDES
4.4 DDI)
4.4 DDE
4.4 DDT
Alpha-Chlordane
Garnma-Chlordane
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganeie
Mercury
Nickel
Potaislurn
FREQUENCY
OF DETECTION
7/20
3/20
15/20
1/20
1/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
5/20
18/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
20/20
IS/18
20/20
20/20
14/20
20/20
20/20
RANGE OF
DETECTED
FREQUENCY
(nig/kg)
OOIH - 0.160
0054 -0.150
0.019 -0.460
0.470J
0.530J
3900 - 6600
1 5) -3.7
21. 6J -97.1
0.2 1)- 0.47)
0.79J - 29.4
385J - 19300
7.1 -74.8
1 3J-3.3J
8.4 -63.6
5880- II 100
29.7-235
582J - 1920
39.1 - 109
0.09-0.57
3.6J- 16.2
209) - 641)
OTHER CRITERIA
USEPA(I)
(mgftg)
t
J
2
2
80
4000
0.2
40
400
500 - 1000(4)
20
2000
BACKGROUND COMPOSITION
OF U.S. SOILS CA1
TYPICAL (2) SANDY (3)
(nigftg) (nig/kg)
10000- 300000 0.45 - 10
0. 1 - 40 0. 1 - 30
100-3000 20-1500
0.01 - 40 1-3
0.01 -2
700-500000
5- 1500 3-200
0.05-0.65 0.4-20
2-250 1-70
2000 - 550000
2-300
-------
ACTION
FREQUENCY RANGE <
CHEMICAL OF DETECTION DETECT
FREQL'Eh
(mg/kg)
Selenium 3/20 0.76J - 1
TABLE 2 (CONT'D)
SURFACE SOILS DATA
ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
OTHER CRITERIA
3F BACKGROUND COMPOSITION US!
ED USEPA(I) OF U.S. SOILS CARCII
ICY (mi/kg) TYPICAL (2) SANDY (3) CL
(mg/kg) fag/kg) (OR
.6 , 0.1-2.0 0.005-3.5
PA
400EN POTENTIAL
*SS CONCERN
AL)
Sodium 20/20 40.41 - 1 HJ 150-25000
Vanadium 20/20 8 5J - 17.9 3-500 7-150
Zinc 2/2 73 - 186 1-900 D
Cyanide 2/20 1 .4 - 2
4 D
NOTES:
I - cillmilcd viluc; compound prcicol below CRDL but tbove IDL
WEKJIIT OP EVIDENCE CLASSIFICATION
A humio carcinogen
Bl probable human citcinof CD. limited human dala
BZ probable human carcinogen, aufficleot evidence In anunali or no evidence in huinini
C » poiiible human carcinogen
D = not claniflcd aa to carclnogenicily
(I) USEPA propoied Corrective Action Level. 1990
(2)Bodeketal.. 19(1
(]) Kabata-Fendiai and Pendiai. I9M
-------
TABLE 3
AC!ION AHOOIZIUG SITE - LONG ISLAND
PMOTOVAC GC/PID EPA/ERT SOIL GAS SURVEY RESULTS
SEPTEMBER 11, 1989
CONCENTRAIION PPBv
Sample
0801
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
10 location
SG-10
SG-01
SG-2
SG-3
SG-4
SG-5
SG-6
1207 DUP SG-6
1208
1209
1210
NO:
BHOL:
1:
*.
SG-7
AMB> AIR
SG-V
Not Detected
Run «
153
155
U9
144
U2
148
147
157
159
151
153
Below Method Detection Limit (10
Interference with resolution and
Utnbers are belou MDL (10 PPBv) i
VC 1
HI-
ND
1
NO
NO
NO
ND
1
1
18.1
ND
ND
,1-OCE
(?)
MO
ND
ND
8.23*
ND
ND
ND
ND
34.38
ND
ND
t-1,2-DCE
(3)
ND
ND
NO
30.0
ND
19.0
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ICE
.1*1
1.45*
ND
3.19*
ND
54.8
72.46
ND
ND
ND
ND
13.40
PPBv) Total Organics quant itated as benzene.
quant it at Ion of target compounds due to possible
ind are orovided for eonrtarison reasons.
PCE
_l5i_
28.93
379.39
12.31
21.97
3.50*
750.68
362.3
350.83
86.27
ND
320.4
coelut ion of
Benieoe
ND
ND
ND
ND
9.83*
2.11*
NO
ND
ND
ND
ND
other materials.
Toluene
ND
ND
ND
1.49*
1.67*
2.11*
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Total
Qrgenics
70.67
450.00
78.67
49.39
72.98
582.52
448.67
418.33
198.67
30.1
42.. 94
(1): Vinyl Chloride (4): Trichloroethylene
(2): 1.1-Oichlorothylene (5): Tetrachloroethylene
(3): Trans 1,2-Dichloroethylene
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
IN ALL MEDIA SAMPLED
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
Range of Concentrations
Chemical Surface Ground
Soil Water
(mg/kg) (ug/1)
VOLATILE ORGAN1CS
Acetone 3J - 5
Benzene 2J
2-Butanone 15
Carbon Disuifide 1J - 12
Ll-Dichloroethane 2J
Ethylbenzene % 4J - 8J
Tetrachloroethene LJ
Toluene 14 - 39
1,1,1-TrichJoroethane LI - 4J
Xylenes (totaJ) 20-46
INORGANICS
Arsenic 1.5J - 3.7 2.11 - 6.6J
Cadmium 0.79J - 29.4 23J - 4.11
Chromium 3.1J - 965
Lead 2.2J - 26.2
J = estimated value; compound present below contract-required
detection limit but above instrument detection limit
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
Potentially Exposed
Population
Exposure Route, Medium
and Exposure Point
Pathway Selected
for Evaluation?
Reason for Selection
or Exclusion
Current Uses
Workers
Trespassers
Ingestion of and dermal
contact with chemicals of
potential concern in soil.
Ingestion of and dermal
contact with chemicals of
potential concern in soil.
Yes
Yes
Contaminated soil is in an
area potentially used by
workers.
Contaminated soil may be
encountered by trespassers.
Future Uses
Workers
Ingestion of chemicals of
potential concern in
around water.
Yes
Ground water could be
used as a source for the
public water supply.
Workers Dermal contact with and
inhalation of chemicals
from ground water.
Residents Ingestion of and dermal
contact with chemicals of
potential concern in soil
Residents Ingestion of, dermal con-
tact with and inhalation of
chemicals of potential
concern in eround water
No
Yes
Yes
Uncertain exposure
parameters.
Site could be developed in
the future as a residential
area.
Chemicals of potential
concern have been identi-
fied in ground water.
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF CHRONIC NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
GDI
Chemical (mg/kg-day)
GDI
Adjusted
for
Absorption
Pathway
RfD Hazard Hazard
(mg/kg-day) Quotient Index
CURRENT LAND USE SCENARIO
WORKERS: Ingestion of and dermal contact with chemicals in soil
Ingestion
Dermal contact
TOTAL EXPOSURE
Arsenic
Cadmium
Arsenic
Cadmium
HAZARD INDEX
1.43E-06
9.49E-06
3.41E-07
2.26E-07
FOR WORKERS
NO
NO
YES
YES
3.00E-04 4.77E-03
l.OOE-03 9.49E-03 1.43E-02
2.85E-04 I.20E-03
2.50E-05 9.04E-03 1.02E-02
2.45E-02
TRESPASSERS: Ingestion of and dermal contact with chemicals in soil
ngestion
Dermal contact
TOTAL EXPOSURE
Arsenic
Cadmium
Arsenic
Cadmium
HAZARD INDEX
1.33E-06
8.15E-06
1.59E-06
9.74E-07
FOR TRESPASSERS
NO
NO
YES
YES
3.00E-04 4.43E-03
l.OOE-03 8.15E-03 1.26E-02
2.85E-04 5.58E-03
2.50E-05 3.90E-02 4.45E-02
5.71E-02
Reference Dose (RfD) Ref.: Integrated Risk Information Systen (IRIS, 19916)
Health Effects Assessment Sunnary Tables (HEAST, 1991a)
-------
TABLE 6 (CONTD) ;
SUMMARY OF CHRONIC NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
Chemical
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO
ADULT RESIDENT: Ingestion of chemicals in
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethcne
Toluene
1 , 1 , 1-Trichlorocthane
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Chromium
GDI
(mg/kg-day)
ground water
1.37E-04
5.48E-05
1.73E-04
l.OOE-04
5.48E-05
9.81E-05
2.74E-05
2.21E-04
8.14E-05
2.60E-04
9.21E-05
1.78E-03
CDI
Adjusted
for
Absorption
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
l.OOE-01
NA
5.00E-02
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-02
2.00E-01
9.00E-02
2.00E+00
3.00E-04
l.OOE-KX)
Hazard
Quotient
1.37E-03
3.46E-03
l.OOE-03
5.48E-04
9.81E-04
2.74E-03
1.11E-03
9.04E-04
1.30E-04
3.07E-01
1.78E-03
Pathway
Hazard
Index
3.21E-01
ADULT RESIDENT: Dermal contact with chemicals in ground water
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
1 , 1 -D ichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichlorocthane
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Chromium
ADULT RESIDENT: Inhalation of chemicals in
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
1 , 1-Dichloroethanc
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethcne
Toluene
1.1,1 -Trichlorocthiuie
Xylenes (total)
3.99E-07
7.12E-06
2.26E-06
I.33E-05
3.11E-06
3.43E-04
1.91E-07
6.42E-04
2.31E-05
2.39E-04
1.34E-07
2.60E-06
ground water
5.48E-05 '
2. 19E-05
6.90E-05
4.00E-05
2.19E-05
3.92E-05
1.10E-05
8.82E-05
3.25E-05
1.04E-04
ADULT RESIDENTS: Ingestion of and dermal contact with chemicals in
ngestion Arsenic
Cadmium
)crmal contact Arsenic
Cadmium
5.75E-06
5.73E-05
9.00E-07
8.97E-07
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
soil
NO
NO
YES
YES
l.OOE-01
NA
5.00E-02
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-02
2.00E-01
9.00E-02
2.00E+00
2.85E-04
l.OOE-02
l.OOE-01
NA
9.00E-02
2.90E-03
l.OOE-01
2.90E-01
7.00E-02
5.70E-01
3.00E-01
8.60E-O2
3.00E-04
l.OOE-03
2.85E-04
2.50E-05
3.99E-06
4.52E-05
1.33E-04
3.11E-05
3.43E-03
1.91E-05
3.21E-03
2.57E-04
1.20E-04
4.70E-04
2.60E-04
5.48E-04
7.67E-04
1.38E-02
2.19E-04
1.35E-04
1.57E-04
1.55E-04
1.08E-04
1.21E-03
1.92E-02
5.73E-02
3.16E-03
3.59E-02
TOTAL EXPOSURE HAZARD INDEX FOR RESIDENTS - ADULT
7.98E-03
1.71E-02
7.65E-02
3.90E-02
4.62E-01
-------
TABLE 6 (CONT'D)
SUMMARY OF CHRONIC NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDEX
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
Chemical
GDI
(mg/kg-day)
GDI
Adjusted
for
Absorption
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
ESTIMATES
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
Index
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO
CHILD RESIDENT:
CHILD RESIDENT:
CHILD RESIDENT:
CHILD RESIDENT:
ngestion
dermal contact
TOTAL EXPOSURE
Ingestion of chemicals in
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethcne
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Xylencs (total)
Arsenic
Chromium
ground water
3.20E-04
1.28E-04
4.03E-04
2.33E-04
1.28E-04
2.29E-04
6.39E-05
5.15E-04
1.90E-04
6.06E-04
2.15E-04
4.16E-03
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
l.OOE-01
NA
5.00E-02
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-02
2.00E-01
9.00E-02
2.00E+00
3.00E-04
l.OOE+00
3.20E-03
8.06E-03
2.33E-03
1.28E-03
2.29E-03
6.39E-03
2.58E-03
2.11E-03
3.03E-04
7.17E-01
4.16E-03
7.49E-01
Dermal contact with chemicals in ground water
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Chromium
Inhalation of chemicals in
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Ethylbenzene
Tctrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Xylenes (total)
6.69E-07
1.20E-05
3.80E-06
2.23E-05
5.22E-06
5.75E-04
3.21E-07
1.08E-03
3.89E-05
4.01E-04
2.25E-07
4.36E-06
ground water
3.41E-04
1.36E-04
4.30E-04
2.49E-04
1.36E-04
2.44E-04
6.82E-05
5.49E-04
2.03E-04
6.46E-04
Ingestion of and dermal contact with chemicals in
Arsenic
Cadmium
Arsenic
Cadmium
3.77E-05
3.76E-04
8.72E-06
8.69E-06
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
surface soils
NO
NO
YES
YES
l.OOE-01
NA
5.00E-02
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-02
2.00E-01
9.00E-02
2.00E+00
2.85E-04
l.OOE-02
l.OOE-01
NA
9.00E-02
2.90E-03
l.OOE-01
2.90E-01
7.00E-02
5.70E-01
3.00E-01
8.60E-02
3.00E-04
l.OOE-03
2.85E-04
2.50E-05
6.69E-06
7.60E-05
2.23E-04
5.22E-05
5.75E-03
3.2IE-05
5.40E-03
4.32E-04
2.01E-04
7.89E-04
4.36E-04
3.41E-03
4.78E-03
8.59E-02
1.36E-03
8.41E-04
9.74E-04
9.63E-04
6.77E-04
7.51E-03
1.26E-01
3.76E-01
3.06E-02
3.48E-01
HAZARD INDEX FOR RESIDENTS - CHILD
1.34E-02
1.06E-01
5.02E-01
3.78E-01
1.75E-KX)
-------
TABLE 6 (CONT'D)
SUMMARY OF CHRONIC NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDEX
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
FUTURE
WORKER
WORKER
digestion
Chemical
LAND USE SCENARIO
GDI
(mg/kg-day)
GDI
Adjusted
for
Absorption
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
,
ESTIMATES
Hazard
Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
Index
: Ingestion of chemicals in ground water
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Carbon Disulfidc
1 , 1-Dichlorocthane
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Xylenes (total)
Arsenic
Chromium
Ingestion of and dermal contact with
Arsenic
Cadmium
Dermal contact Arsenic
Cadmium
4.89E-05
1.96E-05
6.16E-05
3.57E-05
1.96E-05
3.50E-05
9.78E-06
7.88E-05
2.91E-05
9.28E-05
3.29E-05
6.37E-04
chemicals in soil
1.43E-06
9.49E-06
3.41E-07
2.26E-07
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
l.OOE-01
NA
5.00E-02
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-02
2.00E-01
9.00E-02
2.00E-KX)
3.00E-04
l.OOE-KX)
3.00E-04
l.OOE-03
2.85E-04
2.50E-05
4.89E-04
1.23E-03
3.57E-04
1.96E-04
3.50E-04
9.78E-04
3.94E-04
3.23E-04
4.64E-05
1.10E-01
6.37E-04
4.77E-03
9.49E-03
1.20E-03
9.04E-03
TOTAL EXPOSURE HAZARD INDEX FOR WORKERS
1.15E-01
1.43E-02
1.02E-02
1.39E-01
NOTE: RfD for dermal exposure pathways are adjusted for absorption as follows:
RfD * ABS = AdjRfD
Where ABS = 0.95 for arsenic (ATSDR, 1989)
0.025 for dietary intake of cadmium (USEPA, I992b)
0.05 for chromium (III) (Carson et al., 1986)
1.00 for volatile organic chemicals (default)
NA = Not available
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
Chemical
GDI
(mg/kg-day)
GDI
Adjusted Slope Chemical Total
for Factor Specific Pathway
Absorption (mg/kg-day )-l Risk Risk
CURRENT LAND USE SCENARIO
WORKERS: Ingestion of and dermal contact with chemicals in soil
Ingestion Arsenic 5.12E-07
Dermal contact Arsenic 1.22E-07
TOTAL EXPOSURE RISK FOR WORKERS
TRESPASSERS: Ingestion of and dermal contact with chemicals in soil
Ingestion Arsenic 1.14E-07
Dermal contact Arsenic 1.37E-07
TOTAL EXPOSURE RISK FOR TRESPASSERS
NO 1.80E+00 9.22E-07 9.22E-07
YES 1.89E+00 2.31E-07 2.31E-07
1.15E-06
NO 1.80E+00 2.05E-07 2.05E-07
YES 1.89E+00 2.59E-07 2.59E-07
4.64E-07
NOTE: Slope factors (SF) for dermal exposure pathways are adjusted for absorption as follows:
SF/ABS = AdjSF
Where AB = 0.95 for arsenic (ATSDR. 1989)
= 1.00 for volatile organic chemicals (default)
NA = Not available
Slope Factor (SF) - Ref.: Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS. 1991b)
Health Effects Assessment Sunaary Tables (HEAST, 1991a)
-------
TABLE 7 (CONT'D)
SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
Chemical
GDI
(mg/kg-day)
GDI
Adjusted
for
Absorption
Slope
Factor
(mg/kg-day )-l
Chemical
Specific
Risk
Total
Pathway
Risk
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO
ADULT
ADULT
ADULT
ADULT
jigcstion
Contact
RESIDENT: Digestion of chemicals in
Benzene
1 , 1 -D ichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Arsenic
ground water
2.35E-05
2.35E-05
1.17E-05
3.95E-05
NO
NO
NO
NO
2.90E-02
NA
5.10E-02
1.80E+00
6.82E-07
5.97E-07
7.11E-05
7.24E-05
RESIDENT: Dermal contact with chemicals in ground water
Benzene
1 , 1-DichJoroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Arsenic
3.05E-06
1.33E-06
8.20E-08
5.74E-08
YES
YES
YES
YES
2.90E-02
NA
5.10E-02
1.89E+00
8.85E-08
4.18E-09
1.08E-07
2.01E-07
RESIDENT: Inhalation of chemicals in ground water
Benzene
1 , 1-Dichloroediane
Tetrachloroethene
RESIDENTS: Ingestion of and dermal
Arsenic
Arsenic
TOTAL EXPOSURE RISK FOR RESIDENTS
9.39E-06
9.39E-06
4.70E-06
contact with chemicals
2.47E-06
3.86E-07
- ADULTS
NO
NO
NO
in soil
NO
YES
2.90E-02
NA
1.80E-03
1.80E+00
1.89E-KDO
2.72E-07
8.46E-09
4.45E-06
7.30E-07
2.81E-07
4.45E-06
7.30E-07
7.80E-05
NOTE: Slope factors (SF) for dermal exposure pathways are adjusted for absorption as follows:
SF/ABS = AdjSF
Where AB = 0.95 for arsenic (ATSDR. 1989)
= 1.00 for volatile organic chemicals (default)
NA = Not available
-------
TABLE 7 (CONT'D)
SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
GDI
Chemical (rag/kg-day)
GDI
Adjusted Slope
for Factor
Absorption (mg/kg-day)-l
Chemical
Specific
Risk
Total
Pathway
Risk
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARJO
CHILD RESIDENT:
CHILD RESIDENT:
CHILD RESIDENT:
CHILD RESIDENTS
Digestion
Dermal contact
TOTAL EXPOSURE
Digestion of chemicals in ground
Benzene
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
Tetrachl oroethene
Arsenic
Dermal contact with chemicals in
Benzene
1,1 -Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Arsenic
Inhalation of chemicals in ground
Benzene
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Ingestion of and dermal contact
Arsenic
Arsenic
water
1.10E-05
1.10E-05
5.48E-06
1.84E-05
ground water
1.03E-06
4.47E-07
2.75E-08
1.93E-08
water
1.17E-05
1.17E-05
5.84E-06
with chemicals in
3.23E-06
7.48E-07
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
surface soils
NO
YES
2.90E-02
NA
5.10E-02
1.80E-KX)
2.90E-02
NA
5.10E-02
1.89E-OO
2.90E-02
NA
1.80E-03
1.80E-KXD
1.89E+00
3.19E-07
2.79E-07
3.31E-05
2.99E-08
1.40E-09
3.65E-08
3.39E-07
1.05E-08
5.81E-06
1.41E-06
RISK FOR RESIDENTS - CHILD
3.37E-05
6.77E-08
3.50E-07
5.81E-06
1.41E-06
4.14E-05
NOTE: Slope factors (SF) for dermal exposure pathways are adjusted for absorption as follows:
SF/ABS = AdjSF
Where AB = 0.95 for arsenic (ATSDR, 1989)
= 1.00 for volatile organic chemicals (default)
NA = Not available
-------
TABLE 7 (CONT'D)
SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
ACTION ANODIZING PLATING & POLISHING
Chemical
GDI
(mg/kg-day)
GDI
Adjusted Slope Chemical Total
for Factor Specific Pathway
Absorption (mg/kg-day)-1 Risk Risk
FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIO
WORKER: Ingestion of. chemicals in ground water
Benzene
1,1-Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Arsenic
6.99E-06
6.99E-06
3.49E-06
1.17E-05
WORKERS: Ingestion of and dermal contact with chemicals in soil
jjgestion Arsenic 5.12E-07
Dermal contact Arsenic 1.22E-07
TOTAL EXPOSURE RISK FOR WORKERS
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
2.90E-02
NA
5.10E-02
1.80E+00
2.03E-07
1.78E-07
2.11E-05
1.14E-05
1.80E+00 9.22E-07 9.22E-07
1.89E+00 2.31E-07 2.31E-07
2.26E-05
NOTE: Slope factors (SF) for dermal exposure pathways are adjusted for absorption as follows:
SF/ABS = AdjSF
Where AB = 0.95 for arsenic (ATSDR. 1989)
= 1.00 for volatile organic chemicals (default)
NA = Not available
-------
APPENDIX IV
NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
l '
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 -7010 -;; '
Thomas C. Joriing
Commissioner
JUN 1 9 1992
Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan
Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Ms. Callahan:
Re: Action Anodizing ROD
Site ID £152037
We have reviewed the Draft Record of Decision for the Action Anodizing
site and concur with the no-action alternative. We will require that the
groundwater monitoring referred to in the ROD include volatile organics and metal
analysis, and that it will be performed twice within the next year on monitoring
wells 2,4,6 and 10.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Michael J.
O'Toole, Jr., at (518) 457-5861.
Sincerely,
David Markell
Acting Deputy Commissioner
------- |