PB94-963837
EPA/ROD/R02-94/232
January 1995
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Circuitron Corporation,
East Farmingdale, NY
9/30/1994
-------
RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
EPA REGION II
Site;
Site name:
Site location:
HRS score:
Listed on the NPL: March 30, 1989
Record of Decision;
Circuitron Corporation
East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York
54.27 (May 1987)
Date signed:
Selected remedy:
Operable Unit No.:
Est. construction
completion: June 1997
September 30, 1994
Groundwater pumping; groundwater treatment
using aeration, coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, air stripping, and vapor-phase
and liquid-phase granular activated carbon;
and reinjection of treated groundwater via an
infiltration gallery
OU-2
Capital cost:
Annual O & M cost:
$1,963,000 (in 1994 dollars)
.$675,000 (in 1994 dollars)
Present worth cost: $6,492,000 (in 1994 dollars -
for 10 years)
discount rate
Lead;
Lead Agency:
Primary contact:
Secondary contact:
Main PRP:
U.S. EPA - Remedial
Lorenzo Thantu, RPM, (212) 264-2719
Doug Garbarini, Sec.Chief (212) 264-0109
Not Applicable
metals (e.g., copper and chromium) and
volatile organics (e.g., 1,1,1-trichloroethane
and 1,1-dichloroethene)
Waste origin:
Estimated
waste quantity:
Contaminated
medium:
Circuitron Corporation facility
approximately 5.3856 x
contaminated groundwater
groundwater
107
gallons of
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Circuitron Corporation
East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York
United States Environmental Protection .Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September 1994
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Circuitron Corporation
East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the selection by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the remedial action for
the Circuitron Corporation site (Site) in accordance with the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42
U.S.C. §9601 et seq. and to the extent practicable the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Part 300. An administrative record
for the Site, established pursuant to the NCP, 40 C.F.R. §300.800,
contains the documents that form the basis for EPA's selection of
the remedial action (see Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) has been consulted on the planned remedial action in
accordance with CERCLA §121(f), 42 U.S.C. §9621(f), and it concurs
with the selected remedy (see Appendix IV).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this 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 second of two planned for the
Site. It addresses the treatment of groundwater in the immediate
vicinity of the property, in the contaminant plume in the upper 40
feet of the saturated Upper Glacial aquifer and laterally extending
to approximately 700 feet downgradient of the Circuitron property.
The Upper Glacial aquifer is contaminated with inorganic and
volatile organic compounds. The selected groundwater remedy
constitutes the final action planned for the Site. The ROD for the
first operable unit remedy was issued on March 29, 1991 and
addressed the remediation of organic and inorganic contamination in
soils and sediments at the Site.
-------
The major components of the selected remedy include:
A extraction of the Site-related groundwater contaminant
plume present in the upper 40 feet of the saturated Upper
Glacial aquifer;
A treatment, via metal precipitation and air stripping, of
contaminated groundwater to drinking water standards;
A reinjection of the treated groundwater into the Upper
Glacial aquifer via an infiltration gallery; and
A disposal of treatment residuals at a RCRA Subtitle C
facility.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy meets the requirements for remedial actions set
forth in CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. S9621: (1) it is protective of
human health and the environment; (2) it achieves a level or
standard of control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants, which at least attains the legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) under Federal and
State laws; (3) it is cost-effective; (4) it utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent .practicable; and (5) it
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at the Site.
A five-year review of the remedial action pursuant to CERCLA
§121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621(c), will not be necessary, because this
remedy will not result in hazardous substances remaining on-Site
above health-based levels, once its remediation goals have been
achieved.
eanne M. Fox " 'Date
egional Administrator
ii
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Circuitron Corporation
East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September 1994
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 5
SUMMARY wF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 10
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 15
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES ... 15
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 20
SELECTED REMEDY . . . 24
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 26
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 28
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Circuitron Corporation site (Site) is located at 82 Milbar
Boulevard, 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 l). The Site is surrounded by similar small
manufacturers and is several miles away from any residential area.
Except for the State University, tin ore are no schools or any
recreational facilities in the immediate vicinity.
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. Approximately 95% of the
Site property is paved or covered by the building. A small area
behind the building is not paved. The paved area in front of the
building had been used as a parking lot for the employees of
Circuitron Corporation. Presently, the entire Site property is
fenced and secured. Figure 2 shows the Site plan and the location
of aboveground and underground structures.
Two 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 leaching pools. These are identified on Figure
2 as LP<-3 and LP-4. Several leaching pools lie beneath the parking
lot in trie front of the building. One of these pools,'which is
designated as LP-1, is a wastew&ter discharge pool which was
permitted via the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES) program. Two other leaching pools, identified as
LP-2 and LP-7, are located in the northeast corner of the Site.
Two sanitary cesspools, CP-1 and CP-2, were identified below the
parking area in front of the northwest corner of the building. The
sanitary cesspools were permitted to accept sanitary wastes only.
However, Suffolk County Department 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. Three
catch basins (identified as CB in Figure 2) are also present at the
Site.
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 Site is
located on the outwash plain of Long Island. The uppermost
aquifer, the Upper Glacial, is estimated to be 80 feet thick
beneath the Site. The depth to the water table is approximately 30
feet below grade. The saturated portion of the Upper Glacial
aquifer, with a thickness of 50 feet, begins at the water table and
extends down to 80 feet below grade. The Upper Glacial aquifer is
-------
underlain by the Magothy aquifer which is approximately 700 feet
thick in the vicinity of the Site.
Nineteen (19) public water supply wells are located within two
miles of the Site, of which seventeen (17) are screened in the
Magothy aquifer. There are eighteen (18) public water supply
wells, irrigation or commercial supply wells within a half-mile
radius of the Site and the closest wells are shown on Figure 1.
The Magothy aquifer is the main aquifer of use within the half-mile
radius. The closest public water supply wells located downgradient
of the Site are in the East Farmingdale Water District (EFWD)
wellfield, approximately 1500 feet south of the Site (Figur* 1) .
The shallow well (S-20041) has been closed for several years due to
the presence of low concentrations of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The deeper well (S-20042) is still in operation. A new,
not yet operational, public water supply well (S-91611) has been
installed by the EFWD and has yet to be permitted for operation.
Another EFWD public water supply well (S-39709) is located cross
gradient, to the west of the Site. The remaining fourteen (14)
wells are all commercial supply wells and are typically used for
npncontact cooling water purposes.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Circuitron Corporation was incorporated in New York State in 1961.
The company operated a manufacturing facility at the Site between
1961 and 1986.
In 1984, an owner of Circuitron Corporation, Mario Lombardo, was
charged for discharging organic solvents to unpermitted "hidden"
leaching pools between March 1, 1982 and March 22, 1984. In 1985,
Mr. Lombardo pleaded guilty to unlawful dumping of hazardous
wastes, under New York State Environmental Conservation Law Section
27, Subsection 09-14. He was fined $50,000 and sentenced to 700
hours of community service.
The Circuitron Corporation had an approved SPDES permit, No. NY-007
5655, to discharge industrial wastewater to a leaching pool (LP-1
on Figure 2) located below the former parking area in front of the
building. The permit expired on September 12, 1986, as a result of
a July l, 1986 inspection by NYSDEC which indicated that the
discharge had ceased.
The facility had received numerous warnings from both the SCDHS and
NYSDEC concerning SPDES permit violations and unauthorized
discharges. An Order on Consent and a 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 monitoring 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 were not fully in
agreement with each other. To date, only the unpennitted leaching
pool in the southern part of the plating room has been cleaned out
and backfilled. This work was performed by Circuitron Corporation.
There are no records available regarding the amount of waste
removed from this leaching pool or the existence and the extent of
contaminated soil in and around the leaching pool.
Circuitron Corporation ceased operations and vacated tae Site some
time between May and June 1986, during which time all equipment of
value was removed. When Circuitron Corporation informed SCDHS that
it would be vacating the facility, SCDHS notified the company 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, among others, the off-Site groundwater monitoring
requirement, and filed for bankruptcy in 1986.
The current owner of the Site is 82 Milbar Blvd., Inc., a New York
corporation incorporated in 1968. 82 Milbar Blvd., Inc. filed for
bankruptcy in 1987. Both this and Circuitron Corporation's
bankruptcy ended when they were dismissed in 1988.
In 1987, EPA initiated an emergency removal of some of the more
than 100 chemical containers and storage tanks on-Site. . In 1988,
EPA conducted another emergency .cleanup action' and removed
approximately 20 waste drums from inside the building, 3
aboveground tanks from the rear of the building, the contents of 7
underground storage tanks, 2 below-surface treatment basins, and
several leaching basins. The cleanup action involved consolidating
the various wastes, removing the tanks located at the rear of the
property, and removing contaminated debris inside the building. In
total, 100 cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris, 50 drums of
hazardous liquid, and an additional 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of
tanked hazardous liquids were removed and properly disposed of off-
Site.
EPA sent three sets of general notice letters to the identified
potentially responsible parties (PRPs). The first set was sent to
five PRPs on July 24, 1987, requesting that they voluntarily
undertake the removal work that EPA ultimately conducted in 1987'
and 1988. The second set was sent on August 15, 1988, to the same
five PRPs inviting them to conduct a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Site. The third set was sent on
March 29, 1991, to fourteen PRPs, including the five original
parties, requesting that they finance the Remedial Design and
Remedial Action (RD/RA) at the Site and demanding payment of past
costs for the Removal Action and the RI/FS. None of the parties
-------
came forward to undertake voluntarily the Removal Action, RI/FS, or
the RD/RA.
The Site was proposed for the National Priorities List (NPL) in
June 1988 and was listed on the NPL in March 1989.
The first RI/FS of the Site was initiated by EPA in September 1988
and was completed in January 1991. The objectives of this study
were to define the nature and extent of contaminants in the Site's
surface and subsurface soils, in the groundwater, in sediments in
the underground structures, and in the abandoned building. Based
on the results of the RI/FS, EPA determined that sufficient
information was available to select a source control remedy, but
additional data were required before a groundwater remedy could be
selected. As a result, EPA issued a source control Record of
Decision (ROD) on March 29, 1991 and initiated a second operable
unit focused feasibility study (FFS) to obtain the additional data
necessary to select a groundwater remedy for the Site.
The 1991 ROD called for: (1) the excavation and off-Site treatment
and disposal of the contaminated sediments from the leaching pools,
cesspools, and storm drains; (2) in situ (in-place) vacuum
extraction of the contaminated soils (which involves placing a
cover over the soil and applying a vacuum to pull and collect VOCs
out of the spaces between soil particles); (3) building
•decontamination via vacuuming of metals-contaminated dust and
replacement of the concrete floor in the building; and (4) repaving
of the entire Site. At the time that the 1991 ROD was issued, EPA
and the NYSDEC envisioned decontaminating the building located on
the Site property, to allow for unrestricted future use of the
building. During the past few years, however, the building has
deteriorated and currently poses potential safety hazards. In.
accordance with CERCLA Section 117(c), as part of the second
operable unit Proposed Plan, EPA and the NYSDEC informed the public
of the agencies' decision to demolish the building and dispose of
the building debris off-Site at an appropriate facility.
The remedial design for the source control remedy is expected to be
completed late 1994, followed by the advertisement for and award of
construction contracts. The actual construction work is expected
to begin in the Spring of 1995.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The FFS report and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released to
the public for comment on July 26, 1994. These documents were made
available to the public in the administrative record file at the
EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York and two information
repositories maintained at the Farmingdale Public Library and the
Town of Babylon Department of Environmental Control. The notice of
the public meeting and availability of the above-referenced
-------
documents appeared in the Farmincrdale Observer and Newsday
newspaper on August 5, 1994. A press release announcing the same
was issued on July 26, 1994. The public comment period for review
of these documents extended from July 26, 1994 to August 24, 1994.
On August 8, 1994, EPA conducted a public meeting at the East
Farmingdale Fire House located at 930 Conklin Street, East
Farmingdale, New York, to discuss remedial alternatives, to present
EPA's preferred remedial alternative, and to provide an opportunity
for the interested parties to present consents and questions to
EPA.
EPA received several comments on the FFS and the Proposed Plan at
the public meeting; however, no written comments were received
during the public comment period. Responses to the comments
received at the public meeting are included in the Responsiveness
Summary (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
This operable unit represents the second of two planned for the
Site. It addresses the treatment of groundwater in the immediate
vicinity of the property, in the contaminant plume in the upper 40
feet of the saturated Upper Glacial aquifer and laterally extending
to approximately 700 feet downgradient of the Circuitron property.
The Upper Glacial aquifer is contaminated with inorganic compounds
and VOCs. The selected groundwater remedy constitutes the final
action planned for the Site. The ROD for the first operable unit
remedy was issued on March 29, 1991 and addressed the remediation
of organic and inorganic contamination in soils and sediments at
the Site.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The first operable unit RI concluded that the groundwater was
contaminated in the shallow aquifer underlying the Site. The RI
data also indicated the potential for the presence of upgradient
sources for the groundwater-contamination that was detected in the
deeper Upper Glacial aquifer and the shallow Magothy aquifer. The
groundwater contaminant levels that were detected in these aquifers
upgradient and downgradient of the Site were of the same order of
magnitude. As a result, EPA concluded that additional groundwater
and hydrogeological information was required before a remedy could
be selected for the groundwater.
In July 1992, EPA approved the final Work Plan and Sampling and
Analysis Plan,, submitted by its contractor, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
(Weston), and initiated the implementation of a Focused Feasibility
Study (FFS) for the second operable unit. Under the direction of
EPA, Weston conducted the FFS for the second operable unit to
-------
supplement the first operable unit RI data, and to delineate
further the horizontal and vertical extent of groundwater
contamination on-Site as well as off-Site (upgradient and
downgradient), in the shallow and deep aquifers.
Heston's field investigation efforts under the FFS included: (1)
groundwater elevation measurements, and a first round of groundwater
sampling of 20 existing first operable unit monitoring wells in May
1993; (2) a drive-point groundwater field screening sampling
program in August 1993; (3) installation of two confirmatory
monitoring wells in February 1994; (4) a second round of
groundwater sampling of the existing RI monitoring wells and the
two confirmatory monitoring wells, also in February 1994; (5)
hydrogeologic (slug) testing in March 1994; and (6) initiation of
a long-term groundwater elevation monitoring, also in March 1994.
A drive-point, truck-mounted, hydraulically-powered percussion
hammer was utilized for the collection of groundwater samples by
driving 1-inch diameter steel probe rods from grade to preselected
sampling depths within the aquifer. The drive-point sampling
program was primarily a reconnaissance method to delineate the
highest concentrations of downgradient Site-related groundwater
contamination that would be potentially targeted for remediation.
Figure 3 shows the monitoring well and drive-point sample
locations.
A complete round of water level measurements from both on-Site and
off-Site monitoring wells was made for hydrogeologic evaluation of
the groundwater flow direction and velocity. Groundwater level
measurements were also made prior to both rounds of groundwater
sampling and during April 1994. Long-term water level measurements
were performed at MW-2S and MW-2D during March 15 to 21, 1994, to
identify any effects on groundwater flow patterns due to nearby
pumping supply wells. Groundwater flow direction was determined to
be to the south-southeast for both the Upper Glacial and Magothy
aquifers. Average horizontal velocities of 1.84. feet/day and 0.25
feet/day were calculated for the Upper Glacial aquifer and the
Magothy aquifer, respectively.
To provide updated groundwater analytical data, the existing 1989
RI monitoring wells were resampled in May 1993 as part of the Round
1 groundwater sampling event.. These wells were sampled for Low
Detection Level (LDL) Target Compound List (TCL) VOCs and total and
dissolved Target Analyte List (TAL) Metals. The existing RI wells
included MW-2S/D, MW-3S/D, MW-4S/D, MW-8, MW-9, MW-10, MW-11 and
MW-12 located on the Circuitron Corporation property. The
remaining existing RI wells were located on adjacent properties and
included MW-1S/D, MW-5S/D, MW-6S/D and MW-7S/D. The "S" indicates
that the well is a water table well with a screened interval of
approximately 25 to 35 feet below grade and is the shallow
monitoring well of two collocated wells (couplet) . The "D"
indicates that the well is the deeper well of the couplet, with a
screened interval approximately 90 to 100 feet below grade in the
-------
shallow Magothy aquifer. One supply well was also sampled during
Round 1. This well is a deep noncontact cooling water supply well
(PW-2) located on the House of Plastics property, downgradient of
the Site. Tables 1 and 2 provide a summary of the analytical
testing results for Round 1 groundwater sampling for volatile
organics and inorganics, respectively.
A drive-point groundwater sampling program was conducted in
conjunction with quick turnaround laboratory analysis during August
1993 at the Site and nearby upgradient and downgradient locations
(Figure 3) as a reconnaissance method to delineate vertical and
lateral volatile organic contamination. Groundwater samples were
collected from locations along five (5) transects, located both
upgradient and downgradient of the .Site, running generally
perpendicular to the predominant groundwater flow direction to the
south-southeast. Groundwater sampling locations were spaced at
approximately 100 to 150 foot intervals along each transect. Two
upgradient and three downgradient transects were completed, for a
total of seventeen (17) sampling locations. At these 17 sampling
locations, a total of 48 groundwater samples were collected at
varying depths within the Upper Glacial aquifer. During the drive-
point groundwater sampling program, 10% of the samples were
collected for off-Site analysis for TCL organics using the Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) to confirm the results of the quick
turnaround analysis. A summary of the results of the drive-point
sampling analytical data is provided in Table 3.
Based' upon the results of the drive-point sampling, two (2)
additional groundwater monitoring wells were installed to confirm
the results of the drive-point sampling .program. One new
monitoring well (MW-13) was located approximately center-line of
the organic plume emanating from the southwest corner of the Site
property, 110 feet downgradient of the property line. The second
new monitoring well (MW-14) was installed at a location 220 feet
further downgradient of the southernmost existing monitoring well
MW-6S. This well was installed at the southern portion of the 70
Schmitt Boulevard property to attempt to define the leading edge of
the organic plume.
The round 2 groundwater sampling was performed in February 1994 and
included the majority of the existing RI monitoring wells (MW-1S/D,
MW-2S/D, MW-3S/D, MW-4S/D, MW-5S/D, MW-6S/D and MW-7S/D), two (2)
newly installed confirmatory wells (MW-13 and MW-14), a private
upgradient monitoring well (PD-l at Price Driscoll property,
located at 75 Milbar Boulevard) and the House of Plastics well, PW-
2. These wells were sampled for LDL TCL VOCs and total and
dissolved TAL Metals. In addition to these analytes, alkalinity,
hardness, total dissolved solids (TDS) and- total suspended solids
(TSS) were also analyzed for at nine (9) monitoring wells. Tables
4 and 5 provide a summary of the analytical testing results for the
Round 2 groundwater sampling for volatile organics and inorganics,.
respectively.
-------
The two rounds of groundwater VOC sampling results indicated
elevated concentrations of several organic contaminants. The VOCs
with the highest concentrations included: 1, l-dichloroethene (1,1-
DCE) (58 parts per billion (ppb) at MW-6D), 1,1-dichloroethane
(1,1-DCA) (52 ppb at MW-13), 1,1,l-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA)
(5800 ppb at MW-4S), trichloroethene (TCE) (82 ppb at MW-1D) , and
tetrachloroethene (PCE) (63 ppb at MW-4D). These concentrations
exceed their respective New York State Drinking Water Standards of
5 ppb.
For inorganic compounds, the first round of groundwater sampling
results indicated elevated concentrations of arsenic, barium,
chromium, copper, iron, lead and manganese. In the second round,
only chromium, copper, iron, lead and manganese were reported in
elevated concentrations. Of these compounds, it is believed that
only arsenic, copper, lead and chromium are associated with past
Site-related industrial process operations. These four inorganic
compounds were also reported in elevated concentrations in Site
soils and sediments during the first operable unit RI. These four
inorganic compounds were detected at elevated concentrations
(numbers in parentheses denote maximum concentrations) in the
groundwater samples collected during the -two rounds: arsenic (74
ppb at MW-2S), chromium (788 ppb at HW-7S), copper (14,600 ppb at
MW-2S), and lead (55 ppb at MW-9). These concentrations exceed
their respective New York State Drinking Water Standards of 25 ppb
for arsenic, 100 ppb for chromium, 200 ppb for copper, and 15 ppb
for lead.
The FFS groundwater sampling results, in conjunction with the
results from the first operable unit RI, confirmed that several on-
property contamination source areas exist at the Site, as organic
and inorganic contamination is evident in the groundwater in both
the Upper Glacial and shallow Magothy aquifers. The drive-point
data indicated that a groundwater contaminant plume attributed to
the Site exists in the Upper Glacial aquifer extending to an
approximate depth of 70 feet below grade (upper 40 feet of the
saturated Upper Glacial aquifer) . The volatile organic contaminant
levels found in upgradient and downgradient samples collected from
drive-point installations located in the deep Upper Glacial and
monitoring wells located in the shallow Magothy aquifers were of
approximately the same order of magnitude, and, therefore, indicate
that the groundwater contamination that has been detected beneath
the Upper Glacial aquifer, beginning at a depth of approximately 70
feet below grade, is attributed to upgradient sources.
The potential for the presence of upgradient sources is also
supported by the vertical distribution of 1,1,1-TCA, shown in
Figure 4, which is considered to be a fingerprint contaminant for
the Site and is indicative of the vertical extent of groundwater
contamination that is attributed to the Site. This distribution
indicates a zone where 1,1,1-TCA was not detected between the
8
-------
heavily contaminated shallow Upper Glacial and the deep Upper
Glacial aquifer. The absence of 1,1,1-TCA in this zone suggests
that the Site-related contaminant plume in the shallow Upper
Glacial aquifer is separate and distinct from the 1,1,1-TCA-
contaminated groundwater in the deep Upper Glacial and shallow
Magothy aquifers, and that there are other sources contributing to
the contamination in the deep Upper Glacial and shallow Magothy
aquifers.
In addition, the fate and transport of VOCs in the groundwater are
primarily affected by adsorption and biodegradation phenomena. As
a result of the biodegradation of primary VOCs (e.g., 1,1,1-TCA and
TCE) , daughter products (e.g., 1,1-DCE and 1,1-DCA) can form
rapidly enough for both primary VOCs and daughter products to be
present concurrently. The length of residence time,
concentrations, and proximity of the primary VOCs in groundwater is
directly related to the concentrations of the daughter products,
dependent upon the biodegradation rates for specific compounds. In
general, concentrations of primary VOCs decrease exponentially at
the source, as a function of the distance from the source, and also
decrease with time. Therefore, the concentrations of the resultant
daughter products are a function of changes that affect the primary
VOCs.
A comparison of the concentrations of primary VOCs and their
respective daughter degradation products were made for groundwater
samples collected from the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer, deep
Upper Glacial aquifer, and shallow Magothy aquifer. The
concentration of daughter products relative to primary VOCs would
be expected to increase with depth from the source. The monitoring
well and drive-point sampling data (Tables I/ 3/ and 5), although
not conclusive, does suggest that this is the case throughout the
shallow Upper Glacial aquifer. However, the data for the deep
Upper Glacial aquifer and shallow Magothy aquifer suggests that
this trend reverses itself with increasing depth. This reversing
trend implies that other sources are contributing to the
contamination in these aquifers and further supports the concept
that the Site-related contaminant plume in the shallow Upper
Glacial aquifer is separate and distinct from the contaminated
groundwater in the deep Upper Glacial and shallow Magothy aquifers.
In the Upper Glacial aquifer, the groundwater contaminant plume
attributable to the Site contained elevated concentrations of both
organics and inorganics which have migrated to approximately 700
feet beyond the southern property line of the Site. The main
organic contaminants were 1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-DCE and the main
inorganic contaminants were copper and chromium. The Site-related
groundwater contaminant plume has a width of about 600 feet and
extends vertically into the shallow portion (upper 40 saturated
feet) of the Upper Glacial aquifer.
-------
On March 14, 1994, in situ .permeability tests or slug tests were
conducted at two existing monitoring wells (MW-3S and MW-5S) and
two new confirmatory monitoring wells (MW-13 and MW-14). The
objective was to estimate the hydraulic conductivity in the Upper
Glacial aquifer. All four of the monitor wells tested were
screened across or directly below the groundwater table within the
Upper Glacial aquifer. The hydraulic conductivities calculated at
the four wells ranged from 118 to 229 ft/day. These results are
within the range of values for the regional horizontal hydraulic
conductivity of the Upper Glacial aquifer.
Finally, to identify any effects caused by large capacity pumping
wells in the vicinity of the Site, groundwater levels were
monitored continuously in monitoring wells MW-2S and MW-2D from
March 15 through 21, 1994. The results of the long-term water
level monitoring for both the Upper Glacial and the Magothy
aquifers at the Site indicate that there are currently no large
capacity pumping well(s) in the vicinity of the Site which may be
locally influencing groundwater flow direction or contaminant plume
migration.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the FFS, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and future
Site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates the human
health and ecological risk which could result from the
contamination at the Site, if no remedial action were taken. This
information is used to make a determination as to whether
remediation of the Site may be required.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing Site-related human
health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard
Identifications-identifies the contaminants of concern at the Site
based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence,
and concentration. Exposure Assessment—estimates the magnitude of
actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and duration
of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated
well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed. Toxicity
Assessment—determines the types of adverse health effects
associated with chemical exposures, and the relationship between
magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects
(response) . Risk Characterization—summarizes and combines outputs
of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative
assessment of Site-related risks.
10
-------
EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the potential
risks to human health associated with the Circuitron Corporation
site in its current state. The Risk Assessment focused on
contaminants in the groundwater which are likely to pose
significant risks to human health.
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of
concern which would be indicative of groundwater contaminants at
the Site. A total of 24 organic and inorganic compounds, with 12
for each group, were identified as the contaminants of concern.
The 12 organic contaminants of concern were acetone, 2-butanone,
chlorobenzene, chloroform, 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, cis-l,2-DCE, PCE,
toluene, 1,1,1-TCA, 1,1,2-TCA, and TCE. The 12 inorganic
contaminants of concern were aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, silver, vanadium, and
zinc. Of these 24 contaminants, chloroform, 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, PCE,
1,1,2-TCA, TCE, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, and nickel are
classified by EPA as carcinogens (cancer-causing chemicals); the
rest are all considered to be noncarcinogens. However, because
chromium and nickel are considered carcinogens through the
inhalation exposure route only and metals are not of concern
through the inhalation route for the groundwater pathway, chromium
and nickel were not evaluated as carcinogens in the risk
assessment. Table 6 provides the frequency of detection, the
sample guantitation limits, and the range of detected
concentrations for the 24 contaminants of concern. Table 7
provides the 95% upper confidence level (95% UCL) concentration,
maximum detected concentration, and exposure point concentrations
for the 24 contaminants of concern.
An exposure assessment was conducted utilizing reasonable maximum
exposure scenarios to estimate the magnitude, frequency, and
duration of actual and/or potential exposures to the contaminants
of concern present in groundwater in the upper 40 feet of the
saturated Upper Glacial aquifer. Reasonable maximum exposure is
defined as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to
occur at the Site for individual and combined pathways.
Groundwater underlying the Site in the Upper Glacial aquifer is not
currently used for household purposes. The residents in the area
are on public water from supply wells in the deeper Magothy
aquifer. On this basis, no receptors were evaluated under current-
use conditions in the risk assessment. The baseline risk
assessment evaluated the health effects which could potentially
result from ingestion of groundwater and noningestion uses of
groundwater (e.g., showering, bathing, and cooking) by future
residents (children and adults), as this is the most conservative
exposure scenario. An assumption was made that the Site and the
neighboring areas would be developed for residential use in the
future, and the groundwater from the upper 40 feet of the saturated
aquifer would be used for household purposes. The potential
exposure pathways, scenarios, and routes evaluated in this risk
assessment are presented in Table 8.
11
-------
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to site chemicals are
considered separately. It was assumed that the toxic effects of
the Site-related chemicals would be additive. Thus, carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic risks associated with exposures to individual
compounds of concern were added together to indicate the potential
risks associated with mixtures of potential carcinogens and
noncarcinogens, respectively.
In the toxicity assessment, the potential carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic potencies of the contaminants of concern are
evaluated.
Potential carcinogenic potencies are typically evaluated by using
the cancer slope factors (CSFs) developed by EPA for the
contaminants of concern. CSFs have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CSFs, which are expressed in
units of (milligrams/kilogram-day)'1 (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 CSF. Use of this approach makes the
underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The CSFs for the
carcinogenic contaminants of concern are presented in Table 9. For
known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper-bound
individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10"4 to 10* to be
acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has no greater
than an approximately one in ten thousand to one in a million
chance of developing cancer over a lifetime (i.e., 70 years) as a
result of site-related exposure under specific exposure conditions.
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). Reference doses (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). The
RfDs for the noncarcinogenic contaminants of concern at the Site
are presented in Table 10. Estimated intakes of chemicals from
environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from
contaminated drinking water) are compared to the RfD to derive the
hazard quotient for the contaminant in the particular medium. The
HI is obtained by adding the hazard quotients for all compounds
across all media that impact a particular receptor population. An
HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for
noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-related
exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging
12
-------
the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within
a single medium or across media.
In the risk characterization, carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic
risks were evaluated for the 24 contaminants of concern.
Total carcinogenic risks are summarized in Table 11 by exposure
pathway for the future resident (child and adult exposure
combined). The carcinogenic risks are presented by chemical and
exposure route in Table 12. The percent distribution of these
risks by chemical and exposure route is presented in Table 13.
The total excess incremental lifetime cancer risk for the future
resident (child and adult combined) was calculated to be 1.1 x 10J
(i.e., approximately 1 in 1,000). The majority (86%) of the total
carcinogenic risk was contributed by the ingestion of groundwater.
Arsenic and 1,1-DCE contributed 98% of the total carcinogenic risk.
The carcinogenic risk for arsenic was 9 x 10"4 through ingestion of
groundwater. The carcinogenic risk for 1,1-DCE was 1.9 x 10"*,
primarily through noningestion uses of groundwater. These results
indicate significant potential carcinogenic risk to the future
resident through the groundwater pathway for the reasonable maximum
exposure scenario.
Unlike the carcinogenic risk evaluation, noncarcinogenic risks were
evaluated separately for the future child and adult residents. For
the future child residential scenario, total HQs and His by
exposure pathway, HQs and His by chemical and exposure route, and
percent distribution of. the HQs and His by chemical and exposure
route are presented in Tables 14, 15, and 16, respectively. For
the future adult residential scenario, total HQs and His by
exposure pathway, ?iQs and His by chemical and exposure route, and
percent distribution of the HQs and His by chemical and exposure
route are presented in Tables 14, 17, and 18, respectively. For
the future child resident, the total HI for health risks posed by
exposure to groundwater was 56. More than 99% of the total HI was
contributed by the ingestion of groundwater. Copper, manganese,
and arsenic contributed 96% of the total HI. The His for copper,
manganese, and.arsenic were 25, 18, and 10 respectively, through
ingestion of groundwater. For the future adult, the total HI for
health risks posed by exposure to groundwater was 24. More than
99% of the total HI was contributed by ingestion of groundwater.
Copper, manganese, and arsenic contributed 96% of the total HI.
The His for copper, manganese, and arsenic were 11, 7.8, and 4.3
respectively, also through ingestion of groundwater. These results
indicate a potential for adverse noncarcinogenic health effects to
the future child and adult residents from exposure to groundwater
for the reasonable maximum exposure scenario.
In summary, the human health risk assessment indicated that the
contaminants in the groundwater in the shallow portion (upper 40
saturated feet) of the Upper Glacial aquifer at the Site pose an
elevated risk to human health. In addition, as noted above,
numerous organic and inorganic contaminants are also present in the
13
-------
shallow Upper Glacial aquifer at levels which exceed the Federal
and/or New York State Drinking Water Standards. Although the
shallow Upper Glacial aquifer is generally no longer used for
public water supply in the area, remediation is warranted to
protect the underlying Magothy aquifer from contamination present
in the Upper Glacial aquifer. Two active public water supply wells
draw water from the Magothy aquifer within a half-mile radius
downgradient of and adjacent to the Site. The remedial
investigation data and other data sources indicate that the two
aquifers are hydraulically interconnected and no confining clay
barriers exist between the two aquifers.
Ecological Risk Assessment
The potential exposure routes of Site contamination to terrestrial
wildlife were considered. Since 95% of the Circuitron Corporation
site is paved or covered by a building and the Site is situated in
a densely populated industrial/commercial area, there is little, if
any, potential for exposure to contaminated soils or groundwater
on-Site, or for wildlife to be present within the general vicinity
of the Site. As a result, EPA concluded that conducting a detailed
ecological risk assessment was not warranted.
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.
14
-------
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.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including
a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk associated with
various exposure pathways, is presented in the risk assessment
section of the FFS report.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in the ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
the public health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human
health and the environment. These objectives are based on
available information and standards such as applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and risk-based levels
established in the risk assessment.
Organic and inorganic contamination has been detected in
concentrations above ARARs in groundwater at the Site. Therefore,
the following remedial action objectives have been established for
groundwater:
A prevent potential future -ingestion of Site-related
contaminated groundwater;
A, restore the quality of the groundwater contaminated from
the Siter-related activities to levels consistent with the
State and Federal drinking water and groundwater quality
standards; and
A mitigate the off-Site migration of the Site-related
contaminated groundwater.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA §121(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(1), mandates that a remedial
action be protective of human health and the environment, cost-
effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
15
-------
maximum extent practicable.. Section 121(b)(1) also establishes a
preference for remedial actions which employ, as a principal
element, treatment to reduce permanently and significantly the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances,
pollutants and contaminants at a site. CERCLA $121(d), 42 U.S.C.
§9621(d), further mandates that a remedial action attain a level or
standard of control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants, which at least attains ARARs under Federal and State
laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA
S121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. $9621(d)(4).
This ROD evaluates in detail three (3) remedial alternatives for
addressing the groundwater contamination associated with the
Circuitron Corporation site. The "time to implement" a remedial
alternative reflects only the time required to construct or
implement the remedy and does not include the time required to.
design the remedy, negotiate with the responsible parties, or
procure contracts for design and construction, or conduct operation
and maintenance at the Site. The time required for remedial design
activities and procurement of contractor services is estimated to
take up to 2 years. The "time to achieve cleanup goals" reflects
the number of years for which the treatment system must operate in
order to achieve State and Federal drinking water and groundwater
quality standards in the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer. This time
frame assumes that the source control remedial action for the first
operable unit will be completed prior to the implementation of the
groundwater remedy.
The remedial alternatives are: .
Alternative GW-1; No Action
Capital Cost: $5,000
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $0
Present Worth Cost": $5,000
Time to Implement: 2 Months
Time to Achieve Cleanup Goals: N/A
Present Worth Costs for all alternatives were determined by
compounding the annual O&M costs by 8% over the number of years of
operation.
The Superfund program requires that the "no-action" alternative be
considered as a baseline for comparison of other alternatives.
Under the no-action Alternative GW-1, no remedial actions would be
implemented. However, it would be recommended that deed and Site
restrictions be imposed on the Site in order to prevent the use of
the groundwater from the Upper Glacial aquifer.
16
-------
Under Alternative GW-1, the groundwater contaminants would continue
to migrate into deeper portions of the Upper Glacial aquifer as
well as into the Magothy aquifer. This no-action alternative would
require a review of the remedial action every five years pursuant
to CERCLA $121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621(c), because implementing this
alternative would result in hazardous substances remaining on-Site
above health-based levels. Additional remedial actions could be
required depending on the results of such a review.
Alternative GW-2; Groundvater Pumping. Treatment Using Aeration,
Coagulation. Floceulation and Sedimentation/Air Stripp'.no/Granular
Activated Carben/Reinieetion using an Infiltration Gallery
Capital Cost: $1,963,000
O&M/yr Cost: $675,000
Present Worth Cost: $6,492,000
Time to Implement:. 1 Year
Time to Achieve Cleanup Goals: 10 years
Alternative GW-2 would involve capture and extraction of the
contaminated groundwater in the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer
through the installation of three groundwater recovery wells; the
on-Site treatment of the contaminated groundwater; and reinjection
of the groundwater following treatment. This alternative would
also involve the quarterly sampling of selected monitoring wells to
monitor groundwater cleanup and the periodical sampling of the
influent to, and effluent from, the groundwater treatment plant to
monitor treatment system effectiveness. An Operation and
Maintenance plan for the groundwater monitoring program, as well as
the operation of the groundwater treatment system, would be
developed during the Remedial Design. The construction of the
groundwater extraction, treatment, and reinjection system for this
alternative would be completed within approximately 1 year.
An analytical steady-state groundwater flow model, QUICKFLOW
(Geraghty & Miller, Inc., 1991), was used in the FFS to simulate
and evaluate the location and pumping rates required to provide the
most effective hydraulic control'and extraction of contaminated
groundwater in the shallow, saturated Upper Glacial aquifer. The
most effective groundwater-remediation simulation output is
provided on Figure 5. This information was utilized to devise a
conceptual design of the treatment system and associated costs; the
actual location of wells, pumping rates, etc. would be established
during the Remedial Design phase of the project. Figure 5 shows
the pumping of three recovery wells (RW-l, RW-2, and RW-3) at a
combined rate of 135 gallons per minute (gpm). Recovery wells RW-l
and RW-2, located closest to the Site, would recover the most
contaminated groundwater and would provide the hydraulic control of
the downgradient end of the plume to the Site. Recovery wells RW-l
and RW-2 would be designed as source-control wells pumping at
respective rates of 30 gpm, while RW-3, located at the leading edge
of the plume, would be the migration control well, pumping at a
17
-------
rate of 75 gpm. The recovery veils would be screened across the
upper 40 feet of the shallow, saturated Upper Glacial aquifer
(approximately 70 feet below grade). Approximately 2,000 feet of
.eight-inch piping would be installed within trenches to connect the
recovery wells to the on-Site groundwater treatment system.
It is envisioned that the groundwater treatment system would
involve the following major components: flow equalization,
aeration, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, air stripping,
and vapor-phase and liquid-phase granular activated carbon.
Aeration, coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation would be used
for the removal of dissolved inorganics, such as metals, and
suspended solids. Air stripping coupled with liquid- and vapor-
phase granular activated carbon treatment would be used
specifically for the removal of VOCs. Figure 6 illustrates a
typical groundwater recovery and treatment system. The filter cake
or the sludge generated by the metals treatment stage would be
disposed of off-Site at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Subtitle C Facility. Spent carbon from the vapor- and
liquid-phase carbon units would be handled similarly or
regenerated. It is assumed that the groundwater treatment system
would be designed to handle flows up to 150 gpm (incorporating an
excess of 15 gpm) in order to accommodate any variation in future
flow rate to effect sufficient capture zones in the shallow Upper
Glacial aquifer. It is estimated that groundwater treatment would
be required for approximately 10 years based upon volume of
contaminated groundwater and concentrations of contaminants
requiring treatment.
The extracted groundwater would be treated to State and Federal
drinking water and groundwater quality standards and reinjected by
means of an infiltration gallery located along the northern
boundary of the Site on Milbar Boulevard (see Figure 5) . Table 19
lists the groundwater cleanup standards that will be achieved by
the treatment system prior to reinjection.
It is noted that an analytical testing for inorganic compounds
during the FFS reported sporadic elevated concentrations of these
compounds detected at isolated locations on- and off-Site during
the two rounds of groundwater sampling. A review and comparison of
the turbidity data with the filtered groundwater data indicates
that the concentration of many of the inorganic compounds were
strongly influenced by the presence of turbidity in excess of 200
Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs). Therefore, additional
groundwater sampling for the inorganic compounds present in
groundwater, independent of the influence of high turbidity, would
be obtained. These groundwater sampling activities would be
performed early during the Remedial Design phase for the selected
remedial alternative, prior to finalization of the required
inorganic groundwater treatment program.
18
-------
Alternative GW-3 - Air Sparaina/Soil Vapor Extraction/Limited
Groundwater Pumping for Hydraulic Contaimnent/Groundwater Treatment
using Aeration. Coagulation. Flocculation and Sedimentation/Air
Stripping/Granular Activated Carbon/Rein-iection using an
Infiltration Gallery
Capital Cost: $2,677,000
O&M/yr Cost: $1,075,000
Present Worth Cost: $8,274,000
Tine to Implement: 1 Year
Time to Achieve Cleanup Goals: 7 Years
Alternative GW-3 includes the installation of two major treatment
components, an air sparging/soil vapor .extraction system and a
limited groundwater pump and treat system.
The air sparging and soil vapor extraction system would address the
remediation of on-property and off-property VOC contamination in
the groundwater in the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer. A schematic
showing the major components for a typical air sparging and soil
vapor extraction system appears on Figure- 7. For planning and
cost-estimating purposes, several assumptions were made concerning
the design of the system as noted below. Approximately 20 two-inch
air sparging wells would be installed. The locations for these
wells would be determined based on pilot-plant testing to be
conducted prior to Remedial Design activities. The air sparging
wells would be screened at a depth of approximately 70 feet below
grade. Approximately 15 two-inch vacuum extraction wells would be
installed at locations also to be determined based on pilot-plant
testing. The vacuum extraction wells would be screened from
approximately 10 to 25 feet below grade.
The design of the groundwater extraction, treatment, and
reinjection system is assumed to be similar to that of Alternative
GW-2, except that the groundwater treatment system would be capable
of handling flows up to 75 gpm, instead of 150 gpm. The required
groundwater pumping rate for this alternative is estimated to be
less than the rate for Alternative GW-2 because its primary purpose
is to provide for hydraulic control of the leading (downgradient)
edge of the plume and it was determined that such pumping rate of
75 gpm at a single recovery well would be adequate. An eight-inch
recovery well would be installed at the leading edge of the plume.
The well would be screened across the upper 40 feet of the shallow
Upper Glacial aquifer (approximately 70 feet below grade).
Approximately 5,000 feet of buried trenching/piping would be
required for connecting the air injection wells to the air delivery
system, the vacuum extraction wells to the vacuum extraction
system, the groundwater recovery well to the groundwater treatment
system, and the injection gallery.
19
-------
This alternative would also involve the quarterly sampling of
selected monitoring wells to monitor groundwater cleanup and the
sampling of the off-gases from the air sparging/soil vapor
extraction process and the influent to, and effluent from, the
groundwater treatment plant to monitor treatment system
effectiveness. An Operation and Maintenance plan for the
groundwater monitoring program as well as the operation of the air
sparging and soil vapor extraction system and the groundwater
extraction and treatment system would be developed during the
Remedial Design.
The construction of the air sparging and soil vapor extraction
system and the groundwater extraction and treatment system for this
alternative would be completed within approximately 1 year. It is
estimated that the groundwater treatment would be required for
approximately 7 years based upon volume of contaminated groundwater
and concentrations of contaminants requiring treatment.
Residual waste from the treatment process such as sludges would be
disposed of off-Site at a RCRA Subtitle C Facility. Spent carbon
from the vapor- and liquid-phase carbon units would be handled
similarly or regenerated.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In selecting a remedy, EPA considered the factors set out in CERCLA
§121, 42 U.S.C. §9621, by conducting a detailed analysis of the
viable remedial alternatives pursuant to the NCP, 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) §300.430(e)(9) and OSWER Directive
9355.3-01. The detailed analysis consisted of an assessment of the
individual alternatives against each of nine evaluation criteria
and a comparative analysis focusing upon the relative performance
of each alternative against those criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria must be satisfied by any
alternative in order to be eligible for selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses 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 institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would
meet all of the applicable (legally enforceable), or relevant
and appropriate (requirements that pertain to situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at a Superfund site
such that their use is well suited to the site) requirements
of Federal and State environmental statutes and requirements
or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
20
-------
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make
comparisons and to identify the major trade-offs between
alternatives:
3. 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.
4. Reduction of toxicitv. mobility, or volume via treatment
refers to a remedial technology's expected ability to reduce
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances,
'pollutants or contaminants at the site.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health
and the environment that may be posed during the construction
and implementation periods until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Imp1ementabi1ity refers to the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance
costs, and the present worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the
FFS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports, opposes, and/or
has identified any reservations with the preferred
alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the FFS
report. Factors of community acceptance to be discussed
include support, reservation, and opposition by the community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the
evaluation criteria noted above follows.
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would provide effective overall
protection of human health and the environment as they would
prevent the further degradation of the groundwater quality in the
Upper Glacial and Magothy aquifers. These alternatives would
reduce inorganic and organic groundwater contaminant levels and
21
-------
restore groundwater quality to State and Federal drinking water and
groundwater quality standards. Alternative GW-1, which offers no
groundwater treatment, would not be protective of human health and
the environment.
• Compliance with ARARs
Alternative GW-1 would not comply with ARARs because the volatile
organic and metals contamination would remain in the groundwater in
the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer. Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3
would comply with all ARARs.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Both Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would be effective over the long
term and permanently protect human health and the environment.
However, the time to achieve cleanup goals under Alternative GW-3
is estimated to be 7 years as compared to 10 years under
Alternative GW-2. Alternative GW-1, which provides no treatment,
would be neither effective nor permanent in protecting human health
and the environment.
• Reduction in Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume via Treatment
Both Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would reduce the mobility and
toxicity of groundwater to the same degree by treatment of the VOCs
and inorganic contaminants present in the groundwater in the
shallow Upper Glacial.aquifer. In addition, as the groundwater
contaminants are removed, the volume of groundwater with
contaminant concentrations remaining above the New York State
Drinking Water Standards would decrease. Alternative GW-1, which
offers no treatment of the contaminated groundwater, would not
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the groundwater
contamination.
• Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 in the short term will halt the spread
of contaminants in the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer. These
alternatives will also retard the migration of the contaminants
into the deeper Upper Glacial and Magothy aquifers. Alternative
GW-2 would provide more effective hydraulic containment of the
groundwater contaminant plume than Alternative GW-3 because the
groundwater extraction/treatment system for Alternative GW-2 would
be designed to handle flows twice those of Alternative GW-3.
Alternative GW-i provides no treatment of groundwater and is not
considered to be effective in the short term because the
contaminants will remain in the contaminated groundwater in the
shallow Upper Glacial aquifer.
22
-------
In terns of adverse impacts that nay be posed to human health or
the environment during the construction and implementation period,
there is a potential for short-term health risks typically
associated with construction activity and worker safety for
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3. A health and safety plan, however,
would be prepared to address and minimize risks to the Site
workers. The short-term health risks would be greater for
Alternative GW-3 than for Alternative GW-2, as Alternative GW-3
employs an additional treatment component (air sparging and soil
vapor extraction) and as a result, would require more
trenching/piping activities. Alternative GW-2 would require
approximately 2,000 feet of buried trenching/piping connecting the
recovery wells to the on-Site groundwater treatment system.
Alternative GW-3 would require approximately 5,000 feet of buried
trenching/piping for connecting the air injection wells to the air
delivery system, the vacuum extraction wells to the vacuum
extraction system, the groundwater recovery well to the groundwater
treatment system and the injection gallery. Since it is envisioned
that contaminated source areas and soils would be remediated before
groundwater treatment is initiated, risks associated with exposure
to these contaminated media are expected to be minimal. As an
added safety measure, engineering controls such as air monitoring
and other measures would be employed (e.g., restricting the Site to
authorized personnel only) to ensure the safety of on-Site workers
and off-Site receptors. Implementation of Alternative GW-1 would
not pose any construction-related short-term health risks, as it is
a "No Action" alternative.
• Iroplementability
Alternative GW-l would be the most readily implementable as it is
a "No Action" alternative, followed by Alternative GW-2 and then
Alternative GW-3. Alternative GW-2 would involve conventional
technologies with proven reliability. Alternative GW-3, however,
would involve the use of an innovative technology (i.e., air
sparging/soil vapor extraction), which may make it less reliable
than Alternative GW-2, because Alternative GW-3 has been used less
frequently at Superfund sites similar to the Circuitron Corporation
site.
• Cost
Alternative GW-l would have the lowest associated cost, as it is a
"No Action" alternative, followed by Alternative GW-2 and then
Alternative GW-3. The only cost for the implementation of
Alternative GW-l would be the capital cost of $5,000, which is for
deed and Site restrictions to prevent the use of the groundwater
from the Upper Glacial aquifer. There would be no O&H costs for
Alternative GW-l, so the total present worth cost would be $5,000.
Alternative GW-2 would have a capital cost of about $1,963,000 and
O&M cost of $675,000 per year. The total present worth cost for
Alternative GW-2 would be $6,492,000. Alternative GW-3 would have
23
-------
a capital cost of $2,677,000, O&M cost of $1,075,000 per year, and
total present worth cost of $8,274,000. The higher costs for
Alternative GW-3 are associated with air sparging and soil vapor
extraction.
• State Acceptance
The NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy.
• Community Acceptance
No objections from the community were raised regarding the selected
remedy. Community comments and questions can be reviewed in the
August 8, 1994 public meeting transcript, which has been included
in the 'Administrative Record. A responsiveness summary which
addresses all comments received during the public comment period is
attached as Appendix V.
SELECTED REMEDY
EPA and NYSDEC have determined after reviewing the alternatives and
public comments, that Alternative GW-2 is the appropriate remedy
for the Site, because it best satisfies the requirements of CERCLA
§121, 42 U.S.C. §9621, and the NCP's nine evaluation criteria for
remedial alternatives, 40 C.F.R. §300.430(e)(9).
The major components of the selected remedy include:
A extraction of the Site-related groundwater contaminant
plume present in the upper 40 feet of the saturated Upper
Glacial aquifer;
A treatment, via metal precipitation and air stripping, of
contaminated groundwater to drinking water standards;
A reinjection of the treated groundwater into the Upper
Glacial aquifer via an infiltration gallery; and
A disposal of treatment residuals at a RCRA Subtitle C
facility.
Detailed information for this selected remedy is provided above
under Alternative GW-2 in the DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
section of this document. As explained in this section, because
analytical testing conducted during the FFS for inorganic compounds
reported only sporadic elevated concentrations of these compounds
likely associated with and influenced by high turbidity, additional
groundwater sampling for the inorganic compounds present in
groundwater, independent of the influence of high turbidity, will
be obtained during the Remedial Design phase prior to finalization
of the required inorganic groundwater treatment program.
24
-------
Remediation Goals
The goal of the selected remedy is to restore the groundwater to
drinking water quality. Based on information obtained during the
FFS and on a careful analysis of remedial alternatives, NYSDEC and
EPA believe that the selected remedy will achieve this goal. The
extracted groundwater will be treated until all organic and
inorganic contaminant concentrations have been reduced such that
they are equal to or less than their respective State and Federal
drinking water and groundwater quality standards prior to
reinjection. In addition, State and Federal drinking water and
groundwater quality standards will also be met in the treatment
system effluent prior to reinjection. Table 19 lists the
groundwater cleanup standards that will be achieved by the
treatment system prior to reinjection.
However, it may become apparent, during implementation or operation
of the groundwater extraction system, that contaminant levels have
ceased to decline and are remaining constant at levels higher than
the drinking-water standards over some portion of the contaminated
plume. In this case, the system performance standards and/or the
remedy may be re-evaluated.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for a
period which is presently estimated to be 10 years based upon
volume of contaminated groundwater and concentrations of
contaminants requiring treatment (but which, depending upon the
degree of contaminant reduction achieved, may ultimately be a
longer or shorter period). During this time, the system's
performance will be monitored on a regular basis to determine if
modifications to the system are required to improve performance.
Modifications may include any or all of the following:
A Discontinuing pumping at individual wells where cleanup
goals have been attained.
A Alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation.
A Pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to allow
adsorbed contaminants to partition into groundwater.
A Installing additional extraction wells to facilitate or
accelerate cleanup of the contaminated plume.
During the performance of the long-term monitoring, NYSDEC and EPA
may determine that the remedial action objective has been met.
Periodic monitoring will be used to re-assess the time frame and
the technical practicability of achieving cleanup standards. Upon
meeting all remedial objectives, or determining tha't the Site has
been sufficiently purged of contaminants so that public health is
25
-------
no longer threatened by exposure to the Site, EPA will initiate
proceedings to delete the Site from the NPL.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, CERCLA §121(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. S9621(b)(l),
mandates that a remedial action must be protective of human health
and the environment, be cost-effective, and utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section
121(b)(1) also establishes a preference for remedial actions which
employ treatment to permanently and significantly reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants at a site. CERCLA S121(d), 42 U.S.C.
S9621(d), further specifies that a remedial action must attain a
degree of cleanup that satisfies ARARs under Federal and State
laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA
§121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(4).
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy, in conjunction with the source control
remedial action for the first operable unit that will be completed
prior to the implementation of the groundwater remedy, will
eliminate all outstanding threats posed by the Site. It will
remove any contribution of contaminants from the Site to the
shallow, saturated Upper Glacial aquifer -and will reduce
contaminant concentration levels in that aquifer to State and
Federal drinking water and groundwater quality standards, and
concurrently reduce the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks
posed by potential exposure to the groundwater.
There are no short-term threats to human health and the environment
associated with the selected remedy that cannot be easily
addressed.
Compliance with ARARs
The following ARARs and considerations apply to the selected
remedy:
Action-specific ARARs:
A Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) (40 C.F.R. §141.11 - §141.16), 6 NYCRR Part 703, and 10
NYCRR Part 5 provide standards and goals for toxic compounds
for public drinking water systems. The reinjection process
for the treated groundwater will meet underground injection
well regulations by its status as a Superfund remedial action
under 40 C.F.R. Part 147. The extracted groundwater will be
26
-------
treated to meet all of the above-noted standards prior to
reinjection.
A Spent carbon, if regeneration is not feasible, and sludge
materials from the groundwater treatment system for removal of
organics and inorganics will be disposed of off-Site, as well
as any other treatment residuals, consistent with applicable
RCRA land disposal restrictions under 40 C.F.R. Part 268.
A Clean Air Act (CAA)
A 40 C.F.R. Part 50 provides National Ambient Air Quality
. Standards
A 40 C.F.R. Part 262 provides Federal Hazardous Waste Manifest
Requirements for Off-Site Waste Transport
A 40 C.F.R. Part 264 provides Standards for Owners and Operators
of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
Chemical-specific ARARs:
A Since the groundwater aquifer at the Site is classified as
lib, drinking water standards are relevant and appropriate.
Again, these include SDWA MCLs, 6 NYCRR Groundwater Quality
Regulations and/or limitations of discharges to Class GA
waters (aquifers which serve as a source of potable drinking
water) and 10 NYCRR Part 5 standards.
Location-specific ARARs:
none
Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance To Be Considered:
A New York Technical Operations Guidance Series (TOGS) 2.1.2 and
1.1.1 provide standards for reinjection of treated groundwater
and are to be considered. SDWA MCL Goals (40 C.F.R. §141.50 -
§141.51) provide goals for toxic compounds for public drinking
systems and are also to be considered.
A New York State Air Guide 1 (August 1992) provides Guidelines
for the Control of Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants.
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy, Alternative GW-2, will provide overall
effectiveness proportionate to its cost. It is $1.8 million less
costly than Alternative GW-3, while offering comparable or better
performance. A detailed cost estimate of the selected remedy is
provided in Appendix C of Volume II of the FFS report.
27
-------
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA has determined that the selected remedy meets the statutory
requirement to utilize permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected
remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
The selected remedy will reduce the contaminants of concern to
health-protective levels prior to reinjec tion. After treatment is
complete, provided that the source control remedial action for the
first operable unit will also have been completed, the Site will no
longer contribute contaminants to the shallow, saturated Upper
Glacial aquifer.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for treatment is satisfied by the selected
remedy which employs on-Site treatment of the groundwater through
aeration, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, air stripping,
and vapor-phase and liquid-phase granular activated carbon. These
treatment methods effectively reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of the contaminants.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
28
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
SITE
S-12760
8-22003(PW
3-20042(PW
SOURCE: USGS 7.5 MINUTE SERIES AMITYV1LLE AND HUNTINGTON QUADRANGLES (1979)
SCALE 1:24000
1 7 '0
1 KU.E
1000
1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
MMUOBB
09QNBB£BflUUMfl8
FIGURE 1
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION
SITE LOCATION MAP
EAST FARMINGDALE, NY
-------
LEGEND
MONITORING WEIL
I IP LEACHING POOL
CP SANITARY CESSPOOL
UT UNDERGROUND TANK
OWLUNO AND
SRKSCRCCMMC *«£A
WtOUNfr TANKS
FIGURE 2
40 30 20 10 0
OET/UtfO SITE PIAN OF IMS CIHCWTfWN BITE.
EAST FAmtMOOAlf. SUFFDIK COUNTY, NEW VOW.
-------
TRANSECT 2
MI-LBAR BOULEVARD
MW-6D
77
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 7S
]•.«•
(M FIFT)
MONITORING WELL L'OCATION
DRIVE POINT GROUNDWATER
SAMPLING LOCATION
LINE OF TRANSECT
PROPERTY ADDRESS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE .
EAST rARUINCOALE FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY NEW YORK
FIGURE 3
MONITORING WELL AND
DRIVE POINT GROUNDWATER
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
B. MAC
fa MV
4/Z7/94
M2CXV-015-021
0000
•K 1
-------
CIRCUITRON
SOUTH
LEGEND
DP DRIVE POINT GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATION
Z5 CONCENTRATION ISOPLETH'FOR 1.1.1-TCA IN ug/l
3J/ND CONCENTRATION OF 1.1.1-TCA FOR ROUND I/ROUND 2
GROUMDWATER SAMPLING
HO ANALYTE HOT PRESENT ABOVE THE QUANTIFICATION LIMIT OF 1 ug/l
FOR DRIVE POINT SAMPLES OR 0.5 ug/l FOR MONITORING WELLS
UNCONFORUABLE GEOLOGIC FORMATION CONTACT I
V'/A '.'-I-TCA LESS THAN 5 ug/l
| MONITORING WELL SCREENED INTERVAL
g DRIVE POIMT SAMPLING SCREENED INTERVAL
MA HOT SAMPLED OR AIIAL<7tn
NOTES
I. ROUND 1 GROUNOWATER1 SAMPLING WAS PERFORMED DURING MAY 10-U, 1993:
ROUND 2 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING WAS PERFORMED DURING FEBRUARY 21-25. 1934
ONLY BOUND 1 DATA AND DRIVE PCIMT DATA WAS USED FOR THE CONTOURING
OF ISOCONCENTRATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MW-IJ AND H ONLY SAMPLED
DURING ROUND 2
?. DRIVE POINT GROUNDWATER SAMPLING WAS PERFORMED CURING AUGUST 16-24. 1993.
80 0 J30 160
^T^IH
HORIZONTAL SCALE - FEET
©
- >
_7 H
S^^^
g
a!
1
cfiwmw ,
I i •
JL-Z — *-
• '? I
^—^*~~ — P*"^~- ~^ a/
^^~^-
a
I
5
1
CROSS SF.CTION KEY MAP NO SCALE
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SHE
EAST FARMINCOALE. NEW YORK
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - OU2
FIGURE 4
CONCENTRATIONS OF 1.1.1-TCA
IN C-ROUMDWATF.R, ug/l
V»Y i?9x AUGUST 1995. ANP FEBRUARY 1994
-------
MONITORING WCLL
IN PARENTHESES)
___.' IN'riLTRATlON O.M.I.CR
RW-1 RECOVERY V/CLL"
UHlTCn STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
CIRCU1TRON CORPORATION SITE
EAST rARMIMGCAI.E, MEW YURK
rocuSEB FEASIBILITY sriJDY - uua
FIGURE
0 V P
cw--.? nsn
'?CMr5l-«. SIMULATT.-IM WITH THf" »RMPaSCL'
PI ".".""An ^ND RC-INrIi. RATLIN ^"r
-------
FIGURE 6
MAJOR COMPONENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE GW-H
GROUNDWATER TREATMENT via
METALS PRECIPITATION/AIR STRIPPING/GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARDON
CIRCU1TRON CORPORATION SITE, EAST FARMING DALE, NEW YORK
L
CKOUIIDWATER
EQUALIZATION
TANK
AERATOR
pi I ADJUSTMENT
1
rwriJT
J 1—"
/. /
TO SLUDGE
EFn.UENT
HOLDING
TANK
noN
f
j
CARBON REGENERATOR 4 VAI
OR FUME INCINERATOR «"
•
>0" t in i
kC ' 1
LIQUID OAC
DISCHARGE TO INFILTRATION GAIIERr
AIR
STRIPPER
AIR BLOWER
-------
FIGURE 7
MAJOR COMPONENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE GW-3
TYPICAL AIR SPARGING SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE, EAST FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK
AIR INJECTION
srsrcM
RECYCLEO_AIR_FOR £LOS£O^LOOP OPERATION
-AIR DISTRIBUTION PIPE
i-VAPOR MANIFOLD
•A
OFF-GAS
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
SLOWER OR
VACUUM PUMP
AIR/WATER
SEPARATOR
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND I DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDV - GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
MONITORING WELLS
VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
NYS
Drinking Water
Quality Standards
5
2
5
5
.
S
i
5
5
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.7
5 .
5
5
5
5
f
5
5
4.7''
47
47
5
Sample Numbei
Screened Inleivil (ft)
Date Collected
Chlorometriane
Bromomethane
Vinyl Chloride
Chlortx 'Vie
Moh> : Chloride
Acetone
Carton Oisulfide
I.l-Dichloroethene
I.l-Didiloroethane
cis-l^-Dicfaloroethene
trins- 1 .2-Dich)aroethene
Oiloroform
1.2-Dichloroethane
2-Butanone
BrOTnochioromethane
1.1.1-TricJiloroethane
Carbon Tetnchloride
Bromodichloromethane
I.2-Dichloropropane
cis-U-Dichloropropene
Trichloroechene
rtihmmnthl lull.
1 .] ,2-Trichlorotlhane
Benzene
trans- 1 .3-Dichloropropene
Bromoform
4-Melhyl-2-Pentanone
2-Hexanone
Teirachloroelhene
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroewane
1 .2'Dibromoethane
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Bthylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenesfloia))
).3-Oichlorobenzene
I.J-Dichlorobenzene
1.2-Dichiorobenzene
1.2-Dibromo-3-chlon)propane
Toul VOCs
Total TICs
Total TIC Concentration
MW-2D
00-100
5/10/93
100 UJ
100 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
6.00 J
1.00 J
2.00 J
1.00 UJ
1 00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1 00 UJ
25.00 J
i.oo UJ
1.00 UJ
i oo UJ
1 00 UJ
500 J
i oo UJ
1.00 UJ
i.oo uj
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 UJ
5 00 R
4.00 J
1 00 UJ
i oo uj
I.OO UJ
1 00 UJ
I.OO UJ
1 00 UJ
1.00 UJ
i.oo UJ
1 00 UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
45.00 J
000
000
Field Blank
5/10/93
1.00 UJ
ico uj
I.OO UJ
100 UJ
200 R
5.00 J
i.oo uj
I.OO.UJ
i oo uj
100 uj
100 uj
400 J
I.OO UJ
5.00 R
i.oo uj
I.OO UJ
1.00 UJ
i.oo UJ
i.oo uj
I.OO UJ
i.oo uj
i oo uj
. i.oo'UJ
I.OO UJ
i.oo uj
> oo uj
SOO UJ
500 R
i.oo UJ
I.OO UJ
100 UJ
i.oo UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
1.00 UJ
. 1.00 UJ
i oo UJ
100 UJ
i.oo UJ
I.OO UJ
900 J
000
000
MW-2S
25-35
5/11 "93
i.oo ui
loo uj
i.oo UJ
i.oo ui
200 UJ
5.00 R
100 uj
I.OO UJ
100 UJ
I.OO UJ
1.00 UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
5.00 R
i.oo uj
2.00 J
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
i.oo uj
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
1 00 UJ
i.oo UJ
I.OO UJ
1 00 UJ
100 uj
5.00 UJ
500 R
100 UJ
i.oo UJ
i.oo uj
i oo uj
i.oo uj
I.OO UJ
i oo uj
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
i.oo uj
i.oo uj
i.oo uj
200 J
0.00
000
MW-2S-DUP
25-35
5/1 1/93
i.oo UJ
I.OO UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
5.00 R
100 UJ
I.OO UJ
i.oo uj
I.OO UJ
i.oo UJ
1 00 UJ
i.oo UJ
500 R
1.00 UJ
2.00 J
I.OO UJ
1 00 UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
1 00 UJ
i.oo UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
1 00 UJ
5.00 UJ
5 00 R
100 UJ
i.oo UJ
i.oo UJ
100 UJ
I.OO UJ
100 UJ
100 UJ
1 00 UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
i oo uj
100 UJ
200 J
000
000
MW-3S
28-38
5/1 \m
i.oo uj
i.oo uj
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
5.00 R
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
0.60 J
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
1.00 UJ
i oo uj
5 00 R
1 00 UJ
300 J
1 .00 UJ
i.oo UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
i.oo UJ
1 00 UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
• i.oo UJ
100 UJ
5.00 UJ
5.00 R
I.OO U
I.OO U
100 UJ
i.oo' u
i.oo u
i.oo u
1 00 U
1.00 U
i oo u
100 U
i oo u
i.oo u
3 60 J
000
000
MW-4S
24-34
5/1 1/93
1 00 UJ
I.OO UJ
100 UJ
200 J
200 UJ
5.00 R
100 UJ
t6Ml
iy;, 42M XI
200 J
I.OO UJ
i.oo UJ
I.OO UJ
500 R
• i.oo UJ
MOOOO X2J
100 UJ
i.oo ui
i.oo UJ
i.oo uj
3.00 J
1.00 UJ
3.00 J
'l.OO UJ-
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
500 UJ
5.00 R
'21XH> J
1.00 UJ
I.OO UJ
0.70 J
0.60 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
i.oo uj
1 00 UJ
1 00 UJ
5940.30 J
I.OO
250.00 J
MW-4D
90-100
5/11/93
i.oo UJ
1.00 UJ
I.OO UJ
I.OO UJ
2.00 R
5.00 R
i.oo ui
'•.''.^.xUM'Xa
2.00 J
5.00 J
1.00 UJ
200 UJ
I.OO J
500 R
1 00 UJ
14M.OOXZJ
I.OO UJ
i.oo uj
100 UJ
i oo uj
22.00 J
100 UJ
I.OO J
i.oo uj
I.OO UJ
i.oo uj
5.00 UJ
500 R
.6X00 XU
I.OO UJ
too uj
100 UJ
100 UJ
100 UJ
100 UJ
1.00 UJ
1 00 'UJ
1 00 UJ
100 UJ
I.OO UJ
27800 J
000
0.00
Notes
Concentrations above the New York Sute Drink ing Water Standards referenced in Table 2-12 ire highlighted
- = No standard available
V* AnaMe w« not delected at the insmimeni detection limit given
B- Repined value is between the instrument detection hrmt and the contraci required detection hrnii
£* Value is estimated due to interference!
Js Estimated value
R« Rejected during data validation
XI-1 5 Dilution
X2-N25 Dilution
J\=presumpBve evidence for presence of analyte. estimated quantity
19-Sep-94
Page 1 of 5
RD1VOL.VW1
-------
TABLE 1
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND I DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY • CROUNDWATER SAMPLING
MONITORING WELLS
VOLATILE ORGAMCS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/1)
NYS
Drinking Wuet
Quality Sundjfds
5
2
. i
t
•
i
i
S
i
7
5
-
-
5
5
5
5
5
5.
5
'07.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
" 47
47
4.7
5
Sample Number
Screened Interval (ft)
Date CoUeoed
Cnlofomethane
Bromofnethane
Vinyl CNohde
CHoroetnane
Meltiylene Chloride
Acetone
Canxm Disultde
1 1-Omloroemene
1.1-Oicnioroemane
cis-i,2-OichlorDetnene
trans- 1 ,2-Dicnloreemene
Chtorotam
1.2-Dichloroemane
2-Butanone
^rocnocnlofDmetnane
1.1.1-Tncttoraetnane
Cartoon Tetrochloride
^romodichloronwtriane
1 .2-O)Chloroprop3r>e
6s- 1 .3-DicMoropropene
rricMofDBthenc
DibfoniochiorDnwthBno
1 . 1 .2-Tncworoemane
tenzene
runs- 1 .^Dichtorupropene
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
2-Hexanone
retiacfiloroetnene
1'. 1 .2.2-Tetisoiioroetnane
1 ,2-Dtbrofnoetnane
Toluene
•hlorotenzene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Xylenes(total)
1.3-DichlorDbenzene '
1 .4-OtchlorDbenzene
1.2'Dtchiorobenzene
1 .2-Oi&romo-3-cnioropropane
Total VOCs
Total TICs
Total TIC Concentration
Field Blank
5/11/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 J
5.00 R
1.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
4.00 J
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
500 UJ
500 R
100 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
6.00 J
0.00
0.00
Tnp Blank
5/11/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ '
4.00 )
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
. 1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 J
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1,00 UJ
1.00 UJ •
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 UJ
500 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 'UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 J
000
0.00
MW-1S
25-35
5/12/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 U
2.00 R
500 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
0.60 J
1.00 UJ .
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
3.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
0.60 J
1.00 UJ
. 1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
440 J
2.00
6900 JN
MW-3D
90-100
5/12/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 R
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
'•'•r?*M J-"-
0.90 J
0.90 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
;.;3S.oo J.y
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
4.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 UJ
5.00 R
,10.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00. UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1 00 UJ
1.00 UJ
56.60 J
0.00
0.00
UW-5S
24-34
5/12/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
0.50 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
,;:«4»4-*
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
6.50 J
1.00
4.00 JN
MW-5D
90-100
5/12/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ '
6.00 J
1.00 UJ
W::"9MJ--
1.00 J
1.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
:~^-a*M X1J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
4.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
5.00 R
;.- ,_ ;,7.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
56.00 J
0.00
000
Mw-e
248-29.8
in 2/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
3.00 J
1.00 .UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
. 1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 R
5.00 R
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 R
1.00 R
1.00 R
1.00 R
4.00 J
1.00
55.00 J
Notes
. Concentrations above the New York State Drinking Water Standards referenced in Table 2-12 tie highlighted
-« No standard available
l> Aiulyie was not detected at the instrument detection limit given
B= Reported vaJue is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit
E= VaJue is estimated due to interferences
J* Estimated vaJue
R* Rejected during data validation
XI" 15 Dilution
X:»l:i2 5 Dilution
j'.'-ritmtrpi^e e-idc.it,: foi (,,e*.nce of *naAne, ciii
l9-Sep-94
Page 2 of 5
RD1VOLWB1
-------
TABLE 1
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND I DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
MONITORING WELLS
VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/1)
NTS
Drinking Wwei
Oualirv Standards
5
2
5
5
5
i
i
t,
1
i
5
;
5
5
5
5
i
0.7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.7 '
47
4.7
5
Sample Number
Screened Interval (ft)
Date Collected
Ctuoromethane
Bromornetfiane
Vinyl Cnloride
Cnloroeff.ane
Metnyiene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Bisulfide
1.1-OicMoroemene
1 . 1 -OicWoroethane
cis-1 .2-Oichloroetnene
trans- 1 ,2-Dicnloroetnene
ChlorDform
1.2-Dicnioroetnane
2-Butanone
Bromocnforomethane
1.1.1-Thenioroetnane
Carbon Tetracnlonoe
Bromodjertlorometnane
1.2-Dichlorapropane
6s-1.3-Dichloropropene
Trichloroetnene
Djuromticnloron (ethane
1.1.2-Tnenloroetnane
Benzene
trans- 1 .3-Oichloropropene
3/uniororri i
4-Memyi-2-Pentanone
2:Hexanone
Tetrachloroetnene
1 . 1 ,2.2-Tetrachloroeth3ne
1.2-Dibromoetnane
Toluene
Cnlorobenzene
Etnyibenzene
Sryrene
Xylenes(total)
1.3-OicnlorrJbenzene
1 .4-Oichiorobenzene
1.2-Oichlorobenzene
1 .2-Dibrorno-3-criJoropropane
Total VOCs
Total Tics
Total TIC Concentration
MW-9
24.1-29.1
5/12/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
Field Bunk
5/1 2193
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ 3.00 J
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 J
1:00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
5.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ.
100 UJ
100 UJ
5.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
6.0C J
1.00
71.00 J
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1 00 UJ
1.00 J
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ '
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
• 1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
. 1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
4.00 J
0.00
000
Tnp Blar*
5/12/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
3.00 J
5.00 R
1.00 UJ '
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 J
1.00 UJ
'5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
4.00 J
•0.00
0.00
MW-1D
90-100
5/13/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 R
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
31.00 J
400 J
4.00 J
1.00 UJ
3.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
84.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ •
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
76M J .
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 UJ
5.00 R
38.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1 00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
237.00 J
1.00
300 JN
MW-6S
24.B-34.8
5/13/93
1.00 UJ
' 1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
200 UJ
8.00 J
1.00 UJ
3.00 J
ji-1.pjbo.'Jj=;.
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 UR
1.00 UJ
«.00 X1J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
100 UJ
1 00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 UJ
5.00 R
070 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ .
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
61.70 J
1.00
5.00 J
MW-10
23B-269
5/13/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
0.50 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ>
1.00 UJ
500 R
1.00 UJ
3.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1 00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ .
1.00 UJ
5.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
' 1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.X UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00' UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
3 50 J
1.00
4.00 JN
MW-11
25.1 JO. 1
5/13/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
ZOO UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
5.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1 00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
. 1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
£.00 J
1.00
4.00 JN
Notes
Concentrsdorts ibove the New. York State Drinking Water Standards referenced in Title 2-12 are highlighted
• - No standard available • ' -
U= Analyte was not detected n the instrument detection limit given
B° Reported value is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit
E» Value u estimated due to interferences
J" Estimated value
R* Rejected during daia validation
XI*!:? Dilution
X2-1.12 5 Dilution
JN*Presumpiive evidence for presence of analyte; estimated quantity
19-Sep-94
Page 3 of 5
RD1VOL.WB1
-------
TABLE 1
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND I DATA
.FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - GROUND WATER SAMPLING
MONITORING WELLS
VOLATILE ORGAMCS ANALYTICAL RESULTS <«g/l)
KYS
Drinking Wua
Quilitv Stmdxrdi
5
2
5
5
5
i
5
J
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
' 0.7
5
-
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.7
4.7
47
s
Sample NumDer
Screened Interval (ft)
Date Collected
Cntoromethane
Broffiornethane
Vinyl CNonde
Cntoroetnane
M ethyl ene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Oisuffide
1.1-Orcnkjroetnene
Li-OitHomeinane
tit-i.2-Dicn!orDeinene
j« is-1 ,2-Oichkmetjiei'ie
Chloroform
1.2-Oicniomemane
2*Butanone
Bromochlorometnane
1.1.1-Trichloreetnane
»afDon Tetrachionde
3roniodicnlonxnetnane
1.2-Ocnloropropane
as-1.3-Oichloropropene
Triehkxoethene
1.1.2-Tricnioroetnane
Benzene
trans- 1 .3-Diehloropropene
inxnoform
4-Metnyl-2-Pentanone
2-Hexanone
Tetrachioroetnene
1 . i .2.2-Tetracnioroemane
1.2-Dibromoetnane
Tctuene
Chlorobenzene
itnylbenzene
Styrene
Xylene$(total)
1.3-Oicnlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
I .2-Oichtorobenzene
1 .2-Oibromo-3-chloropropane
Total VOCs
Total TICI
Total Tic Concentration
MW-12
25-35
5/13193
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
18.00 J
1.00 UJ
2.00 J
1.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
6.00 J
1.00 UJ
50.00 X1J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
500 R
5.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.0C UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
82.00
0.00
ox
FeK) Blank
5/13/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 J
5.00 R
1.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
. .1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 J
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00. UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.X UJ
5.00 R
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
100 UJ
1.00 UJ
4.00
0.00
000
Tnp Blank
5/13/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
3.00 J
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 J
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5 00 R
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
100 UJ
100 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
400
0.00
000
MW-6O
90-100
5/14/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
ZOO UJ
4.00 J
1.00 J
: 2iOO_ J.,.::
2.00 J
Sv.ApO 35 ' .'
1.00 UJ
fjzao j
1.00 J
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
~10OOO X1J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
. 18.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
. 1.00 UJ.
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
5.00 R
31.00 X1J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00. UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
198.00
100
5.00 JN
MW-7S
27-37
5/14193
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
3.00 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 JN
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
100 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
4.00
000
0.00
MW-7D
. 90-100
5/14/93
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
3.00 J
1.00 UJ
HKSM-W J~_,
2.00 J
1.00 J
i.oo uj
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
sSjJWJpJMT
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
^ j^iopjl;
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
5.00 R
5.00 R
: 30JBOX1J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
114.00
0.00
000
PW-2
216.3-226.3
5/14/B3
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 UJ
4.00 J
1.00 UJ
2.00 J
1.00 UJ
*§*&*»> j
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
2.00 J
5.00 R
1.00 UJ
"fe^CLOO'J. -:
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
^.iaijjoj'..
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ .
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ .
5.00 R
5.00 R
.' ; "::rJM J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
. 1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
57.00
1.00
10.00 R
Notes /
Concentrations above the New YciL Sate Dnnking Waier Standards referenced iaTiblc 2-12 are highlighted
- • No nindird *v*ilable
U° AruJyu wu not detected n the inwvmem detection limit giver.
B* ReponH vi'ur is bemeen the mstrumeni detection limit and the contract required detection timji
E" Value i* estimated due to interference*
J» Enitnaird vatuf
R* RfjeeieJ during dau va)i(iin,->r
Xl't 5 Dilution
X:»i i:< Dilution -
19-S6P-94
Page 4 of 5
RD1VOLWB1
-------
TABLE
CIRCl'ITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND I DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - CROUNDWATER SAMPLING
MONITORING WELLS
VOLATILE ORGAMCS ANALYTICAL RESULTS Anaivte was not detected ai the instrument detection limit given
BB Reported value is between the inxtrumcni detection ttmti and the contract required detection limn
E* Value is estimated due to interference*
J" Estimated value
R* Rejected dunnu c&a vilicition
XI* I 5 Dilution
X2«J 12 JDilutwn
JN'Presumptive evidence for presence of analyte. estimated Quaniin
i9-Sep-94
Page 5 of 5
RD1VOLWB1
-------
TABLE 2
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND I DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
EXISTING MONITORING WELLS
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/1)
NYS
Drinking W.ilcr
tX'li" *:i.imt.ird<
2' 00
I.IMMIO
iron
5IMKI
)n i IH:
1IHI IHl
l< IHl
u lino u.
in*) on
200
Mi no
won
loom on
joooo
Simple Niimhti
AniKlii
Screened Intcival (ft)
Dam Colleeltil
Aluminum
Antimiwn
Aiwnic
n.irium
lien Ilium
Cadmium
Old,™
rhmmium
Tob-ili
Copn.rr
IIIHI
I.-M)
M.«nclium
Manganese
Mi-rcur\
Nickel
Pouttium
Selenium
Sill«
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
7inc
MW-ID
Inil
WI.IOO
5/10/0.1
noon ni
1430 Rl
230 UIWN*
10(1 Ml Bl
O.<0 II)
1 in UIN
I5.4nnnn ' f
42 "(1 J
00 111
1740 DJ
185.00 J
7.1(1 1
2.56000 Bl
1.5000 1
0 10 UIN
14 in Bl
13.000.00 i
.1.30 R
no ui
10,100.00 i
1 10 UIW
• 3)0 III
1000 IL
MWJD
Dillrivcd
00-100
5/10/93
jion n
1700 n
350 UIW
ma B
051) U
1 70 II
ll.onooo
10 70
310 U
0411 R
6350 n
IHl R
2.20000 B
1470
010 U
610 U
16.700 On 1
200 UIW
310 U
16,600.00
120 UJWN
.1.30 U
UIW
MW^S
Tola!
25-35
5/i i/o.i
652 00 R
1700 Ul
«.W JN«
IJ90.00 J
051) Ul
1 70 UIN
30.700 00 1
31.70 1
4 Ml Bl
14,600.00 J
467,000.00 i
150 1
4.340.00 Bl
1,790.00 J
{> 10 .UIN
700 Bl
5,57000 1
16.30 R
2770 1
10.10000 1
120 Ul
46.20 81
:moo ic
MW.2S
Diliolved
25..13
3/11/03
2510 R
1700 Ul
350 UIW
7240 Bl
0.50 Ul
170 Ul
2°.OOOOO 1
5«0 Ul
310 Ul
linn Bl
714.00 '1
100' R
3.93000 Bl
401.00 )
o in ui
n 10 Ul
5.140.00 I
290 Ul
110 Ul
10.40000 1
120 UJWN
J30 Ul
3.40 Ul
MW.2S-DUP
Tool
25-35
5/1 1/°3
43600 R
1700 Ul
ll.io MSN*
1,010.00 1
051) Ul
170 UIN
)I, WWOO 1
7J.IO )
310 Ul
18,S(0.00 J
2SO.OOO.OO I
530 I
4.340.00 Bl
i,4*»;M j ""•••
010 UIN
2070 Bl
5.73000 1
1630 R
1740 1
10.10000 1
120 Ul
2020 Bl
200.00 IF.
MW-2S-DUP
Dinotvcd
25-35
5/1 1/03
31 30 R
1 7 00 Ul
350 Ul
5170 Bl
0?n Ul
170 Ul
27.«on.oo 1
5.80 Ul
)«r> ui
34.70 1
SI5.00 J
too R
3.97000 Bl
-'•••-•J»7.ob !'•••"
010 Ul
610 Ul
5.10000 1
200 Ul
3«0 Ul
9.91000 1
120 UIWN
. 3.30 Ul
0.00 Bl
MW-3S
Tool
21-31
3/11/03
10300 Bl
17.00 Ul
1600 IN*
4000 Bl
030 111
1 70 UIN
22.20000 1
11.70 1
310 Ul
'«!«• J
4JJ00.90 J
630 1
3.190.00 Bl
' ••«iM'*r~
• 0.10 UIN
610 Ul
7.12000 1
3. JO ••
310 Ul
15.20000 1
1.10 Ul
7.10 Bl
11.20 IE
MW-JS
Dinol«ed,
21-31
3/11/93
31.40 R
17.90 Ul
350 Ul
320 Bl
050 Ul
1.70 Ul
19.100.00 1
5.10 Ul
3 10 Ul
1190 Bl
MJO.M J
1.50 R
2.900.00 Bl
' SUM J"'
0.10 Ul
6.10 Ul
7.4900t> 1
2.00 Ul
310 Ul
14.200.00 1
600 UIN
3.30 Ul
3010 1
MW-4S
Toul
24-14
5/1 1/0.1
1.51000 R
lion in
2 30 UIN*
61 70 111
050 Ul
1 10 UIN
31.70000 1
597.00 J
3111 III
113.00 1
6,110.00 )
1000 1
•.350.00 B)
' 454.00 I
010 UIN
23. SO Dl
4.330.00 Bl
3.30 .R
310 Ul
9.1'O.DO 1
1.10 UIW
690 Bl '
1190 IE
Not.l
Conontnlbni «Dov« (to Nsw York Sllll Odnklng W>Ur Quality Standards raforancwj In TibH 2-12 Ire tUghnightod
• • No IHnd.rd »v>ilaDU
U* Anafyl* wai not d«t«ctad at ttw Inibumant dataetion HmH glvan
B' Raporiad valu* l> batwaan tha Initnjmanl daladlen limit and tha contract raqulrad datactKn «mH
E> Value il ailimatad dua to Inlaffaranca-t
N> Splkad lampla racovary wai nol wilNn control limit!
'* Dupficata anatysli was not within control limits
J» Eslimatad vaKia
R> Rajactad duitng data vaMatton
M^Ouptuta ln|acttoo precision crttarta was ml mat
S'Oatatmmad by Mathod of Slsndard Addition (MSA)
Page 1 of 6
RD:iNO.WB1
-------
TABLE 2
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND I DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - GROIINDWATER SAMPLING
EXISTING MONITORING WELLS
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS Reported value Is between the instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limn
E» Value is estimated due to interferences
N» Spiked sample recovery was not within control limits
•> Duplicate analysis was ml within control limits
J* Estimated value
R" Rejected during data validation
M'Ouplltate Injection precision criteria was not met.
S'Dotermlned by Method ol Standard Addition (MSA)
19-Sep-94
Page 2 of 6
RD1INO.WB1
-------
TABLE 2
CIRCOITRON CORPORATION SITE
• ROUND I DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - GROIINDWATER SAMPLING
EXISTING MONITORING WELLS
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (u|/l)
. NVS
Drinking Wltrr
0-ialiu Standard*
!?(»>
I.HKIIKI
Htm
» no
•(Ml
!-ll«>
MOII
JO.tHlOOO
.11*1 OO
Sample Number
Analysis
Screened Interval (11)
Date Collected
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Dlritim
B«ryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
MW-3D
Dissolved
90-100
5/12/93
3060 6
1790 U
350 U
3100 B
050 U
170 U
15.10000
21600 R
380 U
1030 8
92.10 8
24.80 R
2.190.00 B
394.00
010 U
1590 B
4.75000 B
290 U
380 U
19.40000
1.20 UJWN
330 U
3480 J
MW-5S
Tola)
24-34
5/12/93
13300 BJ
1790 UJ
'230 UJN'
93.30 BJ
051 BJ
1 70 UJN
11.400.00 R
40.00 J
380 UJ
•460 R
467.00 R
3.90 JM
3.400.00 BJ
2330 R
010 UJN
1540 R
5.01000 J
330 R
380 UJ
16.50000 J
1 20 UJW
500 BJ
2290 JE
MW-5S
Dissolved-
24-34
5/12(93
4510 B
1790 U
350 U
3100 B
050 U
170 U
25.900.00 R
560 U
450 B
3490 R
1.98000 R
210 R
2.76000 8
441.00 R
0.10 U
5360 R
5.570.00 J
2.90 U
3.80 U
12.70000
1.20 UJWN
3.30 U
9.90 B
MW-50
Total
90-100
5/12/93
35000 J
1790 UJ
230 UJWN'
35.00 BJ
0.50 UJ
270 BJN
9.060.00 J
5.80 UJ
380 UJ
110.00 J
388.00 J
7.70 JW
1.63000 BJ
4910 J
0.10 UJN
7.00 BJ
3.84000 BJ
1650 R
3.80 UJ
9.470.00 J
1.20 UJW
620 BJ
33.80 JE
MW-50
Dissolved
90-100
5/12(93
12800 BJ
1790 UJ
350 UJW
33 70 BJ
050 UJ
170 UJ
9,260.00 J
5.60 UJ
3.80 UJ
10BDO J
3490 BJ
1.40 R
1.740.00 BJ
5160 J
010 UJ
960 BJ
4.12000 BJ
290 UJ
380 UJ
10.900.00 J
1 20 UJWN
330 UJ
20.40 J
MW-8
Total
248-298
5/12/93
1.270.00 J -
1790 UJ
500 BJN1
8000 BJ
050 UJ
1.70 UJN
29.000.00 J
5.60 UJ
3.80 UJ
2380 BJ
11,800.00 J
28.00 J
3.780.00 BJ
20700 J
0.10 UJN
6.10 UJ
5.69000 J
330 R
3.80 UJ
'•lM»0.06i'J"Tr
120 UJW
7.40 BJ
19.60 BJE
MW-8
Dissolved
24 8-29.8
S/12/93
23.50 UJ
41.80 BJ
3.50 UJ
72.40 RJ
0.50 UJ
1.70 UJ
32.600.00 J
580 UJ
360 UJ
23.90 BJ
1,810.00 J
2.70 R
3.770.00 BJ
229.00 J
0.10 UJ
8.10 UJ
7.460.00 J
2.90 UJ
3.80 UJ
a,.ifw;o6:;r
1.20 UJWN
3.30 UJ
7.00 BJ
MW-9
Total
24.1-29.1
5/12/93
2.700.00 J
17.90 UJ
2.60 BJN'
' 8830 BJ
050 UJ
1.70 UJN
32.900.00 J
580 UJ
5.80 BJ
57.90 J
•,
-------
TABLE 2
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND I DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - CROUNDWATFR SAMPLING
EXISTING MONITORING WELLS
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (IIR/I)
NYS
Drinking WMci
Oualil* St.indanh
;yoo
i. ooo no
loon
JO (HI
joo.no
,11)000
ivon
JVOOO 00
inooo
100
loon
jo no
10.000.00
loom
Sample Number
Analysis .
Sc/eened Interval (ft)
Dale Collected
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Borylliurn
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
lend
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Field Blank
Total
Pump
5/12/93
2360 U
1790 U
2.30 UJN'
250 U
051 B
1 70 UJN
4480 B
560 U
ISO U
730 B
93 BO B
3.10 J
10300 B
160 U
0.10 UJN
• 10 U
16800 U
330 R
360 U
97400 B
1.20 U
4.10 B
7.10 BE
Field Blank
Oiiiotved
Filter
5/12/93
2350 BJ
1790 UJ
3.50 UJ
250 UJ
.050 UJ
170 UJ
10100 BJ
560 UJ
380 UJ
560 BJ
480 UJ
220 R
4640 UJ
180 UJ
0.10 UJ
6.10 UJ
18800 UJ
290 UJW
380 UJ
6820 UJ
1.20 UJN
330 UJ
3.40 UJ
MW-10
Total
90-100
5/13/93
26400
1790 U
230 UJN'
10300 B
050 U
1 70 UJN '
13.60000
3140
380 U
1850 B
«M.OO
16.40
2.98000 B
31.20
010 UJN
1080 B
5.370.00 J
330 R
380 U
19.70000
120 UJW
3.30 U
35 50 JE
MW-10
Dissolved
90-100
5/1 3/93
4500 BJ
1790 UJ
350 UJ
88W3 BJ
050 UJ
170 UJ
12.10000 J
1820 J
3JO UJ
5.60 BJ
1550 BJ
2.10 R
1.40000 BJ
10.30 BJ
010 UJ
flO UJ
7.83000 J
2.90 UJ
3.80 UJ
18.300.00 J
120 UJWN
33Q UJ
27.30 J
MW-eS
Total
249-348
5/13/93
615.00 J
1790 UJ
230 UJWN'
155.00 -BJ
050 UJ
1.70 UJN
28.500.00 J
moo j
460 BJ
Saioo j
11,100.00 J
890 J
3,02000 BJ
iwioo j
0.10 UJN
71.90 J
5.60000 J
330 R
380 UJ
13.20000 J
1.20 UJW
4.50 BJ
2930 R
MW-6S
Dissolved
24.8-34.8
5/13/93
11900 B
17.90 U
3 50 U
2070 B
050 U
1.70 U
17.10000- .
161.00
360 U
11.30 B
660.00
1.50 R
2.39000 B
237.00
010 U
10800 J
2.440.00 B
2.90 U
3.80 U
11.80000
1.20 UJWN
330 U
62.30 R
MW-10
Tolel
239-289
5/13/93
3.46000 J
1790 UJ
2.30 UJN'
2670 BJ
050 UJ
1.70 UJN
22.800.00 J
560 UJ
520 BJ
' :j4W'j':
8,860.00 J
14.60 J
4.52000 BJ
15800 J
010 UJN
790 BJ
4,17000 BJ
3.30 R
3.60 UJ
14.00000 j
1.20 UJW
660 BJ
47.50 JE
MW-10
Dissolved
23.9-289
5/13/93
4080 BJ
1790 UJ
350 UJ
5.20 BJ
050 UJ
170 UJ
21,600.00 J
560 UJ
360 UJ
53.30 J
970 BJ
2.40 R
3.76000 BJ
10.00 BJ
010 UJ
610 UJ
4.19000 BJ
290 UJ
360 UJ
13.90000 J
1.20 UJWN
330 UJ
23.90 J
MW-11
Total
251-301
5/13/93
1.91000 J
1790 UJ
230 UJN'
3000 BJ
0.50 UJ
1.70 UJN
32.70000 J
560 UJ
360 UJ
137.00 J
2,460.00 J
770 J
5.47000 J
10800 J
010 UJN
610 UJ
4.090.00 BJ
330 R
380 UJ
13.50000 J
1.20 UJW
4.50 BJ
.2990 JE
Notes:
Concentrations above the New York Slate Drinking Water Quelity Standards referenced in Table 2-12 are hlgMgMed
• * No itendant available
U» Anaryte was not detected at the Instrument detection limit given
B= Reported value Is between me instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit
E» Value Is estimated due to interferences ;
N» Spiked sample recovery was not within control limits
•- Duplicate analysis was not within control limits
J- Estimated velue
R" Rejected during data validation
M«Oupficele Injection precision criteria was not met.
S-Delermined by Method ol Standard Addition (MSA)
19-Sap-94
Pago 4 of 8
R01INOWB1
-------
TABLE 2
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND I DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
EXISTING MONITORING WELLS
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (at/1)
r>'YS
Drinking Witei
Oiiilil* Sla-wfirth
;<«•
I.IKNMMI
I'l l«l
V between Vie Instrument detection limit end the contract required detection Imn
E» Value Is estimated due lo Interferences
N* Spiked sample recovery wai not wrftin control limit!
•> DupUcale analysis was nol within control limlls
J- Estimated value
Ra Rejected during data validation
M'DupHcate Injection precision criteria waa not met.
S'Determfnetf by Method of Standard Addition (MSA)
19-Sep-9
-------
TABLE 2
CIRCUJTRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND I DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
EXISTING MONITORING WELLS
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (UK/))
NYS
Drinking Water
Quality Standnidl
1500
1. om oo
1(100
V> 00
21X1.00
.10000
1500
.15.00000
KtOOO
200
1000
50 Oft
20.000.00
JOOOO
Sample Number
Analysis
Screened Interval (ft)
Dale Collected
Aluminum '
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thillium
Vanadium
Zinc
MW-7D
Total
90-100
5/14/93
23700 J
1860 U
230 UJW
8830 B
030 U
140 U
13.40000
2200
290 U
590 B
SJT.OO *
510 J
3.64000 B
21.00 JN
010 U
1330 B
3.12000 B
330 UJWN
330 U
11.40000
120 UJW
210 U
2570
MW-7D
Dissolved
90-100
5/14/93
2350 UJ
1790 UJ
•350 UJW
7780 BJ
050 UJ
1.70 UJ
11.00000 J
580 UJ
380 UJ
420 UJ
460 UJ
200 BJW
3.35000 BJ
1090 BJ
010 UJ
6 10 .UJ
2.94000 BJ
290 UJ
3:80 UJ
11.10000 J
120 UJWN
330 UJ
930 BJ
PW-2
Totel
2163-2263
5/14/93
3650 B
1660 U
230 UJW
3380 B
030 U
140 U
4.99000 B
330 U
290 U
482.00
5570 8'
1480
2.29000 B
2830 JN
010 U
420 U
1.39000 B
330 UJWN
330 U
7.13000
1.20 UJW
210 U
8920
PW-2
Dissolved
2163-226.3
5/14/93
2860 BJ
2010 BJ
350 UJ
34.00 BJ
050 UJ
1.70 UJ
4.82000 BJ
580 UJ
380 UJ
203.00 J
2950 BJ
1170 f
2.23000 BJ
2820 J
010 UJ '
810 UJ
1.14000 BJ
290 UJ
380 UJ
7.08000 J
1.20 UJN
330 UJ
43.30 J
Fish) Blank
Total
Pump
5/14/93
32.00 B
1860 U
2.30 U
1 10 U
030 U
1.40 U
109.00 a
BS.50
290 U
270 U
27500 '
330 J
3120 B
600 BJN
010 U
3000 B
9360 U
330 UJN
330 U
17200 B
120 U
2.10 U
4.80 U
Field Blank
Dissolved
Filter
5/14/93
2350 UJ
1790 UJ
350 UJ
250 UJ
050 UJ
1 70 UJ
4230 UJ
580 UJ
3.80 UJ
420 UJ
460 UJ
1 70 BJ-
4640 UJ
1.80 UJ
0.10 UJ
610 UJ
18800 UJ
290 UJ
380 UJ
6620 UJ
120 UJN
330 UJ
340 UJ
Notes:
Concentrations ebove the New York Stale Drinking Water Quality Standards referenced in Table 2-12 are hkjMgMed
• * No standard available
U" Anetyte was not delected at the Instrument detection limit given
B" Repotted velue Is between the Instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit
E» Value is estimated due to Interferences
N= Spiked sample recovery was not wllhln control limits
•* Duplicate analysis was not within control limits
J» Estimated value
R- Refected during dele validetion
M'Duplieate ki|eclion precision criteria was not met.
S=Oe(errninerJ by Method ol Standard Addition (MSA)
19-Sep-94
P«0e6o(8
R01INOWB1
-------
TABLE 3
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRIVEPOINTOROUNDWATER SAMPLING
VOLATILE OROANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
Sample Number
Sample Type
Depth Interval (ft)
Date Coltocted
Chtoromethane
yiny) Chloride
Bromomemane
Chkxoetharw
Fluorotrtchlorometharw
1,1-Dlchloroethene
Methytene Chloride
trans- 1 ,2-Dlchlof oethane
1.1-Dlchloroethane
cl»-1,2-Dlchloroelhene
Chtoroform
1,1,1 -TricMoroelhane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1.2-Dlehloroethane
••• _!-*.• ilii an •
i ncnui u0u wno
1 ,2-OtehtofOpfopan6
oroniouicniorofntnnano
trirtt-l >Dtehloropropene
cls-1 >Dfchtoropropm
U.2-Trtchloroethan«
Till • rlllMln^tlMIl*
Tetracnwownene
Chtarodlbronwmetham
Chtorobanzene
Bromoform
1,1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane
M-Dlchlorabenzene
P-Dfchtorobenzene
O-Dtehtorobenzene
OP1-34-36
Groundwatar
34J6
06V16/B3
1 U
1 U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DPI -48-50
Groundwater
48-50
08/16/93
1 U
U
U
U
.U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP1-66-68
Groundwater
66-68
08/16/93
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
12
8
1 U
3
1
3
52
1 U
1 U
25
1 U
1 II
1 \J
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
DP2-34-36
Groundwater
34-36
08/16/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1 U
1 U.
1 U
OP2-66-68
Groundwater
6648
08/16/93
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
S
1 U
1 U
2
1 U
2
23
1 U
1 U
13
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
t U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
DP3-34-36
Groundwater
3436
08/16/93
1 U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1 U
1 U
DP3-SO-52
Groundwater
50-52
08/16/93
1 U
1 U
1 U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-PW-O81693
Decon water
08/16/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-FB-081693
Field Blank
08/16/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U-
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Notet:
U» Anaryte was not detected a! the Instrument detection Nmlt given
B« Reported value to between the Instrument detection Hmtt and the contract required detection limit
EO Value to estimated due to Interferences > ,
J° Estimated value '
W» Post-digestion spike for Furnace AA analysis out of control limits, while
R° Rejected during data validation
XI »1.5 Dilution
X2-1.250 Dilution
"l-Mr •"
-------
TABLE 3
cmcurntoN CORPORATION SITE
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRIVEPOINTOROUNDWATER SAMPLING
VOLATILE OROANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/I)
Sarnpw Number
Sample Type
Depth Interval (ft)
DateCoSected
Chtoromethane
Vinyl Chv>c!de
Bromonuttiane
Chtofwtnane
FkMroiTMitoromethane
1.1-Dtehioraethene
Methytefv* Chloride
trana-1 .2-Dfchloroethene
1.1-Dtehtoiuelhane
cl«-1 ,2-Dlchloroetrtene
Chkxofotm
1.1.f-TricMoroelh«ne
Carbon Tetnchtorfde
1.2-Dtehtoroethane
TrtchtooiftMne
1.2-DfchJomproparw
Brofnoaitnnfuiiwuuiw
trans- 1 .S-OlcMoroprapena
cl»-1.3-Clchloropropene
1.1.2-TrttMoraethane
Tetrad teoethene
Chtorodttfojwmethane
&• 1 K
cniofouonzeno
9rofnofofin
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
M-DlchJOititoenzeno
P-Otehtor obenzene
O-Ofchiorobenzene
op-TB-oBiew
Trip Blank
08/16/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U"
U
U
U
U
. U
OP4-34-36
Groundwater
34-36
08/17/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP4-50-52
Groundwater
50-52
08/17/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DPS-50-52
Groundwater
50-52
08/17/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1
.
U
U
U
U
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP5-62-64
Groundwaler
62-64
08/17/93
1 U
1 U
1 U
t U
1 U
10
1 U
1 U
9
2
1 U
37
1 U
1 U
34 ,
1 U
11 1
If
U
U
U
3
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP5-80-82
Graundwater
80-82
08/17/93
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
17
1 U
1 U
5
4
1 U
64
1 U
1 U
78
1 U
t II
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
s
1 U
1 II
1 V
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
DP0-34-38
Groundwater
34-36
08/17/93
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
U
U
U
2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP6-50-52
Grounrfwater
50-52
08/17/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U .
U
U.
1 U
1 U
DP6-64-66
Groundwater
64-66
08/17/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2
U
U
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Note*:
U« An*fyta waa not detected at the Instrument detection llmN given
B» Reported value la between the Inatiumenl detection NmR and the contract required detection IknR
£• Value t» estimated due to Interference* ' I
J« Eatlmrted value
W- Port-digestion spike (or Furnace AA analysis out of control limits, while
R- ReJotiK) during data validation
X1'1.5DHu>lon
X2»1.250 Dilution
11-May-9«
-------
TABLE 3
CIRCUTTRON CORPORATION SITE
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRIVEPOINTOROUNDWATER SAMPLING
VOLATILE OROANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
Sample Number
Sample Type
Depth Interval (ft)
Date Collected
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Bromomrthane
Chloroetharw
FhJorotrichloromethane
1,1-Dlchloroethene
Melhylene Chloride
trans- 1 ,2-Dlchloroe(hene
I.t-Dfchloroethane
cls-1.2-Dlchloroelhene
Chloroform
1.1.1-Trlchloroelhane
Cwtwn Tetrachlorlde
1.2-Dlchloroethane
TricMoroethene
t ,2-Dfchloropropane
nromodlcrtioromeinano
Inms-t ,3-Dtehtoropropene
cls-1 ,3-DlchloroproperM
1,1.2-Trtehloroelhane
Tetrschloroethene
cnMrodiDromomeinane
Chlorobenzene
Bromofofm
1.1.2.2-Tetraehtoroelhane
M-Olchlorabenzene
P-Olchlorobenzene
O-Dlchtorobenzene
DP-FB-061793
FMd Blank
08/17/93
*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-TB-081703
Trip Blank
08/17/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP6-80-82
Greundwater
6042
08/18/93
U
U
U
U
U
2
U
U
3
3
2
110
2
2(
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP7-34-36
Groundwater
34-36
08/18/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP7-SO-52
' Groundwater
50-52
08/18/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
22
10
1 U
2
1 U
1 U
21
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
DP8-50-52
Groundwater
50-52
08/18/93
U
U
U
U :
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP8-64-66
Groundwater
64-66
08/18/93
1 U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP8-60-82
Groundwater
80-82
08/18/93
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u-
U
U
DP9-34-36
Groundwater
34-36
08/18/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
-U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Notes:
U* Analyte was not detected at the Instrument detection fcntt given
B« Reported value to between the Instrument detection HrrJt and the contract required detection limit
E° Value to estimated due to Interferences '
J= Estimated value
W= Post-digestion spike for Furnace AA analysis out of control limits, while
R» Rejected during data validation
X1-1.5 Dilution
X2-1.250 Dilution
-------
TABLE 3
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRIVEPOINTOROUNDWATER SAMPLING
VOLATILE OROANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
Sample Number
Sanip(« Type
Depth lh;erval («)
Data Coitected
ChloronMlhane
Vinyl Chbrkta
BromonHhane
Chtoroethane
Fluorotrichloromethane
1,1-Dlchljroethene
Methytone Chloride
trans-1 ,2 •DJchtoroethone
I.t-Dtehbroethane
cls-1,2 DJchtoroelhene
Chloroform
I.t.l-Trtchloroethane
Cartoon TatiachkxMo
1,2-Otehlofoethane
Tnchlofoctheno
1,2-Dkhluropropane
Bromodlctiloromeman*
lr»n»-1 ,3-Dlchloropropene
cl*-1 ,3-Dlehloropropene
1.1.2-Trtchloroemane
Tetrachtoroelhene
ChkXDuiDromofTieinano
Chlorotonzene
Bromoforrn
1,1.2.2-Tetrachloroethane
Ut-Dfchiorobenzene
P-Dlchbrobenzene
O-Dlchlorobenzene
DP9-5O-52
Groundwater
50-52
06V18/93
1
U
u
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u .
DP94446
Groundwater
64*6
08/18/93
1
5
y
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
DP9-80-62
Groundwater
60-02
08/18/93
44
16
2
2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U .
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
DP-TB-081893
Trip Blanfc
08/18/93
1 U
1 U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
DP-FB-081893
Field Blank
08/18/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
OP7-64-66
Groundwater
64-66
08/19/93
1 U
U
U
U
U
U
U
12
6
1 U
6
1 U
1 U
14
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP240-62
Groundwater
B042
08/19/93
U
U
U
U
U
23
U
U
S
3
1
94
1 U
1 U
76
1 U
1 U
U
U
U
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP10-34-36
Groundwater
34-38
08/19/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u •
u
u
DP10-50-52
Groundwater
50-52
08/19/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Notes:
U« Anatytg was not detected at the Intlrument detection limit given
B- Reported value to between the Instrument detection Hmtfand the contract required detection HmN
E- Value Is estimated due to Interferences '
J« Estimated value
W> Post-dloestlon spike for Furnace AA analysis out of control HmRs. while
R- Rejected during data validation
XI=t.5 Dilution
X2-1.250 Dilution
11-May-ei
-------
TABLE 3
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRIVEPOINTOROUNDWATER SAMPLING
VOLATILE OROANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
Sempla Number
Sample Type
Depth Interval (R)
Date Collected
Chloromelhane
Vinyl Chloride
Bromometnane
Chtoroettwne
Fluorotrlchloromelhane •
1,1-Dfchtoroethene
Mothytono Chloride
trans-1 ,2-Dlchloroe(hene
1.1-DlcMoroe(hane
c(s-1.2-Dlchloroethene
Chloroform
1.1,1-Trtchloroelharw
Cirbon TetrechkxWe
1,2-Dlchloroe(hane
Trlchloroethene
1 ,2-Dtehloropropane
HromoaicfiKiromeinsne
lran*-1 ,3-Dtehloropropena
cl»-1 ,3-Dlcriloropropene
1,1,2-Trtehtoroelhane
Tetnchloroethene
Chtofodlbrornornelrtane
Chtorobanzene
Bromoform
1,1.2.2-Tetrachtoroethane
M-Dtehlorobenzene
P-Dfchkxobenzene
O-Dlchtorobenzene
DP1044-68
Groundwater
6466
06719/93
1 U
1 U
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
. 1 U
DP1 1-3436
Groundwater
34-36
08/19/93
U
U .
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
DP1 1-50-52
Groundwater
50-52
08/19/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-FB-081993
Field Blank
08/19/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1 DP-TB-081993
Trip Blank
08/19/93
1 U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DPI 2-34-36
Groundwater
34-36
08/20/93
2
12(
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U .
U
OP12-50-52
Groundwater
50-52
08/20/93
1
"
U
U
U
U
U
'•
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
I DP12-64«6
Groundwater
6466
08/20/93
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
10
1 U
1 U
13
3
1 U
33
4.
U
U
>
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP13-34-36
Groundwater
34-36
08/20/93
4
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1 U
1 U
Notes:
U» Anatyte was not detected at the Instrument detection NmH given
B« Reported value to between the Instrument detection limit and the contract required detection NmH
E« Value to estimated due to Interferences ' i
J» Estimated value
W« Post-dlgeslton spike for Furnace AA analysis out of control llmKs, while
R° Rejected during data validation
XI=1.5 Dilution
X2-1.250 Dilution
tl-Mav-fl
-------
TABLE 3
CIRCU1TRON CORPORATION SITE
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRIVEPOINTOROUNDWATER SAMPLING
VOLATILE OROANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/1)
Sample Number
Sample Typo
Depth Interval (ft)
Date Collected
Chloremnlhane
Vinyl Chloride
Bromomdhane
Chloroetltarie
Fluorotrichloromethane
1,1-Dlchlofoethene
Methytene Chloride
lrans-1 ,2-D!chloroe(h«ne
1,1-Dlchloroethane
cls-l,2-Dichloroelhene
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trlchlofoelhine
Carbon Tetreehloride
1,2-Dlchljroelhane
Trlchloroethene
1 ,2-DlehhfopfOpar>«
SrofnouiCniOfOfflflincfW
nwts-1 ,3-Dtehtoropfopene
elt- 1 ,3-Dichloropropene
1.1,2-Trlchloroelhine
Tetrachlofoethene
_. . ... ..
^iworofliDfomomeinane
Chlorobenzene
Bromofonn
1,1,2.2-Tetrachloroetlwn*
M-Olchtorobenzene
P-Dlchterobenzene
O-Dlchlorobenzene
DPI 3-50-52
Groundwater
50-52
08/20/93
_
t
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP13-64-66
Groundwater
64-66
08/20/93
1
41
3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
.
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DPI 3-60-62
Groundwater
80-02
08/20/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
5
6
52
21
2
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP14-64-66
Groundwater
64-66
08/20/93
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-TB-082093
Trip Blank
08/20/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-FB-OB2093
Field Blank
08/20/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1 U
1 U
DPI 5-34-36
Groundwater
34-36
08/24/93
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
4
9
1 U
4
1 U
1 U
3
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U .
1 U
4
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
1 U
DPI 5-50-52
Groundwater
50-52
08/24/93
2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U .
U
U
U
DPI6-34-36
Groundwater
34-36
08/24/93
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Notes:
U* Annlyte was not detected at the Instrument detection limit given
B« Reported value Is between the Instrument detection limit and the contract required detection limit
E« Value Is estimated due to Interferences
J» Estknated value
W» Post-digestion spike for Furnace AA analysis out of control limits, while
R° Rented during data validation
X1=1.5 Dilution
X2= 1.250 Dilution
H-May-94
-------
TABLE 3
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRIVF.POINT OROUNDWATER SAMPLING
VOLATILE OROANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
Sample Number
Sample Type
Depth Interval (ft)
Date Collected
Chloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
Bromomethane
Chloroelhane
Fluorotrlchloromelhane
1.1-Dlchloroetherw
Melhytene Chloride
trans-1 ,2-Dlchloroethene
1,1-Dlchloroelhane
cls-1.2-Dlch!oroelhene
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trtchkxoelhane
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2-Dlchloroeth8ne
TrichloroMhene
1,2-Dtehtoropropane
Bromouicnioromeinane .
(ran*- 1 ,3-Dtehtoropropene
cto-1 ,3-Dlchloropropene
1,1.2-Trtchtoroethane
Tetrechtoroethene
Chtorodlbromomethane
Chlorobenzene
Bromoform
1.1.2,2-Tetrachloroelhane
M-Dlchkxobenzene
P-Dlchlorobenzene
O-Dfchlorobenzene
DPIfl-50-52
Oroundwater
50-52
08/24/93
*
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP16-6+66
Groundwater
64-66
08/24/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DPI 7-34-36
Groundwater
34-36
08/24/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP17-50-52
Groundwater
50-52
08/24/93
.U
U
U
U
U .
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U '
U
DPI 7-64-66
Groundwater
64-66
08/24/93
1 U
1
U
U
U
U
}
U
U
U
U
U
U .
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
DP-TB-082493
Trip Blank
08/24/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
OP-FB-082493
Field Blank
08/24/93
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Notes:
U« Analyte was not detected it the Instrument detection limit given
B° Reported value Is between the Instrument detection llmR and the contract required detection limit
E» Value Is estimated due to Interferences " I
Jo Estimated value
W» Post-digestion spike for Furnace AA analysis out of control limits, while
R= Rejected during data validation
XI=1.5 Dilution
X2-1.250 Dilution
11-MmM
-------
TABLE 4
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND II DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
MONITORING WELLS
VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/1)
NYS
Drinkmi Water
OuiUrj Sondirti
.
3
2
5
3
5
5
5
5
7
5
9
9
9
9
5
5
5
5
9
07
5 '
5
5
5
9
9
J
4.7
9
4.7
4.7
5
Simple Number
DepDi leaerviKTi)
Due Collected
CUoram'.hene
Broojomellunc
Vinyl Chloride
CUoroethinc
MethylcneQiloride
Aceune
Cute* Dinlfidc
l.l-DicUoroeaeiic
U-DicbtoroeauK
cb'U-Dichloroetbenc
nni-U-Dichlorocthenc
CUorofomi
U-DichJoroelfcuc
2-bionoce
l.l.l-Tricnlorecthine
CarboeTcncUoride
BroDodictfcroeacthue
U-Dicnloropropaiie
cb- 1 ,3-Dichlorepropeae
Trichlonelhene
OibrnocUorotnetfaane
l.U-Tricnloroetliane
U-Dionnoelhine
Beueac
tJMJ- 1 J-Dichlon>propcne
Brcmofonn
a-Met/lyU-Pentanorie
2-Hcunone
retracatoreethcnc
Bromochloroiliclhine
.UJ-Temchloroelhuic
Toluene
rhloTDbenzcnc
Ethylbenzene
Styrenc
J-Dkhlorobenzenc
tylcneKtoul}
J-Dicktorobouene
.4-Dichloroeenzcne
J-Dibrotno-3i>c
Tool VOCl
Tool TICi
Tool TIC Concentnlion
MW-2D
9IMUO
M4,«M
l.on u
I.UO U
1.00 U
l.oo u
2.00 U
J 00 J
1.00 U
300
1 IKI
3.00
I.UO U
2 IKI
I.IKI L'
5.00 U
23.00 J
l.OU U
l.oo u
l.on u
l.oo u
.'. '-00
l.on u
ion u
l.oo u
l.oo U
l.on u
1 IK) U
5 on u
- 5 IK) U
4IMI
I.IKI UJ
l.on t
1 IKI U
I.IKI t
I.OO.U
1.00 U
I.IKI U
I.IKI U
I.(KI U
' l.OU U
l.OU U
410(1 J
(I
OIKi
MW.2S
29-39
2/22/94
1.00 U
l.OU U
l.W) U
l.OU U
2.00 U
2.00 1
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.90 J
1.00 U
10U U
I.IK) U
1.00 U
5.011 U
2.00 J
I.IKI V
l.OU U
I.IKI U
l.OU U
1.00 U
1.00 UJ
l.on u
l.oo U
100 U
1.00 U
100 U
500 U
5.011 U
l.oo u
l.OU U
I.IKI U
I.IK) U
loo u
I.IKI L1
1 IKI t
I.IKI U
UK. u
l.oo L'
0.10 J
l.(KI U
4.611 J
U
OIKI
MW.JS
21-31
1.00 U
1.00 U
100 U
l.oo U
200 U
300 R
1.00 U
1.00 U
2.00
1 DO U
1.00 U
1.0(1 U
l.OU U
5.00 U
• 'siob'/y
1.00 U
1.00 U
l.oo u
l.oo u
0.05 J
l.oo u
l.oo u
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00' U
1.01) U
S.IKI U
5.00 U
0.20 J
I.UO UJ
I.IKI U
l.on u
l.on u
l.oo u
l.oo u
l.on u
l.oo u
l.oo u
l.OU U
l.oo u
1.29 1
0
OIKI
MW-IS
24-34
2/21*4
100 U
100 LI.
0.20 J
2.00
2.00 U
5.00 R
1.00 U
2.00
l.OU
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
5.00 U
: "Vrf^obii," jjf
1.00 U
1.00 U
i.'oo u
l.on u
1.00
100 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
.0.10 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 U
5.00 U
5.00 U
•' : •'- 12.00
I.IKI U
l.OU U
006 1
0.70 1
l.OU U
l.on U
1.0(1 U
l.on U
l.oo u
010 J
1 00 U
4447.06 J
5
24.37 JN
MW.4D
90-100
2/21/94
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
2.00 U
5.00 R
1.00 U
•°.-'V '•;«»'£/
0.20 J
1.00
2.00
300 U
! rMUkV . J
100 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
100 U
••'^Sflo'".-'
100 U
0.70 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
1 00 UJ
I.OC) U
3.00 U
5.00 U
""•'".«.«). •
l.oo L'
l.on u
l.oo u
l.oo u
l.on u
I.UI U
l.OU U
l.oo u
l.oo u
1.00 U
l.oo u
359.50 J
2
7.71) JN
KeldBluk
2/22/94
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
2.00
300 R
1.00 U
100 U
100 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.10 J
1.00 U
3.00 U
1.00 UJ
1.00 U
1 00 U
1.00 U
l.oo u
1.00 U
1.00 U
100 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U '
1.00 U
3.00 U
5.00 U
l.oo u
100 UJ
1.00 U
l.oo u
1.00 U
100 U
0.07 )
l.on u
0.01 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
2.25 J
0
0.00
Trip Btatk
201/94
1.00 U
1.00 ')
1., ••
1.00 U
3.00
3.00 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
100 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.20 J
1.00 U
3.00 U
1.00 UJ
1.00 U
l.oo u
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
•1.00 U
• i.oo u
1.00 UJ
1.00 U
5.00 U
5.00 U
1.00 U
l.OU U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
l.OU U
l.on u
1.00 U
1.00 U
100 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
620 J
0
000
MW-IS
25-35
2£2/94
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.20 J
200 U
3.00 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
'0.70 J
I/JO U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
5.00 U
0 40 J
1.00 U
i.oo u
1.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
1 00 U
5.00 U
5 .00 U '
I.OO U
1.00 UJ
I.OO U
I.OO U
0.70 J
I.OO U
I.OO U
1.00 U
l.OU U
100 U
0.20 J
I.OO U
5.20 J
3
IIJO JN
MW-30
90-100
2/22*4
1.00 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
1.00 U
.2.00 U
3.00 R
I.OO U
s^jjjjiJK^i-
foo
100
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
3.00 U
^JJJJSOM-I '}•'
I.OO U
1.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
^^t«:?r:
I.OO U
1.00 U
1.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
5.00 U
3.00 U
KKi&M::
100 UJ
I.OO U
l.oo u
l.on u
i.oti u
l.on u
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
0.10 J
I.OO U
73.10 J
0
000
theNc* Yort Suic Drink in, Wiicr Suixlinls referenced in T.kfc 2-12 tie k,kh,huu. miauled qtmlin
R* Rejected during oiu \tlidation
Xl-l 5Dihjuoa
X2-I JSOttlunon
19-Sep-S4
Page 1 of 3
RD2VOL.WB1
-------
TABLE 4
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND II DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
MONITORING WELLS
VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
NYS
3
1
3
3
5
3
3
3
7
3
.
5
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
5
0.7
5
•
5
5
5
5
5
3
5
4.7
5
4.7'
4.7
3
Scnpk Nraba
IXpOi limml (ft)
DHcColkcKd
OkraKOune
Diiiinaii limn
VoylCUoride
Cktaraahin
MaMcte Oferide
Ataaoc
CotaB DnoUidt
1.1-OieUencthcK
l.l-Diekknedinc
cb-U-DicUoraabctic
nu-U-DicUonednic
ajmfom
U-Didilorocthinc
2-Bumme
l.l.l-TricMonctlroc
CvtaiTenclilavIc
Bnaodkhlonocaune
U-DkUorapropnc
cis-U-Diclilaoprepene
Trickkmctfiaie
I.U-Tricbloroethiiie
U-DOnxuahuc
Bcuae'
tnai-U-DKhtoroprocenc
Brasofam
4.Hcdi><-2-Paui U
LOO U
300 U
17.00
1.00 U
l.oo u
I.OO U
l.ou U
I.1K)
100 U
l.oo u
I.OO U
I.[MI U
KX'I UJ
100 U
5.(»l U
5.0(1 U
3.0U
1.00 U
!.«> U
I.(K> U
l.l«l U
I.OO U
I.OO U
100 t
1.0" U
I.(KI L'
J
I.OO UJ
2216 J
0
0.00
FeklBhaL
1/13/94
I.OO U
100 U
100 U
I.OO U
300
300 R
I.OO U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
OJO J
100 U
300 U
I.OO U
100 U
100 U
.100 U
I.OO U
l.oo u
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 U
100 UJ
100 U
5.00 U
3.00 U
100 U
1.00 U
1 00 U
100 U
loo U
l.oo u
100 V
l.oo u
1.0(1 U
l.ou u
1 00 U
100 UJ
3.30 J
0
000
TrijBIn*
12304
I.OO U
100 U
1.00 U
I.OO U
3.00
3.00 J
1.00 U
1.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
0.30 J
I.OO U
3.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
i.oo 0
l.oo u
100 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
1.00 U
I.OO U
100 U
I.OO UJ
I.OO U
3.00 U
5.00 U
l.oo u
l.oo u
l.oo u
l.oo u
I.OO U
l.oo u
l.oo u
100 U
I on u
1 00 U
l.oo u
I.OO UJ
6.30 J
0
o.ou
MW-ID
90-100
2/23/94
1.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
1.00 U
5.00 R
1.00 U
4.00
. I.OO U
1.00 U
0.50 J
3.00 U
fenf&RaSSs
1.00 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
0.70 J
1 00 U
I.OO U
I.OO UJ
l.oo u
3.00 U
3.00 U
fZUM £•...
I.oo u
1.00 U
1.00 U
100 U
"100 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
1.0(1 U
l.oo u
I.OO U
l.oo UJ
23420 J
3
610 IN
MW-6S
24.1-34.1
144/94
I.OO U
I.OO U
1.00 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
5.00 K
I.OO U
0.60 J
Sasii?
I.OO
I.OO U
I.OO U
l.oo u
3.00 U
SlyM*?^':
I.OO U
100 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
0.70 J
I.OO U
1.00 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
I.OO U
100 U
5.00 U
5.00 U
1011
I.OO UJ
1.00 U
I.OO U
0.50 J
I.OO U
100 U
I.OO U
100 U
LOO U
0.06 J
I.OU U
12716 J
2
33.90 JN
FietiBU
1/24/94
1.00 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
I.OO U
2.00
5.00 R
I.OO U
100 U
1.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
0.30 J
I.OO U
5.00 U
I.OO UJ
i.oo u
1.00 u
1.00 U
1.00 U
i.oo u
1.00 U
I.OO U
l.m u
1.00 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
500 U
5.00 U
I.OO U
1.00 UJ
1.00 U
LOO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
1.00 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
1.0(1 U
1.00 U
l.oo u
2.30 J
0
0.00
TripBbnk
2/24794
I.OO U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
200
5.00 R
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
0.20 J
I.OO U
3.00 U
1.00 UJ
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
1.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
LOO U
5.00 U
5.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO UJ
1.00 U
0.10 i
i.oo u
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OU U
100 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
1.00 U
230 J
0
000
MW-6D
90-100
1/24J94
I.OO U
I.OO U
1.00 U
I.OO U
• 2.00 U
3.00 R
1.00 U
4.00
030 J
200
2.00
3.00 U
piBftM J;'-'
1.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
:"."3ijjBo;;.'..
1.00 U
1.00
l.oo u
l.oo u
l.oo u
1.00 U
5.00 U
3.00 U
•''.'. ySTjoV"
I.OO UJ
I.OO U
l.oo u
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
l.oo u
1.00 U
o!o3 j
I.OO U
575J3 J
2
1.9! K
* (be New Vori Suic Dnnkirj Water Sundwdi Kfexcnccd in T.blc 2-12 ve h«hUsfatcd
.-Noundvdiriiliblc
U- AMlyie «*i not detected •! the insmtfflcm detection Innti given
B» Reported vmtwe b between the tnmmem detection limit and the coninct required detection Itntt
E" Value b """""d due to ratcrfcroicc*
J- Eniauted vihtc
JN - Praamptive evidence for pretence of uaKv. ciumited quwnii)
R- Rejected durins d*t» validation
X l»1.3 Dilation
X>l.230Dihtuon
19-Sep-94
Page 2of 3
RD2VOL.WB1
-------
TABLE 4
CIRCU1TRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND II DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY - GROUNDWATER SAMPLING
MONITORING WELLS
VOLATILE ORGAMCS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ng/l)
NYS
Drbkmt Wuei
5
2
5
5
5
5
3
5
7
3
5
3
5
5
3
3
3
5
5
0.7
5 ' '
-
5
3
5
5
3
3
4.7
3
47
4.7
5
Sample Number
Depth huervil (ft)
CUorooenne
BfomornfthMw
Vmytafcride
Ouoroelliine
Methyteae aiaridc
Acetone
Cutan DinKidc
I.l-Okhloroelhene
l.l.ttchtoooh**
cb-U-DicUoroahaie
nni-n-Dichloraethenc
Chloroform
U-OicUorocthine
2-Buunone
I.l.l-Trjchlonxthiac
CirbonTcmcUoriac
U-Oichloropropine
cb-IJ-DicUoropropcne
Trichloroethcne
.U-Tlkhloroahine
^Dibtonoctatne
Benieae
ra-IJ-IfeWopropenc .
BroDoform
4-Mefhyl'2.PenllflOM
-Hcunonc
'cmchlorocthene
.li2.T«ncbloroetnine
Toluene
Chferobenzenc
Uhylbenzene
SlyTene
,2-Dichlorohnuenc
XyfcaeKwul)
>KchloTObciucne
.4-Dichlorobduciic
>Diteooo-3ropropue
Toul VOCi
Total TIC<
'gUI TIC Concenntian
MW.7S
27.37
2/24A94
101 U
I.OO U
1.00 U
I.OO U
2.00 U
3.00 J
1.00 U
I.OO U
100 U
1.00 U
l.oo u
l.oo U
100 U
S.IKI U
100 UJ
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
l.oo U
I.OO U
IOC U
l.oo U
5.1X1 f
3.011 L'
I.oo U
1 00 U
1 M U
1.0(1 U
1 0(1 U
1.00 U
1.10 JJ
I0» L'
I.OO U
100 U
l.ao u
S.MI J
0
o.ao
MW.7D
90-100
l.oo U
I.OO U
1.0(1 U
I.OO U
2.00 U
5.00 It
I.OO U
£-50100 ;/•
2.IH)
' 2.00
0.05 1
I.OO U
0.30 J
3.0(1 U
110.00
l.oo U
I.OO U
l.oo u
1.0(1 U
16.00 "
1.00 U
l.oo u
I.OO U
l.oo u
l.oo UJ
l.oo u
300 U
50(1 U
23.00
1.00 U
l.oo u
loci U
l.oo u
l.oo t1
l.oo U
100 U
l.oo u
1 .00 U .
I.OO UJ
11533 J
0
O.INI
TripBlnl
2/22/94
I.OO U
1.00 U
I.OU U
I.OO U
300
5.00 It
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
1 00 u
1 oo u
0.2U J
1.00 U
3.00 U
l.oo UJ
1 on u
l.oo u
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
1.00 u
• loo u
• I.OO U
I.OO U
5.00 U
3.00 U
I.OU U
I ui u
l.oo u
I.OO U
1 00 U
1 00 U
IUO U
l.oo LI
l.oo u
I.OO U
l.oo u
3.2(1 J
0
000
PW-2-02
216.3-226.3
2O2/94
1.00 U
l.oo u
I.OO U
1.00 U
2.00 U
2SOU.OO J
2.00
I.OO U
I.OO U
OJO 1
I.OO U
1.00 U
0 10 J
5.00 U
5^*
HW-14
33-43
1/25194
1 00 U
I.OO U
I.OU U
I.OO U
2.00 U
3.00 R
1.00 U
I.OO
090 J
I.OO U
I.OU U
I.OO U
300 U
llilsfcjv
I.OO U
l.oo u
I.OUU
I.OO U
3.00
1.00 U
1.00 U
I.OO U
. OJO J
I.OO U
I.OO U
5.00 U
5.00 U
l.oo
I.OO U
100 U
040 J
I.OO U
I.OO U
1 00 U
1.00 U
I.OO U
I.OO U
I.OO U
7060 J
2
11.19 JN
«teve (he Ne* Vol. Sou Drinlmf Wito SimUnb referenced * Title 2-12 ire
.. No Bind!* nibble
Ir- AacKv <*u not delected it UK mflnmenl detection limit given
B» Reported vihw it between the mommou detection limit ud the eontnet required detection limil
£• Vihte it f~'—rrt doe to aterTercncci
JN • Piuumpu'te evidence for piuuict of iniKte. cnimtted quntm
R- Rejected orfmj dm v.Mjnoi.
X2-l.250Dihnx»
19-Sep-94
Page3of3
RD2VOt.VA®l
-------
TABLE 5
CIRCIIITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND II DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
MONITORING WELLS
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
«m7iera*r
AnaMil
Ih'pih Inlmftl (fit
U.ilc Collected
Aliiminitm
Anlitnont
Auenic
llnrium
lien Ilium
('•dmiiMn
Cnleium
Chiomium
("utMll
Copper
Iron
l.c..d
M-inneiium
M^n.neie
Mercun
Nielel
PoUitium
.Selenium
Sil.ci
.Sodium
IliiUium
V.nMium
/ioc
'HTOh - .
Toul
90.1011
Mint
460 00 1
71.111 U
1 .10 U
«l«n B
nm U
3 60 n
Li.600,00
17 in
111) U
Jl. .10 B
JJ70.00
M.70
1.IIHIIHI 01-
304.00
«la U
IHn B
1.11000 0
i m BJW
2.«o U
13.30000
1.50 BJW
2.30 u
woo l
-JClWTTn •
Diitolied
90.100
2/Z4M4
70.10 U
Jl.io u
1 .111 II
urn n
1)211 U
I*' U
11.7000(1
260 U
29(1 U
.130 n
177.00
.'.«•
2.290 IPO Of
2600(1
020 II
inln u
3.000 m B
1 in u
2111 U
13.10000
LOT BW
2JO u
170 on 1
••-MvV.TS
Toul
H.J.I
Mint
mm B
11.10 U
R
.'Vi on
020 U
2711 II
.19.4m IK)
4 20 B
(.311 B
J.5W.OO
136.000.00
Mil JWN
3.91000 B
879.00
0.211 U
inlo u
A.dlO.OO
1 10 U
9/XI B
1.1.70(1 Ml
R .
1.90 B
7nln
1 — Kiwns
Diiioltcd
I1..1.1
2111ft
20 Id II
21 .to U
110 UJN
51 10 B
02(1 U
270 U
.lo. 7011 m
2«l U
2911 B
17 Ml B
1.360.00
R
UTOOll B
646.00
0 20 U
loin u
7.01000
1 lo u
210 U
14.70000
loo imvN
2 JO U
310 B
MitrjS
Tool
21-JI
Mint
.<5 1 00 1
71.10 UJ
R
I77IKI B
021 11
2711 U
31.50000
4090 J
11,40 B
991.00
317.000.00
n Ml JVVN
3.41001 D
977.00
n2o u
1.1 10 B
.1.11000
1 10 U
2160
11.40000
R
660 B
17100
— nwris
Diiwlverf
Jl- Jl
7/22/94
20 10 11
21 3n UJ
1.311 II/N
1 1 In B
020 U
270 U
.29.20000
260 U
290 U
1 10 B
4,940.00
3.3101X1 B
620.00
0!0 U
in lo u
3.16000
1 10 u
210 U
M.9IIOOO
100 UAVN
2.30 U
1070 B
— lawss
Tolil
24.14
2/21/94
19100 ]
71.10 UJ
R
9101 B
020 II
2911 B
35.400.00 1
ltl.00 i
420 B
101 on
to.too.oo
.170 JWN
3.33000 B
602.00
020 U
1440 B
5.49000
1 10 U
2.10 U
12.50000
R
340 B
20.SO
— mm
nittnhcd
24..14
7/21/94
2010 U
21 .10 UJ
1.10 UJN
91 40 B
020 U
270 U
.19.000 no I
260 U
6. in B
9.90 B
9,060.00
R
J.J9000 B
650.00
0.20 U
1010 U
3.99000
1 in u
210 U
13.60000
lit) BJWN
230 U
IJO B
— STOTJB
Toul
90.100
2/21/94
69' J
:...:s uj
R
105 no n
020 IJ
270 U
1.1.20000
71.20 J
340 B
12.30 B
J.7M.OO
1.40 JWN
X4IOOO B
24400
020 U
2)20 B
3.91000
1.10 U
2.10 U
16.300 00
R
310 n
41.10
— MW-ndjid«
2 5 no
I. MO no
in no
1000
20000
.irxtno
l.um
js.nfflion
3 no on
200
mm
5n,m
2n.oonm
30000
CoRccntralkmi iboic the NYS Diinkin| Wilcr Quitity Stindardi referenced in Ublc 2-11 nc tiighlighted
• -Notund*td«t*>tiblc
U* Antlvlc nai not delected il lh« Intirumenl detection timil |i\en
R* Rrpodcd t ituc il bchtecn iko initnttnent dcieciioo limil ind the contract required detection litnil
(:-• Value ii eilimited due to Interferences
N» Spiked umpte recoten1 mi not within control limili
*• Duplicate in«l>i!i nn not uithln control Itmiti
J- f-iltmuled \ilne '
W- PtJil-dijeitioci ipike Tot FurnKe AA iniKiii out of contra) limili. while umple •bioibincc »ten than J0%of ipikc ibtofbtnee
R- Rejected dm ing did vilidilion
M 'Duplieilc injection prccition crilcrii «•! not mcl
ie-Sep-94
Page 1 of 5
RD2INO.WB1
-------
TABLE 5
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND II DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBLILITV STUDY
MONITORING WELLS
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
Simple Numhel
AnaUtil
l>cprhlnt:n.il(n)
Hue Collected
Aluminum
Anlimon*
ArfBiut.i
cv*iit
Cnppei
lion
Lead
Mlnnciii.il
ManflnCfc
Mrreu"
Nielcl
retai'ium
Selenium
SiUer
Sodium
Itanium
Vinidium
line
Field Blar.1
foul
unfit
in mi u
II «l U
N
oil) U
olo U
1711 U
16 4n a
Inn U
1W U
Mil B
11 '») B
II (.11 UN
11,10 V
1 JO U
n)l) U
III in u
UIIHl U
110 U
? mi ti
n 711 D
lit" U
i in it
FieU Blank
(limited
mint
1010 U
11.10 II
mi in1'.
nin u
oin U
170 U
7040 n
260 U
>«) U
140 U
«io u
060 UN
26ln u
1.70 U
010 u
in 10 u
moo u
1 in u
110 U
) 7.111 D
loci UN
l.'n U
.Vin u
Field Blink
Diliohcd
2/22/94
10 in U
11 3n u -
1.10 UIN
010 U
010 U
170 U
7040 n
inn U
190 U .
140 U
6 in u
060 UN
2610 U '
170 U
nio u
loin u
34100 U
1 10 UIW
inn u •
1 19,on D
100 UN
1.10 U
310 J
• Tout
IJ-JJ
I/22AM
1 7.1 nn R
11 .10 U
R
193 IKI n
Oin U
17n u
75.10000
7711 n
59« n
u in D
52,600.00
290 BIWN
Minim
714.00
oin u
loin u
11.10000
1 10 UIW
2 in u
19.10000 1
R
500 B
1150
niiioivcd
25.15
mint
211 in u
II.M U
9 in BIN
11.1 nn D
nn u
270 U
77.600011
2 60 U
290 B
5Jn B
23,100.00
5.511)00
«79.00
020 U
10 in u
15.30000 J
1 in u
210 U
23.000.00 1
1.10 BJWN
110 U
500 B
MW-3D
Toul
• 90. inn
1/22/94
7190 B
11 .in u
R
15400 B
020 U
290 Bl
11.700 00
T5.JO J
2640 B
1070 B
«87.00
9.50 N
2.600.00 B
[ J.MO.OO
0.20 U
2160 B
6.170 m
1 10 u
210 U
I5.7nn4
M«n u
21 .in u
1 .10 UIN
15600 B
oin u
170 U
14.500.00
1.4n B
1110 B
3.11) B
11900
R
2.100,00 B
2,290.00
0.20 U
1010 U
6.44000
1 in u
210 U
I7.lnn.no i
1.00 UJWN
2.10 U
11.10
M\V-3D-DUP
Tout
9n.|oo
1/11/94
6010 B
2130 U
15400 B
010 U
1.7n (J
ll.Tnooo
73.40 1
1610 B
11.10 B
MI.OO
160 IWN
l.tlnoo B
1.610.00
0.20 U
16.41) B
6.31)0.00
1 10 U
210 U
I5.6onnn
• R
110 U
6110
MW-1D-DUP
niiKKcd
90-lon
Vllf>4
loin u
1130 U
110 UIN
14100 B
020 U
2.70 U
14.100 00
1.60 B
19.70 B
9.20 B
114 00
R
2.700.00 B
2,278.00
010 U
1170 B
6.420,00
1.10 U
110 U
16.50000
1.30 UIWN
230 U
4(40
MW.55
Toul
24.34
2/21/94
intnn
2110 Ul
1M) BIW
1.1900. B
020 U
7.70 U
11.70000
45.10
1.90 U
111.00
VM.OO
100 BIW
1.540 DO BE
• M2.00
010 U
1140 B
4.970 00 B
l.in u
l.tn U
11.500 no
100 U
210 U
11.10 B
NVS
DnnVing Wller
Quilil, Sllnilird<
2.VDO
l.nnnon
innn
5non
inn on
inn.on
1500
13.000 nn
lon.on
inn
loon
sn.oo
10.00000
Inn on
nccnhilionl ibo*« IM NVS DnnLin| Wller Qulliri Sundirdi referenced in ubtc 2-11 are ht|hli|hlcd
Noiuxllldlilillblc
• Anllue nil no) detected It Ihe inierument detection limil |i\en
Reported iiroe if between tne inflnmenl detection limit and the contact required detection limit
Value if cflirnitcd dve 1C. intcrfcrcneci
Spikrd Hmple rcto.cn «ai |M «ilkir, conuol limiu
Eitimaled -•!»«
~ PDal-digetliofl Ipika for Furnace AA aniMla out of control llmlli. unite umple abloraance it leit than lOV.of IpiLe abiorbince
Rejccled durinf dlla vilidllloti
-'lhiplkitc injection preciiicm criteria tvsi not met.
19-Sep-94
Page 2o( 5
R02INO.WB1
-------
TABLE 5
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND II DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBUMTY STUDY
MONITORING WKI.LS
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
S.mplc klumlK,
An.lv tit
Depth Inlcit.l ID)
D.Klullctlcd
Aluminum
Anlimnni
At-cnit
n«iium
Hen Ilium
( admiiim
r.lcmm
! Ki«mi..m
(cikill
fo»|ici
lion
Icid
M.,i.c,iun,
Manit.ntie
Mcicun
Nklcl
Polltlium
Selenium
Sil.cl
Sodium
Tn.llium
V.nadium
Zinc
— nvtqn
Diltnlicd
14.14
1/2.VJ4
mm II
21 in ui
1 .10 IIJW
41 in B
02" U
7 711 U
in.40000
mo u
IW U
2970
351.00
.1 ll> JW
l.< in no BE
550.00
cuo .u
lo no B
4.DOOO B
1 III U
lll> U
I3.no on
inn u
1)0 U
7)0 B
1 — mrm
Totil
911.100
2/2.1/94
19 i)5n
7.16OOO
till U
110 U
10,100.00
im u
2)0 U
11)0 1
— HTOS
Toul
24I..14I
1/24/94
19100 1
21 )n U
1.30 UIW
.19 )0 B
010 U
270 II
70.900 00
' 7090
190 U
240 U
647.00
) in w
2.700 00 BE
2)100
020 U
33 3D B
1.22000 B
1 10 U
210 U
12.70000
1.20 BIW
210 U
13.90 B
— iros
DilioKcd
24K.)4II
1/24^14
9100 B
21.10 U
DO U
In 40 B
0 10 U
)40 B
lo.ioo on
2KO U
29n U
240 U
69)0 0
1 70 B
7.MU) 00 BE
21110
U
2490 B
3.6IOOO B
1.10 U
2.10 U
I2.sm.nn
Inn uiw
.2)0 U
II. 70 B
— K1W7B
Toul
90-100
2/24W4
.IDA no 1
H)0 UJ
1 )0 UIW
12000 B
oin u
1 70 II
15.10000
«°.40
290 U
100. B
I.I 10.00
5)0 IW
4..160 (in BE
7.1 70
0.20 U
10400
1.60000 B
1 10 U
210 U
I6.SOODO
IDO UIW
2.)n U
41.50 1
i RV;
Plinling W.ln
Qn.lil> Sund.rdi
2500
l.noo.nn
1000
won
,10000
.10000.
1500
)5.ononn
1001)0
200
1000
)000
20.00000
)onno
('onccnniikini lbo%c ihc NYS Drinking Wiicr Quilily Mimlardi referenced in liblc 2-12 lie highlighted
- - No .Undird ...llible
U- Anil>tc n»t KM tlclccled •! ihe mtlramcnidefection limit |iten
B- Reported \itue ll between the initnltnenl dctcelion limit and Ihe contrtct required detection limit
E- Vihie ii eitimiled due to inlcrferencei
N» Spiled umpterecoien uiinoluilhincBntrol limiti
•- Ouplkiie •niKiii \\»t iwl t>ilhm conttol litnili
1- r.iim.icd tilue
W- Poit-digeilion ipike Tor FoniKe AA milt tit out of control limiti, while iimple ibiortunce ii lest thin 30% of tpike ibwfbince
R- Rejecteddurin| diU \i!id«lion
M^rXiplictte infection preciitofi criteria »•» not met
19-S0P-94
RD2INO.WB1
-------
TABLE 5
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
ROUND II DATA
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY
MONITORING WEI J^
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
Anar>*i«
IVp'.Mnl:i\r.Knt
DltcCnt'nlt.l
Aluminii.n
Anlimoir.
Anrnic
tVitium
llcr\!liiir.
riufmiun-
Cnlcnim
Chrcmii.ni
CnKili
Topper
Irnn
Uad
Maghctitirn
Mjniaw.r
Mcreiin
Nielet
PnlaMillfP
Selenium
Sihcr
Sodium
Thallium
Vcnidiiiir
7inc
— Kiwrn
Oil loKeii
m.inn
HH'H
HIM |l
7* 111 II
1 «> If
•>« «i n
it in u
mi n
11 'mini
IIIW
I'm »
; in u
IT in n
II 'M B
1.4111 HO BF
II VI
II III tl
MINI B
l.r.7nim R
1 10 UJW
ll« U
ivwinn
im uiw
7 in U
rtW
— mm
T«l>l
17.17
lavn
ljl.no 1
71 in U
1 in U
111 in n
1110 U
4 on n
11.10000
TM.OO
1WI U
lf< 10 B
J.490.00
; 711 n
1.7WIKI BF
4,-ioo.ao
0!0 II
51IH1
4.4711 on Rl
1 10 UJW
J«ll U
o./iim.nn
l.in BIW
1.10 U
lh,7ll B
1 — isrons
Diiwlvcd
77..I7
1/14W4
10 III 11
71 In LI
1 in II
OlMI n
0711 II
.1 in n
ll.MHIOO
MO B
1W U
140 U
10)0 B
1 111 n
1.61000 BE.
170 B
0111 II
1010 U
».070I«I 1
MO UJW
110 U
v.4inon
100 UIW
1.10 U
H7II B
RW^B
Tool
90.IIK)
M.VI4
TO.on j
31.111 U
1 in UJW
11 III B
oln u
.1 Til B
11.100 IHI
SIX! B
110 U
1.411 U
371.00
.1 in jw
J Sundirdi referenced in taMc 2-1 2 arc highlighted
«NofUndi>diiiilible
I- AniMe nit not delected it the inurnment detection limit given
- Reported \ itue ii beta cm the tnitromcnt detection limit and the contract requited detection limil
" Value ii citimated due lo interference!
Spiled lampk reeo^en «a» not wllhin control limili
Duplicate aruKitt wit ml within control limili
Estimated taluc
roit-digetlion rptkc for Furnace AA artiKiii out of control limili. while umple abtotbancc ii tci* thin 30% ofipikc absorbanee
Rejected during diu validation
M -Duplicate injection precWon criteria uai not met
19-Sep-!)4
Page4oT5
RD2INO.WB1
-------
TABLE 5
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITK
ROUND II DATA
FOCUSED FEAS1BLILITY STUDY
MONITORING WELLS
INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS (ug/l)
Sum pic Number
Anal>»ii
IVplhlnlem1
Dale Cnlleclcd
Aluminum
Anlitnnnt
Anemic
llnium
Ikn Ilium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
rohill
toppci
(ton
Lead
Mjpnctium
Mangsncw
Metm«
Nielcl
fnliuium
Selenium
Sihci
Sodium
Thallium
Vinidium
7inc
PD-I
Hiuoltcd
17.32
1/14W4
26200 1
!«3(l UJ
4 no BW
1.111 (Ml
0 20 U
1*1 B
II.I'KMHI
KM U
290 u
190 B
17,200.00
TOO IW
M«> 00 EJ
194.00
Oil! U
in in U
in.60000
1 10 u
111) U
50.JOO.00
1 41) BJW
Jin U
1 1 in B
ro.i
Tonl
IJ-31
1/24/94
3.24non
2«.i« U
470 BJWN
1.14 no
nr> n
in in
I4.nonnn
10 JO
490 B
II. in B
32,100.00
fl 90 J\VN
7.I9HOO
915.00
Din u
in in u
II .400 01) |
110 IIJWN
411) B
48,900.00
1 in Hrw
II Ml B
19 7n
Field Ollnk
DiiinKcd
2/J4«4
In in U
.1.1 III B
1 .10 (UN
0 Ml U
nin u
170 Ul
.W20 B
inn u
iw u
Mil U
I4IXI B
OM1 UN .
44 111 H •
inn B
020 U
mm u
Ml no U
1 in (UN
no u
101 00 B
I no u
1)0 U
.1 in u
Field Blank
DilKiKcd
1/14/V4
join u
Ji jn ' u
1 .11) 1IIN
0 III 11
' 020 U
270 UJ
74 911 B
2 Ml U
290 U
Mil U
II Ml B
n r.n UN
2A«o u
1 70 U
0211 U
into u
.141 no u
1 in u)N
lin u
9ft 30 B
I.AO B
no u
Jin u
MW-l.l
Twil
.11.41
2/1.V94
4.ioti on
21.111 U
1 .10 UJN
II RO B
0211 U
1 711 U '
29.ini) INI
1 7 HI
12 10 B
40110 J
20,«00.00
II9«I JWN
4.1 in no n
611.00
nin u
}J4n B
4.1041(10 D
1 40 BJWN
4 Ml B
iijonm
1 in BJW
in in B
Aft 10
. MW.I3
Ditiolted
JI.4I
1/13/74
inin U
nin u
1 JO UJN
4J 40 B
nin u
171) UJ
24.7mm
370 B
HI) B
(i in B
4,7 Slnndlldl
2>nn
l. noo no
IIMHI
50 nn
200 no
31X1.00
1300
33.00000
.11)0.00
100
moo
in on
10.000 00
3no.no
r-u.«M_ii__. .,». ~ ih. MV« |M_!!__ iv.i« rx.*i:>. »__^4 » i.ki_ 1.11 .« ki.kli.ki.J
ote ihe NVS DrinLin.] Wner Qullih S
referenced in U
trc
AnaKte u it not detected at the in itrwmcnl delect ion limit gi\en
Reported » ahic i| between die in it rumen t detection limit and the contract required detection timtl
Vilue it eilimated due to interferencei
SpUed umplc recovery «« not within control limit!
Dvplkatc anah lit u at nol«ithm conttol limiti
• Potl-di|ettmn tpike fot Furnace A A analvtltoulorcontmllimili, unile iimple •btoiltince il (ett than Jn%of ipiU ibwrbinec
Rejected dnrini did .ilidalion
'FXiplicaie injection prcciiton criteria »ai nol met
19-80P-94
MD2INO.WD1
-------
Table 6
Chemicals of Potential Concern in Groundwater
(On-Property and Off-Property Wells)
Circuitron Corporation Site
Chemical j
Frequency
of
Detection a
Range of
Sample
Quantitation
Limits
toa/U
: Range of j
I Detected :
I Concentrations i
! toa/L) i
Organ. -.? j
Acetone •
2— Butanone
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane ;
'l.l-Dichloroethene
cis-1.2-Dichloroethene :
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1- Trichloroethane
1 .1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Inorganics
Aluminum i
Arsenic :
Barium
'Beryllium
Chromium ;
Copper .
iLead
Manganese
! Nickel
1 Silver ,
Vanadium
iZinc
3/3
1/1
2/24
3/24
16/24
14/24
8/24
14/24
1/11
23/24
1/24
12/24
9/9
4/11
11/11
2/11
7/11
10/10
11/11
10/10
7/10
1/11
10/11
10/10
10°
10"
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
: 1
: 1 .
! 200"
i 2.3
200"
i 0.3 - 0.5
5.8
25 "
3"
15"
6.1
3.3 -3.8
2.1
20"
3-18 •
6 i!
' . 0.6 - 3 .:
1-3 .'
: 0.5 - 42 j
1-66 !|
1-10
0.7 - 21
0.7 i
1 - 5,800 !
3 i
1-43
i
i 133 - 3,700 !
: 2.6 - 81 ;
27-1,390 i
0.36 - 0.51
6.3 - 597 :
. 4.2 - 14.600 !
' . 3.5-55 ; :
108- 1,790 i
7-72
17-28 i
! 4.5 - 46 !
4.9—281 j
* Number of sampling locations at which the chemical was detected compared with the
total number of sampling locations.
b~The contract required quantitation limit (CRQL) is indicated.
QuantmtwkS
12-Apr-94
-------
Table 7
Exposure Point Concentrations for Chemicals of Potential
Concern in Groundwater (On-Property and Off—Property Wells)
Circuitron Corporation Site
: Upper 95 Percent i Maximum
! Confidence Limit | Detected
i Concentration ; Concentration
Chemical i (pg/L) ; (j/g/L)
Organics :
Acetone
2-Butanone :
Chiorobenzene
Chloroform
1
1
,1 -Dichloroethane
.1 -Dichloroethene '
Icis- 1 .2- Dichloroethene :
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1
1
,1,1-Trichloroethane i
,1.2-Trichloroethane i
Trichloroethene i
Inorganics
19.400 :
NA :
0.58
0.67
11
5.8 ;
1.6
2.4 i
0.56 :
181 I
0.67. :
9.7 |
18
6
3
3
42
66
10
21
0.7
5.800
3
43
Exposure Point ij
Concentration * |i
ft/8/L) 1
18
6 .
0.58
0.67
11
5.8
1.6
2.4
0.56
181
0.67
9.7
4
1
:|
'!
•|
"
;l
•i
::
3
j
"- d
:l
j Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
jlead
I Manganese
i Nickel
I Silver-
! Vanadium
10,500
47
374
0.33
1.565
54.300
31
1.417
47
5.9
17
i 3.700 i
i 81 !
i 1,390 i
i 0.51 :
• 597 i
14.600
55 i
1,790 i
i 72 j
: 28
i 46 ;
3,700 j
47 i
374 I
0.33 i
597 '
14,600
31
1.417 ;
47 i
5.9 :
17 |
iiZinc
157
281
157
NA = Not applicable. An upper 95 percent confidence limit concentration cannot be calculated
based on one sample.
* Represents the upper 95 percent confidence limit concentration rf it is lower than the maximum
detected concentration. If the upper 95 percent eonfidence'limit concentration exceeds the
maximum detected concentration, the exposure point concentration equals the maximum
detected concentration.
-------
Table 8
Potential Exposure Pathways/Routes.
Circuitron Corporation Site
Exposure
Pathway
Groundwater*
On-property and off-
property Wells
Scenario
Current
Future
Receptor
None - Not used for
household purposes
Resident (1-6 yr old child
and adult)
Exposure
Routes
1. Ingestion
2. Noningestion uses
(showering, washing etc.)
'Groundwater data from the upper 40 feet of the saturated aquifer was used.
R:\CIR4-3.1AB
UApnJW*
-------
Table 9
Slope Factors
Circuitron Corporation Site
Chemicals
Orgamcs
Chloroform
1,1-Dichloroethane
1 ,1 -Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
1 .1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Lead
Oral
: Slope Factor ,
(mg/kg/day)-1 '
6.1E-03I
NTV
: 6E-01 i
5.2E-02 !
5.7E-02 i
'•• 1.1E-02!
1.8E+OOI
4.3E+00 :
NTV
Source
IRIS, 1994
—
IRIS. 1994
ECAO.1992
IRIS. 1994
ECAO.1992
IRIS, 1994
IRIS. 1994
—
Inhalation j
Slope Factor 1
(mg/kg/day)-1 I
8.1E-02I
NTV
1.2E+OOI
2E-03I
5.7E-02 1
6E-03I
I
NC |
NC
NC
Source i
;
EPA. 1993 i
— — ii
EPA, 1993 I
ECAO.1992 !
EPA. 1993 I
ECAO.1992 I
\
— ' i
NC = Chemical is not of concern through this exposure route.
NTV - No toxicity value was available.
-------
Table 10
Reference Doses (RfDs)
Circuitron Corporation Site
: Oral i
: Chemical '• Reference Dose i
i (ma/ka/dav) '•
', Organics
Acetone
j2-Butanone
IChlorobenzene
I Chloroform :
11,1-Dichloroetnane :
11,1- Dichloroetnene ;
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ;
iTetrachloroethene
Toluene ! .
|l.l,l-Trichloroethane i
!l.l.2-Trichloroethane i
iTrichioroethene :
Inorganics
I Aluminum ;
Arsenic
Barium \
Beryllium '
Chromium III
;i Chromium VI ;
!! Copper
|| Lead
8 Manganese ;
(Nickel .
j| Silver • ;
ll Vanadium i
Zinc i
1E-01!
6E-01 i
2E-02 :
1E-02I
1E-01 !
9E-03I
1E-03)
1E-02I
2E-01 1
NTV i
4E-03J
6E-03|
NTV i
3E-04I
7E-02 1
5E-03 1
1E+OOI
SE-03 1
3.7E-02 i
NTV :
5E-03 1
2E-02 1
5E-03i
7E-03 i
3E-01 I
i Inhalation \
Source i Reference Dose'j
! (ma/ka/dav) <
IRIS. 1994 i
IRIS, 1994 .
IRIS, 1994 !
IRIS, 1994 !
EPA.1993 !
IRIS, 1994 j
EPA, 1993 I '
IRIS. 1994 !
IRIS. 1994 :
—
IRIS, 1994 !
ECAO, 1992 I
!
IRIS. 1994 i
IRIS. 1994 i
IRIS. 1994 !
IRIS. 1994 :
IRIS. 1994 I
EPA, 1993 i
— :
IRIS. 1994 i
IRIS. 1994 i
IRIS, 1994 L_
EPA, 1993 !
IRIS. 1994 I
NTV :
1E+OOI
5E-03!
NTV :
1E-01 !
NTV I
NTV i
NTV i
4E-01 I
2.9E-01 !
NTV
NTV i
NC I
NC
NC ,
NC :
NC i
NC !
NC
NC
NC :
NC i
NC i
NC ' i
NC i
Source ||
•i
IRIS, 1994 i
" A, 1993 :
— ,1
EPA, 1993 II
~"*~ i
IRIS. 1994 !
ECAO. 1994 !|
— — ij
i
"•—
—
— :
i
i
—
— i
!
i
,
:
NC = Chemical is not of concern through this exposure route.
NTV= No toxicrty value was available.
12-Apr-M
-------
Table 11
.Summary of Carcinogenic Risks by Exposure Pathway, Receptor, and Chemical - RME Scenario
Circuitron Corporation Site
Exposure
Pathway
Groundwater
Receptor
Resident
(child & adult combhed)
Total
Carcinogenic Risk
•Total Carcinogenic Risk = 1.1E-03
* carcinogenic risk from
ingestion uses = 9.6E-04
* carcinogenic risk from
noningestion uses = 1.6E-04
~ Chemicals with a Carcinogenic Risk > or = 1 E-06
Chemical
Arsenic
1,1-Dichloroethene
Beryllium
Trlchloroethene
Tetrach loroethen e
1,1,2- Trlchloroelhane
Chloroform
Carcinogenic
Risk
9E-04
1.9E-04
1.6E-05
2.4E-06
15E-06
1.3E-06
1.2E-06
% Contribution
To Total
Carcinogenic Risk
81%
17%
1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
•-*pt---
-------
Table 12
Future Resident (child and adult combined) - RME
Potential Carcinogenic Risk Through All Exposure Routes
(Qroundwater - On-Propertyand Off-Property Welte}
Based on Upper 95 Percent Confidence Limit Concentration
i
I Chemical
i
Ingestbn
of
Groundwater
: OHGANICS I
! Chloroform
ji.l-Dichloroethane
j 1.1-rDichloroethene
Noningestion
Uses of
Groundwater
Total
;
4.48E-08I 1.19E-06
NTV
NTV
3.81E-05J 1.53E-04
i Tetrachloroethene ! 1.37E-06I 1.05E-07
j 1,1,2-Trichtoroethane
4.19E-07
Trichloroethene . i 1.17E-06
8.37E-07
1.23E-06J
NA
1.91E-04
1.47E-06
1.26E-06
1.28E-06i 2.44E-06
; i I i
j INORGANICS i
i Arsenic
! Beryllium
iLead
: TOTAL
9.01 E-04
NC
1.56E-05I NC
NTV
9.01 E-04
1 .56E-05
NC I NA
9.56E-04 156E-04 1.11E-03
NA = Not applicable.
NC = Chemical is not of concern through this exposure route.
NTV = No toxicity value was available.
-------
Table 13
Future Resident (child and adult combined) - RME
Distribution of Lifetime Carcinogenic Risk as Percent of Total Risk
(Groundwater - On-Property and Off-Property Wells)
Based on Upper 95 Percent Confidence Limit Concentration
• Chemical
Ingestion
of
Groundwater
Noningesfon
Uses of
Groundwater
i
Total |
i
ORGANICS
! Chloroform
11,1 -Dichloroethane
:l,1-Dichloroethene
j Tetrachloroethene
11,1,2-Trichloroetnane
i Trichloroethene
INORGANICS
i Arsenic
: Beryllium
'Lead
TOTAL
MTV
o.oo I
3.42 i
0.12!
0.04!
0.10 i
NTV
0.11
13.691
0.01
0.08
0.11
NA
0.11 I
17.121
0.131
0.111
0.22!
80.911
1.40i
NTV
NC
NC
NC
80.91 !
1.40J
NA
86.00
14.00
100.001
0.00 = Contribution s less than 0.01 percent.
NA= Not applicable.
NC = Chemical is not of concern through this exposure route.
NTV = No toxicity value was available.
12-*pr-84
-------
Table 14
Summary of Hazard Indices by Exposure Pathway. Receptor, and Chemical — RME Scenario
Circurtron Corporation Site
Chemicals with Hazard Index > or = 1 !i
ii
:|
ji
Exposure ;
Pathway ! Receptor
Groundwater Child
. Resident
Adult
Resident
! Total
Hazard Index
; Total Hazard Index = 56
* hazard index from ;
ingestion uses = 56
. * hazard index from
: noningesiion uses = 0.1 ;
. Total Hazard Index = 24 ,
* hazard index from. !
ingestion uses = 24
* hazard index from
: noningestion uses = 0.05 i
Chemical
Copper
Manganese
Arsenic
Chromium VI
Copper
Manganese
Arsenic
i % Contribution
Hazard | To Total j
Index ' Hazard Index I
5
10
1.1
11
7.8
4.3
!
45%
33%
18%
2%
.
45% |
33%
18% i
RJsksumwtt
12-Apr-tt
-------
Table 15
Future Child Resident (1-6yrold) - RME
Hazard Quotients and Indices Through All Exposure Routes
(Groundwater - On-Property and Off-Property Wells)
Based on Upper 95 Percent Confidence Limit Concentration
j
I
I Chemical
I
| ORQANICS
Acetone
1 2-Butanone
I Chlorobenzene
i Chloroform
il.l-Dichtoroethane
!1.l-Dichk>roethene
| cis- 1 .2— Dichloroethene
i Tetrachlproethene
. Toluene
1 1,1,1-Trichloroethane
: 1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
; Trichloroethene
| INORGANICS
i Aluminum
{ Arsenic
I Barium
| Beryllium
| Chromium (III)
i Chromium (VI) .
i Copper
'Lead
Manganese
i Nickel
i Silver
{Vanadium
iZinc
: TOTAL
Ingeston
of .
Groundwater
1.15E-02
6.39E-04
1.65E-03
4.28E-03
7.03E-03
4.12E-02
1.02E-01
1.53E-02
1:79E-04
NTV
1.07E-02
1.03E-01
NTV
1.00E+01
3.42E-01
4.22E-03
3.28E-02
1.07E+00
2.52E+01
NTV
1.81E+01
1.50E-01
7.54E-02
1.55E-01
3.35E-02
5.55E-I-01
Noningestion
Uses of .
Ground water
NTV
7.67E-04
1.48E-02
NTV
1.41E-02
NTV
NTV
NTV
1.79E-04
7.98E-02
NTV
NTV
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
1.10E-01
Total
1.15E-02
1.41E-03
1.67E-02
4.28E-03
2.11E-02
4.12E-02i
1.02E-01 j
1.53E-02!
3.58E-04 i
7.98E-02
1.07E-02J
1.03E-01
NA
1.00E+01
3.42E-01
4.22E-03
3.28E-02
1.07E+00
2.52E+01
NA
1.81E+01
i 150E-01
7.S4E-02
1.55E-01
1 3.35E-02
5.56E+01
NA= Not applicable.
NC = Chemical is not of concern through this exposure route.
NTV = No toxicity value was available.
-------
Table 16
Future Child Resident (1-6 yr old) - RME
Distribution of Hazard Quotient and Indices as Percent of Total Hazard Index
(Groundwater - On-Propertyand Off-Property Wells)
Based on Upper 95 Percent Confidence Limit Concentration
Chemical
ORGANICS
Acetone
2-Butanone
I Ingestron I
! of
| Groundwater !
i !
i ao2i
! o.oo I
Noningeston
Uses of
Groundwater
NTV
0.00
Total
0.02
0.00
I Chtorobenzene
j Chloroform
!l,i-Dichloroethane
: 1.1 -Dichloroethene
I cis-1.2-Dichloroethene
! Tetrachloroethene
| Toluene
: 1.1.1 -Trichloroethane
: 1.1,2-Trichloroethane
i Trichloroethene
NTV
0.001
0.01 I
0.01 I
0.07 i
0.18 |
0.03 I
0.00!
!
0.02 |
0.19!
0.03 I
NTV l
0.03 |
NTV i
NTV- i
NTV i
0.00
0.14
NTV
NTV
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.071
•0.181
0.03J
0.00
0.14
0.021
0.191
i INORGANICS
; Aluminum
i Arsenic
i Barium
i Beryllium
j Chromium (III)
i Chromium (VI)
j Copper
iLead
I Manganese
i Nickel
; Silver
i Vanadium
iZinc
! TOTAL
• i
NTV !
: i8.oo i
: 0.61 I
i 0.01 !
; ' 0.06 1
; ' 1.93 i
\. • 45.34!
' ! NTV !
32.57 i
'• 0.27 i
0.14 i
i 0.28!
: ' 0.06 !
I
i 99.80
NC
NA ;
NC 18.00
NC 0.61
NC
0.01
NC 0.06 1
NC 1.931
NC i 45.34
NC ! NA
NC
32.57
NC 0.27
NC
0.14
NC 0.28
NC ; 0.06
0.20 100.00
0.00 = Contribution is less than 0.01 percent.
NA = Not applicable.
NC = Chemical is not of concern through this exposure route.
NTV = No toxicity value was available.
GwrakwIO
-------
Table 17
Future Adult Resident - RME
Hazard Quotients and Indices Through All Exposure Routes
(Groundwater - On-Property and Off-Property Wells)
Based on Upper 95 Percent Confidence Limit Concentration
TOTAL
2.38E+01
4.70E-02
Chemical
ORQANICS
Acetone
2-Butanone
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
1 .1 -Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
cis— 1 .2— Dichloroethene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 -Trichloroetnane
1 .1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
: Chromium (III)
Chromium (VI)
Copper
iLead
i Manganese
! Nickel
; Silver
! Vanadium
iZinc
Ingestion
of
Groundwater
4.93E-03
2.74E-04
7.95E-04
1.84E-03
3.01 E-03
1.77E-02
4.38E-02
6.58E-03
7.67E-05
NTV
4.59E-03
4.43E-02
NTV
4.29E+00
1.46E-01
1. 81 E-03
1.41E-02
4.60E-01
1.0BE+01
NTV
7.76E+00
6.44E-02
3.23E-02
6.65E-02
1.43E-02
Noningestion
Uses of
Groundwater
NTV
3.29E-04
6.36E-03
NTV
6.03E-03
NTV
NTV
NTV
7.67E-05
3.42E-02
NTV
NTV
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Total
4.93E-03
6.03E-04
7.15E-03
1.84E-03
9.04E-03
1.77E-02
4.38E-02
6.58E-03
1.53E-04
3.42E-02
4.59E-03 j
4.43E-02
NA
4.29E+00
1.46E-01
1.81E-03
1.41E-02
4.60E-01
1.08E+01
NA
7.76E+00
6.44E-02
3.23E-02
6.65E-02
i 1.43E-02
2.3BE+01
NA= Not applicable.
NC = Chemical is not of concern through this exposure route.
NTV = No toxicity value was available.
-------
Table 18
Future Adult Resident - RME
Distribution of Hazard Quotient and Indices as Percent of Total Hazard Index
(Groundwater - On-Property and Off-Properly Wells)
Based on Upper 95 Percent Confidence Unit Concentration
: Chemical
ORGANICS
i A. tone
,2-Butanone
| Chlorobenzene
; Chloroform
i 1 , 1 - Die hlo roethane
11,1-Dichloroethene
i cis- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
i Tetrachloroethene
| Toluene
1 1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
i 1 ,1 ,2- Trichloroethane
: Trichloroethene
I INORGANICS
! Aluminum
i Arsenic
| Barium
i Beryllium
i Chromium (III)
; Chromium (VI)
! Copper •••-••-
| Lead
i Manganese
i Nickel
I Silver
i Vanadium
; Zinc
Ingestion
of
Groundwater
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.18
0.03
0.00
NTV
0.02
0.19
NTV
18.00
0.61
0.01
0.06
1.93
45.34
NTV
32.57
0.27
0.14
0.28
0.06
Noningestion
Uses of
Groundwater
NTV
0.00
0.03
NTV
0.03
NTV
NTV
NTV
0.00
0.14
NTV
NTV
NC
NC
NC
NC
. NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
I
i
Total |
I
0.02 i
0.00 1
0.03 i
0.01 i
0.04 1
0.07 i
0.18 i
0.03!
0.00 i
0.14 i
0.02 i
0.191
i
NA i
18.00
-0.61 |
0.01 j
0.06 1
' ' • 1.931
45.34 i
NA i
32.57 i
0.271
j 0,14 i
0.28 !
: 0.06 i
TOTAL
99.80
0.20
100.00
0.00 = Contribution is less than 0.01 percent.
NA= Not applicable.
NC = Chemical is not of concern through this exposure route.
NTV = No toxicity value was available.
-------
TABLE 1?
GROUNDWATER CLEANUP STANDARDS
Parameters
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chromium (total)
Chromium VI
Copper
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethene
1,2-DichIoroethene (total)
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
Toluene
Zinc
Groundwater Cone. (mg/I) .
.025
1
.003
.005
.007
.1
.1
2
.005
.005
.005
.015
.1
.05
.005
.005
.005
.005
.005
3
Notes: The standards provided in this table reflect the more stringent of the State
and Federal drinking water standards or maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs).
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITE
OPERABLE UKIT TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.2 Feasibility Study Work Flans
P. 400001- Report: Draft Final Sampling and Analysis Plan
400241 for the Circuitron Corporation Site. Focused
Feasibility Study. Second Operable Unit. East
Famincrdale . New York, prepared by Roy F. Weston,
Inc., Life Systems, Inc., Helen Neuhaus
Associates, Inc., and R.E. Sarriera and
Associates, Inc., September 1992.
P. 400242- Report: Draft Final Work Plan. Volume I for the
400357 ' Circuitron Site. East Farminadale. New York.
Focused Feasibility Study. Second Operable Unit.
prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., Life Systems,
Inc., Helen Neuhaus Associates, Inc., and R.E.
Sarriera and Associates, Inc., July 1992.
.4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400358- Report: Final Draft Focused Feasibility
401165 Study. Second Operable Unit for the Circuitron
Site. East Farminadale. New York. Volume I and
Volume II. prepared by Roy F. Weston, Inc., July
1994.
P. 401166- Report: Summary Report on Drive Point
401260 Groundwater Sampling at Circuitron Corporation
Site. East Farminadale. New York. December 1993.
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 ATSDR Health Assessments
800001— Report: pubfljc Health Assessment. Circuitron
800042 Corporation. Suffolk County. Farninadale. New
York, prepared by New York State Department of
Health, under a cooperative agreement with U.S.
Department of Health & Human Services, Public
Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, February 1993.
-------
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.9 Proposed Plan
P. 10.00001- Plan: Superfund Proposed Plan. Circuitron
10.00010 Corporation Site. Town of East Famninodale.
Suffolk County. New York, prepared by U.S. EPA,
Region II, July 1994.
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12233
Langdon Marsh
Commissioner
SEP 27 1994
Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan
Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Re:
Dear Ms. Callahan:
Record of Decision
Circuitron Corp~-Site ID No. 152082
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) ha;
reviewed the draft Record of Decision for the Circuitron Corporation site - Operable Unit I
dated September 1994. The NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy which includes
containment and treatment of site-related groundwate/ contamination. !
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. James Bologna at (518) 457-3976.
Sincerely,
Ann Hill DeBarbieri
Deputy Commissioner
Office of Environmental Remediation
cc: D. Garbarini, USEPA-Region II
L. Thantu, USEPA-Region II
-------
APPENDIX v
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SOPERFUND SITE
INTRODUCTION
A responsiveness summary, required by Superfund policy, provides.a
summary of citizens' comments and concerns raised at the August 8,
1994 public meeting and EPA's responses to those comments and
concerns. No written comments were received during the public
comment period. All comments summarized in this document have been
considered in NYSDEC's and EPA's final decision for selection of a
remedial alternative for the Circuitron Corporation site (Site).
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
Community interest in the Site has been low throughout this second
operable unit focused feasibility study (FFS), as it was during the
first operable unit Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS).
EPA, the lead agency for the Site, oversaw community relations
activities during the FFS process.
The FFS report and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released to
the public for comment on July 26, 1994. These documents were made
available to the public in the administrative record file at the
EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York and two information
repositories maintained at the Farmlngdale Public Library and the
Town of Babylon Department of Environmental Control. The
Farmingdale Public Library is located at Main and Conklin Streets,
Farmingdale, New York. The Department of Environmental Control is
located at 281 Phelps Lane, North Babylon, New York. The notice of
the public meeting and availability of the above-referenced
documents appeared in the Farmingdale Observer and Newsday
newspaper on August 5, 1994. A press release announcing the same
was issued on July 26, 1994. The public comment period for review
of these documents extended from July 26, 1994 to August 24, 1994.
On August 8, 1994, EPA conducted a public meeting at the East
Farmingdale Fire House located at 930 Conklin Street, East
Farmingdale, New York to discuss remedial alternatives, to present
EPA's preferred remedial alternative, and to provide an opportunity
for the interested parties to present oral comments and questions
to EPA-
-------
Attached to the Responsiveness Summary are the following
Appendices:
Appendix A - Proposed Plan
Appendix B - Public Notices
Appendix C - August 8, 1994 Public Meeting
Attendance Sheet
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comments and concerns expressed at the public meeting held on
August 8, 1994, and EPA's responses are summarized .below.
Questions Regarding the Nature and Extent of Contamination
1. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern over the omission of
copper from a list presenting the chemical constituents
identified in the vastewater [groundvater] associated with the
Site.
EPA RESPONSE: During the FFS, groundwater samples were
collected and analyzed for total and dissolved inorganic
contaminants. Copper was identified in the total inorganic
analysis as a contaminant of concern, above the 100 micrograms
per liter (ug/1) New York State Drinking Water Standard.
Total copper concentrations ranged between 4.2 and 14,600
ug/1. The selected remedy for the Site requires that the
iextracted groundwater will be treated to ensure that all
Federal and State drinking water and groundwater quality
standards are achieved prior to reinjection of the treated
water into the aquifer.
2. COMMENT: A resident inquired as to the distribution of
chemical contaminants throughout the zone which overlies the
water table (vadose zone).
EPA RESPONSE: Analytical results of surface and subsurface
soil samples collected during the investigative phases of the
first operable unit RI/FS have identified organic and
inorganic, contaminants associated with past activities
performed at the Site, throughout the vadose zone. Many of
the contaminants found in the surface and subsurface soils
were the same as those found in the groundwater, the prevalent
volatile organic compound (VOC) being 1,1,1-trichloroethane 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 a unpermitted
leaching pool. Phthalates were present at fairly high levels
V-2
-------
in all •three media (i.e., groundwater, soils, and sediments)
and were found upgradient and downgradient as well as on-Site.
3. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding the migration
of the groundwater plume emanating from -the Site, and
specifically, the distance it may have migrated over the years
since its detection.
EPA RESPONSE: Studies conducted at the Site as part of the
FFS identified a horizontal groundwater velocity of 1.84
feet/day fo<. the Upper Glacial aquifer. The FFS indicated
that the groundwater contaminant plume in the Upper Glacial
aquifer attributable to the Site has migrated to approximately
700 feet beyond the southern property line of the Site. The
plume has a width of about 600 feet and extends vertically
into the shallow portion (upper 40 saturated feet) of the
Upper Glacial aquifer.
4. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding the
contaminated groundwater associated with the Site showing up
in the East Farmingdale water supply wells.
EPA RESPONSE: Three wells of the East Farmingdale Water
District are located approximately 1,500 feet south of the
Site. The shallow well is not in operation. The other two
wells, which are deep wells, are completed within the Hagothy
aquifer at depths 6f approximately 190 to 270 feet and 525 to
585 feet below grade, and are tested on a quarterly basis. A
review of the data from these two wells indicated that the
wells are not contaminated and meet all Federal and State
drinking water and groundwater quality standards. Due to the
distance of these wells from the Site and the depths of the
Magothy aquifer from which the groundwater is drawn, it is
unlikely that any of these wells would have been adversely
impacted by the Site-related contaminants.
5. COMMENTr A resident expressed concern regarding the
possibility of the health hazard from vapors emanating from
the groundwater plume and rising into buildings.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA conducted a risk assessment as part of the
FFS, based on the analytical results of field sampling. As
part of this risk assessment; it was identified that there are
currently no receptors to the groundwater contamination
identified in the Upper Glacial aquifer.
V-3
-------
Questions Regarding the Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
6. COMMENT: A resident expressed interest in the depth to the
water table at the Site.
EPA RESPONSE: The depth of the water table at the Site was
determined to be approximately 30 feet below grade.
7. COMMENT: A resident questioned at which depths the 19
monitoring wells were scree ed and the drive point groundwater
sampling was performed.
EPA RESPONSE: The wells are divided into two categories:
shallow and deep. The shallow wells, "S" designation, are
water table wells with screened intervals set between
approximately 25 to 35 feet below grade. The deep wells, "D"
designation, have screened intervals set between approximately
90 to 100 feet below grade.
In addition, a total of 48 groundwater samples was collected
from 17 drive point locations arranged along five transects in
the vicinity of the Site property. These samples were
collected from four specific depth intervals below grade: 34
to 36, 48 to 52, 62 to 68, and 80 to 82.
8. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern over which of the
groundwater treatment alternatives will be utilized at the
Site.
EPA RESPONSE: After receiving and evaluating public comments
received on the Proposed Plan at. the August 8, 1994 public
meeting, EPA has selected Alternative GW-2 to address the
contaminated groundwater at the Site. The major treatment
processes of this alternative include chemical precipitation
to remove inorganic (metals) contaminants and air stripping,
coupled with granular activated carbon, to remove VOCs.
9. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding the selection
of a groundwater remedy with limited public, involvement; i.e.,
would the more costly groundwater remediation be chosen.
EPA RESPONSE: EPA's public participation process for a
proposed remedy is established to allow the Agency to receive
and consider public comments before finalizing the selection
of a remedy. In the Proposed Plan for the groundwater remedy
for the Site, EPA identified its preference for Alternative
GW-2, which the Agency subsequently has selected.
V-4
-------
10. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern on the placement of the
farthest downgradient extraction well in Alternative GW-2.
EPA RESPONSE: The location of the extraction well at the
farthest downgradient distance from the Site was selected to
control and capture the leading edge of the groundwater
contaminant plume. The contaminated groundwater would be
extracted and pumped to an on-Site groundwater treatment
system. An analytical steady-state groundwater flow model was
used in the FFS to simulate and evaluate the location and
pumping rates required to provide the most effective hydraulic
control and extraction of contaminated groundwater. The most
effective groundwater-remediation simulation output indicated
that the downgradient extraction well should be placed
approximately 700 feet south of the Site property. This
modeling output information was utilized to devise a
conceptual design of the treatment system and .associated
costs; however, the actual location of wells, pumping rates,
etc. would not be firmly established until the remedial design
phase of the project.
11. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding the
cumulative impact of contamination from several Superfund
sites, specifically the commingling of groundwater plumes from
different sites.
EPA RESPONSE: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), EPA is authorized to
investigate individual sites listed on the National Priorities
List (NPL) to determine if remedial actions should be
undertaken at these sites. As part of its RI or FFS, EPA
conducts a risk assessment for each NPL site to determine if
an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment
exists which would require remedial action.' In conducting
risk assessments addressing contaminated groundwater, if more
than one NPL site has contributed to the groundwater
contamination, by characterizing the groundwater contamination
and using this data in the risk assessment, EPA does consider,
in effect, the cumulative impact of contamination from
multiple sources. In the event that several CERCLA sites in.
an area 'have plumes of groundwater contamination which have.
commingled, EPA, if appropriate, can consider a single
comprehensive groundwater remedy.
12. COMMENT: A resident questioned the likelihood that
groundwater remedial Alternative GW-3 would be chosen.
EPA RESPONSE: Although EPA identified Alternative GW-2 as its
preferred alternative in the Proposed Plan, the Agency did not
rule out Alternative GW-3 until the public comment period was
completed and all comments were reviewed. EPA proposed, and
subsequently selected, Alternative GW-2 over Alternative GW-3
V-5
-------
because Alternative GW-3 would require extensive field pilot-
scale studies to assess the feasibility of air sparging/soil
vapor extraction technology .prior to the remedial design
activities. In addition, Alternative GW-2 will provide
overall effectiveness proportionate to its cost. It is $1.8
million less costly than Alternative GW-3, while offering
comparable or better performance. Alternative GW-2 will also
employ a proven, conventional technology as opposed to an
innovative technology component, air sparging and soil vapor
extraction, of Alternative GW-3.
Questions Regarding the Project Time Frame
13. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding the project's
progress since the Site was listed onto the NFL.
EPA RESPONSE: Depending on the size and complexity of a site,
the Superfund process generally requires several years before
long-term remedial construction activities begin. The
. Circuitron Corporation site was proposed for inclusion on the
NPL in June 1988 and EPA initiated the first RI/FS at the Site
in September 1988. In March 1991, EPA signed a Record of
Decision (ROD) which specified contaminant source-control
measures, such as excavation of contaminated sediments, vacuum
extraction of contaminated soils, and building
decontamination. The remedial design of the source control
. measures is expected to be completed in late 1994 and
construction work is expected to begin in the Spring of 1995.
It is estimated that the design of the groundwater remedy will
be completed in early 1996 and that construction will begin in
late 1996.
Questions Regarding Enforcement and Contractor Selection Issues
14. COMMENT: A resident expressed interest in the Superfund
process and the determination 'of Potentially Responsible
Parties (PRPs) when multiple tenants occupied the property.
EPA RESPONSE: The section of the Superfund legislation
pertaining to liability and identification of PRPs is broad
concerning who is liable for damages. Responsible parties
include, but are not limited to, operators at the site whose
activities resulted in the release of hazardous substances,
the current site owner as well as former owners during the
period when the contamination occurred, transporters of wastes
to the site, and generators of waste at the site.
V-6
-------
15. COMMENT: A resident expressed concern regarding procedures
for contractor selection and if a preference is given to local
business people.
EPA RESPONSE: When utilizing Federal funds, EPA must comply
with Federal procurement regulations. EPA gives no preference
for local business people, but rather allows all interested
parties to bid on the work. Jobs are awarded based upon the
successful bidder's technical qualifications and the
competitive price by which the bidder is willing to perform
the work. On projects con icted by PRPs, however, the t-RPs
are not required to follow Federal procurement regulations,
but must demonstrate that their proposed contractor is
qualified to perform the work.
V-7
-------
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED PLAN
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Circuitron Corporation Site
EPA
Region 2
East Farmingdale
Town of Babylon
Suffolk County, New York
July 1994
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan identifies the remedial alternatives
considered for the second operable unit of the Circuitron
Corporation Superfund site (the Site) and identifies the
preferred remedial alternative with the rationale for this
preference. The second operable unit addresses the
groundwater contamination at the Site. The Proposed
Plan was developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) with support from the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSOEC). EPA is issuing the Proposed Plan as part of
its public participation responsibilities under Section
117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as
amended, and Section 300.430(0 of the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). The alternatives summarized
in this Proposed Plan are described in a focused
feasibility study (FFS) report for this operable unit
which should be consulted for a more detailed
description of all of the alternatives.
This Proposed Plan is being provided as a supplement to
the FFS report to inform the public of EPA's and
NYSDEC's preferred remedy and to solicit public
comments pertaining to all the .remedial alternatives
evaluated, as well as the preferred alternative.
The remedy described in this Proposed Plan is the'
preferred remedy for the Site. Changes to the preferred
remedy or a change from the preferred remedy to
another remedy may be made, if public comments or
additional data indicate that such a change will result in
a more appropriate solution. The final decision regarding
the selected remedy will be made after EPA and
NYSDEC have taken into consideration all comments
from the public. We are soliciting public comment on all
the alternatives considered in the detailed analysis
section of the FFS because EPA and NYSDEC may
select a remedy other than the preferred remedy.
Copies of the FFS report, Proposed Plan, and supporting
documentation are available in the following repositories:
Farmingdale Public Library
Main and Conklin Streets
Farmingdale, N.Y. 11735
Department of Environmental Control
Town of Babylon Annex
281 Phelps Lane, Room 23
North Babylon, N.Y. 11703
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza - Room 2930
New York, N.Y. 10278
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, N.Y. 12233-7010
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA and NYSDEC rely on public input to ensure that
.the concerns of the community are considered in
selecting an effective remedy for each Superfund site. To
this end the FFS report, Proposed Plan, and supporting
documentation have been made available to the public
for a public comment period which begins on July 26,
1994 and concludes on August 24, 1994.
A public meeting will be held during the comment
period on August 8, 1994 in the East Farmingdale Fire
House located at 930 Conklin Street, East Farmingdale,
N.Y. at 7:00 p.m. to allow EPA to present the
conclusions of the FFS, to further elaborate on the
reasons for recommending the preferred remedial
alternative, and to receive public comments.
Written and oral comments wfll be documented in the
Responsiveness Summary Section of the Record of
Decision (ROD), the document which formalizes the
selection of the remedy.
-------
AD written comments should be sent to :
Lorenzo Thantu
Project Manager
US. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 2930
New York, New York, 10278
Dat j» to remember
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
July 26 to August 24,1994
Public comment period on FFS report and
Proposed Plan
Augusts, 1994
Public meeting at the
East Farmingdale Fire House Hall
930 ConWin Street
East Farmingdale, New York 11735 at 7:00 pm
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
Site remediation activities are sometimes segregated into
different phases, or operable units, so that remediation
of different environmental media can proceed separately,
resulting in an expeditious remediation of the entire site.
EPA has designated two operable units for the
Circuitron Corporation site. This Proposed Plan
addresses the groundwater contamination at the Site,
which EPA has designated as the second operable unit of
the Site remediation. The remedy for the first operable
unit, which included source control measures and
vacuum extraction of contaminated soils, was specified in
a ROD which EPA issued on March 29,1991.
SITE BACKGROUND
The Circuitron Corporation site is located at 82 Mflbar
Boulevard, East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New
York. The Site is situated near the border of Nassau and
Suffolk Counties 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 at Farmingdale (SUNY -
Farmingdale). 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 (MSL). -
The Site is located on the outwash plain of Long Island.
The uppermost aquifer, the Upper Glacial, is estimated
to be 80 feet thick beneath the Site. Depth to the water
table is approximately 30 feet below grade. The
saturated portion of the Upper Glacial aquifer, with a
thickness of 50 feet, begins at the water table and
extends down to 80 feet below grade. The Upper Glacial
aquifer is underlain by the Magothy Aquifer which is
approximately 700 feet thick in the vicinity of the Site.
Circuitron Corporation was incorporated in New York
State in 1961 and operated a manufacturing facility at
the Site between 1967 and 1986. Circuitron Corporation
ceased operations and vacated the Site property between
May and June 1986. During this period, all of the
equipment of value was removed and the Site was
abandoned. Circuitron Corporation filed for bankruptcy '.
in 1986. The current owner of the Site is 82 MUbar
BtaL, Inc. a New York corporation incorporated in 1968.
82 MUbar Blvd., Inc. filed for bankruptcy in 1987. Both
of these bankruptcy proceedings ended when they were
dismissed in 1988.
The Circuitron Corporation site includes an abandoned
23,500 square foot building that was used for the
manufacture of electronic circuit boards. (Refer to
Figure 1.) Approximately 95% of the Site property is
paved or covered by the building. A small area behind
the building is not paved. The paved area in front of the
FIGURE 1 - GENERAL SITE PLAN OF THE
CIRCUITRON SITE
-------
CJ
UGENO
0 .
IP UACHNOPOOL
+ d> SAMTART CESSPOOL
• UT UNDE IWHOIK;: TAMC
rffi
AIM CHOUVO- TANKS
OCTAILEO SfTEPlAN OF TK£ CNCt/THON Slit
(AIT FAJMMQOAL1. SUTR3U COLKTY, NfWTOFK
FIGURE 2 - DETAILED SITE PLAN OF THE CIRCUTTRON SITE
building had been used as a parking lot for the
employees of Circuitron Corporation. Presently, the
entire Site properly is fenced and secured.
Two leaching pools (LP-5 and LP-6) exist below the
concrete floor in the plating room inside the building.
(Refer to Figure 2.) A circular depression in the
concrete floor towards the front of this room suggests
the presence of other leaching pools, identified on
Figure 2, as LP-3 and LP-4. Several leaching pools lie
beneath the parking lot in the front of the building. One
of these pools, which is designated as LP-1, is a
wastewater discharge pool permitted via the New York
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
program. Two other leaching pools, identified as LP-2
and LP-1, are located in the northeast corner of the Site.
Two sanitary cesspools, CP-1 and CP-2, were identified
beneath the parking lot in front of the northwest corner
of the building. The sanitary cesspools were permitted to
accept sanitary, wastes only. However, Suffolk County
Department 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. Presently, all on-site
storm drains discharge on-site into the soils via
percolation.
In 1987, EPA initiated an emergency removal of some of
the more than 100 chemical containers and storage
tanks on site. In 1988, EPA conducted another
emergency cleanup action and removed approximately 20
waste drums from inside the building, 3 aboveground
t»"i« from the rear of the building, the contents of 7
underground storage t*nltg 2 below-surface treatment
basins, and several leaching basins. The cleanup action
involved consolidating the various wastes, removing the
tanks located at the rear of the property, and removing
contaminated debris inside the building. In total. 100
cubic yards of contaminated soil and debris, 50 drums of
hazardous liquid, and an additional 2,000 to 3,000
gallons of tanked hazardous liquids were removed and
properly disposed of off site.
A comprehensive first operable unit remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) of the Site
was initiated by EPA in September 1988 and was
completed in January 1991. The objectives of this study
were to define the nature and extent of contaminants in
the Site's surface and subsurface soils, in the
groundwater, in sediments in the underground
structures, and in the abandoned building. Based on the
results of the RI/FS, EPA determined that sufficient
information was available to select a source control
remedy, but additional data were required before a
groundwater remedy could be selected. As a result, EPA
issued a source control ROD on March 29, 1991 and
-------
initiated an FFS to obtain the additional data necessary
to select a groundwater remedy for the Site. The 1991 •
ROD called for (1) the excavation and off-site treatment
and disposal of the contaminated sediments from the
leaching pools, cesspools, and storm drains; (2) in situ
(in-place) vacuum extraction of the contaminated soils
(This treatment process involves placing a cover over the
soil and applying a vacuum, which pulls and collects
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) out of the spaces
between soil particles.); (3) decontamination of metals-
contaminated dust in the building (Please see
highlighted note on the last page of the Proposed Plan.);
and (4) repaying of the entire Site. The remedial design
for the source control remedy is expected to be
completed this Fall, followed by the advertisement for
and award of a construction contract The actual
construction work is expected to begin in the Spring of
1995.
FOCUSED FEASIBILITY STUDY INVESTIGATION
SUMMARY
In July 1992, EPA initiated an FFS to supplement the
groundwater data obtained during the 1988-1991 RI and
further define the nature and extent of groundwater
contamination at the Circuitron Corporation site, and to
identify remedial alternatives. The RI concluded that the
groundwater was contaminated in the shallow aquifer
underlying the Site. The RI data also indicated the
potential for presence of upgradient sources for the
groundwater contamination that was detected in the
deeper Upper Glacial aquifer and the shallow Magothy
aquifer, the groundwater contaminant levels that were
detected in these aquifers upgradient and downgradient
of the Site were of the same order of magnitude. As a
result of the RI findings, EPA decided to undertake an
FFS to further delineate the horizontal and vertical
extent of the groundwater contamination in the shallow
and deep aquifers beneath the Site.
Activities conducted as part of the FFS included: (1)
groundwater elevation measurements and a first round
of groundwater sampling of 20 existing monitoring wells
which were installed during the 1988-1991 RI; (2) a
drive-point groundwater field screening sampling
program; (3) installation of two confirmatory monitoring
wells; and (4) a second round of groundwater sampling
of the existing RI monitoring wells and the two .
confirmatory monitoring wells. The drive point sampling
program was primarily a reconnaissance method to
delineate the highest concentrations of downgradient
Site-related groundwater contamination, potentially
targeted for remediation. Figure 1 shows the
monitoring well and drive point sample locations.
The FFS results, in conjunction with the results from
the earlier RI, confirmed that several on-property
contamination source areas exist at the Site, with
organic and inorganic contamination evident in the
groundwater in both the Upper Glacial and Magothy
aquifers. The drive-point data indicate that a
groundwater contaminant plume attributed to the Site
exists in the Upper Glacial aquifer extending to an
approximate depth of 70 feet below grade. The volatile
organic contaminant levels found in upgradient and
downgradient samples collected from drive-point
installations located in the deep Upper Glacial and
monitoring wells located in the shallow Magothy
aquifers were of approximately same order of magnitude,
and, therefore, indicate that the groundwater
contamination that has been detected beneath the Upper
Glacial aquifer, beginning at a depth of approximately 70
feet below grade, may be attributed to upgradient
sources. The potential for the presence of upgradient
sources is also supported by the vertical distribution of
1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), which is considered a
fingerprint contaminant for the Site and is indicative of
the vertical extent of groundwater contamination that is
attributed to the Site. This distribution indicates a zone
where 1,1,1-TCA was not detected 'between the heavily
contaminated shallow Upper Glacial and the deep Upper
Glacial This zone indicates that the Site-related
contaminant plume in the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer
is separate and distinct from the 1,1,1-TCA-
contaminated groundwater in the deep Upper Glacial
and shallow Magothy aquifers.
In the Upper Glacial aquifer, the groundwater
contaminant plume attributable to the Site contained
elevated concentrations of both organics and inorganics
which have migrated to approximately 700 feet beyond
the southern properly line of the Site. The main organic
contaminants were 1,1,1-TCA and 1,1-dichloroethene
(1,1-DCE) and the main inorganic contaminants were
copper and chromium. The Site-related groundwater
contaminant plume has a width of about 600 feet and
extends vertically into the shallow portion (upper 40
saturated feet) of the Upper Glacial aquifer.
Elevated concentrations of primarily organic
contaminants were also present in the deeper portion of
the Upper Glacial aquifer and the shallow portion of the
Magothy aquifer, both upgradient and downgradient of
the Site property.
The two rounds of groundwater VOC sampling results
indicated elevated concentrations of several organic
contaminants. The VOCs with the highest
concentrations included: 1,1-DCE (58 parts per billion
(ppb) at MW-6D), 1,1-dichloroethane (1,1-DCA) (52 ppb
at MW-13), 1,1,1-TCA (5800 ppb at MW-4S),
trichloroethene (TCE) (82 ppb at MW-1D), and
tetrachloroethene (PCE) (63 ppb at MW-4D). These
concentrations exceed the New York State Drinking
Water Standard of 5 ppb, which has been promulgated
individually for each of these five VOCs.
For inorganic corapoiijid^ the first round of
groundwater inorganic sampling results indicated
elevated concentrations of arsenic, barium, chromium,
-------
copper, iron, lead and manganese. In the second round,
only chromium, copper, iron, lead and manganese were
reported in elevated concentrations. Of these compounds,
it is believed that only arsenic, copper, lead and
chromium are associated with past Site-related
industrial process operations. These four inorganic
compounds were also reported in elevated concentrations
in Site soils and sediments during the RI. These four
inorganic compounds were detected at elevated
concentrations (numbers in parentheses denote
maximum concentrations) in the groundwater samples
collected during the two rounds of groundwater
sampling: arsenic (74 ppb at MW-2S), chromium (788
ppb at MW-7S), copper (14,600 ppb at MW-2S), and lead
(55 ppb at MW-9). These concentrations exceed their
respective New York State Drinking Water Standards of
25 ppb for arsenic, 50 ppb for chromium, 200 ppb for
copper, and 25 ppb for lead. The 55 ppb lead
concentration also exceeds EPA's recommended drinking
water action level of 15 ppb for lead.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the FFS, a baseline risk
assessment was conducted to estimate the risks
associated with current and future site conditions. The
baseline risk assessment estimates the human health
and ecological risk which could result from the
contamination at the site, if no remedial action were
taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related
human health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario: Hazard Identification-identifies the
contaminants of concern at the site based on several
factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and
concentration. Exposure Assessment-estimates the
magnitude of actual and/or 'potential human exposures,
the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the
pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated well-water) by
which humans are potentially exposed. Toxicity
Assessment-determines the types of adverse health
effects associated with chemical exposures, and the
relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and
severity of adverse effects (response). Risk
Characterization-summarizes and combines outputs of
the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a
quantitative assessment of site-related risks.
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting
contaminants of concern which would be representative
of site risks. A total of 24 organic and inorganic
compounds were identified as the contaminants of
concern. The organic contaminants of concern were
acetone, 2-butanone, chlorobenzene, chloroform, 1,1-
DCA, 1,1-DCE, tis-l,2-DCE, PCE, toluene, 1,1,1-TCA,
1,1,2-TCA, and TCE. The inorganic contaminants of
concern were aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium,
chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, silver,
vanadium, and zinc. Of these 24
chloroform, 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, PCE, 1,1,2-TCA, TCE,
arsenic, beryllium, chromium, lead, and nickel are
classified by EPA as carcinogens; the rest are all
considered to be noncarcinogens. However, because
chromium and nickel are considered carcinogens
through the inhalation exposure route only and metals
are not of concern through the inhalation route for the
groundwater pathway, chromium and nickel were not
evaluated as carcinogens in the risk assessment
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects
which could result from exposure to contamination as a
result of contact with contaminants in the upper 40 feet
of the saturated aquifer beneath Site. Groundwater
underlying the Site in the Upper Glacial aquifer is not
currently used for household purposes. The residents in
the area are on public water supply from supply weDs in
the deeper Magothy aquifer. On this basis, no receptors
were evaluated under current-use conditions in the risk
assessment The baseline risk assessment evaluated the
health effects which could potentially result from
ingestion of groundwater and noningestion uses of
groundwater (e.g., showering, bathing, and cooking) by
future residents (child and adult), as this is the most
conservative exposure scenario. An assumption was
made that the Site and the neighboring areas wfll be
developed for residential use in the future, and the
groundwater from the upper 40 feet of the saturated
aquifer would be used for household purposes.
Current EPA guidelines for acceptable health risks at
Superfund sites are an individual lifetime excess
carcinogenic risk in the range of 10"4 to 10*6 (e.g., a one-
in-ten-thousand to a one-in-a-million excess cancer risk)
and a maximum health Hazard Index (HI), which
reflects noncarcinogenic effects for a human receptor,
equal to 1.0. An HI greater than 1.0 indicates a potential
for noncarcinogenic health effects.
The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that
the contaminants in the upper 40 feet of the saturated
aquifer at the site pose an unacceptable risk to human
health. The total excess lifetime cancer risk for the
future resident (child and adult combined) was
calculated to be 1.1 x 10"* (i.e., approximately 1 in 1,000).
The majority of the total carcinogenic risk was
contributed by the ingestion of groundwater. Arsenic
and 1,1-DCE were primarily responsible for carcinogenic
risk. The carcinogenic risk for arsenic was 9 x 10*4
through ingestion of groundwater. The carcinogenic risk
for 1,1-DCE was 1.9 x 10"4, primarily through
noningestion uses of groundwater. These results indicate
significant potential carcinogenic risk to the future
resident through the groundwater pathway for the
reasonable maximum exposure scenario.
Noncarcinogenic risks were evaluated separately for the
future child and adult residents. For the future child
-------
resident, the total HI for health risks posed by exposure
to groundwater was 56. More than 99% of the total HI
was contributed by the ingestion of groundwater.
Copper, manganese, and arsenic contributed most
significantly to the total HL The His for copper,
manganese, and arsenic were 25, 18, and 10 respectively,
through ingestion of groundwater. For the future adult,
the total HI for health risks posed by exposure to
groundwater was 24. More than 99% of this HI was
contributed by ingestion of groundwater. Copper,
and arsenic contributed most significantly to
the total HI. The His for copper, manganese, and arsenic
were 11, 7.8, and 4.3 respectively. These results indicate
a potential for adverse noncartinogenic health effects to
the future child and adult residents from exposure to
groundwater for the reasonable maximum exposure
scenario.
In summary, the human health risk assessment
indicated that the contaminants in the upper 40 feet of
the saturated groundwater aquifer at the Site pose an
elevated risk to human health under the future
residential use scenario. In addition, as noted above,
numerous organic and inorganic contaminants are also
present in the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer at levels
which exceed the New York State Drinking Water
Standards. Although the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer is
generally no longer used for public water supply in the
area, remediation is warranted to protect the underlying
Magothy aquifer from contamination present in the
Upper Glacial aquifer.
Ecological Risk Assessment
The potential exposure routes of Site contamination to
terrestrial wildlife were considered. Since 95% of the
Circuitron Corporation site is paved or covered by a
building and the Site is situated in a densely populated
industrial/commercial area, there is little, if any,
potential for exposure to contaminated soils or
groundwater on-site, or for wildlife to be present within
the general vicinity of the Site. As a result, EPA
concluded that conducting a detailed ecological risk
assessment was not warranted.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect
human health and the environment These objectives are
based on available information and standards such as
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) and risk-based levels established in the risk
assessment
Organic and inorganic contamination has been detected
in concentrations above ARARs in groundwater at the
Site. Therefore, the following remedial action objectives
have bscc established for groundv/atcr
o prevent potential future ingestion of Site-related
contaminated groundwater;
o restore the quality of the groundwater
contaminated from the Site-related activities to
levels consistent with the State and Federal
drinking water and groundwater quality
standards; and
o mitigate the off-site migration of the Site-related
contaminated groundwater.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be
protective of human health and the environment, be
cost-effective, comply with other statutory laws and
utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the
tnnTimiim extent practicable. In addition, the statute
includes a preference for the use of treatment as a
principal element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the hazardous substances.
As described below, the FFS report evaluated in detail
three remedial alternatives for addressing the
groundwater contamination at the Site. As used in the
following text, tune to implement" means the period of
time needed for construction of the alternative. It does
not include the time required for remedial design
activities or procurement of contractor services, which
are estimated to take up to 2 years. The time to achieve
cleanup goals reflects the number of years which the
treatment system must operate in order to achieve State
and Federal drinking water and groundwater quality
standards in the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer. This
timeframe assumes that the source control remedial
action for the first operable unit win be completed prior
to the implementation of the groundwater remedy.
These alternatives are:
Alternative GW-1; No Action
Capital Cost . $5,000
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost $0
Present Worth cost': $5,000
Time to Implement Immediately
Time to Achieve Cleanup Goals: N/A
* - Present Worth Costs for all alternatives were
determined by compounding the annual O&M costs by
8% over the number of years of operation.
The "No Action" Alternative GW-1 is required by the
NCP to provide a baseline to which all other alternatives
may be compared. Under the "No Action" Alternative
GW-1, no remedial actions would be implemented.
However, institutional controls, deed and Site
restrictions, would need to be imposed on the Site in
-------
order to prevent the use of the groundwater from the
Upper Glacial aquifer.
Under Alternative GW-1, the groundwater contaminants
would continue to migrate into deeper portions of the
Upper Glacial aquifer as well as into the Magothy
aquifer. Because Alternative GW-1 would not involve
groundwater remediation and would leave contaminants
in the groundwater, the Site would have to be reviewed
every five years per CERCLA requirements. These five-
year reviews would include the reassessment of human
health and envf.tmmental risk due to the groundwater
contamir ints.
Alternative GW-2: Groundwater Pumping.
Treatment Using Aeration. Coagulation.
Flocculation and Sedimentation/Air
Stripping/Granular Activated Carbon/
Reinfection using an Infiltration Gallery
Capita] Cost: $1,963,000
O&M/yr Cost- $675,000
Present worth: $6,492,000
Time to Implement 1 Year
Time to Achieve Cleanup Goals: 10 years
Alternative GW-2 includes the installation of an on-site
groundwater treatment system. The groundwater
treatment system would involve flow equalization,
aeration, pH adjustment, clarification, filtration, and air
stripping coupled to liquid and vapor phase carbon for
the removal of VOCs. The vapor phase carbon units
would be designed to be regenerable. The filter cake or
the sludge generated by the metals treatment stage
(coagulation, fiocculation and sedimentation) of the
groundwater treatment system would be disposed of off-
site as a hazardous waste. The groundwater treatment
system would be designed to handle flows up to 150
gallons per minute (gpm) (incorporating an excess of 15
gpm) in order to accommodate .variability in future
pumping requirements.
Three eight-inch recovery wells would be installed to the
south of the Site. Two of the three recovery wells would
be located closest to the Site and would recover the most
contaminated groundwater and provide the hydraulic
control of the downgradient end of the plume to the Site.
The third recovery well would be located at the
farthermost downgradient extent of the plume. The
wells would be screened across the top 40 feet of the
shallow Upper Glacial aquifer (approximately 70 feet
below grade). Approximately 2,000 feet of buried piping
would be installed to connect the recovery wells to the
on-site groundwater treatment system. The extracted
groundwater would be treated to State and Federal
drinking water and groundwater quality standards and
reinjected by means of an infiltration gallery located
along the northern boundary of the Site on Milbar
Boulevard.
Residual waste from the treatment process such as
sludges would be disposed of off site in accordance with
applicable ARARs; carbon would be handled similarly or
regenerated.
Alternative GW-3 - Air Sparring/Soil Vapor
Ifoftraction/Liinited Groundwatcr Pm**pjng for
Hydraulic Containment/Groundwater Treatment
using Aeration. Coagulation. Flocculation and.
Sedimentation/Air Stripping/Granular Activated
Carbon/Relniection using an Infiltration Gallery
Capital Cost $2,677,000
O&M/yr Cost $1,075,000
Present Worth: $8^74,000
Time to Implement 1 Year
Time to Achieve Cleanup Goals: 7 Years
Alternative GW-3 includes the installation of two major
treatment components, an air sparging and soil vapor
extraction system and a groundwater pump and treat
system.
The air sparging and soil vapor extraction system would
address the remediation of on-Site and off-Site VOC
contamination in the groundwater in the shallow Upper
Glacial aquifer. Approximately 20 two-inch air sparging
wells would be installed; the locations for these wells
would be determined based on pilot-plant testing to be
conducted prior to Remedial Design activities. The air
sparging wells would be screened at a depth of
approximately 70 feet below grade. Approximately 15
two-inch vacuum extraction weQs would be installed at
locations also to be determined based on pilot-plant
testing. The vacuum extraction wells would be screened
from approximately 10-25 feet below grade.
The design of the on-site groundwater treatment system
would be similar to that of Alternative GW-2, except
that the system would be capable of handling flows up to
75 gpm, instead of 150 gpm. An eight-inch recovery well
would be installed at the leading (downgradient) edge of
the plume. The well would be screened across the upper
40 feet of the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer
(approximately 70 feet below grade) and would provide
for hydraulic containment of the farthest downgradient
extent of the plume attributable to the Site.
Approximately 5,000 feet of buried trenching/piping
would be required to connect the air injection wells to
the air delivery system, the vacuum extraction wells to
the vacuum extraction system, the groundwater recovery
well to the groundwater treatment system, and the
injection gallery.
Residual waste from the treatment process such as
sludges would be disposed of off site in accordance with
applicable ARARs; carbon would be handled similarly or
regenerated.
-------
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives,
each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation
criteria, namely, overall protection of human health and
the environment; compliance with ARARs; long-term
effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume; short-term effectiveness;
implementability, cost; and community and state
acceptance.
The evaluation criteria are noted below and explained
below.
o Overall protection of human health and the
environment addresses 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
institutional controls.
o Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) addresses
whether or not a remedy would meet all of the
applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of other Federal and State
environmental statutes and requirements or
provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
o 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.
o Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume
through treatment is the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies, with
respect to these parameters, a remedy may
employ.
o Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of
time needed to achieve protection and any ad-
verse impacts on human health and the
environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period until
. cleanup goals are achieved.
o Implementabilitv is the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed
to implement a particular option.
o Cost includes estimated capital and operation
and maintenance costs, and net present worth
costs.
o State acceptance indicates whether, based on its
review of the FFS and Proposed Plan, the State
concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on
the selected remedy at the present time.
o Community acceptnnry will be assessed in the
Record of Decision (ROD) and refers to the
public's general response to the alternatives
described in the Proposed Plan and *Se FFS
report
A comparative analysis of these alternatives based upon
the evaluation criteria noted above follows.
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would provide effective
overall protection of human health and the environment
as they would prevent the further degradation of the
groundwater quality in the Upper Glacial and Magothy
aquifers. These alternatives would reduce inorganic and
organic groundwater contaminant levels and restore
groundwater quality to State and Federal drinking water
and groundwater quality standards. Alternative GW-1,
which offers no groundwater treatment would not be
protective of human health and the environment
o Compliance with ARARs
Alternative GW-1 would-not comply with ARARs
because the volatile organic and metal contamination
would remain in the groundwater in the shallow Upper
Glacial aquifer. Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would
comply with all ARARs.
o Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Both Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would be effective
over the long term and permanent in protecting human
health and the environment Alternative GW-1, which
provides no treatment would be neither effective nor
permanent in protecting human health and the
environment
o Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
through Treatment
Both Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 would reduce the
mobility and toxicity of groundwater to the same degree
by treatment of the VOCs and inorganic contaminants
present in the groundwater in the shallow Upper Glacial
aquifer. In addition, as the groundwater contaminants
are removed, the volume of grcuadwater with
-------
contaminant concentrations remaining above the New
York State Drinking Water Standards would decrease.
Alternative GW-1, which offers no treatment of the
contaminated groundwater, would not reduce taririty,
mobility, or volume of the groundwater contamination.
o Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternatives GW-2 and GW-3 in the short term will halt
the spread of contaminants in the shallow Upper Glacial
aquifer. These alternatives wfl] also retard the migration
of the contaminants into the deeper Up?er Glacial and
Magothy aquifers. Alternative GT '-2 would provide more
effective hydraulic containment oi the groundwater
contaminant plume than Alternative GW-3 because the
groundwater extraction/treatment system for Alternative
GW-2 would be designed to handle flows twice those of
Alternative GW-3. Alternative GW-1 provides no
treatment of groundwater and is not considered to be
effective in the short term because the contaminants will
remain in the contaminated groundwater in the shallow
Upper Glacial aquifer.
In terms of adverse impacts that may be posed on
human health and the environment during the
construction and implementation period, there is a
potential for short-term health risks for Alternatives
GW-2 and GW-3 which would be typically associated
with construction activity and worker safety. A health
and safety plan, however, would be prepared to address
and minimize risks to the Site workers. The short-term
health risks would be greater for Alternative GW-3 than
for Alternative GW-2, as Alternative GW-3 employs an
additional treatment component (air sparging and soil
vapor extraction) and as a result, would require more
trenching/piping activities. Alternative GW-2 would
require approximately 2,000 feet of buried
trenching/piping connecting the recovery wells to the
on-site groundwater treatment system. Alternative GW-3
would require approximately 5,000 feet of buried
trenching/piping to connect the air injection wells to the
air delivery system, the vacuum extraction wells to the
vacuum extraction system, the groundwater recovery
well to the groundwater treatment system and the
injection gallery. Since it is envisioned that contaminated
source areas and soils would be remediated before
groundwater treatment is initiated, risks associated with
exposure to these contaminated media are expected to be
minimal. As an added safety measure, engineering
controls such as air monitoring and other measures
would be employed (e.g., restricting the Site to
authorized personnel only) to ensure the safety of on-site
workers and off-site receptors. Implementation of
Alternative GW-1 would not pose any construction-
related short-term health risks, as it is a "No Action*
alternative.
o Implementabilitv
Alternative GW-1 would be the most readily
implementable as it is a "No Action* alternative, followed
by Alternative GW-2 and then Alternative GW-3.
Alternative GW-2 would involve conventional
technologies with proven reliability. Alternative GW-3,
however, would involve the use of an innovative
technology (i.e., air sparging/soil vapor extraction),
which may make it less reliable than Alternative GW-2,
because Alternative GW-3 has been used less frequently
at Superfund sites similar to the Circuitron Corporation
site.
Alternative GW-1 would have the lowest associated cost,
as it is a "No Action" alternative, followed by Alternative
GW-2 and then Alternative GW-3. The only cost for the
implementation of Alternative GW-1 would be the
capital cost of $5,000, which is for deed and Site
restrictions to prevent the use of the groundwater from
the Upper Glacial aquifer. There would be no O&M
costs for Alternative GW-1, so the total present worth
cost would be $5,000. Alternative GW-2 would have a
capital cost of about $1,963,000 and O&M cost of
$675,000 per year. The total present worth cost for
Alternative GW-2 would be $6,492,000. Alternative GW-
3 would have a capital cost of $2,677,000, O&M cost of
$1,075,000 per year, and total present worth cost of
$8,274,000. The higher costs for Alternative GW-3 are
associated with air sparging and soil vapor extraction.
o State Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the preferred alternative.
o Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative wfll
be assessed in the ROD following a review of the public
comments received on the FFS report and the Proposed
Plan.
RATIONALE FOR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives,
EPA and NYSDEC recommend Alternative GW-2 as the
preferred alternative for the remediation of
contaminated groundwater in the Upper Glacial aquifer.
Alternative GW-2 would address the contamination
attributed to the Circuitron Corporation site by
groundwater pumping and treatment using aeration,
coagulation, fiocculation and sedimentation, followed by
air stripping, granulated activated carbon and
groundwater reinjection. Alternative GW-2 would
provide a more cost-effective remediation of the
groundwater than Alternative GW-3.
-------
10
The preferred alternative would be protective of human
health and the environment, would comply with Federal
and State requirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and
would be cost-effective. This remedy would utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the ip«*imnm extent practicable, and
would satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that
employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility or
volume as a principal element
EPA has discussed the upgradient groundwater-
contamination issue with the NYSDEC and the SCDHS
and has proposed that if the State or the County
identifies sites which may represent potential sources of
upgradient groundwater contamination, EPA would
conduct Preliminary Assessments and Site Investigations
of .these sites, to determine if they qualify for inclusion
on the National Priorities List and subsequent
remediation under the Superfund program.
NOTE: At the time that the 1991 ROD was issued for
the first operable unit of the Circuitron
Corporation site, EPA and the NYSDEC
envisioned decontaminating the buflding located
on the Site property, to allow for unrestricted
future use of the building. During the past few
years, however, the building has deteriorated
and currently poses potential safety hazards.
EPA and the NYSDEC are taking the
opportunity in accordance with CERCLA
Section 117(c), to inform the public of the
agencies' decision to demolish the buflding and
dispose of the buflding debris off site at an
appropriate facility. In considering this new
information, EPA believes that the remedy
selected in the 1991 ROD remains protective of
human health and the environment, complies
with Federal and State requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to
this remedial action, and is cost-effective.
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC NOTICES
-------
• -T- '•-> •• nW-h/r?-' -VCw.; EPA \Vr-~.u'" ««fi --"•< '•'••- '
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
* Annouiibes
PROPOSED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
' VILLAGE OF EAST FARMINGDALE,'
r ^SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK^
.The U.S.-rEnvironmental Protection Agency
j(EPA) recently completed a Focused Feasibility
•Study '(FFS) that^ evaluated optunsl[br~clean-
jing up the^contarmnated 'grbun'd water at the
fCircuitron Superfuad rite,' located in the Vil-
lage of East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New
:York. Based .pn this.itudy, EPA "has selected a
'preferred remedy for kite' deanup."Before~Belec-
>tibn of final remeoyT'EPAwai consider "written
and .oral comments. pn_ all of the. proposed
remedial alternatives ''Uirdugfi August 24,
:?-a'4li»«i»ig
up contamination in the groundwater, which is
attributed to the Circuitron Corporation site,
to levels 'which are protective of public health
and the environment - • --'''' <~^--1- • -.•' ;
The alternatives' as evaluated for cleaning up
groundwater contamination are: '•''•.'"~^' ?• •
-Alternative No. 1: No ' Action. •"•'""^•i '-'
- Alternative No. 2: Groundwater Pumping,
Treatment -(Using Precipitation,' Air Stripping
and Carbon Adsorption), and Eeinjection of
Treated Groundwater.'"-. — :""^..'""""
- Alternative No; 3:"Air Sparging and S >il
Vapor Eitraction/Groundwater Treatment
(Using Preapitatfon, Air Stripping and Carbon
Adsorption)/- and :Reinjection of .Treated
' '••' '
.
EPAt preferred remedial alternative is Alter-
native No. 2: Groundwtter Pumping- Treating
(Using Precipitation, Air Stripping and Carbon
Adsorption), an~d ^einjeHion yf?Treited
Groundwater." ' .'. . "'. '•'••rf ^';-'.v.:*^;:!;';
Detailed information on these alternatives is
available*Tdr~p'ublic"review jRthe'tbllowing
information 'repositories established for the
Circuitron' Corporation site:.''-'/;"/-.; .' •;_
-,-.- „. Farmingdale Public'} " ..... ""
.
•:i- isnii-fr.ttd* -yof•)• •»•:-.-t-!-.-.-.—
._ Department_pf Environmental Control
'""j'.1'281 PhelpsLanej-Rooaf23 r"
^" 'ZHS^'DfSifet Babylon Annex '.>':" '•': •-
- -.--^-.NorthBabylon, NY 11703 •-,-•
... „,i; j"ix-'i,.(516)^433-7640,• '.
Written'co'mmehts"6n the proposed alterna-
tives should be senttofT" "•'• "".*?.c:-" -
:•«: on'•vf-.v.LorenzoThantu•••••!-. -.-. ' .•
EPA Remedial Project Manager
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
•26 Federal Plaza - Room 2930
New York, New York 10278
Comments must be submitted to the above
.address postmarked on or before August 24,
1994.
8/5/94- 1T-S5345-FARM
Affidavit of Publication
County of Nassau
State of New York,
SS
Valerie de R^ he' . being duly sworn, deposes
and says that she is the principal Clerk of the Publisher of
The Farmingdale Observer
a weekly newspaper published at Mineola
in the county of Nassau, in the State of New York, and that .a
notice, a printed copy of which is hereunto annexed, has been
published in said newspapers once in each week for
One
. weeks, viz:
August 5, 1994
Sworn to me this .
of August
5th
Notar/'Public in and for Nassau County.
ELIZABETH L. BOECKE
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 30-4505506
Qualified in Nassau County
Commission Expires Jan. 31,1996
-------
LEGAL AD
L - 9143.
NO. 001 OF 001
L-9143
EPA
THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Announces
PROPOSED REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
for the
CIRCUITRON CORPORATION SITF.
VILLAGE OF EAST FARMINGDALE,
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
The U.S. Enironmental Protection
Agency (EPA) recently completed a
Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) that
evaluated options for cleaning up the
contaminated groundwater at the
Ctrcuitron superfund site, located in the
Village of East Farmingdale, Suffolk
•County. New York. Based on this study,
EPA has selected a preferred remedy
for site cleanup. Before selection of final
remedy. EPA will consider written and
oral comments on all of the proposed
remedial alternatives through August 24.
1994.
EPA will hold an informational public
meeting on August 8, 1994. at 7:00
p.m.. at the East Farmingdale Fire
Mouse Hall. 930 Conklin Street. East
Fa:r.:r,giaio. New York, tc discuss the
results of the FFS. and the preferred
remedial alternative.
The FFS considered three options for
cleaning up contamination in the
groundwater. which is attributec1 to the
Circuitrbn Corporation site, to levels
which are protective of public health and
the environment.
The alternatives as 'evaluated for
cleaning up g'oundwater contamination
are:
- Alternative No. 1: No Action.
• Alternative No. 2: Groundwater
Pumping, Treatment (Using
Precipitation. Air Stripping and Carbon.
Adsorption), and Reinjection of Treated
Groundwater.
• Alternative No. 3: Air Sparging and Soil
Vapor Extraction/Groundwater
Treatment (Using Precipitation, Air
Stripping and Carbon Adsorption), and
Heinjection of Treated Groundwater.
EPA's preferred remedial alternative is
Alternative .No. 2: Groundwater
Pumping. Treatment (Using
Precipitation, Air Stripping and Carbon
Adsorption), and Reinjection of Treated
Groundwater.
Detailed ir.formaticn on these
alternatives is available for public review
at the following information repositories
established for the Circuitron
Corporation site:
Farmingdale Public Library
Main & Conklin Streets
Farmingdale. New York 11735
(515)248-9090
Department o' Environmental Control
2B1 PnelpsLane, Room 23
Town o! Babylon Annex
North Babylon. NY 117C3
(516)422-7640
Written comments on the proposed
alternatives should be sen: to:
Lorenzo Thantu
EPA Remedial Project Manager
US Environmental Protection Agency,
Region ?
25 Federal Piaza • Rcorr, 2930
New York. New York 10276
Comments mi.-st be submitted to the
above aac'ress postmarked or, or before
Augusl 24. 19S4.
-------
APPENDIX C
AUGUST 8, 1994 PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE SHEET
-------
CIRCUITRON CORP. SUPERFUND SITE
PUBLIC MEETING - 8/8/M
SIGN-IN SHEET
PLEASE BE SURE TO PRINT YOUR NAME AND FULL ADDRESS
CLEARLY, SO THAT WE CAN ADF TO YOU OUR MAILING LIST.
THANKS.
NAME ADDRESS
'7o- -
------- |