EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Genzale Plating Company,
Franklin Square, NY
9/29/1995
PB95-963817
EPA/ROD/R02-95/263
May 1996
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Genzale Plating Company
Franklin Square, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September 1995
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Genzale Plating Company
Franklin Square, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selection of the remedial
action the by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for
the second operable unit of the Genzale Plating Company Superfund
site (Site) in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)/ 42 U.S.C. §§
9601-9675, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision document
explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for
this Site. The attached index (Appendix III) identifies the
items that comprise the Administrative Record upon which the
selection of the remedial action is based.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix IV).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY - NO FURTHER ACTION
This operable unit represents the second of two operable units
for the Site. It addresses the fate and transport of potential
groundwater contamination that has been detected downgradient of
the Genzale Property. The EPA, in consultation with the NYSDEC,
has determined that this downgradient groundwater contamination
is limited and does not pose a significant threat to human health
or the environment, and therefore remediation is not appropriate.
This determination is based on the results of the Remedial
Investigation for the second operable unit and the fact that the
remedy for Operable Unit 1, treatment of soils and groundwater at
the Genzale property, will be completed. Thus, a "No Further
Action" remedy is the selected remedy for the second operable
unit of the Site.
-------
DECLARATION
In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, as amended, and
the NCP, it has been determined that no remedial action is
necessary for the second operable unit to protect human health
and the environment at the site. Past, current, and future
cleanup activities conducted at Genzale Plating Company property
will remediate the significant contamination present at this
Site, will contribute to the cleanup by natural attenuation of
the downgradient groundwater, and will result in eventual
compliance with Federal and State applicable or relevant
standards. Groundwater monitoring of all monitoring wells and
five-year reviews will be conducted as part of the long term
response action for the first operable unit of Site remediation.
-/
Jeanne M.~"Fo.aT ~S{ /?/ / Date
Regional Administrator
111
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Genzale Plating Cor.pany
Franklin Square, Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 3
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 9
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 11
SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY 14
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 15
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I FIGURES
APPENDIX II TABLES
APPENDIX III ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX -V RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
11
-------
SITE NAME/ LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Genzale Plating Company site (Site) is located at 288 New
Hyde Park Road in Franklin Square, Nassau County, New York (see
Figure 1). The Site lies immediately adjacent to New Hyde Park
Road and Kalb Road to .the west and east, respectively (see Figure
1). The Genzale Plating Company property (property) occupies an
area of approximately 27,000 square feet. The western portion of
the property is occupied by a two-story building which houses the
company office, plating operations, and chemical storage area.
The eastern portion of the Site is undeveloped and serves as an
outdoor storage yard and parking lot. Subsurface structures
include four leach pits and related piping. The Genzale Plating
Company has operated an electroplating business on the property
since 1915.
Census data indicate that the population density in the vicinity
of the Site is estimated to be on the order of 3,000 to 6,000
persons per square mile. The Site is located in a primarily
residential area. Although small businesses do exist, they are
generally restricted to New Hyde Park Road, both to the north and
south of the Site.
Regionally, the naturally-occurring surface soils are a sandy
loam which' generally promote rapid infiltration of precipitation
to the groundwater. Site specific soils and those of the
surrounding area are, however, classified as urban soils.
Greater surface runoff of precipitation is characteristic of
developed areas (i.e., buildings and pavement). The ground
surface in the eastern portion of the property is entirely
unpaved and therefore exposed.
Directly underlying the Site is the Upper Glacial aquifer, which
is designated with the federal classification II for a drinking
water source. Although the aquifer in the vicinity of the
property is not generally used as a potable water supply, three
Jamaica Water Supply Company wells located within 1 to 1.5 miles
of the Site do utilize this aquifer. Most water supply wells in
the vicinity of the Site are screened within the deeper Magothy
aquifer. The Magothy aquifer, underlying the glacial sediments,
is the thickest hydrogeological unit on Long Island. In the
vicinity of the Site, it is estimated to be approximately 350 to
400 feet thick. Although this aquifer is confined in southern
Long Island, it is believed to be unconfined or under semi-
confined conditions in the vicinity of the Site. In the Site
area, groundwater flow is in a south-southwesterly direction.
The nearest downgradient surface water bodies to the Site are
located approximately 3.2 miles southwest and 3.0 miles
southeast, at Valley Stream State Park and Hempstead Lake State
Park, respectively. The slope of the ground surface between the
Site and these surface water bodies is less than 1 percent. The
nearest wetland area is located approximately 3.0 miles to the
-------
southeast of the Site in Hempstead Lake State Park. There are no
designated New York State significant habitat, agricultural land,
nor historic or landmark sites diractly or potentially affected
by conditions at the Site. There are no endangered species or
critical habitats within close proximity of the Site.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The earliest record of operations at the Genzale facility dates
back to 1952. At that time, processing was reported to have
involved anodizing, as well as cadmium, zinc, and brass plating.
In 1954, electroplating operations are on record as utilizing the
following chemical compounds: copper cyanide, silver cyanide,
zinc cyanide, cadmium oxide, chromic acid, nickel sulfate,
sulfuric acid, nitric acid, and alkali cleaners. The relative
quantities of chemicals used at the Site during this period are
unknown as per the Nassau County Department of Health (NCDH),
1988.
In April 1981, the NCDH conducted an inspection of the Genzale
facility. During this inspection, the NCDH noted that industrial
wastewater from the plating facility was being discharged to at
least three of four subsurface leaching pits located in the yard
of the facility. NCDH representatives instructed Genzale
personnel to discontinue discharge to the leaching pits at that
time. In addition, wastewater samples were obtained from the
leaching pits by NCDH and submitted for laboratory analysis for
inorganic compounds only. The analytical results obtained from
wastewater samples indicated heavy-metal concentrations of
chromium, copper, nickel and zinc in excess of New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) discharge
standards.
In March 1982, the Genzale property owners contracted Gamma TEC
Consulting Engineers of Commack, NY to excavate potentially
contaminated materials from the leaching pits. An estimated
total of 36 cubic yards of material were removed from three of
the leaching pits. Because of a lack of financial resources
available to the Genzale Plating Company (Company), leaching pit
excavation was not completed.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc. (Woodward-Clyde) performed a
site survey in April 1983, under contract to NYSDEC. Based on
the results of this investigation, in June 1986 the Genzale site
was added to the National Priorities List.
EPA sent a special notice letter to the Company on December 31,
1987. Based on the response to this letter, EPA determined that
the Company was financially unable to conduct the investigative
activities at the Site. Accordingly, EPA proceeded with the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS). A work
-------
plan for the RI/FS was completed in October 1988, however, field
work could not be initiated because of problems obtaining access.
In August 1989, EPA issued an Access Order to the Company so that
field work could commence. As a result of the Company's failure
to comply, EPA sought and was granted a court order in October
1989 which directed the Company to grant EPA access. Field work
for the RI/FS began in November 1989 and was completed in
February 1990.
Data collected during the field investigation were used to
characterize the hydrogeological conditions in the vicinity of
the Site; to evaluate the nature and extent of potential soil and
groundwater contamination; to evaluate the fate and transport of
such contamination; and to conduct a risk assessment associated
with the existence of contaminants found at the Site.
Additionally, a Feasibility Study was prepared to evaluate
alternatives for cleaning up the Site.
A Record of Decision (ROD) was signed in March 1991. The
selected remedy included a combination of treatment techniques to
remediate soils and groundwater contaminated with volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and metals at the property. A soil
vapor extraction system (SVE) has been installed at the facility
to treat VOC contamination. This treatment will be followed by
the excavation of soils to remove heavy metals contamination.
Subsequent to the treatment of soils, a groundwater extraction
and treatment system will be utilized to remove organic compounds
and metals from the groundwater at the facility.
The ROD also called for a supplemental investigation to delineate
more completely the extent of groundwater contamination beyond
the property. This investigation was designated as the second
operable unit of site remediation.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
EPA has segmented the remedial work necessary to evaluate and
mitigate contamination at the Site into operable units. The
groundwater downgradient of the Genzale property has been
designated as Operable Unit 2 (OU2) and is the subject of this
Record of Decision. The OU2 investigation area extends
approximately 600 feet east, 600 feet west, 500 feet north and
1,000 feet south of the Genzale property (see Figure 2).
The first operable unit (OU1) includes the treatment of on-site
soils and groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the property,
both of which are contaminated primarily with heavy metals and
VOCs. The Remedial Design for treatment of facility soils has
been completed and construction has been initiated. The design of
the facility groundwater treatment system is expected to be
completed by the Spring of 1996.
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI and the Proposed Plan for the OU2 were released to the
public on August 12, 1995. These documents were made available
in both the administrative record file at the EPA Docket Room in
Region II, New York and the information repository maintained at
the Franklin Square Public Library. The notice of the public
meeting and availability of the above-referenced documents
appeared in Newsday on August 25, 1995 and August 12, 1995,
respectively. A 30-day public comment period was held from
August 12, 1995 to September 10, 1995.
On August 31, 1995, EPA conducted a public meeting at the
Franklin Square Public Library, in Franklin Square, New York, to
inform local officials and interested citizens about.the
Superfund process, present the results of the second operable
unit RI/FS and EPA's preferred "No Further Action" remedy, and
respond to any questions from area residents and other attendees.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
The RI field program for OU2 was conducted from February through
December 1994. Six monitoring wells at the facility and two
downgradient wells had been previously installed during the OU1
pre-remedial design investigation. The OU2 RI included the
installation of nine additional wells including seven
downgradient monitoring wells and two upgradient (background)
wells to delineate further the extent of the site-related
groundwater contamination. In addition, a Nassau County
monitoring well was sampled during both RIs. Groundwater
monitoring wells were drilled on-site in both the shallow Upper
Glacial aquifer, at a depth of approximately forty to sixty feet,
and in the deep Upper Glacial aquifer at a depth of approximately
seventy to ninety feet. Downgradient and background wells were
drilled in only the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer at depths of
forty to fifty feet.
Three rounds of groundwater sampling were conducted as part of
the OU2 investigation. Samples were analyzed for VOCs and metals
in Rounds I and II and metals only in Round III. Analytical data
collected were used to characterize the hydrogeological
conditions in the vicinity of the Site, evaluate the nature and
extent of potential site-related groundwater contamination, and
conduct an assessment of risk associated with contaminants in the
groundwater upgradient and downgradient of the property.
Round I sampling, conducted in March 1994, was performed with a
manual bailer. As is sometimes the case, this method of sample
collection resulted in samples with high levels of turbidity. As
a result, data indicated high metals concentrations, which were
attributed to the suspended particles associated with the
-------
turbidity, and were not considered to be representative of the
metals concentrations in the aquifer. Due to the high sample
turbidity, .metals data from Round I were not used in the Risk
Assessment or the groundwater modeling. In an effort, to minimise;
sample turbidity, Rounds II and III (June 1994 and December 1994)
samples were collected using low-flow pumps.
Analytical data (see Table l) suggest that VOC contamination in
the groundwater is limited to the groundwater at the Genzale
property, which is being addressed under GUI. The primary on-
site VOCs of concern include 1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA),
trichloroethene (TCE), and tetrachlorethane (PCE). The highest
levels of these contaminants were found in the on-site shallow
aquifer during Round I and were detected at the following maximum
concentrations: 870 micrograms per liter (ug/1) for 1,1,1-TCA,
540 ug/1 for TCE, and 180 ug/1 for PCE. The maximum
concentrations for these contaminants detected in on-site
groundwater during Round II were significantly lower at 290 ug/1
for 1,1,1-TCA, 200 ug/1 for TCE, and 72 ug/1 for PCE.
Volatile constituents were also present at low concentrations
within the deep groundwater beneath the Site. During Round I,
1,1,1-TCA was the only VOC detected in a deep well at a
concentration above its maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 5
ug/1. 1,1,1-TCA was measured at 11 ug/1 in MW-2D, which is
located directly downgradient of two of the leach pits where high
levels of VOC contamination were measured in the soils. Other
VOCs were found in the deep on-site wells at very low
concentrations, all below their respective MCLs. No VOCs were
detected in the deep on-site wells during the Round II
investigation. In addition, the highest levels of VOCs found in
the shallow wells downgradient of the Site were all below their
respective New York State MCLs for drinking water of 5 ug/1.
Although sampling of the deep Upper Glacial aquifer downgradient
of the Site was not conducted, the RI data for the shallow Upper
Glacial aquifer suggest that significant attenuation of
contaminants has occurred. Round I VOC contaminant levels
measured in the on-site deep wells were approximately an order of
magnitude lower than the on-site shallow well contamination, with
only one VOC in one deep well having exceeded its MCL. In
addition, no Round II samples from deep wells and no shallow
downgradient or upgradient well samples from Round I or II
exceeded the MCL for any VOC. Further, contaminant levels
measured in 1994 sampling events generally decreased in
comparison to the levels measured during the 1990 RI of OUl.
This reduction in contamination can be attributed to the
attenuation which occurs as groundwater is transported vertically
(from the shallow groundwater to deep groundwater at the Site)
and laterally (from the shallow groundwater at the Site to
shallow groundwater downgradient of the Site) through the
aquifer.
-------
Analytical data (see Table 2) indicated that although metals were
detected in the monitoring wells installed beyond the Genzale
property boundary, only chromium was present above its primary
MCL of 50 ug/1. Levels of chromium in excess of 50 ug/1 were
detected in MW-4S (73 ug/1, Round II), MW-6S (54 ug/1, Round II),
MW-7S (72 ug/1, Round II), MW-8S (82 ug/1, Round II), MW-9S (130
ug/1, Round III), MW-13S (132 ug/1, Round III), and MW-14S (107
ug/1, Round III). Chromium was not found above MCLs in any
filtered samples taken from any upgradient or downgradient wells.
In addition, samples containing chromium in excess of the MCL
were sporadic, with no individual well samples exceeding the MCL
in two consecutive rounds of sampling. The levels of
contamination in the off-site wells were significantly lower than
the wells on the Genzale property where chromium was detected at
2,360 ug/1 and 1,460 ug/1 in MW-2S (Rounds II and III,
respectively), 380 ug/1 in MW-1S (Round II); and 206 ug/1 in MW-
3S (Round II).
Analysis of field, trip and deionized water blanks during the
three rounds of sampling indicated detectable levels of both
metals and VOCs. It can be assumed that because of the levels
detected in the blanks, the levels measured in the groundwater
samples, if impacted, would yield values that are biased high.
Therefore, the data was considered to be appropriate for use in
the preparation of a conservative assessment of risk and plume
delineation.
Sampling also indicated that iron and manganese are present in
some wells at levels above their respective secondary drinking
water standards. However, the secondary MCLs for iron and
manganese are based on aesthetic properties and are intended to
prevent potential problems, such as poor taste, odor and staining
of plumbing fixtures and do not specifically present a health
risk.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
In conjunction with the RI, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and
future conditions related to the off-property groundwater. The
baseline risk assessment estimates the human health and
ecological risk which could result from the downgradient
groundwater, if no remedial action were taken.
A four-step process was utilized for assessing human health risks
resulting from the downgradient groundwater contamination to
determine a reasonable maximum exposure scenario, fiazard
Identification identifies the contaminants of concern in the
downgradient groundwater based on several factors such as
frequency of occurrence, toxicity, and concentration. Exposure
Assessment estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential
-------
human exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures,
and the pathway (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 quantitative assessment of
risks related to the downgradient groundwater.
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of
concern which would be representative of risks associated with
the groundwater beyond the Genzale property boundary. These
contaminants included acetone, benzene, bromoform, PCE, toluene,
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE, aluminum, trivalent chromium,
hexavalent chromium, manganese, nickel, lead, and zinc.
Two exposure scenarios were examined for potential future and
current residents. These were inhalation of volatile organic
chemicals while showering (see Table 3) and ingestion of
contaminated drinking water (see Table 4) from the shallow Upper
Glacial aquifer. The ingestion scenario was selected for the
purposes of determining the most conservative risk
characterization even though it is assumed that no residents are
currently consuming the groundwater via private shallow wells.
(The verity of this assumption will be confirmed during a private
well survey to be performed in conjunction with the No Further
Action remedy.) The populations evaluated included current nearby
residents and future nearby residents. An exposure assessment
was conducted to estimate the magnitude, frequency, and duration
of actual and/or potential exposures to the chemicals of concern
via all pathways by which humans are potentially exposed. The
assumptions used in the risk assessment were very conservative
which would overestimate risks for these pathways.
EPA's acceptable cancer risk range is 10"4 to 10"6 which can be
interpreted to mean that an individual may have between a one in
ten thousand to a one in a million increased chance of developing
cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over
a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions a site.
The combined risk levels for ingestion and inhalation from
potential exposure to the downgradient groundwater resulted in a
cancer risk level of 9.2 x 10"6. The. results of the baseline risk
assessment indicate that the downgradient groundwater poses no
unacceptable carcinogenic risks to human health.
To assess overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects posed by
the contaminants a site, EPA has developed the hazard index (HI).
The HI measures the assumed simultaneous subthreshold exposures
to several chemicals which could result in an adverse health
effect. An HI value of greater than one may pose a
-------
noncarcinogenic risk. A noncancer hazard index of 0.35 was
calculated for the downgradient groundwater, considering both
inhalation and ingestion as potential pathways.
An assessment of ecological risk considered potential exposure
routes of contamination emanating from the Site to terrestrial
wildlife. The only potential route of exposure to wildlife is by
contaminant transport through the groundwater and discharge via
groundwater into surface waters. The nearest surface water
bodies to the Site are 3.2 miles southwest and 3 miles southeast
at Valley Stream State Park and Hempstead Lake State Park,
respectively. Based on the results of the RI, impacts to
ecological receptors from contamination associated with the Site
are unlikely.
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
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
errors 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 the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of
exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by
making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure
parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk
Assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the Site, and it is highly unlikely to
underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
8
-------
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the OU1 response action
selected in the OU1 ROD, may present an imminent danger to public
health, welfare or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected remedy be protective of human
health and the environment, be cost-effective, comply with other
statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum
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.
Two remedial alternatives were considered in the FS. These were:
A GW-1: No Action
A GW-2: Pumping/Filtration/Reinjection
"Time to implement" is defined as the period of time needed to
implement the remedy (i.e., the amount of time needed for the
construction of a treatment facility); it does not include the
time required to design the remedy, procure contracts for design
and construction, negotiate with responsible parties for
implementation of the remedy, conduct operation and maintenance,
or conduct long-term monitoring.
It should be noted that the remedial alternatives assume that the
remedy for the groundwater and soils at the Genzale property is
currently being implemented. The groundwater remedy calls for
the removal of VOCs from the groundwater via air stripping and
the removal of metals via chemical precipitation and filtration.
The soil treatment remedy calls for the removal of VOCs via soil
vapor extraction (SVE) and subsequent excavation and treatment
for metals contamination.
Alternative GW-1: No Further Action
Capital Cost: $ 0
Annual O & M Cost: $ 0
Present Worth: $ 0
Time to Implement: N/A
The Superfund program requires that the no action alternative be
considered as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives.
The No Further Action alternative would rely on natural
attenuation to reduce contaminants in the downgradient
groundwater to below State and Federal drinking and groundwater
-------
standards. The aquifer's inherent ability to dilute and adsorb
the contaminants would result in natural flushing of the aquifer.
The soil and groundwater remediation which will be implemented
under OU1 would minimize any additional contribution to the
contaminants in the downgradient groundwater. It is anticipated,
based on groundwater modeling performed during the OU1 Remedial
Design, that natural attenuation of groundwater, in addition to
the remediation provided under GUI, would result in the reduction
of contaminants in the downgradient groundwater to levels below
State and Federal drinking and groundwater standards in about 18
to 19 years depending on pumping rates and the location of the
reinjection wells. The No Further Action alternative would rely
on a long-term monitoring program to confirm that the
contaminants of concern are attenuating. Approximately twelve
monitoring wells would be utilized in order to sample the
groundwater from the shallow aquifer to track contaminant
migration. This monitoring would be conducted as part of the OU1
groundwater remediation, and as a result, no monitoring costs
would be incurred as part of Alternative GW-l.
In addition to the monitoring program, EPA intends to conduct a
private well survey to determine if any residential wells are
currently in use in the vicinity of the Site.
Alternative GW-2: Pumping/Filtration/Reinjection
Capital Cost: $ 1,634,200
Annual O & M Cost: $ 375,500
Present Worth: $ 5,351,100
Time to Implement: Three years
The major features of this alternative would include groundwater
collection, treatment, and reinjection.
The collection system would consist of two extraction wells
installed in the downgradient portion of the plume in the Upper
Glacial aquifer to a depth of approximately 70 feet. The
groundwater would be pumped at a rate of approximately 100
gallons per minute (gpm) and piped to a treatment facility where
metals would be removed by a dual-media (sand/anthracite)
pressure filtration process. The treatment system would be
designed to effectively reduce the chromium in the extracted
groundwater to levels below the Federal and New York State
drinking and groundwater standards. Any sludge generated during
the metal-removal process would be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle
C landfill in accordance with Land Disposal Restrictions. The
treated groundwater would then be returned to the aquifer through
four reinjection wells. The exact location of the extraction and
reinjection wells would be determined during the design phase.
It can be expected, however, that because the downgradient plume
is not on the Genzale property, public or private lands would
10
-------
need to be acquired to construct and operate the groundwater
treatment system. Groundwater modeling has indicated that
groundwater extraction, filtration, and reinjaction would result
in the reduction of contaminants in the downgradient groundwater
to levels below State and Federal drinking and groundwater
standards in approximately 14 years.
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 applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs); short-term effectiveness; long-term
effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume; implementability; cost; and community and state
acceptance.
The evaluation criteria are described below:
A Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate
protection and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced,
or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
A Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will
meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
A 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.
A Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
refers to the anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies, with respect to these parameters, that a
remedy may employ.
A Short-term Effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection from any adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period of the alternative.
A Implementabi1ity involves the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed to implement the chosen
solution.
11
-------
A Cost includes both capital and operation and maintenance
costs. Cost comparisons are made on the basis of present
worth values. Present worth values are equivalent to the
amount of money which must be invested to implement a
certain alternative at the start of construction to provide
for both construction costs and O&M costs over time.
A State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of
the RI/FS report and Proposed Plan, the State concurs with,
opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
A Community Acceptance is assessed in the attached
Responsiveness Summary and refers to the public's general
response to the alternatives described in the RI/FS report
and the Proposed Plan.
The following section compares the relative performance of each
groundwater alternative.
A Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Modeling predicts that the groundwater extraction and treatment
proposed in Alternative GW-2 would result in the reduction of
downgradient chromium contamination to State and Federal
groundwater and drinking water standards in 14 years. Modeling
of the No Further Action alternative, which would rely on natural
attenuation and the implementation of the GUI remedy, predicts
that these standards would .be met in approximately 18 years.
As noted earlier, the risk assessment indicated that the levels
of contaminants in the downgradient groundwater present no
significant human health risk under current or future uses, if
left unremediated. The contaminants would, however, continue to
migrate under the No Further Action alternative until attenuated.
In addition, because groundwater is not known to discharge to any
surface water bodies or wetlands in the vicinity of the site,
impacts to ecological receptors from the implementation of the No
Further Action alternative is unlikely.
A Compliance with ARARs
Both alternatives would eventually comply with ARARs. Modeling
predicts that the treatment of the groundwater would result in
the reduction of downgradient chromium contamination to State and
Federal groundwater and drinking water standards in approximately
18 years for Alternative GW-1 and 14 years for Alternative GW-2.
In addition, for Alternative GW-2, any sludge generated during
the metals removal process would be disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle C landfill in accordance with Land Disposal
Restrictions.
12
-------
A Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Both scenarios are essentially equivalent in their long-term
effectiveness and permanence; they only vary in the number of
years it would take to achieve Federal and State drinking water
and groundwater standards in the aquifer, that is, approximately
14 years for Alternative GW-l and approximately 18 years for
Alternative GW-2.
Alternative GW-2 would result in greater long-term exposure to
workers who would come into contact with the contaminated sludges
from the treatment system. However, proper health and safety
procedures would be implemented to prevent or minimize exposure
to these materials. No treatment sludge would be generated, if
the No Further Action scenario were implemented.
A Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Under both alternatives, the downgradient chromium contamination
eventually decreases to levels below State and Federal drinking
water and groundwater standards, thereby ultimately reducing the
volume and toxicity of the contamination. Only Alternative GW-2,
however, employs treatment to achieve such reduction. Extraction
and treatment of the downgradient chromium contamination
(Alternative GW-2) to levels below Federal and State drinking
water and groundwater standards are estimated to take 14 years,
while natural attenuation is estimated to take approximately 18
years under Alternative GW-l. Therefore, Alternative GW-2 would
provide the benefits of reduction of volume and toxicity of the
downgradient chromium contamination in a slightly shorter time
frame. By capturing a significant portion of the off-site
groundwater contamination, Alternative GW-2 would result in the
greater reduction in mobility of the chromium contamination,
whereas Alternative GW-l would allow for migration of the
contamination. This migration, however, will be associated with
decreasing levels of the contaminant as a result of the effects
of natural attenuation and on-site treatment of soils and
groundwater.
A Short-term Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternative GW-l would result in no
additional risk to the community or Site workers, because no
major construction activities would be conducted.
The implementation of Alternative GW-2 (i.e., extraction and
reinjection wells, piping, etc.) would have minor negative
impacts on residents in the study area. These impacts would be
associated with the disruption of traffic, excavation on public
and private land, and noise and fugitive dust emissions.
Appropriate measures, however, would be implemented to minimize
these impacts. In addition, any potential health and safety
13
-------
risks to on-site workers during the construction phase of
Alternative GW-2 would be minimized by strict adherence to all
applicable occupational health and safety procedures and
standards.
A Implementabilitv
The technology proposed for Alternative GW-2 is proven and
reliable in attaining cleanup goals, however, Alternative GW-2
would be significantly more complicated to implement than
Alternative GW-1, the No Further Action alternative. The design
of the groundwater extraction system would take approximately 1.5
years to complete. Another 1.5 years would be required to
complete construction of that system. In addition, public or
private land would have to be acquired in order to place the
extraction and/or reinjection wells, and access and/or easements
would be required prior to the installation of the piping and
pumps needed to convey treated and untreated groundwater to and
from the groundwater treatment system. This could potentially
result in some delays associated with the implementation of
Alternative GW-2.
A Cost
According to the present worth cost estimates for the
alternatives evaluated, Alternative GW-2 ($5,351,100) would be
significantly more costly to implement than Alternative GW-1. The
annual cost of operating and maintaining the groundwater
extraction/treatment system is estimated to be $375,500.
Although Alternative l would include long-term monitoring of the
groundwater, there are no costs associated with this alternative
as the groundwater monitoring wells are already in place and the
monitoring would be conducted as part of the OU1 groundwater
remediation.
A Community Acceptance
In general, the community concurs with the selected remedy.
Responses to comments raised during the comment period are
included in the attached Responsiveness Summary.
A State Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy.
14
-------
SUMMARY OF SELECTED REMEDY
EPA and DEC have determined that Alternative GW-1, No Further
Action, is the appropriate remedy for the second operable unit oi
site remediation. Based on the findings of the OU2 RI performed
at the Site, downgradient groundwater contamination was
determined to be very limited in extent and not to pose any
significant risk to human health and the environment.
Additionally, remedial actions called for in the OU1 ROD,
specifically the source treatment via soil vapor extraction and
excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils followed
by the groundwater remediation, will result in further reduction
of contaminant concentrations in the downgradient groundwater.
«
Modelling has predicted that the time necessary to achieve MCLs
in the downgradient groundwater is only slightly less for
Alternative GW-2 (14 years with pumping and treating) than for
Alternative GW-1 (18 years with no active remediation). Hence,
there would be little benefit derived and a significant cost
incurred by selecting Alternative GW-2 over Alternative GW-1.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative,
as presented in the Proposed Plan.
15
-------
APPENDIX I
-------
GENZALE PLATING PLANT
LECtliC
TTT Sin«m»ci U-O-HC fii
»cct» f«ui (Sit
licit 1).
HUH;
(i| icctnoi »«o sit
SIOKCC iuo«P(KOl««rt 1(11(0 CM
11(1 lilt I(CO»H>J1>>'IC().
tutu »cni)ii tm no I
v.veu >i mi iu»j*c(.
0) »oc>
uil H wmoiiu
u.i CHvwcT'iirru. riKnomon jcii-cr
cnii'U r\»xe CD. ill
FHt/r-jM SOJ(. l<(^ IO*K
pnoPCnnr suRrxct AIIO suosunr^c
II II
-------
Ul mii 1 L
U.S. HSVIRCN.V.S.N7AL rr.C7EC~C:
-GENCY
E.V.EII^L INVSSTICiTiCN P.HPOS
H.'J^iLE PLATI.'.'C CC.'.!?ANY
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
IAMI.I; i
SUMMARY Ol: VOI.AIII.i; UUCiANIC (ilUIUMDWA'l 1:11 AHAI.Y'IICAI. KLSUI.TS
GliH/.ALi; rl.AIIN(i UU-2
ANALYII;
.liloiumcUianc
IcUiylcnc cliluiidc
. l-Dicliloiocllicnc
.l-Dichloioclliinc
ii-l.l-Dictilorocllienc
i Dili -1.2 -Die hluioclliaiic
Ililoioform
MluUnonc
1.1,1-Tricliloroelhine
Trichlorocllicnc
Te Ir iclilor oc llicnc
1 ulucnc
Tolil VoUtilct
Volililc TIC«
DI-NCHMAHK
LUVI-I.
I:OH
COMI'AUISOH
J
5
S
S
5
J
7
50
5
J
i
$
too
NC
ON-SITI: Wlil.l.S
HOUND 1
SHALLOW
:
ND-O.K,
ND-I
ND-I
Nl>.-;
ND-O.I,
ND-0.3,
-
7J.,-870
II-540
4-IBU
-
3U.U7-ICUH.1
12,,,-UO,,,
Dlilil-
-
ND-O.I,
-
-
ND-3
ND-0.2,
ND-0.2,
-
NO-ll
ND-1
0.0'l,-0.7,
0.08-18.89
ND-2.1,,,
HOUND II
SHALLOW
ND-I,
--
-
-
--
-
--
-
NU-1'JU,
ND-100,
ND.72,
I-.1G1
JIH-W,,,
Dl-lll'
-
-
--
--
.. .
--
-
--
-
H
01 i:-sni-: WI-LI.S
HOUND 1
SHALLOW
-
-
--
"
-
-
ND--1,
ND-2,
ND-O.G,
ND-I,
ND-0.9,
ND-J.2
ND-50.4,,,
HOUND II
SHALLOW
ND-I
-
--
-
«
ND-2
-
ND-I,
-.
ND-2
ND.JU7,,,
UACKGHOUND WLLl.S
HOUND 1
SHALLOW
--
-
-
-
-
--
-
-.
-
O.I, -0.1,
-
0.1,-O.J,
"
HOUHU II
SHALLOW
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
nV24in,
HOTCS:
1. All tnilylc iciulu uc ilio\\» in U(/1 (p|ib).
2. Utnchmuk Icvclt for coinnniion uc liken fioni Diinkliig WAICC M.iAiuiuui Cuiilniiiinnnl l.ocli (MCU). USIil'A IliiiiVini; Wtui Hc£ubiioni enil HcilUi AJiiioiIti |OMic< of
Wuci. Ckccmbci I99J); Htw Yoik Sole MCLi. New Yoik SiMc Dciiiuliiicnl of Health (NYSIX)II), |llmc.tii uf I'ulilic W«I<| Sii|i|>ly. Cln|HCf I - Slnle Siiiiliix CuJt (u of Fcbiutiy
I992)|; 01 New Yoik Suic Anibicnl W.ur Qutlilx SunJuJi and tiuitloncc Vtluci. New Yoik Sine IJc|i,tilincnl uf liiniionintnlnl Conieivjlion (NYSUliC). |Ui>liiaii of Wilei, Octotei I99J). llic lo«luc of Uic Uncc leu of ciiiciii wu cliuicn fui cuni|>innlivc >iul/>ii.
J. Moniloiing ^^clli tic divided u followr.
On-iile wclli (ilullow) - MWIS. MW1S and MWXS.
On-liie welli (deep) - MWID. MW2D and MWJI).
Oir-iile uelli - MW4S. MWJS. MW6S. MW7S. MW8S, MW9S. MWIOS. MWIJS. MWM.S. and NCI)I'W-9VI4.
Uiek(iound wclll - MWMS tnd MWI1S.
>. llulJljic cnuio cquil 01 < \>.ccd ijicii leificclivc kcncluiiMk level in at lc.\u Uic mxiiinuin iinuunl |>ci conccnlnliuu i9ii|;c.
3. (jutltficn uc: '
ML) uf - Nut Oclcclct] al uttlylicil incUiud dclccliiHi liniiu.
J H litliniilcd vtluc.
II - IUjtcUi: volue.
M M rfCluu<|)livcl/ nictcnl.
NC - No cr.icu. ,»,!l,blc.
6. Volililc oiganid wcic i.ol laniplcd Tor during llic KountJ III iani|ilin|; cvcnl.
-------
TAIJU-: 2
SUMMARY Ol: Ml: TAI.S (III.H-KI-U AND UNI-TLTI:KI-I>) <;iU)UNI)WATI:ll ANALYTICAL KI-SULIS l:0ll OH-Sllli WULLS
Cil-N/.ALI; I'LATINi; OU-2
ANALYTI;
Alutninuni J
Aiscnic
Uarium
Beryllium
C'dnilum
Calcium
Cl>ront!uir-
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Ltid
Uiilillercd
Filtered
Unfillercd
Filtered
UnFillcrcd
rillctcd
Unfillercd
Filtered
Unfillercd
Filtered
UnFillercd
Tillered
jnfillcicd
filtered
Unfillcicd
Filtered
Unfiltcrcd
Filtered
Unlillcrcd
Filtered
Unlillcrcd
Filtered
IJI-NCtlMAKK
LliVI-l.
I'UH
COMI'AHISUH
5U-2UU
JW-2HO
25
25
1000
1000
3
3
5
5
NC
NC
50
50
NC
NC
200
2UO
300
300
15
15
OH-.SHI: WHLLS
HOUND 1
SHALLOW
JHU-VH60
ND-30.3,
NO-7.7,
--
68.J-I8-1
2I.3I-6
-------
TAIII.I- 2 (cout.)
SUMMARY oi: MI-TALS (i II..TI;IU;I.) ANIJ UNI II;II;RI;I)) GKOUNDWATI;H ANALYTICAL iu;sui.rs rouoH-siiL WULLS
GI^N/.ALI! PLA'lINi; OU-2
ANALY'li;
Magnesium
Minginctc
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thillium
Vuiadium
Zinc
Unlilicicd
TillCICll
Uiifil.crcil
Filleted
Unfilic.-cu1
Fillcicd
UnCillercd
Fillcicd
Unfillcred
Filtered
Unfillucd
Filleied
UciCillcicd
I'ilUltd
UnHlUicd
Filleted
Unli::cicd
l-'illcted
Unnilcr'd
Filleted
D11HCIIMAKK
M-VI-I,
I:OK
COMI'AIUSON
35.000
35.000
30
30
WD
WD
NC
NC
10
10
. 30
30
20.000
20.000
2
2
NC
NC
300
300
ON-.SITH WI-I.I.S
KOUNI) 1
.SHALLOW
6ldO,BIUO
1670,-OOUt)
5I2,-7SO
P.1,-12.3
76.5-5J-10
I3.7-30!)0
330-3300,
2IIO.-2770
;
-
HU-26.0,
-
J5.IUU,-IH.VUU
22,HUO,-(-l.5UU
-
NU-12.6,
--
9I.2.-J250
12.6-376,
OUI-I'
2370-3'IOO
2HO-3JIO
33.C-II8
I9.0,-7J.U .
-10/1,-25'H)
20.5,- WO
ND-3650,
H90-3850,
--
-
NU-9.4,
-
I2,7UU,-22.7UI)
M.IUU,-2U.7UO
-
ND-2.H,
NU-2.V,
-
30.0,-82.8
13.6,-IL-l,
UUUNI) II
SHALLOW
5230-6'IVII
5230-661)0
32.J,-5I.3
25.V,-5I.5
ND-56UO
ND-35VO
NIM800
NO-27BO
--
-
-
27,IIUUJ-CI.UUU
3I.5UU-6I.UUU
-
--
NIM.8
NIJ--I67,
I9-52U
Dl-l-f
2400-4020
2230-3930
8.8-15.7
2.4-10.2
NIJ-29.7
NU-31.7
2970-3270
2880-3040
-
-
-
-
2U,1UO,-2C,HUU,
2U,SI)0-26.20U
»
-
-
R
11
HOUND III
SHALLOW
-
NU-29
NO-30'
NU-2360
NU-2470
-
-
-
.
-
-
JJ.UUO-J9.000
HUUO-12,000
.
-
"
NU-307
NU-33^
UUUI'
-
ND-23
NU-22
NU-IOI
NO-94
-
»
«
--
-
-
11.000-30.000
22,000- J 1,000
. ..
»
«
-------
TABU: 2 (conU.)
TAIJI.I. Shed J ol )
SUMMAHY Ol: MCIAI.S (I II. I lilU:!; ANIJ UNfTl.TI-Hf-.l)) (JKOHNDWATHK ANALYTICAL IIUSULTS I:OK ON-SlTt WULLS
tJHNX.AI.I- IM.ATINi; OU-2
NOTES:
I. All analytc icsulls ai-~ sliuwn in u^/l (|i|>li).
2. Dcncluuaik levels fut lumiiaiison oic lokcu from Diinkinc, Wnltr Miixiimim Ciinlniniiinnl Levels (MCLs). ll.Slil'A Drinking Wnlcr llc|cV.c>< i ii.l wells - MWII.S and MWI2S.
4. Uoltlfacc cnuics ct,jal 11 exceed tlicir respective bciicliin.iil: level ill at least llit iiiaAiniinn .iniuunl per cuiicciilialiun f.ni|;c.
i. Qualifiers uc:
NL> or = >Io( delected at anal/lical inctliud dclccliun limits.
) " n.rlimalcd value.
R *> ejected value.
NC " No criteria avnilnblc.
\VD - MCL was wiUidrawn by lil'A.
-------
TAUIJi 2 (cout.)
TAW.I:
SUMMARY Ol: MliTALS (FILTIiKKD AND UNFII.TI-RI-1D) (JHOUNDWATliK ANALYTICAL RI'SUI.TS FOR OFF-SITli AND UACKGIIOUNO SVlil.LS
C;i:N/.AI.I: I'l.ATINCJ OU-2
ANALYTE
Aluminum
Arjcnic
Uiriuin
Ucryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Unfillctcd
Filtered
Unfillcrcd
Tillered
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
.Unfiltercd
Filtered
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
Unfiltctcd
Filtered
Unfillctcd
Filtered
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
IH-NCIIMAKK
LI-VI-L
FOR ,
COMI'AIUSON
50-200
50-200
25
25
1000
1000
3
3
5
5
NC
NC
50
50
NC
NC
200
200
300
300
15
15
OI-T-.SITI: WI'I.L.S
110 UNI) 1
SHALLOW
627r15,800,
ND-308
NU-19.7,
NU-3.2
38.2,-296
!7.3-y.|.3
ND-2.0
--
NU-8.9 .
Ni;-3.3
I3.you--i3.-ioo
12.700-39.800
2C.7,.8US
-
NU-3-J.O,
ND-5.6
18.7-69.2
NU-13.3
19SO,-1S.20Q,
ND-98.2
9.I-6H.O
ROUND II
SHALLOW
NU-3700
-
--
--
--
-
--
--
-
-
H,000-35.0()0
1-1,000-35,000
NU-02,
-
-
ND-29
-
NO-78'IO
" NIM58
ND-5.6
--
HOUND III
SHALLOW
ND-924
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 0.000-1 1,000
II.OOO-I -1.000
NIM32
ND-3-1 '
--
-
-
ND-IOOOj
ND-210
ND-7
--
UACKCROUND WHLLS
ROUND 1
SHALLOW
428-1390,
ND-20.0,
-
--
20.8..25.9
9.5.-22.0
-
-
ND-3.8
16.300-18,600,
1-1.600- 18.700
100-150,
-
2.8.-6.I
ND-5.1
8.2.-II.7
-
1 750-1270,
18.5-31.9,
NU-3.6,
--
ROUND II
SHALLOW
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
13,000-19.000
13,000-19.000
NU-22,
-
-
-
-
-
ND-247
-
-
-
ROUND III
SHALLOW
. --
»
-
-
--
13.000-20.000
H.000-22.000
NU-21
-
-
-
-
-
'
-
-
-
-------
TABLE 2 (cont.)
SUMMARY Ol: MliTAI.S (FILTIiKlil) ANI/UNFIL'II-IU:.D) GROUNDWATI-K. ANALYTICAL KliSULTS
I:OR oi-T-smi ANI; IIACKGKOUNO wiii.i.s
GI-N/.AI.i; PLATING UU2
ANALYTli
Magnesium
Mangantic
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silvc.
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
Unfiilcrcd
Filtered
.Unfillcrcd
Filtered
Unfillcrcd
Filleted
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
Unfilictcd
Fillercd
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
Unnilcrcd
Filtered
Unfillcrcd
Filtered
Ill-NCI IMARK
LUVIil.
FOR
COMPARISON
35,000
35.000
50
50
WIJ
WD
' NC
NC
10
10
50
50
20.000
20.000
2
2
NC
NC
300
300
ROUND 1
SHALLOW
25 10,- 13,000
1870- 10/100
9S.6r2280
15.0-384
34.-V297
ND-II2
ND-5800,
1780-1210
ND-2.3,
--
NU-12.0,
--
9050-50,000
T;70--lfl,JOO
ND-1.6
--
12.4-59.6, '
-
36.1.-I33
5.3,0-1.^
UI;l:..SHIi Wlil.LS
ROUND II
SHALLOW
NU- 10,000
NU-10,000
ND-I2J
ND-507
ND-ICI
NU-73
--
--
-
-
ROOO-39.0UO
9UOO-I-I,000
--
-
-
ND-35
ND-84
UOUNU III
SHALLOW
NIMO.OOO
NIM 1.000
NU-N7
NI)-l-(8
NU-II7
ND-69
-
--
-
--
-
-
10,000-39,000
11,000-^3,000
.. .
--
--
--
NU-27
NU-21
UACKOROUNU WI-LLS
ROUND 1
SHALLOW
2050-3680,
I830-3540,
47.7-87.6,
9.0,- 12.7
S.1,-69.2
710-1880,
1630-3030
NU-2.2,
--
NIM 4.0,
-
1 4,800- 10.300,
13,100-14.700,
--
-
ND-4.7,
-
13.9,
2.8,- 13.6
ROUND II
SHALLOW
-
-
-
*»
-
--
*
-
*
9000-1 1,000
10,000-11.000
»
*
"
ND-30
ROUND III
SHALLOW
-
--
-
.
-
'-
-
*
-
12.000-18.000
12,000-21,000
-
--
i
-
-------
TABLE 2 (cont.)
SUMMAHY Ol: MUTAI.S (I'll.'l \:M:.\) AND UNPII.I KHKD) GHUUNDWATIill ANALYTICAL Hl-SUl.TS
roil oi:r-sn i; AND I>ACKI;IU>UNI> wi-i.us
(ii-Ny.Ai.i-: I'l.ATimi oin
NOTES:
I. All anilylc results me shown in urj/1 (ppb)
1. lUnchmajk levels Tor comparison ate taken from Dunking Water M.ixiimirn Cunl.imiriiml Levels (MCl.s), USI:I'A Drinking Water Regulations and llcallli Advisories (OIHcc of
Witer, December 1993); New Yoik Slolc MCLi, New Yoik St.ilc Dciinilincnt or llcallli (NY.SDOII), |lliiicau ailinenl of Lnviruniucnlal Conservnlion (NYSDEC), (Uivision of Wjlcr, Oclobcr 1993). Ih:
lowest, most cor^crvilive value of the three seU of criteria waj chosen for cuinp.vnlive analysis.
3. Monitoring wclli aie divided u fullows:
On-silc wells (shallow) > MWIS. MW2S nnd MW3S.
On-silc wells (deep) = MWID. MW2U anil MW3U.
OfT-sile Wflls - MW4S. MSV5S. MWfiS. MW7S. MW8S. MW9S. MWIOS. MWI3S. MWMS.niid NCOr\V-V»8-l.
Uackgicind wells ° MWHS and MWI2S.
4. DoldCicc entries equal or exceed Uicir respective benchmark level in til lens! (Ire maximum iitnounl per cnnccnlralion rnn^c.
5. Qualifiers ue:
ND or Hoi delected ol analytical method detection limits.
Estimnled viluc. '
I
R
NC
WD
Rejected value.
No criteria available.
MCLwis xvilhdrawn by LI'A.
-------
TABLE 3
Exposure Duration (Years)
Exposure Frequency (Days/Y)
Inhalation Rate (M3/IIR)
Time of Shower (W.\)
Time After Shower (HR)
Water Flow Ratc(L'IIR)
Dalhroom Volume (M3)
Averaging Time (D)
Body Weight (KG)
RliSIIJI-NTIAL SHOWliK SCIiMAIUO
EXPOSURE I'AKAMI-II'KS:
CANCliR NONCANCI-R
30 ' 30 TOTAL CANCI-R RISK:'J.32i;-07
350 350 TOTAL III:7.32I--02
0.6 0.6
0.2 0.2
0.33 ' 0.33
750 750
12 12
25550 10950
50 50
COMPOUND
Acclonc
Ucntcnc
Uromomcllianc
ttromofomi
Carbon TclrachloriJc
Chloroinclhanc
1,1-DicliloroclliCMC
Mclhylcnc Chloride
Iclrachlorocihenc
Irichloroclhcnc
TOTAL
aw CONG
(MG/L)
5.y7li-0-1
6.33U-0-I
l.27Li-03
6.33H-0-1
6.33U-0-1
l.-llli-0'l
6.33B-0-1
I.27U-03
. 7.89U-91
6.30li-0-1
VOL. I;IIX
(UNITLESS)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
C(nMAX)
0.00373125
I).0003y53-138
O.OU7V375
0.003V53I25
0.y03'J553'138
O.OOK8
I.y020li-08
0.007V0625
0.00-iy3l25
0.003V375
AIR CONC.
(MG/M3)
O.OU302V2
0.0032075
u.ooO'ijyy
0.0032073
0.0032075
0.0071 3 yo
3.98U-08
0.006-JM5
0.00<10008
0.003 iy-i o
CANCliK
UOSU
(MG/KG/D)
V.ylli-06
8.38U-06
I.68U-05
8.38I:-00
8.381--06
I.87I;-05
I.O-lli-IO
l.081;-05
I.05U-05
B.SSli-OO
SLOI'li
:ACTOR
2.VOU-02
THsiTol
5.251--02
6.30I--03
I.80U-OI
1.61 11-03
2.03L-03
6.00U-03
CANCLR
RISK
O.OOtiHOO
2. -13 U.-0'l
O.OOb^OO
3.23L-08
l.'10l;-U7
I.I8L--07
I.871MI
2.75L-08
2.l2li-08
5.0II--08
y.3iy3li-07
NONCANCUR
DOSli
(MG/KG/D)
l.85li-05
l.y6U-03
3.yJU-05
I.V6U-05
i.yoii-os
-I.35U-05
3.yil:-05
2.
-------
lixposurc Duration (Years)
Exposure Frequoncy (Days/Y)
Ingcstion Kale (L/D)
Conversion Factor (MG/UG)
Days Per Year
Yca/s
Dody Weight
Avg Time-Carcinogens (D)
Watering Factor. (L-Y/KG-D)
TA1H.K <\
RESIDENTIAL GROUNDWATER INGESTION SCIiNAIUO
EXPOSURE PARAMETERS:
CANCER IIAX.ARI; INDEX
30 30 TOTAL CANCER RISK:8.3E-06
35U 350 TOTAL 111:0.27226
AGIi-OI:!1 2
O.OUI O.OUI
365 ' 365
70 30
AGli-'Dlil' 70
25550
1.09
COMPOJHD
Acetone
Benzene
3romomcllianc
Uromolorm
Carbon Tclracliloridc
Chloromctliajic
I.l-Dicliloioclhcnc
Mclliylcnc Chloride
I'clrachlorocthcnu
1 rlclilorocllicnc
Aluminum
Chromium III
Chromium VI
Manganese
Nickel
Zinc,
TOTAL
CONCENTRATION
(UG/L)
0.5VV
0.6325
1.27
0.63
0.6325
I.1U8
0.6325
1.26
U.V8V
0.63 1'l
5i;3.75
87.2-11
15.3V
HO.6-1
59.91
I6.«H
bLOI'li
FACTOR
2.901--02
7,°0li-03
l.3Uli-UI
I.30U-2
6.001--OI
V.5Uli-03
5.20L-02
CANCliK
RISK
0
2.7L-07
0
7.-11--08
I.2L-06
2.7li-07
5.7li-06
l.'«li-07
6.II--07
0
t
0
0
0
0
0
8.31--06
ORAL RliF.
DOSli
I.UOli-OI
I.-IOI--03
200.L-02
7.00li-U-l
y.OOIi-03
6.UOI--02
I.OUL-02
6.001--OJ
I.OUIMOO
I.OOIiiOO
5.00L-03
l.'IOli-OI
2.001--02
3.00L-OI
HAZARD
QUOT.
0.00016-1
0.02*1853
0.000863
0.02-1755
0.00 IV25
O.OU0575
0.002162
0.002K83
0.016207
O.U023V
0.08-132V
0.027523
U.082U68
0.001501
0.27226
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
GENZALE PLATING COMPANY BITE
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.3 Work Plans
P. 300001- Plan: Work Plan Addendumf Remedial
300057 Investigation/Feasibility Study. Second Operable
Unit. Genzale Plating Company Site. Franklin
Squaref New Yorkr prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, prepared by Ebasco, ARCS II
Program, February 1993.
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
p.
P.
300058-
300567
300568-
301002
301003-
301205
Report: Final Performance Specification. Genzale
Plating Company Site, Franklin Square, New York,.
prepared for U.S. EPA, prepared by Ebasco, ARCS II
Program, September 1994.
Report: Final Specification and Drawings for
Excavationf Genzale Plating Company Site. Franklin
Square. New York, prepared U.S. EPA, prepared by
Ebasco, ARCS II Program, September 1994.
301206-
301569
Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report for
Operable Unit 2 of the Genzale Plating Company
Site. France! in Square. New Yorkr Volume I of II.
prepared for U.S. EPA, prepared by Ebasco, ARCS II
Program, August 1995.
Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report for
Operable Unit 2 of the Genzale Plating Company
Site,. Franklin Square. New Yorkf Volume II of II.
prepared for U.S. EPA, prepared by Ebasco, ARCS II
Program, August 1995.
-------
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400001 Report: Draft Final Feasibility Study Report for
400133 Operable Unit: 2^. Downgradient Groundwater
Restorationr Genzale Plating Company Site,
Franklin Square,. N,ev Yorkf prepared for U.S. EPA,
prepared by Ebasco, ARCS II Program, August 1995.
4.4 Proposed Plans (SOP, FOP)
P. 400134- Plan: Addendum to' Field Operations Plan (FOP) for
400281 the Remedial Design Investigationf Genzale Plating
Company Site. Franklin Square, New York, prepared
for U.S. EPA, prepared by Ebasco, ARCS II Program,
February 1993.
P. 400282- Plan: Fjeld Operations Plan (FOP) Addendum for the
400475 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studyr Second
Operable Unitf Genzale Plating Company Site,
franklin Squaref. New Yorkr prepared for U.S. EPA,
prepared by Ebasco, ARCS II Program, February
1993.
5.0 RECORD OF DECISION
5.1 Record of Decision
P. 500001- Declaration for the Record of Decision for the
500072 Genzale Plating Company, Franklin Square, Nassau
County, New York, March 29, 1991.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.6 Fact sheets and Press Releases
P. 1000001- Press Release: "EPA to Hold Public Meeting on
1000002 Groundwater Study Related to the Superfund Site in
Franklin Square, Long Island", dated August 11,
1995.
10.9 Proposed Plan
P. 1000003- Plan: Superfund Proposed Plan for the Genzale
1000010 Plating Company Site. Town of Franklin Square,
Nassau County. New Yorkr prepared by the U.S. EPA,
August 1995.
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
50 Woff Road, Albany. Hew York 12233
MichaelD. Zagat a
SEP 28 1935
Ms. Kathleen Callahan
Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Re: Genzale Plating Company Site ID No. 130018
Operable Unit 2
Record of Decision
Dear Ms. Callahan:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the record of
decision for the Genzale Plating Company site. The Department concurs with the selected remedy of
Alternative GW-1, No Further Action, as it is detailed in the above-referenced document.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jeffrey McCullough, of my staff, at (518)
457-3976.
Sincerely,
/
^"Michael J. O'Toole, Jr.
Director
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
-3 W C-10095
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
GENZALE PLATING SUPERFUND SITE
INTRODUCTION
A responsiveness summary is required by the Superfund
legislation. It provides a summary of citizens' comments and
concerns received during the public comment period, and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) and the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's
(NYSDEC's) responses to those comments and concerns. All
comments summarized in this document have been considered in
EPA's and NYSDEC's final decision for selection of a remedial
alternative for Operable Unit 2 at the Genzale Plating site
(Site).
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
Community involvement at the Site has been moderate. EPA has
served as the lead Agency for community relations and remedial
activities at the Site. The remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS) reports and the Proposed Plan for
Operable Unit 2 of the Site were released to the public for
comment on August 12, 1995. These documents were made available
to the public in the administrative record file at the EPA Docket
Room in Region II, New York City, and in the information
repository at the Franklin Square Public Library, 19 Lincoln
Road, Franklin Square, New York. The notice of availability for
the above-referenced documents was published in Newsday on
August 11, 1995. The public comment period on these documents
was held from August 12, 1995 to September 10, 1995.
On August 31, 1995, EPA conducted a public meeting at the
Franklin Square Public Library in Franklin Square, New York to
discuss remedial alternatives for the second operable unit of
site remediation, namely, groundwater downgradient of the
Property. In addition, EPA presented its preferred remedial
alternative and provided an opportunity for the interested
parties to present oral comments and questions to EPA. The
announcement of this meeting was published in Newsday on August
25, 1995.
Attached to the Responsiveness Summary are the following
Appendices:
Appendix A- Proposed Plan
Appendix B- Public Notice
Appendix C- August 31, 1995 Public Meeting Attendance Sheets
-------
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comments expressed at the public meeting have been categorized as
follows:
A. Costs
B. Remediation
C. Public Water Supply
D. Public Health Studies
E. Miscellaneous
A summary of the comments and EPA's responses to the comments is
provided below. No written comments were received during the
comment period.
A. COSTS
Comment #1
How is the decision to take no action on the downgradient
groundwater related to the cuts in EPA's budget?
Response #1
EPA's preference for a No Further Action remedy is not related to
budget cuts. The preference for No Further Action on the down-
gradient groundwater is based on a careful evaluation of all
available data. The predominant factor in the decision-making
process was the determination in the risk assessment that the
groundwater downgradient of the Site, if left untreated,
presented no unacceptable level of risk to human health. This
assessment made the conservative assumption that the shallow
groundwater was being utilized as a potable residential water
supply. It should be noted that EPA does not believe that the
shallow Upper Glacial aquifer is used for drinking water by any
private source. Further, groundwater modeling has predicted that
the groundwater, if left untreated, will reach cleanup levels
through the process of natural attenuation in approximately 18
years. This time period is only slightly longer than the
predicted cleanup time frame of 14 years, if the downgradient
groundwater were to be treated as described in Alternative 2.
EPA believes that taking no action on the downgradient
groundwater is prudent, in this case, because natural processes
will have the effect of reducing contaminant levels to acceptable
levels in nearly the same time as an active groundwater
remediation.
-------
Comment #2
Will funds for the Operable Unit 1 (OU1) cleanup be affected by
the cuts in the EPA's budget?
Response # 2
There are currently funds available to complete the design for
the groundwater remedy. However, the effect of the recently
proposed cuts to EPA's budget on the implementation of the remedy
cannot be fully determined at this time. EPA is currently in the
process of evaluating potential impacts of the proposed budget
cuts on Superfund sites across the country. Sites will be
prioritized based upon risks, with the worst sites receiving the
highest priority for remedial action funding. There is a strong
possibility that if the cuts are as severe as currently proposed,
the schedule for implementation of the remedy at the Genzale
facility will be delayed.
Comment #3
What are the costs associated with a No Further Action
alternative?
Response #3
There are essentially no additional costs related to the
implementation of a No Further Action alternative. The costs
related to groundwater monitoring, five-year reviews, and public
awareness will be handled under the implementation of OU1.
Comment #4
What are the costs associated with the OU1 cleanup?
Response #4
The design cost estimate for the soil vapor extraction system and
soil excavation is $6,183,300. The cost estimate for the
implementation of the OU1 groundwater treatment system is
$3,909,200.
Comment #5
What were the costs associated with the RI/FS for OU2?
Response #5
The approximate costs for the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study were $456,000 and $45,000, respectively.
B. REMEDIATION
Comment #1
Where will the excavated soils from the on-site cleanup be
-------
disposed?
Response #1
The disposal facility for excavated soils has not yet been
determined. A facility that has been permitted under and is in
compliance with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), the law that regulates the management of
hazardous wastes, will be chosen.
C. PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
Comment #1
Does the fact that a Jamaica Water Supply well (JWS-5155) has
been fitted with an air-stripper have anything to do with the
contamination at the site?
Response #1
It is extremely unlikely that the contamination found in the JWS-
5155 is related to the contamination at the Site. The
contaminants found in the supply well are VOCs. Although similar
contaminants have been found in the groundwater at the Site, very
low levels of VOCs have been found in the downgradient
groundwater. These contaminants generally decrease in
concentration with increased distance from the source. The
levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in the
groundwater in the nearest downgradient well which is
approximately 450 feet from the Genzale property, are below
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). It is unlikely that the
levels of VOCs which exceed4MCLs at the supply well could be
related to the Site, because the supply well is approximately
6,800 feet south-south west of the Site. In addition, JWS-5155
is not directly downgradient of the facility, but side-gradient
of the facility. This means that groundwater does not flow
directly towards JWS-5155, but somewhat parallel to it. To
further assess if the local public supply wells were, or could
be, impacted by the Site, the capture zones (the areas of
influence) for the public supply wells were calculated (see
Appendix F in the Remedial Investigation). This mathematical
analysis indicated that the area of groundwater influenced by
JWS-5155 does not intercept the contamination related to the
Genzale facility.
Comment #2
Have the Franklin Square Public supply wells which are closest to
the Site been impacted by the site-related contamination?
Response #2
The public well cluster located closest to the Site is operated
by the Franklin Square Water District. These wells, numbered
-------
FSWD-3603 and FSWD-3604, are located approximately a quarter mile
south-southeast of the Site and draw water from a depth of
approximately five hundred feet. It is very unlikely that
contamination from the Site could affect these wells which are
side-gradient and at a depth significantly deeper than the
contamination seen in sampling results regarding the Site. It is
also noted that this well cluster is sampled quarterly for VOCs
and is currently fitted with a granular activated carbon filter
to remove VOC contaminants.
Comment #3
Can a local supply company be forced to use the Magothy aquifer
as opposed to the Upper Glacial aquifer?
Response #3
No. Local water supply companies can only be required to meet
certain standards for water quality. If these standards are met,
whether by treatment of the groundwater or use of an
uncontaminated deeper source, the well is considered to be in
compliance with drinking water regulations.
Comment #4
How is the source of contamination of a contaminated supply well
addressed?
Response #4
In some cases, contaminated public drinking water supply wells
are referred to the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation to determine if further investigation is necessary
to pinpoint a source of the contamination. Low levels of
contaminants in the shallow Upper Glacial aquifer are pervasive
throughout Long Island, and determining a source is often very
difficult. For this reason, the water supply companies on Long
Island typically choose to tap the Magothy, a much deeper
aquifer, as a source of drinking water.
Comment #5
Are there any regulations in Nassau County that require testing
of private (e.g., residential) water supply wells?
Response #5
There are currently no regulations that would require an owner of
an existing private well in Nassau County to have the well
tested. The Nassau County Department of Health and the EPA do,
however, strongly recommend that any private wells be tested on
an annual basis. Further, the stated purpose of Nassau County
Health Ordinance Article 4 is to prohibit the installation of
private water system wells in those areas served by a public
-------
water system. Since Nassau County has such a well established
public water supply and distribution system, there are very few
private wells in existence. Although EPA has received anecdotal
information that some homeowners in Nassau County utilize old
residential wells to wash cars, water lawns, fill swimming pools,
etc., the Nassau County Department of Health has no record of any
residential wells in Franklin Square. In such a case, although
it does not strictly prohibit the use of previously existing
private wells, the Nassau County Department of Health strongly
urges owners to use private wells for non-potable uses only. The
EPA will perform a survey of residents in the vicinity of the
Site to determine if there are any private wells in use.
D. PUBLIC HEALTH STUDIES
Comment #1
Has the EPA performed an assessment of health impacts for the
properties neighboring the Site in order to determine if
residents have had negative health impacts?
Response #1
Risk assessments were performed for both operable units. These
assessments did not evaluate the potential or actual impacts from
past exposure to Site conditions. The risk assessments
determined that the Site poses no unacceptable level of risk to
off-site residents. In addition, a Public Health Assessment was
performed by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) in
cooperation with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry, and was distributed to the public in January 1993. The
NYSDOH is currently updating the Public Health Assessment and the
community will be provided with the updated health assessment by
February 1996. The available data do not indicate that humans
are being, or have been exposed to levels of contaminants that
would be expected to cause adverse health effects. The NYSDOH
would consider conducting a public health study if the
information at a particular site indicated that exposure to a
chemical had occurred at a level that would be expected to cause
health effects. At this time, NYSDOH has determined through the
evaluation of the environmental data available, that performing a
health study in the vicinity of the Genzale Plating site is not
warranted. The public may obtain copies of the Health Assessment
or request additional information through NYSDOH's Environmental
Health Hotline at (800)-458-1158.
E. MISCELLANEOUS
Comment #1
Is the information regarding Superfund sites and associated
contamination available to local community planning boards so
that homes are not built immediately adjacent to industrial
-------
properties, as was the case at this Site?
Comment #2
Information regarding all Superfund sites is readily available to
local governments and the general public. State law requires
that all county clerk .offices have available for public review,
copies of the New York State Hazardous Site Registry. As part of
its community relations program, EPA ensures that local
governments and citizens proximate to the site are included on
its site mailing list to ensure that the nearby residents are
kept informed of site activities. Lists of Federal and State
Superfund sites, as well as sites being considered for inclusion
on the National Priorities List (NPL) of Superfund sites, are
available through EPA NYSDEC. Typically, local planning boards
would not currently allow for mixed residential/manufacturing
zoning in a neighborhood such as Franklin Square. However, the
Genzale Plating Company has been in existence at its current
location since 1915, preceding most of the homes in the immediate
vicinity. In addition, these homes were constructed prior to
EPA's knowledge of the detrimental impacts of the improper
disposal of hazardous waste. Currently, in order to avoid such
mixed zoning in New York State, Environmental Impact Statements
(EISs) are issued by the State or local government prior to major
construction projects such as housing developments. One aspect
of an EIS is a survey of nearby properties to determine current
or past practices that may have resulted in contamination of the
property. If any properties are found to be contaminated, or
potentially contaminated, further investigation including soils
and groundwater analysis may be performed. Any potential impacts
are mitigated prior to initiation of construction. Additionally,
financial institutions frequently require that some level of an
environmental audit be conducted to determine if subject
properties have been or could be impacted by past or current
operations at neighboring industrial properties.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED PLAN
-------
SUFERFUND PROPOSED PLAN
EPA
Re-ion
GENZALE PLATING COMPANY SITE
i own of Frankiin Square
Nassau County. New York
Auc'js: 1SS:
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes ihe remedial alternatives
considered (or contaminated groundwaier downgradien!
o( the Genzale Plating Company Superiunc Site locaied
in the Town of Franklin Square. Nassau County, New
York, and identifies the preferred remedial alternative
with the ratio-ale for this preference. The Proposed
Plan was developed by the U.S. Environment!
Protection Agency (EPA) with support from the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC). EPA is issuing the Proposed Plan es pan of
hs public participation responsibilities under Section
Il7(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response.
Compensation and Liability Act of 1S80. as amended
(CERCLA) and Section 300.<30(f) of the Nations!
Contingency Plan (NCP). The alternatives summarized
here are described in the Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) report for the Site, which
should be consulted for a more detailed description cf
all the alternatives.
This Proposed Plan is beinc provided as a supplement
to the RI/FS repons to inform the public c! EPA's and
NYSDEC's preferred remedy and to soJici: public
comments pertaining to all the remedial alternatives
evaluated, as well as the preferred alternative.
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 wDI be
made after EPA has taken into consideration all
comments from the public. Public comment is being
solicited on all the alternatives considered in toe
detailed analysis phase of the RI/FS because EPA and
N'YSDEC may select a remecy other than the preferred
remedy.
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA relies on public inpu: to ensure that the concerns
of the community are considered in selecting an
effective remedy for each Superfund site. To this end,
the RI/FS repons have been made available to the
public lor a 30-day public comment period, beginning
on August 12, end concluding en SeptErr.ts: 1C'. 1££5.
Copies of the RI/FS report, Proposed Plan
and supporting documentation are available
at the following locations:
Franklin Square Public Library
19 Lincoln Road
Franklin Square. New York ID'. 10
Tel. (£16) <86-3<*<
Hourr: Mon-Thurs.. 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Fri., 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Sat., 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
EPA Document Control Center
290 Broadway. 18th Floor
New York. New York 10007
Hours: Mon-Fri.. 9:00 a.m. to <:00 p.m.
Pursuant to Section H7(a) of CERCLA, a public meeting
will be held at the Franklin Square Public Library located
at IS Lincoln Road, in Franklin Square. New York on
August 31, T995 at 7:00 p.m., to allow EPA to present
the conclusions of the RI/FS. to elaborate further on tne
reasons lor recommending a preferred remedial
alternative, and to receive public comments.
-------
DATES TO REMEMBEF
August 12 to September 10. 1995
Public comment period on RI/FS repor, and
Proposed Plan
. August 31. 1955 - 6:30 p.m.
Public meeting at the Franklin Square Public
Library
19 Lincoln Road, Franklin Square, New York
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.
All written comments should be addressed to:
Anne Kelly
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, Floor 20
New York. New York 10007
SITE BACKGROUND
The Site includes the property located at 288 New Hycs
Park Road in the Town of Franklin Square, Nassau
County, New York. The property occupies an ares of
approximately 27.000 square feet.
The Genrale Plating Company has operated an
electroplating facility on the Site since 1915. The
Genzaie Plating Company facility is located in a
primarily residential E-ea. Homes and businesses in the
immediate vicinity of the site are supplied by the
Franklin Square Water District.
The site is underlain by two drinking water aquifers: the
Upper Glacial and the Magothy. The Upper Glacial is
the more shallow aquifer, and is not usually used as a
source of drinking water. There are approximately four
hundred public supply wells in Nassau County. Of
those, only ten percent draw drinking water from the
Upper Glacial Aquifer. The Magothy is the deeper
aquifer and is Long Island's primary drinking water
source. Two public water supply wells are located
approximately 1.400 feet southeast of the site. These
wells, which are the closest public supply wells, are
screened in the Magothy Aquifer a: a depth of
approximately 500 feet. Groundwater flows to the
southwest.
The western portion of the Site is occupied by a two-
siory building which houses the company office, plaiir.r
facility, and chemical storage area. The eastern portion
ol the Site is undeveloped and serves as an outdoor
storage yard and parking lot. (see Figure 1. a;;ached)
Subsurface structures located in the yard indue;?
sanitary and incisi"?1 sev.er lines, and feu: ata'C^ncr
wastewatcr lecjhT.s pits, approximately 12 !o IE let', in
depth.
Current site activities consist ol electroplating
automobile and houseware products using nickel and
chrome. Past operations included anodizing and
cadmium, zinc, and brass plating. The electroplating
processes utilize several decreasing and cleaning
agents, including organic solvents. Distillation of spen:
1,1,1-trichloroethane. the primary solvent currently used
at the facility, is currently performed on-site to recover
the product for re-use. Wastewater. which is currently
treated and discharged to the municipal sews: system.
was discharged in the past to the underground leaching
pits.
In 1981. the Nassau County Department o' HeEl:h
(NCDH) conducted an inspection of the Site which
indicated that wastewater being discharged to the
leaching pits contained heavy metal concentrations in
excess of NYSDEC discharge standards. NCDH
instructed the company to discontinue discharging to
the leaching pits and remove contaminated sediments.
As a result, the property owners excavated en estimated
total of 36 cubic yards of mstsrial from three of the
leaching pits, but because of lack c; financial resources,
the leaching pit excavation was not completed.
Potential health risks associated with the remaining
leaching pit and residually contamir.ated soils and
contaminated groundwater resulted in the inclusion of
the Genzale site on the National Priorities Us: (NFL) in
1986.
EPA contractor. Ebasco Services Inc.. conducted initial
Rl field activities at the Genzale Plating Company site
from November 1989 through February 19£0. Data
collected during the field investigation were used to
characterize the hydrogeological conditions in the
vicinity of the site; evaluate the nature and extent of
potential soil and groundwater contamination; evaluate
the fate and transport of such contamination: and
conduct a risk assessment using the contaminants
found at the site. A Record of Decision (ROD) was
signed in March 1991.
The ROD addressed the treatment of both soils and
groundwater on-site. The selected remedy included a
combination ol treatment techniques to remediate soils
and grounclwater contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and metals. A soil vapor extraction
-------
system (S-.'E) is currently being installed a: the sile to
treat VOC contamination. This treatment will be
followed by the excavation of soils to remove heavy
metals contamination. Subsequent to the treatment of
soils, a groundwater extraction and treatment system
will be utilized to remove organic compounds and
metal: from the on-site groundwater. The ROD also
Celled for a supplemental investigation to delineate more
completely the extent of if.s plume i:vond the faculty.
The investigation of ofi-site groundw£.;er contamination
was designated as the second operable unit of site
remediation.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
Site remediation is sometimes segregated into different
phases, or operable units so that remediation of
different environmental media or areas of a site can
proceed separately, resulting in an expeditious
remediation of the entire site. EPA has designated two
operable units for the Genzale Plating Company site as
described below.
Operable Unit 1 (OU1) includes the treatment of on-siie
soils and groundwater in the immediate vicinity of the
property, both of which are contaminated primarily with
heavy metals and volatile organics. OU1 is considered
to be the area occupied by the building which houses
the Genzale company office and plating facility as well
as the undeveloped area in the eastern portion of the
property. The Remedial Design for treatment of soils
has been completed and construction has been
initiated. The design of the on-site groundwater
treatment is expected to be completed by Spring 1995.
Operable Unit 2 (OU2;. which is the subject of this
Proposed Plan, addresses the metals contamination in
groundwater downgradient of the sile which is
contaminated with heavy metals, primarily chromium.
The OU2 site investigation area extends approximately
600 fee: east, 600 fee; west, 500 feet north and 1.000
feet south of the Genzale property.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
The remedial investigation field program for OU2 WHS
conducted from February through December 1S94.
Seven monitoring wells were installed and developed.
Two upgradient monitoring wells and eight on-site wells
had been installed during the OUi pre-remedial design
investigation in late 1993. On-site wells were drilled in
both the shallow Upper Glacial at a depth of
approximately forty to sixty feet, and the deep Upper
Glacial at a depth of approximately seventy to ninety
feel. Off-site wells were drilled in oni--< the shallow
Upper Glacial at depths of forty to fifty feet.
Three rounds of groundwater sampling were conc-jcted
as pan of the OU2 investigation. Samples were
analyzed for VOCs and metals in Rounds I and I! and
metals only in Round II!. Analytical data collected were
used to characterize the hydrogeological conditions in
the vicinity of the sile. evaluate the nature and extent o!
potential oH-site groundwater contamination, e.-.c
conduct an assessment of risk associated with
contaminants in :!.= off-site groundwater.
Round I sampling, conducted in March 199-5. was
performed with a manual bailer. As is sometimes the
case, this method of sample collection resulted in
samples with high levels of turbidity. As a result, data
indicated high metals concentrations, which were
attributed to the suspended panicles associated with the
turbidity, and not representative of the metals
concentrations in the aquifer. In an efion to minimize'
sample turbidity. Rounds II and 111 (June 199-: end
December 1994) samples were collected usir-.c lev.- flow
pumps. Due to high sample turbidity, metals ca:a from
Round I were no; used in the Risk Assessment cr the
orouno'water modeling.
Analytical data suggest that VOC contamination in the
groundwater is limited to the on-site plurr.e. which will
be addressed under OUI. On-site VOCs of concern
include i.i.l-trichloroethane (1.1,1-TCA), trichloroethene
(TCE). and tetrachlorethane (PCE). The niches; levels
of these contaminants were found in the on-s:';s shallow
aquifer during Round I and were detected z'. the
following maximum concentrations: 870 mic.-ocrarns per
liter (ug/l) for 1.1.1-TCA. 540 ug/l for TCE and ISO ug/l
for PCE. Round II sample maximum concentrations
were significantly lower at 290 ug/l for 1.1.1-TCA; 200
ug/l for TCE and 72 ug/l for PCE.
Volatile constituents were also present at lew
concentrations within the on-site deep groundv/ater.
During Round I. only 1.1.1-TCA was detected a deep
well at concentrations above MCLs where it was
measured at 10 ug/l. This well. MW-2D. is located
directly downgradient of two of the leach pits which
exhibited high levels of soil VOC contamination. Other
VOCs found in the deep on-site wells ranged only up to
4 ug/l. No volatile organic compounds were detected
during the Round II investigation of deep on-site ground
water. In addition, the highest levels of these
contaminants found in the shallow off-site wells were all
below their respective New York State maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water of £ ug/l.
Although sampling of the off-site deep aquifer was no;
conducted, the Rl data of the shallow aquifer suggest
that significant attenuation has occurred. Round I VOC
contaminant levels measured in the on-site deep wells
-------
were approximately an order of macnituc'e lower lhan
on-siie shallow well contamination, with only one deep
sample exceeding the MCL. In addition, no Round II
samples ol deeper wells and no oil-site shallow well
samples from Round I or II have exceeded the MCL for
any volatile organic contaminant. Further, contaminant
levels measured in 1994 sampling events have generally
decreased in comparison lo the levels measured during
the 1990 investigation o'° OU1. This reduction in
contamination can be attributed to the attenuation which
ocuurs as groundwater is transported vertically (on-site
shallow to en-site deep) and laterally (on-site shallow to
off-site shallow) through the aquifer.
Metals were detected in the off-site monitoring wells.
however, only chromium was present above its primary
MCL Levels of chromium in excess of 50 ug/l (the
New York Slate MCL) were detected in MW-4S (73 ug/l.
Round II), MW-6S (54 ug/l. Round II), MW-7S (72 ug/l.
Round II). MW-8S (62 ug/l. Round II). MW-9S (130 ug/l.
Round 111), MW-13S (132 ug/l. Round III), and MW-KS
(107 ug/l, Round III). Chromium was not found above
MCLs in any filtered samples taker, from off-site wells.
In add:'.ion. samples which exceeded the MCL were
sporadic, with no individual well samples exceeding the
MCL in two consecutive rounds of sampling. The levels
of contamination in the off-site wells were significantly
lower than the on-site wel!s where chromium was
detected at 2,360 ug/l anc 1,«60 ug/l in MW-2S '
(Rounds II end III, respectively). 360 ug/l in MW-iS
(Round II): end 206 ug/l in MW-3S (r.ound II).
Sampling also indicated that iron and manganese are
present in some wells at levels above their respective
secondary o;inking water standards. However, the
secondary state MCLs for iron and manganese are both
based on aesthetic properties and are intended to
prevent potential problems, such as poor taste, odor
and staining of plumbing fixtures and do not specifically
present a health risk.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was developed as pan of
the remedial investigation for the Site. The risk
assessment evaluates the potential impacts on human
health and the environment, "rf the contamination at The
Site were not remediated. This information is used by
EPA to make a determination as to whether remediation
of the Site is required.
As part of the baseline risk assessment, the following
four-step process is utilized for a.reasonable maximum
exposure scenario: Hazard ideniilicaiion~\aen\H\es the
contaminants of concern at the Site based on several
factors such as frequency of occurrence, toxicity, and
concentration. Exposure (4ssess~?en.'--es:i~2i,es the
magnitude o! actual ari/or potential human exposures.
the frequency and dura'.on cl these exposures, and tne
pathway (e.g.. ingesting contaminated well-water) by
which humans are potentially exposed.
Tox/c/.y Assessnien'-detemines the types of adverse
health effects associated with chemics exposure:, sr.r
the retail'Tii-hip betweei. magnitude cf expcs-jre fdo»e)
and seventy of adverse triec'.s (response). n/sA
Cfta/ac/e/vrsf/o/v-summarizes and combines outputs cf
the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide
quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer risk)
assessment of site-related risks.
The baseline risk assessment began wi:h selecting
contaminants ol concern which would be representative
of risks associated with tne off-site groundwater. These
contaminants included 2-butanone, PCE. toiL-ene. 1.1,1-
TCA. TCE. aluminum, chromium "'. chromium "!.
copper, manganese, nickel, lead, anc z:.ic.
Two exposure scenarios were examinee1 fcr pctsntial
future residents. These were inhalation of volatile
organic chemicals while showering and ingestion of
contaminated drinking water. The populations evaluated
included current nearby residents and future nearby
residents. An exposure assessment was conducted to
estimate the magnitude, frequency, and duration of
actual and/or potential exposures to the chemicals of
potential concern via all pathways by which humans are
potentially exposed.
EPA's acceptable cancer risk range is 10"1 to iO's which
can be interpreted to mean that an individual may have
a one in ten thousand to a one in a million increased
chance ol developing cancer as a result cf site-related
exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under
the specific exposure conditions a site.
This risk assessment evaluated potential risks to future
individuals consuming v/ater from the shallow aquifer.
To assess this exposure, both ingestion and inhalation
pathways were evaluated. The assumptions used in the
risk assessment were very conservative which would
over-estimate risks for these pathways.
The combined risk levels for ingestion and inhalation
resulted in a cancer risk level of 9.23 x 10"*. The results
of the baseline risk assessment indicate that the off-site
groundwater poses no unacceptable carcinogenic risks
to human health.
To assess overall potential lor noncarcinogenic effects
posed by the contaminants at the site. EPA has
developed the hazard index (HI). The HI measures the
-------
assumed simuMsneous subtnreshold exposures to
several chemicals which could result in an adverse
health effect. An Kl value of greater than one may pose
a noncarcinogenic risk. A noncancer hazard index o!
0.25 was calculated lor the off-site groundwater
evaluating both i.-.halation and inges'.ion as potential
pathv.-ays.
REMEDIAL ACTION OEJECTIV5S
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. It should be noted however, that there is
no current unacceptable risk associated with the off-site
groundwater. Remedial alternatives have been
evaluated due to the presence of chromium in the cfi-
site groundwater at levels above the MCL
The objective of OU2 is to address the downcradient
groundwater contamination attributable to the Sits. The
overall goal of'remediation is to reduce the
concentrations of contaminants to levels which are
protective of human health and the environment.
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 technologies
and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum
extent practicable. In addition, the statute includes a
preference for the use of treatment as a principal
eiement (or the reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume
of the hazardous substances.
Two remedial alternatives were considered in the FS.
These were:
GW-1: No Action
GW-2: Pumping/Filtration/Reinjection
These alternatives were screened based on
implementabflity. effectiveness, and cost. The screening
resulted in remedial alternatives upon which a detailed
analysis was performed. Those alternatives considered
in detail are discussed below. Time to implement' is
defined as the period of time needed to implement the
remedy (e.g. amount of time needed for the
construction of a treatment facility): it does not include
the time required to design the remedy, procure
con:r?.cis lor design ana' construction o: negotiate with
'esponsible panics lor implementation o! the remec'y.
conduct operation and maintenance, or cor.cL'Ci Icig-
term monitorina.
Alternative GW-t: No Action
Cap;;::: Cost: S 0
O & M/yr Cos;: i 0
Present Wonh: S 0
Time to Implement: N/A
The Superiund program requires that the no action
alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison
with other alternatives. The No Action alternative would
rely on natural attenuation to reduce coniarr.inants in
the off-site groundwater. The aquifer's inherent ability to
dilute and adsorb the contaminants would result in
natural Hushing of the aquifer. The soil and
groundwater remediation which win be implemented
under OUi will minimize any additional ccr.'.rib'j'.icn to
the contaminants in the off-site groundwa-e: I; u
anticipated, based on groundwater mcdeii.-.c pe.-'ormed
during the Remedial Design, that natural ansruction oi
groundwater. in addition to the remediation provided
under OUi. would result in the reduction c;
contaminants in the off-site groundwater to levels below
State and Federal MCLs in about 18 years. I; is noted
that the time frame could be somev/hat Icncer. if an on-.
site rather than off-site reinfection were to be utilised.
The No-Action alternative would rely on a lcr.;-;=rm
monitoring program to confirm that the co."it£~ir.ants of
concern are attenuating. A total of twelve rr.cnitoring
wells would be utilized in order 10 sample :!-.e
groundwaier from the shallow aquifer to tree!-;
contaminant migration. This monitoring would be
conducted as par. of the OUI groundwater remediaticn.
and as a result would be done at no additional cos;.
Alternative GW-2: Pumping/Filtration/Reinjection
Capital Cost: S 1.634.200 '
O & M/yr Cost: S 375.500
Present Wonh: S 5.351,100
Time to Implement: Three years
The major features of this alternative would include
groundwater collection, treatment, and reinjection of the
treated groundwater and a performance monitoring
program.
The collection system would consist of two extraction
wells installed in the downgradient portion of the plume
in the Upper Glacial Aquifer to a depth of approximately
70 leet. The groundwater would be pumped at a rate c!
-------
approximately 100 gallons per minuie (gpm) and piped
to a treatment facility where metals would be removed
by a dual media (sand/anthracite) pressure filtration
process. The treatment system would be designed to
effectively reduce the chromium in the extracted
groundwater to levels below the Federal and New York
State groundwater standards. Any sludge generated
during the metal removal process would be disposed of
ir, a RCRA Subtitle C landfill in accordance with Land
Disposal Restrictions. The treated groundwater would
then be returned to the aquifer through (our reinjection
wells. The exact location of the extraction and
reinjection wells would be determined during the design
phase. It can be expected, however, that since the
downgradient plume is not on the Genzale property.
public or private lands would need to be acquired to
construct and operate the groundwater treatment
system. Groundwater modelling has indicated that
groundwater extraction, filtration and reinjection will
result in the reduction of contaminants in the ofi-site
groundwater to levels below State and Federal MCLs in
about 14 years.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives.
each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation
criteria, namely, overall protection of human health end
the environment; compliance with applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs); short-term
effectiveness; long-term effectiveness and permanence;
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume;
implementability; cost; community and state
acceptance.
The evaluation criteria are described below:
A. Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment addresses whether or not a remedy
provides adequate protection and describes how
risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls.
* Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a
remedy will meet all of the applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements and/or provide
grounds for invoking a waiver.
* Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence refers to
the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment
over time, once cleanup goals have been met. It
also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of
the measures that may be required to manage the
risk posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated
wastes.
Reduction of Toxicilv. Mobility, or Volume Thrpuph
Treatment refers to the anticipated performance of
the treatment technologies, with respec: to these
parameters, a remedy may employ.
Short-term EHeciivenes^ addresses ti.e period o;
time needed to achieve protection froi.i any
adverse impacts on human health and the
environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period of the
alternative.
Implementabilitv involves the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to
implement the chosen solution.
Cost includes both capital and operation and
maintenance costs. Cost comparisons are made
on the basis of present worth values. Present
worth values are equivalent to the amount of money
which must be invested to implement a Certain
alternative at the start of construction to provide for
both construction costs, and O&M costs ever time.
State Acceptance indicates whether, based on its
review of the RI/FS report and Proposed Flan, the
State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment
on trie preferred alternative.
Community Acceptance will be assessed in the
ROD and refers to the public's general response to
the alternatives described in the RI/FS report and
the Proposed Plan.
The following section compares the relative performance
of each groundwater alternative.
* Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Modeling predicts that the groundwater extraction and
treatment proposed in Alternative GW-2 would result in
the reduction of contaminants to State and Federal
groundwater and drinking water standards in 14 years.
Modeling of the No Action Alternative, which would rely
on natural attenuation and the implementation of the
OUI remedy, predicts that MCLs will be met in
approximately 18 years.
As noted earlier, the risk assessment indicated that the
levels of contaminants in the ofi-site groundwater
-------
present no signmcan: numan neaun nsK, n ten
unremediated.
* Compliance with ARARs
Both alternatives would eventually com-ly with ARARs.
Modeling predicts that the treatment of the groundwater
would result in the reduction of contaminants to State
and Federal groundwater and drinking water standards
in approximately 18 years for Alternative GW-1 and 11
years for GW-2. In addition, for Alternative GW-2.any
sludge generated during the metals removal process
would be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill in
accordance with Land Disposal Restrictions.
» Lono-lerm Effectiveness and Permanence
Both scenarios are essentially equivalent in their long-
term effectiveness and permanence; they only vary in
the number of year it will take to achieve MCLs in the
aquifer, that is, approximately 14 years for Alternative
GW-l and approximately 18 years for Alternative GW-2.
Alternative GW-2 would result in greater long-term
exposure to workers who would come into contact with
the contaminated sludges from the treatment system.
However, proper health and safety procedures would be
implemented to prevent or minimize exposure to these
materials. No treatment sludge would be generated if
the No-Action scenario is implemented.
' Reduction in Toxiciiv. Mobility, or Volume Through
Treatment
Under both alternatives, the groundwater contamination
would be reduced to levels below MCLs. thereby
ultimately reducing the volume and toxicity of the
plume. Only Alternative GW-2. however, employs
treatment to achieve such reduction. Extraction and
treatment the plume tc levels below MCLs is estimated
to take 14 years, while natural attenuation of the plume
is estimated to take approximately 18 years under
Alternative GW-1. Therefore, Alternative GW-2 would
provide the benefits of reduction of volume and toxicity
of the plume in a shorter time frame. By capturing a
significant portion of the off-site plume. Alternative GW-2
would result in the greater reduction in mobility of the
contaminant plume, whereas Alternative GW-1 would
allow for migration of the plume. This migration,
however, will be associated with decreasing levels of
contaminants due to .the effects of natural attenuation
and on-site treatment of soils and groundwater.
* onon-ierm tnecnveness
The implementation of Alternative GW-i would result in
no additional risk to the community or on-site workers,
since no major construction activities would be
conducted.'
The implementation of Alternative GW-2 (e.g. extraction
and reinjection wells, piping etc.) would ha'-e minor
negative Inlets on residents in tht study area. These
impacts would be associated with the disruption of
traffic, excavation on public and private land, noise and
fugitive dust emissions. Appropriate measures,
however, would be implemented to minimize these
impacts.
* Implemenlabilitv
The technology proposed for Alternative GW-2 is proven
and reliable in attaining cleanup goals, however,
Alternative GW-2 would be significantly more
complicated to implement, than Alternative GW-1. the
No Action alternative. The design of the grcundwater
extraction system would take approximately 1.5 years to
complete. Another 1.5 years would be required to
complete construction of that system. In addition,
public or private land would have to be acquired in
order to place the extraction and/or reinfection wells,
which could potentially result in some delays associated
with the implementation of Alternative GW-2.
. Cos;
According to the present worth cost estimates for the
alternatives evaluated, Alternative GW-2 (S5.35i,iOO)
would be significantly more costly to implement than
Alternative GW-i. The annual cost of operating and
maintaining the groundwater extraction/treatment
system is estimated to be 5375,500. '
Although Alternative 1 would include long-term
monitoring of the groundwater. there are no costs
associated with this alternative as the groundwater
monitoring wells are already in place and the monitoring
would be conducted as pan of the OU1 groundwater
remediation.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred groundwater
alternative will be assessed in the ROD following a
review of the public comments received on the RI/FS
report and the Proposed Plan.
-------
* Slate Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the preferred groundwater
alternative.
PREFERRED REMEDY
Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives.
EPA and NYSDEC recommend Alternative GW-1. No
Action.
With the exception of chromium, no metals or VOCs
were detected in off-site wells above State or Federal
MCLs. Although chromium concentrations exceeding
the MCL of 50 ug/l were measured in some wells, such
cases were sporadic with no individual wells exceeding
the MCL in two consecutive rounds of sampling;
chromium concentrations did not exceed MCLs in any
filtered samples from off-site wells. In addition, based on
the results of the risk assessment, levels of
contamination do not exceed acceptable levels for
cancer and noncancer risks. Furthermore, modeling
has predicted that the contamination found in the
downgradient grodndwater will meet MCLs within
eighteen years through the combined effects of natural
attenuation and the removal of soils and on-site
groundwater remediation.
EPA and NYSDEC believe that the No Action alternative
described above is fully protective of human health and
the environment, would eventually meet all ARARs.and
offers the best balance among the evaluation criteria
discussed above, although it does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element.
It is important to note that the remedy described above
is the preferred remedy for the Site. The final selection
will be documented in the ROD only after consideration
of all comments on any of the remedial alternatives
addressed in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS report.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC NOTICE
-------
OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR
(516)571-5911
PUBLIC AUCTION
The Office at the Pubfc Administrator of Nassau County. Slate of New York.
is offering the lodowtng properties lor tale at public auction. All properties
are being ottered in an AS IS' condition. No representation concerning the
properties are being made by (he seller, all descriptions are merely for
informational purposes, and are not representations.
Oral bids only will be accepted at the time of pubic aucrjon and the PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATOR RESERVES THE RIGHT TO WITHDRAW
PROPERTIES AND REJECT BIDS. ADMITTANCE TO THE SALE
REQUIRES a deposit of 10% of the minimum bid listed (or each property.
This deposit is payable by CERTIFIED or BANK CHECK MADE PAYABLE
TO YOURSELF, and endorsed by the successful bidder as ns'juc.ed at the
tone of auction. CASH IS NOT ACCEPTED.
Copies of Terms of Sale and Memo of Sale will be available and read at the.
time of auction. A Memorandum of Sale must be executed by the successful
bidder at the time of auction. Closing to taXe place within 30 Cays. Time is of
the essence as to purchaser, sale is not contingent on purchaser obtaining
a mortgage.
Since Ihe seating capacity of the Auction room is Emhed. children will net be
allowed in. A bidder may be accompanied by one other perun. Soec.ators
may only be adrhined. at the discretion of the-Public Adminir.ra:cr, af.er all
bidders are sealed and will be Smiled lo the open seals available.
DATE OF SALE: TUESDAY - AUGUST 29. 1995
TIME OF SALE: 10:00 A.M.
PLACE OF SALE: OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC
ADMINISTFtATOR
272 OLD COUNTRY ROAD
MINEOLA. NY ' .
CORNER OF WASHINGTON AVE. i OLD COUNTRY ROAD
PARCEL #1: 93 BIRCH LANE,
VALLEY STREAM, NEW YORK
SECTION 39: BLOCK 459; LOT 54
)etached Ranch -' 5 rooms; 3 bedrooms; 1 bath; Zoning
Residential; Detached Garage...'AS IS'...MINIMUM BID
S94.000.
PARCEL#2 59 TARDY LANE.
WANTAGH. NEW YORK
SECTION 51; BLOCK 326; LOT 9
)etached Ranch - 5 rooms; 3 bedrooms; 1 bath; Zoning
Residential; Detached Garage...'AS IS'...MINIMUM BID
S101.000
'ARCEL#3: 530 BEECH STREET.
NEW HYDE PARK, NEW YORK
' SECTION 8; BLOCK 346; LOT 15
Jetached Ranch - 5 rooms; 3 bedrooms; 1 bath; Zoning
Residential; Detached Garage...*AS IS'...MINIMUM BID
S123.000.
VIEWING AT ALL SITES
SUNDAY. AUGUST 27,1995 '
10:00 AM-2:00 PM
We're Gol The Best
Sporti Erery Dayto
Take Off And JRflV[[
»
*-
M
«l
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX C
AUGUST 31,1995 PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE SHEETS
-------
UII1TKU UTATMU MilV1 lUillllKNTAIi I'llU 1 TX'T I Oil TUiKMCX
REGION II
PUHLIC MEETING
FOU
Gcnzale Plating Superfxind site
Franklin Square, Hew York
Thuraday, August 31, 1995
ATTENDEES
(Pleane Print Clearly)
NAME GTREET CITY ZIP PltONE REPRESENTING
I I
-
-------
UNJ.TKI) UTATI-ill I.M v iUwuiii.n i «»! i'u«. ........
REGION II
PUBLIC HEETIUC5
FOR
Gcnzalc Plating Guperfund Site
Franklin Square, New York
Thuroday, August 31, 1995
ATTENDEES
(Pleane Print Clearly)
BTt»F.F.T CITY 7.IP PHONE P-EPnESENTING
Cv>> .^
------- |