PB94-963802
EPA/ROD/R02-94/225
July 1994
EPA Suiperfund
Record of Decision:
Kenmark Textile Printing Corp.,
Babylon, NY
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Kenmark Textiles Printing Corporation
East Farmingdale
Town of Babylon
Suffolk County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
-------
ROD PACT SHEET
SITE
Site name:
Site location:
HRS score:
ROD
Date Signed:
Selected remedy:
Capital cost:
O & M cost:
Kenmark Textiles Printing Corporation
East Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York
31.72
March 30, 1994
No Action
N/A
N/A
Present-worth cost: N/A
LEAD
Fund: Environmental Protection Agency
Primary contact: Sharon Trocher (212-264-8476)
Secondary contact: Doug Garbarini (212-264-0109)
Main PRP: S.J. & J. Service Stations, Inc.
WASTE
Waste types:
Dyes and Solvents
Inorganics (arsenic, chromium, lead, etc.)
Organics (tetrachlorethene)
Waste quantity: Limited
Contaminated media: Soils and groundwater (minimal contamination)
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OP DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Kenmark Textiles Printing Corporation
East Farmingdale, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Kenmark Textiles Printing Corporation (Kenmark) site (Site),
which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.
§§ 9601-9675, and the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR
Part 300. This decision document explains the factual and legal
bases for selecting the remedy for this Site. The information
supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the
administrative record for this Site. The administrative record
index is attached (Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) concurs with the selected remedy, as per the attached
letter (Appendix IV).
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY - NO ACTION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in
consultation with the State of New York, has determined that the
Site does not pose a significant threat to human health or the
environment and, therefore, remediation is not appropriate.
Thus, "No Action" is the selected remedy for the Site. This
determination is based on the results of remedial investigation
activities conducted by a potentially responsible party (PRP) for
the Site under NYSDEC supervision from 1987 to August 1990 and
under EPA supervision from August 1991 through December 1993.
DECLARATION
I
In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, as amended, and
the NCP, it has been determined that no remedial action is
necessary to protect human health and the environment at the
Site. Since this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on-Site above health-based levels, the five-year review
will not apply to this action.
-------
Since EPA has determined that no remedial action is necessary at
the Site, the Site now qualifies for inclusion in the "Sites
Awaiting Deletion" subcategory of the Construction Completion
category of the National Priorities List.
UJto.
William
Acting
, P.E.
Administrator.
Date
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ... 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 3
SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" REMEDY 12
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 12
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 Site, now occupied by the Susquehanna Textile Company, is
located in a light industrial area at 921 Conklin Street in East
Farmingdale, New York (see Figure 1). The waste disposal areas
at the Site include a leaching pit, sludge drying beds and three
leaching pools. The Site building and a paved parking lot occupy
the majority of the Site. The leaching pools are located under-
neath the parking lot, and the leaching pit and sludge drying
beds are located in the unpaved area of the Site. Figure 2
provides the layout of the Site.
Since at least 1917, the Site has been the location of several
successive silk and textile dye, printing.and screening opera-
tions. The areas north and east of the Site are characterized by
light industry. Residential developments are located to the
south and west, with an estimated 6,200 residents living within
one mile of the Site.
Public supply .wells are the primary source of drinking water in
the area. Groundwater flow at the Site is generally towards the
south. With the exception of a parkland and an undeveloped area
adjacent to the parkland, both located upgradient of the Site,
the area within one mile of the Site obtains drinking water from
public water supplies. Three public supply wellfields are
located within 0.5 to 1.0 mile of the Site. Two of the well-
fields are located upgradient of the Site, and the third well-
field is located cross-gradient of the Site. The closest
downgradient public supply well is located about 1.5 miles from
the Site.
The nearest surface water body to the Site is an artificial pond
(recharge basin) located 0.2 miles south of the Site. The
artifical pond is the subject of a separate NYSDEC investigation.
The headwaters of the Massapequa Creek are located 1.9 miles
southwest and 1.6 miles south-southwest of the Site. There are
several small reservoirs located in Bethpage State Park which is
upgradient of the Site.
There are no designated New York State significant habitats,
agricultural lands, or historic landmarks directly or potentially
affected by the Site. There are no endangered species or criti-
cal habitats within close proximity of the Site.
i
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
As early as 1972, process wastewater generated at the Site was
chemically treated, resulting in the precipitation of solids from
the wastewater. The sludge from the wastewater was distributed
to outdoor concrete-lined beds for settling and drying. The
sludge was periodically removed from the sludge drying beds and
-------
placed in drums. The resulting wastewater (supernatant) was
discharged to the leaching pit located on-Site and east of the
building. Beginning in November 1984, the wastewater was dis-
charged to the Suffolk County Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
Three subsurface leaching pools are located south of the building
beneath a paved parking lot. Access to each of the leaching
pools is through a manhole. The original function of these
leaching pools is not known, although it is suspected that they
were used to collect parking-lot surface runoff and also textile-
printing process wastewater.
Sampling conducted between January 1974 and May 1984 by the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services and a contractor
hired by Kenmark, revealed that wastewater discharged into the
on-Site leaching pit contained hexavalent chromium, copper, iron,
lead, silver, and phenols in violation of New York State ground-
water discharge standards. Based on these findings, the Site was
added to EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) in June 1986.
In 1987, S.J. & J. Service Stations, Inc. (SJ&J) who is the
current property owner and a potentially responsible party (PRP)
for the Site, entered into an Administrative Consent Order (AGO)
with NYSDEC to conduct a Remedial Investigation (RI) to determine
the nature and full extent of the Site contamination, and a
Feasibility Study (FS) to evaluate cleanup alternatives. The AGO
set forth the terms and schedule of the study to be carried out
by SJ&J under the supervision of the NYSDEC.
In August 1990, NYSDEC requested that EPA assume the role of lead
agency for the remedial activities at the Site. In December
1990, EPA sent "special notice" letters to seven PRPs, affording
them the opportunity to complete the RI/FS for the Site. The
PRPs were given 60 days in which to submit a good faith offer to
undertake or finance the RI/FS. During the 60-day period, a good
faith offer was received by SJ&J to continue the Site investi-
gation and to evaluate cleanup alternatives. The agreement to
perform this work was finalized in an AGO signed by EPA and SJ&J
in July 1991.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
T,he RI report and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released to
the public for comment on February 11, 1994. These documents, as
well as other Site-related documents, have been made available to
the public in the administrative record file at EPA's Superfund
Records Center, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York and the East
Farmingdale Fire House, 930 Conklin Street, East Farmingdale,
Suffolk County, New York. A press release announcing the avail-
ability of these documents was issued on February 17, 1994. The
public comment period for the Proposed Plan ended on March 12,
-------
1994. The public notice announcing a public meeting for the Site
was published in The Farminqdale Observer and in Newsday on
February 18, 1994.
On February 28, 1994, EPA conducted a public meeting at the East
Farmingdale Fire House to inform local officials and interested
citizens about the Superfund process, discuss the RI findings,
present the Proposed Plan, and respond to questions from area
residents and other attendees. At this meeting, representatives
from EPA and the New York State Department of Health answered
questions about concerns related to the Site and the remedial
alternative under consideration. Responses to the oral comments
received at the public meeting and written comments received
during the public comment period are included in the Responsive-
ness Summary (Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
This ROD addresses the first and only operable unit planned for
the Site. The primary objectives of this operable unit are to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the Site and
to identify measures, as appropriate, to ensure protection of
human health and the environment.
The specific objectives of the RI and the risk assessment which
are the bases of this ROD were:
- to identify all potential source areas of contamination;
- to characterize the nature and extent of possible contami-
nation in environmental media (surface and subsurface soils,
and groundwater) on-Site;
- to determine the hydrogeologic characteristics of the Site
by assessing potential current and/or future impacts on
downgradient receptors; and
- to assess the current and future potential risks to public
health and the environment caused by Site contamination in
the absence of remedial action.
Based on EPA's analysis of data generated during the RI and the
results of EPA's risk assessment, as well as other supporting
documentation, EPA has concluded that the nature and extent of
soil and groundwater contamination at the Site do not pose a
significant threat to human health or the environment.
-------
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
From 1987 to August 1990, SJ&J conducted a Site investigation
under the supervision of the NYSDEC. In July 1991, EPA entered
into an AGO with SJ&J to complete the RI/FS. The RI was com-
pleted in December 1993. Fanning, Phillips and Molnar Engineers
(FP&M), a contractor hired by SJ&J, conducted the RI. The RI,
consisted of drilling borings and constructing monitoring wells,
collecting soil and groundwater samples, and conducting geophysi-
cal and air-monitoring surveys to characterize the geology,
groundwater hydrology and chemical quality of the soil, ground-
water and air at the Site. A summary of the RI findings follows.
Groundwater
The Site is at an approximate elevation of 80 feet above mean sea
level. The shallowest groundwater, the Upper Glacial Aquifer,
occurs approximately 25 feet below ground level at the Site, and
is estimated to be approximately 60 to 80 feet thick. The
Magothy Aquifer underlies the .Upper Glacial Aquifer and is
estimated to be over 500 feet thick. The Upper Glacial and
Magothy Aquifers form a thick sequence of sand with varying
amounts of silt and clay. Groundwater movement across the Site
is generally towards the south. The velocity of the horizontal
groundwater flow in the Upper Glacial Aquifer is estimated to be
2.4 feet per day.
In May and June of 1988, five monitoring wells were installed
just below the groundwater table to obtain groundwater samples
for analyses of organic and inorganic compounds. Four of the
wells were installed on-Site, and the fifth well was installed
hydraulically upgradient of the Site. Due to various analytical
protocol deviations, the NYSDEC rejected the data for the vola-
tile organic compounds and required further sampling. Lead was
detected in unfiltered groundwater samples at levels above the
State groundwater drinking water standard of 25 parts per billion
(ppb) and the Federal action level of 15 ppb in two of the on-
Site wells. Lead was not detected at levels above the State
groundwater drinking water standard and the Federal action level
in the filtered groundwater samples.
In August 1992, five additional groundwater monitoring wells were
installed as required by the EPA-issued AOC, increasing the total
number of Site-related wells to ten. Two wells were drilled
upgradient of the Site's operations, and three wells were drilled
downgradient of the Site. All the wells were installed just
below the groundwater table except for one of the downgradient
wells (DW-6). DW-6 was installed 56 feet below the groundwater
table (or 81 feet below the ground surface). Figure 2 shows the
location of the ten monitoring wells.
-------
In September and December 1992, two rounds of groundwater samples
were collected from the ten monitoring wells and analyzed for
inorganic and organic compounds. Antimony, thallium, and cadmium
were detected above the State or Federal primary drinking water
standards (also referred to as the maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs)). These compounds were each only detected above these
standards on one occasion during the two rounds of groundwater
sampling. Antimony was detected in an upgradient well at 65.9
parts per billion (ppb), which is higher than the Federal primary
drinking water standard of 6 ppb and the State drinking water
standard of 3 ppb. Thallium was detected in one of the seven
downgradient wells at 2.4 ppb which is slightly above the Federal
primary drinking water standard of 2 ppb but below the State
drinking water standard of 4 ppb. Cadmium was detected in one of
the seven downgradient wells at 6.7 ppb which is below the State
primary drinking water standard of 10 ppb but slightly higher
than the Federal primary drinking water standard of 5 ppb.
Figure 3 depicts all the compounds detected above the State or
Federal primary drinking water standards.
During the two rounds of groundwater sampling, aluminum, iron,
and manganese were consistently detected above the State or
Federal secondary drinking water standards1 (secondary MCLs
(SMCLs)). Aluminum was detected at an average concentration of
707 ppb (maximum concentration of 4,140 ppb) in the downgradient
wells, and an average concentration of 422 ppb (maximum concen-
tration of 1,120 ppb) in the upgradient wells. The Federal
secondary drinking water standard of 200 ppb for aluminum was
exceeded in downgradient and upgradient wells during both rounds
of groundwater sampling. A State secondary drinking water
standard does not exist for aluminum.
Iron was detected at an average concentration of 3,840 ppb
(maximum concentration of 14,400 ppb) in the downgradient wells,
and an average concentration of of 809 ppb (maximum concentration
of 2,510) in the upgradient wells. The State and Federal second-
ary drinking water standards of 300 ppb for iron were exceeded in
downgradient and upgradient wells during both rounds of ground-
water sampling.
Manganese was detected at an average concentration of 152 ppb
(maximum concentration of 716 ppb) in the downgradient wells and
an average concentration of 85 ppb (maximum concentration of 172
ppb) in the upgradient wells. Manganese was detected above the
State secondary drinking water standard of 300 ppb in one of the
seven downgradient wells during one of the two rounds of ground-
JState and Federal secondary drinking water standards are
set for aesthetic purposes (e.g., taste, odor and visual quality)
and do not represent maximum allowable levels required to protect
public health.
-------
water sampling, at a concentration of 716 ppb. The Federal
secondary drinking water standard of 50 ppb was exceeded for
manganese in upgradient and downgradient wells during both rounds
of groundwater sampling.
The groundwater was also analyzed for organic compounds during
the 1992 groundwater sampling. During the first round of
sampling, organic compounds were detected below drinking water
standards with two exceptions. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
(BEHP), which has a Federal MCL of 6 ppb, was detected at a
concentration of 1,100 ppb in one of the seven downgradient
wells. It is important to note, however, that two duplicates of
this sample were collected (one by EPA and the other by FP&M),
and BEHP was not detected in either sample. This suggests that
the detection of BEPH was the result of field or laboratory
contamination and not indicative of its presence in the ground-
water .
The second exception concerns total organic compounds that were
detected in both upgradient and downgradient wells above the
State drinking water standard of 100 ppb. Total organic
compounds were detected in two of the three upgradient wells at
119 and 167 ppb, and in four of the seven downgradient wells at
levels that ranged from 110 to 242 ppb. The total organic
compounds detected in the groundwater consisted primarily of
unidentified and tentatively identified organic compounds.
During the second round of groundwater sampling for organic
compounds, the State and Federal drinking water standards were
not exceeded. The highest concentration of total organic
compounds detected during the second round was in an upgradient
well at 91 ppb. Figure 3 depicts the organic compounds detected
above drinking water standards.
Tables 1 through 4 provide the analytical results of the two
rounds of unfiltered groundwater samples collected in September
and December 1992.
Surface/Subsurface Soils
Soil samples were also obtained during the Summer of 1988. In
total, 57 soil samples were collected from the areas of the
sludge drying beds, leaching pit and leaching pools. In addi-
tion, two background soil samples were collected from an area not
impacted by the Site. These samples were analyzed for inorganic
and/or organic constituents.
The average concentrations of the most prevalent inorganic
compounds included arsenic at at 7.6 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg)
(maximum concentration of 220 mg/kg), chromium at 27.6 mg/kg
(maximum concentration of 252 mg/kg), copper at 71.4 mg/kg (maxi-
mum concentration of 790 mg/kg), lead at 91.7 mg/kg (maximum
concentration of 890 mg/kg), nickel at 26 mg/kg (maximum concen-
-------
tration of 940 mg/kg), and zinc at 124.7 mg/kg (maximum concen-
tration of 860 mg/kg). Total organic compounds were detected in
the soils samples at concentrations less than 25 mg/kg. Tables 5
and 6 contain the concentration ranges and average concentrations
for the soil at the Site and background soil for inorganic and
organic compounds, respectively.
During August 1992, pursuant to the EPA-issued AOC, twenty-one
soil borings were drilled at the Site in order to obtain addi-
tional information on Site geology and the extent of horizontal
and vertical contamination in the soil. Twenty-nine samples
(which include two background samples) were collected from the
soil borings and analyzed for inorganic and organic constituents.
Numerous inorganic contaminants were detected above background
soil levels. The average concentrations of the most prevalent
inorganic compounds included aluminum at 3,490 mg/kg (maximum
concentration of 19,400 mg/kg), chromium at 16.2 mg/kg (maximum
concentration of 197 mg/kg), iron at 6,940 mg/kg (maximum concen-
tration of 18,700 mg/kg), lead at 60.6 mg/kg (maximum concen-
tration of 495 mg/kg), and manganese at 76.3 mg/kg (maximum
concentration 266 mg/kg). Several organic compounds were also
detected with a majority of them found in the leaching pools.
All organic compounds were detected below NYSDEC's soil cleanup
guidance levels except for acetone, which was detected at a level
three times NYSDEC's soil cleanup guidance level in one sample
collected from a leaching pool. Tables 7 and 8 contain the
concentration ranges and average concentrations for inorganic and
organic compounds in soil at the Site and background soil,
respectively.
Air Monitoring and Geophysical Surveys
A geophysical survey (borehole natural gamma logging) and air
monitoring were also conducted at the Site. The geophysical
survey provided additional information on the Site geology. The
air monitoring and air modelling data indicated that the Site
does not have an adverse impact on air quality.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A. baseline risk assessment was conducted to estimate the risks
associated with current and future Site conditions. The baseline
risk assessment evaluated the potential impacts on human health
and the environment at the Site which could result from the
contamination at the Site, if no remedial action were taken.
This information was used to make a determination as to whether
remediation of the site may be required. In the risk assessment,
only the 1992 groundwater sampling data were used to determine
the groundwater exposure concentrations, since these data are
considered to be more representative of current Site conditions
-------
than earlier data due to the mobility of the groundwater. The
soil exposure concentrations are based on both the 1988 and 1992
sampling data.
As part of the baseline risk assessment, the following four-step
process is utilized for assessing Site-related human health risks
for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identifica-
tion—identifies the contaminants of concern at the Site based on
several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and
concentration. Exposure Assessment—estimates the magnitude of
actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and
duration of these exposures, and the 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 a quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-million excess cancer
risk) assessment of Site-related risks.
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of
concern which are representative of Site conditions. Chemicals
of concern were identified for Site surface soils, subsurface
soils and groundwater underlying the Site (see Table 9).
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects which
could result from exposure to contamination at the Site under
current and future land-use scenarios. The potential exposure
pathways of concern for current land use include exposure of
workers through incidental ingestion, inhalation and dermal
contact with soils during their designated work activities.
Worker exposure to groundwater was not evaluated because workers
currently utilize the public water supply for drinking and wash
water. Worker exposure to groundwater does not occur with the
possible exception of inconsequential exposure to process water
from the on-Site production well. Since the area around the Site
is light industrial, it is unlikely that the future land use at
the Site will be residential, however, a future residential land
use was evaluated as a conservative assumption. The potential
exposure pathways of concern for future land use include resi-
dents' exposure to chemicals in groundwater through ingestion of
drinking water, and dermal contact and inhalation of volatile
organic compounds during showering or bathing; this conservative
assumption supposes that the upper aquifer would serve as a
drinking water source in the future. The Magothy Aquifer which
underlies the upper aquifer, is currently used as a drinking
water source. Future on-Site residents might also be exposed to
contaminants in surface soils through ingestion and dermal
contact. A summary of the exposure pathways evaluated at the
Site as part of the risk assessment is provided in Table 10.
-------
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects due to exposure to
Site chemicals are considered separately. Potential carcinogenic
risks were evaluated using the cancer potency factors developed
by EPA for the compounds of concern. Cancer slope factors (SFs)
have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verifi-
cation Endeavor for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks
associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals.
SFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied
by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day,
to generate an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer
risk associated with exposure to the compound at that intake
level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate
of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes
the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SFs for the
compounds of concern are presented in Table 11.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper
bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 10"4 to 10"6 to
be allowable. This can be interpreted to mean that an individual
may have an approximately one in ten thousand to a one in a
million increased chance of developing cancer as a result of a
Site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime
under the specific exposure conditions at the site.
The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that under
the current-use scenarios, the estimated carcinogenic risks are
within or less than EPA's acceptable cancer risk range based on
the potential exposure pathways and routes evaluated for workers
(see Table 12). The highest carcinogenic risk was estimated to
be eight in one million (8 x 10"6) for ingestion of chemicals in
the soil by workers.
Under the future-use scenarios, all pathways evaluated have
estimated carcinogenic risks within EPA's acceptable cancer risk
range. The exposure pathway with the highest risk is for the
ingestion of chemicals in the groundwater by residents. The
estimated carcinogenic risk for this case is one in ten thousand
(1 x 10"4) , which is at the upper bound of EPA's risk range.
However, since the future use of the Site is likely to remain
light industrial; the ingestion of groundwater by Site workers
would be unlikely under this scenario, and the carcinogenic risk
would not increase beyond the current baseline risk associated
with the ingestion of contaminants in the soil (8 x 10"6) . Other
carcinogenic future risks within EPA's acceptable range include
four in one hundred thousand (4 x 10"5) for dermal contact with
groundwater by a resident while bathing and seven in one hundred
thousand (7 x 1CT5) for the ingestion of soil by a resident. The
majority of the carcinogenic risk is attributable to the presence
of arsenic and beryllium for the groundwater pathways and to
arsenic for the ingestion of soil pathway. Arsenic and beryllium
were not detected above drinking water standards at the Site.
-------
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference doses, or RfDs). RfDs have
been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse
health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day,
are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are
thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive individu-
als) . Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media
(e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
drinking water) are compared with the RfD to derive the hazard
quotient (HQ) for the contaminant in the particular medium. The
HQ's are then summed to give a pathway HI. When the HQ, or sum
of subthreshold exposures (HQs) exceed one, there may be concern
for potential noncarcinogenic health effects, if the contaminants
in question are believed to cause a similar toxic effect. The
reference doses for the compounds of concern at the Site used to
evaluate the noncarcinogenic risks are contained in Table 11.
The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that under
the current-use scenarios, noncarcinogenic health effects are not
likely based on the potential exposure pathways and routes
evaluated for workers. The calculated His for these scenarios
are significantly less than one.
For the noncarcinogenic future risk, the HI was below one for all
scenarios2 except for the ingestion of groundwater by an adult
resident (HI=6) and the ingestion of surface soil by a child
resident (HI=2) (see Table 13). As noted previously, these
exposure scenarios are unlikely since future Site use will likely
remain light industrial. For the ingestion of groundwater by an
adult resident (HI=6), the primary driver of the noncarcinogenic
future risk is manganese (HQ=4). The calculation was based on a
single sampling point measurement (out of a total of 14 samples)
of 716 ppb which was several times higher than the average
concentration of 152 ppb of manganese in the groundwater. This
average concentration is below the State secondary groundwater
drinking water standard of 300 ppb and is not believed to be
associated with any adverse health effects. Excluding manganese,
the remaining contaminants individually do not exceed an HQ of
one, and the addition of the contaminants with the same toxic
endpoints also does not exceed one. For the future ingestion of
surface soil by a child resident (HI=2), the major contributors
tp the HI of 2 were arsenic (HQ=0.9) and antimony (HQ=0.5).
Collectively, arsenic and antimony have an HI that exceeds one.
2Di-n-octylphthalate was not considered because this com-
pound was determined not to be associated with the groundwater.
Di-n-octylphthalate was detected in one sample, but not in the
two associated duplicates or in any other groundwater samples.
10
-------
However, the critical toxic endpoints for arsenic (skin disor-
ders) and antimony (alterations in blood glucose and cholesterol)
are sufficiently different to make adverse health effects
unlikely.
An ecological risk assessment considers potential exposure routes
of contamination to terrestrial wildlife. Since the majority of
the Site is paved or covered with structures, there is little, if
any, potential for wildlife to be exposed to contaminated surface
soils on-Site. The only potential route of exposure to wildlife
in the Site's vicinity would be if contaminants were transported
via groundwater and discharged into surface waters some distance
from the Site. Off-Site monitoring wells, however, did not
indicate the presence of contaminants at significant levels.
Therefore, no significant effect would be found on aquatic
organisms in the area's surface waters from groundwater discharge
off-Site.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evalua-
tion, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide variety
of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data.
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media sam-
pled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the
actual levels present. Environmental chemistry-analysis error
can stem from several sources including the errors inherent in
the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being
sampled. Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to
estimates of how often an individual would actually come in
contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over
which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to
estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the
point of exposure. Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in
extrapolating both from laboratory 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 assump-
tions concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout the
assessment. As a result, the Risk Assessment provides upper
11
-------
bound estimates of the risks to populations near the Site, and is
highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the
Site.
DESCRIPTION OP THE "NO ACTION" REMEDY
The risk assessment indicates that the levels of contaminants
present in the soils and groundwater at the Site present risks
which fall within or below EPA's 10"* to 10"6 carcinogenic risk
range. All current land-use exposure scenarios resulted in risks
that are within EPA's noncarcinogenic risk range. Some of the
future land-use exposure scenarios exceed an HI of 1. The
calculation for manganese, the only contaminant with an HQ
greater than one, was based on only one sampling measurement (out
of fourteen samples) of 716 ppb which was several times higher
than the average manganese concentration of 152 ppb. For those
future land-use exposure scenarios that resulted in an HI greater
than one, the calculations that were used to reach this conclu-
sion conservatively assumed that, in the future, the Site would
be used for residential purposes. The Site, however, has been
used for light industrial purposes since at least the early part
of this century, and EPA believes that it would be more reason-
able to assume that land uses similar to those which currently
exist will be retained at the Site in the future. Under such a
land-use scenario, the chemicals present in each of the exposure
pathways would not pose any unacceptable risks. In addition,
groundwater sampling results indicate that the majority of
contaminants do not exceed drinking water standards, and that it
is unlikely that the levels of inorganic contaminants detected at
the Site would result in adverse health effects. Therefore, EPA
and NYSDEC recommend a no action remedy for this Site.
Based upon the findings of the RI performed at the Site, EPA, in
consultation with NYSDEC, has determined that the Site does not
pose a significant threat to human health or the environment.
EPA, therefore, has selected a "No Action" remedy for the Site.
Since this remedy will not result in hazardous substances remain-
ing on-site above health-based levels, the five-year review will
not apply to this action.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
I
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative,
as presented in the Proposed Plan.
12
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location
Figure 2 - Site Layout
Figure 3 - Contaminants Detected above State and Federal Primary
Drinking Water Standards
-------
-•V<< 7 SolACourse ~ '. ..y /. X ..• S, .
•""-'• - T -/ '/•*'"? i V'-'. 'o.
•'•••/BETHPAGE STATE: PARK • _-' r^-^ . *.' .f &•
7^73P^^/-^^^-^-^ s; ••c^i.rT1
^IfS^-r^v ™**^\*&^^H&lltW£.
rMafi <
^C^^^^j-^: R-'-' WC '-*"*'••• ' : =• ' V -^ ""
A^fTn jiki. .t v.\v ^ ". • -\J^. -'"
Fanning, Phillips & Molnar
Engineers
source U.S.geological survey 7.5 minute
topographic maps (Huntington 1979 and
Amityville, 1979 quadrangles)
FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION
Drawn By: H.C. | Checked By:T.D.| Date; 1/6/93
-------
L E G E N D
• SW-5 DENOTES GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL
@ DENOTES AREA OF CONCERN
OLP f\ DENOTES LEACHING POOL LOCATION
1. FENCES LOCATIONS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND ARE
NOT COMPLETE.
Fanning, Phillips & Molnar
Engineers
FIGURE 2
SITE LAYOUT
Drawn By:H.c. Checked By:T.D. Date: 12/27/93
-------
COMPOUND
TOTAL VOCS
a svoc
ARAR
100
9/18/92
118
12/21/92
_
COMPOUND
ANTIMONY
TOTAL VOCS
* SVOC
ARAR
6
109
9/18/92
65.9
1»7
12/21/92
-
_
i r c r M n
• £*-• OO4OR3 OROWO Wilt UOMTOAM WILL A
(US) 0£»T>M or vwut rate
Q PfMDTtt MM Of COMXm
oir ft txxms LEKHW no. HAM
——— auucMHtn nnanuc
new
COMPOUND
CADMIUM
TOTAL VOCS
* SVOC
ARAR
S
100
9/16/92
-
110
12/21/92
6,7
*a*>
_— -
•5S.1
GENERA
MOTES
• 99.0
4 S«-«ll DW-»
SSJT**"
COMPOUND
TOTAU VOCS
« SVOC
ARAR
100
9/16/92
214
12/21/92
-
-^
/
•2-
COMPOUND
SODIUM
THULIUM
IOTAL VOCS
c mmmay totmnEO. UNKNom.
SEMvaunu OROMK COUPOUND n.uiiKsvoc) ADC «u. QUAIFCD
BT1>C J QUU1D). ESTMUEO.
i TIC DETtCTXIN OF bh (J-tTOVL HOfrtJ PHTWIATE IN SW-4
OOOIRED N T)C DUnjdUC SAHt£ OF HE WELL WA1ER. IT WAX
NOT OETtCTED IH IMC SAUPl£ AND NOT DETCCreD IN 1HI S>UT
SUFU DBTAMEO BV THE UStPA DVERSmT CONTRACTDK.
& AL DCTECnm VALUES ARI fROd DC UNmTERED MHPUS.
* ear a OB (j-cmn. nan) pmwuic
9. rentes umTKHS ARE smmi TOR RETCTCNC£ ONLY AND ARC
HOT COUPITIE.
COMPOUND
BEHP
TOTAL VOCS
4 SVOC
ARAR
50
100
9/18/62
1100
1306
U/21/92
-
Fanning, Phillips & Molnar
Engineers
FIGURE 3
CONTAMINANTS DETECTED ABOVE
STATE & FEDERAL PRIMARY DRINKING
WATER STANDARDS
Drown By: H.C. [Checked By: T.D. [Dote: 3/21/8*
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLES
Table 1 - Detected Metals in Groundwater Samples - September 16,
1992
Table 2 - Detected Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
in Groundwater Samples - September 16, 1992
Table 3 - Detected Metals in Groundwater Samples - December 21,
1992
Table -4 -. Detected Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
in Groundwater Samples - December 21, 1992
Table 5 - 1988 Analytical Soil Data - Inorganic Compounds
Table 6 - 1988 Analytical Soil Data - Organic Compounds
Table 7 - 1992 Analytical Soil Data - Inorganic Compounds
Table 8 - 1992 Analytical Soil Data - Organic Compounds
Table 9 - Contaminants of Concern
Table 10 - Summary of Exposure Pathways
Table 11 - Toxicity Values for Contaminants of Concern
Table 12 - Summary of Carcinogenic Risk Estimates
Table 13 - Summary of Noncarcinogenic Risk Estimates
-------
TABLE 1
DETECTED METALS IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES - SEPTEMBER 16, 1992
KENMARK TEXTILES SITE - FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK
[All values in micrograms per tiler - tig/I]
PARAMETER
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
-"" - -<, -
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
STANDARDS
Federal 40 CFR
141 & 143 MCLs
200*"
6
50
2000
4
5
-
100
_
TT
300***
TT
-
50***
2
100
.
100
m
2
.
5000***
State 6NYCRR
Parts 700 to 705
11-91 TOGS
.
3*
25
1000
3*
10
.
50
.
200
300**
25
35,000*
300**
2
.
.
50
20000
4*
.
300
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
SW-1
I20B
U
U
35.4B
0.50B
U
29500
U
U
3.3B
224
U
3630B
V>^ 's;jStvs
'~53.0>s.
U
U
3840B
U
9460
U
U
10. IB
SW-2
'-"';244^"
U
1. 1LWJ
I0.5B
U
2.6B
48900
U
U
6.4B
;J2390^!
MB/?,
2380B
"?94i9'
u
LIB
27.6B
0.50B
U
34300
7-rSBff,
U
10.5B
**f43tf*-
7.6
6540
15.8
U
U
3200B
U
9940
U
5.7B
50.2
SW-4
"-*mo"
u
I.ID
34.8B
0.50B
I.9B
25100
U
7.1B
7.6B
^6220',^
7.0
4040B
~ -, - f> x
,1[6J~<
U
U
2770B
U
9080
U
3.8B
43.6
SW-6
•£ H630-
V
2.4BWJ
19. IB
0.50B
2.5B
12300
9r4B/?,
5.5B
8.7B
->,-'•>- i
' «7270 i-
2.2B
I410B
;«23l--'^
U
4.SB " '
1780B
U
4 HOB
U
4.0B
24.3
DW-6
33.0B
U
1.1VJ
30.3B
0.50B
U
I2800
U
5.2B
2.9B
97.6B
U
3270B
''Sfflfc:^
u '..
4.IB
2740B__
U
jj^-^ ; - ^' -
*23200~-'
>t%4S&
U
4WW/T,
SW-9
-f-!'4l40*°
U
2.3BW./
60.9B
I.OB
3.1B
28600
+Wff,
4.4B
I9.8B
*Jao\tir.
9.4
4630B
*~'70.9'-':;'
u
II. IB
5050
U
9310
U
9.9B
68.1
UPGRADIENT
SW-5
~;l''392l
U
1. TUW./
29. OB
0.40B
U
34800
U
U
4.5B
x^405-"" ;
U
4430B
Qor^
U
u
4 HOB
. U
9450
U
U
7.1B
SW-7
' -. ^t- * '-.f1 "*
-,-V2t9//-
U
1. ruw^
29.7B
0.40B
U
30800
SrSBfl,
U
2.7B
*&4»H
U
5240
-;67!9'^
U
U
4870
U
9510
U
U
62.7
SW-8
57. IB
^'65\9\i
1. 1UV/J
I7.1B
U
U
16800
U
U
3.9B
%420"^
U
2830B
19.3 .
U
U
I970B
U
6910
UWJ
U
44rOB/?,
QUALITY AS
QUALITY C
SAMP
SW-IO Dup o
SW-6
"''*'-.|26B>^
U
1.9B
21.3B
0.40B
2.5B
13600
U
U
6.8B
'••'.Miso:^
3.5
1530B
"\";229':r!^
U
4.5B
1990B
u •
4590B
UWJ
4. IB
21.7
SURANCE-
:ONTROL
LES
Field
Blank
Bailer
22.8B
U
U
U
0.50B
U
37.0B
10.1
U
5.4B
I3.2B
UWJ
19. 8B
U
U
U
U
U
109B
U
U
5.8B
* Guidance Value
** If both'parameters are present, the total of both concentrations may not exceed 500 ug/l.
*** Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
TT Treatment Technique (Action Level for Copper Is 1300 ug/l, lead Is 15 ug/l).
R, Rejected by data validation process due to the presence of the analyte In the field blank.
R2 Rejected by data validation process due to the difference between levels In the filtered samples compared to the levels injhe unfiltered
samples.
U The analyte was not detected at the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL).
W Post digestion spike for Furnace AA analysis Is out of control limits, while sample absorbance Is less than 50% of spike absorbance.
B Reported value is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL). but greater than the IDL.
J Indicated an estimated value.
-------
• TAIILE 2
UETECTED VOLATILE AND SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN CROUNDWATER SAMPLES - SEFTEMDER l«, 1992
KENMAUK TEXTILES SITE - FARMINGUALE, NEW YOKK
(All Tilucs In mlcrogronu per Illcr - ug/IJ
PARAMETER
VOCs
vlethylene Chloride
\cetone
'aibon Disulfiile
I.I-
)ichtoroetliane
I.I.I*
'rlchloroethane
l-Melhyl-
1-pentanone
Total
^OCs TICs
si ethyl Propene
somer
Trlchlorofluoio-
netfiane
'eniadiene 1 somer
>imeihyl Uouno!
somer +
limeUiyl Propanolc
\clU homer
Inknown
Jnknown
ydrocarbon
foial TICs
Tolal VOCs
IVOCs
m(2-Etliylhcxyl)
iihatatc
>i-n-
ictylpltttialate
Total
WOCs TICs
•.known1
JodecxnamiJe N,N-
!t(2-hydr)
retrained. ylliulyl-
icnol Isomer
lenol 4-nonyl
9CI)
nkiiown Acid
'hcnot nonyl
;s ci. 9 ci>
2.5,8,11.14
'cniaoxnhcxadccn
Jnknown Pltihnlnie
Codeine
Total TICs
Total SVOCs
Total VOC &
>voc
STANDARDS
federal 40
CFR 141 &
143 MCLs
5
-
•
•
200
•
•
•
-
•
•
•
-
-
6
•
-
-
•
•
•
-
*
•
-
•
-
Suit 6NYCRR
Paru 700 10 70
5
so-
so-
5
i
so-
so-
so-
so-
so-
so-
so-
so-
-
•
so
so-
-
50-
so-
so-
so-
so-
so-
SO'
so-
so-
•
100
IONYCR
Suhpart S-
•
so-
so-
•
•
so-
so-
so-
so-
so-
so-
so-
so-
-
-
so-
so-
-
-
so-
so-
so-
so-
SOL..
SO-
SO'
so-
so-
100
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
SW-
U
SU
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
tou
u
u
301
41 N
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
34
34
34
SW-
U
11U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
2J
2)
2
tou
U
U
3JN'
UJN
IUJ
DIN
U
8JN
U
41
U
9.5
95
97
SW-3
U
SU
u
2J
4
U
6
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
6
41U
u
u
62J1
JOIN
U
U
71
U
SJN
U
U
104
104
481
sw
u
7(1
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
tau
u
u
52J1
OJN
u
u
31
u
SJN
U
u
90
90
90
SW
U
5U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
tou
u
u
8ZT
01 N
U..
7JN
U
JN
U
4J
JN
42
42
ft
D\V-«
U
SU
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
tou
u
u
98J1
U
u
u
6J
U
JN
U
u
13
13
ft!
SW-9
U
SU
U
u
1
u
1
u
u
u
u
u
u
u .
u
1
tou
u
u
207J1
6JN
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
213
213
*21"4Sj
IIP
UPORADIENT
SW-
U
SU
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
u
t4U
u
u
u
U'
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
0 £
:
sw-
u
SU
u
\J
2
u
3
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
3
tou
u
u
I6JN>
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
116
116
»
sw-»
u
SU
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
tsu
u
u
26J'
OJN
u
u .
3J
u
10JN
u
u
1S9
IS9
m
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTHOL
SAMPLES
SW-I
SVt-6
U
SU
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
$i$
U
1100
146IN1
IOJN
71
61
U
U
U
37j
u
206
1306
H3063
•$w.
Field
niwk
Dalltr
U
9
U
U
U
U
9
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
9
16
U
16
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
u
16
2S
Tilp
nianl
Vlil
0.8J
160
0.61
U
U
II
172.4
41
2J
11
31
0.6J
5.51
U
17.1
189.3
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT-
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
•
Trip Illan
Vlil 2-D
U
1)
U
U
U
U
1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
1
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
•
Tilp
k DlanV
L Vlal2-Rt
U
6
U
U
U
U
6
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
6
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
MI-
NT
NT
•
Unspecified Organic Contaminants (UOCs)
NT Not Tested
1 Category Includes all unknowns at different retention times. There were no exceedances of the 50 ug/l standard for any specific
unknown.
U The compound was not detected at the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL).
J Indicates an estimated value.
N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound (tentatively Identified compounds).
-------
TABLE 3
DETECTED METALS IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES - DECEMBER 21,1992
KENMARK TEXTILES SITE - FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK
[All values In micrograms per liter • ug/l]
PARAMETER
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
[bead
Magnesium
Manganese
Nickel
Potassium
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
STANDARDS
Federal 40
CFR 141 &
143 MCLs
200***
50
2000
4
5
.
TT
300***
TT
.
50***
100
-
-
2
_
5000***
State 6NYCRR
Parts 700 to 705
11-91 TOGS
.
25
1000
3*
10
.
200
300**
25
35000*
300**
.
-
20000
4*
„
300
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
SW-1
^*52$
U
34.5B
0.53B
1.2B
27500
4.2B
^866^-
2.9B
3850B
tye.&
U
3530
BE7
8630
EJ
U
U
12. 8B
SW-2
^#318#
2.2B
14.0B
0.40B
1.4B
47100
8.7B
^30'10'ft
3.9
1960B
£90?fV
U
1280
BE^
2410
BE^
U
U
51.7
SW-3
1488
1.4B
22.4B
0.40B
v"' 6\7»- '
31800
4.1B
< '"- .' -''<', *$- -.
VU428$v£
3.7
5500
6.3B
U
3250
BEJ
9030
EJ
U
4.4B
20.1
SW-4
^827:'
3.2B
14.8B
U
U
10200
6.6B
i-hS96bV:'
7.3
1500B
£*$&*
4.9B
1370
BE7
2700
BEJ
1.2B
4.3B
33.0
SW-6
•-ntif*
6.9B
11. 2B
0.53B
U
6710/
3.7B
-. ~ , "1'* s*
•? 14400&
U
976B .
-*»-•:
U
873
BEJ
2350
BEJ
U
5.9B
12.6B
DW-6
21.6B
U
31. OB
0.40B
U
12.100
2.6B
68.2B
U
•3130B
J^'fistt
u
2340
BEJ
fisoot-
r-E^i-'
l^.
U
21.3
SW-9
135B
U
6.3B
U
U
28600
2.6B
i'3&£l>:
u
3870B
6.1B
U
• 3930
BEJ
9380
EJ
U
4.3B
12.5B
UPGRADIENT
SW-5
;^52bse
u
26.0B
U
1.1U
33100
3.1B
,fc(7i&*
u
4350B
*y««^
u
3750
BEJ
7370
EJ
l.OB
U
5.4B
SW-7
^Vi^o¥
u
34.5B
U
U
33200
U
s^isW
u
5460
t&r%*?i
U
6800
EJ
10800
EJ
U
U
6.3B
SW-8
i:"%i3.&
u
19.1B
0.40B
U
21500
U
>''•*' J347^':'x
U
361 OB
43.8
U
1910
BEJ
7790
EJ
U
U
6.0B
QUALITY
ASSURANCE
QUALITY
CONTROL
SAMPLES
SW-10
Dun of
SW-6
-!4"'476r
5.5B
11. 2B
0.53B
U
741(X/
6.7B
^1606=1
U
1050B
^n'o^V?-
7.9B
968
BEJ
2520
BE^
U
4.2B
25.0
FB-1
Field
Blank
Bailer
U
U
U
0.40B
U 1]
14.6B II
U
18.1B
U
U
u
U
u
110BEJ
U
U
U
* Guidance Value
** If both parameters are present, the total of both concentrations may not exceed 500 ug/l.
*** Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
TT Treatment Technique (Action Level for Copper Is 1300 ug/l. lead is 15 ug/l).
Rz Rejected by data validation process due to the difference between levels in the filtered samples compared to the levels In the unfiltered
samples.
U The analyte was not detected at the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL).
B Reported value Is less than the Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL), but greater than the IDL.
J Indicated an estimated value.
E Reported value is estimated because of the presence of Interference.
-------
TABLE 4
DETECTED VOLATILE AND SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
DECEMBER 21,1992
KENMARK TEXTILES SITE - FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK
[All values in micrograms per liter - ug/l]
PARAMETER
STANDARDS
FEDERAL 40
CFR 141 &
143 MCLS
STATE
6NYCRR PARTS
700 TO 705
10 NYCRR
Sub
Part 5-1
OROUNDWATER SAMPLES
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
SW^»
SW-6
DW-6
SW-9
VOCS
Acetone
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroelhane
Tetrachloroelhene
TOTAL
.
-
200
5
-
50*
5
5
S
.
50*
-
-
-
-
UR,
U
u
U
u
ua,
u
u
u
u
URj
2
3
U
5
UR,
U
U
u
u
UK,
U
U
U
U
ua,
V
U
U
U
UR,
U
2
3
5
UPORADIENT
SW-5
SW-7
SW-8
QUALITY ASSURANCE/
QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES
SW-10
• DUP OF
SW-<5
FB-1
BAILER
TB-1
TRIP
BLANK
UR,
U
U
U
U
UR,
U
U
U
U
UR,
U
U
U
U
UR,
U
U
U
U
13
U
U
U
13
8
U
U
U
8
VOCs TICs
Untnown
Tolal VOCs TICs
Total VOCs
.
.
.
-
.
-
50*
u
u
u
u
u
u
U
U
5
u
u
u
U
U
U
U
u
u
U
U
5
SVOCS
Naphthalene
Dibenzofuran
bii(2-Elhylhexyl)phthalale
TOTAL
.
.
6
.
10"
50*
50
.
.
50*
50*
-
u
u
10U
u
u
u
row
u
U
U
3W
U
2J
U
10U
2J
U
2J
14U
2J
u
u
4J
U
U
U
10U
u
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
13
U
U
8
2J
U
2J
V
U
lOJ
5J
10J
U
u
4J
U
U
U
10U
U
U
U
29
29
NT
NT
NT
NT
SVOCTIC
Unknown
Unknown Hydrocarbon
Unknown Acid
Unknown Alcohol
Unknown Alcohol MWT 170
Unknown MWT 227
Unknown MWT 171
Hexanoic Acid
Tetramelhylbulyl-pheno Isomer
Nonyl phenol Isomer
Xanlhone (ACN)
2-Pentanone, 4-hydroxy-4-mel
Tolal SVOCs TICs
Tolal SVOCs
Tolal VOCs and SVOCs
.
-
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ,
.
-
-
-
-
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
.
-
100
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
50*
SO*
50*
50*
50*
SO*
100
4J
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
4J
4J
4
u
u
20J
U
U
U
U
u
20;
48J
U
U
88J
88
88
2J
U
10J
U
U
U
U
3JN
U
U
U
U
15JN
15
20
U
U
3J
U
U
U
u
2JN
U
U
U
U
5JN
7
7
III
U
27J
U
U
U
U
U
11J
20J
U
U
69J
71
71
4J
U
U
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
4J
8
8
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
5
30J
U
2J
3J
U
I2J
2J
20JN
U
U
U
U
69JN
73
73
37J
U
U
28J
SJ
U
U
U
U
U
6JN
U
76JN
91
91
11J
U
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
tu
15
15
u
u
13J
U
U
U
u
u
I2J
20
U
U
45J
45
45
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2JNA
2JNA
31
44
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
-
* Unspecified Organic Contaminants (UOCs)
** Guidance Value (1.1.1 TOGS Part 702)
R Re|ected by the data validation process due to the presence of the analyte in the field blank.
U The compound was not detected at the Instrument Detection Limit (IDL).
J Indicates an estimated value.
N Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound (tentatively identified compound).
A Indicates that a tentatively identified compound is a suspected aldol-condensatlon product.
-------
TABLE 5
1988 ANALYTICAL SOIL DATA
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
-. -. '' ""
- -V;AmLYFE * -
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Hexavalent Chromium
,„ SITE-SOIL' f\ /, ;
- ESS?'
NT
11.3U-15
1.4U-220
NT
0.42-0.75
0.5U-6.7
NT
3.2-252
NT
1.5-790
70*
0.8-890
NT
NT
0.1U-7.0
0.7U-940
NT
0.6U-0.8U**
0.3U-8.1
NT
0.15U-0.6U"
NT
3.5-860
NT
l.OU-l.OU
- (mgfeg)
NT
7.1
7.6
NT
0.59
0.69
NT
27.6
NT
71.4
70
91.7
NT
NT
0.23
26
NT
0.35U
0.92
NT
0.19U
' NT
124.7
NT
0.5U
. BACKGROUND SOIL3 ,
^ -RAJJGE', '
926-2,450
2.6U-2.7U
1.4U-40.0
4.1-10
0.1U-0.1U
0.6U-0.91
204-1^10
2.2-26.1
0.85-2.1
2.3-6.6
2,010-3,440
1.1-59.1
192-930
27.1-55
0.11U-0.24
2.0-10.7
100-324
0.16U-0.17U
1.4U-0.28
39.5-48.1
0.17U-0.18U
4.0-8.4
9.2-39.3
1.1U-1.1U
1.1U-1.1U
AVERAGE
1,688
U
10.4
7.1
U
0.65
757
9.6
1.5
. 4.3
2,725
21.6
561
41.1
0.1
5.3
212
U
0.54
43.8
U
5.2
24.1
U
U
crc!47\soildat2
NT
*
**
U
From RI/FS Work Plan for Kenmark Textiles, January, 1992.
The number used for non-detects in the averaging process was one-half the Contract Required
Quantification Limit (CRQL).
Background soil samples includes 1988 and 1992 background soil data.
Not Tested
Only tested in samples TB2 16'-18' and HB-3 0"-6"
Only tested in samples TB2 16'-18'
Undetected.
-------
TABLE 6
1988 ANALYTICAL SOIL DATA1
ORGANIC COMPOUND
NA
*
mg/kg
TAGM
; s
-""', ! ' \5
COMPOUND , -
v ' '^STTESOli; „ " 3
5 ; ' '/ ",-.-, -i >;•.>* .. , '•. »
:;;;. 'fcANGE1 ;/
<- '^;'{mg/JtgH ; -
' 'AVERAGE ,';
-,,
-------
TABLE 7
1992 ANALYTICAL SOIL DATA1
INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
- ' - ' V -, " ,- '
' ; ANALYTE : ' *
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Hexavalent Chromium
- ' sriEsbiL * '" * *"
- RANGE 'i '
, tpg/NK : -
480-19,400
2.5U-5.2
0.37U-5.9
3.6-1,360
0.04U-3.5
0.35U-6.7
69.3-228,000
1.0-197
0.63U-9.2
2.3-990
448-18,700
0.84-495
82.2-11,900
4.2-266
0.09U-0.44
1.1-36.0
89.9-786
0.07-0.44
0.23-9.7
17.7-597
0.09U-0.19
3.7U-320
3.7-669
l.OU-1.3
0.5U-1.3U
AVERAGE*,
(rag/kg) ,
3,490
1.6
1.9
85.4
0.31
2.0
11,800
16.2
2.6
81.4
6,940
60.6
1,470
76.3
0.09
8.60
239
0.15
1.1
75.5
0.08
28.7
178.3
0.62
U
BACKGROUND SOIL3
" /RANGE' ^ *
' (mg/kg)> V
926-2,450
2.6U-2.7U
1.4U-40
4.1-10
0.1U-0.1U
0.6U-0.91
204-1,310
2.2-26.1
0.85-2.1
2.3-6.6
2,010-3,440
1.1-59.1
192-930
27.1-55
0.11U-0.24
2.0-10.7
100-324
0.16U-0.17U
1.4U-0.28
39.5-48.1
0.17U-0.18U
4.0U-8.4
9.2-39.3
1.1U-1.1U
1.1U-1.1U
AVERAGE
;(mg/kg)
1,688
U
10.4
7.1
U
0.65
757
9.6
1.5
4.3
2,725
21.6
561
41.1
0.1
5.3
212
U
0.54
43.8
U
5.2
24.1
U
U
ac!47\»ildat2
1
2
3
U
From "Preliminary Remedial Investigation Report," December, 1993.
The number used for non-detects in the averaging process was one-half the Contract Required
Quantification Limit (CRQL).
Background soil range and average includes 1988 and 1992 background soil data.
Undetected.
-------
TABLES
1992 ANALYTICAL SOIL DATA1 ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
•
* :
; ~ COMPOUND
VoIatQe Organic Compounds (VOCs)
Acetone
Methylene Chloride
Xylene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
2-Buluuone
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Carbone Disulfide
1,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
4-Melhyl 2-Pentanone
Tentatively Identified SVOCs
Cyclotetrasloxane, Octameth
Unknown
Unknown Aromatic
Unknown Hydrocarbon
Benzene, Propyl
Propane, l-CWoro-2,Methyl
Ethylmethyl benzene (Isomer)
Decahydronaphthalene (Isomer)
Cyclo hexane, 1,3-Dimethyl
Unknown Decane
Total VOCs
Seml-VolatDe Organic Compounds (SVOCs
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Tentatively Identified SVOCs
Unknown
Unknown Hydrocarbon
Unknown Cyclic CPD
Benzene, Propyl
Ethylmethylbenzene (Isomer)
Phenol, 4-(l,l,3,3-tetrameth)
Phenol, 2-(phenylmethyl)
2-Nonylphenol
Sulfur
Unknown Phthalate
Binaphthyl Sulphone
Trimethylbenzene (Isomer)
Benzene l-l'-(l-2 cyclobuta)
Tetramethylbutylphenol (Isomer)
Total SVOCs
, 5 " ,Sir!E;S(
" RANGE , ' '.\
- ' <. NYSDEC
'"<"- TAGM-'
-" ; '{ogftgl V ' s -
200
100
UOO
1^00
5^00
300
800
1,400
2,700
300
700
1,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
500,000
1 From "Preliminary Remedial Investigation Report,* December, 1993
ug/kg Micrograras per Kilogram
TAGM NYSDEC Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum HWR-92-4046, Determination of Sofl Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels
Cleanup objectives not established by NYSDEC for this compound.
2 The number used for non detects was one-half the Contract Required Quantification Limit (CRQL). cai47
-------
TABLE 9 KENMARK TEXTILES SITE: CONTAMINANTS OF. CONCERN
Volatile*
1,1 Dichloroethane
1,1.1 Trichloroethane
2-Butanone
Acetone
Acrolein
1 Carbon Disulfide
Ethylbenzene
Meihylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xylenes (Total)
BNAs
!Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Butylbenzylphthalate
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-octylphthalate
Fluofanthene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Ground Water (a)
"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Surface
Soils
i
X
X
X
X
X
Leaching Pit
Surface Soils
X
X
Surface and
Subsurface Soils (b)
'
-
X I
X
X
X
X I
X 1
X -
X i
X I
X 1
X
X 1
1
Xn
II
•
x 1
XI
J
x 1
-------
TABLE '9 . (CONTINUED)
Pesticides/PCBs
1 Aroclor-1254
Endosulfan I
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Inorganics
Aluminum
Antimony
1 Arsenic
1 Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium '
Cobalt
Copper
1 Iron
I Lead
1 Manganese
1 Mercury
Nickel .
Selenium
Silver
1 Thallium
I Vanadium
1 Zinc
Ground Water (a)
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"
X
X
X
Surface
Soils
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Leaching Pit
Surface Soils
X
X
X
X
'• x V: '•
X
X
X
X
.-
X
X
X
X
Surface and
Subsurface Soils (b)
X
Xll
X I
x 1
X
X
x
X
X
x .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
a. This grouping represents data collected during 1992 sampling rounds-see Section 4.2.5.1 for discussion.
b. This grouping also includes all surface and subsurface soils from the leaching pools and the leaching pit but does not
include samples SB-15 and SB-20.
-------
j TAMLE 10. KENMARK TEXTILES PRINTING SITR: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
* " TIMK-I'UAMK IMHiltKK <>K
1 . KVAI.IIATMI) ASSKSSMKNT
1 Pnlliwny ' • Receptor I'resrnl ftilure Qtinnl. Qtml. Itnllnnnlc for SHrcllmi op Exclusion
Dnln Cniuplnp.
1 ::(>«iuml Water •• ' ' % , * ^ •• ' f '
jj IngcMinii nf dnniiiil Wain Kc.tidenl Nn Yes X Although area is serviced by. imhlic water
supply, private supply wells nnd public well
Hmplnyee NII Yes X fields exist within a 1 mile radius of (lie site.
ltr.tidcnti.il areas nrr located nrnr the site.
ji . • • Current exposure is not known to exist.
Hx|xisurc tci future employees expelled In be
. less significant than exposure In future site
residents.
IVrnuil Cnnlai:! willi (iroiiml Water Kesidenl No Yes X Allluntgh area is serviced by public w.iler
supply, private supply wells nnd public well
II l'uiptf>yec No Yes X fields exist within n 1 mile radius of the site.
Itcsidcntinl areas arc located near the site.
1 Current exposure is not known lo exist.
Rxpcunre lo future employees is expected lo
II Ix: less significant than exposure lo future
site residents.
Inhalation "f (iniiind Water ' jtesidcnt No Yes X Although arcn is serviced by public water
Ir ('iininiiiinaim , . supply, private supply wells nnd public well
|-niployec No- No • fields exist within a one-mile radius of Ihe
• site. Iteside.nlial area's are localeil nenr Ihe
II . .site. Current exposure is not known In exist.
All l')°2 prirtinil water
data. (Hue lo mobility of
pruunil water conlaiuinants
I'IKX data mny not leflect
current site conditions and
is not evaluated
quantitatively.) '
All in')2 f round water
data. (Due lo mobility of
ground water contaminants
I'lXK data may not reflect
current site conditions and
is not evaluated
i|iiantilalively.)
All I'lOl ground water
data. (Dur In nmhilily of
ground water contaminants
IOKR data may not reflect
cuirciit site condition*: anil
is not cvnlualed
<|iinnliialively.)
lidialalion of Cmiiaiuiiuuis ih.it Itcsident No Yes X lixposure through Ihis pathway is expected
1 Vnlalili7e from (iround Water and Seep . to be minimal compared to other pathways.
iuli) llasemcnl.s Depth In ground water at the site is 25 feet
and lielow Ihe depth of most subgrnilo
• . building slniclures (i.e., basements).
-------
TABLf- 10 (CONTINUED)
TIMK-FHAMK DKCUICK OK
KVAMJATKii ASSKSSMKNT
l>:illi\vnv Ueeepliir I'resenl Kulurc Quniil. Qiinl. Itnllniinlp for Self rllmi or l.xclmlon
llnln Crimping
.Smlai-c. Soils '" " ' ' ' :;V:: . '' ? - '
In,:i,l,-Mlnl Ingeiiioii nf Surface Soils I'mploycc Yes NA X Silc is active lacilily. limployees may be
exposed dining routine mainicnancr
activities.
Maintenance Win kei Yes NA •. X Maintenance workers may be exposed during
Icarliing pit.
Resident No Yes X l:uliirc site development may occur.
Dermal Conlacl with Surface Soils* Kmploycc Yes NA . x Silc is active facility, p.mplnyees may Ix-
' • cxposctlllttring routine mainlenanre
activities.
Maintcnnncc Worker Yes . NA X Mainlenance workers may Iw exposed dining
occasional maintenance activities in (he
lunching pit.
Resident No Yes X pulure site development may occur.
Inhhlalioniif I'aitinilales from Surface l-mploycc ' . Yes NA X Wind erosion mny result in suspension of
Soils (d.-tseoiis I'liiissions from .- . conlaminated surface soil parliculales.
Sulisiirfaci! Soils) '.' Certain organic compounds may volatilize
and migrate from subsurface to surface air.
Maintenance Worker No No ' (.caching pool soils arc not at surface and
not subject to wind erosion.
Not expected under future conditions due In
Resident No No • landscaping and pavement.
All smlace soil m'-l")
saniplrt (cscrpl leaching
pit anil leaching pools)
l.rachiup pit siiifacr soil
«>'-2'l samples.
All surface soil (0'-2>)
samples (except leaching
pil anil leaching pixds).
All smfacc soil (0'-2')
samples (except leaching
pit and leaching pools).
Leaching pit surface soil
«)'-2') samples.
All surface soil (Q'-V)
samples (except leaching
pit and leaching pools).
For participate emissions -
all siiilaee soil (II" . A")
samples (except leaching
pit and leaching pools).
I'ot volatile emissions - all
subsurface soil samples.
-------
TABLE ..10 (CONTINUED)
TIME-FRAME DEOHEE OF
EVALUATED ASSESSMENT
Pathway Rcccptnr
•}f (iVr«t« •licj :8iiliMirfiu,< Soils
Incidental Inpcstinn of Surface anil Excavation Worker
SuluiirFuce Soils
Dermal Contact with .Surface «ml Hxcavnlinn Worker
Subsurface Soils*
Inhalation nf VOC (-missions ami l!xcnvation Worker
Paniculate* from Surface tml
Subsurface Soils
I'rcscnl Failure Qiiunt. Qnnl. Ttullnnnle for Selection or Exclusion
> < < , /
No Yes -X Rjposiire In surface ami .inlisiirfacc joil* mny
occur during exovniinm for fuliirc site
development.
No ' Yes X ' r.xposiirc In surface nnd 5>ilisiirfacc soils' mny
occur during cxcavalinat for future lite
development.
No Yes • X Hxpccled to Iw insignificiint compared to
other exposures. Average concentration of
detected volatile organic* dues nol exceed
•263 ppl). Hucavation activity is usually of
short duration and, as a result, not expected
to generate significant quantities of rospiralili-
paniculate matter. Pathway will l«
evaluated qualitatively.
D:i(n GrniiplnR
" > i
•All surface anil' subsurface
soils (including leaching
pit and leaching pool
.samples).
All siirfnce anil sulisiirfa.iv
soils (including leaching
pit and leaching pool
samples).
"Cadmium, PCHs, HIK! illoxin only (if prcsciu).
NA: Not Appliciihle (Fiiltire site comlilinns sire assumed lo lie iilcnlicitl lo currcnl silc cnndilions).
-------
TABLE 11. TOX1CITY VALUES FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT THE
KENMARK TEXTILES SITE.
CHEMICAL
Volatile,
Acetone
Acrolcin
2-Buunone (MEK)
Carbon disulfidc
1.1-Dichloroctnane
Etbylbcnzeoe
Methylene cblorid:
Tcirachloroeihylcne
Toluene
1.1.1-Trichlorocthane
Trichlorocihylenf
Xylcnes
BNAS
Bcnzylburylphthalatt:
Bis{2-etbylbexyl iph ti R.'U lot !.v\i
L HupiKX R!U u Ire vwr. R-'Dlot l«« a I-£-l
L Vjiue u (or rocul refinery oust' NKiel lUDsuliioe has an mhajaooa ilopt (xtonn [Rts of 1.7QE-0
m Vajue ttfor ra^kri.solaM* ula
a. Ftccn MO. H\ UTOR;
«> Vaiue is fof heu\^lentctiromiuni
p Value u *-eifrii«
-------
TABLE 12 SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES FOR TOE
. KENMARK TEXTILES SITE
Scenario
Receptor
Present/Future
Total Risk
Ground Water
Ingestion Resident
Dermal Contact Resident
Inhalation .- Resident
Surface Soil
Ingestion Employee
Inhalation - Pardculates Employee
Inhalation - VOCs** Employee
Inaestion Resident
Leaching Pit Surface Soil
Ingestion Maintenance Worker
All Surface and Subsurface Soils
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Excavation Worker
Excavation Worker
F
F
F
P
P
P
F
F
. 1 x
4xicr5
8 x 1(T9
Total 1 x 10-*
- 8x 10*
3 x 1Q-7
5 x IP'10
Total 8 x 10"6
7 x 10'5
1 x lO'8
2 x 10'7
1 x 10'9(>)
Total 2 x 10 -7
•-Source of VOCs is subsurface soils
'"Risk for Aioclor-1254 only
-------
TABLE 13 . SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES FOR THE
KENMARK TEXTILES SITE
Scenario
Ground Water
Ingestion .
Dermal Contact
Inhalation
Surface Soil
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation - Particulates
Inhalation - Volatiles**
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Leaching Pit Surface Soils
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Receptor
Resident
Resident
Resident
Employee
Employee
Employee
Employee
Resident (adult)
Resident (adult)
Resident (child)
Resident (child)
Maintenance Worker
Maintenance Worker
Present/Future
F
F .
F
P
P
P
P
F •
F
F
F
P
P
Chronic HI
6 x 10°
. 1 x 10" (c)
• 2 x l
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
THE KENMARK TEXTILES SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.3 Work Plans
P. 300001- Report: Health and Safety Plan for Site
300100 Activities Related to the Kenmark Textiles Site
RI/FS. prepared for SJ&J Service Stations,
prepared by Fanning, Phillips & Molnar, July,
1992.
P. 300101- Report: Sampling and Analysis Plan Including the
300233 Field Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project
Plan for The Kenmark Textiles Site. Farmingdale.
New York, prepared for SJ&J Service Stations,
Inc., prepared by Fanning, Phillips & Molnar,
July, 1992.
P. 300234- Report: RI/FS Work Plan for the Kenmark Textile
300386 Site in Famdnqdale. New York, prepared for SJ&J
Service Stations. Inc.. prepared by Fanning,
Phillips & Molnar, January, 1992.
P. 300387- Report: RI/FS Work Plan for the Kenmark Textile
300653 Site in Farminqdale. New York. Appendices.
prepared for SJ&J Service Stations. Inc.. prepared
by Fanning, Phillips & Molnar, January, 1992.
P. 300654- Report: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
300869 Sampling Plan, prepared for SJ&J Service Stations.
Inc.. prepared by Fanning, Phillips & Molnar, May,
1988.
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 300870- Report: Preliminary Remedial Investigation Report
301041 for The Kenmark Textiles Site. Farminadale. New
York, prepared for SJ&J Service Stations. Inc..
prepared by Fanning, Phillips & Molnar, December,
1993.
P. 301042- Report: Preliminary Remedial Investigation for
. 301573 The Kenmark Textiles Site. Farminadale, New York,
Appendices A-I. prepared for SJ&J Service
Stations, Inc., prepared by Fanning, Phillips &
Molnar, December, 1993.
-------
P. 301574- Report: Preliminary Remedial Investigation for
301859 The Kenmark Textiles Site. Farminqdale. New York.
-Appendices J-L. prepared for SJ&J Service
Stations, Inc., prepared by Fanning, Phillips &
Molnar, December, 1993.
P. 301860- Report: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
301978 Phase I Sampling Report. Results. Conclusions, and
Recommendations, prepared for SJ&J Service
Stations, Inc.. prepared by Fanning, Phillips &
Molnar, June, 1990.
3.5 Correspondence
p. 301979- Letter to Ms. Sharon Trocher, Remedial Project
301983 Manager, Eastern New York/Caribbean Section I,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, from Mr.
Thomas P. Doriski, C.P.G., Senior Geohydrologist
and Mr. Peter Dermody, Department Manager,
Geohydrologist, Fanning, Phillips & Molnar,
Engineers and Geohydrologists, re: USEPA
Administrative Order on Consent RI/FS Index No.:
II CERCLA- 10204 Remedial Investigation Report,
January 24, 1994. Attachment: Tables of Detected
Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds in
Groundwater Samples.
p. 301984- Memo to Kenmark Textiles Superfund Site Files,
301984 from Sharon Trocher, Remedial Project Manager,
Eastern New York/Caribbean Section I, re:
Correction to June 1990 RI/FS Phase I Sampling
Report and the January 1992 RI/FS Work Plan-
Kenmark Textiles Superfund Site, East Farmingdale,
New York, January 21, 1994.
P. 301985- Letter to Ms. Sharon Trocher, New York/Caribbean
302003 Superfund Branch I, Emergency and Remedial
Response Division, United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), from Mr. Peter Dermody,
Hydrogeologist, Fanning, Phillips & Molnar, re:
Changes to the data for the RI/FS Work Plan for
the Kenmark Textiles Printing Corporation Site,
December 17, 1991. Attachment: Data Analysis
Sheets.
P. 302004- Minutes of Conference Call with USEPA, NYSDEC,
302006 H2M, and Fanning, Phillips & Molnar, re: Data
Validation and Usability of the Data which was
presented in the Phase I Remedial Investigation
Report, June 18, 1991.
-------
P. 302007- Memorandum to Mr. John Greco, Bureau of Eastern
302017 Remedial Action, from Mr. George Momberger, Bureau
of Hazardous Site Control, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, re:
Review of the data validation report containing
data from May, 1988 through July, 1988, May l,
1991.
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.3 Administrative Orders
P. 700001- Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial
700044 Investigation/Feasibility Study, In The Matter Of:
The Kenmark Textiles Printing Corporation Site,
Index No. II CERCLA-10204, July 31, 1991.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.6 Fact Sheets and Press Releases
P. 1000001- Fact Sheet #1, Kenmark Textile Site, East
1000005 Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York, July, 1992.
10.9 Proposed Plan
p. 1000006- Report: Superfund Proposed Plan. Kenmark Textiles
1000012 Printing Corporation Superfund Site. East
Farminqdale. Town of Babylon. Suffolk County. New
York, prepared by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, February, 1994.
10.10 Correspondence
p. 1000013- Letter to Mr. George Pavlou, Acting Director,
1000013 Emergency and Remedial Response Division, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region II,
from Mr. Michael J. o'Toole, Jr., Director,
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation,
re: Kenmark Textiles a.k.a. S.J.&J Service
Stations ID No. 152032- Proposed Plan, February 4,
1994.
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
MftR-30-1994 14•04 FROM NYS.EMUIR.CUNbti* 'HI 1UN
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12233
30 I994 tangdon Marsh
Acting Commissioner
Ms. Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Re: SJ.& J. Service Stations a.k.a. Kenmark Textiles
ID No. 152032
Dear Ms. Fox:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the
draft final Record of Decision (ROD) which was sent on March 17, 1994 from your office.
We concur with the remedy outlined in the Declaration For The ROD. .
If you have any questions, please contact Jonathan Greco, of my staff, at (518)
457-3976.
Sincerely,
Ann Hill DeBarbiert
Deputy Commissioner
Office of Environmental Remediation
A. Carlson, NYSDOH
TOTflL P.01
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
KENMARK TEXTILES PRINTING CORPORATION SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FARMIN6DALE, TOWN OF BABYLON, NEW YORK
Introduction
This Responsiveness Summary, in accordance with 40 CFR Part
300.430(f)(3), provides (1) a summary of citizens' comments and
concerns on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Proposed Plan for the Kenmark Textiles Printing Corporation
Superfund Site (Site) which were received during the public
comment period for the Proposed Plan, and (2) EPA's responses to
those comments and concerns. All comments and concerns summa-
rized in this document have been considered in EPA's selection of
the "No Action" remedy for the Site.
Summary of Community Relations Activities
The first phase of the Remedial Investigation (RI) for the Site
began in 1987 under the supervision of the NYSDEC and was com-
pleted in June 1990. The RI was continued in August 1991 under
the supervision of EPA and was completed in December 1993.
The RI and Risk Assessment reports and the Proposed Plan for the
Site were released for public review and comment on February 11,
1994. These documents were made available to the public at the
East Farmingdale Fire House, 930 Conklin Street, East Farming-
dale, New York, and EPA's Superfund Records Center, 26 Federal
Plaza, New York, New York. A public meeting was held at the East
Farmingdale Fire House on February 28, 1994 to present the
results of the RI, Risk Assessment and the Proposed Plan for
remediation of the Site. A period for public review and comment
on these documents was held from February 11, 1994 to March 12,
1994.
Public notices appeared in Newsdav and in the Farminadale
Observer on February 18, 1994. These notices announced the
availability of the Proposed Plan and RI and Risk Assessment
reports at the information repositories, provided a summary of
the Proposed Plan, and identified the dates for the public
meeting and the public comment period.
Attached to the Responsiveness Summary are the following
Appendices:
Appendix A - Proposed Plan,
Kenmark Textiles Printing Corporation
East Farmingdale, Town of Babylon
Suffolk County, New York
Appendix B - Public Notice
Appendix C - February 28, 1994 Public Meeting
Attendance Sheet
Appendix D - Written Comments Received during the
Public Comment Period
-------
Summary of Comments and Responses
The following is a summary of EPA's responses to significant
comments and questions raised at the public meeting and written
comments and questions received during the public comment period.
COMMENT #1: EPA should consider the cumulative impact to ground-
water by the various Superfund sites that exist in the area of
the Site.
RESPONSE: Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), EPA is authorized to
investigate individual sites listed on the National Priorities
List (NPL) to determine if remedial actions should be undertaken
at these sites. In the event that several CERCLA sites in an
area have plumes of groundwater contamination which have
comingled, EPA, if appropriate, can consider a single comprehen-
sive groundwater remedy. .As part of its remedial investigation,
EPA conducts a risk assessment for each NPL site to determine if
an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment exists
which would require remedial action. In conducting risk assess-
ments at sites with contaminated groundwater, EPA does consider,
in effect, the cumulative impact of contamination from site-
related and nearby, nonsite-related sources.
COMMENT #2: At the public meeting, a citizen suggested that the
groundwater flow direction is south-southeast in the vicinity of
the Site. A written comment submitted by another citizen sug-
gested that the groundwater flow direction is southeast in the
vicinity of the Site. Both citizens questioned why monitoring
wells were not located southeast of the leaching pit at the Site.
RESPONSE:. During the course of the EPA-ordered RI, the ground-
water flow direction across the Site was determined six times
over a period of a year, and the direction was consistently found
to be towards the south. A March 1992 Regional Water Table
Contour Map obtained from the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services also depicts the horizontal groundwater flow direction
in the area of the Site as generally to the south. Two shallow
wells and one deep well were placed directly south (downgradient)
of the leaching pit. These wells would have intercepted contami-
nants migrating from the leaching pit.
Additionally, it should be noted that significant levels of
contamination were not detected in soil samples collected from
the leaching pit or from any other area of the Site. The levels
of contamination detected in the soil at the Site conform with
the low levels of contamination detected in the groundwater.
-------
COMMENT #3: We question the adequacy and ability of the monitor-
ing wells to obtain sufficient information on contaminants that
may have leached into the ground during various intervals over
the past 75 years. In fact, where did the contaminants go that
were measured in wastewater discharge sampling done between 1974
and 1984?
RESPONSE: EPA acknowledges that the samples collected from the
monitoring wells as part of the RI would not reflect the full
extent of contamination that may have been present in groundwater
at the Site in past years. The RI monitoring well data provided
a characterization of the quality of the groundwater at the time
of the sampling. As stated below, a certain amount of the
contamination would have attenuated over time.
The average horizontal groundwater flow velocity was calculated
to be 2.4 feet per day at the Site. At this rate, if a ground-
water plume migrated from the Site in the past 10 to 20 years, it
could have migrated an estimated 1.5 to 3 miles away from the
Site, and towards the Atlantic Ocean, at the time the monitoring
well samples were taken. In addition, it is noted that as a
contaminant plume moves away from a site, the contaminant levels
in the plume would decline due to attenuation.
Although additional investigatory work farther downgradient of
the Site could be conducted, it is EPA's belief that the informa-
tion obtained from such an effort would not be conclusive. If
additional sampling were conducted and contamination were found,
it would be difficult to demonstrate that this contamination was
due to hazardous substances originating from the Site. It is
likely that other low levels of contamination would be found
downgradient of the Site that are due to non-Site-related
sources. The fact that contaminants were found in upgradient
wells at low levels supports this notion that there are likely to
be low levels of contamination in the groundwater in the area of
the Site.
COMMENT #4: Given the length of time that has elapsed since
hazardous substances were released at the Site, as well as the
level of precipitation and the rate of groundwater percolation in
the area of the Site, is it possible that the contaminants could
have seeped below ninety feet into the ground, which is the
approximate depth of the deepest well at the Site? Groundwater
samples should be collected at depths greater than ninety feet in
order to detect groundwater contamination which may have perco-
lated to deeper portions of the aquifer.
RESPONSE: The average annual rainfall in the Site area is
approximately 46 inches, of which approximately 24 inches per
year recharge the aquifer. The rest is lost to runoff, evapora-
tion, and transpiration. Any water that does reach the ground-
-------
water will generally move laterally, as the Site is in an area of
the aquifer which is dominated by horizontal flow (approximately
2.4 feet per day). Although the flow beneath the Site is primar-
ily horizontal, some chemicals, if present, can move downward as
they move horizontally. To determine if this was occurring at
the Site, three wells were installed downgradient of the leaching
pit: two shallow wells at depths of about 35 feet and one deep
well at a depth of 81 feet. Contamination migrating from the
leaching pit would have passed through either the two shallow
wells or the deep well. In general, the contaminants detected in
the groundwater collected from these wells were at levels below
the drinking-water standards established for protection of human
health. If the leaching pit or surrounding soils were continuing
to act as a source of contamination, the concentration of contam-
inants in the groundwater would be expected to be higher in the
two shallow and the one deep monitoring wells. A resampling of
these wells confirmed the results of the first round of ground-
water data. As a result, EPA believes that an adequate investi-
gation of the groundwater contamination was conducted and no
further investigatory work is required.
COMMENT #5: Wasn't the money spent conducting the RI wasted,
since no remedial action will be taken at the Site?
RESPONSE: Not at all. On several occasions during the 1970s and
1980s, both NYSDEC and the Suffolk County Department of Health
identified a number of releases of hazardous substances at the
Site, which resulted in the Site's inclusion on the NPL. Given
those documented releases, the RI was consistent with EPA's
authority under CERCLA to investigate the extent, nature and
source of a release of hazardous substances. By requiring SJ&J
to perform the RI, EPA thus was acting in accordance with its
authority under CERCLA. Without information obtained during the
RI, EPA would not be able to decide what, if any, remedial action
was warranted at the Site. Based on the RI data, EPA concluded
that no remedial activities are necessary at the Site.
COMMENT #6: What is done to prevent cross-contamination (i.e..
the transfer of contamination from one monitoring well to anoth-
er) by groundwater during sampling?
RESPONSE: A Sampling and Analysis Plan which included a Quality
Assurance Project Plan was reviewed and approved by EPA prior to
conducting the 1992 field work. These plans specified the
sampling procedures that were used to ensure that reliable soil
and groundwater samples were collected. A 1-1/2 inch diameter by
2 foot long device, known as a bailer, was used to collect
groundwater samples from each of the monitoring wells at the
Site. A polypropylene line was attached to the bailer and was
used to lower and raise the bailer into and out of the wells.
-------
The polypropylene line was dedicated to individual wells (i.e.,
each well had its own line). After a groundwater sample was
collected, the bailer was decontaminated prior to sampling
another well. The decontamination procedure consisted of clean-
ing the bailer with a low-phosphate detergent and potable water,
then rinsing it with potable water, and then deionized water.
-------
APPENDIX A
Superfund Proposed Plan
KENMARK TEXTILES PRINTING CORPORATION SUPERFUND SITE
East Farmingdale
Town of Babylon
Suffolk County, New York
EPA Region 2
February 1994
NYSDEC
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan identifies a preferred no action
remedy for the Kenmark Textiles Printing Corporation
(Kenmark) Superfund site (the Site). The Proposed Plan
was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), as the lead agency, with support from the
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC). EPA is issuing the Proposed
Plan as part of its public participation responsibilities
under Section 117(a) of the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, and Section 300.430(f)
of the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
This Proposed Plan is being provided as a supplement to
the Remedial Investigation (Rl) report to inform the public
of EPA's and DEC'S preferred no action remedy and to
solicit public comments on this action.
The no action remedy as described in the Proposed Plan
is the preferred remedy for the Site. Changes to the
preferred remedy or a change from the preferred remedy
to another remedy may be made, if public comments or
additional data indicate that such a change will result in a
more appropriate remedial action. The final decision
regarding the selected remedy will be made after EPA
has taker) into consideration all public comments.
Therefore, we are encouraging public comment on this
Proposed Plan and the Rl report.
Copies of the Rl report, Proposed Plan, Risk Assessment
and supporting documentation are available at the
following repositories:
East Farmingdale Fire House
930 Conklin Street
East Farmingdale, New York 11735
Telephone: (516) 249-0474
Hours: 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. (M-F)
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
February 11,1994 to March 12,1994
Public comment period on Rl report,
Proposed Plan and remedy considered.
February 28,1994
Public meeting to be held at 7:00 PM at the
East Farmingdale Fire House
930 Conklin Street •
East Farmingdale, New York
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Superfund Records Center
26 Federal Plaza, Room 2900
New York, N.Y. 10278
Telephone: (212) 264-8770
Hours: 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (M-F)
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA and NYSDEC rely on public input to ensure that the
concerns of the community are considered in selecting
an effective remedy for each Superfund site. To this end,
the Rl report has been made available to the public for a
30-day public comment period, which begins on
February 11,1994 and concludes on March 12, 1994.
Pursuant to Section 117(a) of CERCLA, a public meeting
will be held during the public comment period on
Monday, February 28, 1994 at 7:00 PM to present the
conclusions of the Rl report, to further elaborate on the
reasons for recommending the no action remedy, and to
receive public comments.
-------
i F C, F N D
OENOTCS CSOUI1D WATCH MONnCKHO WOL
Q ' DENOTES ARE* OF CONCERN
OU> It SNOBS llttHWe/OO. leCHJON
' (Diameter of each LP
is 8 feet)
FIGURE 1 - KENMARK SITE MAP
All written comments should be addressed to:
Sharon L Trocher
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 29-100
New York, New York 10278
Telephone: (212) 264-8476
Written and oral comments will be documented in the
Responsiveness Summary Section of the Record of
Decision (ROD), the document which formalizes the
selection of the remedy.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
This is the first and only planned operable unit for the
Site. The primary objective of this operable unit is to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the
Site and to take measures, as appropriate, to ensure the
protection of human health and the environment.
SITE BACKGROUND
The Site, now occupied by the Susquehanna Textile
Company, is located in a light industrial area at 921
Conklin Street in East Farmingdale, New York. The areas
north and east of the Site are also characterized by light
industry. Residential developments are located to the
south and west, with an estimated 6,200 residents living
within one mile of the Site. With the exception of a
parkland and an undeveloped area adjacent to the
parkland, both located upgradient of the Site, the area
within one mile of the Site obtains drinking water from
public water supplies. Three public supply wellfields are
located within 0.5 to 1.0 mile of the Site. Two of the
wellfields are located upgradient of the Site, and the third
wellfield is located cross-gradient The closest
downgradient public supply wellfield is located about 1.5
miles from the Site.
Since at least 1917, the Site has been the location of
several successive silk and textile dye, printing and
screening operations. Process wastewater generated at
the Site was chemically treated, resulting in the
precipitation of solids from the wastewater. At least as
early as 1972, the sludge from the wastewater was
distributed to outdoor concrete-lined beds for settling and
drying. The sludge was periodically removed from the
sludge drying beds and placed in drums. The* resulting
wastewater (supernatant) was discharged to a leaching
pit located on-site and east of the building. Beginning in
November 1984, the wastewater was discharged to the
Suffolk County Publicly Owned Treatment Works.
-------
Three subsurface leaching pools are located south of the
building beneath a concrete parking lot. Access to the
leaching pools is through a manhole. The purpose of
these leaching pools was to collect parking lot surface
runoff and possibly also textiles process wastewater.
Sampling conducted between January 1974 and May
1984 by the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services and a contractor hired by Kenmark, revealed
that wastewater discharged into the on-site leaching pit
contained hexavalent chromium, copper, iron, lead, silver,
and phenols in violation of New York State groundwater
discharge standards. Based on these findings, the Site
was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in June
1986:
In 1987, a potentially responsible party (PRP) entered into
an Administrative Consent Order (AGO) with NYSDEC to
conduct a Remedial Investigation (Rl) to determine the
nature and full extent of the Site contamination, and a
Feasibility Study (FS) to evaluate cleanup alternatives.
The ACO set forth the terms and schedule of the study to
be carried out by the PRP under the supervision of the
NYSDEC.
As part of the investigation, soil and unfiltered and filtered
groundwater samples were obtained during the summer
of 1988. In total, 57 soil samples were collected from the
areas of the sludge drying beds, leaching pit and leaching
pools, and were analyzed for inorganic and/or organic
constituents.
The average concentrations of the most prevalent
inorganic compounds included arsenic at 8
milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg) (maximum concentration of
220 mg/kg), chromium at 28 mg/kg (maximum
concentration of 252 mg/kg), copper at 71 mg/kg
(maximum concentration of 790 mg/kg), lead at 92
mg/kg (maximum concentration of 890 mg/kg), nickel at
26 mg/kg (maximum concentration of 940 mg/kg), and
zinc at 125 mg/kg (maximum concentration of 860
mg/kg). Total organic compounds were detected in the
soils samples at concentrations less than 25 mg/kg.
Five monitoring wells were also installed as part of the
investigation. Four of the wells were installed on-site, and
the fifth well was installed hydraulically upgradient of the
Site. Groundwater from the five wells was analyzed for
organic and inorganic compounds. Due to various
analytical protocol deviations, the NYSDEC rejected the
data for the volatile organic compounds and required
further sampling. Lead was detected in unfiltered
groundwater samples at levels above the State drinking
water standard of 25 parts per billion (ppb) and the
Federal action level of 15 ppb in some of the on-site
wells. Lead was not detected at levels above the State
drinking water standard and the Federal action level in
the filtered groundwater samples.
In August 1990, the NYSDEC requested that the EPA
assume the role of lead agency for the remedial activities
at the Site. In December 1990, EPA sent "special notice"
letters to seven PRPs, affording them the opportunity to
complete the RI/FS for the Site. The PRPs were given 60
days in which to submit a good faith offer to undertake or
finance the RI/FS. During the 60-day period, a good faith
offer was received by the current property owner of the
Site, S.J. & J. Service Stations, Inc. (SJ&J), to continue
the Site investigation and to evaluate cleanup alternatives.
The agreement to perform this work was finalized in an
ACO signed by EPA and the PRP in July 1991.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
SJ&J hired the contractor, Fanning, Phillips and Molnar
Engineers (FP&M) to complete the Rl to characterize the
geology, groundwater hydrology and chemical quality of
the soil and groundwater at the Site. The investigation,
which was performed under EPA oversight, consisted of
drilling borings and constructing additional monitoring
wells, collecting soil and groundwater samples, and
conducting geophysical and air-monitoring surveys. A
summary of the Rl findings follows.
The Site is at an approximate elevation of 80 feet above
mean sea level. The shallowest groundwater, the Upper
Glacial Aquifer, occurs approximately 25 feet below
ground level at the Site, and is estimated to be
approximately 60 to 80 feet thick. The Magothy Aquifer
underlies the Upper Glacial Aquifer and is estimated to be
over 500 feet thick. The Upper Glacial and Magothy
Aquifers form a thick sequence of sand with varying
amounts of silt and clay. Groundwater movement is
generally towards the south. The velocity of the
horizontal groundwater flow in the Upper Glacial Aquifer
is estimated to be 2.4 feet per day.
In August 1992, five new wells were installed, increasing
the total number of Site-related wells to ten. Two wells
were drilled upgradient of the Site's operations, and three
wells were drilled downgradient of the Site. In September
and December 1992, groundwater samples were
collected from the ten monitoring wells and analyzed for
inorganic and organic constituents.
Some inorganic constituents exceeded State and Federal
drinking water standards (also referred to as the
maximum.contaminant levels (MCLs)). However, as
discussed in subsequent sections of this document, EPA
and NYSDEC believe that it is unlikely that such levels
would result in adverse human health effects. During the
two rounds of sampling, aluminum, iron and manganese
-------
were consistently detected above Federal secondary
drinking water standards1 in both upgradient and
downgradient wells. '
Aluminum was detected at an average concentration of
707 ppb (maximum concentration of 4,140 ppb) in the
downgradient wells, and an average concentration of 422
ppb (maximum concentration of 1,120 ppb) in the
upgradient wells. The Federal secondary drinking water
standard of 200 ppb for aluminum was exceeded in
almost all downgradient and upgradient wells during both
rounds of groundwater sampling.
Iron was detected at an average concentration of 3,840
ppb (maximum concentration of 14,400 ppb) in the
downgradient wells, and an average concentration of 809
ppb (maximum concentration of 2,510) in the upgradient
wells. The State drinking water standard and the Federal
secondary drinking water standard of 300 ppb for iron
were exceeded in almost all downgradient and upgradient
wells during both rounds of groundwater sampling.
Manganese was detected at an average concentration of
152 ppb (maximum concentration of 716 ppb) in the
downgradient wells and an average concentration of 85
ppb (maximum concentration of 172 ppb) in the
upgradient wells. Manganese was detected above the
State drinking water standard of 300 ppb in one of the
seven downgradient wells during one of the two rounds
of groundwater sampling. The Federal secondary
drinking water standard of 50 ppb was exceeded for
manganese in almost all upgradient and downgradient
wells during both rounds of groundwater sampling.
In addition, antimony, thallium and cadmium were also
detected above drinking water standards, but these
compounds were each only detected above drinking
water standards on one occasion during the two rounds
of groundwater sampling. Antimony was detected in an
upgradient well at 65.9 parts per billion (ppb), which is at
least an order of magnitude higher than the Federal
primary drinking water standard of 6 ppb and the State
drinking water standard of 3 ppb. Thallium was detected
in one of,the seven downgradient wells at 2.4 ppb which
is slightly (above the Federal primary drinking water
standard of 2 ppb and below the State drinking water
standard of 4 ppb. Cadmium was detected in one of the
seven downgradient wells at 6.7 ppb which is slightly
higher than the Federal primary drinking water standard
and the State drinking water standard of 5 ppb.
'Federal secondary drinking water standards are set for
aesthetic purposes and do not represent maximum
allowable levels required to protect public health.
The groundwater was also analyzed for organic
compounds. During the first round of sampling, organic
compounds were detected below the drinking water
standards with two exceptions. Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate (BEHP), which has a Federal drinking water
standard of 6 ppb, was detected at a concentration of
1,100 ppb in one of the seven downgradient wells. It is
important to note, however, that two duplicates of this
sample were collected (one by EPA and the other by
FP&M), and BEHP was not detected in either sample.
This suggests that the detection of BEPH was the result
of field or laboratory contamination and not indicative of
its presence in the groundwater.
The second exception concerns total organic compounds
that were detected in both upgradient and downgradient
wells above the State drinking water standard of 100 ppb
during the first round of sampling. Total organic
compounds were detected in two of the three upgradient
wells at 119 and 167 ppb, and in four of the seven
downgradient wells at levels that ranged from 110 to 242
ppb. The total organic compounds detected in the
groundwater sampling consisted primarily of unidentified
and tentatively identified organic compounds. During the
second round of groundwater sampling for organic
compounds, the State and Federal drinking water
standards were not exceeded.
Twenty-one soil borings were drilled at the Site in order to
develop information on Site geology and to determine the
extent of horizontal and vertical contamination in the soil.
Twenty-nine samples were collected from the soil borings
and analyzed for inorganic and organic constituents.
Numerous inorganic contaminants were detected above
background soil levels. The average concentrations of
the most prevalent inorganic compounds included
aluminum at 3,465 mg/kg (maximum concentration of
19,400 mg/kg), chromium at 17 mg/kg (maximum
concentration of 47 mg/kg), iron at 5,234 mg/kg
(maximum concentration of 18,700 mg/kg), lead at 49
mg/kg (maximum concentration of 495 mg/kg), and
manganese at 76 mg/kg (maximum concentration 266
mg/kg). Several organic compounds were also detected
with a majority of them found in the leaching pools. All
organic compounds were detected below NYSDEC's soil
cleanup guidance except for acetone which was detected
at a level three times NYSDEC's soil cleanup guidance in
a sample collected from a leaching pool.
A .geophysical survey (borehole natural gamma logging)
and air monitoring were also conducted at the Site. The
geophysical survey provided additional information on the
Site geology. The air monitoring and air modelling data
indicated that the Site does not have an adverse impact
on air quality.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment (RA) was conducted to
estimate the risks associated with current and future site
conditions. The baseline RA evaluates the potential
impacts on human health and the environment at the Site
which could result from the contamination at the Site, if
no remedial action were taken. This information is used
to make a determination as to whether remediation of the
Site may be required. In the RA, only the 1992
groundwater sampling data were used to determine the
groundwater exposure concentrations, since these data
are considered to be more representative of current site
conditions than earlier data due to the mobility of the
groundwater. The soil exposure concentrations are
based on both the 1988 and 1992 sampling data.
As part of the baseline RA, the following four-step
process is utilized for assessing site-related human health
risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario:
Hazard Identification-Identifies the contaminants of
concern at the Site based on several factors such as
toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration.
Exposure Assessment-estimates the magnitude of actual
and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and
duration of these exposures, and the 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 a quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-
million excess cancer risk) assessment of site-related
risks.
The baseline RA began with selecting contaminants of
concern which are representative of Site conditions.
Chemicals of concern were identified for Site soils and
groundwater underlying the Site. These contaminants
include arsenic, beryllium, chromium, copper, nickel,
acetone, methylene chloride and tetrachloroethene.
The baseline RA evaluated the health effects, which could
result from exposure to contamination at the Site, under
current and future land-use scenarios. The potential
exposure pathways of concern for current land use
include exposure of workers through incidental ingestion,
inhalation and dermal contact with soils during their
designated work activities. Worker exposure to
groundwater was not evaluated. Workers currently utilize
the public water supply for drinking and wash water;
exposure to groundwater does not occur with the
possible exception of inconsequential exposure to
process water from the on-site production well. Although
it may be unlikely that the future land-use at the site will
be residential since the area around the Site is light
industrial, a future residential land use was evaluated as a
conservative assumption. The potential exposure
pathways of concern for future land use include residents'
exposure to chemicals in groundwater through ingestion
of drinking water, as well as dermal contact and
inhalation of volatile organic compounds during
showering or bathing, if the upper aquifer serves as a
drinking water source in the future. The Magothy Aquifer
which underlies the upper aquifer, is currently being used
as a drinking water source. Future on-site residents
might also be exposed to contaminants in surface soils
through ingestion and dermal contact.
EPA's acceptable cancer risk range is 10~* to 10"6 which
can be interpreted to mean that an individual may have
an approximate one in ten thousand to a one in a million
increased chance of developing cancer as a result of a
site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year
lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at the site.
The results of the baseline RA indicate that under the
current-use scenarios, the estimated carcinogenic risks
are within or less than EPA's acceptable cancer risk
range based on the potential exposure pathways and
routes evaluated for workers. The highest carcinogenic
risk was estimated to be 8 x 10"6 for ingestion of
chemicals in the soil by workers.
Under the future-use scenarios, all pathways evaluated
have estimated carcinogenic risks within EPA's
acceptable cancer risk range. The exposure pathway
with the highest risk is for the ingestion of chemicals in
the groundwater by residents. The estimated
carcinogenic risk for this case is 1 x 10"4, which is at the
upper bound of EPA's risk range. However, the future
use of the Site is likely to remain light industrial; since the
ingestion of groundwater by Site workers would be
unlikely under this scenario, the carcinogenic risk would
not increase beyond the current baseline associated with
the ingestion of contaminants in the soil (8 x 10"6). Other
carcinogenic future risks within EPA's acceptable range
include 4 x 10"5 for dermal contact with groundwater by a
resident while bathing and 7 x 10~5 for the ingestion of soil
by a resident. The majority of the carcinogenic risk is
attributable to the presence of arsenic and beryllium for
the groundwater pathways and to arsenic for the
ingestion of soil pathway. Arsenic and beryllium were not
detected above drinking water standards at the Site.
To assess the overall noncarcinogenic effects posed by
more than one contaminant, EPA has developed the
Hazard Quotient (HQ) and Hazard Index (HI). The HQ is
the ratio of the chronic daily intake for a contaminant to
the reference dose for that chemical; the reference dose
-------
being a measure of the chemical's "threshold" for adverse
effects with many built-in safety factors. The HQs are
summed for all contaminants within an exposure pathway
(e.g., groundwater ingestion) to give the HI. When the HI
exceeds one, there may be concern for potential
noncarcinogenic health effects, if the contaminants in
question are believed to cause a similar toxic effect.
The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that
under the current-use scenarios, noncarcinogenic health
effects are not likely based on the potential exposure
pathways and routes evaluated for workers. The
calculated His for these scenarios are significantly less
than one.
For the noncarcinogenic future risk, the HI was below one
for all scenarios except for the ingestion of groundwater
by an adult resident (HI=6) and the ingestion of surface
soil by a child resident (HI=2). For the ingestion of
groundwater by an adult resident (HI=6), the primary
driver of the noncarcinogenic future risk Is manganese
(HQ=4). This calculation was based on a single
sampling point measurement (out of a total of 14
samples) of 716 ppb which was several times higher than
the average concentration of 152 ppb of manganese in
the groundwater. This average concentration is below
the State groundwater drinking water standard of 300 ppb
and is not believed to be associated with any adverse
health effects. Excluding manganese, the remaining
contaminants individually do not exceed a HQ of one,
and the addition of the contaminants with the same toxic
endpoints also do not exceed one. For the future
ingestion of surface soil by a child resident (HI=2), the
major contributors to the HI of 2 were arsenic (HQ=0.9)
and antimony (HQ=0.5). Collectively, arsenic and
antimony have a HI that exceeds one; however, the
critical toxic endpoints for arsenic (skin disorders) and
antimony (alterations in blood glucose and cholesterol)
are sufficiently different, therefore, adverse health effects
would be unlikely.
The overall risk to wildlife in the general vicinity of the Site
is considered to be low, due to the extensive
development of the Site. The Site is an industrial facility
that consists primarily of buildings and paved areas.
t
SUMMARY OF THE PREFERRED NO ACTION REMEDY
Based on the findings of the Rl performed at the Site,
EPA has determined that a no action remedy is protective
of human health and the environment.
The risk assessment indicates that the levels of
contaminants present in the soils and groundwater at the
Site present risks which fall within or below EPA's 10"4 to
10"6 carcinogenic risk range. All current land-use
exposure scenarios resulted in risks that are within EPA's
noncarcinogenic risk range. Some of the future land-use
exposure scenarios exceed a HI of 1; the calculations
that were used to reach this conclusion conservatively
assumed that, in the future, the Site would be used for
residential purposes. The Site, however, has been used
for light industrial purposes since at least the early part of
this century, and EPA believes that it would be more
reasonable to assume that land uses similar to those
which currently exist will be retained at the Site in the
future. Under such a land-use scenario, the chemicals
present in each of the exposure pathways would not pose
any unacceptable risks. In addition, groundwater
sampling results indicate that the majority of
contaminants do not exceed drinking water standards,
and that it is unlikely that the levels of inorganic
contaminants detected at the Site would result in adverse
health effects. Therefore, EPA and NYSDEC recommend
a no action remedy for this Site.
State Acceptance
NYSDEC concurs with the preferred no action remedy.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred remedy will be
assessed in the ROD, following review of the public
comments on the Rl report and the Proposed Plan.
GLOSSARY
Of Terms Used In the Proposed Plan
This glossary defines the technical terms used in this
Proposed Plan. The terms and abbreviations contained in
this glossary are often defined in the context of
hazardous waste management, and apply specifically to
work performed under the Superfund program.
Therefore, these terms may have other meanings when
used in a different context.
Administrative Order on Consent: A legal and
enforceable agreement between EPA and the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs). Under the terms of the Order,
the PRPs agree to perform or pay for site studies or
cleanup work. It also describes the oversight rules,
responsibilities and enforcement options that the
government may exercise in the event of noncompliance
by the PRPs. This Order is signed by the PRPs and EPA;
it does not require approval by a judge.
Aquifer: An underground layer of rock, sand, or gravel
capable of storing water within cracks and pore spaces,
or between grains. When water contained within an
aquifer is of sufficient quantity and quality, it can be
-------
tapped and used for drinking or other purposes. The
water contained in the aquifer is called groundwater.
Downgradient/Downslope: A downward hydrologic
slope that causes groundwater to move toward lower
elevations. Therefore, wells downgradient of a
contaminated groundwater source are prone to receiving
pollutants.
Groundwater: Water found beneath the earth's surface
that fills pores between materials such as sand, soil,
gravel and cracks in bedrock and often serves as a
principal source of drinking water.
Leach/Leaching: The process by which soluble
chemical components are dissolved and carried through
soil by water or some other percolating liquid.
Potentially Responsibilities Parties (PRPs): Parties,
including owners, who are potentially liable under
CERCLA for the costs of response actions at Superfund
sites. Parties are "potentially" liable until a court makes a
determination of liability. PRPs may sign an
Administrative Order on Consent (see Administrative
Order on Consent) to participate in site cleanup activity.
Remedial Action: Actions taken to permanently prevent
or minimize the release of hazardous substances so that
they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to
present or future public health or welfare or the
environment.
Upgradient/Upslope: Upstream; an upward slope.
Demarks areas that are higher than contaminated areas
and, therefore, are not prone to contamination by the
movement of polluted groundwater.
-------
APPENDIX B
' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANNOUNCES THE PROPOSED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE FOR THE
KENMARK TEXTILES PRINTING CORP. SUPERFUND SITE
EAST FARMINGDALE, TOWN OF BABYLON
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently completed
a Remedial Investigation (RI) for the Kenmark Textiles Printing
Superfund site in East Farmingdale, New York. Based on the
findings of the RI performed at the site, EPA is announcing a
preferred no action remedy for the site.
Before selecting a final remedy, EPA will consider written and
oral comments on this preferred alternative. All comments must
be received on or before March 12, 1994. The final decision
document will include a summary of public comments and EPA
responses.
EPA will hold an informational public meeting on Monday, February
28, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., at the East Farmingdale Fire House to
discuss the findings of the RI and the preferred remedy for the
site.
EPA performed extensive sampling of the groundwater, surface and
subsurface soil and air at the site during the RI. Based upon
the review of these results and the risk assessment that were
conducted for the site, EPA is proposing that no remedial action
is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environment. Therefore, EPA is not evaluating or proposing
cleanup activities at the site.
The preferred no action remedy is outlined and discussed in the
Proposed Plan. The RI report, Proposed Plan, and other site-
related documents can be consulted at the information
repositories listed below during regular business hours:
East Farmingdale Fire House
930 Conklin Street
East Farmingdale, New York 11735
; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Superfund Records Center
26 Federal Plaza, Room 2900
New York, New York 10278
Written comments on the preferred alternative, should be sent to:
Sharon Trocher, Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 Federal Plaza, Room 29-100
New York, New York 10278
-------
APPEND C
tfte/ist
/4
\10
4 W^4^(^L^JL^ SK
fnefu/fe/Lu /ir///
-------
APPENDIX D
INC.
East Farmingdale, New York 11735
10 Oak Street
March 10, 1994
Sharon L. Trocher
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency & Remedial Response Division RE: Kenmark Textiles
26 Federal Plaza, Room 29-100 Printing Corporation
New York, NY 10278 Superfund Site
Dear Ms. Trscher:
The Woodland Civic Association, Inc. represents East Farmingdale
homeowners jior_th & northwest of the Kenmark site. In fact, many of
our homes are within 1/2 mile of this parcel. Therefore, we were
extremely concerned to recently learn that you are considering the
removal of this site from the Superfund National Priorities List.
Please include our concerns in your study & consider them fully
before the EPA renders a decision on this Superfund site.
Our residential neighborhood is located near many highly develop-
ed industrial properties; therefore, we have frequently been involved
with environmental issues. It is our understanding from previous
water quality studies that the underground water in this vicinity
generally flows in a southeast direction. Accordingly, we question
why test wells were .not located southeast of the largest leaching
pit. (Figure 1. Kenmark Site Map 2/9M. Attachment #1.)
We also question the adequacy and ability of the test wells to
obtain sufficient information on contaminants that may have leached
into the ground during various intervals over the past 75 years.
In fact, where did the contaminants go that were measured in samplings
done between 1971* and 1984? (Attachment #2)
Furthermore, we urge you to consider the cumulative effect that
contaminants from this site and other nearby Superfund sites will have
on the future quality of our drinking water.
We believe too many questions remain unanswered and request
further assurances that the health and welfare of our community will
not 'fee harmed if the EPA decides that "no further action" is required.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly
PCreJ Patrick Cunningham
President
Attachments: 2
Express Mail
-------
1
©
OU>
) f C F N.
OOOIC OOUHO «ATM »CMI<«« «"•
OOWICJ t*S*
-------
E. Farmingddle site passes EPA's muster
By Ken Moritsugu
STAFF WRITER
An East Farmingdale industrial site contaminated
by metal-laden wastewater doesn't need to be cleaned
up and may be removed from the Superfund national
priorities list, according to the Environmental Protec:..
tion Agency. . • : ' . • .
A lengthy study'of the former Kenmark Textiles'
Printing Corp. site, just west of Route 110 at 921
Conklin St., found "there is no contamination worthy
of a clean up," Steve Katz, an EPA spokesman in New_
- York, said yesterday. —'~~ ••-•••• -.. " "";]j;[j^
The study, which was completed in December, ana-;
lyzed soil, groundwater and ambient air conditions':
and concluded that no action is necessary to protect '
human health and -the environment. The public can
comment on the study at a meeting scheduled for
Monday at 7 p.m. at the East Farmingdale Fire House '•
at 930 Conklin St. ' ' . . ••..Oirl'rK-;„.
If the EPA sticks with a "no action"; finding after 'I
reviewing public comment, the agency generally then ;
begins the process of removing the site from the na-'
tional priorities list, Katz said. •——-. • :: :
"It just doesn't seem to be a significant problem
that's going to cause any issues," said Babylon Town
Board member Robert Kaufold, who lives two blocks
from the site. "Again we have'to separate the stuff
that's in. the ground and the water we drink. The
water we drink certainly doesn't come from where
Kenmark is. It comes from much deeper layers."
Until 1984, Kenmark Textiles dumped wastewater
from its operations into an(on-site leaching pit. Sam-
ples taken between 1974 and 1984 found levels of
copper, iron, lead, silver and other metals above state
limits for groundwater .discharge) leading the EPA to
place the site on _the national priorities list in 1986.
"Since 1984, the wastewater has been sent to a Suffolk
' County sewage treatment plant. •
: ' On the national priorities list, the.EPA ranks Ken-
mark last but of the 24 Superfund sites on Long Is-
land in terms of the threat posed to public health.
The 50-by-100-foot site has been home to various
"•silk and textile dyeing, printing and screening oper-
ations since at least 1917, according to the EPA. Cur-'
'; .rently, Susquehanna Textile Co. silkscreens fabrics
"."..for upholstery and drapery at the factory.
'•:"'-•- 'We're quite delighted that they found really noth-
ing wrong with it even though we don't and haven't
contributed to what happened beforehand," Mike
Fallacara, president of Susquehanna, said yesterday.
i
------- |