EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Goldisc Recordings, Inc.,
Holbrook, NY
9/29/1995
PB95-963813
EPA/ROD/R02-95/259
March 1996
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Operable Unit 1
Goldisc Recordings
Holbrook, Suffolk County, New York
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Goldisc Recordings
Holbrook, Suffolk County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) selection of the remedial action for
the Goldisc Recordings Superfund site in accordance with the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42
U.S.C. §9601 et seq. and to the extent practicable the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40
CFR Part 300. An administrative record for the site, established
pursuant to the NCP, 40 CFR 300.800, contains the documents that
form the basis for EPA's selection of the remedial action (see
Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) has been consulted on the planned remedial action in
accordance with CERCLA §121(f), 42 U.S.C. §9621(f), and it
concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix IV).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy pertains to the first of two operable units
for the site and addresses the contaminated sediments and soils
located on the Goldisc property.
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
• Excavation via a vacuum truck and off-site disposal of
approximately 56 cubic yards of sediments and soils from the
six dry wells in that portion of the site designated as Area
of Environmental Concern 2 and drywell DW-2 in Area of
Environmental Concern 14;
• Excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 215 cubic
yards of surface soils within Area of Environmental
Concern 8;
-------
Abandonment of the on-site production well including
excavation and off-site disposal of sediments and soils from
the well vault; and
Taking steps to secure the placement of a deed restriction
be placed on the property to limit it to a nonresidential
use.
Although a groundwater investigation was included in the first
operable unit investigation, it has been determined that
selection of a groundwater remedy should be deferred until
additional groundwater monitoring data can be collected and
evaluated. A remedy for groundwater will be selected in a second
operable unit ROD subsequent to additional groundwater
monitoring.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy meets the requirements for remedial actions
set forth in CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621: (1) it is protective
of human health and the environment; (2) it attains a level or
standard of control of the hazardous substances, pollutants and
contaminants, which at least attains the legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) under federal and
state laws; (3) it is cost-effective; (4) it utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and (5) it
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at a site.
Although this alternative would result in no contamination
remaining on-site above health-based levels for the current
property use, the remedy does not allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure; therefore, a review of the remedial action
pursuant to CERCLA §121(c), 42 U.S.C. §9621(c), will be conducted
five years after the commencement of the remedial action to
ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection
to human health and the environment.
Jeanne M. Fox / ^ r /^f\7 Date
Regional Administrate
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Goldisc Recordings
Holbrook, Suffolk County, New York
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
September 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 3
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 11
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 12
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 13
SELECTED REMEDY 16
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 17
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 19
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Goldisc Recordings Superfund site (Site) is located at the
northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Highway and Broadway Avenue
in the Village of Holbrook, Town of Islip, New York. The 34-acre
Site consists of two one-story buildings that occupy six acres,
three acres of pavement surrounding the buildings, and twenty-
five acres of undeveloped land (see Figure 1 for the general Site
vicinity). Current zoning at the Site is commercial/industrial.
The area surrounding the Site is primarily residential and mixed
forest, with some commercial and light industrial development.
The Village of Holbrook has an estimated population of 20,525.
The Site is bordered to the north and east by mixed forest, to
the south by Veterans Memorial Highway, and to the west by
Broadway Avenue (see Figure 2 for the Site layout).
A municipal water supply wellfield, which provides drinking water
for the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA), is located
approximately 1,200 feet south of the Site on Church Street. All
residents of the Town of Islip depend on groundwater as their
potable water supply. The closest dwellings are located about
700 feet north of the Site. A New York State and federally
regulated wetland is located approximately one-half mile south of
the Site. A Sunoco gasoline station is located on the southeast
corner of Veterans Memorial Highway and Broadway Avenue, just
south of the Site. Soil and groundwater remediation systems are
currently in operation at the station, to address a release of
petroleum product to the groundwater.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
From 1968 to 1990, the two buildings were occupied by several
different companies that generated and stored hazardous
substances on the Site. These companies included Goldisc
Recordings, Inc. (Goldisc), which produced phonographic records;
ElectroSound Group, Inc. (Electrosound), a company that
manufactured audio visual and optical devices; and Genco Auto
Electric, Inc. (Genco), which rebuilt automotive engine parts.
The First Holbrook Company (First Holbrook) owned the property
from 1973 to 1985. In 1985, the Red Ground Corporation became
the owner of the property. In 1989, Red Ground Corporation sold
the property to a partnership named Red Ground Company. The two
tenants occupying the buildings since 1990 are dry goods
merchants and do not perform any manufacturing.
The substances known to have been disposed of on the Site between
1968 and 1990 include wastewater from the various production
processes, waste oils, metals, solutions containing high
concentrations of xylene and trichloroethylene, and other
degreasing agents. These substances were reportedly discharged
to the environment through dry wells, leaching pools, storm
drains, and leaking storage containers located around the
buildings.
-------
Since the late 1970s, the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services (SCDHS), the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), and EPA have conducted various inspections
and environmental protection enforcement activities at the Site.
In 1978, a representative from the SCDHS inspected the Site and
noted stains, puddles, and leaking drums suspected to be related
to industrial wastes. In the early 1980s, the SCDHS collected
samples from leaching pools, storm drains, and cesspools located
on the Site. Laboratory analyses of the samples revealed
violations of New York State Groundwater Effluent Guidelines.
Between 1981 and 1983, laboratory analyses of groundwater samples
collected from monitoring wells located on-site revealed elevated
levels of solvents and metals, including: trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, lead, nickel, chromium,
and silver. Analyses of samples obtained from the Church Street
wellfield showed concentrations of tetrachloroethylene slightly
exceeding the state and federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
of 5 parts per billion (ppb) for public drinking water. Based on
these findings, the Site was proposed for inclusion on the
National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1984 and was added to
the NPL in June 1986.
In 1988, DEC entered into an Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) with two of the potentially responsible parties (PRPs),
namely, First Holbrook and ElectroSound. The AOC required the
two PRPs to conduct an RI at the Site. The RI (Phase I RI) was
conducted in 1988 and included the investigation of nineteen
areas of potential contamination. Groundwater and soil samples
were collected and analyzed to determine the nature and extent of
contamination in these areas. Elevated levels of lead and
tetrachloroethylene were found in groundwater samples. Soil
samples were found to contain elevated levels of several metals,
volatile organic compounds, and semi-volatile organic compounds.
Based on a review of the results, EPA and DEC determined that
additional information was necessary in order to better define
the extent of contamination at the Site. In late 1990, DEC
requested that EPA take over as lead agency for the Site. EPA
notified First Holbrook, ElectroSound, Genco, and Red Ground of
their potential liability at the Site and requested they finance
or undertake the continuing RI/FS. Subsequently, in 1991, EPA
entered into an AOC with First Holbrook and ElectroSound. This
AOC specifically required the PRPs to conduct a supplemental
RI/FS (or Phase II RI/FS). A subsequent notification of
potential liability was issued on August 17, 1995 to an
additional seven individuals who are partners of First Holbrook.
-------
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI, FS, and Baseline Risk Assessment reports, as well as the
Proposed Plan, for the Site were released to the public for
comment on August 26, 1995. These documents were made available
to the public at information repositories located at the Islip
Town Hall and Sachem Public Library. The notice of availability
for the above-referenced documents was published in the Suffolk
County News on September 7, 1995 and a press release was issued
on August 30, 1995. The public comment period on these documents
was held from August 26, 1995 to September 26, 1995.
On September 11, 1995, EPA conducted a public meeting at the
Islip Town Hall West Auditorium to inform local officials and
interested citizens about the Superfund process, to review
current and planned remedial activities at the Site, and to
respond to any questions from area residents and other attendees.
Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in
writing during the public comment period are included in the
Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
It was EPA's original intention to supplement previous data
collected under state and county investigations in order to
address sediment, soil and groundwater contamination at the Site.
However, due to circumstances which occurred as the Phase II
RI/FS progressed, EPA and DEC have decided to defer the decision
regarding groundwater remediation. The MCL for nickel, which is
the primary contaminant at the Site, was remanded in February
1995. In addition, the concentration of nickel has fluctuated in
the groundwater. While the Church Street wellfield has been
impacted by nickel contamination, recent data indicate that
nickel concentrations have dropped below the current (July 10,
1995) Interim Health Advisory level of 100 ppb. As a result, EPA
and DEC decided to postpone the selection of a remedy for the
groundwater until additional information and data on the nickel
contamination in the groundwater are obtained. This remedy will
be documented in a second operable unit Record of Decision (ROD).
The selected remedy described in this document addresses the
contamination associated with Site sediments and soils.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Under the direction of EPA, the PRPs1 contractor, ERM-Northeast,
implemented the Phase II RI to characterize further the sediments
and soils, and groundwater at the Site. The intent of the study
was to fill data gaps identified during review of the DEC Phase I
RI report. Sediments and soils data collected as part of both
-------
the Phase I and Phase II RI/FS are provided below, as are data
for groundwater.
Sediments. Soils. Storm Drains, and Dryvells
The Phase I RI identified 19 separate soil Areas of Environmental
Concern (AEC) (see Figure 2), which included storm drains,
drywells, a sump, drum storage areas, sanitary discharge areas, a
transfer pad area, and a former production well. Phase I
sampling of AECs 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 17, and 18 determined that these
areas had not been significantly impacted. Therefore, no
additional Phase II sampling was performed in these areas.
Likewise, Phase I sampling adequately defined the impacts to AECs
2, 11, and 12. Therefore, no additional Phase II sampling was
performed in these areas.
The Phase I data indicated that the highest levels of
contamination were found in AEC 2 (see Table 1). AEC 2 consists
of an interconnected system of six drywells which allegedly
received direct discharges from the Goldisc building, as well as
spillage from a drum storage area. Chromium was detected in
sediments and soils at levels ranging from 30 parts per million
(ppm) to 195 ppm. Nickel was found at levels ranging from 25 ppm
to 1,120 ppm.
Phase I data indicated the presence of total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPHCs) ranging from 31 ppm to 2,980 ppm in surface
soils in AEC 11, where a concrete pad once holding an electrical
transformer is located.
Phase I data indicated the presence of heavy metals above typical
background ranges in AEC 12, which is the location of the former
production well. A sediment sample collected from the base of
the concrete vault housing the well detected nickel at 606 ppm.
Phase II involved the collection of additional surface and
subsurface soil samples from 9 AECs. During May 1993, seven soil
borings were drilled, three test trenches were excavated, and 46
surface and subsurface samples were collected for physical and
chemical analyses. Together with earlier data, Phase II sampling
data confirmed that AECs 1, 5, 8, 10, 13, and 14 were also
impacted by Site-related contamination. Based on the Phase II
data, AECs la, 15 and 16 were not considered to have been
significantly impacted.
The Phase II results for AEC 1 confirmed the presence of TPHCs in
the three solid-bottom storm drains and the base of the receiving
drywell.
Previous data for AEC 5 indicated nickel in sediments slightly
above Site background and TPHCs at levels up to 93,000 ppm at the
drainage pipe outfall. Phase II involved collection of samples
-------
from the base of two drywells and two storm drains to
characterize the TPHC content. The samples contained TPHCs
ranging from 406 ppm to 5,780 ppm. In addition, it appeared that
the drainage system had been impacted by a petroleum release
emanating from the oil-fired boilers within the former Goldisc
building. Because response actions for petroleum releases are
excluded under CERCLA, this AEC has been referred to the NYSDEC
spills program for evaluation and possible remediation.
Locations which previously indicated high levels of nickel and
chromium in AEC 8 were resampled. Maximum detected levels for
nickel and chromium in Phase II sampling were 33 ppm and 80 ppm,
respectively, in surface soils. Phase I and Phase II results
confirm that this reported discharge area had contamination
related to Site operations.
A soil boring was taken and analyzed for TPHCs in AEC 10. The
highest concentration of TPHCs was detected in the 10-foot to 12-
foot interval at 9,240 ppm. Concentrations decreased
significantly with depth to 84 ppm in the 20-foot to 22-foot
interval, and were not detected at lower intervals.
Phase II analyses were performed to complete the delineation of
soils impacted by TPHCs in AEC 13. In one boring, the TPHCs
extended to the water table. It is believed that oil reached
this area through the Area 5 drainage system pipe. This AEC has
also been referred to the DEC spills program. In the event that
further testing identifies additional Site related hazardous
wastes, EPA may reconsider addressing these areas.
Phase II sampling for AEC 14 included borings and analyses from
three drywells. The uppermost sediments contained several metals
at concentrations slightly above background. Deeper samples were
within background ranges. The highest VOC detected was acetone
at 0.44 ppm. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in
all three drywells, the highest concentration at 0.41 ppm.
Drywell 2 (DW-2) in this area contained levels of chrysene at a
concentration of 0.77 ppm and benzo(a)anthracene at a
concentration of 0.5 ppm in the 15-foot to 17-foot interval,
above the recommended New York State cleanup guidelines of 0.4
ppm and 0.224 ppm, respectively (see Table 2).
Groundwater
The Phase I RI involved the collection of groundwater samples
from 18 on-site monitoring wells, one on-site production well,
one off-site upgradient well, and the three SCWA Church Street
supply wells (see Figure 3 for groundwater well locations). Of
the 18 on-site monitoring wells sampled, 14 are shallow (less
than 50 feet deep), two are intermediate (75 to 90 feet deep),
and two are deep (over 100 feet deep). All on-site monitoring
wells are installed in the shallow aquifer, the Upper Glacial
-------
aquifer. The thickness of the Upper Glacial underlying the Site
is approximately 135 feet. Depth from the surface to the water
table ranged across the Site from 18 to 32 feet. Church Street
wells #1 and #2 (CS-1 and CS-2) are both shallow; installed in
the Upper Glacial aquifer. Church Street well #3 (CS-3) is much
deeper, screened in the lower Magothy aquifer. The groundwater
flow direction in the northern portion of the Site is generally
south to southeast. However, the southeast portion of the Site
shows a shift in flow direction to the southwest in response to
the radial drawdown resulting from to operation of the Church
Street supply wellfield. The groundwater flow velocity, ranging
between 1.3 to 1.7 feet/day during nonpumping periods, increases
to 2.4 to 2.9 feet/day during Church Street pumping operations.
The initial Phase II groundwater sampling effort, performed in
April 1993, included collection of samples from eight of the on-
site monitoring wells. Two of these monitoring wells required
replacement. The groundwater samples were analyzed for Target
Analyte List (TAL) metals and/or Target Compound List (TCL)
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), to fill data gaps or to
Confirm Phase I analytical results. After review of these
results, an additional round of groundwater samples was collected
from 15 on-site wells in order to investigate further the
presence of heavy metals. In September 1994, ERM-Northeast
collected samples from the 15 monitoring wells and analyzed these
samples for nickel, chromium, iron, and manganese. All 15
samples were split with ICF Technology Corp., EPA's oversight
contractor, and analyzed by EPA for all TAL metals.
Comparison of the Phase II groundwater sampling results with
Phase I indicated that the VOC concentrations had decreased. For
the Phase II data, the only VOC detected at a concentration above
its drinking water standard was carbon disulfide in monitoring
well 17D (MW-17D). Analytical results for the split sample from
MW-17D did not indicate the presence of carbon disulfide above
its drinking water standard. Carbon disulfide has been
determined to be a laboratory artifact and not a contaminant of
concern.
Results of the Phase II first round of metal analyses of samples
collected from eight monitoring wells did not indicate the
presence of metals above any drinking water standards (see
Table 3). The Phase II second round of metals analysis,
performed on samples collected from 15 monitoring wells, detected
high levels of nickel, ranging from 13.3 ppb to 959'ppb (see
Tables 4a and 4b). At the time the sampling was performed, the
federal MCL for nickel, which had become effective on June 17,
1992, was 100 ppb. In February 1995, in response to on-going
litigation over its validity, EPA filed a joint motion to remand
the nickel MCL voluntarily. On June 29, 1995, EPA issued a
Federal Register notice formally removing the nickel MCL from the
Code of Federal Regulations. Currently, no federal or state
-------
drinking water standard exists for nickel. However, on July 10,
1995, EPA issued a Health Advisory of 100 ppb for nickel, while a
new MCL for nickel is being reestablished. This Health Advisory
is intended to serve as informal technical guidance only and is
not to be construed as setting legally enforceable federal
standards. Of the fifteen wells sampled during Phase II, only 3
had levels of nickel above 100 ppb, namely, MW-11 (140 ppb),
MW-12 (959 ppb) and MW-16 (278 ppb). Since an MCL for nickel
does not exist, a health-based action level was developed for the
Site utilizing Superfund risk assessment methodologies. This
health-based action level, detailed further in the risk
discussion, was calculated to be 730 ppb. Only one sample,
collected from MW-12 (959 ppb), exceeded this level.
In late 1993, routine monitoring performed by SCWA on the Church
Street wellfield detected the presence of nickel in CS-2 in
excess of the then existing 100 ppb MCL. This prompted SCWA to
remove CS-2 from service and conduct testing to determine a
suitable method of remediation for the well. Sampling of CS-2 in
July 1995 and August 1995 revealed decreasing nickel
concentrations of 98 ppb and 95 ppb, respectively. Since the
remand of the nickel MCL, SCWA has put CS-2 back into service,
blending it with the other wells, resulting in drinking water
which is still well below the former MCL and current Health
Advisory level of 100 ppb.
Based on its frequent detection at elevated concentrations at the
Site, its former MCL, and the impact to the Church Street
wellfield, nickel has been deemed to be the major contaminant of
concern at the Site.
The Phase II second round of metal analyses also detected the
presence of both iron and manganese above their respective
secondary drinking water standards. Split samples verified these
results. The secondary federal and state MCLs for iron and
manganese are both based on aesthetic properties and are intended
to prevent potential problems, such as poor taste, odor, and
staining of plumbing fixtures, and do not specifically present a
health risk. The highest concentrations were reported for the
unfiltered sample collected from MW-llR. For this sample, iron
was detected at a concentration of 34,900 ppb and manganese at a
concentration of 2,840 ppb. The federal secondary MCLs for iron
and manganese are 300 ppb and 50 ppb, respectively. A filtered
sample collected from MW-llR detected iron and manganese at
reduced levels of 185 ppb and 459 ppb, respectively. In the
filtered sample, manganese was still in excess of the drinking
water standard. However, manganese is not a contaminant of
concern and does not present a risk; the levels detected
represent background conditions in the area.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and
future site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates
the human health and ecological risk which could result from the
contamination at the site, if no remedial action were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human
health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard
Identification—identifies the contaminants of concern at the
Site based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of
occurrence, and concentration. Exposure Assessment—estimates
the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the
frequency and duration of these exposures, and the 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.
EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the
potential risks to human health and the environment associated
with the Goldisc Recordings property in its current state. The
Risk Assessment began with selecting contaminants of concern
which would likely pose significant risks to human health and the
environment. These contaminants included tetrachloroethylene,
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, vinyl chloride,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc (see Table 5).
Four exposure pathways were evaluated under possible on-site
present and future land use conditions; it was assumed that the
property's current zoning status as commercial/industrial would
not change. The exposure pathways considered were: dermal
absorption of chemicals in the soil by children trespassing on
the Site, direct contact (including incidental ingestion and
dermal absorption) with soils by on-site commercial/industrial
employees, direct contact with soil by future short-term
construction workers, and domestic use of groundwater (including
ingestion and inhalation of volatiles by nearby residents using
the Church Street wellfield as the exposure point). All pathways
were based on current Site conditions, except the future short-
term construction worker scenario.
EPA's acceptable cancer risk range is 10"4 to 10'6 which can be
interpreted to mean that an individual may have a one in ten
-------
thousand to a one in a million increased chance of developing
cancer as a result of a site-related exposure to a carcinogen
over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at
a site. The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate
that the soils and groundwater at the Site pose no unacceptable
carcinogenic risk to human health. The overall carcinogenic risk
for on-site workers, through direct contact with soils, is
estimated to be 8.5 x 10"8 (risk of 8.5 in 100 million) (see Table
6). The overall carcinogenic risk for future construction
workers, through ingestion and dermal contact with soils, is
estimated to be 4.3 x 10'9 (risk of 4.3 in a billion) (see Table
7). The overall carcinogenic risk for domestic use of
groundwater, through ingestion and inhalation, is estimated to be
9.5 x 10"6 (risk of 9.5 in a million) (see Table 8). Much of this
risk is attributable to vinyl chloride, which was not detected in
recent sampling events at the Church Street supply wellfield or
on the Site. The preceding risk values indicate that the Site
poses no unacceptable carcinogenic risk to human health. The
dermal exposure pathway for children was evaluated but not
quantified, as there were no contaminants of concern detected
which are considered to be potential carcinogens via dermal
exposure. Therefore, no adverse carcinogenic effects are
expected to result from chronic exposure to chemicals from the
Site.
To assess the overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects posed
by the contaminants at a site, EPA has developed the hazard index
(HI). The HI measures the assumed simultaneous subthreshold
exposures to several chemicals which could result in an adverse
health effect. When the HI exceeds 1.0, there may be concern for
potential noncarcinogenic health effects.
The calculated HI values for the dermal absorption and direct
contact pathways were all calculated to be less than 1. Dermal
absorption by nearby children contributed to an HI value of
0.0002 (see Table 9), direct contact by on-site workers
contributed to an HI value of 0.002 (see Table 10) and direct
contact by future workers contributed to an HI value of 0.03 (see
Table 11). Domestic use of groundwater contributed to an HI
value of 0.26 (see Table 12); nickel was the major contributor to
this HI. As noted below, this calculation assumes that there are
no appreciable sources of nickel exposure outside of groundwater
ingestion.
As noted in the Summary of Site Characteristics section, the MCL
for nickel was remanded in February 1995. Due to the fact that
significant nickel contamination exists in the Upper Glacial
Aquifer, potential risks related to this contamination were
closely evaluated. An acceptable health-based action level was
developed for nickel in groundwater at the Site. Assuming that
the groundwater would be used for domestic purposes, it was
determined that groundwater concentrations of nickel below 730
-------
ppb would result in an acceptable HI for the Site (i.e., an HI
less than or equal to 1.0); conversely, levels above 730 ppb
could present an unacceptable noncarcinogenic risk for the Site.
Consistent with EPA guidance for conducting Superfund risk
assessments, this calculated value assumes that there are no
other significant sources of nickel exposure from other
environmental media (e.g., air, soil, diet). As a point of
reference, the 95% Upper Confidence Level (UCL) of the arithmetic
mean, calculated utilizing nickel data from all of the on-site
wells sampled during Phase II was 480 ppb, well below the 730 ppb
action level. As noted previously, EPA has issued a Health
Advisory for nickel of 100 ppb which is the same level as the
former MCL. The Health Advisory incorporates additional
conservative safety factors to account for potential nickel
exposure from media other than drinking water; this very
conservative level of safety assumes that drinking water only
contributes 20% of the expected nickel exposure.
Ecological Assessment
The ecological risk assessment considered potential exposure
routes of Site contamination to terrestrial wildlife. Much of
the Site is paved or covered by structures and there is little,
if any, potential for wildlife to be exposed to contaminated
subsurface soils on-site. The only potential route of exposure
to wildlife in the Site vicinity is if contaminants were
transported through groundwater and discharged via groundwater
into surface waters, particularly the state wetland located one-
half mile south of the Site. Phase II sampling shows that the
wetland has not been impacted by Site contaminants. Therefore,
it was determined that no significant effects on aquatic
organisms in the wetland in the vicinity of the Site could be
attributed to groundwater discharge from the Site.
Since significant contamination, specifically nickel, was
detected in the soils at the Site, there is a high potential for
cross-media impacts as nickel can migrate into the groundwater
via fluctuations of the water table and precipitation. This is
supported by the detection of high levels of nickel in the
groundwater. The maximum concentration of nickel in one on-site
well was detected at 959 ppb. Furthermore, Site-related nickel
contamination has impacted the nearby Church Street supply wells.
Due to these circumstances, remedial action alternatives were
developed for the Site sediments and soils.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide
variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include:
10
-------
environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
environmental parameter measurement
fate and transport modeling
exposure parameter estimation
toxicological data.
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry-analysis
error can stem from several sources including the errors inherent
in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being
sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with
the chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such
exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of
exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by
making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure
parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk
Assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to
underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
More specific information concerning public health risks,
including a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk
associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the
Risk Assessment Report.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in the ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the public health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human
health and the environment. These objectives are based on
available information and standards such as ARARs and risk-based
levels established in the risk assessment.
The following remedial action objective was established:
• minimize leaching of contaminants, particularly nickel, in
the subsurface soils and sediments to the groundwater.
11
-------
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA §121(b)(l), 42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(l), mandates that a
remedial action must be protective of human health and the
environment, cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section
121(b)(l) also establishes a preference for remedial actions
which employ, as a principal element, treatment to permanently
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the
hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants at a site.
CERCLA §121(d), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d), further specifies that a
remedial action must attain a level or standard of control of the
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which at
least attains ARARs under federal and state laws, unless a waiver
can be justified pursuant to CERCLA §121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C.
§9621(d)(4).
This ROD evaluates, in detail, two remedial alternatives for
addressing contaminated sediments and soils associated with the
Goldisc Recordings Superfund site. The time to implement a
remedial alternative reflects only the time required to construct
or implement the remedy and does not include the time required to
design the remedy, negotiate with the responsible parties, or
procure contracts for design and construction, or conduct
operation and maintenance at the site.
The remedial alternatives are:
Alternative SR-I: No Action
Capital Cost: $ 0
0 & M/yr Cost: $ 0
Present Worth: $ 0
Time to Implement: N/A
The Superfund program requires that the No Action alternative be
considered as a baseline for comparison with other soil
alternatives. Under this alternative, the contaminated sediments
and soils would be left in place without treatment. Since this
alternative would not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five
years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be
implemented.
Alternative SR-II: Limited Action
Capital Cost: $ 250,322
0 & M/yr Cost: $ 2,020
Present Worth: $ 277,062
Time to Implement: 2 months
12
-------
This alternative includes measures which would reduce the
leaching of contaminants, particularly nickel, to the
groundwater. The specific measures include: removal of
contaminated soils/sediments in the six drywells in AEC 2 and
drywell DW-2 in AEC 14, and removal of surface soils within
AEC 8, a reported discharge area which has shown TPHCs and metals
related to Site operations. In addition, this alternative would
include decommissioning and cleanup of the on-site production
well. This action would be taken as a conservative measure to
eliminate potential exposure to contaminated groundwater at the
Site. The areas to be remediated are detailed on Figure 4.
The top three feet of soils/sediments would be removed via a
vacuum truck from the six dry wells in AEC 2 and drywell DW-2 in
AEC 14. The drywell structures would be left in-place and
backfilled with clean soil. New drywells would be installed in
an adjacent area for storm water runoff. The amount of material
to be removed from these structures is estimated to be
approximately 56 cubic yards; this material represents the most
significant source of nickel contamination on the Site. In
addition, approximately 215 cubic yards of surface soiJs from
specific areas within AEC 8 would be removed. Also, the
soils/sediments in the on-site production well vault would be
removed via a vacuum truck. An additional source of nickel would
be removed by this action. The well borehole would be sealed and
capped, and the well casing and concrete vault would be removed.
All materials removed during these measures would be transported
off-site for treatment (as necessary) and disposal in accordance
with federal and state requirements. Steps would also be taken
to try to secure the placement of a deed restriction on the
property so that the use of the property would be restricted to
its current commercial/industrial use. Although this alternative
would result in no contamination remaining on-site above health-
based levels for the current property use, the remedy does not
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure; therefore,
five-year reviews would be required.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In selecting a remedy, EPA considered the factors set out in
CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621, by conducting a detailed analysis
of the viable remedial alternatives pursuant to the NCP, 40 CFR
§300.430(e)(9) and OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. The detailed
analysis consisted of an assessment of the individual
alternatives against each of nine evaluation criteria and a
comparative analysis focusing upon the relative performance of
each alternative against those criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria must be satisfied by any
alternative in order to be eligible for selection:
13
-------
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate
protection and describes how risks posed through each
exposure pathway (based on a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through
treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) addresses whether or not a remedy would
meet all of the applicable (legally enforceable), or
relevant and appropriate (requirements that pertain to
situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at a
Superfund site such that their use is well suited to the
site) requirements of federal and state environmental
statutes and requirements or provide grounds for invoking a
waiver.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make
comparisons and to identify the major trade-offs between
alternatives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability
of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health
and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been
met. It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of
the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed
by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume via treatment
refers to a remedial technology's expected ability to reduce
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants at the site.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human
health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation periods until cleanup goals
are achieved.
6. Implementabilitv refers to the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and
maintenance costs, and the present-worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of
the RI/FS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports,
opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with the
preferred alternative.
14
-------
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the
RI/FS reports. Factors of community acceptance to be
discussed include support, reservation, and opposition by
the community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon
the evaluation criteria noted above follows.
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative SR-II would meet the remedial objective of
preventing cross-media impacts to the groundwater from the
source of contamination. Alternative SR-I would not prevent
the continued migration of nickel into the underlying
groundwater and, therefore, would not be as protective as
Alternative SR-II.
• Compliance with ARARs
Federal and state regulations dealing with the handling and
transportation of any wastes to an off-site disposal
facility for Alternative SR-II would be followed. Wastes
would be treated using specific technologies or specific
treatment levels, as appropriate, to comply with land
disposal restrictions. Alternative SR-I would not be
subject to any ARARs, although, potential excursions of
groundwater/drinking water standards could occur under this
alternative, due to cross-media impacts resulting from
contaminants remaining in the soil.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative SR-II would remove the principal source of
nickel to prevent leaching of contamination to the Upper
Glacial Aquifer. Alternative SR-I would not reduce the
potential long-term leaching to groundwater.
• Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume via Treatment
Treatment may be employed at the off-site facility to reduce
the toxicity, mobility, and potentially volume of
contaminants, especially nickel, in soils/sediments under
Alternative SR-II; otherwise off-site disposal will achieve
the same reductions without treatment. Alternative SR-I
would provide no reduction in contaminant mobility,
toxicity, or volume.
• Short-Term Effectiveness
There is the potential for a temporary increase in risk to
the community and workers due to dust generation during the
15
-------
soil removal activities of Alternative SR-II. However,
health and safety measures, along with the use of a vacuum
truck for soil collection, would be implemented to mitigate
the potential for risk. Workers would also be protected
through the use of respirators (if needed). The
implementation of Alternative SR-I would result in no
additional risk to the community or workers during
implementation.
• Implementability
Components of Alternative SR-II would utilize relatively
common construction equipment and materials. The services
and technologies needed to implement this work are readily
available. Use restrictions via zoning are in place at the
Site and are not expected to change, however EPA would seek
to have a deed restriction put on the property so as to
restrict the property to commercial/industrial uses.
Because no construction activities are associated with
Alternative SR-I, this alternative would be easier to
implement than Alternative SR-II.
• Cost
The no action alternative has no associated costs.
Alternative SR-II is estimated to cost $277,062.
• State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy.
• Community Acceptance
The community concurs with the selected remedy. Specific
responses to public comments are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary section of the ROD.
SELECTED REMEDY
EPA and NYSDEC have determined, after reviewing the alternatives
and public comments, that Alternative SR-II is the appropriate
remedy for the Site, because it best satisfies the requirements
of CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C. §9621, and the NCP's nine evaluation
criteria for remedial alternatives, 40 CFR §300.430(e)(9).
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
t Excavation via a vacuum truck and off-site disposal of
approximately 56 cubic yards of sediments and soils from the
six dry wells in AEC 2 and drywell DW-2 in AEC 14;
16
-------
• Excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 215 cubic
yards of surface soils within AEC 8;
• Abandonment of the on-site production well including
excavation and off-site disposal of sediments and soils from
the well vault; and
• Taking steps to secure the placement of a deed restriction
on the property to limit it to a nonresidential use.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, CERCLA §121(b)(l), 42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(l),
mandates that a remedial action must be protective of human
health and the environment, cost-effective, and utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section
121(b)(l) also establishes a preference for remedial actions
which employ treatment to permanently and significantly reduce
the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants at a site. CERCLA §121(d), 42 U.S.C.
§9621(d), further specifies that a remedial action must attain a
degree of cleanup that satisfies ARARs under federal and state
laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA
§121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d)(4).
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the
selected remedy meets the requirements of CERCLA §121, 42 U.S.C.
§9621:
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is considered to be fully responsive to this
criterion and to the identified remedial action objective.
Excavation and appropriate off-site treatment and disposal of the
contaminated Site sediments and soils will prevent cross-media
impacts by removal of a continuous source of contaminants to the
underlying groundwater.
Compliance with ARARs
At the completion of the response action, the selected remedy
will have complied with all applicable ARARs, including:
Action-Specific ARARs:
• 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 61 - National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
• 40 CFR Part 254.25 - Excavation and Fugitive Dust Emissions
• 40 CFR Part 262.1 - Standards for Generators of Hazardous
Waste
17
-------
• 40 CFR Part 263 - Standards Applicable to Transport of
Hazardous Waste
• 40 CFR Part 264 - Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
• 40 CFR Part 268 - Land Disposal Restrictions
• 6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 200.6 -
Ambient Air Quality Standards
• 6 NYCRR Part 372 - Hazardous Waste Manifest System & Related
Standards for Generators, Transporters and Facilities
• 6 NYCRR Subpart 373 - Final State Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities
• 12 NYCRR Subpart 753 - New York Industrial Code Rule # 53 for
Notification Requirements on Buried Pipeline
• Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) - 20 CFR Part 1910 -
General Industry Standards
• OSHA - 20 CFR Part 1926 - Safety and Health Standards
• OSHA - 20 CFR Part 1904 - Record-Keeping, Reporting, and
Related Regulations
• Department of Transportation (DOT) - 49 CFR Parts 107, 171.1 -
172.5-58 - Rules for Transportation of Hazardous Materials
Chemical-Specific ARARs:
• 40 CFR Part 268 - RCRA Universal Treatment Standards
Location-Specific ARARs:
• None applicable.
To Be Considered:
• New York State Technical and Administrative Guidance
Memorandum (TAGM) - HWR-94-4046
USEPA Interim Draft Health Advisory for Nickel
Cost~Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective in that it provides overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost. The total cost of the
remedy is $277,062; very little long-term operation and maintenance
18
-------
costs are expected. With respect to the total cost, approximately
50% of the cost is attributed to sediments and soils removal,
backfilling, and regrading activities; the remaining 50% is
attributed to post-excavation sampling, soil classification, and
disposal. A detailed breakdown of the costs associated with this
remedy is provided in Tables 13a and 13b.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected
remedy represents the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. The State of
New York and the community also support the selected remedy.
The selected remedy employs removal of the inorganic and organic
contaminated sediments and soils on the Site through excavation and
appropriate off-site treatment (as necessary) and disposal. The
potential for future releases of contaminants to the underlying
grourdwater will be eliminated. Removal and treatment of the
contaminated sediments and soils will, over the long term, reduce
the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants in the
groundwater underlying the Site and prevent further degradation of
area groundwater.
No short-term adverse impacts and threats to human health and the
environment are foreseen as the result of implementing the selected
remedy. However, to minimize and/or prevent worker exposure to
contaminants, personal protection equipment will be utilized.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy requires that the prinicipal threats posed by
the Site, nickel-contaminated sediments and soils, be excavated and
transported off-site for treatment (as necessary) and disposal in
accordance with applicable requirements. Although the remedy does
not require treatment, it is anticipated that these materials will
require treatment prior to disposal. If off-site treatment is
required, the remedy will satisfy the preference for treatment as a
principal element.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Site sediments and soils, identifying the
selected remedy as Alternative SR-II, was released to the public on
August 26, 1995. There are no significant changes from the
preferred alternative as presented in the Proposed Plan.
19
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
*\{M\u$&r^ v MW^^\IS 1 ^SS~^S|Q'
JT •TI^VW?
id. * lx.>$i!£x
GENERAL VICINITY
MAP
URCE: U.S.G.S. Quadrangle Maps. Patchogue & Sayvllle. NY
sISCALE: T
-------
Figure 2.
Goldisc Recordings Study Area
(Formerly
Occupied by
Genco Auto
Electric, Inc.)
Currently Occupied by Consumers
Kitchens and Baths
Currently Occupied
by Cheap John's
(Formerly
Occupied by
Goldisc Recordings, Inc.)
(Formerly
Occupied by
Electros ound
Group, Inc.)
£&«&^**J$?3K&*?k ?>"^«>
Ff^^~^ex^^ ??&
D
Gas Station
Note: An asterisk ( •) batore a number denotes in araa ol concern
to be further investigated during the Phase II RI/FS.
II Asphalt Pavement
Property Line
Areas of Concern
-------
FIGURE 3
WELL LOCATIONS
-------
FIGURE A
AREAS TO BE REMEDIATED
AEC 8
SURFACE SOILS
(215 CY)
DRYWELL n (DW-2)
(A CY)
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
PHASE I ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR AREA 2 SOIL SAMPLES
FORMER GOLDISC SITE
HOLBROOK, NEW YORK
Date Collected
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cakium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Area 2
EC2-1
15-17'
6/29/88
1590
<23.26
<0.58
1.9
<581
47.4 J
<3.49
118
3290
54.7 J
<581
78.8 J
0.19 B
75.1 J
<581
<1.16
9.6
65.3 J
Area 2
EC2-2
15-17'
6/30/88
999
<26.32
<0.66
2.9
<658
195.0
13.7 J
68.7
4120
41.7 J
<658
17.6
0.16
999
<658
<1.32
<6.58
159 J
Area 2
EC2-2
17-19'
6/30/88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
24.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
Area 2
EC2-3
12-14'
6/30/88
1750
<24.1
<0.6
<1.2
1170
102
<3.61
97.2
6490
73.2 J
1340
64.6
0.10
1120
<602
4.3
17
108 B
Area 2
EC2-3
14-16'
6/30/88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
107
NA
NA
NA
NA
Area 2
EC2-3
16-18'
6/30/88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
25.6 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
Date Collected
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Area 2
EC2-4
9-11'
6/30/88
1300 J
<25.64
<0.64
<1.28
717
50.5 J
<3.85
24.7 J
2440 J
13.3 J
<64.1
33.2 J
0.08
726.0 J
<641
1.9 J
<6.41
122.0 J
Area 2
EC2-4
11-13'
6/30/88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
107
NA
NA
NA
NA
Area 2
EC2-4
13-15'
6/30/88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70.9 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
Area 2
EC2-5
12-14'
6/30/88
812
<23.53
<0.59
<1.18
<588
30.3
<3.53
45.6
1600
34.7 J
<588
22.7
<0.05
193
<588
3.9
<5.88
34.2 B
Area 2
EC2-5
14-16'
6/30/88
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
70.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
Area 2
EC2-6
15'-17'
6/30/88
1029
<24.1
<0.6
2
<602
41.6 J
<3.16
95.2
1870
64.6 J
<602
14.8 J
0.14 B
41.5 J
<602
<1.2
<6.02
50.5 J
NOTES:
Units are milligrams per kilogram.
U: Undetected.
J: Estimated concentration.
NA; Not Analyzed
B: Compound also detected in blank.
-------
TABLE 2
PHASE I! ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR AREA 14 SOIL SAMPLES
FORMER GOLDISC SITE
HOLBROOK, NEW YORK
Page 4 of 4
Semi-volalilcs (cont.)
Date Collected
Pentachlorophcnol
Phenanthrcnc
Anthracene
Carbazolc
Di-n-bulylphthalatc
Fluoranthcne
Pyrcnc
Bulylbcnzlphihalate
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
Bcnzo(a)anlhracene
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethvlhexvl)phthal
Di-n-octylphthalate
Benzo(b)fluoranlhene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pvrene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)pervlene
DW-l
9-ir
5/2/93
120 J
<500
<500
<500
<500
54 J
190 J
<500
<500
<500
<500
170 J
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
<500
DW-1
13-15'
5/2/93
<870
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
96 J
<350
<350
<350
<350
79 J
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
DVV-1
17-19'
5/2/93
DW-2
15-17'
5/2/93
<870 <1600
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
42 J
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350 J
<650
450 J
<650
<650
1000
1200
<650
<650
500 J
770
510 J
L50 J
860
510 J
260 J
460 J
290 J
400 J
DW-2
17-19'
5/2/93
<900 J
<360
<360
<360
<360
<360
<360J
<360
<360
<360
<360
<360
<360
<360
<360
<360
<360
<360
<360
DW-2
27-29'
5/2/93
<880 J
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350 J
<350
<350
<350
<350
42 J
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
<350
DW-3
16-18'
5/2/93
230 J
220 J
<930 J
<930 J
<930 J
500 J
400 J
250 J
DW-3
24-26'
5/2/93
1000
<410
<410
<410
<410
<410
<410
<410
<930 J| <410
170 J
210 J
460 J
<930 J
140 J
110 J
<930 J
<930 J
<930 J
<930 J
<410
<410
<410
<410
<410
<410
<410
<410
<410
<410 J
DW-3
26-30'
5/2/93
<980
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390
<390 J
DW-3
28-30'
5/2/93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
DW-3
Split
5/2/93
<950 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
43 J
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
<390 U
NOTES: Units are micrograms per kilogram for volatile organics, semi-volatiles, and PCBs.
Units are milligrams per kilogram for metals.
TICs: Tentatively Identified Compounds.
D: Concentration determined at a secondary dilution factor.
U: Undetected.
J: Estimated concentration.
NA: Not Analyzed.
R: Value rejected by data validation review.
Split - Split sample comparison results
-------
TABLE 3
PHASE II ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR 1993 GROUND WATER SAMPLES - METALS
FORMER GOLDISC SITE
HOLBROOK, NEW YORK
Date Collected
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
STD.
—
6M
50
2000
1 M
5
...
100
—
—
300
50
—
300
2
.-_
—
10
50
—
L_ 2M _J
5000
ivrw-2
4/22/93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<9.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M\V-4R
4/21/93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<9.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-8R
4/21/93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.5 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-9
4/22/93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<9.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
31.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
ivnv-ioR
4/21/93
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<9.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<13.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
M\v-ns
4/21/93
166
<2.4
2.2 J
12.8 J
<0.8
<3.3
S090
<9.7
<12.6
3.1
186 J
1.6 J
2060
6.5
<0.2
<13.6
1460 J
1.4 J
<0.2J
18,500
<0.4J
5.6
33.8
M\V-17I
4/21/93
187
<2.4
2.6
I7.8J
<0.8
<3.3
10,100
<9.7
<12.6
5.0
65.0
3.0 J
3980
55.6
<0.2
<13.6
2150J
<1.2J
<2.0J
15,900
<0.4 J
7.7
32.4
MW-17D
4/21/93
16.7
<2.4
2.9 J
10.6 J
<0.8
<33
9990
<9.7
<12.6
5.1
101 J
2.9 J
2230
54.1
<0.2
<13.6
872 J
<1.2J
<2.0J
9840
<0.79 J
8.6
30.9
NOTES: Units are micrograms per liter. U: Undetected.
NA: Not Analyzed. J: Estimated concentration.
STD: New York State drinking water standard, except those followed by M, which are USEPA MCLs.
-------
TABLE 4a
PHASE II ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR 1994 GROUND WATER SAMPLES - METALS
FORMER GOLDISC SITE
HOLBROOK, NEW YORK
DATE
Silver
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
llcryllium
Calcium
Cadmium
Cobatl
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
SIT).
—
6M
SO
2000
1M
5
—
100
—
—
300
50
—
300
2
100 M
—
10
30
—
2M
—
5000
MW-2
9/7/94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<9.7
NA
28.2 T
NA
NA
NA
2 1
NA
17.6 J E
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-2
Split
9/7/94
<10 L
<200 I
<10 I
<200 L
<5 I
15
<5 t
<50 L
12
<2S L
<100 L
<0.2 L
<5 L
<5 I
<15 L
30
<40 L
<3 L
<60 L
<$ L
<10 L
<50 L
<20 L
MW-5
9/8/94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<9.7
NA
16 r
NA
NA
NA
1.6 II
NA
<12.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-5
Split
9/8/94
<10 L
22900
12.1
<200 L
<5 L
15
<5 L
<50 L
31
42
35100 L
<0.2 L
<5 L
5
2940
12
127
25.4
<60 L
<5 L
<10 t
51
40
MW-7A
9/7/94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<9.7
NA
97 r
NA
NA
NA
128
NA
<12.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-7A
Split
9/7/94
<10 L
531
<10 L
<200 I
<5 L
13
<5 I
<50 L
-------
TABLE 4b
PHASE 11 ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR 1994 GROUND WAFER SAMPLES - METALS
FORMER GOLDISC SITE
HOLBROOK, NEW YORK
OATH
Silver
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
llcryllium
Calcium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Potassium
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Nickel
l-ead
Aniimony
Selenium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
STD.
50
—
50
2000
1 M
—
5
—
100
—
300
2
—
—
300
—
.. —
50
6M
10
2M
—
5000
W-I1RF
9/8/94
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
<9.7
NA
185
NA
NA
NA
459
NA
63.1 J
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MW-11RF
Split
9/8/94
<10 U
671
<10 LI
<200 I
<5 I
15
<5 I
-------
TABLE 5
GOLDISC RECORDINGS SITE
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
Volatile Organic Compounds
1,1-dichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
vinyl chloride
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
benzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
Metals
cadmium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
-------
TABLE 6
Direct Contact with Site Soil by On-Site Commercial/Industrial Employees
Calculation of Potential Carcinogenic Risk
Chemicals
1,1-dichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
1 , 1 , 1-trichloroethane
vinyl chloride
benzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
cadmium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
Average Daily
Intake
Oral
(mg/kg-day)
9.61E-10
2.27E-09
9.61E-10
9.44E-10
1.13E-07
1.13E-07
1.03E-07 '
1.65E-06
4.08E-06
4.43E-06
3.56E-06
Oral
Potency
Factor
(mg/kg-day)- 1
...
5.20E-02
—
1.90E+00
7.30E-01
7.30E-03
—
—
—
—
...
TOTAL
Potential
Cancer
Risk
(-)
na
1.18E-10
na
1.79E-09
8.23E-08
8.24E-10
na
na
na
na
na
8.50E-08
25500263.XLS/lc
-------
TABLE 7
Direct Contact with Site Soil by Future Short-Term Construction Workers
Calculation of Potential Carcinogenic Risk
Chemical
1,1-dichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
vinyl chloride
Denzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
cadmium
copper
ead
nickel
zinc
Oral
Average Daily
Intake
(mg/kg-day)
1.43E-10
3.31E-10
1.43E-10
3.31E-10
5.01E-09
6.37E-09
1.29E-07
6.17E-06
2.17E-06
3.56E-06
3.31E-06
Potency
Factor
(mg/kg-day)- 1
—
5.20E-02
—
1.90E+00
7.30E-01
7.30E-03
—
—
—
—
...
TOTAL
Potential
Cancer
Risk
(-)
—
1.72E-11
—
6.30E-10
3.65E-09
4.65E-11
—
—
—
—
—
4.34E-09
25500263.XLS/lc
-------
TABLE 8
Domestic Use of Ground Water
Calculation of Potential Carcinogenic Risk
Chemical
1,1-dichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
vinyl chloride
benzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
cadmium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
TOTAL
Oral Risk
Average Daffy
Intake (ADI)
(mg/kg-day)
1.17E-05
9.39E-06
4.23E-05
2.94E-06
8.81E-08
2.70E-08
2.94E-05
1.53E-06
2.81E-05
2.08E-03
1.17E-04
Potency
Factor
(mg/kg-day)-l
~.
5.20E-02
—
1.90E400
7.30E-01
7.30E-03
—
—
—
—
—
Oral
Risk
(~)
4.88E-07
5.59E-06
6.43E-08
1.97E-10
Inhalation Risk
Average Daily
Intake (ADI)
(mg/kg-day)
4.40E-05
3.52E-05
1.59E-04
1.10E-05
3.30E-07
1.01E-07
1.10E-04
5.72E-06
1.06E-04
7.79E-03
4.40E-04
Potency
Factor
(mg/kg-day)- 1
—
2.03E-03
—
3.00E-01
na
na
na
na
na
na
na
Inhalation
Risk
(-)
7.15E-08
3.30E-06
Total
Pathway
Risk
(-)
5.60E-07
8.89E-06
6.43E-08
1.97E-10
9.51E-06
na=not applicable, inhalation exposure evaluated for volatile organics only
Z5500263.XLS/1C
-------
TABLE 9
Dermal Absorption of Chemicals in Soil by Children
Calculation of Chronic Hazard Index
(Noncarcinogenic Effects)
Chemical
cadmium
Absorbed
Dose
Dermal
(mg/kg-day)
8.80E-08
Dermal
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
5.00E-04
Hazard
Index (HI)
(-)
1.76E-04
25500263-XLS/lc
-------
TABLE 10
Direct Contact with Site Soil by On-Site Commercial/Industrial Employees
Calculation of Chronic Hazard Index
(Noncarcinogenic Effects)
Chemical
1,1-dichloroelhanc
lelrachloroelhene
1',1,1-trichloroethane
vinyl chloride
benzo(a)anlhracene
chrysene
cadmium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
Oral
Average Daily
Intake
(mg/kg-day)
2.69E-09
6.36E-09
2.69E-09
2.64E-09
3.16E-07
3.16E-07
2.89E-07
4.62E-06
1. HE-OS
1 .24E-05
9.98E-06
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
l.OOE-01
I.OOE-02
...
...
...
...
5.00E-04
...
...
2.00E-02
3.00E-01
Oral
Hazard
Index (-)
2.69R-08
6.36E-07
5.78E-04
6.20E-04
3.33E-05
Dermal
Absorbed
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
3.30E-07
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
...
...
—
...
...
...
5.00E-04
...
...
—
—
Dermal
Hazard
Index (-)
6.60E-04
TOTAL
Total Pathway
Hazard
Index (HI)
(-)
2.69E-08
6.36E-07
na
na
na
na
1.24E-03
na
na
6.20E-04
3.33E-05
I.89E-03
25500263.XLS/lc
-------
TABLE 11
Direct Contact with Site Soil by Future Short-Term Construction Workers
Calculation of Chronic Hazard Index
(Noncarcinogenic Effects)
Chemicals
1,1-dichloroethane
tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
vinyl chloride
3enzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
cadmium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
Oral
Average Daily
Intake
(mg/kg-day)
l.OOE-08
2.32E-08
l.OOE-08
2.32E-08
3.50E-07
4.46E-07
9.00E-06
4.32E-04
1.52E-04
2.49E-04
2.32E-04
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-02
...
•
—
—
5.00E-04
—
—
2.00E-02
3.00E-01
Oral
Hazard
Index (-)
l.OOE-07
2.32E-06
•
1.80E-02
1.25E-02
7.73E-04
Dermal
Absorbed
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
—
—
—
'
—
—
1.11E-06
—
—
—
—
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
—
—
.„
—
—
—
5.00E-04
—
—
—
—
Dermal
Hazard
Index (-)
2.23E-03
TOTAL
Hazard
Index (HI)
l.OOE-07
2.32E-06
—
—
—
—
2.02E-02
—
—
1.24E-02
7.72E-04
3.34E-02
25500263.XLS/1C
-------
TABLE 12
Domestic Use of Ground Water
Calculation of Chronic Hazard Index
(Noncarcinogenic Effects)
Chemical
1,1-dichloroethane
tetrachloroetliene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
vinyl chloride
benzo(a)anthracene
chrysene
cadmium
copper
lead
nickel
zinc
TOTAL
Oral
Average Daily
Intake
(mg/kg-day)
2.74E-05
2.19E-05
9.86E-05
6.85E-06
2.05 E-07
6.30E-08
6.85E-06
3.56E-06
6.58E-05
4.85E-03
2.74E-04
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-02
—
—
...
—
5.00E-04
—
—
2.00E-02
3.00E-01
Oral
Hazard
Index (-)
2.74E-04
2.19E-03
•
1.37E-02
2.43E-01
9.13E-04
Inhalation
Average Daily
Intake (ADI)
(mg/kg-day)
1.03E-04
8.22E-05
3.70E-04
2.57E-05
7. 71 E-07
2.36E-07
2.57E-05
1.34E-05
2.47E-04
1.82E-02
1.03E-03
Reference
Dose
(mg/kg-day)
1.43E-01
—
2.86E-01
—
—
—
na
na
na
na
na
Dermal
Hazard
Index (-)
7.20E-04
1.29E-03
Hazard
Index (HI)
(-)
9.94E-04
2.19E-03
1.29E-03
1.37E-02
2.43E-01
9.13E-04
2.62E-01
na=not applicable, inhalation exposure evaluated for volatile organics only
25500263.XLS/lc
-------
Table I3a
Cost Estimate
Former Goldisc Recordings Facility, Holbrook, New York
Soil Remedial Alternative Limited Action
Item Description
Capital Costs
Unit
Quantity Unit Cost , Cost Total Cost
hr
hr
hr
day
day
day
day
Is
day
160
320
80
16
16
16
8
1
8
65
42
80
105
35
35
2,000
600
2,000
10,400
13,440
6,400
1,680
560
560
16,000
600
16,000
Soil Removal from All Area 2 Dry Wells and Area 14 Dry Well DW-2
(soil removal and disposal costs for production well sediment also included in this task cost)
Soil Removal Labor and Equipment
Supervisor
Technicians (2 persons)
Project Manager
Field Vehicle
Hand Tools
Hard%vare
Super Sucker
Super Sucker Mob
Confined Space Entry
Dry Well Dewatering Labor and Equipment
Labor
Vacuum Truck
Vacuum Truck Mob
Soil Classification Sampling
Soil Disposal
Dry Well Water Classification Sampling
Dry Well Water Disposal
Abandonment of the Production Well
Abandonment of the Production Well
Is
S65.640
gal
day
each
Is
cy
sample
Is
13,310
5
3
1
56
3
1
0.50
1,500
600
1,700
225
150
8,886
6,655
7,500
1,800
1,700
12,600
450
8,886
315,955
S 1,700
312,600
3450
38,886
Task Subtotal SI05,231
4000 4,000' S4.000
Task Subtotal S4.000
ERM-Northcast
COST2..XLS\Updatcd:8/3/9S
-------
Table I3b
Cost Estimate
^Former Goldisc Recordings Facility, Holbrook, New York
Soil Remedial Alternative Limited Action
Item Description
Excavation of Surface Soil in Area 8
Clearing and Grubbing
Excavation
Backfill and Regrade
Post-Excavation Sampling
Senior Project Hydrogeologist
Project Hydrogeologist
Expenses
Analysis for Nickel
Soil Classification Sampling
Soil Disposal
Operating Costs
. Access and Use Restrictions
Pavement and Foundation Maintenance
Site Inspections
Unit
Is
y,ear
Quantity Unit Cost „ Cost Total Cost
day
days
cy
hours
hours
Is
sample
Is
cy
1
2
215
4
10
1
15
1
215
2,500
2500
23
90
55
150
35
1,000
225
2,500
5,000
4,945
360
550
150
525
1,000
48,375
Task Subtotal 563,405
Subtotal of Capital Costs for SR-II SI 72,636
Engineering and Contingencies (45%) 577,686
Total Capital Costs for SR-H 5250,322
1,760
260
1,760
260
Subtotal Annual Costs 52,020
Present Worth (20yrs, 7%, PWF=10.59) 521,392
Contingency (25%) 55,348
Total Present Worth of Remedial Action Annual Costs 526,740
Total Cost, Soil Remedial Alternative SR-II wo/Contingency Area 2 Soil Study Cost 5277,062
ERM-Northeast
COST2.XLS\Updated:8/3/95
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
GOLDISC RECORDINGS SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
1.4 Site Investigation Reports
P. 100001 - Report: Engineering Investigations at Inactive
100304 Hazardous Waste Sites in the State of New
York. Phase 1 - Preliminary Investigation.
Final Report. Goldisc Recordings. Inc. Site.
prepared for Division of Solid Waste, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation,
prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc.,
September 20, 1984.
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
P.
300001 -
300311
300312 -
300320
Report: Final Field Operations Plan. Phase II
Remedial Investigation. Former Goldisc Recordings
Facility. Holbrook. New York, prepared by ERM-
Northeast, November, 1992.
Report: Final Field Operations Plan. Phase II
Remedial Investigation. Former Goldisc Recordings
Facility. Holbrook. New York. Appendix J; October
28. 1992 Response to EPA Comments, prepared by
ERM-Northeast, November, 1992.
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 300321 - Report: Split Sample Data Comparison Report.
300364 Goldisc Recordings Site. Islip. New York. RI/FS
Compliance Oversight, prepared for U.S. EPA,
prepared by TRC Environmental Corporation, January
24, 1994. (Note: This document is CONFIDENTIAL. It
is located at U.S. EPA Superfund Records Center,
290 Broadway, 18th floor, N.Y., N.Y. 10007-1866.)
P. 300365 - Letter to Mr. Robert Finke, ICF Technologies, from
300379 Mr. John Birri, Chief, Inorganic Chemistry
Section, Technical Support Branch, 'U.S. EPA,
Region II, re: Enclosed results of the Goldisc
Recording sampling survey conducted by ICF
Technologies during the week of September 5, 1994,
November 4, 1994. (Attached: Sampling data for the
Goldisc Recording Site, November 4, 1994.)
-------
3.3 Work Plans
P. 300380 - Report: Final Phase II Work Plan. Remedial
300551 Investigation and Feasibility Study. Former
Goldisc Recordings Facility. Holbrook. New York.
Volume 1 of 2. prepared for Electrosound Group,
prepared by ERM Northeast, December, 1991.
P. 300552 - Report: Final Phase II Work Plan. Remedial
300566 Investigation and Feasibility Study. Former
Goldisc Recordings Facility. Holbrook. New
York. Volume 2 of 2. prepared for Electrosound
Group, prepared by ERM Northeast, December, 1991
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P.
P.
P.
P.
P.
300567 - Report: Site Analysis. Goldisc Recording. Inc..
300596 Holbrook. New York, prepared by Ms. Melissa
Simpson, Imagery Analyst, The Bionetics
Corporation, December, 1987.
300597 - Report: Final Field Oversight Summary Report.
300741 RI/FS Compliance Oversight. Goldisc Recordings.
Islip. New York, prepared for U.S. EPA, prepared
by TRC Environmental Corporation, April 12, 1994.
(Note: This document is CONFIDENTIAL. It is
located at U.S. EPA Super fund Records Center, 290
Broadway, 18th floor, N.Y., N.Y. 10007-1866.)
300742 - Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 125, Rules and
300744 Regulations, Thursday, June 29, 1995.
300745 -
300839
Report: Final Baseline Risk Assessment. Former
Goldisc Recordings Facility, Holbrook. New York.
prepared for Electrosound Group, prepared by ERM-
Northeast, August, 1995.
Phase II Remedial
300840 - Report:
301278 Former Goldisc Recordings Facility
Investigation Report
Holbrook.
New
York, prepared for Electrosound Group, prepared by
ERM-Northeast, August, 1995.
4.3 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400001 - Report: Final Feasibility Study Report.
400331 Former Goldisc Recordings Facility. Holbrook. New
York, prepared for Electrosound Group, prepared by
ERM-Northeast, August 15, 1995.
-------
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.3 Administrative Orders
P. 700001 - Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial
700042 Investigation/Feasibility Study, in the Matter
of: The Goldisc Recording Site, First Holbrook
Company, Electrosound Group, Inc., Respondents,
Index No. II CERCLA-10218, June 27, 1991.
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENT
8.3 Correspondence
P. 800001 - Memorandum to addressees, from Tudor T. Davies,
800002 Director, Office of Science and Technology (4301),
re: Interim Draft Health Advisory for Nickel, July
10, 1995.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 Community Relations Plans
P. 1000001- Plan: Community Relation Plan. Community
1000042 Relations Support. Goldisc Recordings. Islip. New
York, prepared for U.S. EPA, prepared by TRC
Environmental Corporation, February 9, 1993.
10.9 Proposed Plan
P. 1000043 - Plan: Superfund Proposed Plan. Goldisc Recordings
1000052 Site. Town of Islip. Suffolk County. New York.
prepared by U.S. EPA, Region II, August, 1995.
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
50 Waif Road. Atony, lew Ywh 12233
Ms. Kathleen Callahan
Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
SEP 28 1995
Re: Goldisc Recordings Site TD No. 152022
Record of Decision
Mithtel 0. Zagiu
Comnistmntr
Dear Ms. Callahan:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the record of
decision for the Goldisc Recordings site. The Department concurs with the selected remedy of
Alternative SR-IJ, Limited Action, as it is detailed in the above-referenced document
457-3976.
CM UI
CM C_>
«- o
0- ,,-,
co r."
Cv! p
fc O
CO (JJ
LO 9:
°~ a
above-referenced document.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jeffrey McCullough, of my staff, at (S18)
Sincerely,
ae (L
^ Michael 1. 0'Toole, Jr.
Director
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
PosWf Fax Note
7671
. 0
Co
Co.
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Goldisc Recordings Superfund Site
INTRODUCTION
A responsiveness summary is required by Superfund regulation. It
provides a summary of citizens' comments and concerns received
during the public comment period, and the United States Environmen-
tal Protection Agency's (EPA's) responses to those comments and
concerns. All comments summarized in this document have been
considered in EPA's final decision for selection of a remedial
alternative for the Goldisc Recordings Superfund site (Site).
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
Community involvement at the Site has been low. EPA took over as
the lead Agency for community relations and remedial activities at
the Site in 1991. EPA initiated its community relations activities
on March 10, 1991 with in-person interviews with local officials
and residents of Holbrook and Islip. Based on these interviews,
the key issue of concern centered around the possibility of
contamination of the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA)
Wellfield, which is located only 1200 feet downgradient of the
Site.
The remedial investigation, feasibility study, and baseline risk
assessment reports, as well as the Proposed Plan for the Site, were
released to the public for comment on August 26, 1995. These
documents were made available to the public in the administrative
record file at the EPA Docket Room in Region II, New York and the
information repositories at the Islip Town Hall and the Sachem
Public Library. A press release announcing the proposed action was
issued on August 30, 1995 to local media outlets. The notice of
availability for the above-referenced documents was published in
the Suffolk County News on September 7, 1995. The public comment
period on these documents was held from August 26, 1995 to
September 26, 1995.
On September 11, 1995, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Islip
Town Hall West Auditorium, to inform local officials and interested
citizens about the Superfund process, to discuss remedial
alternatives for the Site, to present EPA's preferred remedial
alternative, and to provide an opportunity for the interested
parties to present oral comments and questions to EPA.
Attached to the Responsiveness Summary are the following
Appendices:
Appendix A - Proposed Plan
Appendix B — Public Notice
-------
Appendix C - September 11, 1995 Public Meeting Attendance
Sheets
Appendix D - Letters Submitted During the Public Comment
Period
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Comments expressed at the public meeting and written comments
received during the public comment period from counsel and the
consultant representing ElectroSound Group, Inc. and the First
Holbrook Company, as well as counsel representing the Red Ground
Corporation, have been categorized as follows:
A. Selected Remedy Issues
B. Health Effects Issues
C. General Enforcement Issues
D. Groundwater Issues
A summary of the comments and EPA's responses to the comments is
provided below.
A. Selected Remedy
Comment #1: A resident asked how the cubic volume of soil to be
removed from the Site was determined and if that amount
corresponded to the amount of wastes known to have been discharged
on the Site.
Response #1: There are three distinct areas targeted for sediments
and/or soil removal on the Site. For sediments and soils in the
various drywells, the analytical data were used to determine the
depth of removal. It was determined that removal of the first
three feet from each of the six drywells in Area of Environmental
Concern (AEC) 2 and drywell (DW) 2 in AEC 14 would remove the most
significant contamination. Post removal levels of nickel remaining
in AEC 2 would be below 70 parts per million (ppm), which is within
typical background ranges. Removal of the top two feet from DW-2
in AEC 14 would remove concentrations of benzo(a)anthracene and
chrysene to below the New York State recommended cleanup levels for
protection of groundwater. A total of approximately 39 cubic yards
of sediments and/or soils would be removed from these features for
off-site disposal.
Analytical data collected from nine separate sampling locations
were used to determine which surface soil locations within AEC 8
required remediation. The estimate of soil to be removed was based
on excavating soils to a depth of two feet, around the first four
sampling locations (approximately 2900 square feet), which detected
-------
the highest levels of nickel and chromium. This would result in
the removal of approximately 215 cubic yards of surface soils which
would be transported off-site for disposal. In addition,
approximately 17 cubic yards of sediments would be removed from the
former production well vault, designated as AEC 12. This estimate
is based on the presence of approximately three feet of
contaminated sediment in a 10 feet by 15 feet vault.
In total, the three areas targeted for removal would result in
approximately 271 cubic yards of sediments/soils requiring removal
for off-site treatment (as necessary) and disposal.
It is not possible to determine exact quantities of illegal or
inappropriate discharges that were made on the Site by previous
operators 15 to 25 years ago. It is important to note that
sediments/soil targeted for removal and off-site disposal
represents the most significant contamination currently found on
the Site. It is EPA's intention that removal of this material will
prevent further cross-media impacts to the underlying groundwater.
Comment #2: A resident asked where the contaminated sediments and
soils that are to be removed from the Site will be disposed.
Response #2: The final disposal facility will be selected during
the remedial design or remedial action phase of the project. EPA
and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) will ensure that the selected facility is fully permitted
to handle the sediments/soils and is in full compliance with all
applicable laws governing its operations.
Comment #3: A resident asked why, if no unacceptable risks exist
with the on-site sediments and soils, is EPA proposing to remove
any of the sediments and soils from the Site.
Response |3: Most of the sediments and soils targeted for removal
from the Site are inaccessible. Because of this, the risk
assessment performed concluded that the sediments and soils do not
pose any unacceptable additional risks. However, EPA believes that
contamination detected in these sediments and soils continues to
impact the underlying groundwater. The major contaminant in the
sediments and soils, nickel, has been detected at very high levels
in the underlying groundwater. It is EPA's intent to prevent
further cross-media impacts, i.e., continuing degradation of the
underlying groundwater from sources of nickel in the Site sediments
and soils.
Comment #4: A resident asked whether EPA had tested the Sans Souci
Lakes, downgradient of the Site and, if so, what the findings were.
Response #4: The Sans Souci Lakes, a state and federally
designated wetland, is located approximately 1/2 mile south of the
Site. The NYSDEC surface water classification for Sans Souci is
-------
Class B, which means the waters are best suited for recreational
purposes and not a source of drinking water. The Phase I RI
involved collection of surface water and sediment samples from four
separate locations. During the Phase II RI, samples were collected
from five additional locations. Results of sampling indicated that
the only contaminant detected at levels which could have potential
impacts to the wetland was lead; the levels of lead found were
typical of soils collected near major roadways. Lead is not a
contaminant of concern at the Site. Therefore, it was concluded
that there has been no impact to the wetland from the Goldisc
Recordings site.
B. Health Effects Issues
Comment #1: A resident asked what the dangers are to children
playing in the wooded area to the north of the two on-site
buildings.
Response #1: The wooded area north of the two on-site buildings
was sampled during both Phase I and Phase II of the RI. A risk
assessment conducted during Phase I evaluated potential impacts
resulting from children ingesting soil at the Site, including those
soils north of the building; the assessment indicated that the
soils did not pose an unacceptable risk. A second assessment was
performed during Phase II to supplement the Phase I assessment.
This supplemental work assessed the impacts posed to children from
dermal contact with soil; the assessment indicated that these soils
did not pose an unacceptable risk.
Comment #2: A former Goldisc Recordings employee inquired about
the health risk to those working in the facility at the height of
its operations.
Response #2: The risk assessment performed for the Site evaluated
data collected during the Phase I and Phase II remedial
investigations and only addressed current and potential future
risks. In order to assess risks of past exposure, EPA would need
historical data from the time frame of concern. Because EPA is not
in possession of the necessary historical data and information,
this determination cannot be made.
C. General Enforcement Issues
Comment #1: A resident asked about who would pay for
implementation of the remedy, and if there were any legal actions
EPA could take against the former owners of the Site.
Response #1: Both the Phase I and Phase II remedial investigations
and feasibility studies have been performed by two potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), namely, ElectroSound Group, Inc.
(parent company to Goldisc Recordings) and the First Holbrook
Company (past owner of the property). These PRPs have cooperated
-------
with both NYSDEC and EPA and have signed Orders on Consent for
performance of these tasks. After selection of the remedy, EPA
will notify these two PRPs, and the other PRPs at the Site, of
their liability at the Site, and request that the PRPs voluntary
finance or implement the remedy. If the PRPs fail to voluntarily
agree to finance or implement the remedy, EPA can order the PRPs to
do so. Alternatively, EPA can utilize the Superfund to finance the
remedy and subsequently take legal actions to recoup costs incurred
in implementing the remedy.
D. Groundwater Issues
Although the Proposed Plan only addressed remedy selection for
sources of contamination at the Site, there were significant
comments made by interested parties regarding the Site's
contribution to the contamination of the groundwater, the impacts
of this contamination on the SCWA's Church Street Wellfield, and
EPA's decision to defer the selection of a remedy for groundwater.
During the public meeting EPA was assisted in responding to a
number of these concerns by representatives from the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services (SCDHS) and the SCWA. EPA also
received written comments from the PRPs and the PRP's consultant on
related issues. The key concerns raised are summarized below.
Comment #1: Residents questioned whether any agencies involved in
the site investigation could explain the condition or quality of
the local drinking water during the height of Goldisc's operations,
and when the leaching of contaminants, particularly nickel, from
the Site into the groundwater had begun to pose a problem at the
Church Street Wellfield.
Response #1: It was noted that a Safe Drinking Water Act maximum
contaminant level (MCL) did not exist for nickel until 1992 (note:
this MCL was subsequently remanded and replaced with a Health
Advisory set at the same level) . During the conduct of the Phase II
RI, nickel levels in Church Street (CS) well number 2 (CS-2), a
well in the Upper Glacial Aquifer, did exceed the MCL; nickel was
also detected in CS-1 (also in the Upper Glacial Aquifer) at levels
well below the MCL; nickel was not detected in CS-3, which draws
water from the deeper Magothy Aquifer. Nickel is the only Site
contaminant that is known to have impacted the wellfield. It was
first determined to be a problem in CS-2 in sampling conducted in
1993, however, the well was not in service at that time due to an
organic contamination problem associated with a nearby Sunoco
gasoline station. The water from CS-2 has subsequently been used
at times of peak demand; in such instances it is blended with water
from CS-1 or CS-3 prior to distribution. Sampling of CS-2 in
August of 1995 indicated that the levels of nickel had decreased to
below 100 ppb which is the former MCL and current Health Advisory
level.
-------
During the public meeting, Mr. Miller from SCWA noted that the
authority was not required to test for nickel as part of its
routine monitoring program prior to 1993. The Authority did do
some random sampling for nickel prior to that date, and as noted
previously, first identified nickel levels of concern in 1993. Mr.
Miller noted that while significant information is not available
regarding the presence of nickel prior to 1993, it is unlikely that
people were exposed to significant levels of nickel due to the way
in which the water is distributed by SCWA. He explained that the
wellfield has utilized three wells since the early 1970's, and that
on most occasions the water from the wells is blended prior to
distribution. In fact there are fifteen wells located within five
miles of the Church Street Wellfield which are -often blended under
various scenarios prior to distribution.
Mr. Steven Calobufo, senior hydrogeologist with SCWA, indicated
that he did not believe that there was a contamination problem at
the wellfield prior to the detection of nickel in 1993. He
indicated that it would take at least 15 years for the
contamination to travel from the Site to the intakes for the
wellfield.
Since the levels found at CS-2 have been very close to (and most
recently below) the Health Advisory, it is unlikely that residents
were exposed to levels above the Health Advisory, and if they were,
the frequency/extent of exposure was likely to be inconsequential.
This is because MCLs and Health Advisories are developed using very
conservative assumptions. It is typically assumed that the
population drinks 2 liters of water each day for thirty years over
a seventy-year lifetime and, in the case of the nickel MCL and
Health Advisory, that the population would obtain no more than 20%
of its daily acceptable nickel consumption from drinking water.
Comment #2: Counsel for ElectroSound and First Holbrook, their
consultant ERM, and Red Ground Co./Red Ground Corp. (Red Ground)
provided written comments explaining their objections to EPA's
decision to defer remedy selection for Site groundwater. These
parties claim that EPA's decision to bifurcate the remediation is
arbitrary and capricious. Red Ground further contends that there
is no technical or scientific basis for this bifurcation.
Response #2: EPA's decision to defer remedy selection for Site
groundwater is appropriate, within our discretion and supported by
case law. It is appropriate for EPA to defer the decision for
several reasons that were described in the Proposed Plan and at the
public meeting. These include: the concentration of .nickel (deemed
to be the major contaminant of concern at the Site) in the
groundwater increased dramatically as evidenced by the 1994
sampling event (which indicated a maximum nickel concentration in
the groundwater of approximately 959 ppb); the Church Street
Wellfield has and continues to be impacted by nickel contamination;
and the groundwater modeling as performed by the PRPs consultant
-------
(ERM) indicates that levels of nickel reaching the wellfield could
potentially triple in the future. It is appropriate for EPA to
defer its decision until such time when additional test results
better define whether additional measures are warranted. EPA's
decision arises out of a legitimate concern for the public health,
and is a fair and reasonable approach for ensuring the protection
of the Church Street Wellfield given the need for additional
information and the uncertain accuracy of groundwater modeling
efforts.
Comment #3: The parties, identified in Comment #2 above, were
concerned that EPA has not specified any reasonable timetable in
which to gather the additional information nor recommended any
alternate remedy which may be implemented within a specified time
frame. Red Ground also claimed that deferring the remedy could
impact EPA's ability to recover response cost from two of the
bankrupt PRPs, and could also impact Red Ground's ability to sell
the property.
Response #3: It is anticipated that a groundwater monitoring
program will be initiated this fall and continue for approximately
a year. After such time, the sampling data will be evaluated and
remedies explored; remedial alternatives to be evaluated are
expected to include at a minimum, those identified in the
Feasibility Study (FS). It is envisioned that the results of the
additional work would be documented in a brief addendum to the FS;
any new alternatives would also be documented in this addendum.
The remedial action for groundwater, if one is authorized by EPA,
will then be implemented as soon as Site data and information make
it possible.
It is our position that the further monitoring is necessary given
the factors stated above and will address the many uncertainties
associated with the site that may be impeding the financing or sale
of the property. While cost recovery is an important issue for
EPA, it does not take precedence over our duty to protect the
health and safety of the public.
Comment #4: The parties identified in Comment #2 believed that EPA
failed to identify any particular threat or harm to public health.
They also indicated their belief that EPA was relying on a Health
Advisory to make the determination to defer groundwater remedy
selection, and objected to the use of the Health Advisory for this
purpose. Additionally, they allege that EPA's actions in deferring
selection of the remedy are inconsistent with its own regulations
and procedure.
Response #4: The highest level of nickel found at the site was
found in the most recent sampling event (September 1994) . This
level of 980 ppb was confirmed via a duplicate sample which
indicated 959 ppb. This level exceeds the risk based number of 730
ppb which was developed in accordance with EPA guidance for
-------
conducting risk assessments at Superfund sites.
Samples collected from several wells also exceeded the nickel MCL
of 100 ppb which was in effect when the September 1994 sampling
event was conducted. As noted above, this MCL was remanded in
February 1995 and subsequently replaced with an interim Health
Advisory set at the same level. The MCL and Health Advisory were
set at more stringent levels than the Site specific risk based
number due to more conservative assumptions utilized during the
development of the number. Concentrations of nickel have been
detected at two of the Church Street wells, namely, CS-1 and CS-2.
Levels detected at CS-2 have exceeded the Health Advisory, causing
the SCWA to modify its water distribution operations. SCWA
continues to modify its operations, based upon direction being
provided by the New York State Department of Health, the State
agency responsible for ensuring that water distributed to
communities is safe for consumption.
Although the levels of nickel in both of the impacted wells were
recently determined to be below the Health Advisory (the levels at
CS-2, 95 ppb and 98 ppb, were only slightly below the Health
Advisory) there is still significant concern that the highest
levels of contamination have not yet reached the wellfield. In
fact, the PRPs consultant, ERM, notes in the FS that the plume has
moved a considerable distance since 1989 and that "solute transport
groundwater modeling of the nickel plume at the Site, conducted for
the FS and presented in Section Dl. 4.1 of Appendix D to this
document, indicates that "... the maximum future nickel
concentration in groundwater at the Church Street Wellfield will
be 325 ug/1." This level is 3 times the Health Advisory and former
MCL and higher than any level yet seen at the wellfield.
While the Health Advisory is intended to serve as informal
technical guidance and not a legally enforceable federal standard,
the Agency had identified the Health Advisory as a "to be
considered" (TBC) criterion. In arriving at a decision to defer
the groundwater remedy, EPA has not only considered this Health
Advisory, but has taken several other factors into account as well,
including the Site-specific risk assessment, the increasing
concentrations of nickel found in the latest round of sampling, the
existing impacts and burden placed upon the SCWA as a result of
contamination reaching the wellfield, and the uncertainties
related to modeling the potential future impacts to the wellfield.
Given the above, EPA believes it is prudent, appropriate, and
consistent with its regulations and procedures to defer the
groundwater remedy until the fate and transport of the nickel in
the groundwater can be better defined.
-------
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED PLAN
-------
Superfund Proposed Plan
Goldisc Recordings Site
EPA
Region 2
Town of Islip
Suffolk County, New York
August 1995
PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan describes the remedial
alternatives considered for addressing contamina-
ted sediments and soils at the Goldisc Recordings
Superfund site and identifies the preferred remedial
alternative with the rationale for the preference.
The Proposed Plan was developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), as lead
agency, with support from the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
EPA is issuing the Proposed Plan as part of Its
public participation responsibilities under Section
117(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, and
the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. §
300.430(f). The alternatives summarized here are
described in the feasibility study report which
should be consulted for a more detailed description
of all the alternatives.
This Proposed Plan is being provided as a
supplement to the remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS) reports to inform the public
of EPA's and DEC's preferred remedy and to solicit
public comments pertaining to all the remedial
alternatives evaluated, as well as the preferred
alternative.
The remedy described in this Proposed Plan is the
preferred remedy for the she. 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 taken into
consideration all public comments. We are
soliciting public comment on all of the alternatives
considered in the detailed analysis of the RI/FS
because such comments may influence EPA's and
DEC's selection of the final remedy.
COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS
EPA and DEC 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 RI/FS reports, Proposed
Plan, and supporting documentation have been
made available to the public for a public comment
period which begins on August 26, 1995 and
concludes on September 26,1995.
Copies of the RI/FS reports, Proposed Plan
and supporting documentation are available
at the following locations:
Islip Town Hall
655 Main Street
Islip. New York 11751
Tel. (516) 224-5490
Hours: Mon-Fri: 8:30 am to 5:00 pm
Sachem Public Library
150 Holbrook Road
Holbrook, New York 11741
(516) 588-5024
Hours: Mon-Thurs: 9:00 am to 9:00 pm
Fri & Sat: 9:30 am to 6:00 pm
Sun: 12:00 pm to 4:00 pm
A public meeting will be held during the public
comment period at the Islip Town Hall West. 401
Main Street, on Monday, September 11,1995 at
7:00 p.m. to present the conclusions of the RI/FS,
to elaborate further on the reasons for
recommending the preferred remedial alternative,
and to receive public comments.
Comments received at the public meeting, as well
as written comments, will be documented in the
Responsiveness Summary section of the Record of
Decision (ROD), the document which formalizes
the selection of the remedy.
-------
DATES TO REMEMBER
August 26, 1995 to September 26, 1995
Public^ comment period on RI/FS report
and Proposed Plan :
September 1i;;i995- 7:00 p.m.
Public meeting at/the
Islip town Hall West "Auditorium
401 Main Street; ?:;^
!:lslip,'New York. .;•
Figure 1.
Goldisc Recordings Superfvmd Site
All written comments should be addressed to:
Janet Cappelli
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway. 20th Floor
New York, New York 10007
(212) 637-4270
SITE BACKGROUND
The Goldisc Recordings Superfund site (Site) Is
located at the Intersection of Veterans Memorial
Highway and Broadway Avenue in Islip. New York.
The 34-acre Site consists of two one-story
buildings that occupy six acres, three acres of
pavement surrounding the buildings, and twenty-
five acres of undeveloped land. Current zoning at
the Site is retail/commercial. The area surrounding
the Site is primarily residential and mixed forest,
with some commercial and light industrial
development. The Site is bordered to the north
and east by mixed forest, to the south by Veterans
Memorial Highway, and to the west by Broadway
Avenue (see Figure 1).
A municipal water supply wellfield, which provides
drinking water for the Suffolk County Water
Authority, is located approximately 1,200 feet south
of the Site on Church Street. The closest
dwellings are located about 700 feet north of the
Site. A New York State regulated wetland is
located approximately one-half mile south of the
Site. A Sunoco gasoline station is located on the
southeast comer of Veterans Memorial Highway
and Broadway Avenue, just south of the Site. Soil
and groundwater remediation systems are currently
in operation at the station, to address a release of
petroleum product to the groundwater.
From 1968 to 1990, the two buildings were
occupied by several different companies that
generated and stored hazardous substances on the
Site. These companies included Goldisc
Recordings. Inc. (Goldisc), which produced
phonographic records; ElectroSound Group, Inc.
(Electrosound), a company that manufactured
uadrangto: Patehoque, New York, 19675
audio visual and optical devices; and Genco Auto
Electric, Inc. (Genco), which rebuilt automotive
engine parts. The First Holbrook Company (First
Holbrook) owned the property from 1973 to 1985.
In 1985. the Red Ground Corporation became the
owner of the property. The two tenants occupying
the buildings since 1990 are dry goods merchants
and do not perform any manufacturing.
The substances known to have been disposed of
on the Site between 1968 and 1990 include
wastewater from the various production processes,
waste oils, metals, solutions containing high
concentrations of xylene and trichloroethylene, and
other degreasing agents. These substances were
reportedly discharged to the environment through
dry wells, leaching pools, storm drains, and leaking
storage containers located around the buildings.
Since the late 1970s, the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services (SCDHS), DEC, and
EPA have conducted various inspections and
-------
environmental protection enforcement activities at
the Site. In 1978. a representative from the SCDHS
inspected the Site and noted stains, puddles, and
leaking drums suspected to be related to industrial
wastes. In the early 1960s, the SCDHS collected
samples from leaching pools, storm drains, and
cesspools located on the Site. Laboratory analyses
of the samples revealed violations of New York
State Qroundwater Effluent Guidelines. Between
1981 and 1983, laboratory analyses of groundwater
samples collected from monitoring wells located
on-slte revealed elevated levels of solvents and
metals, including: trichloroethane, trichioroethylene.
tetrachloroethylene, lead, nickel, chromium, and
silver. Analyses of samples obtained from the
Church Street wellfield showed concentrations of
tetrachloroethylene slightly exceeding the Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 parts per billion
(ppb) for public drinking water. Based on these
findings, the Site was added to the EPA National
Priorities List (NPL) In June 1986.
In 1988, DEC entered into an Administrative Order
on Consent (AOC) with two of the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), namely, First Holbrook
and ElectroSound. The AOC required the two
PRPs to conduct an Rl at the Site as required
under CERCLA. The Rl (Phase I Rl) was
conducted In 1988 and included the Investigation of
nineteen areas of potential contamination.
Groundwater and soil samples were collected and
analyzed to determine the nature and extent of
contamination in these areas. Elevated levels of
lead and tetrachloroethylene were found in
groundwater samples. Soil samples were found to
contain elevated levels of several metals, volatile
organic compounds, and semi-volatile organic
compounds.
Based on a review of the results, EPA and DEC
determined that additional information was
necessary in order to better define the extent of
contamination at the Site. In late 1990, DEC
requested that EPA take over as lead agency for
the Site. EPA notified First Holbrook,
EiectroSound, and Red Ground of their potential
liability at the Site and requested they finance or
undertake the continuing RI/FS. Red Ground
refused to enter into negotiations with EPA to
conduct additional RI/FS activities. Subsequently,
In 1991, EPA entered into an AOC with First
Holbrook and ElectroSound. This AOC specifically
required the PRPs to conduct a supplemental
RI/FS (or Phase II RI/FS).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
It was EPA's original intention to supplement
previous data collected under state and county
investigations In order to address both sediments
and soils contamination and contaminated
groundwater attributable to the Site. However, due
to circumstances which occurred as the Phase II
RI/FS progressed, EPA and DEC have decided to
defer the decision regarding groundwater
remediation. The MCL for nickel, which Is the
primary contaminant at the Site, was remanded in
February 1995. In addition, the concentration of
nickel has fluctuated in the groundwater. While the
Church Street wellfield has been Impacted by
nickel contamination, recent data indicate that
nickel concentrations have dropped below the
current Health Advisory level of 100 ppb. As a
result, EPA and DEC decided to obtain additional
information and data on the nickel contamination in
the groundwater.
The proposed remedy described in this document
addresses the contamination associated with Site
sediments and soils. The remedial goal Is to
ensure that concentrations of contaminants in the
sediments and soils are at levels which are
protective of human health and the environment.
EPA intends to collect additional information and
data on nickel contamination In the aquifer in order
to identify appropriate remedial measures to
address this contamination.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
Under the direction of EPA, the PRPs1 contractor.
ERM-Northeast, implemented a supplemental Rl to
characterize further the sediments and soils, and
groundwater at the Site. The intent of the study
was to fill data gaps identified during review of the
DEC Phase I Rl report. Groundwater data
collected as part of the Phase II RI/FS is provided
below, as Is data for sediments and soils.
Sediments. Soils. Storm Drains, and Drvwells
The Phase I Rl identified 19 separate soil Areas of
Environmental Concern (AEC), which included
storm drains, drywells, a sump, drum storage
areas, sanitary discharge areas, a transfer pad
area, and a former production well. Phase I
sampling of AECs 3, 4, 6, 7, 17, and 18 determined
that these areas had not been significantly
impacted. Therefore, no additional Phase II
sampling was performed in these areas. Likewise,
Phase I sampling adequately defined the impacts
to AECs 2, 9.11, and 12. Therefore, no additional
-------
Pt.ase II sampling was performed in these areas.
and were not detected at lower intervals.
The Phase I data indicated that the highest levels
of contamination were found in AEC 2. AEC 2
consists of an interconnected system of 6 drywells
which allegedly received direct discharges from the
Goldisc building, as well as spillage from a drum
storage area. Chromium was detected in
sediments and soils at levels ranging from 30 parts
per million (ppm) to 195 ppm. Nickel was found at
levels ranging from 25 ppm to 1.120 ppm.
Phase II involved the collection of additional
surface and subsurface soil samples from 9 AECs.
During May 1993. 7 soil borings were drilled. 3 test
trenches were excavated, and 46 surface and
subsurface samples were collected for physical and
chemical analyses. Together with earlier data.
Phase II sampling confirmed that AECs 1, 5. 8, 10,
13. and 14 were also impacted by Site-related
contamination. Based on the Phase II data, AECs
la, 15 and 16 were not considered to have been
significantly impacted.
The Phase II results for AEC 1 confirmed the
presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHCs)
in the three solid-bottom storm drains and the base
of the receiving drywell.
Previous data for AEC 5 indicated nickel In
sediments slightly above Site background and
TPHCs at levels up to 93.000 ppm at the drainage
pipe outfall. Phase II involved collection of
samples from the base of 2 drywells and 2 storm
drains to characterize the TPHC content. The
samples contained TPHCs ranging from 406 ppm
to 5,780 ppm. In addition, it appeared that the
drainage system had been impacted by a
petroleum release emanating from the oil-fired
boilers within the former Goldisc building.
Petroleum releases are not actionable under
CERCLA. Therefore, this AEC has been referred to
the DEC spills program for evaluation and possible
remediation.
Locations previously showing high levels of nickel
and chromium in AEC 8 were resampled.
Maximum detected levels for nickel and chromium
in Phase II sampling were 33 ppm and 80 ppm,
respectively, In surface soils. Phase I and Phase II
results confirm that this reported discharge area
had contamination related to Site operations.
A soil boring was taken and analyzed for TPHCs in
AEC 10. The highest concentration of TPHCs was
detected in the 10-foot to 12-foot interval at 9,240
ppm. Concentrations decreased significantly with
depth to 84 ppm in the 20-foot to 22-foot interval,
Phase II analyses were performed to complete the
delineation of soils impacted by TPHCs in AEC 13.
In one boring, the TPHCs extended to the water
table. It is believed that oil reached this area
through the Area 5 drainage system pipe. This
AEC has also been referred to the DEC spills
program.
Phase II sampling for AEC 14 included borings and
analyses from three drywells. The uppermost
sediments contained several metals at
concentrations slightly above background. Deeper
samples were within background ranges. The
highest VOC detected was acetone at 0.44 ppm.
Polychlorlnated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in
all three drywells, the highest concentration at 0.41
ppm. Drywell #2 in this area contained levels of
chrysene at a concentration of 0.77 ppm and
benzo(a)anthracene at a concentration of 0.5 ppm
in the 15-foot to 17-foot Interval, above the
recommended New York State cleanup guidelines
of 0.4 ppm and 0.224 ppm, respectively.
Groundwater
The Phase I Rl involved the collection of
groundwater samples from 18 on-site monitoring
wells, 1 on-slte production well, 1 off-site
upgradient well, and the 3 SCWA Church Street
supply wells. Of the 18 on-site monitoring wells
sampled. 14 are shallow (less than 50 feet deep), 2
are intermediate (75 to 90 feet deep), and 2 are
deep (over 100 feet deep). All on-slte monitoring
wells are installed in the shallow aquifer, the Upper
Glacial aquifer. The thickness of the Upper Glacial
underlying the Site is approximately 135 feet.
Depth from the surface to the water table ranged
across the Site from 18 to 32 feet. Church Street
wells #1 and #2 (CS-1 and CS-2) are both shallow;
installed in the Upper Glacial aquifer. Church
Street well #3 (CS-3) is much deeper, screened in
the lower Magothy aquifer. The groundwater flow
direction in the northern portion of the Site is
generally south to southeast. However, the
southeast portion of the Site shows a shift in flow
direction to the southwest in response to the radial
drawdown resulting from to operation of the
Church Street supply wellfield. The groundwater
flow velocity, ranging between 1.3 to 1.7 feet/day
during nonpumping periods, increases to 2.4 to 2.9
feet/day during Church Street pumping operations.
The initial Phase II groundwater sampling effort,
performed in April 1993, included collection of
samples from 8 of the on-site monitoring wells.
-------
Two of these monitoring wells required
replacement; they were abandoned and new
monitoring wells installed in their place. The
groundwater samples were analyzed for Target
Analyte List (TAL) metals and/or Target Compound
List (TCL) volatile organic compounds (VOCs), to
fill data gaps or to confirm Phase I analytical
results. After review of these results, an additional
round of groundwater samples was collected from
a greater number of on-slte wells in order to
Investigate further the presence of heavy metals. In
September 1994, ERM-Northeast collected samples
from 15 on-slte monitoring wells and analyzed
these samples for nickel, chromium, iron, and
manganese. All 15 samples were split with ICF
Technology Corp.. EPA's oversight contractor, and
analyzed by EPA for all TAL metals.
Comparison of the Phase II groundwater sampling
results with Phase I indicated that the VOC
concentrations had decreased. For the Phase II
data, the only VOC detected at a concentration
above its drinking water standard was carbon
disulfide in monitoring well 17D (MW-17D).
Analytical results for the split sample from MW-17D
did not Indicate the presence of carbon disulfide
above its drinking water standard. Carbon disulfide
has been determined to be a laboratory artifact and
not a contaminant of concern.
Results of the Phase II first round of metals
analysis collected from eight monitoring wells did
not indicate the presence of metals above any
drinking water standards. The Phase II second
round of metals analysis, performed on samples
collected from 15 monitoring wells, detected high
levels of nickel, ranging from 13.3 ppb to 959 ppb.
At the time the sampling was performed, the
federal MCL for nickel, which had become effective
on June 17, 1992, was 100 ppb. In February 1995,
in response to on-going litigation over its validity,
EPA filed a joint motion to remand the nickel MCL
voluntarily. On June 29,1995, EPA issued a
Federal Register notice formally removing the
nickel MCL from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Currently, no federal or state drinking water
standard exists for nickel. However, on July 10,
1995, EPA Issued a Health Advisory of 100 ppb for
nickel, while a new MCL for nickel is being
reestablished. This Health Advisory is Intended to
serve as informal technical guidance only and is
not to be construed as setting legally enforceable
federal standards. Of the fifteen wells sampled
during Phase II, only 3 had levels of nickel above
100 ppb, namely. MW-11 (140 ppb), MW-12 (959
ppb) and MW-16 (278 ppb). Since an MCL for
nickel does not exist, a health-based action level
was developed for the Site utilizing Superfund risk
assessment methodologies. This health-based
action level, detailed further in the risk discussion.
was calculated to be 730 ppb. Only one sample,
collected from MW-12 (959 ppb), exceeded this
level.
In late 1993, routine monitoring performed by
SCWA on the Church Street wellfield detected the
presence of nickel in Church Street well #2 (CS-2)
in excess of the then existing 100 ppb MCL This
prompted SCWA to remove CS-2 from service and
conduct testing to determine a suitable method of
remediation for the well. Sampling of CS-2 In July
1995 and August 1995 revealed decreasing nickel
concentrations of 98 ppb and 95 ppb, respectively.
Since the remand of the nickel MCL, SCWA has
put CS-2 back into service, blending it with the
other wells, resulting in drinking water which is still
well below the former MCL and current Health
Advisory level of 100 ppb.
Based on its frequent detection at elevated
concentrations at the Site, its former MCL. and the
impact to the Church Street wellfield. nickel has
been deemed to be the major contaminant of
concern at the Site.
The Phase II second round of metals analysis also
detected the presence of both iron and manganese
above their respective secondary drinking water
standards. Split samples verified these results.
The secondary federal and state MCLs for iron and
manganese are both based on aesthetic properties
and are intended to prevent potential problems,
such as poor taste, odor, and staining of plumbing
fixtures, and do not specifically present a health
risk. The highest concentrations were reported for
the unfiltered sample collected from MW-11 R. For
this sample, iron was detected at a concentration
of 34,900 ppb and manganese at a concentration
of 2,840 ppb. The federal secondary MCLs for iron
and manganese are 300 ppb and 50 ppb,
respectively. A filtered sample collected from MW-
11R detected Iron and manganese at reduced
levels of 189 ppb and 459 ppb, respectively. In the
filtered sample, manganese was still in excess of
the drinking water standard. However, manganese
is not a contaminant of concern and does not
present a risk; the levels detected represent
background conditions In the area.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Using the Rl data, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with
current and future Site conditions. The baseline
risk assessment estimates the human health and
-------
ecological risk which could result from the
contamination at the Site, if no remedial action
were taken.
Health Assessment
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
/denf///catfon-identlfies 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
C/wacfer/rar/on-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 would be
representative of Site risks. These contaminants
included tetrachloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethane,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, vinyl chloride,
benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, cadmium, copper.
lead, nickel, and zinc.
Four exposure pathways were evaluated under
possible on-site present and future land use
conditions. The site was assumed to retain Its
current zoning status of commercial/Industrial. The
exposure pathways considered were: dermal
absorption of chemicals in the soil by children
trespassing on the Site, direct contact (including
incidental Ingestion and dermal absorption) with
soils by on-site commercial/ industrial employees,
direct contact with soil by future short-term
construction workers, and domestic use of
groundwater (including Ingestion and inhalation of
volatiles by nearby residents using the Church
Street wellfield as the exposure point).
EPA's acceptable cancer risk range Is 10"4 to 10*
which can be Interpreted to mean that an individual
may have a one in ten thousand to a one in a
million increased chance of developing cancer as a
result of a site-related exposure to a carcinogen
over a 70-year lifetime under the specific exposure
conditions at a site. The results of the baseline risk
assessment indicate that the soils and groundwater
at the Site pose no unacceptable carcinogenic risk
to human health. The overall carcinogenic risk for
on-site workers, through direct contact with soils, Is
estimated to be 8.5 x 10'' (risk of 8.5 in 100
million). The overall carcinogenic risk for future
construction workers, through direct contact with
soils, is estimated to be 4.3 x 10* (risk of 4.3 in a
billion). The overall carcinogenic risk for domestic
use of groundwater, through ingestion and
inhalation, is estimated to be 9.5 x 10* (risk of 9.5
in a million). Much of this risk is attributable to
vinyl chloride, which was not detected In recent
sampling events at the Church Street supply
wellfield or on the Site. The preceding risk values
indicate that the Site poses no unacceptable
carcinogenic risk to human health. The dermal
exposure pathway for children was not evaluated
for carcinogenic health effects because there were
no contaminants of concern detected which are
potential carcinogens via dermal exposure.
Therefore, no adverse effects are expected to result
from chronic exposure by these pathways to
chemicals from the Site based on their
carcinogenic properties.
To assess the overall potential for noncarclnogenlc
effects posed by the contaminants at a site, EPA
has developed the hazard index (Hi). The HI
measures the assumed simultaneous subthreshold
exposures to several chemicals which could result
in an adverse health effect. When the HI exceeds
1.0. there may be concern for potential
noncarcinogenic health effects.
The calculated HI values for the dermal absorption
and direct contact pathways were all calculated to
be less than 1. Dermal absorption by nearby
children contributed to an HI value of 0.0002, direct
contact by on-site workers contributed to an HI
value of 0.002 and direct contact by future workers
contributed to an HI value of 0.03. Domestic use
of groundwater contributed to an HI value of 0.26;
nickel was the major contributor to this HI. As
noted below, this calculation assumes that there
are no appreciable sources of nickel exposure
outside of groundwater ingestion.
As noted In the Rl Summary section, the MCL for
nickel was remanded in February 1995. Due to the
fact that significant nickel contamination exists In
the Upper Glacial Aquifer, potential risks related to
this contamination were closely evaluated. An
acceptable health-based action level was
developed for nickel in groundwater at the Site.
-------
Assuming that the groundwater would be used for
domestic purposes, it was determined that
groundwater concentrations of nickel below 730
ppb would result in an acceptable HI for the Site
(i.e., an HI less than or equal to 1.0); conversely.
levels above 730 ppb could present an
unacceptable noncarcinogenic risk for the Site.
Consistent with EPA guidance for conducting
Superfund risk assessments, this calculated value
assumes that there are no other significant sources
of nickel exposure from other environmental media
(e.g.. air, soil, diet). As a point of reference, the
95% Upper Confidence Level (UCL) of the
arithmetic mean, calculated utilizing nickel data
from all of the on-site wells sampled during Phase I
was 480 ppb, well below the 730 ppb action level.
As noted previously, EPA has issued a Health
Advisory for nickel of 100 ppb which Is the same
level as the former MCL The Health Advisory
incorporates additional conservative safety factors
to account for potential nickel exposure from media
other than drinking water; this very conservative
level of safety assumes that drinking water only
contributes 20% of expected nickel exposure.
Ecological Assessment
The ecological risk assessment considered
potential exposure routes of Site contamination to
terrestrial wildlife. Much of the Site Is paved or
covered by structures and there is little, if any,
potential for wildlife to be exposed to contaminated
subsurface soils on-site. The only potential route
of exposure to wildlife in the Site vicinity is If
contaminants were transported through
groundwater and discharged via groundwater into
surface waters, particularly the state wetland
located one-half mile south of the Site. Phase II
sampling shows that the wetland has not been
impacted by Site contaminants. Therefore, it was
determined that no significant effect on aquatic
organisms in the wetland in the vicinity of the Site
could be attributed to groundwater discharge from
the Site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from this Site, if not addressed by the
preferred alternative or one of the other active
measures considered, may present a current or
potential threat to the environment through
leaching of contaminants in the Site's sediments
and soils into the groundwater.
Since significant contamination, specifically nickel,
was detected In the soils at the Site, there is a high
potential for cross-media impacts as nickel can
migrate into the groundwater via fluctuations of the
water table and precipitation. This Is supported by
the detection of high levels nickel in the
groundwater. The maximum concentration of
nickel in one on-site well was detected at 959 ppb.
Furthermore, Site-related nickel contamination has
impacted the nearby Church Street supply wells.
Due to these circumstances, remedial action
alternatives were developed for the Site sediments
and soils.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial Action objectives are specific goals to
protect human health and the environment. These
objectives are based on available information and
standards such as applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) and risk-based
levels established in the risk assessment.
The following remedial action objective was
established for Site sediments and soils:
(1) prevent leaching of contaminants.
particularly nickel, in the subsurface soils
and sediments to the groundwater.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy
be protective of human health and the
environment, be cost-effective, comply with other
statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative technologies and resource recovery
alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. In
addition, the statute includes a preference for the
use of treatment as a principal element for the
reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances.
The remedial alternatives discussed below are for
Site sediments and soils. While the FS also
includes preliminary remedial alternatives for
groundwater, as stated previously, EPA has
decided to defer a decision oh groundwater
remediation. Therefore, no groundwater remedial
alternatives are presented in this Proposed Plan.
The remedial alternatives considered in the FS
were screened based on implementability,
effectiveness, and cost. The screening resulted in
remedial alternatives upon which a detailed
analysis was performed. The alternatives
considered in detail are discussed below. Time to
implement* is defined as only the period of time
needed to implement the remedy, and does not
Include the time required to design the remedy.
-------
procure contracts for design and construction or to
negotiate with responsible parties for
implementation of the remedy, conduct operation
and maintenance, or conduct long-term monitoring.
Alternative SR-I: No Action
Capital Cost: $ -0-
O&M/yrCost: $ -0-
Present Worth: $ -0-
Time to Implement: N/A
The Superfund program requires that the No Action
alternative be considered as a baseline for
comparison with other soil alternatives. Under this
alternative, the contaminated soil would be left in
place without treatment. Since this alternative
would involve no contaminant removal. CERCLA
requires that the Site be reviewed every five years.
If justified by the review, remedial actions may be
implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative SR-II: Limited Action
Capital Cost: $ 250,322
0 & M/yr Cost: $ 2.020
Present Worth. $ 277,062
Time to Implement: 2 months
This alternative includes measures which would
reduce the leaching of contaminants, particularly
nickel, to the groundwater. The specific measures
include: removal of contaminated soils/sediments
in the 6 drywells in AEC 2 and drywell DW-2 in
AEC 14, and removal of surface soils within AEC 8,
a reported discharge area which has shown TPHCs
and metals related to Site operations. In addition,
this alternative would Include decommissioning and
cleanup of the on-slte production well. This action
would be taken as a conservative measure to
eliminate potential exposure to contaminated
groundwater at the Site.
The top three feet of soils/sediments would be
removed via a vacuum truck from the 6 dry wells in
AEC 2 and drywell DW-2 In AEC 14. The drywell
structures would be left in-piace and backfilled with
clean soil. New drywells would be installed in an
adjacent area for storm water runoff. The amount
of material to be removed Is estimated to be
approximately 56 cubic yards; this material
represents the most significant source of nickel
contamination on the Site. In addition, surface
soils would be removed from the top 2 feet of
locations within AEC 8. The amount of material
here to be removed is estimated to be
approximately 215 cubic yards. Also, the soils/
sediments in the on-site production well vault
would be removed via a vacuum truck. The well
borehole would be sealed and capped, and the
well casing and concrete vault would be removed.
All materials removed during these measures would
be transported off-site for treatment (as necessary)
and disposal in accordance with federal and state
requirements. It would also be recommended that
the use of the property be restricted to its current
commercial/industrial use. Although this
alternative would result in no contamination
remaining on-site above health-based levels for the
current property use, since the remedy does not
allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure,
five-year reviews would be required.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
During the detailed evaluation of remedial
alternatives, each alternative is assessed against
nine evaluation criteria, namely overall protection of
human health and the environment; compliance
with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs): short-term effectiveness;
long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction
of toxicity, mobility, or volume; implementabllity;
cost; community and state acceptance.
* Overall protection of human health and the
environment addresses whether or not a remedy
provides adequate protection and describes how
risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
* Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or
not a remedy will meet all of the applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements and/or
provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
» Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers
to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment
over time, once cleanup goals have been met. It
also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness
of the measures that may be required to
manage the risk posed by treatment residuals
and/or untreated wastes.
* Reduction of toxlcitv. mobility, or volume
through treatment is the anticipated performance
of the treatment technologies a remedy may
employ.
-------
* Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of
time needed to achieve protection from any
adverse impacts on human health and the
environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period until
cleanup goals are achieved.
» Implementabilitv Is the technical and
administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
the availability of materials and services needed
to implement a particular option.
* Cost includes both estimated capital and
operation and maintenance costs, and net
present worth costs.
* State acceptance indicates whether, based on
its review of the RI/FS reports and Proposed
Plan, the State concurs with, opposes, or has
no comment on the preferred alternative.
» Community acceptance will be assessed In the
ROD and refers to the public's general response
to the alternatives described In the RI/FS report
and the Proposed Plan.
Comparison of Alternatives
The following discussion compares the relative
performance of each alternative using the specific
evaluation criteria listed previously.
* Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
Alternative SR-ll would meet the remedial
objective of preventing cross-media impacts to
the groundwater from the source of
contamination. Alternative SR-I would not
prevent the continued migration of nickel into
the underlying groundwater and, therefore,
would not be as protective as Alternative SR-ll.
« Compliance with ARARs
Federal and state regulations dealing with the
handling and transportation of any wastes to an
off-site disposal facility for SR-ll would be
followed. Wastes would be treated using
specific technologies or specific treatment
levels, as appropriate, to comply with land
disposal restrictions. Alternative SR-I would not
be subject to any ARARs, although, potential
excursions of groundwater/drinklng water
standards could occur under SR-I, due to cross-
media impacts resulting from contaminants
remaining in the soil.
» Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative SR-ll would remove the principal
source of nickel to prevent leaching of
contamination to the Upper Glacial aquifer.
Alternative SR-I would not reduce the potential
long-term leaching to groundwater.
Reduction In Toxlcitv. Mobility, or Volume
Through Treatment
Through removal and off-site disposal, SR-ll
would reduce the toxiclty, mobility, and volume
of contaminants, especially nickel,
soils/sediments located at the Site. Alternative
SR-I would provide no reduction in contaminant
mobility, toxlcity, or volume.
Short-term Effectiveness
The potential for a temporary Increase of risk to
the community and workers due to dust
generation during the soil removal activities of
SR-ll would be mitigated by the use of a vacuum
truck for soil collection. Workers would also be
protected through the use of respirators (if
needed). The implementation of Alternative SR-I
would result in no additional risk to the
community or workers during implementation.
Implementabilitv
Components of Alternative SR-ll would utilize
relatively common construction equipment and
materials. The services and technologies
needed to implement this work are readily
available. Use restrictions via zoning are in
place at the Site and are not expected to
change, however EPA will recommend to the
current property owner to amend the deed
restricting residential use. Because no
construction activities are associated with
Alternative SR-I, this alternative would be easier
to implement than Alternative SR-ll.
Cost
The no action alternative has no associated
costs. Alternative SR-ll is estimated to cost
$277,062.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred soil
alternative will be assessed in the ROD following
a review of the public comments received on the
RI/FS report and the Proposed Plan.
-------
» State Acceptance
DEC concurs with the preferred alternative.
PREFERRED REMEDY
Based upon an evaluation of the various
alternatives, EPA and DEC recommend Alternative
SR-II (Limited Action) as the preferred alternative
for contaminated sediments and soils. Alternative
SR-ll is designed to be protective by removing
sediments/soils containing the principal source of
nickel contamination.
The preferred alternative will provide the best
balance of trade-offs among alternatives with
respect to the evaluating criteria. Based on the
information available at this time, EPA and DEC
believe that the preferred alternative will be
protective of human health and the environment,
comply with ARARs, be cost-effective, and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies or resource recovery technologies to
the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, EPA will conduct a monitoring program
of the groundwater. Sampling results from both
on-site wells and those at the Church Street
wellfield will be evaluated to better define the
vertical extent of the nickel plume, to identify any
trends in the concentration of nickel at the Site and
at the wellfield. and to determine whether the
proposed removal of nickel contaminated
sediments and soils has an impact on nickel
concentrations in the groundwater. Additional
modelling will be conducted to ensure that the
contaminant plume emanating from the Site does
not result in the contravention of appropriate health
based levels of nickel in water distributed for
consumption at the Church Street wellfield. It
should be noted that the NYSDOH is currently
using the federal Health Advisory level of 100 ppb
for nickel in its supervision of public drinking water
supplies in New York state. Subsequent to the
completion of this monitoring effort, EPA and DEC
will propose a preferred remedial alternative for
addressing the groundwater contamination In a
second Proposed Plan.
10
-------
APPENDIX B
PUBLIC NOTICES
-------
APPENDIX C
SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDANCE SHEETS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
Goldisc Recordings Superfund Site
Islip, New York
Monday, September 11, 1995
ATTENDEES
(Please Print Clearly)
STREET CITY ZIP PHONE REPRESENTING
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
Goldisc Recordings Super fund site
Islip, New York
Monday, September 11, 1995
ATTENDEES
(Please Print Clearly)
NAME
STREET
CITY
ZIP
PHONE
REPRESENTING
-------
APPENDIX D
LETTERS SUBMITTED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
-------
PERICONI & ROTHBERG. P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DEBRA L. K01HBERO- SUITE. 6L3
NEW YORK. MEW YORK ,0169
•AlSO MEMBER OF KJ CAR FAX (Sl2) 49O-SOO6
-AlSO MEMBER OP MASS- BAR
September 26, 1995
BY TELECOPIER & FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Janet Cappelli
New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch I
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region n
290 Broadway - 17th floor
New York, NY 10007-1866
Re: Comments on TJSEPA Superfund Proposed Plan
for Fonder Q<
Dear Ms. Cappelli:
These comments to the Superfund Proposed Plan for the Goldisc Site (the
"Proposed Plan"), issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA")
are submitted on behalf of Red Ground Co., the current owner of the Goldisc Recordings
Superfund Site ("Goldisc Site") and Red Ground Corporation, a former owner (collectively,
"Red Ground"). Red Ground requests that these comments be docketed and made a part of the
administrative record in this matter.
1. Introduction
The USEPA states that the Proposed Plan is being provided as a supplement to
the remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") reports, to inform the public of the
preferred remedy for the Site and solicit public comments. Proposed Plan, p. 1. However,
while the RI/FS addresses both Site sediments and soils, and Site groundwater, the Proposed
Plan addresses only the contamination associated with sediments and soil. Moreover, data
collection for Site groundwater, as well as for sediments and soils, was completed under the
RI, and remedial alternatives were identified for both in the FS. Nevertheless, the USEPA
and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC") have
decided to defer the decision regarding groundwater contamination for the indefinite future.
Proposed Plan, p. 3. As described below, Red Ground objects to this decision, and finds it to
be arbitrary and capricious, because: 1) there is no technical or scientific basis for deferring
-------
.fERJCON1 Cc
ATTORKEYS XT LAW
Ms. Janet Cappelli
September 26, 1995
Page 2
remedy selection for groundwater; 2) the USEPA's actions are inconsistent with its own
regulations and procedures and with the RJ/FS; and 3) deferring the remedy creates
uncertainty and delay for affected parties and the public.
Further, the Proposed Plan contains an inaccurate reference to Red Ground's
participation in this matter. Red Ground wishes to correct the record with regard to its own
support, cooperation and participation in the Rl/FS.
2. The USEPA Lacks Anv Technical or Scientific Basis to Peter Its Selection of a
Remedy for Groundwater
Red Ground has reviewed the comments prepared by ERM-Northeast ("ERM"),
dated September 26,1995 and submitted in this matter on behalf of the ElectroSound Group,
Inc. ("ESG"), former operator of the Goldisc Site, and agrees with ERM's evaluation of the
Proposed Plan. Without relinquishing any rights Red Ground may have with regard to claims
or causes of action against ESG and the First Holbrook Company ("First Holbrook"), Red
Ground concurs with the following points made by ERM in response to the USEPA's
explanation of its flawed decision to postpone the selection of a groundwater remedy for the
Site.
a. The USEPA has stated that additional monitoring is needed to explain trends in
nickel concentrations in She groundwater. However, the Site groundwater has been fully
characterized by groundwater sampling and analysis performed over a 13-year period, from
1981 through September 1994. As part of that process, changes in nickel concentrations have
been sufficiently characterized through sampling and modeling of groundwater flow and
chemical fate and transport.
b. The USEPA has also stated that additional monitoring is needed to define the
vertical extent of the groundwater contamination. Yet during the review by the USEPA and
the NYSDEC of the work plans for the Phase I and Phase H remedial investigations, neither
the USEPA nor the NYSDEC raised this concern. Moreover, if the USEPA or the NYSDEC
now conclude thai this additional monitoring is necessary, this concern is fully addressed
within the context of one of the remedial alternatives described and recommended in the FS,
the "No Action with Monitoring" alternative.
c. The USEPA refers repeatedly to an interim draft Health Advisory issued on
July 10. 1995, which establishes a Health Advisory for nickel of 100 micrograms per liter
("ug/L"), and on which the New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH") evidently
relies in supervising public drinking water supplies. These references imply that the 100 ug/L
level is applicable or relevant and appropriate to the USEPA's evaluation of groundwater
remedies at the Site. However, the interim draft Health Advisory is an informal standard that
is not legally enforceable. Thus, the Health Advisory level for nickel should not be a factor in
-------
PEHICONI & ROTHBEHG. P.C
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Ms. Janet Cappelli
September 26, 1995
Page 3
the assessment of a groundwater remedy. The federal Maximum Contaminant Level ("MCL")
for nickel, also 100 ug/L, was remanded to the Agency in February, 1995, and therefore is
also not relevant to the remedy selection process. The appropriate target clean-up level is the
site-specific health-based level developed during the RI/FS in accordance with USEPA
regulations and guidance for performing risk assessments.
The preceding points demonstrate that there is no rational basis for the USEPA
to defer remedy selection because of the need for additional monitoring. Moreover, the
USEPA may not consider or rely upon the informal draft Health Advisory, and its references
to the Health Advisory 100 ug/L level are therefore inappropriate. This is particularly true
because the 100 ug/L level is precisely that of the remanded, and therefore null and void,
MCL.
3. The USEPA's Actions in Deferring the Selection of a Remedy Are Inconsistent With
Jts Own Regulations and Procedures and With the RI/FS Results
As described above, there is no technical basis for the USEPA's proposed
course of action with respect to groundwater. Further, the Agency's actions in deferring the
selection of a remedy are also inconsistent with its own regulations and procedures, and with
the results reached in the RI/FS. This decision by the USEPA is arbitrary and capricious, and
undermines the RI/FS process and the USEPA's own authority.
In support of deferring its decision on a remedy for groundwater, the USEPA
points to the fact that there is currently no MCL for nickel, which is a contaminant of concern
at the Site and has been detected in the groundwater at the Church Street water supply well
downgradient from the Site. Yet MCLs have not been established for numerous chemicals
commonly found at Superfund Sites. In such cases, the USEPA relies on the risk assessment
procedures outlined in the National Contingency Plan ("NCP") and in USEPA guidance
documents to establish clean up levels. ERM properly followed these risk assessment
procedures in selecting the nickel clean up standards employed in the FS to arrive at the
groundwater remedial alternatives. To now reject the results of ERM's extensive site specific
risk assessment, which the USEPA approved, because of the absence of a generic standard is
without support or authority.
The USEPA's unusual action in deferring proposal of a groundwater remedy is
evidently based on objections raised by the NYSDOH relating to its reliance on the draft
interim Health Advisory for nickel of 100 ug/L in supervising drinking water supplies. Since
the USEPA cannot legally apply this informal 100 ug/L standard, it is inappropriate to delay
the remedy selection on this basis, Le.. simply because the NYSDOH is not satisfied with the
site-specific health-based levels developed during the RI/FS. According to USEPA Guidance
for preparing the Proposed Plan, any dispute arising during the remedial process between the
lead and support agencies should be resolved in a timely manner, and, "(rjegardless of the
-------
PEEICONI & ROTHBERG. P.C
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Ms. Janet Cappelli
September 26, 1995
Page 4
process utilized, the result should be an equitable resolution of the outstanding issues."
"Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents," OSWER Directive #9355.3-02 (July
1989) at 3-7. Where final resolution cannot be reached, however, "the Region should use its
discretion as to whether to proceed with publication of the Proposed Plan." LL at 3-8.
Where, as in this case, the State's concerns are unsupported by science or law, the USEPA
should exercise its discretion and proceed with publication of a proposed remedy for
ground water in addition to Site sediments and soils.
Instead, the USEPA's purported resolution to the absence of an MCL for nickel
is its proposal to monitor groundwater at the Site and perform additional modeling, and, at
some unspecified future point, propose a remedial alternative for groundwater. Ironically, this
course of action is essentially the No Action With Monitoring alternative proposed and
recommended by ERM, but without the critical components of an effective monitoring plan as
set forth in ERM's proposal. If the USEPA supports the alternative of no current active
remediation but ongoing monitoring, it should have proposed the No Action With Monitoring
alternative, so the remedy could proceed in proper form. The USEPA has the authority to
address the possible need for future response actions relating to Site groundwater pursuant to
the terms of a reopener provision.
The purpose of the Proposed Plan is to supplement the RI/FS and provide the
public with an opportunity to comment on the preferred alternative for a remedial action as
well as the other alternatives considered. 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(f)(2). The Proposed Plan
should direct the public to the RI/FS report as the primary source of detailed information on
the remedial alternatives analyzed, as well as other site-specific information. OSWER
Directive #9355.3-02 at 2-1. In this instance, instead of supplementing the Goldisc RI/FS, the
Proposed Plan contradicts and conflicts with the RI/FS. While the Plan describes in detail the
groundwater investigation and the baseline risk assessment for human health risks related to
groundwater contamination, it then completely omits any discussion of the groundwater
alternatives. This is likely to confuse members of the public, and, even worse, deprives the
public of an opportunity to understand the options available to the USEPA and thus, to
comment upon the wisdom of the deferral of groundwater remedy selection. The USEPA's
statement in the Proposed Plan that changes may be made in the selected remedy based on
public comment is an empty offer with respect to groundwater remediation, as the public has
not been fully informed regarding the remedial alternatives.
As explained in the NCP at 40 C.F.R. § 300.430(a), the purpose of the remedy
selection process is to implement remedies that eliminate, reduce or control risks to human
health and the environment. Thus, "[r]emedial actions are to be implemented as soon as site
da^a apd ^formation make it possible to do so." LL (emphasis added). At the Goldisc Site,
extensive data has in fact been gathered under the close direction of the USEPA during the
performance of comprehensive Phase I and Phase II remedial investigations at the Site. The
data and information are currently available, and it is incumbent upon the USEPA to propose
-------
Jr'EBICONI & ROTHBEEG. P.C
ATTORNEYS AT I_*w
Ms. Janet Cappelli
September 26, 1995
Page 5
and select the appropriate remedy for groundwater, which is the No Action With Monitoring
alternative.
4. EPA's Failure to Propose a Remedy for Groundwater Creates Uncertainty and Does
Not Benefit Public Health or the Environment
The ongoing bankruptcy proceedings of ESG, former Site operator and
signatory, along with First Holbrook, to an Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC")
governing the performance of the RI/FS, presents further reason for the USEPA to proceed
with selection of a remedy at the Site. In failing to do so, the Agency is creating an
unnecessary degree of uncertainly, prejudicing its own ability to recover funds necessary to
perform the clean-up, as well as the rights of other parties to the bankruptcy proceeding,
particularly Red Ground.
On or about May 9, 1994, ESG and two of its subsidiaries filed petitions under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 101 etse^, in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York.
In December, 1994, the United States Department of Justice filed a proof of
claim with respect to the bankruptcy proceedings of ESG ("Proof of Claim"). The Proof of
Claim stated that the debtor, ESG, is liable to reimburse the United States for all past and
future response costs for actions taken and to be taken at the Site by the USEPA. Proof of
Claim, t15, 9. The Proof of Claim further stated that the USEPA "anticipates that
remediation of the contaminated soil and groundwater may be required," and that the agency
"presently estimates that the future costs for cleanup of the soil and groundwater at the site
may range between $4 million and $6 million." Proof of Claim, 19.
While the USEPA has delayed to date quantifying its claim, the Government
should now make every effort to assert its rights in ESG's bankruptcy proceedings so as to
secure the maximum amount of funds possible from the bankrupt estate to fund the clean up of
the She. It should not be necessary to point out that the refusal of the USEPA to select a
remedy for groundwater, and thus be able to quantify its claim in the ESG bankruptcy may
complicate the Government's ability to obtain those funds. Red Ground recognizes that First
Holbrook, which is not in bankrutcy, is also a potentially responsible party for the Goldisc
Site. Nevertheless, without the ESG monies, the public health and the environment may
suffer. In this time of financial cutbacks for the USEPA, it is fiscally irresponsible for the
Agency to delay its decision. This is particularly true since, as noted by ERM, the USEPA
has identified the Goldisc Site as one at which because of the recent reduction in the USEPA's
budget, no funds will be available for clean up oversight, which makes it highly unlikely that
any monies will be available for the proposed additional monitoring and modeling.
Moreover, the deferral of Site groundwater remedy selection has a direct
-------
PEBICONI & ROTHBEEG. P.C
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Ms. Janet Cappelli
September 26, 1995
Page 6
detrimental impact on Red Ground Company, as the owner of the Site. The Site was listed by
the USEPA on the National Priorities List ("NPL") in June 1986. Almost ten years later, Red
Ground Co. continues to face delays in Site remediation. The encumbrance placed upon the
property by the NPL listing and the uncertainty surrounding the clean up have given rise to
difficulties in financing or selling the property, and evidently will continue to do so for the
indefinite 'future. As discussed below, Red Ground Co. has filed for bankruptcy, due in large
part to the condition of the Site and the slow progress of the remediation. Further delays
exacerbate the inequitable impact upon Red Ground Co. of. this exceptionally drawn-out
process.
5. Red Ground Has Appropriately Cooperated with the USEPA in the RI/FS Process
In the Site Background section of me Proposed Plan, the USEPA asserts that it
notified First Holbrook, ESG and Red Ground of their potential liability at the Site and
requested that they finance the RI/FS. It continues: "Red Ground refused to enter into
negotiations with EPA to conduct additional RI/FS activities. Subsequently, in 1991, EPA
entered into an AOC with First Holbrook and ElectroSound." Proposed Plan, p. 3. This
characterization of the events that transpired in 1991 is totally incorrect.
In fact, in early May 1991, the USEPA transmitted to Red Ground a draft
AOC, with an attached draft Statement of Work in connection with the Goldisc Site. Shortly
thereafter, counsel for ESG advocated to the USEPA that Red Ground Corporation be included
as a party to the AOC. In response, by letter dated May 28, 1991, Red Ground explained to
the USEPA that pursuant to the Contract of Sale between Red Ground and First Holbrook for
the Goldisc property, First Holbrook and ESG were legally obligated to undertake all
necessary measures to remediate the Goldisc property, and Red Ground would rely on that
Contract. The May 28, 1991 letter further noted that ESG and First Holbrook had already
submitted to the Agency a good faith offer to conduct the supplemental RI/FS activities.
Finally, while not stated in the letter. Red Ground would have been in breach of this Contract
of Sale if it signed the AOC, and thus would have risked losing the benefits of the Contract.
In response to this letter, the USEPA continued negotiations with ESG and First
Holbrook, eventually reaching final agreement in an AOC that became effective on July 3,
1991. Red Ground, as appropriate, is not a party to that AOC.
However, as owner of the property and pursuant to the contract of sale with
First Holbrook, Red Ground has fully cooperated with the USEPA and has participated
through its counsel in the remedial investigation process. As the USEPA is aware, Red
Ground has taken every step possible to persuade ESG and First Holbrook to fulfill their
commitments to Red Ground, including the commencement of a civil action against ESG and
First Holbrook in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. Red Ground has also made every
effort to cooperate with the Agency to implement the remedial program, and in fact has
-------
PEHICONI & ROTHBEHG. P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Ms. Janet Cappelli
September 26, 1995
Page?
assisted the USEPA in obtaining the cooperation and performance of ESG and First Holbrook.
Given the continued responsibility of First Holbrook and ESG, and the fact that ESG caused
the contamination at the Site, Red Ground's actions have been appropriate and Red Ground
has acted in good faith.
6. Red Ground Co. ffanjcyuptcy and Reservation of Rights
On March 11, 1993, Red Ground Co., the current owner of the Site, filed a
voluntary petition pursuant to Chapter 11 of the United Slates Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.
§ 101 £1 seq. The NPL listing of the Site and the slow progress of the remediation has made it
difficult for Red Gound to obtain financing or sell the property. Now, after an extended RJ/FS
process, the results of which were approved by the USEPA, the Agency proposes to extend
the uncertain status of the Site indefinitely. This inequitable course of action promises to
continue the harm to the Site owner and keep the property out of productive use for further,
unknown years of delay.
Red Ground Co. hereby reserves all its rights in this matter.
7. Conclusion
Red Ground objects to the decision of the USEPA, made in consultation with
the NYSDEC, to defer selection of a remedy for groundwarer contamination at the Goldisc
Site. This decision is arbitrary and capricious because it is without any technical or scientific
basis, is inconsistent with the USEPA's regulations and procedures, and creates uncertainty
and delay for affected parties and the public. The results of the RI/FS show that the No
Action With Monitoring alternative is the appropriate remedy for Site groundwater. The
USEPA should revise the Proposed Plan to propose this alternative, so that the public may
comment on this alternative and the remedy can proceed in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
Periconi & Rothberg, P.C.
Attorneys for Red Ground Corporation
and Red Ground Company
Debra L. Bthberg,
-------
REISMAN, PEIREZ, REISMAN & CALICA, L.L.P.
COUNSELORS AT LAW
I3OI FRANKLIN AVENUE
SEYMOUR J. REISMAN GARDEN ClTY, NI.Y. II53O
DAVID H.
JEROME REISMAN (SI6) 746-7799
ROBERT M CALICA <2 I E) 897-1 37 7
MICHAEL J. ANGELO - COUNSEL
_ FACSIMILE MARK S. CHARWAT
JOSEPH OAPOBIANCO (5 I 6) 7 4S-4946
ANN P. ZYQERT
SUSAN T. KlUEWER
COWARD M. ROSS°
ANTHONY C. ACAMPORA
LYDIA A. MILONE"
" MEMBER NT AND ft BAH
0 MEMBCR NY AND CT OAR
September 25, 1995
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Janet Cappelli
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10007
Re: EPA Superfund Proposed Plan - Goldisc Recordings
Site, August 1995 ("Plan")
To The EPA, Region II:
This firm has acted as special legal counsel to ElectroSound and
First Holbrook, two of the potentially responsible parties
(PRPs), signatories to the Administrative Order on Consent
("AOC"). In fact, the undersigned negotiated the AOC with the
EPA in 1991, and has provided special legal advice to the PRPs
with regard to all environmental legal issues from time to time.
The Plan's proposed remedial action with regard to the preferred
alternative for contaminated sediments and soils is acceptable,
but the decision of the EPA to conduct a monitoring program of
the groundwater in order to better define the vertical extent of
the nickel plume, to identify any trends in the concentration of
nickel and, thus, to defer decisions regarding groundwater
remediation is legally indefensible and constitutes'an arbitrary
and capricious action by the EPA.
SUMMARY OF LEGAL CONCLUSION
The arbitrary and capricious characteristics of the Plan are:
1. The lack of any reasonable timetable or
schedule in which to gather information;
-------
REISMAN, PEIREZ, REISMAN & CALICA, L.L.P.
Ms. Janet Cappelli
September 25, 1995
Page 2
2. A failure to recommend any alternate remedy
which may be implemented within a specified time frame;
3. A failure to identify any reasonable proposal
in the light of currently existing technology;
4. A failure to identify any particular threat or
harm to the public health;
5. The EPA's decision to effectively ignore the
recent judicial decision rejecting the Federal standard for
nickel levels in groundwater ("MCL"), thus circumventing the U.S.
Circuit Court by, in effect, adopting and relying upon a Health
Advisory which is not legally binding, which reliance directly
violates the NCP (the governing Federal body of regulations).
DISCUSSION
First, we note the written comments just submitted by ERM
Northeast ("ERM") to the Plan, on behalf of ElectroSound. ERM
correctly points out that the nickel, detected in groundwater at
the Church Street well, is even below the current level of the
Health Advisory, and that the Site groundwater has been fully and
properly characterized.
The Health Advisory is neither applicable nor relevant and
appropriate, is "not legally enforceable" by its own terms, and,
clearly is inconsistent with the NCP, (see 40 CFR 300.5). As ERM
particularizes, health advisories are no more than "informal
guidance", and cannot be construed to be legally enforceable
Federal standards or regulations.
It is arbitrary and capricious for the EPA to "bootstrap" the
failed (and judicially rejected) MCL by deferring a decision on
groundwater at this Site, after 15 years of EPA/DEC supervised
Site investigation1, simply because the EPA and DEC are now
The arbitrary and endless nature of governmental activity can be seen in
the fact that the Site has been subjected to nearly 15 years, i.e., from
1961 to date, of testing, sampling and reporting. Comprehensive
remedial investigations were performed according to a number of plans
submitted to and approved by the EPA and the NYSDEC. These agencies
have had, as noted by ERM in its comments, " ... more than adequate
opportunity to request and receive additional groundwater data if they
decided it was necessary to properly characterize groundwater conditions
at the Site."
Neither agency made such a request because such a request was totally
unnecessary. The now-proposed further required monitoring for the
purposes of determining whether additional remedial activities are
needed for groundwater on the Site is, after IS years, "cruel and
unusual", which the courts will clearly see as arbitrary and capricious.
-------
REISMAN, PEIREZ, REISMAN & CALICA, L.L.P.
Ms. Janet Cappelli
September 25, 1995
Page 3
going to proceed to develop a new MCL for nickel. The
bootstrapping is exacerbated by the fact that it leaves the PRP's
"hanging" in mid-air without any time frame or scientific
parameters to apply or use in determining whether, or to what
extent, a groundwater remedy may be necessary or selected for the
Site.
In all evaluations of the appropriateness of an EPA promulgated
remedial action, whether by a proposed plan or in a Record of
Decision ("ROD"), the essential factor is whether or not the
action to be taken arises out of a legitimate concern, which must
be rational, and where the public health may be endangered. A
ROD, is not to be an academic exercise or a theoretical approach
for general scientific investigation. This is precisely what the
EPA has done here by deferring a decision on groundwater remedy.
It is dead wrong. It is by legal standards and previous court
decisions "arbitrary and capricious".
US v. Cannons En'q Corp.. 720 F. Supp. 1027 (District of Mass.
1989), aff'd 899 F.2d 79 (1st Cir. 1990) and US v. Akzo Coatings
of America. Inc.. 949 F.2d 1409 (6th Cir. 1991) are two
informative decisions which discuss when a remedial action plan
is rational and whether the remedies fashioned are fair,
reasonable and adequate, and, consistent with CERCLA. Among the
criteria the courts have announced are: i) the nature and extent
of the hazards at a site; ii) the degree to which the remedy will
address the hazards at a site; iii) the degree to which the
public interest is served. In this case, the hazard at issue is
simply whether or not and to what degree there is nickel in the
groundwater. Nickel is neither a priority pollutant nor is there
a validly existing MCL. The previous MCL was recently rejected,
scientifically and procedurally, by the U.S. Federal Circuit
Court. The so-called "remand" was hardly voluntary on the part
of the EPA, see, .1995 WL 118042 [B.C. Cir., per curiam decision] .
One of the earliest cases examining the legality of an open-ended
remedy, such as the proposed Plan, was U.S. v. Hooker Chemicals,
540 F. Supp. 1067 (WDNY 1982). There the court did approve the
open ended remedy proposal. However, that case dealt with very
substantial toxic wastes with a grave potential danger to the
public welfare because of the likelihood of enormous amounts of
toxic chemicals migrating from a landfill into the Niagara River
and Lake Ontario. Nothing like that is present here. Indeed, in
this case, the possible presence of nickel, and the migration
factor, limited to a single public well is refuted by the fact
that the well is in service and water is being drawn for the
public use. Thus, the Hooker case is inapposite.
The open-ended Plan in this case utterly fails to establish a
reasonable timetable or schedule for information gathering, has
no specified time frame whatsoever, and in light of currently
-------
REISMAN, PEIREZ, REISMAN & CALICA, L.L.P.
Ms. Janet Cappelli
September 25, 1995
Page 4
existing technology, the proposal is unreasonable. The latter is
so because the EPA wrongfully relies upon a Health Advisory only,
which is no more than a recirculated version of the judicially
rejected MCL for nickel.
Simply put, there are no sound justifications for leaving open
the remedy for groundwater treatment. The EPA currently
possesses adequate toxicological information and the requisite
knowledge to prepare a final Plan with regard to groundwater.
When viewed in conjunction with the absence of a currently valid
Federal standard (i.e., an MCL), and the recent judicial
rejection of the former Federal standard, it is clear that the
EPA proposal to defer decision on groundwater remediation until
after additional monitoring and modeling is unjustified and based
on insubstantial evidence. In short, the Plan, as proposed, is
an exercise in academia which the PRPs will be subjected to,
after nearly 15 years of government-supervised Site
investigation.
Since the EPA has, i) failed to define any parameters; ii) set no
time frame for its proposed testing program; and iii) been
provided with sufficient data to render a final decision now, the
Plan leaves the matter in limbo, and stalls a final
implementation simply to allow the government to satisfy an urge
to develop a new standard for nickel groundwater. This
contravenes sound stated judicial policy as set forth in U.S. v.
Cannons En'q. Corp.. 899 F.2d at 88, supra.
The bottom line is that the Church Street well was returned to
service, and water is being provided to the public with nickel
levels well below even the Health Advisory of 100 mgl. Thus, the
EPA has itself demonstrated that there is no adverse condition at
the public well. There is simply no health-based threat to the
public, the Health Advisory is unenforceable, and the nickel at
the Site is both contained and in decline. With the removal of
the soil, that fact will be further strengthened and is self-
confirming.
CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, there appears to be no basis to
support the EPA's groundwater proposal, which we suspect is the
result of unjustified pressure from the State DEC and Dept. of
Health. It is wrong, wrong scientifically, and wrong legally.
We have recommended that unless the EPA reverses its present
proposed decision to defer a remedy on groundwater treatment, and
use this Site as the "guinea pig" to develop a new Federal MCL
standard for nickel, the PRPs seek relief in the Federal Court
upon the basis that the ROD is arbitrary and capricious.
-------
REISMAN, PEIREZ, REISMAN & CALICA, L.L.P.
Ms. Janet Cappelli
September 25, 1995
Page 5
We ask that your written response to this comment, submitted on
behalf of the PRPs, ElectroSound Group and First Holbrook, be
addressed and mailed to the undersigned in our capacity as
special environmental legal counsel, and that our comment be
included in the Administrative Record to preserve the PRPs rights
to a judicial review.
Very truly yours,
REISMAN, PEIREZ, REISMAN & CALICA, LLP
DHP:lk36972
CC - ElectroSound Group
First Holbrook Company
DAVl-D" tf . PEIREZ
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score/date:
Site ID #:
ROD .
Date Signed:
Remedy/ies:
Operating Unit:
Capital cost:
Construction
Completion:
0 & M/year:
Present worth:
LEAD
Enforcement:
Primary contact:
Secondary contact
Main PRP(s):
PRP Contact:
Goldisc Recordings
Holbrook, Suffolk County, New York
2
33.39 (6/1/86)
NYD980768717
09/29/95
soil & sediment excavation and offsite
disposal (by containment, bioremediation,
etc.), restrict deed to non-residential
OU-1
$250,322 (in '95 $)
9/96
$2,020 (in '95 $)
$271,722 (assumes 20 yrs, 7%, PWF=10.594)
EPA oversight/PRP
Damian Duda (212) 637-4269
Doug Garbarini (212) 637-4263
ElectroSound Group, Inc.
First Holbrook Co.
Red Ground Corp
Robert Barone/David Peirez (516) 746-7799
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. quantity:
nickel, chromium, semi-VOCs
soils/sediments
plating-type wastes
270 cu yds soil/sediments
------- |