United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-89/088
September 1989
SEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Preferred Plating, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT Ma
EPA/ROD/R02-89/088
3. Recipient* Accession No.
4. Tide and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Preferred Plating, NY
First Remedial Action
5. Report Date
09/22/89
7. Authors)
f. Minnc
^Rrperfoi
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
Performing Organization Nune «nd Address
10. ProjecVTaak/Work Unit No.
11. ContractfC) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nun* «nd Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Age_ncy
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 :;
13. Type of Report ft Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
ge
i
16. Abstract (Umit: 200 words) >>;
•^'t '
The 0.5-acre Preferred Plating site^is located in a light industrial area of "
Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York. The site is bordered to the east and west by
commercial and light industrial properties, to the north by a large wooded area, and
to the south by a residential community and a U.S. Army facility. More than 10,000
peop.le live within a 3-mile radius of the site.. Between September 1951 and June 1976,
Preferred Plating Corporation operated a metal treating facility that resulted in the
generation, storage, and disposal of.'-hazardous waste. Untreated waste water was
scharged to four concrete leaching points directly behind the facility. Site
vestigations conducted by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services as early
as 1953 revealed heavy metal contamination of ground water and cracked and leaking
onsite leaching pits. Ground water /is used for drinking water supplies by the entire
population of both Naussau and Suffolk counties. The nearest public water supply well
fields are located approximately one-~.mile southeast of the site. This operable unit
addresses the overall ground water Contamination attributable to the site; a second
operable unit will be undertaken to more fully characterize and identify any
contaminated soil and to investigate .potential-upgradient sources of contamination.
The primary contaminants of concern'^fecting the ground water'are VOCs including TCE
and PCE, and metals .including chromium and lead. (Continued on next page)
NY
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Preferred.Plating,
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE), metals .(chromium,
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms •. '.
lead)
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (Thia Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Page*
51
22. Price
) ANSI-Z39.18)
See /futructfo/M on Ramfft
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Report Documentation Page la baaad on Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports,
ANSI 239.18-1974 available from American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway. New York, New York 10018. Each aaparately
bound report—for example, each volume In a multlvolume aat—ahali have) Ita unique Report Documentation Page.
1. Report Number. Each Individually bound report ahall carry a unique alphanumeric designation assigned by the performing orga-
nization or provided by the sponsoring organization In accordance with American National Standard ANSI 239.23-1974, Technical
Report Number (STRN). For registration of report code, contact NTIS Report Number Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA 22161. Use
uppercaae tetters, Arabic numerate, slashes, and hyphens only, aa In the following exsmples: FASEB/NS-75/87 and FAA/
RD-75/09. ':•..
•
2. Leave blank. •?
3. Recipient's Acceaalon Number. Reserved for use by .each report recipient
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should Indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to the main
title. When a report la prepared In more than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and Include subtitle for
the specific volume. :
5. Report Date. Each report ahall carry a date Indicating at leaat month and year. Indicate the baala on which It waa selected (e.g.,
date of laaue, date of approval, date of preparation, date puMlahed).
6. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
7. Authors). Give name(a) In conventional order (e.g^ John R. Doe, or J. Robert Doe). Ust author's affiliation If It differs from
the performing organization. ..= .
8. Performing organization Report Number. Insert if performing organtzaton wlahea to aaalgn this number.
9. Performing Organization Name and Hailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and 2IP code. Uat no more than two levels of
an organizational hlerachy. Display trie name of tfw organization exactly aa It should appear In Government Indexes such aa
Government Reports Announcements A Index (GRA ft I).
10. ProJect/Taak/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report wss prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Address. Include 2IP code. Cite main sponsors.
13. Type of Report and Period Covered. Stats Interim, final, etc., and. If applicable. Inclusive dates.
14. Performing Organization Code. Leavetblank.
15. Supplementary Notea. Enter Information not Indudud a sewhere but useful, such ss: Prepared In cooperation with... Translation
of... Presented at conference of..-. To be publlahed In... When a report Is revised. Include a statement whether the new
report supersedes or supplements the older report. .
16. Abstract Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant Information contained In the report. If the
report contains s significant bibliography or literature survey, mention It here.
17. Document Analysia. (a). Descriptors.-Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terms
that Identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used aa Index entrlea for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use Identifiers for protect nsmeSj-code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
ended terms written In descriptor form for those subjects for which ho descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Held/Group. Field and Group aaalgnmenti are to be taken form the 1964 COSATJ Subject Category Uat Since the
majority of documents are multldlsclpllnsry (n nature, the primary Field/Group assignments) will be the specific diaclpllne,
area of human endeavor, or type of physical object Tie appiication(a) will be cross-referenced with secondary Field/Group
aaalgnments that will follow the primary poatlng(a).
. 18. Olatributlon Statement Denote public releasabillty, for example "Releaae unlimited", or limitation for reaaona other than
security, ate any availability to the public, with addresa, order number and price, if known.
19. & 20. Security Classification. Enter U.S. Security daaaiHcatlon in accordance with U. S. Security Regulation (I.e., UNCLASSIFIED).
21. Number of pages. Insert the total number of pajjea. Including Introductory pages, but excluding distribution list if any.
22. Price. Enter price In paper copy (PC) and/or microfiche (MF) If known.
•& GPO: 1983 0 - 381*526(8393) OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK
(4-77)
-------
16. Abstract (Continued)
EPA/ROD/R02-89/088
Preferred Plating, NY
The selected remedial .action for this site includes!1-pumping and onsite treatment of
contaminated ground water using metal precipitations-carbon adsorption, and ion exchange
followed by reinjection of the treated ground water;.-offsite disposal of 220 gallons per
day of wet cake generated by the water treatment plant and spent, carbon filters to a
RCRA subtitle C facility; and periodic ground water .monitoring. The estimated present
worth cost is $9,327,400 for 12 years with an annual^Q&M cost of $920,900.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Preferred Plating Corporation, Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the
Preferred Plating Corporation Site developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act, 42 USC § 9601, et seq., and to the extent applicable, the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan , 40
CFR Part 300. This decision is based on the administrative record
for the Site. The attached index identifies the items that comprise
the administrative record upon which the selection of the remedial
action is based.
The State of New York has concurred with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site,
if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this
Record of Decision, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
This .operable unit represents the first of two planned for the Site.
It addresses the treatment of ground water contaminated primarily
with heavy metals and volatile organics. The second operable unit
will involve the continued study and possible remediation of soils
located beneath the building on the Site if the study so indicates.
These soils could not be adequately characterized during the first
operable unit. The second operable unit will also investigate
potential sources ^of upgradient contamination.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
* Extraction and ^treatment, via metal precipitation, ion
exchange, and activated carbon, of ground water in the Upper
Glacial Aquifer to restore the ground water quality to cleanup
levels identified in the decision summary; and
* Disposal of treatment residuals at a RCRA subtitle C facility.
-------
Treatability studies will be undertaken to confirm the effectiveness
of the selected remedy. If these studies indicate that the ion
exchange process used in the selected remedy is ineffective in
reducing the .chromate ion to the required levels, a contingency
remedy, which utilizes a separate precipitation unit for the removal
of the chromate ion, will be implemented.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Both the selected remedy and the contingency remedy are protective of
human health and the environment and are cost-effective. The total
remedial action, consisting of both this first operable unit and a
future second operable unit, when fully completed will comply with
Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate. Both the selected remedy and the
contingency remedy utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfy
the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element. Due to
the existence of an upgradient source area, neither the selected nor
the contingency remedy, by itself, will meet chemical-specific ARARs
and be capable of restoring the area ground water to applicable
ground water quality standards until that upgradfent source area is .
removed. The upgradient source area will be addressed as part of the
second operable unit. Although the remedial action selected, the
first operable unit, will not meet chemical-specific ARARs, it is
only part of a total remedial action that will attain clean-up levels
when fully completed. In the event the second operable unit fails to
identify or control the source area, a waiver for technical
impracticability will be sought.
The need for conducting a five-year review will be evaluated upon
completion of the second operable unit.
William J. Mupfcyifsk, .^#6. Date
Acting Regicjnai Administrator
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION
FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
I. Site Location and Description 1
. II. Site History and Enforcement Activities 2
III. Community Relations History 3
IV. Scope and Role of Operable Unit
Within Site Strategy , 3
V. Summary of Site Characteristics -. 4
VI. Documentation of Significant Changes. 5
VII. Summary of Site Risks 5
VIII. Description of Alternatives 6
IX. Summary of Comparative Analysis
of Alternatives , 10
X. Selected Remedy ".. 13
XI. Statutory Determinations 14
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Appendix IV
Appendix V
- Figures
- Tables
- Adminstrative Record Index
- NYSDEC Letter of Concurrence
- Responsiveness Summary
-------
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Preferred Plating Corporation Site (the "Site") is located at 32
Allen Boulevard in Farmingdale, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New
York. This 0.5-acre Site is situated in a light industrial area
approximately 1 mile west of the Nassau-Suffolk County border. Route
110 passes just west of the Site (see Figure 1).
The land to the east and west of the Site is occupied by commercial
or light industrial properties. Immediately north of the Site is a
large wooded area followed by various industrial facilities further
north of that. To the south are a residential community and a U.S.
Army facility.
The 1980 census records a population of greater than 10,000 within a
3 mile radius of the Site. The population density in the area is
estimated to be 3,000 to 6,000 persons per square mile. All homes
and businesses, in the area surrounding the Site, are supplied by two
public water companies. Ground water is the source of water supplies
for the entire population of both Nassau and Suffolk Counties. All
public water supply wells in the Site area draw water from the deeper
aquifer, the Magothy Aquifer. The nearest public water supply well
fields are located approximately 1 mile east and 1 mile south of'the
Site.
The nearest body of surface water is an unnamed intermittent
tributary of Massapequa Creek which is approximately 6000 feet west
of the Site. There is no designated New York State Significant
Habitat, agricultural land, nor historic or landmark site directly.or
potentially affected. There are no endangered species or critical
habitats within close proximity of the site. The Site is located
more than 2 miles from a 5-acre coastal wetland and more than 1 mile
from a 5-acre fresh-water wetland. "
The Site is situated in the south-central glacial outwash plain of
Long Island, which constitutes the Upper Glacial Aquifer, estimated
to be 90 feet in thickness under thei Site. The naturally occurring
surface soil is a *andy loam which promotes rapid infiltration to the
ground water. On the Site proper and throughout much of the region,
soils have been classified as urban... This is primarily due to the
development and pavement which promote greater run-off of
precipitation. The Upper Glacial Aquifer overlies the Magothy
Aquifer and the two may act as distinct aquifers, or as;one,
depending upon the degree of hydraulic connection between the two.
In the Site area, it is believed that: the two are not hydraulically
connected.
-------
-2-
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Preferred Plating Corporation (PPC)» conducted operations
beginning in September 1951 through June 1976. The primary
activities at the Site were to chemically treat metal parts to
increase their corrosion resistance and provide a cohesive base for
painting. The plating processes included degreasing, cleaning, and
surface finishing of the metal parts. These processes involved the
use of various chemicals which resulted in the generation, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste. Untreated waste water was
discharged to four concrete leaching pits directly behind the
original building.
Ground water contaminated with heavy metals was detected in the Site
area by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) as
early as June 1953. SCDHS indicated that the leaching pits on the
Site were severely cracked and leaking. Samples taken from the pits
showed the major contaminants to be heavy metals. From 1953 to 1976,
SCDHS instituted numerous legal actions against PPC in an effort to
stop illegal dumping of wastes and to install or upgrade the on-site
treatment facility. PPC prepared an engineering report in May 1974
in order to apply for a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) permit which was issued in June 1975. PPC chemically treated
the waste water in the pits and, allegedly, then had the treated
waste water removed. Whether the treated ground water was ever
removed has not been confirmed by EPA. The facility was never in
full compliance with the terms and'conditions outlined in the permit.
In 1976, PPC declared bankruptcy. Since then, several firms have
occupied the Site, none conducting similar operations to PPC. In
1982, the original building was extended by 200 feet, thereby burying
the concrete leaching pits. Nearly the entire.Site is covered either
by the one existing building or paved driveways and parking areas.
In September 1984, Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc. performed a Phase
I-Preliminary Investigation or the Preferred Plating Site for NYSDEC
for the purpose of computing a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score
needed to evaluate.whether tb place the Site on the' National
Priorities List (NPL). In the Phase I report, an HRS score of 33.7(i
was documented, thereby enabling the Site to be included on the NPL.
On October 15, 1984, (49 FR 1984), the Site was proposed for the NFL
and was added with a ranking of 500 on June 10, 1986," (51 FR 21054).
At EPA's direction, a remedial investigation (RI-) was initiated in
1987. The RI consisted of a jfield sampling and analysis program
followed by validation and evaluation of the data collected. The
field work was initiated in June 1988 and completed in February 1989.
The work was conducted by EPA's REM III contractor, Ebasco Services,
Inc. The soil sampling program involved the determination of lateral
and vertical extents of contamination by obtaining samples from six
-------
on-site monitoring wells, two off-site monitoring well locations, six
surface soil locations, and seven angle borings which extended
underneath the on-site building overlying the former leaching pits.
The groundwater sampling program involved the installation of nine
on-site and two off-site monitoring wells. In addition, two storm
water run-off samples and two sediment samples were collected from
on-site storm sewers.
The potentially responsible parties (PRP's) were notified in writing
on February 12, 1988 via a special notice letter and given the
opportunity to conduct the RI/FS under EPA supervision. However,
none elected to undertake these activities.
In July 1989, Ebasco's remedial investigation (RI) and feasibility
study (FS) reports were released to the public along with the
Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) developed by EPA. A 28-day
public comment period was provided, ending on August 18, 1989.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
A Community Relations Plan for the Preferred Plating Site was
finalized in March 1988. This document lists contacts and interested
parties throughout'government and the local community. It also
establishes communication pathways to ensure timely dissemination of
pertinent information. Subsequently, a fact sheet outlining the RI
sampling program was distributed in June 1988. The RI/FS and the
Proposed Plan were released to the public in July 1989. All of these
documents were made available in both the administrative record and
two information repositories maintained at the Babylon Town Hall and
the West Babylon Library. A public comment period was held from July
19, 1989 to August 18, 1989. In addition, a public meeting was held
on August 3, 1989 to present the results of the RI/FS and the
preferred alternative as presented in the Proposed Plan for the Site.
All comments which were received by EPA prior to the end of the
public comment period, including those expressed verbally at the
public meeting, are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary which is
attached, as Appendix V, to this Record of Decision.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT ONE WITHIN SITE STRATEGY
The objective of this operable unit is to address the overall
groundwater contamination attributable to the Site. The selected
remedy will treat ground water until the influent contaminant
concentrations equal the upgradient concentrations. When this has
been achieved, the saturated soils underlying the Site will have been
essentially flushed of any contaminants, thereby resulting in no net
contribution of contaminants from the Site to the aquifer below.
-------
-4-
The results of the RI failed to detect evidence of soil contamination
in any of the samples collected. However, since the
downgradient groundwater contaminant concentrations were, on the
average, an order of magnitude greater than the upgradient
concentrations, a source of contamination is believed to exist in the
saturated soils beneath the Site. Due to fluctuating water table
levels, the zone of saturated soils beneath the building varies.
Directly, the selected remedy will be cleaning the ground water.
Indirectly, it will be flushing contaminants out of the saturated
soils.
If the source of contamination in those saturated soils could be
located and controlled, the restoration time frame for cleaning the
ground water would be greatly reduced. Therefore, a second operable
unit will be undertaken to more fully characterize and identify any
contaminated soils, both saturated and unsaturated, located beneath
the building and to investigate potential upgradient sources of
contamination.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The purpose of the RI conducted at the Preferred Plating Site was to
identify the nature and extent of contamination in environmental
media on-site, including soil, sediment, ground water, and storm
water run-off. To accomplish this, two rounds of ground water
samples were collected from the nine on-site monitoring wells as well
as the two off-site wells. In addition, various soil samples were
collected, including samples from seven sub-surface angle borings
drilled beneath the building. (See Figure 2 for on-site sample
locations). All samples were subjected to complete Target Compound
List analyses. The results of the investigation indicate the
following:
A Ground water underlying the Site is contaminated with high
levels of heavy metals. Low levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons
and cyanide were also detected in a few samples. Upgradient
ground water also showed high levels of heavy metals, though
significantly iower than on-site levels.
A The soils sampled on-site, including those collected from
beneath the building, failed to detect any sources of
contamination.
Chemical analysis of the 24 groundwater samples collected from the
Upper Glacial Aquifer detected: concentrations of cadmium, chromium,
lead, and nickel above the allowable maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) in numerous samples. The highest value for a contaminant was
that of chromium at 5,850 ppb. On-site wells, installed downgradient
of the former leaching pits, showed the highest levels of ;
contamination. Upgradient wells also showed levels of contamination
above allowable MCLs, however, at an order of magnitude lower than
-------
-5-
the downgradient wells. Low levels of chlorinated organics,
predominantly 1,1,1-trichlcroethane; trichloroethylene; 1,2-
dichloroethane,; 1,1-dichloroethane; and tetrachloroethylene were
detected in a few samples. In addition, three samples indicated the
presence of cyanide above allowable MCLs. Concentrations for all
inorganic and organic contaminants and their frequency of detection
are shown in Table 1.
The sub-surface soil analyses collected from both the seven angle
borings and the eleven monitoring well borings showed normal
background levels for contaminants. Since the downgradient wells
have much higher levels of contaminants than the upgradient wells, it
is assumed that a source of contamination exists in the saturated
soils located beneath the building that was not identified during
this investigation. This will attempt to be identified as part of
the second operable unit.
Surface soil samples collected from six separate locations indicated
contamination to be generally below normal background levels.
Storm water run-off showed no significant contamination. Storm sewer
sediments showed the presence of organics currently being used on-
site. •
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Preferred Plating Site was released to the
public in July 1989. The Proposed Plan identified Alternative 3 as
the preferred remedy and Alternative 2 as the contingency remedy.
EPA reviewed all comments submitted during the public comment period.
Upon.review of these comments, it was determined.that no significant
changes to the selected remedy, as it was originally identified in
the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The .National Contingency Plan requires that a Risk Assessment (RA) be
conducted to document and justify whether an imminent and substantial
risk to public health or the environment may exist at a Superfund
site. The risk assessment for the Preferred Plating Site is
contained in the RI report dated July 1989.
The'baseline RA defines the actual and potential risks to human
health and the environment from the presence of the hazardous
substances on and around the Site if no action is taken. The
baseline RA determined that the contaminants in the ground water and
the Site soils have no major negative impact on the environment.
Since the Site is presently covered by a building and pavement, the
only potential pathway withra risk to the public was determined to be
ingestion of contaminated-ground water. Although the groundwater
sampling did indicate high levels of heavy metal contamination, there
-------
-6-
is no present direct human exposure to contaminants since the
surrounding population is supplied by public water. However, the
Upper Glacial Aquifer is classified as lib, or potential drinking
water, and therefore, a potential risk to human health would exist in
the event that this aquifer is developed for use. Also, the
potential for off-site downward migration of contaminants exists due
to a possible connection off-site between the Magothy and Upper
Glacial Aquifers.
A comparison of the concentrations of chemicals in the ground water
with applicable or relevant and approriate requirements (ARARs)
indicated that numerous inorganic and organic compounds are in
exceedance of those ARARs. Based on this comparison, the inorganics
cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel and cyanide were evaluated and
modeled in the RA. Although not all of the organic contaminants of
concern exceeded ARARs, they were carried through the RA because they
are potential carcinogens.
Based on the review of available data, the Site geology and the
results of the public health evaluations, a significant non-
carcinogenic risk from consumption of the Upper Glacial Aquifer
ground water exists at the Preferred Plating Corporation Site. Given
the potential risk posed-by the contribution of metal contamination
by the Site, the following Remedial Objective was developed for the
first operable unit (OU I):
* Reduce the groundwater contaminant concentrations in the Upper
Glacial Aquifer underlying the Site to-upgradient
concentrations.
The second operable unit (OU II) will attempt'to identify and control
the upgradient.source area. The selected remedy for OU I is only a
portion of a-total remedial action, including OU II, and will attain
all clean-up levels when fully completed.
The quantitative clean-up levels for remediating the ground water are
presented in Table 2. In removing contaminated ground water, any
contributing sources of contamination in the saturated soils beneath
the building will be indirectly removed.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this 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 ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the remedial alternatives which were
developed, using suitable technologies, to meet the objectives of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
-------
-7- ,-
Compensation, and Liality Act (CERCLA), 42 USC § 9601, et seg. These
alternatives were developed by screening a wide range of technologies
for their applicability to site-specific conditions and evaluating
them for effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
A comprehensive list of remedial technologies was compiled for
remediation of the ground water. These technologies were screened
based on the characteristics of the Site. Those technologies which
were retained after the preliminary screening process were assembled
to form seven groundwater alternatives. The alternatives developed
for the Preferred Plating Site are detailed below. The restoration
time frames provided below assume that a source of contamination
exists in the saturated soils located beneath the building and will
continue to exist and contribute to ground water contamination. The
findings of the second operable unit may affect the following time
frames.
Alternative 1 - No Action
Construction Cost: $ 12,700
Annual O&M Costs: $ 11,600
Present Worth Cost: $ 175,300
Construction Time: 1 month
Restoration Time: 19 years
The no-action alternative is required by the NCP to be considered
through the detailed analysis. It provides a baseline for comparison
of other alternatives. Under this alternative, a public awareness
program will be developed describing the risks associated with the
Site. In addition, existing monitoring wells will be used to conduct
long-term monitoring of the contaminant concentrations in the Upper
Glacial Aquifer underlying the Site until such time that the
downgradient contaminant concentration levels reach upgradient levels
due to natural attenuation.
Alternative 2 - Pumping/Precipitation of Metals/Activated Carbon/
Reinjection
Construction Cost: $ 2,286,900
Annual O&M Costs: $ 1,071,300
Present Worth Cost: $ 10,899,600
Construction Time: 18 months
Restoration Time: 12 years
This .alternative consists of one on-site collection well for the
extraction of contaminated ground water to be sent for treatment.
Groundwater modelling predicts that the extraction system will
capture essentially all the ground water in the Upper Glacial Aquifer
over a capture radius of 150 feet by providing a continual flow of
300 gallons per minute to the treatment plant. The influent ground
water will enter the treatment plant where it will first go through a
-------
-8-
2-stage precipitation and clarification/filtration unit for the
removal of all heavy metals, followed by a carbon adsorption unit for
removal of volatile organic compounds. The metals treatment will
generate 4, 55-gallon drums of wet cake per day to.be ultimately
disposed of in a Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
subtitle C facility. The treatment scheme is a proven technology
capable of removing the contaminants of concern from the ground
water. The ground water pumped from the Site shall be treated to
satisfy all federal and state standards for class lib waters,
potential drinking waters, prior to reinjection. The treated ground
water will be discharged to a reinjection well installed east of the
Site and upgradient of both the extraction well and former leaching
pits. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of this remedial
action, periodic sampling for metal and volatile organic
concentrations in the ground water prior to reinjection will be
required.
Alternative 3 - Pumping/Precipitation of Divalent Metals/Activated
Carbon/Ion Exchange/Reinfection
Construction Cost: $ 1,923,900
Annual O&M Costs: $ 920,900
Present Worth Cost: $ 9,327,400 ' .
Construction Time: 18 months
Restoration Time: 12 years
Under this alternative, the same extraction system is used to
withdraw the contaminated ground water as that of Alternative 2- The
treatment scheme differs in that only the divalent metals will be
treated by a precipitation unit, whereas the chromate ion will be
treated with an ion exchange unit. The ion exchange process is a
proven technology, however, a treatability study must be performed to
demonstrate if the concentrations of chromium can be reduced to the
necessary levels. The equipment used in the treatment scheme
occupies less space and, therefore, the treatment plant will be
smaller than that needed for Alternative 2. The reinjection scheme
will be identical to that of Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 - Pumping/Precipitation of Metals/Activated Carbon/
Discharge to Recharge Basin
Construction Costs: $ 2,547,700
Annual O&M Costs: $ 1,071,300
Present Worth .Cost: $11,160,500
Construction Time: 18 months
Restoration Time: 12 years
The collection and treatment systems in this alternative are both
identical.to Alternative 2. The discharge system differs in that the
treated ground water will be pumped approximately 2,000 feet south of
the Site, through an underground pipeline, to a recharge basin.
-------
-9-
Alternative 5 - Pumping/Precipitation of Divalent Metals/Activated
Carbon/Ion Exchange/Discharge to Recharge Basin
Construction Costs: $ 2,184,800
Annual O&M Costs: $ 920,900
Present Worth Cost: $ 9,588,300
Construction Time: 18 months
Restoration Time: 12 years
The collection and treatment systems in this alternative are both
identical to Alternative 3. The discharge system is identical to
Alternative 4.
Alternative 6 - Pumping/Precipitation of Metals/Activated Carbon/
Discharge to Surface Water
Construction Costs: $ 4,333,300
Annual O&M Costs: $ 1,071,300
Present Worth Cost: $ 12,946,100
Construction Time: 18 months
Restoration Time: 12 years
'This alternative is essentially identical to Alternative 4 except
that the treated ground water will be discharged at the headwater of
the Amityville Creek, through a 9,000 foot underground pipeline. The
concentration levels required for discharge to surface water are
lower for certain chemicals than the levels for discharge to ground
water. The more stringent surface water discharge limitations are
technically impossible to achieve using available technologies'.
Alternative 7 — Pumping/Precipitation of Divalent Metals/Activated
Carbon/Ion Exchange/Discharge to Surface Water
Construction Costs: $ 3,970,400
Annual O&M Costs: $ 920,900
Present Worth Cost: $ 11,373,900
Construction Time: 18 months
Restoration Time: - 12 years
The collection and treatment systems of this alternative are both
identical to Alternative 3 and the discharge system is identical to
Alternative 6.
-------
-10-
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
All alternatives were evaluated in detail utilizing nine criteria.
These criteria were developed to address the requirements of Section
121 of the.Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of
1986. The nine criteria are as follows:
Threshold Criteria * Overall protection of human health and the
environment; and
A Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements.
Primary Balancing * Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
Criteria * Reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment;
Short-term effectiveness;
Implementability; and
Cost.
Modifying Criteria
State/support agency acceptance; and
Community acceptance.
The discussion which follows provides a summary of the relative
performance of each alternative with respect to the nine criteria.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion 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. • ;- ; :
Protection of human health and the environment is the central mandate
of CERCLA. Protection is achieved primarily by taking appropriate
action to ensure that there will be no unacceptable risks to human
health or the environment through any exposure pathways. No direct
risk to human health or the environment presently exists because the
ground water in the immediate vicinity of the Site is not currently
used as a potable water source.
Alternatives 2-7 will require 12 years, while Alternative 1 will
require 19 years, to achieve downgradient contaminant concentration
levels equal to upgradient levels. When this has been achieved, the
saturated soils underlying the Site will have essentially been
flushed of any contaminants, thereby resulting in no net contribution
of contaminants to the aquifer below. All treatment alternatives,
aside from the no-action alternative, will result in permanent
protection of the environment arid human health through the reduction
in toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contaminants.
-------
-11-
Compliance with ARARs !"'•
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements and/or provide
grounds for invoking a waiver. ARARs can be bhemical-specific,
location-specific, or action-specific. ;
Alternatives 2-5 achieve ARARs to a similar degree and more so than
Alternatives 6 and 7. None of the alternatives will achieve
chemical-specific ARARs for ground water rated lib, potential
drinking water, unless off-site upgradient sources are removed.
Although the selected remedial action, the first operable unit, will
not meet chemical-specific ARARs, it is only part of a total remedial
action that will attain such clean-up levels when fully completed. A
second operable unit will be conducted in an attempt tov identify
upgradient sources of contamination. In the event the second
operable unit fails to identify or control upgradient sources, a
waiver for technical impracticabilty will be sought.
Alternatives 2-7 will meet action-specific ARARs. Under
alternatives 2-5, treated ground water will meet pertinent federal
and state ARARs. for either reinjection or discharge to the recharge
basin. Under Alternatives 6 and 7, ground water will be treated as
close as technically possible'to the Class C surface water body
ambient standards for parameters of concern since it is technically
impracticable to meet all of these standards. A technical
impracticability waiver would also be needed for discharge to surface
waters if Alternatives 6 or .7 were selected.
Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
This evaluation criterion relates to the anticipated performance of a
remedial technology, with respect to these parameters, that a remedy
may employ.
Alternatives 2-7 will control the mobility of the contaminants,
contributed by the Site, by extraction within the Upper Glacial
Aquifer over a ISOrfoot radius capture zone. These alternatives will
also significantly reduce or eliminate the toxicity and volume of the
contaminated ground water by treating to remove metals and volatile
organics. Alternative 1 will gradually reduce the toxicity and
volume of the contaminated ground water by natural attenuation but
will do nothing to prevent the migration of contaminants.
Short-term Effectiveness
This criterion involves the period of time each alternative needs to
achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health and the
environment that may be posed during construction and implementation
of the alternative.
-------
-12- ...-."
: "»
Alternative 1 will take approximately 1 month to implement and
presents no short-term risks to on-site workers or the community.
Alternatives 2-7 present minimal short-term risks to workers
through direct contact pathways and normal construction hazards
during remedial action. Each of these alternatives will take
approximately 12 years to achieve remediation goals, with their
respective construction phases being completed in two years or less.
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time, once clean-
up levels 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.
Alternatives 2-7 present no long-tenn threat to public health
because these alternatives are designed to reduce contaminant
concentrations in the ground water to levels that are health
protective prior to discharge. Alternative 1 may present a long-term
risk because it relies on natural attenuation of ground water to
reduce contaminant concentrations to action levels.
Implementability
This criterion involves the technical and administrative feasibility
of a remedy, including the availability of materials and services
needed to implement the chosen solution.
Alternative 1 will require a public awareness program and grouhdwater
monitoring which can be easily implemented. Alternatives 2-7 may
require off-site property procurement for construction of a treatment
plant if the plant cannot be placed on-site. Equipment used in the
treatment schemes are readily available. The differences in
implementability between Alternatives 2 - 7 depend upon the degree of
access needed for the discharge system involved in each and the need
for treatability studies. Alternatives 2 and 3 will require the
installation of one reinjection well which will require property
rights for the well placement and a 500 foot underground pipeline.
Pipelines, totaling 2,000 feet, needed for discharge to the recharge
basin under Alternatives 4 and 5 will be installed beneath public
roads. Pipelines, totaling 9,000 feet, needed for discharge to
surface water under Alternatives 6 and 7 will be installed beneath
both public and private properties.
Alternatives 3, 5, and 7 require a treatability study to ensure the
effectiveness of the ion exchange process involved in each and,
therefore, their respective implementation time frames are 6 months
longer than Alternatives 2, 4, and 6,
-------
-13-
Cost
This criterion includes both capital and operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs. Cost comparisons are made on the basis of present worth
values. Present worth values are equivalent to the amount of money
which must be invested to complete a certain alternative at the start
of construction to provide for both construction costs and O&M costs
over time. Present cost estimates for all of the alternatives are as
follows:
Alternative 1: $ 175,300
Alternative 2: 10,899,600
Alternative 3: 9,327,400
Alternative 4: 11,160,500
Alternative 5: 9,588,300
Alternative 6: 12,946,100
Alternative 7: 11,373,900
Alternative 1, no-action, will be the least costly to implement
followed by Alternatives 3, 5, 2, 4, 7> and 6.
State Acceptance
The State of New York, through the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), has concurred with EPA's
selected remedy and contingency remedy. The NYSDEC letter of
concurrence is attached as Appendix IV.
Community Acceptance
No objections from the community :were raised regarding the selected
remedy or the contingency remedy. Community comments can be reviewed
in the August 3, 1989 public meeting transcript, which has. been
included in the Administrative Record. A responsiveness summary -
which addresses all comments received during the public comment
period is attached as Appendix V.
i
THE SELECTED REMEDY . '
Based upon all available data and analyses conducted to date, EPA has
selected Alternative 3: Pumping/Precipitation of Divalent Metals/
Activated Carbon/Ion Exchange/Reinjection as the most appropriate
solution for meeting the goals of this remedial investigation. This
alternative does involve a treatability study to ensure.that the io-n
exchange unit can meet all necessary treatment level requirements for
the chromate ion. In the event the treatability study indicates that
the ion exchange process is ineffective in reducing the chromate ion
to the necessary levels, Alternative 2: Pumping/Precipitation of
Metals/Activated Carbon/Reinjection will be selected as the
contingency remedy.
-------
-14-
For both the selected remedy and the contingency remedy, ground water
within a capture zone radius of approximately 150 feet will be
extracted and treated to remove heavy metals and chlorinated
hydrocarbons. The treated ground water will be reinjected to the
underlying aquifer, the Upper Glacial Aquifer. The treatment
residuals will be disposed of in a RCRA subtitle C facility. The
major components of the selected remedy and the contingency remedy
are depicted in Figures 3 and 4, respectively.
The purpose of this response action is to control risks posed by the
ingestion of contaminated ground water by addressing the following
issues:
A The divalent metal concentrations (cadmium, lead, and nickel)
will be reduced through a metals precipitation process
involving a clarification/filtration unit.
A The chlorinated organic concentrations (1,1,1-trichloroethane,
trichloroethylene, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane, and
tetrachloroethylene) will be reduced using carbon adsorption.
* The chromate ion will be reduced using an ion exchange process
as stated in the selected remedy, or a precipitation process as
stated in the contingency remedy.
During the remedial design phase of the project, additional sampling
will be conducted to check for any changes in contaminant levels. If
this sampling indicates concentrations of cyanide above the allowable
state and federal standards, a treatment process for cyanide removal
will be added to the selected alternative. This treatment process is
known as alkaline chlorination. The process is depicted in Figure 5.
All contaminant concentrations will be reduced until they are equal
to or less than their respective federal or state standards prior to
reinjection. The treated effluent will be tested to ensure that the
treatment system is operating efficiently. Any waste residuals
generated by the treatment processes will be disposed of in
accordance with applicable disposal standards. Although the remedial
action selected, the first operable* unit, will not meet chemical-
specific ARARs, it is only part of a total remedial action that will
attain such cleanup levels when fully completed.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
EPA believes that both the selected remedy as well as the contingency
remedy will satisfy the statutory requirements of providing
protection of human health and the environment, being cost-effective,
utilizing permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable,
and satisfying the preference for treatment as a principal element.
-------
Protection of' Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy and the contingency remedy eliminate all
outstanding tihreats posed by the site. Both remove any contribution
of contaminants in the saturated zone to the underlying aquifer and
reduce contaminant concentration levels in that aquifer to upgradient
levels.
Compliance with ARARs
The following ARARs and considerations apply to both the selected
remedy and the contingency remedy:
Action-specific ARARs:
A SDWA Maximum Contaminant Levels (40 CFR 141.11 - 141.16), 6 NYCRR
Part 703, and 10 NYCRR Part 5 provide standards and goals for
toxic compounds for public drinking water systems. The
reinjectibn process for the treated ground water will meet
underground injection well regulations by its status as a
Superfund remedial action under 40 CFR 147. The extracted
ground water will be treated to meet all standards prior to
reinjection.
A Spent carbon from the groundwater treatment system for removal
of organics will be disposed of off-site, as well as any
treatment residuals, consistent with applicable RCRA land
disposal restrictions under 40 CFR 268.
Chemical-specific ARARs: - -
A since the ground water at the site is classified as lib,
drinking water standards are relevant and appropriate. Again,
these include SDWA MCLs, 6 NYCRR Groundwater Quality Regulations
and/or limitations of discharges to Class GA waters, and 10 NYCRR
Part 5 standards.
Location-specific JUlARs: . •
none
Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance To Be Considered:
A NY TOGS 2.1.2 and 1.1.1 provide standards for reinjection of
treated ground water and are to be considered. SDWA MCL Goals
(40 CFR 141.50 - 141.51) provide goals for toxic compounds for
public drinking systems and are also to be considered.
-------
-16-
Neither the selected remedy nor the contingency remedy, by itself,
will meet all chemical-specific ARARs and be capable of restoring
area ground water to groundwater quality standards until upgradient
source areas are removed. The second operable unit will attempt to
identify and control the upgradient sources. Although the selected
remedial action, the first operable unit, will not meet chemical-
specific ARARs, it is only part of a total remedial action that will
attain such cleanup levels when fully completed. In the event the
second operable unit fails to identify those sources, a waiver of
ARARs for technical impracticability will be sought. In this case,
treatment of the ground water will continue until the concentration
of contaminants in ground water downgradient of the Site is less than
or equal to concentrations in ground water upgradient of the Site.
At that time, groundwater recovery and treatment will be discontinued
even though area ground water may not meet applicable groundwater
quality standards.
Cost Effectiveness
The preferred alternative, Alternative 3, provides overall
effectiveness proportionate to its cost. It is $1.5 M less costly
than the contingency remedy, Alternative 2, and offers comparable
performance, requires construction of a smaller treatment plant, and
has a lower possibility of initiating secondary pollution problems.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum
Extent Possible
EPA has determined that the selected remedy as well as the
contingency remedy represents the maximum extent to which, permanent
solutions and treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost- ~
effective manner for the Preferred Plating Site. The selected remedy
represents the best balance of the nine evaluation criteria used to
judge all alternatives.
The groundwater treatment used in both the selected and contingency
remedies will' reduce the contaminants of concern to health protective
levels prior to reinjection. After treatment is complete, the Site
will no longer be contributing contaminants to the underlying
aquifer.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element •
The statutory preference for treatment is satisfied by both the
selected remedy and contingency remedy which employ on-site treatment
of the ground water through different precipitation technologies and
carbon adsorption. These treatment methods effectively reduce the
toxlcity, mobility, and volume of the contaminants.
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
7^25'
PREFERRED
PLATING
iNIEHCMANGK
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PREFERRED PLATING SITE RI/FS
SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1
SCALE I 24000
-------
0-
^^ a
819
0 S 10 10
111 1 •
30
SCALE IN FEET
Bit
SD1
ONHMNAi —
unmm IHTINMON
PTK AUTO MEMIfl
MWII
TJA AUTO 8ALE8
38 ALLEM BLVD.
MWI8PI
MW088
Mwac
MW28P
STOHM ONAIM III
0 INnLTNATION IAHM ISI
MOWTOMINO WILL*
•NMlOWNIUin
Otf^ WtU III
MINFACI SOIL SAMTIIB Ul
MIL AMOtl SCNINQS ISt
OABAOe DOOMS
DOORS
(J)
U.S ENVIRONMENIAL PIIOTECflON
AGENCV
PREFERRED PlAflNQ SHE
FIGURE I
ON SHI WOMIIONINOMILS
AMD IMtft IMP, IOCAIIONS
-------
FIGURE 3
PROCESS FLOW SCHEME FOR ALTERNATIVE 3
CROUNDWATER
I
SODIUM SULFIDE
SODIUM HYDROXIDE
EQUALIZATION
TANK
TREATED CROUNDWATER
TO DISCHARGE
CONCENTRATED SOLUTION
TO DISPOSAL
FEED
PUMP
COAGULANT
POLYMER
RAPID MIXING TANK
BACKWASH
LAMELLA
CLARIFIER
SLUDGE CAKE
TO DISPOSAL
ION EXCHANGE
SYSTEM
CARBON
ADSORBER
2 SLUDGE
FILTER PRESS
SYSTEM
SAND
FILT.ER
SYSTEM
DISCHARGE
PUMP
1
COLLECTION
TANK
NOTATION
INTERMITTENT
OPERATION
-------
FIGURE 4
PROCESS' FLOW SCHEME FOR ALTERNATIVE
SODIUM SULFIDE
CROUNDWATER
. SODIUM K
f
k
EQUALIZATION
TANK
FEE
PUf
BACKYI
*~ r~
^^ F^ER
ADSORBER SYSTEM
I D
1 TREATED
W CROUNDWATER
' TO DISCHARGE
fOHOXIDL
1
WWW W ' '
COAGULANT
POLYMER
i
T 1 j
LAMaiA
RAPID MIXING TANK CLARIFIER
ID
dP _ '
SLUDGE CAKE ^
TO DISPOSAL ^
. FILTRATE | SLUOCE
1 ' t
FILTER PRESS
SYSTEM
SODIUM
POLYMER AND COAGULANT I HYDROXIDE
fASH 1 1 ]
r~
COLLECTION
Lpy^— TANK
-------
FIGURE 5
PROCESS ELOW SCHEME EOR CYANIDE REMOVAL BY AKLALINE CHLORINATION
CROUNDWATER
CAUSTIC
>
SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
CONTACT
TANK
1
EQUALIZATION
TANK
FEED
PUMP
TO DOWNSTREAM
PROCESS STEPS
FEED
PUMP
COMMENT;
TVIE CONTACT TANK is USED FOR THE
FIRST-STAGE CHLORINATION. AND THE
EQUALIZATION TANK IS USED AS THE
SECOND-STAGE CHLORINATION.
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
PRIMARY CONTAMINANTS IN GROUNDWATER
PREFERRED PLATING
Component Ranae
Cadmium 8.
Chromium 56.
Lead 4.
Mercury 0.
Nickel 39.
Silver 1.
Zinc 30.
Cyanide 10.
1,1, 1-trichloro-
ethane
Trichloroethylene
1, 2-dichloroethane
Benzene
1, l-dichloro«thane
Tetracijloroethylene
Toluene
(ua/n
4-399
3-5,850
6-437
27-0.40
9-358
1-18.5
3-1,330
5-830
2-13
1-8
2-5
1-12
1-3
1-17
3-11
CORPORATION SITE
Median
79
479
143
0
212
12
573
82
3
2
2
2
1
1
. 2
fug/I)
.5
.36
.8
.7
.3
.8
.0
.3
.2
.9
.4
Frequency of
Detection
18/24
23/24
22/24
7/24
15/24
10/24
22/24 .
7/24
9/24
11/24
6/24
4/24
4/24
6/24
3/24
-------
TABLE 2
CLEAN-UP LEVELS
FEDERAL ARARi
MAXIMUM RCR A MAXIMUM SDWA MCL'S CLEAN WATER ACT
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION LIMIT . WOC
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Toluene
Bentene
1,2-Olchloro-
ethane
1,1-Olchloro-
ethane
Tttraehloro-
ethylne
Trlchloro-
ethylne
1,1,1-THch-
loroethane
399 10
5850 ' 50 >
81,000 NC
398 50
4 2
358 NC
18.5 . 50
1338.
830 -
11
12
5
3
17
8 -• .
13 , -
10 . 10
50 50
NC '
50. 50
2 10
NC 15.4
50 50
5.000
200
143
5 4Q
5 243
-
0.8
2.7
18.4
NY AMBIENT WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS/GUIDANCE VALUES
DRINKING
WATER
10
50
300
50
2
NC
50
-
~
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
G.W. FOR CLASS "C"
DRINKING WATER SURFACE WAT
10
50
300
25
-
NC
50
5,000
200
50
NO
0.8
50
0,7
S
50
1.1
11
300
3.2
-
95.6
0.!
30
5.2 (as
free
cyanide)
-
6
-
1
11
-
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINSTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
-PREFERRED PLATING
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE*
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Background - RCRA and Other Information
P. 1-23 Report: Application for Waste Disposal Permit.
Preliminary Engineering Report. Part I. prepared
by Donnelly Engineering Company, 5/74.
Site Investigation Reports
P. 24-183 .Report: Engineering Investigations at Inactive
Hazardous Waste Sites in the State of New York.
Phase I—Preliminary Investigation. Final Report.
Preferred Plating Site, prepared by Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, Inc., 9/25/84. References are listed
on P. 97.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Sampling and Analysis Plans
P. 184-282 Report: Final Field Operations Plan fFOPl for
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.
Preferred Plating Corporation Site. Farmincrdale.
New York, prepare'd by Ebasco Services, Inc., 1/88.
Work Plans -• -
P. 283-373 Report: Final Work Plan for Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study. Preferred Plating
Corporation Site. Farminodale. New York, prepared
by Ebasco Services, Inc., 1/88.
Remedial Investigation Reports -
P. 374-388 Report: Geophysical Investigation for Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study. Preferred Plating
Corporation Site. Farminadale. New York, prepared
by Ebasco Services, Inc., 8/88.
* Administrative Record File available 8/22/89.
Note: Company or organizational affiliation is mentioned only
when it appears in the file.
-------
P. 389-563 Report: .Final Remedial Investigation Report for
Preferred Plating Corporation Site. Farminadalef
New York, prepared by Ebasco Services, Inc., 7/89.
References are listed on P. 604.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Feasibility Study Reports
P. 654-815 . Report: Final Feasibility Study Report for
Preferred Plating Corporation Site. Farmingdale.
New York, prepared by Ebasco Services, Inc., 7/89.
References are listed on P. 766.
ENFORCEMENT - *
Notice Letters and Responses
P. 816-819 Letter to Messrs. Joseph Gazza and George Paro
from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, U.S. EPA, re: 107 (a)
Notice Letter, 2/12/a6.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Community Relations Plans
P. 820-840 Report: Final Community Relations Plan for the
Preferred Plating Corporation Site. East
Farmingdale. New York, prepared by Ebassco
Services, Inc., 3/88r.
Fact Sheets and Press Releases
P. 841-842 Fact Sheet: EPA to Conduct Investigation of
Preferred Plating Corporation site, prepared by
U.S. EPA, 6/88.
Proposed Remedial^ Action Plans • :
P. 843-850 Report: Proposed Remedial Action Plan. Preferred
Plating Corporation Site. Suffolk County. New
York, prepared by U.S. EPA, 7/89.
P. 851-851 Letter to Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Michael J. O'Toole, Jr., New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, re:
State choice of the preferred alternative,
7/28/89. -
-------
APPENDIX IV
NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
SO Wolf Road, Albany, Now York 12233 ~ 7010
Thomas C. Jortlng
Commissioner
Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, P.E.
Director ' nrn o o 1C
Emergency & Remedial Response Division otr L £ Ic
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Luftig:
Re: Record of Decision (ROD)
Preferred Plating Corp.. #152030
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has
reviewed the draft Record of Decision and its modifications (September
5, 1989) for the referenced site. I am pleased to advise you that the
NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy.
Since the short schedule will not allow a review of the final ROD before
the September 29, 1989 deadline, my acceptance of the remedy is based on
our reading of the draft copy. In an effort to avoid a misunderstanding
between our offices, the remedy that will appear in the final ROD should
be as follows:
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
This operable unit represents the first of two planned for the
site. It addresses the treatment of groundwater contaminated
primarily with heavy metals and'volatile organics. The second
operable unit will involve the continued .study and possible
remediation of soils located beneath the building on the site if
the study so indicates. These soils could not be adequately
characterized during the first operable unit. The second operable
unit will also investigate potential sources of upgradient ,
contamination.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
• Extraction and treatment, via metal precipitation,
ion exchange, and activated carbon, of groundwater
in the Upper Glacial Aquifer to restore the
groundwater quality to cleanup levels identified in
the decision summary under the section entitled
Compliance with ARARs; and
• Disposal of treatment residuals at a RCRA subtitle C
facility. , •
-------
Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, P.E. . . Page 2
Treatability studies will be undertaken to confirm the
effectiveness of the selected remedy. If.these studies indicate
that the ion exchange process used in the selected remedy is
ineffective, a contingency remedy, which utilizes a separate
precipitation unit fojr-the removal of the chromate ion, will be
implemented. -
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Both the selected remedy and the contingency remedy are protective
of human health and the environment, are cost-effective, and comply
with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action. Both the selected
remedy and the contingency remedy utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable and satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that
employ treatment that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume as a
principal element.
Existing groundwater quality data suggests that another source of
groundwater contamination may exist upgradient of the Preferred
Plating Site. If an upgradient source exists, this proposed remedy
may not, by itself, be capable of restoring the area groundwater to
applicable water quality standards. A second operable unit at this
site will attempt to identify and control the apparent upgradient
source. In the event the second operable unit fails to identify
and control the upgradient source, a waiver for technical ''
impracticability will be sought. In this event, treatment of the
groundwater will continue until the concentration of contaminants
in grourdwater downgradient of the Preferred Plating Site is less'
than or equal to those contaminants found in groundwater upgradient
of the site. At that time, groundwater.recovery and treatment due
to the Preferred Plating Site will be discontinued even though area
.groundwater may not meet applicable groundwater quality standards.
The need for conducting a five-year review will be evaluated upon
completio'n of the second operable unit.
Additionally, a correction to the section Compliance with ARARs was
agreed on between our staffs. The corrected version is to read:
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs .
At the completion of response actions, both the selected remedy and
the contingency remedy will have complied with the following ARARs
and considerations:
-------
Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, P.E.
Action-specific ARARs:
Page 3
• The reinjection process for the treated groundwater will
meet underground injection well regulations by its status
as a Superfund remedial action under 40 CFR 147. The
extracted groundwater will be treated to meet all standards
(SDWA Maximum Contaminant Levels [40 CFR Part 141], SDWA
MCL goals [40 CFR Part 141]), 6 NYCRR Part 703 and 10 NYCRR
Part 5, prior to reinjection.
• Spent carbon from the groundwater treatment system for
removal of organics will be disposed of off-site, as well
as any treatment residuals, consistent with applicable RCRA
land disposal restrictions under 40 CFR 268.
Chemical -Specific ARARs:
• Since the groundwater at the site is classified as lib,
drinking water standards are applicable. Again, these
include SDWA MCLs, SDWA MCL Goals, Water Quality Criteria
under CWA, 6 NYCRR Groundwater Quality Regulations and/or
limitations of discharges to Class GA waters, and 10 NYCRR
Part 5 standards.
Sincerely,
0,
Edward 0. Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
cc:
William McCabe, US EPA,
Doug Garbarini, USEPA,
Janet Cappelli, USEPA,
Region
Region
Region
II
II
II
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
EPA WORK ASSIGNMENT NO. 162-2LR4
EPA CONTRACT NO. 68-01-7250
FINAL
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION SITE
EAST FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK
AUGUST 1989
NOTICE
THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FUNDED BY THE UNITED
STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA) UNDER REM III
CONTRACT NUMBER 68-01-7250 TO EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
(EBASCO).
-------
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION SITE
EAST FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK
FINAL RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EFA) held a public
comment period from July 19, 1989 through August 18, 1989 for
interested parties to comment on EPA's final Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and Proposed Remedial
Action Plan (PRAP) for the Preferred Plating Corporation site.
EPA held a public meeting on August 3, 1989 at the W.E. Howitt
Junior High School on Vancott and Grant Avenues in East
Farmingdale, New York to describe the remedial alternatives and
present EPA's proposed remedial action plan for cleaning up the
Preferred Plating Corporation site.
A responsiveness summary is required by Superfund policy for the
purpose, of providing EPA and the public with a summary of
citizens' comments and concerns about the site, as raised during
the public comment period, and EPA's responses to those concerns.
All comments summarized in this document will be factored into
EPA's final decision for selection of the remedial alternatives
for cleanup of the Preferred Plating Corporation site.
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW. This section briefly
describes the background of the Preferred Plating Corporation
.site and outlines the proposed remedial alternative for
cleaning up the Preferred Plating Corporation site.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS. This
section provides a brief history of community interest and
concerns regarding the Preferred Plating Corporation site.
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING
THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES TO^THESE COMMENTS.
This section summarizes both oral and written comments
submitted to EPA at the public meeting and the public comment
period, and provides EPA's responses to these comments.
IV. REMAINING-CONCERNS. This section discusses community
concerns that EPA should be aware of as they prepare to
undertake the remedial designs and remedial actions at the
Preferred Plating Corporation site.
V. APPENDICES. There are two appendices attached to this
document. They are as follows:
Appendix A: Public meeting agenda from the August 3, 1989
meeting held in East Farmingdale, New York.
Appendix B: Sign-in sheet from the Public Meeting held on
August 3, 1989 in East Farmingdale, New York.
-------
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW.
The Preferred Plating Corporation (PPC) site is located on Allen
Boulevard in East Farmingdale, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County,
New York. The site covers approximately 0.5 acres and adjoins
other ligh.t industrial properties. PPC conducted operations at
the site from September 1951 through June 1976. The primary
activities at the site were to chemically treat metal parts to
increase corrosion resistance, and provide a cohesive base for
painting. The plating processes used included degreasing,
cleaning, and surface finishing of metal parts. These processes
used various chemicals which resulted in the generation, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste. Untreated waste water was
discharged to four concrete leaching pits directly behind the
original building.
Ground water contaminated with heavy metals was detected in the
site area by an investigation conducted by the Suffolk CountyX
Department of Health Services (SCOHS) as early as June, 1953. .
SCDHS indicated that the concrete pits PPC used for disposal of
waste water were cracked and severely leaking. Test results from
sampling of these pits indicated major contamination of various
heavy metals. From 1953 through 1976, SCDHS instituted numerous
legal actions against PPC, in an effort to stop illegal dumping
of wastes and to upgrade the on-site treatment facility. PPC
chemically treated the waste water in the pits, and reportedly
had the treated waste water removed. In 1976, PPC had declared
bankruptcy. Since then, several firms have occupied the site.
In 1982, the original building used by PPC was enlarged, thus .
burying the concrete pits. Nearly the entire site is covered by
the building, paved driveways, and parking areas.
The Preferred Plating site was added to the EPA National
Priorities List in June, 1986. At EPA's direction, a Remedial
Investigation was conducted by EBASCO Services in 1988. The
results of this investigation indicate the following:
• The soils sampled on-site, as well as those collected.
from beneath the building, show no significant
contamination.
• Ground water underlying the site is contaminated with
high levels of heavy metals, predominantly cadmium,
chromium, lead, and nickel. Low levels of chlorinated
organics and cyanide were also detected in a few
samples. Upgradient ground water also showed high
levels of heavy metals, though significantly lower than
on-site levels.
-------
EPA has decided to address the remediation of the site in two
operable units based upon the projected overall remedial
effectiveness and efficiency. The first operable unit, which is
the subject of this Responsiveness Summary, will address the,
cleanup of the contaminated ground water. The second operable
unit will address contaminated soils underneath the building,, and
any potential upgradient sources which may have contaminated the
upgradient wells. . v'
-r-
Alternatives presented in this section correspond to the remedial
alternatives evaluated in the Feasibility Study report. EPA's
evaluation of these alternatives is based on nine criteria.
These criteria are: short term effectiveness, long term -r
effectiveness, reduction of toxicity, mobility of volume,
implementability, cost, compliance with applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements, overall protection of human health
and the environment, state acceptance, and community acceptance.
EPA's Preferred Alternative
EPA's preferred alternative for remediation of the contaminated
ground water at the Preferred Plating site is Alternative 3: •'•?;
Pumping/Precipitation of Divalent Metals/Ion Exchange/Activated
Carbon/Reinjection. Based on current information, this /
alternative provides the best balance among the aforementioned
nine criteria that EPA uses as a means of evaluation.
The seven remedial alternatives considered after screening :,.
numerous possible alternatives are described below. The seven
alternatives evaluated for the first operable unit in the FS are
as follows:
Alternative 1
NO ACTION ^
Construction Costs: $12,700 :
Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs: $11,€00
Time To Implement: i month -V-.
This alternative includes the development of a public awareness
program describing the risks associated with the site, and uses
existing monitoring wells (installed during the Remedial
Investigation) to conduct long-term monitoring of the contaminant
concentrations in-the Upper Glacial Aquifer underlying the site.
Under this alternative, ground water use on-site will be ;
restricted. :
Alternative 2 .
PUMPING/PRECIPITATION OF METALS/ACTIVE CASBON/RErNJECTION
Construction Costs: $2,286,900
Annual O&M Costs: $1,071,300
Time to Implement: 12 years :
-------
Alternative 2 consists of one on-site collection well for
extraction of contaminated ground water, a two-stage
precipitation and clarification/filtration unit for removal of
metals, followed by a carbon absorption unit for removal of
volatile organics. Groundwater modeling predicts that the
extraction system will capture essentially all the ground water
in the Upper Glacial Aquifer within a 150 foot radius by
providing a continual water flow of 300 gallons per minute to the
treatment plant. The metals treatment will generate four, 55'
gallon drums of sludge per day to be disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle C facility. The treatment scheme is a proven technology
capable of removing the contaminants of concern from the ground
water. The treated ground water will be discharged to an
injection well, installed upgradient of the site. In order to
evaluate the effectiveness of this remedial action, periodic
sampling for metal and volatile organic concentrations in the
ground water, prior to reinjection, will be required.
Alternative 3
PUMPING/PRECIPITATION OF DIVALENT METALS/ION EXCHANGE/ACTIVATED
CARBON/REINJECTION
Construction Costs: $1,923,900
Annual O&M Costs: $920,900
Time to Implement: 12 years
This alternative uses the same extraction system as that of
Alternative 2, however, only the divalent metals will be treated
by a precipitation and clarification/filtration unit. Chromium
will be treated by an ion exchange system, resulting in the
generation of additional solids to be dispo^d of in a RCRA
Subtitle C facility. The reinjection scheme will be the same as
for Alternative 2.
Alternative 4
PUMPING/PRECIPITATION OP METALS/ACTIVATED CARBON/DISCHARGE TO
RECHARGE BASIN
Construction Costs: $2,547,700
Annual O&M Costs: $1,071,300
Time to Implement: 12 years
This alternative is similar to Alternative 2 except that the
treated ground water will be pumped approximately 2,000 feet
south of the site, through a pipeline to a recharge basin.
Alternative 5
PUMPING/PRECIPITATION OF. DIVALENT METALS/ION EXCHANGE/ACTIVATED
CARBON/DISCHARGE TO RECHARGE BASIN
Construction Costs: $2,184,800
Annual O&M Costs: $920,900
Time to Implement: 12 years
-------
The collection and treatment systems of this alternative are
identical to Alternative 3, and the discharge is identical to
Alternative 4.
Alternative 6
PUMPING/ PRECIPITATION OF METALS/ACTIVATED CARBON/DISCHARGE TO
SURFACE WATER
Construction Costs: $4,333,300
Annual O&M Costs: $1,071,300
Time to Implement 12 years
This alternative is very similar to Alternative 4, except that
the treated ground water will be discharged at the headwater of
the Amityville Creek, through a 9,000 foot pipeline. The
concentration levels required for discharge to surface water are
lower for certain metals than the levels for discharge to ground
water.
Alternative 7
PUMPING/PRECIPITATION OF DIVALENT METALS/ION EXCHANGE/CARBON
ADSORPTION/DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
Construction Costs: $3,970,400
Annual O&M Costs: $920,900
Time to Implement: 12 years
The collection and treatment systems are identical to Alternative
3, and the discharge system is identical to Alternative 6.
OL-J
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Overall community concern regarding the Preferred Plating
Corporation Site has been low. During previous interviews for
the development of the community; relations plan contacts with
residents, local officials and businesses during the RI/FS
expressed these major concerns:
l. Effect on Business Activity
Business representatives were concerned that they may suffer a
loss of income as a result of testing and remedial activities
conducted at the Preferred Plating Corporation site.
2. Lack of Information on Site Activity
Residents and local officials contacted stressed the importance
of comprehensive information from EPA about the Preferred Plating
Corporation site. Prior to on-site interviews for the
-------
development of the community relations plan, knowledge of the
Preferred Plating Corporation site was minimal among citizens and
local officials.
f<,.
3. Health Effects of Groundvatar Contamination
Several residents and businesses expressed concern over the
potential human health effects posed by past and future use of
drinking water. Although drinking water in the area is supplied
by municipal systems/ residents expressed concern that
contaminants from the Preferred Plating Corporation site will
continue to contribute to area-wide grpundwater contamination.
III. SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES TO THESE COMMENTS
Comments raised during the public comment period for the
Preferred Plating Corporation site are summarized below. The
public comment period was held from JuMy 19, 1989. to August 18,
1989 to receive comments on the RI/FS reports and the Proposed
Remedial Action Plan. Comments received during the public
comment period are summarized below and organized into four
categories: Superfund Process, Remedial Investigation Results,
Property Concerns and Future Activities.
A. Superfund Process '••......
Comment:
A resident wanted to know how the Preferred Plating Corporation
site came to EPA's attention./- ...
EPA Response: -,
EPA was notified by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) about the Preferred.Plating
Corporatio'n -site. Prior to NYSDEC involvement with this site the
local county health department initiated the first investigation
at the Preferred Plating facility.
Comment:
A citizen inquired if EPA had enforcement-authority to order a
responsible party to pay for the cleanup costs of a Superfund
Site. . /
-------
EPA Response:
Through the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) EPA has the enforcement authority to
order a responsible party to^pay for the cleanup. If the
responsible party does not cooperate, EPA may seek a court to
order the responsible party to pay for the cleanup.
B. Remedial Investigation Results
Comment: V
A resident wanted to know how groundwater contamination from the
Preferred Plating Corporation site is differentiated from other
local contaminated ground water.
EPA Response: ':>
Test results from the groundwater remedial investigation
activities demonstrate that title level of contamination is higher
in the downgradient wells theifl in the upgradient wells. EPA
strongly believes that an unidentified contaminant source exits
on the site property and accounts for this difference in
contamination. /
Comment:
A citizen -asked if the leaching pits are filled, and what type of
material was used for the fill.
EPA Response: ;?
No records exist to determine >the type, of material used to fill
the leaching pits. EPA's planned activities for the second
operable unit should provide further information concerning the
type of material used for fill in the leaching pits.
Comment: /
A resident wanted to know about the treatment of- sludge which
existed in the-"leaching pits..
EPA Response: :
EPA's investigation indicates that the sludge was treated to
federal and state cleanup standards, however no records exist to.
determine if the sludge is still on-site or if it was removed
off-site.. . .
8
-------
Comment:
A citizen wanted to know how far the contaminated ground water
could have traveled from the Preferred Plating Corporation site.
EPA Response:
Based on the hydrogeologic investigation at the site, the ground
water in the area is traveling at a velocity of 3.6 feet a day.
Over 38 years of operation and disposal at the Preferred Plating
Corporation site the ground water may have traveled several
miles. However, results from the RI report indicate that no
contaminants were detected in offsite wells downgradient of the
Preferred Plating Corporation site.
c. Property concerns
Comment:
Residents wanted to know if there would bo restrictions imposed
on them if they were to sell their property.
EPA Response:
There would be no restrictions on the property sale, however if
the owners were to sell, they must divulge information about the
contamination to the buyer prior to the sale and transfer of the
property.
Comment: . .
A citizen mquired about the effects of RI/FS activities on
neighboring businesses.
EPA Response:
During the remedial investigation the neighboring businesses were
not disturbed by EPA's on-site activities. EPA expects that
further remedial investigation activities for operable unit two
will also be of -minimal inconvenience to neighboring businesses.
D. Future Activities
Comment:
A resident wanted to know if angle soil borings will be in the
future remedial investigations at the Preferred Plating
Corporation site.
-------
EPA Response:
EPA does hot plan to use angle soil borings in subsequent
remedial investigations, rather options such as drilling through
the concrete floor nay be used in future remedial investigations
at the Pre.ferred Plating Corporation site.
Comment:
A resident asked about the duration of the treatment process for
the contaminated ground water and the location of the treatment
plant.
EPA Response:
EPA estimates that the treatment for the contaminated ground
water in the area will take twelve (12) years,-but if the
definite source of groundwater contamination can be identified,
the time frame for groundwater remediation would be shortened
considerably. EPA has not determined the actual location of the
treatment plant at this time. The exact location will be decided
by EPA in the Remedial Design Phase.
IV. REMAINING CONCERNS
The current owner expressed concern about the potential
difficulties and restrictions of selling the Preferred Plating
property.
10
-------
Appendix A
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JACOB K. JAVITS FEDERAL BUILDING
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10278
AGENDA
Public Meeting
Preferred Plating Superfund Site
W. E. Howitt Junior High School
Farmingdale, New York
August 3. 1989
7:00 P.M.
I. Introduction
II. Overview of Superfund Activities
at Preferred Plating Site
III. Site Background & History
Results of the Remedial Invest
igation/Feasibility Study
IV. Preferred Alternative
Cecilia Echols
Community Relations
Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region 2 '
Doug Garbarini
Section Chief, Eastern
New York and Caribbean
Remedial Action Section
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Mark Moese
Risk Assessment
EBASCO Services, Inc.
(contractor to EPA)
Janet Cappelli
Remedial Project- Manager
U.S. EPA, Region 2
V. Questions and Answers
VI. Closing
Other Representatives
Mathy Stanislaus
Site Attorney
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Sherrel Henry
Enforcement Project
Manager
U.S. EPA, Region 2
-------
Appendix B
-------
;IOK
MEETING
• FOR
PFEFERRED PLATING SUPERFUNO SITE
' •
August 3, 1989
ATTENDEES
(Please Jrint)
WILING
UAME STREET CITY ZIP PHONE REPRESENTING LIST
------- |