United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-92/181
September 1992
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Preferred Plating, NY
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document Ail supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
EPA/ROD/R02-92/181
3. neclpHnfe >ceeMlnn Mo.
4. TMe end SiAMMe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Preferred Plating, NY
Second Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
5. Report Dete
09/28/92
7. Ai*hor(*)
8* PtffwminQ OrQMUZBlion Htpl No.
». Performing OrgtintzrtonttMne end Addrew
ia ProfecVTttk/Worii IMt Mo.
11. ConlneKOar
18. Anitabilty
19. Security Ctaee (Th*e Report)
None
20. Security OM» (Thta Page)
None
21. NaofPegee
38
22. Price
(See ANSt-Z38.1«)
Se* JnXructfon* an Rewm*
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NT»JS)
DeiieieiieiilolCoinrneiK
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/181
Preferred Plating, NY
Second Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Abstract (Continued)
RI/FS detected VOCs and metals in subsurface soil around the waste storage pits, the
former sanitary leaching pool, and the former steam condensate leaching pool and line.
This ROD addresses subsurface soil contamination contributing to the ground water problem
attributable to the site. A future operable unit will address the potentially
contaminated upgradient ground water as the final site remedy. The primary contaminants
of concern affecting the soil are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes; metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead; and inorganics, including
cyanide.
The selected remedial action for this site includes jet grouting of the building's
foundation to stabilize the foundation during excavation; excavating approximately
700 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the waste storage pit area and approximately
350 cubic yards of contaminated soil from within, around, and beneath the former sanitary
leaching pool and former steam condensate leaching pool and line areas; treating the soil
offsite using solidification/stabilization or another appropriate technology still to be
determined, with offsite disposal at a RCRA-permitted facility; and backfilling the
excavated areas with clean soil. The estimated present worth cost for this remedial
action is $1,423,700. No O&M costs are associated with this remedial action.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Prior to-disposal, the contaminated soil will be treated
to comply with RCRA LDRs. However, chemical-specific soil clean-up goals were not
provided.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name: Preferred Plating Corporation
Location/State: Farmingdale, Suffolk County, New York
EPA Region: II
HRS Score (date): 33.76 (Sept. 1984)
ROD
Date Signed: September 28, 1992
Selected Remedy; Excavation of Contaminated Subsurface Soils/Off-
Site Treatment and Disposal
Capital Cost: $ 1,423,700
O & M/Year: $ -0-
Present Worth: $ 1,423,700
LEAD
US EPA
Primary Contact: Janet Cappelli (212-264-8679)
Secondary Contact: Doug Garbarini (212-264-0109)
Main PRPs: George Paro and Joseph Gazza (property owners) and
Del Laboratories Inc. (upgradient PRP)
WASTE
Waste Type: inorganic (e.g. cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel) and
organic (1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1-dichloroethane;
tetrachloroethylene)
Waste Origin: Contamination originated during the operation of
the Preferred Plating Corporation. The processes
used resulted in the generation, storage and
disposal of waste water into four concrete waste
storage pits. The pits were cracked and allowed
discharges of to the underlying soils and aquifer.
Estimated Waste Quantity: 1000 cubic yards
Medium: Subsurface soils
-------
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 (Site), which was chosen in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.
This decision document explains the factual and legal basis for
selecting the remedy for this Site. The attached index (Appendix
III) identifies the items that comprise the Administrative Record
upon which the selection of the remedial action is based.
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy per the
attached letter (Appendix IV).
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 second of three planned for the
Site. The first operable unit addresses the treatment of
groundwater, underlying the Site, which is contaminated primarily
with heavy metals and volatile organic-contaminants. This second
operable unit addresses the treatment of contaminated subsurface
soils on the Site. The third operable unit is investigating
potential upgradient groundwater contamination.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
o Excavation of contaminated subsurface soils from the Site;
o Off-site treatment and disposal of excavated material at a RCRA
Subtitle c facility; and,
o Backfilling excavated areas with clean soil.
-------
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and state requirements that are
legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. The selected remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable and satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume as a principal element.
Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances remaining
on-site above health-based levels, the five-year review will not
apply to this action.
^x^Constantine Sidamon-Eristpff
Regional Administrator ly
Date
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION
FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Site Name, Location and Description 1
Site History and Enforcement Activities •.;••* !
Highlights of Community Participation 3
Scope and Role of Operable Unit 3
Summary of Site Characteristics 4
Summary of Site Risks 5
Remedial Action Objectives 8
Description of Remedial Alternatives 8
Summary of Comparative Analysis
of Alternatives 10
Selected Remedy 14
Statutory Determinations 15
Documentation of Significant Changes 17
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix I - Figures
Appendix II - Tables
Appendix III - Administrative Record Index
Appendix IV - NYSDEC Letter of Concurrence
Appendix V - Responsiveness Summary
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Preferred Plating Corporation site (Site) is located at 32 Allen
Boulevard in Farmingdale, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York.
This 0.88-acre Site is in an area zoned for light industrial use,
which is approximately 1 mile east of the Nassau-Suffolk County line.
Route 110 passes just west of the Site (see Figure 1).
Commercial or light 'industrial properties occupy the land to the east
and west of the Site. Immediately north of the Site is a large
wooded area beyond which lie various industrial facilities. To the
south are a.residential community and a U.S. Army facility. The 1980
census recorded 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.
The Site is located in the south-central glacial outwash plain of
Long Island, which constitutes the Upper Glacial Aquifer, estimated
to be 90 feet in thickness under the Site. The naturally occurring
surface soil is a sandy loam which promotes rapid infiltration to the
groundwater. 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 precip-
itation. The Upper Glacial Aquifer overlies the Magothy Aquifer and
the two may act as distinct aquifers, or as one, depending upon
localized geographic features. In the Site area, it is believed that
the two are not hydraulically connected.
All homes and businesses, in the area surrounding the Site, are
supplied by two public water companies. Groundwater is the source of
water 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 6,000 feet west
of the Site. There is no designated New York State Significant
Habitat, agricultural land, 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.
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 treat metal parts chemically 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 wastewater was discharged
to four concrete waste storage pits directly north of the original
building..
Groundwater 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 waste storage pits on
the Site were severely cracked and leaking. Samples taken from the
sludge in the pits showed that they were mainly contaminated with
heavy metals. From 1953 to 1976, SCDHS instituted numerous legal
actions against PPC in an effort to stop discharges of wastes into
the pits and to install or upgrade the on-site treatment facility.
SCDHS also wanted to ensure that no improper discharges to the steam
condensate leaching pool or the sanitary leaching pool used by PPC
were taking place. 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 wastewater in the pits and, allegedly, then had the
treated wastewater removed. Whether the treated wastewater residuals
were ever removed has not been confirmed. The facility was never in
full compliance with the terms and conditions outlined in the SPDES
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, which covered
the concrete waste storage 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 of the Preferred Plating Site for the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to
compute a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score needed to evaluate
whether to place the Site on the National Priorities List (NPL). In
the Phase I report, an HRS score of 33.76 was documented, thereby
enabling the Site to be included on the NPL. The Site received a
proposed and final listing status on the NPL on October 15, 1984 and
June 10, 1986, respectively.
From June 1987 to June 1989, EPA's contractor, Ebasco Services, Inc.,
conducted the initial remedial investigation and feasibility study
(RI/FS) of the Site. The study detected heavy metals and chlorinated
organics in the groundwater underlying the Site. A Record of
Decision (ROD) for the treatment of the contaminated groundwater was
signed on September 22, 1989. The major components of the selected
remedy include extraction of the contaminated groundwater, ground-
water treatment for heavy metals and chlorinated organics, and
reinjection of the treated groundwater. The design for this
-------
treatment system was completed in March 1992 and construction of the
system is expected to begin in late 1992.
The initial RI/FS did not adequately characterize the soils
underlying the former storage pits. Therefore, EPA undertook a
second RI/FS to investigate the subsurface soils within and directly
beneath the former storage pits and leaching pools on-site. EPA's
contractor, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., performed the on-site soils RI/FS
from April 1990 to July 1992. The alternatives in the Proposed Plan,
released to the public on July 18, 1992, are based on this RI/FS.
The initial RI/FS also detected the presence of upgradient ground-
water contamination. EPA decided to undertake a third study to
investigate the potential of an upgradient contributing source of
contamination. An adjoining property owner is performing the third
RI/FS on the upgradient groundwater.
The property owners have been notified of their liability for the
Site and will be offered an opportunity to conduct future response
actions.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan for the Preferred Plating Site was
finalized in March 1988 for the initiation of the first operable
unit. This document lists contacts and interested parties in
government and the local community. It also establishes communica-
tion pathways to ensure timely dissemination of pertinent informa-
tion. Throughout implementation of the second operable unit, the
mailing list of interested parties was updated. The RI/FS and the
Proposed Plan were released to the public in July 1992. 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 18, 1992 to August 17, 1992. In addition, a public meeting was
held on August 5, 1992, at the W.E. Howitt Junior High School in
Farmingdale, to present the results of the second operable unit on-
site soils RI/FS and the preferred alternative as presented in the
Proposed Plan. All comments, pertaining to the remedy selection,
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 ROD.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
This is the second of three operable units for the Site. The first
operable unit provides for treatment of the contaminated groundwater
underlying the Site.
The objective of the second operable unit is to address the sub-
surface soil contamination contributing to the groundwater problem
attributable to the Site. The remaining operable unit is addressing
-------
potential upgradient groundwater contamination and is expected to be
completed in mid-1993.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Under the direction of EPA, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. conducted an RI to
characterize the unsaturated subsurface soils at the Site. The
intent of the study was to characterize soil quality at specific
locations at the Site, namely, inside and below the former storage
pits, downgradient and adjacent to the former steam condensate
leaching pool, adjacent to the former steam condensate pipeline, and
downgradient of the former sanitary leaching pool. Additionally,
soils from other suspected areas of contamination were sampled to
characterize soil quality and to delineate the horizontal and
vertical extent of soil contamination.
Between January and March 1991, a total of 22 soil borings were
drilled and 61 subsurface soil samples were collected for chemical
and physical analyses. Figure 2 depicts the sampling locations and
Table 1 contains a summary of the analytical results detected at
these locations.
The former concrete storage pit area, now buried under the existing
on-site building, is 11 feet deep, 44.5 feet long, and about 15 feet
wide. Concrete baffles within the perimeter of the overall pit
divide the area into 4 separate units, as detailed on the lower left
corner of Figure 2 and on Figure 3. The total volume of the pits is
7,200 cubic feet. In order to characterize the contents of the pits
as well as the dispersion of any contaminants beneath the pits,
twenty-nine subsurface soil samples were collected from twelve
borings. These samples were collected at two or three different
depths (0-10.5 feet, 10.5-11 feet, and 11-13 feet) within each boring
and analyzed for inorganic and organic contaminants. Widespread
heavy metal contamination was detected throughout the pits at all
depths. Chromium was detected at the highest concentration at 1,890
parts per million (ppm), from a depth of 0-10.5 feet below surface.
Cadmium was detected at a concentration of 468 ppm, from a depth of
11-13 feet below surface. Figure 3 depicts the contaminant
concentrations detected in the borings through the former waste
storage pits. As a point of reference, typical chromium and cadmium
background concentrations in the area range from 1.5-40 ppm and 0.1-
1.0 ppm, respectively. Only one boring drilled in the pits indicated
the presence of volatile organic compounds, namely, tetrachloro-
ethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, trans-1,2-
dichloroethane, and 1,1-dichloroethane. The organic contaminant
present at the highest concentration was 1,1,1-trichloroethane at 270
ppm. All chlorinated organics were detected close to the bottom of
the pits or directly underneath the pits.
A total of nine subsurface samples were collected from three soil
borings located adjacent to the leaching pools associated with the
former steam condens.ate and sanitary lines used by PPC. These
-------
samples were taken from three depths, at four-foot intervals down to
the water table, which is approximately 12.5 feet below the surface.
Again, heavy metals were detected in all samples. The highest
concentrations of chromium and cadmium, 252 ppm and 45.6 ppm,
respectively, were detected adjacent to the former sanitary leaching
pool. The same leaching pool also contained 82.6 ppm of lead.
Elevated levels of metals were detected at all depths down to the
water table. No volatile organic compounds were detected in any
samples.
Seven borings were drilled through suspected areas of contamination.
Twenty-three samples were taken from three depths, at.four-foot
intervals down to the water table. The highest concentration of
chromium (86 ppm) was detected upgradient of the former storage pits
at a depth of 8-12 feet. The highest concentration for any metal
detected was that of magnesium at 4,280 ppm from a suspected area of
contamination downgradient of the former storage pits.. No volatile
organics were detected in any samples.
One of the borings through a suspected area of contamination,
downgradient of the former storage pits, was used to construct a
monitoring well to determine groundwater elevations and study the
vertical fluctuations of the water table. Throughout the sampling
activities, the water table was 12.5 feet below grade.
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.
As part of any baseline risk assessment, the following four-step
process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for
a reasonable maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identification—
identifies the contaminants of concern at a site based on several
factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration.
Exposure Assessment—estimates the magnitude of actual and/or
potential human exposures, the frequency and duration of these
exposures, and the pathway (e.g., ingesting contaminated well-water)
by which humans are potentially exposed. Toxicity Assessment—
determines the types of adverse health effects associated with
chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of
exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects (response). Risk
Characterization—summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and
toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative (e.g., one-in-a-million
excess cancer risk) assessment of site-related risks.
-------
The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of
concern which would be representative of Site risks. These
contaminants included chromium, cadmium, cyanide, lead, copper,
nickel, silver, zinc, arsenic, magnesium, 1,1-dichloroethane, trans-
1,2-dichloroethane, tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and
trichloroethylene (See Tables 2 and 3, respectively, for listings of
inorganic and organic data).
The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects which could
result from exposure to contamination as a result of dermal contact
and ingestion of subsurface soils. The human health evaluation
focused on a future scenario, i.e., exposure of a construction worker
to subsurface soils during excavation (see Table 4 for a summary of
the exposure pathways). Under current conditions,-there is no
opportunity for a direct exposure to contaminants in subsurface
soils, since these soils are located beneath the existing building.
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. Table 5
lists a summary of the cancer risk estimates. The results of the
baseline risk assessment indicate that the subsurface soils at the
site pose no unacceptable risk to human health. The overall
carcinogenic risk for construction workers, through ingestion of
these contaminated soils, was estimated to be 6.08 x 10"6, which is
within EPA's acceptable cancer risk range. The primary contributor
to this risk was 1,l,1-trichloroethane. As noted above, 1,1,1-
trichloroethane was only found in one boring out of the 12 which were
drilled in the former leaching pits.
To assess the overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects posed by
the contaminants at the Site, EPA has developed the hazard index
(HI). An.HI value of greater than 1 is considered to pose a
significant noncarcinogenic risk. Table 6 lists a summary of the
chronic noncarcinogenic hazard index estimates. Both the calculated
HI values for the ingestion and dermal contact pathways are less than
1, which EPA has determined to be acceptable. The ingestion pathway
contributed to an HI value of 0.12 and the dermal contact pathway
contributed to an HI value of 0.06. As the total exposure HI for
construction workers was estimated to be 0.18, there are no
unacceptable noncarcinogenic risks associated with the construction
worker scenario.
However, since significant contamination was detected in the soils
underlying the Site down to the water table, these contaminants can
migrate into the groundwater via fluctuations of the water table.
Groundwater sampling for the remedial design, conducted at the same
-------
time as the soil sampling events, detected the same heavy metals as
those found in the subsurface soils. Concentrations of metals in the
groundwater are in excess of the allowable drinking water standards
and do currently pose an unacceptable risk. Table 7 lists the
contaminants detected in on-site monitoring wells. Cross-media
impacts resulting from leaching of contaminants from the soil to the
groundwater will continue to contribute to exceeding health-based
drinking water standards.
The ecological risk assessment considered potential exposure routes
of Site contamination to terrestrial wildlife. Since the majority of
the Site is paved or covered by physical structures, there is little,
if any, potential for wildlife to be exposed to contaminated subsur-
face 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 Great South Bay. The potential effects of contaminated
groundwater on aquatic life were discussed in the ecological risk
assessment performed for the first operable unit. It was determined
that no significant effect on aquatic organisms in the Great South
Bay or creeks in the vicinity of the Site would occur if contaminants
were transported from the Site through groundwater and dicharged into
surface waters.
Uncertainties
The procedures used to assess potential human health risks in this
evaluation are subject to wide uncertainties. In general, the main
sources of uncertainty in this assessment include:
o environmental chemistry sampling and analysis;
o environmental parameter measurement;
o fate and transport modeling;
o exposure parameter estimation; and
o 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. Uncertain-
ties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often
an individual would actually come into 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 chemical 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 uncertain-
ties are addressed by making very 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.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site,
if not addressed by the preferred alternative or one pf the other
active measures considered, may present a current or potential threat
to the environment through the groundwater pathway.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health
and the environment. These objectives are based on available infor-
mation and standards such as applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and risk-based levels established in the risk
assessment.
The following remedial action objectives were established for this
operable unit:
o prevent leaching of contaminants in the subsurface soils to the
groundwater; and
o minimize length of operation of the groundwater treatment system
by removing a source of contamination.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Following a screening of remedial technologies in accordance with the
NCPf three remedial alternatives were developed for contaminated
subsurface soils. The alternatives were further screened based on
technical considerations such as effectiveness, implementability, and
cost. The "time to implement" considers only the actual construction
time and does not include the time required to negotiate with
potentially responsible parties, procure design and construction
contracts, and design the remedy. The remedial alternatives are:
Alternative 1 - No Action
Alternative 2 - Excavation with Off-Site Treatment and Disposal
Alternative 3 - Excavation with Off-Site Soil Washing and Off-Site
Treatment and Disposal
8
-------
Alternative 1 - No Action
Construction Cost: $ 17,640
Annual O&M Costs: $ 15,000
Present Worth Cost: $ 150,587
Tine to Implement: 6 months
The Superfund program requires that the "no action" alternative be
considered as a baseline for comparison of other alternatives. Under
this alternative, the contaminated soil would be left in place
without treatment. A long-term monitoring program would be
implemented to track the migration of contaminants frpm the soil into
the groundwater utilizing existing monitoring well clusters. This
alternative also includes the implementation of institutional
controls such as the recommendation for deed restrictions on the
usage of groundwater from the Upper Glacial Aquifer for nonpotable
uses only and on subsurface soil excavations.
Alternative 2 - Excavation and Off-Site Treatment and Disposal
Construction Cost: $ 1,423,700
Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Present Worth Cost: $ 1,423,700
Time to Implement: 12 months
This 'alternative consists of the physical removal of the subsurface
soils located within the former storage pits and the steam condensate
and sanitary leaching pools. Demolition of the existing on-site
building would not be required, however, protection of the existing
building foundation during excavation would be necessary. Prior to
excavation, structural support, probably through jet grouting, would
be used to brace the foundation. Support activities incl' iing
relocation of existing utilities by offsetting, rerouting, or
temporary removal and replacement would occur, in order to facilitate
construction.
Approximately 700 cubic yards of soil-would be excavated from within,
beneath, and around the former storage pits. In addition, 350 cubic
yards of soil would be excavated from the former steam condensate and
sanitary leaching pools. The soils from both areas would be
excavated to the water table (approximately 12.5 feet below grade).
The excavated soil would be transported to an off-site permitted
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C (hazardous
waste) facility for treatment and disposal. Prior to disposal, the
soils would first be treated to reduce the levels of volatile
organics, where necessary, and then treated through stabilization/
solidification, or other appropriate techniques, to reduce the
mobility of heavy metals, to meet land disposal restriction (LDR)
levels. Off-site transport would comply with all federal and state
transportation requirements. The excavated areas on the Site would
-------
be backfilled with clean soil and the Site would be restored to its
original condition, since this alternative would result in no
contamination remaining on-site above health-based levels, five-year
reviews and long-term monitoring would not be required.
Alternative 3 - Excavation and Off-Site Soil Washing with Off—Site
Treatment and Disposal
Construction Cost: $ 2,761,150
Annual O&M Costs: $ 0
Present Worth Cost: $ 2,761,150
Time to Implement: 12 months
This alternative would include the same excavation "and structural
support activities as those described in the discussion of
Alternative 2. After excavation, the soils would be transported to
an off-site RCRA-permitted treatment facility to undergo an
innovative ex-situ soil washing process, in which a physical-chemical
water-based process involving the mechanical scrubbing of the soils
would be employed to remove the contaminants. The residue containing
the extracted contaminants would be solidified/stabilized or treated
by other appropriate means, as necessary, and disposed of in a RCRA
Subtitle C (hazardous waste) facility. The remaining soils would not
contain any contaminants above health-based levels, and would be
disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle D (sanitary waste) facility. The
excavated areas on the Site would be backfilled with clean soil and
the Site would be restored to its original condition. Since this
alternative would result in no contamination remaining on-site above
health-based levels, five-year reviews and long-term monitoring would
not be required.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
All remedial alternatives were evaluated in detail utilizing nine
criteria as set forth in the OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. These
criteria were developed to address the requirements of Section
121 of CERCLA to ensure all important considerations are factored
into remedy selection decisions.
The following "threshold" criteria are the most important and
must be satisfied by any alternative in order to be eligible for
selection:
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment addresses
whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes
how risks posed through each exposure pathway (based on the
reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
10
-------
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet
all applicable or relevant and appropriate 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
a1ternatives:
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 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.
4. Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
relates to the anticipated performance of a remedial technology,
with respect to these parameters, that a remedy may employ.
5. Short-term Effectiveness 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.
6. Implementabilitv involves the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement the chosen solution.
7. Cost 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.
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
and FS and the Proposed Plan, the State supports, opposes, and/or
has identified any reservations with the preferred alternative.
9. Community Acceptance refers to the public's general response to
the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the 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.
11
-------
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 does not meet the remedial objectives, thus it would
not be protective of human health and the environment due to the
potential for continued migration of volatile organics and inorganics
into the groundwater. Alternatives 2 and 3 would both meet the
remedial objective of preventing cross-media impacts to the
groundwater from the source of contamination, ultimately resulting in
a reduced time frame required to meet groundwater treatment
objectives specified in the September 1989 ROD.
Compliance with ARARs .
All technologies proposed for use in Alternatives 2 and 3 would be
designed and implemented to meet all ARARs. Federal and state
regulations dealing with the handling and transportation of hazardous
wastes to an off-site treatment facility would be followed. Wastes
would be treated using specific technologies or treated to specific
treatment levels, as appropriate, to comply with LDRs. Alternative l
would not meet any ARARS, and potential excursions of groundwater
drinking water standards would continue to occur for a longer period
of time under this alternative, due to cross-media impacts resulting
from contaminants in the soil. ^
Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 would only monitor the migration of the contaminants
and would not provide active treatment or containment. Therefore, it
would not provide effective or permanent long-term protection of the
groundwater underlying the Site. Alternatives 2 and 3 would mitigate
the potential for the leaching of contaminants to the underlying
groundwater by total removal of the contaminants. Alternative 3
would, however, provide the higher degree of effectiveness since the
contaminated soils would be permanently treated, while the small
volume of remaining residual materials would be solidified/
stabilized.
Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternative 1 would provide no reduction in contaminant mobility,
toxicity, or volume. Alternatives 2 and 3 would provide a reduction
in mobility of subsurface soil contaminants through removal and off-
site stabilization/solidification or soil washing. The contaminated
soil would no longer act as a source of groundwater contamination.
These alternatives also would reduce the toxicity of the contam-
inants. Alternative 3 would result in a smaller volume of material
requiring disposal in a Subtitle C facility than Alternative 2.
Short-term Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternative 1 would result in no additional
risk to the community or workers during implementation, since
12
-------
subsurface soil would not be disturbed. Alternatives 2 and 3 would
include activities such as contaminated soil excavation and off-site
transport that could result in potential exposure of residents and
workers to some volatilized contaminants and contaminated dust.
Engineering controls such as air monitoring and dust suppression and
other measures (e.g., restricting the Site to authorized personnel
only) would effectively minimize and control any adverse impact these
activities would have on workers.
Implementability
Components of all alternatives would utilize relatively common
construction equipment and materials. Although implementable, some
construction difficulty would be encountered with Alternatives 2 and
3 due to the limited space within the on-site building and the
shoring required to ensure that the building foundation is secure.
Alternative 1 would be the easiest to implement.
A degree of uncertainty exists with the off-site soil-washing process
described in Alternative 3, since this technology has only been
performed on a limited basis in this country. A treatability study
would be necessary to determine the exact nature of the extraction
fluid to be used for contaminant removal. Most of the operating
treatment facilities for soil washing are located in Europe.
Present worth cost estimates are as follows:
Alternative 1: $ 150,587
Alternative 2: $ 1,423,700
Alternative 3: $ 2,761,150
According to the present worth cost estimates for all alternatives
evaluated, Alternative 3 ($ 2,761,150) would be the most costly
alternative to implement, followed by Alternative 2 ($ 1,423,700).
Alternative 1, no action, would be the least costly to implement
($ 150,587). Present worth considers a 5% discount rate, and a 12-
year monitoring period (the estimated time frame for achieving
groundwater remedial action objectives) for Alternative 1. Since
Alternatives 2 and 3 do not require any O & M costs, their present
worth costs are equivalent to their capital cost.
The capital cost for Alternative 3 is based on the assumption that
the treatment facility necessary for performing this process would be
available overseas and not in this country by the time the remedy
would be implemented. Therefore the transportation costs associated
with this remedy are high. Alternative 2, therefore, would be
protective of the groundwater at the least cost.
13
-------
State Acceptance
The State of New York, through the NYSDEC, has concurred with EPA's
selected remedy. The NYSDEC letter of concurrence is attached as
Appendix IV.
Community Acceptance
No objections from the community were raised regarding the selected
remedy. Community comments can be reviewed in the public meeting
transcript, which has been included in the Administrative Record. A
responsiveness summary which addresses all comments, ^pertaining to
the soil remedy selection, received during the public comment period
is attached as Appendix V.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the detailed
analysis of the alternatives, and public comments, both EPA and
NYSDEC have determined that Alternative 2 (Excavation and Off-site
Treatment and Disposal) is the appropriate remedy for the Site.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
o Jet grouting to stabilize the building's foundation during
excavation;
o Excavation of approximately 700 cubic yards of contaminated soils
from within, around, and beneath the former waste storage pit area
(55• x 25' x 14') down to the water table or 14 feet below grade,
whichever is deeper;
o Excavation of approximately 350 cubic yards of contaminated soils
from within, around, and beneath the former sanitary leaching pool
and the former steam condensate leaching pool and line (approximate
total dimensions 15' x 15' x 14') down to the water table or 14
feet below grade, whichever is deeper;
o Backfill excavated areas with clean soil;
o Off-site treatment of contaminants at a permitted facility; and,
o Disposal of treated soils in a permitted landfill.
Alternative 2 is designed to be protective by eliminating cross-media
. impacts posed by highly contaminated subsurface soil under the Site
to the underlying groundwater. Since the Site is located in a sole
source aquifer area, restoration of the aquifer quality is crucial.
By removing the contaminated soils underneath and surrounding the on-
site building, Alternative 2 ensures that no leaching of contaminants
14
-------
to the underlying aquifer will occur. The elimination of cross-media
impacts will have a positive impact on the effectiveness of the
groundwater restoration program.
The selected remedy achieves the remedial action objectives more
quickly, or as quickly, and at less cost than the other options.
Therefore, the selected remedy will provide the best balance of
trade-offs among alternatives with respect to the evaluating
criteria. EPA and NYSDEC believe that the selected remedy will be
protective of human health and the environment, will comply with
ARARs, will be cost-effective, and will utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The remedy also will
meet the statutory preference for the use of treatment as a principal
element.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
EPA believes that the selected 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
Alternative 2 is considered to be fully responsive to this criterion
and to the identified remedial action objectives. Treatment,
excavation, and disposal of the contaminated Site soils will prevent
cross-media impacts by removal of a continuous source of contaminants
to the underlying groundwater.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy (Alternative 2 - excavation of contaminated
soils/off-site treatment and disposal/backfill with clean off-site
soil) will comply with all related ARARs. The off-site facility will
be fully RCRA permitted and will be in compliance with the terms of
the permit. Contaminated soil and debris from the Site will be
treated using specific technologies to meet specific treatment
levels, as appropriate, to comply with LDRs. This alternative will
comply with LDRs for the contaminated soil and debris. Based on
concentrations determined by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) test, the appropriate concentration range or percent
reduction will be determined during design.
At the completion of the response action for contaminated soil, the
selected remedy will have complied with the following ARARs:
15
-------
Action-specific ARARs:
The selected remedy calls for the transport of contaminated soil and
treatment residuals to a RCRA facility for treatment and disposal and
will comply with the following ARARs:
o 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 50.12 - National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
o 40 CFR Part 254.25 - Excavation and Fugitive Dust Emissions
o 40 CFR Part 262.1 - Standards for Generators of Hazardous Waste
o 40 CFR Part 263 - Standards Applicable to Transport of Hazardous
Waste
o 40 CFR Part 264 - standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
o 6 New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 200.6 -
Ambient Air Quality Standards
o 6 NYCRR Part 372 - Hazardous Waste Manifest System & Related
Standards for Generators, Transporters and Facilities
o 6 NYCRR Subpart 373 - Final State Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities
o OSHA - 20 CFR Part 1910 - General Industry Standards
o OSHA - 20 CFR Part 1926 - Safety and Health Standards
o OSHA - 20 CFR Part 1904 - Record Keeping, Reporting, and Related
Regulations
o DOT - 49 CFR Parts 107, 171.1 - 17275-58 - Rules for Transportation
of Hazardous Materials
o 12 NYCRR Subpart 753 - New York Industrial Code Rule # 53 for
Notification Requirements on Buried Pipeline
Chemical-specific ARARs:
o None applicable.
Location-specific ARARs:
o None applicable.
16
-------
Cost-Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportional to
its cost. The total capital and present worth costs for Alternative
2 is estimated to be $1,423,700. Alternative 2 is the least
expensive treatment alternative.
A detailed cost estimate of the selected soil alternative is
presented on Table 8.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies or Resource Recovery 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 and community also
support the selected remedy.
The selected remedy employs treatment of the inorganic and organic
contaminated soil on the Site through excavation and off-site
treatment and disposal. The potential for future releases of
contaminants to the underlying groundwater will be eliminated.
Extraction and treatment of the contaminated soil will 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 fully satisfies this criterion for the treatment
of the subsurface soil contamination which is considered to be a
source for the contaminated groundwater underlying the Site.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
The Proposed Plan for the on-site soils second operable unit for the
Site, identifying the selected remedy as Alternative 2, was released
to the public on July 18, 1992. There are no significant changes
from the preferred alternative as presented in the Proposed Plan.
17
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
WOODED UNPAVED LOT
)
0
J.CRAVERO CO.
0
CRX-
ELECTRIC
4 LEACHING PITS.
UNDER BUILDING
BUILDING
EXTENSION"
(1987)
ISION / /
S INC. / /
EN — r» ^
/// S7/,
/ / / / S / S
S
'/> STORAGE
/
f
s
f
f
f
'
A
m
^
f
f
h4
4
\
S
AVTEC ^
— IL/
.. ' \ * '
-J-J/
^
• PJK /
AUTO /
REPAIR />
^
I
/ TJA AUT(
/ 32 Al
Y/////
^
SS
V
PARKING i
LOT Y
STORM
SEWER"1^
\
ORIGINAL J_
BUILDINGy
1
////
D SALE!
.LEN
'////
OHA33
i
1
%
/A
. \
r \
CORPORAT
SITE BOUN[
/ • /
/ y
M«N <
SUPPLY CORP./
30 ALLEN /
»LATINQ
ION
5ARY
o
o
cc
UJ
o
o
z
GRASS
ALLEN BOULEVARD
SOURCE: EBASCO SERVICES FINAL Rt/FS REPORT (JULY 1989)
LEGEND:
0 INFILTRATION BASINS
^ STORM DRAINS
FENCE
0 10 20 30 40 SO
lit! I I
SCALE IN FEET
MALOOLM
IRNII
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION
FARMIMGDALE, NEW YORK
ON-SITE CONDITIONS MAP
MALCOLM
FIGURE 1
-------
L.
J. CRAVERO CO.
R.S. PRECISION INDUSTRIES
r
|
1
I
1
I
I
I
i
I
. !
• WSP 2|
WSP 1 |
1
1
WSP J wsp * I
1
FORMER WASTE
WSP S
WSP T
STORAGE
SCALE: V
0
WSP •
WSP •
PIT S
o 10'
i
1
1
L
I
1
1 »
1
I
OIL
"1
WSP t g
WSP 10
fSP It •
WSP 12
J
BORING LOCATION
EXISTINO MONironMo WELL (EBASCO, JULY
WASTI STORAGE PIT SO*. BORINOS (WSP I TO W8P 12) (MPI. JAN • MARCH. 11*1)
LBACHINO POOL SOIL BORIHOS (LP 1 TO LP 1) (MPI. JAN - MARCH, lit 1)
NON-POINT SOURCE SOU. 8ORINOS (NPS1 TO NPST) (MPI. JAN - MARCH. 1t*1)
MPI MONITORING WELL JMPI. JAN - MARCH, lltl)
10
scale
SOURCE: EBASCO SERVICES RI/FS REPORT (JULY 1t«»),
REVISED BY MALCOLM PIRNIE INC. (JANUARY 1»»»)
MRNII
PREFERRED PLATINO CORPORATION
FARMINOOALC. NEW YORK
GROUNDWATER AND SOIL BORINGS SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
ARSENIC 2.1 E(A)
CADMIUM 20.8 (A)
CHROMIUM 1890 (A)*
COPPER 76.7 (A)
LEAD 29.9 (A)
MAGNESIUM 588 J(A)
NICKEL 12.1 (A)
SILVER ND (A.C)
ZINC 76.5 (A)
CYANIDE 61.3 (A)
ARSENIC 1.6 J(A)
CADMIUM 12.8 (A)
CHROMIUM 96.6 (A)
COPPER 19.1 (A)
LEAD 24.9 (A)
MAGNESIUM 545 J(A)
NICKEL 141 (C)
SILVER ND (A.C)
ZINC 62.5 E(A)
r*vA
\f FM
4tDE ND (A,C)
ARSENIC 2.2
E(A)
CADMIUM 46.7 (B)
CHROMIUM 152 (B)
COPPER R (A.B.C)
LEAD 19.9 (A)
MAGNESIUM 2150 (B)
NICKEL 18.5 (B)
SILVER 3.1
(B)
ZINC 182 (B)
CYANIDE 01.
1
3(B)
"
4
WSP
WSP 3
ARSENIC 2.0 J(A) ARSENIC 2 J(A)
CADMIUM 468 (C)* CADMIUM 134 (B)
CHROMIUM 496 (A) ' CHROMIUM 692 (A)
ARSENIC 2.5 (A)* ARSENIC 2.1 J(B)
CADMIUM 263 (A) CADMIUM 36.5 (C)
COPPER 34.5 (A) CHROMIUM 271 (A)
COPPER 151 (C)* COPPER 151 (A)* LEAD 52.7 (A) COPPER 72.5 (C)
LEAD
158 E(B)* LEAD 29.2 E(A) MAGNESIUM 7900 (B)* LEAD 44.4 (C)
MAGNESIUM 2080 (B) , MAGNESIUM 1110(B)
NICKEL 141 (C)* NICKEL 12.2 (A)
SILVER
ZINC
NICKEL 16.3 (A) MAGNESIUM 2810 (B)
SILVER 2 J(B) NICKEL 17.2 (C)
14.9 (C)* SILVER 0.85 J(A) ZINC 63.2 E(A) SILVER 2.1 (A.B)
200 (C) ZINC 243 (B) * CYANIDE 9.9 (B) ZMC 73.5 (C)
CYANIDE 223 (C) CYANIDE 678 (B) * CYANIDE 43.2 (C)
1
I 1
i
T
>
1
> WSP 2 w W
1 WSP 5 W
W
<
1
SP 4 wsr
> <
JL
ws
1
1 1
r r
i < >
» | WSP 9
SP 6 1
r~
"1 1
1 ^^
I WSP 11
1
_L
1 1
1
""" 1
^ ^
WSP 10
WSP 12
•'
ARSENIC 2.3 E(A)
CADMtUM 16 (A)
COPPER 20.9 (B)
LEAD 20.3 (A)
MAGNESIUM 635 J(A)
NICKEL 6.3 J(A)
SILVER ND (A.C)
ZINC 45.6 (A)
CYANIDE 6.4 (C)
FORMER WASTE STORAGE PIT SOIL BORING LOCATION
ARSENIC 1.4 (C)
CADMIUM 30.8 (A)
CHROMIUM 78.5 (A)
COPPER R (A.C)
LEAD
13.8 (A)
MAGNESIUM 407 J(A)
NICKEL 6.2 J(A)
SILVER ND (A.C)
ZINC
33.4 (A)
CYANIDE 2.6 (A)
•
ARSENIC
CADMIUM
1.9 (A) ARSENIC 1.5 J(A)
15.8
CHROMIUM 114
COPPER
LEAD
24.8
25.3
(A) CADMIUM 15.6 (A)
(A) CHROMIUM 137 (A)
(A) COPPER 41.1 (A)
(A) LEAD 18.3 E(A)
MAGNESIUM 1290 (A) MAGNESIUM 734 J(A)
NICKEL 7.8 J(A) NICKEL 6.5 J(A)
SILVER
ZINC
CYANIDE
E = estimated value
J = est. value, cmpd. below CRDL but
MAIXXXM
PIRNIE
ND (A.C) SILVER 0.48 J(A)
40.8 E(A) ZINC R (A.C)
12.7
(C) CYANIDE 9.3 (C)
above IDL
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION
FARMINODALE. NEW YORK
ARSENIC 2.3 E(A)
CADMIUM 13.7 (A)
COPPER 12.9 (A)
LEAD 6.5 (A)
MAGNESIUM 1650 (A)
NICKEL 7.4 J(A)
SILVER ND (A.C)
ZINC 31.1 E(A)
CYANIDE 8.1 (A)
i • *•
LEGEND
• WASTE STORAGE PIT SOIL BORINQS (WSP 1 TO WSP 12) (MPI. JAN-MARCH. 1MI)
WSP DEPTHS:
A - 0-10.9 FT.
B » 10.S-11 FT.
C • 11-1J FT.
+ INDICATES MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION (fnglkg) OF CONTAMINANT
*» DETECTED IN ALL OF THE WASTE STORAGE PITS. •
MAicotit rmm. me.
MAXIMUM DETECTED CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATION (mg/kg) IN WASTE STORAGE PITS . FIGURE 3
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS - PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION
Contaminant
of Concern
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
1,1-dichloroethanr.
1,1,1-lrichloroelhane
Trant-1 ,2-Dichloroeihene
Tetrachloroelhcne
Trichloroelhene
Frequency
of
Detection
100%
84%
. 100%
100%
100%
100%
92%
20%
100%
67%
6%
6%
7%
7%
7%
Maximum Concentration
Detected
and
Location of Detected Level
LP2(D) - 2.6
WSP5(C) • 468
WSP1(A) • 1890
WSP6(A) • 151
WSP6(C) • 151
LP2(B) - 82.6
NPS7(A) - 4280
WSP5(Q - 141
NPS6(B) - 24.1
WSP6(B) • 243
WSP6(D) - 678
WSP10 (D) - 20,000
WSP10 (D) - 270,000
WSPIO(D) - 15,000
WSPIO(D) • 5400
WSPIO(D) - 5000
Other Detected Locations
WSP7, WSP9, LP1, LP3, NPS3, NPSS, NPS7
WSP1 through WSP12, Inclusive
WSP1 Ihrouth WSP12, LPI through LP3, NPS1,
NPS2. NPS3, NPSS, NPS6, NPS7
WSP1, WPS3. WSP5 through WSP12
WSPI through WSP4, WSP6, WSP9 through WSP12,
LPI through LP3, NPS1 through NPS7
WSPI through WSP5, WSP7, WSP9 through WSPI2,
LP3, NPS1, NPS2, NPS3, NPSS, NPS6, NPS7
WSP2, WSP2, WSP3, WSP6, WSP9, WSPIOV
WSP2, WSP5, WSP6, WSP10
WSPI through WSP5, WSP9 through WSP12, LPI,
NPS1, NPSS, NPS4, NPS6, NPS7
WSPI, WSP2, WSP4 through WSP12
WSP10(A,C)
WSP10(A,C)
WSP9(A), WSP10(A,C)
WSP9(A), WSPIO(A.C)
WSP9(A), WSPIO(A.C)
Remarks
Concentntloiu appear to be evenly dlilributed In delected
location*.
• Only found la and under watte itorage plu.
• Greater eattera borings 1,2,5,6,9,10 than western borings'
3,4,7,8,11,12 In Level A and C
Contamination decreases with Increasing distance from
WSP3 and WSP6.
Pound In and under pits and LP.
Found In upgjmdlenl, mldgradlent and downgndlent NPS.
Not found in WSP2, WSP4.
• Found only In LPI and LP2
Pound In upgrtdlent, mldgradient and downgndlent NPS.
Not delected In WSP5, WSP6, WSP8.
Not delected In LP2 and LP3.
Not detected In NPS4.
Not detected In WSP4, WSP7, WSPB, WSP11, WSP12.
Only found In a few spots.
Not found In WSP7, WSP8.
i
N
-------
TABLE 2
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION SITE
INORGANIC CHEMICAL DATA
CHEMICAL
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
WASTE STORAGE PITS
FREQUENCY RANGE OF
OF DETECTED
DETECTION CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg)
29/29 517-7410
3/29 11.2J-15.5E
28/26 0.78J-2.5
29/29 2.5J-26.9J
10/29 0.20J-1
27/29 1.1-468
29/29 154J-57100
29/29 14.1-1890
15/29 0.94J-4.2J
17/17 12.9-151
29/29 839-12600
28/28 1.4-158
29/29 232J - 7900
29/29 32.7-115
0/29 ND
24/29 3.4J-141
26/29 134J - 294
1/29 0.19
10/29 0.48J-14.9
14/14 27.7J-490J
0/29 ND
29/29 1.7J-12.5
24/24 7.1-243
25/29 2.5 - 678
LEACHING POOLS
FREQUENCY RANGE OF
OF DETECTED
DETECTION CONCENTRATION
-------
TABLE 3
SUBSURFACE SOIL CONCENTRATIONS
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION SITE
ORGANIC CHEMICAL DATA
CHEMICAL
Acetone
Benzene
2-Butanone
Chloroethane
1,1-Dlchloroelhane
trans- 1 ,2-Dlchloroelhene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroelhene
Toluene
1.1.1-Trlchloroelhane
Trlchloroelhene
Xylenes (Total)
WASTE STORAGE PITS
FREQUENCY RANGE OF
OF DETECTED
DETECTION CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
1/24 270
1/24 11J
1/24 22E
3/24 630 - 5900
3/24 460 - 20000
4/24 94E - 15000
5/24 77E - 600J
0/24 ND
4/24 BJ - 5400
7/24 2J - 3600
3/24 99 - 270000
5/24 3J - 5000
7/24 6J - 2500
LEACHING POOLS
FREQUENCY RANGE OF
OF DETECTED
DETECTION CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
0/9
0/9
0/9
0/9
0/9
0/9
0/9
1/9 2J
0/9
3/9 2J - 6E
0/9
0/9
0/9
NON-POINT SOURCE
FREQUENCY RANGE OF
OF DETECTED
DETECTION CONCENTRATION
(ug/kg)
1/23 160E
0/23
0/1 B
0/23
0/23
0/23
0/23
1/23 3J
0/23
0/23
i 0/23
0/23
0)23
NOTES:
E - estimated value
J » estimated value; compound present below CRDL but above IDL
ND • not detected
-------
TADLB 4
SUMMARY OP EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION SITE
" POTENTIALLY EXPOSED
; ^POPULATION „; ,
JRRENT USB
orkers
:sidcnts
rccpassers
'orkcrs
csidcnts
UTURE USB
forkcrs/Residents
^onslructlon Woikers
EXPOSURE ROUTE, MEDIUM AND EXPOSURE
- » ,v ^ *• " POINT;,; "V v ' oj' ' *
Direct contact with, Inhalation, or Inadvertent Ingestlon
of chemicals of potential concern in subsurface soils on
the tile.
Ingeslion, direct contact with, or Inhalation of chemicals
of potential concern In ground water on-site, as affected
by contaminated subsurface soils.
Ingesiion, direct contact with, or inhalation of chemicals
of potential concern in ground water on-sltc, as affected
by contaminated subsurface soils.
Ingcstion, direct contact with, or Inhalation of chemicals
of potential concern In ground water on-site, as affected
by contaminated subsurface soils.
Direct contact with, or Inhalation of chemicals of poten-
tial concern in subsurface soils during construction on-
site.
PATHWAY SELECTED FOR *
EVALUATION?--
No
No
No
Yes
No
5 ' - ' " ;: ;;- ' /: '"vx ^' \\ "'"'-"
\ REASON te&SfctecnON ORBXCLVSlOtf ;< , ,
Site Is covered, either by paving or by the existing building, over
96% of the land area. There Is currently no disruptive or Intrusive
activity on-site. Therefore, there Is no opportunity for exposure.
The facility Is on public water supply for all potable and Industrial
uses, therefore, there Is no contact with on-site ground water.
The nearest public water supply well fields arc located ap-
proximately 1 mile east and 1 mile south of the site. There Is no
use of on-sile ground water In the site vidnlty.
Future case senarios for Ingeslion of contaminated drinking water
in the Upper Glacial Aquifer were already assessed In the Public
Health Evaluation prepared for OPU L The scenarios used geo-
metric mean and maximum contaminant concentrations found In
. downgradlcnt ground water In 1988. See text for comparison of
OPU 1 ground water results with those obtained for the TreatabUity
Study In 1991.
%
The site Is In a light Industrial area, Is almost totally developed ane
paved; future development Is unlikely. Excavation would be limited
in duration and unlikely to result In substantial health risks, based
on what is known about subsurface soil contamination. However,
of the possible exposure scenarios, this Is the most plausible.
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF CANCER RISK ESTIMATES
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION SITE
Chcxzucfll
GDI
Adjusted Slope Chemical Total
GDI for Factor specific Pathway
(mg/kg-day) Absorption (mg/kg-day)-l Risk Risk
CURRENT LANDUSE SCENARIO
WORKERS: Ingestion of chemicals in sub-surface soil
Arsenic
Lead
Tetncblorocthene
Trichloroethcne
4.S4E-OS
2.87E-06
9.81E-05
9.09E-05
No
No
No
No
1.75E-KM
5.10E-02
1.10E-02
7.95E-08
5.00E-06
9.99E-07
TOTAL EXPOSURE RISK FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
6.0SE-06
6.08E-06
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF CHRONIC NON-CARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION SITE
Chemical
CURRENT LANDUSE SCENARIO
WORKERS: Ingestion of chemicals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
Saver
Zinc
Cyanide
1 , 1-Dichloroethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroetheae
Tetrachloroetheae
1.1, 1-Trichloroethene
Trichloroetheae
CDI
(mg/kg-day)
CDI
Adjusted
for
Absorption
RfD
(mg/kg-day)
Hazard
•Quotient
Pathway
Hazard
Index
FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
in sub-surface soil
1.27E-07
2.38E-05
9.62E-05
9.62E-05
8.04E-06
4.02E-04
7.17E-06
1.23E-06
1.24E-05
3.45E-Q5
1.02E-06
7.63E-04
2.75E-04
1.37E-05
2^4E-04
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
3.00E-04
5.00E-04
l.OOE+00
3.70E-02
NA
NA
2.0GE-02
5.00E-03
2.00E-01
2.00E-02
l.OOE-01
2.00E-02
l.OOE-02
9.00E-02
NA
4.24E-04
4.76E-02
9.62E-Q5
2.60E-03
—
—
3.59E-04
2.45E-04
6.18E-05
1.72E-03
1.02E-05
3.82E-02
2.75E-02
M2E-04
1.19E-01
WORKERS: Dermal contact with chemicals in sub-surface soil
^"fnii"Fi
2.83E-06
YES
5.00E-Q5
5.66E-02
TOTAL EXPOSURE HAZARD INDEX FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS
5.66E-02
1.76E-01
NOTE: RfD for dermal exposure pathway is adjusted for absorbtion as follows:
RfD • ABS = AdjRfD
Where ABS = 0.10 for
NA = Not available
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF GROUND WATER DATA
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION
MALCOLM PIRNIE INC. TREATABILITY STUDY
SAMPLING DATES: 11/12/90 & 02/06/91-02/07/91
INORGANIC AND ORGANIC CHEMICALS DATA (UNFILTERED SAMPLES ONLY)
INORGANICS
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (Tolil)
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Trans-l.l-dlchloro
elhene (lolal)
Trichloroelhcne
Telrachloroeihene
UPGRADIENT MONITORING WELLS
(rvfWIDP, MW1SP, MW2SP, MW4SP)
FREQUENCY
OP
DETECTION
3/4
3/4
1/2
3/3
3/3
1/4
3/4
4/4
0/18
3/4
2/4
2/2
0/4
0/4
0/4
RANGE OP
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
(ug/0
S(J).8(J)
2.9 (J)- 4.4 (J)
6»
49 (B) - 1800 (B)
7J (J) • 466 (B)
460
29.6 - 78.6
3200 (J) • 7190
NO
39.2 (J) • 51
6.9 (J) - 7.8 (J)
37.5 (B) - 243 (B)
ND
ND
ND
DOWNGRADIENT MONITORING WELLS
(MW3SP, MW5SP, MW6SP, MW6DP, MW6SS)
FREQUENCY
OP
DETECTION
2/4
0/4
2/2
1/1
0/1
0/1
4/4
4/4
0/4
3/3
1/4
0/0
1/4
3/4
1/4
RANGE OP
DETECTED
CONCENTRATION
<«g/0
2 (J) - 10 (E)
ND
7.8 - 635
619 (B)
ND
ND
6.7 - 54.7
13.2 (J) • 3820 (J)
ND
5.7 (J) - 33.1 (J)
4.0 (J)
ND
3(J)
1(J)-2(J)
2(1)
CLASSIFICATION
OPUI
EBASCO
GROUND WATER
X
•'
X
X
•
X
X
• •
1 x
x%
X
X
ND
X
X
OPUII
MPI
SUBSURFACE
SOH.S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
' ND
X
X
X
X
X
X
ND •> Non delectable.
J • Estimated value, compound present below CRDL but above IDL
•> Delected but not selected as chemical of potential concern.
B •> Estimated value.
X » Selected as chemical of potential concern.
-------
TABLE 8
ALTERNATIVE NO.2-EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Hem/Description
GENERAL
Quantity
Unit
Unit Cost
Total Cost
MUUIIKUIIUII/L'aiMULIIIKmiUII -'
Duiiuifiy, iiibuiuriift)
noaiill & Oalaly r IcUUlliiyH lalHiny —
Sub-Total
FOUNDATION PROTECTION BY JET GROUTING
UUULHU HOW Ul dUllurtJIo VsUIUIIIflo
Sub-Total '
EXCAVATION
Waste-Storage Pits (55'x 25'x 14')
Leaching Pools (15'x 15'x 14')
Sub-Total
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
Air Monitoring
Dust/Vapor Control
Sub-Total
— 1_
-------
TABLE 8 CONTINUED
ALTERNATIVE NO.2-EXCAVATION AND OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
Item/Description Quantity Unit
OFF-SITE SOLIDIFICATION/STABILIZATION
Stabilization/Solidification 1350 CY
Sub-Total
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Costs 2000 TON
Sub-Total
DISPOSAL
Disposal at RCRA "C* Facility 2000 TON
Sub-Total
RESTORATION
Sub-Total
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL
TOTAL ESTIMA TED CAPITAL COSTS
TOTAL O&M COSTS
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
Unit Cost Total Cost
$20 $27,000
$27,000
$70 $140,000
$140.000
$235 $470,000
$470.000
__ _™ &A nnn
ftm nnn
$21,000
' $1,230,000
_ £ «;-| DC 7nn
$1,423,700
$0
$1,423,700
Note: Above costs Include only construction costs and do not Include legal, engineering
administrative or treatabllity costs. Cost estimates assume Level C or D worker protection.
-------
APPENDIX IV
NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 -7010
Thomas C. Joriing
Commissioner
RECEIVED
• SEP I 4 !Q9?
Ms. Kathleen CaUahan
Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Re: Preferred Plating Corp. ID No. 152030
Record of Decision - Operable Unit 2
Dear Ms. CaUahan:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has
reviewed the Draft Record of Decision and its revised pages 14, 15, 16 and 17, which
were telefaxed to us on August 19, 1992, for the on-site soil contamination and find
the selected remedy acceptable.
The selected remedy, Alternative 2, includes excavation of approximately 1050
cubic yards of contaminated soil, off-site treatment and disposal of excavated
material at a RCRA subtitle C facility, backfilling of excavated areas with clean soil
and restoration of the site to its original condition.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Michael J.
O'Toole, Jr., at (518) 457-5861.
Sincerely,
Ann Hill DeBarbieri
Deputy Commissioner
Office of Environmental Remediation
------- |