United States        Office of
           Environmental Protection   Emergency and
           Agency           Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-93/205
September 1993
&EPA   Superfund
          Record of Decision:
           Preferred Plating, NY

-------
50272-101	
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION
          PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-93/205
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4.  THIe and Subtitle
   SUPERFUND RECORD  OF DECISION
   Preferred Plating,  NY
   Third Remedial  Action - Final
                                          5.  Report Date
                                                   09/24/93
                                          6.
7.  Authors)
                                          8.  Performing Organization Rept. No.
9.  Performing Organization Name and Address
                                          10  Protect Task/Worfc Unit No.
                                                                     11.  ContraetfC) or Orant(G) No.

                                                                     (C)

                                                                     (G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
   401 M Street,  S.W.
   Washington, D.C.   20460
                                          13.  Type of Report & Period Covered

                                             800/800
                                          14.
15. Supplementary Notes

         PB94-963813
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)

  The 0.88-acre Preferred Plating  site is a chemical  plating facility located in  Suffolk
  County, New York. Land use in the  area is predominantly light  industrial and
  residential.  Most of  the estimated 10,000 people who reside within a 3-mile  radius  use
  public water companies to obtain their drinking  water supply.  EPA designated  the
  Nassau/Suffolk Aquifer System, which underlies the  site, as a  sole-source aquifer.  From
  1951 to 1976,  P-referred Plating  Company (PPC) operated a metal plating facility,  which
  included  degreasing  and cleaning and surface finishing of metal parts, that resulted in
  the generation, storage,  and disposal of hazardous  substances  onsite.  Untreated
  wastewater  was discharged to four  concrete waste storage pits  onsite.  Because
  Preferred Plating is downgradient  of Del Laboratories (Del), EPA determined that  Del
  may have  contributed to some of  the site contamination.   Since 1964,  Del Laboratories
  has manufactured cosmetics and topical Pharmaceuticals on a 6-acre wooded lot adjacent
  to  and upgradient of the PPC facility.  From 1964 to 1973, process wastewater and
  noncontact  cooling water from Del  were discharged to leaching  pools on the Del
  property.   In 1973,  the leaching pools were sealed  and converted into wastewater
  holding pools, which when full,  were pumped and  the waste water was removed offsite as
  nonhazardous waste.  This method of disposal was practiced until 1987, when Del started

  (See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis     a. Descriptors
   Record of Decision - Preferred Plating,
   Third Remedial  Action - Final
   Contaminated Medium: None
   Key  Contaminants:  None

   b.  Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
   c.   COSATI Field/Group
                    NY
16. Availability Statement
                          19. Security Class (This Report)
                                    None
                                                     20. Security Class (This Page)
                                                               None  •
          21. No. of Pages
                  44
                                                                               22.  Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
                                   SM Inttructlons on Rtvirse
                                                   OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
                                                          NTIS-35)
                                                         nt of Commerce
                                                                              (Formerly NTIS-35)
                                                                              Department

-------
EPA/ROD/R02-93/205
Preferred Plating, NY
Third Remedial Action - Final

Abstract (Continued)

discharging wastewater to the public sewer system.  In  1987, the State requested that Del
investigate the impact of the sealed leaching pools on  soil and ground water.  Various
organic compounds and metals were detected in soil samples; however, ground water analyses
showed that the soil had not contaminated ground water.  EPA investigations detected the
presence of ground water contamination upgradient of the PPC facility, specifically by
cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel.  As a result, five concrete holding pools were
removed and 1,708 tons of contaminated soil  surrounding the leaching pools were excavated
and disposed of offsite.  The excavation was backfilled with clean  fill, compacted, and
covered with 9 inches of crushed stone.  Previous 1989  and 1992 RODs addressed ground
water contamination beneath the Preferred Plating facility, as OU1, and soil contamination
at the Preferred Plating Facility,  as OU2, respectively.  This ROD  addresses a third and
final action for the potential ground water  contamination as a.result of waste disposal
practices at the upgradient Del facility, as OU3.  Based on the previous cleanup
activities at the Del facility and  the cleanup activities that are  planned for the two
other OUs at the Preferred Plating  site, EPA proposes that no additional remedial action
be taken for the site; therefore, there are  no contaminants of concern affecting this
site.

The selected remedial action for this site is no further action.  Cleanup activities at
the Del facility, along with remedial activities planned under the  other two OUs at the
site, have been deemed adequate for protecting human health and the environment.  There
are no present worth or O&M costs associated with this  no action remedy.

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:

Not applicable.

-------
                  RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
                          EPA REGION II
Site;

Site name:
Site location:

EPA Region:
HRS score  (date):

Record of Decision;

Date signed:
Selected remedy:
Operable Unit:
Capital cost:
O & M cost:
Present-worth cost:

Lead;

Enforcement, EPA
Primary Contact:

Secondary  Contact:

Main PRP:
Waste;

Waste type:
Waste origin:
Estimated waste quantity:
Contaminated medium:
Preferred Plating Corporation  (PPC)
Farmingdale, Town of Babylon,
Suffolk County, New York
II
33.76 (September, 1984)
September 24, 1993
"No Action"
OU-3
-0-
-0-
-0-
Lorenzo Thantu, RPM
(212) 264-2719
Damian Duda, Acting Section  Chief
(212) 264-5546
Del Laboratories, Inc.
Contact - Gregory Quillinan
(516) 293-1515
cadmium,  chromium,  lead,  and nickel
PPC facility
N/A
groundwater

-------
                  RECORD OF DECISION

             Preferred Plating Corporation

Farmingdale, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York
     United States Environmental Protection Agency
                       Region II
                  New York, New York
                    September 1993

-------
              DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF  DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION

Preferred Plating Corporation
Farmingdale, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York


STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This decision document presents the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's  (EPA's)  selection of the remedial  action  for the third
operable unit of the Preferred Plating Corporation Superfund Site
(Site) in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 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  New  York  State  Department of  Environmental  Conservation
(NYSDEC) concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix IV).


DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY - NO ACTION

This  is  the third and final operable  unit for the  Site, which
addresses  potential  groundwater  contamination  that  has  been
detected in the upgradient  portion of the Site at Del Laboratories,
Inc.  (Del).   EPA in consultation with  the  NYSDEC has determined
that this contamination does not pose a significant threat to human
health  or the  environment  and,  therefore,  remediation  is  not
appropriate.   This  determination is  based on  previous   cleanup
activities  at Del's  facility,  the  cleanup activities that  are
planned under  the two other operable units  at the  Site,  and the
remedial  investigation  and the human health risk assessment that
were conducted  for the third  operable  unit.  Thus,  a  "No  Action"
remedy is the  selected remedy for the  third operable unit of the
Site.

The  remedy   for  the  first  operable  unit,   which  addresses
contaminated groundwater at the Site, one  of the principal  threats
posed by the Site, was  specified in a ROD issued on September 22,
1989.   The  remedy for  the  second operable  unit,  which addresses
contaminated soils at the Site, the other principal threat posed by
the Site, was specified in  a ROD issued on  September 28, 1992.

-------
DECLARATION

In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, as amended, and
the NCP, it has been determined that no remedial action is
necessary for the third  operable unit to protect human health and
the environment at the Site.   Previous cleanup activities
conducted at Del's facility, undertaken at the direction of the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, have remediated the
significant contamination formerly present at this facility.
Because this "No Action" remedy will not result in hazardous
substances remaining on-site above health-based levels, the five-
year review will not apply to  this action.
William J. M(is^y
           7^
Acting Reg^fonal
i, P.E.
inistrator
                                               Datfe
                                                 /

-------
                  RECORD OF DECISION
                   DECISION SUMMARY

            Preferred Plating Corporation

Farmingdale, Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, New York
     United States Environmental Protection Agency
                       Region II
                  New York, New York

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS



          SECTION                                             PAGE


SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION  	  ....    1

SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT	    2

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES  	    2

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION  	    7

SITE CHARACTERISTICS   	    7

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS	    9

DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" REMEDY	13

DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES   	   13
ATTACHMENTS
     APPENDIX   I	FIGURES
     APPENDIX  II	TABLES
     APPENDIX III	ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD  INDEX
     APPENDIX  IV	STATE LETTER  OF  CONCURRENCE

-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The Preferred Plating  Corporation  (PPC)  site (Site)  includes the
former PPC facility located at 32 Allen Boulevard in Farmingdale,
Town of Babylon,  Suffolk County, New York. This 0.88-acre facility
is  in  an  area  zoned  for  light  industrial  use,  and  it  is
approximately 1 mile east of the Nassau-Suffolk County line.  Route
110 passes just west of the Site (see Figure  1) .  Immediately north
of  the  former   PPC  facility  is a  wooded  area,  owned  by  Del
Laboratories,  Inc.  (Del),  beyond which lie various  industrial
facilities,  including the  Del  facility.    To  the  south are  a
residential  community  and a  U.S.  Army facility.  Commercial or
light industrial properties occupy the land to the east and west.

The  Del facility  is  located  at  565  Broad  Hollow Road  also in
Farmingdale, Town  of  Babylon, Suffolk  County,  New  York,  and it
consists  of  land Parcels A  and  B  (see  Figure  2) .  As  shown on
Figures 1 and 2, the Del property is situated north of Del Drive,
south of  Route  109,  and east of Route 110.   Del owns  two wooded
lots in the vicinity, one 13.5-acre lot located immediately east of
Del's Parcel B property and one 6-acre  lot (Parcel A)  located just
south of  Parcel  B  (see Figure 2).   Other smaller parcels of land
acquired  by  Del  are also shown on Figure 2,  as  are  the dates of
purchase.

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 a
result of 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.  However,  in  the  Site area,  it is believed that the two are
not hydraulically  connected.   Pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the
Safe  Drinking  Water Act,  EPA has  designated the Nassau/Suffolk
Aquifer System as a Sole Source Aquifer.

Most of the  homes and  businesses in the  area  surrounding  the  Site
are supplied by two public water  companies,  East  Farmingdale Water
District  and Suffolk  County Water Authority (SCWA).    The  East
Farmingdale  Water  District supplies water  to Del as  well as to
areas north and  immediately south of Del. The SCWA supplies water
to areas  further south of Del.  Recently, on April  29, 1993, the
New  York  State Department of Environmental Conservation  (NYSDEC)
received  information from the Suffolk  County  Department of Health
Services   (SCDHS)  indicating  that two  locations  hydraulically
downgradient of  the PPC facility, as well as the  possibility  of at

-------
least seven  other locations, are  served  by private  wells.   The
SCDHS is currently conducting a  well survey  in the vicinity of the
Site to evaluate the extent of the use of private wells.

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.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT

This  operable  unit is the  third and last operable  unit for the
Site.   The remedy  for  the first operable unit,  which addresses
contaminated groundwater beneath the PPC facility,  was specified in
a  Record of Decision  (ROD)  issued on  September  22,  1989.   The
remedy for the second operable unit, which addresses  contaminated
soils  at the  PPC  facility,  was specified  in a ROD  issued on
September 28,  1992.  The third and  final operable unit, which is
the subject of  this ROD, addresses potential groundwater contamina-
tion that has been detected in the upgradient portion of the Site.
The primary objective of this third operable unit is  to determine
if operations at Del have impacted the groundwater quality beneath
the Site.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

Discussion  of  remedial  and  enforcement activities  at  the PPC
facility and the Del facility  is provided below.  The first part of
this discussion addresses the PPC facility, including the history
of  PPC's operations and  the subsequent  groundwater  and   soils
investigations that were conducted by EPA.   The second part of the
discussion  addresses the  Del facility,  which  is  an  industrial
facility located upgradient of the PPC facility.  The Del  facility
and the  groundwater associated with  it  are the subject of  EPA's
investigation for this ROD.  Since the history of Del's  operations
and associated  enforcement activities are pertinent to the  third
operable  unit,  the  Del discussion  includes  the  findings  of a
separate groundwater and soil investigation conducted at the Del
facility  and  the  source  remediation that  resulted  from  that
investigation.

-------
PPC Facility

PPC conducted  operations from September 1951  through  June 1976.
The primary  activities at the PPC  facility 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
substances.   Untreated wastewater was discharged to four concrete
waste storage  pits directly north of the  original  building (see
Figure 3).

Groundwater contaminated with heavy metals was detected at the Site
by the 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 sought to  ensure that no
improper  discharges were being  made  to  the  steam  condensate
leaching  pool  or  the  sanitary  leaching pool  used  by PPC.   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  indicated  that  it  then had  the treated  wastewater
removed.  The  removal of  the treated wastewater  residuals 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 PPC facility,  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
PPC facility is covered  either by the 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  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 requiring that the Site be proposed
for inclusion  on  the NPL.  The Site was proposed  and listed 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  PPC
property.  A ROD for the treatment of the contaminated groundwater,

-------
designated as the first operable unit, was signed on September 22,
1989.    The major  components  of  the   selected  remedy  include
extraction of the contaminated groundwater,  groundwater 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 1994 after completion of the source remediation.

In order to  further  characterize the soils  underlying the former
storage  pits,  EPA undertook  a  second RI/FS  to  investigate the
subsurface  soils  within and  directly beneath the  former storage
pits and leaching pools at the  PPC  facility.   EPA's contractor,
Malcolm Pirnie,  Inc., performed the second operable unit RI/FS from
April  1990  to  July  1992.    A ROD for  the treatment of  the
contaminated subsurface  soils  was signed on  September  28,  1992.
The remedy  includes  excavation  of  the subsurface soils,  off-site
treatment of the heavy metals and organics, and off-site disposal.
The remediation of the contaminated subsurface soils  is expected to
begin and be completed in 1994.

Additionally, the initial RI/FS also detected  the presence of
groundwater  contamination   upgradient   of   the   PPC  facility.
Analytical  results of  groundwater  samples  collected  during the
first operable  unit RI  indicated  the presence of  heavy metals,
predominantly cadmium,  chromium,  lead, and nickel, at concentration
levels greater  than  Federal maximum contaminant  levels  (MCLs) in
both upgradient and downgradient wells at the  Site.  Specifically,
cadmium, chromium, lead,  and nickel were detected at concentrations
of 71 micrograms per liter  (ug/1) ,  291  ug/1, 144  ug/1,  and 274
ug/1,  respectively,   in  groundwater   samples   collected  from
monitoring well MW1SP  (see Figure 4), which is located upgradient
of former  leaching pools  at the  PPC facility.    Therefore, EPA
determined  that it was  necessary  to undertake a third  study to
investigate the potential of an  upgradient contributing source of
contamination,  which  was designated as  the third operable unit.
Because  Del  is  located  north  of the PPC  facility (see Figure 1) ,
and the groundwater flow is generally in a southerly direction, EPA
subsequently entered into an  Administrative Order  on Consent  (AOC)
with Del on September 27, 1990 to conduct an RI.   Geraghty and
Miller,   Inc., Del's consultant,  performed the third operable unit
RI from  September 1990 to July  1993.  The preferred remedy in the
Proposed Plan, released  to the public on July 21, 1993, was based
on this  RI.
Del Property

Since  its  beginning in 1964, Del  has  been using essentially the
same process to manufacture cosmetics and over-the-counter topical
Pharmaceuticals   for  wholesale  and   retail   markets.    Del's
manufacturing operations are  located on  Parcel  B, and Parcel A  is

-------
a 6-acre wooded lot just south of Parcel B  (see Figure 2).  Of the
four metals of concern (i.e.,  cadmium, chromium, lead, and nickel)
found  in  the  groundwater  upgradient of the  PPC  facility,  only
trivalent chromium is used in the manufacture of Del's products.

Both industrial wastes and sanitary waste are generated at the Del
property.    Industrial  wastes include  process  wastewater  and
noncontact cooling water.  Process wastewater is generated at Del's
quality control laboratory and from washing, mixing, and packaging
equipment which  contacts product.   Noncontact cooling water is
generated  from  cooling  mixing  vessels  used  in  manufacturing
products.

From  the start  of  manufacturing  in  1964  until  1973,  process
wastewater and noncontact cooling water were discharged to leaching
pools  located  on  the  western  portion  of  the  Del  property.
Noncontact cooling water was  also discharged  to  pools located on
the northern portion of the property  (see Figure 5).  Beginning in
November  1972 and  continuing into  early  1973,   all  industrial
leaching pools were  sealed  and converted  into wastewater holding
pools  (see Figure  5) .   When full,  the pools were  pumped  and the
wastewater  was   removed  by  a  New  York-licensed  hauler  as
nonhazardous  waste.    This  method  of  disposal  continued  until
November  of  1987  when  Del  started  discharging both  process
wastewater and noncontact cooling water to its sewer  system in
accordance with  the  Suffolk County Department  of  Public  Works
certification.

Sanitary wastes were formerly discharged to  sanitary leaching pools
(see Figure  5) ;  the operation of these leaching  pools ceased in
September 1987.  Since September 1987,  sanitary effluent has been
discharged to Del's sewer system (see Figure 6).

In  December  1987,  the  SCDHS requested  that Del  investigate the
impact of the western leaching pools on soils and groundwater.  The
contaminants  of  concern  were  identified  as  various  organic
compounds and four metals (copper, silver,  lead, and  cadmium).  In
March 1988, Donnelly Engineering was retained by Del to conduct a
study.  As part of  a Phase I effort, Donnelly Engineering installed
three  monitoring  wells  (wells W-l,  W-2,   and W-3)  at  the Del
property, the  locations of which are shown on Figure 4.  Analysis
of  groundwater samples  collected from  these wells  indicated an
elevated level of  lead of 20 ug/1 in well W-3.  The Phase I study
also included the collection of subsurface soil samples, in which
various organic and  inorganic contaminants were detected.

In  May 1989,  Phase  II of  the  study was  initiated  to determine
whether groundwater had been impacted by soil contaminants detected
at  and  in the vicinity of the western leaching pools and, if so,
the extent to which the affected groundwater had migrated.   This
phase  of  the  study  included the installation of  six additional
monitoring wells, namely wells W-4 through  W-9  (see Figure 4), and

-------
the collection of additional  soil  samples in the vicinity of the
western leaching pools.

As requested by the SCDHS, groundwater samples collected from these
wells  were  analyzed  for  cadmium,  chromium,  lead,  and  nickel.
Analytical   results   indicated  that   concentrations  of  these
contaminants were below  detection  limits and/or below NYSDEC and
EPA standards.  Therefore,  it was  concluded that the groundwater
had not been impacted by soil  contaminants detected  at the western
leaching  pools.   However,  soil data  indicated the  presence of
contaminated  soils  in  the   immediate  vicinity  of  the  western
leaching pools.  After review of the Phase II results, the SCDHS
requested the installation of  two additional monitoring wells, W-10
and W-ll (see Figure 4), on Del's Parcel B property  to confirm the
direction  of groundwater  flow.   The  SCDHS  also  requested  that
groundwater samples be collected from monitoring wells W-l through
W-ll and analyzed for chromium,  only.   The analytical results of
these  samples  indicated that  chromium  concentrations were below
detection  limits.

Although  it  was  concluded, based on the results  of the Donnelly
Engineering's study, that soil contaminants detected at the western
leaching pools had not impacted groundwater, the SCDHS required the
excavation  of soils  containing organic compounds  around these
pools.   The  excavation was  conducted  from  November 11  through
November  20, 1992,  under  the direction  of  the  SCDHS  and  the
supervision  of  Donnelly  Engineering and  Del.   It included the
removal of five concrete holding pools and excavation and off-site
disposal  of  1,708  tons  of contaminated soil..  Grab samples of
excavated  soil  were  analyzed using the Toxicity  Characteristic
Leaching Procedure  (TCLP).   Sample analytical results were below
detection  limits, with the exception of  barium,  which was detected
at 0.30 milligrams  per liter  (mg/1).   Since the TCLP analytical
results did not exceed EPA Toxicity Characteristic (TC) limits, the
excavated soil was disposed as a nonhazardous waste at an off-site
disposal facility.   Liquid waste,  which was  generated during the
washing of the excavated concrete  holding pools, was disposed as
nonhazardous  waste at the Bergen  Point  treatment  plant.   The
excavation was backfilled with clean fill,  compacted,  and  covered
with 9 inches (256 tons)  of crushed  stone  blend.


HIGHLIGHTS OP COMMUNITY  PARTICIPATION

The RI and  the  Proposed Plan for  the  third operable unit  were
released to the public on July 21, 1993.  These documents were  made
available  in both the administrative record file at the EPA Docket
Room  in Region  II,  New York and two information  repositories
maintained at the Babylon Town Hall  and the West Babylon Library.
The notice of the public  meeting  and  availability of the above-
referenced documents appeared  in This Week publication and Newsday
newspaper on July 31,  1993 and August 3,  1993, respectively.  A 30-

                                 6

-------
day public comment period was held from July 22,  1993 to August 20,
1993.

On August  10,  1993, EPA conducted  a public meeting at  the W.E.
Howitt Junior High School in Farmingdale, New York, to inform local
officials  and  interested citizens  about the Superfund  process,
present  the results  of the  third  operable unit  RI  and  EPA's
preferred  "No  Action"  remedy,  and respond to any  questions from
area residents and other attendees.

EPA did not receive any comments on the RI and the Proposed Plan at
the public  meeting, nor were  any  written comments  concerning the
remedy selection received during the public comment period.   As a
result,  no  Responsiveness  Summary  was prepared.    The  NYSDEC,
however,   expressed  a  concern   about   potential   groundwater
contamination at private wells downgradient of the Site,  which is
outside  of  the  scope  of this  third  operable unit.  . Consequently,
EPA  is  investigating  this  potential contamination  as  a  separate
matter.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS

Under the terms of the AOC, Geraghty & Miller,  Inc. conducted an RI
to  characterize   potential   groundwater  contamination  in  the
upgradient portion of the Site.   The intent  of  the study was to
characterize groundwater quality upgradient from  the PPC facility,
specifically  underlying Parcel A  (see  Figure 2) ,  and determine
whether operations at Del have impacted  the groundwater quality at
the Site.

The scope of  the  RI included the following:  (1)  installing three
two-well clusters,  each containing one  shallow and  one deep well,
on Parcel A;  (2)  sampling the six newly  installed wells and eight
existing wells at the Del property;  and  (3)  collecting water-level
measurements from the six new wells on Parcel  A. and  from  selected
monitoring wells  on  Parcel  B  to determine the  direction of the
groundwater flow  in the vicinity of the  Del property.

The three shallow monitoring wells  (MW-12, MW-13, and MW-14) were
drilled to a depth of 25  feet and the three deep monitoring wells
(MW-12D, MW-13D,  and MW-14D)  were installed to a  depth  of  50 feet.
Two rounds of groundwater samples were  collected and analyzed for
filtered  (dissolved)  and  unfiltered (total)  cadmium, chromium,
lead,  and  nickel.  The first round  of groundwater sampling was
conducted at  the  six  newly installed wells on Parcel A and eight
existing wells  (W-4,  W-5,  W-6,  W-7, W-8, W-9, W-10, and W-ll) on
Parcel  B  in March/April  1992.   The well  locations are shown on
Figure  4.  The  second round  of groundwater sampling was conducted
at only the six wells on  Parcel A  in  October  1992.  Prior to each
round  of  sampling, groundwater level measurements  were obtained,

-------
and  as a  result EPA  has  confirmed  that the  direction  of  the
groundwater flow in the vicinity of the Site is southerly.

Analytical results  for groundwater samples  collected  during the
March/April 1992  sampling event are presented on  Figure  7.   The
analytical results for the October  1992 groundwater sampling event
are presented on Figure 8.

Groundwater  sampling  results  were compared with the  following
Federal and State drinking water standards:  EPA's MCLs of 5 ug/1
for cadmium, 100 ug/1  for chromium,  and  100  ug/1 for nickel, and
recommended drinking water action  level  of  15  ug/1 for lead; and
the NYSDEC's groundwater quality standards of 10 ug/1 for cadmium,
50 ug/1 for  chromium,  and 25 ug/1 for lead.   No NYSDEC drinking
water standard is available for nickel.

The first round of groundwater sampling revealed higher levels of
specific contaminants  in  Parcel B wells  than  in  Parcel A wells.
The maximum  total concentration (unfiltered) of  cadmium  was 3.1
ug/1 which was detected at a  well  on Parcel  B  and is below EPA's
and the  NYSDEC's drinking  water standards   (5  ug/1  and 10 ug/1,
respectively).  The  maximum total  concentration  of nickel was 91
ug/1 which was detected at a  well  on Parcel  B  and is below EPA's
drinking  water   standard  of  100  ug/1.    The  maximum  total
concentration of chromium was  129 ug/1 which was detected at a well
on Parcel  B and is  above EPA's and the  NYSDEC's drinking water
standards (100 ug/1 and 50 ug/1,  respectively) .  The maximum total
concentration of lead was 117 ug/1  which  was  detected at a well on
Parcel  B  and  is above  EPA's recommended  action level  and the
NYSDEC's   drinking   water  standard   (15  ug/1   and   25  ug/1,
respectively).

Dissolved  (filtered)  concentrations  of  cadmium, chromium,  and
nickel were  reported below the analytical detection limits of 2
ug/1,  3 ug/1,  and 7 ug/1,  respectively,  for these contaminants.
The maximum dissolved concentration of lead was 4.8 ug/1 which was
detected at a well on Parcel B and is well below EPA's action level
of 15 ug/1 and the NYSDEC's drinking water standard of 25 ug/1.  As
the dissolved concentrations were relatively  low for all metals, it
is  possible  that the elevated levels   of  the  contaminants  in
unfiltered samples correlated to elevated total suspended solids in
the  samples and were  not  representative of the  quality  of the
groundwater.

The  second  round   of groundwater  sampling  showed   that  both
unfiltered and filtered concentrations of cadmium,  chromium,  lead,
and nickel for most  of the samples were  found at  levels below the
detection  limits  of  2  ug/1,  3   ug/1, 2  ug/1,   and  8  ug/1,
respectively.   Only chromium, lead, and nickel  were detected at
levels above the detection limits.  The maximum concentrations of
chromium,  lead,  and  nickel were detected in an unfiltered sample
and were 12.2 ug/1,  15.1  ug/1, and 8.9 ug/1, respectively.  These

                                8

-------
concentrations, with the exception of lead,  are below EPA's and the
NYSDEC's drinking water standards.  The lead concentration of 15.1
ug/1 is virtually equal to EPA's recommended drinking water action
level of 15 ug/1.

The body of data suggest  that the excavation of  the five concrete
holding pools  and associated contaminated  soils  at Del facility,
which was undertaken at the direction of the SCDHS, remediated the
significant source  of contamination at  the facility.   Further,
based on the groundwater  sampling data,  no discernible "plume" of
contamination was evident in the vicinity of the Del property.  The
few  data  which  exceeded  EPA's and the  NYSDEC's  drinking  water
standards in Parcel B were spotty in occurrence,  and were found in
unfiltered  samples  only.    These  data  may  be  attributable  to
leaching  of artifact  turbidity  in  the  samples.   All  filtered
samples  were   below  applicable standards.    Therefore,  EPA  has
concluded that operations at Del are not adversely impacting the
groundwater upgradient of the PPC facility.


SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

Based on  the  results of the RI,  a baseline  risk  assessment was
conducted  to  estimate the  risks  associated with  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.  This
information  is  used  to  make a  determination   as  to  whether
remediation of a site may be required.

As part of the  baseline human health 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 the site
based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence,
and concentration; Exposure Assessment—estimates the magnitude of
actual and/or potential human exposures,  the frequency and duration
of these  exposures,  and the  pathway (e.g,  ingesting contaminated
well-water)  by  which  humans  are  potentially exposed;  Toxicity
Assessment—determines  the  types   of   adverse  health  effects
associated  with  chemical exposures,  and  the relationship between
magnitude  of   exposure (dose)   and severity  of  adverse  effects
(response); and, 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.

Under  current  EPA  guidelines,  the  likelihood  of  carcinogenic
(cancer-causing)  and  noncarcinogenic  effects   as a  result  of
exposure  to   site   chemicals  are  considered  separately.    An
assumption  is  made that  carcinogenic toxic  effects  of the site-

-------
related chemicals would be additive.  The same assumption is made
for the noncarcinogens at a site.

The baseline risk assessment began with selecting contaminants of
concern  which  are  representative  of  conditions  in the  third
operable unit study area.  These contaminants of concern included
cadmium, chromium,  lead,  and nickel  (see  Table 1) .   All  of the
contaminants, with the exception of lead,  are noncarcinogenic by
the ingestion route of exposure.  Lead is considered by EPA to be
a  Group B2  carcinogen  (i.e.,  there  is  sufficient  evidence  in
animals and inadequate or no evidence in humans that lead can cause
cancer). As EPA has not currently established quantitative indices
of toxicity  for exposure to lead,  risks associated with lead in
groundwater  were assessed  qualitatively  in  the  baseline  risk
assessment.  The reference doses (RfDs)  and EPA's and the NYSDEC's
drinking water  standards for the contaminants  of  concern  in the
third operable unit study area groundwater are presented in Table
2.  The reference doses for ingestion  of  cadmium, chromium, and
nickel  were  obtained  from the  EPA's  Integrated Risk Information
System  (IRIS) database.

The baseline risk assessment evaluated the health effects which
could  result  from  exposure  to contamination  as  a result  of
ingestion  of groundwater upgradient  of the  PPC  facility.   The
previous risk assessment for the second operable unit conducted by
EPA for the Site addressed health risks related  to  groundwater use
by future  residents  and  future workers at the Site.   The most
conservative  of these scenarios is the  future adult residential
scenario.   Therefore, the future adult  residential scenario was
evaluated  for  ingestion  of  contaminants  of  concern  in  the
groundwater   samples   collected  and   analyzed  from  the  wells
upgradient from the PPC facility.

An exposure  assessment was conducted  to estimate the magnitude,
frequency,  and duration of actual and/or potential exposures to the
chemicals of concern  present in  groundwater upgradient of the PPC
facility.  Reasonable maximum  exposure is  defined as the highest
exposure that is reasonably  expected to  occur at the  Site for
individual and combined pathways. As stated previously, metals are
the only groundwater  contaminants  of concern  identified  in the
groundwater  samples obtained from the wells upgradient of the PPC
facility.  As dermal exposure to metals in groundwater is expected
to be minimal and there  is no pathway for inhalation of metals in
groundwater,   only   ingestion   of  contaminants  in  upgradient
groundwater was considered in this  baseline risk assessment.

Potential  carcinogenic risks  are typically evaluated using the
cancer  slope  factors  (CSFs) developed by EPA for the contaminants
of concern.   CSFs have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment  Verification  Endeavor for  estimating excess lifetime
cancer  risks  associated with exposure to potentially  carcinogenic
chemicals.    EPA considers  excess upper bound individual lifetime

                                10

-------
cancer risk in the range of 10"* to 10"6 to be acceptable.  However,
as explained previously, because cadmium, chromium, and nickel are
considered noncarcinogens by ingestion, and EPA has not currently
established quantitative indices of toxicity for exposure to lead,
which is a Group B2 carcinogen, no quantifiable carcinogenic risk
estimates have been made in the baseline risk assessment.  Instead,
potential health  risks associated with lead  in  groundwater were
assessed qualitatively  in the baseline risk assessment.

The  baseline  risk  assessment  suggests that  lead may present  a
hazard to potential future residents using unfiltered groundwater
for potable purposes.   While  a highly conservative assessment of
groundwater  use  by  potential  future  residents  suggests  that
exposure to  lead  in groundwater may be of concern,  the  detected
concentrations of lead in the unfiltered samples may be a result of
turbidity, and the  series of events required to realize the risks
are extremely unlikely.  There are currently no residences between
the Del and PPC facilities.   Even if the  few data which exceeded
EPA's recommended action level  and the NYSDEC's  drinking water
standard for lead are not attributable to artifact turbidity, any
low-level  contamination would  be expected  to   migrate  to  the
groundwater  extraction  system  to be  constructed for the first
operable unit.

To assess the  overall  noncarcinogenic effects posed  by more than
one  contaminant,  EPA has developed the Hazard Quotient  (HQ) and
Hazard Index (HI).  The HQ is the ratio of the  chronic  daily intake
for  a  contaminant  to  the  reference dose for that chemical; the
reference dose is  a measure  of the chemical's  "threshold" for
adverse effects with many  built-in safety factors.   The  HQs are
summed  for  all  contaminants  within  an exposure  pathway  (e.g.,
groundwater ingestion)  to give the HI.  When the HI  exceeds one,
there may be concern for potential noncarcinogenic  health effects,
if the  contaminants in question  are  believed to  cause a similar
toxic effect.

The  HQs for exposures  to  individual contaminants of concern in
groundwater and the His for the combined exposure  are  presented in
Table  3.    The His for  the  combined  exposures  to  groundwater
contaminants of concern upgradient of the PPC Site  are  0.18 for
unfiltered samples  and 0.14  for filtered  samples.  These His are
well below one, suggesting  that even under the most  conservative
exposure  scenario,  upgradient  groundwater  contaminated  with
cadmium, chromium,  and  nickel  is highly unlikely to be associated
with any adverse  health effects.

The ecological risk assessment considered potential exposure routes
of Site contamination to terrestrial wildlife. Since  the majority
of the  PPC  facility is  paved  or covered  by  structures,  there is
little,   if  any,   potential   for  wildlife   to  be  exposed  to
contaminated subsurface soils on-site. The only potential  route of
                                11

-------
exposure  to wildlife  in  the Site  vicinity  is by  contaminant
transport through groundwater  and  discharge  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 as part of the initial
RI  completed  in  1989,   in  which  it  was  determined  that  no
significant effect on aquatic organisms in the Great South Bay or
creeks  in  the  vicinity  of  the  Site  could   be  attributed  to
groundwater discharge from the Site.

Uncertainties

The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation,
as  in all  such  assessments,  are  subject to  a wide variety  of
uncertainties.    In  general,  the  main  sources of  uncertainty
include:

•    environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
•    environmental parameter measurement
•    exposure parameter estimation
•    toxicological data.

Uncertainty  in  environmental  sampling  arises  in  part  from the
potentially uneven distribution of  chemicals  in  the media sampled.
Consequently,  there  is significant uncertainty  as to the actual
levels present.   Environmental chemistry-analysis  error can stem
from  several  sources  including  the  errors  inherent  in  the
analytical methods and  characteristics of the matrix being sampled.


Uncertainties  in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with the
chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such exposure
would occur, and in the models used to estimate  the concentrations
of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.

Uncertainties  in toxicological data  occur  in  extrapolating both
from animals to  humans and from high  to low doses of exposure, as
well  as from  the difficulties  in assessing  the  toxicity  of a
mixture of chemicals.  These uncertainties are addressed by making
conservative assumptions  concerning risk and exposure parameters
throughout  the  assessment.    As  a  result,  the Risk Assessment
provides upper-bound estimates of the  risks to populations near the
site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related
to the site.
DESCRIPTION OF THE "NO ACTION" REMEDY

The risk assessment indicates that the levels of cadmium, chromium,
and  nickel  contaminants  present  in  the  groundwater   in  the
upgradient portion of the Site present risks which  fall within or

                                12

-------
below  EPA's  allowable risk  range.    In  addition,  groundwater
sampling  results  indicate  that,  with the  exception  of a  few
excursions  for  lead in the  groundwater above  EPA's recommended
drinking water action  level and  the NYSDEC's groundwater quality
standard,  lead  data  do  not  exceed  these  standards  in  the
groundwater.  Further,  previous cleanup activities, which included
excavation  of the five  concrete  holding  pools and  associated
contaminated soils, conducted at the Del facility have remediated
the significant source of  contamination previously present at that
facility.

Based upon  the  findings of the  third operable unit RI,  EPA,  in
consultation with  NYSDEC, has  determined that the groundwater in
the upgradient  portion of the Site does  not pose  a significant
threat to human  health or the environment.   EPA,  therefore,  has
selected a  "No Action" remedy  for  the third operable unit of the
Site.  Because this "No Action" remedy will  not result in hazardous
substances remaining on-site above health-based levels, the five-
year review will not apply to this action.


DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative, as
presented in the Proposed Plan.
                                13

-------
APPENDIX I




  FIGURES

-------
                ^,Mgi^.-f-tr' '«i * __ •_•» '^r**^^  •   . _
              IffpT  *^'  '•*'      ^
              *y  ?.  &     •      .«„ ru <
              ^—^*<^o* j*   •• •—-~ •           ••
              ?w/.   -i  s         •  ^rDli80:<:
              $$3Sfi*£/     r£?y3LIC AIRPORT   -
                            >5:5Sl'"'-     »"-:^^.' -v   . -^*~^
                            )EL LABORATORIES ...-fe'vg*?1    '
                            NC. "^^^S*^.J^^a^lTERCH»NG
                                    T ' f^^mi"iif ii
                */   ^'^-s  PREFERRED PLAT1NG^>^5
                H  C'i:febTcORPORATION *£jClS
                y- ^*.-k£-4-fcri=5*/^^3
                .\^  MSa?£SEr/^^
                          1P-U iXTT^
                          • r .  •. ^^ ^..     —>
                          ^--**^' ~^-.- • •'•' -•
                          •%***'   „	;._';'--y ."
             ©v."W v#;sr^-i—-S-• •'.
             w- \ rri-i 'fcX-jT''^''
             Jil vLrV^-J' Walklm-
             ^->T^^^gg|
             ^"L--rJ»' ^\n
-------
[DATEl a/3/83  [PRJCT. HO.l NY44401   [HIE NO.I »3»    [CAD FILE: Da-PrtOP   (COMPILER) S.GENT7LINCER  IUCR.I B.UAR1WOVICH	[DRAFTER! V.CARUNCHO
       i
       I
       L.
       EXPLANATION

  	1 Da LABORATORY,
        INC. PROPERTY
C.I'D
T77//77J771
     .  d PARCEL A
    UA
                        13.S-ACRE WOODED LOT
                        PURCHASED 1080
                                                                                    PREFERRED PLATING
                                                                                      CORPORATION
                                    PARCEL B
                                    PURCHASED 1077
                                          PARCEL A
                                          PURCHASED 1076
                                                                 6-ACRE WOODED LOT
                                                                    RD. (in. no)
                         1.7 ACRE!
                       (PURCHASED
                       I
                         1970
I	__.
                                                BROAD
            i too ran
  Jf GERAGHTY
  IjTtf MILLER, INC.
   fnvtnnmtntal Strvitm
                          LAND  PARCELS  A  AND B,  DEL  LABORATORIES,  INC.,
                                        FARMINGDALE, NEW  YORK
                                              BEVERIDGE it DIAMOND, P.C.

-------
                         WOODED UNPAVED LOT
     o
          .0



J.CRAVERO CO.


           0




 «	M	


            CRX
         ELECTRIC

 4 LEACHING PITS
  UNDER BUILDING
              BUILDING
             EXTENSION
 R.S. PRECISION
INDUSTRIES INC
   24 ALLEN —
              SSS//+
              /
              /
              /
              //s s r*
                                     ORIGINAL J_
                                     BUILDING!?


                                             I
                           / TJA AUTO SALES
                                                 	PREFERRED PLATING

                                                      CORPORATION

                                                     SITE BOUNDARY
                                                  ss / / / / s
                                                              ',
                                                M*N
                                           p. SUPPLY CORP.

                                           /  30 ALLEN
                                                                         Q

                                                                         o
                                                                         er

                                                                         u
                                                                         0
                                                                  O
                                                                  z
                                                                         <
                                                                         m
                                    GRASS•
                         ALLEN BOULEVARD
                                                       LEGEND:


                                                        Q
  SOURCE: EBASCO SERVICES FINAL-R1/F5 REPORT (JULY 1989)
                                                                            BASINS


                                                                   STORM OflAIHS


                                                                   FENCE
                                                            0 10 20 30 40 SO
                                                            I  I  I  »  .1 _t

                                                             SCALE IN FEET
 MA1DOLM
   RRNIE
                        PREFeRREO PLATING CORPORATION

                           FARMIN6OALE. NEW YORK


                      ON-SITE CONDITIONS MAP
                                                                     •AI.COUI »«•«*.  me.
FIGURE  3

-------
    WXTTIRIIS VQJ. LOCATO)
    MO KSSMTON
_   WBUTTKAL VATTI IXADOW
O   POOLS cwvcno to
    TAMCS IN ma
*
I
MM
AW GERAGHTY
£0f& MILLER. INC.
1 ^^^F ,c7tvii viiiiifntol Stnnc9s
I
MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS ' >
PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION AND DEL
LABORATORIES. INC., FARMINGDALE. NEW YORK
BEVER1DGE ft DIAMOND
FIGUR'E
4
j

-------
|DATE)a-l»~8Q [PMC* NQ.I NY4440I   [FILE MO.I
                                  [CAOniEi LEACHa    |COMPIUERlS.O.
                                   IMCR.I P.M.
V.C.     /
   DEL
   LABS
        I
                      Q
                      Q
DEL LABORATORIES, INC.
                            O
                             O
                                                                                       EXPLANATION

•                                                                                   NON-CONTACT COOUNO WATER
                                                                                   RECHARGE WHS (STttt W USQ

                                                                                 _ INOUS1RIAL WASTE LEACHNO
                                                                                 O POOLS CONVU1ED TO HOUXNO
                                                                                   TANKS W 107J

A                                                                                   SANITARY LEACHINO POOLS
                                                                                   (ABANDONED)
     SCA1C
          1100 FT
 ff MILLER,  INC.
Environmental Struiats
                            LOCATIONS  OF  INDUSTRIAL  AND SANITARY LEACHING
                         POOLS,  DEL  LABORATORIES,  INC.,  FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK

                                              BEVERIDGE it DIAMOND, P.C.
                                                                FIGURE

                                                                  5

-------
|OATC|8H3-9Q  [PPJCT. NO.I HY44W  [BUT NO.H23B  • : [CAP FIIB SDLOO    [COMPHEfll S.O.
                                       IMCR.I P.M.
                                                    RAHERl V.C.
                   0
                                                   9

s

if
V IT


XT

P^H


/
r

c

i
f
' ^ S
Nv\ ._.
                                  DEL LABORATORIES, INC.
                                  XV
                    CTASS I  /           I    *..	'
                       ^«      	--*"-

                    	«•*•—"	          _  o
                                               PAVED
       KALE
           J100 FT
     GERAGHTY
    fir MILLER,  INC.
            Strviota
SITE STORM DRAIN LOCATIONS AND MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM)
       DEL LABORATORIES, INC., FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK

                     BEVERIDGE te DIAMOND, P.C.

-------

wwiaO
Otromun
MM
raid) WAnX(DiMdv«fl
201 ZU
uu in
1.4AJ V3
7.0U 7JU
10/5
so/iao
29/190,13
MA/100

UWMO(M«Q UW14C
Codmtm, 201
Orantm UU
LMd aOBJ
Wdcd 7.CU


                                                BOBCATCS «M*LYTt RtSU-T gTVCN m.
                                              M 4MD CQHTMACT BTTBriFrn illLUllUN UMIT
mae CLASS n aaw-MTnauurr HMOMOS
A MTCMR P
CABOm
CHBMUI
UAB
unw, MNOMM emr«MiMir ixvcu
tmaw vATOk     _
       PJ*^,  Hfffl1!? JK3 25
       UB UQ^L  if miWI JULT CT>§
       a UB/L  t»LLHvi u> uffn.
       aoTJeA.  tmmvt J«H ISM
                                                   J


                                                  NA
                                                 ESTOIAIO MTA

                                                 STMOMB NOT AVABJOU
tap* Aenm ixviLrat UMas<«ai imrnvt
                                                                 300 FECT
    GERAGHTY
  & MILLER,  INC.
Environmental Services
                      ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED
                      DURING THE FIRST SAMPLING ROUND CONDUCTED MARCH 30
                           THROUGH APRIL 1, 1992, DEL LABORATORIES,  INC.
                                        FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK


                                        BEVERIDGE tt DIAMOND
                                                                                   FIGURE



                                                                                      7

-------
      UWJOfTatd)  MW130(DIH<**-yMP auurr crttoues
                      « N1D8) f*RT 70UCA SOTBOOi »»
                                  .
                      LEAS    C3UQ/L

                         * wjouc ewTA»o*«*(T UMU o&«> m

                                           JULT
                        „  MBBATIS ANALYTI RESULT LESS 1WN
                        u  nsiRUMCNT ainrrum LBOT ODD

                           WBtATtS ANAtrTC RESULT jCtVEOI OL
                        D  «KB OKTRACT KOUMCD M.IU.IUW LOOT


                        4  nrawm MT*

                        R  KUBATCS UNUSAJLC BAT*

                        HA  CMMAIB MIT  AVADJULE
                                                                                   300 FEET
                      uttgA AcmM ttva rat uw eaugAj DTTCTJVE
                GERAGHTY
                 MILLER,  INC.
            Environmental Services
ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR GROUND-WATER SAMPLES COLLECTED
DURING THE SECOND  SAMPLING ROUND CONDUCTED OCTOBER 19
            AND 20,  1992, DEL LABORATORIES,  INC.
                   FARMINGDALE.  NEW YORK


                    BEVER1DGE &  DIAMOND
FIGURE


  8

-------
APPENDIX II




  TABLES

-------
                                              Table 1
                                  Preferred Plating Operable Unit III
                   Summary of Groundwater Contaminant of Concern Concentrations
COMPOUND
CADMIUM
(TOTAL)
CADMIUM
(DISSOLVED)
CHROMIUM (TOTAL)
CHROMIUM
(DISSOLVED)
LEAD
(TOTAL)
LEAD
(DISSOLVED)
NICKEL
(TOTAL)
NICKEL
(DISSOLVED)
MEDIUM
GROUNDWATER
(UNFILTERED)
GROUNDWATER
(FILTERED)
GROUNDWATER
(UNFILTERED)
GROUNDWATER
(FILTERED)
GROUNDWATER
(UNFILTERED)
GROUNDWATER
(FILTERED)
GROUNDWATER
(UNFILTERED)
GROUNDWATER
(FILTERED)
FREQ. OF
DETECTION
7/25
0/25
16/25
0/25
23/24
7/24
13/25
0/25
MEAN CONC.
(UG/L)
2.2
<2
27.9
<3
25.9
1.6
23.1
<8
95% UCL*
(UG/L)
2.3
<2
68
<3
90.5
1.9
34.2
<8
MAX. CONC.
(UG/L)
3.1
<2
129
<3
117
4.8
91
<8
UCL - Upper ConMtne* Uirtt

-------
                                         Table 2
                          Preferred Plating Operable Unit III
Indices of Toxicity and Drinking Water Standards for Groundwater Contaminants
                                       of Concern
COMPOUND
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
LEAD
NICKEL
REFERENCE DOSE
(Mg/Kg/d)
5X10" (I)
10)
NA
2X10* (I)
FEDERAL MCL
(ug/i)
5
100
15'
100
STATE GROUNDWATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
10
50
25
NA
Notes:

0) Toxletty Data from Ms Database
(NA) Data are not Available
(NC) Compound Is a Noncardnogen by the mgcstion Route
• • 15 ug/l Is uSEPA's Recommended Drinking water Action Level tor Lead

-------
                                                 Table 3
                                Preferred Plating Operable Unit III
             Hazard Indices for Exposures to Contaminants In Groundwater
COMPOUND
CADMIUM
CHROMIUM
LEAD
NICKEL
TOTAL (HAZARD INDEX)*
HAZARD QUOTIENT
(UNF1LTERED)
0.13
0.0019
NAt
0.05
0.18
HAZARD QUOTIENT
(FILTERED)
0.13
0.0009
NA
0.012
0.14
(HA) Quantitative Toxfctty Data are not AvaUaMe for Lead
r - tead exceeds me groundwater action level of 15 ppb m several untmered samples.

"•• Agortthm for determination of me hazard Index associated with residential Ingestlen of groundwater upgraOent of the Preferred Platmg s^

                                 GWC • IR •  ED  * EF • IQ^mq/ud
                                 BW • AT • 365 d/yr •  RfD
wnere.

AT
BW
ED
EF
RfD
GWC
                 Avwagmg Thn*
                 Exposufv Duration
                 Exposure Frequency
                 Reference Dow
                 Consmutrt Cone, m GroonOwaltf (ug/l)
DrtnMng water MgesUon (I/a)
Body welgnt. Adutt (kg)
Exposure frequency (d/y)
Exposure duration (y):
Averagttig ttrne (y):
                                      Standard Default Exposure Assumptions for
                                        Ingestton of Groundwater by Residents

                                                          2
                                                          70
                                                          350
                                                          30
                                                          30

-------
        APPENDIX IV




STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE

-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233  7010
                                                                           Thomas C. Joriing
                                                                           Commissioner
                                                     SEP  2 2 1993
     Mr. George Pavlou
     Acting Director
     Emergency and Remedial Response Division
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Region II
     26 Federal Plaza
     New York. NY  10278
                     Re: Preferred Plating Corporation OU 3 ID No. 1 52030

      Dear Mr. Pavlou:

            The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and New York
      State Department of Health have reviewed the draft revised Record of Decision for
      Operable Unit 3 of the Preferred Plating Corporation site  and concur with the No Action
      Plan.

            If you have any questions, please contact Kamal Gupta, of my staff, at
      (518) 457-3976.

                                                 Sincerely,
                                                 Ann DeBarpieri
                                                 Deputy Commissioner
       cc:    A. Carlson, NYSDOH

-------