United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-90/119
September 1990
&EPA
Superfund
Record of Decision
Mattiace Petrochemical, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-90/119
2.
4. Tin* «nd Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Mattiace Petrochemical, NY
First Remedial Action
7. Author(e)
8. Performing Organization Nam* and Addreea
12. Sponeoring Organization Name and Addraaa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3.
5.
Raciplenfe Acceaaion No.
Report Date
09/27/90
e.
8.
10
11.
(C)
(G)
13.
Performing Organization Rept No.
Project/Taak/Work Unit No.
Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary Nolee
16. Abetract (Umlt: 200 worda)
The 2-acre Mattiace Petrochemical site is an inactive liquid storage and redistribution
facility in Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York. Surrounding land use is primarily
industrial. The site overlies a system of three unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers,
which may be affected by onsite contamination. From the mid-1960s to 1986, organic
solvents were stored, blended, and repackaged onsite. Onsite features involved with
the operation included a metal Quonset hut, a concrete fire shed, a leaching pond, a
partially covered concrete loading dock, and 32 underground and 24 above ground storage
tanks. Drums were reconditioned onsite, and resulting water/solvent mixtures were
discharged to above-ground tanks or to an onsite leaching pond. A solvent water
separator was used to collect overflow from the above-ground tanks for discharge to the
leaching pond. There is evidence, however, that overflow from these tanks may have
been discharged directly into the soil. In 1988, EPA characterized and disposed of
100,000 gallons of hazardous liquids offsite from approximately 24 above- and 32
below-ground storage tanks. In 1989, a second investigation identified approximately
25 buried drums and numerous other containers that were leaking contaminated material
into the surrounding soil and ground water. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses
(See Attached Page)
NY
17. Document Analytic a. Deacrtptom
Record of Decision - Mattiace Petrochemical,
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, sludge, debris
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other
b. Mentifiera/open-End*d Term organics (phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
e. COSATI Reid/Group
18. AvailebWty Statement
18. Security Claaa (Thla Report)
None
20. Security Claaa (Thla Page)
None
21. No. of Page*
41
22. Price
(See ANS4-Z38.18)
See InitnjcHan* on Revere*
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-3S)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-90/119
Mattiace Petrochemical, NY
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
Operable Unit 2 (OU2) and includes removal of drummed sludges and highly contaminated
soil. A subsequent ROD will address all remaining sources of contamination including
ground water as OU1. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil, sludge,
and debris are VOCs including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics
including phenols; and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating all drums, containers,
and highly contaminated soil; consolidating the waste and overpacking drums as
necessary; containing contaminated soil, and transporting the material offsite for
treatment (possibly incineration) and disposal. The estimated present worth cost for
this remedial action is $322,300. There are no O&M costs associated with this
remedial action.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Not applicable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date)
NPL Rank (date):
ROD
Date Signed:
Capital Cost:
0 and M:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Remedial, EPA
Primary contact:
Secondary Contact:
WASTE
Type and media:
Origin:
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
Glen Cove, Broome County, N.Y.
II
30.63-31.94
Group 14 (proposed June, 1988)
September 27, 1990
Selected Remedy- Excavation of hazardous
materials (drums, other containers, and
contaminated soils) that are buried on-site,
bulking and overpacking, as necessary, and
off-site treatment and disposal at a
hazardous waste handling facility.
$355,000
$0
$355,000
Edward G. Als- (212) 264-0522
Douglas Garbarini- (212) 264-0109
Soil-*VOCs- Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and
xylene.
*Semi-VOCs- 2-Methylnapthalene, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
*Inorganics- Lead
Drum Sludaes-*VOCs- Toluene and 4-Methyl-2-
Pentanone
*Semi-VOCs-2-methylnapthalene, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
On-site burial of hazardous chemicals
apparently was practiced as part of
Mattiace's chemical-handling operation.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., INC.
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York
/
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Mattiace Petrochemical Co. , Inc. site, developed in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended by the Super fund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act and, to the extent applicable, the National
Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the administrative
record for this site. The attached index identifies the items that
comprise the administrative record.
The State of New York concurs on the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision (ROD) , may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
This ROD contains the remedy selected for the releases or threats
of release documented by the Mattiace second operable unit
investigation. The major components of the selected remedy
include: \
* Excavation of drums, containers, and contaminated soils from
area 1 (western boundary of Mattiace property) .
* Containerization of hazardous materials.
* Transportation offsite to a permitted hazardous waste
treatoent facilitv for treat^snt r.nd disposal.
The results of th«» Matt ' ft«~*» .??rst operable unit investigation,
which is presently ur;aer*ay <*na iii.ilves a comprehensive evaluation
of all site contamination, will be available early next year.
These results will include a proposed remedy to address any
contamination which has been found to threaten public health or the
environment.
-------
Decision Summary
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., INC.
GLEN COVE, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
DECLARATION
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. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable.
/Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff/ Date*
Regional Administrator /
/
-------
Hempstead Harbor and, to a lesser extent, Glen Cove Creek, with
no intervening public water supply wells. The groundwater
contamination is also thought to be restricted to the Upper
Glacial deposits above the Raritan Clay, which implies that
contaminated groundwater will discharge to surface water, i.e.
the Harbor or the Creek, and not travel beneath the Harbor or the
Creek.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Mattiace began operating in the mid-1960's, receiving chemicals
by tank truck and redistributing them to its customers. The
primary operations were the storing, blending, and repackaging of
organic solvents. These solvents were stored in above-ground and
below-ground tanks and they were blended and repackaged in 55
gallon drums under a covered section of the concrete loading dock
located in the northeast corner of the property. The 55 gallon
drums were stacked and temporarily stored on the loading dock
prior to shipment to various buyers.
The metal Quonset hut located in the western portion of the
property was used by the M and M drum cleaning operation to
clean, pressure test, and repaint drums. The M and M operation
and the Mattiace operation were both owned by Mattiace
Industries. The resulting aqueous/solvent mixture was collected
in a wetwell in the southeast external corner of the Quonset hut.
The liquids in this wetwell were periodically discharged to one
of the adjacent above-ground tanks or into a leaching pool on the
property.
An underground tank farm used for the storage of organic solvents
is located in the northeast corner of the property. Thirty two
underground and twenty four aboveground storage tanks exist
mainly on the northeastern section of the Mattiace property. The
underground tanks are interconnected by a spill prevention
system. Excess material from overfilled tanks drain through a
series of four concrete manholes and discharge into the
solvent/stormwater separator which is located in the southeast
corner of the property. This spill prevention system also acts
as a stormwater collection system. Stormwater from the lower
portion of the separator was intended to be drained by gravity
and then pumped into the northwest leach pools. However, there
is evidence that the liquids collected in the separator and
ponded in the southeast corner of the property were often pumped
through a hose down the Mattiace driveway while the facility was
operational.
In 1986, Mattiace filed for bankruptcy as a result of legal
problems resulting from its non-compliance with various
environmental regulations. At the request of the State of New
York, the Bankruptcy Court removed the protection of assets
normally extended ^o a reorganizing company in 1987 in order to
-------
ensure that Mattiace ceased operations. Meanwhile, in August
1986, a Grand Jury handed up a 21 count charge against the
company and three of its officers. In May 1988, a jury returned
felony charges against the company and its president. On July 8,
1988, an EPA letter was sent to William, Otto, and Louis Mattiace
which provided them with notification of their status as
potentially responsible parties at the Mattiace Site, as well as
the opportunity to remediate the Site through an EPA Consent
Order. No good faith offers were received by EPA in response to
this notification. In August, 1988, a lien was placed on the
Mattiace property by EPA.
To date, only one potentially responsible party, Mattiace
Petrochemical Co., has been identified.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan was developed for this Site by EPA
which designated the Glen Cove Public Library as public
information repository. All public information concerning the
Site, including the Site Administrative Record file, is presently
located at this repository.
The Proposed Plan for this second operable unit focused
feasibility study (FFS) was mailed to the Glen Cove Public
Library (as the Site information repository) and to a mailing
list, which included State and local officials and other
interested parties, on July 26, 1990. General notice of the
availability of the Proposed Plan was placed in Long Island
Newsday on August 3, 1990 and the Glen Cove Pilot Record on
August 9, 1990 (figures 3 and 4). An EPA press release was also
issued on August 3, 1990. A public meeting was held on August
14, 1990, to solicit public comment on the FFS and Proposed Plan.
The duration of the public comment period was 30 days and ended
on August 27, 1990.
The public meeting was attended by City and State officials, the
news media, and private citizenry. Concern over Site security,
the potential for groundwater contamination of potable water
supplies, and the timing of the proposed remedial action
were some of the issues which were raised at the meeting. These
concerns were addressed by EPA at the meeting, and in the case of
Site security, additional security measures have been
subsequently implemented at the Site i.e., upgraded locking
mechanism for the front gate, repaired vehicular access
restricting bar, posted Superfund hazardous waste site warning
sign, etc.
SCOPE AND ROLE OP OPERABLE UNIT
EPA initiated a removal action at the Site in February, 1988,
which included waste characterization and off-site disposal of
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 3
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 5
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 6
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.. 8
SELECTED REMEDY 11
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 12
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 13
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX 1 - TABLES
APPENDIX 2 - FIGURES
APPENDIX 3 - NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX 4 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
SITE NAME. LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
The Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. site (the "Site"), which
includes the 2.5 acre property owned by Mattiace Petrochemical
Co., Inc., is located on Garvey's Point Road in Glen Cove on Long
Island, New York (figure 1). LIMCO Manufacturing Corporation, a
precision sheet metal manufacturer, is located along the eastern
and southern border of the Mattiace property. Property formerly
owned by Edmos, a knitting, dying, and finishing textile fabric
manufacturer, borders the Mattiace property to the west. This
property is presently owned by twenty Garvey's Point Road
Developers and is occupied by Medallion Oil Co. and various other
tenants. Undeveloped property owned by the Glen Cove Development
Corporation is located to the north of the Mattiace property. A
residential area is located just north of this undeveloped area,
within one hundred yards of the Mattiace property.
The Mattiace site study area also contains the Garvey's Point
Preserve, the Glen Cove marina, residential areas, and other
industrial facilities in addition to those mentioned above.
Several of the industrial properties in the area are presently
being investigated or are potential candidates for investigation
under state and federal hazardous waste laws.
The Mattiace property (figure 2) is elevated above the
surrounding properties with the exception of the northern
bordering property. The structures on the Mattiace Site include a
metal Quonset type building, a concrete fire shed, and a concrete
loading dock partially covered by a slanted metal roof. An
underground tank farm used for the storage of organic solvents is
located in the northeast portion of the Site. Underground tanks
are also located beneath the concrete loading platforms and
adjacent to these platforms.
\
The regional geology in the Mattiace study area is generally
comprised of 3 unconsolidated sediments, namely, the Raritan
Formation/ the Magothy Formation and the Upper Glacial Formation.
The Mattiace Site is underlain by unconsolidated deposits of the
Upper Glacial and Magothy Formations, under which lays the
Raritan Clay, which is a minimum of 50 feet thick at the site.
The clay is of very uniform composition locally and is raised
along a southwest to northeast axis across the SiL<~.. • ...
localized groundwater divide beneath the Site. Groundwater south
of the divide flows toward Glen Cove Creek, and ground-;; :-
of the divide flows toward Hempstead Harbor.
Groundwater is a source of drinking water for an estimated 44,000
people in the area, although there is presently no indication
that any water supplies are contaminated or in danger of
contamination as a result of the Mattiace Site. This is because
grou/.dwatar contamination from the Mattiace Site moves toward
-------
approximately 100,000 gallons of hazardous materials from above-
ground and below-ground tanks. The removal action was completed
in June, 1988.
An EPA remedial investigation (RI) of the Site was commenced in
October, 1989. At the present time, all fieldwork has been
completed and a'comprehensive RI report will be released this
fall by EPA providing details as to the nature and extent of
contamination at the Mattiace site.
As part of the above-referenced RI, a geophysical survey was
performed to assess, among other things, the possibility that
hazardous substances were disposed of through burial on-site.
This survey indicated that several areas in and around the
Mattiace Site should be further investigated due to the
possibility of buried drums of hazardous substances. Therefore,
EPA initiated the second operable unit FFS in December, 1989 to
further define the findings of the geophysical investigation.
With the creation of the second operable unit at this Site, all
other elements of the Site investigation were designated as first
operable unit activities.
The second operable unit investigation's objectives consisted of
the identification of any buried drums which contained hazardous
waste, as well as the identification of significantly
contaminated soils (as evidenced by staining and/or instrument
readings); the sampling of drums, if possible, and contaminated
soils; and the cataloging of the location and depth of drums and
contaminated soils.
The investigation consisted of test trenches and test pits
excavated at three locations-one large location along the
Mattiace facility's northwest property boundary (area 1), and two
smaller locations on the neighboring LIMCO property (areas 2 and
3).
Six test trenches were excavated in area 1, followed by 4 test
pits in this same area. Three test pits were excavated in areas
2 and 3. An additional (unplanned) test pit was also excavated
in a suspicious mounded area just east of the Mattiace fence
line, in an unlabelled area. See figure 5 for test trench and
test pit locations. Test trenches were approximately five feet
deep, while test pits were approximately two feet deep.
SUMMARY Of SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Approximately 25 drums and numerous brake fluid containers were
identified as a result of this investigation. The drums and
containers of hazardous substances were all found buried along
the Mattiace facility's northwest boundary, designated as area 1.
A few drums were found in «-*e V'MCO property test pits, but they
-------
were empty and field screening activities indicated that they
were surrounded by uncontaminated soils. Samples of stained soil
and drummed liquids identified at the Mattiace property were
secured and analysed. Drummed sludges were found to contain
large concentrations of volatile organic compounds such as
toluene (approx. 220,000 parts per million, or ppm) and 4-methyl-
2-pentanone (approx. 160,000 parts per million) as well as lesser
concentrations of a variety of semi-volatile compounds.
Contaminated soil samples contained high concentrations of
toluene (approx. 35,000 ppm), ethylbenzene (approx. 1600 ppm),
total xylene (approx. 7,300 ppm) and lead (approx. 4,280 ppm).
Detailed results are provided in table 1.
After documentation of the number and location of drums and
containers and the extent of stained soils was completed, the
test trenches and pits were backfilled by EPA in the interest of
public safety.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
The fieldwork that was conducted for this investigation has
documented at least 25 drums and numerous brake fluid containers
buried on the northwest boundary of the Mattiace property. Most
of the drums and containers had leaked their contents into the
surrounding soils. Instrumentation used by field personnel to
evaluate the nature of the drums' contents suggested that the
leaking substances were volatile and organic in nature.
Localized explosive atmospheres were also documented in and
around several of the drums through the use of an explosimeter.
The results of laboratory analyses confirmed that the leaking
wastes are highly concentrated and are hazardous substances.
Based on the groundwater investigation being conducted as part of
the overall Site investigation, EPA concludes that the leakage
from these drums, containers, and stained soils is substantially
contaminating the water table beneath the Site. This
contaminated groundwater poses an immediate threat to both the
ecology of Hempstead Harbor and Glen Cove Creek. Also, certain
present and future public health exposure scenarios, such as
migration of subsurface vapors to human receptors (particularly
within nearby buildings), future downgradient well installations,
and excavation and development of the Mattiace property for
possible residential or commercial use, could result in health
/iciks to the exposed population. Therefore, both a potential
explosion hazard (although presently mitigated by a soil cover)
=>"-* a chemical hazard to public health and the environment have
been documented during this investigation.
This qualitative analysis of risks was appropriate for this
operable unit due to its limited scope, and it enabled EPA to
determine that actual or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from this site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action seleci-ad i.i cuis RO., iuay present an imminent and
-------
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
The overall quantitative risks to public health and the
environment from the Site will be evaluated in detail as part of
the comprehensive Site RI report which EPA will issue early next
year.
The FFS, in which remedial alternatives are developed, screened,
and then carefully evaluated in detail, forms the basis for the
selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OP ALTERNATIVES
The FFS alternatives developed for this second operable unit are
based on the following remedial response objectives:
1) eliminate the threat of fire or explosion associated with
the buried hazardous drums and containers; and
2) ensure protection of public health and the environment by
eliminating a concentrated and toxic source of groundwater
contamination.
A "no action" alternative was evaluated in the FFS, as required
by regulation, in order to develop a baseline evaluation of risk
as well as to provide an appropriate alternative in the event
that no contravention of standards nor significant health or
environmental risks were identified as a result of the drums and
containers being buried at the Site.
The alternatives presented below are those which were evaluated
in detail following the preliminary screening of alternatives.
The preliminary screening step typically removes alternatives
from further consideration based on the general criteria of
effectiveness, implementability, and cost. Screened out
alternatives included construction of a slurry wall/cap, because
it would not provide a permanent remedy, its effectiveness
against high concentrations of volatile organic compounds,in
particular, is questionable, and it would not allow for future
development of the site; and excavation and on-site incineration.
since it was not considered economically feasible for the
relatively binall volume of hazardous substances that would
require treatment.
The remaining alternatives which are listed and described below,
have retained their pre-screening alphanumerical designations in
order to correspond with the descriptions of alternatives
contained in the FFS report.
Provided below is a description, including cost and schedule
information, for each alternative that was evaluated in detail.
-------
The present worth costs are estimates which take into account
both the capital cost and the operation and maintenance ("O and
M") costs for 30 years.
Alternative 1
No Action •
Cost: $0
Present Worth Cost: $0
Time To Implement: Immediate
This alternative is required by regulation to provide both a
baseline evaluation of site risk and an appropriate alternative
in the event that risks are found to be acceptable and there is
no contravention of applicable or relevant and appropriate
standards.
The no action alternative would involve leaving the drums,
containers, and highly contaminated soils in the ground along the
northwest border of the Mattiace property. The time to implement
this alternative is considered immediate.
Alternative 4
Excavation. Bulking/
Overpacking. and Off-site Disposal
Cost: $355,000
Present Worth Cost: $355,000
Time To Implement: Within 1 Year
Alternative 4 would involve excavation along the northwest
boundary of the Mattiace property in the area where the drums'
and containers' locations have been recorded as a result of the
test trenches and test pits that were dug as part of the second
operable unit investigation. The excavation would involve
removal of all drums, containers, and highly contaminated soils.
The excavation of the area would be comprehensive in order to
ensure that all buried drums and containers were located and
removed. Any residual soil contamination would be dealt with, as
necessary, during the first operable unit remediation.
Once'removed, ta«s drums, containers, and soils would be prepared
for shipment off-site through bulking and/or overpacking as
necec-u-L.,. TJve ^.-..wMvated materials would then be transported to
an off-site permitted hazardous waste treatment and disposal
facility. EPfc estimates that approximately 50 drums of hazardous
wastes and highly contaminated soils, as well as an indefinite
number of brake fluid containers, would be prepared for
transportation to the off-site treatment and disposal facility.
-------
8
Alternative 4 would include contractor mobilization, excavation
and additional sampling, waste bulking and containerization, and
removal of the materials off-site. EPA estimates that
Alternative 4 could be implemented within one year.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The selected remedy for the Site is the excavation of buried
drums and containers, excavation of highly contaminated
surrounding soils, bulking and/or overpacking of the excavated
materials, and shipment of the bulked and/or overpacked materials
to a permitted off-site treatment and disposal facility. Based
on current information, this alternative provides the best
balance among the nine criteria that EPA uses as a means of
evaluating remedial actions.
This section provides a glossary of the nine criteria and an
analysis, with respect to these criteria, of the alternatives
under consideration for remediation of the Site.
Glossary of Evaluation Criteria
o Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks are eliminated, reduced or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
controls.
o Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy will
meet all of the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver
of ARARs.
o Short-term effectiveness involves the period of time needed to
achieve protection against any adverse impacts on human health
and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period of the alternative.
o Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of
a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time once cleanup goals have been met. It also
addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that
may be re-quired to i..«uaga tue risks posed by treatment residuals
and/or untreated wastes.
o Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume refers to the
anticipated performance of the treatment technologies with
respect to these parameters.
o Implementabilitv involves the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement the chosen solution.
-------
o Cost involves both capital and 0 and M costs. Cost comparisons
are made on the basis of present worth values, which have both
capital and 0 and M cos~s factored in.
o State acceptance indicates whether the State concurs with,
opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
o Community acceptance indicates whether the community concurs
with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
Analysis
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1, which is no action, would result in the buried
drums, containers and highly contaminated soils continuing to act
as a source of hazardous wastes, further contaminating the
surrounding soils and eventually the groundwater beneath the
Site, which is already contaminated as a result of general soil
contamination at the Site. EPA estimates that the groundwater
contamination from this source would be substantial in terms of
both concentration and loading. The contaminated groundwater
would then most likely discharge into both Glen Cove Creek and
Hempstead Harbor, both of which are short distances away. Also,
by leaving the drums buried at the site, a significant risk of
fire and/or explosion and chemical toxicity could threaten public
health under potential future land use scenarios.
Alternative 4, in which the drums, containers, and highly
contaminated soils are excavated, treated and disposed of off-
site, would result in the complete removal of the drummed
hazardous substances. Although some risks would be posed to Site
workers during excavation and hazardous waste handling, these
risks could be easily mitigated through implementation of
appropriate health and safety precautions.
o Compliance With ARARs
Alternative 4 would de designed and implemented to comply with
all action-specific ARARs since the source of the contamination
would be removed and the threat to human health and the
environment from this particular source would be eliminated.
There are no applicable Federal or State regulations that can be
utilized to specify iic-rrvicai ARAT;s, or cleanup levels, for
contaminants in soils at the site. The transportation to and
treatment of wastes at an off-site facility would be accomplished
in accordance with State and Federal hazardous waste management
requirements. The off-site facility would be fully RCRA
permitted and, therefore, would meet applicable regulations. The
overpacked drums and highly contaminated soils would be treated
using specific technologies or specific treatment levels, as
-------
10
appropriate. Land disposal restrictions are not considered ARARs
for the implementation of either alternative 1 or alternative 4.
ARARs pertinent to air quality standards would not be contravened
by implementing Alternative 4.
Alternative 1 i*s anticipated to lead to contravention of New York
State groundwater quality standards, as well as possible
contravention of State surface water standards in Glen Cove Creek
and Hempstead Harbor.
o Short Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1, which involves leaving the drums, containers, and
associated contaminated soils buried on-site, would provide no
short term effectiveness. It would take no time to implement and
would pose no short-term risks due to its implementation since no
actions would be undertaken.
Alternative 4 would be implemented within 1 year and would
effectively attain the remedial response objectives after that
period of time. Alternative 4 may also have short-term impacts
associated with the excavation and on-site handling of hazardous
substances. These impacts could be mitigated through the use of
proper construction techniques, as well as the implementation of
an appropriate health and safety plan. Transportation of the
properly containerized hazardous materials is expected to pose a
negligible risk to public safety.
o Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 would result in the long term deterioration of the
Upper Glacial Aquifer in the vicinity of the Site. There may also
be significant deterioration of surface water quality in Glen
Cove Creexkxand Hempstead Harbor. The potential public health
risks associated with certain future land use scenarios would
continue indefinitely under this alternative.
Alternative 4 would provide both long-term effectiveness and
permanence by removing the drummed hazardous substances and
surrounding highly contaminated soils from the Site, thereby
eliminating the potential threat of fire and explosion and the
chemical toxicity threat to h"!p.ar. hsslth ai'irf the environment by
way of the various exposure parnways discussed under SUMMARY OF
SITE RISKS. Any residual soil cent.;*™*nation would be dealt with,
as necessary, during the first operable unit remediation.
o Reduction of Toxicitv. Mobility, or Volume
Alternative 1 would not affect the toxicity, mobility, or volume
of the hazardous drummed substances and highly contaminated
soils.
-------
11
Alternative 4 would virtually eliminate the toxicity and
mobility of the hazardous drummed substances and highly
contaminated soils, and it would also significantly reduce the
volume of the wastes by treatment, thereby eliminating a
principal threat of contamination at the site.
o Impleroentabilitv
Both alternatives are considered easily implementable, although
the no action alternaitve would obviously require no materials,
equipment or labor.
o Cost
Alternative 1, no action, has no cost associated with design or
construction.
Alternative 4 has no cost associated with design. Construction
(excavation, on-site waste handling, and off-site transportation
/treatment /disposal) is estimated to cost $355,000. See table 2
for detailed costs associated with Alternative 4.
o State and Community Acceptance
The Proposed Plan (Alternative 4), which was released on July 26,
1990, was acceptable to the NYSDEC and the community as a whole,
since it recommends early action to address a source of highly
concentrated hazardous substances and would eliminate the
associated threat to human health and the environment.
8ELECTED REMEDY
EPA believes that Alternative 4 represents the best balance among
the evaluation criteria used to evaluate remedies. Cost
estimates associated with the selected remedy are:
Capital Cost: $355,000
Present Worth Cost: $355,000
Specifically, the selected remedy will involve the following
actions:
Based on the documentation of drum locations provided in the FFS,
an appropriate excavation technique will be employed to unearth
all drums and other containers in area i and ts^^w^s^ j.^.y =>cage
excavated materials on an impermeable pad which contains berming
to prevent runoff. Soils judged to be highly contaminated by EPA
will also be removed and similarly staged.
After all highly contaminated soils are excavated, an appropriate
geophysical method will then be employed to confirm that all
-------
12
metal in area 1 has either been accounted for or removed.
Similarly, soil samples will be taken from the excavated area
following drum and contaminated soil removal prior to refilling
the excavated area. Clean fill will then be used as necessary to
refill the excavation. EPA presently estimates that a minimum of
fifty (50) drums of hazardous liquids, sludges, and contaminated
soils will be generated as a result of this remedy.
Soil samples will also be collected at test pits TP-05 through
TP-08 through the use of hand augering or an equivalent
technique, in order to supplement previous inconclusive sampling
and to confirm the field investigation conclusion that no
hazardous substances are present at these locations.
Excavated hazardous substances from area 1 will then be sampled
and subsequently evaluated for the possible bulking of compatible
substances, followed by containerization of bulked wastes and
over-packing of drums as needed. The properly containerized
materials will then be transported off-site to an EPA-approved
hazardous waste facility for treatment and disposal. For the
purpose of estimating the cost of the selected remedy, off-site
incineration was chosen as an appropriate treatment alternative.
The actual treatment technology to be employed will be selected
by the off-site treatment and disposal facility, based on
evaluation of the type of hazardous substances and the applicable
disposal standards.
The transportation of the hazardous substances will be in
accordance with all federal and state hazardous waste
transportation requirements.
Further characterization of the unsaturated zone soils at the
Site, including an evaluation of possible remedial alternatives,
will be performed as part of the ongoing first operable unit
RI/FS. Also, post remedial monitoring of the Site, including the
drum burial area addressed in the second operable unit, will be
addressed as part of the comprehensive Site remedy to be proposed
by EPA at the conclusion of the first operable unit FS, which is
presently scheduled for February, 1990.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary resnonsibiljtv at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actic;..;_ ii-i^L u-.iij.cve
protection of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other -^--ww^
requirements and preferences. These specify that, when complete,
the selected remedial action for a site must comply with
applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards
established under Federal and State environmental laws unless a
statutory waiver is justified. A selected remedy also must be
cost effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
-------
13
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a
preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous wastes as their principal element.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy, in which the drums, containers, and highly
contaminated soils are excavated, treated and disposed of off-
site, will result in the complete removal of the drummed
hazardous substances. Although some risks may be posed to Site
workers during excavation and hazardous waste handling, these
risks could be easily mitigated through implementation of
appropriate health and safety precautions.
Compliance With Applicable or Appropriate and Relevant Standards
The selected remedy is expected to comply with all applicable or
relevant and appropriate state and federal requirements. All EPA
and U.S. Department of Transportation regulations governing the
off-site transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes will be
observed. Federal OSHA standards will also be complied with
during construction.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective because it has been
determined to provide overall effectiveness proportional to its
costs (present worth= $355,000).
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies (or Resource Recovery Technologies) to the Maximum
Extent Practicable and Preference for Treatment as a Principal
Element \ N
\
The excavation and off-site treatment and disposal of the
contaminants at an approved RCRA facility satisfies the statutory
preference of CERCLA for utilizing permanent solutions and •
alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. The selected remedy will also permanently and
significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
hazardous substances in the soils at the Site, therebv
eliminating a principal threat of contamination at the i*ce.
DOCUMENTATION OP SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Site was released to the public in July
1990. The Proposed Plan identified Alternative 4 as the
preferred alternative to remediate the source of contamination.
EPA reviewed all comments submitted during the public comment
rt. Upon review of these comments, it was determined that no
-------
14
significant changes to the selected remedy, as it was originally
identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
-------
APPENDIX 1
-------
AREA
TT-1
TT-2
TT-3
TT-4
TT-5
TT-6
TP-01
TP-02
TP-03
TP-04
TP-05
TP-Q6
TP-07
TP-08
Total
Note:
TABLE 1
BURIED DRUM/CONTAINER LOCATIONS
NUMBER OF DRUMS/CONTAINERS
0
0
7 55-gal drums
10-20 quart containers
1 55-gal. drum
4 55-gal. drums
0
0
4 55-gal. drums
10 55-gal. drums
1 55-gal. drum
approx. 20 quart containers
0
0
0
0
0
0
55-gal. drums
30-40 quart containers
CONDITION
not applicable (NA)
NA
crushed
crushed
intact, containing
liquid
crushed
NA
NA
buried, unknown
crushed
intact, containing
liquid
crushed
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) It is estimated that approximately 50 55-gallon drums are buried on the
Mattiace site. This estimate was used 1n the costing procedures.
ENG/LH796-rpt
-------
NOTIACE PCTraeacAi OPERABLE WIT no
gyre OF TEST PIT *o rcnoi
Organic Traffic
Report Rater:
IT Saiple 10 No.
Acetone
Trlchloroethene
1.2-Otdiloroethene
(total)
4-K!thy1-2-J>entanone
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
Berosne
Ethyibenzene
Chlorofom
Xykie (total)
CnlU^ujtiUAM
/fV
BC£-«9<2)
rPtW-osoi
(dn* sludge)
11.000
ro
ro
380
60.000
ro
ro
80
ro
ISO
M)
BCE-70-11(2)
(Solid)
H»-TP02-OS01
(dnm sludge)
9.000
ro
ro
68.000
89.000
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
KE-70-12'2)
(Mater hurts
dole 1 Iqpld)
MMP02-OS01
(dnn slulge)
ro
ro
ro
160.000
220.000
ro
ro
ro
ro
10
ro
BCE-7l(2>
rp-TPOi-ssoi
(soil)
ro
3.600
J4/1
T«J
870J
35.000
jm
O&t
ifin
|UU
1.600
Ml
nf
7.300
ro
\n/rr
BCE-72<2)
MMW^SSOl
(soil)
200
73
V\
N)
ro
1.100
u\
NI
u\
NI
7A
/O
m
NI
400
ro
LEttUWCMM
BCE-73(2>
rf-TP02-SS02
(soil)
ro
750
80
ro
10.000
ISO
ro
*w\
200
ro
850
ro
[BIsTir
BCE-74(3>
rf-lTO7-SS01
(soil)
81UJ
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
U
R
R
na-75<3)
rP-TPOS-SSOl
(soil)
30UJ
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
6UJ
1 *kt
„. nu-77»*'
nCE-76l3' M>-SPOI-SS01
rf-TTOS-S^ (Stodtpdal
( /,-;•>
69UJ
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
U
R
R
Vion;
W)
N)
ro
M)
16
3.4
N)
7
Ml
41
ro
Matt:
(1) All anpaunds are reported In «gAg (ppn)
(2) Sanples collected on the Mitt lace property
(3) Soples collected on the Ltaco property
J - Estimated value
R - data has been rejected die to exceeded sanple holding times
U - Belot the detection limit
M) - Non-detect
O
O
w
O
13-rpt2
-------
MCTTMCE PTfflOOfMICN. OPOUDLE UNIT DO
' OF TEST PIT MO 1WJOI
SEM-VrjLATTL£ ORGANIC MHVSIS(l)
Organic Traffic
Report NUiter:
TTSaiple ID No.
Phenol
Isopnorone
Nanhthalene
OtethylpMhalate
Ol-n-butylphthalatt
2-Methylnaphthalene
hi *.i ?«4>t hwllMvwl t
UldlC^Sllyf IIIBJWI j
phtnalate
N-flltrosodlphenyl-
BT£-W*)
HI-1IIH-I)S)1
(dnii Sludge)
Ml
to
101
I4J
7501
to
17.000)
M)
BCE-70-llW
(Solid)
W-THK-OS)!
(drui sludge)
SJ
82
lil
to
to
to
to
6J
BCE-TO-l?'2'
(water tmls
clblellvild)
M'-lnC-OSOl M
(drun sludge)
M)
100
18J
to
to
&J
to
8J
«t-n(V
(soil)
to
130
5SJ
to
360
30J
to
to
BCE-72<2)
(soil)
to
iaj
15J
to
ND
N)
32
N)
,^L
(soil)
N)
90)
39J
N)
1.200
to
38J
K)
BCE-74<3)
H>-TP07-SS01
(soli)
R
R
R
R
R
R
930UJ
R
j^g
(soil)
R
R
R
H
R
R
I.90QBJ
R
0^76(3!
(soil)
R
R
R
R
R
R
3.6001)
R
! «.!#£,
(stockpiled)
M)
21
12.)
M)
20
0)
570J
M)
O
O
M
O
!1) All conpcunds are reported In ngAg (ppm)
2' Swples collected on the Hattlace property
(3; jaiples collected on the Ltaco property
W) - Non-detect
R - Data has been rejected dje to exceeded sanple holding times.
J - Estinted value
U - Below the detect Ion IMt
B - Compound detected In the method blank
Pesticide and PCB analyses of each sanple revealed no conpounds above the detection limit.
ENGAJB13-rpt2
I I1I - I I" /
-------
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL OPERABLE UNIT TWO
SUMMARY OF TEST PIT AND TRENCH
INORGANIC ANALYSIS*1*
Inorganic traffic
Report Number;
IT Sample ID No.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
MBBA-5l(2) MBBA-S2(2) MBBA-S3*2) MBBA-SS*2) MBBA-56^2^ MBBA-58^3^
MP-TT02-DS01 MP-TP02-DS01 MP-TP01-SS01 MP-TP02-SS01 MP-TP02-SS02 MP-TP07-SS01
(sludge) (sludge) (soil) (soil) (soil) (soil)
MBBA
-59(3)
8.490
10.90UJ
3.40J
111
.24
1.90
2.370
R
4.00
1.870
19.000
4.280
2.750
111
2.70
10.20J
1.070
.24
1.20
95.30
.24
19.40J
350
3.00
6,870
9.4UJ
1.9B
65.3
.21
.621)
4.64
R
2.10
1,450
14,100
1.320
1.050
95.4
.15
7.40
646
.21U
l.OOU
62.60
.21U
14.60J
479
6.20
7,670
9.9UJ
2.3J
42.5
.43
2.40
2.740
R
4.30
70.60
26,400
89.40
1,820
199
0.18
15.80J
1,010
.22U
1.10U
116
.22U
20.30J
69.10
0.90
10,300
10.20UJ
4.10J
35.60
.22
.66U
1,290
R
2.20U
9.50
15.900
14.40
1.570
108
0.10U
9.9J
768
.22U
1.10U
83.30
.221)
21.20J
21.60
0.56U
10,900
10.40UJ
3.40J
52.90
.45
.90
3.780J
R
4.3
22.10
15.000
56.80
1,960
216
.13
16.70J
1,070
.22U
1.10U
103
.22U
22.10J
220
0.56U
o
•z
^-H
O H
"§
^-4
W
a
rnr./iiion.r|,r/i
-------
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL OPERABLE UNIT TWO
SUMMARY OF TEST PIT AND TRENCH
INORGANIC ANALYSIS*^
Inorganic Traffic
Report Number;
IT Sample ID No.:
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
Note:
* Data has not yet been received
(i) All compounds are reported 1n mg/kg (ppm).
(2) Sample collected on the Mattlace property.
O) Sample collected on the Llmco property.
L - Uruer the detection limit.
J - Esulamted value.
TV - Do;a Is rejected.
rNG/llini3-rpt/2
2 of 2
MBBA-54
MBBA-57
MBBA-62
MBBA-63
MPVTP55-SS02
(soW
8.690
.0.20UJ
260
44.70
.44
1.30
13.800
R
5.10
24
14,200
51.20
2.890
238
.13
13.30J
818
.21
1.10U
48.30U
.24
19.80J
207
0.55U
MP-SP01-SS01
(soil)
3.430
9.50UJ
2.60J
22.70
.41
.62
62.500
R
2.10U
31.80
10.800
57.40
35.800
125
.20
4.3
428
.29
l.OOU
77.70
.21U
9.50
29.50
1.70
MP-FB01-AQ01
(blank)
46U
46UJ
1U
8
1U
3D
93U
5U
1011
4U
11
2.4
120U
1
.20U
17UJ
581
1U
5U
289
1U
7U
7
5U
MP-FB02-AQ02
(blank)
46U
46U
1U
2U
1U
3U
93U
5U
10U
4U
10U
2.2
120U
1U
.20U
17UJ
181
1U
5U
21 7U
1U
7U
5U
5U
MP-FB03-AQ03 MP-WBAQ-AQ01
(blank)
46U
46UJ
1U
17
1U
3U
104
5
10U
4U
10U
2U
120U
1
.20U
17UJ
803
1U
5U
424
1U
7U
9
5U
(blank)
46U
'46UJ
1U
2
1U
3U
93U
5U
10U
4U
51
2U
120U
1
.20U
17UJ
402
1U
5U
973
1U
7U
6
5U
o
o
Q_
M
O
-------
TABLE 2
COST ANALYSIS
Alt. 4 Excavation and Bulking/Overpacking of Drums and
Off-site Disposal^1)
a) Mobilization $ 12,500
b) Labor (to include: Program Director, Project Manager,
Foreman, 3 Laborers, Field Chemist, Operator and
Health and Safety Supervisor)
Program Director: (40 hrs) x ($135/hr) = $ 5,400
Project Manager: (80 hrs) x (S90/hr) = 7,200
Foreman: (160 hrs) x ($76/hr) = 12,160
Laborers (3): (160 hrs) x (S55/hr) = 26,400
Field Chemist: (160 hrs) x (S69/hr) = 11,040
Operator: (160 hrs) x ($55/hr) = 8,800
Health & Safety: (160 hrs) x ($76/hr) = 12,160
$ 83,200
c) Demobilization $ 7,500
d) Travel and Per Diem $ 12,000
e) Equipment (to include: backhoe, bobcat,
generator, pick-up truck, power washer,
emergency lighting, drum grappler,
bulking chamber, etc.) $ 30,000
f) Material (to include: fuel, compressed air,
overpack drums, water, sample jars, etc.) $ 10,000
g) Transportation: (50 overpacked drums) $ 4,500
v \
h) Disposal
50 drums @ $750/drum $ 38,000
1) Analytical ...
50 samples for disposal analysis^' $ 82,500
Subtotal $280,200
15% Contingency $ 42.100
Total $322,300(3>
Note:
(1) For cost estimating purposes a worst case scenario of overpacking each
drum (assuming 50) was used for a conservative estimate. Additional drums
would be costed out at $3,500 per drum.
(2) Includes HazCat, BTU, % solid, % moisture, ash content and full TCLP
analysis (assuming sludge)
(3) No engineer's fees are included 1n estimate; assume direct Implementation.
ENG/LH796-rpt2
-------
APPENDIX 2
-------
FIGURE 1
GARV1ES POINT PRESERVE
•NOT TO SCALE'
SOURCE: GLEN COVE CHAMBER OP COMMERCE
*|« 1984 IT CORPORATION
"1 ALL COPYRIGHTS RESERVED
U.3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
MATTIACE SITE
FIGURE 1-2
SITE LOCATION MAP
DTTTRNATIONAL TICHNOCOGT CORP
-------
FIGURE 2
•USPeCTED
SUSPECTED
BURIED
DRUMS
SUSPECTED
Bunco
OURMS
LfttND:
B0
'...I
5
l"t
uisrwa MONTTOA
TANK
POOLS
-------
FIGURE 3
Long Island. NY 11747
DECLARATION OF NEWSDAY CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS
I, Elizabeth Whisnant , the undersigned, say.:
1. I am a duly authorized custodian of records of Newsday,
Inc., the publisher of Newsday and New York Newsday.
2. I have the authority to certify copies of those records.
3. The copy transmitted herewith and attached hereto is a true
and correct copy of an article published in Newsday on August 3,
1990.
I 4. This article was prepared by personnel of Newsday, Inc. in
; the ordinary course of business at or near the time of the act,
j condition, or event described therein.
i
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and
correct and that this declaratin has been executed on this 7th day
of September, 1990 at Melville, New York.
>xc
li
Elizabeth Whisnant
Library Manager
Newsday, Inc.
Sworn to before me this 7th
day of September 1990.
tl/cw
tary1 P
Notary Public
MARILYN BOLGER
NOTARY PUBLIC. State of New Yoik
No. 4?57009
Commission Expires April 28.19I1?
A Times Mirror
Newspaper
-------
FIGURE 4
Affidavit of Publication
County of Nassau
State of New York,
SS
} Mattice Clean-Up
The EBASCO and EPA meeting on the
•progress being'done'at'the Mattice"
cleanup has been scheduled for August 14,
1990, at 7:3o~p.m. and the Glen Cove City'
Council Chambers."All are invited.
Valerie de Roche' , being duly sworn, deposes
and says that she is the principal Clerk of the Publisher of
The Glen Cove Record Pilot
a weekly newspaper published at Mineola
in the county of Nassau, in the State of New York, and that a
notice, a printed copy of which is hereunto annexed, has been
published in said newspapers once in each week for
Une weeks, viz:
August 9,1990
Sworn to me this
of August
9th
.day
19_2Q_
Notary Public
ELIZABETH BOECKE
Notary Public. State of New York
No. 30-4505506
Qualified in Nassau County
Commission E*pires Jan. 31. 1992
-------
FIGURE 5
LOCATION OF BURIED DRUMS
TEST TRENCH
MATTIACE PROPERTY
CONCRETE PAD
OPEN-SIDED
BUILDING
CONCRETE
PLATFORM
LEGEND;
LIMCO PROPERTY-
TP-08
TP-06
TP-07
LIMCO 8UILDING
40"
TEST TRENCH (TT-1)
TEST PIT AREAS
fTP-01)
-------
APPENDIX 3
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 -7010
Thomas C. Jortlng
Commissioner
Mr. Richard L. Caspe, P.E.
Director • ^...- " 1 : .'- ,'
Emergency & Remedial Response Division "•-••
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Mr. Caspe:
Re: Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc., Site ID. No. 130017
Glen Cove, Nassau Co., New York
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has
reviewed the draft operable unit two Declaration for the Record of
Decision (ROD) for the above-referenced site. The NYSDEC concurs with
the selected remedy which includes the excavation, bulking/overpacking.
and off-site disposal of drums, containers and contaminated soils.
We would, however, like to include an additional component to the
proposed ROD. This would involve the resampling of the TP-05 through
TP-08 areas. The NYSDEC feels this is necessary because the samples
taken at these areas during the operable unit two investigation were all
rejected. We would also accept this additional task being performed as
part of the operable unit one site-wide remedy.
If youxhave any questions, please contact Mr. James Bologna, of my
staff, at (518) 457-3976.
Sincerely,
Edward 0. Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
-------
APPENDIX 4
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., INC.
GLEN COVE, NASSAU COUNTY, N.Y.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scheduled a public
comment period from July 27, 1990 through August 27, 1990 for
interested parties to comment on EPA's final Focused Feasibility
Study (FFS) and Proposed Plan for the second operable unit at the
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. site. EPA held a public meeting
on August 14, 1990 at the Glen Cove City Hall, located on Bridge
Street, Glen Cove, N.Y. to describe the remedial alternatives and
present EPA's Proposed Plan for addressing the second operable
unit objectives at the site.
A transcript of the meeting is part of the Administrative Record
for the site and documents those questions addressed at the
public meeting. Other comments received during the comment
period, as well as those comments made during the public meeting,
are summarized and responded to in the responsiveness summary.
All comments were considered prior to the selection of the remedy
for the Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. site.
Comment: What are the soil clean up levels for removal of
stained soils from the buried drum area?
Response: , The selected remedy calls for the removal of highly
contaminated soils. The judgment of EPA's On Scene Coordinator,
who will oversee implementation of the selected remedy, will
determine which soils qualify as highly contaminated. EPA
believes this approach to the drum and contaminated soil removal
can be used since the soil/drum removal will be followed by
sampling of soil remaining at the excavation. The results of
these samples will allow EPA to determine whether the area is no
longer a contamination threat, or if additional remediation of
th.TK area will be r.^oded as part of the first operable unit
remedy. This determination will be made as part of the first
operable unit risk assessment. The purpose of the second
operable unit is to quickly remove a concentrated source of
hazardous contamination now known to exist on the Mattiace
property as a result of the recently completed second operable
unit investigation.
Comment: What administrative steps are required prior to
implementation of the selected remedy?
Response: Project funding must be procured, and a Superfund
-------
State Contract must be signed with New York State prior to
mobilization to the site to implement the selected remedy. The
Contract is the administrative action which requires more time to
process, and usually takes four to six weeks for final execution.
The Contract will begin circulation at the time of the signature
of this Record of Decision.
Comment: What criteria was used to determine the depths to which
drums were searched for?
Response: The depth to which various geophysical instrumentation
can operate depends on the geophysical technology, as well as the
physical conditions at the site. Given the Mattiace site
conditions, electromagnetic pulses could penetrate further than
the ground penetrating radar pulses. Both methods were used for
detecting subsurface anomalies theoretically as deep as the water
table in this area (approx. 24 feet) although, generally
speaking, the more shallow the burial, the more likely the
detection.
Comment: What is the actual size of the site? Two and one half
acres, as indicated in the FFS, is not correct.
Response: Based on measurements taken from the site maps
incorporated into the FFS, the Mattiace property is approximately
two and one half acres.
Comment: When will the site be sufficiently cleaned to allow for
development, and what type of development?
Response: It is expected that the site will be sufficiently
cleaned to permit development at the completion of the first
operable unit. Since a first operable unit remedy has not yet
been selected, no specific estimate for comprehensive site clean-
up is nowxavailable. Moreover, the first operable unit proposed
plan, and eventually the selected remedy (including the
possibility of no action), will address such issues as time to
implement the remedy and possible long term response actions.
The first operable unit proposed plan is expected to be released
early in 1991.
Development of the site will be possible once the long-term risks
associated *?*•*; i. ' - _l,Yt have been mitigated, if
necessary, to acceptable levels. The assessment of these long-
term risks is presently, feeing performed as part of the first
operable unit risk assessment. The type of development that will
ultimately take place will be based on local zoning regulation.
Comment: Is there any way of historically ascertaining if or how
much hazardous waste vas dumped in Glen Cove Creek?
Response: The purpose of the first operable -.—.it remedial
-------
investigation is to determine the present water and sediment
quality in that portion of the Creek which theoretically may have
been impacted by either overland runoff from Mattiace, or the
Mattiace storm drainage system which empties into the Creek.
There are historical accounts from the Nassau County Department
of Health in this regard which have helped EPA in structuring
this part of the investigation.
Comment: Were existing wells tested, as well as wells installed
for this site?
Response: Results from existing wells are being evaluated as
well as the results from wells installed especially for this site
by EPA, as part of the first operable unit remedial
investigation.
Comment: Is there any danger to potable water supplies in the
area?
Response: Based on EPA's present knowledge of the site, there is
no indication that any of the contaminants related to this site
are either threatening or have impacted any existing potable
water supplies. Both the direction of groundwater flow and the
subsurface geology in the vicinity of the site would prevent site
contamination from reaching the potable water wells presently
used by the City of Glen Cove.
Comment: Could neighboring properties be affected by the spread
of contamination?
Response: The exposure pathways involving site contamination
will be fully assessed as part of the first operable unit public
health and environmental risk assessment. At the present time,
however, EPA feels that none of the neighboring properties are in
danger of exposure to acutely dangerous levels of hazardous
substances.
Comment: Is the Mattiace property itself dangerous? Who is
responsible for site security?
Response: EPA has directly maintained restricted access at the
Mattiace site since initiation of site activities in 1988. Based
on an initial health asseo .•••.•snL :'.-.•... '.'-•. purpose of developing a
worker Health and Safety Plan, EPA believes that other than
intrusive activities *».£?., drilling, ^xrsvation etc., general
activities could be conducted at the Mattiace site in the lowest
level of hazardous waste protection, which approximates street
clothing. However, because EPA cannot control the type of
activity that the general public might engage in on this
property, and because there may be other acute hazards of a
mechanical nature, EPA believes restricted site access is
prudent. Because of the breach of site security which occurred
-------
around the time of the August 14, 1990 Public Meeting, EPA has
initiated upgraded security measures, including a locking bar on
the front gate, an explicit sign identifying the property as a
Superfund site and warning of danger, and repair of the vehicle
restricted access bar in the roadway just inside the gate.
Additional security adjustments will be made as warranted.
Comment: What chemicals were in the drums that were sampled?
Response: The organic chemicals of highest concentration were 4-
methyl-2-pentanone (approx. 160,000 parts per million, or ppm),
toluene (approx. 220,000 ppm), and xylene (approx. 7,300 ppm).
Concentrations of heavy metals, particularly lead, were also high
in soils from several test pits surrounding the drums.
Comment: Is the threat of explosion a realistic hazard at this
site (from the buried drums)?
Response: Although the drums, once re-covered by earth, no
longer exhibit the ambient explosive characteristics that were
evident during the excavation part of the investigation, EPA
still considers the situation as potentially dangerous, and part
of that potential danger involves explosion. This judgment, as
is any EPA policy regarding public health, is conservative.
Comment: Where will the excavated drums be taken? Out of State?
Response: The drums and highly contaminated soils will be
trucked to an off-site hazardous waste treatment and disposal
facility permitted and in compliance with the requirements of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. There are no
requirements as to facility location, other than cost-
effectiveness considerations.
-------
APPENDIX 5
-------
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Preliminary Assessment Reports
P. 1-144 Report: Engineering Investigation at Inactive
Hazardous Waste Sites in the State of New York.
prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Inc.
June 3, 1983.
P. 145-415 Report: Engineering Investigations at Inactive
Hazardous Waste Sites in the State of New York -
Phase II Investigations, prepared by Woodward-
Clyde Consultants, Inc. December, 1986.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Work Plans
p. 416-544 Report: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Work Plan, prepared by EBASCO Services, Inc.
April, 1989.
P. 545-1019 Report: Field Operations Plan, prepared by EBASCO
Services, Inc. June, 1989.
P. 1019A Letter to Mr. James Bologna, US EPA, from Mr.
Edward Als, US EPA, Re: Comments about the Draft
Work Plan. January 9, 1990.
P. 1020-1220 Report: Field Operations Plan, prepared by EBASCO
Services, Inc. March, 1990.
X
P. 1221-1254 Letter to Messrs. M. Shaheer Alvi, US EPA and
Edward Als, US EPA, from Mr. Dev Sachdev, EBASCO
Services, Inc, Re: Final Work Plan letter.
Appendix is attached. March 8, 1990.
Correspondence
P. 1255-1268 Letter to Ms. Dana Boyadijan, IT •--.--.•••.-*••'••••. ?vrv
Mr. David Mr. David Marcum, IT Corporation, Re:
Letter report presenting the qeopy^l-?.!
investigation conducted at the Mattiace site by iT
Corporation. October 26, 1986.
P. 1269 Letter to Mr. Edward Als, US EPA, from Mr. Michael
Francy, LIMCO Manufacturing Corporation, Re:
Mr. Edward Als letter of May 17, 1989.
-------
P. 1270-1271 Letter to Mr. Edward Als, US EPA, from Mr. James
Bologna, NYSDEC, Re: NYSDEC reviewing of the Work
Plan. February 8, 1990.
P. 1272-1273 Letter to Mr. Edward Als, US EPA, from Mr. James
Bologna, NYSDEC, Re: Review of Field Operations
Plan, dated March, 1990. April 20, 1990.
P. 1274 Letter to Mr. James Bologna, US EPA, from Mr.
Edward Als, US EPA, Re: Final Work Plan and Draft
Field Operations Plan. Document is undated.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Feasibility Study Reports
P. 1275-1362 Report: Final Focused Feasibility Study Report.
prepared by EBASCO Services, Inc. July, 1990.
Correspondence
P. 1363-1364 Letter to MR. James Lister, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Edward Als, US EPA, Re: Review of the Draft
Proposed Plan and Draft Focused Feasibility Study.
July 3, 1990.
P. 1365-1366 Letter to Mr. Edward Als, US EPA, from Mr. Michael
O'Toole, NYSDEC, Re: NYSDEC review of both Focused
Feasibility Study and the Proposed Remedial Action
Plan. July 19, 1990.
P. 1367 Letter to Mr. James Lister, NYSDEC, from Mr.
Edward Als, US EPA, Re: Review of ROD.
August 23, 1990.
v
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Community Relations Plans
P. 1368-1396 Report: Final Community Relations Plans, prepared
by EBASCO Services, Inc. May, 1989.
Proposed Plan
P. 1397-1406 Proposed Plan for Mattiace Petrochemical
Corporation, prepared by US EPA. July, j.ii ;.
------- |