United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/U2
March 1991
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision
Genzale Plating, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT HO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/142
4. TIMindSubM*
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
^Mzale Plating, NY
^•Bst Remedial Action
7. AuRor(*)
""V.
12. Oponeoftnu OrqerinBon Mane end «i*»««e
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Redctanr* Acenetan Mo.
5. Report 0*t*
03/29/91
s.
•» PeWTOnHinQ QrQWriXBflMfl HAflC No.
10. ProlectfTeak/Work Unit No.
11. ComradlC) or Gnnlper, silver, zinc, cadmium, nickel, and chromium compounds, as well as acids and
Peaners, were used during plating processes. Wastewaters generated from the
electroplating operations were discharged to four subsurface leaching pits. Following
a 1981 county inspection, the owner was required to discontinue onsite contaminant
discharge to the leaching pits. Testing of the wastewater samples from the pits
indicated heavy metal concentrations in excess of State discharge standards. In 1982,
36 cubic yards of contaminated material were excavated; but the entire excavation was
never completed. In April 1983, a State investigation determined that onsite
contaminants presented a potential public health threat because the site is in close
proximity to public water supply wells. The primary contaminants of concern affecting
(See Attached Page)
17. Do
ejyeto *. OMcrtplora
NY
Record of Decision - Genzale Plating,
First Remedial.Action
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE), other organics (PAHs), metals (arsenic, chromium,
lead)
c. COSAT1 RcWGroup
la^^^UbUty Stauciwfit
^^^
1C. Security C1*M (Th!» Report)
None
TO. Security CUM (TTil* Ptge)
None
21. No. of Pig**
76
22. Me*
(S*» ANSI-Z39.18)
SM Intavcuon* on R»v»n»
(Formerly HT1S-35)
nt ofl Conwiwrcv
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/142
Genzale Plating, NY
First Remedial Action
.tract (Continued)
tire soil and ground water are VOCs including PCE and ICE; other organics including PAHs;
and metals including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The-^selected interim remedial action for this site includes treating soil using in-situ
vacuum extraction and vapor phase carbon .adsorption to control emissions, followed by
excavating 1, 600 cubic yards of the treated soil and 480 cubic yards of topsoil and
material from the leaching pits, followed by offsite treatment and disposal; backfilling
the excavated areas with clean soil; pumping and treatment of ground water using
precipitation to remove metals, followed by air stripping, with reiajection onsite and
offsite disposal of treatment residuals. The estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action is $6,358,700, which includes an annual OSM cost of $223,800.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals include TCE
1 mg/kg. Ground water treatment will be designed to reduce the metals concentrations in
the treated ground water below the Federal and State ground water standards.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
Name: Genzale Plating Company
Location/State: Franklin Square, Nassau County, New York
EPA Region: II
HRS Score (date): 33.79 (May 1986)
NPL Rank (date): # 789 (July 1987)
ROD
Date Signed: March 29, 1991
Selected Remedy
Soils - In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Surface Excavation/
Leaching Pit Excavation/Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal/Fill With Clean Soil
Capital Cost: $ 1,89.1,200
0 & M/Year: $ 32,700
Present Worth: $ 2,449,500
Groundwater - Pumping/Metals Precipitation/Air Stripping/
Reinjection
Capital Cost: $ 971,500
O & M/Year: $ 191,100
Present Worth: $ 3,909,200
LEAD
Remedial, EPA
Primary Contact (phone): Janet Cappelli (212-264-8679)
Secondary Contact (phone): Douglas Garbarini (212-264-0109)
WASTE
Type: inorganic (e.g. cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel) and
organic (1,1,1-trichloroethane; trichloroethylene; 1,2-
dichloroethane)
Medium: ground water and soil
Origin: Pollution originated during the operation of the
Genzale Plating Company. The processes used
resulted in the generation, storage and disposal of waste
water into four unlined leaching pits.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION '
Genzale Plating Company, FranJclin Square, Nassau County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Genzale Plating Company site, located in Nassau County, New
York, which was chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 9601, et seq.. and, to the extent
practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300. The attached index
(Appendix V) identifies the items that comprise the
administrative record upon which the selection of the remedial
action is based.
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if .not addressed by implementing the response action.
selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
This operable unit represents the first of two planned for the
site. It addresses the treatment of both groundwater in the
immediate vicinity of the property and those soils contaminated
primarily with heavy metals and volatile organics. The selected
groundwater remedy is an interim action and does not constitute
the final action for groundwater. The second operable unit will
involve the study and possible remediation of a plume of
groundwater contamination downgradient of the property.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Groundwater
A Containment of the most highly contaminated portion of
contaminant plume;
* Treatment, via metal precipitation and air stripping, of
contaminated groundwater in the Upper Glacial Aquifer to
drinking water standards prior to reinjection; and,
-------
Disposal of treatment residuals at a RCRA Subtitle C
facility.
Collection of data on aquifer and contaminant response to
remediation measures.
Soils
A In-situ vacuum extraction for volatile organics followed
by surface excavation over the entire property, and deeper
excavation of leaching pit "hot spots";
A Off-site treatment and disposal of excavated material at a
RCRA subtitle C facility; and,
A Backfill with clean soil.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. The selected remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element for
the on-site soils.
The selected groundwater remedy is an interim action and it does
not ^ constitute the final remedy for the groundwater portion of
the site. Therefore, the statutory preference for remedies that
employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a
principal element will be addressed at the time of the final
response action. Subsequent actions are planned to address fully
the potential threats posed by a plume of groundwater
contamination.
The need for conducting a five-year review will be evaluated upon
completion of the second operable unit.
Sidamon-Eristoff / Date7 /
Regional Administrator / <
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
GENZALE PLATING COMPANY
FRANKLIN SQUARE, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix I - Figures
Appendix II - Tables
Appendix III - NYSDEC Letter of Concurrence
Appendix IV - Responsiveness Summary
Appendix V - Administrative Record Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Site Name, Location and Description 1
Site History and Enforcement Activities 2
Highlights of Community Participation 3
Scope and Role of Response Action 4
Summary of Site Characteristics 4
Summary of .Site Risks 6
Description of Alternatives 9
Summary of the Comparative Analysis
of Alternatives 15
The Selected Remedy... ... • 25
Statutory Determinations 27
Documentation of Significant Changes 31
-------
SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Genzale Plating Company site (the "Site") includes the
property located at 288 New Hyde Park Road in the Town of
Franklin Square, Nassau County, New York. The Genzale Plating
Company facility ("Facility") lies immediately adjacent to New
Hyde Park Road, Kalb Avenue, and Cathedral Road on the west,
east, and north, respectively (see Figure 1). The properties
immediately adjacent to and surrounding the Genzale Plating
facility are primarily residential.
The Facility occupies an area of approximately 24,000 square
feet. The western portion of the Facility property is occupied
by a two story building which houses the company office, plating
facility, and chemical storage area. The eastern portion of the
Facility is undeveloped and serves as an outdoor storage yard and
parking lot. Subsurface structures located in the yard include
sanitary and industrial sewer lines, and four abandoned
wastewater leaching pits.
Census data indicate that the population density in the vicinity
of the Facility is estimated to be on the order of 3,000 to 6,000
persons per square mile. The properties immediately adjacent to
and surrounding the Facility are predominantly residential.
Although small businesses do exist, they are generally restricted
to New Hyde Park Road both north and south of the Facili-y.
Agricultural land use is not practiced in the area surrounding
the Site.
Regionally, the naturally-occurring surface soils are a sandy
loam which generally promote rapid infiltration of precipitation
to the groundwater. Site specific soils and these of the
surrounding area are, however, classified as urban soils.
Greater surface runoff of precipitation is characteristic of
developed areas (i.e., buildings and pavement). The ground
surface at the Facility is entirely unpaved and therefore
exposed.
Directly underlying the Site is the Upper Glacial Aquifer, which
is designated with the federal classification II for a drinking
water source. Although not generally used as a potable vater
s-pply, it is tapped by three Jamaica Water Supply Company wells
within 1-1.5 miles of the Site. Most water supply wells in the
vicinity of the Site are screened within the deeper Magcthy
Aquifer. The Magothy aquifer, underlying the glacial sediaents,
is the thickest hydrogeological unit on Long Island. In the
vicinity of the Site, it is estimated to be approximately 350 -
400 feet thick. Although this aquifer is confined in southern
Long Island, it is believed to be unconfined or under semi-
confined conditions in the vicinity of the Site. In the Site
area, groundwater flow is in a south-southwesterly direction.
The .nearest downgradient surface water bodies to the Sita are
located approximately 3.2 miles southwest and 3.0 miles
-------
SITE NAME. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Genzale Plating Company site (the "Site") includes the
property located at 283 New Hyde Park Road in the Town of
FranJclin Square, Nassau County, New York. The Genzale Plating
Company facility ("Facility") lies immediately adjacent to New
Hyde Park Road, Kalb Avenue, and Cathedral Road on the west,
east, and north, respectively (see Figure 1). The properties
immediately adjacent to and surrounding the Genzale Plating
facility are primarily residential.
The Facility occupies an area of approximately 24,000 square
feet. The western portion of the Facility property is occupied
by a two story building which houses the company office, plating
facility, and chemical storage area. The eastern portion of the
Facility is undeveloped and serves as an outdoor storage yaxd and
parking lot. Subsurface structures located in th.e yard include
sanitary and industrial sewer lines, and four abandoned
wastewater leaching pits.
Census data indicate that the population density in the vicinity
of the Facility is estimated to be on the order of 3,000 to 6,000
persons per square mile. The properties immediately adjacent to
and surrounding the Facility are predominantly residential.
Although small businesses do exist, they are generally restricted
to New Hyde Park Road both north and south of the Facili-y.
Agricultural land use is not practiced in the area surrounding
the Site.
Regionally, the naturally-occurring surface soils are a sandy
loam which generally promote rapid infiltration of precipitation
to the groundvater. Site specific soils and these of the
surrounding area are, however, classified as urban soils.
Greater surface runoff of precipitation is characteristic of
developed areas (i.e., buildings and pavement). The ground
surface at the Facility is entirely unpaved and therefore
exposed.
Directly underlying the Site is the Upper Glacial Aquifer, which
is designated with the federal classification II for a drinking
water source. Although not generally used as a potable vater
s-pply, it is tapped by three Jamaica Water Supply Company wells
within 1-1.5 miles of the Site. Most water supply wells in the
vicinity of the Site are screened within the deeper Magcthy
Aquifer. The Magothy aquifer, underlying the glacial sediaents,
is the thickest hydrogeological unit on Long Island. In the
vicinity of the Site, it is estimated .to be approximately 350 -
400 feet thick. Although this aquifer is confined in southern
Long Island, it is believed to be unconfined .or under semi-
confined conditions in the vicinity of the Site. In the Site
area, gro.undwater flow is in a south-southwesterly direction.
The nearest downgradient surface water bodies to the Site are
located approximately 3.2 miles southwest and 3.0 miles
-------
southeast, at Valley Stream State Park and Hempstead Lake State
Park, respectively. The slope of the ground surface between the
Site and these surface water bodies is less than 1 percent. The
nearest wetland area is located approximately 3.0 miles to the
southeast of the Site in Hempstead Lake State Park. There is no
designated New York State significant habitat, agricultural land,
nor historic or landmark site directly or potentially affected by
conditions at the Site. There are no endangered species or
critical habitats within close proximity of the Site.
SITE HISTORY AND ENTORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Genzale Plating Company, Inc. (the "Company") is an
electroplating facility that has been in operation at this Site
since 1915. Over tiae, the production activities and chemicals
used in the electroplating process have changed. The earliest
record of operations at the Genzale facility dates back to 1952.
At that tine, processing was reported to have involved anodizing
and cadmium, zinc, and brass plating. In 1954 electroplating .
operations are on record as utilizing the following chemical
.compounds: copper, cyanide, silver cyanide, zinc cyanide, cadmium
oxide, chromic acid, nickel sulfate, sulfuric acid, nitric acid,
and alkali cleaners. The relative quantities of chemicals used
at the Site during this period of time are unknown.
At present, the Company electroplates such products as automobile
_antennas and_.component .parts;, tops and bottoms, of ball point
pens; and housewares such as can and bottle openers. The
electroplating process performed at the Site since 1959 involved
a number of different steps which included the use of a variety
of chemicals. The electroplating process is carried out by
dipping and advancing the materials to be plated through a series
of processing tanks or vats. Rinsing the metal parts between
each processing tank generates wastewater which is discharged to
the municipal sewer system for disposal. Previously, wastewater
was discharged to tie subsurface leaching pits located in the
rear yard area of tie Site. It should be noted, that wastewater
was detected in three of the four leaching pits as recently as
1981. Distillation of spent solvent (1,1,1-trichloroethane) is
presently in operation on the Site to condense out clean product
for re-use. The sludge remaining from the distillation process
is stored on-site for eventual removal.
In April 1981, the Kassau County Department of Health ("NCDH")
conducted an inspection of the Genzale facility. During this
inspection, NCDH noted that industrial wastewater from the
plating facility was being discharged to at least three of four
on-site leaching pits. NCDH representatives instructed Company
personnel to discontinue discharge to the leaching pits at that
time. In addition, wastewater samples were obtained from the
"leaching pits by NCDH and submitted for laboratory analysis of
inorganic compounds only. The results indicated that the
-------
wastewater samples exhibited heavy metal concentrations in excess
of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
("NYSDEC") discharge standards.
In March 1982, the Company's owners contracted Gamma TEC
Consulting Engineers to excavate potentially contaminated
materials from the leaching pits. An estimated total of 36 cubic
yards of material was removed from three of the leaching pits at
the Facility. Due to a lack of financial resources available to
the Company, leaching pit excavation was not completed.
Woodvard-Clyde Consultants, Inc. ("WCCI") performed a site survey.
in April 1983, under contract to the NYSDEC. WCCI concluded that
contaminant transport from the Site presented a "relatively
low", yet potential public health threat due to the Site's
proximity to a number of public water supply wells. The. nearest
supply well is approximately 1300 feet east of the Site. In June
1986, the Site was added to the EPA National Priorities List of
Superfund sites.
A special notice letter was issued to the Company on December 31,
1937 by the EPA. Based upon the Company's response it was
determined that it was financially unable to conduct the investi-
gative activities at the Site. Accordingly, EPA proceeded with
the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS"). A
work plan for the RI/FS was completed in October 1988, however
field work could not be initiated due to problems obtaining • -••--- -
access. In August 1989, EPA issued an Access Order to the
Genzale Plating Company so that field work could commence. As a
result of the Company's failure to comply, EPA sought and was
granted a court ruling in October 1989 which enforced the terms
of the Order. Field work for the RI/FS began in November 1989
and was completed in February 1990.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Coimunity Relations Plan for the Site was finalized in November
1988. This document lists contacts and interested parties
throughout government and the local community. It also estab-
lished communication pathways to ensure timely dissemination of
pertinent information. Subsequently, a factsheet outlining the
RI sampling program was distributed6 in November 1989 and a public
availability session was held on November 21, 1989 to answer
questions.
The RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan for the Site were
released to the public on February 22, 1991. These documents
were made available to the public in both the administrative
record file and the information repositories maintained at the
EPA Record Center room in Region 2 and at the Franklin Square
Library. A press release concerning the availability of the
RI/FS reports, the Proposed Plan, and the initiation of the
-------
public comment period was issued on February 22, 1991. A public
notice was published in a local newspaper which provided a 30-day
public comment period, ending on March 23, 1991. In addition, a
public meeting was held on March 13, 1991 at which
representatives froa EPA and NYSDEC answered questions about the
problems at the Site and remedial alternatives under
consideration. All comments which were received by EPA prior to
the end of the public comment period, including those expressed
verbally at the public meeting, are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary which is attached, as Appendix E, to this
Record of Decision.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Genzale Plating Company site, in FranJclin Square, New York,
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), as amended,
and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan.
The decision for this Site is based on the administrative record.
SCOPE AND ROTE OF RZSPONSE ACT
The areas of concern addressed by this response action include
soils and groundwater in the vicinity of the Facility. These
_reas of the Site pose the principal threat to human health and
the environment because of risk from possible ingestion,
inhalation, or dermal contact with the soils and/or groundwater.
Although the_results of the.RI/FS indicate the need for an
interim groundwater remedial action, EPA was unable to delineate
the extent of the groundwater plume beyond the Facility property.
An additional investigation of the nature and extent of the plume
will be initiated under a second operable unit. The purpose of
this interia groundvater remedy is to work toward the overall
goal of aquifer restoration, but it does not constitute the final
action for groundwater.
The overall objective of this response action is to reduce the
concentrations of contaminants in the on-site soils to levels
which are protective of human health and the environment, to
reduce the concentrations of contaminated groundwater underlying
the Facility in order to reduce the risk associated with the
contaminants, and to prevent further deterioration of the area
groundwater.
SUMKARY OF SITS CHARACTERISTICS
Previous investigations and the RI (Ebasco, 1991) have shown that
there were discharges of untreated process wastewater to leaching
pits located in the rear yard area of the Site. Media sampled
during the remedial investigation included surface soils,
subsurface soils, and groundwater.
-------
Groundvater
Two rounds of unfiltered groundwater samples were collected from
eight monitoring veils, six installed at the Facility and two
installed downgradient of the Facility, four water supply wells,
one County monitoring veil, and one private irrigation well. The
locations of the monitoring wells at the Facility and the
dovngradient wells are shown on Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
The wells at the Facility were installed and screened in both
shallow (30 - 40 ft below surface) and deep (60 - 70 feet below
surface) portions of the Upper Glacial Aquifer. Groundwater
level measurements obtained from the newly installed wells
indicated that groundwater generally occurred 32-36 feet below
the surface. Exceedingly high contaminant values were
consistently detected in shallow wells located at the Facility.
The four volatile organic compounds which were most abundant from
both a concentration and frequency of occurrence basis include:
trichloroethene (TCZ), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), 1,1-
dichloroethene (DCE), and tetrachloroethene (PCE). TCA and TCE
were present at the greatest concentrations in the groundwater
underlying the Facility (1,100 and 500 parts per billion,
respectively). Inorganics such as chromium, nickel, copper,
"=iiaium, manganese, and iron were also detected. Maximum
--ncentratipn levels of primary contaminants of concern in the
groundwater can be found in Table 1.
Surface/Subsurface Soils
The soil sampling program involved the determination of lateral
and vertical extents of contamination by obtaining samples from
seven surface soil locations, six soil borings, two leaching pit
borings, and three conitoring well borings. All soil sampling
locations are depicted on Figure 4. Many of the contaminants
found in the soils were the same as those found in the
groundwater. Table 2 lists the overall maximum, average, and
minimum concentrations of contaminants detected in the on-site
soils.
The surface soils were sanpled between a depth"of 0-2 feet
below grade. Inorganic compound concentrations exceeding
regional background levels were detected at almost all surface
soil locations sampled. Typical background concentration levels
of inorganic compounds are shown on Table 3. Inorganic compounds
consistently detected at elevated levels include: chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The highest concentration of
most, if not all, inorganic compounds at the surface were
detected at boring location SB-06. This boring was advanced
directly through a former leaching pit. Maximum surface
concentrations at S3-06 include chromium at 14,800 mg/kg
(background (bg) 10 - 80 ag/kg), nickel at 46,400 mg/kg (bg 4 -30
mg/kg), lead at 1,440 mg/kg (bg 3-30 mg/kg), and copper at
11,200 mg/kg (bg 2 - 100 mg/kg). The highest values of volatile
-------
organics in surface soils vere also detected in samples located
at SB-06. The maximum concentration of TCE detected at 0 - 2
feet is reported at 120 ug/kg.
Inorganic compounds consistently detected at elevated values in
subsurface soils include: chromium, nickel, lead, and to a lesser
extent, copper and cadmium. The highest concentrations of these
compounds are generally detected in subsurface soils of sampling
locations SB-06, SB-04, SB-OS, and SB-02. In general, inorganic
compound concentrations decrease with depth from maximum values
exhibited at (0 - 2 feet) or near (approximately 5 feet below
grade) the surface. The maximum chromium value detected at the
Site was 27,300 mg/kg in S3-06 at a depth of 2 - 4 feet. High
levels of chromium, nickel, and lead were detected in locations
SB-05 and SB-02 occurring at depths of 10 and 30 feet,
respectively. The distribution of organic contaminants and the
concentrations at vhich they occur in subsurface soil vary
greatly upon location. Volatile organics detected most
frequently include TCZ and TCA (maximum concentrations of 53 and
7 mg/kg, respectively).
The volume of soil contaminated by organic compounds is estimated
to be 3,150 cubic yards. The areas of organic contamination,
approximately 2500 square feet, are depicted on Figure 5. Most
of the inorganic contamination was detected in the top 4-5 feet
oi the Site, resulting in approximately 1,600 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, with the exception of inorganic contamination
as deep as 40 feet below grade related to the former leaching
pits. The estimated amount of this deeper inorganic
contamination is 480 cubic yards. This amount is based upon the
leaching pits being between 12 - 18 feet in depth and 12 feet in
width and assumes that soils within roughly 2 feet of these
parameters would also require excavation.
SUWARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was developed as part of the remedial
investigation for the Site. The risk assessment evaluates the
potential impacts on human health and the environment if the
contamination at the Site is not remediated. The assessment also
anticipates potential future uses for the Site. This information
is used by EPA to naJce a determination as to whether remediation
of the Site is required.
Two scenarios were developed based on current (industrial) and
possible future (residential) land use at the Facility. Under
both scenarios, several pathways (direct contact, inhalation and
ingestion) were evaluated for exposure to surface and subsurface
soils, air, and grouncwater used for drinking and domestic
purposes. The populations evaluated included nearby residents,
current and future on-site workers, future on-site development
workers, and future on-site adult and child residents. An
exposure assessment was conducted to estimate the magnitude,
frequency, and duration of actual and/or potential exposures to
the chemicals of potential concern via all pathways by which
humans are potentiaTly""exposed. Exposures were based on
-------
reasonable maximum concentrations, calculated as the 95th
percentile upper confidence limit of the geometric mean. This
reasonable maximum exposure is defined as the highest exposure
that is reasonably expected to. occur at the Site for individual
and combined pathways.
Based on the evaluations performed during the risk assessment,
the contaminants which are likely to pose the most significant
risks to human health and the environment (i.e., chemicals of
concern) were identified for the soil and groundwater. The
chemicals concern in. the soil are cadmium, chromium, nickel,
barium, lead, copper, arsenic, trichloroethene, bis (2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthalate, and chrysene. The chemicals of concern in the
groundwater are trichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
1,1-dichlorcethene, tetrachloroethene, cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, and nickel. The maximum concentrations of these
contaminants are provided in Table 1. All levels of primary
contaminants detected in the groundwater exceeded federal and/or
state drinking water standards.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic (non-cancer) effects due to
exposure to site chemicals are considered separately. EPA
.considers carcinogenic risk in the range of 10"4 to 10"6 to be
acceptable. This risk range can be interpreted to mean that an
individual may have a one-in-teh-thousand to a one-in-a-million
increased chance of developing cancer as a result of site-related"
exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the
specific exposure conditions at the Site.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by the EPA for the chemicals of
concern. Cancer potency factors ("CPF"s) have been developed by
EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for
estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure
to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed
in units of (mg/kg-day) "1, are multiplied by the estimated intake
of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-
bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at the intake level. The term "upper
tcur.d" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the CPF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely. CPFs for chemicals of potential
concern can be found on Table 4.
EPA's baseline risk assessment indicates that the most
significant public health risk results from the ingestion of
groundwater, inhalation of groundwater volatiles (i.e., while
showering), and direct contact and ingestion of soils. Table 5
summarizes the baseline risk assessment results. Under the
future-use scenario, ingestion of groundwater in the vicinity of
the Facility by off-Facility adult residents would present an
-------
excess cancer risk of 2.56 x 10"3; ingestion of groundwater by
on-Facility adult residents would present an excess cancer risk
of 2.55 x 10'3 and for on-Facility child residents an excess
cancer risk of 1.7 x 10"3. This indicates that future off-
Facility and on-Facility adults have approximately a three-in-
one-thousand additional chance of developing cancer, and on-
Facility children have a two-in-one-thousand additional chance of
developing cancer, as a result of drinking this groundwater.
Under the future-use scenario for on-Facility development
workers, inhalation of the Site soils during construction
activity would present an excess cancer risk of 9.96 x 10"4.
This indicates that an on-Facility worker involved in
construction and excavation activities would have approximately a
one-in-one-thousand additional chance of developing cancer.
The non-cancer risk associated with different pathways was
assessed using a hazard index ("HI") approach, based on
comparison of expected contaminant intakes and safe levels of
intake (reference doses). Reference doses (RfDs) have been
developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health
effects. The chronic and subchronic RfDs for chemicals of
potential concern can be found on Table 4. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of milligram per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day),
are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are
thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive
individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental
media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
soil), are .compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for
the contaminant in the particular aedia. The Hi is obtained by
adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across all media.
An HI value greater than 1.0 is considered to pose an
unacceptable non-cancer risk. Under the current-use worker
scenario, inhalation and ingestion of Site soils contributes to
an HI of 2.2. Under the future-use scenario, ingestion of
groundwater for off-Facility adult residents presents an HI value
of 86.2; ingestion of groundwater for on-Facility adult residents
presents and HI value of 86.2 and for on-Facility child residents
an HI of 114; ingestion and dermal contact with soils for on-
Facility adult residents contributes to an HI value of 2.56 and
for on-Facility child residents an HI of 15.4; ingestion and
dermal contact with Site soils by future on-Facility workers
presents and HI of 2.2 and for future Site development workers an
HI of 23.9. For soil pathways, the chemicals of concern which
contribute the most to the HI values are chromium and nickel.
For groundwater pathways, the largest chemical contributors are
antimony, chromium, and nickel.
The risk assessment contains the conclusion that inhalation of
Site soils by current off-Facility residents does not present a
non-cancer risk nor an excess cancer risk.
-------
In summary, it is evident that the contaminants in soils at the
Facility and underlying grbuhdwater warrant remediation in order
to prevent the continued degradation of groundwater quality in
the area and to reduce their associated risks.
Uncertainties
The procedures used to assess potential human health risks in
this evaluation are subject to wide uncertainties. In general,
the main sources of uncertainty in this assessment include:
* environmental chemistry sampling and analysis;
A exposure models and assumptions; and
A- toxicological models and parameters.
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 into
contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over
which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to
.estimate the concentrations of the chemical so 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 very conservative assumptions concerning risk
and exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As a result,
the risk assessment provides upper bound estimates of the risks
to populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to
underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by the preferred alternative or one of the
other active measures considered, may present a current or
potential threat to the environment through the groundwater
pathway.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Following a screening of remedial technologies in accordance with
the NCP, five remedial alternatives were developed for
contaminated groundwater and six for contaminated soil. The
alternatives were further screened based on technical
considerations such as effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
The present worth costs listed below for all soil and groundwater
-------
alternatives are based on a 30-year period and a 5% discount
rate.
Remedial Alternatives for Contaminated Soils (SC)
A SC-1: No-Action
A SC-2: Surface Excavation/Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal/Capping
A SC-3: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/In-Situ Stabilization
(Solidification)/Soil Cover
A SC-4: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Excavation/Off-Site
Treatment and Disposal/Fill with Clean Off-Site Soil
A SC-5: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Surface Excavation/
Excavation of Leaching Pits/Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal/Fill with Clean Off-Site Soil
Alternative SC-1; No-Action
Capital Cost: $ 65,600
Annual Operation & Maintenance (0 & M) Cost: $34,400
Present Worth Cost: $650,000
Time to Implement: 6 months
CERCLA requires that the No-Action alternative be considered as a
baseline:"-:for-compar-isorv "with other-soil alternatives. Under this
alternative, the contaminated soil would be left in place without
treatment. A long-term monitoring program would be implemented
to- track the migration of contaminants from the soil into the
groundwater utilizing existing monitoring well clusters as well
as a total of 10 newly installed cluster wells. This alternative
also includes the development and maintenance of a public
awareness and education program for the residents and workers in
the area surrounding the Facility. Since this alternative would
involve no contaminant removal, CERCLA requires that a Site
subject to such a selected remedy be reviewed every five years.
If justified by the review, remedial actions may be implemented ,
to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative SC-2; Surface Excavation/Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal/Capping
Capital cost: $1,257,100
0 & M Cost: $32,700
Present Worth: $1,815,400
Time to Implement: 30 months
This alternative would involve the removal of the top 4-5 feet
of contaminated soil from approximately 10,280 ft2 of the open
. 1Q
-------
area (entire open area is 16,000 ft2) of the Site. The total
volume of excavated material is estimated to be 1,600 cubic
yards. The excavated soil would be transported to an off-site
permitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facility
for treatment and disposal. For purposes of estimating cost for
this alternative, as well as Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5, it is
assumed that these soils would be treated via stabilization/
solidification. Off-site transport would comply with all federal
and state transportation requirements. The excavated area would
be filled with clean soil. The entire open area (16,000 ft2)
would then be graded and capped with a 6-inch asphalt cap, to
prevent leaching of subsurface contaminants into the ground-
water through infiltration. Since this alternative would result
in contamination remaining on-site, five year reviews and long-
term monitoring would be required.
Alternative SC-3; In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/In-Situ Stabilization
fSolidification)/Soil Cover
Capital Cost: $1,965,600
O 4 M Cost: $27,200
Present Worth: $2,439,300
Time to Implement: 36 months
Under this alternative, the contaminated soil would be left in
place, undisturbed; no excavation would be required. An in-situ
vacuum extraction process would be employed over portions of the
volatile organic contaminated area (2,500 ft2) to remove the_
contaminants, mainly TCE, from the soil to 1 mg/kg. This process
would involve the installation of approximately 5 vacuum
extraction wells, each with a maximum depth of 30 feet. The
vacuum wells would be connected via a piping system*to a skid-
mounted, high volume vacuum pump. The vacuum pump would pull air
through the contaminated soils, within a radius of 20 feet from
the wells, depending on soil composition and volatility of the
contaminants. The air containing the stripped volatile organics
would be fed through a condenser to remove moisture and then
through an emissions control system, i.e., a vapor phase carbon
adsorption system to remove volatilized organics.
While in-situ vacuum extraction is being applied to applicable
portions of the Site, an in-situ stabilization process would
begin in another portion of the Site and continue until the
entire inorganic contamination has been immobilized. The
approximate area of inorganic contamination varies from 10,280
ft2 at the surface to 8,850 ft2 at. a 34-ft depth. The process
would incorporate mechanical mixing and injection of reagents to
immobilize both organic and inorganic contaminants. The
stabilizing additives polymerize with the soils producing a
cement-like mass. For each type of contaminated soil, the
additives used varies and would have to be optimized. An on-site
batch mixing tank supplies the proprietary chemical additives.
11
-------
Once both processes are complete, a 6-inch cover of clean soil
would then be placed over the entire yard area (16,000 ft2).
Since this alternative would result in contamination remaining
on-site, five year reviews and long-term monitoring would be
required.
Alternative SC-4: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Excavation/Off-Site
Treatment and Disposal/Fill with Clean Off-
Site Soil
Capital Cost: $8,974,600
0 & M Cost: none
Present Worth: $8,974,600
Time to Implement: 42 months
This alternative is identical to Alternative SC-3 except that the
contaminated soil in areas ranging rora 10,280 ft2 at the surface
to 8,850 ft2 at a 34-ft depth of the contaminated yard area of
the Site would be excavated and transported off-site for treat-
ment and disposal. In-situ vacuum extraction would be conducted
first in order to prevent exposure of workers and residents to
volatile organics and to reduce organic contaminant levels such
that only inorganics would require treatment off-site prior to
disposal. Approximately 11',700 cubic yards of contaminated soil
would be transported to an off-site RCRA permitted treatment and
disposal facility. This total excavation amount is based on the
assumption that all elevated levels of contaminants scattered
throughout the Site would need to be excavated . The excavated
area would, be filled, with, clean soil, compacted, and graded.
Alternative SC-5; In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Surface Excavation/
Excavation of Leaching Pits/Off-Site Treatment
and Disposal/Fill with Clean Off-Site Soil
Capital Cost: $1,777,410
0 & H Cost: none
Present Worth: $1,777,410
Time to Implement: 36 months
This alternative is the same as Alternative SC-4 except that the
amount of soil to be excavated would be different. After the in-
situ vacuum extraction is conducted, the top 4-5 feet of the
contaminated yard area of the Site would be exca%'at~d, resulting
in approximately 1,600 cubic yards of material to be transported
for off-site treatment and disposal. During the course of the
initial excavation when the leaching pits or "hot spots" can be
further delineated through additional borings and sampling, the
excavation would continue until all contaminated soils were
removed. The estimated amount of soil that would be excavated
from the leaching pits is 480 cubic yards. This amount is based
upon the leaching pits being between 12 - 18 feet in depth and 12
feet wide and assumes that soils within 2 feet of these
12
-------
parameters would also need to be excavated. The excavated areas
would be backfilled with clean soil and the entire open area
(16,000 ft2) would then be graded.
Remedial Alternatives for Contaminated Groundwater (GW)
A GW-l: No-Action
A GW-2: Limited Action
A GW-3: Pumping/Metals Precipitation/Air Stripping/
Reinjection
* GW-4: Pumping/Metals Precipitation/Carbon Adsorption/
Reinjection
* GW-5: Pumping/Metals Precipitation/UV-Chemical Oxidation/
Reinjection
* GVT-7: Pumping/Pretreatment/Discharge to Local Publically
Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Alternative GW-l: No-Action
Capital Cost: $65,500
0 & M Cost: $26,900
Present Worth: $534,600
Time to Implement: 6 months
The No-Action alternative would only include a long-term
monitoring program to sample the migration of contaminants of .
concern in the aquifer. The contaminants in the groundwater
would be left to attenuate without any treatment. A total of
twelve monitoring wells, including existing upgradient, Facility,
and downgradient wells would be utilized in order to sample the
groundwater from the shallow and deeper portions of the aquifer
and to track contaminant migration. Regular five-year reviews
would be performed to assess the need for additional remedial
actions.
Alternative GW-2: Limited Action
Capital Cost: $99,300
0 & M Cost: $29,700
Present Worth: $611,500
Time to Implement: 36 months
This alternative would include a long-term monitoring program, as
described in Alternative GW-l, and also an institutional control
program to restrict the use of the aquifer. The contaminants in
the groundwater would be left to attenuate without any treatment.
Institutional controls, such as well permit restrictions, would
be implemented to limit the use of the aquifer downgradient of
11
-------
the Facility for both potable and municipal purposes. As with
Alternative GW-l, regular five year reviews would be necessary to
assess the need for further response actions.
Alternative GW-3; Pumping/Metals Precipitation/Air Stripping/
Reinfection • ' .
Capitol Cost: $971,500
0 & M Cost: $191,100
Present Worth: $3,909,200
Time to Implement: 36 Months
The major features of this alternative would include groundwater
collection, treatment, and reinjection of the treated groundwater
and a performance monitoring program.
The collection system would consist of one extraction well to be
installed at the southwestern corner of the Facility into the
Upper Glacial Aquifer to a depth of approximately 70 feet in
order to extract 28,800 gallons per day (gpd) of groundwater from
the Site contaminant plume. The groundwater would then be piped
to an on-site treatment facility consisting of two major
•process: treatment to remove metals by chemical precipitation,
flocculation, clarification and filtration; and, air stripping
followed by carbon .adsorption to remove volatile organic
contaminants. The treatment system would be designed to
effectively reduce the metal concentrations in the treated
groundwater below the federal and New York State groundwater
standards.- Any sludge generated during the metal removal process
would be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill. The spent
carbon would be transported off-site for disposal or regeneration
-and reuse. The treated groundwater would then be reinjected into
the aquifer through a reinjecticn well. The siting of the
extraction and reinjection wells would be completed during the
design phase based on technical criteria.
Alternative GW-4; Pumping/Metals Precipitation/Carbon Adsorption/
Reinjeciton
Capital Cost: $1,062,900
0 & M Cost: $201,600
Present Worth: $4,162,000
Time to Implement: 36 Months
The major features of this alternative would be the same as that
of Alternative GW-3. The unit processes used in this alternative
are similar to those of Alternative GW-3 with the exception that
the unit operation for organic removal would be achieved by a
liquid phase carbon adsorption'system rather than the air
stripping system.
14
-------
Alternative GW-5; Pumping/Metals Precipitation/UV-Chemical
Oxidation/Reiniection
Capital Cost: $1,011,200
0 & M Cost: $274,100
Present Worth: $5,224,800
Time to Implement: 36 months
The major features of this alternative would be the same as that
of Alternative GW-3. The unit processes used in this alternative
are similar to those of Alternative GW-3 with the exception that
the unit operation for organic removal would be achieved by a UV-
chemical oxidation system rather than the air stripping system .
used in Alternative GW-3 or the liquid phase carbon adsorption
system used in Alternative GW-4. With a UV-chemical oxidation
system, the groundwater would be mixed with a 50% hydrogen
peroxide solution and then pumped to a 20 gpm UV-chemical
oxidation reactor. The organic contaminants are converted to
carbon dioxide (C02) , water, and chlorides.
Alternative GW-7; Puinpina/Pretreatrent/Discharge to Local POTW
Capital Cost: $760,100
0 & M Cost: $180,700
Present Worth: $3,537,900
Time to Implement: 42 months
The major features of this alternative would include groundwater
collection, pretreatment, "and discharge of the treated
grcundwater into the sewer line adjacent to the Site on Kalb
Avenue which leads to the Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant located
10 miles south of the Site. The unit process used in this
alternative for the removal of heavy metals would be the same as
that used in Alternative GW-3. The organic removal in this case
is achieved by the activated sludge system (secondary wastewater
treatment system) at the Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
All remedial alternatives were evaluated in detail utilizing nine
criteria as set forth in the OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. " These
criteria were developed to address the requirements of Section
121 of CERCLA to ensure all important considerations are factored
into remedy selection decisions.
The following "threshold" criteria are the most important'and
must be satisfied by any alternative in order to be eligible for
selection:
-------
Threshold Criteria A overall protection of human health and the
environment; and
A Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements to the extent
practicable.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make
comparisons and to identify the major trade-offs between
alternatives:
Primary Balancing A Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
Criteria A Reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment;
A Short-term effectiveness;
A Implementability; and
A Cost.
The following "modifying" criteria is considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
Modifying Criteria A state/support agency acceptance; and
* Community acceptance.
The nine criteria are summarized below:
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy provides
adequate protection and describes how risks are eliminated,
reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or
institutional controls.
Protection of human health is the central mandate of CERCLA.
Protection is achieved primarily by taking appropriate action to
ensure -that there will be no unacceptable risks to human health
or the environment through any exposure pathways.
2. Compliance with ARARs
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARS1)
and/ or provide grounds for invoking waiver. ARARS can be
chemical-specific, location-specific, or action-specific.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over
time, once clean-up levels have been met. It also addresses the
magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that may be required
to manage the risk posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated
wastes.
-------
4. Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
This evaluation criterion relates to the anticipated performance
of a remedial technology, with respect of these parameters, that
a remedy may employ.
5. Short-term Effectiveness
This criterion involves the period of time each alternative needs
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health and
the environment that may be posed during construction and
implementation of the alternative.
6. Impleaentability
This criterion involves the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement the chosen solution.
7. Cost
This criterion includes both estimated capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs. The present worth costs are based on a
30-year period and a 5% discount rate.
8. State/Support Agency Acceptance
This criterion assesses the technical and administrative issues
and concerns the state may have regarding each of the
alternatives. The factors to be evaluated includes features of
the alternatives that the state supports, opposes, and any
reservations the state may identify.
9. Community Acceptance
This criterion provides an assessment of any public concerns
regarding any of the alternatives. Factors of community
acceptance to be discussed include support, reservation, and
opposition by the community.
Analysis
The.discussion which follows provides a sussary of the relative
performance of each soil and groundwater alternative with respect
to the nine criteria.
SOIL ALTERNATIVES
A Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative SC-1 does not meet the remedial objectives, thus it
would not be protective of human health and the environment due
II
-------
to the continued migration of volatile organics and inorganics
into the groundwater. Alternatives SC-2, SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5
would meet the remedial objective of protecting the groundwater
from the source. However, Alternatives SC-3 through SC-5 would
provide a more permanent solution to the problem since the
protectiveness of Alternative SC-2 relies on the effectiveness of
the asphalt cap. Alternative SC-2 would not meet -the cleanup
levels for prevention of cross-media impacts on the groundwater
since only surface soil would be removed. Alternatives SC-3,
SC-4, and SC-5 have the potential to meet the cleanup level for
volatile organics. Alternative SC-3 can effectively immobilize
the remaining contaminants. Alternative SC-5 would meet all
cleanup levels once the leaching pits or "hot spots" of
contaminated are further delineated. Alternative SC-4 can meet
all the cleanup levels in the unsaturated soil since all of the
contaminated soil would be remove from the Site. Alternatives
SC-2, SC-3, SC-4 and SC-5 would protect nearby residents and
workers by eliminating inhalation and direct contact pathways.
A Compliance with ARARS
All technologies proposed for use in Alternatives SC-2, SC-3,
SC-4, and SC-5 would ne designed and implemented to satisfy all
ARARs. However, Alternative SC-2 could result in cross-media
contamination impacts on the groundwater through leaching of
contaminants. Federal and state regulations dealing with the
handling and transportation of hazardous wastes to an off-site
treatment facility would be followed. Contaminated soil, debris,
and sediments from the-Site would be treated using specific
technologies or specific treatment levels, as appropriate, to
comply with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). The
residuals from the treatment processes (i.e., spent carbon) would
also be treated and disposed of to comply with LDRs. This
alternative will comply with LDRs through a treatability variance
for the contaminated soil, debris, sediments, and residuals.
(More detail can be found under the "Statutory Determinations"
section).
* Long-term Effectiveness
Alternative SC-1 would only monitor the migration of the
contaminants and would not provide treatment or containment.
Therefore, it would not provide effective or permanent long-term
protection of groundwater or human exposure to soils at the Site.
Alternatives SC-2, SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5 would mitigate the
significant risks by partial or total removal and/or
immobilization of Site contaminants. Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5
would provide the highest degree of effectiveness since all
identified contaminated soils would be treated as well as removed
from the Site. Alternatives SC-3 can effectively remove TCE from
the soil through in-situ vacuum extraction and can effectively
18
-------
southeast, at Valley Stream State Park and Hempstead Lake State
Park, respectively. The slope of the ground surface between the
Site and these surface vater bodies is less than 1 percent. The
nearest wetland area is located approximately 3.0 miles to the
southeast of the Site in Hempstead Lake State Park. There is no
designated New York State significant habitat, agricultural land,
nor historic or landmark site directly or potentially affected by
conditions at the Site. There are no endangered species or
critical habitats within close proximity of the Site.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Genzale Plating Company, Inc. (the "Company") is an
electroplating facility that has been in operation at this Site
since 1915. Over time, the production activities and chemicals
used in the electroplating process have changed. The earliest
record of operations at the Genzale facility dates back to 1952.
At that tine, processing was reported to have involved anodizing
and cadmium, zinc, and brass plating. In 1954 electroplating
operations are on record as utilizing the following chemical
compounds: copper, cyanide, silver cyanide, zinc cyanide, cadmium
oxide, chromic acid, nickel sulfate, sulfuric acid, nitric acid,
and alkali cleaners. The relative quantities of chemicals used
at the Site during this period of time are unknown.
At present, the Company electroplates such products as automobile
antennas and component parts; tops and bottoms of ball point
pens; and housewares such as can and bottle openers. The
electroplating process performed at the Site since 1959 involved
a number of different steps which included the use of a variety
of chemicals. The electroplating process is carried out by
dipping and advancing the materials to be plated through a series
of processing tanks or vats. Rinsing the metal parts, between
each processing tank generates wastewater which is discharged to
the municipal sewer system for disposal. Previously, wastewater
was discharged to the subsurface leaching pits located in the
rear yard area of the Site. It should be noted, that wastewater
was detected in three of the four leaching pits as recently as
1981. Distillation of spent solvent (1,1,1-trichloroethane) is
presently in operation on the Site to condense out clean product
for re-use. The sludge remaining from the distillation process
is stored on-site for eventual removal.
In April 1981, the Nassau County Department of Health ("NCDH11)
conducted an inspection of the Genzale facility. During this
inspection, NCDH noted that industrial wastewater from the
plating facility was being discharged to at least three of four
on-site leaching pits. NCDH representatives instructed Company
personnel to discontinue discharge to the leaching pits at that
time. In addition, wastewater samples were obtained from the
"leaching pits by NCDH and submitted for laboratory analysis of
inorganic compounds only. The results indicated that the
-------
wastewater samples exhibited heavy metal concentrations in excess
of New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
("NYSDEC") discharge standards.
In March 1982, the Company's owners contracted Gamma TEC
Consulting Engineers to excavate potentially contaminated
materials from the leaching pits. An estimated total of 36 cubic
yards of material was removed from three of the leaching pits at
the Facility. Due to a lack of financial resources available to
the Company/ leaching pit excavation was not completed.
Woodvard-Clyde Consultants, Inc. ("WCCI") performed a site survey
in April 1983, under contract to the NYSDEC. WCCI concluded that
contaminant transport from the Site presented a "relatively
low", yet potential public health threat du6 to the Site's
proximity to a number of public water supply wells. The. nearest
supply well is approxinately 1300 feet east of the Site. In June
1986, the Site was added to the EPA National Priorities List of
Superfund sites.
A special notice letter was issued to the Company on December 31,
1987 by the EPA. Based upon the Company's response it was
determined that it was financially unable to conduct the investi-
gative activities at the Site. Accordingly, EPA proceeded with
the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS"). A
work plan for the RI/FS was completed in October 1988, however
field work could not be initiated due to problems obtaining
access. In August 1989, EPA issued an Access Order to the
Genzale Plating Company so that field work could commence. As a
result of the Company's failure to comply, EPA sought and was
granted a court ruling in October 1989 which enforced the terms
of the Order. Field work for the RI/FS began in November 1989
and was completed in February 1990.
HIC-HXIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan for the Site was finalized in November
1988. This document lists contacts and interested parties
throughout government and the local community. It also estab-
lished communication pathways to ensure timely dissemination of
pertinent information. Subsfeguently, a factsheet outlining the
RI sampling program was distributed in November 1989 and a public
availability session was held on November 21, 1989 to answer
questions.
The RI/FS reports and the Proposed Plan for the Site were
released to the public on February 22, 1991. These documents
were made available to the public in both the administrative
record file and the information repositories maintained at the
EPA Record Center room in Region 2 and at the Franklin Square
Library. A press release concerning the availability of the
RI/FS reports, the Proposed Plan, and the initiation of the
-------
public comment period was issued on February 22, 1991. A public
notice was published in a local newspaper which provided a 30-day
public comment period, ending on March 23, 1991. In addition, a
public meeting was held on March 13, 1991 at which
representatives froa EPA and NYSDEC answered questions about the
problems at the Site and remedial alternatives under
consideration. All comments which were received by EPA prior to
the end of the public comment period, including those expressed
verbally at the public meeting, are addressed in the
Responsiveness Summary which is attached, as Appendix E, to this
Record of Decision.
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Genzale Plating Company site, in Franklin Square, New York,
chosen in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), as amended,
and to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan.
The decision for this Site is based on the administrative record.
SCOPE AND ROT"? OF RZSPONSE ACTION
The areas of concern addressed by this response action include
soils and groundwater in the vicinity of the Facility. These
_reas of the Site pose the principal threat to human health and
the environment because of risk from possible ingestion,
inhalation, or dermal contact with the soils and/or groundwater.
Although the results of the RI/FS indicate the need for an
interim groundwater remedial action, EPA was unable to delineate
the extent of the groundwater plume beyond the Facility property.
An additional investigation of the nature and extent of the plume
will be initiated under a second operable unit. The purpose of
this interim groundvater remedy is to work toward the overall
goal of aquifer restoration, but it does not constitute the final
action for groundwater.
The overall objective of this response action is to reduce the
concentrations of contaminants in the on-site soils to levels
which are protective of human health and the environment, to
reduce the concentrations of contaminated groundwater underlying
the Facility in order to reduce the risk associated with the
contaminants, and to prevent further deterioration of the area
.groundwater.
SUKJ-tARY OF SITS CHARACTERISTICS
Previous investigations and the RI (Ebasco, 1991) have shown that
there were discharges of untreated process wastewater to leaching
pits located in the rear yard area of the Site. Media sampled
during the remedial Investigation included surface soils,
subsurface soils, and groundwater.
-------
Groundvater
Two rounds of unfiltered groundwater samples were collected from
eight monitoring wells, six installed at the Facility and two
installed downgradient of the Facility, four water supply wells,
one County monitoring veil, and one private irrigation well. The
locations of the monitoring wells at the Facility and the
dovngradient wells are shown on Figures 2 and 3, respectively.
The wells at the Facility were installed and screened in both
shallow (30 - 40 ft below surface)- and deep (60 - 70 feet-below
surface) portions of the Upper Glacial Aquifer. Groundwater
level measurements obtained from the newly installed wells
indicated that groundvater generally occurred 32 - 36 feet below
the surface. Exceedingly high contaminant values were
consistently detected in shallow wells located at the Facility.
The four volatile organic compounds which were most abundant from
both a concentration and frequency of occurrence basis include:
trichloroethene (TCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), 1,1-
dichloroethene (DCE), and tetrachloroethene (PCE). TCA and TCE
were present at the greatest concentrations in the groundwater
underlying the Facility (1,100 and 500 parts per billion,
respectively). Inorganics such as chromium, nickel, copper,
~ = iiaium, manganese, and iron were also detected. Maximum
--ncentration levels of primary contaminants of concern in the
groundwater can be found in Table 1.
Surface/Subsurface Soils .- :.- ; - • -
The soil sampling program involved the determination of lateral
and vertical extents of contamination by obtaining samples from
seven surface soil locations, six soil borings, two leaching pit
borings, and three conitoring well borings. All soil sampling
locations are depicted on Figure 4. Many of the contaminants
found in the soils were the same as those found in the
groundwater. Table 2 lists the overall maximum, average, and
minimum concentrations of contaminants detected in the on-site
soils.
The surface soils were sampled between a depth"of 0-2 feet
below grade. Inorganic compound concentrations exceeding
regional background levels vere detected at almost all surface
soil locations sampled. Typical background concentration levels
of inorganic compounds are shown on Table 3. Inorganic compounds
consistently detected at elevated levels include: chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. The highest concentration of
most, if not all, inorganic compounds at the surface were
detected at boring location SB-06. This boring was advanced
directly through a former, leaching pit. Maximum surface
concentrations at S3-06 include chromium at 14,800 mg/kg
(background (bg) 10 - 80 sg/kg), nickel at 46,400 mg/kg (bg 4 -30
mg/kg), lead at 1,440 mg/kg (bg 3 - 30 mg/kg), and copper at
11,200 mg/kg (bg 2 - 100 mg/kg). The highest values of volatile
-------
organics in surface soils were also detected in samples located
at SB-06. The maxiaun concentration of TCE detected at 0 - 2
feet is reported at 120 ug/kg.
Inorganic compounds consistently detected at elevated values in
subsurface soils include: chromium, nickel, lead, and to a lesser
extent, copper and cadmium. The highest concentrations of these
compounds are generally detected in subsurface soils of sampling
locations SB-06, SB-04, SB-OS, and SB-02. In general, inorganic
compound concentrations decrease with depth from maximum values
exhibited at (0 - 2 feet) or near (approximately 5 feet below
grade) the surface. The maximum chromium value detected at the
Site was 27,300 mg/kg in SB-06 at a depth of 2 - 4 feet. High
levels of chromium, nickel, and lead were detected in locations
SB-05 and SB-02 occurring at depths of 10 and 30 feet,
respectively. The distribution of organic contaminants and the
concentrations at which they occur in subsurface soil vary
greatly upon location. Volatile organics detected most
frequently include TCZ and TCA (maximum concentrations of 53 and
7 mg/kg, respectively).
The volume of soil contaminated by organic compounds is estimated
to be 3,150 cubic yards. The areas of organic contamination,
approximately 2500 square feet, are depicted on Figure 5. Most
of the inorganic contamination was detected in the top 4-5 feet
or the Site, resulting in approximately 1,600 cubic yards of
contaminated soil, with the exception of inorganic contamination
as deep as 40 feet below grade related to the former leaching
pits. The estimated amount of this deeper inorganic
contamination is 480 cubic yards. This amount is based upon the
leaching pits being between 12 - 18 feet in depth and 12 feet in
width and assumes that soils within roughly 2 feet of these
parameters would also require excavation.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS '
A baseline risk assessment was developed as part of the remedial
investigation for the Site. The risk assessment evaluates the
potential impacts on human health and the environment if the
contamination at the Site is not remediated. The assessment also
anticipates potential future uses for the Site. This information
is used by EPA to nake a determination as to whether remediation
of the Site is required.
Two scenarios were developed based on current (industrial) and
possible future (residential) land use at the Facility. Under
both scenarios, several pathways (direct contact, inhalation and
ingestion) were evaluated for exposure to surface and subsurface
soils, air, and groundvater used for drinking and domestic
.purposes. The populations evaluated included nearby residents,
current and future on-site workers, future on-site development
workers, and future on-site adult and child residents. An
exposure assessment was conducted to estimate the magnitude,
frequency, and duration of actual and/or potential exposures to
the chemicals of potential concern via all pathways by which
humans are potentially exposed. Exposures were based on
-------
reasonable maximum concentrations, calculated as the 95th
percentile upper confidence limit of the geometric mean. This
reasonable maximum exposure is defined as the highest exposure
that is reasonably expected to occur at the Site for individual
and combined pathways.
Based on the evaluations performed during the risk assessment,
the contaainants which are likely to pose the most significant
risks to human health and the environment (i.e., chemicals of
concern) were identified for the soil and groundwater. The
chemicals concern in the soil are cadmium, chromium, nickel,
barium, lead, copper, arsenic, trichloroethene, bis (2-ethyl-
hexyl) phthalate, and chrysene. The chemicals of concern in the
groundwater are trichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
1,1-dichlorcethene, tetrachloroethene, cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, and nickel. The maximum concentrations of. these
contaminants are provided in Table 1. All levels of primary
contaminants detected in the groundwater exceeded federal and/or
state drinking water standards.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic (non-cancer) effects due to
exposure to site chemicals are considered separately. EPA
considers carcinogenic risk in the range of 10"4 to 10"6 to be
acceptable. This risk range can be interpreted to mean that an
individual may have a one-in-ten-thousand to a one-in-a-million
increased chance of"developing cancer as a result of site-related
exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under the
specific exposure conditions at the Site.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
potency factors developed by the EPA for the chemicals of
concern. Cancer potency factors ("CPF"s) have been developed by
EPA's Carcinogenic Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for
estimating excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure
to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed
in units of (mg/kg-day)"', are multiplied by the estimated intake
of a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-
bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at the intake level. The term "upper
bcur.d" reflects the conservative esti-ate of the risks calculated
from the CPF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely. CPFs for chemicals of potential
concern can be found on Table 4.
EPA's baseline risk assessment indicates that the most
significant public health risk results from the ingestion of
groundwater, inhalation of groundwater volatiles (i.e., while
showering), and direct contact and ingestion of soils. Table 5
summarizes the baseline risk assessment results. Under the.
future-use scenario, ingestion of groundwater in the vicinity of
the Facility by off-Facility adult residents would present an
-------
excess cancer .risk of 2.56 x 10*3; ingestion of groundwater by
on-Facility adult residents would present an excess cancer risk
of 2.55 x 10"3 and for on-Facility child residents an excess
cancer risk of 1.7 x 10*3. This indicates that future off-
Facility and on-Facility adults have approximately a three-in-
one-thousand additional chance of developing cancer, and on-
Facility children have a two-in-one-thousand additional chance of
developing cancer, as a result of drinking this groundwater.
Under the future-use scenario for on-Facility development
workers, inhalation of the Site soils during construction
activity would present an excess cancer risk of 9.96 x 10~4.
This indicates that an on-Facility worker involved in
construction and excavation activities would have approximately a
one-in-one-thousand additional chance of developing cancer.
The non-cancer risk associated with different pathways was
assessed using a hazard index ("HI") approach, based on
comparison of expected contaminant intakes and safe levels of
intake (reference doses). Reference doses (RfDs) have been
developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health
effects. The chronic and subchronic RfDs for chemicals of
potential concern can be found on Table 4. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of milligram per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day),
are estimates of daily exposure levels for humans which are
thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive
individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental
media (e.g., the amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated
soil) are compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for
the contaminant in the particular aedia. The HI is obtained by
adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across all media.
An HI value greater than 1.0 is considered to pose an
unacceptable non-cancer risk. Under the current-use worker
scenario, inhalation and ingestion of Site soils contributes to
an HI of 2.2. Under the future-use scenario, ingestion of
groundwater for off-Facility adult residents presents an HI value
of 86.2; ingestion of groundwater for on-Facility adult residents
presents and HI value of 86.2 and for on-Facility child residents
an HI of 114; ingestion and dermal contact with soils for on-
Facility adult residents contributes to an HI value of 2.56 and
for on-Facility child residents an HI of 15.4; ingestion and
dermal contact with Site soils by future on-Facility workers
presents and HI of 2.2 and for future Site development workers an
HI of 23.9. For soil pathways, the chemicals of concern which
contribute the most to the HI values are chromium and nickel.
For groundwater pathways, the.largest chemical contributors are
antimony, chromium, and nickel.
The risk assessment contains the conclusion that inhalation of
Site soils by current off-Facility residents does not present a
non-cancer risk nor an excess cancer risk.
-------
In summary, it is evident that the contaminants in soils at the
Facility and underlying groundwater warrant remediation in order
to prevent the continued degradation of groundwater quality in
the area and to reduce their associated risks.
Uncertainties
The procedures used to assess potential human health risks in
this evaluation are subject to wide uncertainties. In general,
the main sources of uncertainty in this assessment include:
A environmental chemistry sampling and analysis;
* exposure models and assumptions; and
* toxicological models and parameters.
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 into
contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over
which such exposure would occur, and in the models used to
estimate the concentrations of the chemical so 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 very conservative assumptions concerning risk
and exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As a result,
the risk assessment provides upper bound estimates of the risks
to populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to
underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by the preferred alternative or one of the
other active measures considered, may present a current or
potential threat to the environment through the groundwater
pathway.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Following a screening of remedial technologies in accordance with
the NCP, five remedial alternatives were developed for
contaminated groundwater and six for contaminated soil. The
alternatives were further screened based on technical
considerations such as effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
The present worth costs listed below for all soil and groundwater
-------
alternatives are based on a 30-year period and a 5% discount
rate.
Remedial Alternatives for Contaminated Soils (SC)
A SC-1: No-Action
A SC-2: Surface Excavation/Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal/Capping
A SC-3: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/In-Situ Stabilization
(Solidification)/Soil Cover
A SC-4: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Excavation/Off-Site
Treatment and Disposal/Fill with Clean Off-Site Soil
A SC-5: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Surface Excavation/
Excavation of Leaching Pits/Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal/Fill with Clean Off-Site Soil
Alternative SC-1; No-Action
Capital Cost: $ 65,600
Annual Operation & Maintenance (0 & M) Cost: $34,400
Present Worth Cost: $650,000
Time to Implement: 6 months
CERCLA requires .that the No-Action alternative be considered as a
baseline for comparison with other soil alternatives. Under this
alternative, the contaminated soil would be left in place without
treatment. A long-term monitoring program would be implemented
to track the migration of contaminants from the soil into the
groundwater utilizing existing monitoring well clusters as well
as a total of 10 newly installed cluster wells. This alternative
also includes the development and maintenance of a public
awareness and education program for the residents and workers in
the area surrounding the Facility. Since this alternative would
involve no contaminant removal, CERCLA requires that a Site
subject to such a selected remedy be reviewed every five years.
If justified by the review, remedial actions may be implemented
to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative SC-2; Surface Excavation/Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal/Capping
Capital cost: $1,257,100
0 & M Cost: $32,700
Present Worth: $1,815,400
Time to Implement: 30 months
This alternative would involve the removal of the top 4-5 feet
of contaminated soil from approximately 10,280 ft2 of the open
10
-------
area (entire open area is 16,000 ft2) of the Site. The total
volume of excavated material is estimated to be 1,600 cubic
yards. The excavated soil would be transported to an off-site
permitted Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) facility
for treatment and 'disposal. For purposes of estimating cost for
this alternative, as well as Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5, it is
assumed that these soils would be treated via stabilization/
solidification. Off-site transport would comply with all federal
and state transportation requirements. The excavated area would
be filled with clean soil. The entire open area (16,000 ft2)
would then be graded and capped with a 6-inch asphalt cap, to
prevent leaching of subsurface contaminants into the ground-
water through infiltration. Since this alternative would result
in contamination remaining on-site, five year reviews and long-
term monitoring would be required.
Alternative SC-3; In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/In-Situ Stabilization
(Solidificationy/Soil Cover
Capital Cost: $1,965,600
0 & M Cost: $27,200
Present Worth: $2,439,300
Time to Implement: 36 months
»>
Under this alternative, the contaminated soil would be left in
place, undisturbed; no excavation would be required. An in-situ
vacuum extraction process would be employed over portions of the
volatile organic contaminated area (2,500 ft2) to remove the
contaminants, mainly TCE, from the soil to 1 mg/kg. This process
would involve the installation of approximately 5 vacuum
extraction wells, each with a maximum depth of 30 feet. The
vacuum wells would be connected via a piping system" to a skid-
mounted, high volume vacuum pump. The vacuum pump would pull air
through the contaminated soils, within a radius of 20 feet from
the wells, depending on soil composition and volatility of the
contaminants. The air containing the stripped volatile organics
would be fed through a condenser to remove moisture and then
through an emissions control system, i.e., a vapor phase carbon
adsorption system to remove volatilized organics.
While in-situ vacuum extraction is being applied to applicable
portions of the Site, an in-situ stabilization process would
begin in another portion of the Site and continue until the
entire inorganic contamination has been immobilized. The
approximate area of inorganic contamination varies from 10,280
ft2 at the surface to 8,850 ft2 at. a 34-ft depth. The process
would incorporate mechanical mixing and injection of reagents to .
immobilize both organic and inorganic contaminants. The
stabilizing additives polymerize with the soils producing a
cement-like mass. For each type of contaminated soil, the
additives used varies and would have to be optimized. An on-site
batch mixing tank supplies the proprietary chemical additives.
11
-------
Once both processes are complete, a 6-inch cover of clean soil
would then be placed over the entire yard area (16,000 ft2).
Since this alternative would result in contamination remaining
on-site, five year reviews and long-term monitoring would be
required.
Alternative SC-4; In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Excavation/Off-Site
Treatment and Disposal/Fill with Clean Off-
Site Soil
Capital Cost: $8,974,600
0 & M Cost: none
Present Worth: $8,974,600
Time to Implement: 42 months
This alternative is identical to Alternative SC-3 except that the
contaminated soil in areas ranging rom 10,280 ft2 at the surface
to 8,850 ft2 at a 34-ft depth of the contaminated yard area of
the Site would be excavated and transported off-site for treat-
ment and disposal. In-situ vacuum extraction would be conducted
first in order to prevent exposure of workers and residents to
volatile organics and to reduce organic contaminant levels such
that only inorganics would require treatment off-site prior to
disposal. Approximately 11,700 cubic yards of contaminated soil
would be transported to an off-site RCRA permitted treatment and
disposal facility. This total excavation amount is based on the
assumption that all elevated levels of contaminants scattered
throughout the Site would need to be excavated . The excavated
area,,.would, be filled, with : clean soil,, compacted and graded.
Alternative SC-5: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Surface Excavation/
Excavation of Leaching Pits/Off-Site Treatment
and Disposal/Fill with Clean Off-Site Soil
Capital Cost: $1,777,410
0 & M Cost: none
Present Worth: $1,777,410
Time to Implement: 36 months
This alternative is the same as Alternative SC-4 except that the
amount of soil to be excavated would be different. After the in-
situ vacuum extraction is conducted, the top 4-5 feet of the
contaminated yard area of the Site would be excavated, resulting
in approximately 1,600 cubic yards of. material to be transported
for off-site treatment and disposal. During the course of the
initial excavation when the leaching pits or "hot spots" can be
further delineated through additional borings and sampling, the
excavation would continue until all contaminated soils were
removed. The estimated amount of soil that would be excavated --
from the leaching pits is 480 cubic yards. This amount is based
upon the leaching pits being between 12 - 18 feet in depth and 12
feet wide and assumes that soils within 2 feet of these
12
-------
parameters would also need to be excavated. The excavated areas
would be backfilled with clean soil and the entire open area
(16,000 ft2) would then be graded.
Remedial Alternatives for Contaminated Groundwater (GW)
A GW-l: No-Action
A GW-2: Limited Action
* GW-3: Pumping/Metals Precipitation/Air Stripping/
Reinjection
A'GW-4: Pumping/Metals Precipitation/Carbon Adsorption/
Reinjection
* GW-5: Puziping/Metals Precipitation/UV-Chemical Oxidation/
Reinjection
A GW-7: Pusping/Pretreatiaent/Discharge to Local Publically
Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
Alternative GW-1; No-Action
Capital Cost: $65,500
O & M Cost: $26,900
Present Worth: $534,600
Time to Implement: 6 months
The No-Action alternative would only include a long-term
monitoring program to sample the migration of contaminants of
concern in the aquifer. The contaminants in the groundwater
would be left to attenuate without any treatment. A total of
twelve monitoring wells, including existing upgradient, Facility,
and downgradient wells would be utilized in order to sample the
groundwater from the shallow and deeper portions of the aquifer
and to track contaminant migration. Regular five-year reviews
would be performed to assess the need for additional remedial
actions.
Alternative GW-2; Limited Action
Capital Cost: $99,300
O & M Cost: $29,700
Present Worth: $611,500
Time to Implement: 36 months
This alternative would include a long-term monitoring program, as
described in Alternative GW-l, and also an institutional control
program to restrict the use of the aquifer. The contaminants in
the groundwater would be left to attenuate without any treatment.
Institutional controls, such as well permit restrictions, would
be implemented to limit the use of the aquifer downgradient of
13
-------
the Facility for both potable and municipal purposes. As with
Alternative GW-l, regular five year reviews would be necessary to
assess the need for further response actions.
Alternative GW-3; Pumping/Metals Precipitation/Air Stripping/
Reiniection
Capitol Cost: $971,500
0 & M Cost: $191,100
Present Worth: $3,909,200
Time to Implement: 36 Months
The major features of this alternative would include groundwater
collection, treatment, and reinjection of the treated groundwater
and a performance monitoring program.
The collection system would consist of one extraction well to be
installed at the southwestern corner of the Facility into the
Upper Glacial Aquifer to a depth of approximately 70 feet in
order to extract 28,800 gallons per day (gpd) of groundwater from
the Site contaminant plume. The groundwater would then be piped
to an on-site treatment facility consisting of two major
•process: treatment to remove metals by chemical precipitation,
flocculation, clarification and filtration; and, air stripping
followed by carbon .adsorption to remove volatile organic
contaminants. The treatment system would be designed to •
effectively reduce the metal concentrations .in the treated
groundwater below the federal and New York State groundwater
standards. Any sludge generated during the metal removal process
would be disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C landfill. The spent
carbon would be transported off-site for disposal or regeneration
and reuse. The treated groundwater would then be reinjected into
the aquifer through a reinjecticn well. The siting of the
extraction and reinjection wells would be completed during the
design phase based on technical criteria.
Alternative GW-4; Pumping/Metals Precipitation/Carbon Adsorption/
Reinieciton
Capital Cost: $1,062,900
0 & M Cost: $201,600
Present Worth: $4,162,000
Time to Implement: 36 Months
The major features of this alternative would be the same as that
of Alternative GW-3. The unit processes used in this alternative
are similar to those of Alternative GW-3 with the exception that
the unit operation for organic removal would be achieved.by a
liquid phase carbon adsorption 'system rather than the air
stripping system.
14
-------
Alternative GW-5; Pumping/Metals Precipitation/UV-Chemical
Oxidation/Reini action
Capital Cost: $1,011,200
0 & M Cost: $274,100
Present Worth: $5,224,800
Time .to Implement: 36 months
The major features of this alternative would be the same as that
of Alternative GW-3. The unit processes used in this alternative
are similar to those of Alternative GW-3 with the exception that
the unit operation for organic removal would be achieved by a UV-
chemical oxidation system rather than the air stripping system
used in Alternative GW-3 or the liquid phase carbon adsorption
system used in Alternative GW-4. With a UV-chemical oxidation
system, the groundwater would be mixed with a 50% hydrogen
peroxide solution and then pumped to a 20 gpm UV-chemical
oxidation reactor. The organic contaminants are converted to
carbon dioxide (C02) , water, and chlorides.
Alternative GW-7; Puinpina/Pretreat~ent/Discharae to Local POTW
Capital Cost: $760,100
0 & M Cost: $180,700
Present Worth: $3,537,900
Time to Implement: 42 months
The major features of this alternative would include groundwater
collection, pretreatment, and"discharge of the treated -
grcundwater into the sewer line adjacent to the Site on Kalb
Avenue which leads to the Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant located
1.0 miles south of the Site. The unit process used in this
alternative for the removal of heavy metals would be the same as
that used in Alternative GW-3. The organic removal in this case
is achieved by the activated sludge system (secondary wastewater
treatment system) at the Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
All remedial alternatives were evaluated in detail utilizing nine
criteria as set forth in the OSWER Directive 9355.3-01. ' These
criteria were developed to address the requirements of Section
121 of CERCLA to ensure all important considerations are factored
into remedy selection decisions.
The following "threshold" criteria are the most important and
must be satisfied by any alternative in order to be eligible for
selection:
15
-------
Threshold Criteria * Overall protection of humam health and the
environment; and
A Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements to the extent
practicable.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make
comparisons and to identify the major trade-offs between
alternatives:
Primary Balancing A Long-term effectiveness and permanence;
Criteria * Reduction in toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment;
A Short-term effectiveness;
* Implementability; and
A cost.
The following "modifying" criteria is considered fully after the
formal public comment period on the Proposed Plan is complete:
Modifying Criteria * State/support agency acceptance; and
A Community acceptance.
The nine criteria are summarized below:
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy provides
adequate protection and describes how risks are eliminated,
reduced or controlled through treatment, engineering controls,"or
institutional controls.
Protection of human health is the central mandate of CERCLA.
Protection is achieved primarily by taking appropriate action to
ensure -that there will be no unacceptable risks to human health
or the environment through any exposure pathways.
2. Compliance with ARARs
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARS')
and/ or provide grounds for invoking waiver. ARARS can be
chemical-specific, location-specific, or action-specific.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
This criterion refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain
reliable protection of human health and the environment over
time, once clean-up levels have been met. It also addresses the
magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that may be required
to manage the risk posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated
wastes.
16
-------
4. Reduction of Toxici"ty. Mobility, or Vnimne
This evaluation criterion relates to the anticipated performance
of a remedial technology, with respect of these parameters, that
a remedy may employ.
5. Short-term Effectiveness
This criterion involves the period of time each alternative needs
to achieve protection and any adverse impacts on human health and
the environment that may be posed during construction and
implementation of the alternative.
6. Implementabilitv
This criterion involves the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement the chosen solution.
This criterion includes both estimated capital and operation and
naintenance .(O&M) costs. The present worth costs are based on a
30-year period and a 5% discount rate.
8. State/Support Agency Acceptance
This criterion assesses the technical and administrative issues
and concerns the state may have regarding each of the
alternatives. The factors to be evaluated includes features of
the alternatives that the state supports, opposes, and any
reservations the state may identify.
9. Community Acceptance
This criterion provides an assessment of any public concerns
regarding any of the alternatives. Factors of community
acceptance to"be discussed include support, reservation, and
opposition by the community.
Analysis
The.discussion which follows provides a sursary of the relative
performance of each soil and groundwater alternative with respect
to the nine criteria.
SOIL ALTERNATIVES
A Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative SC-1 does not meet the remedial objectives, thus it
would not be protective of human health and the environment due
II
-------
to the continued migration of volatile organics and inorganics
into the groundwater. Alternatives SC-2, SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5
would meet the remedial objective of protecting the groundwater
crom the source. However, Alternatives SC-3 through SC-5 would
provide a more permanent solution to the problem since the
protectiveness of Alternative SC-2 relies on the effectiveness of
the asphalt cap. Alternative SC-2 would not meet the cleanup
levels for prevention of cross-media impacts on the groundwater
since only surface soil would be removed. Alternatives SC-3,
SC-4, and SC-5 have the potential to meet the cleanup level for
volatile organics. Alternative SC-3 can effectively immobilize
the remaining contaminants. Alternative SC-5 would meet all
cleanup levels once the leaching pits or "hot spots" of
contaminated are further delineated. Alternative SC-4 can meet
all the cleanup levels in the unsaturated soil since all of the
contaminated soil would be remove from the Site. Alternatives
SC-2, SC-3, SC-4 and SC-5 would protect nearby residents and
workers by eliminating inhalation and direct contact pathways.
* Compliance with ARARS
All technologies proposed for use in Alternatives SC-2, SC-3;
SC-4, and SC-5 would ne designed and implemented to satisfy all
ARARs. However, Alternative SC-2 could result in cross-media
contamination impacts on the groundwater through leaching of
contaminants. Federal and state regulations dealing with the
handling and transportation of hazardous wastes to an- off-site
treatment facility would be followed. Contaminated soil, debris,
and sediments from the Site would be treated using specific
technologies or specific treatment levels, as appropriate, to
comply with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs). The
residuals from the treatment processes (i.e., spent carbon) would
also be treated and disposed of to comply with LDRs. This
alternative will comply with LDRs through .a treatability variance
for the contaminated soil, debris, sediments, and residuals.
(More detail can be found under the "Statutory Determinations"
section).
A Loner-term Effectiveness
Alternative SC-1 would only monitor the migration of the
contaminants and would not provide treatment or containment.
Therefore, it would not provide effective or permanent long-tera
protection of groundwater or human exposure to soils at the Site.
Alternatives SC-2, SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5 would mitigate the
significant risks by partial or total removal and/or
immobilization of Site contaminants. Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5
would provide the highest 'degree of effectiveness since all
identified contaminated soils would be treated as well as removed
from the Site.. Alternatives SC-3 can effectively remove TCE from
the soil through in-situ vacuum extraction and can effectively
18.
-------
immobilize the remaining contaminants: although the long-term
integrity of the stabilized soil matrix is unJcnown, maintenance
of the soil cover over the stabilized soil would help ensure that
future leaching does not occur. Alternative SC-2 may not be as
effective as Alternatives SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5 because it would
leave contaminants in-place without treatment and relies on the
integrity of the asphalt cap to prevent further migration and
cross-media impacts on the groundwater.
A Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
Alternative SC-1 would provide a very slow and gradual reduction
in toxicity through natural attenuation. It would provide no
reduction in contaminant mobility. Alternative SC-2 would
provide a reduction in mobility of surface soil contaminants via
removal and off-site stabilization and in subsurface contaminants
by Site capping, but does not reduce the toxicity of the
subsurface soils. •
Alternatives SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5 again are similar, in that each
would result in significant reductions in the toxicity, mobility,
and volume of the treated material. Material toxicity would be
reduced by removal and in-situ vacuum extraction of TCE and other
volatile organics under Alternatives SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5.
Contaminant mobility would be reduced in Alternative SC-3 by in-
situ stabilization and a soil cover over the treated soil.
Alternatives SC-4 and SC-5 would provide for reduction in
toxicity, mobility, and volume.through removal of all
contaminated soil. Volume increases resulting' from stabilization
of metal contaminated soil would be minimal in SC-3.
* Short-terra Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternative SC-1 would result in"no
additional risk to the community or workers during
implementation, since subsurface soil would not be disturbed.
Alternatives SC-2, SC-4, and SC-5 would include activities such
as contaminated soil excavation and off-site transport or on-
site treatment that could result in potential exposure of
residents and workers to volatilized contaminants and
contaminated dust. Engineering controls and other measures
(e.g., restricting access to the sit* t-.o authorized personnel
only) would effectively eliminate an> impact these activities
would have on nearby residents. Alternatives SC-3 would include
in-situ treatment of contaminated soils, so exposure risk to
workers and residents from excavation would be minimal. Under
Alternatives SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5, proper air emission control
units would be installed to minimize the potential for public
health exposures because of low-level emissions from on-site
treatment units.
-------
Alternative SC-1 would be implemented in approximately 30 months.
Alternatives SC-2, SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5..would be designed and
constructed in roughly 2 years with actual remediation to follow,
resulting in full implementation time frames of approximately 6,
12, 18, and 12 months, respectively.
A Implementability
Components of all alternatives would utilize relatively common
construction equipment and materials. Although implementable,
some construction difficulty would be encountered with
Alternatives SC-2, SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5 because of the limited
Facility space available for equipment staging and material
handling. Alternative SC-3 would not have a space problem since
no excavation and stockpiling would be required. Alternative SC-
4 would involve maximum excavation and would require the largest
work area. Alternative SC-1 would be the easiest to implement.
A degree of uncertainty exists with the in-situ processes called
for in Alternatives SC-3, SC-4, and SC-5, since these
technologies have only been performed.on a limited full-scale
basis at similar contaminant concentration levels. However, the
physical nature of the soils at the Site appear to be optimum for
the in-situ vacuum extraction process.
According to the present worth cost estimates for all
alternatives evaluated", Alternative SC-4 ($8t974,600) would be
the most costly alternative to implement, followed by
Alternatives SC-3, SC-2, and SC-5. Alternative SC-1, no action,
would be the least costly to implement. Present worth considers
a 5% discount rate, and a 30-year operational period for
Alternatives SC-1, SC-2, SC-3, and SC-5. Since Alternatives
SC-4 and SC-5 do not require any 0 & M cost, their present worth
costs are equivalent to their capital costs. The present worth
cost estimates for the alternatives evaluated are as follows:
SC-1: $ 650,000
SC-2: 1,815,400
- SC-3: 2,439,300
SC-4: 8,974,600
SC-5: 1,777,410
Alternative SC-5 is protective and permanently treats the
principal threats posed by the Site at a cost of $1,777,410,
which is much less than Alternative SC-4.
A CoTTununity Acceptance
No objections from the community were raised regarding the
selected soil remedy. A responsiveness summary which addresses
20
-------
all comments received during the public comment period, including
the March 13, 1991 public meeting, is attached as Appendix IV.
A State Acceptance
The State of New York, through the NYSDEC, has concurred with
EPA's selected remedy. The NYSDEC letter of concurrence is
attached as Appendix III.
GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES
A Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternatives GW-l and GW-2 would not provide protection of human
health and the environment. Existing groundwater contamination
would continue to degrade the aquifer and downgradient
groundwater.
Alternatives GW-3, GW-4, GW-5 and GW-7 would be much more
protective of human health and the environment than Alternatives
GW-l and GW-2 since they would be directed at reducing the
toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants in the aquifer and
protecting downgradient groundwater from further contamination.
A Compliance with APARs
Alternatives GW-l and GW-2 would not comply with federal or state
drinking water standards or criteria or those ARARs required for
protection of the groundwater resources.' -Neither alternative
would achieve ARARs.
The design of Alternatives GW-3, GW-4, and GW-5 would be
performed to permit achievement of chemical-specific ARARs for
drinking water and those required for groundwater protection in
the treated water stream. Alternative GW-7 would be in
compliance with a discharge permit to a POTW. Each of these
alternatives would be capable of providing the required
contaminant removal levels. Because UV-chemical oxidation
(Alternative GW-5) experience is limited, its effectiveness is
slightly less certain but considered achievable. Groundwater
protection criteria would not be met at all points of the aquifer
immediately upon implementation of any of the alternatives. A
second operable unit groundwater invesciga*.icn would be required
to determine the need for potential remediation of the
downgradient portion of the plume.
The residuals from the treatment processes (i.e., spent carbon)
would also be treated and disposed of to comply with LDRs. This
alternative will comply with LDRs through a treatability variance
for the spent carbon.
21
-------
A Long-tern Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternatives GW-l and GW-2 would not provide treatment, but
Alternative GW-2 would restrict the use of the contaminated
aquifer for private and municipal purposes. Neither alternative
would restore the contaminated aquifer for future use.
Alternatives GW-3, GW-4, GW-5, and GW-7 would all function to
reduce the potential risk associated with groundwater ingestion
by extracting and treating the groundwater to remove contaminants
from the aquifer. The time to achieve these risk reductions
would be limited by the-effective extraction rates from the
aquifer. The long-term effectiveness of any of the systems would
be dependent upon a well planned monitoring program and proper
operation and maintenance of the treatment system. None of the
alternatives would be able to remediate the groundwater to
federal and state standards in a reasonable period, but the
treatment alternatives would protect downgradient groundwater
from further contamination while further Investigation of the
downgradient groundwater is conducted. The reinjection process
called for in Alternatives GW-3, GW-4, and GW-5 would result in
conservation of groundwater resources. Alternative GW-7 extracts
groundwater from the aquifer and discharges it to a POTW, thereby
failing to replenish the aquifer.
Alternative GW-4 would require the disposal of more process
residuals than Alternatives GW-3, GW-5, and GW-7, since liquid
phase carbon adsorption would be used. The estimated annual
"carbon usage would be approximately 6,000 Ibs for the liquid
phase activated carbon unit called for in Alternative GW-4 as
opposed to an estimated 2,000 Ibs for the vapor phase carbon unit
called for in Alternative GW-3. .
A Reduction in Toxicitv, Mobility, or Volume
Alternatives GW-l and GW-2 would not involve any removal,
treatment, or disposal of the contaminants in the aquifer and
therefore would not be effective in reducing the toxicity,
mobility, or volume.
Alternatives GW-3, GW-4, GW-5, and GW-7 would effectively reduce
the toxicity, mobility, and volur-j of contaminants in the aquifer
to a larger extent than Alternatives wW-1 and GW-2, since
removal, treatment and disposal would be provided. These four
alternatives would be similarly effective in their reduction of
the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants.
A Short-term Effectiveness
The implementation of Alternatives GW-l and GW-2 would result in
no additional risk to the community or on-site workers during
remedial activities since no major- construction activities would
22,
-------
be conducted.
Alternatives GW-3, GW-4, GW-5, and GW-7 include excavation
activities, installation of the collection and reinjection/
discharge systems, and construction of the treatment plant that
could result in potential exposure of residents and workers to
volatilized contaminants and contaminated dust. The treatment
plant would be constructed on-site. Proper handling procedures
of the treatment reagents must be followed for all treatment
alternatives. All alternatives, except Alternatives GW-1 and
GW-2, would generate process residuals requiring proper handling
and disposal.
Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 would take less than 1 year to
implement. Alternatives GW-3, GW-4, GW-5, and GW-7 would all
require approximately 2 years to complete their construction
prior to operation.
*• Implementability
All components of Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2 would be easily
implemented. Alternative GW-2 would require that state or local
authorities implement institutional controls to restrict the use
of the aquifer for private and municipal purposes. These
controls would have to be implemented by the state or local
authorities. Alternatives GW-3, GW-4, GW-5, and GW-7 would
utilize relatively common construction equipment and materials.
Site space available for treatment plant construction is limited.
'In Tight of"this, Alternative GW-7 would be the easiest treatment
alternative to implement -since only a pretreatment system would
be required on-site. However, Alternative GW-7 would require
that a discharge permit be granted by local authorities. There
is a degree of uncertainty as to whether this permit could be
obtained.
The metals precipitation technology common to all treatment
alternatives is proven and reliable in achieving the specified
process efficiency and performance goals. The air stripper and .
vapor phase carbon unit called for in Alternative GW-3 is a
proven and efficient method of removing organic contaminants from
groundwater, as is the liquid phase carbon adsorption technology
proposed for use in Alternative GW-4. UV-chenical oxidation (for
destruction of organic contaminants) called for in Alternative
GW-5 has not been used extensively, but has been used
successfully in several groundwater treatment facilities. An
additional process may need to be added onto Alternative GW-5 if
the resulting chlorides from the UV-chemical oxidation process
exceed the maximum limits allowable for reinjection. The use of
the activated sludge process of the Bay Park Sewage Treatment
Plant proposed for use in Alternative GW-7, to remove the organic
contaminants from the pretreated groundwater, is a conventional
municipal wastewater treatment system designed to aerobically
-------
biodegrade organic contaminants.
All proposed treatment technologies are readily available from a
number of sources with the exception of UV-chemical oxidation.
It is expected that additional equipment manufactures will be
available once the UV-chemical technology becomes more mature.
Alternatives GW-3, GW-4, and GW-5 would require institutional
management of the operation and maintenance of the treated
groundwater reinjection system. Alternative GW-7 would require
coordination with the Bay Park Sewage Treatment Plant for the
discharge and treatment of the pretreated groundwater.
Off-site disposal facilities are available for the disposal of
the pretreatment sludge generated from Alternatives GW-3, GW-4,
GW-5 and GW-7. Disposal facilities for the spent carbon
generated from Alternatives GW-3 and GW-4 are also available.
The estimated annual carbon usage would be approximately 6,000
Ibs for the liquid phase activated carbon unit called for in
Alternative GW-4 as opposed to an estimated 2,000 Ibs for the
vapor phase carbon unit called for in Alternative GW-3. The
spent carbon would be transported off-site for disposal or
regeneration and reuse. Any process residual generated from the
activated sludge system during the treatment of the contaminated
groundwater in Alternative GW-7 would be properly handled by the
Bay Park Sewage Treatment -facility.
Cost
According to the present worth cost estimates for all
alternatives evaluated, Alternative GW-5 ($5,224,800) would be
the most costly alternative to implement followed by Alternatives
GW-4, GW-3, GW-7, GW-2, and GW-1. Alternative GW-7 would be the
least expensive treatment alternative. Present worth is based on
a 5% discount rate, and a 30-year operational period. The
present worth cost estimates for the alternatives evaluated are
as follows:
GW-1
GW-2
GW-3
GW-4
GW-5
GW-7
$ 534,600
611,400
3,909,600
4,162,000
5,224,800
3,537,900
Community Acceptance
No objections from the community were raised regarding the
selected groundwater remedy. A responsiveness summary which
addresses all comments received during the public comment period,
including the March 13, 1991 public meeting, is attached as
Appendix IV.
24
-------
A State Acceptance
The State of New York, through the NYSDEC, has concurred with
EPA's selected remedy. The NYSDEC letter of concurrence is
attached as Appendix III.
SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives, EPA and
NYSDEC recommend Alternative SC-5 (In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/
Surface Excavation/Excavation of Leaching Pits/Off-Site Treatment
and Disposal/Backfill with Clean Off-Site Soil) and active -
.restoration of the groundwater utilizing Alternative GW-3
(Pumping/ Metals Precipitation/Air Stripping/Reinjection) as the
preferred alternative for remediation of contaminated soils and
groundwater at the Facility. Prior to implementation, an
extensive design effort will be performed to elaborate on
specific details of the preferred alternative.
The preferred alternative will involve the following actions: '
Soil
First, an in-situ vacuum extraction process will be employed over
portions of the contaminated area (2,500 ft2) to reduce the
volatile organic contaminants, mainly trichloroethene, to 1 mg/kg
or one part per million. This process will involve the
installation of approximately 5 vacuum extraction wells, each
with a maximum depth of- 30 feet. The vacuum wells will be
connected via a piping system to a skid-mounted, high volume
vacuum pump. The vacuum pump will pull air through the
contaminated "soils, within a radius of 20 feet from the wells,
depending on soil composition and volatility of the contaminants.
The air containing the stripped volatile organics will be fed
through a condenser to remove moisture and then through an
emissions control system, i.e., a vapor phase carbon adsorption
system to remove volatilized organics.
After the vacuum extraction process, the top 4-5 feet of soils
at the Facility will be excavated, resulting in approximately
1,600 cubic yards of material to be transported for off-site
treatment and disposal in compliance with land disposal
restrictions. Excavation to this depth addresses all
contamination found with the exception of the deeper
contamination in the leaching pit areas. This will eliminate the
risk posed by direct contact with soils. During the course of
this initial excavation when the leaching pits or "hot spots" of
contamination can be further delineated, the excavation will
continue until all contaminated soils are removed. It is
estimated that the leaching pit excavation will result in 480
cubic yards of material transported off-site for treatment and
disposal. This amount is based upon the leaching pits being
between 12 - 18 feet in depth and 12 feet wide and assumes that
..... 25
-------
soils within 2 feet of these parameters would also need to be
excavated. Exact areas and depths of contamination will be
determined during the design phase. Additional sampling during
design to delineate "hot spots" will ensure that all contaminated
areas are removed and, at the same time, that excessive and
unnecessary excavation will not occur as with Alternative SC-4.
The excavated areas will be backfilled with clean soil and the
entire open area (16,000 ft2) will then be graded.
Alternative SC-5 will treat the principal threat posed by Site
soils and significantly reduce cross-media impacts on the
underlying groundwater.
During the design phase, further evaluation of the potential for
inorganic contaminants to leach from the soil to the groundwater
will be conducted to determine the specific soil quantities
required to be removed in order to protect the groundwater from.
significant inorganic contamination resulting from leaching of
the inorganic contamination in the soils. The cleanup levels
derived from this effort will 'represent average contaminant
concentrations of the inorganic chemicals in the soil which will
theoretically produce contaminant groundwater concentrations in
the Site vicinity which will meet potable water standards. Also,
the design phase will involve sampling of areas adjacent to the
Sice to determine immediate background levels and to ensure that
soils off-site do not pose a risk.
The present worth of Alternative SC-5 is $1,777,410.
Grouadvater
Approximately 28,800 gallons per day of contaminated groundwater
will be extracted through one extraction well to be installed at
the southwestern corner of the Site into the Upper Glacial
Aquifer to a depth.of approximately 70 feet, in order to remove
heavy metals and chlorinated organics which are currently present
above szate and/or federal drinking water standards. The treated
groundwater will then be reinjected into the aquifer through two
reinjection wells. The siting of the extraction and reinjection
wells will be completed during the design phase based on
technical criteria. The treatment residuals will be disposed of
in a RCRA subtitle C facility. The major components of the
grcuTivivater remedy, Alternative GW-3, are depicted in Figure 4.
All contaminant concentrations will be reduced until they are
equal to or less than their respective federal or state standards
prior to reinjection. The treated effluent will be tested to
ensure that the treatment system is operating efficiently. Any
waste residuals generated by the treatment processes will be
disposed of in accordance with applicable disposal standards.
The purpose of the interim groundwater response action is to
control risks posed by the ingestion of contaminated groundwater
and to limit further migration of contaminants by addressing the
21
-------
following issues:
A Containment of the most highly contaminated portion of the
contaminant plume;
A The metal concentrations (chromium, nickel, copper,
cadmium, manganese, and iron) will be reduced through a
metals precipitation process involving a clarification/
filtration unit.
A The chlorinated organic concentrations (1,1,1-tri-
chloroethane, trichloroethene, 1,1-dichloroethene, and
tetrachloroethene) will be reduced using air stripping.
A Collection of data on aquifer and contaminant.response to
remediation measures.
The ultimate goal of groundvater remediation will be determined
in a final remedial action for this Site. This interim ground-
water remedial action will be monitored carefully to determine
the feasibility of achieving this goal with this method and to
ensure that hydraulic control of the contaminated plume is
maintained. After the period of time necessary, in EPA's
judgement, to arrive at a final decision for the Site, a final
ROD for groundwater, which specifies the ultimate goal, remedy
and anticipated remediation timeframe, will be prepared. Upon
completion of the second operable unit RI/FS, this interim system
may be ..incorporated into the design of the Site remedy specified
in the final action groundwater ROD.
The present worth of Alternative GW-3 is $3,.909,600.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
EPA believes that the selected interim remedy will satisfy the
statutory requirements of providing protection of human health
and the environment, being cost-effective, utilizing permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and
satisfying the preference for treatment as a principal element.
Protection cf KuT^ar..Health and the Envirorjent
Alternative SC-5 is considered to be fully responsive to this
criterion and to the identified remedial response objectives.
Treatment, excavation, and disposal of the contaminated Site
soils will prevent the release of contaminants to the environment
and will constitute excellent protection of both human health and
the environment. The carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks
associated with the contaminated soil will be reduced to
acceptable levels for current and future uses (i.e. 10"4 to 10"6
and HI < 1.0). Treatment of the groundwater through
22
-------
implementation of Alternative GW-3 will reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of contaminants in the groundwater and^result'
in overall protection of human health and the environment. Prior
to reinjection, the groundwater will meet all state and/or
federal drinking water standards. A second operable unit will be
initiated to address potential future risks.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy for source control (SC-5: in-situ vacuum
extraction/surface excavation/excavation of leaching pits/off-
site treatment and disposal/backfill with clean off-site soil)
will comply with all related ARARs. The off-site facility will
be fully RCRA permitted and will be in compliance with the terms
of the permit. Contaminated soil, debris, and sediments from the
Site will be treated using specific technologies or specific
treatment levels, as appropriate, to comply with LDRs. The
residuals from the treatment processes (i.e., spent carbon) will
be treated and disposed of to comply with LDRs. This alternative
will co'mply with LDRs through a treatability variance for the
contaminated soil, debris, sediments, and residuals. Based on
concentrations determined by the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) test, the appropriate concentration range or
percent reduction.will be determined during design.
At the completion of the response action for contaminated soil,
the selected remedy will have complied with the following ARARs:
Action-specific ARARs:._.._._ v ._.-,
The selected remedy calls for the transport of contaminated soil
and treatment residuals to a RCRA facility for treatment and
disposal and will comply with the following ARARs:
A RCRA 40 CFR Part 263 - Standards Applicable to Transport of
Hazardous Waste
A RCRA 40 CFR Part 264 - Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
* RCRA 40 CFR Part 268 - Spent carbon from the in-situ vacuum
extraction treatment systsm aj well as any other•treatnent
residuals will be disposed of cff-site, consistent with
applicable land disposal restrictions.
A 6 NYCRR Part 372 - Hazardous Waste Manifest System & Related
Standards for Generators, Transporters and Facilities.
A 6 NYCRR Subpart 373-2 Final State Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities.
28
-------
A During implementation of the in-situ vacuum extraction, all
resulting air emissions will be in compliance with 6 NYCRR
Parts 200, 201, 212, and 231.
Chemical-specific ARARs:
A None applicable.
Location-specific ARARs:
A None applicable.
The selected groundwater remedy, GW-3: pumping/metals
precipitation/air stripping/reinjection, is expected to comply
with the associated ARARs over time. The primary purpose for
this interim groundwater remediation is to contain and treat the
most highly contaminated portion of the plume. A second operable
unit, resulting in the final groundwater remedial action for the
Site, will address achievement of chemical-specific ARARs in
groundwater.
The residuals from the treatment processes (i.e., spent carbon)'
will be treated and disposed of to comply with LDRs. This
alternative will comply with LDRs through a treatability variance
for the spent carbon.
The associated ARARs include:
Action-specific ARARs:
A RCRA 40 CFR Parts 141.11-141.16 (SDWA Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs)) (See Table 1 in Appendix II), provide standards
and goals for toxic compounds for public drinking water
systems. The reinjection process for the treated groundwater
will meet underground reinjection well regulations by its
status as a Superfund remedial action under 40 CFR 147. The
extracted groundwater will be treated to meet all standards
prior to reinjection.
A 6 NYCRR Part 703 and 10 NYCRR Part 5 - provide groundwater
quality standards and drinking water standards.
A RCRA 43 CFR Parts 263, 264, 263; and NYCPJi Fart 3"2 (described
above under action-specific ARARs for soil) - spent carbon, as
well as any treatment residuals, from the groundwater
treatment system for removal of organics and inorganics will
be transported, treated (as necessary), and disposed of off-
site.
29
-------
Chemical-specific ARARs:
A Since the groundwater at the Site is classified as lib,
drinking water standards are relevant and appropriate. Again,
these include SDWA MCLs, 6 NYCRR Groundwater Quality
Regulations and/or limitations of discharges to Class GA
waters, and 10 NYCRR Part 5 standards.
Location-specific ARARs:
* None applicable.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportional
to its cost. The total capital and present worth costs for the
soil and groundwater alternatives are estimated to be $1,777,410
and $3,909,200, respectively. The selected soil alternative,
SC-5, is the least expensive treatment alternative. The selected
groundwater alternative, GW-3, is the second least expensive
treatment alternative. Alternative GW-7, involving discharge to
the POTW, would be slightly less costly to implement, however,
.GW-7 would not conserve groundwater resources.
Detailed cost estimates of the selected groundwater and soil
alternatives are depicted on Tables 6 and 7, respectively.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable ...
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions.and treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. The selected
remedy represents the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. The State
and community also support the selected remedy.
The selected remedy employs permanent treatment of the organic
contaminated soil on the Site through the implementation of in-
situ vacuum extraction and through excavation and off-site
treatment and disposal. The potential for future releases of
organic contaminants to the environment as well as the direct
contact risk to the soils will be eliminated. The indirect and
direct risks posed by the soils as a continued source of
groundwater contamination will be removed. Extraction and
treatment of.contaminated groundwater will reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contaminants in the groundwater
underlying the Site and prevent further degradation of area
groundwater.
No short-term adverse impacts and threats to human health and the
environment are foreseen as the result of implementing the
selected remedy. However, to minimize and/or prevent worker
10
-------
exposure to contaminants, personal protection equipment will be
utilized.
The selected remedy will require construction of on-site soil and
groundwater treatment facilities. No technological problems are
anticipated since the treatment technologies are well established
and readily available.
Preference for Treatment as the Principal Element
The selected remedy fully satisfies this criterion for the
treatment of the soil and groundwater contamination which are
considered, the principal threats at the Site. There the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a
principal element is satisfied.
EXPLANATION OF SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES
The Proposed Plan for the Genzale Plating Company site was
released to the public on February 22, 1991. The Proposed Plan
identifies the selected remedy as including Alternatives SC-5 and
Alternative GW-3. Upon further review, EPA determined that a
minor modification to the selected soil remedy (SC-5), as it was
originally identified in the Proposed Plan, was necessary.
Because the principal threat posed by the contaminated soil at
the Site will be eliminated through removal or treatment of the
soils, EPA determined that an asphalt cap over the entire
Facility is not required. In the alternative, EPA proposed that
the entire Facility be backfilled with clean off-site soil, and
this proposed difference was presented and explained at the /
public meeting to provide the public with an opportunity to
comment on the change. EPA has reviewed all verbal comments
expressed during the public meeting, and no written comments were
received. No objections to the proposed plan or the modification
were raised.
31
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
GENZALE PLATING PLANT
SlIC SuRfACE AND SutiSuRf ACC
SIRUCIURCS
-------
" l» II |4
08
GENZALE PLATING PLANT
7~is
(ys)
" it
11_
lECEND
' M«-»
MU 10 H
yntMAf A
^ff"^^»*
«• WMIOBNC MU
HUtl
(i) IOCADON ANO sn or
SIONACf 1UU} AM
) iu IUMC >-} ran
ACIUM idCAiot or
UQMIOKMC Mlli
CRAl'MIC SCALE
=fe
i nn )
U a CNVUOMNCNTAL ftOItCIIOII AC CMC!
U«|At( PlAkiC CO. VB .
IIAMUM MIA*. «• lOU
MONITORING WCU LOCAllONS
UtSCO JC«nCCJ
-------
JWSC-5155 A
_NFWLJY INSTALLED MONITORING WILLS
if> MW-4S
^ UW-SS
PUIILIC SUPPLY WtLLS
A JOIH mANKLIN SQUARE WAlfR DIS1HICI
A '117 FRANKLIN SQUARE WAUR OIS1HICT
A 4298 JAMAICA WAItH SUPPLY COUP ANY
A i'iS JAMAICA WAItH SUPPLY COMPANY
PIUVAIC
MCU
A 7744 PLAIlOeUlSQIC REI1REUENI HOME
COUtm MONITORING WELL
9984 NASSAU COUNIY OEPI. PUBLIC WORKS
I MJL£
HIS INMMMC IXISIS ON * C*\*> IUC. t»> Will III M.'J II UAHIIMI f
OA*
DAH
EBASCO SERVICfS INCORPORAICD
I ««0 «•£!"
CM_
AS MOID)
J L
U.3. ENVIRONUXNTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
CENI ALE PLAHNC CO. SITE
crr-siir MILS
OIOIMOWA4UI
CPA
4236.374
ncutt i-5
-------
'I i>wir • +
I
HUM • -J-
0-8
• • . I*
II II
GENZALE PLATING PLANT
>' n II
jj irc
uc-oi
M
HUHlCwiC nil IUKMC
IIOII
(I) iOC*Un
(1) Ul l»J*l 1 i ICM
«£|UM lULOIdH IK Ul-illl
il DOMMCi
SCALC
I » nn i
-------
*
c
c
1
r
o
i
j
t
II II 11 l<
I* I' I* II
GENZALE PLATING PLANT
M0il_
(I) IOCHIKJM AM) S« Of
MTMUUU
CHAI'HIC SCALE
• nn i
U 1 CHViaOHKCKTU. ftOfOTIlOM
CIAJCO j£
'iCUBt
-------
to Aiuur>riiiur
UONI l( WING
W1 IL
MOIS1URE
RECOVERY
1ANK
WAICR IRfAICD
AND/OR
OlSI'OSfO
08
3233
oo
PHOOUCIION
Will
in"; j*Mtt*tfi; f *ftf.\ * _
*^r«u«»
II
mi KNVIHONU»:NIAL I'IIDTICIIOH
AII»:NI V
CfH/AlC f'lAllHIi C0. Slif
MIIWWIM «l 1 1
rmnli% utm IIMOHOM MNI
H vlu vmtnw IHIMIIIIIN
ir*
•3IO.CII
r—
-------
OLHIMOwt) Mill
-------
PKETHCAIMENf
UUCT
DLIIUMIDII il.R
VAPOR PHASE
OARHON
AOSUKIH.R
1O A1MOSPHERE
AIR
SHOPPING
IOWI:R
§§
SI RIPPED
WAII U
SUMP
IO REINJECIION
-<
1
IS W/U
me
in
-------
APPENDIX II
TA3LZS
-------
I
COWAMINAWS or CONCERN IN GROUNUWATER ANO IIIEIR COMPARISON wini ARAR BASED CLEANUP LEVELS
Averay?*
Conccn-
trat ion
Conceo-
trat ton
lug/UJ-
Hiniiraia
Concen-
trat ion
SWUA MIL'i
J.UU/JJ
NY
HCl's
luy/11
NYS GROUNUWAIER
SIANOARUS CLASS GA
NYS TECHNICAL
OPERATIONAL G
SERIES (TOGS)
(uu/Ll
YOLAlILLJM&AmCS.
1 . l-Uichloroethane
1 , l-0ich)oroethene
let rachl ornellif ne
1,1. 1-Triclrloroclhane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichlo roe thane
Irichloroethime
Vinyl Chloride
Semuol 4l U e JJuaai ti
Uen;o( a) anthracene
Beruo(b) f luoranthene
(lenio(a)pyrene
Qls(2-etliylhexyl )Phthalate
Chrysene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Deryll iuM
Cadmium
Chromium VI
Copper
Iron
Lead
Hanijanese
Nickel
Vanadiun
Zinc
1.43
25.13
41.5
299
1.45
121.90
0.411
1.75
1.75
2.0
9.5
1.75
421.43
5.68
260.13
2.43
23
3523.06
832.78
54042.5
96.27
053
4726.03
90.97
419.1
3
94
96
1100
2
500
0.6
2
2
2
36
2
1116
11.3
314
2.9
37
14400
32^0
120.000
105
IU'100
21900
731
1620
Nl)
W)
Nil
NU
Nil
NU
NU
Nl)
NU
Nl)
Nt)
NU
Nl)
NO
51
NU
NU
73.7
16
1560
17.6
10
44
NU
22
7
5
200
50
10
50
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
50
50
10
50
50
50
1000
10
50
1000
300-
50
300"
5"
10
5.0
25
1000
10
50
IOUO
300
25
300
5000
50
0.07
0.07
50
0.6
0.002
0.002
30
1000
3
5000
* Average of on-ilte wells. Duplicate sani|iliis are avnraycil to represent *t well.
•• If iron and manganese ire present, the total concentration of both should not exceed 0.5 ng/l. Illyher levels «viy ba allowed whtn Justified by I
supplier of water.
**• Secondary Standard
349 IK
-------
Tri chloroelliene
Benio( a) anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Oenzo{b)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)uhlhalate
Clirysene
Indeno( 1 , 2.3-c,d)pyrene
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium (VI)
Nickel
PCBs (Arochlor 1260)
IAOLE 2
CONIAHINANIS Of CONCEKN OETECIEO IN SOIL ANU IIIEIH COMPAHISOM W1III At HUN LEVELS
HinioHim
Concontr.it ion
ID'J/-KU
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO.
NO
NO
NO
2.1
NO
NO
Conccnlrjt ion
my/.Ku
2.;o
0.105
0.440
0.5'JO
4.569
0.463
0.339
2.72
604.65
141)6. M
1901.16
0.462
H.I* i
Content rat ion
my/Ku
53
2.2
I.a
1.0
24.0
2.2
1.0
14.8
36400
3/300
5UUOO
1.213
* - Based on excess lifetime cancer ri'.k of I«IO~"
NO - Not detected or below method of detection limit
NR - No risk identified
BG - Action level based on background concentration
33/6K
-------
INORGANIC COMPOUND CONCENTRATIONS
TYPICALLY FOUND IN LONG ISLAND SOIL
ANALYTES
BACKGROUND(1) CONCENTRATION
RANGE (ma/ka)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryl liur?.
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
SiIver
Sodium
Thai liurn
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
10000 - 300000
<1 - 500(2)
5 - 15<2>
100 - 3500
<1 - 7<2>
0.01 - 7
100 - 400000
(2)
10 - 80
<3 - 70
2 - 100
(2)
7000 - 550000
3 - 30(2>
100 - 4000
0.2 - 0.6(2)
* - 30(2>
400 - 30000
0.1 - 2.0
0.1 - 5.0
750 - 7500
1 - 2(3)
20 - 500
10 - 300
Not Available
SOURCE: (1) Dragun, J., 1938
(2) Conner, J.J. and H.T. Shacklette, 1=75
(3) USIPA, 1982
-------
1AIILE /, - IOXIOIIY I'AMAMEIEMS USED IN I HI: IIISK ASM SSMI Nl (8lin.il I nl 2
Chemical ol
Potential Concern
aculone
horuone
tiromodlchloromnthanu
2-bulanonu(MEK)
carbon lelrachlorldo
chlorobunzono
cliluiuloim
chloromolhana
dlbromochlorornolhana
.t-dlchloroelhana
,2-dlchloroelhane
,1-dlchloroelhona
,2-dlchloroelheno(lfans)
,2-dlchlo(opropane
olhylbonzono
inelhylene chlorldo
slyiona
lelrachloioelhuno
loluuna
t.t.t-lilchloroulhana
t.1.2-lrlchloroulhana
lilchloroelherie(d)
Irlchlofollouromelhane
vinyl chloilda
lylones
anlhracena
benzole acid
bls(2-elhylhexyl) phlhalalc
butyl banzyl phlhalale
dl-n-bulyl plilhalala
llouranthane
llourena
naphthalene
phenol
pyiono
carcinogenic PAIIs
Chronic Moloroncu Doso(Mfl))
(m<)/hi)/«lay)
Inhalalion
NA (c)
NA (b)
NA
9. 001: -02
NA
5.00C-03
NU
NA
NA
I.OOE-OI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
200E.OO
3.00E-OI
NA
NA
2.00E-01
NA
4 OOE-01
NA
NA
ND
NA
ND
NA
NA
NU
NA
NA
NA
Source (a)
HEA
ML- A
HEA
IIL:A
• It A
HEA
II (IS
Oral
1 OOE-01
NA
20tll;-()2
5.00E-02
7.00E-04
2. 001: -02
I.OOE-02
NA
2.00IZ-02
I.OOE-OI
NA
900E-03
2CXIL-02
NA
t.OOL-01
C.OOE-02
2.00i:-0t
1. 001: -02
3.00L-OI
90011-02
400E-03
NA
30011-0)
NA
2 001:. 00
300E-01
4.00E.OO
200E-02
2.00E-01
i.oon-oi
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-03
G.OOE-OI
3.00E-02
NA
Souicit (a)
IMIS
II IIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
MLA
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
HEA
IMIS
IIC A
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
MEA
HEA
HEA
IMIS
HEA
Siibchiuiuc Mnluiuncu Dose (HID:,)
(ni||/k(|/.l.ly)
Inhal.Ulun
Ml)
NA
NA
9 001; -01
NA
S. 001: -02
NA
NA
NA
5.CKH .00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2 .OOi: .00
rM
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA.
NA
NA
IIA
NA
SouiLu(a)
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
•
Oral
NA
NA
2.00E-02
S.OOE-OI
/OOE-03
2.00E-OI
l.0()l:-02
NA
2.00E-OI
1.00E«00
NA
9 OOE-03
200E-OI
NA
t.OOL.OO
NA
200E.OO
1.00E-OI
4.00E-OI
9.00E-01
4.00E-02
NA
7.00E-01
NA ,
400E.OO
300E.OO
4.00E«00
2.00E-02
2.00E«00
t.OOE.OO
4.00E-01
4.00E-01
4 OOE-03
G.OOE-OI
3.00E-01
NA
Source (a)
HI:A
HliA
III A
III A
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
Ml A
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
HEA
Cancur Potency Facloi
(m(|/ku/day)*-t
Inhalalion
NA
2 'JOE -02
NA .
NA
1.30E-OI
NA
O.I 01: -02
6.30E-03
NA
NO
9 10E-02
1.20E»00
NA
NA
NA
1.4UE-02
2. OOE-03
NA
•NA
I.60E-05
S.70E-02
1.70E-02
NA
2.95E-OI
NA
NA
NA
NO
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
G.I
Source (a)
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
HEA
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
HEA
HEA
IMIS
HEA
HEA
(o)
Ural
NA
290E-02
NA
NA
I.30E-01
NA
6 IOE-03
I.30E-02
B.40E-02
9.IOE-02
9.IOE-02
6 OOE-OI
NA
680E-02
NA
7.50E-03
300E-02
NA
NA
5.70E-02
S.70E-02
t.lOE-02
NA
2.30E.OO
NA
NA
NA
1.40E-02
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11.5
Source (a)
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
HEA
HEA
HEA
IMIS
IMIS
HEA
IMIS
HEA
HEA
IMIS
HEA
HEA
IRIS
(o)
Wl. ol Ev.
D
A
02
O
02
O
02
C
C
C
02
C
02
0
02
02
C
02
A
02
C
O
-------
TAUIE
ICIIY I'AMAMEIEMSUSI DIN I ML MISK ASSLSSMLNI (Miuol 2 nl
Chomiral ol
Polontlal Cuncotn
chlordane
4.4 DOT
dloldrln
hoplachloi epoitlde
PCils (arochlor 1200)
anllmony
aisunlc
barium
beryllium
cadmium; lood (MID)
cadmium; water (HID)
chromium; hexavalanl
chromium; Irlvalunl
copper
manyanasa
mercury
nickel
sllvor
solenlurn
lhalllum
vanadium
zinc
cyanide
Mulomni o Uuso (MIU)
(niii/Mi/day)
Inhalation
Nl)(b)
NA(c)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I.OUE-04
NO
NO
-
NO
NO
NO
30011-04
NO
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NO
NA
Sourcu (a)
MEA
ML A
Oial
600E-OS
50011-04
S.OOE-0'j
1.30E-0'j
NA
4 01)1: -04
1 OOE-03
700E-02
5 OOE-03
1.0OE-03
500E-04
500E-03
1 OOt.OO
3./OE-02
I.OOE-OI
300E-04
2.00E-02
300E-03
3.00U-03
7.00E-OS
/OOE-03
2.00E-01
200E-02
Suurco(a)
II IIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
MEA
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
MEA
IMIS
MEA
IMIS
IMIS
HE A
MEA
MEA
MEA
IMIS
Subclnumc Moltmince Oose(MIOs)
(ni\(/K.)/ilay)
Inhalallun
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 OOE-03
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source (a)
MEA
Oral
GOOt-OS
S.OOE-04
b.OOE-Uli
NA
NA
4.00U-04
1. OOE-03
/.OOE-02
5. OOE-03
NA
NA
2. OOE-02
1 OOL.OI
3./OE-02
NA
300E-04
200C-02
3 OOE-03
NA
7OOE-04
7. OOE-03
2.00E-OI
200E-02
Source (a)
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
MEA
Cancur Potency Facloi
(inu/kcjAlayr-l
Inhalation
1 30E.OO
3 4011-01
1 GUI:. 01
9 10E.OO
NO
NA
SOOE.OI
NA
840E.OO
C tOE.OO
-
4.IOE.OI
NA
NA
NA
840E-OI
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source (a)
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
Oral
I.30E.OO
340E-OI
1 GOE.OI
9 10E.OO
7.70E«OO
NA
t.80E*oo
NA
4.3015*00
NO
-
NO
NA
NA
NA
NO
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Source (a)
mis
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
IMIS
~
ol Ewlde
(12
U2
112
U2
112
A
U2
Ul
A
A
(a) IMIS
MEA
(b) NO
(C) NA
(d)
Ml&k Inlorrnallon System (USEI'A)
HOAM > • Moots As6us&iniM)l Summary loUlos
Nol boionnlned
Not Aooiicable or Nol Available
Cancer Potency ^ tutors (of Trlchloroelhene have boon withdrawn Irom IRIS as ol 6/90.
(e) Cancel Poloncy Fa :lors lor PAMs have been removed Irom IMIS and MEA. Ihusu are Interim
(actors rocommoiidod by U.S. EPA's ECAO.
(I) Holerenca Oosc lor load estimated Irom the SOWA MCL by assuming an adull (7!>kij) drinking
2 liters ol water pur day.
-------
i ABLE r» : SUMMARY OF BASELINE RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR THE GENZALE PLATING COMPANY SITE
Ma/Hid
llllln«
Cull will
Pll-Sllll llclllllullll
•' IIIHII
', All I'alliiway*
B04U-04
Cimenl
GPC
Wolknl
f.£OE»OO
Fuluio
Oll-Slla Mnd.lunU
IIIHII Ah I'olhwiiy* and
(iMIIIIldvVAllll UHO
(071 lOI
riilmn On- Gilo
!>ull Pnlh«%lly|
2 Ml 100
A, lull H.iililiinl
(liiiiinilN*!*! I'alliway*
• 02EtOI
1 uluia On-Glla Child llmldanl
tioll I'clliMayt
1 64E«OI
Uiouiiilnnliii rallmiiy*
I.14E«02
fului*
QPG
Wwk.l
2.2t)E«M
Fuluia
Sll* 0*vulopm*nl
Wo)k*r
2.3UEHM
it CiMililliulliMi |ty |>i»lliwny:
Inhalnllun
Ingaillon
donnal
IOOH
-
-
- .
42 4H
67 OH
O.IH
Dtf »^ (uiiHindmnlni)
-
-
42 4H
67 flH
0 IH
00 0H
-
-
32 *H
07 2H
0 2H
0U «H
-
-
42 4H
67 OH
IU3H
• 3H
24H
rt C
-------
1.
2.
3.
4 .
5.
6.
7.
8 .
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
15
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE GW-3: PUMPING/
PRETREATMENT/AIR STRIPPING/REINJECTION
ITEM
Support Facilities
Groundwater Extraction
Collection
Pretreatment
Air Stripping
Treated Water Reinjection
Electricals
Instrumentation & Controls
Process Water Supply
Foundation and Pads
Miscellaneous
Contingency-
Legal
e
Engineering,
Administrati
Labor
Maintenance
Monitoring Wells
Total
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH"
and
COST (1991 DOLLARS)
22
37
18
228
80
40
82
. 85
17
50
10
.143
108
43
ITAL
,100
,200
,300
,600
,900
,100
,000
, 000
,000
,000
,000
,900
,000
_
-
,400
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
ANNUAL
700
—
11,500
4,300
200
-
—
-
-
-
9,100.
-
87,600.
77,700.
—
ow
.00
.00
.00
.00
00
00
00
971,500.00 191,100.00
3,909,200
•Present worth analysis based on a 30-year period and 5 percent
discount rate.
4-56
3467K
-------
Table 7
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES FOR ALTERNATIVE SC-5: IN-SITU
VACUUM EXTRACTION/SURFACE EXCAVATION/EXCAVATION OF
LEACHING PITS/OFF-SITE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL/BACKFILL
WITH CLEAN OFF-SITE SOIL
ITEM COST (1991 DOLLARS^
CAPITAL ANNUAL OSra
1. Warning Signs . 100.00
2. Site Preparation 3,000.00 - .
3. Support Facility 13,600.00
4. In-Situ Vacruua Extraction 157,500.00 •
5. Surface Soil Excavation • 30,400.00
6. Excavation of Leaching Pits 9,600.00
7. Off-Site Treatnent 1,020.000.00
(Stabilization) and Disposal
8. Treatability Study 50,000.00
9. Clean Fill 32,400.00
10. Contingency 263,320.00
11. Engineering, Legal and 197,490.00
Administrative
TOTAL . 1,777,410.00
* First year.QSM cost included in the capital cost.
-------
APPENDIX III
NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New Yortt 12233 -7010
Thomas C. Jorilng
Commlsalonar
'«* 2 - ;S9i
Mr.. Kathleen C. Callahan
Director
uv.orgency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
25 Federal Plaza
New York. NY 10278
Re: Urufl KccoiM of Doci?.ion
Geruale Plating Site - 10 No.
Dear M-i. Cal Kilian:
The New York Stale Deyar-UiienL uf tnviromnontal Conservation
approves the Record of Decision for the Genzale Plating Site #130018
with the following conditions:
1. Duriny deuiyn:
a) Surface soil sampling will be initiated to better delineate
the area and the total volume of soil to be excavated.
b) The so-i 1 cleanup levels for inorganic compounds will be
determined subject to NYSDEC approval, and will be used
to delineate the extent of excavation.
2. During remediation:
a; Al' 'euc:;-nb- ^, w will be "ocated and e'-av-ited. Vhere avo
four known leaching pits; however, more arc suspected.
b) Tho nifltallic anomalies detected during the RI will be
proporly characterized and handled appropriately.
3. Off-site residential surface soils adjacent to the site will be
sampled either during the design or during the second operable
unit.
<1. Warning signs will be posted outside the sito as soon as possible.
-------
Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan Pago 2
Please contact Mr. Michael J. O'Toolo, Jr. if you have any questions or
•j regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
FdwardjO. Sullivan
Deputy Convnissioner
-------
APPENDIX IV
•RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
GENZALE PLATING COMPANY
FRANKLIN SQUARE , NEW YORK
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") held a
public comment period from February 22, 1991 through March'
23, 1991 to receive comments from interested parties on the
final Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study ("RI/FS")
reports and Proposed Plan for the Genzale Plating Company
Superfund site ("Site").
A public participation meeting was conducted by EPA on March
13, 1991 at the Franklin Square Public Library, Franklin
Square, New York to discuss remedial alternatives, to present
EPA's preferred remedial alternative, and to provide an
opportunity for the interested parties to present oral
comments and questions to EPA.
This responsiveness summary provides a synopsis of citizen's
comments and concerns about the Site as raised during the
public comment period, and EPA's responses "to- those comments.
All comments summarized in this document were considered in
EPA.'s final decision for selection of the remedial activities
for cleanup of the Genzale Plating Company site.
This responsiveness summary is divided into the following
sections:
I. Responsiveness Surunary Overview •- This section briefly
describes the background of the Genzale Plating Company
site and summarises the proposed and selected
alternatives.
II. EacV.crc u~d r-n Cor-?.ur.itv Involvement, gnd Cor^c^rr.s - This
section provides a orief history of conxmnity interests
and concerns regarding the Genzale Plating Company
site.
III. SuTTunary of Public Comments and EPA's Responses - This
section summarizes comments expressed verbally at the
public meeting and provides EPA's responses to these
comments.
IV. Appendices - This section includes a copy of the agenda
for the public meeting (Appendix A) and the public
meeting sign-in sheet (Appendix B) .
-------
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
Site Background
The Site includes the property located at 288 New Hyde Park
Road in the Town of Franklin Square, Nassau County, New York.
The Genzale Plating Company ("Company") facility is located
in a primarily residential area.
The Company has operated an electroplating facility on the
property since 1915. The property occupies an area of
approximately 24,000 square feet. The western portion of the
property is occupied by a two story building which houses the
company office, plating facility, and chemical storage area.
The eastern portion of the property is undeveloped and serves
as an outdoor storage yard and parking lot. .
Subsurface structures located in the yard include sanitary
and industrial sewer lines, and four abandoned wastewater
leaching pits, approximately 12 to 18 feet in depth.
Presently, the operation consists of electroplating
automobile and houseware products using nickel and chrome.
Past operations included anodizing and cadmium, zinc, and
brass plating. The electroplating processes utilize several
degreasing and cleaning agents, including organic solvents.
Distillation, of spent 1,1,1-trichloroethane is currently
performed by the Company to recycle the product for re-use.
Wastewater, which is currently treated and discharged to the
municipal sewer system, was discharged in the past to the
underground leaching pits.
In 1981, the Nassau County Department of Health ("NCDH")
conducted an inspection of the Company which indicated that
wastewater being discharged to the leaching pits exhibited
heavy metal concentrations in excess of NYSDEC discharge
standards. In June 1986, the Site was added to the EPA
National Priorities List of Superfund sites.
A special notice letter was issued to the Company on December
21, 198". Based upon the Cor^any's response it was
atitfemii(,-:cl -i.at. it vds tir.ancially unable to conduct the
investigative activities at the Site. Accordingly, EPA
proceeded with the RI/FS. In August 1989, EPA issued an
Access Order to the Company so that field work could
commence. As a result of the Company's failure to comply,
EPA sought and was granted a court ruling in October 1989
which enforced the terms of the Order. Field work for the
RI/FS began in November 1989 and was completed in February
1990.
-------
Summary of Proposed and Selected Remedial Alternatives
The remedial alternatives considered for the Site are
described in the RI/FS and Proposed Plan for this operable
unit (referred to as operable unit one). All alternatives
considered are listed below:
Remedial Alternatives for Contaminated Soils (SO)
A SC-1: No-Action
A SC-2: Surface Excavation/Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal/Capping
A SC-3: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/In-Situ stabilization
(Solidification)/Soil Cover
A SC-4: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Excavation/Off-Site
Treatment and Disposal/Fill with Clean Off-Site Soil
A SC-5: In-Situ Vacuum Extraction/Surface Excavation/
Excavation of Leaching Pits/Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal/Fill wich Clean Off-Site Soil
Remedial Alternatives for Contaminated Groundwater (G¥)
A GW-l: No-Action
A GW-2: Limited Action
A GW-3: Pumping/Metals Precipitation/Air
Stripping/Reinjection
A GW-4: Puaping/Metals Precipitation/Carbon Adsorption/
Reinjection •
A GW-5: Pumping/Metals Precipitation/UV-Cheinical
Oxidation/Reinjection
A GW-7: Pumping/Pretreatment/Discharge to Local Publically
Owned Treatment Works (POTW)
EPA, with concurrence from the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, chose a remedy which addresses
the principal threats posed by the Site through a combination
of a soil remedial alternative (SC-5) with active restoration
of the groundwater (GW-3) . Based on current information,
these alternatives provide the best protection of human
health and the environment.
II. BACKGROUND OP COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Community interest in the Site has been high throughout the
RI/FS process. The community has been kept aware of
activities at the Site through local newspaper articles, fact
sheets, press releases, public notices, and public
information meetings.
The major concern expressed by the community is the migration
of contaminants into the local public water supply wells and
the close proximity of the Site to residences.
«*
-------
III. SUMMARY O? PUBLIC COMMENTS 6 BPA'S RESPONSES
Comments expressed at the public meeting held on March 13,
1991 are summarized below. No written, comments were received
during the public comment period.
Specific Questions Regarding the RI/FS and Proposed Alternative
COMMENT: A representative from the FranJclin Square Water
District inquired about the sampling results of two water
district supply wells.
RESPONSE: All of the water supply wells sampled, those
belonging to the Franklin Square Water District ("FSWD") and
the Jamaica Water Supply Company ("JWSC"), had either very
minimal or no contamination. A sample taken from FSWD well #
7117 detected trichloroethylene at 5 parts per billion
("ppb"), which is the maximum contaminant level allowable. A
sample taken from JWSC well f 4298 detected trichloroethylene
at an estimated quantity of 16 ppb. Samples from FSWD well #
3604 ar.d JWSC well # 5155 detected no volatile organic
compounds above allowable limits. No heavy metals, in excess
of allowable limits, were detected in any of the above four
Welter supply wells.
COMMENT: A resident asked whose responsibility it is to
operate and maintain the treatment system during its use.
RESPONSE: The EPA would fund the first.ten years of the
remedial action. Thereafter, the State of New York would be
responsible for the long-term maintenance of the treatment
system.
COMMENT: A resident wanted assurance that EPA would be
working closely with the local water districts.
RESPONSE: EPA has worked with both the Franklin Square Water
District ("FSWD") and the Jamaica Water Supply Company
("JWSC") during the remedial investigation. Both FSWD and
JWSC will be involved with EPA during the design of the
treitr.r-r.t s^r-'tcz for this first oc«.rabl-? unit of the Site and
will also be involved in developing the sampling plan for the
second operable unit, which will investigate a downgradient
plume of contamination. It is possible that FSWD and/or JWSC
wells will be sampled during the second operable unit.
COMMENT: A resident wanted to know why it took so long for
the sampling results to become available.
RESPONSE: After the soil and groundwater samples were
collected between November 1989 through February 1990, they
-------
were all analyzed by a certified laboratory and then
validated to ensure the quality of the results. This process
took about 4-5 months. Once all the data was compiled, EPA
evaluated the data to determine whether the results pose a
risk. All the data results and the risk results have been
summarized and explained in the RI report.
COMMENT: A resident asked whether the same type of treatment
proposed for the Genzale Plating site is currently in
operation at any other sites on Long Island.
RESPONSE: At present, similar technologies have been proposed
for use at other sites on Long Island. A similar groundwater
pump and treat system involving metals precipitation is
currently being-designed for the Preferred Plating site,
located in Farmingdale, Suffolk County. The design is
scheduled to be completed in September 1991. Vacuum
extraction has been selected for other sites, but is
currently still in the design stage.
COMMENT: A resident asked if the treatment system would be
continuously operating and how loud the vacuum extraction
process would be. .
RESPONSE: The groundwater pump and treat system should
operate oh a continuous basis, 24 hours a day. The vacuum
extraction process, will take place during normal working
hours, approximately 9 a.m. through 5 p.m. Without special
housing, the vacuum extraction process reaches approximately
80 decibels. The system can be designed with a special
housing encasing it, so the noise level will be greatly
reduced. The entire vacuum extraction process, from
mobilization and implementation through completion, should
require six months.
COMMENT: A resident asked how long it would be before the .
treatment systems are designed and constructed and EPA was
back on the property.
RESPONSE: The design for both the groundwater treatment
sy-te~ and tht? :=oll ^r^c.'.m'jnt an'4 excavation system will
Legia i.i OctwOtr 9*1 ar.u wii^. require 13 to 24 months for
completion. EPA expects to be constructing the treatment
systems on the property by October 1993. Construction of
both the vacuum extraction process and the groundwater
treatment system will not be extensive. . Construction of the
vacuum extraction process must first involve the installation
of the extraction wells. The groundwater treatment units are
readily available and can be brought to the property q-uickly.
Extraction and reinjection wells will need to be installed
first.
-------
COMMENT: A resident asked when the drums on the property
would be removed.
RESPONSE: The 65 drums currently on the property resulted
from the remedial investigation field work. They contain
discarded protective clothing, drill cuttings, and
decontamination and development water. Normally/ the drums
would remain on a site until EPA is constructing the
treatment system. It is EPA's responsibility to ensure the
integrity of the drums. Presently, all 65 drums are in good
shape and do not pose any danger. If the drums show signs of
decay or deterioration, they will either be overpacked or
removed promptly from the property.
COMMENT: A resident asked whether the treated groundwater
that is to be reinjected into the aquifer will be sampled.
RESPONSE: The groundwater treatment system will be designed
to include continuous monitoring and sampling of the treated
water to ensure the efficiency of the system and to ensure
that federal and/or state drinking water standards are being
met prior to reinjection.
COMMENT: A resident asked how many gallons per day will be
pumped through the treatment system.
RESPONSE: The current pump rate estimate is 28,800 gallons.
per day. This estimate will be further refined during the
design phase.
COMMENT: A resident asked what would happen to the property
if the Genzale Plating Company were to go out of business.
RESPONSE: No matter if the Genzale Plating Company or anyone
else is on the property, EPA's treatment system will remain
on the property until the groundwater is remediated.
COMMENT: A resident asked how long the treatment system would
remain on the property.
r.1^-^ .:*,:*: Tv.e so.'Is tr^tment should be completed in six
-cn'uhs. Tha current estimate for the length of time required
for remediation of the groundwater is 30 years. Since the
source of contamination in the soils will be removed prior to
the full implementation of the groundwater treatment system,
the estimated time for remediation may decrease. The
treatment system will be continuously monitored and the
remediation time frame will be adjusted accordingly.
COMMENT: A resident asked if the treatment system would be
enclosed to ensure its safety from children.
-------
RESPONSE: A temporary structure will be placed over the most
of the groundwater treatment system to limit access and to
protect the treatment units from the elements. The exact
details and dimensions of the housing structure will be
determined during the design phase. .
COMMENT: A resident asked if the treatment system would be
visible from the curb side of the property.
RESPONSE: The only part of the treatment system which may be
visible from outside of the property will be the air
stripper. This unit will be approximately 16 feet high. The
fence surrounding the property is about 10 - 12 feet in
height. Presently, it appears that the treatment system will
be located in a corner of the property. The air stripper
will most likely be situated behind one of the tall trees
bordering the property, making it a bit less noticeable from
the curb.
COMMENT: A resident asked if any types.of signs would be
placed on the property and if EPA provides for guards or
security.
RESPONSE: Signs which inform the public of the presence of a
Superfund site and the name of the site are commonly placed
on the site during remedial action. EPA recognizes that the
community is sensitive over having a Superfund site in this
very residential area. EPA is willing to discuss the use of
signs with the community. One approach would be to install
warning an "no trespassing" signs only.
COMMENT: A resident asked where EPA would be sending the
excavated soils and sludges from the treatment system and why
it would be acceptable to place contaminated material in
another location.
RESPONSE: Any excavated soils, sediments, or sludges
resulting from the treatment system will be transported off-
site to an EPA-permitted facility. This facility, or
landfill, must be in compliance with EPA's Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. These facilities are strictly
'c-.x'--'---' £^^ co;,V..-. .iid -o ens'-rt. u. .*• r.o contaminants can
migrate from the landfills into the surrounding environment.
Any excavated soils and sludges will first be treated or
stabilized prior to their disposal in the landfill to ensure
that contaminants will not leach out. The exact location of
this facility has not been determined as yet.
-------
Questions Regarding the Present Status of the Genzale Plating
Company
COMMENT: A resident asked if the Genzale Plating Company is
currently in operation on the property.
RESPONSE: Yes, the company still operates on the property.
The leaching pits are no longer used for discharge of waste
water. The company now treats their waste water prior to
discharge"to the municipal sewer system.
COMMENT: A resident asked whether the Genzale Plating Company
could continue operating on the property during the remedial
action.
RESPONSE: The plating company can continue to operate on the
property as long as their operations do not interfere with
EPA's actions and they are no longer contributing to the
contamination problem. The company must continue to comply
with the terms of their operating license.
General Superfund Questions
COMMENT: A resident asked how many ongoing Superfund sites
are located on Long Island and how many of those represent
emergency situations.
RESPONSE: EPA has assessed sites on the National Priorities
List to determine which sites pose imminent threats that
warrant emergency action. These actions may be temporary or
permanent in nature and can range from relocation of
residents to provision of alternative water supplies or
physical removal, treatment, or containment of wastes. These
actions are taken to reduce imminent danger without delay.
At present, there are approximately 20 - 25 Superfund sites
listed on the National Priorities List in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties. Very few of these sites currently have ongoing
e-errrercv removal actions. One removal action is currently
*.•«•. .1.1.^° ..ofiCii''' ^~.:-l >':'! til..; .*... >'.'.aC3 S^'t-ti iii G.! .1". CoVts , N =t J i 3'•.
County, to repair a collapsed .retaining wall at the site.
Removal actions have been completed at other Long Island
sites such as at the Rowe Industries site located in Sag
Harbor, Suffolk County (provision of an alternative water
supply) and at the Claremont Polychemical site located in Old
Bethpage, Nassau County and the Circuitron site located in
Farmingdale, Suffolk County (removal of contaminated
materials stored in drums, tanks, etc.)
-------
COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA has any policy allowing
Krms in the vicinity of a site to bid on the work being
nducted at the site, in order for federal monies being
spent to go back into the community.
RESPONSE: EPA retains several contractors under its
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy ("ARCS") and
Technical Enforcement Support ("TES") programs. Both ARCS
and TES contracts were competitively bid to ensure equality
and fairness and several contracting firms were selected into
each program,, providing EPA with a fast method of procuring a
contractor to repond guickly to a given site situation. EPA
does not have a set policy to use local contracting firms.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("COE") will, at times,
oversee remedial actions for EPA and will open bids to all
interested parties. Local firms may possibly have the
opportunity to responsd to a bid invitation from the COE or
through subcontract to a, prime EPA contractor.
Questions Regarding Enforcement Issues
COMMENT: A resident asked if EPA has any indication as to
whether the Company could contribute financially to the
project.
RESPONSE: Based on the information gathered at this time, the
^potentially responsible party, Genzale Plating, is not
^financially viable to" fund a remedial action of this
magnitude. Initially, the Company expressed an interest in
.conducting the remedial investigation, but determined it was
impossible upon realizing the scope of the work involved.
The federal government is in the process of issuing a notice
of lien on the property,.which would enable EPA to recover
monies, paid for the property up to the amount expended at the
Site.
-------
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
r" REGOHI
K. JAVTTS FSCRAL BXDING
»«W YO«K, >€W YORK 10278
AGENDA
Information Meeting
Genzale Plating Superfund site
PranXlin Square, New York
Wednesday. March 13. 1991
7:00 P.M.
I. Welcome & Introduction
II. Overview of Superfund
III. Site History
IV. Remedial Investigation
Results
V. Risk Assastr.ent
VT r -;s- ibil;'-
VII. Proposed Alternative
Cecilia Echols
Conununity Relations
Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region 2 '
Douglas Garbarini
Chief, Eastern New York/
Caribbean Superfund
Section
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Janet Cappelli
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA, Region 2
Tom Fowler
Field Work Supervisor
EBASCO Services, Inc.
(Consultant to EPA)
Marina Stefanidis
U.S. EPA, Region 2
i:-pl : o K-.*-..>• -:'
Feaiibiiit'^ Study Leader
EBASCO Services, Inc.
(Consultant to EPA)
Janet Cappelli
VIII. Questions and Answers
IX. Closing
PRKTc" ON RECYCLED PAP£R
-------
APPENDIX B '
PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-IN SHEETS
-------
UK I TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
PUBLIC MEETING
FOR
Genzale Plating fluperfund Site
Franklin Square, New York
March 13, 1991
MEETING ATTENDEES
».
(A
NAME
QJ
O
_/>v^-W
^LA
-n>
STREET
/<>
/O
rritfifi /
if
(Pleaae Print)
CITY
/A
ii i>
// o
PHONE
77V-
Yo
REPRESENTING
MAILING
LIST
-------
APPENDIX V
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
GEN2ALE PLATING COMPANY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
WORK PLANS .
P. 1 - 108 Report: Engineering Investigation at Inactive
Hazardous Waste Sites in the State of Nev York -
Phase 1- Preliminary Investigation. prepared by
Woodward-Clyde consultants, Inc. September 30,
1983.
P. 109 - 216 Report: Final Work Plan for RI/FS - Genzale
Platinc CoTr.cany Site, Franklin Scruare. N.Y..
prepared by E3ASCO, October, 1988.
P. 217 - 360 Report: Final Field Operations Plan (TOP] for
RI/7S - Genzale Platir.e Cor.oar.v Site, Franklin
Scuare. N.Y.. prepared by E3ASCO, October, 1588.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION REPORTS
P. 361 - 556 Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
prepared by EBASCO, Volume I of III, February,
-•--•-.• 1991. -•••••
P. 557 - 569 Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
prepared by EBASCO, Volume II of III, February,
1991.
P. 570 - 765 Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
prepared by EBASCO, Volume III of III, February,
1991.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORTS
P. 766 - 968 Report: Draft Final Feasibility Study Report,
'prepared by EBASCO, February, 1991.
ENFORCEMENT
ADMINISTRATIVE DECREES ' • .
P. 969 - 992A Memorandum of Decision - U.S.A. against M. Genzale
Plating, Inc., Michael Genzale and Pasquale
Genzale, October 13, 1989.
-------
CORRESPONDENCE
P. 393 - 995 Letter to Mr. Pasquale Genzale, Genzale Plating
Corporation, from Mr. Stephen Luftig, U.S. EPA,
Re: Special Notice Letter Pursuant to Section
122 (e) - Genzale Plating Site, Franklin Square.,
New York, December 31, 1987.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PLANS
P. 996 - 1020 Report: Final Ccrjnunitv Relations Plan For the
Genzale Plating Site, Town of Franklin 5c"uare, New
York, prepared by E3ASCO, November, 1SSS.
FACT SHEETS AND PRESS RELEASES
•'P. 1021 - 1C22' Fact sheet: Genzale Platine Site. Tovn of
Hemcstead. Nassau Cour.tv. NY. November, 1S89.
P. 1G23 - 1024 Press Release: U.S. EPA TO HOLD PUBLIC
AVAILABILITY SESSION ON G'ENZALE PLATING CO.
SUPERFUND SITE IN FRANKLIN SQUARE. NEW YORK.
Prepared by, U.S. EPA, November 14, 1589.
REQUEST FOP. FOIA
P. 1025 - 1030 Letter to Honorable Raymond J. McGrath, U.S.
Congressman, from Mr. William Muszynski, U.S. EPA,
Re: Request for information, January 9, 1S89.
PROPOSED FLAN
•
P. 1031 - 1043 Proposed plan: Genzale Plating Co-canv Site. U.S.
EPA. Region II, February, 1991.
------- |