United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/144
June 1991
&EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Mattiace Petrochemicals, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-91/144
3. Recipient"• Accession No.
4. TMemdSubWe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Mattiace Petrochemicals, NY
Second Remedial Action - Final
S. Report Dite
06/27/91
7. Airthoits)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing OrgaJnlzillonNeinesndAddms*
10. Prolect/Tuk/WorkUnHNo.
11. ContncqC) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Nune and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report ft Period Covered
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary Note*
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The 2-acre Mattiace Petrochemicals site is an inactive liquid storage and
redistribution facility in Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York. Surrounding land use
is primarily industrial. Glen Cove Creek, a potential wetland area, is located south
of the site. The site overlies a system of three unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers,
of which the surficial Upper Glacial Aquifer has been affected by onsite
^ contamination. From the mid-1960s to 1986, organic solvents were stored, blended, and
repackaged onsite. Onsite features involved with the operation included a metal
Quonset hut, a concrete fire shed, a leaching pond, a partially covered concrete
loading dock, and 32 underground and 24 above-ground storage tanks. Drums were
reconditioned onsite, and the resulting water/solvent mixtures were discharged to
above-ground tanks or to an onsite leaching pond. A solvent water separator was used
to collect overflow from the above-ground tanks for discharge to the leaching pond.
There is evidence, however, that overflow from these tanks may have been discharged
directly into the soil. In 1988, EPA characterized and disposed of 100,000 gallons of
hazardous liquids offsite from approximately 24 above- and 32 underground storage
tanks. In 1989, a second EPA investigation identified approximately 25 buried drums
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyst* a. Descriptor*
Record of Decision - Mattiace Petrochemicals, NY
Second Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, debris, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), other organics (PAHs,
pesticides, phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium, lead)
c. COSATI HetoVQroup
IB. Avallablity Statement
19. Security Ctsss (This Report)
None
20. Security Cts
i (This Psge)
None
21. No. of Page*
102
22. Price
(See ANSU39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly HTIS-35)
t of COflUltBI'CO
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/144
Mattiace Petrochemicals, NY
Second Remedial Action - Final
stract (Continued)
and numerous other containers that were leaking contaminated material into the
surrounding soil and ground water. A 1990 Record of Decision (ROD) provided for
removal of onsite buried drums containing sludge, as well as the associated highly
contaminated soil as Operable Unit 2 (OU2). In 1989, EPA characterized onsite
contamination, and discovered a layer of "free product" floating on top of contaminated
ground water and contaminated sediment in Glen Cove Creek. This ROD addresses
remediation of onsite source materials, as well as management of migration of
contaminated shallow ground water. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the
soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs including PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other
organics including PAHs, pesticides, and phenols; and metals including arsenic,
chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating and treating offsite 208
cubic yards of pesticide-contaminated "hot spot" soil, possibly by incineration,
followed by offsite disposal of residuals; backfilling excavated areas with clean soil/-
treating 17,141 cubic yards of contaminated soil using in-situ vacuum extraction,
followed by activated carbon to control off-gases, as needed; decontaminating and
demolishing the Quonset hut, 24 above-ground tanks, 32 underground tanks, and 1,360
cubic yards of concrete and asphalt, followed by offsite disposal; removing 15,000
gallons of "free product" using ground water extraction wells and a skimmer pump,
followed by offsite treatment and disposal; pumping and treatment of ground water using
precipitation and clarification as pretreatment to remove metals, and air stripping to
remove organics, and reinjecting the treated water onsite; treating air effluent from
the air stripper using thermal treatment; treating water effluent from the air stripper
using carbon adsorption, and regenerating spent carbon offsite; performing treatability
studies; conducting a soil gas survey to monitor off-gas migration; and monitoring
ground water, Glen Cove Creek sediment, and surface water. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $15,930,592, which includes an annual O&M cost of
$692,997 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Soil cleanup goals are based on achieving an excess
lifetime cancer risk of 10~6 . Chemical-specific goals for soil include PCE 0.6 mg/kg,
TCE 0.07 mg/kg, and xylenes 259 mg/kg. Ground water cleanup levels are the more
stringent of Federal MCLs or State standards, and include PCE 5 ug/1 (State), TCE 5
ug/1 (MCL), and xylenes 5 ug/1 (State).
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
EPA Region:
HRS Score (date)
NPL Rank (date):
ROD
Date Signed:
LEAD-Remedial, EPA
Primary contact:
Secondary Contact:
WASTE
Type and media:
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
Glen Cove, Nassau County, N.Y.
II
30.63-31.94
Group 14 (proposed June, 1988)
June 27, 1991
Selected Remedy- * In Situ Vacuum Extraction
of Volatile Organic Contaminants from Soil in
General Site Area
* Excavation of Pesticide "Hot Spots" with
Off-site Treatment and Disposal
* Demolition, Removal, and Landfill Disposal
of Site Structures, Above- and Belowground
Storage Tanks, and Concrete and Asphalt
Debris
* Groundwater Extraction and Treatment via
Air Stripping and Carbon Adsorption, Followed
by Reinjection
* Monitoring of Groundwater in the Area of
the Site, as well as Surface Water and
Sediments in Glen Cove Creek.
Capital Cost:
O and M:
Present Worth:
$6,544,487
$692,997
$15,930,592
Origin:
Edward G. Als- (212) 264-0522
Douglas Garbarini- (212) 264-0109
Soil-*VOCs- Tetrachloroethylene, tri-
chloroethylene, xylenes
*Semi-VOCs- alpha chlordane.
*Inorganics- N/A
Groundwater—*VOCs-tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, chloroform, ethylbenzene,
xylenes, methylene chloride, isophorone, and
1,2-dichlorobenzene.
"Floating Producf'-toluene. xylenes,
trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene
On-site waste disposal, spillage from
hazardous materials handling
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., INC.
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. site ("the Site"), developed
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §9601
et seq.. and, to the extent applicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.
This decision is based on the administrative record for this
site. The attached index (Appendix S) identifies the items that
comprise the administrative record.
The State of New York concurs on the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this.Record of Decision, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
This ROD contains the remedy selected for the releases or threats
of releases documented by the Mattiace first operable unit
investigation. The major components of the selected remedy
include:
* In Situ Vacuum Extraction of Volatile Organic Contaminants
from Soil in General Site Area
* Excavation of Pesticide "Hot Spots" with Off-site
Treatment and Disposal
* Demolition, Removal, and Landfill Disposal of Site
Structures, Above- and Belowground Storage Tanks, and
Concrete and Asphalt Debris
* Groundwater Extraction and Treatment via Air Stripping and
Carbon Adsorption, Followed by Reinjection
* Monitoring of Groundwater in the Area of the Site, as well
as Surface Water and Sediments in Glen Cove Creek.
-------
The Mattiace second operable unit remedial action, which was the
subject of a September 27, 1990 ROD, is presently underway at the
Site and should be completed shortly. The second operable unit
ROD called for the excavation and offsite disposal of buried
drums and containers that were found on the Mattiace property
during the second operable unit investigation.
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. This*remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable.
Since this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining
for an indefinite time at the Site above health-based levels, a
review will be conducted no later than five years after
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that this remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
-Constantine Sidamon-Eristof f v /'
Regional Administrator
Oat
s'
-------
Decision Summary
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., INC.
GLEN COVE, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT 3
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS. . . . 5
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS. 6
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 11
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES.. 18
SELECTED REMEDY 25
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 30
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 33
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX 1 - TABLES
APPENDIX 2 - FIGURES
APPENDIX 3 - NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX 4 - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX 5 - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION. AND DESCRIPTION
The Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. Site ("the Site"), which
includes the 1.9 acre property owned by Mattiace Petrochemical
Co. Inc., is located on Garvey's Point Road in Glen Cove on Long
Island, New York (FIGURE 1). LIMCO Manufacturing Corporation, a
precision sheet metal manufacturer, is located along the eastern
and southern border of the Mattiace property. Property formerly
owned by Edmos, a knitting, dying, and finishing textile fabric
manufacturer, borders the Mattiace property to the west. This
property is presently owned by 20 Garvey's Point Road Corporation
and is occupied by Medallion Oil Co. and various other tenants.
Undeveloped property owned by the Glen Cove Development
Corporation is located to the north of the Mattiace property. A
residential area is located just north of this undeveloped area,
within one hundred yards of the.Mattiace property. The study
area also contains the Garvey's Point Preserve, the Glen Cove
marina, residential areas, and other industrial facilities in
addition to those mentioned above.
The Mattiace facility is located approximately 500 feet directly
north of Glen Cove Creek. The Creek empties into Hempstead
Harbor approximately 1500 feet west of the Mattiace facility. •
The facility, which is no longer active, is a fenced enclave
containing 32 underground and 24 aboveground chemical storage
tanks of various capacities. Most of the underground tanks are
connected with an underground manhole piping system which
collected chemical overflows from the storage tanks as well as
stormwater. This collection system leads to a solvent/
stormwater separator in the southeast part of the property where
any solvents were allowed to separate from water. Although the
separator made it possible to skim the solvents for .proper
disposal and pump the remaining water to on-site leaching pools,
there were likely occasions when the entire contents of the
solvent/stormwater separator were pumped directly out to the
driveway at the southwest corner of the Site.
The property also includes the following: a metal Quonset
building, in which drum cleaning and reconditioning was
performed; a wetwell outside the Quonset building into which the
process liquids from drum reconditioning were discharged; a
concrete fire shed; and a concrete loading dock partially covered
by a slanted metal roof. The south end of the property was a
truck parking area when the facility was operational. See FIGURE
2 for a detailed diagram of the facility layout.
The regional geology in the Mattiace study area is generally
comprised of 3 unconsolidated sediments, namely, the Raritan
Formation, the Magothy Formation, and the Upper Glacial
Formation. The Site is underlain by the Upper Glacial and
Magothy Formations, under which lays the Raritan Clay, which is a
minimum of 50 feet thick at the Site and of very uniform
composition locally.
-------
Groundwater is a source of drinking water for an estimated 44,000
people in the area, although there is presently no indication
that any water supplies are contaminated or in danger of
contamination as a result of conditions at the Site. This is
because groundwater contamination from the Site moves generally
southwest toward Glen Cove Creek and Hempstead Harbor, with no
intervening public water supply wells. The groundwater
contamination is also restricted to the Upper Glacial deposits
above the Raritan Clay, which suggests that contaminated
groundwater will ultimately discharge to surface water, i.e. the
Harbor or the Creek, and not travel beneath the Harbor or the
Creek.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Mattiace Petrochemical Company began operating in the mid-
1960 's, receiving chemicals by tank truck, blending and
redistributing them to its customers. The primary operations
were the storing, blending, and repackaging, of organic solvents.
These solvents were stored in aboveground and belowground tanks,
and they were blended and repackaged in 55 gallon drums under a
covered section of the concrete loading dock located in the
northeast corner of the property. The 55 gallon drums were
stacked and temporarily stored on the loading dock prior to
shipment to various buyers.
The metal Quonset hut located in the western portion of the
property was used by the M and M drum cleaning operation to
clean, pressure test, and repaint drums. The M and M operation
and the Mattiace operation were both owned by Mattiace
Industries. The resulting aqueous/solvent mixture was collected
in a wetwell in the southeast'external corner of the Quonset hut.
The liquids in this wetwell were periodically discharged to one
of the adjacent aboveground tanks or into a leaching pool on the
property.
An underground tank farm used for the storage of organic solvents
is located in the northeast corner of the property. Thirty two
underground and .twenty four aboveground storage tanks exist
mainly in the northeastern section of the Mattiace property. The
underground tanks are interconnected by a spill prevention
system. Excess material from overfilled tanks drain through a
series of four concrete manholes and discharge into the solvent/
stormwater separator which is located in the southeast corner of
the property. This spill prevention system also acts as a
stormwater collection system. Stormwater from the lower portion
of the separator was intended to be drained by gravity and then
pumped into the northwest leach pools. However, the liquids
which collected in the separator and ponded in the southeast
corner of the property were sometimes pumped through a hose down
the Mattiace driveway while the facility was operational.
-------
In 1986, the Mattiace Petrochemical Company filed for bankruptcy
as a result of legal problems resulting from its non-compliance
with various environmental regulations. At the request of the
State of New York, the Bankruptcy Court removed the protection of
assets normally extended to a reorganizing company in 1987 in
order to ensure that the Company ceased operations. Meanwhile,
in August 1986, a Grand Jury handed up a 21 count charge against
the Company and three of its officers. In May 1988, a jury
returned felony charges against the Company and its president.
On July 8, 1988, EPA notified William, Otto, and Louis Mattiace
of their status as potentially responsible parties at the
Mattiace Site, as well as provided them the opportunity to
remediate the Site through an EPA Consent Order. No offer was
received by EPA in response to this notification. In August,
1988, a Federal lien was placed on the Mattiace property by EPA.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan was developed for the Site by EPA
which designated the Glen Cove Public Library as the public
information repository. All public information concerning the
Site, including the Site Administrative Record file, is presently
located at this repository.
The Proposed Plan for remediation at the Site which resulted from
the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) was
mailed on May 14, 1991 to the Glen Cove Public Library (as the
Site's public information repository) and to the individuals or
entities on the mailing list for the Site, which included State
and local officials and other interested parties. General notice
of the availability of the Proposed Plan was placed in Long
Island Newsday on May 17, 1991 and the Glen Cove Pilot Record on
May 23, 1991 (FIGURES 3 and 4). An EPA press release was also
issued on May 17, 1991. A public meeting was held on May 30,
1991, to solicit public comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan.
The duration of the public comment period was 30 days and ended
on June 14, 1991.
All comments received by EPA during the public comment period are
responded to in detail in the Responsiveness Summary which is
attached as APPENDIX 4.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT
This response action complements two earlier response actions at
the Site. EPA initiated a removal action at the Site in
February, 1988, which included waste characterization and off-
site disposal of approximately 100,000 gallons of hazardous
substances from aboveground and belowground tanks. The removal
action was completed in June, 1988.
-------
Subsequently, EPA commenced a comprehensive RI at the Site in
October, 1989. The RI included the following: a geophysical
survey; a soil gas survey (FIGURE 5); installation and sampling
of 11 groundwater monitoring wells and two piezometers (FIGURE 6,
which also shows 4 wells installed as part of the preliminary
investigation conducted by Woodward Clyde); drilling and sampling
of 22 soil and 3 hand augur borings (FIGURE 7); and sampling of
Glen Cove Creek water and sediments (FIGURE 8).
The geophysical survey was performed to assess, among other
things, the possibility that hazardous substances were disposed
of through burial on-site. The survey indicated that several
areas at the Site should be further investigated because of the
possibility of buried drums of hazardous substances. Therefore,
EPA initiated the second operable unit focused feasibility study
(FFS) in December, 1989 to further define the findings of the
geophysical investigation. With the creation of the second
operable unit at the Site, all other elements of the Site
investigation were designated as first operable unit activities.
The second operable unit investigation's objectives consisted of
the identification of any buried drums which contained hazardous
substances, as well as the identification of significantly
contaminated soils. The investigation concentrated on three
areas at the site which were suspected of being used for drummed
hazardous waste disposal. EPA found an estimated 25-50 drums
buried in the area designated source area 1, which is located
along the western perimeter of the Site. No drums were found in
any of the other suspected source areas. An FFS report was then
issued which became the basis for the EPA's September 27, 1990
Record of Decision (ROD.) for remediation of source area 1 (FIGURE
9). Remedial action implementing the remedy selected in that ROD
is presently underway and should be completed shortly.
The overall goal of the first operable unit investigation, which
is the investigation upon which this ROD is based, is to reduce
the concentrations of all Site contaminants to levels which are
protective of human health and the environment.
EPA believes that the selected remedy will achieve this goal by
meeting the following remedial action objectives:
1) reduce to acceptable levels the on-site potential health
effects associated with contaminated soils and residual leakage
from underground tanks;
2) minimize the off-site migration of contaminated groundwater
and surface runoff to potential environmental receptors; and,
3) restore the groundwater currently being degraded as a result
of the Site to its most beneficial use.
-------
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The soil contamination at the Site is extensive" across the entire
facility area, with "hot spots" of contamination occurring in
several locations on the Site (one of these "hot spots", the
buried drum area along the western boundary of the Site, is
presently being remediated pursuant to the second operable unit
ROD). These locations are generally associated with seven groups
of underground storage tanks on the Site, as well as three other
locations corresponding to soil boring numbers 5, 9, and 11,
which are all contaminated primarily with pesticides. Some of
the more frequently occurring contaminants of concern in the soil
(with maximum concentrations in parentheses) were:
tetrachloroethylene (410 milligrams/killigram, or mg/kg),
trichloroethylene (37 mg/kg), xylenes (2,600 ing/kg) , and 1,4-
alpha chlordane (9 mg/kg) (TABLE 1).
The RI also determined the existence of severe groundwater
contamination in the Upper Glacial aquifer beneath the Site.
Additional data gathered from previous investigations in the
Garvey's Point area and reviewed by EPA indicate pervasive
groundwater contamination in the area, most likely as a result of
its commercial/industrial nature. The groundwater contamination
attributable to the Site is particularly severe, and includes a
localized layer of "floating product" at the top of the water
table directly under the Site. This "floating product" consists
of approximately 15,000 gallons of a mixture of organic
chemicals, including total xylenes (6% by weight),
trichloroethylene (12%), tetrachloroethylene (10%), and toluene
(12%). Excluding the "floating product", analysis of groundwater
during the RI indicates the following concentrations of some
contaminants of concern: tetrachloroethylene (100
milligrams/liter, or mg/1), trichloroethylene (230 mg/1),
chloroform (81 mg/1), ethylbenzene (370 mg/1), xylenes (422
mg/1), methylene chloride (750 mg/1), isophorone (57 mg/1), and
1,2-dichlorobenzene (5.3 mg/1) (TABLE 2). These concentrations
are several orders of magnitude above Federal and state drinking
water standards. The movement of groundwater in the Upper
Glacial aquifer in the vicinity of the Site is slow and generally
in a southwest direction toward Glen Cove Creek. On the basis of
the RI, as well as other information sources considered during
the investigation, EPA believes that none of the area's potable
water supply wells are in locations that would cause them to be
presently affected or threatened by the groundwater contamination
from the Site.
Moreover, it is likely that contaminated groundwater, as well as
surface water runoff from the Site, is responsible for a portion
of the contamination that EPA detected in Glen Cove Creek's
sediments. It is very difficult to delineate and quantify the
constituents which could be directly related to the Site given
the documented releases of organic chemicals from other
-------
facilities in the area, many of which are the same as those
substances released from the Mattiace facility* EPA's sampling
of the Creek's sediments indicated elevated concentrations of
organic contamination, particularly semi-volatile compounds such
as bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (21 mg/kg), fluoranthrene (7
mg/kg), and pyrene (6 mg/kg) (FIGURE 10). Some inorganics, such
as aluminum and iron, were also found in high concentrations.
The semi-volatile compounds detected in the Creek sediments were
also found on the Site during the RI but in relatively low
concentrations and minor frequency of occurrence. Therefore, it
is possible that the Site is a source of these compounds in the
Creek sediments, but the amount of contribution is similarly
difficult to quantify.
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. This information is
used by EPA to make a determination as to whether remediation of
the Site is required.
EPA evaluated nearby residents and others who might spend
extended periods of time on or around the Site under a current
land use scenario. EPA also used a scenario based on future
residential land use at the Site in order to assess the maximum
plausible risk that the Site could pose. Under both scenarios,
several exposure pathways (direct contact, inhalation and
ingestion) were evaluated for surface and subsurface soils and
air, while exposure to groundwater (ingestion, contact, and
inhalation) was evaluated only for the future use scenario.
Exposure assumptions were made that would include current nearby
residents/workers and future on-site residents, including
children, as the receptors (or potential receptors). 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. Reasonable maximum exposure is defined
as the highest exposure that is reasonably expected to occur at
the Site for individual and combined pathways.
For known or suspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels
are generally concentration levels that theoretically represent
an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to an individual of
between IxlO"4 (or one incident of Site-related cancer among an
exposed population of 10,000 people) to 1x10* (or one incident of
Site-related cancer among an exposed population of 1,000,000
people). EPA derives this risk by using existing information on
the relationship between dose of carcinogen and carcinogenic
response. The 10* risk level is used as the point of departure
for determining remediation goals for alternatives when
-------
regulatory standards or requirements are not available or are not
sufficiently protective.
For systemic toxicants, acceptable exposure levels generally
represent concentration levels to which the human population,
including sensitive subgroups, may be exposed without adverse
effect.
Selection of Contaminants of Concern
Contaminants which have inherent toxic/carcinogenic effects that
are likely to pose the greatest concern with respect to the
protection of public health and the environment, and that were
detected at the Site in significant concentrations and/or
frequencies of occurrence were selected as contaminants of
concern. The contaminants of concern at the Mattiace Site are
presented in TABLE 3.
Exposure Assessment
An exposure pathway is the course a contaminant takes from the
source to the exposed receptor. Exposure pathways in general
must consist of the following four elements:
1. a source and mechanism of constituent release;
2. a retention or transport medium;
3. a point of.potential human contact with the medium; and
4. an exposure route at the contact point.
In this assessment, both current and potential future exposure
pathways are considered. Current activity patterns at the Site
are examined to identify current exposure potential to residents
and workers near the Site as it presently exists. In developing
future exposure pathways, it is assumed that no further remedial
actions will be undertaken. It is further assumed that a
residential development may be constructed on the Mattiace
property, and that exposure to contaminants in soils may occur
during and after the construction.
To quantitatively assess the potential risks to human health
associated with the exposure scenarios considered in this
assessment, estimates of chronic daily intakes (GDIs) are
developed. GDIs are expressed as the amount of a substance taken
into the body per unit body weight per unit time, or mg/kg/day.
A GDI is averaged over a lifetime for carcinogens and over the
exposure period for noncarcinogens. An average case and a
reasonable maximum case are considered. The average case is
based on average (but conservative) conditions of exposure and
the average exposure point concentrations. The reasonable
maximum case is based on upper-bound conditions of exposure and
the reasonable maximum exposure point concentration, and as such
represents the extreme upper limit of potential exposure.
-------
Toxicitv Assessment
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogenic Assessment Group 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 provide an upper bound estimate of the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake
level. The term "upper bound" reflects the conservative estimate
of the risks calculated from the CPF. Use of this approach makes
the underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely.
CPFs are derived from the results of human epidemiological
studies or chronic animal bioassays to which animal-to-human
extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been applied.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
computed from expected daily intake levels.(subchronic and
chronic) and reference doses, or RfDs (representing acceptable
intakes). Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a
single contaminant in a single medium is expressed as the hazard
quotient (HQ). This is the ratio of the estimated intake
(derived from the contaminant concentration in a given medium) to
the contaminant's RfD. By adding the HQs for all contaminants
within a medium or across all media to which a given population
may reasonably be exposed, the HI can be generated. The HI is
useful as a reference point for gauging the potential effects of
environmental exposures to complex mixtures. In general, His
which are less than one are not likely to be associated with any
health risk, and are therefore less likely to be of concern than
His greater than one.
For a listing of the indices of toxicity, i.e. RfDs, CPFs (or
slope factors), please see TABLE 4.
In accordance with EPA's guidelines for evaluating the potential
toxicity of complex mixtures, it was assumed that the toxic
effects of the Site-related chemicals would be additive. Thus,
lifetime excess cancer risk and the CDI:RfO ratios were summed to
indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures of
potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic effects as a result of exposure to Site chemicals
are considered separately.
Risk Characterization
The risk characterization quantifies present and/or potential
future threats to human health that result from exposure to the
contaminants of concern. EPA calculated significant carcinogenic
-------
risks associated with prolonged exposure to contaminated soils on
the Mattiace property. Reasonable maximum exposure risks for
adults were on the order of SxlO"3 for inhalation, and 2X10"3 for
dermal absorption, with even greater risks posed for sensitive
populations, such as children. Inhalation risks were chiefly as
a result of airborne volatile organic compounds, particularly
trichloroethylene. The dermal absorption risk Was chiefly as a
result of semi-volatile pesticides in the soils. Adult non-
carcinogenic risks from these types of exposures were also
significant, with hazard indices ranging from 6.3 for inhalation
(mainly from a variety of airborne volatile organic compounds) to
23 for dermal absorption (mainly from alpha chlordane, a
pesticide).
EPA also calculated the risk to public health associated with
exposure to contaminated groundwater, even though no exposures
are presently occurring, as part of the future residential use
scenario. EPA calculated an adult carcinogenic risk from the
exposure to groundwater directly beneath the Site of SxlO'1 for
groundwater ingestion (chiefly from a variety of volatile organic
compounds), and 3xlO"2 for dermal absorption (chiefly from the
volatile organic compounds carbon tetrachloride and vinyl
chloride). Adult non-carcinogenic effects were also significant,
with hazard indices ranging from 4,730 for groundwater ingestion
(chiefly from carbon tetrachloride) to 195 for dermal absorption
(chiefly from carbon tetrachloride). For a complete listing of
the health effects criteria and the calculated adult risks for
various chemicals and exposure pathways, see TABLE 4.
Moreover, contaminated groundwater, as well as surface water
runoff from the Site, is likely responsible for a portion of the
contamination that EPA found in Glen Cove Creek's sediments.
Since most of the contaminants found in high concentrations
exhibit low water solubility and a high affinity for adsorption
to sediments, it would be expected that they would tend to remain
in the sediments with little dissolution in the overlying water
column. Therefore, any release of these contaminants from the
sediment to the water column should be insignificant relative to
the amount of tidal "flushing" of Creek water that takes place.
EPA considered human exposure to these sediments an unlikely
possibility (in particular chronic long-term exposure), because
of the present use and physical nature of the Creek, i.e., boat
traffic, bulkheaded (no exposed sediments), etc. Therefore, only
the risk associated with exposure to Creek water was evaluated.
This assessment indicates that no unacceptable risks to public
health are posed by the low contaminant concentrations found in
the Creek water.
Since the Creek is contiguous with Hempstead Harbor, and
ultimately with Long Island Sound, the contamination from the
Site has the potential to affect any of the species of flora and
fauna that use or inhabit these environs, although the degree of
-------
10
the effects is difficult to quantify and would depend, among
other things, on the duration of exposure and on the particular
species exposed.
More specific information concerning public health risks is
contained in the volume entitled Remedial Investigation Report-
Mattiace Petrochemical Site (Chapter 6-Human Health Risk
Assessment) located at the Glen Cove Public Library.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide
variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present. In the case of soils, the
conservative models used assume that the contaminant is present
at the maximum detected concentration throughout the volume of
soils being examined. Environmental chemistry analysis error can
stem from several sources, including the errors inherent in the
analytical methods, chain of custody problems, and
characteristics of the matrix being sampled. Environmental
parameter measurements primarily contribute to uncertainty
because little verified information is available.
In the Site risk assessment there are uncertainties regarding the
estimates of how often, if at all, an individual would come in
contact with the chemicals of concern and the period of time over
which such exposure would occur. In particular, this applies to
the future residential exposures. There is also significant
uncertainty in the models used to estimate exposure point
concentrations.
Toxicological data error (potentially occurring in extrapolating
both from animals to humans and from high to low doses) is also a
large source of potential error in this risk assessment. There
is also a great deal of uncertainty in assessing the toxicity of
a mixture of chemicals.. In this assessment, the effects of
exposure to each of the contaminants present in the environmental
media have initially been considered separately. The separate
evaluation and subsequent summation of contaminant-specific risk
may not account for potential synergistic or antagonistic
-------
11
interactions of chemical mixtures.
In summary, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances
from this Site, if not addressed by the selected remedy or one of
the other active measures considered, may present a current or
potential threat to public health and the environment through, at
a minimum, any of the following exposure pathways: inhalation of
particulates and/or vapors from contaminated soils, dermal
absorption of contaminated soils, under both the current land use
and a future residential land use scenario, and ingestion,
inhalation or dermal absorption of contaminated groundwater under
a future residential land use scenario.
The FS, in which remedial alternatives are developed, screened,
and then carefully evaluated in detail, forms the basis for the
selected remedy.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA requires that each selected Site remedy be protective of
human health and the environment, be cost effective, comply with
other statutory laws, and utilize permanent solutions,
alternative technologies, and resource recovery alternatives to
the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the statute
includes a preference for the use of treatment as a principal
element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances.
The remedial alternatives considered in the FS are organized
according to the media which they address: soil contamination
("SC") and management of migration of groundwater ("MOM"). These
alternatives were screened based on implementability,
effectiveness, and cost. The screening resulted in remedial
alternatives upon which a detailed analysis was performed. A "no
action" alternative was also evaluated in the FS, as required by
regulation, to provide an appropriate alternative in the event
that no contravention of standards nor significant health or
environmental risks were identified as a result of the Site
contamination.
The alternatives presented below are those which were evaluated
in detail following the preliminary screening of alternatives.
These alternatives have retained their pre-screening
alphahumerical designations in order to correspond with the
descriptions of the alternatives which are contained in the FS
report. The present worth costs are estimates which take into
account both the capital cost and the operation and maintenance
(0 and M) costs for up to 30 years. "Time to implement" is
defined as the period of time needed for the alternative to be
started (e.g., amount of time needed for design and construction
of a treatment facility). The remedial alternatives considered
for addressing the soil contamination at the site are as follows:
-------
12
SOILS
SC-1: No Action
SC-3: a. In Situ Vacuum Extraction of General Site Area/
Excavation of All "Hot Spots" with Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal
b. In Situ Vacuum Extraction of General Site Area and Non-
Pesticide "Hot Spots"/Excavation of Pesticide "Hot Spots"
with Off-Site Treatment and Disposal
c. In Situ Vacuum Extraction of General Site Area and Non-
Pesticide "Hot Spots"
SC-5: On-site Low Temperature Thermal Treatment of General Site
Area and All "Hot Spots"
SC-l: No Action
Capital Cost: $71,876
Annual Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Cost: $11,305
Present Worth Cost: $245,656
Time To Implement: 2 months
The Superfund program requires that the no action alternative be
considered as a baseline for comparison with other alternatives.
Under this alternative, the contaminated soil would be left in
place without treatment. Also, installation of additional
security measures, such as repairs and modifications as necessary
to the existing fencing and the use of electronic devices to
detect trespassing (with subsequent notification of local
authorities) would be performed as needed. No action would also
include a public education program in order to increase public
awareness of Site conditions and hazards. Since this alternative
would involve no contaminant removal, CERCLA requires that the
Site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented in the future to remove or
treat the wastes.
SC-3: a. In Situ Vacuum Extraction of General Site Area/
Excavation of All "Hot Spots" with Off-Site Treatment and
Disposal
Capital Cost: $17,896,733
Annual O&M Cost: $73,699
Present Worth Cost: $18,097,415
Time To Implement: 36 months
-------
13
This alternative involves in situ treatment of 11,950 cubic yards
(cy) of contaminated soil by means of vacuum extraction, and
excavation of 6,956 cy of soil (which includes excavation soil
expansion factor). For costing purposes, off-site treatment was
assumed to be incineration, although other more innovative
technology may eventually be selected on the basis of cost and
treatment equivalence.
In situ extraction, or removal of organic contaminants from the
soil without major soil disturbance, is accomplished by
installing soil vapor extraction wells at strategic points,
manifolding the wells, and applying a vacuum in order to draw
contaminated soil gases out of the ground and into a treatment
system. The treatment system is comprised of a vapor/liquid
separator. It was assumed that an activated carbon canister
would be utilized for off-gas emission, although equivalent
technologies could be utilized. Spent activated carbon would be
regenerated for re-use at an off-site location. The in situ
vacuum extraction system would be operated until soil cleanup
levels corresponding to EPA's target risk level of IxlO^are
achieved.
The soil cleanup levels of selected indicator chemicals which
have been determined by EPA to correspond to a IxlO"6 risk level
are given below:
CHEMICAL CLEANUP LEVEL
(mg/kg)
Volatile Oraanics
Tetrachloroethylene 0.6
Trichloroethylene 0.07
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 52.1
Xylene 259
Pesticides
Aldrin 0.04
Alpha Chlordane 0.5
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.07
The excavation of soils for off-site treatment and disposal would
include excavation of all soil "hot spots", or areas of soil
contamination that is more highly concentrated than the
surrounding soil contamination at the Site. The off-site
transportation, treatment, and disposal would conform to
applicable/appropriate requirements of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), including land disposal requirements
("LDR"), as well as the requirements of State hazardous waste
laws and regulations. Any hazardous residuals resulting from on-
site vacuum extraction treatment would be similarly disposed of
or recycled off-site. Clean fill would be used to backfill
-------
14
excavated areas. EPA believes that this alternative would be
effective in achieving reduction of human carcinogenic risk posed
by contaminated soils at the Site to approximately IxlO"6.
This alternative would also include the decontamination (as
necessary), demolition, removal, and landfill disposal of the
Quonset hut, 24 aboveground storage tanks, 32 underground storage
tanks, and 1,360 cy of concrete and asphalt. Treatability
studies would also have to be performed to determine design
parameters and the need for treatment of off-gases for the vacuum
extraction system.
SC-3: b. In Situ Vacuum Extraction of General Site Area and Non-
Pesticide "Hot Spots11/ Excavation of Pesticide "Hot
Spots" with Off-Site Treatment and Disposal
Capital Cost: $3,227,566
Annual O&M Cost: $100,138
Present Worth Cost: $3,500,242
Time to Implement: 36 months
This alternative is the same as Alternative SC-3a, with the
exception that only the pesticide "hot spots" would be excavated
for off-site treatment and disposal, while the remaining soils
would be treated on-site to meet the cleanup levels specified in
Alternative SC-3a using in situ vacuum extraction technology.
Specifically, this alternative would involve in situ treatment of
17,141 cy of contaminated soil by means of vacuum extraction, and
excavation of 208 cy of soil (which includes excavation soil
expansion factor) contaminated primarily with pesticides for off-
site treatment and disposal, in accordance with applicable/
appropriate requirements of RCRA, as well as the requirements of
State hazardous waste laws and regulations. For costing
purposes, off-site treatment was assumed to be incineration,
although other more innovative technology may eventually be
selected on the basis of cost and treatment equivalence.
The excavation of soils for off-site treatment and disposal would
only include excavation of the pesticide "hot spots". Clean fill
would be used to backfill excavated areas. EPA believes that
this alternative would be effective in achieving reduction of
human carcinogenic risk posed by contaminated soils at the Site
to approximately 1x10*.
This alternative would also include the decontamination (as
necessary), demolition, removal, and landfill disposal of the
Quonset hut, 24 aboveground storage tanks, 32 underground storage
tanks, and 1,360 cy of concrete and asphalt. Treatability
studies would also have to be performed to determine design
parameters and the need for treatment of off-gases for the vacuum
extraction system.
-------
15
8C-3: c. In Situ Vacuum Extraction of General Site Area and Non-
Pesticide "Hot Spots"
Capital Cost: $2,731,392
Annual O&M Cost: $100,138
Present Worth Cost: $3,004,068
Time To Implement: 36 months
This alternative is the same as alternative 8C-3b, with the
exception that the pesticide "hot spots" would not be excavated
for off-site treatment and disposal. Specifically, this
alternative involves in situ vacuum extraction of the entire
contaminated soil volume of 17,301 cy to the soil cleanup levels
specified in Alternative 8C-3a for volatile organics. However,
cleanup levels for pesticides would not be attainable in the
pesticide "hot spots", since the three pesticides of concern at
the Site are not significantly affected by vacuum extraction
technology.
EPA believes that this alternative would be effective in ' .
achieving reduction of human carcinogenic risk posed by
contaminated soils at the Site to approximately IxlO"4. This
increase in potential human health risk is caused by leaving the
3 localized pesticide "hot spots" on-site (totalling 160 cy
compacted volume).
This alternative would also include the decontamination (as
necessary), demolition, removal, and landfill disposal of the
Quonset hut, 24 aboveground storage tanks, 32 underground storage
tanks, and 1,360 cy of concrete and asphalt. Treatability
studies would also have to be performed to determine design
parameters and the need for.treatment of off-gases for the vacuum
extraction system.
SC-5: On-site Low Temperature Thermal Treatment of General Site
Area and All "Hot Spots"
Capital Cost: $8,378,012
Annual O&M Cost: $1,089,526
Present Worth Cost: $11,344,791
Time To Implement: 33 months
In this alternative, approximately 22,490 cy (which includes
excavation soil expansion factor) of contaminated soils would be
excavated and then fed into a low-temperature thermal processor
located on-site. The processor would operate at a temperature of
approximately 400° F, which is sufficient to vaporize the organic
compounds, including the pesticides, present in the soils. After
treatment, the soil would be tested to assure it meets both RCRA
and the soil cleanup levels specified in Alternative SC-3a prior
to being used as backfill. Treatment of off-gases from this
-------
16
alternative, through the use of carbon or an equivalent
technology, has been assumed necessary to comply with the Clean
Air Act and applicable/appropriate State stack emission
regulations. This assumption would be confirmed during design
testing.
EPA believes that this alternative would be effective in
achieving reduction of human carcinogenic risk posed by
contaminated soils at the Site to approximately IxlO"6.
This alternative would also include the decontamination (as
necessary), demolition, removal, and landfill disposal of the
Quonset hut, 24 aboveground storage tanks, 32 underground storage
tanks, and 1,360 cy of concrete and asphalt. Treatability
studies would also have to be performed to determine design
parameters and the need for treatment of off-gases for the vacuum
extraction system.
6ROUNDWATER
MOM-1: No Action
MOM-3: Groundwater Extraction/ Air Stripping/ Thermal Treatment
of Air Effluent/ Carbon Adsorption of Water Effluent/
Reinjection of Treated Effluent
MOM-6: Groundwater Extraction/ UV-Peroxide Oxidation/
Reinjection of Treated Effluent
MOM-1: No Action
Capital Cost: 0
Annual O&M Cost: $114,131
Present Worth Cost: $1,754,422
Time To Implement: Immediate
The no action alternative for groundwater would involve semi-
annual monitoring of groundwater monitoring wells associated with
the Site, in order to assess future movement of the groundwater
plume of contamination. Annual monitoring of Glen Cove Creek's
water and sediments would also be included as part of the
monitoring plan.
MOM-3: Groundwater Extraction/ Air Stripping/ Thermal Treatment
of Air Effluent/ Carbon Adsorption of Water Effluent/ Reinjection
of Treated Effluent
Capital Cost: $3,316,921
O&M Cost: $592,859
Present Worth Cost: $12,430,350
-------
17
Time To Implement: 22 months
In this alternative, extraction and injection wells would be
installed into the contaminated groundwater plume. For costing
purposes, EPA estimated that 8 extraction wells would be required
in order to capture and remove the plume of contaminated
groundwater. First, the "floating product" beneath the Site
would be removed through the extraction wells with a skimmer
pump, with subsequent off-site treatment and disposal in
accordance with the appropriate requirements of RCRA. Next, the
contaminated groundwater would be pumped, pretreated through
precipitation and clarification to remove iron and manganese
(these metals would interfere with subsequent treatment) and
treated via air stripping to remove volatile organics. The air
effluent would then be thermally treated to meet the
applicable/appropriate requirements of the Clean Air Act and
State laws and regulations. The water effluent from the air
stripper would be carbon-treated in order to reduce the level of
any remaining organic contaminants to meet applicable/
appropriate requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State
laws and regulations prior to reinjection into the ground through
groundwater reinjection wells. For costing purposes, EPA
estimated that four reinjection wells would be necessary. Actual
locations of extraction and reinjection wells would be determined
from additional groundwater monitoring during the design phase of
the project. Spent activated carbon would be regenerated at an
off-site location for reuse. Any hazardous residuals resulting
from on-site treatment would be disposed of off-site in
accordance with the applicable/appropriate requirements of RCRA
and State hazardous waste laws and regulations.
An example of some of the applicable or appropriate and relevant
requirements for groundwater remediation at this Site are:
CHEMICAL
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Total xylenes
M°thylene Chloride
o-Dichlorobenzene
REQUIREMENT
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
REFERENCE
Part 5-NY Sanitary Code
40 CFR Parts 141 & 142
Part 5-NY Sanitary Code
Part 5-NY Sanitary Code
Part 5-NY Sanitary Code
Part 5-NY Sanitary Code
This alternative would involve semi-annual monitoring of
groundwater monitoring wells associated with the Site in order to
assess future movement of the groundwater plume of contamination.
Annual monitoring of Glen Cove Creek's water and sediments would
also be included as part of the monitoring plan. In addition,
EPA would conduct 5 year reviews of the Site as CERCLA requires
in order to ensure that the human health and the environment were
idequately protected.
-------
18
MOM-6: Groundwater Extraction/ UV-Peroxide Oxidation/
Reinjection of Treated Effluent
Capital Cost: $5,663,820
O&M Cost: $1,597,227
Present Worth Cost: $30,216,393
Time To Implement: 21 months
This alternative is the same as MOM-3/ except in the method of
contaminated groundwater treatment. Under MOM-6, an ultraviolet
radiation/oxidation system would be utilized to treat organic
contaminants from the extracted groundwater to acceptable levels.
Off-gas and water effluents from this treatment process would be
further "polished" in an ozone reduction unit (air) and in a
carbon unit (water). The carbon unit would reduce the level of
any remaining organic contaminants to meet applicable/
appropriate requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and State
laws and regulations, prior to reinjection into the ground
through groundwater reinjection wells.
This alternative would also involve semi-annual monitoring of
groundwater monitoring wells associated with the Site, in order
to assess future movement of the groundwater plume of
contamination. Annual monitoring of Glen Cove Creek's water and
sediments would also be included as part of the monitoring plan.
In addition, EPA would conduct 5 year reviews of the Site as
CERCLA requires in order to ensure that public health and the
environment were adequately protected.
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The selected remedy for the first operable unit at the Site is a
combination of BC-3b (In Situ Vacuum Extraction of General Site
Area and Non-Pesticide "Hot Spots11/ Excavation of Pesticide "Hot
Spots" with Off-Site Treatment and Disposal) and MOM-3
(Groundwater Extraction/ Air Stripping/ Carbon Adsorption of
Water Effluent/ Thermal Treatment of Air Effluent/ Reinjection of
Treated Effluent). Based on current information, this.
combination of alternatives offers the best balance among the
nine evaluation criteria that EPA uses as a means of evaluating
remedial actions.
This section provides a glossary of the nine criteria and an
analysis, with respect to these criteria, of the remedial
alternatives which were evaluated for the Site.
Glossary of Evaluation criteria
o Overall protection of human health and the environment
addresses whether a remedy provides adequate protection and
describes how risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional
-------
19
controls.
o Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy will meet all
of the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver of ARARs.
o Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to
achieve protection against any adverse impacts on human health
and the environment that a Site may pose during the construction
and implementation period of an alternative.
o Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of
a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the
environment over time once cleanup goals have been met. It also
addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that
may be required to manage the risks posed by treatment residuals
and/or untreated wastes.
o Reduction of toxicity. mobility, or volume refers to the
anticipated performance of the treatment technologies with
respect to these parameters.
o Implementability involves the technical and administrative
feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials
and services needed to implement the chosen solution.
o Cost involves both capital and O and M costs. Cost comparisons
are made on the basis of present worth values, which have both
capital and O and M costs factored in.
o State acceptance indicates whether the State concurs with,
opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
o Community acceptance indicates whether the community concurs
with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative.
Analysis
Analysis of Soil Alternatives
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative SC-1 (No Action) would only offer minimal protection
of human health through reduction of the present direct contact
threat by further limiting Site access. The related benefits are
minimal since the Site already has an effective level of
restricted access. Relative to the environment, this alternative
would not provide any increased protection to flora and fauna
over the present baseline condition. Given the present risk
levels at the Site and the level of risk reduction and
environmental benefit expected from the implementation of each
-------
20
alternative, EPA considers all of the alternatives for source
control, except for the no action alternative, to be sufficiently
protective of human health and the environment. The no action
alternative is therefore unacceptable, and is eliminated from
further analysis. Each of the alternatives (except no action)
utilizes treatment to eliminate the principal threat posed by the
Site soils. 8C-3a and b, and 8C-5 would provide the highest
degree of protectiveness, while SC-3c would provide less, but
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
o Compliance with ARARs
The technologies proposed for use in Alternatives SC-3a, b, and
c, as well as 8C-5 would be designed and implemented to meet all
ARARs. Federal and state regulations dealing with the handling
and transportation of hazardous wastes to an off-site treatment
facility would be followed. Alternatives SC-3a and b would
require consideration of LDRs since each would require off-site
treatment of soils. The responsibility for meeting applicable
LDRs would rest with the off-site treatment and disposal
facility. Alternative SC-3c would not require consideration of
LDRs since no excavation and placement of hazardous substances
would occur during implementation. Alternative SC-5 is expected
to meet applicable LDRs. Likewise, Alternative 8C-5 is expected
to meet appropriate closure requirements by achieving "hybrid"
clean closure, which is a combination of closure considerations
and requirements taken from both the RCRA and CERCLA programs.
Hybrid clean closure is achieved when the treated matrix (soil,
in this case) to be land disposed will not pose a direct contact
threat, nor will groundwater be adversely affected by leachate
from the treated matrix.
o-Short-term Effectiveness
Alternatives SC-3a, b, and c would all require approximately 3
years to design and construct, while 8C-5 would take between two
and three years to design and construct. Once constructed,
Alternatives 8C-3a and b would reduce risks associated with
contaminated soil most rapidly since they involve limited
excavation and offsite disposal of the high risk areas of
contamination. Once constructed, 8C-3a would take approximately
2.5 years to effectively reduce the levels of soil contaminants
to the target levels (related excavation under 8C-3a would be
accomplished relatively quickly and, in any event, well before
the in situ treatment is completed). The 8C-3b, 8C-3c and 8C-5
alternatives would require a slightly longer.time, approximately
3 years, to complete treatment after being constructed.
Treatment-related impacts would likely be the greatest for
Alternative SC-5 since it requires the largest amount of
contaminated soil excavation and because it involves on-site
thermal treatment of all contaminated soils prior to replacement
on-site. Treatment-related impacts for the 8C-3 alternatives
-------
21
involving in situ vapor extraction would be minimal. Short-term
impacts for excavation under 8C-3a and b would be a concern
mainly for Site workers, but such concerns should be minimized
through development and adherence to appropriate health and
safety protocols.
o Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
All of the soil alternatives involve treatment technologies that
have been utilized previously at other Superfund sites, i.e., in
situ vacuum extraction, low temperature thermal treatment, and
excavation with off-site treatment and disposal. Based on the
demonstrated effectiveness of these technologies at other sites,
all of the 8C-3 alternatives, as well as the 8C-5 alternative,
should result in permanent risk reduction so that risks
associated with remediated soils are within EPA's acceptable risk
range. The SC-3 alternatives will accomplish this primarily
through in situ vacuum extraction, with additional reductions of
risk under 8C-3a and b through the excavation of soil "hot
spots". 8C-3c would only achieve risk reduction to IxlO"1, .which
is the level of risk presently associated with the pesticide "hot
spots" (not readily treatable via vacuum extraction).
o Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
All of the treatment alternatives under consideration would
reduce the volume and concentrations of soil contaminants to
health-based residual levels. This in turn would eliminate the
non-carcinogenic toxicity of Site contaminants while reducing
carcinogenic risk factors to within the EPA-acceptable risk
range. The mobility of residual Site contaminants would be
unaffected, as none of the alternatives under consideration rely
on containment technology.
o Implementability
:PA believes that all of the soil alternatives presently under
consideration are implementable in terms of the materials and
services that would be needed, as well as from the standpoint of
administrative requirements or restrictions that presently exist.
Alternatives 8C-3a, b/ and c would require the performance of
treatability studies for the in situ vacuum extraction technology
in order to determine essential design parameters.
o Cost
The relative present worth costs of the soil remediation
alternatives are given below:
Alternative Capital Cost O&M Cost Present Worth Cost
SC-3a $17,896,733 $73,699 $18,097,415
-------
22
SC-3b $3,227,566 $100,138 $3,500,242
SC-3C $2,731,392 $100,138 $3,004,068
8C-5 $8,378,012 $1,089,526 $11,344,791
As can be seen from the table, Alternative 8C-3a is significantly
more expensive than the other source remediation alternatives,
while Alternative 8C-3c is the least expensive alternative in
terms of present worth costs.
o State Acceptance
The State of New York has reviewed and concurs with the selected
remedy (see State letter of concurrence- APPENDIX 3).
o Community Acceptance
EPA concludes that the selected remedy has the support of the
affected community based on the comments .received during the
public comment period, including those comments received during
the public meeting held on May 30, 1991.
Analysis of Water Alternatives
o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative MOM-1, or no action (monitoring only), provides no
increase in protection for either public health or the
environment. Given the high degree of future risk posed by
ingestion of and dermal contact with contaminated groundwater,
together with the uncertainty of the legislative feasibility and
long-term effectiveness of institutional controls (local or state
restrictions on access to groundwater in the area of
contamination), EPA believes that the no action alternative
cannot assure long-term protection of public health. Selection
of the no action alternative would also have no effect on
mitigating presently unquantified impacts occurring in the waters
of Glen Cove Creek and Hempstead Harbor, and to a lesser extent,
Long Island Sound, as a result of the groundwater contamination
from the Site. The no action alternative is therefore
unacceptable, and it has been eliminated from further analysis.
Alternatives MOM-3 and MOM-6 both involve extraction and
treatment of the groundwater plume. The alternatives vary in the
types of treatment employed after extraction; however, the
treatments employed under each alternative would result in
air/water effluents that meet applicable discharge or emission
standards. Further, both of these alternatives would be
similarly effective in protecting human health and the
environment by preventing off-site migration of contaminated
groundwater as well as by reducing future risks posed by
ingestion of and dermal contact with groundwater contamination
emanating from the Site.
-------
23
o Compliance with ARARs
Alternatives MOM-3 and MOM-6 should both eventually meet potable
water ARARs (primarily 10 NYCRR Part 5 regulations) as a result
of the accelerated pumping and treatment activity common to these
alternatives, as well as the cleanup of contaminated soils which
have directly contributed to the groundwater contamination.
However, groundwater contamination may be especially persistent
in the immediate vicinity of the contaminants' source, where
concentrations are very high. Also, the ability to meet potable
water ARARs within the Site's plume, or area of attainment, may
also be hindered by the phenomenon of low concentration
adsorption, which occurs during extended pumping of' contaminated
groundwater. This phenomenon has been experienced during other
Superfund groundwater pump-and-treat remedial actions, as well as
documented empirically in bench and pilot scale studies. In
addition, it is important to note that the actual attainment of
groundwater ARARs may be further restricted because of the
existence of other areas of groundwater contamination in Garvey's
Point which may eventually comingle with the Mattiace plume.
Therefore, the certainty of achieving cleanup goals at all points
throughout the plume may only be known after implementation and
operation of the pumping and treatment activity for a period of
time sufficient to ascertain cleanup effectiveness.
o Short-term Effectiveness
Both the MOM-3 and the MOM-6 groundwater alternatives would take
approximately 2 years to design and construct. In the short-
term, removal of the "floating product" layer, as well as the
significant removal of contamination from groundwater expected
initially upon implementation of either of the MOM alternatives
should result in a dramatic improvement in groundwater quality
over its currently degraded state.
Short-term impacts associated with construction and operation of
the various groundwater treatment alternatives should be minor
and easily minimized through appropriate health and safety
protocols during construction, as well as diligent operation and
maintenance practices once either of the MOM-3 or the MOM-6
alternatives is operational.
o Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence
Both the MOM-3 and the MOM-6 groundwater alternatives would
involve treatment technologies, i.e. groundwater and free product
pumpage, air stripping, carbon adsorption, thermal treatment,
uv/peroxide oxidation, etc. that have been utilized previously at
other Superfund sites. Based on the demonstrated effectiveness
of these technologies at other sites, these alternatives should
result in permanent, long-term effectiveness after the target
reductions of groundwater contamination have been reached.
-------
24
Preliminary groundwater modelling indicates that the time needed
to restore the groundwater degraded as a result of the Site to
its previous most beneficial use, i.e. a potential potable water
source, is approximately 30 years. However, this estimate should
be qualified by the discussion under Compliance with ARARs above.
Since both the MOM-3 and the MOM-6 alternatives rely on an
optimized extraction and discharge scenario, this estimate is the
same for both alternatives.
o Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume
Both the MOM-3 and the MOM-6 groundwater alternatives would
significantly reduce the volume and concentrations of
contaminants in the groundwater plume. In addition, mobility of
the groundwater plume would be drastically reduced and perhaps
eliminated. Therefore, both of the groundwater treatment
alternatives would eliminate the future risks associated with
non-carcinogenic toxicity of Site contaminants while reducing the
carcinogenic risk to acceptable levels through the attainment of
ARARs. Low concentration soil/contaminant binding may occur
during extended pumping of groundwater such that groundwater
ARARS are difficult or impossible to achieve at the point of
compliance. However, these ARARs correspond to a very low risk
level; therefore, if such a failure to obtain these requirements
through groundwater treatment were to occur, it is nevertheless
likely that either alternative would result in the reduction of
the future risk associated with ingestion and dermal contact to
within EPA's acceptable risk range.
o Implementabilitv
EPA believes that both of the groundwater alternatives presently
under consideration are implementable in terms of the materials
and services that would be needed, as well as from the standpoint
of administrative requirements or restrictions that presently
exist.
o Cost
The relative costs of the groundwater remediation alternatives
are given below:
Alternative Capital Cost O&M Cost Present Worth Cost
MOM-3 $3,316,921 $592,859 $12,430,350
MOM-6 $5,663,820 $1,597,227 $30,216,393
As can be seen from the table, Alternative MOM-3 has a
significantly lower present worth cost than Alternative MOM-6.
o State Acceptance
-------
25
The State of New York has reviewed and concurs with the selected
remedy (see State letter of concurrence- APPENDIX 3).
o Community Acceptance
EPA concludes that the selected remedy has the support of the
affected community based on the comments received during the
public comment period, including those comments received during
the public meeting held on May 30, 1991.
SELECTED REMEDY
General
The selected remedy for the Site is a combination of sc-3b (In
Situ Vacuum Extraction of General Site Area Soils and Non-
Pesticide "Hot Spots"/ Excavation of Pesticide "Hot Spots" with
Off-Site Treatment and Disposal) and MOM-3 (Groundwater
Extraction/ Air Stripping/ Carbon Adsorption of Water Effluent/
Thermal Treatment of Air Effluent/ Reinjection of Treated
Groundwater). ' .
Any hazardous non-regenerative residuals resulting from on-site
treatment will be disposed off-site in accordance with the
applicable/appropriate requirements of RCRA and State hazardous
waste laws and regulations.
The estimated cost for the selected remedy is:
Capital Cost: $6,544,487
Present Worth Cost: $15,930,592
A detailed description of costs associated with the selected
remedy is presented in TABLE 5.
Soil Remedy
The soil remediation aspect of the selected remedy will involve
in situ treatment of approximately 17,140 cy of contaminated soil
(including non-pesticide "hot spots") by means of vacuum
extraction, and excavation of approximately 208 cy of soil (which
includes excavation soil expansion factor) contaminated primarily
with pesticides for off-site treatment and disposal, in
accordance with applicable/appropriate requirements of RCRA and
State hazardous waste laws and regulations. For costing
purposes, off-site treatment was assumed to be incineration,
although other more innovative technology may be eventually
selected on the basis of cost and treatment equivalence.
The in situ vacuum extraction system will be operated until soil
cleanup levels corresponding to EPA's target risk level of IxlO"6
are achieved. The soil cleanup levels of selected indicator
-------
26
chemicals determined by EPA to correspond to a IxlO"6 risk level
are given below:
CHEMICAL CLEANUP LEVEL
(mg/kg)
Volatile Organics
Tetrachloroethylene 0.6
Trichloroethylene 0.07
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone 52.1
Xylene 259
In addition, the excavation of the pesticide "hot spots" will be
intended to reduce residual pesticide contamination to the
following cleanup levels which correspond to a IxlO"6 risk level:
CHEMICAL CLEANUP LEVEL
(mg/kg)
Pesticides
Aldrin 0.04
Alpha Chlordane 0.5
Heptachlor Epoxide 0.07
In situ vacuum extraction of contaminated soils will involve the
removal of organic contaminants from the soil without major soil
disturbance, and is accomplished by installing soil vapor
extraction wells at strategic points, manifolding the wells, and
applying a vacuum in order to draw contaminated soil gases out of
the ground and into a treatment system. For costing purposes,
EPA has estimated that 12 such wells will be needed; however, the
actual number and sizing of the wells will be determined during
the design phase of this project. The treatment system for
extracted soil gases is comprised of a vapor/liquid separator and
an activated carbon canister, for off-gas emission control,
although equivalent technologies could be utilized. The details
of the extracted soil gas treatment system will also be finalized
during design. In addition, treatability studies will also be
performed to determine design parameters for the vacuum
extraction system (FIGURE 11).
EPA may also include the use of the vacuum/treatment technology
on VOC-contaminated stockpiles of soil from the general Site area
(not the Area 1 drum burial area, which will be excavated for
off-site treatment and disposal in accordance with the second
operable unit ROD). These stockpiles will be a result of EPA's
regrading the western part of the Site in order to increase the
stability of a retaining wall, which is scheduled to occur during
the second operable unit remedial action.
The excavation.of soils for off-site treatment and disposal will
-------
27
involve excavation of pesticide-contaminated "hot spots".
Approximately 208 cy of soils are expected to be removed from the
three areas that are contaminated with pesticides.
Clean fill will be used to backfill excavated areas. Contaminated
surface runoff associated with remedial activity at the Site,
particularly excavation of the pesticide-contaminated areas, will
be controlled through the use of covers, berms, etc.
The selected remedy will also include the decontamination (as
necessary), demolition, removal, and landfill disposal of the
Quonset hut, 24 aboveground storage tanks, 32 underground storage
tanks, including the solvent/stormwater separator in the
southeast part of the property, and 1,360 cy of concrete and
asphalt. Clean fill will be used to backfill excavated tank
areas.
Groundwater Remedy
The contaminated groundwater aspect of the selected remedy will
include extraction and injection wells installed into the
contaminated groundwater plume. For costing purposes, EPA
estimates that 8 extraction wells will be required in order to
capture and remove the plume of contaminated groundwater. First,
approximately 15,000 gallons of "floating product" beneath the
Site will be removed through the extraction wells with a skimmer
pump, with subsequent transportation of the extracted product
off-site for treatment and disposal. Next, approximately 20,000
gallons per day of the contaminated groundwater plume will be
pumped out of the ground and into an equalization tank,
pretreated via precipitation and clarification to remove iron and
manganese (these metals would interfere with subsequent
treatment), and then treated on-site by means of air stripping
technology to remove volatile organics. The air effluent from
the air stripper will then be thermally treated prior to
discharge in order to meet the applicable/appropriate
requirements of the Clean Air Act and State laws and regulations.
The water effluent from the air stripper will be carbon-treated
in order to reduce any remaining organic contaminants to levels
below applicable/appropriate requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs) and State laws
and regulations (10 NYCRR Part 5).
An example of some of the ARARs for groundwater remediation at
this Site are:
CHEMICAL REQUIREMENT REFERENCE
Tetrachloroethylene 5 ug/1 10 NYCRR Part 5
Trichloroethylene 5 ug/1 40 CFR Parts 141 & 142
Ethylbenzene 5 ug/1 10 NYCRR Part 5
Total xylenes 5 ug/1 10 NYCRR Part 5
-------
28
Methylene Chloride 5 ug/1 10 NYCRR Part 5
o-Dichlorobenzene 5 ug/1 10 NYCRR Part 5
Spent activated carbon will be transported off-site and
regenerated for reuse. The treated water effluent will then be
reinjected into the ground through groundwater reinjection wells
(For costing purposes, EPA estimates 4 reinjection wells).
Reinjection will take place hydraulically upgradient of -the
extraction zone in order to accelerate the rate of groundwater
treatment. Actual spatial and depth locations of extraction and
reinjection wells will be determined from additional groundwater
monitoring to be conducted during the design phase of the project
(FIGURE 12). During the design phase, EPA will also consider and
attempt to mitigate the possible impact that localized pumping
and reinjection may have on the wetland vegetation along the
Creek and in Garvey's Point Preserve, although the likelihood of
such impact is considered remote at the present time.
The goal of the groundwater portion of the selected remedy is to
restore groundwater under the Site to its most beneficial use,
which is as a potential supply of potable water. Based on
information obtained during the RI and on a careful analysis of
remedial alternatives, EPA believes that the selected remedy will
achieve this goal. It may become apparent, during implementation
or operation of the groundwater extraction system, that
contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are remaining
constant at levels higher than the remediation goal over some
portion of the contaminated plume. In such a case, the system
performance standards arid/or the remedy may be reevaluated.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction for an
estimated period of 30 years, during which the system's
performance will be carefully monitored on a regular basis and
adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected during
operation. Modifications may include any or all of the
following:
- Discontinuing pumping at individual wells where cleanup
goals have been attained
- Alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
- Pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to allow
adsorbed contaminants to partition into groundwater
- Installing additional extraction wells to facilitate or
accelerate cleanup of the. contaminant plume
TABLE 6 provides a summary of the remediation goals for both soil
and groundwater at the Site.
Monitoring Program
-------
29
The selected remedy includes both a short-term monitoring
program, which is intended to assist in designing the selected
remedy through acquisition of additional remedy-specific
information, and a long-term monitoring program for evaluation of
the cleanup. Ancillary programs for monitoring worker safety
during remedy design and construction are standard in the
Superfund program and do not require further elaboration.
The short-term monitoring program will include the following
elements:
- groundwater monitoring to further define localized
hydrologic gradients, as well as the extent of the Site
groundwater plume. This information will assist in the
design of the groundwater extraction and reinjection system
and will likely necessitate the construction of several new
monitoring wells at strategic locations previously
identified during the RI.
- radiological monitoring during any excavation activities
at the Site (as a precautionary measure due to the history
of limited landfilling of radiological materials in the
nearby Garvey's Point landfill).
- treatability studies for the in situ vacuum extraction
system, which will likely involve pilot scale testing and
monitoring to ascertain design parameters that are
associated with the soils on-site.
- soil gas survey of the perimeter of the Mattiace property
and beyond, as necessary, to determine whether appreciable
amounts of contaminated soil gas are migrating off-site in '
the vadose zone.
- additional sampling of soil and sediment along the surface
runoff pathway from the Mattiace property to Glen Cove
Creek, including the sediments, if any, in the storm sewer
which discharges to the Creek.
The selected remedy also includes the following long-term
monitoring provisions:
- a soil sampling program utilizing soil borings as needed
to ascertain the progress of the in situ vacuum extraction
soil cleanup. Soil samples will be analyzed for, at a
minimum, those organic compounds for which action levels
have been specified as part of the selected remedy. This
program will be more fully developed during the construction
of the in situ vacuum extraction system.
- a semi-annual groundwater monitoring program to ascertain
the progress of the pumping and treatment of groundwater.
-------
30
Groundwater samples will be analyzed for, at a minimum, the
contaminants of concern identified in the risk assessment
contained in the risk assessment for the Site. This program
will be more fully developed during the construction of the
groundwater pumping and treatment system.
- an annual sampling program of Glen Cove Creek sediment and
water column to determine any increase or decrease in the
levels of contaminants in both media. Samples will be taken
in the three locations that were sampled during the first
operable unit RI, and samples will be analyzed for, at a
minimum, the contaminants of concern identified in the risk
assessment for the Site.
As required by CERCLA, EPA will also conduct five year reviews of
the Site in order to ensure that public health and the
environment are adequately protected.
During the performance of long-term monitoring, EPA may determine
that a remedial action objective has been met. At that point,
EPA may terminate any monitoring programs associated with that
objective. For the long-term groundwater monitoring program,
however, EPA will continue to monitor on a semi-annual basis for
at least one year after cleanup levels are achieved and
groundwater extraction/treatment has ceased in order to ensure
that cleanup levels are maintained. Upon meeting all remedial
objectives, or determining that the Site has been sufficiently
purged of contaminants so that public health is no longer
threatened by exposure to the Site, EPA will initiate proceedings
to delete the Site from the National Priorities List.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at
Superfund sites is to undertake remedial actions that achieve
protection of human health and the environment. In addition,
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several other statutory
requirements and preferences. These specify that, when complete,
the selected remedial action for a site must comply with
applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental standards
established under Federal and State environmental laws unless a
statutory waiver is justified. A selected remedy also must be
cost effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a
preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of
hazardous wastes as their principal element.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy will result in the reduction of soil
-------
31
contaminants at the Site to health-based cleanup levels through
the use of in situ vacuum extraction and the excavation and
removal of three pesticide "hot spots" not amenable to the vacuum
extraction technology. The selected remedy will also provide for
the cleanup of contaminated groundwater beneath the Site
(including removal of the concentrated "floating product" layer)
to existing ARARs, which are intended to protect human health by
assuring the quality of potable water supplies. Although the
groundwater contaminated at this Site is not presently used for
potable water by the community, its most beneficial use according
to a classification made by the State of New York is as potable
water. Therefore, EPA believes that the groundwater remedy
selected should address the aquifer's potential use as potable
water. In addition, all existing above- and belowground storage
tanks will be decontaminated and removed off-site, thereby
eliminating any threats posed by residual contamination still
residing in the tanks. Although some risks may be posed to. Site
workers during excavation and hazardous waste/residuals handling,
these risks can be easily mitigated through implementation of
appropriate health and safety precautions.
Compliance With Applicable or Appropriate and Relevant Standards
The selected remedy for source control (SC-3b: in Situ Vacuum
Extraction of General Site Area and Non-pesticide "Hot Spots"/
Excavation of Pesticide "Hot Spots" with Off-site Treatment and
Disposal) is expected to comply with all ARARs. Any off-site
facility used for treatment and disposal will be fully RCRA-
permitted and will be in compliance with the terms of the permit.
Any contaminated soil, debris, or sediments from the Site will be
treated using specific technologies or specific treatment levels,
as appropriate, to comply with LDRs. Any residuals from the
treatment processes that are non-regenerative will be treated and
disposed of in compliance with LDRs.
The selected groundwater remedy MOM-3 (Groundwater Extraction/
Air Stripping/ Carbon Adsorption of Water Effluent/ Thermal
Treatment of Air Effluent/ Reinjection of Treated Groundwater) is
expected to comply with the associated ARARs over time. It may
become apparent, during implementation or operation of the
groundwater extraction system, that contaminant levels have
ceased to decline and are remaining constant at levels higher
than ARARs over some portion of the contaminated plume. In such
a case, the system performance standards and/or the remedy may be
reevaluated.
At its completion, EPA intends that the selected remedy will
comply with, at a minimum, the following ARARs:
Action-specific ARARs:
- RCRA 40 CFR Part 262 - Standards Applicable to Generators
-------
32
of Hazardous Waste
- RCRA 40 CFR Part 263 - Standards Applicable to
Transporters of Hazardous Waste
- RCRA 40 GFR Part 264 - Subpart F Applicable to Groundwater
Monitoring at Hazardous Waste Facilities
- Subpart J Applicable to Treatment
Systems at Hazardous Waste Facilities
- RCRA 40 CFR Part 268 - Land Disposal Restrictions on
Regulated Hazardous Waste
- 6 NYCRR Part 372 - Hazardous Waste Manifest System and
Related Standards for Generators, Transporters and
Facilities
- 6 NYCRR Subpart 373-2 - Final State Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities
- 6 NYCRR Parts 200, 201, 212, and 231 - New York State
regulations for air emissions
Chemical-specific ARARs;
- 6 NYCRR 703 and 10 NYCRR Part 5 - New York State
groundwater quality standards and drinking water standards
- 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 - Federal Drinking Water
Standards
Location-specific ARARs;
- U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act
- National Historic Preservation Act
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy provides overall effectiveness proportional
to its cost. The total capital and present worth costs for the
selected remedy are estimated to be $6,544,487 and $15,930,592,
respectively. The selected soil alternative, 8C-3b, is the
second least expensive treatment alternative. 8C-3c is slightly
less costly to implement; however, the corresponding reduction in
protection of public health does not, in EPA's view, warrant its
selection.
The selected groundwater alternative, MOM-3, is the least
expensive treatment alternative.
-------
33
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies (or Resource Recovery Technologies) to the Maximum
Extent Practicable and Preference for Treatment as a Principal
Element
The removal and subsequent permanent treatment of soil and
groundwater contaminants through the technologies of the selected
remedy satisfies the statutory preference of CERCLA for utilizing
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the
maximum extent practicable. The selected remedy will also
permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of hazardous substances in both the soil and groundwater
at the Site, thereby eliminating all the principal threats of
contamination at the Site.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Site was released to the public in May
1991. The Proposed Plan identified a combination of SC-3b and
MOM-3 as the preferred alternative to remediate the source of
contamination. EPA reviewed all comments submitted during the
public comment period. Upon review of these comments, it was
determined that no significant changes to the selected remedy, as
it was originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were
necessary.
-------
APPENDIX 1
-------
HAITIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
SMMRT OF CHEHICAL CtmXfflOS DETECTED
SOIL SAIfLES VOLATILE AHALtSES ALL DEPTHS
Un-
Coepound Staples Occur Detect
Chloroethane 92 3 82
•Hethylene Chloride 92 9 83
Acetone 92 34 58
1.1-HSchloroethene 92 2 90
1.1-Oichloroethane 92 11 81
Trans-1.2-dichloroethene 92 34 S8
Chlorofora 92 6 86
•1.2-3ichloroethane 92 9 83
2-butanone 92 46 21
l.l.I-lrichloroethane 92 32 60
•Carbon tetracnloride 92 I R2
Vinyl Acetate 92 S 81
•IricMoroethene 92 44 48
Evniene 92 3 86
aethyl-2-pentanone 92 43 49
2-He«anone 92 6 86
•Tetrachloroethene 92 SI 41
1.1.2.2-Tetrachloroelhane 92 3 89
Toluene 92 74 18
Ethylheiuene 92 SO 42
Styrene 92 1 91
•Total Xylenet 92 60 32
Hote:
• indicates contaminant'of concern
Est
1
2
23
1
1
i;
i
s
38
30
0
S
7
1
34
6
26
2
22
9
- 0
19
Reject
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fre<>.
Detect
0.03
0.10
0.37
0.02
0.12
0.37
0.07
0.10
0.50
0.35
0.01
O.OS
0.48
0.03
0.47
0.07
0.55
0.03
0.81
0.54
0.01
0.6S
ttininjm
Detected
Concen-
tration
(uq/tg)
3
220
0
4
2
2
13
2
8
2
3.800
590
1
26
3
160
1
3
1
1
1.000
4
Sample
Location
(deoth ft)
SB1S (10-12)
SB11 (18-20)
SB03 (4-6)
SBIS (14-16)
HOO (4-6)
SB16 (10-12)
HBO I (0-2)
KW3D (4-6)
SB1S (4-6)
HW3D (4-5)
rM3D (18-20)
SB17 (20-21)
K303-0001 (0-.5)
SB11 (4-6)
SB16 (0-2)
SB14 (18-20)
SB20 (4-6)
WOO (4-6)
SBIS (4-6)
SB17 (0-2)
SB06 (0-2)
SB09 (0-2)
Haxitua
Detected
Saople
Concentration
(oq/kq)
96
35.000
150.000
39
3.700
120.000
2.500
4.200
110.000
120.000
3.800
1.200
370.000
1.300
210.000
100.000
410.000
6.300
1.100.000
460.000
1.000
2.600.000
Sample
Location
(depth ft)
SB15 (10-12)
SB03 (18-20)
SR06 (4-6)
SBIS (10-12)
SBll (0-2)
SB11 (0-2)
SBll (0-2)
SB03 (18-70)
SB19 (0-2)
SBll (0-2)
KJ3D (18-20)
SB19 (10-12)
SB19 (0-2)
SBll (0-2)
SB07 (4-6)
SB09 (4-6)
SB04 (18-20)
MU3D (fO-12)
SB04 (18-20)
SB01 (0-2)
SB06 (0-2)
SB01 (0-2)
>
0)
m
LHS72-T4/1
-------
HAITI ACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
StJfWRT OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS DETECTED
SOIL SAMPLES INOR&MIC AXH.TSES (ALL DEPTHS)
Cop oond
Silver
Aluainun
Arsenic
Barim
Beryl Hun
Calciin
Cadaiun
Cyaniile
Cobalt
Chroniiva
Copper
Iron
Mercury
Potassiua
Ha<)nesiin
Manganese
Sodiwa
Nickel
Lead
Ant ioony
Seleniua
Thalliua
. Vanadiut*
Zinc
Note:
Ho. of
Saeple*
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
Occur
3
91
79
73
56
92
8
3
85
85
61
92
5
92
92
75
55
89
63
10
1
2
92
70
Un-
Detect
89
1
13
0
36
0
84
89
7
0
1
0
87
0
0
0
37
3
0
78
76
71
8
2
Est
3
0
10
20
0
43
1
0
7
41
10
0
0
7
20
17
9
S
37
9
0
0
21
67
Reject
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
7
30
0
0
0
O
17
0
0.
24
4
15
19
0
20
Ereq.
Delect
0.03
0.99
0.86
0.79
0.61
1.00
0.09
0.03
0.92
0.92
0.66
1.00
0.05
1.00
1.00
0.82
0.60
0.97
0.74
0.02
0.01
0.02
1. 00
0.76
tration
(ogAq)
0.86
694
0.27
4.4
0.19
4R.3
0.65
1.1
1.1
3.3
2.8
1.380.0
0.15
5.2
68.8
0.45
21.9
1.2
1.0
3.0
0.48
0.23
3.5
2.2
Location
(death ft)
SBll (0-2)
SB17 (10-12)
5819 (4-6)
SB17 (10-12]
5601 (4-6)
5B13 (10-12
SB17 (10-12
SBOS (0-2)
5806 (24-26)
5813 (22-24
SBOS (4-6)
SB13 (22-24]
SB11 (4-6)
SB14 (0-2)
5803 (10-12)
5B28 (10-12
SB13 (22-24
SB13 (22-24
5820 (4-6)
5806 (24-26]
MU30 (4-6)
SB12 (4-6)
5813 (22-24]
SB13 (22-24
Maxima
Detected
Satple
Concentration
1.4
289.000
15.6
271
1.8
78.900
16
2.3
47
101
73.6
46.008.8
2.9
9.240
41.900
889
663
43.6
204
22.1
0.48
0.27
114
224
location
(depth ft)
SB12 (0-2)
5B13
SBll
5801
SB01
SB10
SB12
SB01
5803
SB06
5«19
SBOt
SRI 2
SB01
5810
SBll
4-6)
0-2)
20-22)
20-22)
0-2
0-2
4-6)
lfl-20)
10-12)
0-2)
20-22)
0-2)
20-22)
0-2)
4-6)
HW30 (18-20)
SBOS (10-12)
SB09 (4-6) .-.
SB10 (0-2) .
HW3D (4-6)
5812 (0-2)
SB03_ (18-20)
5803 (18-20)
IO
2
C
n
c
indicates contaminant of concern
-------
MTTIACE PFTROCHDUCJU. SITE
SUMM2T Of CHEKICAL COW>OU»S DETECTED
SOIL SJWtES PESTICIDE/PCS JUULYSIS (M.L DEPTHS)
- Cocpound
Alpha-BHC
OeUa-BHC
G«au-BHC
Heptachlor
•Aldrin
•HeplacMor Epoxide
4-4-DOE
4-4-000
tndotulfan Sol fate
4-4-OOT
Cndrin tel one
•Alpha Chlordane
Gtrava Chl.ordane
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 12S4
Aroclor 1260
Endosulfan 11
No. of
Saoples
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
Occur
3
6
2
S
6
12
6
4
2
17
I
10
7
1
1
4
1
Un-
Detect
88
85
89
86
85
78
85
87
89
74
90
81
84
77
90
87
90
Est
3
6
2
S
S
12
6
4
2
17
1
10
7
1
1
4
1
Reject
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
Freq.
Detect
0.03
0.07
0.82
0.05
0.07
0.13
0.07
0.04
0.02
0.19
0.01
0.11
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
Detected
Concen-
tration
H/*9)
10
21
120
2.3
3.2
2.4
1.7
2.4
120
1.1
85
2.5
4.3
4SO
180
150
IS
Saeple
Location
(depth ft)
SB12 (22-24)
.5810 (10-12)
SB19 (0-2)
SB10 (14-16)
SBOS (10-12)
SB07 (0-2)
HB01 (0-2)
HB01 (0-2)
SR20 (24-25)
SBOS (0-2)
SB04 (0-2)
SB07 (0-2)
SB07 (0-2)
SBOS* (4-6)
SB01 (10-12)
KV30 (4-6)
SB12 (22-24)
Detected
Sample
Concentration
49
160
150
180
260
930
12
100
720
140
85
9.100
31
460
180
780
IS
Location
(depth ft)
SB10 I
SBOS
SBOS
SB09
HBO 3
SB09
HB01
SB08
SB03
HB03
5804
SB11
SB20
0-2]
4-6
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
4-6
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2)
24-28)
SBOS (4-6)
SB01 (10-12)
S812 (4-6)
SBI2 (22-24)
o
o
z
H
z
c
m
o
Note:
• indicates contaminant of concern
-------
KAfTlACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
SUWMT OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS DETECTED
SOIL SAIPLES EXTRACTABLE AXALYSCS (ALL DEPTHS)
Compound
Phenol
I,4-Dichlorobenzene
Benzyl Alcohol
1 .2-Oichlorobenzene
2-oethylphenol
4-nethylphenol
I\ophorone
Re.n/oic Acid
2.2.4-THchlorobenzene
Naphthalene
DiethytphUutate
Fluorene
N-nitroiodiphenylaoine
??ma1nithrene
Di-n-butylphthalate
. Fluorantbrefie
Pyrene •"
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Benzot*]anthracene
bis[2-elhylheiyl]phlh*late
2-Mthylna?htha1ene
Acenaphthylene
Chrysene
Oi-n-octyl phthalate
Benzo[b]flaoranth.ene
BenzoCk)fluoranthene
Benzofalpyrene
IndenoCt ,2.3-CD]pyrene
Dibenz[a.b]inthracene
Benzotg.n.ijperylene
No. of
Sapplei
92
9Z
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
Occur
5
3
2
16
1
2
19
4
2
49
1
6
1
S
51
5
5
5
3
64
23
1
3
10
1
3
1
2
1
1
Un-
Oetect
84
88
89
15
8Q
8?
12
85
89
42
84
85
90
86
41
86
86
86
88
28
67
89
87
80
87
87
89
83
89
89
Freq.
Est Reject Detect
3 3 0.05
3
2
12
1
2
12
4
2
43
7
6
1
S
32
5
4
4
2
44
19
1
2
4
1
2
Q
1
1
1
0.03
0.02
0.17
0.01
0.02
0.21
0.04
0.02
0.53
0.08
0.07
0.01
O.OS
0.55
O.OS
O.OS
O.OS
0.03
0.70
0.2S
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
Minimum
Delected
Concen-
tration
(ti9/fcq)
130
2.700
7
70
30
370
54
460
850
29
40
43
3,000
49
36
66
83
170
44
0
49
130
46
36
45
37
450
450
4,500
S.«00
Sample
location
(£epth ft)
two (4.6)
S311 (0-2)
S814 (10-12)
SB05 (10-12)
SB09 (10-12)
SB14 (0-2)
SB18 (4-6)
S313 (10-12)
S811 (18-200
HUSO (4-6)
SB13 (0-2)
SB11 (10-12)
SB11 (18-20)
SB09 (10-12)
S319 (24-26)
HB01 (0-2)
H801 (0-2)
SB1I (10-12)
SB09 (10-12)
SBO4 (4-6)
SB13 (0-2)
HB02 (0-2)
SB09 (10-12)
KV33 (4-6)
H301 (0-2)
H331 (0-2)
H302 (0-2)
HB02 (0-2)
S311 (4-6)
Sail (4-6)
Kaxinja
Detected
S**>le
Concentration
(uq/kq)
2,700
12.000
IS
750.000
30
2.000
67.000
5.50O
95O
34.000
4.800
1.600
3.000
2.800
2.400.000
550
830
11.000
580
1.700.000
19.000
130
410
36.000
45
64O
45O
4.400
4.500
5.400
Sanple
location
(depth ft)
SB1 4 (0-2)
SB05 (0-2)
SRI 8 (0-2)
5805 (0-2)
SB09 (10-12)
SB08 (4-6)
SB01 (4-6)
SB14 (0-2)
SB11 (0-2)
SB11 (18-20)
SB12 (0-2)
SR11 (18-20)
SB11 (18-20)
5B11 (0-2)
SBOS (0-2)
SB11 (0-2)
SB11 (0-2)
5808 (4-6)
HB02 (0-2)
SB09 (0-2)
SB11 (0-2)
HB02 (0-2)
5B02 (0-2)
SBtl (0-21
HBOI (0-2)
HB02 (0-2)
HB02 (0-2)
5B11 (4-6)
SBU (4-6)
SB11 (4-6)
o
o
c
m
a
Note:
• - indicates cnnt
-------
MTIIACE PHROCHfMICM. SITE
SUWMT Of QCHIOU. COMPOUNDS DETECTED
GAOUNTMA1ER SJUdES NORTH OF GROUmXItft OIVIDC
VOLATILE MM.VSCS
towyound
•Vinyl Chloride
Chloroethane
•Hethylene Chloride
I.l-Oichloroethene
l.l-f)ichloroethane
IraiK-1.2-dichloToelhene
•Chloroform
•1.2-Oicbloroel.hane
I.I ,1-Irichloroelhane
•2*Butanofle
•Carbon letrachloride
•Irichloroelhene
Renfene
4-•ethyl-2-pentanone
2-Heianone
• let rachl oroethene
toluene
Chlorobeniene
•(thylbeiuene
Oichlorof idluoroaethane
I.l.l.2-1elrach1oroelhane
•HIP lylenes
e-Iylene
Isopropylbenzene
•-Propy I ben/ene
2-ChIorotoluene
4-CMorotoluene
l.3.S-lri«elhylbe«ene
1.2.4-Triaethytbenjene
p-lsoprooytoluene
•-butylbeniene
cis-1.2-Dtchloroethene
1.3-Oichlorobentene
1.4-Oichlorobeniene
1.2-0 ichlorobeniene
1.2.4-Trichlorobeniene
naphthalene
No. of
Sables
11
11
11
11
11
11
• 11
11
11
II •
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
II
11
11
II
11
II
11
11
11
11
II
II
11
II
11
11
11
11
II
11
Occur
2
1
5
6
8
1
8
4
9
2
3
9
6
3
3
8
3
- 2
8
2
1
8
5
S
5
Un-
Oetect
9
10
6
S
3
10
3 '
7
2
5
• 8
j
5
8
0
3
8
9
3
9
10
3
6
6
8
6
10
5
S
8
10
3
10
7
. 7
10
6
Est
1
1
4
3
5
1
4
3
7
2
2
8
S
3
3
5
3
2
6
2
1
7
4
4
2
4
1
5
4
2
1
6
1
4
3
1
3
Reject
0
0
0
0
* 0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Freq.
Detect
0.18
0.09
0.45
0.55
0.73
0.09
0.73
0.36
0.82
0.18
0.27
0.82
O.SS
0.27
0.27
0.73
0.27
0.18
0.73
0.18
0.09
0.73
0.45
0.45
0.27
0.45
0.09
0.55
0.55
0.27
0.09
0.73
0.09
0.36
0.36
0.09
0.45
Minima
Detected
Concen-
trat ion
(UQ./O
73
21
25.000
38
2
30
27
620
IS
57.000
310
140
320
21.000
190
57
63.000
1
32
86.000
87
110
36
2
70
2
ISO
13
880
2
2
920
56
41
440
5
6
Simple
Location
»<5S
mSS
MV3D
mas
m7S
HfflO (dup)
m8S
mSO (dup)
Krf7S
mso
HUSO
m7S
mjo
mss
mso
HU7S
mss
mss
HU7S
miO
mss
MJ7S
W7S
MW7S
mso
m;s
meo (dup)
m7S
mso
m7s
m;s
mas
mss
mao
. mao (dup)
mss
HW7S
Detected
Sample
Concentration
(uq/L)
370
21
750.000
3.800
7.600
30
81.000
11.000
91.000
120.000
87.000
230.000
7.000
47.000
2.300
100.000
130.000
8 .
370.000
620.000
87
422.000
9.400
100
92
1.000
ISO
430
32.000
860
2
190.000
56
200
2.600
5
6.900
Location
mso
mSS
mss
mio
m3 (dup)
mm (dup)
mss
mso
mss
mss
m) (dup)
mss
mso
m) (dup)
mso
mss
HrfSO
mso
mi (dup)
mro
mss
nn (dup)
mi (dup)
mso (dup)
mso
msn (dup)
man (dup)
KUBO (dup)
mss
mm (dup)
HU7S
HW3 (dup)
mss
mss
m3 (dup)
mss
mi (dup)
>
DO
m
ro
Note:
-------
Coipound
Phenol
I.3-Oichlorobentene
I.5-Dichlorobeniene
Ben/yl alcohol
•1.2-Dichloroben/ene.
2-Hethylphenol
4-Methyl phenol
•Itophorone
Ben/oic Acid
•Naphthalene
•Oi-n-Butylphlhilate
•Bis(?-ethythexyl)phthalale
Note:
No. of
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
HMTIACC PETROCHEMICAL SITE
SIMMAKT OF CHEMICAL CWTOUW5 DETECTED
GCOMDIUTEI SAMPLES CITRACTABLES HOtTH OF GXOUMDMATER DIVIDE
Occur
Detected
Concen-
tration Simile
("9/11 Location
Detected
Sa^>le
Concentration
1
1
2
2
8
5
5
9
6
7
7
6
3
9
8
8
2
5
5
1
4
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
2
3
1
0
6
0
3
1
0
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.70
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.80
0.50
0.50
0.90
O.SO
0.70
0.70
0.60
100
41
50
880
210
100
140
1.500
380
380
58
24
MOD
MOO
MffiO
HU80
MV8S
mao
HU80
MU30
MtOO
Miao
KU80
Ml 70
18.000
41
190
1.500
5.300
2.100
3.700
57.000
16.000
4.800
6.900
27.000
Saiple
location
HUSO
HU30
mno
HUSO
MW80 (dup)
MU8D (dup)
Hwsn (dup)
HU6S
nusn
HU7S
MUSS
HU/S
18
- indicates contaainant of concern
lHR7?-I4a/4
-------
HATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS DETECTED
GROUNDUATER SAMPLES NORTH OF GROWCMATER OIVIOC
INORGANICS
Compound
Silver
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
•Beryl lit*
Calcium
Cadmium
Cyanide
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron \
Mercury
Potassium
Magnet lum
. "Manganese
Sodium
Nickel
lead
Vanadium
Zinc
Note:
• indicates contaminant of concern
No. of
Samples
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Occur
1
10
7
10
5
10
2
6
10
10
10
10
4
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
Un-
Oetect
9
0
3
0
5
0
8
4
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Freq.
Est Reject Detect
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
9
0
S
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
S
7
0 0.10
0 1.00
0 0.70
0 1.00
0 0.50
0 1.00
0 0.20
0 0.60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00
.00
.00
.00
).40
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0 0.80
2 0.80
Minimum
Detected
Concen-
tration
(uq/L)
98.1
449
3.7
31.4
1.3
9.670
5.3
11.4
46.7
21.1
10.9
983
0.21
2.230
2.650
285
8.970
46.7
5.3
21.3
53.5
Sample
Location
HW30
HU30
HUIO
HW70
HW6S
MU7D
MU6S
MU8D
HUIO
MU6S
MW30
HUSO
MV6S
MU5D
HU7D
MU7D
MW70
MUSS
HUSO
HWSO
MU70
Maxima
Detected
Sample
Concentration
(og/L)
98.1
221.000
11.9
1.320
12.9
200.000
104
69
1.120
562
259
253.000
1.8
19.400
44.300 '
64.200
627.000
402
111
394
517
Sarple
Location
MV30
HWSS
HUSO
MUSS
MUSS
MW6S
KU10
MUSO
MU6S
MUSS
MUSS
MUSS
mno
HW7S
MU10
MUSS
MUSO
MUSS
MUSS
MUSS
MUSS
o
o
z
z
c
m
D
LH872-T4a/7
-------
Compound
•Aldrin
Alpha-BHC
•Alpha-Chlordane
Beta-BHC
4-4-flOE
Oelta-BHC
Heptithlor Epoxide
C.AW.A-BHC
•lleptachlor
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Hole:
• indicates contaminant of concern
Occur
3
2
Un-
Detect
6
8
9
5
9
6
9
8
6
WTTIACE rrntOOCHICAL SITE
Of CHDIlCAi COWOWOS OeTECTED
6ROUWKATER SA*>IES HXTH OF GROUJCWATTR DIVIDC
PESTICIDE/PCS
Hininra
Detected
Concen-
trat ion
Est
2
0
0
2
0
2
1
2
3
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Freq.
Detect
0.25
0.17
0.08
0.33
0.08
0.33
0.08
0.17
0.33
0.73
1.1
31
8.2
2.1
0.95
2.8
2.5
0.7
Sople
location
KUSO
MT7S
KW6S
MOD
H/6S
KW7S
KfTS
KflO
KVSS
Detected
Staple
Concentration
(uq/l)
7.2
1.8
31
7
2.1
2.3
2.8
63
5.6
Saiiple
location
HW6S
KU6S
HU6S
HW6S
HW6S
MUSS
KW7S
HW7S
HW7S
O
O
z
H
Z
c
m
o
lK87?-T4a/6
-------
KOTUCE PtTROOOUCAL SUE
SIMURY OF CHEMICAL CWTOBOS DETECTED
GROWOiATtR SJWLES SOUTH OF GROUMMATER DIVIDE
VOLATILE WULTSES
No. of
Compound
•Vinyl Chloride
Chloroettune
Metnylene Chloride
1.1-Oichloroethene.
1.1-Oichloroethane
Trans-1.2-dich1oroethene
1.2-Dichloroethane
•l.l.l-Trichloroeth*oe
*2-Butanone
Trichloroethene
Benzene
letrachloroethene
. Toluene
Chlorobentene
Ethylbenzene
M t P lylenes
o-Xylene
Isopropylbenzene
n-Propylbenzene
2-Chlorotoluene
4-Chlorotoluene
1.3.5-Tr ioethylbeniene
1.2,4-Trioethylbeazene
Sec-Butylbenzene
p-Isopropytoluene
•c i s-l ,2-d ichloroetJiene
1.4 -0 i chl orobenzene
l.2-0ichlorobenzer.e
Naphthalene
Note:
• indicates contaminant of concern
S
S
s
s
5
S
s
5
S
S
s
s
5
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
5
S
4
3
1
4
3
3
3
4
2
S
4
S
1
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
4
1
2
4
1
2
4
1
2
2
2
1
0
0
1
0
4
3
2
2
' 2
2
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
1
4
3
1
ill
2
2
1
3
0
3
2
3
2
2
4
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
1
2
3
0
I
4
Detected
Cof»cen-
Irttion
(uo.A.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.80
0.60
0.2O
0.80
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.80
0.40
1.00
0.80
1.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.20
0.40
0.80
0.20
0.40
0.80
2
S
390
2
3
0-7
5
2
3.200
4
0.3
2
42.000
O.S
2
6
2
3
42
0.6
|40
0.6
IS
0.9
S
35
1.3
0.4
0.1
Sitple
Location
mis
nns
KW09
HJ4S
KW2S
WMS
KU4S
wns
KU09
mils
WI2S
HW09
HI1S
HW2S
fttfS
KU2S
KW07
W2S
HW09
MCS
HU2S
KU2S
HV07
MI1S
HU2S
MI1S
KI1S
Haxiaua
Detected
Sample
Concentration
(ug/U
2.600
6.400
390
170
25
36
210
3.400
6.200
45
260
32
42.000
9
2.200
1.100
2.400
69
60
60
140
160
160
0.9
14
16.000
1.3
8
290
Sanple
Location
HW07
KU09
HU09
nun;
HUIS
MU09
HW09
HUO;
HWO;
HW1S
HU09
HWIS
HW09
HU?S
HU09
HUO;
MW09
HU09
HU09
HW09
HU09
. HU09
HU09
HW2S
MU09
mm;
18
MW2S
MU09
lH8?2-T4b/l
-------
KATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
SIMURY OF CHEMICAL COfFOUIOS DETECTED
GROUNXATER SAM>LES SOUTH OF GKOUNMATER DIVIDE
EXTRACTA8LE AXALTSES
Compound
Phenol
1.2-Oichlorobeiuene
2-Hethylphenol
4-ttethyl phenol
2.4-Oiaethylphenol
Beiuoic Acid
•Naphthalene
0 i-n-Buty1phth«1«te
'8 istt-ethylhexyl)phth«late
Hole:
• - indicates contaminant of concern
No. of
Suoley
5
5
5
5 -
S
S
S
S
S
Occur
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
Un-
Detect
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
Est
0
2
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
Reject
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
Freq.
Detect
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.80
0.40
0.40
Hininim
Detected
Concen-
tration
(uq/l)
39
S
73
290
7
220
SO
12
100
Sacple
location
KW07
KU07
KV07
HW07
HV07
KW07
KV07
HW4S
KWAS
Maxima
Detected
Sample
Concentratioa
240
62
180
1.200
9S
870
170
360
1.200
SacpTe
location
KW09
KJIS
I»W09
KW09
KW09
KU09
HV09
MwlS
o
o
z
z
c
m
a
LH872-T4b/2
-------
Co«oound
Silver
Aluaimn
Arsenic
Bariua •
Beryllium
C*Uiua
Cadaiua
Cyanide
Cobalt
Chroaitn
Copper
Iron
Potassiua
Magnes IUM
•Manganese
Sodim
Nickel
Lead
Vanadiue
Zinc
NATTIACE PCTROOCW1CW. SITE
SlMWJtT OF OOUCAL COPPOUWS DCTECTED
GROUKMATER SMtt£S SOUTH OF BtOUNMATER DIVIDE
1HOR6WI1C AKALTSCS
Sa>ple
location
KM1
MW07
MW1S
KJ07
KV1S
KJ1S
Ho. of
Sxplet
S
S
s
s
5
5
5
S
S
s
s
5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
Occur
2
5
5
5
2
5
1
1
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
S
5
5
4
2
Un-
Detect
3
0
0
0
3
0
4
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Est
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Reject
0
0
0
0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Freq.
Detect
0.40
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.40
1.00
0.20
0.20
0.80
0.80
1.00
1.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
0.80
0.40
Hiniaua .
Detected
Concen-
tration
(uq/X)
17.3
643
4.2
73
1.2
49.100
21.9
10.4
7.3
27.2
41.2
33.500
2.740
12.700
1.830
13.100
8.6
7.1
5.5
136
Maxima
Detected
Saaple
Concentration
WJ09
KW4S
HW09
HiMS
MU4S
HU4S
HW2S
KW1S
MU4S
MV07
KU07
m»7
MU2S
18.4
17.600
10.3
368
1.2
154.000
21.9
10.4
95.1
335
76.5
145.000
9.160
51.400
12.200
138.000
117
19.9
50.7
157
Sample
lodat ion
MUIS
HU7S
MU09
HUZS
MU2S
HW09
HU09
MU09
MU04
HU09
HW119
HW09
HW09
o
o
•z.
z
c
m
o
KWIS
MW1S
MUIS
HW1S
Note:
• - indicates contaainant of concern
LHS72-T4b/3
-------
SITE
SUWWtT OF CHEMICAL COPOUNDS DETECTS)
GROWCUATEK SMVLES SOUTH OF GftOUICMATEK DIYIOE
ptsricioe/pca JUULYSES
Hiniaja Haxiojm
OetectK) Detected
Concen- Sample
No. of Un- Freq. tration Sa^>le Concentrtt Ion Sample
Cocpoond S«ap1cs Occur Detect Est Reject Detect (ugA.) Locition (uq/l) Location
Beta-BHC 5 1410 0.20 O.B7 KU1S 0.87 KW1S
5 1410 0.20 4.6 IW7 4.6 HW07
O
Note: O
Z
indicates contiainant of concern — |
Z
c
m
o
LK872-T4b/4
-------
TABLE 3
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
SELECTED CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN
METALS
VOLATILES
SEM1-VOLAT1LCS
Antimony
Arsenic
> Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Le.d
Manganese
IN AIR.
1,1,1-TrichIorocthane
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethaao
2-Buunone
4-Methyl-2-penunono
Acetone
Cirbon totrachloriJe
Etbylbeazeoe
Methyleno chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroetbene
Xylenes
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobeniena
2-Melhylnaphthaleno
Aldrin
Alpha chlordaoe
Heptachlor epoxide
Naphthalene
IN SURFACE WATER
iManganose
Thallium
Dromodichlorome thane
I-1,2-Dichloroethene
Tetracblorocthene
None
IN SOIL
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
2-Butanone
t-1,2-Dichloroethene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroelhene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Xyleaes
1,2-DicbJorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Aldrin
Alpha chlordane
Hepuchlor epoxide
Naphthalene
-------
CONTINUED
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
SELECTED .CQNSTITUENTS_QF CONCERN
IN GROUNDWATER — NORTH OF GW DIVIDE
Arsenic 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-DichJorobcruene
Barium 2-Dutonone Aldrin
Beryllium Carbon letrachloride Alpha chlordane
Cadmium Chloroform Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chromium Elhylbenzene Di-ri-butylphthalate
.Manganese Methylene chloride Heplachlor
Tetrachlorootheno Isophorono
Trichloroethene Naphthalene
Vinyl chloride Phenol
m&p-Xylcnes
IN GROUNDWATER — SOUTH OF THE GW DIVIDE
Anenic 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroberuene
Darium 1,1-DichJoroethene 2,4-Dimeihylphenol
'Chromium c-l,2-Dichloroethene 4-Melhylphenol
iMangnncse 2-Buttnone Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phchalate
Elbylbeozene Di-n-butylphihalate
Melhylene chloride Naphthalene
Naphthalene
Vinyl chloride
m&p-Xyleaes
o-Xylenej
-------
TABLE 4
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES
ADULTS
Selected
CooatiDjeot
of Concern
CDl
(ug/lcg/dtjr)
Adj. for
Absorption
Inhalation
SP
(mg/ltt/
-------
CONTINUED
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE'
CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES
ADULTS .
Selected
Constituent
of Concern
CDl Adj. for
(nig/kg/ilsy) Alxoiption
Oral
Tumor SF Weight of
Site (mg/V|/Jjy)-l Evidence
Constituent
Specific
Riik I
I
Exposure Paihwsy: Ingeslioo of constituents in soil
Melsls
Aricmc
Deryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Semi-VoUtiles
1,4-DichJorobcruene
Aldrin
Alpha chlordane
Hepuchlor epoude
Volslilea
Chloroform
Tetrschloroethene
Trichlorocihcno
Volatile!
Oromodichlorome thine
TeuichJoroethene
2.23E-OJ No
2.00E-06 No
2.29E-05 No
8.80E-W •• No
I.7IE-05 No
3.7IE-07 No
1.30E-05 No
I.33E-06 No
3.37 E-06 No
2.43E-04 No
5.29E-04 No
3.56E-08 No
I.78E-07 No
skin ND A
total 4.30E»00 02
NA NO 01
NA ND A
liver 2.40E-02 02
liver I.70E»OI 02
liver t.30E»00 02
liver 9.10E»00 02
kidney 6.IOE-03 '02 '
liver . 5.10E-02 02
liver 1.10E-02 02
Total pathway riik:
liver I.30E-OI 02
liver 5.10E-02 02
Total psihway risk:
NA
S.60E-00
NA
NA
4.10E-07
6.3IF.-06
I.69E-05
I.21E-05
2.I8E-08
I.24E-05
i.82E-Oo.
6.26E-05'
-
4.63E-00
9.08E-09
IJ7E-OH
iposure Pithwiy: [ngestion of constituents in groundwiler south of the CW divide
Metals
Arsenic
Chromium (VI)
Serai-VoUtilcs
VoUtile*
Vinyl chloride
2.94E-04 No
I.20E-03 •• No
3.43E-02 No
7.43E-02 No
iltin NA A
NA NA A
liver I.40E-02 02
lung 2.30E-00 A
NA
NA
I.7IF.-OI
Total carcino
-------
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES
ADULTS
Selected
Constituent CDl Adj. for
of Concern (mg/kg/diy) Ab«orp«joo
Tumor
Silo
Oral Constituent
SF Weight of Specific
(mg/kg/(Uy)-l Evidence Risk
Exposure Pslhwiy: Ingetlioa of eomliluenli in gtounJwiiar notUi of the CW divide
Melds
Anenic
Deryllium
Cidmium
Chromium (VI)
Semi-Volifjles
Aldrin
Alohi chJordane
Dia(2-eihylhoxyl)phihilale
llepuchlor
Voliiiles
3.40E-04
J.69C-04
2.97E-03
2.01E-03 "
2.06E-04
8.86E-04
7.7IE-01
l.60E-(M
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
1.2-Dichloroethina 3.I4E-01 No
Carbon utracliloride 2.49EtOO No
Clilorofortn 2.3IE»00 No
Meihylene chJoride 2.14E+01 No
TetricUoroeihebe 2.86E+00 No
Trichloroethene
-------
CONTINUED
MATTIACE
CARCINOGENIC RISK "ESTIMATES '
ADULTS ' '
Selected Oral - •'. ' Constituent
Comtituenl CUI Mj. foe Turner SP Weight of • Specific
of Concern (mgAg/day) Absorptioa Site (mj/kg/d»y)-l Evidence Risk
Exposure Palbway: Dermal absorption of constituents in groundwater south of the GW divide
Meuli
Arsenic 1.I9E-06 Yes akin NA
Chromium (VI) ' 4.86E-06 •• Yes NA NA
Semi-Volatilea
Uis(2-eihyliic*yl)pliihalaie 1.3911-04 Yes liver I.401Z-02
Volatiles
A NA
A NA
Vinyl chloride
3.02E-04
Ye.
lung
2.30E»00
6.95E-03
Total pniliwoy flak:
6.97E-OJ
i_
Expoture Pathway: Dcrmil ibsorption of cotutituenU
Mclali
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (VI)
Serni-VoUiilei
Aldrin
Alpha Chlordine
Uij(2-elhylhe»yl)phlhalalc
lleplachlor
Volalilej
l,2-Diclilor«th«n<:
Carbon letrachloride
Chloroform
Metliylene chloritlo
Tetrachloro«theoe
Trichloroelhcoc
Vinyl chloride
1.35E-06
I.50E-06
1.2IE-05
8.I5E-06 ••
1.35 E-07
3.COE-06
3.I3E-03
6.50E-07
•
1.28E-03
1.01E-02
9.40E-03
S.70E-02
1.I6E-02
2.67E-02
4.29E-05
in groundwitcr north of ihe QW divide
Y:i
Yes
Yej
Yes
Yet
Yes
YCJ
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yea
Ye>
Yes
Nu
Yes
akin
toul
NA
NA
liver
liver
liver
liver
circuluory ijrucni
liver
kidney
liver
liver
liver
liver
NO
4.30E»00
ND
ND
I.70E»OI
I.30C-00
1.40E-02
4.50C»00
9.IOE-02
1.30E-OI
6.10E-03
7.50C-03
5.IOE-02
I.IOE-02
2.30E»00
Toul pathway ritk:
A
D2
01
A
1)2
D2
U2
1)2
02
02
•02
112
02
112
A
NA
6.43E-04
NA
NA
U3E-04
4.6SE-05
•U8E-W
2.9211-05
I.I6E-03
I.3IE-02
J.73E-OJ
6.32E-03
S.92E-03
2.94 E-W
9.S7E-04
2.92 E -01
[Nearby Ke»iiJcniial fopulilion
in Arc* - ToUl Carcinogenic lUik
2.92 E-U3
CDl • Chroaic Diily laute
SF ' Slope Fietor
" : CDl represents 7 to 1 pinilioaiaf of Tout ehrom.Jin into Trivtlcnt aid Hextnleat forms.
-------
CONTINUED
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
ADULTS
SelocteU
Coojtilucnl
of Coocem
GDI Adj. for
(mg/lg/Jiy) Abaorptioo
Effecti of
Cooeera
InJuUiioa
RfD
(ag/Jtf/Ut/)
lUurJ
Quotient
Exposure Pathway: InhaUlioa of airborne coutilueau
MeuU
Antimony
Dtrium
Lead
Moo(iaete
Somi-Vol«lile»
1,2-DichJorobenzeoe
2-M«Uiylniphtlialeue
. AUIria
Alpha chtordine
Naphthalene
Volitilea
; 1,1,1-TrichJorocUuoe
• 1,2-Dichloroelbeae
' 2-Duunono
. 4-Melhyl-2-pcntioooe
, Acetone
Ctrboo telnchlofid*
i BihylbeoMoo
Miihylaoe chloric!*
Tetnchloroctheoe
toluene
Xylenei
4.20E-OS
5.73E-07
1.47E-06
2.82E-06
4.0IE-06
1.93E-07
2.63E-09
2.52E-08
2.84E-07
5.22E-02
4.28E-02
4.31E-02
. 2.42E-02
1.91E-03
I.J9E-03
3.11D-02
3.39E-02
6.32E-02
2.39E-01
2.58E-01
No
No
. No
No
No
No
No
•No
No
No
• No
No
. No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NA
foxoxJclqr
CNS •fhca
CNS «rr«u
dwr. boiljr »«lt>i
NA
NA
NA
NA
UyuoUcI/
NA
CNJ «ir*cu
ess f(r«i
NA'
NA
NA
NA
NA
CM «a»>
ND
l.OOE-04
4.30E-04
3.00E-04
4.00E-02
ND
ND
ND
NO
3.00E-OI
ND
9.00E-02
2.00E-02
ND
ND
'NO' ,
8.57E-01
ND
6.71E-01
8.67E-02
NA
5.73E-03
3.42E-03
9.40E-03
I.OOE-W
ND
ND
ND .
ND
1.74E-01
ND .
4.7fiE-OI
2.13E»00
.ND."
-.ND*
|ND'\
3.0GE-02
NA
4.18E- 01
3.01 E+00
Pithwiy Hmrd
8.29E+00
Expoture Palhwiy: InhaUtioo ofvolitilo conilituctui durinjfiboworini .
1,1,1-Triehloroeltun*
(-1,2-Dlchloroetheno
2-Ouunone (MEK)
4«Melhyl-2«penUnono
. . Acttono
Carbon lelriclilorldo
liihyllwiutne
TtlnelilerMlheno
Tolueno
Xylonei
1.07E-02
3.74E-03
3.76E-C3
2.11B-03
1.72E-04
1.39G-04
4.46E-03
S.32E-03
4.J4E-03
2.UC-02
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
tapMMkky
NA
cNJ«n«u
. CNS «ffMU
. • ,NA
NA
NA
NA
CNStfrcu
CNS «fr«ii
3.00E-01
ND
9.00E-02
2.00E-02
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.7IE-01
I.37C-02
. 3.57E-02
NA
4.IIE-02
I.05Q-01
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.99E-03
2.C1B-UI
PiUiwiy tlaurd lnd««! 4.S3E-01 :
-------
CONTINUED
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
ADULTS
Selected
Constituent
of Concern
Adult
GDI
(tag/lcgfdty)
Exposure Pathway: Ingestion of constituent!
Mculi
Antimony
Barium
Load
Minginese
Scmi-Volatiles
1,2-Dichlorobcrucne
2-MctJ>ylnaplilJialene
Aldrin
Alpha chlordane
Naphthalene
Volatile*
1.1,1-Tricbloroethano
2-Dunnone
Ethylberuene
TetracbJoroelhcno
1- 1 ,2-Dicbloroelheoo
Toluene
Xylenes
3.I6E-05
2.60E-04
2.43E-04
8.67E-04
I.07E-03
2.7IC-03
3.7IE-07
I.30E-05
4.00E-OJ
1.7IE-W
I.57E-W
6.57E-W
2.43E-04
I.7IE-04
1.30E-03
3.71E-03
Adj. for
Abaorpcioa
in soil
No
. No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Effects
of
Coocern
reduced lifejpan
increased blood pressure
CNS effects
CNS effects
liver effects
ocular lesions
liver lesions
liver necrosis
ocular lesions
hepatoloxicily
feloioxicily
hepnotoxiciiy
hepaioloxicity
hemaioloxicity
CNS effects
morlaliiy
Oral
RfD
(mg/lcg/day)
4.00E-CM
5.00E-02
. 1. -IDE -03
2.00E-OI
»9.00E-02
4.00E-03
3.00E-OJ
6.00E-05
4.00E-03
9.00E-02
5.005-02
I.OOE-OI
I.OOE-02
2.00E-02
3.00E-OI
2. OOF.. 00
Pathway Hazard Index:
Exposure Pathway: Ingoition of constituent!
Meuli
Barium
. Minginese
Somi-Volatilcs
1,2-Dichloroberuene
4-Mcihylphcnol
Oii(2-eihylhoxyl)phlh»laie
Naphthalene
Di-n-butylphthalalo
2,4-Dimefhylphenol
Volatile*
1,1,1-Triehloroe thine
1,1-Oichloroetheoe
2-Butanooe
Mcibyleoe chloride
ELhylbe'ozcna
m&p Xylcnca
o Xyleoei • •
cis-l,2-Dichloroetheoe
I.05E-02
3.49E-OI
I.77E-03
3.43E-02
3.OE-02
4.S6E-03
I.03E-02
2.71t:-03
9.7IE-02
4.86E-03
1.77E-01
1.11E-02
6.29E-02
3.I4E-02
6.86E-02
4.57E-01
llaurd .
Quciieni (
i
i
7.90E-02
5.20E-03
I.74E-OI
4.3JE-03
I.I9E-02
6.78G-03
I.S^E-OJ
2.I7E-OI
I.OOE-02
I.50E-03
3.ME-03
6.57E-03
2.OE-02
8.55E-03
4.33E-03
I.86E-03
5. 70E -01
in grouixlwaler louth of the CW divide
No
No'
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
increased blcxxl pressure
CNS effects
liver effects
reduced felal weight
increased liver weight
ocular lesions
mortality
neurological &. henutological
changes
bcpaloloxicity
liver lesions
fctotoxiciry
liver toxicity
bepiiaioxjcity
morulity
moruliiy
bematoloxicily
Pilhwiy Itarard Index:
5.00E-02
2.00E-OI
9.00E-02
6.00E-OI
2.00E-02
4.00E-03
I.OOE-OI
2.00E-02
9.00E-02
9.00E-03
5.00E-02
6.00E-02
I.OOE-OI
2.00E-00
2.00E*00
l.OOE-02
2.IOE-OI
I.74E«00
I.97E-02
5.77(1-0}
I.7IE-00
I.2IE-00
I.03E-OI
I.36E-OI
I.OSE'OO
5.40E-OI
3.J4E-00
I.85E-OI
6.29E-OI
I.57E-02
3.43E-02
4.J7E-OI
5.09E-OI
-------
CONTINUED
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
ADULTS
Selected
Cociurucut
of Concern
GDI
(mg/kg/dty)
Adj. for
Absorption
Eirecu
of
Concern
Oial
RfD
(ag/kg/dty)
llautd
Quotient
Exposure Pathway, logeatioa of constituents ia groundwaler oorxh of the GW divide '
Melala
Oarium
Manganese
Sfltni-Volitilea
1 ,2-Uichlorobeiueno
Aldrin
Alpha chlordano
Bis(2-elhylhexyt)phlhalale
Di-n-bucylphthalate
liophorooe
Naphthalene
Phenol
VoUtile*
2-Butanooe
Car boa leinchlocife
Chloroform
Ethylbeozeoe
Meihylcne chloride
Tetrichloroeihene
mJtp Xyleaes
3.78E-02
l.S3E*00
I.JIE-OI
2.06E-04
8.86E-04
7.71E-01
1.97E-OI
l.63E»00
1.37E-01
5.14E-01
3.43E'00
2.49E'00
2.31E-00
1.06E-01
2.I4E-01
2.86E-00
I.21E«01
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
• No
No
No
No
No
No
increased blood pressure
CNS effects
livor effects
hepstoloucity
hepstotouciry
increased liver weight
mortality
kidney lei ions
oculir lesions
reduced feul weight
fetoloxicity
liver lesions
liver leiions
bepitotouciry
bepstotoxicity
hepilotonicity
mortality
Pathway
J.OOC-02
2.00E-OI
9.00P.-02
3.00E-05
6.00E-05
2.00E-02 .
l.OOE-OI
2.00E-01
4.00E-03
6.00E-01
5.00E-02
7.00E-04
l.OOE-02
l.OOE-OI
6.00E-02
l.OOE-02
2.00E»00
Hazard Index:
7.56E-OI
9.I5E»00
1.63^.00
6.»7E«00
I.43E.OI
3.1SE»OI
I.97E*00
8.15E»00
3.OE-OI
8.57E-01-
6.86E»OI
3.50E-03
2.3IE»02
1.06E-02
3.S7E-02
2.S6E-02
6.03 E'W
4.73E»OJ
ipoture Pathway: Dermal abtorptioa of cautitueoU in toil
MeUli
Antimooy
Btrium
Leid
Manganese
Semi-Volatile*
1 ,2-Dicblorobenzene
2-Melhylnaphfbj|cno
Aldrin
Alpha ehlordino
Niphlhilene
Volatile*
1,1,1-Trichloraeinane
2-DuUDOOO
Eibylbenzeoe
l- 1 ,2- DichJoroelbeoe
Teinchloroeilteoe
Toluene
Xyleoei
1.27E-05
1.04E-W
9.74E-05
3.47E-04
4.30E-03
1.09E-04
I.49E-06
J.21E-05
1.60E-04
6.S8E-04
6.30E-04
2.64E-03
6.S8E-CW
9.74E-04
J.21E-03
1.49E-02
Yei
Yei
Yei
Yes
Yei
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yei
Y«
Yei
Yes
Yes
Yes
. Yes
reduced lifetpnn
increased blood pressure
CNS eflects
CNS effects
liver effects
< ocular lesions
liver lesions
liver necrosis
ocular lesions
bepalotoxjcity
(ctotoucity
hepaloloxicity
bematotoxiciry
bepalolouciiy
CNS effecu
moruliry
4.00E-04
S.OOE-C2
1.40E-03
2.COE-01
9.00E-02
4.00E-03
3.00E-05
6.00E-05
4.00E-03
9.00E-02
5.00E-02
l.OOE-OI
2.00E-02
l.OOE-02
3.00E-OI
2.00E-00
3.I7E«00
2.08E-OI
6.°6E'00
1.73E-01
4.78E-OI
2.73E-01
4.97E-OI
S.68E-00
4.00E-OI
7.64E-02
1.26E-OI
2.64E-OI
3.44E-OI
9.74E-01
I.74E-OI
7.4SE-02
Pnhway llaurd Index:
2.29E-OI
-------
CONTINUED
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
ADULTS
Selected
Constituent
of Concern
Adult
CO! Adj. for
(mg/lcg/dty) Atsorplion
Effects
of
Concern
Oral
RID
(mg/kg/d*/)
llaurd
Quotient
£xpo>ure Pathway: Derma] abtorpo'oo of coostituents in tur&ce water during swimming
Meuli
MangaaeM
Thallium
Volatile
1-1,2-DichloroeUiene
Oroniodiehlorome thane
Telrachloroelhene
1.28E-06 Yes
1.33E-07 Yes
2.32E-OR Yhciiol
Bii(2-elhylhexyl)phihal«ie
Di-n-buiylphthaUte
Naphthalene
2.4-Dimethylphenol
Volatile*
U , 1 -Trichloroe thine
1.1-DichJoroeJiene
2-OuUnone
Mcthylene chloride
Ethylbenzeoe
niJcp Xylenu
o Xylenei
ci>- 1,2-OicUuroetheoa
.
4.27E-05
l.«E-03
7.I9E-06
IJ9li-(M
U9E-04
4.I8E-05
I.97E-OS
I.IOE-05
3.94E-04
I.97E-OJ
7.I9E-W
4.52E-OJ
2.J5E-04
I.2JE-W .
2.78E-W
1.16E-OJ
—^ — ——
Yea
Yei
Ye»
Yei
Yes
Y«
Yes
Ye»
Yes
Yej
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yei
Yet
• •
increased blood pressure
CNS effecli
liver effects
reduced fel»l weight
increased liver weight
nwrulity
oculir lesions
neurologicil & henutological
changes
hepnoloxicily
liver lesions
fetotoxicily
liver toxiciiy
hepjioloxiciiy
mortslily
nxiiulily
lienutoioxicity
,
S.OOE-02
2.00C-OI
9.00H-02
6.00G-OI
2.00E-02
I.OOE-OI
4.00E-03
2.00E-02
9.00E-02
9.00E-03
5.00E-02
6.00E-02
I.OOC-OI
2.00E.OO
2.oor;.oo
I.OOE-02
— —
8.54E-OT
7.IOE-OI
7,99f--04
2.32L--OJ
6.9Sn-02
4.I8E-0)
•I.93E-02
J.JOE-OJ
-l.38ri-02
2.I9E-02
I.44E-OI
7.33E-03
2.5SC-02
6.40E-04
I.39E-03
I.J6E-00
Pathwiy H,Mfj Ind
-------
CONTINUED
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
HAZARD INDEX ESTIMATES
ADULTS
Selected
Constituent
of Cooctrn
Adult
CD1
(mg/tg/dty)
Adj. for
Abtorptioo
Effects
or
Cooctrn
Oral
RfU
WtW
llaurd
Quotient
Uxpoture Palhwiy: Dtirmil aUotpUon of coniUluenU In gtoumlwiter north of iho QW divide
Meuls
Barium
Manganese
Semi-Volililei
1 ,2-Dichlorobenieno
Aldrin
Alpha chlordane
Dis(2-elhylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Phenol
Volatile!
2-Outanooe
Carbon letrachJoride
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Melhyleno chloride
Tetrachloroetbene
mip Xylenes
1.33E-04
7.4SE-03
6.I5E-04
8.35E-07
3.60E-06
3.13E-03
8.00E-04
6.6IE-03
5.57E-W
2.09E-03
1.39E-02
1.01E-02
9.40E-03
4.29E-02
8.70E-02
U6E-02
4.90E-02
Yes
Yes
Yes'
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
increased blood pressure
CNS effects
liver effects
hepatwoxicily
hepauxoxicity
increased liver weight
mortality
kidney lesions
ocular lesions
reduced fetal weight
fetotoxicity
liver lesions
liver lesions
bepatotoucity
hepatotoxicity
hcpitotoxiciiy
mortality
5.00E-02
2.00E-OI
9.00E-02
3.00E-05
6.00E-05
2.00E-02
I.OOE-OI
2.00E-OI
4.00E-03
6.00E-OI
S.OOE-02
7.00E-04
I.OOE-02
l.OOE-OI
6.00E-02
I.OOE-02
2.00E-00
Pathway llainrd Index:
3.06E-OI
3.72E«00
6.83E-02
2-.78E-OI
6.00E-OI
1.56E»00
B.tWE-02
3.3QE-01
I.39F.-00
3.48E-02
2.78E»00
I.44E-02
9.40E-CO
4.29E-CO
I.45E»OI
I.I6E-OI
2.45E-CI
I.95E-02
Nearby Residential Population in Area - Total
Chronic Hazjird
Index
1.93E-02
CO/ » Chronic Dtily laute
KID " Chronic Reference Dose
Matilace/as Rev.O
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OP COST ESTIMATE
•ALTERNATIVE SC-3B*
Element/Item
Total Cost Description
I. GENERAL $32,856
II. EXTRACTION WELL $31,850
CONSTRUCTION
III. VACUUM EXTRACTION $53,288
SYSTEM
IV. OFF-SITE DISPOSAL $402,645
V. BACKFILL $4,054
VI. CARBON ADSORPTION $1,220,000
VII. STRUCTURE REMOVAL $108,000
VIII. STORAGE TANK
REMOVAL
$505,000
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $3,227,566
I. POWER $2,000
II. CARBON ADSORPTION $23,820
III. MISC/ CONTINGENCY $74,318
TOTAL ANNUAL OSM COST $100,138
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH $3,500,242
Treatability study,
trailers, storage, paving
10 8" wells (15 ft deep)
Instrumentation/
electric,
piping, blower
208 cy of expanded
pesticide -soil
Demolition/ removal of
Quonset hut, 1360 cy of
concrete and asphalt
Demolition/ removal of
24 aboveground, 32
belowground tanks
-------
CONTINUED
SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATE
*ALTERNATIVE MOM-3*
I. GROUNDWATER $212,960
EXTRACTION/INJECTION
SYSTEM
II. PRECIPITATION/
CLARIFICATION SYSTEM $79,000
III. FLOATING PRODUCT $120,120
REMOVAL
IV. AIR STRIPPER $29,500
V. CARBON ADSORPTION $39,000
(LIQUID)
VI. THERMAL TREATMENT $1,761,750
VII. MISC.
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
I. POWER
II. CARBON ADSORPTION
III. MISC/ CONTINGENCY
TOTAL AKNUAL OSM COST
TOTAL PRESENT WORTH
$127,000
$3,316,921
$328,033
$11,000
$253,826
$592,859
$12,430,350
12 wells, 6 inch SS
casing, submersible
pumps, well development
etc.
Package plant
Pump, tank, transport
and disposal
Tower, assoc. hardware
Vertide unit w. scrubber,
quench system, instruments
and controls.
Modelling, pump test,
survey etc.
-------
TABLE 6
REMEDIATION GOALS SUMMARY TABLE
Medium
Soil
Ground-
water
Chemical
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
4-Hethyl-2-Pentanone
Xylene
Aldrin
Alpha Chlordane
Heptachlor Epoxide
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Ethyl benzene
Total xylenes
Hathylene Chloride
o-Dichlorobonzono
Remediation
Level
0.6 ug/kg
0.07 ug/kg
52.1 ug/kg
259 ug/kg
0.04 ug/kg
0.5 ug/kg
0.07 ug/kg
5 ug/l
5 ug/l
5 ug/l
5 ug/l
5 ug/l
5 ug/l
Point of
Compliance
All facility
grounds
Upper Glacial
Aquifer
Basis Cancer Risk
of Goal Level
Risk 1.0x10*
Assessment
NY Sanitary Code
40 CFR Parts 141/42
NY Sanitary Code
NY Sanitary Code
NY Sanitary Code
NY Sanitary Codo
n
n
n
n
n
n
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-------
APPENDIX 2
-------
FIGURE 1
S/<
OARVCI POUT PERSCRVf
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AOfNCY
///\ 3URFA.CE WATER
MATTIACI SITI
SITE LOCATION MAP
... SOURCE; OLEN COVE CHAMB&A of COUUOMCI
MIM IT CORPORATION
\1li orniMATioMXL TICMMOLOCY coir
n. MM tret* Tftu O'(v«*«
-------
HGURE2
SITE PLA
*&•*»>*.. MAMIMIV
TV*'<*«. « ».*«.«.Tl*.
BWWEL RUJNG BU»
EXISTING CONCRETE
LOADING PWTFORM
EXISTING INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
PUMP STATION
EXISTING BELOW GRADE t j'
SOLVENT/STORMWATER SFP«*-^»
-------
FIGURE 3
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK)
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)
:SS.:
1 1991
Pamela Acerra of NeWSday, Inc.,
Suffolk County, N!Y., being duly sworn, says that such person is, and at the
time of publication of the annexed Notice was the Principal Clerk (hereinafter
the "Clerk") of the Publisher of NEWSDAY, a rfewspaper published in the
Town of Huntington, County of Suffolk, County of Nassau, New York City,
and elsewhere in the State of New York and other places, and that the
Notice of which the annexed is a true copy, was published in the following
editions/counties of said newspaper, in which the initialed signature of the
Clerk appears in the box;
New York City
Nassau
Suffolk
once
in each week for.
consecutive weeks, to wit: (dates of publication).
May 17,1991
Sworn to before me this
17thday Of May,1991
ELAINE CASTSLLANC
Notary Public. State of N«w
Me A6ft*.\)l
"
ry Public
oik County, N.Y.
: 31-Y60800
16-MAY-91 04:33:14
Legal Notice
'THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC COMM!NT ON THE
PROPOSED REMEDIATION OF
THE MATTIACE
PETROCHEMICAL CO.. INC.
(1ST OPERABLE UNIT.
COMPREHENSIVE SITE
REMEDIATION)
Located af
.. VEY'S POINT ...
.GL.EN COVE. N.Y.
GARVEYrS~P'C
ROAD.
The U.S. Environmental Protect*
Agency (EPA) as lead agency ft
-the. Morticce Petrochemical Supe
Tuna sue win noia a KuoLc Meeiir
te discuss the feasibility Study R
port (PS) and the proposed Plan h
the site. The N.Y. 5. Deportment
Environmental Conservation (NY
DEC) as support agency will also t
in attendance. The meeting win t
field on Mov 30. mi nt 7:30 em.
We my council (.numbers OT ^i
Hall. Glen Cove Road. Glen Cov
N.Y.
EPA evaluated the fallowing rem
dial options for the Mattiace Petr
chemical site: .
For Soil Contvninvtlon:
•SC-3: a. In Situ Vacuum Extrc
lion of General Site Area/E
cavatlon of All "Hot Soot:
with Off-Site Treatment or
•Disposal
b. In Situ Vacuum Extraction
General Site Area ana Non-Pes
cide "Hot SPofs'VExcsvation
Pesticide "Hot Spots" with o-
• Site Treatment and Disposal
c. In Situ Vacuum Extraction
General Site Area ana Non-Pes
cide "Hot Spots"
•SC-S: Low Temperature Therm
Treatment of General Site Area at
All "Hot Spots"
For Groundwiter Comimlnations:
•MOM-3: Grounawater Extractic
Air Stripping/Thermal Treatment
Air Effluent/Cartoon Adsorption
Wa'e- "•ftiiieii'Seiruac'iort ol Tree
•" ,'.!>•?.>
.,- • -.
I 11' .-: • €*...--•:..:..»..,
T f- nn nr.jlnn alternative was u-
evaluated as reauirea Ov the None
al Oil and Hazardous Substanc
Pollution Contingency Plan.
Based on available information, ti
orooosM option at this time is
comoinotion of SC-36 (In Situ Vac
um Extraction of General Si
Area/Excavation of Pesticide "H
Spots" with Otf-Site Treatment o>
Disposal) and MOM-} (Ground*
ter ExtractiorVAir StripoingyCam
Adsorotion of Water EHluent/rnt
mal Treatment of Air Effluent/Re
iection of Treated Effluent).
EPA ana NYSDEC welcome t
Public's comments on the alterr.
tive identified above.. EPA w
choose the final remeav after t
Public comment perioa ends o
consultation with NYSDEC is cc
eluded. EPA mav select an octi
other tnan the oroposea alternati
after consideration of ail commet
is compietea.
Complete documentation of the er
ect finaings is oresentea in tne
and PS Reports, and in the Prooos
Plan. These documents ore ovc
able at the Glen Cove Put)
Library.
The public may comment in per*
at the public meeting ana/or m
submit written comments throw
June IX 1991 to:
Edword G. Als
Remedial Proiect Manager
Emergency and Remedial
Response Division
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Room 7730. 26 Peaerol Plato
New YorK. New YorK 10279
(213) 26*0522
03004017
-------
FIGURE 4
Affidavit of Publication
~T£S7iT£.fl' •"/:-
- •- -THE UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
~-:?''"-"4?r.•.•*'."?>.- Vlnvftes-'scr-^'-^ ;,-. :•:..•..<
£-.'• --- -PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE-*- i
x PROPOSED REMEDIATION OF THE -;
— -**»-»«»»« * t .ri/\ .nar» .;•
INC.-C
i. » LOcaieaav -,.,,... ,
vt to rOmTiROAD;GLEN,CpVE. N3.;%
T- -rne IXS.EnvffbtunentalProte"ction'Agency:
rcPAV-as!-leaB SgericVrfor ftheuMattiace
itrocbemical Superfund site will bold a Public
....... • >t--K^-.n.!i.-»_ct,,-(|yJJCport
\oance. A ue iu WMW^
<7:30 pan. in the City \Jauu^ »,—_—
Wen Cove Road. Glen Cove; NJf.--
' •. EPA evaluated the following remedial options
•for the MattiacePetrochemical site: y r- ^-% ^
'• For Soil Contamination:. 1^., '*T ' ' • "'.
'/ ;--bt>J:a.lDi3ituVacvumEitractionofGeneral
"Site Area/Excavation of AD lfHoVSp^»ts" with off-
site Treatment and Disposal.' "£',."'.''.'..--'
b. In Situ Vacuum. Eztractipn'bf General Site
Area and Non-Pesticide "Hot Spots'/Excavation
of Pesticide "Hot Spots" with Off-Site Treatment
and Disposal . ' .
• c. In Sitp Vtcoum Extraction of General Site
Area and NotfPesticide "Hot Spots"
—SC-5: Low lemperatiire Thermal Treatment
of Genera) Site' Area and All "Hot Spots" I
> • For Ground water Contamiaation:
? -HOM-3: Ground water Extraction/Air Stripp-
ing/Thermal Treatment of Air Effluent/Carbon
Absorption of Water Effluent/Reinjection of
Treated EfHuent ~~ —
-MOM-6;Grpundwater ExtraetionAJV-Peroride
Oxidation/Reinjection of Treated Effluent
The no action alternative was also evaluated as
required by the National Oil and Hazardous*
Substances Pollution ContingcneT'Plan.- - • •'
Based onavailableinformation,the proposed op-
tion at this time is a combination of SC-3b On Situ.
Vacuum Eztraeiion of General Site Area/Excava-'.
tion of Pesticide "Hot Spots" with off-site Treat-i
ment and Disposal) and MOM^SKJfoundWater
ExtractiotUAirStrippiAi^Carbon Abaorption of.
Water Effluent/Thermal Treatment of Air Ef-.
Duent/Reinjection of Treated Effluent)."~',. .."
EPA and NYSDEC welcome the public's com-
ments on the alternative identified above. EPA viD
choose the final remedy after the public comment
. period ends and consultation with NYSDEC iscon-.
eluded. EPA may select an optionother than the,
proposed alternative after.c^hsideration of all
comments is completed."£-C y.-t>;.y!*i? •'•' •• '••'•'''
Complete documentation of the project findings
is presented in the RI and FS ReBorts, and in the
Proposed Plan. These documents ire available at
the Glen Cove Public Library. ,. .
• The public may comment in person at the public
meeting andter may .submit written comments
through June 14/1991 to; U ' C » . iv'l. ^ *
, -.-;••• Edward G.Als
~' -•.-•.-- •-Remedial Project Manager
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
, •; •;";"• u£. Environmental Protection Agency.
:A:Room2930
_, ... .: __—.,.-.^-i_ 86TederalPlaza
~i----^—-. . i New York. New York 10278
.- _; - , ; --.-....-;>..:.(212)2«4-05Z2
05-22-91-1T4H2795-RP
County of Nassau
State of New York,
SS
Valerie de Roche1 , being duly sworn, deposes
and says that she is the principal Clerk of the Publisher of
The filpn Hnvp Recnrrl Pilnt
a weekly newspaper published at Minpnl a
in the county of Nassau, in the State of New York, and that a
notice, a printed copy of which is hereunto annexed, has been
published in said newspapers once in each week for
weeks, viz:
Mav 23. 1991
Sworn to me this
23rd
.day
19
91
ELIZABETH L. BOECKE
Notary Public. State of New York
No. 30-4505506
Qualified in Nassau County
Commission Expires Jan. 31. 1992
-------
SOIL GAS SAMPLE LOCATION
IKTC * MATIO NAt.
TECWNCUOCr
CO«»»O RATION
SOIL GAS SURVEY
MONITORING LOCATIONS
Prepcred -For:
L PROTECTION A3ENCY
PROJECT No. 529065
OCTCEER 1990
-------
FIGURE 6
MW-10
MW-8S MW-8D
MATT1ACE SITE
MONITORING WELL AND
PIEZOMETER LOCATIONS
MW-7S
; ..
'U*1"1*"1
MW-SD
SOLVENT/STORMWATER SEPARATOR
MW-7
..CH-J
FEET
unMiTQRING WE
PIEZOMETER
-------
FIGURE 7
• • i
D
«• •"•"•ir"",'"".-" •f-'-'-'r":;":
i || II • * '- I • • . •* • • *l • \
-\ » •: '. •'.-, •••,'- ;•. :• :Li: •
V-«' '• • ' '.'• '.'• :: «.'-V: *
J .IS i- \\ : :i.ii.ii--l.SUJ
r-. l.i.:il.J1-"-*
SB-1
SB-3
SB-18
SB-17
SB-14
SOLVENT/STORMWATER SEPARATOR
SB-9
SB-8
CI
HB-1
SB-15
MATT1ACE SITE
SOIL AND HAND
BORIMg LOCATIONS
MW-4SB
MW-4SA
SB-16
LgGEND:
FEET
SOIL BORING
HAND BORING
-------
MATTIACESilE
SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT LOCATION
~ . ~^. t an I 4X i
<9o««v *r| oc totat tr.
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
SEDIMENT AND SURFACE WATER
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
Frepcred Fc-i
U.S. ENVWONUES7AL FSCTHCTTON ACENCT
=£a 1990
-------
FIGURE 9
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., IMC.
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York
/
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. site, developed in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Roauthorization Act and, to the extent applicable, the National
Contingency Plan. This decision is based on the administrative
record for this site. The attached index identifies the items that
comprise the administrative record.
The State of New York concurs on the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
This ROD contains th<5 remedy selected for the releases or threats
of release documented by the Mattiace second operable unit
investigation. The major components of the selected remedy
include:
* Excavation of drums, containers, and contaminated soils from
area 1 (western boundary of Mattiace property).
* Containerization of hazardous materials.
* Transportation offsite to a permitted hazardous waste
treatment fnc-M H-.y -for treatment and disposal.
The results of the Mattiace first operable unit investigation,
which i«? pi'iijite/ttly v...«Jerway and involves a comprehensive evaluation
of all site contamination, will be available early next year.
These results will include a proponed remedy to nddross any
contamination which has been found to threaten public health or the
environment.
-------
CONTINUED
DECLARATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that arc
legally applicable or relevant and .appropriate to the remedial
action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable.
onstantine Sidamon-EristofJ
Regional Administrator
-------
Wclhylene Chloride
Acetone
Corbon DituHidl
Chtoro/orm
5«ini-VolQlile Oraonrci
49.0
1.40O.O
76O.O
21.0
4JOO.O
7IOO.O
5.90O.O
1JOOO
2JOOO
13.00O.O
3.700.0
2.3OO.O
Phcnonthrene
Flouronthrene
Pyrene
Butyl Benzyl Phlholote
Bii(2-Clhylhe>yl]Phlhalate
ChryMne
Ben>o(a]Pyr«ne
and
OeJIo-BHC
AJdrin
Diddrin
4-4-OOC
4-4-DOO
Endosullon Sulfote
4-4-OOT
Alpha Chlonlane
Gamma Chlordone
600.0
31.0
36.0
140.0
27O.O
480.0
23O.O
89.0
140.0
10.700.0
. 3O.5
22.0
60.4
6.9
4«.i
1.7
Same!*
M.O 52.0
540.0 290.0
100.0
,70 17.0
14000
6.0
VotelUe Orocnlc*
Ifethylene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Otulfide
CMoroform
Toluene
S«nl-Volatn* Oraa
Uetnytene Chloride
Acetone
Carbon Disu!fio>
CMaroforTr
2-Buto»ane
Tokim*
l-Yfltotrui
63.0
2.100.0
640.0
34.0
25.0
O SURFACE WATER/SEDIMENT LOCATION
3.000.0
1.400.0
3.600.0
3.700.0
21.000.0
2.200.0
2.600.0
1.700.0
1.100.0
1.BOO.O 1.400.0
680.0 490.0
12.0000 10.000.0
940.0 88O.O
1.100.0
9OO.O
Pti«noninrene
Houranlhrene
Pyrene
Benio[o)Anthracene
Bi»( 2 - EUiylheiylJPhtholote
Chryvene
BeniolblRouranthene
Benio(c|Pyren«
P«rilcld«« and PCB'l
OeNo-BHC
AJdrin
4-4-DOt
4-4-OOT
Alpha Chlordone
Gamma Cnlordane
MATT1ACE FOROCHEMICAL SHE
. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF
SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Prepared For:
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROJECT Ho. 529065
DECEMBER 1990
P««H<;ld«« end PCB'«
280.0
11.0
52.0
590
250
36.0
190.0
8.2
46.0
St.O
21.0
31.0
AIpha-BHC
Oetlo-BHC
AJdrin
Oiridrin
4-4-DC€
Endrin
4-4-DOO
4-4-OOT
Alpha Chlontane
Gamma OikKbane
Ineryaaki
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Uercury
Araenic
Barium
Codmium
Cobalt
U«fcury
Sf.tr
-------
FIGURE11
MATTIACE SITE
PROPOSED VA
EXTRACTION
V-9
V-10
Dl$ •': V: '•: I: \\ V; \7-V: \
y
SOLVENT/STORMWATER SEPARATOR
SCALE
FEJET
-------
Lfcl
MATT1ACE SITE
PROPOSED
RECOVERY g, IM-IPCTIQN WEI
RW-7
*
I
*
•9
D
• ! n ! • T---I i i i -I
e.,r~«r—•.!••-*. r""*t ,-i -—«•". r*.'": -
„ ' •• ", '.'• '•', :• :'. '.'• '.\ r; *• i
T • 11 •. *; i • ; • • • • • • u. •; : I
I V-* '• • : *' \\ :s- -rH 1
J T^ : :: :: il-^-iU:L!
r.l.Ij'-Jl"lw-J
OPEN-SIDED
BARREL FILUNd
BUILDING
!i !!
i :" Ji
I. - I . J «-i«
r-i
I—>
•-J
SOLVENT/STORMWATER SEPARATOR
a a.
RW-1
RW-2
LEGEND:
INJECTION WELL
RECOVERY WELL
-------
APPENDIX 3
-------
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 -7010
Thomas C. Jorilng
Commissioner
Ms. Kathleen C. Ca"Marian
Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency jyj^ jj g
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Ms. Callahan:
Re: Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc. ID No. 130017
Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) has reviewed the draft operable unit one Declaration for the
Record of Decision (ROD) for the above-referenced site. The NYSDEC
•concurs with the selected remedy which includes in-situ vacuum
extraction/excavation of contaminated soils and extraction and treatment
of contaminated groundwater.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. James Bologna, of my
staff, at (518) 457-3976.
Sincerely,
Edv*al/lPsimivan
Deputy Commissioner
cc: D. Garbarini, USEPA-Region II
E. Als, USEPA-Region II
TOTAL P.01
-------
APPENDIX 4
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL CO., INC.
GLEN COVE, NASSAU COUNTY, N.Y.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scheduled a public
comment period from May 15, 1991 through June 14, 1991 for
interested parties to comment on EPA's final Feasibility Study (FS)
and Proposed Plan for the first operable unit at the Mattiace
Petrochemical Co., Inc. Site. EPA held a public meeting on May 30,
1991 at the Glen Cove City Hall, located on Bridge Street, Glen
Cove, N.Y. to describe the remedial alternatives and present EPA's
Proposed Plan for addressing the first operable unit objectives at
the Site.
A transcript of the meeting is included in the Administrative
Record file for the Site and documents those questions addressed
and EPA's responses at the public meeting. Other comments received
during the comment period, as well as those comments made during
the public meeting, are summarized and responded to in this
responsiveness summary. All"comments were considered prior to the
selection of the remedy for the Mattiace Petrochemical Co., Inc.
Site.
* * * * *
The following are further responses to comments expressed at the
May 30, 1991 public meeting:
Comment: Is the Site made up of fill, and if so, what is its
source?
Response: The Site appears to conform to the surrounding
topography in the area, and therefore the existing Site grade does
not appear to be the result of extensive filling. EPA is not
presently aware of any locations on the Site that have been filled
with material that originated offsite.
Comment: What other constituents comprised the "floating product"
in the groundwater? The reported levels in the RI only account for
a small amount of the total mass of floating product.
Response: The concentrations of organic chemicals that were
analyzed for in the "floating product" samples taken by EPA were
reported in Appendix A-5 of the Remedial Investigation Report. The
TCL volatile organic parameters were erroneously reported in the
units "ug/kg" instead of the correct "mg/kg" units. The corrected
pages of Appendix A-5 are attached to this Responsiveness Summary
as ATTACHMENT 1. Based on the reported (corrected) concentrations
of TCL volatile constituents, .these constituents comprise between
approx. 38-58% of the "floating product" mass. The remaining mass,
which was not analytically identified, may be emulsified
groundwater.
Comment: Clarify the State's jurisdiction in regard to potable
-------
water permitting.
Response: The State of New York presently does not regulate
groundwater withdrawals rated at less than 40 gallons per minute.
However, the New York State Department of Health does require
registration (without further regulation) of all groundwater
withdrawals regardless of withdrawal rate.
Comment: Did you investigate the existence of private wells in the
area?
Response: EPA did a survey of all residential and industrial wells
within a one-half mile radius of the Site. A total of 20 wells
were located based on the records of NYSDEC and NYSDOH, and the
results are reported in the April, 1989 workplan for the Site (page
3-18). Based on the survey, there are only three wells that could
conceivably be affected by the groundwater contamination from the
Site because of their proximity to and direction from the Site.
However, the three wells, Well # 4440 (LIMCO Corp.), and Wells 8690
and 8709D (Fabric Leather Corp.), are all screened in the Lloyd
Aquifer, which is not hydraulically connected to the contaminated
aquifer under investigation.
Comment: Some of the New York State drinking water standards
contained in the FS report are not correct.
Response: The standards specified in Table 2-1 of the FS were
reviewed and commented on by the New York State Departments of
Environmental Conservation and Health. At the present time, EPA
considers the respective State Agency's approval regarding the
standards as .properly reflective of all applicable State
regulations.
Comment: Could the removal of the "floating product" layer be
performed earlier than what was presented, during the public
meeting?
Response: EPA presently estimates that the removal of "floating
product" will begin in mid-1993 and take approximately one year to
complete. This estimate assumes that certain administrative steps
involving program enforcement occur and are followed by a design
for the groundwater remedy to be completed by mid-1993. At the
present time, EPA has already examined in a preliminary fashion the
possibility of rapidly commencing "floating product" removal after
consideration of certain enforcement alternatives. Because of
several technical problems associated with this approach, EPA
believes that the completion of the groundwater design phase will
be necessary prior to implementing the "floating product" removal.
However, at the commencement of the groundwater design phase, EPA
will further examine possible ways of initiating the "floating
product" removal prior to completion of design.
-------
Comment: What's the status of the drum removal (OU 2)?
Response: The drum removal, which was the selected remedy
contained in the 2nd operable unit Record of Decision for this
Site, is presently underway. LILCO provided power line rerouting
services the week of June 17th, which was necessary prior to
commencement of actual drum excavation and removal. EPA estimates
that 4 months will be required (commencing with the LILCO activity)
before all the excavated materials are removed from the Site.
However, actual excavation and staging of hazardous materials
should take only 2-4 weeks.
Comment: Are the Sea Cliff Well and the Glen Cove Wells which were
mentioned in the public meeting presentation being affected?
Response: As indicated during the presentation, based on the RI,
neither well(field) has the potential to be affected by the
Mattiace groundwater plume because of their locations relative to
the plume. The Glen Cove Wells are located approximately two miles
upgradient of the Site, while the Sea Cliff Well, while closer, is
away from the projected path of the plume. The Sea Cliff Well is
also screened in the Lloyd Aquifer, which is not connected
hydraulically with the Upper Glacial Aquifer in that area.
******
The following are responses to comments submitted by ERM-Northeast,
on behalf of 20 Garvey's Point Road Corporation, transmitted on
June 14, 1991.
Comment: Selection of New York State Sanitary Code standards as
ARARs may adversely impact the ability of the selected remedy to
achieve its goal because of the extremely high concentrations of
organics in groundwater, as well as the presence of a separate
(lighter) phase of organic contamination, which will continue to
contaminate the groundwater below it.
Response: EPA recognizes that the ARARs for this Site will be
difficult to attain in all areas of groundwater contamination (see
ROD discussion, page 22), because of the high concentrations of
groundwater contaminants. However, as part of the selected remedy,
EPA will effectively remove all hazardous substances at the Site
which might act as sources of continuing groundwater contamination.
The selected remedy will include removal of the "floating product"
layer, as well as all underground tanks and containment vessels,
e.g. the solvent/stormwater separator. It will also include soil
remediation, so that all sources of groundwater contamination will
be addressed. Therefore, any difficulty which may be encountered
in reaching selected ARARs for this Site will be as a result of the
factors cited in the ROD discussion, and not as a result of
leaching of contaminant sources into the groundwater.
Comment: Why isn't groundwater cleanup of inorganic constituents
-------
to ARARs being pursued?
Response: The maximum groundwater concentrations of inorganic
constituents of concern i.e., manganese and beryllium, found at the
Mattiace Site are given in Table 2-1 of the FS Report. The maximum
detected concentration of beryllium is within both the ARAR and
risk assessment action levels. On the other hand, the maximum
detected concentration of manganese exceeds the applicable New York
State ARAR. This ARAR is a secondary (aesthetic) drinking water
standard related to taste, rather than a primary health-related
standard. Both manganese and iron will be removed from groundwater
during the pretreatment process which is part of the groundwater
selected remedy. Further, the risk assessment indicates that the
present maximum concentrations of manganese do not pose an
unacceptable risk to public health or the environment.
Comment: The proposed groundwater remedy of extraction and
reinjection may move high concentrations of contaminants into areas
not presently affected by these chemicals or levels.
Response: The recovery and reinjection system which will: be
designed as part of the selected remedy will strive to be a
"closed" system, i.e. groundwater contaminants will be effectively
contained from further migration. The long-term monitoring program
contained in the ROD will assist in determining whether the remedy
is successful in this regard. Future modifications to the
constructed remedy, e.g. additional recovery or reinjection wells,
could be effected at a later date if indicated by the monitoring.
Comment: The proposed groundwater remedy will probably not be
successful since the RI did not adequately define certain essential
hydrological and contaminant parameters. Therefore, a supplemental
RI should be undertaken to develop required information prior to
selection of a groundwater remedy.
Response: EPA does not believe that a second operable unit for
groundwater is the proper response to the information needs
identified in the remedial investigation. EPA believes sufficient
information is available to select this remedy. Pre-design studies
will be undertaken to further develop the data base required to
implement the selected groundwater remedy, including calculating
the proper numbers and placements of groundwater recovery and
reinjection wells. Since community relations is an integral part
of all phases of a Superfund project, the results of the pre-design
studies will be made available to the public after completion.
Comment: Additional surface soil sampling should be performed on
the former Edmos property to assess the possible impact of
contaminated stormwater runoff on that property.
Response: In the selected remedy, EPA has included additional
sampling of soil and sediment along the documented surface/
-------
stormwater sewer runoff pathway from the Mattiace property to Glen
Cove Creek, including the sediments, if any, in the storm sewer
which discharges to the Creek. This pathway may technically
include parts of the former Edmos property, such as the unpaved
"common driveway" area between the Mattiace gate and Garvey's Point
Road.
[N.B.: At the public meeting (and recorded in the public meeting
transcript), the Remedial Project Manager was quoted as saying that
the present worth cost estimate for the proposed remedy is $11.2
million. The quoted present worth estimate was in error. The
correct present worth cost estimate is $15.9 million, as was
indicated in the Proposed Plan.]
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
SAMPLE ID
UNITS
MP-NW6S-FLPO
MG/KG
NATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
FLOATING PRODUCT
TCL VOUTILES
MP-MU6S-FLRP
MG/KG
TIME:13:
PAGE: 1
Report format
TCL VOLATILE PARAMETERS:
CHLOROMETHANE
8ROMOMETHANE
VINYL CHLORIDE
CHLOROETHANE
METHTLENE CHLORIDE
ACETONE
CARBON DISULFIDE
1.1-OICHLOROETHENE
1.1-OICHLOROETHANE
TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETKENE
CHLOROFORM
1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
2-BUTANONE
1.1,1-TRICHLOROETHANE
CARBON TETRACHLOR10E
VINYL ACETATE
BROMOOICHLOROMETHANE
1,2-OICHLOROPROPANE
TRANS-1,3-D ICHLOROPROPENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
1,1,2-TRICHLOROETHANE
BENZENE
CIS-1,3-OICHLOROPROPENE
2-CHLOROETHYLVINYLETHER
B8CMOFORN
4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE
2-HEXANONE
TETRACHLOROETHEHE
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE
TOLUENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
STYRENE
EXPLANATION OF CODES :
20.000.000
37,000.000
67,000.000 120,000.000
52,000.000 98,000.000
64,000.000 120,000.000
6,800.000 13,000.000
(no codes) DETECTED AT CONCENTRATION INDICATED
J ESTIMATED VALUE
B COMPOUND FOUND IN BLANK
U or — UNDETECTED
NA NOT ANALYZED FOR
X,R REJECTED VALUE
NR VALIDATED RESULTS HOT RECEIVED OR RESULT HOT REPORTED
JH PRESUMPTIVE EVIOQCE FOR- THE PRESENCE OF THE MATERIAL AT All ESTIMATED VALUE
-------
PMPL
» UNITS
ro
MP-MU6S-FLPO
MG/KG
CONTINUED
HATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
FLOATING PRODUCT
TCL VDLATILES
MP-MU6S-FLRP
MG/KG
OAT£:12/27/?
PACE: 2
Sepcrt forma:
'.TOTAL XYLENES
^ACRTLONITRILE
ll.1,1.2-TETRACHLOR06THANE
ISO8UTANOL
32,000.000
61,000.000
TOTAL TICS
TIC CONCENTRATION
10
75,900.000JN
10
129,100.000
EXPLANATION OF COOES :
!(no codes) DETECTED AT CONCEVTKATION INDICATED
J ESTIMATED VALUE
B COKPOUIO FOUND IN BLANK
U or --- UNDETECTED
•A NOT ANALYZED FOR
M REJECTED VALUE
tt VALIDATED RESULTS NOT RECEIVED OR RESULT NOT REPORTED
-» PRESUMPTIVE EVIDENCE FOR" THE PRESENCE OF THE MATERIAL AT AN ESTIMATED VALUE
-------
APPENDIX 5
-------
HATTIACS PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY SITE
OPERABLE UNIT ONE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
IKDSX OF DOCUMENTS
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Correspondence
p. i Letter to Honorable Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor &
Supervisor of Glen Cove, New York from Kr. Edward
G. Als, RPH, US EPA, Re: Placement of the Li
Tungsten site on ZPA's NPL of Superfund sites.
January 29, 1991
p. 2 Letter to US EPA from Honorable Alfonse H.
D'Amato, US Senator, Re: Response to
Correspondence. December 29, 1988
P. 3 Letter to Honorable Alfonse H. D'Amato, US
Senator, froa Honorable Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor
& Supervisor of Glen Cove, New York, Re:
Assistance of EPA to evaluate Glen Cove.
November 14, 1988
P. 4 - 5 Letter to Honorable Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor and
Supervisor of Glen Cove, New York from Mr. Stephen
D. Luftig, Director of Emergency & Remedial
Response Division. Re: Hazardous waste site at
Garvies Point Road, Glen Cove, New York.
May 3, 1988
P. 6 Letter to Regional Adainistrat'or, US EPA, from
Honorable Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor & Supervisor
of Glen Cove, New York. Re: Superfund - Garvies
Point Road, Glen Cove. March 21, 1988
-------
REMOVAL RESPONSE
Correspondence
P. 7 - 8 Pollution Report: Incident/Site No.: 2B Mattiace
Petrochemical, from Mr. Dwayne M. Harrington, on-
Scene Coordinator, Response & Prevention Branch•,
US EPA. Kay 27, 1988
P. 9 - 10 Pollution Report: Incident/Site No.: 2B Mattiace
Petrochemical, from Mr. Dwayne M. Earrington, On-
Scene Coordinator, Response & Prevention Branch,
US EPA. May 18, 1988
P. 11 - 13 Pollution Report: Incident/Site No.: 2B Mattiace
Petrochemical, from Mr. Dvayne M. Earrington, On-
Scene Coordinator, Response & Prevention Branch,
US EPA. April 29, 1988
P. 14 - 17 Pollution Report: Incident/Site No..: 2B Mattiace
Petrochemical/ from Mr. Dwayne M. Earrington, On-
Scene Coordinator, Response & Prevention Branch.
March 22, 1988
P. 18 - 19 Pollution Report: Incident/Site No.: 2B Mattiace
Petrochemical, from Mr. Dwayne M. Earrington, On-
Scene Coordinator, Response & Prevention Branch,
US EPA.. February 8, 1988
P. 20 - 21 Pollution Report: Incident/Site No.: Applied
Environmental Services, Inc., from Mr. Christopher
A. Milistscher, On-Scene Coordinator, Response &
Prevention Branch, US EPA. July 8, 1987
P. 22 - 24 Pollution Report: Incident/Site No.: Mattiace
Petrochemical Company from Mr. Christopher A.
Militscher, On-Scene Coordinator, Response &
Prevention Branch, US EPA. April 22, 1987
-------
REMEDIAL" INVESTIGATION
Sampling & Analysis Plans
P. 25 Arcs II Quality Assurance Plan, Assignment Ho.006-
2L2B, Mattiace, FCR/15 to Mr. Dana Boyadjian, Site
Manager, Edison, Nev Jersey, from Ebasco Services
Inc. Feb. 9, 1990, Revised February 12, 1990
P. 26 Arcs II Quality Assurance Plan, Assignment #006-
212B, Mattiace, FCR/13 to Mr. Dana Boyadjian, Site
Manager, Zbasco Services Inc. January 26, 1990
P. 27 Arcs II Quality Assurance Plan, FCR#14 to Mr. Dana
Boyadjian, Ebasco Services Inc. January 26, 1990
P. 28 Arcs II Quality Assurance Plan, Assignment #006-
2L2B, Mattiace, FCR/12 to Mr. Dana Boyadjian,
Ebasco Services Inc. December 13, 1989
P. 29 Arcs II Quality Assurance Plan, Assignment #006-
2L2B, Mattiace, FCR/il to Mr. Dana Boyadjian,
Ebasco Services Inc. December 13,1989
P. 30 Arcs II Quality Assurance Plan, Assignment #006-
2L2B, Mattiace, FCR#lO to Mr. Dana Boyadjian,
Ebasco Services Inc. December 13, 1989
P. 31 Field Change Request, EPA Work Assignment No.006-
2L2B, FC#8, to Mr. Dana Eoyadjian, IT Corp.,
Edison, New Jersey. November 17, 1989
P. 32 Field Change Request, EPA Work Assignment No.006-
2L2B, FC#7, to Mr. Dana Boyadjian, IT Corp.,
Edison, New Jersey. November 17, 1989
Work Plans
P. 33 - 34 Letter to Mr. Edward G. Als, US EPA .from
Mr. Robert Wither, Project Engineer, Bureau of
Eastern Remedial Action. Re: Mattiace
Petrochemical Site I.D.#130017. Comments on draft
work plan. February 23, 1989
P. 35 - 39 Letter to Hr. Edward G. Als, US EPA from
Mr. Robert Wither, Project Engineer, Bureau of
Eastern Remedial Action. Re: Mattiace
Petrochemical Site I.D.#130017. Comments of draft
work plan. January 30, 1989
-------
•Remedial Investigation Reports
p. 40 — 578 Report: Final Reaedial Investigation Report
. - Mattiace Petrocheaical Site. Operable Unit
Glen Cove. Kev York. Volume I of II. Prepared by
EBASCO Services Inc. April 1991
p. 575 — 1233 Report: Final Reaedial Investigation Report
Mattiace Petrocheaical Site. Operable Unit One.
Glen Cove, Nev York. Volume II of II. Prepared by
EBASCO Services Inc. April 1991
Correspondence
P. 1234 - 1237 Letter to Mr. Edvard Als, US EPA from Mr. James
J. Bologna, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action/ NY
State Department Environmental Conservation, Re:
Comments on Draft Remedial Investigation Report
Kattiace Petrocheaical Site ID No.130017.
February 1, 1591
P. 123S - 1239 L-etter to Hs. Jill Backer, Project Officer, US
EPA and Mr. Ecvard Als, US EPA,, from Hr. Mario
Verdibello, PI. Re: Arcs II Program - EPA
Contract NO.6S-W8-0110. Work Assignment No.—6-
2L2B. Kattiace Petrochemical Data Evaluation.
October 25, 1550
P. 1240 - 1243 Memorandum to file Re: Mattiace Petrochemical
Co., Inc. Retainina Wall Collapse.
October 25, 1550 •*
p. 1244 - 1256 Memorandum to Directors of Waste Management Div.,
Directors of Emergency & Remedial Response Div.,
Directors of Hazardous Waste Management Division,
and Regional Counselors from Mr. Henry L. Longest
II, Director Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, US EPA and Mr. Bruce M. Diamond,
Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement,
US EPA. Re: Suggested ROD language for various
Ground Water remediation options.
October 10, 1550
P. 1257 - 125S Letter to Honorable Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor of
Glen Cove, Nev York from Mr. Edward Als, US EPA.
Re: Status of vork being performed by EPA at the
Mattiace S-cr-erfuncl site on Garvey's Point Road.
July 27, 1990
-------
P. 1259 - 1260 Letter to Honorable Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor of
Glen Cove, New York from Ks. Constantine
Sideamon-Eristoff, Regional Administrator, US
EPA. Re: Sites (Li Tungsten,. Hattiace, Garvies
Pt.) along Glen Cove Creek which contain
hazardous materials. July 25, 1990
P. 1261 Letter to Mr. Edward Als, RPM, US EPA fron
Honorable Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor of Glen Cove,
New York, Re: Mattiace-Edmos status update.
July 23, 1990
P. 1262 Letter to Ms. Lillian Johnson, Chief, Superfund
Community Relations, US EPA from Mr. Sydne B.
Marshall, Ph.D, Ebasco Environmental. Re:
Mattiace Petrochemical Site, Glen Cove, New .York.
Additions to the Mailing List. July 5, 1990
P. 1263 - 1264 Letter to Mr. Dana Boyadjian, Project Manager,
IT Corporation from Mr. Edward G. Als, US EPA,
Re: Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund Site-
Off site Groundwater characterization.
June 29, 1990 " .
P. 1265 - 1266 Letter to Mr. Dana Boyadjian, Project Manager,
IT Corporation from Mr. Edward G. Als, US EPA,
Re: Revision of subtask 31(Section 3.3.8) of
workplan for Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund '
site (OD2) entitled Groundwater Monitoring.
May 25, 1990
P. 1267 Letter to Mr. Mario Verdibello, Supervising
Engineer, Ebasco Services Inc., from Mr. Edward
G. Als, US EPA, Re: Recent field change request
no. 15 at the Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund
site in Glen Cove, New York. February 15, 1990
P. 1268 - 1270 Letter to Mr. Charles W. Bowman, Land Use Company
from Mr. Robert N. Thurber, Sr. Environmental
Analyst, NYSDEC. Re: Dredging of Bona Fide
Industries Site. December 8, 1989
P. 1271 - 1272 Letter to Mr. Edward Als, US EPA from Mr. Dana M.
Eoyadjian, Project Engineer, IT Corporation and
Mr. Robert C. Landle, CPG, IT Corporation.
Re: Mattiace Petrochemical Site relocation of
tvo monitor wells. December 4, 1989
-------
P. 1273 - 1274 letter to Kr. Edward Als, US EPA from Ms.. Debra
L. Rothberg of Jones, Day, Reavis, & Pogue.
Re: Permission for access: Li Tungsten Property
July 21, 1989 •
. 1275 - 1275 Memorandum to Regional Waste Management Division
Directors, Regional Superfund Branch Chiefs,
Regional Air Division Directors, Regional Air
Branch Chiefs, OERR Division Directors, OAQPS
Division Directors from Henry L. Longest II,
Director Office of Emergency & Remedial Response,
US EPA and Mr. Gerald Eaison, Director Office of
Air Quality Planning & Standards. Re: Control
of MT Emissions from Superfund Air Strippers and
•Superfund Groundvater Sites. June 15, 1989
P. 1280 US EPA permission form for access to properties
concerning the Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund
Site RI/FS Investigations, Glen Cove, New York.
June 9, 1989
P. 1281 . US EPA permission form for access to properties
concerning the Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund
Site RI/FS Investigations, Glen Cove, New York.
May 23, 1989
?. 12S2 US EPA permission form for access to properties
concerning the Mattiace Petrochemical Superfund
Site RI/FS Investigations, Glen Cove, New York.
May 22, 1989
">. 1283 - 1284 Letter to Mr. Jan Burman, c/o Ms. Debra L.
Rothberg, Beveridge and Diamond, PA, from Mr.
Edward Als, US EPA. Re: US EPA conducting
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
Activities at the Mattiace Petrochemical
Superfund Site in Glen Cove, New York.
May 17, 1989
P. 1285 Letter to Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato, US
Senator,' from Mr. William J. Muszynski, P.E.,
Acting Regional Administrator US EPA. Re:
Response to letter written on behalf of the Mayor
of City of Glen Cove, Eonorable Donald DeRiggi.
March 3, 1989
P. 1286 - 12£7 Letter to Honorable Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor 4
Supervisor, Glen Cove, New York from Mr. William
J."Muszynski, Acting Regional Administrator US
EPA. Re: Response letter concerning Glen Cove
Creek. February 21, 1589
-------
P. 1288 •- 1290 letter to Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato, US
Senator, from Honorable Donald P. De Riggi,
Mayor, Glen Cove, New York. Re: Six sites
containing various degrees of soil contamination
at Glen Cove Creek. January 31, 1989
P. 12S1 - 1293 Letter to Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato, US
Senator, from Mr. William J. Muszynski, P.E.,
Acting Regional Administrator US EPA. Re:
Properties owned by Old Bank of Maryland which
exhibit various degrees of soil contamination.
January 26, 1989
P. 1294 letter to Mr. Edward Als, US EPA from Honorable
Donald P. De Riggi/ Mayor, Glen Cove, New York.
Re: Inspection of Glen Cove Creek. January 26,
1989
P. 1295 - 1296 Letter to Mr. William J. Muszynski, Acting
Regional Administrator, EPA from Honorable Donald
P. De Riggi, Mayor & Supervisor, Glen Cove, New
York. Re: EPA to do work at Mattiace with an
examination of the entire creek area be examined
for remedial work. January 20, 1939
P. 1297 Letter to Mr. William Muszynski, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA from Honorable Donald P. De
Riggi, Mayor & Supervisor, Glen Cove, New York.
Re: Discovery of arsenic plume at the easterly
"end of Glen Cove Creek in the Charles Street
vicinity. January 20, 1989 •
P. 129S Letter to Mr. Edward G. Als, US EPA, from Mr.
Robert Wither, Project Engineer, Bureau of
Eastern Remedial Action, NY State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Re: Mattiace
Petrochemical Site work plan. January 6, 1989
P. 1299 Letter to Mr. Robert Foltin, Chief, Eastern
Remedial Hazardous Waste Section, NY State
Department of Environmental Conservation, from
Mr. Edward G. Als, US EPA. Re: Draft workplan
for the Mattiace Petrochemical Co. Superfund site
in Glen Cove, New York. January 3, 1989
-------
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Correspondence
T. 1300 - 1302 Letter to Mr. Edward G. Als, US EPA, from Hr.
James J. Bologna, Bureau of Eastern Remedial
Action, NY State Department of Environmental
Conservation. Re: Draft Feasibility Study
Report Hattiace Petrochemical Site-EPA ID/130017.
Karch 13, 1991
STATE COORDINATION
Correspondence
P. 1303 • Letter to Hr. Stephen D. Luftig, US EPA-Regidn II
from Hr. Janes P. Covan, State Clearing Hours, NY
State Division of the Budget. Re: Federal
Funding Application - Mattiace Petrochemical,
Inc., Nassau Co. September 22, 1988
P- 1304 Project Notification & Review System. Applicant:
US EPA Project Title: Mattiace Petrochemical
Company Inc. Superfund (RI/FS) Site. Signed by
Susan^D. Windesheim, Clearinghouse Administrator,
Long Island Regional Planning Board.
September 1, 1988
P. 1305 Project Notification & Review System. Applicant:
US EPA Project Title: Mattiace Petrochemical
Company Inc. Superfund (RI/FS) Site.
September 1, 1988
P. 1306 Project Notification £ Review System. Applicant:
US EPA Project Title: Mattiace Petrochemical
Company Inc. Superfund (RI/FS) Site.
September 1, 1988
P. 1307 - 1309 Letter to Mr. Jaaes Cowan, NY State Clearinghouse
from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, Director Emergency &
Remedial Response Division, US EPA. Re:
Hattiace Petrochemical Company, Inc. Superfund
Site Notification of proposed Superfund project
to be funded by EPA. August 18, 1988
P. 1310 - 1312 Letter to Department of State, Uniform Commercial
Code Division from Mr. James F. Doyle, Assistant
Regional Counsel, US EPA. Re: Notice of
"Federal. Lien", on property belonging to Mattiace
Industries, Inc. August 17> 1988
8
-------
P. 1313'-
1314 Letter to Mr. Stephen Luftig, Director Emergency
& Remedial Response Division/ US EPA from .
Mr. Michael J. O'Toole, Jr. P.E., Acting
Director, NY State Department Environmental
Conservation. Re: Request for US EPA SARA
Removal Action. Mattiace Petrochemicals Site #i-
30-017. February 4/ 1988
ENTORCEMENT
Correspondence
P. 1315 -
P. 1318 -
P. 1320 -
1317 Letter to Mr. William J. Mattiace, Mr. Otto P.
• Mattiace, and Mr. Louis J. Mattiace from
Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, Director Emergency &
Remedial Response Division/ US EPA. Re: Notice
letter pursuant to Section 107(a) and Section
104(b), of CERCLA/ Mattiace Petrochemical Co.,
Inc. Site, Glen Cove/ Nassau County, New York.
July 8, 1988
1319 Letter to Mr. Louis J. Mattiace/ Mattiace
Petrochemical Company from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig,
Director Emergency & Remedial Response Division,
US EPA. Re: Mattiace Petrochemical Company,
Removal Action Pursuant to CERCLA 42 U.S.C.
March 30, 19S8
1321 "Letter to Mattiace Petrochemical Company, c/o
Philip Tomich/ Burruano & Tomich from Mr. Stephen
D. Luftig/ Director Emergency & Remedial Response
Division. Re: Mattiace Petrochemical Company,
Glen Cove/ New York, Removal Action Pursuant to
CERCLA 42 U.S.C. March 30, 1988
P. 1322 - 1324
Letter to Mr. William J. Mattiace/ Mr. Otto P.
Mattiace and Mr. Louis J. Mattiace from Mr.
Richard L. Caspe, Project Engineer, Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division, US EPA.
Re: Mattiace Petrochemical Company, Inc. Site,
Glen Cove, New Yor3c. November 16, 1990
-------
HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
Correspondence
•P. 1325 Memorandum to Mr. Dvayne Harrington, NY CRAB, from
Mr. Arthur Block, ATSDR Regional Representative,
Dept. of Health and Human Services. Re: New -.
York State Dept. of Health Review: Ref:
Mattiace Petrochemical Record of Decision.
October 3, 1990
P. 1326 - 1327 Letter to Honorable Donald P. DeRiggi, Mayor,
Glen Cove, New York from Mr. Edward G. Als, US
EPA. Re: Security at Mattiace Superfund site on
Garvey's Point Road. August 30, 1990
NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES '
Findings of Fact
P. 1328 - 1338 Letter to Mr. Vincent Pitruzzello, US EPA-Region
II, fron Mr. Robert Pavia, Ph.D, US Department of
Commerce. Re: NOAA's Preliminary Natural
Resource Survey(PNRS) for the Mattiace
•Petrochemical Company, Inc. site (Site ID 2B) in
Glen Cove, New York. August 29, 1990. Includes
Findings of Fact, August 28, 1990.
Correspondence
P. 1339 - 1342 Letter to Mr. Vincent Pitruzello, Chief Program
Support Branch, Emergency & Remedial Response
Division US EPA from Mr. Jonathan P. Deason,
Director Office of Environmental Affairs, US
Department of the Interior, Office of Secretary.
Re: IAG No.DW14933450-01-l, Preliminary natural
resources survey of the Mattiace Petrochemical
Site, Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York.
October 3, 1990
P. 1343 - 1349 Letter to Mr. Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Environmental Impacts Branch, US EPA from Mr.
Clifford G. Day, Supervisor, US Department of the
Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service. Re: Listing
of endangered & threatened species in the
vicinity of the Mattiace Petrochemical National
Priorities List Site in Glen Cove, Nassau County,
New York. June 21, 1989.
10
-------
P. 1350 ' Letter to Mr. Clifford G. Day, Field Supervisor,
US Fish & Wildlife Service from Mr. Robert W.
Hargrove, Chief Environmental Impacts Branch.
Re: Consultation with the US Fish & Wildlife
Service (F&WS) in the vicinity of the Mattiace
Petrochemical National Priorities List Site.
May 25, 1987
P. 1351 Letter to Hr. Robert Dexter, E.V.S. Consultants,
Inc. from Hr. Lawrence Tannenbaum, Technical &
Pre-remedial Support Section, US EPA. Re:
Documentation for Mattiace Petrochemical Site
enabling the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to produce its preliminary
• Natural Resource Survey (PNRS).
December 11, 1989
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Coscaunitv Relations Plans
P. 1352 - 1353 Letter to Ms. Lisa Peterson, Community Affairs
Specialist US EPA from Mr. Sydne B. Marshall,
Ph D. Community Affairs Specialist, Envirosphere
Company. Re: ARCS II Community Relations
Interview Schedule Mattiace Petrochemical Site.
January 9, 1989
P.* 1354 - 1355 Letter to Mr. Edward Als, US EPA from Mr. Dana
Boyadjian, Mattiace Petrochemical, EBASCO
Services Inc., Re: ARCS II, EPA Contract No.68-
WSrdllO, W/A N0.006-2L2B, Mattiace Petrochemical
RI/FS Community Relations. November 17, 1988
Fact Sheets and Press Releases
P. 1356 - 1358 US EPA News, "EPA to Remove Drums from Mattiace
Superfund Site in Glen Cove, Long Island." by
Rich Cahill. August 2, 1990
11
-------
Correspondence
p. 1359 Letter to Honorable Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor,
Glen .Cove, New York from Mr. Edward Als, US EPA.
He: Informal informational meeting among DEC,
EPA, Glen Cove Counsel and public.
February 14, 1989
P. 1360 Letter to Mr. Edward Als, US EPA from Honorable
Donald P. De Riggi/ Mayor, Glen Cove, New York.
Re: Meeting schedule regarding status of creek
and environment. February 10, 1989
P. 1361" Letter to Mr. Edward Als, US EPA from Honorable
Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor, Glen Cove, New York.
Re: Informational meeting where DEC & EPA could
relate to Glen Cove Council the problems along
the Glen Cove Creek. January 20,1989
P. 1362 Letter to Hr. Edward Als, US EPA from Honorable
Donald P. De Riggi, Mayor, Glen Cove, New York.
Re: Copy of letter sent to DEC.
January 12, 1989
12
------- |