United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-92/171
April 1992
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Pasley Solvents & Chemical,
NY
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency- They contain material which supplement but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document All supplemental material is, however, contained in the administrative record
for this site.
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-92/171
3. Recipient's Accession No.
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Pasley Solvents & Chemical, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
04/24/92
7. Author(a)
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
10. ProjecVTask/Work Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.w.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report ft Period Covered
800/000
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
PB93-963805
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The approximately 0.5-acre Pasley Solvents and Chemical site is a former oil, solvent,
and chemical storage tank farm located in the Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, New
York. Land use in the area is predominantly industrial, with some commercial and
residential areas within one-fourth mile of the site. The only drinking water source
in the area consists of aquifers; four public water supply wellfields are located
within 2 miles of the site. Prior to 1969, Commander Oil Corporation distributed fuel
oil at the site. From 1969 to 1982, Pasley Solvents and Chemicals Company distributed
chemicals and used the site for storage of waste and sludge scavenger (Pasley)
operations. In 1980, after Pasley requested a chemical storage and removal permit, a
state inspection revealed soil contamination with VOCs beneath the above-ground
storage tanks and recommended a remedial investigation and clean-up plan. In 1981,
ground water monitoring wells were installed and revealed that the ground water was
also contaminated with VOCs. All operations onsite ceased in 1982. In 1988, all 12
above-ground storage tanks were removed by the site owners under EPA supervision. A
separate site, upgradient from the Pasley facility, was shown to be contributing to
the background contamination of the ground water. This ROD addresses the contaminated
(See Attached Page)
NY
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Pasley Solvents & Chemical,
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes) and other organics
(naphthalene, PAHs)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Reid/Group
13. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
100
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instructions on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS45)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/171
Pasley Solvents & Chemical, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
surface soil and ground water as a final remedy. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and
xylenes; and other organics, including PAHs and naphthalene.
The selected remedial action at this site includes soil vacuum extraction for removal of
aliphatic hydrocarbons and, as necessary, soil flushing to remove VOCs and semi-VOCs of
13,000 cubic yards of soil with offsite residual disposal, and ground water extraction
for onsite treatment with metals precipitation and air stripping followed by granular
activated carbon (GAG) polishing of treated water with onsite discharge to the aquifer or
to infiltration trenches. Off-gas emissions from the air stripper will be treated by
passing the airstream through vapor phase adsorption columns. The estimated present net
worth cost for this remedy is $13,744,000, including an annual O&M cost of $1,236,000 for
a 6-year soil remediation period and a 10- to 40-year ground water treatment operation.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are based on SDWA
MCLs to protect ground water by the reduction of mobility and volume of contaminants and
include PCE 1.4 rag/kg, TCE 0.7 mg/kg, toluene 1.5 mg/kg, and xylenes 1.2 mg/kg.
Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals may be waived because of the presence of an
upgradient contamination source from another site. Clean-up goals are based on the
upgradient concentrations of certain contaminants. When the upgradient source has been
remediated, drinking water standards, such as SDWA NCLs and state ground water quality
regulations, will be assigned.
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Pasley Solvents and Chemicals Site
Town of Hempstead
Nassau County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Pasley Solvents and
Chemical Site (Site), which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision
document summarizes the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this Site.
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) concurs with the
selected remedy. A letter of concurrence from NYSDEC is appended to this document.
The information supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the administrative
record for this Site, an index of which is attached as Appendix 5.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision, may present an imminent
and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED REMEDY
The remedy presented in this document addresses the treatment of soils and the ground water
at the Pasley Solvents and Chemicals Site.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
• Treatment of approximately thirteen thousand (13,000) cubic yards of
contaminated soil by soil vacuuming and/or by soil flushing;
• Disposal of treatment residuals at a RCRA Subtitle C facility;
• Remediation of the ground water by extraction/metals precipitation/air stripping
with vapor phase granular activated carbon/GAC polishing/recharge;
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name: Pasley Solvents
Location/State: Hempstead, Nassau Co., New York
EPA Region: II
HRS Score (date): 39.65 (6/86)
NPL Rank (date): 510
ROD
Date Signed: April 24, 1992
Selected Remedy
Groundwater: Pump and treat (air stripping with vapor
phase GAC of off-gas followed by GAC
polishing of treated water, if necessary)
groundwater with goal of achieving ARARs.
Treated groundwater to be recharged if
necessary.
Capital Cost: $ 4,280,000
0 & M: $ 829,000
Present Worth: $ 12,095,000
Soil: Soil vacuuming; soil flushing with treated
groundwater if necessary.
Capital Cost: $ 921,000
0 & M: $ 407,000
Present Worth: $ 1,649,000
LEAD
Enforcement, PRP Lead
Primary Contact (phone): Sherrel Henry (212-264-8675)
[4/1/92 thru 10/l/92]» Mark Granger (212-264-9588)
Secondary Contact (phone): Melvin Hauptman (212-264-7681)
Main PRP: Commander Oil Co.
PRP Contact (phone): Gregory Pikul (908-685-4762)
WASTE
Type: Groundwater — VOCs and Semi-VOCs.
Soil —.VOCs and Semi-VOCs.
Medium: Groundwater, soil.
Origin: Up until 1969 the Site was operated as a
fuel oil distribution facility. The Site
was a chemical distribution and storage
facility for oils and solvents from
1969-1982.
-------
• Pumping of contaminated ground water from three extraction wells at combined
flow rate of approximately 450 gpm. The actual pumping rate will be determined
during the Remedial Design;
• Implementation of a long-term monitoring program to track the migration and
concentrations of the contaminants of concern; and
• Implementation of a system monitoring program that includes the collection and
analysis of the influent and effluent from the treatment systems and periodic
collection of well-head samples.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
This 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 for this Site. Because treatment is being used
to address the principal threats at the Site, this remedy satisfies the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element of the remedy.
Due to the existence of an upgradient source of contamination, the selected ground water
remedy, by itself, will not meet chemical-specific ARARs nor be capable of restoring the area
ground water to applicable ground water quality standards until these upgradient source areas
are removed.
As the remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site above health-based levels,
a review will be conducted within five (5) years after commencement of the remedial action, and
every five years thereafter, to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection
of human health and the environment.
Dnstantine Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
A. Site History
B. History of Surrounding Sites
C. Enforcement
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 4
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS..' 5
A. Hydrogeology
B. Nature and extent of Contamination
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
VII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 11
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 20
IX. SELECTED REMEDY 26
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 28
I. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES... 31
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX 1- FIGURES
FIGURE 1. SITEMAP
FIGURE 2. SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 3. TVOC CONTAMINATION DETECTED IN UPPER MAGOTHY AQUIFER
FIGURE 4. TVOIC CONTAMINANT PLUME DETECTED AT 20 TO 30 FOOT DEPTH
FIGURE 5. TVOIC CONTAMINANT PLUME DETECTED AT 50 TO 60 FOOT DEPTH
FIGURE 6. TVOIC CONTAMINANT PLUME DETECTED AT 80 TO 90 FOOT DEPTH
FIGURE 7. ON-SITE SURFACE SAMPLING LOCATIONS
-------
FIGURE 8. ON-SITE SUB-SURFACE SAMPLING LOCATIONS
APPENDIX 2- TABLES
TABLE 1. RESULTS OF FIRST ROUND OF GROUND WATER SAMPLING
TABLE 2. RESULTS OF SECOND ROUND OF GROUND WATER SAMPLING
TABLE 3. RESULTS OF THIRD ROUND OF GROUND WATER SAMPLING
TABLE 4. ON-SITE SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
TABLE 5. ON-SITE SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
TABLE 6. ON-SITE SOIL SAMPLING DATA- TOTAL VOCS GREATER THAN 1 PPM
TABLE 7. RISK ASSESSMENT CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
TABLE 8. FREQUENCY OF DETECTION AND CONCENTRATION RANGE OF CHEMICALS
TABLE 9. POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY EVALUATION
TABLE 10 CRITICAL TOXICITY VALUES
TABLE 11. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PATHWAY RISKS (NON-CARCINOGENIC AND
CARCINOGENIC RISKS)
TABLE 12. POTENTIAL ARARs FOR GROUND WATER
TABLE 13. SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS FOR THE PASLEY REMEDIATION OBJECTIVES
APPENDIX 3. NYSDEC LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX 4. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
PART I. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS
PART II. COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSES TO ALL SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS
AND COMMENTS
APPENDIX 5. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS SITE
TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Pasley Solvents and Chemicals Site (Site) is located at 556 Commercial Avenue, Town of
Hempstead, Nassau County, New York. The Site lies between the borders of the political
subdivisions of the Village of Garden City and Uniondale, in the Town of Hempstead (see
Figure 1). The immediate area has light industrial and commercial properties; residential
communities are located within 1/4 mile of the Site. The Site measures 75' by 275', and is
fenced on the north, east and south. A building and loading platform border the Site to the
west (see Figure 2).
According to the Town of Hempstead's Public Information Division, the population of the Town
of Hempstead is approximately 735,000. The predominant form of land use in the vicinity is
industrial with the nearest off-site building adjacent to the Site. It is estimated that 75 homes
are located within a 1/4 mile radius of the Site and 1,800 homes within one mile of the Site.
The only source of drinking water for residences in the Town of Hempstead is ground water.
All public water supply wells in the Site area draw water from the deeper aquifer, the Magothy
Aquifer. Four public water supply well fields are located within approximately 2 miles of the
Site.
There are no surface water bodies or wetlands within the vicinity of the Site. There is no
designated New York State Significant Habitat, agricultural land, historic or landmark site
directly or potentially affected. There are no endangered species or critical habitats within close
proximity to the Site.
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Site History
The Site is a former tank farm used for the storage of oils, solvents and chemicals. From 1969
to 1982 the Site was occupied by Pasley Solvents and Chemicals Company (Pasley) and was
used as a chemical distribution facility. The principal activity at the Site included the delivery
of various chemicals to the Site, storage of chemicals in the tanks located there and eventual
transfer of the chemicals to 55-gallon drums for delivery to customers. These chemicals
reportedly included a wide range of aromatic and halogenated aliphatic hydrocarbons, various
solvents, ketones and alcohols. Pasley also operated as a "scavenger" that transported waste
and sludge, containing hazardous substances that may have been transported to the Site. The
Site is owned by Commander Oil Corporation (Commander). Prior to 1969, the Site was
occupied by Commander, which distributed fuel oils.
In response to Pasley's request for a New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) permit to store and remove chemicals, the Nassau County Department
of Health (NCDH) conducted a preliminary site inspection in 1980 and collected soil samples
from the area beneath the above-ground storage tanks at depths ranging from six to 36 inches.
The soil collected was contaminated with halogenated and non-halogenated hydrocarbons,
including trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane, xylene and
-------
-3-
toluene. These chemicals were being stored on-site at the time. NCDH then referred the Site
to NYSDEC. NCDH and NYSDEC recommended that Pasley submit a plan for a Phase I and
Phase II remedial investigation and a cleanup plan.
Lakeland Engineering of Port Washington (Lakeland), New York was hired by Pasley to perform
a limited well drilling and ground water sampling program. In August 1981, Lakeland, through
its subcontractor, Slack Well Drilling Company installed five (5) on-site monitoring wells. One
additional monitoring well was installed off-site. Ground water samples were collected and
samples from wells 2, 5, and 6 were analyzed by the NCDH as well as by Lakeland.
Contaminants including methylene chloride, PCE, benzene, toluene and xylene were detected
at levels exceeding State Drinking Water Standards.
A comparison of the two sets of data from NCDH and Lakeland showed widely divergent
results. In February, 1982 Commander was notified by NCDH that the site investigation would
continue. In May 1982, Pasley operations ceased when the company filed for bankruptcy.
NYSDEC and NCDH were unsuccessful in their-efforts to persuade Commander and Pasley
to do additional work at the Site. In 1983, NYSDEC issued a Notice of Hearing and Complaint
alleging violations of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Articles 17, 27 and
71.
On June 10,1986, the Site was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). NYSDEC was the
lead agency until January 1987. Then, with NYSDEC's concurrence, EPA assumed
responsibility for the cleanup of the Site.
B. History of Surrounding Sites
Two major ground water contamination sites are adjacent to the Site. One is Roosevelt Field,
a former airfield that is now a large shopping mall. The Roosevelt Reid site was extensively
studied by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) from 1982 to 1984. As a result of this
study, the USGS identified three volatile organic ground water contamination plumes. Two of
the contamination plumes exist in the Upper Glacial aquifer, and the third is present in both the
Upper Glacial aquifer and the Magothy Formation. The plumes were reported in 1986 to
extend at least 1,000 feet to the south-southwest of Roosevelt Field, and within 400 feet of the
Pasley Site. The report states that the ground water in the Upper Glacial aquifer flows at
approximately 1 ft./day. At that rate, it is likely that the plume is responsible for the
contamination detected in the upgradient Pasley well cluster. The Roosevelt Reid Site was
listed as a Class II site on the New York State Registry in July 1991.
The Purex/Mitchell Reid Transit Facility site (Purex) is the second major ground water
contamination site in the area and is approximately 800 feet east of the Site. An investigation
conducted by Camp, Dresser and McKee in 1984 showed that contaminants in the upper
-------
Magothy aquifer associated with the Purex Site include: PCE; TCE; 1,1-dichloroethene; and
methylene chloride. The ground water contamination from this site is currently being
remediated by the Purex company pursuant to a New York State Consent Order.
C. Enforcement
EPA identified two potentially responsible parties (PRP's) as owners and/or operators. Special
notice letters informing the PRPs of their potential liabilities were mailed on February 12,1988
to Commander and Pasley for conducting a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) for the Site. Several negotiations were held to discuss technical and legal issues
relating to the Administrative Order on Consent (AO) for the conduct of the RI/FS.
On August 19,1988, EPA entered into an AO, Index NO. II- CERCLA-80212, with Commander.
The AO required Commander to perform an RI/FS to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the Site and to remove the 12 above-ground tanks that were located on-site.
Pasley declined to participate in the settlement..
The tank farm removal was completed in November of 1988 by ABC Demolition and was
supervised by EA Engineering, a former consultant of Commander. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
performed the RI/FS for Commander. The Rl Report was approved by EPA in November,
1991. The revised FS Report was submitted to EPA February, 1992.
In February, 1992 EPA sent information request letters regarding generation of wastes found
at the Site to 20 parties.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS Reports and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released to the public for comment
on February 14, 1992. These two documents were made available at two information
repositories maintained at the EPA Region II Office in New York City and the Nassau Library
System. The notice of availability for these documents was published in Newsday on February
14, 1992. A public comment period on the documents was held from February 14, 1992
through March 15,1992. In addition, a public meeting was held on March 5, 1992. At this
meeting, representatives from EPA answered questions about problems at the Site and the
remedial alternatives under consideration. Responses to the comments and questions are
included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is attached as Appendix 4.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The objective of this remedy is to address the source of contamination at the Site, the
contamination in the surface soils, and ground water contamination attributable to the Site. The
selected remedy will treat ground water until the influent contaminant concentrations at the
extraction wells equal the upgradient concentrations. For the soil remediation alternative, the
-------
-5-
contaminated soil will be treated until the recommended soil cleanup objectives as outlined in
Table 13 are met or until no more VOCs can be effectively removed from the unsaturated zone.
Contamination upgradient of the Site is suspected to be contributing to the ground water
contamination at the Site. The Roosevelt Field site, which is one of the major suspected
sources of contamination detected in the Pasley upgradient Glacial aquifer ground water well,
was listed as a Class II site on the New York State Registry in July 1991. The EPA and
NYSDEC will ensure that any sources contributing to contamination at the Site are addressed.
In addition, during the remedial design process, EPA and NYSDEC will also ensure that the
effectiveness of the Pasley remediation is not influenced by the ground water recovery system
at the adjacent Purex Site.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A. Site Geology and Hydrology
Based on soil borings performed during the field investigation, borings for the 30 foot
monitoring wells and borings for the 60 foot monitoring wells, revealed only unconsolidated
sands and gravels with some silty material at depth. The unconsolidated sediments
encountered to a depth of 60 feet belong to the upper Pleistocene undifferentiated glacial
outwash deposits or Upper Glacial aquifer. All of the 90 foot wells were screened in the upper
portion of the Magothy aquifer (Upper Cretaceous). The Magothy formation consists of fine
sand often containing thin, discontinuous layers of silt and clay. The thickness of the Magothy
aquifer is estimated at 400 to 500 feet in the Pasley study area. The Upper Glacial aquifer
overlies the Magothy aquifer and the two may act as distinct aquifers, or as one, depending
upon the degree of hydraulic connection between the two. It is also reported that there is a
downward ground water flow direction from the Glacial aquifer to the Magothy aquifer. This
downward flow was not always evident throughout the Site. However, in the Site area, it is
believed that the two are hydraulically connected. Ground water flows in the Upper Glacial
aquifer in a southwesterly direction. The ground water in the Upper Magothy aquifer has a
more southerly flow direction than in the Glacial aquifer.
B. Nature and Extent of Contamination
1. Ground Water
Eighteen monitoring wells were installed to evaluate ground water conditions. The monitoring
wells were clustered in six locations (three wells each, screened at depths of 30, 60, and 90
feet). The ground water quality of the aquifer underlying the Site, downgradient and upgradient
of the Site was assessed by two rounds of water quality sampling in 1990 and a third round
of partial sampling in 1991: The on-site shallow ground water monitoring well (MW-2S)
indicated highest contamination as compared to the other seventeen monitoring wells.
Tables 1 through 3 present the results of the three rounds of ground water sampling. As
-------
Tables 1 through 3 present the results of the three rounds of ground water sampling. As
shown in these Tables, the most prevalent Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) was trans -1,2-
dichloroethene at a maximum concentration of 37,000 parts per billion (ppb).
A contaminant plume could not be defined by plotting the Total Volatile Organic Compounds
(TVOC) associated with the Site study area. This was due in part to the fact that contamination
was detected entering the Site at the upgradient well cluster, MW-1 (Figure 3). Therefore, a
group of VOCs which were found at the Site but which were not detected in upgradient well
cluster well MW-1 were chosen to define the plume associated with the Site.
The total volatile organic index compounds (TVOIC) chosen to define the plume for the Site are
the following: chloroform, 1,1 dichloroethene, 1,1 dichloroethane, trans -1,2-dichloroethene,
1,1,1 trichloroethane, ethylbenzene, toluene, chlorobenzene, and xylene. The TVOIC
compounds were found to contribute a major part (88%) of the contamination found in the
monitoring well cluster located on-site (MW-2). However, the use of TVOIC does not imply that
non-index compounds (TCE, PCE) are absent from the Site.
Through the use of the index compounds, a well defined contaminant plume could be identified
for the Site. Figures 4 through 6 display the plume detected based on the data collected.
Figure 4 is a map of the TVOIC plume for the 20 to 30 foot depth in the Upper Glacial aquifer.
It appears that the contaminant plume extends approximately 400 feet to the southwest, parallel
to the ground water flow direction and the contaminant plume is approximately 390 feet wide.
The maximum level of TVOC contamination detected was 37,000 ppb for trans - 1,2,
dichloroethene, 370 times the Federal MCL TCE, although not part of the TVOIC plume, was
also detected at a maximum concentration of 320 ppb, 64 times the federal MCL
Figure 5 is a map of the TVOIC plume for the 50 to 60 foot depth in the Lower Glacial aquifer.
The area! extent of the plume at this depth was found to be much smaller, and centered on
MW-41, directly downgradient of the Site. The maximum level of TVOIC contamination in this
portion of the plume was 15 ppb for trans-1,2, dichloroethene. TCE was also detected at 15
ppb.
Rgure 6 is a map of the TVOIC contamination plume for the 80 to 90 foot depth in the Upper
Magothy aquifer, directly downgradient of the Site. No TVOIC contamination was found directly
downgradient or on-site. However, 13 ppb of a TVOIC (trans-1,2, dichloroethene) was found
at the eastern edge of the study area at monitoring wells MW-3D and MW-5D. This
contamination did not appear to result from the Site and did not follow the south southwesterly
direction of ground water flow from the Site.
Samples collected from upgradient off-site monitoring wells showed a maximum level of 27 ppb
of PCE (monitoring well location MW-1S) and 15 ppb for TCE (monitoring well location MW-1D).
Benzene was also detected at a maximum level of 38 ppb (monitoring well location MW-11).
-------
-7-
Semi-volatile compounds were detected at low levels in the ground water. The only metal
detected above the MCL was chromium at 255 ppb.
2. Soils
Fifty (50) surface soil grab samples were collected and analyzed for volatile organic
compounds. These samples were collected from an approximate 30 foot grid pattern at a
depth of 6 to 12 inches below grade. Samples were then collected and composited for metals
and semi-volatile organic analyses. Each composite sample consisted of soil from five adjacent
discrete sample locations. Figure 7 illustrates surface soil sampling locations. There were eight
VOCs that appeared at high concentrations in the surface soil that were also detected in the
ground water. These were trans-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, TCE, PCE, toluene,
xylenes, ethylbenzene and chloroform.
Data from the surface soil samples revealed elevated levels of VOCs originating from three
primary locations. The concentrations of TVOCs, primarily PCE and trans-1,2-dichloroethene,
were detected in concentrations of 1,000 ppb up to concentrations of 603,000 ppb. Additionally,
total semi-volatile organic compounds were detected in composite samples collected from ten
locations. The highest concentrations of total semi-volatiles were detected in composite
samples 8 and 9 (204,000 ppb and 126,500 ppb, respectively) collected on the eastern edge
of the Site. The results of the analyses for the soil samples collected are presented in Table
4.
Subsurface samples were also collected from eight locations on-site and five locations off-site.
On-site, two samples were collected from each of eight borings at depths of 12 to 14 feet and
23 to 25 feet (or the first two feet below the water table). A total of sixteen samples were
collected. These boring locations are identified on Rgure 8. Boring BH-8 was subsequently
converted into a 90 foot deep monitoring well (MW-2D).
Table 5 contains the results of the on-site subsurface soil samples. Elevated levels of total
VOCs (greater than 1,000 ppb) were detected in six of the sixteen samples. Table 6 identifies
the boring number, depth, primary contaminant detected and total VOC concentrations.
Analytical results for semi-volatile compounds indicated that two of the eight samples collected
at the 12 to 14 foot depth exhibited elevated total semi-volatile concentrations (12,500 ppb at
BH-2A, and 18,000 ppb at BH-3A). There was only one location (BH-7B) that exhibited a total
semi-volatile concentration greater than 10,000 ppb (12,710 ppb) at the 23 to 25 feet depth.
This data suggest limited downward migration of semi-volatile compounds. The ground water
data supports this. MW-2S (the 30 foot shallow well) exhibited 380,000 ppb of total semi-
volatile compounds but MW-21 (the 60 foot intermediate well) and MW-2D (the 90 foot well) did
not exhibit any semi-volatile contamination.
-------
-8-
The levels of metals in the subsurface on-site samples were within the common range for soil
and were not significantly different from the off-site results.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
EPA conducted a Risk Assessment of the "no-action" alternative to evaluate the potential risk
to human health and the environment associated with the current conditions. The Risk
Assessment began by selecting chemicals of concern that would be representative of site risks.
These chemicals were identified based on factors such as potential for exposure to receptors,
toxicity, concentration and frequency of occurrence. Table 7 summarizes the chemical of
potential concern selected for each sampled media at the Site. The frequency of detection and
concentration range for the contaminants of concern are referenced in Table 8 .
EPA's Risk Assessment identified several potential exposure pathways by which the public may
be exposed to contaminants released from the Pasley site under current and future land-use
scenarios. The actual and potential pathways and population potentially affected are shown in
Table 9 .
Since access is restricted to the public and the Site is covered by gravel, it is not considered
likely that direct contact with the contaminated soil would occur. Therefore, the only complete
exposure pathway under current land use conditions is inhalation exposure to chemicals that
volatilize from the soil. The reasonable maximum exposure was evaluated. The following
pathways were selected for evaluation under the future land use conditions:
• direct contact and incidental ingestion exposure with chemicals present in surface soils,
• ingestion exposures to chemicals present in ground water,
• ingestion and inhalation exposures during home use to chemicals present in ground
water, and
• inhalation exposures to chemicals that have volatilized from surface soils.
The potentially exposed populations in all cases were the residents (adult and children) of the
neighborhood surrounding the Site and future workers on-site.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic (cancer causing) and non-
carcinogenic effects due to exposure to site chemicals are considered separately. It was
assumed that the toxic effects of the site-related chemicals would be additive. Thus,
carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic risks associated with exposures to individual compounds
of concern were added to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures of potential
carcinogens and non-carcinogens, respectively.
-------
-9-
Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI) approach, based on a
comparison of expected contaminant intakes and safe levels of intake, or Reference Doses
(RfDs). RfDs have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health
effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of daily exposure
levels for humans which are thought to be safe over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals).
Estimated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount of a chemical
ingested from contaminated drinking water) are compared with the RfD to derive the hazard
quotient for the contaminant in the particular medium. The HI is obtained by adding the hazard
quotients for all compounds across all media that impact a common receptor.
An HI greater than 1 indicates that the potential exists for non-carcinogenic health effects to
occur as a result of site-related exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for
gauging the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single medium
or across media. The RfDs for the chemicals of potential concern at the Pasley site are
presented in Table 10.
A summary of the non-carcinogenic risks associated with the chemicals of potential concern
across various exposure pathways is found in Table 11. It can be seen from Table 11 that the
greatest non-carcinogenic risk from the Site is associated with ingestion of on-site Upper Glacial
aquifer water by on-site workers. The noncarcinogenic effects, exceed 1.0 due primarily to
chromium and TCE. The hazard index for soil was calculated to be less than 1.0.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer slope factors (Sfs) developed by
EPA for the chemicals of potential concern. Sfs have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic
Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor (CRAVE) for estimating excess lifetime cancer risks
associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic chemicals. Sfs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)'1, are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen, in
mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated
with exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper bound" reflects the
conservative estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this approach makes the
underestimation of the risk highly unlikely. The SF for each indicator chemical is presented in
Table 8.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper bound individual lifetime
cancer risks of between 10"4 to 10* to be acceptable. This level indicates that an individual has
not greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of developing cancer as a
result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure
conditions at the Site. The total cancer risks at the Pasley Site are outlined in Table 9. The
total cancer risk for on-site occupants is 4 x10~*, based on ingesting untreated ground water
from the Upper Glacial aquifer in the vicinity of the Site The total cancer risk for children is 9
x10"* in the vicinity of the Site, based on ingesting untreated ground water from the Upper
Glacial aquifer.
-------
-10-
The cumulative upperbound risks at the Site for on-site occupants under a future potential land
use scenario associated with ground water is 9 xlO"*1 which exceed EPA's risk criteria. In
addition, MCLs are currently exceeded for several hazardous substance in ground water.
Although the risk posed by the soils are within EPA's acceptable risk criteria, contaminants in
the .soils, if not addressed, will likely continue to contribute to further contamination of the
ground water at the Site.
UNCERTAINTIES
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as in all such assessments,
are subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
- environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- 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. Environmental chemistry analysis error can stem from several sources including
the errors inherent in the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an individual
would actually come in contact with the chemicals of potential concern, the period of time over
which such exposure would occur, and in the models used, to estimate the concentrations of
the chemicals of potential concern at the point of exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and from
high to low doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making conservative assumptions
concerning risk and exposure parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk
Assessment provides upper bound estimates of the risk to populations near the site.
A specific uncertainty inherent in the Site risk assessment is that the methodology used to
calculate the site risks are sfte-wide averages, which give a clear overall understanding of site
risks. However, as previously stated, EPA has taken into account the sensitivity of the on-site
and neighboring populations and has determined that the target risk for the site should be on
the order of 10"6.
Therefore, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this site, if not
addressed by the selected alternative or one of the other remedial measures considered, may
-------
-11-
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare, and the
environment. More specific information concerning public health risks, including a quantitative
evaluation of the degree of risk associated with various exposure pathways, is presented in the
Risk Assessment which can be found in the Administrative Record.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Two media-specific remedial actions are required to protect human health and the environment
because of the nature of the contamination at the Site. They are numbered to correspond
with their presentation in the FS report. On-site soil has been determined to be a source of
contamination. Contaminants were found to move from the unsaturated soil to the ground
water. Once in the ground water, the contaminants, under the influence of the ground water
gradient, migrate from the Site to potential receptors.
Specific remedial action objectives for this Site include:
Ground water - Restoration of ground water quality to its intended use (Class lib and GA-
potential of drinking water) by reducing contaminant levels below State and Federal drinking
water standards where possible (see Table 12). In the case where upgradient concentrations
prohibit such restoration for a particular compound, the contaminant level will be reduced to
the upgradient level.
Soil - In order for the soil not to be a contributor to ground water contamination, the degree
to which the contaminants have to be reduced is different for each component (see Table 13).
ForVOCs (components of interest, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, TCE, PCE,
toluene and, xylenes), the contaminated soil will be treated until the recommended soil cleanup
objectives are met or until no more VOCs can be effectively removed from the unsaturated
zone. For the semi- volatile compounds of interest, the contaminants di-n-butyl phthalate,
naphthalene, bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and floranthene have to be reduced below 50 ppm.
The time to implement refers only to the actual construction and remedial action (time to
achieve clean up) time and excludes the time needed to design the remedy, procure contracts,
and negotiate with the PRPs, all of which can take 15-30 months.
The alternatives identified for both soil and ground water are presented below:
Soil Remediation Alternatives:
Alternative 1: No Action
CERCLA requires EPA to consider the "No Action" alternative at every Superfund site to provide
a baseline of comparison among alternatives. Under this alternative, the contaminated soil
would be left in place without treatment. A long-term monitoring program would be
implemented to track the migration of contaminants from the soil into the ground water. In
-------
-12-
accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA, remedial actions that leave hazardous substances
above health-based levels at a site are to be reviewed at least once every five years to assure
that the action is protective of human health and the environment. Accordingly, the no action
alternative would have to be reviewed by EPA at least once every five years.
Capital cost: $0
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $7,000
30-year Present
Worth: $66,000
Time to Implement:
Construction: 2 Months
Remedial Action: 30 years
Alternative 2- Excavation with Off-site Disposal
This alternative involves the excavation and off-site disposal of the contaminated soil from the
eastern and western portions of the Site.
The soil excavation would extend to a depth of 2 feet on the eastern section of the Site, and
to a depth of 20 feet on the western portion of the Site, where the soils are highly
contaminated. Approximately 10,083 cubic yards of soil contaminated with volatile organic and
semi-volatile organic compounds would be excavated and the excavated soil would then be
disposed of off-site at a RCRA-permitted landfill.
However, the soil will be tested using the Toxicrty Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP),
to determine if treatment is necessary prior to disposal to insure that RCRA land disposal
restrictions are met. The Land Disposal Restrictions set treatment standards which are based
on the best demonstrated available technology (BOAT) for treatment of a given waste. In the
case of VOCs in soil, the BOAT treatment method is generally incineration. If incineration is
necessary to meet the Land Disposal Restriction's, a dry ash material would be produced
which may require further RCRA-permitted disposal to protect the environment. This
alternative would then be essentially equivalent to Alternative 3. The actual quantity of soil
requiring treatment would be refined during the remedial design.
Capital cost: $8,675,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $0
Present Worth: $8,675,000
Time to Implement: 1-2 Months
-------
-13-
Alternative 3- Excavation with Off-site Incineration
This alternative involves the same excavation of contaminated soil as described in Alternative
2. However, the excavated soil would be transported to an off-site facility for incineration. This
alternative produces a dry ash material high in metals that would require further
RCRA-permitted disposal to protect the environment.
Capital cost: $43,970,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $0
Present Worth: $43,970,000
Time to Implement: 1-2 Months
Alternative 4- Excavation with Solidification/Stabilization
This alternative involves the same excavation of contaminated soil described in Alternatives 2
and 3. However, instead of transporting the soil off-site for treatment/disposal, the
solidification/ stabilization process would involve construction of a treatment facility on-site.
The process would involve mixing of the excavated contaminated soils with a solidifying matrix
to bind chemically the contaminants to form a "soil concrete." A solidifying matrix might include
the use of lime, fly ash or cement to bind the contaminants in a solid block of treated soil.
After the soils have been mixed with the solidification matrix, the resulting concrete-like
substance would be placed back on the Site for hardening and final compaction.
Before the treatment technology is applied to the area, a treatability study would be performed
on the soil to determine the effectiveness of different binders and to obtain additional
information required for the development of preliminary design considerations.
Capital cost: $2,108,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $0
Present Worth: $2,108,000
Time to Implement: 6-8 Months
Alternative 5- Soil Flushing
This alternative would work in conjunction with the selected ground water remedial alternative.
This alternative entails installation of an infiltration system to effect soil flushing for removing the
VOCs and semi-volatile organics from the soil. This process would involve injection of water
or an aqueous solution into the area of soil contamination utilizing infiltration trenches. The
-------
•14-
injected water would flush the soil contamination into the ground water. The contaminated
ground water would be pumped to the surface, treated and recharged to continue the process.
The infiltration trench system would consist of 3 excavated trenches approximately 2 feet in
depth backfilled with a coarse stone aggregate. The treated water from the ground water
treatment system would be distributed through the gravel trenches by a 4 inch PVC perforated
pipe. The 3 trenches would transverse the length of the site and have 20 foot spacing between
each trench. The aggregate fill material for the infiltration trenches would be completely
surrounded with filter fabric to prevent soil movement into the aggregate. An observation well
would be installed in each infiltration trench.
The organic contaminants in the soil at the Site have high solubilities in water and are therefore
expected to be flushed from the soil using treated ground water as the washing agent.
Capital cost: $137,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $15,000
Present Worth: $185,000
Time to Implement:
Construction: 6 Months
Remedial Action: 4 Years
Alternative 6- Soil Vacuuming
Soil vacuuming would involve the installation of vents in the contaminated unsaturated soil
zone. A vacuum would be applied through these vents to volatilize and extract organic
compounds from the soil. The organic vapors would be drawn into a collection system where
they would be removed through an activated carbon off-gas treatment system.
Circulation of air through the soil also would enhance the biodegradation of semi-volatiles in
the unsaturated zone.
A small amount of liquid condensate would be generated during the vapor extraction process.
With an on-site ground water treatment alternative operating in conjunction with ground water
remediation, the condensate may be treated on-site at minimal cost. Off-site disposal of
condensate would be necessary if this alternative was implemented before a ground water
treatment system was constructed.
Under this alternative approximately thirteen thousand (13,000) cubic yards of contaminated
soil would be treated until no more VOCs can be effectively removed from the unsaturated
vadose zone.
-------
-15-
Subsurface soil sampling would be required to monitor the progress of the soil vapor extraction
process.
Capital cost: $882,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $664,000
Present Worth: $1,562,000
Time to Implement:
Construction: 6 Months
Remedial Action: 2 Years
Alternative 7- Soil Vacuuming and Soil Flushing
This alternative combines Alternatives 5 and 6. The soil flushing technology would remove
most volatile and semi-volatile compounds but may not be as effective in removing a group of.
volatile compounds known as monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Soil vacuuming, however,
would perform well in removing monocylic and aliphatic hydrocarbons but may not be as
effective for semi-volatile compounds. However, it should be noted that the circulation of air
through the soil as part of the vacuuming procedure would enhance the biodegradation of the
semi-volatiles in the soil.
Under this alternative, soil vacuuming would be performed initially to remove the volatile and
semi-volatile compounds. A soil sampling and analysis program would then be implemented
to evaluate the success of the soil vacuuming. Soil flushing, used to flush any remaining
water-soluble contaminants from the soil, would be performed after soil vacuuming to achieve
soil cleanup goals. However, if it is found after the soil vacuuming that concentrations of semi-
volatile compounds are decreasing in the soil and are not impacting ground water, the soil
flushing technique may be abandoned. Periodic subsurface soil sampling and analysis would
be required to monitor the progress of both processes.
Capital cost: $921,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $407,000
Present Worth: $1,649,000
Time to Implement:
Construction: 1 Year
Remedial Action: 6 Years
-------
-16-
Ground Water Treatment Alternatives:
All of the remedial ground water alternatives, except the No Action alternative, involve
extraction, treatment and recharge of the treated water to the ground water. The contaminated
ground water is recovered using extraction wells at the downgradient end of the contaminant
plume. The extracted ground water is treated and returned to the aquifer via a series of
recharge wells located upgradient of the contaminant plume and/or infiltration trenches located
in the area of soil contamination.
Recent studies have indicated that pumping and treatment technologies may contain
uncertainties in achieving the ppb concentrations required under ARARs over a reasonable
period of time. However, these studies also indicate significant decreases in contaminant
concentrations early in the system implementation, followed by a leveling out. For these
reasons, the selected ground water treatment alternative stipulates contingency measures,
whereby the groundwater extraction and treatment system's performance will be 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:
a) at individual wells where cleanup goals have been attained, pumping may be
discontinued;
b) alternating pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation points;
c) pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to allow adsorbed contaminants
to partition into groundwater; and
d) installation of additional extraction wells to facilitate or accelerate cleanup of the
contaminant plume.
if it is determined, on the basis of the preceding criteria and the system performance data, that
certain portions of the aquifer cannot be restored to their beneficial use in a reasonable time
frame, all or some of the following measures involving long-term management may occur, for
an indefinite period of time, as a modification of the existing system:
a) engineering controls such as physical barriers, source control measures, or long-
term gradient control provided by low level pumping, as containment measures;
b) chemical-specific ARARs may be waived for the cleanup of those portions of the
aquifer based on the technical impracticability of achieving further contaminant
reduction;
-------
-17-
c) institutional controls, in the form of local zoning ordinances, may be
recommended to be implemented and maintained to restrict access to those
portions of the aquifer which remain above remediation goals;
d) continued monitoring of specified wells; and
e) periodic reevaluation of remedial technologies for groundwater restoration.
The decision to invoke any or all of these measures may be made during a periodic review of
the remedial action, which will occur at intervals of no less often than every five years.
Alternative 1- No Action
CERCLA, as amended, requires that the "no-action" alternative be considered at every site..
Under this alternative, no remediation measures would be implemented at this time. This
alternative allows for natural attenuation of the contaminants and includes institutional controls
and monitoring. This alternative also would include restrictions on future ground water use
and a pubic awareness program.
Periodic ground water sampling and analysis would be required to monitor the progress of
natural attenuation. In effect, this no action alternative is essentially equivalent to the no action
alternative under the soil remediation alternative section of this ROD.
Capital cost: $0
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $7,000
10-year $43,000
30-year Present
Worth: $66,000
Time to Implement:
Construction; 2 Months
Remedial Action: 30 Years
Alternative 2- Metals Precipitation/ Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT)/GAC
Polishing
This alternative utilizes three collection wells for the extraction of contaminated ground water
followed by on-site treatment. To contain and remove ground water from the contamination
plume, it is estimated that it would be necessary to pump 450 gallons per minute (GPM) from
three extraction wells placed at depths of 60 feet. Ground water would be pumped from the
extraction well system to a holding/ equalization tank. The pumped ground water would then
enter the treatment plant where it would go through an initial two-stage precipitation
-------
•18-
andclarification/fittration unit for the removal of all heavy metals. The heavy metals treatment-
would be followed by powdered activated carbon treatment (PACT) to remove volatile organic
and semi-volatile organic compounds.
The granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption system that follows the PACT would be used,
if necessary, as a final polishing step to remove any remaining organic compounds in order
to achieve ARARs. Carbon adsorption would remove organic compounds from waste water
onto the activated carbon. The exact amount of treated water that would be recharged to the
ground water either by the. recharge wells or by the infiltration trenches would be determined
in the remedial design.
The by-products resulting from the treatment system include metals sludge, filtered solids, and
spent granular activated carbon. The sludge would be transported off-site for treatment and
disposal at a RCRA-permitted facility.
Periodic sampling and analysis of the influent and effluent would be required to monitor the
progress of this treatment alternative.
Capital cost: $6,465,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $1,623,000
10-year Present Worth: $16,438,00
30-year Present Worth: $ 21,765,000
Time to Implement:
Construction: 6 Months
Remedial Action: 10-40 Years
Alternative 3- Metals Precipitation/Air Stripping with Fume Incineration/Granular Activated
Carbon (GAP Polishing
Under this alternative, the same extraction system is used to withdraw the contaminated ground
water as that of Alternative 2. This alternative differs in that after metals removal, the effluent
from the metals system would be pumped into an air stripper that would be effective in
removing the VOCs from the water. Air stripping is a mass transfer process in which volatile
contaminants in water are transferred to the gaseous phase.
Fume incineration would be used to treat any gaseous discharge from the air stripper. Fume
incineration units are chambers heated by supplemental fuel which provide high enough
temperatures and retention time to combust the contaminants in the off-gas, temperatures in
the combustion chamber range from 1200°Fto 1800°F.
-------
-19-
The liquid phase from the air stripper would be pumped into the granular activated carbon
(GAG) adsorption system that would be used as a final polishing step to remove any remaining
organic compounds. Treatment residuals include spent carbon from the fume incinerator and
spent carbon from the liquid phase carbon polishing.
Periodic sampling and analysis of the influent and effluent would be required to monitor the
progress of the treatment alternative. During the periodic sampling and analyses of the influent,
if it is determined that metals concentrations are below standards and low enough not to cause
malfunction of the air stripper, the metals precipitation portion of the treatment train may be
eliminated.
Capital cost: $3,199,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $1,069,000
10-year Present Worth: $9,768,00
30-year Present Worth: $13,276,000
Time to Implement:
Construction: 2 Years
Remedial Action: 10-40 Years
Alternative 4-Metals Precipitation/Air Stripping with Vapor Phase Granular Activated
Carbon/GAC Polishing
This treatment alternative is the same as Alternative 3 except that the off-gas emissions from
the air-stripper would be treated by passing the air stream through vapor phase carbon
adsorption columns, instead of the fume incinerator. In this alternative, contaminated air flows
through the columns or carbon bed, and organics adsorb onto the carbon. The treated air
then leaves the carbon bed with reduced concentrations of contaminants until the carbon
adsorbent cannot take on additional organics. Removal efficiencies utilizing vapor phase
activated carbon have been reported at greater than 98 percent.
Additional sludges would be generated from the carbon adsorption columns.
Capital cost: $4,280,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $829,000
10-year Present Worth: $9,374,000
30-year Present Worth: $ 12,095,00
Time to Implement:
Construction: 2 Years
Remedial Action: 10-40 Years
-------
-20-
Afternative 5- Metals Precipitation/UV Peroxidation
Under this alternative, the same extraction system is used to withdraw the contaminated ground
water as that of Alternative 2. UV Peroxidation is an innovative technology for cleanup and
destruction of organic compounds in ground water. In this process, ultraviolet light reacts with
hydrogen peroxide to form hydroxyl radicals. These powerful chemical oxidants then react
with the organic contaminants in water. The end products of the oxidation process are carbon
dioxide (COj), water, and hydrochloric acid. Chemical oxidation would reduce the toxicity and
volume of contaminated ground water at the Site.
Periodic sampling and analysis of the influent and effluent would be required to monitor the
progress of this treatment alternative.
Capital cost: $4,421,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $1,459,000
10-year Present Worth: $13,386,000
30-year Present Worth: $18,175,000
Time to Implement:
Construction: 1 Year
Remedial Action: 10-40 Years
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each alternative is required. The purpose
of the detailed analysis is to assess objectively the alternatives with respect to nine evaluation
criteria that encompass statutory requirements and include other gauges of the overall
feasibility and acceptability of remedial alternatives. This analysis is comprised of an individual
assessment of the alternatives against each criterion and a comparative analysis designed to
determine the relative performance of the alternatives and identify major trade-offs, that is,
relative advantages and disadvantages, among them.
The nine evaluation criteria against which the alternatives are evaluated are as follows:
Threshold Criteria - The first two criteria must be satisfied in order for an alternative to be
eligible for selection.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment:
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and
describes how risks are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
-------
-21-
2. Compliance with ARARs:
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all the ARARs of other federal
or State environmental statutes and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria - The next five "primary balancing criteria" are to be used to weigh
major trade-offs among the different hazardous waste management strategies.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence:
This criterion refers to the ability of the remedy to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time once cleanup goals have been met.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume:
This criterion addresses the degree to which a remedy utilizes treatment technologies
to reduce the toxicrty, mobility, or volume of contaminants.
5. Short-term Effectiveness:
This criterion considers the period of time needed to achieve protection and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period until cleanup goals are met.
6. Implementability:
This criterion examines the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including
availability of materials and services needed to implement the chosen solution.
7. Cost:
This criterion includes capital and O&M costs.
Modifying Criteria - The final two criteria are regarded as "modifying criteria," and are to be
taken into account after the previous criteria have been evaluated. They are generally to be
focused upon after public comment is received.
8. State Acceptance:
This criterion indicates whether, based on its review of the FS and Proposed Plan, the
State concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the proposed alternative.
9. Community Acceptance:
This criterion indicates whether, based on its review of the FS and Proposed Plan, the
public concurs with, opposes, or has no comment on the proposed alternative.
Comments received during this public comment period, and the EPA's responses to
those comments, are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary which is appended
to this ROD.
-------
-22-
The following is a summary of the comparison of each alternative's strengths and weaknesses
with respect to the nine evaluation criteria.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Soil Remediation Alternatives
All the soil remediation alternatives are considered protective of human health and the
environment except Alternative 1. Alternative 1 is not protective of human health and the
environment because it does not eliminate, reduce or control the contaminants at the Site.
Since it does not meet this threshold criterion, Alternative 1 will not be discussed further.
Alternatives 2 and 3 would not require any long term maintenance or deed restrictions.
However, Alternatives 2 and 3 involve transportation of contaminated soil off-site, and increase
the potential risks associated with dust generated during excavation and/or transportation.
Alternative 4 would require long-term monitoring to ensure the stability of the solidification/
stabilization process. Alternatives 5, 6, and 7 reduce potential human health risks by utilizing
treatment to remove contaminants from the soil.
Ground Water Treatment Alternatives
All the ground water alternatives, except the No Action alternative, are considered protective
over the long term and would provide overall protection by effectively removing contaminants
so that the ground water could be used for potable purposes, if desired. All the treatment
alternatives would result in permanent protection of human health and the environment through
the reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contaminants.
However, Alternative 2, by using the PACT system, has a disadvantage over Alternatives 3, 4,
and 5, namely, additional sludges would be produced with the activated carbon system thus
posing an added minor risk to workers and the environment, especially during the
transportation of the sludges for disposal off-site.
Alternatives 3 and 4 pose additional risks associated with air emissions. However, the vapor
phase treatment would eliminate any risk associated with air emissions. Alternative 5, by using
UV peroxidation has certain advantages over the other alternatives, since it would provide
complete destruction of VOCs, thus reducing waste sludges that would otherwise require
further treatment and disposal.
2. Compliance With ARARs
Soil Remediation Alternatives
There are no chemical-specific ARARS for soils. It is anticipated that any action specific ARARs
-------
-23-
associated with soil treatment can be met by each alternative. However, Alternative 4 would
require that treated soil be tested using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP),
before backfilling, to insure that RCRA land disposal restrictions are met. At this point in time,
a determination cannot be made whether these levels can be met. If levels cannot be met, a
treatability variance may be required.
Ground Water Treatment Alternatives
Alternatives 2 through 5 achieve ARARs to a similar degree. None of the alternatives would
achieve chemical-specific ARARs for ground water as a potential drinking water supply.
Achieving chemical-specific ARARs for ground water is dependent on remediation of upgradient
sources. This is due to the fact that regardless of the Site cleanup, upgradient sources will
continue to be a source of contamination to the ground water beneath the Pasley Site. EPA
believes that the proposed remedial action will result in attainment of chemical specific ground
water ARARs providing upgradient sources are remediated so that they no longer impact the
Upper Glacial aquifer.
EPA may invoke a technical waiver of the chemical-specific ARARs if the remediation program
indicates that reaching MCLs in the glacial aquifer is technically impracticable due to the
presence of upgradient sources.
Until upgradient sources are remediated so that they no longer impact the Site, EPA will attain
ground water cleanup levels which are equal to upgradient concentrations. The remedial action
will attain ground water cleanup levels equal to upgradient concentrations for certain
contaminants.
Alternatives 2 through 5 would meet action-specific ARARs as outlined in Table 2-1 of the FS
Report. Under these alternatives, treated ground water would meet pertinent federal and state
ARARs.
3. Long-term Effectiveness
Soil Remediation Alternatives
Alternatives 5,6 and 7 afford a greater degree of long-term effectiveness and permanence than
Alternatives 2 or 4. Alternative 4 would require institutional controls for land use, which would
need to be enforced for complete effectiveness.
Alternative 3 is the only alternative that removes all contaminants from the Site and provides
total destruction of the contamination sources.
-------
-24-
Ground Water Treatment Alternatives
Long-term effectiveness of the ground wateralternatives requires the remediation of upgradient
contamination. Alternatives 2 through 5 provide long-term effectiveness because these
alternatives are designed to reduce contaminant concentrations in the treated ground water to
levels that are protective of human health and the environment before discharge. Alternative
1 may present a long-term risk because it relies on natural attenuation to reduce contaminant
concentrations.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Soil Remediation Alternatives
Alternative 2 does not utilize treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of the
contaminants. Alternative 3, excavation and off-site incineration, would provide the greatest
degree of destruction of contaminants and therefore, the greatest degree of reduction of
toxicity, mobility, and volume. However, Alternative 3 would produce ash that would require
disposal. In addition, Alternative 4 would not cause a reduction in toxicity but would result in
a reduction in mobility. Alternative 4 would increase the soil volume by the introduction of a
solidifying matrix.
Alternatives 5 and 6 may not provide as great a degree of contaminant destruction or reduction
in contaminant mobility as Alternatives 3 and 4, respectively. However, they are expected to
provide an adequate degree of contaminant destruction by gradual reduction of mobility,
toxicity and volume. Alternatives 5 and 7 involves soil flushing and must be done in conjunction
with ground water extraction and treatment. These technologies used in combination would
provide sufficient reduction of mobility, toxicity and volume.
Ground Water Treatment Alternatives
Alternatives 2 through 5 would control the mobility of contaminants contributed by the Site.
These alternatives also would significantly reduce or eliminate the toxicity and volume of
contaminated ground water by treatment to remove metals, semi-volatile and volatile organic
compounds.
However, Alternative 5 by utilizing the UV peroxidation is more advantageous than Alternatives
2 through 4 because it provides a total chemical breakdown of the VOCs into less toxic
compounds without any accumulation of sludges and waste residuals.
-------
-25-
5. Short-term Effectiveness
Soil Remediation Alternatives
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the excavation alternatives, may potentially increase the risk to the
community during their implementation because they remove contaminants and create new
potential exposure routes not identified in the Risk Assessment. However, necessary
measures, such as implementation of proper safety procedures and on-site monitoring would
be taken to minimize any significant risk from exposure to the contaminants.
Alternatives 5, 6 and 7 would have the least short-term effect on the community during
implementation, since they would be conducted in-situ. All the alternatives have minor short-
term effects on the surrounding community, including increased vehicular traffic, a slight
increase in noise level from construction equipment, and fugitive dust emissions.
Ground Water Treatment Alternatives
The extraction and treatment alternatives for ground water involve little disturbance to
contaminated subsurface areas; therefore the potential risks to site workers and the
surrounding community are minor and can be managed. The potential short-term risks to
human health and the environment are also anticipated to be low for each of these alternatives.
6. Implementability
Soil Remediation Alternatives
All the alternatives are technically and administratively feasible. Of the soil remediation
alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 3 would require the least time to implement. Alternative 4 would
take more time to implement since it would require a treatability study and special equipment
to treat the soils.
The potential impacts that Alternatives 5 and 7 may have on ground water flow regimes make
these alternatives more complex and difficult to implement than Alternative 6. The soil flushing
alternatives, Alternatives 5 and 7, require coordination with the ground water treatment
alternative.
Ground Water Treatment Alternatives
The treatment components of Alternatives 2 through 4 are proven effective for all contaminants
of concern and should be easiest to implement because they rely on well understood and
readily available commercial components. Alternative 5 relies on an innovative technology for
treatment. Treatability studies would be required to determine the level of effectiveness that can
be provided by this technology.
-------
-26-
7. Cost
Individual cost breakdowns are included in the Description of Alternatives section of this ROD.
Capital cost is the value for building the remedial action. Annual operation and maintenance
(O&M) costs are used to quantify the yearly expense of O&M. The 30 year present worth cost
is then calculated and expressed in current value terms.
Soil Remediation Alternatives
The present worth cost of Alternative 7 for soils is approximately $1,649,000. The estimated
cost range of the alternatives is from a present worth of $66,000 (no action alternative) to
$43,970,000 (excavation and off-site incineration).
Ground Water Alternatives
The 30-year present worth cost of Alternative 4.for ground water is approximately $12,095,000.
The estimated cost range of the alternatives is from a 30-year present worth of $66,000 (no
action alternative) to $21,765,000 (PACT).
8. State Acceptance
The State of New York supports the selected remedy presented in this ROD. A copy of their
concurrence letter is appended to this ROD.
9. Community Acceptance
The local community accepts the selected remedy. All comments that were received from the
public during the public comment period are addressed in the attached Responsiveness
Summary.
IX. THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon consideration of the results of the RI/FS reports and after careful consideration
of all reasonable alternatives, EPA recommends the following alternative for cleaning up the
contaminated soils and ground water at the Pasley Solvents and Chemicals Superfund Site:
Soil Remediation Alternative 7: Soil Vacuuming and Soil Rushing In conjunction with
Ground Water Treatment Alternative 4: Extraction/Metals Precipitation/Air Stripping with
Vapor Phase Granular Activated Carbon/GAC Polishing/Recharge.
The soil remediation alternative, soil vacuuming, has been demonstrated to be effective
primarily for removal of VOCs from the unsaturated zone. Circulation of air through the soil
during the vacuuming process also would enhance the biodegradation of semi-volatiles in the
-------
-27-
unsaturated zone. If sampling after the conclusion of soil vacuuming demonstrates that
concentrations of semi-volatile compounds are decreasing in the soil and are still not impacting
ground water, the soil flushing portion (for the removal of semi-volatiles in soil) of Alternative
7 may be eliminated.
Specifically, the preferred alternatives will involve the following:
1) Treatment of approximately thirteen thousand (13,000) cubic yards of contaminated soil
by soil vacuuming and/or by soil flushing, as necessary, until the recommended soil
cleanup objectives are met or until no more VOCs can be effectively removed from the
unsaturated (vadose) zone;
2) . Disposal of treatment residuals at a RCRA Subtitle C facility;
3) Remediation of the ground water by extraction/metals precipitation/air stripping with
vapor phase granular activated carbon/GAC polishing/ and recharge to meet Federal
and State drinking water MCLs, except in those cases where upgradient concentrations
are above such standards;
4) Pumping of contaminated ground water from three extraction wells at a combined flow
rate of approximately 450 gpm. The actual pumping rate will be determined during the
Remedial Design;
5) Long-term monitoring to track the migration and concentrations of the contaminants of
concern;
6) Implementation of a system monitoring program that includes the collection and monthly
analysis of the influent and effluent from the treatment systems and periodic collection
of well-head samples.
7) Evaluation of Site conditions at least once every five years to determine if a modification
to the selected alternative is necessary; and
8) The option for EPA to invoke a technical waiver of the ground water ARARs if the
remediation program indicates that reaching MCLs in the glacial aquifer is technically
impracticable.
The selected ground water alternative also stipulates contingency measures, outlined under
Ground Water Treatment Alternatives in the Description of Alternatives section of this ROD,
whereby the groundwater extraction and treatment system's performance will be monitored on
a regular basis and adjusted as warranted by the performance data collected during operation.
If it is determined, in spite of any contingency measures that may be taken, that portions of the
aquifer cannot be restored to its beneficial use, ARARs may be waived based on technical
-------
-28-
impracticabil'rty of achieving further contaminant reduction. The decision to invoke a
contingency measure may be made during periodic review of the remedy, which will occur at
intervals of no less often than every five years.
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under its legal authorities, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to undertake
remedial actions that achieve adequate protection of human health and the environment. In
addition, Section 121 of the 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. The selected remedy
also must be cost effective and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, CERCLA includes a preference for
remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity,
or mobility of hazardous substances as their principal element. The following sections discuss
how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
1. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy for ground water is protective of human health and the environment. The
selected ground water remedy eliminates all outstanding threats posed by the Site. The
selected ground water remedy reduces contamination to health based levels except in those
cases where upgradient concentrations exceed those levels. Contamination upgradient of the
Site is suspected to be contributing to the ground water contamination at the Site. The
Roosevelt Reid Site, which is one of the major suspected sources of the contamination
detected in the Pasley upgradient ground water monitoring well, was listed as a Class II site
on the New York State Registry in July 1991. The EPA and NYSDEC will ensure that any
sources contributing to contamination of the Site are addressed.
The selected remedy for soils is also fully protective of human health and the environment. The
soil remedy removes a continuing threat to ground water posed by the on-site contaminated
soils.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
At the completion of response actions, the selected remedy will have complied with the
following ARARs and considerations:
Action-specific ARARs:
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Levels (40 CFR 141.11-141.16) and
6 NYCRR Ground Water Quality Regulations (Parts 703.5, 703.6, 703.7) and the NYS Sanitary
-------
-29-
code (10 NYCRR part 5) provide standards for toxic compounds for public drinking water
supply systems. The recharge process for treated ground water will meet underground
injection well regulations under 40 C.F.R. 147. The extracted ground water will be treated to
meet the above referenced drinking water standards prior to recharge.
Spent carbon from the ground water treatment system for removal of organics will be disposed
of off-site, as well as any treatment residuals, consistent with applicable RCRA land disposal
restrictions under 40 C.F.R. 268.
Chemical-specific ARARs:
Since the ground water at the Site is classified as lib (GA by NYSDEC), drinking water
standards are relevant and appropriate.. Again, these include SWDA MCLs and 6NYCRR
Ground Water Quality Regulations. However, achieving chemical-specific ARARs for ground
water is dependent on remediation of upgradient sources. This is due to the fact that
regardless of the Site cleanup, upgradient sources will continue to be a source of
contamination to the ground water beneath the Site. EPA believes that the proposed remedial
action will resglt in attainment of chemical specific ground water ARARs providing upgradient
sources are remediated so that they no longer impact the Upper Glacial aquifer.
EPA may invoke a technical waiver of the chemical-specific ARARs if the remediation program
indicates that reaching MCLs in the Upper Glacial aquifer is technically impracticable.
Until upgradient sources are remediated so that they no longer impact the Site, the remedial
action will attain ground water cleanup levels equal to upgradient concentrations for certain
contaminants.
3. Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective and provides the greatest overall protectiveness
proportionate to costs. Soil vacuuming and soil flushing, at a present worth of $1,649,000 is
more cost effective than excavation with off-site disposal, at a present worth of $8,675,000, and
offers an equivalent degree of protectiveness. The $12,095,000, 30-year present worth cost
associated with the selected ground water treatment, is the most cost effective of all the
alternatives. The $12,095,000 cost associated with ground water treatment is cost effective in
that the remedy provides the greatest overall protectiveness compared with the $66,000 cost
associated with no action, which is not considered to be protective.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment(or Resource Recovery)
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedies represent the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost effective manner for the Site. This
-------
-30-
is evident by the selection of soil vacuuming, clearly an innovative technology. After treatment
is complete, the soil will no longer be contributing contaminants to the underlying aquifer.
The ground water treatment used in the selected remedy will reduce the contaminants of
concern to levels protective of human health prior to recharge. In addition, of those alternatives
which are protective of human health and the environment and comply with ARARs, EPA has
determined that the selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of the five
balancing criteria: long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost. The modifying
considerations of State and community acceptance also played a part in this determination.
The long-term effectiveness and permanence of the selected soil remedy is very high in that
the surface soils would be treated and the contaminated areas restored. Ground water
treatment also offers long-term effectiveness and permanence in that the remedial goal is to
achieve ARARs except in those cases where upgradient concentrations prohibit such
restoration. . .
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume is also evident in the selected remedy. The treatment
of on-site soil by soil vacuuming and/or soil flushing will effectively reduce the mobility of
contaminants in surface soils. Ground water treatment has the goal of reducing contaminant
concentrations in the aquifer to meet ARARs, effectively diminishing both toxicity and volume.
The short-term effectiveness and implementability of the selected soil remedy is high in that it
would be conducted in-situ. The short-term effectiveness and implementability of the ground
water treatment alternative is high in that there is no exposure to contaminated ground water
during implementation and the remedy employs standard equipment and well developed
technologies. As stated above, the cost associated with the selected remedy is the least costly
of each alternative that is protective of human health and the environment and provides for
treatment of the most hazardous substances.
5. Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
By treating the VOC contaminated soils and ground water by means of in- situ soil vacuuming
and/or soil flushing, and air stripping respectively, the selected remedy addresses the principal
threat posed by the Site through the use of treatment technologies. Therefore, the statutory
preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
-------
-31-
XI. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Pasley Solvents and Chemicals Site was released to the public on
February 14, 1992. The Proposed Plan identified soil remediation Alternative 7 and ground
water remediation Alternative 4 as the preferred alternatives. EPA reviewed all comments
submitted. Upon review of the comments, it was determined that no significant changes to the
preferred remedy, as it was originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were necessary.
-------
-32-
APPENDIX 1
-------
FIGURE 1
MEMORIAL PARK
§
O> •*.«
o
csi bi
PA6LEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS
TOWN OF HEMP8TEAD, LONG ISLAND, N.Y.
SITE LOCATION PLAN
SOURCE:
OSOS QUAORANOLE '. FREE PORT. NY.
iCAtf I I". 2000*
MOJICT NOi Hit
Metcalf&Eddu
-------
FIGURE 2
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS
TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK
SITE LOCATION MAP
MAP NOT TO SCALE
/NORTH
ROOSEVELT FIELD
STEWART AVENUE
ULCO EAST GARDEN
CITY SUBSTATION
ABANDONED LOT
LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
o o
GREENWAY
O G
GROVE
VILLAGE OF
GARDEN CITY
01
COMMERCIAL AVENUE
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
AREA
MASTER MILL
WORKS
BROOK STREET
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA
CHESTNUT STREET
PUREXSITE
-------
• 1500ft.
.«h.Pas*,soWja. IAL AVENUE
PAS LEY SITE
ptppb)
LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
(20 ppb)
Canonie 365
00 PPb).
LI. R.R.
BROW" STREET
. FESTNUT STREET
Canonie 307
(36 ppb)
LOCUST STREET
O
-------
PAS LEY SITE .
LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
COMMERCIAL/
BROOK STREET
CHESTNUT STREE
LOCUST STREET
|CHESTNUT STREET
LOCUST ST.
TVO1C: Total Volatile Organic Index Compounds.
TVOICs do not include all of the contaminant
compounds found at the Pasley Solvents site
(see discussion on pages 4*7 and 44 of this
report) ^
• MONITORING WELLS
300 150 0 300
Scale in Feet
TVQIC Level fooM
> 10,000
1,000 to 10,000
100 to 1,000
1010100
FS REPORT
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS
Town of Hempstead, Long Island, NY
TVOIC CONTAMINANT PLUME
a TO 30 FOOT DEPTH
FIGURE f 4
Prepandbr. Metal ft Eddy. Ire. Jun*iMl
-------
RASLEYSITE ^.l
\ LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
LZ* 1
COMMERCIAL AVENUE
»
BROOK STREET
u
j
r
A
CHESTNUT STREET
LOCUST STREET
^>
P
tr
(9
LI. R:R.
• 5 /
I BROOK /rREfcT
|CHF«TNUT STREET
LOCUST ST.
u
1
1 OAK STREET
L.I.R.R.^^
TVO1C: Total Volatile Organic Index Compounds.
TVOICs do not indude all of th» contaminant
compounds found at the Pasley Solvents sit*
(see discussion on pages 4*7 and 4-8 of this
report)
TVOIC Level fppbl
• MONITORING WELLS
300 150
300
Scale
> 10,000
1,0001010,000
100101,000
1010100
FS REPORT
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS
Town of Hftmpstead, Long Island, NY
TVOIC CONTAMINANT PLUME
50 TO 60 FOOT DEPTH
FIGURE 5
Prepared by: MetBtf& Eddy, toe. Junev
-------
PASLEYSITE .
\ LONG ISLAND RAILROAD
i*. I
COMMERCIAL AVENUE
L.I. R.R.
_BROOK STREET
CHESTNUT STREET
LOCUST STREET
BR
STREET
[CHESTNUT STREET
LOCUST ST.
TVOIC: Total Volatile Organic Indmc Compounds.
TVOICs do not include ail of lh» contaminant
compounds found al the Pasley Solvents silt
(s«e discussion on pages 4*7 and 4-8 of this
raport)
• MONITORING WELLS
300 150 0 300
Scale in Feet
TVOIC Level tepb)
> 10,000
1,000 tp 10,000
100101,000
10 to 100
FS REPORT
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS
Town of Henpstead. Long Island. MY
TVOIC CONTAMINANT PLUME
80 TO 90 FOOT DEPTH
FIGURE 6 -
-------
B)
in
.*
o
L.
0)
£1
to
o
0.
°
a.
o
5'
47.5'
R R
CttTOSIH 4
it
l.
i.
COVttSITf 1
COWOSITI I
tt
tl
cot»otii( «
•„
««
II "14
COt*OSIU 1
cotresiTC i
205'
cotrosnc •
•4.
«
,
carosiu t
Legend
• Surface Soil Samples
O Monitoring Well
COMMERC I Al_
AVENUE
25
Scale in Feet
FINAL Rl REPORT
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS
Town ol Hempstead. Long Island. NY
ON SITE SURFACE SOIL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Figure 7
-------
A
«
tfl
*
«vl
O>
— -
"5
to
JC
o
*
u
o
to
•-4
•»-
A"«
I A» A"
<0
o
a.
o •»;
a. o
1 "
| ~*
o ^>
L
•
1
X
47. 5'
A««
A
*-*
A A.
"•t> OL.
205*
COMMERC I AL_
AVENUE
Legend
A Soil Boring
O Monitoring Well
0 25
Scale in Feet
FINAL Rl REPORT
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS
Town ol Hempslead. Long Island. NY
ON-SITE SUBSURFACE SOIL
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Figure 8
Prepared by: Malcall & Eddy. Inc. June 1991
-------
-33-
APPENDIX 2
-------
Tame • 1
MS.Cf SM.VKNT9 IND CHEMICALS SITE
MUST HOUND amnmtMITEN SIMPLE HESULT3 . HONITOftllM HO.L
PM"
June 14, tytfi
rinai ni Report
SAMPLE HUHOEH3
UNITS
MATHIS
SAMPLE DAT* (1990)
SAMPLE LOCATION
6D
IS II ID 2S" 21 21-IIUP 20 JS Jl JO M II <0 5S 51 5D 63 61
UK/I UK/I UK/I UK/I UK/I UK/I UK/I UK/I UK/I u«/l u«/l UK/I UK/I UK/I «•«/» UK/I u«/i UK/I
Hater Neter Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Heter Hater Hater Hater Hater Heter Hater Hater Hater Hater Water
3-1 J-l J-l 2.;? 2-2) e-?J 2-2) 2-20 ?-?B 2-28 2-M 2-?6 2-2« ]-? J-l 2-2fl 2-?T 2-77 2-?T
---- tltCO ----- ------ ON-3ITC ------- ----- LIM ----- — OREOMIT --- —MOOR ST. --- --- OlEBflllT ---
"7"
Hethrlene Chloride
teetone
Rentane
Chlorofom
l.l-DlahloraeUMM
1 , l-Dlohloroethene
Traiw l,?-Dlotiloro«tlMM
2-Hutanane
KUijIbenten*
Tet raahtoroethMW
Tolmne
Trlohleroethene
1, 1, t-TrlahleroeUiMM
Oilorobemene
(Total)
(Haute
bl*(?-F.thylheiyl) fhtlieUU
dl-n-Butyl rtithalaU
Z-Jfethylnapfithalene
Nephthalen*
Beniolo AoM
DlbefitofyrMi
rtithalata
IIJ IK
- tj
•h •
*
n
.
tt
32
.
J 22J ItOOJ I«OOJ 580J
T «3J 10 II
» a» f '«f ~ —
a» 9' J •» *
.6)0
. 25000**! JJ |J
••
9
.
15
.
_
...
• • I
...
.
. . 0
. • .
• • .
2J
510
I60J
1100
1*OJ
J600
510
1100
«J
110
210
H •
5J
5J
^
u
u
u
.'
-
~
:
.
.
*
.
.
—
2J
.
IJ
.
-
-
;
M
_
«
.
.
8«J 510J 2200 J
3J
N
IJ
6
«,
4J
.
8'
2J
_
-
I,
.
_
_
_
-
^
2
.
.
2'OJ*
-
~
•
_
_
.
.
-
^
.
,
.
.'•
.
•
•
.
.
.
.
:
5IOJ
II
—
.
.
50
.
.
•
;
M
_
_
_
-
•ooj 3800J
•J
20
1*0 15
«"
11
_
Xto'j
»o»
.
15
M
It
59
•R
_
M
^
•J
_
t$
•
.
•
„
.
.
.
.
*
tJOJ ITJ
MJ tlOJ »OJ I50J
.
•
5
10
a»
-
.
•
-
•»
T
•
•
-
•*>
ah
•
-
tt
•
•
•
m
*»
13
••
-
*!
•>
-
•
•
-
it
.
•
.
-
R
-
8
«0
-
•50-
•
*J
ij
n.
m
m
•OTEt
8
•a
HOP
On IT thoae (xmpound* that ere detected either a» eatlawted, reject
Anelfte presienl. Heported *elue m»f not be accurate or preolee.
Unreliable Data Obtnlned. ~ ' ' ' ' "
ri»e fold diluted •••pie.
Fifty fold diluted •••pie.
- -' deteatlon Itoll ettalned
ed or poaltlve ••Ida la one or a»re ••
»!• are Hated
this table.
Data rejected b* validator end le not «e*ble.
See Append I« E for •Inlaua dateotlon Halt attained.
. . Trane 1,2-DloMoroethene oonaeatretlon abowa the oalleratloii r»nga !• tola aaaalo. 8*a Ipaandl* K for
Inlawai deteatlon Itoll ettalned,
Indlcetee OO^MNNM! waa analvBed for but not dcteoted at • level •IcMtriaantljr above the level reported Im laboratory or fleU blank*.
Shellou veil| 1 • Intermediate vell| D • Deep well
Duplloata
Negated Cnapound aot Prweat !• SMple
eellaeted oonoentratlo* due to Interferanae.
OMMtltatlon Ltalt la -
-------
PASt.Rf SOLVKNTS UNO CHEMICALS SITE
HOUND CHOUNIMATRII SAMPLE HESW.T3 - NONITOHINO MCI.L (Continued)
June 1«, 1991
HIM! HI Report
SAMPLE KUHBEM
UNITS
NATftll
SAMPLE DATE (I99O)
tfl-l
UK/I
Mater
2-22
EB-?
UK/I
Water
2-2J
EB-1 EB-«
UK/I UK/I
Mater Mater
i-» ?-?T
EB-5
UK/1
Water
2-19
68-6
UK/1
Mater
J-l
EB-7
UK/I
Water
J-2
TO-I TB-?
UK/1 UK/|
Muter Mat.r
2-2* 2-2J
TB-J TB-»
UK/I UK/I
Mater Mater
2-2« i-H
TB-5 ffl-6 TB-T
UK/I UR/I UK/1
Mater Meter Meter
2-*l J-l J-l
TB-B
UK/I
Mater
J-2
TOLJTIIJE OWMIC i
Clilorovetheite
Hethylene Oilorltf*
Acetone
Bentene
Oilorofor*
I,I>0lohloroethen«
1,1-Olohloroethine
Trene 1,2-PlohlonMUMM
2-Butanone
Cthylbeniene
TetreohloroeUtaiw
Tolvene
Trlohloroetnene
1.1,1 -TrlahloroetliM*
lylenee
LC OWUMI
Phthalate
41-n-Butyl rhtbeleU
?-MMthrlnepntlietene
Hephthelene
•emiola AnM
1104 I200J I800J 2JOO
• II • • •
ZJ MS ?J -
e
91 II
• II
61
• II
II •
TWTEi
J
II
«-)
n
Only tnoee ooapoundatnat aredetected either as eatlevted, rejeoted or poeltlve valve In on* or Mora aaapl* are I feted In thle teble.
•nalyte prevent. Meported value a»y not ke aooerate or preolee.
Oerellaele Reeelt oktalnetf. Data rejected by validator and I* act eeeble.
Indloate* oce|io»n< MM analyied for kut not deteoted at a level alcnirtoantly •fcov* the level reported in laboratory and field blank*.
trip Hank* enelyied for volatile organlo* only
Blank*
-------
PM» 8
SIMPLE NUMBERS
WHITS
MURII
9INPI.B PITC 11990)
SIMPLE LOCaTlM
TABLE 1
IS II 10
UK/I UK/I «m/i
Hater Hater Water
J-l J-l 3-1
. LILCO-— —
MSI.ET AM.ffENTS MD CHEMICIL3 SITE June t«. 1991
rm.tr ROUND GnnmoM«Trii SAMPLE RESULTS - MONITOR ma HELL (Continue) rinni RI Report
?S ?l 21-IMIP ?D 33 Jl JD EB-I EB-2 EB-J EB-* EB-5 EB-6 EB-T
UK/1 UK/I u*/l UK/1 UK/I UK/1 "K/l UK/1 »*/l »«/l «Hl/l »«/l «M|/I "•/»
Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Hater Mater Hater Hater Hater
2-22 2-2} 2-2i 2-2) 2-29 2-28 2-28 2-22 2-2] 2-26 2-2T 2-2* 3-1 3-2
UN-SITE LIM .
HETaUS
•nt lawny
treenlo
Bartua
Beryllu*
CedeluB
Calolwe
QtineiluB
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanld*
Iron
Lead
MagneilMN
HanganeM
Mercury
Nlohel
PotaaslM
Selenlu*
Silver
SodluB
Thallltai
tlM
•2IOOJ •030J 155J 23*00
IIU 68.8J 25. W 1128
1.TJ - 0.5 O.T38
36000J I8IOOJ 1MOOJ 13900
23.U «).8J - 27.TJ
10.9J - - 16J
I2TJ 279J 28.5J 99.«
TO - - 15
28900J W90J 368J 99100J
8-8 R 15.3
8330J 55IOJ 2T60J 32808
I060J I2200J TO.VI 1360
O.T - 0.5
53.8J 129.1 I8.2J •».)
•2TOJ 3HOJ 3290J 89608
5.6J
•280J 35JOOJ IflOOJ 390000J
1388
•16 15000
51.18 «9.28 25.68 90.28
23800 23*00 18100
IJ.5J IT.6J I3.U
29900
90.6J
TOT
18800
12.U
3T* • 33.58 ...
33.08 5.08 It. 18 - 18.58 20.88 19.6J 20.6J
1IWO
10.38
8.78 «0.5
32.0 15.28
2610J
9.1 7.3
•8208 *T6B
• 16100 15900
0.6 0.30
15TOJ
8.T
2T508
6T.6
1.3
•360
. 5.9J 2T.68
3200J 29.6J 859
18808 29308 62TO
36TOOJ JHOOJ
- T.8B
6T 51.2 «IT
136
20
I3500J 2I100J 2290J
22.* 9.7 ".5
•6808 26208 38608
235 1760 221
0.2 ' - 0.6
T6.2 37.TJ
•TI08 19208
18900J 33900J M50W
272 138
10.18
1630
•0808 l«900 . 15*00 13200 13TOOJ ISfOOJ
•.•J - 6.68 9.6J
MM 3800 I.2B T320 «300 TB80J 2T5J
10 10 - -
ITU 128J T8.T8 155J 331J 25. TJ 99.2J
..... II •
15308 5610 . 5810 . 60*OJ TJ90J
0.9J 15.2 . 1.68 ».3J 1.8
- 0.»5 0.35 0.21
..... I650J 1800
... . R |
9250J 12300J . 1060 T§20J T900J I2508J
". I 6.38 ' - ' I
31.9 99.1 3.88 100 39.0 98.9J 29. M
•OTEt
J .
•-!;
n{;
"I:
full Target
Llet »etal» are Hated In thla table.
Analvte present, Reported value mmw not be aoourete or preolee.
Unreliable Ree«lt ObUloed. DeU releoted by validator and la not MM»!«.
Intfloatea qoayound MM wMlwted for out Not deteoted.
She I lav Hell
Shellm
InterMdlate Itoll
Deep Hell
EqitlpMnt Blaa*
Ouplloete
Tr»o« l«v«l« U«M UNW «Mtr*ot.r*qMlr«di
o* Itelti
-------
PMa 3
TIBLR 1
M3LCT SOLtENTS IHO CHKNIC«.S
riR3T MOUND OROUHMMTEK SAMPLE RESULTS - MONITORINO HELL (Contlnuad)
Juna !•, 1991
Final HI ••port
SAMPLE NUMBERS
UNITS
MTU 11
SIMPLE D*Tf f19901
SAMTLR LOCATION
«3 »l *D 53 . 51 • 5D
UK/I UK/I UK/I UK/I UK/I UR/I
Vatar Vatar Vatar Vatar Vatar Vatar
2-26 2-76 2-26 3-2 3-1 2-28
—...OREEMVAT BROOK
63 61 60
UK/I UK/1 UK/1
Vatar Vatar Vatar
2-27 2-27 2-2f
. <»rewAT
NKTAJ.S
AltMlnaa,
Antlanny
Araanlo
Barluai
Baryllua
Carfaluai
Calolua)
OiraailHi
Coppar
Cobalt
Cyanide
Iron
Laad
MagnaaluJI
Manajanaaa
Naroury
•Ichal
VSotasala*)
Salanlia*
97 »00
39.930
-
372
6.6
-
22JOO
63.6J
19*
•5.IA
to
I52000J
J4.6
7130
•220
_
100
t0200
_
861
.
-
38.60
.
.
19500
.
•0.8
.
.
3»WJ
9.5
31608
5630
.
207
26200
-
216
-
.
2«.OV
_
.
10700
_
•1.5
.
10
90 JJ
8.2
27TO
1*9
.
32.IJB
22008
.
26«OOJ
.
_
9».3J
1.6J
.
16600J
32.0J
76.6J
13. W
_
28300J
N
• 1«OJ
659J
_
32. TJ
5160J
n
2390J
.
«
71. OJ
_
-
2V900J
255J
252J
19. BJ
- .
5050J
N
•250J
33BOJ
_
310J
6900J
N
•33
.
.
30. »
_
_
13300
_
85.2
.
-
J180J
5.8
31200
236
_
_
-
_
2*000
.
.
1190
Z.1JB
_
2*900
25.8J
T1.2
.
_
27600J
17.8
•0808
103
0.3
3I.VJO
25001
.
7)1
.
.
70.60
_
•.5JB
27900
22.0J
30.2
_
10
3I00J
11.8
S050
6610
.
33.SJB
9550
.
7«T
.
_
66.50
IJB
.
1TIOO
I6.5J
6*.1
.
•
•800.1
II. 1
3160V
1630
.
J3.5JO
30200
.
Sodlua
ThallluJI
WanadlNM
Slno
1070
Z8700J 30*OOJ 6060J
5.7J
•0.9J
192 607 I59J
37000J 25200J 13500J 30600J 33TOOJ
- - 39.21 - -
29*0 193 3*1 »• «59
•OTei
J
rail Targat Cnajpound Llat awiala ar» IUt*4 In thU Ubl*.
•nalyta praaant. NapeKad aalua a»y not ka aoa«rata or praolaa.
ttarallabla Paaiilt ObUlMd. Data rajaotad by validator and la not vaabla.
Indleataa OIMBOIMNI «taa analyMd f«r but not dataotad at a laval algnirioantly «bo»a tha la»al raportad IH flald and trip a I ink*.
Shallow Hall
IiitanMdlaU Nail
Paap Vail
fraea latal* (la*a UMM oontrMt raqalrad dataatlon llajltt Saa Ipeandli Pf
-------
anLtmra AND ciiEMicii.a am Am* H. 1991
T«m.e 2 .IECOND HOUND onouNOMATEfi a«miB RESULTS rimi Bl
autCLG NUMBERS
UNIT3
N4TMII
atMPLC OITK (1990)
LOCATION
2S"
UN/I
Hater
4-19
ON-3ITB
?t
UK/1
Hater
4-IB
ON.3ITB
21-DUP
UN/1
Hater
•-IB
ON-3ITF.
?D
UK/I
Hater
•-IB
ON-3ITK
13 II
UN/1 ««/l
Hater H«t«r
4-19 4-19
LILCO LILCO
ID
u«/i
Water
1-18
LILCO
*>S"
UN/I
Hater
4-18
ORKtmUT
• 1
UN/1
Hater
•-IS
ORCOIHAT
•0 EB-I
UN/I ufl/i
Hater Hater
•_I8 a-ifl
OREOMIT
EB-2
"B/»
Hater
4-19
TB-I TB-2
UK/1 ttd/1
Hater Hater
a- (8 «-n
ffOLATTUI OMHIC3
Chloro«th«n« - - - - . . - . . . 7T -
H»thrUn* Chloride UJ - - .... . .' ...
fcraton* - - - - 200J KJ *00»J . . J| J
«? . ..... . . JJ . .
JOO . - - . . . jo . ...
J700O" JJ U . 3J 6$ .
Chlorofora 33 - - - - - - 25 - . . .
2 ButMOM H • • H H • R M • •••
M.I-TrlAMOKMUMNM 2SOO«> - . 15 IBOJi . ...
THehlONMtlMMM 320 - - II I* - 12 150 - If .
Benseiw 20J IJ » «J 3J 3§ « - I] • ...
TetrMhlorMtlMM 91 - - 52*-B29 *J T - -
Toltt«n». '790 . *J - «J - -
3*0 - - - ... IB - . ..
(Total) 2IOO" 11 12 - .... 2« - . .
•OTCl Onljr thoee oonpoynda that are detected either •• aitleeted. rejeoted or positive value In one or nore eeaplo are Hated In thle table.
J
TB
Reported valve nay not bo ooourate or preolae.
unreliable Keaitlt Obtained. Data rejeoted by validator* and la Not usable.
rive fold diluted •anple. Sao tppendli B for nlnlnuai detention Itelt etUlned.
750 fold dilation. See leeeadU B for ntalntai detention Unit attained.
Indleatee mienuand MM anelyied for but not detected at • level •Ifnirtoajitle a»o*a Ik* lotel raa«rt tm laboratory and field
Shallow Hell
Intermediate Veil
Doe* Hell
CeMlpawnt Bla«k
Trie Blank
-------
r«a.er .mvmn im CHEMICALS sire
SECOND ROUND OROUHDWmH SIMPLE RESULTS (Continual)
June 1«, 1971
final Ml
SAMPLE NUHBEIIS
UNITS
MATHII
SAMPLE DAT! (1*90)
LOCATION
UK/!
Hater
Water Watar
ON-atTK
13 II ID W
"•/' UK/I ua/i ug/i
Water Water Water Water Water
•-18 4-19 4-19 4-19 •.. |8
LILCO -.-_
m
Ufl/l
"-18
ID KB-I
Uft/1 ug/l
Hater Hater
Vale*
t-rajinu
K9
•oenaphthjrlena
•oenephtheiM
fleorene
•henanth
Intb
180
ft
.
U
-
JJ
Jl
?J
?J
tj
JJ
I6J
6J
•
JJ
ZJ
*3
fJ
hrrene
Uit* t*tle7
NOTEi
J
i
f-)
8
I
' 0
tKoee «o*pmm4* IKal are 4eteole4 either •» •stlaated, rejected or povltlfe ?•!«• Ill OIW OF
preaent. Reported value aajr not be eoeurete or preolee.
Unreliable keault ObtalNe*. AaU rajeake4 by validator end le not wabl*.
pvpowwJ «Ma MialycH for bet not 4«teot«4 et a level elgnirtoantly abovf UM lcv«l raport«4 !• ttkontoiy
Hall
InUnMdtata
DM* Hell
P«>ll«ete
-------
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS SITE
TABLE 3 MAY 1991 GROUNOWATER SAMPLE RESULTS - DEEP MONITORING WELL
OCTOBER 1991
FINAL Rl REPORT
SAMPLE NUMBERS
UNITS
MATRIX
SAMPLE DATE
SAMPLE LOCATION
MW-1D
uo>l
Water
5/8/91
LILCO
MW-2O
uo/l
Water
5/9/91
On-Site
MW-3D
Ufl/l
Water
5/8/91
LIRR
MW-4D
ug/1
Water
5/8/91
Greenway
MW-5D
ug/l
Water
5/9/91
Brook SI.
MW-60
UO/I
Water
5/8/91
Greenway
TB-t
ug/l
Water
5/8/91
___ -
TB-2
UO/I
Water
5/9/91
-— —
EB-1
uo/l
Water
5/8/91
...
EB-2
uo/l
Water
5/9/91
...
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Benzene - • - - - • i- . • .
Bromochloromethane
Bromoform
Chloromethane
1 ,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
Dtehlorodifluoromelhane
l.i-Dichloroethartt
1,1-Dlchloroelhene
Transacts 1.2-DteMoroelhone
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
1.1.1-Trlchloroethane
Trichloroelhene
trans-1.3 OfchtoropropyfeM
Carbon Dteulflde .
R
R
-
R
-
1.2J
1.8
2.2
-
7.2
2.0
10.6
R
*
-
R
-
R
-
5.1UJ
6.6UJ
87.8UJ
-
7.6UJ
7.2UJ
15UJ
R
—
-
R
-
R
-
1.0UJ
-
44.0
-
2.0
-
99
R
••
R
R
-
R
-
1.9J
2.9
3.4
-
8.5
2.9
16.3
R
•
-
R
-
R
-
-
-
40.9
-
2.1
-
91.0
R
•
-
R
.
R
7.6
1.0UJ
-
1.1
-
3.6
5.4
9.1
R
*
R
R
0.1
R
-
-
-
-
1.4J
-
V
.
R
9.1J
R
R
0.2
R
-
1.0UJ
-
-
2.SJ
-•
-
-
R
•
R
R
0.2
R
•
1.0UJ
-
-
2GJ
-
•
-
R
~
R
R
-
R
•
1.0UJ
-
-
2.2J
-
-
.
R
•
MW-7O*
UO/I
Water
5/9/91
DUf»
0.9J
.
.
*•
R
-
4.9
4.3
76.4J
.
ee
6.7J
14.S
R
•
Note: Only those compounds lhal are detected either as estimated, rejected, or positive values In one or more samples are listed In this table.
UJ - Oualiiied Estimate
J - Anatyte present. Reported value may not be accurate or precise.
R - Unreliable Result Obtained. Data refected by validator and Is not usable.
(.) . Indicates compounds was analyzed lor but not delected at a level significantly above the level reported In laboratory and field blanks.
TB • Trip Blanks analyzed for volatile organlcs only
EB » Equipment Blanks (Field Blanks)
• - Sample MW-7D Is • duplicate sample (ram well MW-2O
-------
raster .lOLtmTs MR CHEMICALS sin
TABLE 4 . CM-SITE SUMMCE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
Jnna II, 1991
final HI Hapori
PM*
SAMPLE NMBEIIS(CaMpoattaa) 1-5 1-SWIP
UNITS
HtTHII
SAMPLE DATE (19*9)
SAMPLE DEPTH (In.)
US/kg
Soil
9-1]
6-12
ug'M
Soil
9-13
6-12
6-to
ug/kg
Soll
9-13
6-12
1»-I5
Ug'k«
Soil
9-13
6-12
I6-?O
ug/kg
Soil
9-13
6-12
' 2l-?5
Ug/kg
Soil
9-13
6-12
J6-JO
"g'kg
Soil
9-11
6.12
31-35
ug/kg
Soil
9-l«
6-12
36-»0
ug/kg
Soil
9-14
6-12
• 1-45
•«/••«
Soil
9-1%
6-12
48-50
ufl/kg
Soil
9-1%
6-12
SDfl-VOUTIU OHUIC3
1 ,2-Dlohlon>b«nt«iM
2-N*thyl«rapllUMl«W
41-n-ltatyl
610J
ItOOJ
«70J
5TOOJ
2600J
2500J
1 1000
•«n«o(a)
bl9<2-ethyllwiyl)
Chrraen*
fento(b) riuonintlMNW
••hie(k) riuo
0MIIOU)
Ind*no 4)
Olbant
»M»O (g.h.l)
5OOO
6000J
«»OOJ
I800J
J300J
1600J
-
1500J
3%ooJ
tpooo
500J 1600J
2000J
TOOJ 360J
T60J 680J
T90J
T30J
3TOJ
fOOOJ
IIOOJ
t%OOJ
JTOJ
5TOJ
280J
2JOOJ
68000
IIOOJ
29MJ
IIOOJ
KOOJ
530J
ITOOJ
I900J
I600J
M
IIOOJ
990J
«50J
' T5W
2800J
1300J
»OOOJ
900J
3TOJ
620J
II
3WJ
330J
IOOOJ
380J «JOOO
9800J
- 6»J
%30J 190000
6TOJ
•
890J
%60J
3TOJ
•800J
2000J
6ooJ
N
BOTEi
J
Onljr thoca ooapoumto Uiat «ra dataotad «a althar astlBatad, rajaotad or poaltlv* In on* or «ora •••pla* ara II*tad In Uils Mbl«.
•nalyta praaant. Raporta4 valua aajr not ba aoourata or praolaa.
Vnrallabla KaaHli UbUlnad. Data rajaotad by validator, and la Mot wablo.
Nadlwa la«al analjrala «IUi 20 fold dilution. Saa Appandli I for •Inlaui datootlon ll*lta attalnad.
Nadluai la*al a«Mlrala «IUi 19 fold dilation. Saa (ppandli K for Blnlaua dataotlon llalta attalnad.
Hadlva la«al analyala Mltk 30 told dilation. Saa tppandli R for Blnlaua dataotlon 1UIU attalnad.
Indloataa •oamiuairt «•• ojnilytod for b«t aot dataotad at • lotol •Ignirtoantly abo»« tbo lovol raportod !• laboratory or flaW alank*.
D^lloata
Ooayoalta of aa^laa 1-5
-------
MSLCT SOLVENT* AND CHEMICALS
TABLE "A':
SIHPI.E NUMIEM
(CoofKMltea)
UNITS
WTR1I
SAMPLE DlTt (1989)
SAMPLE DEPTH (In.)
MTAI.3
aluMlnui
Ant leonv
Areenlo
Barlue
BervIlM
Celolue
ChroBilua
Cobelt
Copper
Cyanld*
Iron
lead
rfcflnesltai
rtanftanese
Nsroiiry
Nlobel
PotaaslM
SslentMD
Silver
Sodlus
TnallUM
•anadluB
flno
»-5
•*'••«
Soil
9-1 J
6-12
6330
-
II.5J
9* .6
-
44200J
50.0
4.50
51. 2J
_
23200
335J
22800
145
O.IW
16.3
7 120
.
«
l«60
I.9J
27.0
2IJ
•«'••«
Soil
9-1)
6-12
5930
.
9.9J
86.7
"
33300J
42.0
4.30
40.44
_
228OO
340J
16400
126
O.I9J
•2.9
4120
_
, m
I54B
2.5J
26.9
202
r «-io
•n'^o
Soil
9-1]
6-12
5030
.
16. 7 J
79.2
• -
10000J
20.7
4.90
40J
_
17600
194J
0700
77
- •
15.T
5IIB
-
•
1390
3.1
24.6
131
11-15
Soil
9-IJ
6-12
3920
*8J
I4.2J
49.50
-
19000J
10.1
2.90
46. IJ
.
20700
577J
94 JO
110
O.I4J
_
6040
a
•
06.00
R
17.1
179
OITt
SURFICE SOIL SAMPLE HCSULTS (Continued)
16-70
•«'««•
Soil
9-13
6-12
96)0
16. 7J
4.JJ
425
-
44300J
47.7
6.50
77. JJ
0.7.0J
41800
I730J
22100
212
.
14.2
5090
-
_
1290
3.3
32. J
455
J Analvte present. Reported value nay not be aoourate or
0 Unreliable Result Obtained.
(-) Indicates
WP Duplloate
C0 Ceulpeent
Data rejected by validator
ooeyound waa enalyted for bat
Blank| TB . Trie
Blank
not detected at
•*"•«
Soil
9-13
6-12
7450
•
R
144
-
39800J
52.8
7.60
59. 5J
0.45J
30700
758J
19100
177
-
17.0
70 IB
.
_
95.00
2.50
20.7
300
preolee.
and la not
26-30
•*>»•«
Soil
9-14
6-12
7650
-
9.2J
116
-
3o8ooj
58.1
5.5B
53.5J
_
23500
4I6J
15000
123
.
15.6
5740
«
_
1650
2.00
25.0
242
usable.
3I-J5
Soil
9-14
6-12
7970
.
17. U
06.9
-
22700
42.9
6.90
44. tJ
_
23100
228J
10900
107
.
25.1
9750
.
.
2100
_
3T.T
133
• level atgniriaantl* above
16-10
Soil
9-14
6-12
4260
.
0
113
-
5530J
3*.1
3.80
74. 0J
4.4J
20300
457J
2020
99.2
.
10.00
3600
-
„
1001
_
24.6
555
the level
•w/fc*
Soil
9-14
6-12
7620
_
7.4J
159
-
18900J
45.6
6.90
67.5J
0.34J
39900
T09J
7460
265
-
17
5600
_
.
1170
.
28.6
650
reported
June 14. 1991
Final 01 0«port
•6-50 rn-oi
•0'M "H/*
Soil Muter
9-14 7-13
6-12
2670
M M
2.00
29.50
•
I4600J 2171
9.9
•
I5.9J
0.39J
11 100 143
IJ4J
7690
73.6
-
t.70
3520
_ .
"" _ .
M.3B 1060
» .
10.10
712 20.3
In laboratory or field blanks.
B Treoe level (lose than oontraot required detection Haiti Seo Ippandli P)
DM Estimated
1-5 CtwpoelU
deteotloej
or aeeelea
Itolt
1-5.
-------
PASLrr SOLtTMTS MD CHEMICAI.S SITE JUIM »». 1991
TABLE 4 CM-SITE SURFACE SOIL SIMPLE RESULTS (Contlnuad) final Bl Report
SAHPLE~NUHBERS IAB MR-OOP2AB JAB MB 5AB ("IB?IB BIB 9*n toAB IIIB
UNITS Mg'kg UM/kg ug'kg UK/kg tig/kg Ug'kg ug'hg ug/kg ug/kg og'kg ug/kg ug/kg
HAT*II Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil -Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil
SAMPLE DAT* (19*9) 9-IS 9-13 9-13 9-13 9-13 9-13 9-13 9-13 9-U 9-13 9-13 9-13
SAMPLE KrTM (In.) 4-12 (.12 (-12 (-12 (-12 (-12 6-12 (-12 (-12 (-12 (-12 (-12
tfoLtrttjf OMAJIIC9
•Inyl Chlorlda • 1]OJ B9J TT 25O (8 - • . 210J
lana Cklortda 100J IIOJ J2J 12J 13J - - ' • t'OJ
toatona WJ ... ISO - . MJ ...
1.1.DlohlorMUMM 99J 200 J S2J 19 J SO M 2i • 1(0 J JO KJ
Trans-l,2-Dtahloroatliana (OOJ 93OJ f«OO*J 950 2«0 230 1(0 530J 2%OJ 2)0 *»00«
Oilorofoni - IOJ ... . . . .
2-thitanona 82JR - • - .. • I . . I
1,1,1-frlohloroathMia 1TJ -_.... 1U . . _
Trlohloroathana 52J 9TJ ?»OJ 57 19 12J 31 2*>J 32J 22J 230J
TatraohloroaUwna 2TJ IIOJ ItOJ 1)0 81 •! - 220J 5»J Tt 1OOJ 32
toloana . - - 1«J . 48 12J - IOJ 3«J
Oilorobaniana ... . . . . |1J . . .
•tkylbancana - - ..........
lylana - - (M - . - - 19J M UJ 1(J
lOTCT Only tboaa otrnfounOt that ara dataotad althcr a* astlmtad, rajaotad or poaltlva «al«a in ona or oora aaapla ara 1 la tad In this tabla.
J Inalyta praaant. taportad valwa *ay not ba awntrata or praolaa.
• Unrallabla Baaalt Obtalnad. Data rajaotad by validator and la not mabla.
PkMll«M laval analyaU «ltk tan fold dilution. Saa tppandli I for •tnlnua dataetlo* IMIt* •tUinad.
Indlaataa ooa^D»n« «M analyiad for but not dataotad at n laval algnirtoantly abova tha la«al raportad In laboratory «r fiald blank*.
Paalleata
-------
P...D
SAMPLE NUMBERS
UNITS
MATHII
SIMPLE DITC <1«89)
SAMPLE DEfTN (In.)
VbLaTILI 6MMIC9
flnyl Chiortda
Chloroethane
Methylene ChloHdo
•oetone
Itl-Dlohloroathona
1, l-Dlohloroethene
I?AB
Soil
9-ij
6-12
6TOJ
-
I90J
T20J
.
580J.
TABLE -
•1ST,
Soil
«-U
6-12
m
.
15J
_
.
9J
rA.-a.rt .ini.vrHTs AMD ciinucAt..t sire
4 ON-SITE SURFACE SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS
1»*B
ufl'h*
Soil
9-IJ
6.12
—
-
•
«5J
• -
.
I5AB
UH^kfl
Soil
9-IJ
6-12
—
.
*
52
.
.
Tranarl.2-OlokloroaUMM 2*OOOJ •»
CMorofora)
2-Butenoao
t.t.l-TriehloraeUi
Trans- l,J-DloMoro
Trlohloroethene
Rentene
Tetraohlorvethoaji
Toluene
Ethylben*e»e
lylena (Total}
faTEi Only those
J analyte pn
• Unreliable
*
„
ana 8TW
lFOfMlls9 •»
1500*
.
JTOJ
5*OJ
JW
17000*
.
•
-
.
.
_
_
-
.
•
_
.
-
•
IJJ
.
2IJ
-
.
-
noapounds that ara detected either
sent. Reported value
•ay not
.
II
-
•»
28
.
.
84
_
-
I6AB ITAB 1HAB
uo/hg UM/hH UA/hg
Soil Soil
9-IJ 9-U
6-12 6-12
•604
794 .
• II
Hooo* .
. _
2TOJ 69
TOOJ 2fl
. -
MOJ N
- 6900
• ;«>
1904 150
. .
«9J •
t2000>J
J5J
260J
aa evtiaated. rejeeted
Soli
9-IJ
6-12
—
.
•
500
.
2JJ
160
.
5»
•
I2J
.
I9J
5*000*
T2
290
or positive
(Continued)
I9«B
ft/kg
Soil
9-IJ
6-12
—
.
•
81
.
If
•
»
a*
e>
at
2TJ
.
it
759
.
•
«ei«M
20AB
Soil
9-U
6-12
—
.
504
9504
.
t20J
•
_
.
MOJ
a*
2*000*
•
7600*
780J
25J
»W
In one
i/*g
Soil
9-IJ
6-12
—
.
59J
2904
.
2T04
250004
_
.
*T04
e.
19000*
64
•*000*
2104
IJJ
«5J
or aora I
•S/S
Soil
9-IJ
6.12
—
*
e»
384
»
e»
•
.
.
.
•
1700*
.
87000*
9IOJ
3BOJ
•
June l«, 1991
rinnl HI Report
UR/kg
Soil
9-IJ
6-12
^
.
•
.
*.6J
7JJ
•
_
.
•
e.
•
»
90000*
•
I20J
2*04
laeyie are Hated In Ihla table.
be aoonrete or preolae.
Reeult Obtained. Data rajaotad by
• Median level analyale with tea fold dilution.
(.) Indicates •
ineynand «aa enelyied
for but
validator and la not Maable.
Sea Ippendli 1 for •Inteua dalMttoa lleili attalaed.
•at dateoted
at • level •Ignirtoantly above t*
10 level
reported
ia laboratory or Meld blanka.
M QnMtltatloa Italt la eatls*t«d.
-------
PM* E
SAMPLE NUMBERS
UNIT.1
MAT* II
SAMPLE 0»TE (19891
SAMPLE DEPTH (In. I
ioLAm.^ 6ao4iic3
flnyl Clilorld*
Chloroetnane
Mvthplene Chloride
•eetone
1,1-OlohloroethMi*
Trans- 1, 2>DI«MoraeUiana
Chlorafora
2-Butanone
1 . 1, l-Trlofclotoethena
Trans- 1, J-Dlohtoraproprnw
TrtaMoroetnena
••men*
TetreohloroetheM
ToliMM
Chlorobemena
tthylbanteiM
Ijrleae (Total)
2VAB
"•"•«
Soil
9-'l
6-12
—
•
»24
•
19J
H
_
H
1*04
..
5900"
_
13000
2W
•
.
•
TABLE
?S H*port«4 ••!•• mmr not •• Mtaurat* or prvcla*.
• • UnralUlil* •*•«!* ObUlnwI. taU ra>ot*4 ky »«ll • IiMll««U* IOM°""« MM MHlyvM for k«t Ml tf«Uat«4 «t • !•••! •Ignlfloantly ••«*• tfc* I*v«l r*poii«4 1* laboratory or fl«l« Blank*.
-------
ri.-a.rT sm.vniTa IHD CIIEMICM..I site jmw n, 1991
T*HLC 4 OH-3ITE StlRFkCE SOIL SIMPLE RESULTS (Continued) Finn I HI Deport
peg* »'
SIMPLE NUHBEMJSMB 5r«S 3fl*nj9»n *O*B(US*?*B Ijtn1MB
MAT*II Soil Soil Soil Soli Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Soil Solf Soil"
3IMPLK DtTK (1989) 9-1* 9-»« 9-i« 9-i« 9-i« 9-K 9-11 9-l« 9-l« 9-H 9-t« 9-l«
SAMPLE DEPTH (in.) 6.12 6-12 6-12 6-12 6-12 6-12 0-12 6-12 6.12 6-12 6.12 6.12
fount*1 om4aic4
Vinyl Chloride * ... . . . ..
Chloride 55J 1|J - . »5J IIOJ • - JJWJ MoJ
•o«ton> JTJ - - - - 30J - *90J
t.l-DlohloraeUiene «OJ «J - - . 7?J - *OJ 2N
Trwu.l, 2-Otohloroetaene «W 2«OJ > I5J - - ttOJ I2000»J - - *6OJ IOOJ
Oilorofora I2J - 2W 58 J 60 J 690J - - «10J tTOOO* §J
2-«utenone 51 • 59IW - • • fl«J SU * • «60J 57J
1,1.1-TriohIoroethene I*OJ 3«OJ - HJ WJ • )OOJ - ItJ
Tram-1. l-OloMoroethen* - - - - - - ..'.
5TOJ 2600* WOJ 99J «70J 9104 120000* T2 «J>2§OMJ 67 J
T«tr«ehlarMUMlw l«000« 5SOOO* * 640J 2TOOOO* 2JOOOO* TOOOO* 92 10 650J 2SJ
TaliMiw MOO* • - - }«J • 6700* 2W 9TJ
JOOO* 2TOO" - - - - ' 629 - - -
•jrl«M (Total) 1100* 39000* - - -in 20000* - 10J
MOTCi Only thoee ooapounda that are deteeted either ee eatteeted, rejeoted or positive vetue In one or aoro eeaplo ere Hated In Ihle table.
Analyte preeent. Reported valae aay not be aoaurat* or preolae.
Unreliable Itoeult Obtained. Data rejeoted by vellditor and le not eaable.
H»dl«n level analyele with ten fold dilution. See Ippendt* B for nlnlma deteotlon. Itelt attained.
fndloatee enapoeni «aa aaalyied for bat not detected at • level •Ignlfloantly above the level reported In laboratory or field blank*.
VJ OjMMtltatlo* Italt le eattaated.
-------
rtst.n sn.inna MO CHENIMI.S SITE jurm in. 1991
ON-9ITC SURFACC SOIL SAMPLE RESULTS (Continued) Find HI Report
s*riri.e NweEM WM *9*fl o TB- WJt-l
WITS Hg/kg Ug/kg Ug/kg Ug/1 Ug/1
MTHlt
3»MPte om (19»9> l-H 9-M 9-l» 9-11 9-l«
SAMTLB oerra
-------
PASLET SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS SITE
TABLE 5 . ON-SITE SOIL BORING SAMPLE RESULTS
PM« H
'SAMPLE NUMBERS
UNITS
MATRII
SAMPLE DATE ( 1989}
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.)
8011-tOLBTttl OMMIC9
Naphthalene
2-MethylnaphthaleiM
Aoanephthene
Dlbenxofuran
fluoreae
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
41-n-Butyl Phthalate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene '
bI»(2-Ethylhe«yl> PhUialate
Cnrysene
dl-n-Ootyl Phthalate
BH-(»
u«'kg
Soil
9-19
12-14
43J
aaj
_ •
_
_
_
_
JIOJ
-
IOOJ
•
-
87J
BH-IB
US/kg
Soil
9-19
24-26
450
2500
-
-
_
340J
.
2TOJ
33J
8TJ
N
.
.I70J
BH-2A
"«/kg
Soil
9-20
12-14
SSOO
5500
-
-
200J
390J
_
390J
IOOJ
I90J
II
I60J
~
BH-2B
ug/kg
Soil
9-20
24-26
2900
3000
-
-
160J
220J
.
490
59J
IOOJ
«J900
55J
•3J
BH-3A
u«/k«
Soil
9-22
12- in
I200J
13000
760J
-
_
2500
_
I50J
200J
2«OJ
-
_
•
BK-3B
UB/k«
Soil
9-22
21-26
290J
2400
-
. 220J
310J
880
86J
I30J
32J
«2J
.
-
™
JA-DUP
"«/kg
Soil
9-22
12- K
1700
15000
-
IIOOJ
IDOOJ
2300
2HOJ
I20J
230J
280J
-
'•.-
—
3B-DOP
ug/k«
Soil
9-21
2H-26
^
-
-
-
.
-
«
77J
-
-
• •
-
*
BH-*A
ug'kg
Soil
9-20
12-14
—
-
-
-
_
.
-
680
-
-
N
-
-
BH-ka
*••'«•«
Soli
9-21
.24-26
—
_.
-
-
_
69J
_
I20J
-
_
II
-
—
BH-5A
"g"<«
Soil
9-21
12-14
^
_
-
-
_
•
_
I20J
-
.
II
_
*
BH-5B
ug/kg
Soil
9-21
22-24
.
_
-
.
_
.
_
76J
-
.
II
.
—
BH-6A
«8/k«
Soil
9-25
12-14
.
790
.
.
190J
260J
_
I40J
.
2IJ
_
_
•
June 14, 1991
final MI Deport
BII-6B
UR^kg
Soil
9-25
22-24
.
•
.
_
_
_
_
I20J
.
_
-
• -
-
HOTEi Onlj thoa* ooapoundi that «n«
-------
TABLE 5
PASLCV SOLVENTS AMD CHEMICALS SITE
SOIL DOMINO SAMPLE RESULTS (Continued)
June t«, I99«
Flntl HI Report
page t
diMPLe"
UNITS
HATH I I
SIMPLE
SAMPLE
fiiMBbi - '
DATS (1989)
DEPTH (Ft.)
Brt-TA
tig/kg
Soil
9-25
12- 1«
BH-7B
ug/kg
Soil
9-25
22-2«
BH-flA
ug/kg
Soil
10-23
12- 1<
BH-flB
ug/kg
Soil
10-23
22-2«
BH-EB-I
ug/1
Soil
9-19
BH-EB-2
ug/1
Hater
9-20
BH-EB-J
ug/1
Hater
9-21
BH-EB-*
ug/1
Hater
9-22
BH-EB-5
ug/1
Hater
9-25
BH-EB-6
ug/1
Hater
10-23
Sna-TOLirat OMUIIC9
Naphthalene 650 880J - 3600
2-HethylnaphUwlena 2600 9100 7500 WOO
Aoenaphthane -
Dlbensofuran 280J 550J «80J
Dlethyl Phthalate ....
riuorena «20 820J ...
Phenanthrene 910 IOOOJ 560J «90
Anthracene 1TOJ ...
Dt-n-Butyl Phthalate 1JOJ 210J I20J «2J HO
Fluoranthene TU - 4?J *2J
Pyrena 2TOJ 150J 59J 39J
ble (2-Ethylh*xyl) Phthalate - - 410J 1000
Chryaene 120J 19J
dl-
M
EB
Only those compounds that are detected either as eatlMted, rejeoted or positive velue in one or ex>re aaaple are listed in this table.
Analjrte praiant. Deported value m»j not be aoourate or preolae.
Unreliable Result Obtained. Date, rejected by validator and la not u«able.
Indloatea coapound waa enalyied for but not detected at • level elgnirioantly above the level reported In laboratory or field blanks.
Borehole
Equipment Blank
Traoe level (leae then oontraot required deteotton llailtt See Appendli F)
-------
•>•*•• 1
SAMPLE NUMBER BH-1A
UNITS ug/kg
HATH IS Soil
SIMPLE DATE (1989) 9-19
SIMPLE DEPTH {Ft.) 12-1*
lOUTtLR OMAHIC4
HethyleiM Chloride
Acetone I30J
1.1-DIohloroethane 12J
Trans- 1, 2-Dlohloroethene 99
Chloroforej 9J
2-Butanone • R
1.1,1-Trtohloroethane
Trlohloroethene IOOJ
4 Hethyl - 2-pantanona
Tetraohloroethene 21J
Toluene -
Ethylbeniene
Total Ivlene
1,1,2-Trtohloroe thane
TABLE 5
BH-18 BH-ZA BH-2B
"•'"•B "B^S «»B'fc8
Soil Soil Soil
9-19 9-20 9-CT
24-26 12- Ik 21-26
I200J 790J
IIOJ
.
...
...
II • R
. .
_ _ .
...
- 12000
200 1200
500J
390 looo
...
NOTEi Only those ooapounds that are detected either
FASLET SOLfENTS AND CHEMICALS SITE
ON-3ITE SOIL BOMINO SAMPLE RESULTS
BH-JA
UB/KB
Soil
9-22
12.IK
7IOJ
.
-
-
-
R
-
.
.
«OJ
MOOJ
I600J
6000J
•
BH-3B i»-DUP
UB/h8 UB/liB
Soil Soil
9-22 9-22
21-26 12-11
•• ••
IIJ
.
-
-
• R
- .
160J
.
55J 680J
160J 6900J
510J 2200J
• 0300J
-
3B-WJP BH-1A
«8'kB Ug/kg
Soil Soil
9-21 9-OT
21-26 12-11
— *
3W I9J
-
-
-
R R
. -
_
.
21J
TJ
.
-
.- •
as astlMted, rajaotad or poaltlva
J Analyte present. Reported value a*y not be accurate
• Unreliable Reault ObtaltMd. OaU r*J«ot«d by
or praclsa.
validator and la not
I-) Indicates eoapound MU analy*«d for but not dat«ot«4
BH Borahola
DUP DuplloaU
uaabla.
(Contlnuvd)
BH-18
ug/kg
Soil
9-21
21-26
—
.
-
-
-
R
-
_
-
.
_
.
12J
-
BH-5A
u«/k«
Soil
9-21
12-11
—
_
-
-
-
R
-
.
.
_
_
-
-
•altM In OIM
at a taval algnlfloantly abora tha
level
BH-5B
ug/kg
Soil
9-21
22-21
—
21J
.
-
-
N
_
_
-
,
_
.
.
-
or «ora
BH-6A
"g/kg
Soil
9-25
12-11
17J
18J
-
-
-
R
-
_
_
.
.
-
.
-
•upla
BH-6B
un/kg
Soil
9-25
22-21
.
.
.
-
-
M
.
-
3600
9700
230J
510J
2000
— .
June «1, 1991
Final HI Report
BH-7A
ug/kg
Soil
9-25
12-11
.
.
.
.
-
R
-
_
-
BH-7B
ug/kg
Soil
9-25
22-21
360J
.
_
_ •
'
R
320J
2800
-
520 21000
2U
2}J
71
-
ire Haled In
reported In laboratory
590J
330J
750
-
this table.
or field blanks.
-------
TABLE 5
SOLVENTS IND CHEHICIL9 SITE
ON-StTK SOIL BOHINO SAMPLE RESULTS (Continued)
June ID, 1991
Final RI Report
SIMPLE NUMBERS
UNITS
HATRII
SIMPLE OITR (1989)
SAMPLE DEPTH <«.)
BH-8A
««-'*•
Soil
10-2}
1Z-K
BH-BB
Hi/kg
Soil
10-2J
22-2»
BH-EBI
us/l
(later
9-19
BH-EB2
"tl/1
lleter
9-20
BH-EB3
wg/1
Meter
9-Z»
BH-EBV
ug/1
Niter
9-ZZ
BH-EBS
ug/1
Mater
9-25
BH-EB6
ug/1
Heter
10-21
BH-TBI
UR/1
Hater
9-19
BH-TBZ
ug/1
Malar
9-20
BH-TBJ
ug/1
Malar
9-21
onuia
Chlortd*
loetone
2-Butenone
1,«, l-Trtahloro«Uwiw
Trtohloroethene
t Methyl . 2-pentan
-------
PASLET SOLIENTS AND CHEMICALS SITE
TABLE 5 ON-3ITE SOIL BORINd SIMPLE RESULTS (Continued)
page L
SAMPLE NUMBER
UNITS
MATRIX
SAMPLE DATE ( 1909)
SAMPLE DEPTH (ft.)
MCTaLS
AliMlnua
Ant loony
Areenlo
Barluai
Baryllue)
Cadaluai
Cobalt
CaloluM
ChlXMllUB
Capper
Cyan Id*
Iron
Lead
Hagnealiai
Hangane'ae
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selantuai '
Silver
Sodlua
ThallluB
fanadluB
lino
NOrei Full Target
Bit-It
•«/h«
Soil
9-19
12-14
13300
. '
-
38.88
-
_
6. IB
14408
•
31.2
-
• R
59J
1800
R
0.19
12. 1J
4MB
_
•
T5.6B
_
24.6
TI.8J
BH-IB
•*/««
Soil
9-19
24-26
BH-2A BH-28
•g/kg ew/bg
Soil Soil
9-20 9-20
12-14 21-26
2010 11600 8130
.
.
-
_
BH-JA BM-3B
mg/ttg mg/kg
Soil Soil
9-22 9-22
12-14 24-26
3150 1130
.
. -
3B-OUP JA-DUP
•a/lcf ag/kg
Soil Soil
9-22 9-22
24-26 12-14
1700 3220
-
.
BH-4A
e«/kg
Soil
9-20
12-14
5820
-
-
BH-4B
•«/k«
Soil
9-21
24-26
1890
.
.
BH-5A
•B/kg
Soil
9-21
12-14
4210
.
.
BH-5B
•€"<«
Soil
9-21
22-24
2640
_
i.aa
BH-6A
•V/kg
Soil
9-25
12-14
4710
_
_
June 14, 1991
Final HI Deport
BH-6B
•fl/kg
Soil
9-25
22-24
1280
_
-
- 29.78 I9.3B ..........
-
_
.
964B
•
16
-
•
.
4188
II
_
.
15JB
.
_
628
-
4.3B
R
-
.
5.28 3.3B
9MB 8370
29.6 *
25.7 13.6
- -
* P.
I2.6J
8
-------
PageM
SAMPLE NUMBER
UNITS
MATftll'
SAMPLE OATK (1989)
SAMPLE DEPTH (Ft.)
WTALS
AlualnuBj
Ant loony
Arsenlo
Berlin
Berylluai
Cedajlua
Cobalt
Calolua)
Chroeiluai
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Hagnesiuai
Hanganeae
Meroury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenlua
Sliver
Sodlua)
Thelllua)
farad luej
ZIno
NOTE, Full Target
BII-7A
a«/k|
Soil
9-25
12-14
13700
-
1.7B
34. 3B
-
-
4.5B
8758
12.8
25.8
.
14000
—
51 IB
46.7
-
_
_
_
_
B
•
18.2
202J
BH-7B
•a/kg
Soil
9-25
22-24
1610
-
-
-
-
-
.
8658
_
14.2
.
2120
H
2648
9.2
0.27
.
-
_
•
R
.
..
-
Compound Hat awtala
J Analyte preaent. Reported value
TABLE 5
BH-8A
•g/kg
Soil
10-23
12-14
10800
-
-
27B
-
-
4.58
1I80B
16. 4 J
29.4
.
II400J
22.2J
•778
37.9
0.43J
_
4I7B
-
_
55.08
-
17.28
43.6J
are Hated
m»f not be
PASt.CT SOLVENTS AND CHEHICAI.3 SITE
ON-SITE SOIL BORING SAMPLING DATA (Continued)
BH-8B
•B/kg
Soil
10-23
22-24
22OOJ
-
-
-
-
-
_
1388
5.U
16.9
.
3470J
.
I92B
32.9
-
_
•500B
-
5.3
34.78
-
5.8J
49.5J
In this
EB-I
ug/1
Hater
9-19
—
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
13.0
-
-
12500
6.2
.
83.7
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
.
-
table
EB-2
ug/1
Hater
9-20
_
-
-
-
-
-
.
10 IB
7.7B
-
10.6
24100
6.4
-
205
-
-
-
-
.
55. 6B
-
.
23.2
EB-3
ug/1
Hater
9-21
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
15IB
-
-
-
62.98
_
-
.
'
,
-
-
-
61.68
-
-
20.1
ED-4
ug/1
Hater
9-22
«
-
-
-
-
-
.
92.48
.
-
-
279
8.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1168
-
-
26.8
EB-5
ug/1
Hater
9-25
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
3128
6.2J
-
-
218
11.8
1388
-
-
-
-
-
-
I86B
-
-
~
June 14, 1991
final HI Report
EB-61
ug/1
Hater
10-23
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.8J
-
-
-
.
52.8B
-
-
-
I230B
-
-
80. IB
-
-
—
aoourate or precise.
B Unreliable Reault Obtained. Data rejected by validator and
(-) Indicates oovpound was
B. Treoe level
BH Borehole
(leas than
analysed
oontreot
Tor but not
la not usable.
detected at a level algnlfloantly
required detection
above the
level reported In laboratory or field blanks.
Haiti Sea Appendli F)
EB Equlpawnt Blank
-------
TABLE 6 ' ON SITE SOIL SAMPLE DATA - TOTAL VOCs GREATER THAN 1 PPM
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS SITE
HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK
SURFACE SOIL
SAMPLE
LOCATION
1
2
3
7
10
12
ie
17
18
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
30
11
34
35
36
37
40
41
45
46
60
TOTALVOC
CONCENTRATION
(P«)
1504
7053
1312
1000
5770
47681
2*153
7147
55100
MO
33*30
129000
92000
904*1
79110
60500
1540
603000
25*000
2300
56500
23700
96000
270000
231221
30000
1MOO
22600
PRIMARY
CONTAMINANTS f)
tr»n»-l .2-dichloro»th«n»
tran»-1.2-4ichloroatr)«na
tnn*-1 .2-4ichloroath«n«
tran»-i .2-dichloroattwrw
trichloro*tti«n«
tatrachloroattww
trant-1 ,2-dichloroath«n«
tran»-1.2-dichloro»than«
xyton*
tolu«n«
acatona
l.l.l-4richloroathana
(oiu«n«
totu«n*
triehtoro«m»n«
•ttiy1b«nr»n»
tttraehlvottttwM
tttrachlorocttwnt
UtraehierMttwiM
(•triehlorMttMn*
tttr*chloro«m*n«
tran»-i .2-dichloro»m«r»«
te(u«n«
trichl«ro*th«nf
t«tr»ehlorot(h«fM
triehloro*th*n*
tMriehloroMhww
ehtorofocm
Mtraehlero«ttMiM
xyf^nc
UtraehlorMttMiM
MracfilarMttMM
xyton*
tttraehlorocttMM
t«traehlorb*lti«n«
trichlorMthww
chlorofonn
Iran 1-1 .2-4 iehlore«th«M
TOTALVOC
BORING DEPTH CONCENTRATION PRIMARY
LOCATION FT (PPB) CONTAMINANTS {'}
3 12 19300 amylb«nnn«jiyi«n*
22 1200 tofu«n*.*thy1b«nz«n«
7 22 26000 t»tr«chloro«tf)tn»
-
-
1 22 1SOO m»thy*»n« ehtohd», xyl«n«
6 22 16000 tttraehlorMth«fM
4-m»tt\y1-2-p«nt«noo»
2 12 15500 t«traeMoro«th«nt
primary contaminant account* tor at laaat 20H of th« total VOC concentration
-------
TABLE 7
SUWURT OF CKCT1CALS Of POTENTIAL CONCEKN FOR THE
PASLET SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS SITE
Chemical
Oromic ChenicaU:
Acenaprthene
Anthricer*
•truer*
Chloroform
Cr,ry»erte
Diber.iofuran
1,1-Diehloroe thane
1,2-DieMoroetfiane C total)
1,1-DieMoro* theme
t rens • 1 , 2 -D i ch I erot theme
Oi-n-eutylpfcthilate
Di-r>-e:tyiphth»iite
Etfty;5e*zerie
bit(2-£thyihexyt)phthatate
Hueranther*
Huiorerte
Netr-.yi trie chloride
2 *Met "ylfiepri thaler*
Phene-.thrtne
Pyreie
Toluene
1,1,1-TricMoroe thane
Trichloroethent
Vinyl chloride
Xylenes (tottl) '
Alkr.irtir.
Ant i many
* " 8" i C
fia*iur
(eryi l)ir<
Chror.iun
CoS» It
Cytnide
lets
Hariginete
Nickel
Silver
Th»l liin
vanaiijr:
Zinc
to Site On Site
Surface Stteurface Upper Claeial
Soil Soil Aquifer
.
•
•
X
•
•
•
•
X
X
•
r • •
'»
X
•
•
.
X
X
X
X
• .
X
.
•
X
X
•
•
•
•
X
X
•
•
X
•
•
•
.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X -
X X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
. . .
X X
• * .
. • •
X
X
XX
X
Upper MBOthy
Aquifer
.
•
•
•
•
•
X
*
X
X
•
•
-
-
-
•
.
•
•
•
-
X
•
•
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
•
X
X
- « net selected •( • eheniest of potential concern.
X • Selectee! as • chemical o1 potential concern.
-------
tAILE 8
SJMUXY OF CNEKICAIS DETECTS II ON-SITE SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
MSLET COLVEHTS AID CHEMICALS (•)
{Concentrations reported fluoranthene
Se-uoCk>fluoranthene
•efUo(s,M)P»rylene
•enzo(t)pyrtne
2-iirtarwne
CMorobenxene
Chloroethene
• Chlorefora
Chryvtne
ei-n-bctylphthalate
1,2-Diehlorotoeniene
1,1-DieMorotthane
• 1,1-Cieh;eroether>e
• t rens -1, 2 -Di Chloroethene
t rans • 1 , 3 -0 i eh 1 oropropene
Ethylbei:ene
• ciiCJ-EthyihexyOphthalate
Flusra^thene
|tw>o(i;2,3-e.d>pyref»e
Methylene Chloride
• 2-*ethylnapMhalene
• k'asr.thalene
Phe.-»nthrene
F-yrene
• Te:ra:hloro«thene
• Toluene
1,1,1-Triehloroethane
• Trichloroethene
• Vinyl Chloride
• Xyltnei
Inorganic Chemicals:
AlLTiixr.
• AnTincny
. ? Arsenic
* lariuti
Calciun
* Chremiun
Cobilt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
• leaS
Magnet im
Manganese
Mercury
Micket
Pctai* inn
• Thalliun
• Vanadiur,
• Zinc
frequency of
Detection (b)
w /so
2/10
4 /S*
1 / 10
4/10
2/10
2/10
3/10
13 / 54
2 /*7
1 / 50
u / so
S / 10
8/10
3/10
2«./30 '
1/12
33 / U
3 /S6
U / SO
2/6
6/10
1 / 10
22/40
e / 10
6/10
e / 10
e / 10
43 / 48
26 / 4?
17/46
41 / 49
9/49
21 / 49
10 / 10
2/10
a/ e
10 / 10
10 / 10
10 / 10
9/10
10 / 10
4/10
10 / 10
10 / 10
10/10
10 / 10
1/10
9 / 10
10 / 10
5/9
10 / 10
10 / 10
lano* ef D*toct«d
Concentrations
0.026 <
0.53
«.006 •
2
0.33
0.45
0.83 •
0.75 •
0.039 •
0.011 •
» 14
• 1.4
- 0.087
.6
• 2.6
• 0.98
• 0.84
• 1.8
• 0.46
• 0.048
0.079
0.008 •
4.28 •
0.29 •
0.89 •
0.006
• 17
S.4
• 150
2.8
0.58
0.046
0.01S •
• 82
0.005
0.013
6.8
0.36
• 3
• 120
• S.9
0.88
0.012
0.46
0.38
0.37
0.57
0.01 <
0.008
0.0098
O.OOi •
0.066
0.01 •
2,670
16.7
2.
29.
5.53
».
2.
15.
0.3
11,100
130
2J20
73.6
0
7.7
350
2
10.1
130
0.74
• 10
43
3.1
• 4.6
270
470
• 6.9
• 120
0.67
• 35
9.630
48
17.1
430
44,300
S8.1
7.6
74.8
4.4
41.600
1,230
22.100
270
1
25.1
980
3.3
37.7
710
(a) Sairples 1-10 (composite sanptes) and 1AI-50AI.
{b> The njtber of samples in which the chemical was detected divided toy
the total rxrber ef sample* analyzed for that cheaical.
• * Selected as chemical of potential concern.
-------
(continued)
MWARY.OF CHEMICALS DETECTED III UPPER SUCIAL AOUIFEt gtOMDtMTER
HASLET SOLVENTS AID CHEMICALS (•)
(Concentratione rtportad in up/L)
Chemical
tange of Detected Concentrations
UPBradiant (b) On Site Oonngradient (6)
Organic Chemicals:
• Benzene
Acenapf.thene
Aeenapr.thyltne
Chloroberuene
• Chloroform
Cibenzefuren
1,1-CicMoroethane
• 1,1-Pichloroethene
• tren*-1,2-0iehloroethane
• Ethyibemene
f luorene
• 2-«ethylnepnthelene
• tlepfcthilene
di-n-OetylpMhalete
Phenanthrene
• Te:r»eMoroethene
• Toluene
• 1,1,1-Triehlofoetharie
• Trichloroetherte
• Xylenes
Inorgtnie
• it-ylliir
Cileitr
• Chrereiir.
' Cotx'.t
Cyanide
Iror,
• Leai
Mickti
Silve*
2ins
2.75 • 25.5
»
«D
«D
•D
ID
ID
ID
2.25
ID
ID
ID
•MD
2
ID
25.5
MD
ID
11.5
ID
4,030 • 42,100
6fi.B • 111
1.7
18,100 • 36,000
23.1 • O.e
10.9
70
4,690 • 28,900
NO
1,060 • 12,200
53.8 • 129
ID
4,280 • 35.300
34.7
1,380 • 3,200
12 -31.5
1 -«.S
10 • 16.5
250
S3.5
2 • 5
465
75
2.75 • 31,000
425
3 • 6.5
36 - 103.5
225
«D
2.5 - 5
1.5 • 125.5
1.5 • 1,100
• 3,200
1 • 230
11.5 • 1,600
141 • 23,400
30.2 • 112
0.73
13,900 • 23.600
15.6 • 27.7
U
15
2,530 • 99.100
8.2 • 15.3
1.360 • 16.000
48.3
5.6
35,400 • 390,000
27.6
59.1 • B59
e.s
ID
ID
ID
25
ID
23.5
ID
• • 102.5
30
ID
12.5
41
«D
ID
3 - 31
2
5.25 • 285
15 • 205
34.5
861 • 97,400
38.6 - 372
6.6
19,500 - 22,300
63.6 • 258
40.8 • 194
ID
3,410 • 152,000
9.5 - 34.6
4,220 • 5,630
100 • 207
ID
17.000 • 28,700
94.8
192 • 1,070
(a} The reported range represents concentrations fouid at •hallow and Intermediate depths
within the veil.
(b) Well 1.
-------
8 (continued)
SlMUKT OF CHEMICALS DETECTED IN QN-SITE UfiXFAB 8CIL
HASLET SOLVEVTS AND CHEMICALS (•)
(Concentration* reported in
Frequtney ef lanoe of Detected
Chemical Detection (to) Concentration*
Organic Chonicals:
Aeenaphthene
Anthracene
CMoroforR
Chrysene
Dibentcfuran
1,1-Dichloroethane
1,2-Diehloroethine
traru-1,2'Dichleroethen«
Oi-n-oetylphthalate
Ethylbervzene
eilC2-Ethylhexyt>phthalate
Flueranthene
Flueren*
^•Hethyl -2-pentarwne
Methylene Chloride
2-He:hy!n«phthaltne
Hap^.thf lene
Pheranthrene
Pyrene
Tetra:hlero«th«ne
Toluene
1,1,1-Triehlorotthane
Trichloroethene
Xylenei (total)
Inorginic Chemicals:
Alir-incr
Antimony
Artenie
Ee-iur
Berylliim
Caar.ikfr.
COM it
Coso«-
M»;i«tii/r.
Hereury
Mickel
Petassiun
• Silver
Sediur.
* Vanadiori
1 /
2 /
17
S/
3 /
1 /
1 /
1 /
2/
5 /
1 I
•s /
* /
1 /
S /
6 /
5 /
7 /
6 /
7 /
7/
2 /
4 /
7/
0.31
0.16 • 0.17
0.0058
0.019 • 0.12
0.32 • 0.42
0.0073
0.05
0.05
0.15 0.14
0.18 1.1
0.71 4.9
6.045 8.16
0.18 0.42
1 e
0.0098 0.60
0.48 7.6
0.25 4.2
0.12 1.5
0.049 0.21
0.12 11
0.0048 2.9
0.036 0.16
0.042 1.4
0.0073 4.8
8 / 2,300 • 11,400
\ / 4.5
2 / 1.1 1.2
3 / 22.2 110
1 / 04
1 / 04
6 / 2.9 5.6
8 / • 11.5 24.4
> / 304 1,110
7 / 0.1 0.5
5 / 3.« 7.1
5 / 210 440
3 / 1.9 2.9
« / 44.9 136
« / 4.6 16.4
(a) Srnplet IK-1 • IH-8.
(CO Tht nunber ef tanplit in wMch the chamieil Mat detected divided by
the tetil r>i/rt*r ef aanplet antlyzed for that cfcenical.
• • Selected at chemical of potential concern.
-------
TAIII.Ii 9
POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS FOR THR PASI.PY SOI.VTNTS AND aiEMICALS SITE
CUHRI:NT LAND USE CONDI I1ONS
Eipnwrc Medium
Surface Soil
SvbMrfacc SoH
Source and Mechanism of Restate
ran tpMi tnd direct dbcharic from
on ilte umki lo ratface toil
»
Direct dbcharfe from ON tHe tanli
or leachlat from raff ace aoih
Polrnlial
K crept or
Trespastera
Riponi re Route
IncWental Infesllon. dermal
abanrplion
Potential for SlcnaVanl BipoMre
and aecna la restricted. No potemUl for
direct conlad or Incidental Infeallon akla.
None. Pertoaa do not come mlo contact
with aubtnrfaee aoll.
Method of RvamalsM
None, tncompleie pathway.
None. Incomplete pathway.
Air (vnpon)
Alr(vnpon)
Ak(«ttt)
Lcachht| lo fiiNtndwatcr from aoHi RCsldenni
Miiratkw lo public wtier aupply wefc
ItifeslkMif Mkalatloiiv and
dermal •b*orplloi% of
ehcMicah dutinf home M
VoUliKullM of dwmlab from Mil
lo »k
VoblUbMlM of ckcmkali from Mil
to ik
D«l rdcMcd from Mife* toU to air
Tretpasaen Inhalation
Nearby resldeali Inhalation
None. Site related emtlamlMikM MN not
migrated lo public (upfily wdb. and no
private reaidenllal welb oihil near or
dmrngndlenl of the die.
None. Ahhou|h volalllliallonof chemlcah
• may occwr, accea* lo the alle It reatricted.
LAW. Dbpcnlon m amMeM air
•i(nlflcanll)r deticaata oonocntnllomi of
chcmkab.
Nctllglble. Dwt lenenllon b mUkrfy
hecauae tile aoil naa been cowered bjr
(ravel. Further, tlie •oceat It restricted
and Impanen are not expected.
None, tncompleie pathway.
None, tncompleie pathway.
Quantitative. Embalcm
calMMtea wM be baaed OH
meaturad ratface toll
concent rat kmt.
None* Inoomplcte pnllriraY.
-------
TAHIF 9 (continued)
POTP.N11AI. I'XPOSIJKI- PATHWAYS I-flit 1111- PASI.F.Y sni.VF.NTS AND CIIF.MICALS SITB
11) i iiui- I.ANI) usn CONDI i IONS
Bnpraiure Medium
Source mid Mcchanfcim of RckaM
Polrnii.il
Receptor
Fipnfttire Route
Potential for Significant Bipnmre
Method of Bvntualloii
Surface Soil
SnbMtfface SoU
Ormimfmrier
Alr(«apon)
Pail Rpilh and direct discharge from . Worker*
on tile lanka lo surface aoil
Dlrecl discharge from on alle lanka Worker*
or leaching from surface aoib
Leaching lo giunndnaHi from aoN; Worker*
Pumping from an tm lite wed
Migration to midenllal wen adjacent Neari 7 Retldenl
loilte
VolallllMllofi of chemical* from anil Worker*
to air
IncMcnlil ingatlna, defmal
Inridenlil tngathMi. dermal
atnotptloa)
Low lo hljih depending on Mime of
aelhrilles al the tile and the degree of
vegciitkm or pavement at Ike tile.
Low. Contact wtlliMbmrraceaota) hi
likely lo he Infrequent and of ahori
duration.
lageallmi of drlnilng water Moderate lo high If we oecm.
Ingexilon and Inhalation
and dermal absorption of
chemical* during home use
Inhalation
Moderate lo Mgh for MgeatkM and
InhaUllon If Me occur*. Negligible for
drrmiil ntnoqHlon cnmpared to IngeatloM
ami inh*t*llon.
Mo.lcr.le. VotalKtollon of chemlcatf
from on site toll will occur.
Quantitative. Batlnmlea
will be oased on current
aurfacc ao4l concentralhiM*
None
Q«anlNalh«.
will be InMed IM mduurcd
0 ivMNKnvvfcc
CXMCCRI ra I lont.
QimnlhuiNe.
ailmmc* win be bused on
U CVfTC
roficenlnillonf.
-------
TABLE 10
ORAL CRITICAL IOXICIIY VALUES TOR CHFHICAIS Of POTENTIAL CONCERN
PASIET SOLVENIS AND CHEMICALS
Chemical
Organic*:
Aeenaphthene
Anthracene .
Beniene
Chlorofora)
Chrysene
Dlbentofuran
I.t-Dichloroethana
1,2-Olchloroethana
1.1-Olchloroethene
cia-1.2-0ichloroethena
t rans - 1 . 2-0 Ichl oroethent
Ol-n-butylphthalate
Dl-n-octylphthalate
Ethyl tentene
• 1 a< 2- ethyl deny! )phthal ate
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Nethylene Chloride
2-nethylnaphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethena
Toluene
1.1.1-Trlehloroethm
Trtchloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
Nylenei (total)
Chronic R»D Uncertainty
(•9/kg-day) Factor (a)
6.00E-02
3.00E-01
...
1.00E-02
...
...
1.00E-01
...
9.00E-03
...
2.00E-02
1.00E-01
2.00E-02
1.00E-01
2.00E-02
4.00E-02
4.00E-02
6.00E-02
...
4.00E-03
...
3.00C-02
1.00E-02
2.00E-01
9.00E-02
7.35E-OJ
...
2.00E«00
3.000
3.000
...
1.000
...
...
1.000
...
1.000
...
1.000
1,000
1.000
1,000
1,000
3.000
3.000
too
...
10.000
...
3,000
1.000
1,000
1.000
1.000
...
100
large!
Organ (b)
.
liver
None observed
...
Liver
...
...
Kidney
...
liver
* • •
Liver
Mortality
liver/Kidney
Liver/Kidney
Liver
Kldhey/llver
Remit ology
liver
...
«iooY Weight
...
Kidney
liver
Liver/Kidney
liver
liver
...
CNS, Mortality
RfO Slope Factor (SF)
Source (Mi/kg-dayM
MIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
...
NEAST
NEASf
IRIS
IRIS
—
MIS
IRIS
NEASf
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
MIS
...
NEAST
NEASf
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
HA
...
MIS
• *•
a...
2.90E-02
6.10E-03 ,
...
...
...
V.10E-02
6.00E-01
...
...
«..
...
...
1.40E-02
...
...
7.SOE-OS
...
• ••
• e> •
» * •
5.10E-02
...
...
1.10E-02
1.90E«00
—
EPA Weight
of Evidence SF
Classification (c) Source
...
0
A
•2
•2
0
C
•2
C
D
...
...
...
0
•2
...
0
•2
... t
0
0
0
•2
0
0
•2
A
0
...
MIS
. MIS
IRIS
MIS
MIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
...
... .
...
MIS
MIS
• * *
MIS
IRTS
...
MIS
MIS
IRIS
NEAST
IRIS
IRIS
NEAST
HEAST
IRIS
-------
(continued)
IMUIMION CIHICM. tmlCMV VMIRFS KM CRFNICAIS OT roiHfl»l COMCtR*
Mtlf» SWVtHIS ARC CMNICMS
EM MeleM
Chronic Rfo Uncertainty tareet R'5 Unit RUk •• •-• IRIS --- •—
Ihalllue (In toluMo ttllt) ••- ••- ••• RfASt •-- •-- •••
Vanadlua, ••• ••• ••• MAtt •-• ••- • •-•
line end coapoundt ••- -•- •-• MAS I •-• 0 IRIS
(a) Uncertainty factora are o a*eture of the uncertainty In the data available. A hither uncertainty factor repretent* •
treater oanunt of uncertainty In the data.
(b) A laroet or«an It the oreon antt tentltlve to • chealctl't tonic effect. RfOt ore bated en tonic offect* In (ho tarott orotn.
If on RIO MM based en a ttudy In Hhlch a teraet or|an net not Identified, en oreon or tytteia known to be affected by the cnealcat
la Hated.
(C) EPA WeleM of Evidence for Carclnoatnlc Effecttt
|A| • Huam carcinogen bated on odrquete evidence frooi hueon atwflee;
IR?I • Probable human carclnoeen baxed on Inadequate evidence fraai kuaan ttudlet end adequate evidence fro* enlaal ttudlet)
|CI • Poaaible huaon carclnoqrn boned on United evidence fro* anla»l itudlet In the absence of hunan ttudlee;
I0| • Hot cla«*lf led a* to huam carclnoomlclty; and
(d) An ebtorptlon factor of JOI net med to calculate the unit rltk from the tlope factor.
(e) Ihe cancer unit rltk for nickel subtulf Idr net comervatlvely uted to calculate the rltka ateoelated ulth Insolation of nickel.
HOICl IRIS • Inteeroted RUk Inforavtlon Syetea).
RCASf • Health Cfrecte A*se*M*nt SUNMry tablet.
• Mo Information available.
a Value It a unit rltk In
-------
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS SITE
Upper Bound Hazard Index for
Exposure Pathway - Excess Lifetime Noncarcinogenic
Cancer Risk* Effects*
CURRENT LAND USE:
inhalation
0-30 Year Old Residents «xlCT7 ' *1
Adult Residents 6x10"7 <1
FUTURE LAND USE:
Soil Ingestion
Workers 2x10* <1
Derma: Absorption from Soil Matrix
Workers
Inhalation
Workers ... • - 7x10'5
Ingestion of Upgradient Upper Glacial Groundwater
Workers 3x10"5
0-30 Yea' Old Residents 2x1 CT4
Adult Residents 1x1 ff4
Ingestion of On Site Upper Glacial Groundwater
Workers 2x10"*
0-30 Year Old Residents 8x1 CT*
Adur: Residents 7x10"*
Ingestion of Downgradient Upper Glacial Aquifer
Grouno'v/ater
0-30 Year Old Residents 5x1 CT4
Adjl: Residents . 4x10"*
Ingestion of Upgradient Upper Magotny Aquifer
' Groundwater
Workers —
0-30 Year Old Residents —
Adjit Residents —'
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICALS SITE
Exposure Pathway
Upper Bound
Excess Lifetime
Cancer Risk"
Hazard Index for
Noneartinogenic
Effects*
FUTURE LAND USE foonU:
Ingestion of On Site Upper Magotny Aquifer
Groundwater
Workers
0-30 Year Old Residents
Aduh Residents
Ingestion of Downgradient Upper Magothy Aquifer
Groundwater
0-30 Year Old Residents
Aduft Residents
Inhalation While Showering with Upgradient Upper
Gisria'Groundwater . -
Adutt Residents
Inhalation While Showering with On She Upper
Giariai Groundwater
Adult Residents
Inhalation While Showering with Downgradient
Upper Giacia! Groundwater
Adul: Residents
Inhalation While Showering with Upgradient Upper
Magothy Groundwater
Adult Residents
lnhsis:bn While Showering with On Site Upper
Magoihy Groundwater
AduC Residents
Inhalation While Showering with Downgradient
Upper Magothy Groundwater
Adult Residents
3x1 cr5
1x1 cr*
1x1 cr4
2x10*
7x10"
acicr4
3x10's
NE
4x10"
4x10*
<1
<1
NE
<1
* The upperbound individual excess lifetime cancer risk represents the additional probability
thai an individual may develop cancer over a 70-year lifetime as a result of exposure
conditions evaluated.
b The hazard index indicates whether or not exposure to mixtures of noncarcinogenic
chemicals may result in adverse health effects. A hazard index less than one indicates
that adverse human health effects are unlikely to occur. .
— B Not applicable. Chemicals of potential concern for this pathway do not exhibit carcinogenic (or
noncarcinogenic) effects.
NE e Not evaluated. Pathway only evaluated for chemicals of concern which volatilize.
-------
TABLE 12 POTENTIAL ARARS FOR GHOUNDWATERCONTAMINANTS
PASLEV SOLVENTS AND CHEMICAL SITE
VOLATLf 0)ia»NC* COtfOMOi
Mrtvten.CHnikto
Bmnn*
AcMom
CHofolain
l.».cl*.Nhm
Fkocn.
Bu(2 - Mhyt»^QpMwlil>
MMUUUM
CONGE MnMlUN
ocncno
MON-Mf
•CUSIltM
«*•
1*1
4SJ
3000J
74J
aio
itoj
1100
SIO
•17 »
40
HO
210
SJ
8J
It
21
7J
W
40
MOST
nNNOfMT
«•*
s
NO
ao
too
s
8
8
a
60
90
10
M
BO
to
SO
20
50
50
MOST
tlMUfMT
OOM.
IOM
CON50MEO
«•«
0
0
NS
0
100
0
1000
100
2.200
44.000
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
20
NS
28
ARARS
Ml
RDfDM. N»«MBCNr OHOUMMMBI
COMA MMM OUMJTV
HO. OUKtOV CTAMMMM
M mMfMMMftt M
«•« •«« •««
NS SM NS.
5 NDOKH NO
NS NS NS
NS lOOfXh) 100
700 W NS
5 i|* NS
tarn 8(14 NS
too BM NS
10.000 *1}M NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS . NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
NS NS NS
GOAL TO BE CONSIDERED
MOPOXO MVAMMM BWMMOMI MfCMMX
mxMi RKML Mum mm OOMZMMIVN
•MA COMA OMUIV MCAim VAAtMW MMMHCMnM.
tn& tn ounAMGt Mnmnct OWOMY nwwnnnrni
M M MUMM HUM
OP S NS NS 0(0.1^ 47
0 NS NS NS 0(0 «) 1.3
NS NS ana NS NS NS
NS NS NS NS O|OM) ' 8.7
100 NS NS 3.400 2400 NS
0 NS NS NS 0|OM| 7
1000 NS NS IO.MO 18.009 NS
100 NS NS 3.IM 4W . NS
10.000 NS NS 2.200 NS NS
NS NS BOO** NS 44.00* NS
NS NS 80O NS NS . NS
NS NS 100*4 NS NS N8
NS NS SOQ NS NB NS
NS NS MOM NS NS NS
NS NS BOOM NS NS NS
NS NS SOU NS NS NS
NS NS 20GN NS 20 NS
NS NS 60Gf4 NS NS NS
NS NS SOQ NS NS 3.S
pa i OF s
-------
TABLE 12 Coold POTENTIAL ARAHS : OUNOWATERCONTAMINANTS
PASLEY SOLVENTS AND CHEMICAL SHE
METALS
Murirun
Anfcnon*
Aiwfc
Bmkan
B»»*un
CoMM
OMun
Oionhm
CcMI
CCPP"
Cprid.
ton
t«d
M^nMfan,
M»qm»i»
Mwofy
Mdiil
IVUMitm
BihrtMH
Mm
Sofcm
lMh«i
Vararikjn
Bnc
oVMMMJM
CONKNnUtKM
• OCTCCMO
MON-M1I
WB14MA*
UB*
•MOO
MO
-
312
• 0
4.8
38.000
285
45.1
2?0
10
152.000
340
0330
10.100
-
310
IOJOO
-
SOJ
390.0001
87
04.0
3.200
MOST
OlMOfMT
MVW
l«l
100
3
28
two
1
»
NS
80
8
200
100
300
IS
38.000
BO
2
100
NS
10
80
20.000
1
14
300
MOSI
•mMOfM
OOM
IO8C
OOHSOfMEO
«W"
80
3
20
I.MO
O
8
NS
80
NS
1.000
200
NS
O
NS
NS
S
154
NS
IO
80
NS
IJ.O
NS
8.000
ARABS
M*
ROtHM. WMOCNI OAOIMHWTU
80DW WklM OUMJT>|I)
MA CMM1IV IffllBMOT
M OMMMMWM M
U0A H»/l i«4
NS 100ft NS
NS 3 NS
90 25 25
1.000 1.000 1.000
NS JO NS
8 10 10
NS NS NS
100 80 80
NS 8ft NS
NS 200 1.000
NS 100 200
NS 300 W 300|n|
18 25 25
NS 31.000(0) NS
NS 300*4 soon
> 2 2
NS fe>P> NS
NS NS NS
80 10 20
NS 80 80
NS 20.000 NS
NS «Q NS
NS 14ft NS
NS 300 500
GOAL TO BE CONSIDERED
raoroauk MTAMMM OAONMvn HUIMMOC
RHIIM. RMIIM. iMkin imutu CGMZNIIMTUN
•MM BMIM OUHUIV MML1H ffAMMO fOirOKMIM.
unn ura nmmrm tttmrmmm raunuv <-^mr»w^^
M M VAUUCSM HAW
m4 i«« >«« t«« m* i«4
90-KOf) NS NS NS MS NS
3P IWX") NS NS 148 NS
SOP NS NS 00 P5>«4 20
5.000P NS HI 1.000 NS NS
OP 1 NS NO t**neft **»
5 NS . NS 10 10 NO
NS NS NS NS NS NS
100 NS NS in 00 NS
NS NS N8( MS NS NS
I300P 1300 .NS NS 1000 NS
200P 200 NS ?80 20O NS
300f) NS NS NS NS . NS
• OP NS NS MmMv 80 NS
NS NS NS NS NS NS
aof) NS NS NS NS NS
,2 NS NS 8.8 10 NS
IOOP 100 NS 350 18.4 NS
NS NS NS NS NS NS
M NS NS NS 10 NS
lOOf) NS NS NS 80 NS
NS NS NS NS NS NS
NS 2/IM NS NS 17.0 NS
NS NS NS NO NS NS
8.000*1) NS NS NS 8000 NS
POSOF3
-------
TABLE '12 continued
NOTES:
J - ANALVTE PRESENT. REPORTED VALUES UAV NOI BE ACCURATE OR PRECISE
P - PROPOSED VALUE
N3- NO STANDARD OR GlM>a.ME EXISTS
Q -GUOANCE VALUES
ND-MOIOETECTAaE
(4 SAFE ORMKMa WATER ACT MAMMUM COMTAMMANT ICVB.
*>) • NYCflH PAHI8 Ml *NB Nt AND 10 NUCm FMHIS t IO MO » AS GUMMM«2CO M NVSOEC OMeiON OF WAIER1EOMCM. AND OKRAIIONW.SQUIMNCC SEMES
(I II)6£PI ». 1090
M SATE OANKMa WA1ER ACT MAMMM OQNTAMMANI IEVEL GOALS
H EPA AMKNI WMIEHQUMJTV CWHiAfORPIOIECTlONOF HUMAN HEAUM ADJUSTED FOMIMMMMa WATER ONLV (OONCENnMDQNSM PARENTHESES
OOflKSPOND TO MOPOta Of fKK RANGE KWPOIENTM. CARCMOG0O ONLY)
M OOMRESPONDS TO AN MCKEASEOUf EflMf CANCER RSK Of li -•. CALOULATtO f HOM SiOff t ACTORS PiNllSHEO M THE HEM.IH EfFCCTS ASSESSMENT 9UMMARV
TABLES (IMI| A3 FOUOW8: REFERENCE OONCENTIMTION - |lE-«HIOKGMa€
M TOTAL ORQAMC CMEMKA19 CANNOT EXCEED 100 OQ*.
DPnOPOSEOFOHREVISION
d APRJE8 TO EACH eOMEHmOMXMUV
MSECOMMfWMCL
M NO HUUANMEAVTH STANDARDS. TMS STANDARD a FOR PROTECTION OF AQUATIC UTE
|m) TWO OPTIONS PROPOSED W EPA RESU.TMQ M DTFERENT STANDARDS.
P030F*
-------
13
90* 1 cleanup objectives «n>ene
Toluene
TetrecMoroethene
Trl chleroethene
1.1.1-fricMoroe thane
1 ,2-O»cnl er«eU)MM»Ctr«ni
Chi or of or «t
1.2-0ichloroben>ene
Phenenthrene
Ftuoreittttene
Haphtheleoe
2-Methylnaphtnelen*
Di~n>-6utyl phthelete
Sol Mbi lily
wo/1 or fott
S
198
152
933
190
1.100
1,900
p> 6.300
8.200
too
1.0
0.206
91.70
26.00
100
Partition
coefficient
Koc
~~«
I.UM
300
277
126
192
99
N
31
1.700
M
1.369
38.000
1.300
M
727
II
162
Creunduater
Standard*/
Cri Uria CM
uoXi or ppb.
9
. 9
' 9
9
9
9
9 '
7
1.7
30
SO
10
so
90
*~i *
Allowable
Soil cone.
pan.
C*
0.012
0.055
0.015
0.011
0.007
0.0076
0.003
0.002
0.079
2.20
19
0.130
0.365
0.08
b NM jj
Soil Cleanup
objectives to
Protect CM Cer
1.2
9.9
1.9
1.1
0.70
0.76
0.3
0.2
7.9
22O.O
1900.0
i3.0
36.0
8.0
ISCPA Hi
\9 Systenic
f*Hicent»
200.000
8.000
2.000
800
N/A
7.000
VU*
800
N/A
N/A
3.000
300
N/A
8.000
*
CHOI
9
S
S
5
S
9
5
990
330
330
330
330
930
MMM
ftec.aoil
C^Awp OejcH.
1.2
9.9
1.3
1.3
1.8
1.6
0.9
0.2
8.0
MMH
90.0
MM0
9O.O
13.0
96.0
8.0
«. Allowoblo Soil Co«w:«ntr«(i*n C» = f M CM M Koc
b. Soil cl«MMip obj«ctiv« = C> M Correction Factor
tUNL is Notho.1 Ootoction Unit
M f.>rti(*on fo*tfici«»l is calculated by using tha following
lof Koc = -0.35 log S * 3.61. 8t(k*r «/«Iu«» M*O axporinvnlal
MM Corroction r«ct«t- CCf J of 100 is ua«d •» par proposed f«CM
HHM A« jxr prvaosoil rflGM. fot«l VOCs < 10 ppif.. Fol«l Soni-VOCa ^ SOU ppn. and In4iyiil climp objoctivoi tr» devolopod for soil organic carton contont (f> of 12,
•nd should b* *dju»%*d for th» *ctu*l soil organic carbon content if it is known.
-------
-34-
APPENDIX 3
-------
slew York State Department of Environmental Conservation
SO Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 - 7010
Thomas C. Jorilng
1 8 109? Comm.M.on.r
Ms. Carole Petersen
Chief
NY/Caribbean Superfund Branch II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Dear Ms. Petersen:
Re: Pasley Solvents & Chemicals Site ID No. 130016
Draft Record of Decision
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) has reviewed the March 13, 1992 draft Record of
Decision (ROD)for the Pasley Solvents and Chemicals site, as
telexed to us on March 16, 1992.
The remedy presented in the draft ROD includes treating
contaminated soil via soil vacuuming followed by soil
flushing, if necessary, and treating groundwater via metals
precipitation/air stripping with vapor phase granular
activated carbon/GAS polishing.
As per conversations between our respective staff, this
March 13 draft reflects the several changes made to the
March 5, 1992 draft. Consequently, the NYSDEC concurs with
the draft ROD for the Pasley Solvents and Chemicals site.
Sincerely,
>— - i\ — ^—^__^
Edward) 0. Sullivan
Deputy Commissioner
cc: M. Hauptmann, USEPA-Region II
S. Henry, USEPA-Region II
-------
I3/2S/92 Index Docuient Nuiber Order Page: 1
PASLEY SOLVENTS t CHEMICALS Docuients
Docuient Nuiber: PA!-8Bl-88ei To B112 Date: 88/38/88
Title: Final Field Operations Plan for Retedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - Pasley Solvents
and Chemicals Site, Toiin of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Blanar, Ednard H: ICF Technology
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docuient Nuaber: PAI-N1-I113 To 8275 Date: 68/38/88
Title: Final Nork Plan for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - Pasley Solvents and Cheiicals
Site, Toon of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Blanar, Ed«ard K: ICF Technology
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docuient Nuiber: PA1-881-B276 To 8341 Date: 19/11/88
Title: Final Hork Plan for Tank Deiolition and Removal at the Pasley Solvents and Cheiicals Site,
Toon of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Russell, Nilliai 6: EA Engineering Science 4 Technology
Recipient: none: Conander Oil Corporation
Document Nuiber: PAI-I81-B342 To 8616 Date: 13/11/89
Title: Soil Vapor Contaminant Assessment for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - Pasley Solvents
and Chemicals Site, Tonn of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAM
Author: Schultz, fates A: EA Engineering Science i Technology
Recipient: none: Coimander Oil Corporation
-------
13/25/92 Index Docuient Nutber Order Page: 2
PASLEY SOLVENTS t CHEHICALS Oocutents
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-881-8417 To 8762 Date: 18/81/91
Title: Retedial Investigation Report - Pasley Solvents It Cheiicals Site, Toon of Heipstead, Long
Island NY
Type: REPORT
Author: none: Retcalf t Eddy
Recipient: none: Conander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-881-8763 To 8783 Date: 11/88/98
Title: (Letter forwarding attached EPA couents on the Draft Reiedial Investigation Report for the
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-881-8784 To 1889 Date: 83/14/91
Title: (Letter forwarding data, received froi the Nassau County Department of Public Korks for the
Hitchel Field site, to be incorporated into the Pasley Reiedial Investigation Report, and transmitting
attached Monitoring Prograi Saipling Report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-BB1-1B1B To 1813 . Date: 83/21/91
Titlt: (Letter forwarding attached analytical results of groundoater saiples froi eiisting veils
at the forier Texaco service station, Garden City NY)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Brooker, Lauren J: Star Enterprise
Recipient: Hirza, Nisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation
-------
13/25/92 Index Document Nuiber Order Page: 3
PASLEY SOLVENTS I CHEMICALS Docuients
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-8B1-1B14 To 1817 Date: 15/38/91
Title: (Letter fomarding attached couents frot EPA about Hetcalf t Eddy's Reiedial Investigation
Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-iBl-1818 To 1818 Date: 17/19/91
Title: (Letter requesting information about any hazardous vaste site located near Stewart Avenue
•hich iay be upgradient of the Pasley Solvents 4 Cheiicals site)
• Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Henry, Sherrel 0: US EPA
Recipient: Hirza, Hisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-B81-iei9 To 1831 Date: 11/14/91
Title: (Letter fomarding attached EPA couents on the third revision of the June 1991 Reiedial Investigation
Report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-B81-1832 To 1032 Date: 12/15/91
Title (Letter approving the revised Reiedial Investigation Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
-------
13/25/92 Index Oocuient Nuiber Order Page: 4
PASLEY SOLVENTS i CHEMICALS Oocuients
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-881-1B33 To 1326 Date: 82/81/92
Title: Feasibility Study Report - Pasley Solvents and Cheiicals Site, Toon of Heipstead, Nassau County
NY
Type: REPORT
Author: Roth, Robert J: Betcalf t Eddy
Recipient: none: US EPA
Oocuient Nuiber: PAI-881-1327 To 1346 . Date: 82/11/92
Title: Superfund Proposed Plan - Pasley Solvents and Cheiicals Site, Town of Heipstead NY
Type: PLAN .
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Oocuient Nuiber: PAI-B81-1347 To 1357 Date: 18/24/91
Title: (Letter fornarding attached EPA conents on the Draft Feasibility Study Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Oocuient Nuiber: PAI-881-1358 To 1368 Date: 12/18/91
Title: (Letter forwarding attached coiients on the Feasibility Study Report for tht site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Oocuient Nuiber: PAI-881-1361 To 1362 Date: 12/27/91
Title: (Letter containing NYSDEC and NYSDOH coiients on the EPA Proposed Plan for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: O'Toole, Michael J Jr: NY Dept.of Environiental Conservation
Recipient: Hauptian, del: US EPA
-------
13/25/92 Index Document Nuiber Order Page: 5
PASLEY SOLVENTS t CHEMICALS Docuients
Document Nuiber: PA1-B81-1363 To 1364 Date: IS/31/91
Title: (Letter stating nhat has to be done to stop the dissolved product pluie froi loving onto the
property of the Texaco service station)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Hirza, Itisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation
Recipient: Brooker, Lauren J: Star Enterprise
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-881-1365 To 1366 Date: 16/17/91
Title: (Letter containing response to NYSDEC correspondence regarding the forier Texaco service station
at the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Brooker, Lauren J: Star Enterprise
Recipient: Hirza, Itisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation
Oocuient Nuiber: PA1-IBM367 To 1384 Date: 18/19/88
Title: Adiinistrative Order on Consent in the Hatter of Eouander Oil Corporation
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Huszynski, Hilliai J: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Coiiander Oil Corporation
locuient Nuiber: PA1-8B1-1385 To 1385 Date: 17/11/91
Title: (Letter regarding the Hitchel Field facility that Purex has constructed pursuant to a consent
judgient)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Saith, Jeffrey H: Purex Industries Inc
Recipient: Henry, Sherrel D: US EPA
-------
13/25/92 Index Docuient Nutber Order Page: 6
PASLEY SOLVENTS t CHEMICALS Documents
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-B81-1386 To 1395 Date: 15/81/91
Title: Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-B81-1396 To 1437 Date: 13/11/92
Title: (Transcript of the 83/85/92 Public Meeting for the Pasley Solvents * Cheiicals site)
Type: LE6AL DOCUMENT
Author: Lexis, Virginia E: court reporter
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
13/25/92 Index Chronological Order Page: 1
PASLEY SOLVENTS t CHEH1CALS Documents
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-M1-1367 To 1384 Date: IB/19/88
Title: Administrative Order on Consent in the Hatter of Conander Oil Corporation
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: fluszynski, Nilliai J: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nutber: PAI-881-BBB1 To 8112 Date: B8/3B/B8
Title: Final Field Operations Plan for Reiedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - Pasley Solvents
and Cheiicals Site, Town of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Blanar, Edward H: ICF Technology
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-eai-8113 To 8275 Date: 18/38/88
Title: Final Mork Plan for Reiedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - Pasley Solvents and Cheiicals
Site, Town of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Blanar, Edward H: ICF Technology
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-881-8276 To 8341 Date: 09/81/88
Title: Final (fork Plan for Tank Demolition and Reioval at the Pasley Solvents and Cheiicals Site,
Town of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Russell, Hilliai 6: EA Engineering Science t Technology
Recipient: none: Couander Oil Corporation
-------
13/25/92 Index Chronological Order Page: 2
PASLEY SOLVENTS * CHEMICALS Docuients
T—~—-ss---±----------~-~~---f-------————-———----—-——-.--——---------..------------------------——
Docuient Nuiber: PA1-881-8342 To 8416 Date: 13/81/89
Title: Soil Vapor Contaiinant Assessient for Reiedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - Pasley Solvents
and Cheiicals Site, Town of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Schultz, Jaies A: EA Engineering Science t Technology
Recipient: none: Couander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-B81-8763 To B783 Date: 11/18/98
Title: (Letter forwarding attached EPA conents on the Draft Reiedial Investigation Report for the
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Document Nuiber: PA1-8B1-B784 To 1889 Date: 13/14/91
^|tle: (Letter fomarding data, received fro* the Nassau County Department of Public Morks for the
Hitchel Field site, to be incorporated into the Pasley Reiedial Investigation Report, and transmitting
attached Monitoring Prograi Saipling Report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Bocuient Nuiber: PAI-881-1818 To 1813 Date: 13/21/91
Title: (Letter fomarding attached analytical results of groundxater saiples froi existing veils
at the forier Texaco service station, Garden City NY)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Drooler, Lauren J: Star Enterprise
Recipient: Hirza, Hisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation
-------
13/25/92 Index Chronological Order Page: 3
PASLEY SOLVENTS t CHEMICALS Docutents
Oocuient Nuiber: PAI-BB1-1386 To 1395 Date: B5/B1/91
Title: Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatient
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none; US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-8B1-1814 To 1117 Date: I5/3B/91
Title: (Letter forwarding attached conents froi EPA about Hetcalf t Eddy's Reiedial Investigation
Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Conander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PA1-B8M363 To 1364 Date: 15/31/91
Title: (Letter stating «hat has to be done to stop the dissolved product pluie froi loving onto the
property of the Texaco service station)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Him, Hisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Recipient: Brooker, Lauren J: Star Enterprise
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-iBl-1365 To 1366 Date: B6/17/91
Title: (Letter containing response to NYSDEC correspondence regarding the foner Texaco service station
at the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Brooker, Lauren J: Star Enterprise
Recipient: Hirza, Hisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation
-------
13/25/92 Index Chronological Order Page: 4
PASLEY SOLVENTS * CHERICALS Docuients
Docuient Nuiber:. PA1-BB1-1385 To 1385 Date: 87/11/91
Title:. (Letter regarding the Hitchel Field facility that Purex has constructed pursuant to a consent
judgient)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siith, Jeffrey H: Purex Industries Inc
Recipient: Henry, Sherrel D: US EPA
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-8B1-1B1B To 1818 . Date: 17/19/91
Title: (Letter requesting information about any hazardous Naste site located near Stewart Avenue
which iay be upgradient of the Pasley Solvents t Cheiicals site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE . •:. -
Author: Henry, Sherrel D: US EPA
Recipient: (lirra, Hisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation
Oocuient Nuiber: PA1-N1-BU7 To (762 Date: 11/81/91
Title: Reiedial Investigation Report - Pasley Solvents I Cheiicals Site, Toxn of Heipstead, Long
Island NY
Type: REPORT
Author: none: Hetcalf t Eddy
Recipient: none: Conander Oil Corporation
Docuieat Nuiber: PAI-881-1819 To 1831 Date: 11/14/91
Title: (Letter forwarding attached EPA couents on the third revision of the June 1991 Reiedial Investigation
Report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
-------
13/25/92 Index Chronological Order Page: 5
PASLEY SOLVENTS I CHEMICALS Documents
Hocuient Nuiber: PAI-8BM347 To 1357 Date: 11/24/91
Title: (Letter fomarding attached EPA couents on the Draft Feasibility Study Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PA1-B81-1B32 To 1832 Date: 12/15/91
Title: (Letter approving the revised Reiedial Investigation Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA'
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Socuient Nuiber: PAI-881-1358 To 1360 Date: 12/18/91
Title: (Letter fomarding attached couents on the Feasibility Study Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-B8i-i36i To 1362 Date: 12/27/91
Title: (Letter containing NYSDEC and NYSDOH couents on the EPA Proposed Plan for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: O'Toole, Michael J Jr: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Recipient: Hauptian, Hel: US EPA
Docuient Nuiber: PA1-881-1833 To 1326 Date: 82/11/92
Title: Feasibility Study Report - Pasley Solvents and Cheiicals Site, Tom of Heipstead, Nassau County
NY
Type: REPORT
Author: Roth, Robert J: fletcalf i Eddy
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
13/25/92 Index Chronological Order Page: 6
PASLEY SOLVENTS t CHEHICALS Oocuients
Docuaent Nuiber: PA1-8B1-1327 To 1346 Date: I2/B1/92
Title: Superfund Proposed. Plan - Pasley Solvents and Cheticals Site, TOHR of Hetpstead NY
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Nuiber: PftJ-881-1396 To 1437 Date: 83/11/92
Title: (Transcript of the 83/85/92 Public fleeting for the Pasley Solvents t Cheiicals site)
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: lexis, Virginia E: court reporter
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
13/25/92 Index Author Nate Order Pige: 1
PASLEY SOLVENTS t CHEH1CALS Docuients
Docuient Nuiier: PAI-881-B617 To 8762 Date: 18/01/91
Title: Reiedial Investigation Report - Pasley Solvents t Cheiicals Site, Toon of Heipstead, Long
Island NY
Type: REPORT
Author: none: Hetcalf t Eddy
Recipient: none: Coiiander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-801-1327 To 1346 Date: 12/81/92
Title: Superfund Proposed Plan - Pasley Solvents and Cheiicals Site, lorn of Heipstead NY
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-081-1386 To 1395 Date: IS/11/91
Title: Engineering Bulletin: In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction Treatment
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docuient Nuaber: PAI-8B1-BBB1 To 8112 Date: 88/38/88
Title: Final Field Operations Plan for Reiedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - Pasley Solvents
and Ch»icals Site, Town of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Blanar, Edward K: ICF Technology
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-881-B113 To 8275 Date: 88/38/88
Title: Final Hork Plan for Reiedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - Pasley Solvents and Cheiicals
Site, Town of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Blanar, Edward K: ICF Technology
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
13/25/92 Index Author Nate Order Page: 2
PASLEY SOLVENTS i CHEMICALS Docuients
Docuient Nutber: PflI-881-1818 To 1B13 Date: 13/21/91
Title: (Letter forwarding attached analytical results of groundoater saiples froi existing veils
at the foner Texaco service station, Garden City NY)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Brooker, Lauren J: Star Enterprise
Recipient: flirza, Hisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation
Docuunt Nuiber: PftI-881-1365 To 1366 Date: 16/17/91
Title: (Letter containing response to NYSDEC correspondence regarding the foner Texaco service station
at the site)'
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Brooker, Lauren J: Star Enterprise
Recipient: Hirza, Risbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environmental Conservation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-BB1-1B18 To 1818 Date: 87/19/91
Title: (Letter requesting infonation about any hazardous Haste site located near Stewart Avenue
nhich aay be upgradient of the Pasley Solvents I Cheiicals site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Henry,. Sherrel D: US EPA
Recipient: Hirza, Hisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-861-1396 To 1437 Date: 83/18/92
Title: (Transcript of the 83/85/92 Public fleeting for the Pasley Solvents I Cheiicals site)
Type: LE6AL DOCUMENT
Author: Lexis, Virginia E: court reporter
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
13/25/92 Index Author Naie Order Page: 3
PASLEY SOLVENTS i CHEMICALS Docuients
Docuient Nuiber: PflI-B81-1363 To 1364 Date: 15/31/91
Title: (Letter stating vhat has to be done to stop the dissolved product pluie froi ioving onto the
property of the Texaco service station)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Hirza, Hisbahuddin K: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation
Recipient: Brooker, Lauren J: Star Enterprise
Docuient Nuiber: PA1-B81-1367 To 1384 Date: 18/19/88
Title: Administrative Order on Consent in the Hatter of Couander Oil Corporation
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: fluszynski, Hilliai J: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Docuaent Nuiber: PAI-881-1361 To 1362 Date: 12/27/91
Title: (Letter containing NYSOEC and NYSDON couents on the EPA Proposed Plan for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: O'Toole, Michael J Jr: NY Dept of Environiental Conservation
Recipient: Hauptian, Hel: US EPA
Document Nutber: PAI-BB1-B763 To B783 Date: 11/68/98
Title: (Letter forwarding attached EPA conents on the Draft Reiedial Investigation Report for the
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-8B1-8784 To 1BB9 Date: 13/14/91
Title: (Letter fomarding data, received froi the Nassau County Department of Public Horks for the
Mitchel Field site, to be incorporated into the Pasley Reiedial Investigation Report, and translating
attached Monitoring Prograi Sampling Report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Couander Oil Corporation
-------
13/25/92 Index Author Nate Order Page: 4
PASLEY SOLVENTS i CHEMICALS Docuients
sssr=ssrrszssz==zz=szs==iz:zsrzss=zszzsz=szssrzzsszzzrz=rrz=zzzzsz==sssz=sszssrss=zsrsss=zzzssssszssr=s=ssrrssssesss=sss
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-BBM814 To 1017 Date: 15/38/91
Title: (Letter forwarding attached couents frot EPA about Netcalf i Eddy's Remedial Investigation
Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Coiiander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-8BMB19 To 1831 Date: 16/84/91
Title: (Letter fomarding attached EPA couents on the third revision of the June 1991 Reiedial Investigation
Report)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Coiiander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-0BMB32 To 1832 Date: 12/85/91
pTitle: (Letter approving the revised Reiedial Investigation Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Coiiander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PAI-001-1347 To 1357 Date: 18/24/91
Title: (Letter fomarding attached EPA couents on the Draft Feasibility Study Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Coiiander Oil Corporation
Docuient Nuiber: PfiI-BBl-1356 To 1368 Date: 12/18/91
Title: (Letter fomarding attached couents on the Feasibility Study Report for the site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Petersen, Carole: US EPA
Recipient: Shapiro, Joseph 6: Coiiander Oil Corporation
-------
13/25/92 Index Author Nile Order Page: 5
PASLEY SOLVENTS t CHEHICALS Documents
Docuient Nuifaer: PAI-BBi-1833 To 1326 Date: B2/81/92
Title: Feasibility Study Report - Pasley Solvents and Cheaicals Site, Tom of Heipstead, Nassau County
NY
Type: REPORT
Author: Roth, Robert J: Netcalf i Eddy
Recipient: none: US EPA
Bocuient Nuiber; PA1-8BJ-8276 To 8341 Date: 89/11/88
Title: Final Hork Plan for Tank Deiolition and Reioval at the Pasley Solvents and Cheiicals Site,
To«n of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Russell, Nilliaa 6: EA Engineering Science t Technology
Recipient: none: Conander Oil Corporation
Docuaent Nuiber: PAI-8B1-8342 To 8616 Date: 83/81/89
Title: Soil Vapor Contaainant Assessaent for Reiedial Investigation/Feasibility Study - Pasley Solvents
and Cheaicals Site, Town of Heipstead, Long Island NY
Type: PLAN
Author: Schultz, Jaies A: EA Engineering Science I Technology
Recipient: none: Coiiander Oil Corporation
locuaent Nuiber: PAI-8B1-13B5 To 1385 Date: 17/11/91
Title: (Letter regarding the Hitchel Field facility that Pures has constructed pursuant to a consent
judgient)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siith, Jeffrey H: Turex Industries Inc
Recipient: Henry, Sherrel D: US EPA
------- |