United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-92/179
September 1992
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Rowe Industries Groundwater
Contamination, NY
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 1. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-92/179
4. THIe and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Rowe Industries Groundwater Contamination, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(.)
>. Performing Organization Name and Addreaa
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Addrea*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipienf* Acceaaion No.
5. Report 0«t»
09/30/92
&
8. Performing Organization RepL No.
10. Project/Taalt/Work Unit No.
11. Contmct(C) or Gnmt(G) No.
(C)
to
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
16. Supplementary Notm
PB93-963827
18. Abatract (Limit: 200 worda)
The 8.5-acre Rowe Industries Groundwater Contamination site is located in the Town of
Sag Harbor, Suffolk County, New York. Land use in the surrounding area is mixed
industrial, commercial, and residential. Approximately 6,000 people within a 3-mile
radius of the site use ground water as their primary drinking water source. Site
features include a building that covers 1 acre of the site, and two ponds located
300 and 700 feet to the northeast of the building. Additionally, there is a wetland
area onsite. From the 1950's to the 1960's, Rowe Industries occupied the site and
manufactured small electric motors and transformers. Chlorinated solvents were used
to degrease oil-coated metals, and waste solvents were discharged from two tanks in
the building into cesspools or to an open field 75 to 100 feet east of the building.
A series of dry wells was used to dispose of organic solvents while Rowe Industries
was in operation. From the late 1960's until 1974, the property was used by two other
companies, Rowe Industries-Aurora Plastics, Inc., and Nabisco, Inc. In 1980, the site
was sold to Sag Harbor Industries, which currently uses the property as a facility to
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyete a. Deacrtptora
Record of Decision - Rowe Industries Groundwater Contamination, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes), metals (arsenic,
chromium, lead)
b. ktentitlera/Open-Ended Terma
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
1C. Security Claae (Thia Report)
None
20. Security Claae (Thla Pago)
None
21. No. of Pagea
76
22. Price
(SeeANSI-ZM.18)
See Instruction* on Reverse
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS45)
Department ofCommerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-92/1.79
Rowe Industries Groundwater Contamination, NY
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
manufacture electronic devices. VOC-contaminated ground water was first discovered by
the County in 1983, when several local private wells were -sampled. In 1985, EPA
undertook a removal action to provide an alternate water supply to residents in the
vicinity of the ground water plume. This ROD addresses a final remedy for the
contamination in soil and ground water attributable to the site. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs, including benzene,
PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead.
The selected remedial action for this site includes.excavating 365 cubic yards of
contaminated soil , treating the soil offsite using incineration or another equivalent
technology to meet LDR disposal standards, then disposing the soil at an offsite RCRA
landfill; conducting soil sampling to confirm that all soil contaminated above clean-up
levels has been removed; pumping and onsite pretreatment of contaminated ground water to
remove iron and manganese, followed by filtration to remove metals and air stripping to
remove VOCs, with offsite discharge to surface water; treating air emissions, if
necessary; and implementing a long-term ground water monitoring program. The estimated
present worth cost for this remedial action is $6,187,000, which includes an annual O&M
cost of $254,000 for 15 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS:
Chemical-specific soil excavation goals are established to ensure that soil contaminants
do not contribute to ground water contamination, and include benzene 0.5 mg/kg; PCE
1.5 mg/kg; TCE 1 mg/kg; toluene 1.5 mg/kg; and xylenes 1.2 mg/kg. Additionally,
excavated soil sent for offsite disposal will be treated, if necessary, according to RCRA
LDR standards. Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals are based on SDWA MCLs and
MCLGs, including arsenic 25 ug/1; chloroform 7 ug/1; PCE 5 ug/1; TCE 5 ug/1; toluene
5 ug/1; and xylenes 5 ug/1. Treated ground water discharged to Sag Harbor Cove will meet
state discharge requirements.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Site name: Rowe Industries
Site location: Sag Harbor, New York
MRS score: 31.94
ROD
Date Signed: September 30, 1992
Selected remedy: Soil excavation and Disposal at a Chemical Waste Landfill.in
conjunction with Extraction/Air Stripping of Groundwater with Discharge to Sag
Harbor Cove
Capital cost: $2,280,000
O & M cost: $254,000
Present-worth cost: $6,187,000
LEAD
Enforcement, PRP lead
Primary Contact: Linda Wood (212) 264-8585
Secondary Contact: Melvin Hauptman (212) 264-7681
Main PRPs: Nabisco Inc. and Sag Harbor Industries
WASTE
Waste type: Chlorinated solvents - VOCs
Waste origin: Waste solvents were discharged from the Rowe Industries facility
to a series of cesspools and onto the ground surface.
Estimated waste quantity: The groundwater plume is approximately 600 feet wide
and 2700 feet long. In addition, a total of approximately 365 cubic yards of soil
is contaminated with volatile organic and semi-volatile organic compounds.
Contaminated media: Groundwater and Soil
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Rowe Industries Superfund Site
Town of Sag Harbor
Suffolk County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for the Rowe Industries Site (the
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 attached to this document
(Appendix 4).
The information supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the administrative
record file for this Site, an index of which is attached (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 groundwater at
the Rowe Industries Site.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Excavation and disposal of approximately 365 cubic yards of contaminated soil
at a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permitted landfill. In order
to comply with RCRA Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) regulations, it is expected
that the excavated soils will have to be treated off-site prior to disposal at the
-------
landfill. This will be verified during remedial design.
Confirmatory sampling to ensure that soils with concentrations above the site
specific soil cleanup objectives have been excavated;
Remediation of the groundwater by the installation of seven extraction wells
which will pump the contaminated groundwater to an air stripping treatment
system with ultimate discharge of treated water to Sag Harbor Cove;
Implementation of a system monitoring program that includes the collection and
analysis of the influent and effluent from the treatment system and periodic
collection of well-head samples; and
Implementation of a long-term monitoring program to track the migration and
concentrations of the contaminants of concern.
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.
As the remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site, in the aquifer, 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.
^CBhstantine Sidamon-ErisfoffV Dat
Regional Administrator
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
ROWE INDUSTRIES SITE
TOWN OF SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DECISION SUMMARY
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
A. . Site History
B. Enforcement
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION ....4
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
VI: SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS... 9
VII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 13
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 21
\
IX. SELECTED REMEDY 28
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS '. 29
I. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 33
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX 1- FIGURES
FIGURE 1. SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2. SITE SKETCH
FIGURE 3. TVOC CONTAMINATION PLUME
FIGURE 4. ON-SITE GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
FIGURE 5. OFF-SITE GROUNDWATER SAMPLING LOCATION AND TVOC PLUME
FIGURES. ON-SITE SOIL AND SEDIMENT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 7. SKETCH OF DRY WELL SYSTEM
-------
APPENDIX 2- TABLES
TABLE 1-A. RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLING FOR VOCs
TABLE 1-B. RESULTS OF GROUNDWATER SAMPLING FOR METALS
TABLE 2. RESULTS OF RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING
TABLE 3. RESULTS OF SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
TABLE 4-A. SUMMARY OF DRYWELL WASH & SEDIMENT SAMPLING
TABLE 4-B. SUMMARY OF SURFACE WATER SEDIMENT SAMPLING
TABLE 5. ON-SITE SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
TABLE 6. ON-SITE SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
TABLE 7. RISK ASSESSMENT CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
TABLE 8. POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY EVALUATION
TABLE 9 CRITICAL TOXICITY VALUES
TABLE 10-A. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CARCINOGENIC RISKS
TABLE 10-B. SUMMARY OF MEDIUM SPECIFIC CARCINOGENIC RISKS
TABLE 11-A. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL NON-CARCINOGENIC RISKS
TABLE 11-B. SUMMARY OF MEDIUM SPECIFIC NON-CARCINOGENIC RISKS
TABLE 12. POTENTIAL ARARs FOR GROUNDWATER
TABLE 13. SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS FOR THE ROWE SITE
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
-------
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Rowe Industries Site (the Site) is located on the east side of Sag Harbor-Bridgehampton
Turnpike, Town of Sag Harbor, Suffolk County, New York (see Figure 1). The Site includes an
industrial facility which is approximately 8.5 acres in size and is located 1,500 feet south of the
village of Sag Harbor in the vicinity of Carrol Street, Noyack Road, Brick Kiln Road and Sag
Harbor Turnpike. One acre of the facility is covered by a building (see Figure 2). There are
two ponds located 300 and 700 feet to the northeast of the building. There is a small
industrial area to the southwest and residential and commercial areas to the northwest, north
and south. According to the Town Clerk, the town of Southampton consists of approximately
49,000 residents, 1,870 of which reside in the Village of Sag Harbor. The entire area, with the
exception of the homes within the contaminated groundwater plume, is served by private wells.
Approximately 6,000 people within a 3 mile radius of the site use groundwater as their primary
drinking water source.
The site is underlain by the Upper Glacial aquifer which consists of clayey sand and gravel. The
upper sediments above the water table consist of medium to fine sand with a trace amount of
medium to fine gravel. The lower sediments below the water table consist of medium to very
fine sand, alternating with intervals of silty clay, silt and clay. There are no major continuous
beds or clay layers.
Sag Harbor Cove is about 3,000 feet to the northwest. Ligonee Brook, which flows into Sag
Harbor Cove, is to the east and north of the Site. The area surrounding the Site is largely
undeveloped to the east and west. Several designated wetlands in the vicinity of the Rowe site
are considered to be significant habitats. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classifies the
area where Ligonee Brook enters Sag Harbor Cove as a mixture of palustrine forested, broad-
leaf deciduous wetlands and intertidal emergent estuarine wetlands communities. The on-site
pond is also classified as a palustrine, open water, intermittently exposed wetland community.
One other significant habitat, a tern nesting area, is listed as occurring within two miles of the
site along Noyack Bay. The tiger salamander is the only endangered animal known to live
within two miles of the Site. It is listed as endangered in the NYSDEC's Natural Heritage
Database.
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Site History
The Rowe Industries Site is also known as the Sag Harbor Groundwater Contamination Site
in reference to the current owners of the Site, Sag Harbor Industries, Inc. From the 1950's
through the early 1960's, the Site was originally owned and operated by Rowe Industries, Inc.
During that time, Rowe Industries manufactured small electric motors and transformers. During
this process, chlorinated solvents were used to degrease oil-coated metals. Waste solvents
were discharged from two tanks in the building into cesspools or through a connecting pipe
to an open field located 75 to 100 feet east of the building (see Figure 2). The building was
destroyed by fire in 1962 and reconstructed that same year.
-------
-2-
Rowe Industries - Aurora Plastics, Inc. owned and operated the Site in the late 1960's.
Nabisco, Inc. acquired the Site in the early 1970's. The Site ceased operation in 1974. In
1980, the Site was sold to Sag Harbor Industries (SHI) which currently uses the facility to
manufacture electronic devices. The small electronic parts are currently cleaned with Freon
113.
A series of dry wells (designated DW-A through DW-F in Figure 2, with two wells at location
DW-B) were used while Rowe Industries was in operation to dispose of organic solvents.
Dry well DW-B was not installed until 1983 and has only been used for collecting roof runoff
and coolant water. Currently, only wells DW-B, DW-E, and DW-F are still in use by SHI.
DW-E and DW-F collect wastewater from lavatories.
Groundwater contamination was first discovered in the Sag Harbor area in 1983. The Suffolk
County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) sampled water from a private well on Noyack
Road which revealed contamination by three solvents, 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), 1,1,2-
trichloroethylene (TCE), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and the metal iron. As a result of these
findings, the SCDHS and EPA conducted further investigations to determine the extent and the
cause of the groundwater contamination of the Sag Harbor area. Forty-three private wells and
twenty-one monitoring wells were monitored from March 1984 until October 1984. The results
of the study indicated a groundwater contamination plume that was approximately 600 feet wide
and 1900 feet long extending to Ligonee Brook flowing northwest from the SHI facility and
containing chlorinated hydrocarbons, primarily solvents.
The study also determined that drinking water wells for twelve homes exceeded current New
York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) standards for one or more solvents. Therefore,
in January 1985, EPA undertook an removal action to provide an alternative water supply to
twenty-five residences in the vicinity of the groundwater contamination plume. EPA contracted
with the Suffolk County Water Authority to install a water main, and the Town of Southampton
to install the hook-ups to the twenty-five homes affected by the contamination plume.
Based on the extent of groundwater contamination, the Rowe Industries Site was placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) on June 10, 1986. On September 30, 1988, EPA and Nabisco
entered into an Administrative Order on Consent, Index NO. ll-CERCLA-80213 (the Order). The
Order required Nabisco to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the Site and to develop and analyze
remedial alternatives to address the contamination. The Rl was performed in two separate
phases; Phase I was conducted in 1989-90 and Phase II was conducted in 1991. The Phase
I investigation was designed to determine if groundwater contamination was still present at the
Site, and if so, how the concentrations compared to 1984 findings. In addition, several areas
of the SHI facility, including suspected drum disposal areas, active and inactive dry wells, pond
sediments, surface water, and surface and subsurface soils, were investigated in Phase I. The
results of the Phase I groundwater investigation were consistent with the results of the SCDHS
study. The three most prevalent compounds, TCE, TCA and PCE, were again detected at
concentrations exceeding Federal and State water quality standards. In addition, the size of
-------
-3-
concentrations exceeding Federal and State water quality standards. In addition, the size of
the plume remained at approximately 600 feet wide and 2700 feet long as defined in the
SCDHS study (see Figure 3). However, despite the additional investigations of suspected
disposal areas, the Phase I study did not pinpoint the source of the groundwater
contamination. The Phase II investigation revealed that the sources of the groundwater
contamination are the sludge and sediments in dry wells DW-C, DW-D, and DW-F and the soil
in the former drum storage area. Therefore, in 1992, a Feasibility Study was performed to
develop alternatives to clean up these sources of contamination as well as the contaminated
groundwater itself.
B. 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 23, 1988
to Nabisco and Sag Harbor Industries. 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 September 30,1988, EPA entered into an Administrative Order on Consent, Index NO. II-
CERCLA-80213, with Nabisco. The Order required Nabisco to perform an RI/FS to determine
the nature and extent of the contamination at the Site and to develop and analyze remedial
alternatives to address the contamination.
Leggette Brashears and Graham (LBG) performed the RI/FS for Nabisco. The Phase I Rl
Report was submitted on May 23,1990. In response to EPA's comments, LBG submitted the
Phase II Rl work plan on December 10, 1990. The final Rl Report, which incorporated the
results of both phases, was approved by EPA on August 25, 1992. Trie FS Report was
submitted to EPA in July 1992.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI/FS Reports and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released to the public for comment
on August 26, 1992. These two documents were made available at information repositories
maintained at the EPA Region II Office in New York City and at the Jeramin IJbrary in Sag
Harbor, New York. The notice of availability for these documents was published in Newsdav
on August 26, 1992. A public comment period on the documents was. held from.August 26,
1992 through September 24, 1992. In addition, a public meeting was held on September 9,
1992. At this meeting, representatives from EPA presented the Proposed Plan, and later
answered questions concerning such plan and other details related to the RI/FS reports.
Responses to comments and questions received during this period are included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is appended to this ROD.
-------
-4-
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The objective of this remedy is to address the contamination in the soils and the groundwater
attributable to the Site. The ultimate goal of the EPA Superfund Program's approach to
groundwater remediation is to return usable groundwater to beneficial uses within a reasonable
time frame. EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy establishes different degrees of protection
for groundwater based on their vulnerability, use, and value. For the aquifer beneath the Site,
the final remediation goals will be drinking water standards. Therefore, EPA's goal in
remediating groundwater at the Site is to reduce concentration levels in groundwater to meet
the Maximum Contaminant Levels promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In order
to achieve this goal any contaminated soil which is leaching contaminants into the groundwater
must also be remediated. Therefore the selected remedy will excavate the soil in the drum
storage area and in the three contaminated dry wells DW-C, DW-D and DW-F. However, EPA
recognizes that the final selected remedy may not achieve this goal because of potential
difficulties associated with removing contaminants from groundwater to cleanup levels. The
results of the selected remedy will be monitored carefully to determine the feasibility of
achieving this final goal. The remedial action may require continuous pumping, pulsed
pumping, and flexibility in placing pumping wells at strategic locations.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Rl was performed in two separate phases. Phase I was conducted in 1989-90 and Phase
II was conducted in 1991. The Phase I investigation was designed to determine if groundwater
contamination was stil! present at the Site, and if so, how the concentrations of contaminants
in groundwater compared to the 1984 SCDHS findings. In addition, several potential areas of
the facility, including suspected drum disposal areas, active and inactive dry wells, pond
sediments, surface water, and surface and subsurface soils, were investigated during the Phase
I study. The Phase II investigation was a more comprehensive study of potential sources of
groundwater contamination at the Site. In addition to further investigation of several of the
areas mentioned above, it included investigation of the drum storage area.
A. Nature and Extent of Contamination
1. Groundwater
During Phase I, 32 wells were sampled to evaluate groundwater conditions. The wells
consisted of 18 previously installed SCDHS monitoring wells, 8 private wells and two new well
clusters (MW-42, MW-43) consisting of a shallow, intermediate and a deep well. The wells were
completed to 30, 70 and 100 feet respectively. The locations of the wells can be seen in
Figures 4 and 5.
-------
-5-
The highest concentration of PCE was found in a sample from well N-28 at 12,000 parts per
billion (ppb). The compound found at the second highest concentration during Phase I was
TCA, which was also found in well N-28 at 690 ppb. Finally, TCE was also detected at its
highest concentration in well N-28 at 530 ppb. The three primary contaminants discovered in
the SCHDS study were TCA, TCE and PCE. Therefore, the results of the VOC analysis for
Phase I are consistent with the results of the 1984 SCHDS study. In addition, the Phase I
groundwater sampling showed that the plume had not increased in area and remained
approximately 600 feet wide and 2700 feet long. The summary of the groundwater results for
volatile organics can be found in Table 1-A. . .
In addition, the groundwater was analyzed for metals using both filtered and unfiltered samples.
All of the filtered samples were collected during round 2 of Phase I. The filtered samples
represent dissolved concentrations and thus do not have the interference from fine material that
is mobilized during sampling. Iron, manganese, lead, cadmium and chromium exceeded
federal and state water quality standards in the unfiltered samples during both phases. Only
iron showed significant differences between unfiltered and filtered samples. Iron concentrations
ranged between nondetectable and 228,000 ppb in unfiltered samples. The concentrations of
iron detected in the filtered samples ranged from 106 to 4670 ppb which still exceed the federal
and state water quality standards. The summary for groundwater results for metals can be
found in Table 1-B.
During Phase I it was discovered that the parcel of land formerly utilized as the drum storage
area was not owned by SHI or any previous owners of the Rowe Industries Site. The results
of Phase I indicated that the area may be one of the sources of groundwater contamination.
Permission to perform a subsurface investigation on the property was not obtained until the
data from Phase I was analyzed. Therefore, this area was not investigated until Phase II. As
a result, in Phase' II, one well cluster and two shallow wells were installed to monitor
groundwater downgradient of the former drum storage area. The well cluster, consisting of a
shallow well (MW-45a) and an intermediate well (MW-45b), was completed to 30 and 50 feet,
respectively. Likewise the two shallow wells (MW-51A, MW-52A) were completed to 30 feet.
PCE was the primary compound detected in the groundwater. The highest concentration was
detected in MW-51A at 3100 ppb. The data from this investigation indicate that the plume
emanating from the drum storage area is in the upper portion of the aquifer.
Overall, the results of both Phases indicate that the most prevalent VOCs in the groundwater
were PCE, TCE, TCA, 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), and 1,1-dichloroethylene (DCE). In addition
to VOC contamination, heavy metals (chromium, iron, lead and manganese) were present in
unfiltered samples at levels up to 7210 ppb, 108,000 ppb, 93.3 ppb and 4250 ppb, respectively.
These levels exceed the federal Safe Drinking Water Act maximum contaminant level (MCL) for
chromium (100 ppb) and the Action Level for lead (15 ppb). These levels also exceed the
NYSDEC Water Quality Standards which are 50 ppb for chromium, 25 ppb for lead and 500
ppb for iron and manganese. However, all of the filtered samples, except for iron, indicated
levels which were below the federal and state drinking water standards. The results indicate that
-------
the horizontal extent of the plume is the same as that observed in the SCDHS study (see Figure
5) . The plume appears to intersect but not extend beyond Sag Harbor Cove, as shown by
samples obtained from MW-50 on the other side of the Cove. However, the vertical extent of
the plume increases with distance from the SHI facility. For example, on the SHI facility, the
plume is confined to the upper 10-25 feet of the aquifer. However, as the plume migrates away
from the SHI faciljty, the depth of the plume extends to the upper 50-60 feet of the Upper
Glacial Aquifer. The groundwater plume ultimately discharges to Sag Harbor Cove via Ligonee
Brook. VOC levels in Ligonee Brook did not exceed Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria.
The levels of VOCs in Sag Harbor Cove dissipate to nondetectable levels within several
hundred feet of its confluence with Ligonee Brook.
2. Soils
The soil sampling program was designed to define the lateral and vertical extent of soil
contamination. During Phase I, eight soil borings were drilled on the SHI property. The boring
locations, which can be seen in Figure 6, were selected based on the results of a soil gas
survey which measures the concentrations of VOCs in the space between soil particles.
The predominant plume constituents, TCE, TCA and PCE, were detected in three of the eight
soil borings. These compounds were only detected in the paved area along the eastern
border of the building in the upper six feet of the soil borings. PCE was detected in boring B-2
and boring B-5 at a concentration of 100 parts per million (ppm) and 9 ppm. TCE was detected
in boring B-1 at a concentration of 130 ppm. Semivolatiles, pesticides and PCBs were not
detected in these samples. Overall, the Phase I subsurface investigation indicated that soil
contamination was limited to a depth of 6 feet. In addition, the concentrations in these soils
from above the water table were not high enough to indicate that they were acting as a
continuing source to groundwater. The results of Phase I indicated that the former drum
storage area could be a possible source of groundwater contamination.
During Phase II, six additional soil borings were drilled in the former drum storage area.
Two of the borings (B-9 and B-10) drilled in the drum storage area were chosen based on soil
gas survey results. These two borings were completed to a depth of 45 feet. The remaining
four were chosen to define the horizontal extent of contamination detected during the drilling
of B-10. These four borings were completed above the water table to a depth of 14 feet in the
area where most of the contamination was detected in B-10. The results showed that the drum
storage area contains VOCs, primarily PCE and xylene, to a depth of approximately 12 feet
below grade. The highest concentration of PCE was detected in this area at B-10 with a
concentration of 67 ppm. Xylene was also detected at the same location at 66 ppm. The only
metals which were detected above background levels were barium and copper. The complete
results of subsurface sampling can be found in Table 6. The high levels of VOCs indicate that
the former drum storage area is acting as a continuing source to groundwater contamination.
-------
-7-
3. Dry Well Sediments
Seven dry wells are located on the Site ( designated DW-A through DW-F with two wells
located at DW-B - see Rgure 2), some of which were used for disposal of organic solvents .
Currently only wells DW-B, DW-E and DW-F are used by SHI. The piping configuration can be
seen in Figure 7. DW-A was used for the disposal of solvents. Floor drains on the first floor
were directed to DW-A in the past but are no longer connected to the dry well. Therefore any
continuing source to DW-A from inside the SHI building has been cut off. DW-B was installed
in 1983 and is still used for the purpose of collecting roof runoff and coolant water. DW-C, DW-
D, DW-E and DW-F were also all utilized for solvent disposal. Drywell DW-C was an overflow
well for DW-D. Currently, DW-E and DW-F handle wastewater from lavatories.
Sediment samples were obtained from the soil or sludge in DW-A, DW-C, DW-D, DW-E and
DW-F during both Phases. The samples were obtained from depths of 6 inches and 2 feet.
DW-B was not sampled since it was not used for solvent disposal. The sludge from DW-A
showed concentrations of PCE and TCE at 2.1 ppm and 2.5 ppm, respectively. However, the
sludge and sediment collected below the sludge (down to 2 feet) had no plume constituents
present. PCE, the only organic compound detected in DW-C sludge and soil, was present at
a maximum concentration of 6.9 ppm in the sludge and 1.1 ppm in a composite sample of
upper sludge sediments and underlying soil. In addition DW-C had a high concentration of PCE
at 1100 ppm detected at a depth of 2 feet. DW-D also had a high concentration of TCE at 820
ppm detected at a depth of 2 feet.
The results of both phases showed that DW-D contained sludge with TCE at concentrations
up to 27 ppm. This dry well also contained elevated levels of VOCs including toluene, xylene
and ethylbenzene: - The concentrations of solvents in the soil which underlies the sludge were
lower than concentrations in the sludge. For example, the concentration of PCE at 6 inches and
2 feet are 9100 ppm and 160 ppm respectively. This indicates that portions of the sludge are
acting as the source to underlying soils and groundwater, although significant concentrations
are not being retained by the soil. None of the primary plume constituents were detected in
either the sludge or the underlying soil of DW-E. The only constituent detected in this dry well
was 2.3 ppm of toluene in the upper 6 inches of the sludge. The presence of toluene is
suspected to be related to current activities. Low levels of the primary (PCE.TCA and TCA) or
secondary (1,1-DCE, 1,1-DCA and 1,2- DCE) plume constituents were detected in the sludge
or soil of DW-F. However, elevated levels of Freon 113, toluene, methylene chloride, xylene,
ethylbenzene and 2-butanone were detected in the sludge. Freon 113 was present at a
maximum concentration of 230 ppm and toluene was found at 27 ppm. The underlying soil
was generally clean. The studies show that the sludge in DW-D and DW-C are contributing the
primary and secondary plume constituents to the groundwater and DW-F contains elevated
concentrations of other compounds which are contributing to the groundwater contamination.
Copper, lead, nickel and zinc were the only inorganics that exceeded background levels in the
dry wells.
-------
-8-
4. Surface Water and Sediment
The only stream in the area is Ligonee Brook, which is an intermittent stream, originates in
Long Pond, located to the southeast of the Site. The brook and the groundwater flow in a
north-westerly direction and discharge into an inlet of Sag Harbor Cove. Very little overland flow
occurs; however that which does occur discharges into Sag Harbor Cove, Ligonee Brook, Lily
Pond and the on-site pond which can be seen in Figure 2. Ligonee Brook is a freshwater
stream that is sometimes intermittent. Sag Harbor Cove is a salt water body connected to
Peconic Bay.
On Carrol Street, there is a catch basin/dry well which collects storm-water run-off. This catch
basin is located directly across from well cluster MW-43 and adds to the recharge rate in the
nearby vicinity during periods of intense storms. Storm-water runoff collected on the roof of
the SHI building is diverted through gutters and storm drains to DW-B located along the
southeast side of the building.
Sediment and surface water samples were collected from 5 locations along Ligonee Brook and
Sag Harbor Cove as shown in Figure 5. In addition, sediment samples were collected from 3
locations from the on-site pond as shown in Figure 6. All sediment samples were collected in
the top 6 inches of the sample location.
The sediment results for the Brook and the Cove exhibited contamination at locations where
VOC contaminated groundwater discharges at sediment sampling locations SD-3 and SD-4.
The volatile organic contamination included 1,1-DCA, 1,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA, TCE and PCE. The
concentration of PCE was the highest at 87 ppb at location SD-4. Organic contaminants were
not present in sediments from upstream locations. All detected inorganics were present at
concentrations indicative of naturally-occurring background levels. The surface water sampling
results reflected the results of the sediment samples in that the most significant VOC
contamination was where the plume discharges to the Cove at locations SW-4 and SW-3.
Concentrations of PCE, TCE and 1,1,1-TCA reach 30 ppb at SW-4 and diminish to levels less
than 4 ppb at SW-5. However, none of these levels exceed ambient water quality criteria. All
the concentrations of inorganic compounds in the Brook and Cove were within Federal fresh-
water and saltwater aquatic guidelines. A summary of the complete results of the sediment and
surface water sampling for the Brook and the Cove can be found in Table 3 and Table 4.
The only organic compound detected in the on-site pond sediments occurred at sample
location 3 where ethylbenzene was detected at 2 ppb which is below its MCL. All of the
detected inorganics, except antimony, were identified at concentrations comparable to those
of background samples. Antimony was detected at a concentration of 1300 ppb.
-------
-9-
Vi. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Human Health Assessment
EPA conducted a baseline Risk Assessment of the potential risks to human health and the
environment associated with the Rowe Industries Site in its current state. The Risk Assessment
focused on contaminants in the groundwater, soil, and surface water and sediments which are
likely to pose a significant risks to human health and the environment. The summary of the
contaminants of concern (COCs) in the sampled matrices is listed in Table 7.
EPA's Risk Assessment addressed the potential risks to human health by identifying several
pathways by which the public may be exposed to contaminant releases at the Site under
current and future land use conditions. A summary of the exposure scenarios can be found in
Table 8.
Demographics and land use were evaluated in assessing present and potential future
populations which live, work, or otherwise spend time at or in the area of the Site. The
purpose of this analysis was to assess the likelihood of various groups, including sensitive
populations, becoming exposed to Site contaminants.
An undetermined number of people work at the SHI facility. Surrounding properties are
primarily residential. The-immediate Site vicinity is rural, however, a dense population center is
located approximately 0.75 miles north of the Site. General public access to the SHI facility is
currently restricted by a chain link fence, but area youths may trespass on the facility itself. As
a result, the possible exposure of facility employees, maintenance workers, and utility workers
needed to be considered along with residents and their youth. Therefore the following exposure
scenarios were developed :
ingestion of groundwater by residents (future use);
inhalation of contaminants volatilized from groundwater when residents shower (future use);
ingestion of surface soils by onsite residents (future use);
incidental ingestion of subsurface soils by excavation workers (future use);
incidental ingestion of subsurface soils by utility workers (present and future uses);
ingestion of sediments from LJgonee Brook by local residents (present and future uses); and
incidental ingestion of dry well sediments by utility workers (present use).
-------
-10-
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.
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 COC is presented in Table 9.
For known or suspected carcinogens, EPA considers excess upper bound individual lifetime
cancer risks of between 10"4 to 10"6 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 for each receptor at the Rowe Site are outlined
in Table 10-A. Media specific cancer risk estimates are listed in Table 10-B. The total cancer
risk for an on-site resident is 7 xlO"3, primarily based on ingesting untreated groundwater
containing PCE from the Upper Glacial aquifer in the vicinity of the Site. This means that, as
a plausible upper bound; as individual has an additional 7 in 1000 chance of developing cancer
as a result of Site-related exposures under the specific exposure conditions presented at the
Site. In addition, MCLs are currently exceeded for several hazardous substances in
groundwater.
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).
The RfDs for the chemicals of potential concern at the Rowe site are presented in Table 9.
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.
-------
-11-
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.
A receptor-specific summary of the non-carcinogenic risks associated with the chemicals of
potential concern across various exposure pathways is found in Table 11-A. It can be seen
from Tables 11-A and 11-B that the greatest non-carcinogenic risk from the Site is associated
with ingestion of Upper Glacial aquifer water by residents. The hazard index associated with
ingestion of groundwater was estimated to be 43. The non-carcinogenic effects exceed 1.0
due primarily to the presence of PCE, antimony, and iron. The hazard index for soil was
calculated to be less than 1.0 except for ingestion of subsurface soils in the drum storage area
and surface soils. The summary of surface soil sampling results which were used to determine
the hazard index for ingestion of soils can be found in Table 5. Although the risks posed by
ingestion of soils in the former drum storage area and the ingestion of sludge and underlying
soils associated with the dry wells are within the range generally considered acceptable by
EPA, contamination in these areas, if not addressed will likely continue to contribute to further
contamination of groundwater at the Site.
Ecological Assessment
Information from the Rl report, site visits and literature were used to characterize species
present in the vicinity. Information on endangered, threatened, and special concern species
was obtained from the New York Natural Heritage Program. The tiger salamander was the only
identified, threatened, or rare animal that could potentially frequent the site vicinity. The species
uses coastal plain ponds as breeding grounds. Exposure to arsenic, copper, chromium, lead,
magnesium and zinc in soils can potentially cause sublethal effects in wildlife. Chromium is the
only contaminant in Ligonee Brook surface water that may present a hazard to aquatic life.
However, exposures will be limited since the streambed is frequently dry.
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
-------
-12-
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 risk assessment process is that the methodology used
to calculate the site risks are site-wide averages, which give a clear overall understanding of
site risks.
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
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.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial Action Objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the environment.
These objectives are based on available information and standards such as applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) and risk-based levels established in the risk
assessment.
Specific remedial action objectives for this Site include:
Groundwater - Restoration of groundwater quality to its intended use of potential drinking water
by reducing contaminant levels to State and Federal drinking water standards (see Table 12).
Soil - Excavation of contaminated soil to the recommended soil cleanup objectives will be
performed in order for the soil not to be a contributor to groundwater contamination by VOCs
(see Table 13).
-------
-13-
VII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
A feasibility study was conducted to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives at the Rowe
Industries Site. Remedial alternatives were assembled from applicable remedial technology
process options and were initially evaluated for effectiveness, implementability,.and cost. The
alternatives meeting these criteria were then evaluated and compared to nine criteria required
by the NCR. 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 in the former drum storage
area and certain dry wells (DW-C, DW-D and DW-F) have been determined to be a source of
groundwater contamination. Contaminants were found to move from the unsaturated soil to
the groundwater. Once in the groundwater, the contaminants, under the influence of the
groundwater gradient, migrate from the facility to potential receptors.
CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy be protective of human health and the
environment, be 'cost effective, comply with other statutory laws, and utilize permanent
solutions, alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum
extent practicable. In addition, the statute includes a preference for the use of treatment as a
principal element for the reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.
This Record of Decision evaluates, in detail, nine remedial alternatives for addressing the
contamination associated with the Rowe Industries Site. The time to implement reflects only
the time required to construct or implement the remedy and does not include the time required
to negotiate with responsible parties, procure contracts for design and construction or design
the remedy.
The alternatives identified for both soil and groundwater are presented below:
Soil Remediation Alternatives:
Alternative 1: No Action
EPA considered the "No Action" alternative for soils and dry well sludge to provide a baseline
of comparison among soil alternatives. Under this alternative, the contaminated soil would be
left in place without treatment. In accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA, remedial actions
that leave hazardous substances at the Site are to be reviewed at least once every five years
to assure that the remedial action is protective of human health and the environment. The No
Action alternative must be reviewed by EPA at least every five years.
Capital cost: $0
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $0
-------
-14-
30-year Present
Worth: $0
Time to Implement: None
Alternative 2- Deed Notation. Physical Restrictions and Monitoring
This alternative involves obtaining deed notations in compliance with the appropriate regulatory
agencies, fencing with warning signs around the former drum storage area and periodic soil
sampling and analysis.
The deed notations would indicate that the land contains hazardous substances. A survey plot
and record of the location and quantity of VOCs would be filed at the repositories.
The drum storage area would be secured by installing a 6 foot high industrialgrade chain link
fence and posting warning signs stating that the area contains hazardous substances. In
addition, soil sampling and analysis for VOCs in the former drum storage area and dry wells
DW-C, DW-D, DW-F would be conducted semiannually for ten years. After the first ten years,
the need for further soil monitoring would be evaluated. EPA would review the Site every five
years.
Capital cost: $40,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $16,000
30 year Present
Worth: $281,000
Time to Implement: None
Alternative 3- Capping. Excavation and Off-Site Disposal. Deed Restrictions. Physical
Restrictions and Periodic Monitoring
This alternative consists of capping the 20 foot by 20 foot drum storage area according to
federal specifications, excavation and off-site disposal of sludge and underlying soil from dry
wells DW-C, DW-D, and DW-F, deed notations, physical restrictions, such as fencing with
warning signs, and semiannual ground-water monitoring and analysis.
A cap is cover material placed over contaminated material designed to prevent infiltration of
water. The cap itself would be designed to conform with federal Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements. It would occupy a 45-by-45-foot area, which would include
-------
-15-
a 2.5-foot wide perimeter infiltration trench. The cap would consist of the following layers above
the compacted soil: a geocomposite membrane liner, a 40-mil high density polyethylene
(HOPE) liner, 12 inches of masons sand, a geotextile membrane filter, 12 inches of sandy loam
and 6-12 inches of loose topsoil. The liners would act as impermeable seals. The masons sand
would allow water to seep into the infiltration trench. The geotextile membrane filter would
separate the masons sand and sandy loam while allowing water to pass through. The sandy
loam would provide a base for the topsoil and protect the liners.
The soil beneath the cap would be sloped to direct water away from the center of the cap and
into the surrounding trench. The water would then travel from the trench into a 6-inch pipe to
a nearby pond.
In addition, 135 cubic yards of contaminated sludge and underlying soils associated with dry
wells DW-C, DW-D, and DW-F would be excavated and transported off-site to a RCRA
permitted landfill. However, to comply with RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) regulations,
it is expected to be necessary to treat the soils before disposal. The LDR sets 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. During the remedial design phase of this project, EPA will determine
whether incineration is necessary to meet the LDR regulations. Incineration would produce a
dry ash material which may require further RCRA-permitted disposal to protect the environment.
In addition, confirmatory monitoring would be performed to ensure that soils with
concentrations above Site cleanup objectives have been excavated.
Semiannual inspections would be performed to inspect the cap, the fence and the drainage
channels. In addition groundwater would be sampled semi-annually from the three wells in the
immediate vicinity of the cap. EPA would review the Site every five years.
A range of costs is presented for this alternative. The low end of the range assumes that
treatment is not required to meet LDR restrictions. The high end of the range assumes
incineration of all excavated soils is required to meet LDRs.
Capital cost: $277,000 - $452,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $7,000
30 year Present
Worth: - $441,000-$616,000
Time to Implement: 6 Months
Remedial Action: 30 Years
-------
-16-
Alternative 4- Soil Vapor Extraction in the Drum Storage Area and Excavation and Off-Site
Disposal at a RCRA-Permitted Landfill
Soil vapor extraction would involve the installation of vents in the contaminated unsaturated soil
zone in the drum disposal area. 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 and subsequently treated with 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 groundwater treatment alternative operating in conjunction with groundwater
remediation, the condensate could be treated on-site at minimal cost. Off-site disposal of
condensate would be necessary if this alternative was implemented before a groundwater
treatment system was constructed.
Under this alternative, approximately 230 cubic yards of contaminated soil would be treated
until no more VOCs could be effectively removed from the unsaturated soil zone. Subsurface
soil sampling would be required to monitor the progress of the soil vapor extraction process.
In addition, 135 cubic yards of contaminated sludge and underlying soils associated with dry
wells DW-C, DW-D, and DW-F would be excavated and transported off-site to a RCRA
permitted landfill. However, to comply with RCRA LDR regulations, it may be necessary to treat
the soils before disposal as described under Alternative 3. The total cost of this remedy
includes the cost of the excavation and off-site disposal of the dry wells shown under
Alternative 3.
A range of costs is presented for this alternative. The low end of the range assumes that
treatment is not required to meet LDR restrictions. The high end of the range assumes
incineration of all excavated soils is required to meet LDRs.
In addition, confirmatory monitoring would be performed to ensure that soils with
concentrations above Site cleanup objectives have been excavated.
Capital cost: $257,000 - $432,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $37,000
30 year Present
Worth: $436,000 - $650,000
Time to Implement: 6 Months
Remedial Action: 30 Years
-------
-17-
Alternative 5 - Excavation and Off-site Disposal at a RCRA-Permitted Landfill
This alternative includes excavation of contaminated soils in the drum storage area and
contaminated sludges and underlying soils associated with dry wells DW-C, DW-D, and DW-F.
A total of 365 cubic yards of soil contaminated with volatile organic and semi-volatile organic
compounds would be excavated, and the excavated soil would be disposed off-site at a RCRA-
permitted landfill.
However, to comply with RCRA LDRs, it may be necessary to treat the soils before disposal
as described under Alternative 3.
A range of costs is presented for this alternative. The low end of the range assumes that
treatment is not required to meet LDR restrictions. The high end of the range assumes
incineration of all excavated soils is required to meet LDRs.
In addition, confirmatory monitoring would be performed to ensure that soils with
concentrations above Site cleanup objectives have been excavated.
Capital cost: $465,000 - $939,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $0
Present Worth: $465,000 - $939,000
Time to Implement: 1-2 months
Groundwater Treatment Alternatives:
All of the remedial groundwater alternatives, except the No Action alternative and Alternative
2, involve extraction, treatment and discharge of the treated water to the surface water. The
contaminated groundwater is recovered using extraction wells within the contaminant plume.
The extracted groundwater is treated and then discharged to a downgradient body of surface
water.
The ultimate goal of the EPA Superfund Program's approach to groundwater remediation as
stated in the NCP (40 CFR Part 300) is to return usable groundwater to its beneficial use within
a time frame that is reasonable. Therefore, for this aquifer, which is classified by New York
State as IIB (drinking water aquifer), the final remediation goals will be federal and state drinking
water standards. Recent studies have indicated that pumping and treatment technologies have
inherent uncertainties in achieving the ppb concentrations required under ARARs for
groundwater 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 groundwater treatment alternative stipulates
-------
-18-
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, discontinue pumping;
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,
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) waiving chemical-specific ARARs for the cleanup of t> -59 portions of the aquifer
based on the technical impracticability of achieving fur: - contamir - nt reduction;
c) recommending institutional controls, in the form of local zoning ordinances, 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 revaluation 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.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
Alternative 1: No Action
EPA considers the "No Action" alternative for groundwater to provide a baseline of comparison
among groundwater alternatives. Under this alternative, no groundwater remedial activity would
-------
-19-
take place at the Site. Alternative 1 relies on natural processes in the groundwater to reduce
VOC levels in the aquifer. In accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA, the No Action
alternative would be reviewed by EPA at least every five years.
Capital cost: $0
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $0
30 year Present
Worth: $0
Time to Implement: None
Alternative 2- Deed Notations with Monitoring
This alternative involves obtaining deed notations to limit the land use activities at the Site as
well as periodic groundwater monitoring to track the movement and concentrations of the
VOCs. No active groundwater remediation (e.g.. groundwater extraction and treatment) would
be undertaken. Annual sampling of 19 monitoring wells would provide an assessment of the
extent and mobility of the VOCs. Monitoring would be conducted at eight of the monitoring
wells located on the SHI property, seven of the monitoring wells located within the extent of the
VOC plume, and four additional monitoring wells to be located downgradient of the plume.
Samples would be collected annually and analyzed to determine the compounds present and
their concentrations. Two potential monitoring schemes were evaluated. Groundwater would
be monitored for five years at which time EPA would re-evaluate the groundwater quality and
determine the need for active groundwater extraction and treatment. Alternatively,
groundwater could be monitored until contaminants are flushed out naturally through continued
groundwater flow. Under this option, groundwater would be monitored for a minimum of 30
years. EPA would review the Site every five years. The following costs are for 30 years of
monitoring.
Capital cost: $39,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: $26,000
30 year Present
Worth: ' $485,000
Time to Implement: None
Remedial Action: 30 Years
Alternative 3- Groundwater Extraction & Treatment with Discharge to Lioonee Brook
This alternative includes pumping and treating contaminated groundwater, discharging the
treated water to LJgonee Brook, and groundwater monitoring. Based on groundwater
-------
-20-
modelling, this alternative was evaluated at two flow rates, each flow rate targeted to a different
level of groundwater remediation.. Alternative 3-1 is evaluated assuming that 150 gallons per
minute (gpm) is pumped from four recovery wells located on the SHI facility property. Based
on this assumption, modelling shows that it would take approximately five years to remediate
the plume located on the SHI property to meet cleanup goals. The remainder of the plume
would disperse in approximately 20 years.
Alternative 3-II is evaluated assuming that a total of 600 gpm is pumped from seven recovery
wells on and off the facility property throughout the groundwater plume. Based on this
assumption, after 10 years a large portion of the plume would be remediated, and in 15 years
the entire plume would be remediated to cleanup goals.
Under both Alternatives 3-I and 3-II, contaminated groundwater would be pumped from
designated recovery wells and treated to remove iron, manganese, and VOCs. Sampling of the
extraction wells would be performed to determine whether chromium and lead treatment should
be included in the remedial action. After treatment to remove iron and manganese, the water
would flow, under pressure, through a sediment filter and then to a packed tower for air
stripping. The air stripper would remove the VOCs from the water through volatilization. The
treated water from the tower would be pumped and discharged to Ligonee Brook. The
discharge would be sampled as necessary to comply with State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES) permit requirements.
Vapors from the packed tower would be treated, if necessary, to comply with air emissions
requirements and then released to the atmosphere.
EPA would review the Site every five years.
Capital cost: > 3-I $874,000
3-II $1,298,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: 3-I $180,000
3-II $254,000
Present Worth: 3-I $3,646,000
3-II $5,206,000
Time to Implement:
Construction: 18 months
Remedial Action: 3-I -20 years
3-II -15 years
-------
-21-
Alternative 4- Groundwater Extraction & Treatment with Discharge to Sag Harbor Cove
The only difference between Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 is the point of discharge for treated
groundwater. The point of discharge for this alternative would be Sag Harbor Cove.
EPA would review the Site every five years.
Capital cost: 4-I $941,000
4-II $1,341,000
Annual Operation
& Maintenance: 4-I $180,000
4-II $254,000
Present Worth: 4-I $3,713,000
4-II $5,248,000
Time to Implement:
Construction: 18 months
Remedial Action: 4-I -20 years
4-II -15 years
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the NCP, a detailed analysis of each alternative is performed. 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.
2. Compliance with ARARs:
This criterion addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all the ARARs of other federal
-------
-22-
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 toxicity, 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 remedy.
7. Cost:
This criterion includes capital and O&M costs and the present-worth 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 the public comment period.
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.
The following is a summary of the comparison of each alternative's strengths and weaknesses
with respect to the nine evaluation criteria.
-------
-23-
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Soil Remediation Alternatives
Contaminated soils represent a continuing source of groundwater contamination. In addition,
groundwater poses an unacceptable risk to human health in future use scenarios.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are not protective of human health or the environment because
contaminants will continue to leach to groundwater. It has been estimated that leaching will
result in groundwater concentrations that exceed ARARs for 30 years or more.
Alternative 3, which includes capping in the former drum storage area and excavation of the
dry wells, provides for some protection of human health by minimizing infiltration and reducing
leachate generation. Alternative 4 is more protective of human health and the environment
because it removes the VOCs from the soil. In addition, the circulation of air from the soil vapor
extraction system also enhances the biodegradation of semi-volatiles. Alternative 5 is the most
protective because it ensures that all the contaminated soil and any residual contamination will
be completely removed from the Site.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
All the groundwater alternatives, except Alternatives 1 and 2, are considered protective of
human health. Deed restrictions rely heavily upon institutional controls for effectiveness. The
time period for natural attenuation has been estimated to be 30 years, if a source control
alternative is implemented. Alternatives 3-I and 4-I are less protective than Alternatives 3-II and
4-II since they actively treat only a portion of the plume and leave the rest of the plume, located
downgradient of the SHI property, subject to natural attenuation only.
2. Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
Soil Remediation Alternatives
No federal or state chemical-specific ARARs exist for soils. However, EPA and NYSDEC have
generated soil cleanup objectives (see fable 13) to restrict the concentration of compounds
in the soil to a level which would ensure that contaminants in soil do not further contaminate
groundwater.
EPA has determined that, based on available information, certain actions taken with respect to
the contaminated soil at the site must comply with applicable RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR) requirements. The LDRs place restrictions on the land disposal of any RCRA hazardous
wastes. Because soil remediation alternatives 3,4, and 5 involve the excavation and placement
of contaminated soil and because EPA believes that such soil contains RCRA listed hazardous
wastes, these alternatives must comply with RCRA LDR requirements.
-------
-24-
Soil remediation alternatives 3,4, and 5 include the excavation and off-site disposal of 135 - 365
cubic yards of soil contaminated with spent solvents which were used in degreasing operations
at the Site. EPA believes that these soils are contaminated with listed RCRA wastes, known
as F001 wastes. The RCRA LDRs require that F001 wastes and soils which contain them
comply with certain concentration requirements prior to being land disposed. These
concentrations requirements are expressed in terms of the toxic characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) analysis which measures concentration levels in the waste extract as a result
of the TCLP test (see 40 CFR Part 268, Appendix I). The TCLP concentration requirements for
F001 wastes include the following requirements for chemicals at the Rowe Site:
Chemical Concentration in TCLP Extract
(ppm)
Ethylbenzene 0.053
Methylene Chloride 0.96
PCE 0.05
Toluene 0.33
1,1,1 TCA 0.41
TCE 0.091
Xylene 0.15
Therefore, in compliance with the LDR requirements, the soils to be excavated in soil
remediation Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 would be analyzed using the TGLP analysis. If the extract
concentrations for these soils are higher than those listed above, the soils would be treated
(either by incineration or an alternative technology) to meet the TCLP concentrations above.
Once the TCLP concentrations have been met, the soils would be disposed of in a RCRA-
permitted landfill.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
Since the groundwater underlying the Site is a potential future water supply source, Federal
MCLS and State Groundwater Quality Standards (whichever are more stringent) and non-zero
MCL Goals are ARARs. Therefore, pumping of the groundwater would continue until levels in
the aquifer are at or below ARARs. Alternatives 3 and 4 are designed to achieve these ARARs
in a timeframe of 15-20 years. It is possible that Alternative 2 might potentially meet MCLs
through the flushing processes associated with natural groundwater flow. However, all of
these groundwater restoration timeframes are based on a computer model designed to predict
environmental conditions, and the actual restoration timeframes may be longer or shorter than
those predicted by this model. EPA believes that it would require a long period of time (greater
than 20 years) to meet MCLs through natural attenuation. Therefore, EPA does not consider
that Alternative 2 would meet MCLs in a timely manner.
Under Alternatives 3 and 4, treated groundwater would be directly discharged into surface
-------
-25-
water. Therefore, the requirements of the SPDES Program are ARARs and must be met. Any
discharges made to Ligonee Brook or Sag Harbor Cove will be in compliance with SPDES
requirements. Ligonee Brook is a fresh water intermittent stream and Sag Harbor Cove is a
salt water body. Therefore discharging to the Cove will be more feasible for two reasons. One
reason is the fact that periodically the Brook is dry and therefore the effluent discharge quality
would have to be the fresh water, water quality criteria. The second reason is that since the
Cove is a salt water body the SPDES requirements will be easier to achieve because salt water
quality criteria are less stringent than fresh water quality. For the alternatives that include
pumping and treating the groundwater, air emission treatment, if necessary, will be .installed to
meet 6NYCRR Parts 200,201, and 212 regulations and New York State Air Guide.
3. Long-term Effectiveness
Soil Remediation Alternatives
Alternative 1 results in groundwater contamination that exceeds MCLs for the groundwater
contaminants of concern for over 30 years. Alternative 2 offers a lesser degree of long-term
effectiveness since the likelihood of adequately enforcing deed notations and physical
restrictions cannot be guaranteed.
Alternative 3 would offer a lesser degree of long-term effectiveness by eliminating the exposure
pathway but diligent maintenance of the cap and long term monitoring would be required to
be fully effective. Additionally, Alternative 3 does not fully eliminate the possibility of
contaminated soil acting as a source of groundwater contamination if horizontal flow is present
within some portion of the lower 12 feet of contaminated soil.
Alternatives 4 and 5 would offer the greatest degree of long-term effectiveness by reducing the
contaminants to below the previously stated soil cleanup objectives.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2 are effective as long as the groundwater is not used as a potable water
supply, but do not actively address the degraded condition of the aquifer. Alternative 2 offers
a lesser degree of long-term effectiveness since the likelihood of adequately enforcing deed
notations and well permitting restrictions cannot be guaranteed. Alternatives 3 and 4 provide
for active extraction systems which will remove the contaminated plume. The active treatment
and extraction alternatives provide for more reliable protection by meeting groundwater clean-
up goals. However, Alternatives 3-I and 4-I are less protective than Alternatives 3-II and 4-II
since they only actively treat the portion of the plume located on the SHI property and leave
the remainder of the plume subject to natural attenuation only.
4. Reduction of Toxlcity, Mobility, or Volume
-------
-26-
Soil Remediation Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not utilize treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of
contaminants. Alternative 3 would not employ treatment of the drum storage area but could
reduce the mobility of the contaminants by preventing vertical infiltration that may carry
contaminants into the groundwater. Alternatives 4 and 5 best meet this criterion because they
would reduce the toxicity and volume of contaminants by removing the VOCs through the use
of soil vapor extraction or excavation and treatment.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of any contaminants
through treatment.
Alternatives 3 and 4 best meet this criterion since they would reduce the toxicity, mobility, and
volume of contaminants in Site groundwater through treatment to remove volatile organic
compounds.
5. Short-term Effectiveness
Soil Remediation Alternatives
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not involve any change to the existing Site conditions. Therefore,
no short term impacts to human health are anticipated for either alternative. However, both
alternatives would not achieve soil cleanup goals in any reasonable period of time.
Alternatives 3 through 5' involve activities such as drilling and excavation, however, the major
components would have minimal short-term effects on the community during implementation,
since they require very limited excavation of dry wells. These alternatives would have minor
short-term effects on the surrounding community, including a slight increase in noise level from
construction equipment, and possible fugitive dust emissions which could be minimized by the
proper engineering procedure.
Alternatives 5 involves transportation of a greater volume of contaminated soil from the Site,
and increases the potential risks to workers associated with dust generated during excavation
and/or transportation. Potential risks to workers can be managed easily by procedures
outlined in site specific health and safety plans.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
Groundwater Alternatives 3-I and 4-I are not as protective of human health and the environment
as 3-II and 4-II because 3-I and 4-I do not actively address the downgradient portion of the
plume and therefore require a longer period of time to achieve protection . All the active
-------
27-
groundwater treatment Alternatives, 3-1, 3-11, 4-1 and 4-11, involve little disturbance to
contaminated subsurface areas, therefore the potential risks to Site workers are minor and can
be easily managed. The potential short-term risks to human health and the environment are
anticipated to be low for these alternatives.
6. Implementabitity
Soil Remediation Alternatives
All the alternatives are technically and administratively feasible. Alternatives 1 and 2 would be
the easiest to implement. Alternatives 3, 4 and 5 depend on a RCRA-permitted landfill agreeing
to accept the soil before it can be implemented. In addition, since the area of soil to be
remediated is small, it would be difficult to obtain a vendor to implement Alternative 4, soil vapor
extraction.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
All the alternatives are technically and administratively feasible. The treatment components of
Alternatives 3 and 4 are known to be proven effective for all contaminants of concern and
should be relatively easy to implement because they rely on well understood and readily
available commercial equipment. Air stripping is a proven technology widely used in the
removal of VOCs from groundwater.
7. Cost
Soil Remediation Alternatives
The present worth cost of the alternatives that provide for treatment and disposal of the soils
ranges from approximately $616,000 (for capping of drum storage area and excavation of DW-
D, DW-C & DW-F) to $939,000 (for excavation of drum storage area and DW-D, DW-C and DW-
F). These totals include the cost of incineration of all excavated soils to meet LDRs.
Groundwater Remediation Alternatives
The present worth cost of the alternatives that provide treatment for groundwater range from
a present worth of $3,646,000 (for extraction using four recovery wells and treatment with
discharge to LJgonee Brook ) to $5,248,00 (for extraction using seven recovery wells and
treatment with discharge to the Cove). The greater costs of the selected remedy increase with
the greater degree of protectiveness. Alternative 4-II is more protective than Alternatives 3-I and
4-I since it cleans up the entire plume.
-------
-28-
8. State Acceptance
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedy.
9. Community Acceptance
In general, the local residents agreed with the selection of the remedy. Their main concern is
the effects that discharging the treated groundwater to the Sag Harbor Cove may have on its
ecosystem. All comments are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary which is appended
to this ROD in Appendix 4.
IX. SELECTED REMEDY
Based on the results of the RI/FS and after careful consideration of all alternatives presented
above, EPA recommends the following alternatives for cleaning up the contaminated soils and
groundwater at the Rowe Industries Superfund Site: Soil Remediation Alternative 5: Soli
Excavation and Disposal at a Chemical Waste Landfill in conjunction with Groundwater
Remediation Alternative 4-11: Extraction/Air Stripping with Discharge to Sag Harbor Cove.
Specifically, the selected remedy will involve the following:
1) excavating and disposing of 365 cubic yards of soil at a RCRA permitted facility (soil will
be treated to meet LDRs, if necessary);
2) monitoring to confirm that soils with concentrations above Site cleanup objectives have
been excavated;
3) extraction and treatment of groundwater to meet federal and State drinking water MCLs
in the aquifer (groundwater will be treated with air stripping with subsequent discharge
to Sag Harbor Cove);
4) long-term groundwater monitoring to track the migration and concentrations of the
contaminants of concern; and
5) re-evaluation of the Site at least once every five years to determine if a modification to
the selected alternative is necessary as long as contaminants remain on-site above
health-based levels.
The selected remedy is believed to provide the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria. Based on the information available at this
time, EPA believes the selected alternative will be protective of human health and the
environment, comply with ARARs, be cost effective, and utilize permanent technologies to the
-------
-29-
maximum extent practicable. The alternative also treats the source of contamination (i.e.,
soils), meeting the statutory preference for a remedy that involves treatment as a principal
element.
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 toxicity, mobility
and volume 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 is protective of human health and the environment. Soils with
concentrations of contaminants exceeding the recommended soil cleanup objectives will be
excavated and disposed of in an off-site RCRA-permitted landfill. Therefore the selected remedy
for soils is also fully protective of human health and the environment because it removes a
continuing threat to groundwater posed by the on-site contaminated soils arid protects the sole
source aquifer drinking water supply.
Groundwater remediation with the goal of achieving ARARs is also protective of human health
and the environment. Although there is no current exposure pathway for groundwater use on
the site, the pumping and treatment alternative attempts to restore a future potential drinking
water source to drinking water standards. Prior to the contamination, this sole source aquifer
was used as a private drinking water supply. Additionally, the alternative prevents any
contamination from migrating to Sag Harbor Cove, the surface water body to which the
contaminated aquifer discharges.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
At the completion of response actions, the selected remedy will have complied with the
following major ARARs and considerations:
Chemical-specific ARARs:
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) (40CFR 141.11-141.16)
-------
-30-
and non-zero MCLGs, 6 NYCRR Groundwater Quality Regulations (Parts 703.5, 703.6, 703.7)
and the NYS Sanitary code (10 NYCRR part 5) provide standards for toxic compounds for
public drinking water supply^ systems. The groundwater will be pumped until the above-
referenced standards are achieved in the aquifer.
No federal or state chemical-specific ARARs exist for soils. However, EPA and NYSDEC have
generated soil cleanup objectives (see Table 13) to restrict the concentration of compounds
in the soil to a level which would ensure that contaminants in soil do not further contaminate
groundwater.
Action-specific ARARs:
The selected remedy which involves the pumping and treating of groundwater may require air
emissions treatment. This treatment will be required to meet 6NYCRR Parts 200, 201 and 212
regulations and the New York State Air Guide. In addition, the extracted groundwater will be
treated and discharged to Sag Harbor Cove in compliance with SPDES requirements.
EPA has determined that, based on available information, certain actions taken with respect to
the contaminated soil at the site must comply with applicable RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR) requirements. The LDRs place restrictions on the land disposal of any RCRA hazardous
wastes. Because the selected remedy for soil remediation, Alternative 5, involves the
excavation and placement of contaminated soil, and because EPA believes that such soil
contains RCRA listed hazardous wastes, this alternative must comply with RCRA LDR
requirements.
Soil remediation Alternative 5 is the excavation and off-site disposal of 365 cubic yards of soil
contaminated with spent solvents which were used in degreasing operations at the Site. EPA
believes that these soils are contaminated with listed RCRA wastes, known as F001 wastes.
The RCRA LDRs require that F001 wastes and soils which contain them comply with certain
concentration requirements prior to being land disposed. These concentrations requirements
are expressed in terms of the toxic characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) analysis which
measures concentration levels in the waste extract as a result of the TCLP test (see 40 CFR
Part 268, Appendix I). The TCLP concentration requirements for F001 wastes include the
following requirements for chemicals at the Rowe Site:
-Chemical Concentration in TCLP Extract
Ethylbenzene 0.053
Methylene Chloride 0.96
PCE 0.05
Toluene 0.33
-------
-31-
1,1,1 TCA 0.41
TCE 0.091
Xylene 0.15
Therefore, in compliance with the LDR requirements, the soils to be excavated will be analyzed
using the TCLP analysis. If the extract concentrations for these soils are higher than those
listed above, the soils will be treated (either by incineration or an alternative technology) to meet
the TCLP concentrations above. Once the TCLP concentrations have been met, EPA would
dispose of the soils in a RCRA-permttted compliant landfill.
Location-specific ARARs
Executive Order 11990 - "Protection of Wetlands" is an ARAR for this Site. Therefore, a
wetland delineation will be completed during the early stages of the Remedial Design (RD)
Process. If it is determined that remedial actions may adversely impact wetlands, a wetland
functional values assessment will be completed and used to develop a Wetland Impact
Mitigation Plan if necessary.
Executive Order 11988 - "Floodplain Management" is an ARAR for this Site. A floodplain
assessment (with delineation of the 100 and 500 year flood contours) will be completed in the
early stages of RD. This will ensure that the 500 year contour are protected against, and that
the 500 year contour will be evaluated so that appropriate protective measures will be taken
if necessary to address the potential effects of a flood event.
The Endangered Species Act is an ARAR for this site. If it is determined that there Federal
Endangered/Threatened species, or their critical habitats are on or in the vicinity of the Site,
actions will be taken to ensure that they are not adversely impacted by the remedial action.
The National Historic Preservation Act is applicable to the site. Accordingly, a Stage IA Cultural
Resources Survey will be completed for the project area during the early stages of the RD. If
the results of the Stage IA Survey suggest that further investigation is necessary, a Stage IB
Survey will be completed for sensitive areas. If Cultural Resources are found and will be
impacted by site actions, further actions will be necessary consistent with the National Historic
Preservation Act.
3. Cost Effectiveness
The selected soil remedy is the most expensive. However, it provides the greatest overall
protectiveness. Excavation of the contaminated soil with off-site disposal and treatment has a
present worth cost of $939,000 and is more expensive than soil vapor extraction which offers
the next highest level of protectiveness. However, the difficulty of finding a vendor to implement
-------
-32-
the technology for such a small 20' by 20 'area makes it infeasible. Therefore Alternative 5 is
the most cost effective. The $5,248,000, 30-year present worth cost associated with the
selected groundwater remedy, Alternative 4-11 is the most costly of all the groundwater
treatment alternatives. The $5,248,000 cost associated with groundwater treatment is cost
effective in that the remedy provides the greatest overall protectiveness as compared with the
$3,646,00 and $3,713,000 cost associated with Alternatives 3-I and 4-I, respectively, which
pump and treat a portion rather than the entire plume which is not as protective as alternative
4-II.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment (or Resource Recovery)
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies can be utilized in a cost effective manner for the Site. After
excavation is complete, the soil will no longer be contributing contaminants to the underlying
aquifer.
The groundwater treatment used in the selected remedy will reduce the contaminants of
concern to levels protective of human health. 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 were also taken into account in this
determination.
The long-term effectiveness and permanence of the selected soil remedy is very high in that
the contaminated soils would be removed and the contaminated areas restored. Groundwater
treatment also offers long-term effectiveness and permanence in that the remedial goal is to
achieve ARARs as rapidly as possible.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume is also evident in the selected remedy. The excavation
of soils will effectively reduce the mobility of contaminants by eliminating this pathway as a
continuing source to groundwater. The toxicity and volume of contaminated soil is also
reduced. Groundwater 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 a short time and have minimal effects on the surrounding community.
The short-term effectiveness and implementability of the groundwater treatment alternative is
high in that there is no exposure to contaminated groundwater during implementation and the
remedy employs standard equipment and well developed technologies. As stated above, the
-------
-33-
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
The statutory preference for treatment as a principal element is satisfied in the selected remedy
for each medium. The soil excavation alternative may require treatment prior to disposal to
comply with LDR standards. The groundwater treatment alternative requires treatment prior to
discharge to comply with SPDES requirements and to achieve ARARs in the aquifer.
XI. DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Rowe Industries Site was released to the public on August 26,1992.
The Proposed Plan identified soil remediation Alternative 5 and groundwater remediation
Alternative 4-II as the preferred alternative. 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.
-------
-34-
APPENDIX 1
-------
BASE MAP IS A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING U.S.G.S. 7.5' SERIES QUADRANGLE:
SAG HARBOR, NY, 1956
0 1000 2000 3000 fMt
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
LOCATION MAP
ROWE INDUSTRIES SUPERFUND SITE
SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
TflC
Figure 1
-------
Figure 2
Rowe Industries Superfund Site: Site Sketch
"00
S
D
(D
o
LEGEND
TIM Urn
Form* Drum
SmipArM
PamdAlM
OiyWMI
Surface SaU
SMnpmg
Locaton
Moving
Van
Edge of
Pavement
Approximate
Scale in (eel
-------
LOCATED SCOMS WELLS
N013 UMLOC»TtD S3JHS WELLS
0 PRO"ER-Y OWNERS' WILLS
A STRt*W POINT SAMPLING LOCATION
WCLL(S) INSTALLED FOP «I/FS
I?
e
LOCATION
l't BOJIJ3»R>' B»SD ON 1 PP8
or ANY DCTECIEP pwiuApf PLUME coNsrrtuENT
LAUD SURFACE CONTOUR INTERVAL - 5 FEET
TVOC CONTAMINATION PLUME
AT
ROWE INDUSTRIES
FIGURE 3
-------
Source: leggelte. Brashears A Graham. 1992
ApproMimate
Scale in tee!
Hi »- Fence
I I Paved Area
IQCi Former Drum
Storage Area
u>
Monilorlng Wei
Dry Wei
TreeUne
ONSITE GROUND WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS
ROWE INDUSTRIES SUPERFUND SITE
SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
TRC
Flgtm 4.
-------
.SW/SDf2 N-20
SW'SDfS '.^^-Ar-^ SW/8D«3
-*-" -^ 8W/SOf4
35 N-19 \
NoyickRoid
Soure«: L*gg«tt«. Brt»h«ar»
PavtdRoad .
Private Homeowner W«!l
Sample Location
Monitoring Well
Surface Water/Sediment
Sampling Location
OFFSITE SAMPLING LOCATIONS
HOWE INDUSTRIES SUPERFUNO SITE
SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
-------
Edge of
Pavement
Hegerman
Rcsktonc*
Approximate
Scale in feel
Source: Leggetle. Brashears & Graham. 1992
ONSITE SOIL AND SEDIMENT
SAMPLING LOCATIONS
4) Dry Wei Sediment
Soil Boring
Pond Sediment (PSL-1)
o Surface Sol Samplng
Location (S-1)
ROWE INDUSTRIES SUPERFUNO SITE
SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
-------
LEGEND
CMVWCU
ROOF OMIH s pours
x SANifAfir fACinncs
CONTOUR IN re WAI - 2 Ffff
50
SCALf IN fftT
SKETCH OF DRY WELL SYSTEM
AT
ROWE INDUSTRIES
FIGURE 7
-------
-35-
APPENDIX 2
-------
TABLE 1-A
ROWE INDUSTRIES SITE
SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
FOR 1989
SUMMARY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
for MONITOR WELLS
TOUR* M.I I.I I.I
CHLORO tWCWOBO TRICHORD DKMOHO UCH.ORO
ETM.ENE ' ETWUC ETHENE ETHANE ETHENE
1.1 FREON
OKMORO 113
ETHENE
ETHYl
BENZENE
METHYICNI TOTAl Of
CNIORDE DETECTED
COMPOUNDS
WEU SAUPIE
NUOER DEPTH FT) DAT!
REPORTED VALUES*
ND1000 90BJB
NIB
KM
1111400
IUI4MB
1600
1300
190
iao
60
30
NDIOO
NDIOO
NDIOO
NDIOO
NDIOO
NDIOO
JOOBB
370BB
NDIOO
NDIOO
NDIOO
NDIOO
NDIOO NDIOO
NDIOO NDIOO
17*0
1*90
NDIOO NDIOO
ND2000 37OBR
NDIOO NDIOO
I**
IOBR 100
-------
^ TABLE 1-A
"' ROWE INDUSTRIES SITE
SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
FOR 1888
SUMMARY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
tot MONITOR WELLS
TEfiTRA I.I.I I.I I.I 1.2 fflEOH ETHVl MtlHYlENt IOIAI Of
CHORD rmCHlOBO TRKMORO. OKM.ORO OKHIORO OKWORO 113 BENZENE XVIENE TOIUENE BENZENE ACETONE CH.OMDE DETECTED
CTHLEME ETHANE ETHENE tTIH»Mi ETHENi nHENE COMPOUOS
WEll SAMPIE n
NUMKfl Oe>IH»TI DATE SAMPLED RBWHTEO VAIUES'
MW42A 11 II/U/B8 U NDI 12 30 2 N02 ND2 N02R NO2 NO2 NO2 ND2 ND4O GfiH
UW42A 2) ll/II/» S> « W M «J 3J NO6 1JBB NO6 NDt ND6 ND5 NDIOO IIM
Mw.428 el II/IM* ii iw HOI oU Soi wi «i . 04am iioi oain IB mi M>2o MR
MW43A 29 \\l\tMt SO 20 « 3 l NOI O8J O68JO NOI NOI NOI NO! NO20 fl »
MW43A » IVian* tl M I t NDI NDI 08J 066Jfl NDI NOI NDI NOI ND20 3M 42.S
-------
TABLE 1-A
ROWE INDUSTRIES SITE
SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
FOR 1990
SUMMARY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
for MONITOR WELLS
TEDTRA I.I.I
CM.OHO TMCHLOFIO
ETHLENE ETHANE
TMCM.OM)
ETHENE
I.I
DKHORO
ETHANE
I.I
DKHLORO
ETHCNE
I.I FREON
DKHLOra 113
ETHENE
ETHVL
BENZENE
MFTHVIENC TOIAl OF
CHlomOE OtIECTED
COMPOUNDS
SAMPLE
DOTH FT) DATE
M
8AMPIED"
"MPORTEO VALUES*
N-M
N-76
N-M
N-17
N29
N-32
N-33
M
14
"
13
13
13
n
OVOS/9O
01/OM*
auotao
ovorwo
ouatao
mmao
02106/BO
109
IO7
111
III
113
114
106
1400
too
«00
TOO
IMOO
IMO
IB
taO I4O
30 07
44OJ NDSOO
0 MOM
an uo
4AJ S6
16 NDS
NDIOO
NDS
NDSOO
MOM
ND2SO
NOW
NDS
NDIOO
NDS
NDSOO
MOM
NDI6O
NOW
NDS
NDIOO
ND&
NDSOO
MOW
NDKO
NDSO
M06
NDSO
4SOJ
ISOOSJ
IOOBJ
soooai
ND2S
J6JR
NDSO
NDS
NDSOO
MOW
NDMO
NDSO
NDS
NDSO
NM
NDSOO
NDSO
ND26O
NDSO
NM
NDIOO
HDS
HOMO
NDSO
HD7SO
NDSO
NDS
NDIOO
NDS
NDSOO
NDSO
MUSO
NMO
NDS
ND1ODJ
J4BH
lOOOBR
NDIOO
NDSOO
NDIOO
NDIO
OOBJ
4J
MOJ
SOU
3BOBJ
HOOK
SBR
2 WO
Ml
7340
ew
1322O
1301
4
-------
TABLE I-A
ROWE INDUSTRIES SITE
SAG HARBOR. NEW YORK
FOR 1990
SUMMARY Of VOLATILE OROANIC COMPOUNDS
lex MONITOR WELLS
TERTRA 1,1.1 1.1 1,1 1.1 FREON ETHYL METHYLENE TOTAL OF
CHORD TMCMORO TWCHLOHO nCHLOAO DKMORO MCHLODO 113 IEMZENE XVtHC TOLUENE BENZENE ACETONE CMORDE DETECTED
ETWENi ETH»* ETMEME ETHAW ETWNE HHENE COMPOUNDS
SAMPIE m
DEPTH m DATE SAMPIE > RffORTED VALUES"
MW-41A II
e» taiotiao 110 MOI ou HOI HOI NDI~ not 301 NOI MOI NOI mi at ten oo
a) - 02/oi/eo in nn on NOI .NOI NOI NDI NDU NOI NOI NOI NDI ten leu o»
~si OJ/O7/SO in in NOI Soi NOI ioi NOI ND.SJ ioi «i NOI iSi S NDI o~
MW-OC 107
-------
TABLE 1-A
ROWE INDUSTRIES SITE
SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
FOR 1991
SUMMARY OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
for MONITOR WELLS
PARAMETERS
wtu
MWTBB
MW-41A
MW.4»
MW.41C
MW-43A
MW-44B
MW44C
UW-46A
MW-4U
MW-4BA
MW-46B
MW-47A
MW-478
MW.4BA
MW48B
MW48A
MW.498
SAMPli
48
4e
17
17
e?
a
j»
M
4*
4*
4*
4*
71
71
»
1*
61
11
14
14
43
43
14
14
14
38
38
38
36
31
TO
as
73
73
88
08
11/09181
07/18/81
OB/oi/ei
08/01181
08/01/81
OB/O1I8I
OB/O6/8I
OB/ot/81
t i/os/81
ti/06/81
oe/oi/81
oarai/81
1IW6/8I
OB/Ot/81
11/O4/81
07/3I/»I
11/O4/8I
07/31/01
1 1)06/81
07/3(W1
11/06/81
07130181
11104/81.
11104(81
07/30(81
11/14/81
07/30/81
07/3O/81
1I/M/8I
OB/02/81
IIKM/81
U8/O7/H1
1KU7/81
07130/VI
tirar/ot
o/raomt
in
311
731
168
tee
M8
wo
288
M8
181
Ml
168
168
103
167
Ml
148
Ml
HO
188
138
180
137
188
H8
138
186
140
138
204
763
763
764
370
741
371
247
TEBTRA
CM.ORO
CTHLEMi
OBJ
OBJ
34O -.
M
0.87
NOI
80
I4O
16000
480DE
830R
17000
1
18
8
47
14
7
a
18
NOI
NOI
11
7 JO
14
3
03J
03J
NOI
NOI
NOI
NOI
2
3
470
370
I.I.I
TRJCMORO
ETHANE
NOI
NDIJ
180
37J
NOI
NO!
7
17
HOI1O
NDIOO
4IR
NOI1O
NOI
NDI
NDI
U
O.1J
NDI
8
7J
NDI
NDI
88
74D
48
NDI
NOI
NOI
NDI
NUI
NDI
NDI
7
4
300
.330
Tract* OHO
ETHEME
NDI
NDI
MO
67H
0.6J
OBJ
8
13
370J
67J
4811
18
NDI
O.4J
NDI
ND6
O3J
NDI
18
7
NOI
NOI
140
1800
76
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NOI
03J
O 3.1
1
3
I6O
170
1.1
DKMORO
ITHAHE
NDI
HOI
60
8
NDI
NDI
NDI
ND6
' NOI7O
NDIOO
O.7J
HOI 10
NDI
NDI
NOI
ND6
NDI
NOI
OU
OU
NOI
NDI
OBJ
ND6
OBJ
NOI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NOI
NUI
M>1
NOI
04J
28
17
1.1
MCM.ORO
ETHEME
NDI
NDI
1DJ
I
NDI
NOI
O6J
ND6
NOIJO
20J
1
HDI7O
NDI
NOI
NDI
ND6
02J
NDI
02J
NDI
NDI
NDI
O4J
1DJ
NDI
NDI
NOI
NDI
OU
NOI
07J
Mil
NOI
04J
74
82
1.1
DKMORO
ETHENE
NOI
NDI
1DJ
1
NDI
NOI
NOI
ND6
MD17O
NDIOO
O4J
NOI70
NDI
NDI
NDI
ND6
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
4
40J
1
NDI
NDI
NOI
HOI
NOI
07J
NDI
MM
NDI
78
7B
fREON
113
NDI
NDt
NO7
NDI
NDI
NDI
1
4J
HDI2O
NOIOO
NDI
NDI7O
1.6J
NDI
NDI
1
NDI
O.6J
NDI
NDI
1J
NDI
NDI
NDS
NDI
NDI
NDI
NOI
NDI
NDI
MD1
NOI
MM
NOI
KOIi
NDIO
BENZENE
NDI
NDI
HD2
NDIJ
NDIJ
NDIJ
NDI
NDI
ND12O
NDIOO
NDIJ
ND12O
NOI
NDIJ
NDI
NDt
NOI
NOI
NDI
NDIJ
NOt
NDI
NDI
NO6
NDIJ
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NOI
NOI
NDt
Mil
NDIJ
NO7&
NO10J
XVIENE
NDI
NOJ
ND2
NOIJ
NOIJ
NOIJ
NDI
NOI
NOIJO
NDIOO
NDIJ
NDIJO
HOI
NDIJ
NDI
1JV
NDI
NDI
NOI»
NDIJ
NOIfl
NDI
NDI
NO6
NDIJ
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDt
NDI
NDI
NOI
Mil
KO1J
NOJ&
NOIOJ
TOIUCNE
NDI
NOJ
NDI
NOIJ
NDIJ
NDIJ
NDI
NDI
NDI7O
NOIOO
NOIJ
NDI 10
NDI
NOIJ
NDI
ND6
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDIJ
NOI
NDI
NDI
ND6
NDIJ
NOI
NDI '
NOI
NOI
NOI
NOI
NOI
NOI
NOIJ
ND7&
NOIOJ
ETHYl
BENZENE
NOt
NDIJ
NOI
NDIJ
NOIJ
NDIJ
NDI
NDI
NOIJO
NOIOO '
NDIJ
NOIJO
NDI
NDIJ
NDI
NDt
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDIJ
NOI
NDI
NOI
NOt
NDIJ
NOI
NOI
' NDI
HOI
NDI
NOI
NOI
NOt
NOIJ
MI7&
NOIOJ
ACETONE
1408
NDI
40
IBID
O.7BJR
0.8BJR
NDI
NOI
NO16O
NDIOO
NDI
ND160
4R
NDI
I2OH
NDIOR
em
NDI
JOB
NDI
I4R
ND73
400R
280R
ND4
I/OR
N02
NOJ
2JOR
NDI
39fl
NO7
IJR
NOI
NOM
NO 20
METHVLEHE
CHOROC
0.4BJ
NOI
O.4BJD
NOI
HOI
NDI
06J
18J
ND170
118J
NDI
NDIJO
O.3BJ
NOI
0.4BJ
4BJ
0.6BJ
0.3BJ
0.4BJ
NOI
O.4BJ
NDt
04BJ
3BJD
NOJ
04BJ
NDI
NDI
OBBJ
O4BJ
O4BJ
U 4BJ
04BJ
NO
eai
NO10
TOTAl OF
DETECTED
COMPOUNDS
141.1
08
116.3
71
1.1
0.8
78
188
1631
4888
6.4
1766.8
8.8
18.8
87
67
16.6
8.1
34.1
30.6
1.8
O
JflJI
2840
138.3
4.1
08 .
0.6
08
O8
I 6
1 7
b4
11 a
1084
904
-------
TABLE 1-A
ROWE INDUSTRIES SITE
SAG HARBOR NEW YORK
FOR 1991
SUMMARY OF VOLATILE PRO AN 1C COMPOUNDS
FARAMETERS
WEU SAMP1E
NOB
"'
M-M
HI
N28
N-31
N-33
NM
N-37
N»
N40
11
11
n
13
M
M
M
M
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
a
a
13
13
31
26
33
33
13
OB/06/91
08(06191
11107/91
11(01/91
11/00/91
07/19/91
07/18/01
07/19/91
07/19/91
11/00/91
iiNa/91
11/00/91
07/19/91
07/19/91
07/19(91
07(19(91
11/00/91
07/19/91
07/19(91
07(19/91
07(29/91
11IOB/9I
07(19/91
11(06/91
11/06(91
. 07/29/91
08/O5/91
07/11/91
08/01191
08/01/91
08(06(01
n
TEBTHA
CH1ORO
ETMENE
1.1.1
TRJCMORO
ETHANE
TRKWORO
ETHENE
M
DKttORO
ETHANE
171
171
323
314
314
23IT
131T
131N
132N
308
307
307
119T
129T
H9N
129N
311
130N
2301
130N
130T
313
231
294
194
117
174
»1
286
296
173
1000
I80f
N06
ND4
1200
MR
IIOOH
20000
690R
8000
6200
4200O
I2OOJH
7M
12000
I100R
6800
840R
I900R
24000
mi
3BO
290
470
48
0
N01
0.1J
800R
I200D
4
270
22
3
3
N060
46J
26
620J
4OI
1IOJ
ND26OO
ND2W
14OJ
83R
62DJ
110R
IOOJ
6M
ND100
800J
48J
MDJS
18
60
(
0.8J
MOI
NOI
49E
NOIOO
3
240
11
1
1
30J
62R
47J
720J
67R
81J
MU600
H0260
NOIOO
3M
280J
41R
7BJ
4911
NOIOO
63DJ
38J
14J
18
N02
02J
MOI
NOI
NOI
41[
360
4
NO&
OBJ
O.4J
O4J
ND6O
60J
inn
ND120
6
ND2W
ND1MO
NO ttO
NOIOO
1.2J
NOI70
1
NDJ6O
08J
NOIOO
ND120
NOI
N026
ND10
ND2
MOI
NOI
1
NOI
1
NOIOO
1
tot MONITOR WEUS
1.1 1.1 FREON
OKWORO OKH-ORO 1 13
ETHCME niCNE
BENZENE
XVI EME
TOlUtNE
E1MYI
BCWCNE
ACETONE
MCTHYIENE
CMLORDE
TOIALOF
OETECTEO
COMPOUNDS
3OJ
3 '
O8J
0.6J
NOW
38J
NOK
NOI20
4
ND2M
NO2SOO
ND260
NOIOO
NOI
NOI20
O.8J
ND26O
}
NDIOO
MOI JO
I.7J
7BJ
3J
NO!
O.2J
NOI
NOI
MOI
3
NOIOO
03J
MD6
O.8J
NDt
NDt
2SO
NOI
ND26
6800
270H
NOJ60
ND2MX)
NDrtO
NOIOO
NOI
NOI JO
ND1
N026O
94
ND100
820J
NOI
16J
37
ND2
NOI
NDI
NOI
NOI
1
NDIOO
NOI
NOI
3
NOI
MOI
NOW
NOI
N026
N0120
NOI
MDJEO
MD2600
NOIM
NDIOO
MOIJ
MDI20
NOI
MD76O
NOI
NOIOO
N0120
NOI
NDK
MOID
NO!
1.9
NDI
NDI
1
08J
NDIOO
NOI
NDI
NOI
NDI
NDI
NOSO
NOIJ
M02W
NOI 2O
NOIJ
N02WJ
NO?MO
MD26O
MDIOCU
NOIJ
NOI20
NOI
HDKO
NDI
NOIOOJ
NDI20
MDIJ
N0»
MDIOJ
HD2
NOI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDIOO
NDI
NDI
NOI
NDI
NDI
NOW
NOIJ
ND2&J
NDI 20
06JV
N026O
ND2MO
N02&0
NOIOOJ
NOIJ
NOI20
2V
ND260
NDI
MDIOOJ
MDIX)
MDIJ
NO 26
MDIOJ
N02
NDI
NOI
NOI
0.3JY
NDI
NOIOO
NDI
NDI
NOI
NDI
NDI
NOW
NOIJ
MD2U
NOI 20
NOIJ
NO ttO
MO6OOO
MD26O
NOIOOJ
NOIJ
N0120
NDI
NDICO
NOI
ND100J
NDI20
NOIJ
NO 26
MDIOJ
NO!
NDI
NDI
NOI
NOI
NDI
NDIOO
NOI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NOW
NOIJ
MD2&J
NO120
NOIJ
NO 260
ND26OO
MD2W
MDIOOJ
MDIJ
NO! 10
NDI
ND2W
NOI
ND100J
NOI 20
MDIJ
NO 26
MDIOJ
N02
NDI
NOI
NDI
NOI
HOI
NDIOO
NDI
MDJ
ND2
76R
88R
2700R
ND1R
MD26H
NDKO
MD2
ND600
MO2600
NOWO
NOIOOR
ND1R
NDKO
MDJ
MD6OO
N02
NOIOOH
MD260
NO1R
NOW
NO JO
9D
18R
N02
. NDI
ND2R
ND2
N0200
NO2
NDt
NOI
oeai
otej
NOW
NOI
ND26
MD'IM
NOI
6BBJ
640BJ
NDIW
NOIOO
MDI
NDI 20
NOI
170BJ
NDI
NDIOO
NDI20
NOI
68J
ND10
1BOJ
0.3U
NDI
NDI
MDI
048J
NOIOO
NDI
264
2104
88
8.4
1480
64.6
47
3184
86
8330
6740
4200
140
37.1
2278
3.8
6048
43
0
2806
83.7
432
381
TO
668
8.9
6
1.6
97
1200
« 3
-------
TABLE I -A
ROWE INDUSTRIES SITE
SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
FOR 1981
SUMMARY OF VOLATILE PRO AN 1C COMPOUNDS
hx MONITOR WELLS
TERTRA
CMORO
ETHENE
I.I.I
TRICHORD TRKHLORO
ETHANE ETHENE
1.1
DKH.ORO
ETHANE
1.1
DKMLORO
ETHENE
1.1
OtCHlOBO
ETHENE
FREON
113
ETHYL
BENZENE
METHVIENE IOTAI Of
CHLOROE DETECTED
COMPOUNDS
WEU SAMPLE
NUMBER DEPTH ri)
MW-MC 0*
I1/07/81
OlttMt
371
Ml
OBJ
0«J
n
1
NO1
HOI
ND1
NDI
NO I
NDIJ
MDI
ND1J
NDI
NDU
NDI
NDU
048J
ND.1
B04
M.I
Mw-BOA
»
»
si
14*
M*
NDt
O.U
NDI
NDI
NDI
Not
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
o
NDI
NO!
o
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
o
NDI
NDI
MR
NDI
O.UJ
04Bj
0 38J
O JttJ
o.a
I.I
l.g
MW-MB M
M
II/OMI
OT/3IMI
J18
M8
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NOI
NDI
NDI
OU
NOI
NDI
NOI
NDI
NOI
NDI
3M
NDI
04U
O38J
1.1
1.1
MW-COC at
iiio;/ti l
OJOI/OI 148
NOI
NOI
oi
NDI
l
NDI
NDI
NDI
NDI
NOI
NDI
NDI
oi
O.&l
oi
NOI
NDI
NDI
o
NDI
o
NDI
t»
NDI
03U
0 38J
01
I.?
MWS1A 28
llfOMI MB
lorzMi in
io>n/ti in
140
4io
1100
8
n
MOJ
NO*
NDIO
eaoj
N06
NDIO
ND»
N06
MOID
NOK
MOID
HD»
NDIO
NDM
MD6
NDIO
NDK
Not
NDIO
ND»
IW
IOR
MO
iiraani
lOfllltl
o
1»»
2J
OA
ND6
IBJ
NDt
oi
HM
NDI
NDS
NDI
NOB
o
NDB
NDI
NOB
NDJ
NOB
oeej
HOB
43 e
«l
-------
TABLE 1-B
SUMMARY OF METALS
FOR
HOMEOWNER & MONITOR
HELLS
Mil
11/M/t*
in
M
tit )
4MJ* 1.44*.
41.*
. ! i.t tat un
4 MB MM tt.T*
UM
41*0*
.t H.t
*M.t M.M
U MMU
1 ftIM
mil
H.U m
U7 !
m 4.<*> iDT"
n U.MJ **4
it
HIM
i/ot/t*
IN
111
».t (1MJ
4 »»«
on
M
moo ».H*J
I M.4U ttlOU
W.I
*.t
am mi *
ll/MA*
i II*N* »
1-1*0)
111
III
It I1.4U *
«.t IrMMJ
r.ti
IIM*
IWM
f mn H.t'i
m% mn m.Hft
\t
tut
I/.*
mu n.* uti.
I?
trc*)
*r/2*/*i
n*tf*
II/M/*»
in
IT
in
41.*.
41.71
.*< UfH
4.« MIMiJ
r.« tux
M.f
f.W
w.4*
n
M
M
IIHU
IIM*
mt.i
.I
> U.*J
M M4.**J
Mi
11 WJ
//!*/*!
U.4
M.I
r.4
ur
».*
*
4.r
mn ma mi
mu H.I M.M
n
*.M
-M
41M 4*.N
41.*
I
**
St.l
-**
*>l»(*l
mnun
tuntnt
\\innt
MS
IM
nr* MM
4i* r.iu
IMiJ* B4
t
4.IM
M.4 !
n <
U.M M4
11.4 un*
1.1 MHOIl
. nig*
M.1
14.4
IS
I*
n
IF./
t.m
nim
inou
4IMI
41KI
4IUI
111*
111*
U*U
IIM
*.t
e.t
M.ti
u
I.M >
MM*
17TK
> !! IJI-J
M «.» 41.1
I m\l 4*.4*J
ienK. OtASiirAts It GIAUAM. Im-,
-------
TABLE 1-B
SUMMARY OF METALS
FOR
HOMEOHHER & MONITOR
HELLS
«.* MI MM ir.4 MJ »j tarn M.U MM at MJ n.f
tutt/n i» MB «M Mt MB MI Mt HMMJ MT MMMIm tt.iu MM m5Ti MUDM* !u » tut^MJ»n W.»M
M/mstt M m. MM n.t M.I MI MM tiw v* r.i M MMM MU> MM MF M.I tr.t tat mt MM MM MMI at.* ti.ti
«/W/M lit *M I.MJ Mt MM M M* II4MI t.M Mil M) «M* Ifjrj M** m MJ JJJM M »f Mf MI Mil H.fl
11/IWM *T PBU* I.MI MJ MM Mt MM 7JMI I.M- MW Mt 4M4U f.M UMJ MU Ml.t Mil Un* |.» Ml 11M Ml Mt M.*
/r/M 1*1 ma Mt Mt MB Mt I.I tMMU ?. Mil Mt U!» OJU ItIM BJ M.I »« IIM1 MI M> fMM M) Ml* MT<
«y»T/»« m MM M* Mt MB Mt » IMMJ w^ MM tt.r SIMM.MPJ «HM M.t *.< < MM MI » IMM M> MI> nt-j
MMI/M 0* Ml MM Ml It Ml T.M UM 0.1 Mt in MM MM »! 4t^ M.t M^ MM MI MM I IMM Mt*J f.» ».<
«/»/» Oi MB Mt Mt MB Mt Mt tMMlJ Mf Mil Ml 4Mt M.fM»J IMM Jl.f MM MM MM MI M* I1M MI Mil tO-t
t^M Mt MM Mt t.MM «SMM IT MM M.M HIM WtM MM U.FJ «.I tt.m MMi Ml Ml IIMI MM U.M «
MMiyvi *M »j» man m» m mt MM «SM IIA MI M.J MM* » MM o.» M.I u.» in* Mt MM MMM MM MI M.U
MXT/M » MT Mt Mt MB Ml M.I ON! MJ MB M-» MM «JMV MMI M^ M*U tl.t IMM Mt M* MM Ml Mt> tn*J
B/W/M Of MB M» Mt MB Mt M MMH TJi MM Mt MM IT.MN MMI SM M»J B.M U1M Mt Mf MMI Ml Mil MJ-J
IVTT/M> »l «t.M«* MM Ml Mt« Mt «^B tOMI M* MM f.M OMU HUH «MM 4I.M MfJ 47^ MM Ml M* MM MM Ml MJ
»J 1W Ml MJ MtM ftM 14 it.l tfMf M.U OM Ml MJ ttM 1M* Mt MU 1
*.f W M» M.t MMI MM .? »^ UJOI M4I MM Ml MJ II .W MM Ml mH MMU MMI M tl»
Mt M.M Mt ».1 MMM Ml MM M tfM M.4^J UMI Ml' M».J If.M ItIM Mt Mf IfM MI Mil M.fJ
11/MMf II tMU* MM Mt B.M Mt MMI MM M*> MU* «.M MM MMI SMM W.U M*J MO MMi Ml Ml MMI MM Mf ff.t
tt/MSM MJ 41MU- Mt Mt M.M Mt MMI MM tt> II.M tl.t MMJ MM 4MM t1?J Mt.
MB M.MI Mt MB Mt Mt tMHJ M.T MM Ml 41.11 t\Jft 4MM I1JI Mt.
Mt MM Ml M.f Mt H.4 MfM O.I MI M.t *M IN MM f M.
tVmf* tM 1M* Mt Mt MB Mt t.M MMU M.7 MM ttj* Ut (T.M>I 44MI 9Jf M*.
tt/M*f 0 4BU> Mt Mt M.M Mt MMI IMM B^> tl.M It.I MU M.IM tMM 11JJ Mt.
MMI Mf MM Ml MM M.M>! 4MM 1.U Mt.
B.M tMM Ml Ml MMt MM M.M M.t
MM MM Mt Mf MMI MI MO 111*4
ll.tl 4MI Mt Mtl tfMtl MMI Mt Mil
MW IMt Mt Mf MMt MI Mil IU-1
BJM MM 1.M Ml BMt MM Mt *l
MW MM Mt Mf tIMI MI MU O*l
tM MMM. MMMMMMMM 4fJ
IV M.M *JM Mt MB Mt Mt MMI MT MM M.M Mt BJTI IMtl I-M MI.I MM MMI Mt Mf MMf MI MO IU-1
Lrccf-rre, DBASHBAU & GKANAM. IMC.
-------
TABLE 1-B
SUMMARY OP METALS
FQR
HOMEOWNER & MONITOR
WELLS
a
ttMtltt 01 IM MM M B.I Ml M MM B.4 M) H.4 4lt M.M MM f.4 MJ U.JJ IM* M MM WMU MMJ M) IMJ
Or BI M4 M4 MB M M4 MMJ 1S.N MIS 4T 4M H.MVJ BtMJ U.J MJ M~M HIM M Mi IHM M MIS MI-J
O MMJJ* 4.M1 Ml *IJ» M4 MJM HM *.M> MM BJ MU It.Mi IUM M.M MJ It JM IMM Ml MI UIM M M M.4
MMJ Ml 0* 1.1 »JJ 1S*M 44.4 ».4 l».l IMM M.SJ MM *B4 .! MJ 4SM M MM
ttM MMJ MM 4)4 Ml MM OM S4 MS II-1 IMM UJJ 8M MM MJ 4.4 IMM M MM MMU MMJ M.I 4TJ
'MMMM'MMM SMMMMMMMMMMM
44.K «MJ Mi t?J Ml MM 4BI MS MS MS SI*MMaMM.4MJ MSMM MMM MMJ MU MS tl.U
8M MM f J f)J Ml Ml MM ITJ M Sk« MB* O.IJ OM OJ MJ 4.4 MM M StJj
at Ml IMM IM MJ m\ MJ tOM M.» » ».l ll.tl WM B4 ».I M «> M Mj NUM Ml M.t U.fJ
T/IWtt BT 4lf MM M W.t ! MJ SIM kf iM 4.4 MM H^J OM ».«.! « ' MM M Ml NMU MJ 4.4 H.rj
T M
M.»J
nnun at m MU M M^ m\ MJ MM 1.4 M «.i OM M.M tr>» «»J .* M IMS M MJ MMJ awj 1.1 M.M
» 4W MM M MJ »1 MJ 4IM M M M OM 11.4 OM «».f «J M MM M MJ MMJ MJ M I4.U
m MMMMMMMMMMMISMMMMMMMMMMMM
MWtl M4 a§MtM»JMIMl M.4 .! tr.< im MJ MJ MMJ MJ M
LfGGETTE. BRASHEAHS « (MAMAM. (MC.
-------
TABLE 1-B
SUMMARY OF METALS
FOR
HOMEOWNER & MONITOR
WELLS
a MM Ma an i a a a a
tvzisri m Mat aM aa MM at as tnt n.» NJ* i».« tiMt if MM *» a.t m ma at > IBM at u.t
t*/n/ti or MM aM aa MM 4ji t.f *m in m n.a «aa ujj uia MI al a.w sna at "aT um an ai
at at n.a at aa «»a at aw at
w.i SUM a.a ai.i
ait at aa»> M MM MM a*.a aa
i.» ai as I*M ai ai zr.t us LSJ tiM ».i
si.tt MM xa»j Mau nj at.* aM ma mi at MI ai »». wi
M/W/M of ass at a* ass at t.ti WMMJ ar an
at utia a nm aaaim nau aitt » i
a ntu miaa ai aaui ajaavt mauai amj tai ta «cn» MI 11» mioti i
i«artm
-------
TABLE 2.
MlltCO MAWS, IK.
MM IWJITIItt »ITI
SM MMOi, KW TOK
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING
TITU 1,1,1 1,1 1,1 1.2 MmiM TOtAl W
rMUMTUt CW.OM TIICM.OM TIICKOtO OICHIOM OICM.OM DICKON MtTOM CmOIIM OITICTO
rtarn HIM fimm CTMM ITMM nmm COWOUM
01
02
M
0}
M
07
Ot
09
12/06/09
12/06/09
12/06/19
06/OI/a
12/06/19
12/10/M
01/04/M
12/10/14
M/U/M
12/10/M
OS/14/M
12/06/19
12/10/M
M/09/M
12/06/W
12/10/M
06/09/M
12/10/M
M/1I/M
. 12/07/09
M/1I/M
II
9]
M
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9*
0
0
9*
0
0
0
0
102
0
2S
110
320
20
II
<10
4
«10
2
19
$7
S10
1MO
1100
161
M
«4
M
42
1
2
M2S
640
620
7M
21
M
190
20S
1M
110
170
1M
2600
2MO
IS
R
70
jr .
t
2
a
120
100
470
24
S4
170
94
a
a
19
ISO
910
MO
11
SI
IT
<10
19
1
2
2S
M
M
M'
. 0.9J
<10
M*
14
M
<10
M
2t
ISO
100
m
to
2
10
2
1
1
2S
41
41
M
J
<10
M
16
M
11
M
Xi
at
no
MS
<10
4
<10
r
i
2
ma
mn
tea
IM
1
10
4
10
4
10
M
2S
92
100
s
10
2
10
2
1
2
u
so
so
u
2
IU
M
M
M
M
M
SO
M
M
10
M
M
M
M
2
M
711
6JM
1UJI
M
0.6641
u
U
u
MA
M
M
7211
M
2
UM
M
2
' M
2
SM
2
0
1401
1165
1270
S1.9
106
164
127
19*
191
2M
in
SU2
USO
2
161
IIS
72
1S6
0
0
LK<;(;KTTF., DRASIIF.ARS & GRAHAM, INC.
-------
TABLE 2.
IMISCO turn. IK.
tag IIBUSTIUS sni
SAC IMM, KU TOU
SUMMARY OF RESIDENTIAL WELL SAMPLING
MAMfTIIS
MUSI LOCATION
TETU 1.1.1 1,1 1,1 1.2 «miEM
CNUMO TIICM.OM TIICKOM OICNIOM DICKON OICNIOM ACttOtf CM.01IM
ITICH HHMI iimm ITIMK timm nmm
OATf
II '
SAMHIU
> UMtTO WUM '
12/01/89
101
1
TOTAl Of
M1ECTCO
10
12
11
U
17
21
22
21
24
07/11/91
12/07/89
05/24/84
U/ 10/84
12/10/84
04/18/84
04/18/84
05/01/04
12/10/84
12/10/04
12/10/04
07/14/84
04/09/04
05/08/84
01/04/84
12/10/84
04/09/84
12/10/84
84/09/84
12/10/84
12/04/89
12/10/84 '
12/10/84
04/18/84
252
104
0
0
0
0
e
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
99
«
8
8
1
O.WJt
02
17
60
*1
02
2
SO
41
4]
11
44
2
4
<10
1
60
M
18
198
428
410
OS
Ml
0.74
2
7*
«J
199
«
«
61
85
60
81
110
s
2
12«
170
480
278
418
1
220
190
42
1
O.fcl
2
18
2*
B
M
2
1*
20
17
28
a
02
M
84
78
401
ua
10
2
97
9>
M
891
1
892
10
10
4
892
892
10
NO 10
910
892
4
2
M
<10
27
16
U
18
8.6J
<10
«10
892
f
91
92
10
«10
18
2
92
SMTU OHOK ItnCTIOi UNIT
M 8MHI HT AMLTfl
E8
1
2
to
1
688
M
M
688
is orrtcTioi
t
mi
M
t
LIMIT)
0
8
14
8
8 AMITTf UAS mm II T« MSOC1ATIP 8UMC
8 lUtCrn IT VAUOAT08
I ₯ALUI OCTHHIMID IT TNI «TMD Of STAH9MD MOITI01
orei ir tu> mi or KMTI «tt SMM rot
TMI T« KC08) «T IS * OurtlOkTI (MVU
Novioa roi OMLITT usuum
LECCETTE. BRASHCARS & GRAHAM, INC.
-------
TABLE 3.
MlSCO MAMS. IK.
MM IMUinilS Sill
M MMOl. MM TOH
MMMfttS
SM9U iOtAf MM
MA Mara mini AAM
UUI1 tt/Of/fl
IMII
MM3
MM*
MMS
7/24/»1
11/n/W
11/OI/V1
7/24/fl
11/21/w
nm/w
11/OI/ft
7/24/ti
11/2«/0*
tt/M/fl
7/24/fi
n/2*y«f
n/ti/fi
7/24/91
11/21/W
1
iMMtf n
Ml
119
7
Ml
SI*
If
0
2f»
117
9
1*7
211
a
2tl
>1f
7*
nnu
CM.OM
itnuM
SUMMARY OF
1.1.1
ttimoM maun
ITMM timm
LIGONEE BROOK/SAG HARBOR COVE SURFACE WATER SAMPLING
- 1,1 1.1 1.2 mm itm MTHVUM
ICM.OM icm.au IOKMO 111 mnM mm mum mnsm MXTOM OUMIM
ITWMC ITWH I1MM
tout or
MTKTO
m
»i
»i
»i
»i
.SN
.]«
12
n
SJ
4
J
4J
1
2
M
0.7J
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
M
19J
I
*
114
f
1
*J
1
1
t
1
1
1
t
M
11
7J
2
J
*J
.J
2
2J
.»J NP1
1
1
t.2J
1
1
1
4 4
* «
2J 2J
.JJ O.MJ
C.fJ 1
2J 2J
0.2J 0.4J
1 Wt
0.4J O.SJ
»1
»1
Ml
1
»1
1
«
S
»1
.JJ
1
ND1
0.2.1
N01
01
D1
1
M
I
Ml
101
«
Ml
Ml
21
.SJ
0.2J
M
Ml
Ml
211
4
1
Ml
.J
t.2J
Ml
Ml
-2J
Ml
Ml
0.2J
Ml
Ml
Ml
M1J
Ml
t.7J
M
"
M
M
M
M
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
MIJ
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
«.SM
4.2JM
M
M
*
M
M
».2«
Ml
MU
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
M
M
M
M
M
0.2JI
Ml
MIJ
Ml
M»
MS
M2
M2
M2
M2
M2
M2
M2
M2
M
M2
M2
«
M2
M2
I.4IJ
Ml
2M
*.2M
Ml
Ml
Ml
f.MJ
Ml
2M
0.4M
Ml
JM
O.ICJ
Ml
2M
.7
11.4
1.2
.2
41. S
122
2f
11.4
17.4
27
n.t
7
4.»
M.I «MIH COKMfMtlOn KMRfl-O ! UB/l
MI tatmii coMtnuTioM MMBIB » M/IO
j IITIMTB
MUITK uu rauM IN trt MSOCUIIO turn
I MJCCUB IT VM.IMIOR
M0 (MTtl KUM M1KIION IIMII (MUMtt IS DCTiniOH lINIf)
miii ir two sets or KSULIS MI MOM ro»
A SIHCLf DAT! «l T« SMt SMMC lOCATIM.
INfN TM SCCOM (IT IS A DWtlOkll SMPtl
novioco rot OUH.IIT «MUM»CI
LECGBTTE, DRASHEARS & GRAHAM, INC.
-------
4-A.
8MIKD MMM. IK.
MM IMOUST8IEI (III
IM 8M808. MM TOM
SUMMARY OF DRYWELL WASH & SEDIMENT SAMPLING RESULTS
MIMCHM
MTWtU SMPtlM
MA MK8IMI08 lllflML OMI
Tl?M 1.1.1 1.1 1.1 1.2 FIEM
OU.080 TIICMLOM T8ICIU.080 OICM.080 OICUOM) OICKtOM) til
I18YU8I IT8MK IIKEM IT8MI fT8t8f I1MEM
IT8TI
UIZEM mUt TOUK8E KMEM
NE1NTLEM
ACETONt CN108IM
TOtU W
MTICTtr
I
IMHI 10
8TIO W
MIM
CUM
OttM
04/01/91
04/01/91
11/27/89
11/27/89
11/27/89
04/OS/91
11/27/19
04/01/91
07/09/91
07/09/91
07/09/91
07/09/91
11/27/89
07/18/04
MSA
144
48
41
49
14S
72
141
19S8
19ST .
194«
1941
70
0
804
804
210J
180J
ITOJ
1100
4900J
a
160
110
9100
1700J
660
7
804
804
1MJ
71J
100J
a
ISOO
a
100
110
SSOO
S400J
80660
1
804
804
2SOJ
1MJ
ITOJ
a
ISOO
a
820
110
27000
JSOOJ
80660
10
884
804
4J
2J
SJ
a
ISOO
a
a
110
2400
2200
660
M
2
4
7
7
7
a
ISOO
a
a
110
HD9IO
110J
660
M
894
4
7
7
7
a
ISOO
a
17J
110
28000
21000
660
16
804
4
488
zaja
488
a
7900JB
a
a
110
910
110J
4900.18
4
804
4
7
7
7
28
ISOO
a
a
110
910
110J
660
16
804
804
7
7
7
a
ISOO
7J
09
110
20000
20000J
1900 .
11
804
804
4J8
1188
248
a
ISOO
a
so
S10
7000
0900J
710
IS
894
884
7
7
7
a
ISOO
a .
aj
S10
2100
110J
ItOJ
to
11
12
1988
98 J8
2488
14
2600
14
M
610
19000
2700J
1100
M
804
804
888
1488
988
a
ISOO
a
a
110
910
S10J
99088
M
t
414
sas
**»
1100
900
T
1214
t
120470
40010
4920
SI
08/22/W
801
4.28J8
1
CUM
IUU8
HIM
2.1
O.i
.
2.
2.
2.
0.
0.
0.
) 04/01/91
t 11/27/89
08/22/89
07/09/91
07/09/91
04/01/91
07/09/91
07/09/91
11/27/89
147
n
s
1978
1971
148
1968
194T
71
4
0400
t
4
110
ia
1400
110J
890
804
80400
1
804
110
120
1400
I10J
090
04
80400
t
804
110
ia
1400
ItOJ
890
4
80400
1
4
110
wia
1400
110J
090
W4
80400
1
804
110
ia
1400
110J
890
94
400
1
804
110
wia
1400
110J
WB90
4
288
248J8
M4
110
2100
210000
260008
1608 J8
4
80400
1
6
110
wia
1400
110J
890
4
400
1
W4
110
ia
2900
1SOOJ
890
94
2SOJ
1
4
110
620
27000
100008
11000J
4
9400
1
4
110
ia
1400
2100J
890
11
140088
2
11
80610
80610
2800
840J
610088
804
S608M
S88
804
S10
sa
440J
110J
6808J8-
|
at
i
t
2720
240140
4440
1SOOO
7/10/M
8M
8014
It 88M
4S
lit
tf/2X/**
1
Ml M»*8 OOVOniMtlOM 8CM8fU 18 IMA
U 880IIV81 COKI8188tlOM BUOHtO 18 U8/K* f»»tl
t t8tlM»» «MM
MMlTTt Mt KUOJ 18 T8J
I 8CJKT8J tt
81
I 18
8- UMPtl «M1TIB IT
! 8MMI MM4TIt» IV
TCCMICM. fttTIM
uaoMtoi*
nti it no stf8 or HMII MM MOM urn
8IM.I 8*tl «! 181 8M8J MMTU IOU1IO1.
TOM 181 88008* Mt 18 « OWllUft 88NFU
.I1T
i tM8>u coiucm nm
-------
TABLE 4-B.
MM I SCO MAWS. IHC.
MM IWNJSHICS SlfC
CM MMOI. MU VO*K
SUMMARY OF LIGONEE BROOK/SAG HARBOR COVE & POND SEDIMENT SAMPLING
TIIM 1.1,1 . t.i 1.1 t.z mat
CM.OM nicm.au tuaaon oicm.au oicm.cn DICMOU us
fimuf ITMME incta ETMMC CINE* IINCNE
ITHTL
KNZENf ITU*! IOUCH MMUNC
NCTNTUHI
KfTOMi UlOtlM
TOTM. Of
OfTECTFO
UNTIE lOCATin
MO ocscaimoi
ATI
11/01/91
11/OS/9I
07/24/91
11/21/09
I
SAMTU
MM
S04
220
M
07
7
107
07
07
7
07
K>7
KMITEO VAIUE<«
07
07
07
07
04
SMI
07
07
07
07
SJ
U
07
07
ss
14
Oil
Oil
II
2J
U02
11/01/91
07/24/91
t!/2a/W
I1/2V99
102
221
1
2
os
7
OS
7
01
07
HD7
1U
ml
OS
07
OS
OS
07
OS
07
OS
2M
SJ
OS
4J* ND7
SJI IM
012
010
47IJI
4MJt
OS
10M
12M
SCO!
11/OS/91
07/2t/9t
11/21/89
11/2VM
MO
222
4J
2J
04
2J
SJ
o
u
9J
7
J
2t
SIJI
06
04
2IJI
012
01)
04
2U
04
S»JI
7M
U
10
a
M
K04
11/OS/91
07/24/91
11/21/0?
2M
221
07
07
S2J
07
UJ
07
04
07
07
04
07
ND7
04 N04
07 N07
MOS MJI
07
«t
Oil
017
2M
7
12M
45
0
402
I1/20AV
11/2
74
74
07
07
r
07
07
7
07
»7
*07
7
7
07
U
21M
WTIl If TW> «f« 07 KM.TS Mf
SIMM B»Tt at t« MM mm LOCAIIOH.
!« TM HOMO MT If
I roO. JM.IIT ASWMMI
MI eojicnrution itratifo i> uo/rt crrt)
0 «Mlf II HU KU» ! m MIOCIMO
J (ITIMMCO MUII
MJtCTB n WllMtOI
t - iM*ti f«oa non OHUIM OHM
MMM tMMI 1fO» NKM MU» CMt Of POM
KHM t«*it run rton ra» tm or row
U WMTUI GOIUCTB IB IV 4 IBOTI Of IMVU IflMtlOi
-------
TABLES.
NAIISCO MAMDS. IK.
me INDUSTRIES tiu
IM MIMK. HEU TDK
SUMMARY OF SURFACE SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
PARAMETERS
MR INS SAMPLE II
MMCR DEPTR (M> DAT! SMPU 10
DSCS 01.0 OS/17/91 US
1
r\
S02
SOI
SM
sos
so*
S09
sto
S11
S12
SI)
oo.s
oo.s
oo.s
oo.s
oo.s
oo.s
. oo.s
oo.s
oo.s
oo.s
oo.s
oo.s
oo.s
07/21/91
07/U/91
07/21/91
07/23/91
07/21/91
07/21/91
07/21/91
07/21/91
07/21/91
07/23/91
07/21/91
07/23/91
07/23/91
202
202
201
20*
20S
20*
207
200
tie
211
212
211
214
TETRA 1.1.1 1.1
CttLORO IRICKtOM TRIC*LORO OICNLORO
ETNYLCMC^ CTNANC * I INENi ETHANE
1*J MM MM MM
MMJ MM MMJ MM
MMJ MMJ MMJ MM
MS NDS IBS NDS
IBS IBS NDS MIS
NOS NOS IBS NOS
MMJ MMJ MMJ MMJ
MM MM .Ml* MM
MIS NOS MIS MIS
NDS NDS MS MS
MISJ MISJ MISJ MIS
MISJ MISJ M»J M4J
MM MM MM MM
MMJ MMJ MMJ MMJ
1.1 1.2 FREW
DICRtom OICNLORO 111 ICNZENC
EINENC EINENt
REPORTED VALUES"**"*"""""""***"1
NO* NO* MM MM
MM
MM
MIS
M*S
MIS
MMJ
MM
NDS
MIS
MIS
MISJ
MM
MMJ
MM
MM
MIS
MIS
MIS
MMJ
Ml*
MIS
MIS
MIS
MISJ
MM
MMJ
MM
MM
MIS
MIS
MIS
MM
Ml*
MIS
HIS
MIS
MIS
MM
MM
MM
MMJ
MIS
NOS
NOS
MD*J
NO*
NDS
NDS
WSJ
MISJ
MM
MMJ
ETNYl
XYLENE TOUCNC lENUNf
MMJ
MMJ
MMJ
S
NOS
NDS
MMJ
MM
MIS
IBS
MISJ
MISJ
MM
MMJ
MMJ
SJ
SJ
2J
2J
NDJ
J
MM
IBS
*j
MISJ
2J
KM
MMJ
MMJ
MMJ
MMJ
MIS
MIS
MIS
MMJ
MM
MIS
M4
SJ
MISJ
MM
MMJ
MfTNYLENC
ACETONE CHLORIDE
HOUR
Mill
ND1I
ND11
Mill
MHO
MM2J
ND11J
N011J
ND10J
N011
ND11J
M>12
ND11J
NO*
1J«
MMR
NOS
MIS
MIS
O
MM
MIS
1J
MIS
MISJ
MM
MMJ
TOTAL Of
DETECTED
COMPOUND.
1*
*
S
I
7
2
"
0
0
S
I
0
KKKUO i« IK/KG (mi
SANPLC 10 HUIICI 13 If A DUPLICATE ANALYSIS OF MUKIE* 12
SAMPLE ID MUMSEf IS IS A UAT PORTION FRON l« SAMPLER
SAMPLE 10 MMEI 17 IS A DUPLICATE AMLTSIS OP NLMCI 1ft
A UMRATMT REPLICAIC ANALYSIS IMS PEMOMEO ON SAMPLE NUWER 9
J ESTIMATED VAlUt
R IEJECTEO IT VAIIOATOR
Mil SAMPLE ULOH DETECTION LIMIT
(NUMER IS DETECT ION LIMIT)
OSCS SAMPLE F*CH STAINED SOIL IN DRUM STORAGE AREA
-------
TABLE - 6
NAblSCU bHANUS, INC.
ROWE INDUSTRIES SITE
SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
PARAMETERS
80RIN6 SAMPLE Rl
NUMIER DEM* (FT) OATE SAMPLE 10
01 02.0 .09/28/89 9
02.0 09/28/89 9
12.0 09/28/89 10
02
01
04
OS
06
07
08
09
10
IS
IS
16
4S
00.5
11.0
11.0
1S.O
14.0
14.0
U.O
16.0
08.0
22.0
04.8
12.0
04.0
12.0
00.0
02.0
00.0
02.0
06.0
19.0
27.0
04.0
12.0
24.0
42.0
12.0
02.0
02.0
04.0
24.0
09/28/89
09/28/89
09/28/89
09/28/89
09/28/89
09/28/89
09/28/89
09/28/89
09/29/89
09/29/89
09/29/89
09/29/89
09/M/89
09/M/89
09/M/89
09/M/89
09/M/89
09/M/89
05/16/91
OS/16/91
OS/16/91
OS/17/91
05/17/91
OS/17/91
OS/20/91
05/21/91
06/04/91
06/05/91
05/22/91.
OS/22/91
11
12
IS
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
21
24
25
26
27
28
140
141
142
US
146
147
ISO
1S2
160
162
_1S4
1SS
TETRA
CNIORO
ETNTLEHE
06
06
HDS
100J
ND6
06
HOS
NDS
HOS
OS
NOS
NDS
HOS
9J
NDS
HOS
NDS
H06
ND6
ND6
NOS
19000
17
SJ
10000
67000
BOO
110
2100E
U
NDS
OS
NOM
1.1.1
TRICNIORO
ETHANE
ND6
BJ
HDS
NDS
ND6
HD6
NOS
HOS
NDS
NDS
NOS
NOS
NDS
HDS
NDS
HDS
NDS
ND6
NO*
HO*
NDS
01000
. ND6
06
N01400
H02800
051
NDM
HOS
HDS
NOS
NDS
NOM
TRICNLOM
ETNENE
«8J
1MJ
NDS
NDS
06
06 '
HDS
NDS
NOS
NOS
NDS
NDS
NDS
HOS
NOS
NOS
os
N06
06
ND6
NDS
01000
06
N06
6204
02800
051
NDM
NOS
NDS
NDS
OS
NOM
OICRLORO
ETHANE
06
N06
NDS
OS
06
06
NOS
NOS
NOS
HOS
NOS
NDS
HOS
NDS
HOS
HDS
NDS
06
06
06
NOS
ND1000
ND6
06
01400
02800
051
NOM
OS
NDS
010
OS
050
1.1
DICNLORO
ETNENE
ND6
06
NDS
NOS
06
06
NOS
OS
NDS
NOS
HOS
NOS
OS
os
OS
NOS
NDS
06
06
06
NDS
ND1000
06
06
N01400
02800
Oil
NDM
NDS
OS
010
NOS
NDM
1.2 fREON
OICNLORO 111
ETKEHE
3RTEO VALUES""""
ND6 2.5JR
06 2.6JR
HOS 1.SJR
NDS
06
06
NOS
NOS
HOS
NDS
NOS
NDS
NOS
NOS
NOS
HDS
NDS
ND6
06
06
NOS
01000
06
06
01(00
ND2800
Oil
050
HDS
NDS
010
NOS
HDM
1.1JR
9.6JR
1.6JR
1.2JR
1.1JR
1.6JR
NDS
1.4JR
1.SJR
1.1JR
1.7JR.
1.1JR
1.1JR
6.2JR
06
ND6
06
HDS
01000
06
06
N01400
02800
051
NDM
NDS
NOS
010
OS
NDM
RENZEHE
*
06
06
NDS
NOS
06
06
NOS
OS
NOS
NDS
NOS
OS
HDS
NDS
NOS
HOS
NDS
06
06
N06
NDS
01000
06
06
ND1400
H02800
051
050
OS
OS
ND10
NDS
NOM
ITLENE
06
06
NOS
OS
06
06
NDS
NOS
NOS
NOS
NDS
NDS
NDS
HDS
HDS
NDS
NDS
ND6
06
06
NDS
01000
06
06
66000E
N02BOO
180
180
21
NDS
1J
NOS
NDM
TOLUENE
06
06
HDS
2JR
06
06
NDS
NOS
HDS
HOS
HDS
NDS
NOS
NDS
HDS
NDS
NDS
ND6
ND6
06
NDS
01000
MM
06
2100
ND2800
051
NDM
1M
OS
U
OS
NOM
ETNTl
EHZENE
N06
ND6
NOS
NOS
ND6
06
NOS
NDS
NDS
NOS
NDS
NOS
OS
HDS
NOS
NDS
NOS
06
06
06
NOS
01000
06
06
05800
02800
16J
7J
NDS
NDS
2J
OS
NDM
NETNVIENE
ACETONE CHLORIDE
S5JR
66JR
010
9JR
18R
012
8JR
16R
Oil
8JR
010
18R
11R
11
16R
Oil
10
11
11
11
11
2100
12J .
1SJ
2800
110MJ
62
29IJ
68J
10
10
10J
60
!M
1SR
21 JR
7R
SIR
6IJR
4RJR
61*
4IJR
5
51JR '
5iJR
2IJR
. UJR
S
S
NDS
10M
ND6
1JR
S
HD1000
06
HD6
1400
2800
11
M
S
S
10
S
NDM
TOTAL Of
DETECTED
COMPOUND*
98
118
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
0
0
0
0
19000
If
18
8720
68MO
996
126
1787
1
6
. .0
0
47
26.0 OS/50/91 157
06
ND6
06
012
2J
-------
TABLE 7 CONTAMINANTS Oh CONttKJs *-OK Tnt RU w c. »i i c.
Volatiles
Acetone
2-Butanone
Carton Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
1.1-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-DichIoroethylene
1 .2-Dichloroethylene
(total)
Ethylbenzene
Freon 113 ,
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Thchloroethylene
Total Xylenes
Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Crwod
Wtttr
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sarfect
Setts
X
X
X
X
X
SksBo*
Sabwrbc*
SrtilDrjVt*
SodiOMBtt
«1T)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S«ifld«l
DrjWrf
S^tarati
Sudfw
(0-2')
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CMuPMd
StdlBtttS
UlOMt
. Brook
Sorfict
Wsttr
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Up»«*
Brook
SMUatnts
X
X
X
X
X
TABLE?
(CONTINUED)
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Crwwd
W«ttr
X
X
X
X
X
Sorbet
Sods
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ssbforhet
SoJbDr>W«B
«17')
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SnfkU
DryWoO
StdittttttB
Stodfn
CM')
X
X
OMfttPoad
S^IOWDtl
UIODN
Brook
Smrttct
W.ur
LHooet
Brook
Sodiotals
-------
TABLES ROWESITE: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
Dojaofi
Va
Vidoirjr
vdb **<» anmly
eeac mouaiai *l if OM faon.
No
Ya
On* SKWUI
am namj boauooB nib. TWat »db i
niiiainiM by VOCt i* » Ann.
He
(ra> Grand Wwr Md S«p Mto
»-30 («a bda* *» *
Omd Gaua «* Gmri WMT
Va
TW
Irab).
nf -fTT Tmmm, mi
No
No
bal VOC ad pwu
arfwtnib
it)
«t na (<.(..«
Saib
Wett*
Udily Worker Ya
Ya
Ya
X
X
nib (2-170
lOf MUBty HlMCMMBBntf
TABLE 8 1 (CONTINUED)
Dwarf/
0-1
far Sckaiei or Eidann
Dnri CoMa «* OWM
iSaib Eicmw*
Wato
UU«y Wetter
No
Ya
Ya
Ya
lMi4nut lajauai of Li|o«i Brook
Va
Va
i VBB afliiiioi kttkiry au »
lifMJai oT Dry Wti
Uait|Worto
Ya
No
Cam * Dry »«!
IMIiqrWato
No
No
UK *m COOUMMU viA aflicini B«idi> «u to
i* OUM had MOM<
Thtoakbioo
triy.
Dtnal Cooua wi* Sorfw* W«t I
UtoacBraok
lobamt hfoUoa of arf Dcrnol Cana
mi* (try Writ Was.
UviyWortw
No*y«di<
at a»«nm
r ioralia oa)li|iMr cipnarc «i* anl i
hciotoHl lama of Dtn«4 Coom <
teftn WMR (row OoMt Pooa
No
a(k|ibb
-------
TABLE 9. TOXICITY VALUES FOR THE HOWE SITE CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN.
Chemical
Volatile
Acetone
2-Buunone (MEK)
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobeniene
Chloroethane (ethyl chloride)
Chloroform
I.l-Dichloroe thane
1,2-Dichloroethane
I.l-Dichloroeihylene
1.2-Dichloroethylene (total)
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
I.l.l-Trichloroe thane
Trichloroelhylene
Trichlorotrifluoroeihane (Freon-l 13)
Xylenes
Inorganics
Amimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
CARCINOGENIC
Weight
of Evidence
Classification
D a
D a
a
D a
B2 d
B2 a
C a
B2 a
C a
..
D a
B2 a
B2 b
D a
D a
B2 b
..
D a_|
a
A a
a
B2 a
Oral Slope Inhal. Slope
Factor Factor
(mx/kg/day)-! (mg/kg/day)- 1
2.90E-03d
6.IOE-03a 8.03E-02M
9. IDE -02 a 9. IDE -02 a
6.00E-Ola 1.20E+OOa
7.50E-03 a a,i
S.IOE-02b l.82E-03b,e
I.IOE-026 l.70E-02b
1.73E+OOg l.51E*Ola,e
4.30E+OOa g.40E+OOa
CHRONIC
Chronic Chronic
Oral RfD Inhal. RfD
(mg/ki/day) (ms/kg/day)
I.OOE-OI a
5.00E-02b 9.00E-02b
I.OOE-OI a 2.8AE-03b,f
2.00E-02a S.OOE-03b
4.00E-Old 2.86E+OOb.f
l.00-02a
I.OOE-OI b I.OOE-OI b
9.00E-03a
I.OOE-02a,o
I.OOE-OI a 2.86E-OI a.f
6.00E-02a 8.57E-OI b.f
IOOE-02a
2.00E-OI b 5.7IE-OI b.f
9.00E-02b 3.00E-OI6
6.00E-03d
3.00E+Ola 7.72E+OOb.f
2.00E+OOa S.S7E-02b.f
4.00E-04 a
3.00E-04 a
S.OOE-02b l.OOE-Mb
S.OOE-03 a
SUBCHRONIC
Subchronic
Oral RfD
(mg/kc/day)
I.OOE+OOb
S.OOE-OI b
I.OOE-OI b
2.0UE-OI b
4.00E-OI n
I.OOE-02b
I.OOE+OOb
9.00E-03 b
I.OOE-Olb.o
I.OOE*OOb
6.00E-02 b
I.OOE-OI b
2.00E+OOb
9.00E-OI b
7.00E-ll3n
3.0f)E+<)Ob
4.00E+
-------
TABLE 10-A. RECEPTOR-SPECIFIC SUMMARY OF TOTAL CANCER RISKS FOR THE ROWE SITE
Receptor
Scenario
Carcinogens
Incremental
Risk
Onsile Resident'"
Ingestion of ground water and surface soils;
Inhalation or volatile ground water contaminants
7 x 10"
Offsite Resident'"
Excavation Worker
Ingestion of ground water and Ligonee Brook sediments 7 x 10s*
Inhalation of volatile ground water contaminants
Ingestion of site-wide subsurface soils and
(hose from (he former drum storage area
7 x 10'
Utility Worker
Ingestion of site-wide subsurface soils and those
from former drum storage area;
Ingestion of dry well sediments
6 x 10'
(1) Onsite and offsite resident receptor are not expected to be the same individual.
-f
* Exceeds EPA's acceptable risk range of 10"* to 10"*.
Exceeds EPA's acceptable Hazard Index of I.
TABLE 10-B. SUMMARY MEDIUM-SPECIFIC CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES
FOR THE ROWE SITE
Scenario
Ground Water
Ingestion
Inhalation
Surface Soil
logestion
Subsurface Soil
Site-Wide
Ingestion
Ingestion
Former Drum Storage Area
Ingestion
Ingestion
Dry Well Sediments
Ingestion
Ligonee Brook Sediments
Ingestion
Receptor
Resident
Resident
Child/Adult Resident
Excavation Worker
Utility Worker
Excavation Worker
Utility Worker
Utility Worker
Child/Adult Resident
Present/Future
F
F
F
F
P/F
F
P/F
P
P/F
Incremental Risk
7 x 10 '
3 x 10-"-
2 x 10'5»
6 x 10'»
5x 10-'
6x 10'1
5 x 10'1
2 x 10''
1 x 10'1
Exceeds 10" risk
* Exceeds!(T6risk
-------
TABLE 11-A. RECEPTOR-SPECIFIC SUMMARY OF TOTAL NON-CANCER RISKS
Receptor
Scenario
Noncardnogens
Subchronic
HI
Chronic
HI
Onsitc Resident'"
Offsiie Resident"1
Excavation Worker
Ingestion or ground water and surface soils;
InhaJation of volatile ground water contaminants
Ingestion of ground water and Ligonee Brook sediments
Inhalation of volatile ground water contaminants
Ingestion of site-wide subsurface soils and
(hose from the former drum storage area
4 x 10"**
4x 104'**
2 x 10°*
Utility Worker
Ingestion of site-wide subsurface soils and those
from former drum storage area;
Ingestion of dry well sediments
I x 102
(1) Onsite and offsite resident receptor are not expected to be the same individual.
HI Hazard Index
TABLE 11-B. SUMMARY MEDIUM-SPECIFIC NONCARCINOGENIC RISK
ESTIMATES FOR THE ROWE SITE
Scenario
Ground Water
logestion
Inhalation
Surface SoU
Ingestion
logestion
Subsurface Soil
Sue-Wide
lagestion
Ingestion
Receptor
Resident
Resident
Quid Resident
Adult Resident
Excavation Worker
Utility Worker
Present/
Future Subchronic HI
F
F -
F -
F
F 5 x Iff1
P/F
Chronic HI
4 x 10*"
2x1(7'
Itltf
1x10-'
-
4xio'
Former Drum Storage Area
logestion
Ingestion
Dry Well Sediments
Ingestion
Excavation Worker
Utility Worker
Utility Worker
F. I x 10"»
P/F
P
-
9xio'
8x10*
Lfebme Brook Sediments
Ingestion
Ingestion
Child Resident
Adult Resident
P/F
P/F
2x10*
1 x 10'
Hazard Index exceeds one (IX
- Pathway was not quantitatively evaluated.
-------
TABLE 12
HOWE INDUSTRIES SITE
SAG HARBOR. NEW YORK
Chearical Specific ARAR* Caaiidcro* for
Ground- Water Cleanup Crilrria
CwtpWHMl
CASNmbar
MMMMt ARAB Ba»«4 Gmwd WMw OMM» CriMta Wf . '
ORGANICS U
Chloroform 1 6746)
I.I DichlorotlhuM
M-Dwhloroclhylena
cb-l.2-Dichlo«>elfcyl«M
mat- 1 .l-DtchloroelBylaM
ElhylMaiciM
FlWMlll
Mcthyleaa Chloride
TemcUoracihykM
Toluene
I.I.I -Then loroelnutt
Ttickloroclhykoe
Xykoei
75-34-3
75-35-4
156-59-1
156-605
IOO-4M
7613-1
754)9-2
127 II 4
101 II 3
71-55^
79414
133020-7
7
5
5
5
5
5
50
5
5
5
5
5
5f
INORGANICS 1
Antimony
Amok
Beryllium
Cadmium
Iroa
Mifneuum
Selenium
7440^36-0
7740-31-2
744(MI 7
7440-43-9
7439-96-5
7712492
6
25
1
5
300
300
,0
I/ Microfnou per liter.
NR NMrc|uUud.
t Applkt to each individual iiointr.
mbi«.lbl/92nabii.4ifc
LBG ENCiNfERiNG SERVICES, INC.
-------
Table 13
Soil Cleanup Objectives
Contaminant Cleanup Objective
(in ppm)
Benzene 0.05
Xylenes 1.2
Ethylbenzene 5.5
Toluene 1.5
PCE 1.5
TCE 1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.2
TCA 1.0
1,1-DCE 0.5
1,2-DCE 0.5
-------
APPENDIX 3
-------
toft ttatt Department of Environmental Conmervatlor
«Mf ftoad, Albany, Ntw Ywk 12233
fSEP 2 8 1902
MB. Kathleen Callahan
Director
Emergency k Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region It
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Re: Rowe Industries Site ID No. 152106
Sag Harbor, Long laland
Draft Record of Decision
Dear Ms. Callahan:
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) hae
reviewed and concurs with the September 16, 1992 draft Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Rowe Industries site.
The remedy presented in the draft ROD includes excavation and disposal of
approximately 365 cubic yards of contaminated soil and the remediation of
groundwater via extraction and air stripping with discharge to Sag Harbor Cove.
Please contact Mr. James Bologna at (518) 457-3976 if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
nn Hill DeBarbieri
Deputy Commissioner
Office of Environmental Remediation
cc: M. Hauptmann, USEPA-Region II
L. Wood, USEPA-Region II
------- |