PB95-963808
EPA/ROD/R02-95/254
February 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Anchor Chemicals Superfund Site,
Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, NY
9/29/1995
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Anchor Chemical Superfund Site
Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau County, New York
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) selection of the remedial action for
the Anchor Chemical Superfund Site (the "Site") in accordance with
the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), 42
U.S.C. §9601 et sea, and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300. This decision
document summarizes the factual and legal basis for selecting the
remedy for the Site. An administrative record for the Site,
established pursuant to the NCP, 40 CFR 300.800, contains the
documents that form the basis for EPA's selection of the remedial
action, an index of which is appended to this document (see
Appendix III).
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) has been consulted on the planned remedial action in
accordance with CERCLA §121(f), 42 U.S.C. §9621(f), and it concurs
with the selected no further action remedy (see Appendix IV). A
letter of concurrence from the NYSDEC is appended to this document.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
EPA, in consultation with the State of New York, has determined
that the Anchor Chemical Superfund Site does not pose a significant
threat to human health or the environment and, therefore, further
remediation is not appropriate. This determination is based on the
findings of the Remedial Investigation and the baseline Risk
Assessment. The risks posed by the Site are within EPA's acceptable
risk range and therefore do not pose a threat to human health or
the environment.
Although the risks posed by the Site contamination are within the
acceptable risk range, four dry wells on Site are contaminated with
chromium, lead, 1,1,1 trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and other
-------
volatile compounds (VOCs). Groundwater samples from several
monitoring wells on Site also showed concentrations of chromium and
1,1,1-TCA, which were above MCLs. The contaminated soils and
sediments from the dry wells will be removed in order to prevent
further groundwater contamination. On September 15, 1995, K.B.
Company, the owner of the property, was issued a unilateral
administrative order and Anchor Lith/Kem-Ko and Chessco Industries,
a former owner of Anchor Lith/Kem-Ko, were issued administrative
consent orders by the EPA to remove the contaminated sediment and
soil from the four dry wells (DWs) , designated DW-2, DW-3, DW-6 and
DW-8, in order to prevent further groundwater contamination. The
excavated materials will be disposed of at a Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) approved facility. Groundwater and soil
samples will be collected at the Site and analyzed to assess the
effectiveness of the removal action. Upon completion of the
removal action, EPA will take no further action at the Anchor
Chemical Superfund Site.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
In accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, as amended, and the
NCP, EPA, in consultation with the State of New York, has
determined that the Anchor Chemical Superfund Site does not pose a
significant threat to human health and the environment. Therefore,
no remedial action is necessary.
Because this remedy will not result in hazardous substances
remaining on-Site above health-based levels, the five (5) year
review will not apply to this action.
Date
Regional Administrator
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
ANCHOR CHEMICAL SUPERFUND SITE
TOWN OF OYSTER BAY, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 3
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION 3
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 6
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED "NO FURTHER ACTION REMEDY" ... 11
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 12
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Anchor Chemical Super fund Site is located at 500 West John
Street in the Village of Hicksville, Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau
County, New York (see Figure 1). The surrounding area is predomi-
nantly industrial but also has recreational areas.
The Site is bordered to the west by a commercial property, to the
south by West John Street and to the Northwest by Cantiague park,
a 125 acre recreational facility. A groundwater recharge basin
lies to the east of the Site.
The Site is approximately 1.5 acres in size and includes one 28,850
square foot, two-story building. The KoBar Company purchased the
Site on September 30, 1964, and in the same year constructed the
building for the Anchor Chemical Company. Before the building was
constructed, the Site was used for agricultural purposes.
From 1964 to 1978, Anchor Chemical leased the Site from KoBar and
began manufacturing, blending and storing chemicals for the graphic
arts industry. The company operated two solvent mixing rooms and
several container storage areas. In 1964, seventeen (17) under-
ground storage tanks (USTs), which ranged in size from 500 to 4,000
gallons, were installed under the mixing room for Anchor Chemical
(see Figure 2) . The tanks were used to store chemicals and
solvents, such as acetone, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, methylene
chloride, 2-butoxyethanol and isopropyl alcohol. The chemicals
were also stored in seven aboveground tanks, which ranged in size
from 550 to 1,500 gallons. The aboveground tanks were removed from
the Site in 1985.
In addition, there are 9 dry wells and one drain, which are located
in the parking lot on Site (see Figure 2). The dry wells and drain
were installed to collect rainwater run off and drainage from the
building. Most of the Site is paved with asphalt. Liquid which
collects in the dry wells infiltrates into the soil. None of the
dry wells are connected to a sewer.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
In 1978, Anchor Chemicals was purchased by Chessco Industries and
became known as Anchor/Lith Kem-Ko. Company operations were
terminated in 1985. Since 1985, the following tenants have
occupied the Site: from 1985 to 1988, Emery Worldwide Freight, a
shipping company? from 1988 to 1992, J. D. Brauner, a furniture
manufacturer; from 1992 to 1994, Distributors of America, a
distributer of newspaper inserts; and from 1994 to present, Machin-
ery Values, a machinery resale operation.
In 1977, the Nassau County Health Department (NCHD) discovered
1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), trichloroethene (TCE) and
-------
tetrachloroethene (PCE) in liquid samples near drywell 1, which is
located north of the building in the parking lot (see Figure 2).
In response, Anchor Chemical submitted a spill prevention plan to
the NCDH.
In May 1981, the Nassau County Fire Marshall notified Anchor/Lith
Kem-Ko that the 17 USTs on Site had not been registered with the
Fire Marshall or tested for leaks. In subsequent testing of 14 of
the 17 USTs, 5 tanks failed air over product tank tightness tests.
The five tanks were decommissioned in 1983. The three remaining
tanks, which were not tested in 1981, were tightness tested in 1982
and 1983, and one of these tanks failed the test. In 1982, the NCDH
requested Anchor/Lith Kem-Ko to investigate the possibility of
groundwater and soil contamination at the Site.
Three groundwater monitoring wells were installed in September
1982. Groundwater samples taken from the wells contained 24,000
parts per billion (ppb) of 1,1,1-TCA, 1,100 ppb of PCE, 350 ppb of
dichloroethane, 17 0 ppb of chlorodibromomethane, 41 ppb of
methylene chloride and 55 ppb of TCE. Soil samples, which were
taken during the installation of one well (well number 1), revealed
490 ppb of methylene chloride and 22 ppb of 1,1,1-TCA.
In January 1983, the Site was included on the NYSDEC's list of
hazardous waste sites in Nassau County. On June 10, 1986, the Site
was added to the federal National Priorities List (NPL).
Subsequent monitoring of the Site by the PRP through 1991 has
indicated a decrease in the concentration of contaminants in the
groundwater.
On June 2, 1989, EPA issued an Administrative Order on Consent to
the K.B. Company, the owner of the property and successor to Kobar,
to undertake a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at the Site and to
evaluate options for cleanup. On August 3, 1989, EPA issued an
Administrative Order to Chessco Industries, which required it to
participate and cooperate with K.B. Company. EPA issued an Admin-
istrative Order to Anchor Lith-Kem Ko. on March 31, 1992, which
also required it to participate and cooperate in the performance of
the RI/FS. RI field work was completed in February 1995, and the RI
report was compiled by the PRPs and submitted to the EPA in March
1995. The Risk Assessment was finalized by the EPA on June 2,
1995.
On September 15, 1995, K.B. Company, the owner of the property,
Anchor Lith/Kem-Ko and Chessco Industries, a former owner of Anchor
Lith/Kem-Ko, were ordered by the EPA to remove the contaminated
sediment and soil from four on Site dry wells (DWs) designated DW-
2, DW-3, DW-6 and DW-8. K. B. Company was issued a unilateral
2
-------
administrative order, while Anchor Lith/Kem-Ko and Chessco
industries were issued an administrative consent order for the
removal work. A workplan for the drywell removal action was
approved by EPA on September 28, 1995. The actual removal of the
material from the drywells occurred on September 29, 1995.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
On August 19, 1991, EPA held a public meeting at the Hicksville
Library to inform the community of its intent to oversee a remedial
investigation of the Site. At the meeting, EPA provided a brief
summary of the Site history, an overview of the federal Superfund
process and summarized the RI work, which was to occur at the Site.
The RI report, Risk Assessment report, and the Proposed Plan for
the Site were released to the public for comment on August 23,
1995. These documents have been made available to the public in
the administrative record file at the EPA Docket Room in Region II,
New York and the information repositories at the Hicksville
Library. The notice of availability for the above-referenced
documents was published in Newsday on August 23, 1995 and the
Hicksville Illustrated News on August 25, 1995. The public comment
period on these documents was held from August 23, 1995, to
September 21, 1995.
On September 12, 1995, EPA and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) conducted a public meeting at
the Hicksville Library to inform local officials and interested
citizens about the Superfund process, to review current and planned
remedial activities at the Site, and to respond to any questions
from area residents and other attendees.
Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in
writing during the public comment period are included in the
Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION
This Record of Decision discusses EPA's selection of no further
action for the Site. Based on the findings of the Remedial
Investigation (RI) and EPA's baseline Risk Assessment, the risks at
the Site are within the EPA's acceptable risk range; therefore, the
Site does not pose a threat to the public or the environment.
Four dry wells on Site are contaminated with chromium, lead, 1,1,1
trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and other volatile compounds (VOCs).
Groundwater samples from several monitoring wells on Site also
revealed concentrations of chromium and 1,1,1-TCA which were above
MCLs. Contaminated soils and sediments from the dry wells will be
removed in order to prevent further groundwater contamination. On
3
-------
September 15, 1995, K.B. Company, the owner of the property, was
issued an administrative order and Anchor Lith/Kem-Ko and Chessco
Industries, a former owner of Anchor Lith/Kem-Ko, were issued an
administrative consent order by the EPA to remove contaminated
sediment and soil from four dry wells (DWs) designated DW-2, DW-3,
DW-6 and DW-8. A workplan for the drywell removal action was
approved by EPA on September 28, 1995. The actual removal of the
material from the drywells is occurred on September 29, 1995.
Excavated materials will be disposed of at a Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) approved facility. Groundwater samples
will be collected at the Site and analyzed to assess the
effectiveness of the removal action.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The Remedial Investigation included: 1) inspection and closure of
12 USTs? 2) installation of four shallow and four deep groundwater
monitoring wells; 3) three rounds of groundwater samples; 4) two
rounds of soil samples from under the USTs; and 5) one round of
sediment samples from nine dry wells, one drain and two cesspools.
Inspection and Closure of the Underground Storage Tanks
Figure 3 shows the arrangement of the tanks at the Site. As
mentioned above, five of the 17 USTs on-Site (UST numbers 5, 6, 8,
11 and 15) were closed in 1983. Tank closure was performed by
filling the USTs with concrete. In June 1991, as part of the RI,
the remaining 12 USTs were also filled with concrete.
Groundwater
Eleven on-Site monitoring wells were sampled in April and November
1992. Two monitoring wells, MW-4 and MW-5S, were re-sampled in
February 1995.
All of the wells sampled are screened in the Upper Glacial Aquifer.
Monitoring wells MW-4, 5S, 6S and 7S are screened at 70 to 80 feet
below land surface (BLS); the deeper wells, MWs-lD, 5D, 6D and 7D,
are screened 100 to 120 feet BLS. Figure 3 shows the well
locations.
The average depth to the water table at the Site is 50 to 60 feet.
The following three water bearing geologic units underlay the Site:
the Upper Glacial Aquifer, the Magothy Aquifer and the Lloyd
Aquifer. The Upper Glacial and Magothy Aquifers are hydraulically
interconnected. Water also flows from the Magothy to the Lloyd
Aquifer; however downward movement is extremely slow because of a
thick confining clay known as the Raritan Clay, which overlays the
Lloyd Aquifer. All three aquifers serve as a source of drinking
water for Long Island.
4
-------
The direction of groundwater flow is to the southwest. This was
determined by the NCDH in 1986 and confirmed during field testing
in March and October 1992. In 1985 a Site investigation report,
produced by Lockwood, Kessler and Barlett, a consultant hired by
K.B. Company, the groundwater was reported to migrate at a rate of
approximately 0.45 feet per day.
Organic contaminants were detected in each of the three sample
rounds. 1,1,1-TCA was detected in MW-3 (8 ppb, April 1992) , in MW-
4 (3 ppb, November 1992) and in MW-5S (29 ppb, February 1995) .
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was detected in MW-5S (65 ppb, April
1992) and MW-7S (160 ppb, November 1992). A number of unspecified
organic compounds also were detected in groundwater samples from
each of the monitoring wells.
Inorganic contamination was found in higher concentrations. Lead
and chromium were detected in the groundwater at levels which
exceeded both federal and state maximum contaminant levels (MCLs)
for drinking water. Samples taken in April 1992 revealed chromium
at 317 ppb and 227 ppb in shallow wells MW-2 and MW-3, respec-
tively, and 132 ppb in deep well MW-1D. The November sample round
revealed chromium at 1440 ppb in well MW-2 and 1150 ppb in well MW-
3.
Lead was detected in shallow wells MW-2 and MW-3 at 74.7 ppb and
30.2 ppb, respectively, for the first round and 240 ppb and 71.5
ppb, respectively, for the second round. MW-5D revealed lead at
31.4 ppb and 4 0.4 ppb for the first and second rounds.
EPA and New York State MCL and action level concentrations exist
for lead, chromium, 1,1,1-TCA and the total concentration of
unspecified organic compounds. Water which has concentrations of
lead, chromium and unspecified organic compounds which exceed MCL
concentrations may not be safe for consumption. New York State
MCLs for the contaminants detected in the groundwater are as
follows: chromium - 50 ppb, 1,1,1-TCA - 5 ppb, bis(2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate - 50 ppb, and the total concentration of unspecified
organic compounds - 100 ppb. The federal EPA MCLs are 2 00 ppb for
1,1,1-TCA and 100 ppb for chromium. No federal MCL has been
established for unspecified organic compounds. For lead, EPA has
established an action level of 15 ppb.
EPA believes that the elevated levels of lead, chromium, 1,1,1-TCA
and unspecified organic compounds, which were detected in the
groundwater, will decrease once the sediments from drywells 2, 3,
6, and 8 are removed. As indicated below, analysis of samples
collected from sediments in these dry wells revealed high levels of
lead and chromium.
5
-------
Soil and Sediments
Minimal concentrations of organic chemical contamination were
detected in the soil samples that were obtained from below the
underground storage tanks.
Elevated levels of the following contaminants, however, were found
in the sediment sample from DW 2: 1,1-DCA (1,600 ppb), 1,1,1-TCA
(3,300 ppb), toluene (4,800 ppb), xylene (67,000 ppb) and bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate (27,000 ppb). Chromium (Cr) and lead (Pb)
contamination were also detected in the sediment samples from DWs
2, 3, 6 and 8 at the following levels: DW 2 - Cr 463 ppm, Pb -
1,210 ppm; DW 3 - Cr 101 ppm, Pb 607 ppm; DW 6 - Cr 240 ppm, Pb
1,120 ppm; and, DW 8 - Cr 198 ppm, Pb 1,620 ppm. Finally, various
unspecified organic compounds were detected in the sediments. The
following levels (total concentrations) were detected: DW 2-
1,302.5 ppm, DW 3 - 2 2 6.2 ppm, DW 6 - 26 ppm and DW 8 - 85.3 ppm.
Removal of soil and sediments from these dry wells should reduce
the concentrations of chromium, lead, 1,1,1-TCA, bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate, and the total concentration of unspecified
organic compounds in the groundwater. Soil and groundwater samples
will be collected to confirm the effectiveness of the removal
action.
Sediment samples from dry wells 1, 4, 5, 7 and 9 and the drain
revealed levels which ranged from 81.3 ppm to 216 ppm for lead and
17.4 ppm to 71 ppm for chromium. These levels are not considered
high enough by the EPA and the NYSDEC to have an adverse impact on
the groundwater. Therefore, no excavation of the sediments from
these dry wells or the drain will be required.
Finally, two cesspools (see Figure 2) , which were abandoned in
1982, were sampled. One soil sample was collected from each
cesspool. Trace levels of methylene chloride and two pesticides,
dieldrin and methoxychlor, were detected.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was
conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and future
Site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates the human
health and ecological risk which could result from the contamina-
tion at the Site if no remedial action were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human
health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario. Hazard
6
-------
Identification—identifies the contaminants of concern at a site
based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence,
and concentration. Exposure Assessment—estimates the magnitude of
actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and duration
of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated
well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed. Toxicity
Assessment—determines the types of adverse health effects
associated with chemical exposures, and the relationship between
magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects
(response). Risk Characterization—summarizes and combines outputs
of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative
assessment of site-related risks.
EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the potential
risks to human health and the environment associated with the Site
in its current state. The Risk Assessment focused on contaminants
in the soil and groundwater which are likely to pose significant
risks to human health and the environment. A summary of the
contaminants of concern in the matrices sampled is provided in
Table A.
EPA's baseline risk assessment addresses the potential risks to
human health by identifying several potential exposure pathways by
which the public may be exposed to contaminant releases at the Site
under current and future land-use conditions. However, groundwater
and soil exposures were only assessed for a future land use
scenario. Groundwater at the Site is not currently used for con-
sumption, so an evaluation of a present exposure scenario is not
necessary. In addition, although risks were calculated for future
residential development, the Site is zoned for light industry and
is not expected to change.
The exposure pathways considered under future uses are listed in
Table B. A total of four exposure pathways were quantitatively
evaluated under possible on-site future land-use conditions:
ingestion of groundwater, inhalation of groundwater contaminants,
incidental ingestion of soil, and dermal contact with soils. The
reasonable maximum exposure for each pathway was evaluated. Two
other exposure pathways were evaluated qualitatively: dermal
contact with groundwater and inhalation of VOC emissions and soil
particulates. Both pathways were expected to be less significant
because of the short duration of exposures.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects as a result of
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 noncarcinogenic risks
associated with exposures to individual compounds of concern were
7
-------
summed to indicate the potential risks associated with mixtures of
potential carcinogens and noncarcinogens, respectively.
Noncarcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index (HI)
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes and
safe levels of intake (Reference Doses, of RfDs). RfDs have been
developed by EPA for indicating the potential for adverse health
effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units of milligrams/
kilogram-day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of daily exposure levels
for humans which are thought to be safe over a lifetime (including
sensitive individuals). Estimated intakes of chemicals from
environmental media (e.g.r the amount of a chemical ingested from
contaminated drinking water) are compared to 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 particular receptor population.
An HI greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for
noncarcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-related
exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging
the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures within
a single medium or across media. The reference doses for the
compounds of concern at the Site are presented in Table C. A
summary of the noncarcinogenic risks associated with these
chemicals across various exposure pathways is found in Table D.
The results of the risk evaluation for the Site indicated a non-
cancer risk for the ingestion of groundwater exposure scenario for
future residents to be a Hazard Index (HI) of 3 (see Table d). The
HI resulted from the presence of four metals: aluminum (HQ of 0.8),
arsenic (HQ of 0.3), iron (HQ of 0.8) and manganese (HQ of 0.8).
However, each of these metals affects a different target organ.
Because the toxicologic effects of the metals are non additive,
i.e. their toxic endpoints are different, the actual risk for the
Site is probably less than an HI of 3. The HI for ingestion or
dermal contact with subsurface soils by excavation workers is less
than one.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer slope
factors developed by EPA for the contaminants of concern. Cancer
slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's Carcinogenic Risk
Assessment Verification Endeavor 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 conserva-
tive estimate of the risks calculated from the SF. Use of this
approach makes the underestimation of the risk highly unlikely.
8
-------
The SF for the compounds of concern are presented in Table C. A
summary of the carcinogenic risks associated with these chemicals
across various exposure pathways is found in Table E.
The carcinogenic risk associated with a future Site resident
ingesting groundwater was estimated to be 8 x 10'5, which represents
a probability of 8 people in 100,000 developing cancer as a result
of consuming 2 liters of untreated groundwater from the Site for
350 days per year for 30 years. The carcinogenic risk for
excavation workers ingesting subsurface soils and sediments was
estimated to be 3 x 10'7. EPA's acceptable cancer risk range is 10"4
to 10"6. This represents a one-in-ten-thousand to one-in-a-million
increased probability that an individual will develop cancer under
the Site specific exposure conditions over a lifetime.
The risk evaluation for the Site indicates that the human health
risks associated with the Site are within EPA's acceptable risk
range. However, removal of the contaminated soil and sediments
from dry wells 2, 3, 6 and 8 should further reduce the potential
for future risks as a result of groundwater ingestion by future
Site residents because elevated levels of aluminum, lead, arsenic
and manganese were detected in the dry wells and are a probable
source of contamination to the groundwater. Reducing or eliminating
contamination to the groundwater, will also protect the Upper
Glacial and the lower Magothy aquifer which serves as a sole source
drinking water aquifer for Long Island. Finally, although lead and
chromium did not contribute to the calculated risks, they were also
detected at elevated concentrations in the sediments of the four
dry wells and in groundwater samples above drinking water standards
from monitoring wells MW-2, 3 and 5S.
Ecological Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related
ecological risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario:
Problem Formulation—a qualitative evaluation of contaminant
release, migration, and fate; identification of contaminants of
concern, receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological effects
of the contaminants? and selection of endpoints for further study.
Exposure Assessment—a quantitative evaluation of contaminant
release, migration, and fate; characterization of exposure pathways
and receptors; and measurement or estimation of exposure point
concentrations. Ecological Effects Assessment—literature reviews,
field studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant concentra-
tions to effects on ecological receptors. Risk Characterization—
measurement or estimation of both current and future adverse
effects.
The Site is located in a primarily urban industrialized area.
Except for a narrow strip of lawn and plantings, the Site is
9
-------
entirely covered by the existing building or asphalt. There are no
significant habitats present at the Site which could potentially
support indigenous wildlife receptor species. The Site may however
provide a habitat for various non-native species which have adapted
to highly urbanized areas (e.g. rats, starlings and pigeons).
Aquatic habitats or wetlands are not present within the vicinity of
the Site. Although ecologically significant areas are not known to
be located in the vicinity of the Site, potential habitats include
cemeteries, school grounds, and Cantiague Park. The 125 acre
Cantiague Park includes a golf course and is likely to provide for
a variety of wildlife species. However, because of the extensive
development and lack of suitable vegetated habitats at the Site,
potential receptor species which may inhabit the adjacent Cantiague
Park (e.g. various songbirds and small animals) are not expected to
frequent the Site. Therefore, the Site poses no ecological risk.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation,
as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide variety of
uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
• environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
• environmental parameter measurement
• fate and transport modeling
• exposure parameter estimation
• toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media sampled.
Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the actual
levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis error can stem
from several sources including the errors inherent in the analyti-
cal 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 concern, in the period of time over which such
exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the chemicals of 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
10
-------
provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations near the
Site, and it is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks
related to the Site.
Future land use and future use of public drinking water supplies
are difficult to define. For this action, local zoning officials
and Site documents including the RI report were consulted for
information. Risk scenarios are based on land use and water supply
estimates that would result in "reasonable maximum" exposures. The
groundwater ingestion scenario may overestimate risk because it
assumes that 1) private wells will be installed on or adjacent to
the Site and will draw water from contaminated areas, or 2)
contaminant concentrations detected in the on-site monitoring wells
will reach private residential wells.
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
Report.
STATE ACCEPTANCE
The State of New York concurs with EPA's selected no further action
alternative pending successful completion of the drywell removal
action. Their letter of concurrence is attached as Appendix IV.
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
Community acceptance of the preferred remedy has been assessed in
the Responsiveness Summary portion of this ROD, following review of
all public comments received on the RI report and the Proposed
Plan. All comments submitted during the public comment period were
evaluated and are addressed in the attached Responsiveness Summary.
Comments on EPA's Proposed Plan for the Site were received from the
public and the Nassau County Department of Health (DOH). The public
commented on the following issues: the source of Site contaminants,
Site related cancer incidence, the drywell removal action and deed
restrictions for a future sale of the Site property. No specific
objections were raised by the public on implementation of the Site
remedy, i.e. removal of contaminated soil and sediments from four
dry wells and no further action. The Nassau County DOH did not,
however, think that the remedy was adequate and recommended that
off Site groundwater monitoring be conducted in addition to the
removal action.
EPA's specific responses to the comments concerning the Anchor
Chemical Superfund Site Proposed Plan can be found in Appendix V.
11
-------
SELECTED REMEDY
EPA has determined after reviewing the alternatives and public
comments that no further action beyond the successful completion of
the drywell removal action is the appropriate remedy for the Site
because it best satisfies the requirements of CERCLA §121, 42
U.S.C. §9621, and the NCP's nine evaluation criteria for remedial
alternatives, 40 CFR §300.430(e) (9) .
An evaluation of all available data, the findings of the RI
conducted at the Site, EPA's Risk Assessment, and other supporting
data and documentation indicate that the Site risks are within
EPA's acceptable risk range and that a no further action decision
is protective of human health and the environment.
In addition, although groundwater sampling results indicate some
occurrence of contaminants exceeding MCLs, the distribution of the
contaminants indicated either off Site sources or localized
contamination. Furthermore, the removal action conducted by the
PRPs will remove any potential source of contamination to the
groundwater. EPA believes that elevated levels of lead chromium,
1,1,1-TCA and unspecified organic compounds which were detected in
the groundwater will decrease once the sediments from drywells 2,
3, 6 and 8 are removed.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
12
-------
APPENDIX I
FIGURES
-------
S«»m4A
ERCHANGE
•4*0%
wivAOJ*
m A I
rm \\
"l ^«Ct^NGE ij '
NewiGasseB
ERCHAItGE
ulit"!
A.
BASE MAP IS A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING USGS 7JS' SERIES QUADRANGLE:
HICKSVILLE, NY, 1967; PHOTOREVISED 1979
0 1000 2000 3000
SCALE - feet
vow
QUADRANGLE LOCATION
LOCATION MAP
ANCHOR CHEMICAL PROPERTY
HICKSVILLE, NEW YORK
Figure 1
-------
Loading Dock
for Packaging
Supplies
Loading Dock
for Finished
Cham teals
Legend
I I Building
MW-6D
'* V
Parking
MW-6S
DW-1
g -o—
DW-3 ^
\
DW-2 $
DVM
W Ftoot
— - — Propwty Boundary
# Soil Baring
® Ground Wat* Monitoring Wei
n Naw Drywal, InstalM in IMS
^ (not SampM)
Location at UnuMd Cssspoola
0 Existing (otd) Dryw«l
PVC Drtln Ljrwa
DW-5 Q
MW-7S 0
MW-7DM
DW-6
Formerly
Anchor
Chemical
CP#2
CP«1.
\
/
$•
MW-1S
MW-1D
Cantiague
Park
Solvent Mixing
Rooms/Underground
Storage Tanks
(see Figure 1-4
for Details)
MW-2
Grasa/P1ant*d
Area
DW-7 ^MW-3 ® ft OW-8
*0*4
-------
5
] C
Group 2
%
Boring #3 <)
Boring #4 •
P"
Combustible Mixing Room
X2000)V
(30001
Boring #5
(3000)
(3000)
\
(3000)
Boring #6
—7—
Group 1
£
zr
Flammable Mixing Room
Legend
Tank Pillad with in Inart SoUd MiwW
(2000) TanK Capacity in Gailons
7 K//V 8 '///
(2000) Boring #7^//>
-------
APPENDIX II
TABLES
-------
TABLE A:
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN, FREQUENCY OF DETECTION, RANGE OF CONCEN-
TRATIONS DETECTED, 95% UPPER CONFIDENCE LEVEL CONCENTRATION
VALUES USED IN THE RISK'ASSESSMENT
-------
SUMWtAKV statistics for the anchor chemical site.
I ill
amr mnmci (on n
•(• n/Li Hfulc aolla ar« af/ln lHitult talii u«
mm*
cum
u
UNfl
Ultert UfkHt
ftrltl
laatyt*
1.1,1-THoUi
1,1-MoUo
1. |t«*|
fc*«t«H
*Hri»*—i
IttrUaMrUtthtltU
M-t-Mt|d|MkdtU
nwmttn*
U»|MMrlkwl|)ttkUMl
Iwla
e>i«ia
Cfcvaalai
Ortalt
C»i»»r
In*
Hold
T«-M1
llM
1w
t^l«
IW* >1
SMM.
Mm*
«Md
UalrMi
Caw.
Cowo.
UhI.
«
aa
a.M
t.M
¦N-l
l.ll
1
aa
a.M
a.M
l.li
1
ii
l.M
l.M
M-SI-II
l.ll
1
aa
1H.M
IM.M
M-U-Il
ia.M
1
aa
a.M
a.M
¦a-u-ii
l.M
1
la
l.M
l.M
W-U-II
1.13
T
aa
l.M
a.M
¦N-lb-II
l.M
1
aa
l.M
l.M
1.71
•
at
l.M
l.M
W-I-XX
1.17
aa
l.M
a.M
W-U-II
l.M
1
aa
l.M
l.M
IM-7D-IX
1.71
*
aa
l.M
l.M
M-M-II
S.U
11
21
l.M
IM.M
¦r-7*-n
11.11
1
aa
l.M
l.M
¦i-U-II
».«»
IT
aa
IM.M
•11M.M
n-i-n
Mil. 11
a
aa
l.M
».!•
¦a-a-ix
a.17
a*
aa
7.M
IM.M
H-MI
17.M
i
aa
l.M
l.M
M»-7I
a.i7
aa
aa
IIM.II
MSM.M
MV-SD-II
1MII.I1
aa
aa
11.••
llM.M
m-a-zi
Ml.11
»
aa
M.M
M.M
¦*-1-11
t.ll
17
aa
M.M
171. M
¦W-l-XI
17.M
aa
aa
IM.M
IMM.M
in-a-xi
•III.II
i*
i*
M.M
an.M
M-a-n
11.11
at
aa
•M.M
M7I.II
MB-l-II
1711.»«
aa
i.ai
111.II
MI-l-XI
•l.ia
•
aa
*.m
l.M
M-!
l.M
17
aa
l.M
•7.11
MB-11-XI
11.11
1*
aa
Mlt.M
I11M.II
OT-SD
S7M.I7
aa
aa
MM.M
USM.M
ni-a-xx
MSM.M
<
aa
l.M
73.11
¦i-i-xx
M.M
M
1»
IS.M
Hi. II
NB-ID-IX
M.M
1«
»•
Visit Dtt.Uait
«
<
4
11
I
t
1
T
7
•
7
7
•t
•
imii
t
ut
a
IMK
III
•
U<
illll
((
iilt
1>1
¦
(1
Till
IIMI
at
ui
l.ll
I.H
l.tt
ll.tl
ll.M
M.M
M.M
M.M
ll.M
M.M
M.M
M.M
M.M
l.M
IM.M
a.M
>.M
l.M
a.M
17. M
t.M
T.M
1IH.M
l.M
a.M
C.Llalt
M.M
M.M
M.M
ai.M
M.M
M.M
M.M
M.M
M.M
M.M
M.M
M.M
M.M
l.M
IM.M
M.M
M.M
t.Tt
M.M
1T.M
l.M
M.M
ltH.M
C.M
M.M
-------
SUMMARY - .rtTISTKS FOR THE ANCHOR CHEMICAL SFTE (CONTINUED).
•onus* mnmci m tin aimo* cmicu atn
mnrti til nttr uulywi ara g(/Li etgulo aolla «• «g/Kg; lBoroaalo aolla ara Wfttg.
Ttii-m-ii aad M-
-------
SUMK t STATISTICS FOR THE ANCHOR CHEMICAL SITE (CONTINUED).
WITli all
9Wtf AUC^lS^t CTBWC3U.
alyaaa mt* wf/Ll artaala Mil.* an ««/K*l lnar«afela Mil* ut agS*«,
Trt*al»a» Mnrtan toll*
eiaaa
hi.
thm.
loaaat
¦lftMt
¦lffcaat
tlltlMll*
If M.
iMMt
¦lfbaafc
Mm
tavla*
Bat act at
Bataetad
Coaa.
Hmb
**¦ •«.
Ohrarv*«
ttnml
lHl|tt
BataetaJ
taaly*a4
Com.
cane.
taaafc.
Caaa.
Limit
M.Ualt
Oat.Limit
I-MWM
a
at
ia.it
St.tt
N»-7B(S«-M'|
t.Tt
It.TT
at.tt
ai.tt
Mi(i-Mvltaqrtl|MI*t«ti
<
at
n.«i
ltt.1t
»-«(tt-«3')
Itt.TT
111.11
nt.tt
tta.tt
¦i|>ii>Uf
i
at
t.at
t.at
NW-TDUM-lLf)
t.tt
T.tt
t.tt
lt.tt
mil iii
if
at
itt.tt
aut.tt
»-lflt-lt't
ttt.19
UM.tl
¦
,
fcg ¦¦¦!.»
i«
at
t.ai
l.tt
t.Tt
l.tl
t.tt
t.tt
•arias
it
i»
t.ta
la.st
U-IOI-14-l
l.tt
«.»l
t.ct
a.it
nw
t
at
t.«»
o.»»
n-i-ifi
1111,11
tm.ai
#
tMi
11
M
t.ta
a.it
IM-tM
-------
SUM MART STATISTICS FOR THB ANCHOR CHEMICAL SITE (CONTINUED).
•mmmt mnmci rot n> iikm eHtcu mi
Willi all Htw aaalraaa ara b(/Li »r«ulg •olla ara iwitula Mill an mtf*.
WHiliMaaH
Claaa
1,1,1-TrKUwMt
1, l-Biahl«w«Um
C>i«m Hnlllh
lUvUamat
tllMM
Vatal irlMM
•lalffvaa
HHHwi ii¦»>¦¦¦
H>l«li»w»iai
•la M<
—urumaim
IlltaM MfkHt
Tlmaa b^laa Dataotad Cone.
Oataatad Jtaalyaad Caae. cm. toaat.
Ul-tatri|klMlt§
nwMMIaaa
MtlkU
iMCfMifl Al<
lia.
Jtritl
la
n m. i i
9- 0oaf. Ofcaarra*
Limit Oat .Limit
¦l«te«t
Dat.Limit
1* .
Jlll.M
11M.M
M-l
199.19
191191.91
S.S9
HI t.tt
11 '
1(0*.M
1«M.M
M-l
119.19
1*719.IS
S.S9
llll.H
1*
!.M
11.M
M'l
117.19
11719.11
S.S9
aiu.N
11
IIH.H
IMI.II
m-i
119.19
19S119.99
S.J#
11
S.N
M-l
S71.ll
9I1M9.I1
S.S9
11H.N
11
I7IM.##
*7191.19
N-l
9719.M
79*1(119.91
S.S9
lllt.lt
1*
IIII.H
1999.99
M-l
1191.99
19(1.*•
119.99
atfi.it
11
SM.M
1199*9#
D>-«
1911.91
1**9.*1
119.99
atft.it
1*
IIH.H
I7M.99
W-l
1111.91
1111.11
111.99
lttt.1t
11
Kl.ll
1799.M
M-l
1191.91
1111.11
119.99
lllt.Tt
11
71. ••
71.M
W»-»
Mil.II
151(1.7S
9719.99
14lll.lt
1*
U99.99
n-i
1171.77
11 III.71
1799.99
ittt.1t
11
11*.M
1999.M
m-9
HI. 97
1S19.1I
119.99
attt.it
It
11.11
1399.M
M-l
119S.1)
IMI.II
1799.S9
attt.it
11
lll.M
1I99.M
m-9
11S1.97
1719.99
11*.(9
atM.it
It
1SII.II
IS M.M
m-9
1111.91
1191.11
119.99
attt aIt
11
»M.H
9SM.M
M-l
1911.99
S1I9.9I
119.19
attt.it
1*
1M.M
1999.M
N-l
719.11
MM.M
119.99
attt.it
11
IMI
H99.H
m-9
1319.17
•111.11
11(9.S9
attt.it
It
11IH.H
17999.99
n-t
MM.M
M71l.ll
1M«.M
iattt.it
f
1#.##
1M.M
M-l
11.11
171.IS
l.M
i.ii
•
M.M
1M.M
M-l
11.11
111.IS
l.ll
t.ii
•
11.M
M.M
M-l
1.91
11.17
l.M
ia.it
•
Ml
119. M
M-l
IS.II
S1.S9
11.11
St.lt
•
1S1.II
191.M
M-l
11.17
119.11
l.ll
t.tt
(
9.19
9.19
M-9
l.M
l.ll
l.ll
Catt
•
l.ll
If .99
M-9
11. SI
11.11
M.M
It. II
II
1111.11
11191.M
M-9
•711.M
•171.11
II
t.l«
11.99
M-l
S.1S
9.11
l.ll
I.It
1*
1.7#
1.79
M-l
1.19
1.S1
l.ll
t.tt
It
9.71
M.M
M-l
19.19
71.11
It
1IM.M
lit99.99
M-l
19111.M
lISIS.ll
11
11.11
lll.M
M-l
111.11
IM.SI
1*
1.1*
11.19
M-9
S.91
11.11
l.ll
a.it
11
9.11
199.99
M-l
It. 99
1S7.I1
1*
llll.ll
*1799.99
M-9
11111.19
1IIM.9*
It
91.19
1919.M
M-9 •
Sll.ll
MM.II
1*
(M.M
11199.99
M-9
1797.(9
1SI1S.91
1*
SI.IS
191.M
M-9
197.»
IS*.II
¦
l.ll
l.M
M-7
9.11
l.ll
l.ll
t.it
1*
4.t«
11.M
M-l
U.M
11.71
It
1M.M
«1».M
M-l
111.19
IS1.I1
C
(4V.lt
11*9.99
M-9
711.M
11*9.7T
•
11
l.ll
9.11
M-I
l.ll
9.19
I.H
t.at
It
S.ll
91.M
M-9
19.IS
91.11
11
11.(1
1179.99
M-l
199.99
1911.11
#
*
-------
TABLE B:
EXPOSURE PATHWAYS CONSIDERED
-------
ANCHOR CHEMICAL SITE: SUMMARY OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
TIME-FRAME
EVALUATED
DEGREE OP
ASSESSMENT
PaHnn;
Kinder PrcMat Mart
Qaaat. QaaL R—tmali firr TtltiHaa ar Tlilaalaa
IMi GiMpht
DfOOttd Wtfcr *
• v. • . :.v" '¦ 'x: ' •' :;:;iv -x:
tngeitfon of Ground Water Retident No Yci X Ground w«cr it donettic md commercial All ituiskI water i ampler
water n^ipty for Nam Camty. Currrtw
tlpoiure ii not known to be occurring.
lidaMiai of Grand Water Rental! No Yet X Expected to be leu ligfltfkant than exporare Same u rixmc.
ConUminanU daring Shower* via ingeition.
InWaikn of Contain nana *at Retident No No Depth to (round wtfer. 60 feet, prccfadet
I VolaiibK from On—rf Water and Seep expotare via Ihii pathway,
into Basement!
Detnul Carta* wM Gnd Water
Rt^dtM
No
Yet
Expected «o be leti tigatficani iia
via ingettkB and inhaltf ion dgrinf
¦towering.
: 'wR: i^^WUPPWxv ::-:->:xv-£ '
Incidental Infettkn of Sotlt
EmmHw Worker No
ret
Entire tite it paved, ao anna npaam to
torfaee nil contaminant it sot uuuMi'wg.
Expotare to tile toili may oca* during
excavation for horn lite devdopneaL
AH tod lampfci. iadading
dryweD and drain aampiet,
coOeaed to a depth of no
bmr (han 15 feel
Dermal Coat act wHk Sob*
Excavation Worker No
Ye*
Entire rite b paved, ao caneM eipoatm to
wrfaee toi contaminant b not ocoatHng.
Expotote to tile aoili may oocor doing
eiavttiau for future tite
AS toil lanpitt. iaciading
drywell and drain lamptei,
coBeded to a depth of no
an 15 feet
inhalation of VOC EmUitaM and
faticaiatea Iran Soil*
Eicantiai Weiker
No
Ye*
Expected to be kaa itgniAcant than expoant
via ingeition and demal eontacL
•Cadmium, PCBs, and dioxln only (if present).
RECYCIFO PAPER
-------
TABLE C:
ORAL CHRONIC AND SUBCHRONIC TOXICITY VALUES
-------
TOXICITY VALUES FOR CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN AT THE
ANCHOR CHEMICAL SITE
CARCINOGENIC
CHBONIC
SUBCHXONIC
Wright
Oral Skip*
Cfcmie
Sabcbroaic
CUoical
rfB*id«<*
radar
OrriRfD
Oral KID
Cl—IWrarina
(nft/kc/(i)pyTaoa
B2 a
7J0E+00 a
B*axo(b)flaQraflAcDC
B2 a
7.30E-0I d
B«a»(k)fliMcaadMoe
B2 i
7JOE-OI d
B*azylb€d)p]fTNI
B2 a
7.30E-01 d
.
2-Mediybiiptahikne
-
NiphlhAkoe
D a
Rxnaadiratt
D ' a
Pyrcnt
D a
3.00E-02a
3.00E-01 b
alpfca-BHC
B2 a
tJ0£«00 a
tau-BHC
C a
1 JOE+00 a
BaaRM-CbtoRtaoe (r)
B2 a
1.30E*00 a
&OOE-O3a
6AOE-OS b
4.4' DDE
B2 a
3.40E-01 a
Diddrio
B2 a
1J0E-»4I a
S.OOE-OJa
500E-03 b
Eadria
D a
3.00E-04 a
3.00E-04 b
Mrtboxyctor
D a
3.00E-03a
5.00E-03 b
Iaerfaike*
Ahiiiiwii
D c
IjOOE+OOc
IjOOE+OO t
AoUBoay
-
4.00E-O4 a
4.00E-04 b
Anctuc
A a
2JOE«0Of
3J00&O4 a
3.00E-04 b
Dainai
-
7J)0E-O2 a
7 JOE-02 b
Bvylliom
B2 a
4J0E«40 a
3 ilOE-03 a
5.00E-03 b
Cadmium
B1 a
SXHB04*4
3J0E-04 ¦
Qroaiitan.lolii
CaImIi
—
«.76E-0lb
S.T7E-0I b
Ccffm
D a
3J0&Q2C
5-S0E-02«
In
1 ¦¦ rl
D c
SJOE-Olc
3-OQE-OI*
LNO
M"i*—«
B* a
D a
3.00E-03 aj
IJ0E4lb
Mtrarj
D a
3.00E-04b
SjOOE^M b
NicM
A •
2-0C&O2aJ
100^02 b
Thallium
—
7ME45U
7JQE44 b£
Vadnm
—
7jOOB-OJ b
7jOOE43b
Zk
D •
SJIOE-Ol b
SM&Olb
a. ftasBUS.
k ItaKlUT,
.» ijaiiii J1M1 f >AQ1
I niw nlii | —' 'I ¦ ~'***
* C*teBlUD»fv«Mr.l«-eSa*«k»W9i>U>krh^.
i Vtliiit<«|M«t.«'ll«^kr.
' i W»»hrtti h» ¦!¦
k. VdsakrIMbMik
-------
TABLE D:
NONCARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES FOR EACH EXPOSURE PATHWAY AND
RECEPTOR ASSESSED.
-------
SUMMARY OF NONCARCINOGENIC HAZARD INDICES (HI)
ESTIMATED FOR THE ANCHOR CHEMICAL SITE
Scenario
Receptor
Present/F uture
Chronic HT
Ground Water
Ingestion
Inhalation
Onsite and/or
Adjacent Resident
Onsite and/or
Adjacent Resident
3 x 10"*
2jlI£
3 x 1040*
Subsurface Soil and Sediments
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Excavation Worker
Excavation Worker
F
F
4 x 10",b
4 x 1Q-Ib
4 x 10"1
^Chemical-specific risk assessment summary information is presented in the risk spreadsheets in Appendix B.
*HI is based on Subchrcoic Protective Body Dose.
'Exceeds unity.
RECYCLED PAPER
-------
TABLE E:
CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES
-------
SUMMARY OF CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATED FOR THE
ANCHOR CHEMICAL SITE
Scenario Receptor Present/Future Total Risk*
Ground Water
Ingestion Onsite and/or F 8 x 10"5*
Adjacent Resident
Subsurface Soil and Sediments
Ingestion Excavation Worker F 3 x 1CF7
'Exceeds 10* risk
•Chemical-specific risk assessment summary information is presented in the risk spreadsheets in Appendix B.
RECYCLED PAPER
-------
APPENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
ANCHOR CHEMICALS SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.1 Background - RCRA and Other Information
P. 100001 - Map: "Property on West John Street", prepared by
100001 Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, prepared for Jerry
Spiegel Associates, April 18, 1967.
1.4 Site Investigation Reports
P. 100002 - Letter to Mr. Norman H. Nosenchuck, Director,
100104 Division of Solid Waste, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation, from Mr. Donald R.
Ganser, Project Manager, Woodward-Clyde
Consultants, Inc., re: Engineering Investigations
at Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites in the State of
New York, Phase I - Preliminary Investigation,
Anchor Chemicals, June 3, 1983. (Attached report:
untitled, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
Inc., undated.)
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 300001 - Letter to Ms. Dorothy Allen, Project Manager, U.S.
300321 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, re:
Disposal of Soil and Water, Anchor Chemical Site,
December 20, 1991. (Attached: 1. Report:
Quality Assurance Review, The Anchor Chemical
Project, prepared by Environmental Standards,
Inc., prepared for Anson Environmental, December
10, 1991. 2. Report: untitled, prepared by
Environmental Standards, Inc., undated.)
1
-------
P. 300322 - Letter to Ms. Dorothy Allen, Project Manager, U.S.
300510 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, re:
Enclosed data sheets for Anchor Chemical Site,
February 4, 1992. (Attached: "Validated Data,
All Drywells (First Sampling), undated.)
P. 300511 - Letter to Ms. Dorothy Allen, Project Manager, U.S.
300609 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, re:
Enclosed data sheets for the composite soil
samples, April 7, 1992. (Attached: "Section 2,
Analytical Results", undated.)
P. 300610 - Facsimile transmittal sheet to Ms. Dorothy Allen,
300615 U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dean Anson, Anson
Environmental, Ltd., re: TCLP, CLP data
validation soil composite, April 8, 1992.
(Attached: 1. Letter to Ms. Fritzi Mazzola, Anson
Environmental, from Mr. Donald J. Lancaster,
Senior Quality Assurance Chemist, Environmental
Standards, Inc., re: Quality assurance review of
the data package for the TCLP analysis of Sample
#1, #2, #3 (composite sample), March 25, 1992. 2.
Report: Section 1: Quality Assurance Review,
prepared by Mr. Donald J. Lancaster, Senior
Quality Assurance Chemist, Environmental
Standards, Inc., March 25, 1992.)
300616 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Project Manager, U.S.
300631 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, re:
Enclosed validated results for the first round of
groundwater samples, July 24, 1992. (Attached:
"Section 2, Analytical Results", undated.)
300632 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Project Manager, U.S.
300713 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, re:
Enclosed validated data from soil and groundwater
samples, August 13,- 1992. (Attached: "Composite
Soil Sampling from Drums (Soil Originally Brought
onto the Site to Sand the Parking Lot)", undated.]
2
-------
P. 300714 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Project Manager, U.S.
300726 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, re:
Enclosed validated data from groundwater samples,
August 20, 1992. (Attached: Analytical results,
undated.)
P. 300727 - Letter to Mr. Jonathan Greco, Bureau of Eastern
300776 Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous Waste
Remediation, Federal Projects Section, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation,
from Mr. Dean Anson II, Anson Environmental Ltd.,
re: Disposal of soil cuttings, September 9, 1992.
(Attached data, undated.)
P. 300777 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Project Manager, U.S.
300789 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, Ltd.,
re: Request for a copy of validated data,
September 17, 1992. (Attached: 1. Letter to Mr.
Tom Taccone, Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-Facility Coordinator,
Anson Environmental, Ltd., re: Request for a copy
of validated data, September 18, 1992. 2.
Sampling information, undated.)
P. 300790 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Project Manager, U.S.
300799 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, re:
Validated data from the soil samples taken from
indoor borings #3 and 4, September 21, 1992.
(Attached data, undated.)
P. 300800 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Project Manager, U.S.
300820 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, re:
Sampling requirements and data, September 24,
1992. (Attached: "Drywell Sediment Sampling",
undated.)
300821 - Facsimile transmittal sheet to Mr. Tom Taccone,
300825 U.S. EPA, from Ms. Fritzi Gros-Daillon, Anson
Environmental, Ltd., re: Anchor Chemical - Well
1-S Installation Log, July 21, 1993. (Attached:
Sampling information, undated.)
-------
p.
300826 - Facsimile transmittal sheet to Mr. Tom Taccone,
300829 Project Manager, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dean Anson,
Anson Environmental, Ltd., re: Enclosed
corrected charts, November 3, 1993. (Attached:
1. Table 3-3, "Well Development Data", undated.
2. Table 4-6, "Indoor Borings, OVM Readings and
Samples Selected", undated. 3. Table 4-10,
"Specific Capacity Tests", undated.)
300830 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, Project Manager,
300847 U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-Facility
Coordinator, Anson Environmental, Ltd., re:
Validated Results from Cesspool Sampling, Anchor
Chemical Superfund Site, November 10, 1993.
(Attached: 1. Report: Section 1: Quality
Assurance Review, prepared by Mr. LeRoy F.
Wenrick, Quality Assurance Chemist, Environmental
Standards, Inc., October 29, 1993. 2. A. Organic
Data, undated. 3. B. Inorganic Data, undated.)
300848 - Letter to Mr. Kevin Kubik, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dean
300860 Anson II, Co-Facility Coordinator, Anson
Environmental, Ltd., re: Additional information
prepared by the data validator for the samples
analyzed from indoor borings #1 and #2, January 3,
1994. (Attached: 1. Report: Section 1: Quality
Assurance Review, prepared by Mr. William S.
Strohben, Jr., Quality Assurance Chemist,
Environmental Standards, Inc., March 2, 1992. 2.
"Section 6, Case Narratives and Chain-of-
Custodies", undated.)
P. 300861 - "Completed Analysis Report, Anchor Chemical'
300862 March 31, 1995.
300863 - Letter to Ms. Alison Devine, Region II ARCS
300869 Project Officer, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Robert D.
Goltz, P.E., ARCS II Program Manager, CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, re: Letter Report, Summary
of Split Sampling Results of Soil and Groundwater
Samples, Anchor Chemical Site, Hicksville, New
York, June 15, 1995. (Attached report: Letter
Report, Summary of Split Sampling Results of Soil
and Groundwater Sampling, Anchor Chemical Site,
Hicksville, New York, prepared by CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, prepared for U.S. EPA, June
15, 1995.)
-------
P. 300870 - Facsimile transmittal sheet to Mr. Tom Taccone,
300871 U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dean Anson, Anson
Environmental, Ltd., re: Table 1-2, Anchor
Chemical, July 20, 1995. (Attached: Table 1-2,
"Volatile Organic Compounds Detected at
Quantifiable Concentrations in Groundwater at the
Anchor Chemical Site (concentrations in ug/L)(Roux
1991)", undated.)
3.3 Work Plans
P. 300872 - Plan: Work Plan Remedial Investigation and
301139 Feasibility Study, Anchor Chemical Site,
Hicksville, New York, prepared by Roux Associates,
Inc., prepared for Spiegel Associates, May 4,
1990.
P. 301140 - Plan: Project Operations Plan, Remedial
301309 Investigation, Anchor Chemical Site, Hicksville,
New York, prepared by Roux Associates, Inc.,
prepared for Spiegel Associates, April 10, 1991.
P. 301310 - Plan: Work Plan, Remedial Investigation, Anchor
301490 Chemical Site, Hicksville, New York, prepared by
Roux Associates, Inc., prepared for Spiegel
Associates, April 10, 1991.
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 3 014 91 - Guidance Document: Investigation of Contaminated
301656 Aquifer Segments, Nassau County, New York,
prepared by Nassau County Department of Health,
and Dvirka and Bartilucci, Consulting Engineers,
June 1986.
P. 301657 - Letter to Ms. Dorothy Allen, Project Manager, U.S.
301700 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Richard G. Leland,
Rosenman & Colin, re: Forwarding enclosed "Tank
Closure Report", September 17, 1991. (Attached
report: Tank Closure Report, prepared by Roux
Associates, Inc., prepared for Spiegel Associates,
August 23, 1991.)
5
I
-------
301701 - Letter to Ms. Dorothy Allen, Project Manager, U.S.
301789 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, re:
Enclosed "Quality Assurance Review, The Anchor
Chemical Project" Report, April 22, 1992.
(Attached: 1. Letter to Mr. Dean Anson, Anson
Environmental, from Mr. Rock J. Vitale, Quality
Assurance Specialist/Principal, Environmental
Standards, Inc., re: Enclosed "Quality Assurance
Review, The Anchor Chemical Project" Report, April
16, 1992. 2. Report: Quality Assurance Review,
The Anchor Chemical Project, prepared by
Environmental Standards, Inc., prepared for Anson
Environmental, April 16, 1992.)
301790 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, ERRD/NYCSB2-W, U.S.
301803 EPA, from Mr. Arthur Block, Senior Regional
Representative, Public Health Service, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Department
of Health and Human Services, re: Revised Site
Review and Update (SRU) for Anchor Chemicals/Lith
Kem-Ko, Hicksville, Nassau County, NY, December 6,
1994. (Attached report: Site Review and Update,
Anchor/Lith Kem-Ko, Hicksville, Nassau County, New
York, prepared by The New York State Department of
Health, November 16, 1994.)
301804 - Report: Volume 1, Remedial Investigation Report,
301967 Anchor Chemical Site, Hicksville, New York,
prepared by Anson Environmental Ltd., prepared for
K.B. Company, March 1995.
301968 - Report: Volume 2, Remedial Investigation Report,
302032 Appendix A - D, Anchor Chemical Site, Hicksville,
New York, prepared by Anson Environmental Ltd.,
prepared for K.B. Company, March 1995.
302033 - Report: Volume 3, Remedial Investigation Report,
302170 Appendix E, Anchor Chemical Site, Hicksville, New
York, prepared by Anson Environmental Ltd.,
prepared for K.B. Company, March 1995.
302171 - Report: Volume 4, Remedial Investigation Report,
302282 Appendix F - M, Anchor Chemical Site, Hicksville,
New York, prepared by Anson Environmental Ltd.,
prepared for K.B. Company, March 1995.
6
I
-------
P. 302283 - Report: Remedial Investigation Report Supplement,
30231G Anchor Chemical Site, Hicksville, New York,
prepared by Anson Environmental Ltd., prepared for
K.B. Company, April 1995.
P. 302319 - Letter to Mr. Arthur D. Sanders, President, K.B.
302633 Company, c/o Jerry Speigel Associates, Mr. Dean
Anson, Anson Environmental, and Richard G. Leland,
Esquire, Rosenman and Colin, from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch II, U.S. EPA, re: Anchor Chemical Superfund
Site; Final Risk Assessment, June 2, 1995.
(Attached report: Final Risk Assessment, Anchor
Chemical Site, Hicksville, New York, prepared by
TRC Environmental Corporation, prepared for
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, April 1, 1994.)
3.5 Correspondence
P. 302634 - Letter to Ms. Dorothy Allen, Project Manager, U.S.
302698 EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, and Mr.
Stanley Sucharski, Co-Facility Coordinator, Anson
Environmental, re: Field conditions requiring the
modification of the Project Operations Plan,
January 28, 1992. (Attached: 1. Marine Pollution
Control, Well Experience Log, Boring Logs; 2.
Boring Logs for MW-1D; 3. Description of Soil
Sample MW1-D (122"); 4. Resumes of Individuals who
Examined the Samples from MW-1D; 5. Drilling
Contractor Contacts, Telephone Conversation Logs;
6. Validated Laboratory Data; 7. Unvalidated
Laboratory Data.)
P. 302699 - Letter to Mr. Bernard J. Bottomley, Director,
302703 Engineering and Administrative Services, Newsday,
from Mr. Dean Anson II, Anson Environmental, re:
Information about Drywell #2 at Anchor Chemical,
March 12, 1992. (Attached: 1. Letter to Mr. Art
Sanders, Spiegel Associates, from Mr. Bernard J.
Bottomly, Newsday, re: Anchor Chemical
information, February 14, 1992. 2. Letter to
Janette Payne, Esquire, Times-Mirror, from
Richard G. Leland, Esquire, Rosenman and Colin,
re: Anchor Chemical documents, February 5, 1992.)
7
I
-------
302704
302704
302705
302707
Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Project Manager, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-
Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental, re:
Validated data for soil cuttings drummed during
installation of the monitoring wells and the
indoor borings, September 14, 1992.
Letter to Mr. Dean Anson, Anson Environmental,
Ltd., from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief,
NY/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, re:
Anchor Chemical Superfund Site; Second Round of RI
Sampling; Format for Submission of RI Data,
September 30, 1992. (Attached: "Risk Assessment
Data Format Requirements", prepared by TRC
Environmental Corporation, undated.)
302708 - Facsimile transmittal sheet to Ms. Dorothy Allen,
302709 U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dean Anson, Anson
Environmental, Ltd., re: Anchor Chemical, April
30, 1993. (Attached letter to Ms. Dorothy Allen,
Project Manager, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dean Anson II,
Co-Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental Ltd.,
re: 120 drums of soil cuttings scheduled for
removal on May 10th and 11th, April 28, 1993.)
302710 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
302711 Dean Anson II, Co-Facility Coordinator, Anson
Environmental, Ltd., re: Direction of Groundwater
Flow, Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, June 21,
1993.
302712 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
302716 Dean Anson II, Co-Facility Coordinator, Anson
Environmental, Ltd., re: Direction of Groundwater
Flow, Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, July 13,
1993. (Attached: 1. Map: "West John Street,
Monitoring Well Location Plan, Hicksville, New
York", prepared by Mr. Albert W. Tay, April 21,
1992. 2. Map: "West John Street, Monitoring Well
Location Plan, Hicksville, New York", prepared by
Mr. Albert W. Tay, April 21, 1992. 3. "Typical
Leeching Pool Detail", undated.)
-------
302717 - Letter to Mr. Arthur D. Sanders, President, K.B.
302726 Company, c/o Jerry Spiegel Associates, Richard G.
Leland, Esquire, Rosenman and Colin, and Mr. Dean
Anson, Anson Environmental, Ltd., from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, NY/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
U.S. EPA, re: EPA Comments on the Draft Remedial
Investigation Report for the Anchor Chemical
Superfund Site, August 5, 1993.
302727 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, Work Assignment
302729 Manager, U.S. EPA, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, from Mr. Andre Bridgett, Project
Manager, TRC Environmental Corporation, re:
Ground Water Flow Direction and Sampling Needs,
August 24, 1993. (Attached map: "West John
Street, Monitoring Well Location Plan, Hicksville,
New York", prepared by Mr. Albert W. Tay, April
21, 1992.)
302730 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, Work Assignment
302732 Manager, U.S. EPA, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, from Mr. Andrew G. Hargens, TRC
Geologist, TRC Environmental Corporation, re:
Clarification of Observed Field Sampling
Procedures, December 7, 1993.
302733 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, Project Manager,
302734 U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-Facility
Coordinator, Anson Environmental, Ltd., re:
Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, Cesspool Sampling
Locations, February 15, 1994. (Attached map:
"500 West John Street, Cesspool Sampling
Locations", prepared by Anson Environmental, Ltd.,
undated.)
302735 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, EPA Work Assignment
302736 Manager, U.S. EPA, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, from Ms. Susan W. Stoloff, Project
Manager, TRC Environmental Corporation, re:
Tentatively Identified Compounds 1,4-Dioxane and
2-Butoxyethanol, April 5, 1994.
9
-------
302737 - Letter to Mr. Arthur D. Sanders, President, K.B.
302742 Company, c/o Jerry Spiegel Associates, Richard G.
Leland, Esquire, Rosenman and Colin, Mr. Dean
Anson, Anson Environmental, and S. Sucharski,
Blasland, Bouck and Lee, from Ms. Carole Petersen,
Chief, NY/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA,
re: EPA comments on the Revised Draft Remedial
Investigation Report for the Anchor Chemical
Superfund Site, May 6, 1994.
302743 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Project Manager, U.S.
302743 EPA, from Richard G. Leland, Esquire, Rosenman and
Colin, re: EPA Comments on the Revised Draft
Remedial Investigation Report for the Anchor
Chemical Superfund Site, May 12, 1994.
302744 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, U.S. EPA, Region II,
302747 from Mr. Dean Anson II, Anson Environmental, Ltd.,
re: Responses to EPA May 6, 1994 Comments on the
Revised Draft Remedial Investigation Report for
the Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, May 31, 1994.
302748 - Letter to Richard G. Leland, Esquire, Rosenman and
302749 Colin, from James Doyle, Esquire, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S.
EPA, re: Draft Remedial Investigation Report,
Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, June 29, 1994.
302750 - Facsimile transmittal sheet to James Doyle,
302752 Esquire, U.S. EPA, from Richard G. Leland,
Esquire, Rosenman and Colin, re: Enclosed letter
regarding the draft remedial investigation report
for Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, July 11, 1994.
(Attached letter to James Doyle, Esquire,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Richard G.
Leland, Esquire, Rosenman and Colin, re: Draft
Remedial Investigation Report, Anchor Chemical
Superfund Site, July 11, 1994.)
302753 - Letter to Richard G. Leland, Esquire, Rosenman and
302754 Colin, from James Doyle, Esquire, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S.
EPA, re: Issues at the Anchor Chemical Superfund
Site, Hicksville, New York, July 18, 1994.
10
-------
P. 302755 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, New York/Caribbean
302807 Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dean Anson
II, Co-Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental,
Ltd., re: Remedial Investigation Report
Revisions, Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, August
3, 1994. (Attached: "Anchor RI Response", July
1994.)
P. 302808 - Letter to Mr. Marsden Chen, Section Chief, New
302812 York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Federal Project Section, and Mr.
Thomas Taccone, Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Region
II, from Helen Collier Mauch, Esquire, Rosenman
and Colin, re: Enclosed memorandum prepared by
Anson Environmental Ltd. setting forth the
technical basis for request for no further action
in connection with Tank 14, August 29, 1994.
(Attached letter to Richard Leland, Esquire,
Rosenman and Colin, from Mr. Dean Anson II, Anson
Environmental, Ltd., re: Tank Investigation,
Anchor Chemical Site, August 29, 1994.)
P. 302813 - Letter to Mr. Arthur D. Sanders, President, K.B.
302817 Company, c/o Jerry Spiegel Associates, Richard G.
Leland, Esquire, Rosenman and Colin, Mr. Dean
Anson, Anson Environmental, and S. Sucharski,
Blasland, Bouck and Lee, from Ms. Carole Petersen,
Chief, NY/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA,
re: Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, EPA Comments
on the Revised Draft Remedial Investigation
Report, September 30, 1994.
P. 302818 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, New York/Caribbean
302818 Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, from Mr. Dean Anson
II, Co-Facility Coordinator, Anson Environmental,
Ltd., re: Monthly Report for September, 1994,
Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, October 4, 1994.
302819 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, Remedial Project
302821 Manager, U.S. EPA, from Ms. Susan E. Boone, Work
Assignment Manager, CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, re: Evaluation of Additional
Proposed Soil Borings Upon Baseline Risk
Assessment, Oversight of Expanded Remedial
Investigation Activities, Anchor Chemical Site,
Hicksville, New York, December 14, 1994.
11
-------
302822 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, U.S. EPA, Region II,
302841 from Mr. Dean Anson II, Co-Facility Coordinator,
Anson Environmental, Ltd., re: Responses to EPA
September 30, 1994 Comments on Revised Remedial
Investigation Report, Anchor Chemical Site,
December 28, 1994. (Attached: Information
regarding the Anchor Chemical Site)
302842 - Letter to Mr. Fred Elsen, U.S. EPA, from Ms.
302842 Fritzi Mazzola Gros-Daillon, Anson Environmental,
Ltd., re: Analytical Standards for 1,4-Dioxane,
Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, Hicksville, New
York, January 13, 1995.
302843 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, Project Manager,
302843 U.S. EPA, NY/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, from
Helen Collier Mauch, Esquire, Rosenman and Colin,
re: Request to provide EPA's comments on the
revised remedial investigation report ahead of
schedule, January 30, 1995.
302844 - Letter to Helen Collier Mauch, Esquire, Rosenman
302844 and Colin, from James Doyle, Esquire, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S.
EPA, re: Draft Remedial Investigation Report
Comment Letter, Anchor Chemical Superfund Site,
February 1, 1995.
302845 - Letter to Mr. Arthur D. Sanders, President, K.B.
302847 Company, c/o Jerry Spiegel Associates, Richard G.
Leland, Esquire, Rosenman and Colin, and Mr. Dean
Anson, Anson Environmental, from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, NY/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
U.S. EPA, re: Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, EPA
Comments on the Revised Draft Remedial
Investigation Report, February 21, 1995.
302848 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, U.S. EPA, Region II,
30284 8 from Mr. Dean Anson II, Anson Environmental, Ltd.,
re: Anchor Chemical Superfund Site, Supplemental
Report to RI, April 12, 1995.
12
-------
6.0 STATE COORDINATION
6.3 Correspondence
P. 600001 - Letter to Ms. Dorothy Allen, Eastern NY/Caribbean
600001 Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Jonathan
Greco, Federal Projects Section, Bureau of Eastern
Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous Waste
Remediation, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, re: Disposal of
Investigation Derived Soils, Anchor Lith Kem-ko
Site, December 1, 1992.
P. 600002 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, Western NY/Caribbean
600005 Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Jonathan
Greco, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action, Division
of Hazardous Waste Remediation, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, re:
Draft Remedial Investigation Report, Anchor
Chemical Site, June 9, 1993.
P. 600006 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, Western NY/Caribbean
600021 Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Jonathan
Greco, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action, Division
of Hazardous Waste Remediation, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, re:
Groundwater Flow Direction, Anchor Chemical Site,
June 22, 1993. (Attached: Anchor Chemical Site
information, undated.)
600022 - Letter to Mr. Jonathan Greco, Bureau of Eastern
600023 Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous Waste
Remediation, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, from Mr. Thomas
Taccone, Project Manager, Western New York Section
II, U.S. EPA, re: NYSDEC's Comments on the Anchor
Chemical Draft RI Report, August 12, 1993.
600024 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Western NY/Caribbean
600024 Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Jonathan
Greco, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action, Division
of Hazardous Waste Remediation, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, re:
Additional Groundwater Sampling, Anchor Lith Kem-
Ko, October 5, 1993.
13
-------
600025 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Western NY/Caribbean
600026 Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Jonathan
Greco, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action, Division
of Hazardous Waste Remediation, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, re:
Draft Final Remedial Investigation, Anchor Lith
Kem-Ko, November 16, 1993.
600027 - Letter to Ms. Dorothy Allen, U.S. EPA, Region II,
600028 from Mr. Michael J. Hughes, Environmental Health
Specialist II, Bureau of Toxic Substance
Assessment, State of New York Department of
Health, re: Preparation of a Site Review and
Update (SRU) for the Anchor Lith Kem-Ko Site,
January 21, 1994.
600029 - Letter to Mr. Thomas Taccone, U.S. EPA, Region II,
600029 from Mr. Jonathan Greco, Engineering Geologist I,
Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action, Division of
Hazardous Waste Remediation, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, re:
Dean Anson's May 31, 1994 Response to Comments on
RI, Anchor Lith Kem-Ko Site, June 6, 1994.
600030 - Letter to Mr. Tom Taccone, Western NY/Caribbean
600030 Section II, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Jonathan
Greco, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action, Division
of Hazardous Waste Remediation, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, re:
Future Actions at the Anchor Lith Kem-Ko Site, May
2, 1995.
600031 - Letter to Mr. Sal Ervolina, Director, Bureau of
600031 Eastern Remedial Action, Division of Hazardous
Waste Remediation, New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch II, U.S. EPA, re: Draft Proposed Plan,
Anchor Chemical Site, June 9, 1995.
600032 - Letter to Ms. Kathleen Callahan, Director,
600032 Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region II, from Mr. Michael O'Toole, Jr./
Director, Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation,
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, re: Anchor Chemical Site, Proposed
Plan, July 1, 1995.
14
-------
/
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 Community Relations Plans
P. 1000001 - Letter to Ms. Cathy Moyik, Regional Project
1000033 Officer, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
U.S. EPA, from Mr. Charles Feinberg, Regional
Manager, Alliance Technologies Corporation, re:
Revised Final Community Relations Plan, June 7,
1991. (Attached report: Community Relations
Plan, Anchor Chemical Site, Hicksville, Nassau
County, New York, Community Relations Support,
prepared by Alliance Technologies Corporation,
prepared for Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, June 6, 1991.)
10.6 Fact Sheets and Press Releases
P. 1000034 - Fact Sheet: Superfund Program Fact Sheet, Anchor
1000041 Chemical Site, Hicksville, New York, EPA Begins
Remedial Investigation at the Anchor Chemical
Superfund Site, prepared by U.S. EPA, Region II,
August 1991.
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
APPENDIX IV
STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
DIRECTOR'S OFFICE Fax:518-485-8404
Sep 29 '95 15:50 P.01
MEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
50 WaH Read, Afeaay. Maw Yark 12233
D. Ztgtta
Commissioner
SEP 29 1995
Ms. Kathleen CaJlahan
Director
Emergency & Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region ir
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
Dear Ms. Callahan:
The Now York State Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed the record of
decision for the Anchor Chemical site. The Department concurs with the selected remedy of no further
action as it is detailed in tKe above-referenced document.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jonathan Grcco, of my staff, al (518)
Re: Anchor Chemical Site ID No. 130018
Record of Decision
457-3976.
Sincerely,
Michael J. O'Toole, Jr.
Director
Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation
¦Mn -77xc.ton^
Post-It* Fax Noie 7671 /
CcCrMCx. -/
Ci ha co. - ¦vx y
Phone*
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
f
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW 1
II. BACKGROUND OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 3
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 3
A. SUMMARY OF EPA'S RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS .... 3
B. SUMMARY OF EPA'S COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC
MEETING 5
C. REMAINING CONCERNS 9
-------
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of citizen
comments and concerns and the responses by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency ("EPA") to those comments regarding the
Remedial Investigation (RI) and Risk Assessment Reports and
Proposed Plan for the Anchor Chemical Superfund Site (the
"Site"). All comments summarized in this document have been
considered in EPA's final decision for selection of a no further
action remedy for the Site.
EPA's public comment period, which started on August 23, 1995 and
ended on September 21, 1995, provided interested parties with the
opportunity to comment on the RI, Risk Assessment and Proposed
Plan for the Site. A public meeting was held to discuss
implementation of the Site remedy (i.e. removal of contaminated
soil and sediments from four drywells and no further action).
The meeting was held at the Hicksville Public Library, in
Hicksville, New York on September 12, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.
An evaluation of all available data, the findings of the RI
conducted at the Site, EPA's Risk Assessment, and other
supporting data and documentation indicate that the Site risks
are within EPA's acceptable risk range and that a no further
action decision is protective of human health and the
environment.
Although the risks posed by the Site contamination are within the
acceptable risk range, four dry wells on Site are contaminated
with chromium, lead, 1,1,1 trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and other
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Groundwater samples from
several monitoring wells on Site also showed concentrations of
chromium and 1,1,1-TCA, which were above MCLs. The contaminated
soils and sediments from the dry wells were removed in order to
prevent further groundwater contamination. The excavated
materials will be disposed of at a Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) approved facility. Groundwater and soil
samples will be collected at the Site and analyzed to assess the
effectiveness of the removal action. Upon completion of the
removal action, EPA will take no further action at the Anchor
Chemical Superfund Site.
During the public meeting, the local community reaction to the
preferred alternative was, for the most part, favorable.
However, there was a concern raised by the Nassau County
Department of Health about the potential for contamination to
affect public and private drinking water wells, which are
downgradient from the Site. The nearest public supply well is
approximately one mile downgradient. Also, the Site is in an
area which is zoned for industry. According to the Nassau County
Department of Buildings, the nearest area which is zoned for
residential development is approximately one half mile
-------
downgradient from the Site. Because of the large
distances from the Site to the nearest public wells, any
contamination which reaches the wells would be greatly reduced,
such that any contaminants would be well below MCL levels.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
During the course of the RI and Proposed Plan, EPA has sought to
promote community awareness of activities at the Anchor Chemical
Site through local newspaper articles, fact sheets, press
releases, public notices and public information meetings.
EPA heard from only a few members of the community
and local public officials. Public meetings were held in the
Community Room of the Hicksville Public Library, Hicksville, New
York on August 21, 1991, and September 12, 1995.
EPA's initiated its community relations efforts by developing a
Community Relations Plan in October 1990, which included an
outline of community concerns, required and suggested community
relations activities, and a comprehensive list of federal, state,
and local contacts. Site information repositories were
established at EPA's Region II office in New York City and the
Hicksville Library in the Town of Oyster Bay, New York.
To obtain public input on the RI and the proposed remedy, a
public comment period was established from August 23, 1995, to
September 21, 1995. A public notice appeared in Newsdav on
August 23, 1995, and in the Hicksville Illustrative News on
August 25, 1995. The public meeting was held on September 12,
1995.
Approximately 15 people attended the meeting. The audience
consisted of residents, and state and local government officials.
A summary of the questions posed during the meeting is included
in the following section.
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Public comments on the Proposed Plan received from August 23,
1995 through September 21, 1995 are summarized and addressed
below. Section A summarizes the written comments received during
the public comment period. Section B summarizes those comments
received at the public meeting held on September 12, 1995.
A. SUMMARY OF EPA's RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS
3
-------
Comments from State Senator Carl L. Marcellino
Comment 1: Who has oversight responsibility for the round of
groundwater samples after the drywell removal action is
completed?
EPA Response: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
II.
Comment 2: Has the air quality issue been addressed? Also, what
about asbestos contamination of the building?
EPA Response: Air quality monitoring was performed to determine
the concentration of VOCs on Site during the field sampling
portion of the Remedial Investigation. This included monitoring
personal space as well as the ambient air around samples
obtained. The monitoring did not reveal any problems.
Asbestos was not handled at the Site. However, there may be some
asbestos in the building, which is currently being used as a
warehouse for used machinery. In the event that the building is
demolished, asbestos-containing material and debris would be
regulated under the Clean Air Act. Any asbestos removal, would be
the responsibility of the building owner.
Comments from the Nassau County Department of Health
Comment 1: The preferred alternative should be modified to
include off-Site monitoring of wells to determine if groundwater
contamination has migrated downgradient of the Site. The Site is
located in close proximity to the Westbury Water District supply
wells No. 12 and 12A.
EPA Response: EPA does not believe that off-Site groundwater
monitoring is needed. District public water supply wells 12 and
12A are each approximately 1 mile downgradient from the Site. As
contaminated groundwater moves off Site, the concentration of
contaminants will decrease as the "plume" spreads out and
diffuses. At a distance of one mile downgradient, the
concentration of VOCs from the site should be well below the
Maximum Contaminant Levels for drinking water. In addition,
because the area in which the Anchor Site is located is zoned for
industry, one would expect that other sources of contamination
exist between the Site and any potentially affected wells. One
would not be able to determine the separate contributions of
other potential sources from the Anchor Site. In addition, the
Nassau County Health Department periodically monitors public
supply wells under existing programs, i.e.. the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
4
-------
Comment 2: A private well survey should be performed to determine
if any private supply or irrigation wells are present within one-
half mile downgradient of the site. If residential private wells
are located, water samples should be collected and analyzed for
VOCs and metals.
EPA Response : According to the Zoning and Planning Examination
Division of the Nassau County Department of Buildings, the
nearest residential zone downgradient from the Site is located
more than one-half mile in a downgradient direction from the
Site. As such, no private well survey will be conducted.
It should also be noted that the NYSDOH has a program where they
can sample and analyze private wells in the vicinity of hazardous
waste sites.
Comment 3s All drywell clean-outs should be performed using the
requirements for potential vapor emissions which are outlined in
a New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) procedures manual.
EPA Response: EPA has reviewed the referenced requirements for
responding to potentially harmful vapor emissions and will
require that they be followed during the drywell removals.
Comment 4: Has the contamination from this Site reached the
public drinking supply?
EPA Response : Groundwater at the Site flows to the southwest.
The nearest public water supply wells are located 1.2 and 1.3
miles downgradient from the Site. No contamination has been
traced in the public water supply system to the current
contamination at the Anchor Chemical site. These wells are
sampled periodically by the Nassau County Health Department.
Groundwater contaminant concentrations identified at the Site
would diffuse and significantly diminish by the time they reached
(if they reached) the drinking wells. In addition, there may be
other sources of contamination located between the Anchor
Chemical site and the public supply wells, thereby precluding the
specific identification of any contaminants detected.
B. SUMMARY OF EPA's RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE
PUBLIC MEETING
Comment 1: EPA stated at the September 12, 1995 meeting that
soils under tank #14 were sampled to determine the presence of 2-
butoxyethanol. Since the contaminant was not detected at this
location, where did it come from?
EPA Response : The presence of 2-butoxyethanol in the soil
probably resulted from leaks and spills during Site operations.
The compound does not occur naturally in soil.
5
-------
Comment 2: At what point in the investigation process is it
determined that the problem is at its worst in order to properly
remediate, or has it dissipated before there is an opportunity to
remediate?
EPA Response: In the case of the Anchor Chemical Site, the
highest concentrations of contaminants have already occurred.
Soil and groundwater samples collected from 1982 to 1985 showed
higher concentrations of VOC contamination. Since the tanks were
sealed, levels of contamination have been substantially reduced.
This particular source of contamination to the groundwater has
been eliminated, and any contamination in the groundwater has
been mitigated.
Comment 3: Has a study been performed on the incidences of cancer
in the area around the Site? Are there any figures available on
whether the cancer rate is higher in this area because of Site
operations or contamination?
Response: A representative of the Nassau County Health Department
responded at the September 12, 1995, meeting by stating that the
Department has a cancer registry for all cancer cases listed in
the County or locally. While the County does not perform cancer
assessments, the New York State Department of Health does. Such
a study has been performed for this area. In sum, the results
show that there are no elevated levels of cancer associated with
this Site above what would be expected for this area.
Comment 4: Regarding removal of soils from the drywells, how deep
and wide are the wells and how much soil is expected to be
removed? Finally, what is/are the determining factor(s) to
ascertain that the correct amount of soil has been removed?
EPA Response : Drywells at the Site are approximately 2 feet in
diameter and extend to a depth of approximately 17 feet below
land surface (BLS). EPA proposes to remove approximately 2 feet
of soil from 4 pre-existing drywells. This should be about 2
feet below the bottom concrete ring of each drywell, or 19 ft
BLS. The remaining soils and sediment will be sampled and
analyzed for contamination. Sample data collected for the
Remedial Investigation show that the contaminants are present in
higher concentrations near the surface; concentrations diminished
as samples were drawn from increasingly greater depths.
Ultimately, soils will be removed at a depth of approximately 19
feet BLS in such a fashion that it allows the drywell to remain
structurally intact. (Excessive soil removal may cause the walls
of the drywell to slump.) Groundwater samples will be taken 6-
12 months after the removal action to confirm the effectiveness
of the soil removal from the drywells.
6
-------
Comment 5: While EPA proposes to remove soils below the concrete
base of the drywells, what consideration is being given to the
potential for contamination to reside in soils on the sides of
the drywells?
EPA Response: Results of the Remedial Investigation show that
contaminants are concentrated in the bottom of the drywells,
rather than around the sides, because the native soils are porous
and water percolates downward. EPA believes that most of the
contamination has adhered to fine particles which have collected
on top of the natural soil in the drywells. These particles wash
into the drain and clog pores of the natural sand. These fine
particles are typically receptor sites for contaminants. This
theory is supported by the fact that samples at incremental
depths into the native soil contained very low concentrations of
contaminants.
Comment 6: Will the soil being removed from drywells pose a
danger to neighbors of the Site?
EPA Response: Soil and sediment will be evacuated into a tank
truck. Air monitoring will be conducted on Site during the
removal operation. If harmful levels are detected, operations
will be halted and corrective measures instituted before
operations are resumed.
Comment 7: If, in the future, the property were to be purchased
for residential use, would there be any notification that this
was a Superfund site and is a record maintained for a certain
period of years that acknowledges that this was a Superfund site?
EPA Response : After the drywell removals, EPA will propose that
the Site be taken off the National Priorities List (NPL). The
process of removing a site from the NPL includes public notice
and input and the State has to concur with the proposal. If no
contamination is detected after the removal action, EPA would
most likely not require that a restriction be placed in the deed.
In the event that known contamination remains, the law requires
EPA to reevaluate the Site every 5 years if contamination would
not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA does
not believe such a scenario will develop for the Anchor Chemical
site. Also, see response to comment 9.
Comment 8: Reconfirming earlier discussions, if a contaminated
site is cleaned up, there will be no documentation in the deed
transaction? Does not real estate law require disclosure?
EPA Response: EPA is not aware of any such requirement; however
New York State Real estate laws are not "applicable" requirements
which EPA is required to consider in the site remedy selection
7
-------
process. The clean up of this Site will allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure. In addition, when a Superfund site is
cleaned up and deleted from the NPL, it is no longer considered a
Superfund site and no such documentation should be required to
protect human health.
Comment 9: Prospective buyers of the property should be made
aware of the previous nature and extent of contamination at the
site.
EPA Response: Once the drywell removal action is complete, EPA
will propose that the Site be deleted from the National
Priorities List (NPL). The EPA maintains a data base which
contains a complete history of each NPL Site. The data base,
which is called the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), is
available to the public. A prospective buyer can contact EPA and
request information on a site from the CERCLIS database.
Comment 10: Explain the dramatic increase in concentrations for
inorganic compounds and Tentatively Identified Compounds (TICs)
between the April 1992 and November 1992 sampling events (e.g.,
317 to 1440 ug/1 chromium).
EPA Response: A high degree of variability among results for
specific compounds is to be expected from the small number of
groundwater samples. EPA recognizes presence of these
contaminants and the need to address the contamination.
Comment 11: Has the Hooker plant been cleaned up?
EPA Response: There is a Record of Decision for that Site to
contain the contamination and to clean up the facility.
However, there is a larger problem associated with the site: the
fact that contamination has migrated off the property. Since the
Hooker property is adjacent to the Grumman property and the Navy
facility, there is a groundwater plume of contaminants emanating
from these sites. The New York Department of Environmental
Conservation is addressing this situation.
Comment 12: How many Superfund (EPA or State) sites are there in
the area?
EPA Response: There are two Federal Superfund sites in
Hicksville, New York. There are also 9 sites under state
jurisdiction within a radius of approximately one mile of the
Site.
8
-------
C. REMAINING CONCERNS
At this time, there are two issues of concern which remain.
First, the results of the soil and groundwater samples which will
be taken to confirm the effectiveness of the drywell removals and
secondly, the deletion of the Site from the NPL.
9
-------
RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
EPA REGION II
Site:
Site name: Anchor Chemical Superfund Site
Site location: Town of Oyster Bay, New York
HRS score: 37.2
Listed on the NPL: June 10, 1986
Record of Decision:
Date signed: September 29, 1995
Selected remedy: No Further Action
Lead:
EPA is the lead agency
Primary Contact: Thomas Taccone; telephone number (212) 637-4281
Secondary Contact: Kevin Lynch, Chief, Western New York Section II;
telephone number (212) 637-4287
Main PRPs: K.B. Contruction - tel. (212) 940-8700
Anchor/Lith Kem-Ko - tel. (901) 763-6851
Chessco industries - tel. (516) 822-9000
Waste:
Waste type: Chromium, lead, and volatile organic compounds
Waste origin: Releases and spills of chemical products
Estimated waste quantity: 15 cubic yards
Contaminated medium: Soil and sediments
------- |