Lawrence Aviation Industries Superfund^SJte · period which begins on July 20, 2006 and concludes...

Superfund Proposal Plan

Lawrence Aviation Industries Superfund^SJte Suffolk County, New York i SDMS Document

v- EPA Region 2

114050 July 2006

PURPOSE OF PROPOSED PLAN

'his Proposed Plan describes the remedial alternatives considered for the contaminated "soil and groundvyater at the Lawrence Ay iation Industries Superfund site, and identifies the preferred remedy^with '

the rationale for this preference. This Proposed Plan was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in consultation with the New York State Department pf Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

,€PA is issuing'-.:this Proposed'Plan as'^'part'of,its»public participation respbnsibilities"'under Section 117(a)-6f}.the Coniprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, and Sections 300.430(f) and 300.435(c) ofthe National Gil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)., The-nature arid extent of-ihe contamination ' at Jhe site,, and; the alternatives" summarized in this Proposed Plan are described in'.the March 2006 Remedial Investigation (Rl) report and July 2006 Feasibility Study (FS) report, respectively. EPA-and NYSDEC encourage the public to review these docurnerits to gain a rriore comprehensive understanding ofthe site and the Superfund activiti^s''that have been conducted at the site." •

J - • ' • - ^ -

This Proposed Plan is being provided as a supplement to the FS report to.inform the public of EPA's and NYSDEC's preferred remedy and.to solicit public coniments pertaining to the remedial alterpatives evaluated, including the preferred soil and groundwateralternatives. EPA's preferred remedy consists of the following components:

Excavation and off-site disposal of PCB contaminated . , :.':' . soils•:.(Alternative •vS2), and-, the installation of.,.''.;i;;,

;?-, groundwater extraction and treatriient systems at both'" '• ' the Lawrence Aviation Industries (LAI) facility and within the plume area near Old Mill Pond. Additionally, in-situ chemical oxidation technology would.be applied .;,

; Jii as ah Initial enhancement within'Jhe area Qf.high TCE . ^ T X concentrations at the LAI facility (Alternative GWS ^ '-::? Option 3).

An evaluation of the potential for soil vapor intrusion irito structures.yvithin ,the'"study area.has been initiated by;EPA. Evaluation ofadditipnal structures is currently being planned.' Mitigation actions would be performed, if found to be necessary.

The remedy descritiedjn this Proposed Plan is the preferred remedy for the site. Changes to .the'prefenred remedy; or a change from the preferred reniedy to another remedy, rfiay be made if public coririments or additional data indicate that such a change would result in a more appropriate remedial action. The final decision regarding the selected remedy vyill be made after EPA.has taken into.consideration all public'comments. ,EPA is soliciting public coninfient.dfi all of the alternativescorisidered in.this Proposed Plan and in the detailed analysis section of the FS report' because EPA and NYSDEC may select a remedy other than the preferred remedy.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR

July 20, 2006 - August 19, 2006: Public comment period on the Proposed Plan

August 1 2006 at 7:00 P.M.. Pubhc meeting at Port Jefferson High School, 350 Old Post Road, Port Jefferson, NY.

COMMUNITY ROLE IN SELECTION PROCESS

EPA and NYSDEC rely on public input to ensure that the concerns ofthe community are considered in selecting an effective remedy for each Superfund site. To this end, the Rl and FS reports and this Proposed Plan have been made available to the public for a public comment period which begins on July 20, 2006 and concludes on August 19, 2006.

A public meeting will be held during the public comment period at Port Jefferson High School, 350 Old Post Road, Port Jefferson, New York on August 1, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. to present the conclusions ofthe RI/FS, to elaborate further on the reasons for recommending the preferred remedy, and to receive public comments.

Comments received at the public meeting, as well as written comments, will be documented in the Responsiveness Summary Section of the Record of Decision (ROD), the document which formalizes the selection ofthe remedy.

EPA Region 2 - July 2006

1 0 . 0 0 0 0 1

http://would.be

Superfund Proposed Plan Lawrence Aviation Industries Site

INFORM A TION REPOSITORIES

Copies ofthe Proposed Plan and supporting documentation are available at the following information repositones

Port Jefferson Free Public Library 100 Thompson Street Port Jefferson NY 11777

and

Comesewogue Library 170 Terryville Road Port Jefferson Station NY 11776

and

USEPA-Reglon II Superfund Records Center 290 Broadway, 18th FIcor New York, New York 10007-1866 (212)637-4308

Hours: Monday P.M.

Friday 9 00 A M - 5 00

Written comments on this Proposed Plan should be addressed to:

Sal Badalamenti Remedial Project Manager Eastern New York Remediation Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 290 Broadway, 20th Floor New York, New York 10007-1866

Telefax: (212)637-3966 Internet: badalamenti.salvatore(gepa.gov

SCOPE AND ROLE OF ACTION

The primary objectives of this action are to reduce and r minimize the migration of contaminants in the groundwater, restore groundwater quality, remove PCB contaminated soil and minimize any potential future health and environmental impacts.

SITE BACKGROUND

Site Descriotion The Lawrence Aviation Industries (LAI) site encompasses approximately 126 acres and consists ofthe LAI Facility and the northeastern and eastern portions ofthe property, hereinafter referred to as the "Outlying Parcels." The LAI

Facility includes 10 industrial buildings in the southwestem portion ofthe property, an abandoned, unlined earthen lagoon which formerty received liquid wastes situated west ofthe buildings, and a former drum crushing area to the southeast. The Outlying Parcels are mostly vacant wooded areas and include a few small residential single family houses and three access roads. See Figure 1.

Site History The LAI Facility was previously a turkey farm owned by LAI's corporate predecessor, Ledkote Products Co. of New York. In Port Jefferson Station since 1951, Ledkote produced items including lead gutters and spouts for roof drains. Since 1959, the 42-acre LAI facility has manufactured products from titanium sheet metal, including golf clubs and products for the aeronautics industry, under the LAI name.

Aerial photographs taken between 1955 and 1982 show disturbed ground in several areas ofthe Outlying Parcels. Past disposal practices have resulted in a variety of contaminant releases Including trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE), acid wastes, oils, sludge, metals, and other plant wastes. In an effort to clean up the facility in 1980, LAI reportedly crushed more than 1600 drums, allowing their liquid contents including TCE, PCE, and other chemicals to spill onto unprotected soil. Previous investigations in the site vicinity suggest that releases of hazardous substances from the facility have affected site soils, groundwater, surface water and sediment downgradient ofthe site.

Based on the above investigations, by letter dated August 5, 1999, NYSDEC requested that EPA place the Site on the NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9605(a)(8)(B). EPA prepared a hazard ranking systeni (HRS) report and proposed the site for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) on October 22, 1999. The site was listed on the NPL on March 6, 2000.

During 1970s and 1980s, Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) conducted several site visits and investigations at the site and documented various potential environmental concerns. Surface samples from sumps, puddles, laboratory cess- pools, and surficial runoff at LAI facility were found to contain high levels of fluoride, toluene, carbon tetrachloride, and heavy metals. Adjacent residential wells were found to be contaminated with fluoride, nitrates, TCE, 1,1-dichloroethylene, cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), PCE, and heavy metals. In 1991, the NYSDEC Region 1 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous Substance Group oversaw a major drum removal action. In the 1990s, the Suffolk County Water Authority under contract with the


1 0 . 0 0 0 0 2


NYSDEC connected homes impacted by groundwater contamination attributed to LAI to public water supplies. In 1997, NYSDEC contracted with CDM Inc. to conduct a limited Remedial Investigation (Rl); results from this limited Rl revealed that groundwater and surface water have been impacted by elevated concentrations of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs). Based on an additional inspection ofthe site in April 2003, NYSDEC ordered LAI to cease production until all noted violations of air, soil, solid waste, chemical bulk storage, and hazardous waste regulations were resolved.

In March and April, 2004, EPA's Removal Action Branch unstacked and restaged approximately 1,300 drums, containers, and cylinders containing various flammable solids, acids, bases, gas cylinders and unknown compounds, and inventoried the laboratory area and identified at least 390 containers. Most of the drums and containers were disposed off-site in October and November 2004. During these actions, the existence of approximately 30 electrical transformers were identified in several areas of the site.

Site GeoloQv/HydroQeoloQV The LAI site lies atop the Harbor Hill moraine on a localized plateau. The site area is relatively hilly, with rolling hills and valleys and elevations ranging from 190 to 250 feet above mean sea level (msl). Over a distance of about 1.3 miles to the north, the topography drops to sea level at Port Jefferson Harbor. Bedrock is estimated to be 700 feet below msl beneath Port Jefferson Harbor, dropping to 1,400 feet below msl south of the site. Three aquifers are present beneath the LAI site: the Upper Glacial Aquifer, the Magothy Aquifer and the Lloyd sand member of the Raritan Formation. Area groundwater discharges naturally to Long Island Sound from streams, coastal springs and submarine seepage.

Several small surface water bodies at and in the vicinity of the facility are less than one acre in size. These include a small recharge basin in the southwest corner of the site and a small pond, referred to as Flannery Pond by CDM, located approximately 1,400 feet north of the LAI Facility. The closest flowing surface waters. Old Mill Pond and Old Mill Creek, are located approximately 1.1 miles north and downgradient of the LAI facility. Surface water eventually flows to Port Jefferson ,Harbor.

RESULTS OF THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

From August 2003 to May 2005 CDM, on behalf of EPA, performed an Rl at the LAI site in two stages: an initial investigation, referred to as field screening activities (FSA), and a second stage referred to as field data collection activities (FDCA). The FSA portion ofthe field investigation included topographic and cultural resources surveys, existing monitoring well survey and redevelopment. Outlying Parcels reconnaissance and soil


boring sampling, surface geophysics survey, stratigraphic borings, surface water and sediment sampling, existing monitoring well, public supply well and residential well sampling, membrane interface probe (MIP) soil and groundwater screening and surface soil sampling within the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) right-of-way (ROW). The NYSDOT ROW is the proposed location of a bicycle path project currently being undertaken by NYSDOT. CDM prepared a technical memorandum evaluating the FSA data and providing recommendations for the locations and depths of soil borings and multiport monitoring wells for the FDCA. Major Rl activities performed during FDCA were on-site soil borings, groundwater screening sampling (during drilling of monitoring wells), existing monitoring well, public supply, and residential well sampling, monitoring well drilling, packer testing, and multiport monitoring well installation and sampling.

As a first step in the evaluation ofthe nature and extent of contamination at the LAI site, delineation criteria were selected to assist in identification of areas of contamination for various media. Whenever possible, established regulatory criteria, known as chemical-specific applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), were used for the delineation criteria values. In the absence of ARARs, regulatory guidance values, known as "to be considered" (TBC), were used for the delineation criteria values (see Tables 1 - 3).

The results ofthe Rl are summarized below.

Soils Metals are widely distributed in exterior and sub-slab soils atthe LAI Facility and Outlying Parcels. Metals including antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, titanium, vanadium, and zinc were detected at concentrations exceeding delineation criteria which generally decreased with increasing depth in on site soils. At 50 feet below ground surface (bgs) and deeper, all values were below NYS TAGM * levels.

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected infrequently in soil samples at concentrations exceeding delineation criteria. VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides were not detected at concentrations exceeding delineation criteria in any of the interior (beneath LAI facility buildings) soil boring samples or outlying parcels. PCBs were detected in samples from

* Division Tectinical and Administrative Guidance t^emorandum: Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels, Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, January 24,1994. TAGM objectives are fhe more stringent cleanup level between a human-health protection value and a value based on protection of groundwater as specified in the TAGM. All of these levels fall within EPA's acceptable risk range.

/

1 0 . 0 0 0 0 3


two interior boring locations, within the Former Drum Crushing Area and Former Lagoon Area, within the NYSDOT ROW, but not detected in soil samples collected within the Outlying Parcels.

Groundwater No CVOCs (including PCE, TCE, DCE, and vinyl chloride) were detected in existing monitoring wells or residential and public supply wells. PCE and TCE were detected at concentrations exceeding delineation criteria in multiple levels ofthe majority ofthe newer multiport monitoring wells installed during the Rl, with TCE detected most frequently and at the highest concentrations in shallow groundwater samples collected directly below the LAI facility.

Groundwater upgradient ofthe site was sampled at two monitoring wells. Neither TCE nor PCE was detected within samples collected from these upgradient wells.

The TCE plume emanates from the vicinity of MPW-02 and MPW-07 (see Figure 2) and migrates downgradient to the northwest. In the vicinity of multiport well MPW-10, approximately 1,000 feet from the western boundary of the LAI Facility, groundwater flow and the TCE plume bends to the north toward Port Jefferson Harbor. There is an upward hydraulic gradient near MPW-09 indicating that contaminated groundwater is moving upward as it moves northward in the vicinity of this well. In general, groundwater data from the multiport monitoring wells show that the plume has been defined laterally and vertically. Exceptions have occurred when elevated TCE concentrations were detected in the deepest sampling interval of two wells: MPW-02 (230 micrograms per liter (pg/L) at -48.65 feet below msl)) at the LAI Facility, and MPW-09 (59 Mg/L and 81 [iglL at -120.01 feet below msl) located near Old Mill Pond.

No soil samples within the LAI facility were found to be contaminated with chlorinated solvents, however, residual soil contamination might still exist In low permeability • zones, serving as sources for groundwater contamination based on the following three considerations: (1) high TCE concentrations in groundwater were detected at the site more than 20 years after releases of free product had stopped; (2) only a limited number of deep borings/monitoring wells have been advanced, as deep drilling and sampling is difficult and costly; and (3) as at other sites EPA has investigated, residual soil contamination often exists in sporadic, thin layers and has only been located at other sites with unique investigative tools and very closely spaced soil borings.

Given the lack of information regarding the timing and nature of releases, the following scenarios are plausible based on the site data:

• High VOC concentrations near MPW-09 are the result of a significant on-site release that occurred in the past and migrated as a slug. Lower contaminant concentrations in the plume center are a result of residual contamination or a continuous, lower-concentration release over time.

• Monitoring wells are located on the edges of the plume and an area of higher contamination may be present between the wells.

Surface Waters Surface water samples collected from Old Mill Pond and Old Mill Creek contained CVOCs, primarily TCE, PCE, cis-1,2-DCE, and vinyl chloride, at concentrations exceeding delineation criteria. Samples SW-05 through SW-10 have the highest levels of TCE and PCE and show evidence of reductive dechlorination (or breakdown) of TCE and PCE. VOCs in surface water are related to groundwater discharge to surface water in the Old Mill Pond and Creek area. MPW-09 (adjacent to Old Mill Pond) shows similar TCE concentrations and has a strong upward hydraulic gradient. Surface water samples collected from Port Jefferson Harbor did not exceed any delineation criteria.

Sediments Sedirnent samples collected from Old Mill Pond and Old Mill Creek are primarily contaminated with elevated levels, of TCE. VOCs in sediments are likely related to the discharge of VOC-contaminated groundwater to the pond and creek. VOCs did not exceed delineation criteria in sediment samples collected from the harbor.

On-site catch basin sediment samples were primarily contaminated with metals and PCBs. The catch basins receive direct runoff from the LAI Facility. Points of discharge for the catch basin system are uncertain, but based on observations during sampling, some ofthe basins have apparently been disconnected from the system.

SITE RISKS

Based upon the results ofthe Rl, a baseline human health risk assessment was conducted to estimate the risks associated with current and future conditions. The human-health estimate's summarized below are based on current and future reasonable maximum exposure scenarios and were developed by taking into account various conservative estimates about the frequency and duration of an individual's exposure to site-related contaminants.

A screening level ecological risk assessment was also conducted to assess the risk posed to ecological receptors due to site-related contamination.


1 0 . 0 0 0 0 4


WHAT IS RISK AND HOW IS IT CALCULATED?

A Superfund baseline .'human health risk assessment is an analysis of the potential adverse health effects caused by .Hazardous substance releases from a site.in,the absence of-any actions to control'or mitigate these underxurrent-. and, future-land uses. A-fourrStep process isutilized for assessing site-related humari health risks for reaso'nable maximum exposure scenarios.

Hazard Identification: In this step, the chemicals of concern (COCs) at the site in various media (/.e., soil, groundwater,, surface water, and air) are identified based on such factors as

: toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and fate and transport ofthe,?, contaminants ' in'the-environment, concentrations of the'

!;contaminants in ^specific iriedia, mobility, persistence, and" ^-bioaccumulation.

.Exposure Assessment: In this step, the different exposure pathways through which people might be exposed to the contaminants identified in the previous step are evaluated. Examples of exposure pathways include incidental ingestion of :and demnal contactwith contaminated soii. - Factprs relating to, the exposure;assessrinent include, butarefnot limited to, the •concentrations'that."people might ,be exposed to and the potential frequency "arid duration of exisosure. Using these factors, a "reasonable maximum exposure" scenario, which portrays the highest level of human exposure that could reasonably be expected to occur, is calculated.

•Toxicity Assessmerit: In this step, the types of adverse health, effects associated .'With,, chemical exposures, ' and the relationship betvyeeri.imagnitude of exposure and severity of.

• adverse effects, are^dietermined. Potential health effects are ichemicai-specific and may include the risk bf developing cancer, over a lifetime or other non-cancer health effects, such as changes in the nomial functions of organs within the body (e.g., changes in the effectiveness of the immune system). Some chemicals are capable of causing both caricer and non-cancer health effects. ...-;•

Risk Characterizatlpri:. this step suWiniarizes; and combines i voutputs ofthe exposure and toxicity assessrrients'to'provide a •quantitative asses'srnent ofsite risks. Exposures are evaluated based on the potential risk of developing cancer and the potential for non-cancer health hazards. The likelihood of an individual developing cancer is expressed as a probability. For example, a IO" cancer risk means a "one-in-ten-thousand excess cancer risk"; or one additional cancer^may'be seen in a population of 10,000 people as a result of'exposure to site.. 'contariiinantsundebtheconditionsexplajnedin the Exposure •Assessment. CurrfentijSuperfund guidelines':,for;acceptable exposures are an iri'dividual lifetime excess'cairicer riskiri the range of 10"* to 10"® (corresponding to a one-in-teri-thousand to a one-in-a-million excess cancer risk) with 10° being the point of departure. For non-cancer health effects, a "hazard index" (HI) is calculated. An HI represents the sum of the individual exposure levels compared to their corresponding reference doses.; The.key concept for a;nori-cahcer HI is that" a "threshold level"](measured as an HI;;pf.less than 1) exists ;Below Which riori-cancer health effects. are'-not expected:to

Human Health Risk Assessment A Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was prepared to assess the potential human health risks in the absence of any remedial action. Chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) included several VOCs, metals, SVOCs and PCBs. The EPA acceptable range for cancer risk is 10"^ to 10" , the Hazard Index (HI) threshold value for noncancer risk is 1.

' Human health risks associated with using groundwater for future LAI facility and Outlying Parcels residents are above the EPA acceptable range. The main cancer risks are due to exposure to TCE during activities using contaminated groundwater, including inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact. The noncancer risk is above the threshold value of 1 and is due to exposure to TCE in groundwater. Although there are currently no known private wells being used within the area of groundwater contamination, this pathway was included to assess the potential for adverse health effects if the groundwater were to be used in the future in the absence of any remediation. Based on the results of this evaluation, it was decided that a remedial action should be taken to restore the contaminated groundwater for future use. It should be noted that currently, and for the foreseeable future, residents and businesses in the area will be connected to the public water supply, whose quality is routinely monitored and must comply with the New York State Department of Health drinking water standards.

Exposure to contaminants in soil contributes little to the overall risks to human health. The cancer risks and noncancer hazards from exposure to soil are below EPA threshold values for current and future site workers, future pedestrians and cyclists of the proposed NYSDOT bicycle path, and future construction workers.

The cancer and noncancer health risk for recreational users of Old Mill Pond, Old Mill Creek, and Port Jefferson Harbor are below the threshold values. To reduce potential exposures to site-related VOCs in the pond and creek, warning signs are maintained along the shoreline, indicating that the water is contaminated and should not be consumed and prolonged contact should be minimized.

Due to VOCs being detected at elevated concentrations in the groundwater, there is a potential for the contaminants in the groundwater to volatilize and migrate into buildings, a process known as vapor intrusion. EPA is currently conducting vapor intrusion studies in buildings that lie over the contaminated groundwater plume. If the results of the investigations indicate that there is concern with vapors migrating into buildings, EPA would develop an appropriate remedy.


1 0 . 0 0 0 0 5


Ecological Risk Assessment A screening-level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) was prepared to identify the potential environmental risks associated with surface water, sediment and soil. The results of the SLERA suggested that there are contaminants present in the creek/pond water, creek/pond sediment, or soils at concentrations that may cause ecologically adverse effects, such as impacts in growth, reproduction, and survival of plants, aquatic invertebrates, fish, soil invertebrates, and terrestrial birds and mammals. Based on these findings, EPA further evaluated the list of COPCs using supplemental information and site-specific parameters. EPA determined that the following media and contaminants have the potential to cause ecologically adverse effects: surface water in Old Mill Creek and Old Mill Pond due to cis -1,2-dichloroethene and on-site soils due to PCBs. The remaining contaminants that were identified in the SLERA were determined not to pose a potential for adverse ecological effects because they were either common elements of soil that were not related to site operations, the detected concentrations were lower than background, the frequency of detections was low, or the HQs were only slightly above 1 with no adverse impacts to populations expected. A detailed presentation of these data can be found in the Revised Addendum to the SLERA, which is in the Administrative Record.

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Remedial action objectives (RAOs) 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), to be considered (TBC) guidance, and site-specific risk-based levels.

Preliminary Remedial Goals Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) were selected based on federal or state promulgated ARARs, risk-based levels, background concentrations, with consideration also given to other requirements such as analytical detection limits and guidance values. These PRGs were then used as a benchmark in the technology screening, alternative development and screening, and detailed evaluation of alternatives presented in the subsequent sections of the FS report. The PRGs for surface soil, sediments, and surface water are mainly based on ecological risk, while the PRGs for groundwater are driven by human health based risk levels (refer to Tables 1 - 3).

The following RAOs were established for the site:

Remedial Act ion Obiectiyes for Soil The site-specific HHRA indicates that human health cancer and noncancer risks are below or within the EPA's acceptable risk ranges for current and future site workers, current and future off-site residents, and future on-site and outlying parcel residents when exposed to contaminants in

soil. The site-specific SLERA and its revised addendum indicate PCBs may pose risks to soil-dwelling receptors.

The on-site area is currently an industrial area and not an ecological habitat. The Outlying Parcel area is currently undeveloped. Residential re-use ofthe Outlying Parcel area in the future is being considered and would eliminate it as an ecological habitat The metals that pose risks to ecological receptors are common elements of soil and not related to past site operations. Use of residential cleanup guidelines while managing the ecological risks within the LAI Facility area and Outlying Parcel area is consistent with the planned reuse of these respective areas. Based on the above discussion, the following RAOs have been identified for the on-site contaminated soil:

• Prevent or minimize human exposure with soils having PCB contaminant concentrations in excess of soil cleanup objectives

• Manage ecological risks

The localized areas requiring soil remediation in order to meet a 1000 microgram per kilogram (pg/kg) cleanup objective for PCBs in surface soil are located within the former Lagoon Area, and the Former Drum Crushing Area of the LAI facility.

Remedial Action Obiectiyes for Groundwater All groundwater in New York state is classified as GA, which is groundwater suitable as a source of drinking water. Site groundwater has a strong downward gradient beneath the LAI facility and a strong upward gradient as it approaches the shoreline at Port Jefferson Harbor. Old Mill Pond and Old Mill Creek are recharged by groundwater. Groundwater at the site is contaminated with chlorinated VOCs that exceed regulatory requirements and pose risks to human health through inhalation and ingestion. Currently, all residents kriown to have had private wells within the plume area have been connected to the public water supply, eliminating the ingestion and inhalation pathways of exposure associated with using groundwater as a source of potable water. EPA has initiated vapor intrusion studies at potentially affected structures. Additional structures within the study area will be evaluated. Appropriate remedies based on the investigation results will be developed. To protect human health and the environment, the following RAOs have been identified for groundwater:

• Prevent or minimize potential, current, and future human exposures including inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact with VOC-contaminated groundwater

• Minimize the potential for off-site migration of VOC-contaminated groundwater

• Restore groundwater to levels which meet NYS Groundwater and Drinking Water Quality Standards within a reasonable time frame


1 0 . 0 0 0 0 6

Supedund Proposed Plan Lawrence Aviation Industries Site

• Prevent or minimize VOC-contaminated groundwater from discharging into Port Jefferson Harbor

Remedial Action Obiectiyes for Surface Water Surface water in Old Mill Pond and Old Mill Creek has been contaminated with VOCs, including TCE, PCE and 1,2-DCE, via contaminated groundwater discharging to surface water bodies. It is expected that by remediating the groundwater, the contamination in the surface water and sediment will also be removed. The following remedial action objectives have been identified for surface water:

• Prevent or minimize potential human exposures including ingestion and dermal contact with VOC-contaminated surface water

• Restore surface water to levels which meet Surface Water Quality Standards within a reasonable time frame

• Prevent or minimize VOC-contaminated surface water that exceeds water quality standards from discharging into Port Jefferson Harbor

Remedial Action Obiectiyes for Sediment Off-site Sediments Sediments in Old Mill Pond and Old Mill Creek have been contaminated with VOCs, including TCE, PCE and 1,2-DCE, as a result of contaminated groundwater discharging into surface water bodies. Contaminated sediment in Old Mill Pond and Old Mill Creek could be transported to Port Jefferson Harbor during high flow events. Sediments in the harbor could also become contaminated through direct discharge of groundwater. Limited sampling of surface water and sediment in the harbor showed no site-related VOC contamination.

Because of the low bioaccumulation potential and low bioavailability, the potential risks to ecological receptors from exposures to the VOCs detected in sediment are low. Pesticides, which present the greatest potential risk, are not considered to be site-related. After remediation of groundwater, site-related VOC contamination will not persist in sediments. No remedial action will be required for off-site sediment.

On-site Catch Basin Sediments Sediment within several onsite catch basins has been contaminated with pesticides, PCBs, and metals by storm runoff from outdoor areas of the site and potentially from floor drains within buildings. PCBs and metals contained within the catch basin sedirinents are considered to have the potential to be released to soil and groundwater. While available data cannot confirm that ecological receptors have access to catch basin sediment, some of the COPCs detected were measured at concentrations that may cause adverse effects in sensitive ecological receptors. The follovying remedial action objectives have been identified for on-site catch basin sediments:

• Prevent or minimize the potential release of contamination in catch basin sediments to soil and/or groundwater

. • Prevent current and future ecological and human exposures to contaminated sediment

Since the location and objectives for these sediments are similar to site soils, these sediments were carried forward throughout the FS and are to be remediated as part of site soils.

SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

CERCLA §121(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. §9621(b)(1), mandates that remedial actions must be protective of human health and the environment, cost-effective, comply with ARARS, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. Section 121(b)(1) also establishes a preference for remedial actions which employ, as a principal element, treatment to permanently and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants at a site. CERCLA §121(d), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d), further specifies that a remedial action must attain a level or standard of control of the hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants, which at least attains ARARs under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA §121 (d)(4), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (d)(4).

Detailed descriptions ofthe remedial alternatives for addressing the contamination associated with the site can be found in the FS report. This document presents a summary of the two soil remediation alternatives and five groundwater remediation alternatives that were evaluated.

The remedial alternatives are described below.

So/7 Remedial Alternatiyes

Alternative S1 - No Action is considered in accordance with NCP requirements and provides a baseline for comparison with other alternatives. If this alternative was implemented, the current status of the site would remain unchanged. Institutional controls would not be implemented to restrict future site development or use. Engineering controls would not be implemented to prevent site access or exposure to site contaminants. Although existing security fencing at the LAI facility and warning signage posted at Old Mill Pond would remain, they would not be monitored or maintained.

Alternative S2 - Excavation. Off-site Disposal, and Backfill would include the following major components:

• Pre-design investigation


1 0 . 0 0 0 0 7


• Excavation of on-site soils exceeding the PCB soil cleanup objective of 1000 pg/kg

• Post excavation sampling)to verify achievement of soil cleanup objectives

• Disppsal of excavated soils at off-site facilities • Backfilling of excavated areas with clean fill

The objectives of this alternative are to prevent or minimize future human exposure to contaminated soil. This alternative would remove PCB contaminated soil to off-site landfills. Risks associated with exposure to surface soils are within EPA's generally acceptable cancer and noncancer risk ranges, yet this alternative would also limit human exposure to contaminated soil. On-site soils that exceed the PCB cleanup objective (an estimated 2,006 cubic yards (CY) of surface soils and 25 CY of on site catch basin sediments) would be excavated and disposed off site in order to achieve these objectives. Clean fill would be used to backfill the excavations. Pre-design activities would include investigation of existing PCB transformers and additional onsite catch basins as well as additional delineation ofthe PCB soil excavation areas. This alternative has a present worth of $770,000.

Groundwater Remedial Alternatiyes

Alternative GW1 - No Action was retained for comparison purposes as required by the NCP. No remedial actions would be implemented as part of this alternative. Groundwater would continue to migrate and contamination would continue to attenuate through dilution, dispersion, limited biodegradation, etc. This alternative does not include institutional controls or long-term groundwater monitoring. '

Alternative GW2 - Institutional/Engineering Controls/Long-term Monitoring would implement institutional controls, to ' prevent future use of contaminated groundwater, however, well drilling permits currently require approval within Suffolk County, and all residences and properties within the area of contaminated groundwater are presently connected to municipal water. EPA is currently investigating the potential impact of vapor intrusion to local homes and will develop any necessary mitigation measure based on the investigation results. Engineering controls, such as fencing or signage at Old Mill Pond and Old Mill Creek, would be implemented to prevent the use of contaminated surface water. Long-term monitoring would include periodic groundwater and surface water sampling and analysis to monitor contaminant concentrations and migration over time. Surface water samples would be collected from Old Mill Pond, Old Mill Creek, and the harbor. This alternative has a present worth of $1.8 million.

Alternative GW3 - Groundwater, Extraction/Treatment/^ Surface Recharge or Surface Water Discharge/Institutional Controls/Long-term Monitoring Option 1 A groundwater extraction and treatment system would be installed near Old Mill Pond, preventing continuous contarninant migration into the harbor via groundwater. The pumping would also lower the water table, preventing contaminated groundwater from directly discharging into the pond and the creek. Extracted groundwater would be treated ex-situ and discharged into Old Mill Creek and potentially Old Mill Pond. This remedial option would also eliminate the pathway of direct human contact with groundwater contaminants via contaminated surface water. This alternative has a present worth of $13.04 million. For cost assessment puposes the conventional planning period of 30 years has been utilized. The actual operational duration of this option may be longer than 30 years.

Option 2 Groundwater extraction and treatment systems would be installed at the LAI facility and within the plume area near Old Mill Pond. The system at the Old Mill Pond is the same as in Option 1. The system at the facility would prevent contaminated groundwater from migrating off site; treated groundwater would be recharged back to the ground at the facility. Option 2 could potentially reduce the total volume of contaminated groundwater requiring treatment by extracting groundwater exhibiting higher concentrations of contaminants from an area closer to the area of initial release. Option 2 may also shorten the time for residual contamination to migrate, resulting in a shorter estimated duration than Option 1. This alternative has a present worth of $19.56 million. For cost assessment puposes the conventional planning period of 30 years has been utilized. The actual operational duration of this option may be longer than 30 years.

Option 3 ' Groundwater extraction and treatment systems would be installed both at the LAI facility and within the plume area near Old Mill Pond. Additionally, in-situ chemical oxidation technology would be applied as an initial enhancement within the area of high TCE concentration at the LAI facility. For the chemical oxidation technology, permanganate is very effective in oxidizing TCE and PCE and can endure for several months (much longer than other oxidants) in the subsurface, and it is favored over other oxidants such as Fenton's reagent, activated persulfate, and catalyzed percarbonate. The soil type at the LAI site (mainly sand and gravel with some silt) may have a relatively low soil oxidant demand. Other oxidation and enhancement technologies would also be evaluated during the remedial design stage. A treatability study may be required prior to design and implementation of remediation. Option 3 could potentially reduce the total mass of contaminated groundwater requiring pumping

EPA Region 2 -July 2006 Pages

1 0 . 0 0 0 0 8


and treatment by destroying contaminants in-situ within higher concentration areas, and further lessen the time for ' residual contamination to migrate, resulting in a shorter overall cleanup time for the LAI facility than for Options 1 and 2. This alternative has a present worth of $23.45 million. Preliminary evaluation ofthe time required to achieve cleanup objectives indicate that the treatment system operation at the LAI facility could be shortened by 10 years. The operational duration of this option is estimated at 20 years for the treatment system at the LAI facility and 30 years overall.

For all three options, locations of extraction wells and their pumping rates would be determined through modeling performed during the design phase.

Institutional/engineering controls would be implemented to prevent exposure to contaminated groundwater until the groundwater in the contaminant plume meets NYSDEC standards. Long-term groundwater and surface water monitoring would be performed to provide an understanding of changes in contaminant concentrations and distribution over time.

Alternative GW4 - In-situ Chemical Oxidation/Groundwater Extraction and Treatment involves the application of in-situ chemical oxidation technology at the LAI facility and installation of a groundwater extraction and treatment system within the plume area near Old Mill Pond. Using insitu chemical oxidation at the LAI facility could mineralize dissolved TCE, PCE, and cis-DCE in groundwater within a short period upon contact with the contaminants. In the event that extensive residual contaminant masses exist in relatively low permeability zones, treatment via chemical oxidation could significantly increase the mass transfer between the contamination and groundwater, subsequently reducing the duration of remediation at the LAI facility. Oxidation technologies would also be evaluated during the remedial design stage, and a treatability study may be required prior to design and implementation of remediation. The pump and treat system within the plume area near Old Mill Pond would be constructed as described under Alternative GW3 - Option 1. This alternative, while similar, is distinguished from Alternative GW3 - Option 3 in that it provides for a more extensive application ofthe in-situ chemical oxidation technology and in addition would provide a groundwater extraction and treatment system only within the plume area near Old Mill Pond. For this alternative, institutional and engineering controls and long term monitoring would be implemented as described for Alternative GW2. This alternative has a present worth of $23.78 million. For cost assessment purposes the conventional planning period of 30 years has been utilized. The actual operational duration of this option may be longer than 30 years.

Alternative GW5 - In-situ Biodegradation/Institutional Control and Long-term Monitoring involves the implementation of enhanced anaerobic biodegradation (EAB) of CVOCs at the LAI facility and near Old Mill. Pond via the injection of electron donors and nutrients into areas with relatively high contaminant concentrations. Under this alternative, three options are considered. Option 1 includes EAB systems at both the LAI facility and the area near Old Mill Pond. Option 2 includes the systems described in Option 1, with a groundwater treatment system at the LAI facility to treat extracted groundwater before adding amendments and re-injecting to the aquifer. Option 3 includes the EAB system at the LAI facility area as under Option 1, and a pump-and-treat system near Old Mill Pond as under Alternative GW3 -Option 1.

The implementation of EAB would require the monitoring of additional groundwater quality parameters including electron acceptors (sulfate, iron, etc.), ethene, methane, ethane, dissolved organic carbon, etc. For this alternative, institutional controls and long-term monitoring would be implemented as described under Alternative GW2. The cost for this alternative with Option 1, 2, and 3 are $23.0 million, $27.0 million, and $20.9 million, respectively. For cost assessment puposes the conventional planning period of 30 years has been utilized. The actual operational duration of this option may be longer than 30 years.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation criteria, namely, overall protection of human health and the environment, compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirernents, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment, short-term effectiveness, implementability, cost, and state and community acceptance.

The evaluation criteria are described below.

• Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway (based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment, engineer-ingcontrols, or institutional controls.

• Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all ofthe applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of other federal and state environmental statutes and requirements or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.


1 0 . 0 0 0 0 9


• Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of human health and the environment overtime, once cleanup goals have been met. It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.

• Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated performance of the treatment technologies, with respect to these parameters, a remedy may employ.

• Short-term effectiveness addresses 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 achieved.

• Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.

• Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and net present-worth costs.

• State acceptance indicates if, based on its review ofthe RI/FS and Proposed Plan, the state concurs with the preferred remedy at the present time.

• Community acceptance will be assessed in the ROD and refers to the public's general response to the alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports.

Comparative Analysis of Soil Alternatives

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Alternative S1 would not prevent potential exposure to contaminated surface soil. Alternative S2 would remove PCB-contaminated soil to off-site landfills. Residential reuse ofthe Outlying Parcel is being considered in the future and would eliminate it as an ecological habitat. Alternative S2 is therefore protective of human health and the environment by eliminating current and future exposure to contaminated soil, thereby meeting the RAOs of preventing or minimizing exposures to receptors.

Compliance with ARARs While there are no chemical-specific ARARs for contaminated soil, the NYSDEC TAGM Objectives for PCBs of 1000 pg/kg was utilized as the PRG. Alternative S1 would not meet RAOs and PRGs. Alternative S2 would achieve RAOs and meet PRGs since contaminated materials exceeding the soil PRGs would be removed. Both alternatives would meet location- and action-specific ARARs.

Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence Alternative SI would not achieve long-term effectiveness and permanence. Alternative S2 would be effective in the long-term. Due to the removal and transportation of contaminants off-site, Alternative S2 offers permanence to the greatest degree.

Reduction of Toxicity. Mobility, or Volume (TMV) Through Treatment Alternative SI would not reduce TMV. Alternative S2 would reduce potential mobility by placing contaminants in a landfill. Only Alternative S2 would decrease the on-site contaminant mass.

Short-term Effectiveness Alternative SI would have no adverse potential irinpacts because no action would be taken at the site and construction workers would not be subjected to any potential risks. Alternative S2 would have potential short-term impact to the community due to nuisances associated with construction (e.g., increased traffic and noise) and to the construction workers due to handling of contaminated material. However, air monitoring, engineering controls, and/or appropriate worker protective equipment would be used to protect the community and workers.

Implementability Alternative S1 would be the easier alternative to implement both technically and administratively because no work would be performed at the site. Alternative S2 would be more difficult to implement since there are excavation/earthwork, restoration, and disposal facility issues to resolve.

Cost Alternative S1 has no cost. The present worth for Alternative S2 is approximately $770,000.

Table 4: Cost Comparison of Soil Alternatives

Item

Capital Costs

Present Worth of Annual Costs

Total Present Worth

Alt. SI

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

Alt. S2

$770,000

$ 0

$770,000

Comparative Analysis o f Groundwater Alternatives

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment Alternative GWl would not meet RAOs and would not provide protection of human health and the environment, since contamination would remain in groundwater for a long time in the future, and no mechanism would be implemented to prevent exposure to contaminated


1 0 . 0 0 0 1 0


groundwater or reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contamination. Alternative GW2 would minimize potential exposure pathways through institutional and engineering controls, but would not provide protection to the environment. Alternative GWS -Options 1 and 2 would rely on proven, active ex-situ treatment processes to reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume ofthe contaminants. Alternative GW3 - Option 3 would utilize in-situ treatment to enhance remediation within high concentration areas in addition to proven active ex-situ treatment processes to reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume ofthe contaminants. Alternatives GW4 and GWS would use insitu treatment to remediate the residual soil contamination at the LAI facility.

Compliance with ARARs Alternatives GWl and GW2 would not attain the NYS Groundwater Quality Standards in a reasonable time frame. Alternative GW3 - Option 1 providestreatment at the Old Mill Pond area only and might not be able to attain these standards in 30 years for two reasons: (1) it will require 30 years for all the dissolved contaminants to reach the groundwater extraction and treatment system near Old Mill Pond; and (2) the possible residual soil contamination at LAI facility could act as a continuous source to the groundwater plume. Alternative GW3 - Option 2 might be able to attain the groundwater standards in 30 years for the off-site plume area, however, the time frame to achieve groundwater standards at the LAI facility would be difficult to predict. Alternative GWS - Option 3 also might be able to attain these standards in SO years for the off-site plume area, yet Option 3 provides the estimate of least duration regarding the time frame to achieve groundwater standards at the LAI facility. Preliminary evaluation suggests that only 20 years of operation may be required. Alternatives GW4 and GW5 could attain the groundwater standards in approximately 30 years. Both GW4 and GW5 would accelerate the cleanup time through active in-situ treatment at the LAI facility to remove the residual soil contamination. The remaining dissolved plume would be expected to flush out to the downgradient treatment zone and be treated in approximately SO years.

All alternatives would comply with location- and action-specific ARARs.

GW5 would be effective and permanent since the contaminants would be remediated using in-situ treatment.

Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment Alternatives GWl and GW2 would not reduce the VOCs through treatment as no active treatment of contaminated groundwater occurs. Alternatives GWS, GW4 and GW5 would actively reduce toxicity and volume of contamination through treatment, which is preferred by CERCLA.

Short-term Effectiveness Alternative GWl would not have any potential adverse impacts to workers or the community protection as no remedial action would occur. There would be potential short-term inconveniences to nearby residences for Alternatives GW2 to GWS, yet no major adverse impacts would be expected. Air monitoring, engineering controls, and appropriate worker protective equiptment would be used to protect the community and workers for Alternatives GW2 to GWS.

Implementability Alternative GWl would be easiest both technically and administratively to implement. Alternative GW2 would be the second easiest to implement. Alternatives GWS,"GW4, and GWS could be administratively difficult to implement because of the space limitations and community acceptance ofthe locations ofthe treatment plants which would need to be constructed. Technically, alternatives GWS, GW4 and GWS would be more difficult to irnplement than GWl and GW2. Since accurate injection of in-situ treatment materials to target area locations and depths are a relatively important factor and alternatives GW4 and GWS rely to a greater extent on this factor, than GWS - Option 3, it would be less difficult to implement. Alternatives GWS - Option 3, GW4, and GWS may be easier to implement if experienced vendors are selected.

Cost A comparative summary ofthe cost estimates for each alternative is presented in Table 5.

Lonq-term Effectiveness and Permanence Alternative GWl would not be effective or permanent, since the contaminants would not be destroyed and there would be no mechanism to prevent current and future exposure to contaminated groundwater. Alternative GW2 would be effective in terms of restricting the exposure pathway, but not permanent because contaminants would remain in groundwater for a long time. Alternative GW3 -Options 1 and 2 would be effective and permanent since the contaminants would be removed from groundwater and treated ex situ; Option S under Alternative GWS would also remediate contaminants in situ. Alternatives GW4 and


1 0 . 0 0 0 1 1


Table 5: Cost Comparison of Groundwater Alternatives

Option

Capital Costs (in millions)

Present Worth of Annual Costs

Total Present Worth

Alternative GWl

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

Alternative GW2

$0.04

$1.7

$ 1.7

Alternative GWS

1

$4.9

$8.2

$13.1

2

$6.8

$ 12.7

$19.5

3-

$11.4

$ 12.0

$23.4

Alternative GW4

$15.7

$ 8.0

$23.7

Alternative GWS

1

$5.1

$ 17.9

$23.0

2

.$ 7 .1

$19.9

$27.0

3

$7.4

$13.5

$21.0

PROPOSED REMEDY

Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives, EPA, in consultation with NYSDEC, recommends Alternative S2 and Alternative GWS Option S.

During the pre-design investigation, the areal extent of surface soil excavation would be further delineated. LAI facility soils that exceed the PCB soil cleanup objective of 1000 \jglkg (an estimated 2,006 cubic yards (CY) of surface soils and 25 CY of sediments within LAI facility catch basins) would be excavated and disposed off-site. Post-excavation sampling would be performed to verify achievement of cleanup goals. Clean fill would be used to backfill the excavations, and disturbed surfaces would be restored to their existing conditions.

In addition, during the pre-design investigation, additional borings would be advanced at the LAI facility to investigate further the possible presence of residual soil contamination, and additional data would be collected within the downgradient plume to define further hydrogeologic conditions and groundwater contamination. The additional site-specific information would be applied to groundwater modeling to assist in the design ofthe remedy.

Two groundwater extraction and treatment systems would be installed, one at the LAI facility and one within the plume area near Old Mill Pond. Treated groundwater at the LAI facility would be discharged to an onsite recharge basin, while groundwater extracted from the downgradient plume would be discharged to Old Mill Creek and potentially Old Mill Pond. In-situ chemical oxidation technology would be applied as an initial enhancement within the area of high TCE-concentration

at the LAI facility. Operational parameters would be determined during the design and continually optimized during the remedial action.

The groundwater extraction and treatment system at the LAI facility would prevent contaminated groundwater from migrating off site; treated groundwater would be recharged back to the ground at the LAI facility.

Institutional controls in the form of existing well-drilling restrictions within the contaminant plume and fencing and signage at the LAI facility and at Old Mill Pond would be continued. A long-term groundwater and surface water monitoring program would be instituted to assess migration and attenuation of groundwater contaminafion. Periodic reviews of site conditions, including evaluations of contamination extent and proposed modifications of ongoing programs, would be performed.

Additional institutional control would include an environmental easement/restrictive covenant fi|ed in the property records of Suffolk County that would limit the use of the active industrial area to commercial and/or industrial uses only. Any new or renovated building or on-site structure that will be occupied in the future should be evaluated for soil vapor intrusion.

An evaluation of the, potential for soil vapor intrusion into structures within the study area has been initiated arid will be continued. Mitigation would be performed if determined to be necessary.

During the RI/FS, several on-site catch basins and their sediments were evaluated and sampled. During future pre-design investigations, additional catch basins will be evaluated. The additional catch basins would be


1 0 . 0 0 0 1 2


addressed if cleanup objectives are exceeded.

There exists approximately SO electrical transformers on site which will require evaluation for leakage, presence of PCBs and potential remediation. This will be conducted during future pre-design invesfigations. The transformers would be addressed if cleanup objectives are exceeded.

It is the policy of EPA to conduct five-year reviews when remediation activities will continue for more than five years. Under the preferred remedy, EPA would conduct five-year reviews at least once every five years until ground water remediation has restored the aquifer to drinking water quality standards.

Basis for the Remedy Preference While Alternative S2 may involve potential short-term community impacts in the form of nuisances associated with construction. Alternative S2 would be protective of human health and the environment. Alternative S2 would provide a permanent solution, and would achieve the 1000 pg/kg soil cleanup objective for PCBs. Therefore, EPA and NYSDEC believe that Alternative S2 would effectuate the soil cleanup while providing the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the evaluating criteria.

implementation of these alternatives. The uncertainty concerns are associated with the required depths of injection and the need to identify the proper locations to inject the treatment materials.

Therefore, EPA and NYSDEC believe that Alternative GWS-Option 3 would minimize the migration of contaminated groundwater at the site, while providing the best balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.

The preferred remedy would be protective of human health and the environment, provide long-term effectiveness, would achieve the ARARs in a reasonable time frame, and be cost-effective. EPA and NYSDEC also believe that the preferred remedy would treat principal threats and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.

While the costs of Alternative GWS-Option 3 are relatively high, this alternafive would provide the greatest degree of protection by preventing migration via hydraulic control and reducing contamination both near the release and at the downgradient impacted area, while focusing in-situ active treatment to aggressively remediate areas of potential residual soil contamination.

The groundwater extraction and treatment system near Old Mill Pond would prevent continuous contaminant migration into the harbor via groundwater and prevent contaminated groundwater from directly discharging into the pond and the creek. The groundwater extraction and treatment system at the LAI facility would prevent contaminated groundwater from migrating off site, potentially reducing the total volume of contaminated groundwater requiring treatment by extracting groundwater exhibiting higher concentrations of contaminants from an area close to the location ofthe release. The application of in-situ chemical oxidation,as an initial enhancement within the area of high TCE concentration could potentially reduce the total mass of contaminated groundwater requiring pumping and treatment, and further lessen the time for residual contamination to migrate. Although Alternative GWS-Option 3 possesses similar elements and may achieve groundwater standards at the LAI facility in a shorter time frame. Alternative GWS-Option S is a less costly, more proven technology. Alternatives GW-4 and GW-S were not identified as the preferred remedy because of a higher degree of uncertainty associated with the


1 0 . 0 0 0 1 3


LEGEMD •> Oirttniii I B Pond [ 3 1 NYDOT Right 'Of '/tfav Prooett^ E I ! Ground obscured ^ 3 LAI PropeitieS: ,„ ./%>' Tree Line; ^ j Outing Parrel Properties .'V' Uripyved Drrve ••.S-FootCbntour.Labels, Site Locstiori Map .^V^ Payed Drive ^/V:''"tiBxTci3ographicCo.ntour, 25.Foot intervals A / ' A ^ i l , / ^ Topographic Contour, 5-Pbot intervals A / , Building Ruins t ^ Building

SttB liBturB fvvpwttd frara MMM i^vtaQnisy MDWI A|vf 2A0S

A * " Long; idand Raii toec

A SitQ.Map

Rfonedjal Investi^on/Feaslfaility Study

t^awrenca Aviation; IrKtustries &iperfund S ta

200 4ni;FM l ^ > t ^ s r s o n Station, NawVcxIc

CPM

EPA Region 2 -July 2006

1 0 . 0 0 0 1 4


i«.>«.at«,f«it,«iii«W-.,lif»—^y

NUTES rfwssssm «» Pntentlomptnr s rtqrf fflntiir fêt aSfM" SPH I(M>I

wata levet cbta ca "ct^d ai 3 7/2005 " " * ' " " March ..tJfSTrlcriiGrcemsns (TCE) isoconcertraticn

conHJLT.dashalwhereirtsfred, microQfams/litef TCE Date (all results in micrograms psr liBsq S/OO MrW>aer sairiptes weie collected on S'iB'ÔS oirough 3/7/2CQ5). "Tiehtgnest conc*;-rtrtti6n OL'tectKl ie pdbtca arxl was used for contcolng 0 / \ J - MW-fli; MW-<15. andFG-CIl samrled2f2:«K andTfTHflS, '-'JU PJ-Qi 0S.Q5. Il.'ana r^watErsarriFieswerecaieclBd )[K23/?003 d ' - i ' RW-701SpRwas'Sf5mperJwi 11/1S/?m3 3 7 - GfDirdwaEef scnseingclata cdlectfid attte Valff tatte. sunma' 2D!>l ?C'X Surtece waer.samples wens cciiectedcn lO/)4/200.3trrfJU!7ilO/21fl3l " ^ C- - MV^W was sampled on i2'3*^ (280 D) anb^J^/OO

<)-PJ-06 was sariipiE?tiGn 3/2dflB - Boring B3 was sainplecfon|i2' "97

%D - SODH grounowsterscreening satnpe coiiected 7/1991 - ^1932, -TiaxirrLim concertrations detects were posted. Trese values were not used for wnto j ing Cut a e inckKJed tor ttstaicd perapecStve' D-•diluted • • . ' : . u - not )*tected. vaue to left is detecDon iimtt

aUftruPltffla.aj.lff''lflMI M « w».mm.mjms«^ ^17J

LEQENO « Multiport Monitoring Well « NYDEC Monitoring Well eLAIMcri lorirRiWel

^Bortng

^We te r t xx i y NYDOT Ry*<>f-Way „ . . . , „ « , , ^ , , H ? ^ nttarfmna . 1 . .....s.-.^ ..' i. ^_.,« ... ... , ,^r. Marcii 2005 UppcTGlaclaÂoufw

, M ^ f f - 0 TCE source Area-Identified in the HRS: PtrtentiSietric Surl^cfand iStraBsrapt*! Bortng / V 25 Foot Topographle Conlour ONYSDEC.Soii Boring B-3 Trichloroethene Isoconcentration Contours

©MPW^7A Boring and Groundhiratwr , S Foot Topoaraphic Contour Installed 12«7 Fiemedlal Investigatlonffêaslblllly Stiidy--. ! S S r ! ! ? ! 5 f ^ , ° " , _ _ % . , . .i ' ^ ^ ^ ^ " " ^ ® ajfloKCounty UwrehceAviatioh IhdusJrtKtSiiperiUndSite

B Deep BdertofSofl Bortng Location » ResidenUat WeH Scmrtpllng Localton 0&j r faco Watar Sampling Location

F?ort Jefferson Station,:New York

CDM


1 0 . 0 0 0 1 5

<I)

S' 3

C-C

"?" O O

Preliminary Rennedial Goals for Soil Lawrence Aviation Superfund Site

Port Jefferson, NewYork Tafalel

UmM™-2 ;

Chemical Name

Risit Based Cleanup Levels for

industrial. Soli" '

1 (mm)

CRL =

Ecological Risk-Based Screening

Criteria® {tit)/Ka)

NYSDEC Rec orn mended Soii Cleanup

Objectives'" (MS'Kg)

NYSDEC Soil Cleanup

Objectives to Protect

Groundwater'" (mm)

Prellrhlnary Remedial Goals

Remedial investigation Peiineatiori

Criteria (utum

Maximum Detection (0,-1, ft bgs) 1

Concenttation Location j

Pesticides/PCBs -, -.: . ::| ftroclor-1254 ftroelor-1260.

11,000'^; 700'"" NV 1,000 '*' 10000''^ 1,000 *'' 110 220

4,100 J 76QJ

SBS-27-A 1 S8D-04-A 1

00

§ CD

3 Q .

O M CD Q .

01 3

Notes; (1),Onsite Worlcer- SurfaceSoii (2) .SLERA yaliies reftried via Step-SA cateulatiohs. (3) New, York State Soil Cleanup Objectives (TAGM SlOIS,

January 1994) (4) New Yoric State Soil Cleanup Ot)jectives to Protect,

Groundwater (TAGM #'1046, January 1994) <5) Total PCBs,

CRL Cancer Risk Le-^l, Bold figures indicate detected concentrations: exceed PRGs,

ft bgs leet be low ground surface Hd Hazatd Quijttent

J Esfimated Value WV No Value

NYSDEC New,York State Department of,Environmental Conservation PCB Polycniofinated biphenyl

(ig/kgmierbglams p^r kilogram

O

O O O H o^

TJ

(O (D

r-03

O CD

i .

0)'

5' 3 3" • Q. C Co

3-. CD Co 00

CD

, 3

00

CD

3

a

c

O O

Prel iminary Remediat ion Goals fo r Groundvvater

Lawrence Av ia t ion Indust r ies Site

Port Jef ferson Stat ion, New York

Table 2

Contaminants of Concern

National Primary

Drini«lng Water Standards'"

(MQ/L):

NYS Groundvrater

Quality Standards''^'

(MQ/L)

NYSt^JH Drinking Water

Quality Standards'"

(ug/L)

Preliminary Remedial Goals'"'

(uat)

Remedial Investigation Delineation

Criteria

(ug/L)

Maximum Detection

Cpncetitraticin (ug/L)

Location

Volatnfr:Org^nic:C^mpounds ds-1,2-btchloroet(iene Tetrachloroethene:

Trichloroethene VinylGhloride; L f. — d

70

5 5 2

5

• :5 5: 2

5 ,:5 5 2

5 5,

5 2

5 .5

5 2

19

47 1200 9:9

MPW-09-C 1 MPVi,'-04,-B

MPW-07-A MPW-09-,A 1

Notes: (1) EPA;:Natipnal Primary Drinking Water „Standards (web page). EPA 816-F-03-016, -June 2003 (2) Nevv/YorHSurfaceWater and Groundwater Quality^^S^ (3) Nev/:%rik:Stete;bepartment,of Health (4) The-RRiSsare.seleoteci t>ased on NYS Groundvvater Quality Standards, ordrinking v/ater standards when

groundwater:quality staridards are.not available. Bold figijres: indicate det*ted coritertiraticsns exceed PRG^. NYSDOH .= New York State; Departinent of Health. PRG = Preliminary Remedial Goal. NYS = r\lew York-State pg/L = miofograms per liter.

o Co CD Q.

0) 3

O O

o H -J

CO CD

r -

1 3 o CD l i »? OJ'

O' 3

3 " g-Co

CD' Co

Co

CD CQ 5' 3

C •?• IV)

o Ci

Prellminarvf Remediation Goals for Surface Water La\wrence Aviation Industries Site Port Jefferson Station, New York

Tables

Contaminants of Concierri

Fedei^lAit ibienl Water Quality

er i ter ia" '

(Organism Consumption)

(PS/L)

NYS'Surface Water duality Standard and

GuicianceValues'''

(Human Water Source)

(Mg'L)

(Human: Fish ConsLimption)

(m i l )

(Wild life Pi"otection)

(pg/L)

Preliminary Remedial Goals"'

(pg/L)

Remedial Investigation Delineation

Criteria

(m i l )

Maxlnium Detection

Concentration

(Mfl/L)

Location

VblatileiOrgahic'Gompountis 1 cis-1.2-Dich!or6ethene' Tetrabhiofoettiene, Tric;hl6roethene VirtvlChloride,

NA 5 :3.3 0.7* 30 5 2.4 0.3'

NA 1* 40 NA

NA NA NA

, NA

5 5 0.7 0.7 ,5 6 0:3 0.3

47 , 2.3 340 3.7

sw-os SW-D5 :SW-06 SW-09

Notes: (1): Giean Water.Acrt.Water Quality'criteria (40CFR 131.36) '{2) t^ewYofkSurfaceAA'ateranc)Ground\A%tef Quality.Standards(6NYCRR Part 703), August4,1999

f^lYSArribientWater Quality: Standards andGuidanceValuesandiGroundvv^ter Effluent LirnJtatioris (TOGS 1:1.1) (3): The PRGs;are selected based.cjn NYS surface water Quality Standards, or ambient water quati^/

criteria/guidaii(?e values s\1ieh surface v«t8r q^ Bold figures indicate detected concentratioris exceed i ^ G s , NA = Not Available PRG = Pi;eiimihary Remedial Gcjal. (jg/L :=micrograrns per liter; *:=, Guidance value

Co

€ CD

3 Q .

§ O Co CD

a TD 03 3

O

O O O H' 00

13 0)

CD

r~

3 o CD

i . 5 03 '

o' 3 3" & Co

CD' Co

Co

CD"

Lawrence Aviation Industries Superfund^SJte · period which begins on July 20, 2006 and concludes...

Documents

Transcript of Lawrence Aviation Industries Superfund^SJte · period which begins on July 20, 2006 and concludes...