PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
GENZALE PLATING COMPANY
FRANKLIN SQUARE, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK
Genzale Plating Company Site Remedial Investigation
of On-site Soil Sampling.
(All values in milligram per kilogram)
| Compound | Near Surface Soil 0 to 2 feeta | Subsurface Soil 4 to 41 feet | Typical Background Range** | Comparison Value | Source*** |
| Volatiles+ | |||||
| *acetone | ND | ND-12 | ND | 2 | NYS RfG |
| *bromodichloromethane | ND | ND-0.013 | ND | 0.002 | NYS CREG |
| *2-butanone | ND | ND-400 | ND | 2 | NYS RfG |
| carbon disulfide | ND-0.019 | ND-0.021 | ND | 5,000 | EPA RfD |
| carbon tetrachloride | ND-0.001J | ND-0.002 | ND | 0.03 | NYS CREG |
| chlorobenzene | ND-0.028 | ND-0.029 | ND | 27 | NYS RfG |
| chloroform | ND-0.002J | ND-0.032 | ND | 0.2 | NYS CREG |
| dibromochloromethane | ND | ND-0.004 | ND | NA | |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | ND | ND-0.011 | ND | 33 | NYS RfG |
| *1,2-dichloroethane | ND | 0.067J | ND | 0.02 | NYS CREG |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | - | - | ND | 0.002 | NYS CREG |
| 1,2-dichloroethene | ND | ND-0.023 | ND | 1 | NYS RfG |
| ethylbenzene | ND | ND-26 | ND | 200 | NYS RfG |
| methylene chloride | ND-0.036JB | 0.060JB | ND | 0.07 | NYS CREG |
| styrene | ND | ND-0.008 | ND | 0.04 | NYS CREG |
| *tetrachloroethene | ND-0.063 | 6.6J | ND | 0.06 | NYS CREG |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | ND-0.036 | 0.510b | ND | 76 | NYS RfG |
| 1,1,2-trichloroethane | ND | ND-0.029 | ND | 0.05 | NYS CREG |
| *trichloroethene | ND-0.120 | 0.100-53 | ND | 0.2 | NYS CREG |
| *toluene | ND-0.100 | ND-700 | ND | 230 | NYS RfG |
| *vinyl chloride | ND-0.002J | ND-0.016 | ND | 0.0003 | NYS CREG |
| xylene (total) | ND | ND-39 | ND | 4,620 | NYS RfG |
BNA Compounds+ | |||||
| acenaphthene | ND-0.098J | ND-0.510J | ND | 235 | NYS RfG |
| acenaphthylene | ND-0.200J | - | ND | NA | |
| anthracene | ND-0.620 | ND-0.090J | ++ | 7,470 | NYS RfG |
| benzo(a)anthracene | ND-2.2 | ND-0.390J | ++ | NA | |
| benzo(b)fluoranthene | ND-1.9 | ND-3.0J | ++ | NA | |
| benzo(g,h,i)perylene | ND-0.990 | ND-0.680J | ++ | NA | |
| benzo(k)fluoranthene | ND-1.8 | ND-0.1J | ++ | NA | |
| *benzo(a)pyrene | ND-1.8 | ND-0.28J | <1-1.3 | 0.005 | NYS CREG |
| benzoic acid | ND-0.1J | ND-0.12J | ND | 1,470 | NYS RfG |
| *bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 0.087J-9.3b | ND-24J | ND | 2.3 | NYS CREG |
| butylbenzylphthalate | ND-0.18J | ND-0.011J | ND | 3,220 | NYS RfG |
| chrysene | ND-0.220 | ND-0.450J | ++ | NA | |
| dibenz(a,h)anthracene | ND-0.49J | ND | ++ | NA | |
| dibenzofuran | ND-0.18J | ND-0.38 | ND | NA | |
| di-n-butylphthalate | ND-4.6B | ND-3.4b | ND | 4,100 | NYS RfG |
| fluoranthene | ND-4.2 | ND-1.5J | ++ | 746 | NYS RfG |
| fluorene | ND-0.34J | ND-0.27J | ++ | 328 | NYS RfG |
| indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene | ND-1.0 | ND-0.66J | ++ | NA | |
| 2-methylnaphthalene | ND-0.064J | ND-0.24J | ND | NA | |
| naphthalene | ND-0.055J | ND-0.86J | ND | 1.4 | NYS RfG |
| phenanthrene | ND-2.3 | ND-4.1JB | ++ | NA | |
| pyrene | ND-3.7 | ND-0.88J | ++ | 67 | NYS RfG |
| Pesticide/PCB+ | |||||
| alpha-chlordane | ND-0.016J | ND-0.017J | 0.34 | 0.11 | NYS CREG |
| *Aroclor-1260 | ND-1.1J | ND-0.38J | <0.01-0.04c | 0.03c | NYS CREG |
| *4,4'-DDE | ND-0.022J | ND-0.007J | 0.01-7 | 0.01 | NYS CREG |
| *dieldrin | ND-0.089 | ND-0.004J | 0.001-0.049 | 0.001 | NYS CREG |
| gamma-chlordane | ND-0.024J | ND-0.016J | 0.34 | 0.11 | NYS CREG |
| Metals+ | |||||
| *chromium | 17.9-14,800 | ND-27,300J | 10-40 | 250 | ATSDR EMEG |
| *nickel | 16.6-46,400 | ND-58,000J | <5-20 | 1,000 | ATSDR EMEG |
| *lead | 31.1-1,440 | 0.29-47,500J | 10-300 | NA | |
| *barium | 19.9-1,170 | ND-36,400J | 300-500 | 3,500 | EPA RfD |
| zinc | 54.5J-9,330 | 12.1-5,630 | 50-100 | 10,000 | EPA RfD |
| antimony | ND-11 | ND-18.3 | 0.6-10 | 20 | EPA RfD |
| arsenic | 1.9J-6.8J | ND-9.2J | 10-20 | 15 | EPA RfD |
| beryllium | ND-0.69 | 0.22-0.31 | <1-7 | 0.16 | ATSDR CREG |
| *cadmium | 1.3-34.6 | ND-698 | <0.5-1 | 10 | ATSDR EMEG |
| *copper | 26.3-11,200 | 8.5J-7,880J | <1-25 | 6,500 | EPA RfD |
| manganese | 38.6-262 | 264-367 | 500-3,000 | 5,000 | EPA RfD |
| vanadium | ND-29.8 | ND-16.7 | 3-500 | 350 | EPA RfD |
NA - not available
ND - not detected
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**References: Adriano (1986); Clarke et al. (1985); Connor et al. (1957); Davis and Bennett (1983); Frank et al (1976); McGovern, E.C. (1988); Shacklette and Boerngen (1984)
***NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
ATSDR CREG = ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guide
ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Medial Evaluation Guide
EPA RfD = EPA Risk Reference Dose
B - Also present in laboratory method blank
J - Concentration is an estimated value
a0-2' sampling included samples taken at 0-10" through 0-24" intervals
bvalue obtained from dilution analysis
ctotal PCBs
+Comparison values for volatiles, BNA compounds and Pesticide/PCB based on ingestion of soil and homegrown vegetables; comparison values for metals based on ingestion of soil.
++Reported background levels for total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are <1 to 13 milligrams
per kilogram in soil (Edwards, 1983).
Table 2.
Genzale Plating Company Site Remedial Investigation Sampling Data
On-Site Groundwater Sampling.
(see Table 5 for comparison values)
| Units | Groundwater (micrograms/liter) | |
Volatiles | ||
| acetone | ND-6 J | |
| chlorobenzene | 0.1 J | |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | ND-3 | |
| *1,1-dichloroethene | ND-94 J | |
| *tetrachloroethene | ND-96 J | |
| *1,1,1-trichloroethane | ND-1,100 J | |
| *trichloroethene | ND-500 J | |
| vinyl chloride | ND-0.6 J | |
| BNA Compounds | ||
| benzo(a)anthracene | 2 J | |
| benzo(b)fluoranthene | 2 J | |
| benzo(k)fluoranthene | 1 J | |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | ND-9 J | |
| chrysene | 2 J | |
| fluoranthene | 5 J | |
| naphthalene | 2 J | |
| phenanthrene | 3 J | |
| pyrene | 3 J | |
| Pesticide/PCB | ||
| alpha-chlordane | 1.7 | |
| dieldrin | 0.12 | |
| gamma-chlordane | 2.3 | |
| Inorganics | Unfiltered | Filtered |
| *chromium | 73.7-14,400 | ND-5,570 |
| *nickel | 44-21,900 | 11.3-20,100 |
| *lead | ND-234 J | ND-2.3 J |
| barium | 51-310 | 25.4-60.8 |
| zinc | 22 J-1,820 J | ND-651 |
| *antimony | ND-1,116 | ND-47.6 |
| arsenic | ND-11.3 J | ND |
| beryllium | ND-2.9 J | ND |
| *cadmium | ND-37 | ND-26.1 |
| *copper | 16-3,200 | ND-144 J |
| *manganese | 18-7,550 | 4.9 J-100 J |
| vanadium | ND-77.5 | ND-2.8 J |
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation
ND - not detected or below method of detection limit
J - concentration is an estimated value
Table 3.
Genzale Plating Company Remedial Investigation Sampling Data
Off-Site Groundwater Sampling.
(see Table 5 for Comparison Values)
| Well Type | Downgradient Monitoring Well | County Well | Private Irrigation Well | Public Supply JWSC-5155 | Public Supply FSWD-3604 | Public Supply FSWD-7177 |
| Depth to Screen Base (ft.) | 43.75 | 60' | 60' | 90' | 498' | 486' |
| Formation Screened | (Glacial) | (Glacial) | (Glacial) | (Glacial) | (Magothy) | (Magothy) |
| Direction/Approximate | 1/10 mile | 1/10 mile | 6/10 mile | 1 3/10 mile | 3/10 mile | 8/10 mile |
| Distance to Site | SE | SW | SW | SW | SE | SW |
| Volatile Compounds | ||||||
| acetone | ND | ND | ND | 9 JB | R | ND |
| bromodichloromethane | ND | ND | - | - | - | - |
| 2-butanone | ND | ND | ND | R | R | R |
| carbon disulfide | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| carbon tetrachloride | ND | ND | - | - | - | - |
| chlorobenzene | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| chloroform | ND | ND | ND | 0.3 J | 0.1 J | ND |
| dibromochloromethane | ND | ND | - | ND | ND | ND |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| 1,2-dichloroethane | ND | ND | ND | 21 B | 18 B | ND |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | ND | ND | 4 J | ND | ND | ND |
| 1,2-dichloroethene | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| ethylbenzene | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| methylene chloride | 0.6 J | ND | 0.6 | ND | ND | 0.8 |
| styrene | ND | ND | - | - | - | - |
| tetrachloroethene | ND | ND | 1 | 0.6 | ND | ND |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | ND | 0.6 | 48 J | 0.1 J | ND | ND |
| 1,1,2-trichloroethane | ND | ND | ND | ND | R | ND |
| trichloroethene | ND-0.6 | ND | 16 | 0.2 J | ND | 5 J |
| toluene | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| vinyl chloride | ND | ND | - | ND | ND | ND |
| xylene (total) | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Inorganic Compounds (unfiltered/filtered) | ||||||
| *chromium | 837/11.4 | 12/5.2 | 434/88.2J | ND/7.4J | ND/6.3J | ND/8.5J |
| *nickel | 596/25J | 7.8/ND | 22/14.2 | 8.4/6.3 | 6/5.4 | 11.9/ND |
| *lead | 256/ND | 15.6/3.4 | 35.9/ND | ND/ND | 2.4/2.4J | ND/ND |
| barium | 1610/55.3J | 23.5/21.3J | 91.3/88.5J | 47.4/46.4 | 22.5/ND | ND/2.4J |
| copper | 480/3.3J | 8J/5.4J | 82/ND | 60/42.4J | 13/14.1J | 11/5.4J |
| zinc | 1490/18.9J | 40J/51.5J | 186/R | 2080/1990 | 8J/14J | 9J/7.8J |
| *antimony | 49.1/ND | ND/ND | ND/ND | ND/ND | ND/ND | ND/ND |
| arsenic | 45.5J/3.2 | ND/ND | ND/ND | ND/ND | ND/ND | ND/ND |
| beryllium | 7J/ND | 3J/ND | 3.2J/ND | 3.3J/ND | 2.8J/ND | 3J/ND |
| cadmium | ND/ND | R/ND | R/3.2J | ND/ND | R/2.1J | ND/ND |
| *manganese | 18900/135J | 46.4/34.9 | 20.1/2.5 | 4/ND | 3/ND | 2/1.7J |
| vanadium | 731/1.8J | ND/ND | 2.5/ND | ND/2.1J | ND/ND | ND/ND |
Note: (1) Compound concentrations reported in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)
(2) B - found in field and trip blank
J - estimated value
R - rejected
- - not sampled for
ND - non detect
*Contaminant selected for further evaluation
Table 4.
Remedial Investigation Groundwater Control Samples (Round I)
Volatile Organic Compounds
Genzale Plating Company
| Note: | (1,2) | |||
| CONTROL SAMPLES | ||||
| Sample Location: | Trip Blank | Field Blank | Field Blank | DI Blank |
| Sample No.: | TB-01 | FB-11 | FB-12 | DI-03 |
| CLP Laboratory ID: | 51408-315 | 51408-314 | 51408-322 | 51408-316 |
| Sampling Date: | 1/3/90 | 1/3/90 | 1/4/90 | 1/3/90 |
| Volatile Organic Compounds | ||||
| acetone | R | R | 13 J | R |
| benzene | R | ND | 0.2 | ND |
| carbon disulfide | R | ND | 0.1 J | ND |
| chlorobenzene | R | ND | ND | ND |
| chloroethane | R | ND | 1 | 2 J |
| chloroform | R | ND | 0.2 | ND |
| chloromethane | R | ND | 2 | 4 J |
| 1,4-dichlorobenzene | R | ND | 0.1 J | ND |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | R | ND | ND | ND |
| 1,2-dichloroethane | 4 J | 2 J | 23 | 19 J |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | R | ND | ND | ND |
| 1,2-dichloroethene, cis- | R | ND | ND | ND |
| 1,2-dichloroethene, trans- | R | ND | ND | ND |
| 1,2-dichloropropane | R | ND | 1 | 0.9 J |
| ethylbenzene | R | ND | 0.2 | ND |
| 4, methyl-2 pentanone | R | ND | 3 J | ND |
| methylene chloride | 0.4 BJ | 0.7 BJ | 2 BJ | ND |
| naphthalene | R | ND | 0.2 | ND |
| tetrachloroethene | R | ND | 0.4 J | ND |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | R | ND | 0.3 | ND |
| trichloroethene | R | ND | ND | ND |
| trichlorofluoromethane | R | ND | 0.4 | 0.5 J |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | 0.1 BJ | 0.1 BJ | 0.2 B | ND |
| 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene | R | ND | 0.05 BJ | ND |
| toluene | 0.2 J | 0.3 J | 2 J | ND |
| vinyl chloride | R | ND | ND | ND |
| xylene (total) | R | ND | 0.3 | ND |
Note: (1) Compound concentrations reported in micrograms per cubic meter.
(2) ND: Not detected or below method of detection limit.
J: Concentration is an estimated value.
B: Also present in laboratory method blank.
New York State and Federal
Standards and Guidelines
[all values in microgram per liter (mcg/L)]
| Chemical | NEW YORK STATE | U.S. EPA Drinking Water | ||
| Groundwater | Surface Water | Drinking Water | ||
| Volatiles | ||||
| acetone | 50 | -- | 50 | -- |
| chlorobenzene | 5 | 20 | 5 | 100 |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 5 | 5 g | 5 | -- |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | 5 | 0.07 g | 5 | 7 |
| tetrachloroethene | 5 0. | 7 g | 5 | 5 |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 5 | 5 g | 5 | 200 |
| trichloroethene | 5 | 3 g | 5 | 5 |
| vinyl chloride | 2 | 0.3 g | 2 | 2 |
| BNA Compounds | ||||
| benzo(a)anthracene | 0.002 g | 0.002 g | 50 | -- |
| benzo(b)fluoranthene | 0.002 g | 0.002 g | 50 | -- |
| benzo(k)fluoranthene | 0.002 g | 0.002 g | 50 | -- |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 50 | 4 g | 50 | 6 |
| chrysene | 0.002 g | 0.002 g | 50 | -- |
| fluoranthene | 50 g | 50 g | 50 | -- |
| naphthalene | 10 g | 10 | 50 | -- |
| phenanthrene | 50 g | 50 g | 50 | -- |
| pyrene | 50 g | 50 g | 50 | -- |
| Pesticide/PCB | ||||
| alpha-chlordane | 0.1 m | 0.02 g,m | 2 m | 2 m |
| dieldrin | ND | 0.0009 | 5 | -- |
| gamma-chlordane | 0.1 m | 0.02 g,m | 2 m | 2 m |
| Inorganics | ||||
| chromium | 50 | 50 | 100 | 100 |
| nickel | -- | -- | -- | 100 p |
| lead | 25 | 50 | 50 | 50;15* |
| barium | 1,000 | 1,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 |
| copper | 200 | 200 | 1,000 | 1,300 p |
| zinc | 300 | 300 | 5,000 | 5,000 s |
| antimony | 3 g | 3 g | -- | 6 |
| arsenic | 25 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| beryllium | 3 g | 3 g | -- | 4 |
| cadmium | 10 | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| manganese | 300 | 300 | 300 | 50 s |
| vanadium | -- | -- | -- | -- |
g = guidance value
m = applied to total chlordane
p = proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL)
s = secondary MCL
*The current maximum contaminant level (MCL) for some principal organic compounds (POCs) is 5 mcg/L. Prior to 1989 a guideline of 50 mcg/L existed for POCs.
**The current maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead is 50 mcg/L; after December 7, 1992 there will not be a MCL for lead. Effective after that date, there will be a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for lead and an action level of 15 mcg/L at the tap.
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Data for Facilities Near
the Genzale Plating Company Site - Air Releases of Chemicals
(Stack Plus Fugitive) in Pounds Per Year.
| Facility Chemical | Release |
| Cellu-Craft Products Co. | |
| Methanol | 14,424 |
| Methyl ethyl ketone (2-Butanone) | 11,324* |
| Glycols | 3,053 |
| Nostro Manufacturing Corp. | |
| 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 29,821* |
| Zoe Chemical Co. | |
| Di-n-butylphthalate | 499 |
| Glycols | 499 |
| Methanol | 499 |
| 1,1,1-Trichloroethane | 499* |
*Genzale Plating Company site contaminant of concern.
APPENDIX C
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
GENZALE PLATING COMPANY
This responsiveness summary was prepared to answer the public's comments on the draft Public Health Assessment for the Genzale Plating site. The public was invited to review the draft public health assessment for this site during the public comment period which ran from January 11, 1993 to February 3, 1993. Responses were received by the New York State Department of Health and some comments were consolidated or grouped together to incorporate similar concerns raised by more than one person. If you have any questions about the responses to public comments for the Genzale Plating site, contact the Health Liaison Program at the toll-free number, 1-800-458-1158, extension 402.
COMMENT #1
Health problems related to Genzale Plating are hard to pinpoint. Most people are either unaware or unable to prove health problems or they just don't take the time to voice opinions. The low number of responses that you will probably get to this draft public health assessment is proof of that.
RESPONSE #1
We received over 30 comments on this public health assessment after mailing 145 copies to concerned residents, local and state elected officials, community groups and the media.
COMMENT #2
To say that the community has not expressed many health concerns is incredible, since only a small number of people are even aware of the problem. Another reason why the community has not expressed any health concerns is because they do not know which questions to ask. The neighbors should be met with and made aware of the potential health hazards associated with soil gas and inhalation of blowing soil.
RESPONSE #2
Further public meetings on the Genzale Plating sites will be held in the future, and the NYS DOH will work to improve the outreach program. This will include adding additional addresses of people living near the site to mailing lists so that more people are notified of any forthcoming meetings. The NYS DOH encourages anyone with health concerns to contact them. Individuals may request inclusion on mailing lists or discuss health concerns with medical personnel by contacting Ms. Nina Knapp (Health Liaison Program) of the NYS DOH at the toll free number 1-800-458-1158, extension 402.
COMMENT #3
Do residential neighbors at the Genzale plant know about the danger of inhalation of fugitive dust if remediation of soil at the site occurs?
The residents should be warned about health hazards.
RESPONSE #3
An on-site air monitoring program will be undertaken during any future drilling or remedial activities that take place on-site. If contaminants in the air reach action levels, then work will stop and steps will be taken to minimize or prevent the release of contaminants into the air. This measure will minimize contaminant migration. Also, the NYS DOH will recommend that the US EPA notify residents near the site about the proposed remediation and the dates that remediation is expected to begin at the site.
COMMENT #4
As a former resident of the area, I question the validity of assuming that there have been no prior health problems as a result of this site. My grandmother, grandfather and mother all developed cancer, and my sister may have health problems that can be causally connected to this site. Prior to 1960 my home received its water directly from its own private well. When the water became discolored, Genzale owners provided us with an alternate water source, and eventually hooked us up to the municipal water supply. This is why I believe there is a causal connection to the health problems of my family.
RESPONSE #4
This statement suggests that people may have been exposed to contaminated drinking water in the past; however, the lack of exposure data from that time period makes it difficult to associate illnesses with past site activities. There is no sampling data from your well that would indicate whether or not contaminants were present in your well water in the past; therefore, we can not evaluate potential health effects.
This individual's concerns have been referred to the NYS DOH's Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology for a follow-up via telephone. Individuals that have similar health concerns may discuss them with NYS DOH personnel by contacting Nina Knapp (Health Liaison Program) of the NYS DOH at the toll free number 1-800-458-1158, extension 402.
COMMENT #5
A review of appropriate documents concerning the health and death of the various inhabitants of the area prior to post WWII development would be appropriate and necessary. It is offensive and concerning that this has not yet been addressed.
Why was this site not considered for follow-up health activities?
RESPONSE #5
We have no data about exposures that may have occurred prior to past WWII development. Without those data, follow-up health activities for that time period are difficult to design. In recent years, residents may have been exposed for a short period of time to low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from public drinking water and a health study of the area is not warranted at this time. However, a breast cancer study for small geographical areas in Nassau and Suffolk Counties did not show any association of breast cancer incidence patterns to contaminated drinking water wells or hazardous waste sites. The NYS DOH will also consider including people exposed to VOC contaminated drinking water on the NYS DOH's registry for VOC exposures from contaminated drinking water.
COMMENT #6
Several area pets have been found dead. Could the contamination from Genzale be the reason?
RESPONSE #6
The only known potential exposure pathway for a pet is contact with surface soils; however, surface soils have not been sampled and it is unknown if contaminants are present at levels that might harm an animal. However, evaluations made for public health assessments are for human exposures only.
COMMENT #7
Why is data not available for all environmental media to which humans may be exposed? What available data was reviewed to determine that people are not and have not been exposed to levels of contamination that would be expected to cause adverse health effects. Can you state, unequivocally, that you have data stating that there have been no ill effects to humans?
RESPONSE #7
Data should be available for all environmental media to which humans may be exposed. On-site soil data were evaluated and a determination was made that the contaminants found in near surface soils at the site might pose a health concern if transported to the yards of adjoining properties. The surface soils of four adjoining properties north and south of the site will be sampled by the US EPA's consultants during the proposed remedial investigation design phase.
The environmental data for other media (soil, groundwater, surface water, air, etc.) that humans might come in contact with was reviewed. The most recent data from the remedial investigation was used to evaluate potential human exposure pathways. Residents were exposed for a short period of time to low levels of volatile organic compounds from public drinking water; however, the exposure levels are low compared to levels which have caused effects in animals or humans and are not expected to cause adverse health effects.
At this time we have no information which suggests or confirms ill health effects attributable to site-related contaminants.
COMMENT #8
Usually when someone is ill and there is no cause, it is categorized as a virus. Did you check to see if there were a high incidence of virus-type illnesses.
RESPONSE #8
For purposes of preparing this public health assessment we did not evaluate the occurrence of virus illnesses. The purpose of the public health assessment for the Genzale site is to evaluate the potential for current and future public health threats from the release of hazardous substances into the environment.
Individuals that believe there are increased occurrence of virus related illnesses, may discuss this with medical personnel by contacting Nina Knapp (Health Liaison Program) of the NYS DOH at the toll free number, 1-800-458-1158, extension 402.
COMMENT #9
Why was this site not considered for follow-up health activities?
RESPONSE #9
We have no data about exposures that may have occurred prior to post WWII development. Without those data, follow-up health activities for that time period are difficult to design. In recent years, residents may have been exposed for a short period of time to low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from public drinking water and a health study of the area is not warranted at this time. However, a breast cancer study for small geographical areas in Nassau and Suffolk Counties did not show any association of breast cancer incidence patterns and contaminated drinking water wells or hazardous waste sites. The NYS DOH will also consider including people exposed to VOC contaminated drinking water on the NYS DOH's registry for VOC exposures from contaminated drinking water.
COMMENT #10
The groundwater plume associated with the site needs to be delineated so that any possible impact or threat to public supply wells can be evaluated. A plan to sample all off-site groundwater monitoring wells should be developed in order to establish the movement of the plume.
RESPONSE #10
A separate investigation of the off-site groundwater contaminant plume will be conducted for this site by the US EPA during the Second Operable Unit Remedial Investigation. Seven new monitoring wells will be installed downgradient of the site and sampled to evaluate the groundwater plume.
COMMENT #11
When, where and for how long did ingestion of contaminated drinking water occur?
The conclusion should be more specific about which wells, which water suppliers, and that the contaminated water was not delivered to the consumer.
RESPONSE #11
The text has been revised to clearly mention the public supply wells that were investigated as part of the remedial investigation of the Genzale Plating site and the dates and levels of contaminants that were detected. Please refer to the "Environmental Contamination and Other Hazards" section, under the Off-Site Contamination sub-section. Please note that we do not know exactly how long contamination was occurring, but know that contamination present in public supply wells probably occurred for a short period of time based on the frequency of public well monitoring as required by the Nassau County Health Department.
COMMENT #12
How often is the public water supply checked? Drinking water in the schools and homes should be evaluated.
RESPONSE #12
All public water suppliers in Nassau County are required to monitor their public supplies four times a year for volatile organic compounds and metals. All analytical results are forwarded to the Nassau County Department of Health for review. Since monitoring is required at both the supply well and in the distribution system, it is not necessary to sample any other locations.
COMMENT #13
Will extracting water from downgradient monitoring wells have any effect on the public supply wells?
RESPONSE #13
The process of taking water from monitoring wells for chemical analysis should not have any effect on the public supply wells in the area because the amount of water extracted is minimal. However, if it is determined that the remediation of off-site groundwater is necessary, the effects of groundwater pumping for treatment will be evaluated and its effect on nearby public water supply wells will be considered.
COMMENT #14
Levels of contamination in pre-treated water should be continuously evaluated as part of the state required testing procedures.
RESPONSE #14
The untreated water is monitored four times a year as well as the treated water for those water supply wells that have treatment in place.
COMMENT #15
What are the names, locations and owners of the supply wells in question? Is one of these the Jamaica Water Supply well behind the Alva T. Stanforth Junior High School? Which supply well was taken out of service? How long was the contamination occurring before it was detected? Are there any other supply wells that we are not aware of that have been affected by the Genzale problem?
RESPONSE #15
The information regarding public wells locations and owners has been added to the text. Refer to the Demographics, Land Use, and Natural Resource Use sub-section of the Background section.
The Jamaica Water Supply Company well JWSC-5155 is on Chelsea Street near the Alva T. Stanforth Junior High School. This well was voluntarily removed from service by the water district in January 1991. We do not know how long contamination was occurring, but know that it did not exceed three months. This is based on the fact that Nassau County Public Water Companies must monitor the water every three months, and if any contaminants in the water exceed NYS DOH Drinking Water Standards then action must be taken to treat the water or find an alternate public source of water.
All public supply wells within one mile of the site were incorporated into the remedial investigation. There is no conclusive evidence that the contamination in any public supply well near the site is from the Genzale Plating Company site.
COMMENT #16
The Franklin Square and Jamaica Water companies have assured us that the water is not contaminated. On November 14, 1989 the Franklin Square Water Company wrote its users that the water is "totally safe to drink." After reading your report, we are not sure that it is.
RESPONSE #16
The NYS DOH does require monitoring of public water supplies to ensure that water delivered to the public meets the NYS DOH drinking water standards. These standards are designed to protect against possible health effects from long-term exposures. In addition, public water supplies in Nassau County are monitored every three months and if contaminants exceed the NYS DOH drinking water standards, action must be taken to either treat the water or find an alternate public source of water. However, because of the frequent monitoring, contamination is usually detected before the contaminants reach drinking water standards. Remedial action (treatment or removal from service) is usually taken before standards are reached or exceeded.
COMMENT #17
How will the Jamaica supply wells be affected if the water flows westerly? Has this happened?
RESPONSE #17
The predominant groundwater flow direction in this area is to the south and southwest. The nearest Jamaica supply wells are 1.3 miles south west from the site. Routine monitoring of this well has not detected any site related contaminants in the water.
COMMENT #18
The monitoring program conducted by the Franklin Square Water District should be mentioned. Complete VOC and inorganic testing is conducted four times a year on each well and results are sent to the Nassau County DOH.
RESPONSE #18
This information has been added to the text. Please refer to the "Human Exposure Pathway" sub-section under Pathway Analyses in the public health assessment.
COMMENT #19
Some of the information concerning the Franklin Square Water District wells is incorrect. Well No.4 (7177) was removed from service in May 1989 until April 1990 for pump repair, not due to contamination. Well No.5 was removed from service in late 1989 until March 1990 when the GAC filter treatment system was placed in service.
RESPONSE #19
Changes have been made to the text to include this information on the public supply wells.
COMMENT #20
The discussion of VOC contamination in FSWD-3604 states that the VOCs found may be due to laboratory contamination. Based on the fact that this well has been tested by the District four times a year for the past five years, and never has shown any detectable level of any VOC, a stronger statement should be made to reject the results that indicate contamination.
RESPONSE #20
A sentence was added to the text regarding the sampling of the Franklin Water Square District well and that no contamination was detected in that well during the required monitoring period.
COMMENT #21
The statement under section A of the Pathways Analyses which states that three public supply wells have VOC contamination is misleading. Only two of these wells are within the FSWD, and only one has shown verified contamination. This should be clarified.
RESPONSE #21
The text has been changed to state that one of the three wells mentioned here is owned by the Jamaica Water District Company. Refer to the "Groundwater" sub-section of the Environmental Pathways section.
COMMENT #22
There is no mention that the standard was set at 50 ppb prior to 1990. Also, the GAC filter was installed in 1990, not 1991.
RESPONSE #22
In 1977, NYS instituted the use of the general guideline of 50 mcg/L for organic chemicals in public drinking water supplies, NYS DOH's goal has been and continues to be reduction of exposure to organic chemicals in drinking water. This goal was originally expressed as a recommended guideline and later as the strict and enforceable general organic chemical standards, such as the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs).
The public health assessment has been revised to indicate that the drinking water standards have changed from a guideline of 50 mcg/L (before 1989) to current standards of 5 mcg/L (after 1989) for some VOCs in public drinking water supplies.
COMMENT #23
Section B of the Pathways Analyses contains information which is misleading. This statement implies that the water suppliers were supplying contaminated water to the public. The water supplied by the Franklin Square Water District met the NYS DOH drinking water standards.
The statement under Section A of the Public Health Implications "For an undetermined period of time, some residents in the Town of Franklin Square were exposed to trichloroethene" is misleading. As written, most people will assume the Franklin Square Water District provided water which did not meet the NYS DOH drinking water standards. The Franklin Square Water District has never supplied water that did not meet the NYS DOH standards for VOCs. If it was the Jamaica Water Supply, this should be clarified.
RESPONSE #23
To determine potential exposure pathways that may be associated with the Genzale Plating site, public drinking water supplies wells nearest the site were evaluated and included in the remedial investigation for the site. Data from the some of the public supply well sampling indicate drinking supply wells contained contaminants above the NYS DOH drinking water standards. Although, action was taken to treat the water or remove the well from service, there may have been a period (probably less than 3 months) where water supplied to consumers had levels of contaminants greater than the drinking water standards.
COMMENT #24
Since the public drinking water supply wells must be monitored more frequently, Genzale should be responsible for paying these lab tests which are very expensive.
RESPONSE #24
The NYS DOH requires that every public supply well in New York State be monitored once a year. If contaminants are detected in a public supply well, then monitoring must be done a minimum of four times a year for that well. If it is determined that a company or site contributed to the contamination present in a public supply well then it is the responsibility of that company to carry out any monitoring beyond the annual requirement. At this time, there is no conclusive evidence that the contamination in any public supply well near the site is from the Genzale Plating Company site.
COMMENT #25
A stripper should be installed at the contaminated irrigation well to clean up a potential hazardous source.
RESPONSE #25
Since this well is not currently being used and it is unlikely that someone would be exposed to contaminants in the water, the NYS DOH will not recommend that this well be remediated. However, the proposed remedial investigation of the off-site groundwater contamination plume downgradient from the site will include an assessment of the groundwater contamination which may include the eventual remediation of the groundwater.
COMMENT #26
Genzale has not shown any concern for the community in the past, as is shown by their poor housekeeping practices and trying to conceal the leaching pits. Genzale has only recently taken steps to minimize contamination. They have always done as little as possible to keep the environment clean and will continue to find ways to flaunt the law. We are concerned with what Genzale has gotten away with and have not been caught at. How often are they monitored? Where are they currently dumping their wastes?
RESPONSE #26
Waste water is being discharged to the municipal sewer system as mentioned in the "Site Description and History" section of the public health assessment. The Genzale Plating Company has a Nassau County Department of Health industrial discharge permit to discharge wastewater to the public sewer system. The wastewater is sampled and analyzed four times a year by the Nassau County Department of Public Works.
COMMENT #27
Is the Genzale site on the Superfund list and/or the New York State Hazardous Waste Registry? What is the site classification?
RESPONSE #27
The Genzale Plating site is on the US EPA's National Priorities List for Federal Superfund sites and the site is on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) Inactive Hazardous Waste Site list. The site is classified on the NYS DEC's Inactive Hazardous Waste Site list as a class "2", which means that the site "poses a significant threat to the public health or environment and that action is required."
COMMENT #28
The public tends to lose confidence when we see such a long time pass with no action taken. Why was nothing done up until a few years ago if the problem was detected in 1981?
RESPONSE #28
The investigations have been on-going since the site was added to the US EPA's National Priorities List in 1986. Prior to 1986, Genzale Company partially excavated the on-site leaching pits and the NYS DEC conducted a preliminary site investigation. The public health assessment has been updated to include the remedial investigation/feasibility study data. Refer to the "Background" section of the public health assessment.
COMMENT #29
Why were three leaching pits not completed?
RESPONSE #29
The excavation of the leaching pits was undertaken by the site owners in 1982. The excavation was not completed because of the lack of finances. The remediation of the remaining contaminated soils in the leaching pits will be completed by the US EPA's consultants.
COMMENT #30
Please identify the locations of the six subsurface metallic objects which were believed to be caused by underground storage tanks, a waste water treatment system and debris.
RESPONSE #30
Figure 2 of the public health assessment was replaced with a site map that includes the locations of underground structures.
COMMENT #31
The Garden City Country Club is NE, not NW of the site.
RESPONSE #31
The text has been changed to indicate the correct direction of the Garden City Country Club from the site.
COMMENT #32
An update on the status of the RI/FS should be included in the draft public health assessment.
RESPONSE #32
The public health assessment has been revised to include all the RI/ FS activities that have taken place at the site to date.
COMMENT #33
Have soil samples been taken in areas other than Franklin Square?
RESPONSE #33
For the purposes of the Genzale site investigations, only soil on the site property has been taken for analysis. Surface soils from adjoining yards will be taken for analysis as part of the on-going investigations at the site.
COMMENT #34
We live one block from Genzale; would it be possible to have our soil evaluated.
RESPONSE #34
Contaminated soils from the Genzale site are unlikely to be transported that distance. The greatest concentration of soil contaminants would be found at the site, contaminants may have been transported to adjoining properties. However, the extent of surface soil contamination will be defined and your concern will be addressed even if your soil is not sampled.
COMMENT #35
The Public Health Action Section does not mention soil gas sampling; will this be done? Since there is a potential for exposures to contaminants in the off-site soil and soil gas, will the homes adjacent to the site be included? The public health assessment should be reviewed and updated to include this data when it becomes available.
RESPONSE #35
Both the air and soil gas are not being considered as potential exposure pathways at this site, based on a re-evaluation of soil data that indicate that there is not likely to be significant exposures from air and soil gas at the site. Also, the proposed remediation of soils should eliminate the source of contamination and thereby reduce the potential for contaminants to be transported off-site via soil gas and/or air, in the future.
COMMENT #36
Has the problem with the contamination of a field and trip blank with 1,2-dichloroethane been rectified? Could the contamination be from distilled water or glassware.
RESPONSE #36
The contamination of environmental samples does occur occasionally; therefore, all samples must be submitted to the laboratory for analysis along with field and trip blanks to identify any contamination that may have been introduced either in the field, in travel or storage, or in the lab itself. In this case, the two water samples and the field and trip blank contaminated with 1,2-dichloroethane were probably contaminated by an instrument in the lab; however, this was not confirmed.
COMMENT #37
Since sewer pipes leak normally about 10%, waste water should be treated before discharged to the municipal sewage system.
The USGS publication # 86-4142 Relation between Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Upper Glacial Aquifer in Nassau and Suffolk County, Long Island, NY. points out that TCA is detected in 37% of wells from sewered medium density and 45% of sewered high density sewered areas. Franklin Square is high density. The public health assessment does not include an assessment of the condition of sewer pipes in the vicinity that services this plant. This is important in assessing the amount of VOA's infiltrating the groundwater from waste water dumped into the waste lines (sewer pipes). This contamination would affect soil all along the route of the sewer line.
How much infiltration occurs from leaking sewer lines?
The condition of the sewer lines leaving Genzale should be investigated and the soil should be sampled all along the route of the sewer line leaving the plant, especially if the line is old and leaking.
RESPONSE #37
We have relayed your concerns to the Nassau County Department of Public Works. However, the purpose of the public health assessment for Genzale is to evaluate data and information on the release of hazardous substances into the environment so that an assessment of current and future impacts on public health are evaluated. Also, recommendations are made and actions are carried out to evaluate and prevent human health effects. Therefore, the evaluation of the public sewer system is not warranted based on the purpose of this public health assessment.
