Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to site content

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL
CITY OF GLEN COVE, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK


APPENDIX A


Figure 1. Mattiace Petrochemical Site Area Map


Figure 2. Mattiace Petrochemical Site and immediate surroundings



APPENDIX B

MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL SITE
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS

Comment #1

The distance to the public beach from this site should be listed.

Response #1

The text was changed on page 6 to include the distance to thebeach, and the map has been changed to note the location of thebeach.

Comment #2

What affect would the reactivation of the industrial wells haveon the flow of contaminated groundwater from the site? Could itaffect the public water supply wells? Should there be a limit topumping of these wells? What are the regulatory requirements forreactivating the wells? Should the wells have treatment on them(e.g., carbon filters, air strippers) to reduce contamination?

Response #2

Reactivating the industrial wells could draw contaminatedgroundwater toward them; however, there are no public watersupply wells in the potentially affected area. The use of theindustrial wells could have an effect on the cleanup of theMattiace Petrochemical site. However, US EPA and NYS DOH willmake sure that the remedial design and the operation of theremediation system can compensate for any possible effect fromthe use of the industrial wells.

The industrial wells have been used for non-contact industrialpurposes only. If the wells are reactivated for the samepurposes, no permits are required. If any wells are drilled orthe pumping capacity of the old wells is increased, the owners ofthe well must get a permit from the NYS DEC. However, asindicated in the text, the NYS DOH will sample the wells if theyare reactivated. We will determine the need for water treatmentbased on it's proposed use.

Comment #3

What affect is the Mattiace site having on the public beach areawhere Glen Cove Creek meets Hempstead Harbor, on other beaches onHempstead Harbor, and on the marinas that are on Glen Cove Creekand Hempstead Harbor? Have there been previous tests of theseareas, or is more sampling required? Since there are severalpotential sources of contamination to Glen Cove Creek is a morecomprehensive investigation and cleanup of the Creek needed?

Response #3

There are several potential sources of contamination in the GlenCove Creek area and additional potential sources in the HempsteadHarbor area. The present and historic contribution of theMattiace site to contamination in Glen Cove Creek and HempsteadHarbor is difficult to determine. The data on Glen Cove Creekwhich were collected for the Mattiace site as part of theremedial investigation are discussed in the public healthassessment. However, the contaminants of primary concern at theMattiace site are volatile organic compounds which do notaccumulate in surface water, sediments, or biota. In addition,the proposed remedial actions at the site should greatly reducethe contribution of the site to contamination in the creek andharbor. However, the New York State Department of Health iscollecting and reviewing existing sampling data from othersources of contaminants to Glen Cove Creek and the beach areas todetermine whether more sampling or other actions are needed.

Comment #4

The effect of the contamination in Glen Cove Creek in fish andother wildlife (e.g., waterfowl) should be considered.

Response #4

This public health assessment reviewed the sampling data fromGlen Cove Creek and based the public health implicationsevaluation on potential human exposure pathways, including fish. It would be difficult to ascertain the affect of the Mattiacesite on transient wildlife species such as waterfowl. For humanconsumption of fish and game in the area, the public shouldconsult the fish and waterfowl advisory which is contained in thedocument "Health Advisory: Chemicals in Sportfish and Game"available from the New York State Department of Health.

Comment #5

Contaminants in Glen Cove Creek sediments are a concern if theyare dredged and the spoils are available for direct contact. Arethe sediments a concern if they remain in the creek? Will thesediments migrate into the harbor?

Response #5

As indicated in the text, the contaminant concentrations in thesediments of Glen Cove Creek are not a significant health concernbecause of the limited potential for human exposures. There maybe some potential for sediment migration between Glen Cove Creekand Hempstead Harbor. However, any sediment migration away fromthe Mattiace site would further dilute the contaminants andreduce potential health concerns.

Comment #6

If Glen Cove Creek was dredged, is there a concern that thedisturbance of the sediments would resuspend contaminants intothe water and make them more available for contact by humans andmarine life? What are the regulations regarding dredging of GlenCove Creek?

Response #6

Dredging could disturb sediments and resuspend some of thecontaminants into the surface water. This would likely be ashort-term effect. Dredging is regulated by the U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278-0090 (212/264-9020) and the New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation, Division of Regulatory Affairs, Region 1, SUNYCampus, Loop Road, Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356(516/751-7900). The Nassau County Department of Health reviewssampling data if the dredge materials are intended for landdisposal.

Comment #7

Storm drains going from the Mattiace site into Glen Cove Creekneed to be sampled.

Response #7

One sediment sample will be taken from each of two storm drainsat the entrance to the site. This work is described in the FinalRemedial Design Work Plan submitted to the US EPA in June 1992 byEBASCO Services, Inc.

Comment #8

Does contaminated groundwater flow underneath Glen Cove Creek andpotentially affect areas to the south of the creek?

Response #8

Based on data from the remedial investigation, the groundwatercontamination plume from the Mattiace site has not yet reachedGlen Cove Creek. Groundwater contamination is currently confinedto the shallow aquifer and if the groundwater is not cleaned up,we expect the contaminated groundwater to flow into the creek. However, some contamination may eventually reach deeper aquifersand affect other areas if the groundwater contamination is notcleaned up.

Comment #9

Soil gas data are needed near residential areas.

Response #9

Soil gas sampling is planned for the southern end of the sitetoward the industrial buildings. This work is described in theFinal Remedial Design Work Plan submitted to the US EPA on June1992 by EBASCO Services, Inc. This soil gas work will beconducted in the area most likely to be affected by soil gasbecause of the proximity to the contaminant plume. The datacollected from this soil gas survey will be evaluated todetermine if additional soil gas work is needed in other areas.

Comment #10

More frequent monitoring by the New York State Department ofHealth of hazardous industries is needed. Laws regarding use anddisposal of hazardous materials need to be strengthened.

Response #10

Laws and enforcement efforts have been greatly strengthened sincethe contaminant releases from the Mattiace Petrochemical site. The New York State Department of Health cooperates with theNassau County Department of Health, the New York State Departmentof Environmental Conservation, and the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency in the enforcement of theexisting regulations. Depending on the chemical and situation,different agencies may have primary regulatory authority.

Comment #11

Have employees at the site been contacted and is their healthbeing monitored?

Response #11

Former employees at the Mattiace Petrochemical site have not beencontacted. The New York State Department of Health will assistformer employees or their physicians with any health concernsregarding possible workplace exposures at the Mattiace site. Concerned former employees should call NYS DOH at 1-800-458-1158.

Comment #12

Does the site affect ambient air and would this be a concern forthe residents at higher elevations behind the site? How willambient air be monitored to be sure that employees of nearbybusinesses and nearby residents will not be exposed tocontaminants? Are differences in susceptibility of differentpeople to chemical exposure taken into account?

Response #12

As indicated in the text of this public health assessment,ambient air data are not available for the site when it wasactive and ambient air data taken during the remedialinvestigation was rejected by the quality assurance review. During the remedial work, strict health and safety measures aretaken to protect the public and site workers from exposures tochemicals. For the community, the air is being constantlymonitored during site activities using real-time fieldinstrumentation. If a release of contaminants is detected at thework site, additional monitoring is done downwind of the workarea to be sure that contaminants are not leaving the area. Workis immediately stopped and specific actions are taken toeliminate the air release.

The risk of adverse health effects are made considering thesusceptibility of different people by assessing the exposure tochemicals for the most sensitive population.

Comment #13

Will the site be clean-up enough so that the site can be used forother, more beneficial uses?

Response #13

The evaluations made in this public health assessment are basedon the most conservative exposure scenarios, which generally areresidential use. Our recommendations for cleanup are based onthis potential exposures. After remedial activities are nearingcompletion, the contamination which remains will be reevaluatedto determine if site cleanup is complete and whether the site canthen be used for other purposes.


APPENDIX C

Table 1. Mattiace Petrochemical Site Remedial Investigation Soil Sampling Data and Comparison Values.
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)


Comparison Values

CompoundShallow Soil
0-2 feet
Range+
Deep Soil
2-24 feet
Range+
Typical
Background
Range*
Minimal
Health
Risk
Source**

Volatiles
chloroethaneND0.003-0.096NDNANYS CREG
1,1-dichloroethane3.70.003-0.46ND0.01NYS CREG
1,1-dichloroetheneND0.004-0.039ND0.002NYS CREG
1,2-dichloroethane0.005-3.70.002-4.2ND0.02NYS RfG
cis-1,2-dichloroetheneNDNDND2NYS RfG
trans-1,2-dichloroethene0.005-120.00.002-35.0ND1NYS RfG
1,1,1-trichloroethane0.011-120.00.002-100.0ND76NYS CREG
trichloroethene0.002-370.00.001-330.0ND0.2NYS CREG
tetrachloroethene0.002-170.00.001-410.0ND0.06NYS CREG
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethaneND0.003-6.3ND0.01NYS CREG

benzene1.30.026-0.043ND0.05NYS CREG
toluene0.005-910.00.001-1,100.0ND230NYS RfG
m- & p-xylene----------
o-xylene----------
total xylene0.004-2,600.00.013-610.0ND4,620NYS RfG

carbon tetrachloride6.8-14.00.340-39.0ND0.05NYS CREG
chloroform2.50.023-1.8ND0.2NYS CREG
methylene chloride4.10.220-35.0ND0.07NYS CREG
vinyl chlorideND58.0ND0.0003NYS CREG

acetone0.008-58.00.021-150.0ND2NYS RfG
2-butanone0.017-110.00.008-67.0ND2NYS RfG
2-hexanoneND0.160-100.0NDNA
4-methyl-2-pentanone0.003-75.00.056-210.0NDNA

ethylbenzene0.001-460.00.018-130.0ND200NYS RfG
1,2-dichlorobenzene0.460-750.00.070-73.0ND324NYS RfG
1,4-dichlorobenzene2.7-12.09.5ND0.5NYS CREG
1,2,4-trimethylbenzeneNDNDNDNA
2-chlorotolueneNDNDND57NYS RfG
p-isopropyltolueneNDNDNDNA
dichlorodifluoromethaneNDNDND108NYS RfG

Semi-Volatiles
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate0.140-1,700.00.036-1,100.0ND2.3NYS CREG
di-n-butylphthalate0.068-2,400.00.046-220.0ND4,100NYS RfG
isophorone0.054-20.00.060-67.0ND0.03NYS CREG
naphthalene0.110-28.00.050-34.0ND1.5NYS RfG

phenol2.70.260-0.450ND128NYS RfG
2-methylphenolND0.030NDNA
4-methylphenol0.3702.0NDNA

benzoic acid5.50.460-3.0NDNA

Metals

barium9.5-1824.4-271300-5003,500EPA RfD
cadmium0.84-160.65-7<0.5-110NYS EMEG
chromium4-49.23.3-59.410-40200ATSDR EMEG
iron5,740-32,7001,380-46,00010,000-40,000NA
lead2.2-1701.8-20410-300NA
manganese51.4-6067.2-889500-3,0005,000EPA RfD
silver0.86-1.41.10.1-5150EPA RfD
sodium31.6-5464.9-2453,000-50,000NA

NA - not available
ND - not detected
+ - range excludes samples in which none of the compound was detected; all compounds had at least one sample in which the compound was not detected
* - contaminant of concern (see Toxicological Evaluation section forfurther details)
References: Clark et al. (1985), Connor et al. (1957), Fank et al. (1976), McGovern (1988), Shacklette et al. (1984), Dragun (1988)
**NYS RfG = New York State risk reference guideline
ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR environmental media evaluation guide
EPA RfD = EPA risk reference dose
NYS CREG = New York State cancer risk evaluation guide


Table 2. Mattiace Petrochemical Site Remedial Investigation
Groundwater Sampling Data and Comparison Values (standards/guidelines).
(All values in micrograms per liter)


       Standards/Guidelines

       New York State

 

US EPA

CompoundGroundwater
Depth 6-26 feet
Range+
Ground
Water
Drinking
Water
Drinking
Water

Volatiles

chloroethane5-6,40055--
1,1-dichloroethane2-7,60055--
1,1-dichloroethene2-3,800557
1,2-dichloroethane5-11,000555
cis-1,2-dichloroethene2-190,0005570
trans-1,2-dichloroethene0.7-3655100
1,1,1-trichloroethane2-91,00055200
trichloroethene140-230,000555
tetrachloroethene2-100,000555
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane8755--

benzene0.3-7,0000.755
toluene42,000-130,000551000;40ps
m- & p-xylene6-422,0005510,000i;20ps
o-xylene2-9,4005510,000i;20ps
total xylene--5510,000i;20ps

carbon tetrachloride310-87,000555
chloroform27-81,0007100d100d
methylene chloride390-750,000555p
vinyl chloride2-2,600222

acetoneND5050--
2-butanone250-120,0005050--
2-hexanone190-2,3005050--
4-methyl-2-pentanone21,000-47,0005050--

ethylbenzene2-370,00055700;30ps
1,2-dichlorobenzene0.4-2,6004.7e5600p;10ps
1,4-dichlorobenzene1.3-2004.7e575;5ps
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene15-32,00055--
2-chlorotoluene0.6-1,00055--
p-isopropyltoluene2-86055--

dichlorodifluoromethane86,000-620,00055--

Semi-volatiles

bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate24-27,00050504p
di-n-butylphthalate12-6,9005050--

isophorone1,500-57,0005050--
naphthalene0.1-6,90010g50--

phenol39-18,000150--
2-methylphenol73-2,100150--
4-methylphenol140-3,700150--

benzoic acid220-16,0005050--

Metals

barium31.4-1,3201,0001,0002,000
cadmium5.3-1045105
chromium21.1-5625050100
iron983-253,000300300300s
lead5.3-111255050;5p
manganese285-64,20030030050s
silver17.3-98.15050100s
sodium8.970-672,00020,000*--

d = drinking water standard for total trihalomethanes produced as a result of disinfection with chlorine. This standard is inappropriate for evaluating environmental contamination not associated with disinfection practices.
e = applies to total of 1,2- and 1,4-isomers
g = guidance value
i = total xylenes
p = proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL)
ps = proposed secondary MCL
s = secondary MCL

ND - not detected at instrument's minimum detection limit

+ - range excludes samples in which none of the compound was detected; all compounds had at least one well in which the compound was not detected

* - no designated limit; water containing more than 20,000 mcg/L should not be used for drinking by people on severely restricted sodium diets; water containing more than 270,000 mcg/L should not be used for drinking by moderately restricted sodium diets.


Table 3. Mattiace Petrochemical Site Remedial Investigation
Groundwater Non-aqueous Phase Liquid Sample Analysis and Comparison Values.
(All values in micrograms per liter).


          New York State        US EPA
Compound Concentration Groundwater Drinking
Water
Drinking
Water

trichloroethene120,000,000555
1,1,1-trichloroethane37,000,0005520
tetrachloroethene98,000,0005550
toluene120,000,000551000;40ps
xylene61,000,0005510,000;20ps
ethylbenzene13,000,00055700;30ps

ps - proposed secondary (MCL)
* - Contaminant of concern


Table 4. Mattiace Petrochemical Site Remedial Investigation Test Pit Barrel Samples
and Soil Samples and Comparison Values.
(All values in milligrams per kilogram).


      Comparison Values for Soil      
CompoundDrum SampleSoil SampleTypical
Background
Range**
Minimal
Health
Risk
Source***

*1,2-dichloroetheneND80-440ND1NYS RfG
*trichloroetheneND73-3,600ND0.2NYS CREG
*tetrachloroetheneND150-200ND0.06NYS CREG
*toluene60,000-220,0001,100-35,000ND230NYS RfG
*xylene150400-7,300ND4,620NYS RfG
*benzeneND160ND0.05NYS RfG
*ethylbenzene8076-1,600ND200NYS RfG
*acetone9,000-11,00030-200ND2NYS RfG
*4-methyl-2-pentanone380-160,000870NDNA--
*bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate17,00032-3,600ND2.3NYS CREG

NA - not applicable

ND - Not detected at instrument's minimum detection limit

**References: Clark et al. (1985), Connor et al. (1957), Fank et al. (1976), McGovern (1988), Shacklette et al. (1984), Dragun (1988)

***NYS RfG = New York State risk reference guideline
NYS CREG = New York State cancer risk evaluation guide


Table 5. Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Data for Facilities
Near the Mattiace Petrochemical Site - Air Releases of
Chemicals (Stack Plus Fugitive) in Pounds Per Year.


Facility
Chemical
Release

Photocircuits Corp.

1,1,1-trichloroethane300,000*+
sulfuric acid1,000
glycol ethers75,750+
ammonia1,500
lead1,000
hydrochloric acid1,500
chlorine500
formaldehyde500
methylene chloride348,750*+

Pall Corp.

methylene chloride4,800*
isopropyl alcohol1,350

Limco Mfg. Corp.

methyl ethyl ketone18,549*+
tetrachloroethene8,740*+

Pass and Seymour

tetrachloroethene35,750*

* - Mattiace Petrochemical site contaminant of concern.

+ - contaminant anticipated to exceed 1 microgram per cubic meter within 1/2 mile of the Mattiace Petrochemical site.


Table 6. Mattiace Petrochemical Site Remedial Investigation
Glen Cove Creek Surface Water Sampling Data and Comparison Values.
(All values in micrograms per liter)


        Standards/Guidelines                
    New York State        US EPA  
Compound*UpstreamAdjacentDownstreamSurface
Water
Drinking
Water
Drinking
Water

trans-1,2-dichloroethene20.80.45g5100
trichloroetheneND0.60.33g55
tetrachloroethene5310.7g55
bromodichloromethane0.21150g100d100d
dibromochloromethaneND0.60.650g100d100d
chloroformND0.70.67100d100d

d = drinking water standard for total trihalomethanes produced as a result of disinfection with chlorine. This standard is inappropriate for evaluating environmental contamination not associated with disinfection practices.

g = guidance value

* - only compounds which were detected in the samples are listed.


Table 7. Mattiace Petrochemical Site Remedial Investigation
Glen Cove Creek Sediment Sampling Data.
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)

              Comparison Values      
Compound***UpstreamAdjacentDownstreamTypical
Background
Range*
Minimal
Health
Risk
Source**

trans-1,2-dichloroethene0.013NDNDND1.0NYS RfG
trichloroethene0.041NDNDND0.2NYS CREG
chloroform0.0210.0340.017ND0.2NYS CREG
acetone1.42.10.54ND2NYS RfG
2-butanoneNDND1.2ND2NYS RfG
tolueneND0.0250.006ND230NYS RfG
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate13.021.012.0ND2.3NYS CREG

ND - not detected at instrument's minimum detection limit

*References: Clark et al. (1985), Connor et al. (1957), Fank et al. (1976), McGovern (1988), Shacklette et al. (1984), Dragun (1988)

**NYS RfG = New York State risk reference guideline
ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR environmental media evaluation guide
EPA RfD = EPA risk reference dose
NYS CREG = New York State cancer risk evaluation guide

***Only compounds which were detected in the samples are listed.


Table of Contents

  
 
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #