PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT
MATTIACE PETROCHEMICAL
CITY OF GLEN COVE, NASSAU COUNTY, NEW YORK
Figure 1. Mattiace Petrochemical Site Area Map
Figure 2. Mattiace Petrochemical Site and immediate surroundings
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.
Table 1. Mattiace Petrochemical Site Remedial Investigation Soil Sampling Data and Comparison Values.
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)
| Comparison Values | |||||
| Compound | Shallow Soil 0-2 feet Range+ | Deep Soil 2-24 feet Range+ | Typical Background Range* | Minimal Health Risk | Source** |
| Volatiles | |||||
| chloroethane | ND | 0.003-0.096 | ND | NA | NYS CREG |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 3.7 | 0.003-0.46 | ND | 0.01 | NYS CREG |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | ND | 0.004-0.039 | ND | 0.002 | NYS CREG |
| 1,2-dichloroethane | 0.005-3.7 | 0.002-4.2 | ND | 0.02 | NYS RfG |
| cis-1,2-dichloroethene | ND | ND | ND | 2 | NYS RfG |
| trans-1,2-dichloroethene | 0.005-120.0 | 0.002-35.0 | ND | 1 | NYS RfG |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 0.011-120.0 | 0.002-100.0 | ND | 76 | NYS CREG |
| trichloroethene | 0.002-370.0 | 0.001-330.0 | ND | 0.2 | NYS CREG |
| tetrachloroethene | 0.002-170.0 | 0.001-410.0 | ND | 0.06 | NYS CREG |
| 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane | ND | 0.003-6.3 | ND | 0.01 | NYS CREG |
| benzene | 1.3 | 0.026-0.043 | ND | 0.05 | NYS CREG |
| toluene | 0.005-910.0 | 0.001-1,100.0 | ND | 230 | NYS RfG |
| m- & p-xylene | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| o-xylene | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| total xylene | 0.004-2,600.0 | 0.013-610.0 | ND | 4,620 | NYS RfG |
| carbon tetrachloride | 6.8-14.0 | 0.340-39.0 | ND | 0.05 | NYS CREG |
| chloroform | 2.5 | 0.023-1.8 | ND | 0.2 | NYS CREG |
| methylene chloride | 4.1 | 0.220-35.0 | ND | 0.07 | NYS CREG |
| vinyl chloride | ND | 58.0 | ND | 0.0003 | NYS CREG |
| acetone | 0.008-58.0 | 0.021-150.0 | ND | 2 | NYS RfG |
| 2-butanone | 0.017-110.0 | 0.008-67.0 | ND | 2 | NYS RfG |
| 2-hexanone | ND | 0.160-100.0 | ND | NA | |
| 4-methyl-2-pentanone | 0.003-75.0 | 0.056-210.0 | ND | NA | |
| ethylbenzene | 0.001-460.0 | 0.018-130.0 | ND | 200 | NYS RfG |
| 1,2-dichlorobenzene | 0.460-750.0 | 0.070-73.0 | ND | 324 | NYS RfG |
| 1,4-dichlorobenzene | 2.7-12.0 | 9.5 | ND | 0.5 | NYS CREG |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | ND | ND | ND | NA | |
| 2-chlorotoluene | ND | ND | ND | 57 | NYS RfG |
| p-isopropyltoluene | ND | ND | ND | NA | |
| dichlorodifluoromethane | ND | ND | ND | 108 | NYS RfG |
| Semi-Volatiles | |||||
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 0.140-1,700.0 | 0.036-1,100.0 | ND | 2.3 | NYS CREG |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 0.068-2,400.0 | 0.046-220.0 | ND | 4,100 | NYS RfG |
| isophorone | 0.054-20.0 | 0.060-67.0 | ND | 0.03 | NYS CREG |
| naphthalene | 0.110-28.0 | 0.050-34.0 | ND | 1.5 | NYS RfG |
| phenol | 2.7 | 0.260-0.450 | ND | 128 | NYS RfG |
| 2-methylphenol | ND | 0.030 | ND | NA | |
| 4-methylphenol | 0.370 | 2.0 | ND | NA | |
| benzoic acid | 5.5 | 0.460-3.0 | ND | NA | |
| Metals | |||||
| barium | 9.5-182 | 4.4-271 | 300-500 | 3,500 | EPA RfD |
| cadmium | 0.84-16 | 0.65-7 | <0.5-1 | 10 | NYS EMEG |
| chromium | 4-49.2 | 3.3-59.4 | 10-40 | 200 | ATSDR EMEG |
| iron | 5,740-32,700 | 1,380-46,000 | 10,000-40,000 | NA | |
| lead | 2.2-170 | 1.8-204 | 10-300 | NA | |
| manganese | 51.4-606 | 7.2-889 | 500-3,000 | 5,000 | EPA RfD |
| silver | 0.86-1.4 | 1.1 | 0.1-5 | 150 | EPA RfD |
| sodium | 31.6-546 | 4.9-245 | 3,000-50,000 | NA | |
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 | ||||
| Compound | Groundwater Depth 6-26 feet Range+ | Ground Water | Drinking Water | Drinking Water | |
| Volatiles | |||||
| chloroethane | 5-6,400 | 5 | 5 | -- | |
| 1,1-dichloroethane | 2-7,600 | 5 | 5 | -- | |
| 1,1-dichloroethene | 2-3,800 | 5 | 5 | 7 | |
| 1,2-dichloroethane | 5-11,000 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| cis-1,2-dichloroethene | 2-190,000 | 5 | 5 | 70 | |
| trans-1,2-dichloroethene | 0.7-36 | 5 | 5 | 100 | |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 2-91,000 | 5 | 5 | 200 | |
| trichloroethene | 140-230,000 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| tetrachloroethene | 2-100,000 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane | 87 | 5 | 5 | -- | |
| benzene | 0.3-7,000 | 0.7 | 5 | 5 | |
| toluene | 42,000-130,000 | 5 | 5 | 1000;40ps | |
| m- & p-xylene | 6-422,000 | 5 | 5 | 10,000i;20ps | |
| o-xylene | 2-9,400 | 5 | 5 | 10,000i;20ps | |
| total xylene | -- | 5 | 5 | 10,000i;20ps | |
| carbon tetrachloride | 310-87,000 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| chloroform | 27-81,000 | 7 | 100d | 100d | |
| methylene chloride | 390-750,000 | 5 | 5 | 5p | |
| vinyl chloride | 2-2,600 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| acetone | ND | 50 | 50 | -- | |
| 2-butanone | 250-120,000 | 50 | 50 | -- | |
| 2-hexanone | 190-2,300 | 50 | 50 | -- | |
| 4-methyl-2-pentanone | 21,000-47,000 | 50 | 50 | -- | |
| ethylbenzene | 2-370,000 | 5 | 5 | 700;30ps | |
| 1,2-dichlorobenzene | 0.4-2,600 | 4.7e | 5 | 600p;10ps | |
| 1,4-dichlorobenzene | 1.3-200 | 4.7e | 5 | 75;5ps | |
| 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene | 15-32,000 | 5 | 5 | -- | |
| 2-chlorotoluene | 0.6-1,000 | 5 | 5 | -- | |
| p-isopropyltoluene | 2-860 | 5 | 5 | -- | |
| dichlorodifluoromethane | 86,000-620,000 | 5 | 5 | -- | |
| Semi-volatiles | |||||
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 24-27,000 | 50 | 50 | 4p | |
| di-n-butylphthalate | 12-6,900 | 50 | 50 | -- | |
| isophorone | 1,500-57,000 | 50 | 50 | -- | |
| naphthalene | 0.1-6,900 | 10g | 50 | -- | |
| phenol | 39-18,000 | 1 | 50 | -- | |
| 2-methylphenol | 73-2,100 | 1 | 50 | -- | |
| 4-methylphenol | 140-3,700 | 1 | 50 | -- | |
| benzoic acid | 220-16,000 | 50 | 50 | -- | |
| Metals | |||||
| barium | 31.4-1,320 | 1,000 | 1,000 | 2,000 | |
| cadmium | 5.3-104 | 5 | 10 | 5 | |
| chromium | 21.1-562 | 50 | 50 | 100 | |
| iron | 983-253,000 | 300 | 300 | 300s | |
| lead | 5.3-111 | 25 | 50 | 50;5p | |
| manganese | 285-64,200 | 300 | 300 | 50s | |
| silver | 17.3-98.1 | 50 | 50 | 100s | |
| sodium | 8.970-672,000 | 20,000 | * | -- | |
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 |
| trichloroethene | 120,000,000 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| 1,1,1-trichloroethane | 37,000,000 | 5 | 5 | 20 |
| tetrachloroethene | 98,000,000 | 5 | 5 | 50 |
| toluene | 120,000,000 | 5 | 5 | 1000;40ps |
| xylene | 61,000,000 | 5 | 5 | 10,000;20ps |
| ethylbenzene | 13,000,000 | 5 | 5 | 700;30ps |
* - 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 | |||||
| Compound | Drum Sample | Soil Sample | Typical Background Range** | Minimal Health Risk | Source*** |
| *1,2-dichloroethene | ND | 80-440 | ND | 1 | NYS RfG |
| *trichloroethene | ND | 73-3,600 | ND | 0.2 | NYS CREG |
| *tetrachloroethene | ND | 150-200 | ND | 0.06 | NYS CREG |
| *toluene | 60,000-220,000 | 1,100-35,000 | ND | 230 | NYS RfG |
| *xylene | 150 | 400-7,300 | ND | 4,620 | NYS RfG |
| *benzene | ND | 160 | ND | 0.05 | NYS RfG |
| *ethylbenzene | 80 | 76-1,600 | ND | 200 | NYS RfG |
| *acetone | 9,000-11,000 | 30-200 | ND | 2 | NYS RfG |
| *4-methyl-2-pentanone | 380-160,000 | 870 | ND | NA | -- |
| *bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 17,000 | 32-3,600 | ND | 2.3 | NYS 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
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-trichloroethane | 300,000*+ | |
| sulfuric acid | 1,000 | |
| glycol ethers | 75,750+ | |
| ammonia | 1,500 | |
| lead | 1,000 | |
| hydrochloric acid | 1,500 | |
| chlorine | 500 | |
| formaldehyde | 500 | |
| methylene chloride | 348,750*+ | |
| Pall Corp. | ||
| methylene chloride | 4,800* | |
| isopropyl alcohol | 1,350 | |
| Limco Mfg. Corp. | ||
| methyl ethyl ketone | 18,549*+ | |
| tetrachloroethene | 8,740*+ | |
| Pass and Seymour | ||
| tetrachloroethene | 35,750* | |
+ - 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* | Upstream | Adjacent | Downstream | Surface Water | Drinking Water | Drinking Water |
| trans-1,2-dichloroethene | 2 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 5g | 5 | 100 |
| trichloroethene | ND | 0.6 | 0.3 | 3g | 5 | 5 |
| tetrachloroethene | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0.7g | 5 | 5 |
| bromodichloromethane | 0.2 | 1 | 1 | 50g | 100d | 100d |
| dibromochloromethane | ND | 0.6 | 0.6 | 50g | 100d | 100d |
| chloroform | ND | 0.7 | 0.6 | 7 | 100d | 100d |
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*** | Upstream | Adjacent | Downstream | Typical Background Range* | Minimal Health Risk | Source** |
| trans-1,2-dichloroethene | 0.013 | ND | ND | ND | 1.0 | NYS RfG |
| trichloroethene | 0.041 | ND | ND | ND | 0.2 | NYS CREG |
| chloroform | 0.021 | 0.034 | 0.017 | ND | 0.2 | NYS CREG |
| acetone | 1.4 | 2.1 | 0.54 | ND | 2 | NYS RfG |
| 2-butanone | ND | ND | 1.2 | ND | 2 | NYS RfG |
| toluene | ND | 0.025 | 0.006 | ND | 230 | NYS RfG |
| bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate | 13.0 | 21.0 | 12.0 | ND | 2.3 | NYS CREG |
*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.
