FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT GOLDISC RECORDINGS, INC. SUPERFUND SITE

VILLAGE OF HOLBROOK TOWN OF ISLIP

SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK

• ~ 5 :XJ 0

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II

New York, New York

C _L_ ;2j (}_ot3 ~~--------- --;1----------------

alter E. Mugdan, Director Date Emergency and Remedial Response Division

218209

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. : ...................... iii FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM .......................................................................... iv

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... ~ ......................................................................... ! II. SITE CHRONOLOGY ...................................... : ................................................................. 2

III. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2 Site Location and Physical Descriptions ...................................................................... 2 Geology/Hydrogeology ................................................................................................ 2 Land and Resource Use ................................................................................................ 2 History of Contamination ............................................................................................. 3 Initial Response ............................................................................................................ 3 Basis for Taking Action ............................................................................................... 4

IV. REMEDIAL ACTIONS ...................................................................................................... 5 Remedy Selection ......................................................................................................... 5 Remedy Implementation .............................................................................................. 5 Institutional Controls Implementation .......................................................................... 6 Operations,. Maintenance and Monitoring .................................................................... 7

V. PROGRESS SINCE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW ........................................................... ? VI. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS ...................................................................................... 8

Five-Year Review Team .............................................................................................. 8 Community Notification and Involvement ................................................................... 8 Document Review ........................................................................................................ 8 Monitoring and Data Review ....................................................................................... 8 Site Inspection and Interviews ................................................................................... 1 0

VII. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ..... 1 0 Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? ....................... 11 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy? .................................................................. _ ............ 12

VIII. ISSUES, RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ............................... 12 IX. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT ................................................................................. l2 X. NEXT FIVE-YEAR REVIEW .......................................................................................... 12

Appendices: TABLES FIGURE

11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is the third five-year review for the Goldisc Recordings, Inc., Superfund site (Site), located in the Village ofHolbrook, Town oflslip, Suffolk County, New York. The selected remedy for the Site 'included 1) excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated dry well sediments and soils; 2) excavation and off-site disposal of surface soils; 3) abandonment of the on-site production well, including excavation and off-site disposal of sediments and soils around and inside the well vault; and, 4) monitored natural attenuation of the groundwater.

Based upon a review of the two,Records of Decision (RODs), the preliminary close-out report, the remedial action report, the recent groundwater dat~ reports and a recent Site inspection, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concludes that the remedies have been implemented according to the decision documents and continue to protect human health and the environment.

111

I

FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Goldisc Recordings

EPA ID: NYD980768717

NPL Status: Final

Multiple OUs?

Yes

Has the site achieved construction completion?

Yes

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: EPA If "Other Federal Agency" was selected above, enter Agency name: N/A

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager}: Damian Duda

Author affiliation: EPA

Review period: 09/10/2008....:03/31/2013

Date of site inspection: 02/12/2013

Type of re_view: Statutory

Review number: 3

Triggering action date: 09/10/2008

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 09/10/2013

lV

FIVE-YEAR- REVIEW SUMMARY FORM {continued)

Issues/Recommendations

Issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

OU(s): 01+02

Affect Current Protectiveness

No

Operable Unit 01

Issue Category: No Issue

Issue: N/A

Recommendation: None

Affect Future Implementing Oversight Protectiveness Party Party

No EPA EPA

Protectiveness Statement( s)

Protectiveness Determination­Protective

Milestone Date

N/A

Addendum Due Date (if applicable)_-NIA

Protectiveness Statement The soils remedy is protective of human health and the environment

Operable Unit 02

Protectiveness Determination· Protective

Addendum Due Date (if applicable): N/A

Protectiveness Statement: The groundwater remedy is protective of human health and the environment.

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement (if applicable)

For sites that have achieved construction completion, enter a sitewide protectiveness determination and statement.

Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date (if applicable): Protective NIA

Protectiveness Statement: The implemented remedies for the Site protect human health and the environment.

v

I. INTRODUCTION

This is the third five-year review (FYR) for the Goldisc Recordings, Inc., site (Site), located in the Town oflslip, Village of Holbrook, Suffolk County; New York. The selected remedy for the Site included 1) excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated dry well sediments and soils; 2) excavation and off-site disposal of surface soils; 3) abandonment of the on-site production well, including excavation and off-site disposal of sediments and soils around and inside the w~ll vault; and, 4) monitored natural attenuation (MNA) of the groundwater.

This review was conducted by Damian Duda, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region II Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Site. This review was conducted pursuant to Section 121 (c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended, 42 USC §§9601 et seq. and 40 CFR 300.403(t)(4)(ii) and completed, in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER Directive 9355.7-· 03B-P (June 2001). The purpose of a FYR is to ensure that the implemented remedies protect human health and the environment and that they function as intended by the Site decision documents. This report will become part of the Site file.

A statutory FYR is required at this Site because, upon completion of the remedial actions, waste will remain on-site above levels that allow for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. This review covers the period from September 2008 to March 2013. The trigger for this FYR is the signature date of the last FYR.

II. SITE CHRONOLOGY

The chronology of Site events is shown ip Table 1.

III. BACKGROUND

Site Location and Physical Descriptions

The Site is located at the northeast corner of Veterans Memorial Highway and Broadway A venue in the Village of Holbrook, Town oflslip, Suffolk County, New York. The 34-acre property consists of two one-story buildings that occupy approximately six acres, three acres of pavement/parking area surrounding the buildings, a Fedex Terminal building and parking area on approximately six acres and the remaining 19 acres of vacant property, located both to the north and to the south of the original two buildings.

Geology/Hydrogeology

Three distinct aquifers underlie the Site: 1) the Lloyd exists under highly confined conditions between the relatively impervious bedrock below and the Raritan Confining Unit (RCU) above, 2) the Magothy lies atop the RCU and is widely used for water supply purposes and 3) the Upper Glacial which is the most shallow and an unconfined aquifer which is highly susceptible to contamination from domestic septic systems and other manrtlade pollution sources. Depth from the ground surface to the water table ranges from 18 to 32 feet across the Site.

Land and Resource Use

Current zoning at the Site is commercial/industrial. The main tenant in the former Goldisc Recordings building is Kitchen and Bath Design Company. There are other assorted dry goods operations, including a mattress company, in that building. The primary tenants in the former Viewlex building include a ceramic tile company, a carton facility and a distribution center. In 2000, a FedEx distribution center was constructed on a roughly seven-acre portion of the undeveloped parcel in the southeastern part of the Site property. Multi-building residential developments are located north and southeast of the Site.

The area surrounding the Site is characterized as residential, industrial and commercial. The Church Street wellfield (CSW), owned and operated by the Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA), is one of the SCWA's locations that provide the source of drinking water to the Holbrook area and is located approximately 1200 feet south of the Site. The CSW is comprised of three production wells screened in both the Upper Glacial and Magothy aquifers: 1) CS#1A is screened from approximately 112 feet to 160 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the lower Upper Glacial with a specific capacity of 34.5 gallons/minute/foot(gpm/ft); 2) CS#2 is screened from approximately 126 feet to 157 feet bgs in the lower Upper Glacial with a specific capacity of , 43.2 gpm/ft; and, 3) CS#3 is screened from approximately 444 feet to 505 feet bgs in the mid­Magothy with a specific capacity of 35.1 gpm/ft. The direction of groundwater flow from the Site is south, in the direction of the CSW.

2

f

Residents of the Town of Islip depend on groundwater for their potable water supply. The ~losest residences are located a few hundred feet southwest of the Site. The Village of Holbrook has an estimated population of 21,000 people. The Site is bordered to the north and east by light, mixed forest growth.

History of Contamination

From 1968 to 1990, the two buildings on the Site were occupied by several different companies that generated, stored and disposed of hazardous materials on the Site. These companies included Goldisc Recordings, Inc., which produced phonographic records; the ElectroSound Group, Inc. (ElectroSound) (a.k.a., Viewlex Audio Visual Company), which manufactured audio visual and optical devices; and, Genco Auto Electric, Inc. (Genco), which rebuilt automotive engine parts. The First Holbrook Company (First Holbrook) owned the property from 1973 to 1985. In 1985, the Red Ground Corporation became the owner ofthe property. In 1989, Red Ground Corporation sold the property to a partnership named the Red Ground Company. By October 1998, the property had been transferred to First Industrial, L.P., successor to the Red Ground Company.

Between 1968 and 1990, the substances known to have been disposed of at the Site include wastewater from various production processes, waste oils, metals, solutions containing high concentrations of xylene and trichloroethylene and other degreasing agents. These substances were reportedly discharged to the environment through on-site dry wells, leaching pools, storm drains and leaking containers located in and around the buildings.

One ofthe CSW production wells, CS#2, was found to contain elevated concentrations of nickel contamination which, at the time, were above the federal maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 100 micrograms per liter (!lg/L). Subsequently, the federal MCL was remanded. The New York State (NYS) Class GA Groundwater Quality Standard (GWQS) for nickel of 100 1-1g/L is the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR) for the Site and, thus, the nickel MCL for the Site. In January 1996, the measured level of nickel in CS#2 was 112 1-1g/L. This elevated concentration was determined to be related to the disposal activities that occurred at the Site.

Initial Response

In 1988, the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NYSDEC) entered into an administrative order on consent (AOC) with two of the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), namely, First Holbrook and ElectroSound, which required the PRPs to conduct an Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of 19 specific areas of environmental concern (AECs) throughout the Site. Groundwater and soil samples were collected and analyzed to determine the nature and extent of contamination in these areas. Elevated levels of nickel, lead and tetrachloroethylene were found in groundwater samples. Soil samples were found to contain elevated levels of several metals, including nickel, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and semi-VOCs.

3

The Site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) in October 1984 and was listed on the NPLin June 1986.

Basis for Taktng Action

Based on a review of results from the preliminary RI/FS conducted under the NYSDEC AOC, EPA and NYSDEC determined that additional information was necessary in order to better define the extent of contamination at the Site. In late 1990, NYSDEC requested that EPA take over as lead agency for the Site. In 1991, EPA entered into an AOC with First Holbrook and ElectroSound to conduct a supplemental or Phase II RIIFS.

EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment. The risk assessment contaminants included tetrachloroethylene, 1, 1-dichloroethane, 1,1, 1-trichloroethane, vinyl chloride, benzo(a)anthracene, chrysene, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. The risk assessment evaluated commercial/industrial exposures under the current use scenario; it was assumed that, in the future, the property would continue to be used for commercial/industrial purposes. Groundwater was considered as a current and future drinking water aquifer. Exposure pathways evaluated included: dermal absorption of chemicals in the soil by children trespassing on the Site, direct contact (including incidental ingestion and dermal absorption) with soils by on-site commercial/industrial employees, direct contact with soil by future short-term construction workers, and domestic use of groundwater (including ingestion and inhalation of volatiles by nearby residents using the CSW as the exposure point). The RI!FS was completed in August 1995 and concluded that no unacceptable risk was present on-site for current and future commercial/industrial land use.

Since nickel was present in groundwater, the groundwater RI/FS was deferred until the source control remediation was implemented. The groundwater RI/FS concluded that the groundwater contamination was declining significantly after source controls actions were implemented.

The ecological risk assessment considered potential exposure routes of Site contamination to terrestrial wildlife. Much of the Site is paved or covered by structures, and there is little, if any, potential for wildlife to be exposed to contaminated subsurface soils on-site. The only potential route of exposure to wildlife in the Site vicinity is if contaminants were transported through groundwater and discharged via groundwater into surface waters, particularly the NYS wetland located one-half mile south of the Site. Phase II sampling showed that the wetland had not been

· impacted by Site contaminants. Therefore, it was determined that no significant effects on aquatic organisms in the wetland in the vicinity of the Site could be attributed to groundwater discharge from the Site.

Since significant contamination, specifically nickel, was detected in the soils at the Site, it was determined that there was a high potential for cross-media impacts, because nickel can migrate into the groundwater via fluctuations of the water table and precipitation. This is supported by the detection of high levels of nickel in the groundwater. Historically, the maximum concentration of nickel (959 J.lg/L) was found in MW-12 on the facility property. Furthermore, site-related nickel contamination has impacted the nearby CSW. As a result of these circumstances, remedial action alternatives were developed for the Site sediments and soils.

4

IV. REMEDIAL ACTIONS

Remedy Selection

In September 1995, EPA .issued a ROD for Site soils (operable unit one (OU-1)). The remedial action objective (RAO) was as follows:

• Minimize leaching of contaminants, particularly nickel, in the subsurface soils and sediments to the groundwater.

The following remedy was selected:

• Excavation via a vacuum truck and off-site disposal of approximately 56 cubic yards of sediments and soils from the six dry wells in AEC #2 and drywell DW-2 in AEC #14;

• Excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 215 cubic yards of surface soils within AEC#8;

• Abandonment of the on-site production well, including excavation and off-site disposal · of sediments and soils around and inside the well vault; and

• Taking steps to secure the placement of deed restrictions on the property to limit it to a nonresidential use.

The contaminant of concern in the six dry wells, the surface soils and the pro_duction well vault was nickel. Th~ contaminants of concern in the dry well in AEC #14 were semi-VOCs, namely benzo(a)anthracene and chrysene.

In September 1998, EPA issued a second ROD for groundwater (operable unit two (OU-2)). The RAO was as follows:

• Prevent the ingestion of drinking water containing concentrations of nickel above the 100 f-1-g/l NYS Class GA GWQS, which is an ARARat the Site.

The remedy selected for groundwater was MNA.

Remedy Implementation

In September 1996, EPA signed a consent decree (CD) with the following PRPs: Electro Sound, First Holbrook, Genco, Red Ground Company and Red Ground Corporation. The CD required that ElectroSound implement the remedial action selected in the OU-1 ROD, pursuant to the EPA-approved remedial action work plan (RA WP) which was incorporated into the CD and provided additional details regarding the implementation of the selected remedy, namely, the excavation of Site soils and sediments. EPA considered the RA WP to satisfy the requirements of a remedial design. The CD was lodged on February 12, 1997 and entered by the District Court on May 15, 1997.

As part of the CD requirements, Electro Sound, First Holbrook and Genco reimbursed a portion of EPA's past response costs. ElectroSound and First Holbrook were also to reimburse a portion

5

/

of EPA's future response costs. Under the CD, Red Ground Corporation was required to provide EPA with access to the Site, to ensure that the Site would not be used for residential purposes and to prevent the installation or use of any groundwater wells at the Site.

The RA WP and the CD identified the various construction activities which were required to implement the selected remedy for the ROD. As indicated above, this included excavation of the dry well areas in AECs #2 and #14, the surface soils area in AEC #8 and the production well in AEC #12. Excavation activities were completed in June 1997.

Post-excavation sampling was performed in order to determine whether the post-excavation levels (cleanup criteria) identified in the RA WP, i.e., 130 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) for nickel, had been achieved. The data, as listed below, indicate that all contaminated soils and sediments above the cleanup criteria have been excavated and that residual levels are well below the cleanup criteria. The highest concentration of nickel for AEC #8 was 58.7 mglkg; the highest concentration of nickel for the dry wells was 25.9 mg/kg; and, the highest nickel concentration in the production vault was 13.7 mglkg. All values are well below the cleanup criterion of 130 mg/kg for nickel. Sampling results for AEC #14 showed that no concentrations of bemo(a)anthracene and chrysene were reported above the detection limit of0.350 mg/kg for the contamninants, indicating that all semi-VOCs, targeted for removal for this AEC, had been removed.

In June 1997, EPA conducted a post-excavation inspection at the Site, as well as a public press event marking the substantial completion of the remedial action field activities. The excavated materials, tested using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure, were found to be nonhazardous and were disposed of in the City of Albany Landfill. After the inspection, the decontamination pad was removed, and the seven dry wells were backfilled with clean fill. All site activities were completed by July 1997.

No construction activities were needed for the OU-2 ROD.

Institutional Controls Implementation

As discussed above, the selectedremedy for the OU-1 ROD included an institutional control, i.e., the placement of a deed restriction on the property. The soil cleanup remedy selected in the 1995 ROD removed contamination to levels below the nickel and semi-VOC levels which were selected to be protective for impacts to groundwater. EPA did not require the PRPs to put the deed restriction on the Site property, since EPA believes the selected cleanup levels are protective of residential land use.

The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) regulations require that new residences and businesses connect to public water supplies whenever public water mains are available. Where such public water mains are not available, the SCDHS regulations require that proposed drinking water wells for new residences· and businesses be tested for water quality prior to use and to provide treatment, if necessary. Suffolk County is expected to adequately enforce its regulations for at least as long as the groundwater is impacted by Site-related contamination. -This governmental control meets the objectives ofth~ use restriction included in the OU-2 ROD.

6

In November 2003, EPA discussed the local groundwater use restrictions for the Long Island area in New York with SCDHS. The SCDHS informed EPA that under the current NYS law:

No person or public corporation shall hereafter install or operate any new or additional wells in the counties of Kings, Queens, Nassau or Suffolk to withdraw water from underground sources for any purpose or purposes whatsoever where the installed pumping capacity of any such new well or wells singly or in the aggregate, or the total installed pumping capacity of old and new wells on or for use on one property, is in excess of forty-five gallons a minute without a permit pursuant to this title. (See NYS ECL 15-1527 (2003)).

Based upon the current Site conditions, i.e., 1) stabilizing and/or decreasing nickel concentrations, 2) the successful completion ofthe remedial action conducted in 1998 and 3) the NYS and local laws governing the withdrawal of groundwater in Suffolk County, New York, which also includes the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, EPA determined that a deed restriction on the Site property was not necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment.

Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring

There are no treatment systems at the Site. The only long-term activity required is monitoring the groundwater until the nickel plume is remediated. As part of the nickel groundwater monitoring program, 10 monitoring wells were installed at the Site (see Figure 1). After 2001, wells MW-8, MW-14 and MW-11, MW-17S and MW-17I were removed from the monitoring program because the nickel data from these wells were consistently below the MCL. The remaining five monitoring wells (MW-12, MW-16, MW-17D, MW-20S and MW-20D) were included in the long-term sampling program, since they showed historical nickel concentrations.

During the August 2011 sampling event, however, EPA discovered that the casings ofthe MW-17 three-well cluster had been vandalized and that MW -17D could no longer be sampled. Since 1994, even though nickel levels in MW -17D have shown concentrations well below the MCL, this well was retained as part of the monitoring program because it was a deep well. Since MW-17D had been compromised, it was removed from the long-term monitoring well network. Based on review of the historical data and depth of well screen, a replacement well will not be installed.

As part of the FYR process, EPA also reviews the nickel groundwater data available from the SCW A to ensure that the nickel concentrations remain below levels of concern. The public supply wells are routinely sampled in accordance with the Suffolk County and NYS drinking water supply regulations. There has been no disruption in the public water supply service regarding the availability of the CSW groundwater for public distribution as a result of minor nickel detections well below the MCL.

7

V. PROGRESS SINCE LAST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

The second FYR concluded that the remedies implemented at this Site adequately control exposures of Site contaminants, namely nickel, to human and environmental receptors to the extent necessary for the protection of human health and the environment. The Site groundwater monitoring data demonstrate that there are no unacceptable exposures to human and/or environmental receptors.

The second FYR included two suggestions: 1) inspect the monitoring well network to determine which wells should be decommissioned and 2) redevelop, properly secure and resurvey monitoring wells determined to be useful for continued monitoring. EPA has inspected the monitoring well network and has identified wells which are no longer viable and should be formally decommissioned. As a result ofthe February 2013 Site inspection, EPA noted that some of the wells in the monitoring well network had been abandoned but not formally decommissioned. As stated above, the off-site MW-17 well cluster, installed in dense woods between the Site property and the CSW, has peen compromised. The expansion of the FedEx facility on a portion of the property resulted in the destruction of another monitoring well; but, since that well was not part of the current monitoring well progr(:lm, a replacement is not necessary. During the 2011 sampling event, with respect to the wells used for monitoring, EPA noted that only four of the five wells, i.e., MW -17D is no longer available, to be sampled were properly located, can provide a sample of sufficient volume for analysis and were properly secured.

Prior to the next FYR, EPA will assess the integrity and viability ofthe monitoring well network, as well as implement any well redevelopment, if necessary. The Site property is zoned commercial and a vacant portion of it is currently being advertized for future commercial development.

VI. . FIVE-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS

Five-Year Review Team

The EPA FYR team consisted ofDamian Duda (Site RPM), Rob Alvey (Site hydrogeologist), Ursula Filipowicz (Site risk assessor), Marla Wieder (Site attorney) and Sal Badalamenti (Site Section Chief). ·

Community Notification and Involvement

.community interest in the Site has been historically low. The SCWA was notified of this FYR and provided its production well data for this review. This FYR will be made available for the community in the local Site repository.

8

Document Review

Table 2 provides a list of all documents that were reviewed to prepare this FYR report.

Monitoring and Data Review

After the issuance ofthe OU-2 ROD, EPA and NYSDEC, in coordination with the SCDHS and the SCW A, developed a· program to monitor the anticipated downward trend of nickel concentrations. As discussed above, the original five monitoring wells, included in the program, were as follows: MW-12, MW-16, MW-17D, MW-20S and MW-20D. MW-12 and MW-16 are located on the facility property. As discussed above, MW-17D is no longer in the monitoring program. MW -16 is the source area monitoring well, and the remaining wells are all located hydraulically downgradient. MW-20S and MW-20D are located of the Site property and on SCWA property. They were installed as sentinel wells for the SCWA in order to provide advance notice if nickel levels in the groundwater begin to increase.

During August 2011 and 2012, EPA sampled the five monitoring wells, except for MW -17D in the 2012 sampling event, since MW -17D could not be located. Table 3 shows the nickel concentrations found over the last 20 years and the screen interval depths for the five Site monitoring wells. Overall, the nickel concentrations have trended down since the implementation of the source removal actions. The 2011 and 2012 sampling events have shown nickel concentrations below the MCLin the majority of the wells sampled, as well as showing a stable trend.

As presented in Table #3, historically, MW-12 has shown concentrations above the MCL. In 2007, however, the nickel concentration was below the MCL which in 2011 and 2012, the concentrations increased above the MCL. Continued sampling ofMW-12 is recommended.

The nickel levels in MW -16 have trended down since the implementation of the source removal remedial actions. EPA concludes that future sampling of this well be suspended.

MW-20S and MW-20D are the most downgradient wells in the monitoring network. Since 2002, ·nickel concentrations in MW -20S have remained below the MCL, showing a decreasing trend. EPA also concludes that future sampling ofMW-20S be suspended. Historically, the concentrations in MW-20D have fluctuated above and below the MCL. For the 2011 and 2012 sampling events, the concentrations have been shown to be above the MCL. Continued sampling ofMW-20D is recommended.

· In addition to the sampling of monitoring wells, EPA also receives VOC and metals data for the CSW from the SCW A. In particular, EPA reviews the nickel concentrations in the three production wells. Table 4 shows the SCW A's nickel sampling results for the last four years. The SCWA also samples the CSW for the following VOC parameters: 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1-dichlorothene, 1,1 ,-dichlorothane, chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane and tetrachlorothene. VOC data collected from the CSW show no concentrations above MCLs.

9

Since 1996, and even prior to that time, the nickel levels in the CSW have been below the MCL of 100 J.lg/L. SCWA's latest data report from January 2009 through September 2012 show nickel levels in CS#lA to be approximately 3 J.lg/L, CS#2 to be in the 20 to 25 J.lg/L range and at non­detectable levels in CS#3. The drinking water supply continues to meet federal and state drinking water standards as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

· EPA concludes that some attenuation of portions the nickel plume has occurred although recent sampling ofMW-12 and MW-20D have shown concentrations to be increasing and above the MCL.

Site Inspection and Interviews

A Site visit and inspection was conducted on February 12,2013. EPA representatives, Damian Duda (RPM) and Robert Alvey (hydrogeologist), performed a walk-through of the Site property and inspected a select number of the monitoring wells. The monitoring wells on the facility property that are part of the ongoing monitoring program are accessible and in good condition. Some Site monitoring wells that are not part of the current monitoring program were also located but were found to in poor condition, since they had not been sampled in many years. Some Site monitoring wells were not found.

VII. TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision document?

The selected remedy for the OU-1 ROD required the excavation and off-site disposal·of surface soils, sediments/soils from dry wells and soils in and below an on-site production well vault, · followed by the abandonment of the production well. These remedial activities were necessary in

' . order to reach the RAO of minimizing contaminant leaching, particularly nickel, in the subsurface soils and sediments to groundwater.

The 1995 Risk Assessment superseded the original 1988 Risk Assessment and concluded that the Site does not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment for · commercial/industrial uses. Since the contaminated sediments/soils were removed and the confirmatory sampling results (post excavation) showed levels well below the established cleanup goals, the OU-1 remedy is functioning as intended and is protective under current commercial/industrial uses.

The selected remedy for Site groundwater as identified in the OU-2 ROD called for MNA. The RAO for OU-2 is to prevent the ingestion of drinking water containing concentrations of nickel · above the 100 J.lg/L NYS GA GWQS, which is an ARAR for the site. ·

Of the five monitoring wells sampled, data collected in 2011 indicate a slight exceedance of the nickel MCL of 100 J.lg/L in only one monitoring well, MW-20D at 117.2 J.lg/L. Data collected in 2012 indicate exceedances of the nickel MCLin only two monitoring wells: MW-12 at 134.2 J.lg/L and MW-20D at 181 J.lg/L.

10

In addition, EPA evaluated the nickel data from the CSW. During the FYR period, all three production wells showed nickeL,concentrations well below the MCL.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and RAOs used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

There have been no physical changes to the Site that would adversely affect the protectiveness of the remedy. Land use assumptions, exposure assumptions and pathways and clean up levels considered in the decision documents followed the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund used by the Agency and remain valid. Although specific parameters may have changed since the time the risk assessment was completed, the process that was used remains valid.

Data collected from all three CSW production wells, which serve as the drinking water supply to the nearby areas, indicate nickel concentrations well below the MCL of 100 !J.g/L; thus the RAO for groundwater (Prevent the ingestion of drinking water containing concentrations of nickel above the NYS Class GA GWQS) continues to be met. In addition to ingestion at point of use, EPA policy and guidance expects to return groundwater to its beneficial use. Since the groundwater contamination is located in a sole source aquifer, restoration to MCLs is also an objective of the remedy.

The following cleanup criteria were established for Site soils and sediments: 130 mglkg for nickel, 224 mglkg for benzo(a)anthracene and 400 mglkg for chrysene. These cleanup numbers are still valid for commercial/industrial use scenarios. The 1998 RA Report concluded that post­excavation sampling showed the remaining sediments/soils were well below the established Site remediation cleanup goals. The current residential NYS soil cleanup objectives for nickel, · benzo(a)anthracene and chrysene are 140 mglkg, 1 mglkg and 1 mglkg, respectively. Although the remedial cleanup criteria established for benzo(a)anthracene and chrysene are significantly above the current NYS residential soil cleanup objective of 1 mglkg, a review of the post­excavation sampling data indicates these compounds were not detected above the detection limit of0.350 mglkg. Post-excavation data indicated a maximum nickel concentration of 58.7 mglkg in soil. In conclusion, post-excavation data indicate that the remediation of the soils and sediments for all three chemicals of concern are well below current NYS residential use cleanup objectives.

The OU-2 groundwater investigation focused on two exposure pathways: direct ingestion and inhalation of volatiles by nearby residents using the CSW as the exposure point. Since there are no privat~ wells in use on-site or in the plume area and the CSW consistently produces potable water with nickel concentrations below the groundwater remedial goal of 100 !J.g/l, the direct ingestion pathway is incomplete for nickel. Data collected from the CSW shows no VOC exceedances above MCLs thus eliminating the exposure pathway for VOC inhalation. Furthermore, as part of the last FYR, EPA has concluded that VOCs detected in the CSW are not contaminants of concern at the Site.

Soil vapor intrusion (VI) into indoor air is evaluated when soils and/or groundwater are known or suspected to contain VOCs. While historical activities at the Site resulted in disposal of certain VOCs, the baseline human health risk assessment did not identify any volatiles as contaminants

11

of concern. Furthermore, as a result of low concentrations ofVOCs on Site during Phase II groundwater investigations, the last FYR concluded that the VI pathway is incomplete and not of concern for the Site. During tht( past FYR period considered .in this document, there has been no new information that would call into question this determination. Hence, as reflected in the CSW VOC data, the VI pathway remains incomplete for the Site; and, thus, VI is not of concern.

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the

protectiveness of the remedy?

No other information has come to light that would call into question the protectiveness of the remedy.

VIII~ RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS

There are no recommendations or follow-up actions identified in this FYR.

IX. PROTECTIVENESS STATEMENT

The OUI remedy is protective of human health and the environment

The OU2 remedy is protective of human health and the environment

The implemented remedies for the Site protect human health and the environment.

VII. NEXT FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

The next FYR will be completed within five years of the signature date of this FYR.

TABLE 1 -

CHRONOLOGY OF SITE EVENTS

Event Date

Site placed on the National Priorities List. June 1986

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 1988 (NYSDEC) Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with the potentially responsible parties (PRPs).

EPA takes over the Site from NYSDEC. 1990

EPA entered into AOC for the Remediallnvestig~tion/Fea~ibility June 1991 Study (RI/FS) with the PRPs (First Holbrook and ElectroSound).

Site Summary Report prepared. October 1993

Phase II Rl Report prepared. August 1995

Final FS Report prepared. August 1995

ROD for Operable Unit One issued. September 1995

Remedial Action Work Plan issued. September 1996

Consent Decree with PRPs for the Remedial Design/Remedial May 1997 Action (RD/RA) entered.

Notice to Proceed issued to PRPs' Contractor. May 1997

RA Report for the Soil Remedy prepared. September 1997

RA Report for the Soil Remedy prepared. ' January 1998

ROD for Operable Unit Two issued. September 1998

Preliminary Close-Out Report prepared. September 1998

TABLE 2

DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

Administrative Order on Consent- Former Goldisc-Recordings Facilities, NYSDEC, May 1988.

Remedial Investigation Report- Former Goldisc Recordings Facilities, Holbrook, New York, ERM-Northeast, November 1988.

Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, CERCLA-#10218, USEPA, June 27, 1991.

Final Phase II Work Plan - Remedial Investigation and Feasability Study, Former Goldisc Recordings Facility, Holbrook, New York (two volumes), ERM-Northeast, December 1991: . .

Final Field Operations Plan- Phase II Remedial Investigation- Former Goldisc Recordings Facility, Holbrook, New York, ERM-Northeast, November 1992.

Site Summary Report- Former Goldisc Recordings Facility, Holbrook, New York, ERM-Northeast, October 1993. ·

Final Baseline Risk Assessment- Former Goldisc Recordings Facility, Holbrook, New York ERM-Northeast, August 1995. . .

Phase II Remediai Investigation Report- Former Goldisc Recordings Facility, Holbrook, New York, ERM-Northeast, August 1995. · .

Final Feasibility Study Report - Former Goldisc Recordings Facility, ERM-Northeast, Holbrook, New York, August 1995.

Record of Decision- Operable Unit One- Goldisc Recordings Site, USEPA, September 29, 1995. .

Remedial Action Report for the Soil Remedy at the Former Goldisc Recordings Facility, ERM-Northeast, Holbrook, New York, January 19, 1998.

Record. of De~ision- Qperable Unit Two and Preliminary Close-Out Report- Goldisc Recordmgs S1te, USEPA, September 30, 1998.

Reports on Groundwater Sampling Results - Goldisc Recordings. Site, ERM Northeast, 1998-2007. .

Sampling Report for the Goldisc Recordings Site, EPA Region 2 Superfund Support Team, June 2007.

Sampling Report for the Goldisc Recordings Site, EPA Region 2 Superfund Support Team, August 2011. ·

Sampling Report for the Goldisc Recordings Site, EPA Region 2 Superfund Support Team, August 2012.

11

TABLE 3

MONITORING WELL DATA FOR THE GOLDISC RECORDINGS SUPERFUND SITE [CONTAMINANT OF CONCERN - NICKEL]

MONITORING SCREEN MONITORING WELL SAMPLING DATES and NICKEL CONCENTRATIONS (IJg/L) WELL# INTERVAL

9/94 1 9/94 1 (FEET)* 5/97 12/97

MW-12 24.5 to 34.5 959 980 394 300

MW-16 30.7 to 40.7 278 277 94.6 81.1

MW-170 137 to 157 ND ND ND NO

MW-20S 50 to 60 I MW-200 80 to 90

*Monitoring wells are screened in the Upper Glacial Aquifer.

Table prepared by EPA using the nickel data from historic data reports.

~g/L - Micrograms per liter NS - Not sampled NO - Non-detect A - Between IDL and CRDL

8-9/98

54.8

85.2

1.5A

3/00 6/00 10/00 4/01 4/02 1/07 6/07

209 341 181 142 120 ND 17.4

148 229 193 187 116 146 106

NO ND 2.4A 2.7 A 12.8 ND 3.96

77.4 121 124 115 99.6 66.4 59.5

106 180 59.4 66.8 56.7 192 219

111

8/11 8/12-

79.6 134.2

76.1 80.4

NS NS

24.4 24.2

117.2 181

SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY WELLS- NICKEL DATA

DATE WELL CS#1A . 01/05/09 . 02/03/09 03/03/09 04/07/09 05/04/09

06/07-09/09 NO· 07/07/09 08/04/09 09/01/09 10/06/09 11/03/09 2.88 . 12/01/09

02/01-09/1 0 03/04/10 04/06/10 05/04/10

06/09-1 0/1 0 2.43 07/05/10 08/03/10 09/07/10 10/05/10

11/15-17/10 2.99 12/07/10 q

01/04/11 01/19/11 02/03/11 03/10/11 06/13/11 06/16/11 2.42 09/21/11 12/09/11 12/15/11 2.44/2.53 03/06/12 04/20/12 04/24/12 06/06/12 06/13/12 2.50/2.62 09/03/12

Units- IJ9/L- Micrograms per liter ND - Not detected

t'

WELL CS#2 WELL CS#3 20.9 0.67 17.2 0.52 21.4 0.99 21.9 ND 22.4 ND 24.4 0.65 23.3 0.58 28.0 ND 30.2 31.0 .,, __

29.8 ..

32.0 .q··

27.4 ND 29.3 ND 29.7 ND 29.7 ND 23.5 ND 20.6 ND 20.3 ND

. 18.8 4.04 20.7 ND 22.2 ND 22.1 ND 20.6 ND 20.7 ND 19.6 . ND

ND 20.9 ND

ND ND

24.9 ND :

1.6 20.3 ~. :

37.9/25.8 •"f

25.8 1.60/ND :

ND

lV

..

..

··•q'

I ' ' I

·-1 MW-205 •• MW-200. r CHURCH smEET WELLFIELD

.. (1-J

WOODLANDS

FORMERLY OCCUPIED BY OOLOISC RECORDINGS, INC.

W-ll •

v

·--~_-:-------~

L,-.:...---' i ' i : ! i ' ' I ' i i ' ' 1 i j i ' '

! ! i i ' ' ! ' ! ' 1 ' I

r N

J

LEGEND

-+-- _,..uc ---~-

GOLDISC ~ECORDINGS, INC. SITE Figure 1