United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460 September 2011

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule – New Cassel/Hicksville 

Ground Water Contamination
Support Document for the

Revised National Priorities List

Final Rule

New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water 

Contamination

September 2011

Site Assessment and Remedy Decisions Branch

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, DC 20460
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

i

Table of C ontents

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................ iii

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ iv

Background of the NPL ....................................................................................................................................... iv

Development of the NPL ..................................................................................................................................... iv

Hazard Ranking System.........................................................................................................................................v

Other Mechanisms for Listing ............................................................................................................................. vi

Organization of this Document............................................................................................................................ vi

Glossary .............................................................................................................................................................. vii

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence .....................................................................................................1

2. Site Description ................................................................................................................................................1

3. Summary of Comments...................................................................................................................................2

3.1 Support for Listing .....................................................................................................................................4

3.2 Site Definition ............................................................................................................................................5

3.3 Extent of Site ..............................................................................................................................................6

3.3.1 Adequacy of Data to Delineate Multiple Plumes...................................................................................................8

3.3.2 Different Chemicals in the Multiple Plumes..........................................................................................................9

3.3.3 Different PRPs and Separate Remediation Activities..........................................................................................10

3.3.4 NCIA as a Separate Site.......................................................................................................................................11

3.4 Rationale for Listing.................................................................................................................................12

3.5 Other Listing Considerations....................................................................................................................13

3.5.1 Site Deletion ........................................................................................................................................................13

3.5.2 Scope of HRS Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................14

3.5.3 Consideration of Limited EPA Budget and Resources........................................................................................15

3.6 Delay of Remediation...............................................................................................................................16

3.7 No Risk.....................................................................................................................................................17

3.8 Consideration of Response Actions..........................................................................................................19

3.9 Concentrations below State Cleanup Criteria...........................................................................................22

3.10 Liability ....................................................................................................................................................23
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

ii

3.11 Economic Impact of Listing .....................................................................................................................24

4. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................25
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

iii

Executive Summary

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the EPA prepare a list of national 

priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants 

throughout the United States. An original National Priorities List (NPL) was promulgated on September 8, 1983 

(48 FR 40658). CERCLA requires that EPA update the list at least annually.

This document provides responses to public comments received on the New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water 

Contamination site, proposed on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13113). This site is being added to the NPL based on an 

evaluation under EPA’s Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in 

September 2011.
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

iv

Introduction

This document explains the rationale for adding the New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination site in 

New Cassel/Hicksville, New York, to the National Priorities List (NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and 

provides responses to public comments received on this site listing proposal. The EPA proposed this site to the 

NPL on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13113). This site is being added to the NPL based on an evaluation under the

Hazard Ranking System (HRS) in a final rule published in the Federal Register in September 2011.

Background of the NPL

In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq. in response to the dangers of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. 

CERCLA was amended on October 17, 1986, by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), 

Public Law No. 99-499, stat., 1613 et seq. To implement CERCLA, EPA promulgated the revised National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, on July 16, 1982 (47 FR 31180), 

pursuant to CERCLA Section 105 and Executive Order 12316 (46 FR 42237, August 20, 1981). The NCP, further 

revised by EPA on September 16, 1985 (50 FR 37624) and November 20, 1985 (50 FR 47912), sets forth 

guidelines and procedures needed to respond under CERCLA to releases and threatened releases of hazardous 

substances, pollutants, or contaminants. On March 8, 1990 (55 FR 8666), EPA further revised the NCP in 

response to SARA.

Section 105(a)(8)(A) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires that the NCP include 

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases throughout the United 

States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent practicable, take into account 

the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking removal action.

Removal action involves cleanup or other actions that are taken in response to emergency conditions or on a 

short-term or temporary basis (CERCLA Section 101). Remedial action is generally long-term in nature and 

involves response actions that are consistent with a permanent remedy for a release (CERCLA Section 101). 

Criteria for placing sites on the NPL, which makes them eligible for remedial actions financed by the Trust Fund 

established under CERCLA, were included in the HRS. EPA promulgated the HRS as Appendix A of the NCP 

(47 FR 31219, July 16, 1982). On December 14, 1990 (56 FR 51532), EPA promulgated revisions to the HRS in 

response to SARA, and established the effective date for the HRS revisions as March 15, 1991.

Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, as amended, requires that the statutory criteria provided by the HRS be used to 

prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, 

pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States. The list, which is Appendix B of the NCP, is the NPL.

An original NPL of 406 sites was promulgated on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40658). At that time, an HRS score 

of 28.5 was established as the cutoff for listing because it yielded an initial NPL of at least 400 sites, as suggested 

by CERCLA. The NPL has been expanded several times since then, most recently on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 

13113). The Agency also has published a number of proposed rulemakings to add sites to the NPL. The most 

recent proposal was on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13089).

Development of the NPL

The primary purpose of the NPL is stated in the legislative history of CERCLA (Report of the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works, Senate Report No. 96-848, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 60 [1980]).
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

v

The priority list serves primarily informational purposes, identifying for the States and the public 

those facilities and sites or other releases which appear to warrant remedial actions. Inclusion of a 

facility or site on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment of the activities of its owner or 

operator, it does not require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign liability to 

any person. Subsequent government actions will be necessary in order to do so, and these actions 

will be attended by all appropriate procedural safeguards.

The NPL, therefore, is primarily an informational and management tool. The identification of a site for the NPL is 

intended primarily to guide EPA in determining which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and 

extent of the human health and environmental risks associated with the site and to determine what CERCLAfinanced remedial action(s), if any, may be appropriate. The NPL also serves to notify the public of sites EPA 

believes warrant further investigation. Finally, listing a site may, to the extent potentially responsible parties are 

identifiable at the time of listing, serve as notice to such parties that the Agency may initiate CERCLA-financed 

remedial action.

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs EPA to list priority sites among the known releases or threatened release 

of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, and Section 105(a)(8)(A) directs EPA to consider certain 

enumerated and other appropriate factors in doing so. Thus, as a matter of policy, EPA has the discretion not to 

use CERCLA to respond to certain types of releases. Where other authorities exist, placing sites on the NPL for 

possible remedial action under CERCLA may not be appropriate. Therefore, EPA has chosen not to place certain 

types of sites on the NPL even though CERCLA does not exclude such action. If, however, the Agency later 

determines that sites not listed as a matter of policy are not being properly responded to, the Agency may consider 

placing them on the NPL.

Hazard Ranking System

The HRS is the principle mechanism EPA uses to place uncontrolled waste sites on the NPL. It is a numerically 

based screening system that uses information from initial, limited investigations -- the preliminary assessment and 

site inspection -- to assess the relative potential of sites to pose a threat to human health or the environment. HRS 

scores, however, do not determine the sequence in which EPA funds remedial response actions, because the 

information collected to develop HRS scores is not sufficient in itself to determine either the extent of 

contamination or the appropriate response for a particular site. Moreover, the sites with the highest scores do not 

necessarily come to the Agency's attention first, so that addressing sites strictly on the basis of ranking would in 

some cases require stopping work at sites where it was already underway. Thus, EPA relies on further, more 

detailed studies in the remedial investigation/feasibility study that typically follows listing.

The HRS uses a structured value analysis approach to scoring sites. This approach assigns numerical values to 

factors that relate to or indicate risk, based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped into three categories. 

Each category has a maximum value. The categories are:

• likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release hazardous substances into the 

environment;

• characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity); and

• people or sensitive environments (targets) affected by the release.

Under the HRS, four pathways can be scored for one or more threats as identified below:

• Ground Water Migration (Sgw)

- drinking water
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

vi

• Surface Water Migration (Ssw) 

The following threats are evaluated for two separate migration components, overland/flood migration and 

ground water to surface water.

- drinking water

- human food chain

- sensitive environments

• Soil Exposure (Ss)

- resident population

- nearby population

- sensitive environments

• Air Migration (Sa)

- population

- sensitive environments

After scores are calculated for one or more pathways according to prescribed guidelines, they are combined using 

the following root-mean-square equation to determine the overall site score (S), which ranges from 0 to 100:

If all pathway scores are low, the HRS score is low. However, the HRS score can be relatively high even if only 

one pathway score is high. This is an important requirement for HRS scoring because some extremely dangerous 

sites pose threats through only one pathway. For example, buried leaking drums of hazardous substances can 

contaminate drinking water wells, but -- if the drums are buried deep enough and the substances not very volatile 

-- not surface water or air.

Other Mechanisms for Listing

There are two mechanisms other than the HRS by which sites can be placed on the NPL. The first of these 

mechanisms, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 300.425(c)(2), allows each State and Territory to designate one 

site as its highest priority regardless of score. The last mechanism, authorized by the NCP at 40 CFR 

300.425(c)(3), allows listing a site if it meets the following three requirements:

• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has 

issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of individuals from the release;

• EPA determines the site poses a significant threat to public health; and

• EPA anticipates it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its emergency 

removal authority to respond to the site.

Organization of this Document

The following section contains EPA responses to site-specific public comments received on the proposal of the 

New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination site on March 10, 2011 (76 FR 13113). The site discussion 

4

S + S + S + S S =

2

a

2

s

2

sw

2

gw
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

vii

begins with a list of commenters, followed by a site description, a summary of comments, and Agency responses 

to each comment. A concluding statement indicates the effect of the comments on the HRS score for the site.

Glossary

The following acronyms and abbreviations are used throughout the text:

1,1-DCA 1,1-dichloroethane

1,1-DCE 1,1-dichloroethene

1,1,1-TCA 1,1,1-trichloroethane

1,2-DCA 1,2-dichloroethane

Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

BEAC Barouh Eaton Allen Corporation

BGWD Bowling Green Water District

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 

U.S.C. Sections 9601 et seq., also known as Superfund

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cis-1,2-DCE cis-1,2-dichloroethene

CRQL Contract Required Quantitation Limit

DEC Department of Environmental Conservation

DL Detection limit

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FR Federal Register

FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program

HRS Hazard Ranking System, Appendix A of the NCP

HRS score Overall site score calculated using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to 100

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

MCL Maximum contaminant level

NCHGWC New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination

NCIA New Cassel Industrial Area

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300

NPL National Priorities List, Appendix B of the NCP

NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

OU3 Operable Unit 3

PCE Tetrachloroethene

PRP Potentially responsible party
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

viii

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RI/FS Remedial investigation and feasibility study

ROD Record of Decision

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act

SQL Sample quantitation limit

TCE Trichloroethene

μg/l Micrograms/liter

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

VOC Volatile organic compound
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

1

1. List of Commenters and Correspondence

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074-0004 Correspondence, dated December 27, 2010 from Peter M. 

Iwanowicz, Acting Commissioner, letter requesting placement of 

the New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination site on 

the National Priorities List (NPL)

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074-0005 Comment, dated March 30, 2011, from Anonymous public 

comment

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074-0006 Comment, dated May 6, 2011, from Anonymous public 

comment

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074-0007 Comment, dated May 7, 2011, from Anonymous public 

comment

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074-0008 Comment, dated May 7, 2011, from Anonymous public 

comment

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074-0009 Comment, dated May 8, 2011, from Anonymous public 

comment

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074-0010 Comment and attachment, dated May 9, 2011, from Robert R. 

Lucic, et al. IMC Eastern Corporation f/k/a IMC Magnetics Corp 

(IMC), 2632 Realty Development Corp. and Barouh Eaton Allen 

Corporation (BEAC)

EPA-HQ-SFUND-2011-0074-0011 Comment and attachment, dated May 9, 2011, from Suzanne M. 

Avena, et al., Garfunkel Wild, P.C. on behalf of Arkwin 

Industries

2. Site Description

The New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination (NCHGWC) site (hereinafter referred to as the Site or 

the NCHGWC site) comprises a widespread area of ground water contamination in the Towns of Hempstead, 

North Hempstead and Oyster Bay, New York (see Figure 1). The Site is in a heavily developed industrial, 

commercial, and residential area, where a large number of past industrial and commercial activities have resulted 

in ground water contamination. The HRS evaluation for the Site scored the ground water migration pathway. The 

source identified at proposal for HRS purposes is a contaminated ground water plume and the contaminant release 

causing the plume cannot be attributed to any single source. The plume consists of comingled releases forming 

multiple comingled plumes whose sources cannot be separately identified. 

The Site was scored based on observed releases by chemical analysis to a drinking water aquifer; ground water 

samples collected at 11 public supply wells throughout the NCHGWC site area showed elevated concentrations of 

one or more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at levels meeting observed release criteria, many above health 

based criteria. These wells provide drinking water to more than 38,624 people. All public supply wells with 

observed releases draw from the Magothy Aquifer that underlies most of Long Island including the NHCGWC 

site and surrounding area. The most prevalent contaminants found were cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE) and 

trichloroethene (TCE), followed by tetrachloroethene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride. Samples collected from 

background wells upgradient of the Site that draw from the same aquifer showed no-detection or comparatively 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

2

low concentrations for these contaminants. Remedial action has been taken to treat the drinking water, however, 

the aquifer (drinking water source) remains contaminated.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the EPA have made significant 

efforts to identify the specific source(s) of ground water contaminant releases, identifying many facilities in the 

region that are or could be associated with the Site contaminants, but there is insufficient evidence to attribute the 

ground water contamination plume in the aquifer to any specific facility(ies) releases. Historically the NYSDEC 

has identified several plumes in the area that are comingled. The EPA has taken the most efficient and protective 

approach by listing the Site as a single comingled plume.

Regarding the New Cassel Industrial Area (NCIA) relative to the NCHGWC site, the NCIA is an industrial area 

located just north of the Bowling Green Wells 1 and 2, two of the contaminated wells within the Site. The NCIA 

was developed in the 1950s; many of the properties have housed various businesses over the years, and a wide 

variety of past commercial and industrial activities conducted within the area could have resulted in VOC 

contamination. NYSDEC investigated 17 facilities at the NCIA to varying degrees from 1994-1999, including soil 

and ground water sampling, and has since conducted or overseen remedial activities at some facilities. Despite the 

investigative and remedial efforts, NYSDEC has been unable to identify the specific source(s) of contamination in 

the NCHGWC public supply wells and for the State investigation purposes has identified contaminated ground 

water south of the NCIA as a separate operable unit (OU3). NYSDEC has issued a State of New York Record of 

Decision for just what the State has coined “OU3” and not for the entire NCHGWC site. (The State of New York 

also refers to the NCIA as a “site” for its purposes, but this terminology is not consistent with the HRS definition 

of “site.”) The State Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) was also issued for just the NCIA and it 

does not address contamination for the entire NCHGWC site. Releases from NCIA facilities are considered a 

portion of the NCHGWC site for Superfund purposes.

In 1988, NYSDEC listed the NCIA as a “Class 2 site (Significant threat to the public health or environment -

action required)” in the New York State Registry of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites (the Registry). 

However, the NCHGWC site being evaluated for listing in this HRS evaluation is much more extensive than just 

the contamination originating from the NCIA. The NCHGWC site is a comingled contaminated ground water 

plume that includes releases from the NCIA and a multitude of other sources; it encompasses numerous wells in 

Westbury, Hempstead, Bowling Green and Hicksville (see Figure 1).

3. Summary of Comments

Eight submittals, including one correspondence and seven comment letters, were received on the proposal of the 

NCHGWC site to the NPL. Mr. Peter M. Iwanowicz, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental 

Conservation (DEC), under the authority of the Governor of New York, submitted a correspondence supporting 

the placement of the Site on the NPL. Three anonymous commenters supported the listing. These commenter 

expressed concerns for public health and the need for Federal Superfund assistance to address the contamination. 

Two additional anonymous commenters did not support the listing and requested for the contaminated waters to 

be cleaned but without placing the community of Salisbury, New York on the Superfund. The two primary 

comments opposed to the placement of the Site on the NPL were submitted by Suzanne M. Avena, et al., of 

Garfunkel Wild, P.C. on behalf of Arkwin Industries and others (herein referred to as Arkwin Industries), and by 

R. Lucic, et al. of Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green on behalf of IMC Eastern Corporation f/k/a IMC Magnetics 

Corp (IMC), 2632 Realty Development Corp. and Barouh Eaton Allen Corporation (BEAC) (local property 

lessors/owners) (herein referred to as IMC Eastern Corporation). 
CLIENT NAME: DATE: FIGURE #:

PROJECT:

TITLE:

<!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<<

<

<

<

<

<<

<

<

<

<

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

<

<

<<

<

<

<

<<

<

!(

Area of Observed Ground 

Water Contamination

General Instruments

Site Location

Sylvania Site Location

New Cassel Industrial Area

Site Location

Metco Site Location

NCIA-GW07

Town of Hempstead

Roosevelt Field Well 10

NCIA-GW01

Town of Hempstead

Bowling Green Well 1

NCIA-GW02

NCIA-GW03 - duplicate

Town of Hempstead

Bowling Green Well 2 NCIA-GW12

Westbury Well 11

HCGW-GW16

Town of Hempstead

Levittown Well 2A

HCGW-GW04

Hicksville Well 4-2

HCGW-GW01

Hicksville Well 5-2

HCGW-GW08

Hicksville Well 8-1

HCGW-GW09

Hicksville Well 8-3

HCGW-GW02

HCGW-GW03 - duplicate

Hicksville Well 5-3

HCGW-GW12

Hicksville Well 9-3

R

®

Site Area

" NJ

NY

PA

CT

Figure 1 - Site Location Map

New Cassel/Hicksville GW Contamination

Towns of Hempstead and Oyster Bay

Nassau County, NY

EPA August 2011 1

New Cassel/Hicksville GW Contamination

P:\SAT 2\2 010 _L I_Sites\10 10 1_ NCH GWC _Sam ple_ Loc_ v3 .mxd

4,000 2,000 0 4,000

Graphic Scale In Feet

SOURCES:

1. Nat ional Geogr aphic TOPO! U.S . Geo logic Surve y (USG S). 7 -5 Min ute 

 S eries (Topo graph ic) Qu adran gles: Amit yvill e, NY 1992; Freep ort, NY 

 1 994; Hicks ville , NY 1 992; and H unting ton, NY 199 2.

2. Wes ton S olutio ns, I nc. R egion 5 St art-3, Site Logbo oks 9 96-4E- AHSW

 ( New C assel Indus trial Area) and 1144-4 E-AHS X (Hic ksvil le 

 C ontam inated Grou ndwate r Are a). August 2010 .

3. Law ler, Matusk y & S kelly Engin eers LLP. Remed ial 

 I nvest igatio n/Fea sibili ty St udy ( RI/FS) Repo rt, Ne w Cas sel In dustr ial 

 A rea O ffsite Grou ndwate r. P repar ed for NYSD EC. S eptem ber 20 00.

4. Mal colm Pirnie , Inc . Gro undwa ter I nvesti gatio n Repo rt, F ormer Sylva nia 

 E lectr ic Pro duct Facili ty. 

 P repar ed for GTE Operat ions Suppo rt Inc orpor ated. Marc h 2003 .

5. NYS DEC S tate S uperf und Pr ogram . In active Haza rdous Waste Dispo sal S ite 

 C lassi ficati on No tice, Site Name: Metco , Sit e No. 13017 9. 

 A pril 20, 20 11.

Legend

<! Background public supply well sample location

!( Approximate Center of Observed Contamination

Area of Observed Ground Water Contamination

Industrial Site Boundaries

<! Sample location of public supply well screened in 

Lloyd aquifer 

<! Public supply well sample location with observed release 

concentration(s)
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

4

Contesting the listing, Arkwin Industries stated that the proposed listing is flawed in that it relies on an abstract 

HRS that does not consider facts relating to actual environmental risk. It stated that there is no current or future 

risk to public health and that it is only after the State’s cost recovery action for NCIA remediation was going to be 

dismissed by the court that the State indicated that the Site would be “nominated” to the NPL. 

Arkwin Industries commented that the proposed listing is excessively broad and fails to consider the previously 

developed data that shows multiple plumes. It stated that the EPA is unfairly “bootstrapping” the smaller, less 

contaminated NCIA into an unmanageably broader area dominated by larger, more environmentally complex 

sites. According to Arkwin Industries, treatment of the NCHGWC site as a single NPL site will engender delay 

and excessive and duplicative study costs as well as give rise to numerous challenges by potentially responsible 

parties (PRPs) or groups of individuals on the grounds of liability apportionment.

Arkwin Industries also commented that remedial activities at the NCIA portion of the Site and from areas 

upgradient of the NCIA portion of the Site have eliminated the threat of public exposure and potential risk to the 

public. It stated that the wellhead treatment on the public drinking water wells precludes risk of exposure to the 

Site contaminants and shows that the existing conditions at the Site meet one of the EPA’s criteria for deleting a 

site from the NPL. 

Similarly, IMC Eastern Corporation commented that remedial actions and the natural flushing of the aquifer have 

substantially reduced the extent of the Western Plume, which attenuates to concentrations below the State’s 

cleanup goals for ground water before reaching the boundary of the proposed NCHGWC site.

IMC Eastern Corporation also commented that the former IMC facility is not located within the proposed 

NCHGWC site, and the data and analysis conducted by NYSDEC regarding the NCIA identifies three ground 

water plumes (Eastern, Central and Western) migrating to the southwest consistent with ground water flow 

direction. IMC Eastern Corporation added that according to NYSDEC the western plume is separate from and 

flows parallel to the central and eastern plumes and that even Mr. Chittibabu Vasudevan, Director of the Remedial 

Bureau for the Division of Environmental Remediation, NYSDEC, concluded that “a third contaminant plume 

identified as the western plume runs parallel to the central and eastern plumes;” and does not impact the Bowling 

Green Estates Water District.

IMC Eastern Corporation stated that if the NCHGWC site is placed on the NPL, parties in the Western Plume of 

the NCIA should not be considered as PRPs to the proposed listing.

3.1 Support for Listing

Comment: Mr. Peter M. Iwanowicz, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), 

under the authority of the Governor of New York supported placement of the Site on the NPL. Three anonymous 

commenters also supported placement of the Site on the NPL. These commenters requested continued 

surveillance of the water system, a solution to the ongoing problem, and a long-term cleanup financed by 

Superfund that would build on cleanup work already started by New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation.

Two anonymous commenters expressed concerns regarding that the level of contaminants detected in ground 

water are far above the recommended safety limits, and the NCHGWC site may be eligible for long-term cleanup, 

which would allow the EPA to build on the cleanup started by the NYSDEC. One of the commenters stated that 

the health of all US citizens deserves better attention and a solution to the ongoing problem.

One anonymous commenter stated that because of the size of the problem and the length of time the contaminants 

have been in the water, the State of New York needs the assistance of Federal Superfund. 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

5

Arkwin Industries stated that the NCHGWC site should not be listed on the NPL. 

Response: The Agency is adding the NCHGWC site to the NPL. Listing makes a site eligible for remedial action 

funding under CERCLA, and the EPA will examine the site to determine the appropriate response action(s). 

Actual funding may not necessarily be undertaken in the precise order of HRS scores, however, and upon more 

detailed investigation may not be necessary at all in some cases. The EPA will determine the need for using 

Superfund monies for remedial activities on a site-by-site basis, taking into account the NPL ranking, State 

priorities, further site investigation, other response alternatives, and other factors as appropriate. The EPA will not 

stop work at some sites to begin work at other higher-scoring sites added to the NPL more recently. 

As discussed in the remainder of this support document, all specific comments received on the proposed addition 

to the NPL of this site have been addressed and the Site still qualifies for the NPL listing.

3.2 Site Definition

Comment: Two anonymous commenters requested for the waters to be cleaned but without placing the 

community of Salisbury, New York on the Superfund list.

IMC Eastern Corporation also commented on the extent of the proposed listing. IMC Eastern Corporation stated 

that the former IMC facility located at 570 Main Street is not located within the proposed NCHGWC site, but 

rather it is north of the proposed Site. IMC Eastern Corporation stated the data and analysis conducted by 

NYSDEC regarding the NCIA identifies three ground water plumes (Eastern, Central and Western) migrating to 

the southwest consistent with ground water flow direction and added that according to NYSDEC the western 

plume is separate from and flows parallel to the central and eastern plumes. IMC Eastern Corporation also 

asserted that a director at the NYSDEC [Mr. Chittibabu Vasudevan, Director of the Remedial Bureau for the 

Division of Environmental Remediation] concluded that “a third contaminant plume identified as the Western 

Plume runs parallel to the Central and Eastern Plumes;” that the western plume does not impact the Bowling 

Green Estates Water District; and that the 2003 Record of Decision (ROD) for the NCIA concludes that the 

western plume is shallow and has only affected the upper portions of the aquifer. 

Response: The NCHGWC site is being listed on the NPL, not the Salisbury community or the former IMC

facility. For HRS purposes, site is defined in HRS Section 1.1, Definitions, 1 as:

[a]rea(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, or has

otherwise come to be located. Such areas may include multiple sources and may include the area 

between the sources. 

The source section of the HRS documentation record at NPL proposal (pages 9-10) identified that the source is a 

contaminated ground water plume delineated by 11 public supply wells in the Magothy aquifer. The Magothy 

aquifer is identified on page 17 of the HRS documentation record at NPL proposal, as the primary source of 

drinking water for Nassau County. 

Therefore, the Site at proposal consisted of an area of known contaminated water in a drinking water aquifer that 

has impacted 11 public supply wells. The Site is not the community of Salisbury or the former IMC facility.

Although the NCHGWC site may underlie several communities and properties, the EPA is not listing a specific 

community or property, but a widespread area of ground water contamination. Until the site investigation process 

has been completed and a remedial action (if any) selected, the EPA can neither estimate the extent of 

contamination at the Site, nor describe the ultimate dimensions of the Site. Even during a remedial action (e.g., 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

6

the removal of buried waste) the EPA may find that the contamination has spread further than previously 

estimated, and the site definition may be correspondingly expanded. See Washington State DOT v. EPA, 917 F.2d 

1309, 1310 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing Eagle-Picher Indus. v. EPA, 822 F.2d 132, 144 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). In addition, 

if another, unrelated area of contamination is discovered elsewhere on the property, the EPA may decide to 

evaluate that release for the NPL.

This comment results in no change to the HRS site score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.3 Extent of Site

Comment: Arkwin Industries submitted comments that contested the listing of the Site as a single site composed 

of a single ground water contamination plume. Arkwin Industries commented that:

• The proposed listing should be scored as separate sites and can be addressed appropriately and efficiently 

in that way.

• A single plume of unknown origin does not serve the interests of the public, the EPA or the potentially 

responsible parties.

Response: The NCHGWC site is identified as composed of a single contaminated ground water plume with no 

identified source because the releases and the resulting possible plumes that compose the Site are comingled; no 

distinct boundaries can be delineated between the possible multiple plumes; and thus, because the risk posed to 

human health cannot be addressed effectively by addressing the plumes individually, the remediation of the 

multiple plumes to reduce the risk posed by them require a comprehensive action. In addition, the releases from 

NCIA that appear to be contributing to the plume are an inseparable part of the overall release being scored;

NCIA is therefore part of the Site. 

The NCHGWC site is composed of contiguous areas where the release of hazardous substances has come to be 

located. Consistent with the Federal Register Notice at proposal (FR 13113 - 13120 Federal Register / Vol. 76, 

No. 47 / Thursday, March 10, 2011), the NPL does not describe a release in precise geographical terms. Section F 

of this Federal Register Notice states “the precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the time 

of listing.” 

The ground water plume as the source was evaluated consistent with the HRS. HRS section 1.1, Definitions, 

defines a source as:

[a]ny area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or placed, plus 

those soils that have become contaminated from migration of a hazardous substance. Sources do 

not include those volumes of air, ground water, surface water, or surface water sediments that 

have become contaminated by migration, except: in the case of either a ground water plume 

with no identified source or contaminated surface water sediments with no identified 

source, the plume or contaminated sediments may be considered a source. [emphasis added]

Direction on how to evaluate a ground water plume is also found in HRS section 3.0.1.1, Ground water target 

distance limit, which states:

For sites that consist solely of a contaminated ground water plume with no identified source, . . . 

Determine the area of observed ground water contamination based on available samples that meet 

the criteria for an observed release. 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

7

The observed release criteria are explained in HRS section 2.3, Likelihood of release, and HRS Table 2-3. HRS 

Table 2-3 states:

An observed release is established as follows:

• If the background concentration is not detected (or is less than the detection limit), an 

observed release is established when the sample measurement equals or exceeds the 

sample quantitation limit.a

• If the background concentration equals or exceeds the detection limit, an observed release 

is established when the sample measurement is 3 times or more above the background 

concentration.

a If the sample quantitation limit (SQL) cannot be established, determined if there is an observed 

release as follows:

• If the sample analysis was performed under the EPA Contract Laboratory Program, use the 

EPA contract-required quantitation limit (CRQL) in place of the SQL. 

• If the sample analysis is not performed under the EPA Contract Laboratory Program, use the 

detection limit (DL) in place of the SQL.

Page 9 of the HRS documentation record at proposal identifies the source as follows:

Source 1 is considered a contaminated ground water plume of unknown volume that cannot be 

attributed to any single source. . . . The plume currently affects 11 public supply wells: four Town 

of Hempstead wells (Bowling Green 1 and 2, Roosevelt Field 10, and Levittown 2A), six 

Hicksville wells (4-2, 5-2, 5-3, 8-1, 8-3, and 9-3), and Westbury Well 11. . . . 

The source is considered to be a single plume because all public supply wells within the mapped 

area show elevated concentrations (i.e., observed release) of one or more VOCs [Figure 1; Table 

2]. The most prevalent contaminants are cis-1,2-DCE and TCE at observed release concentrations 

in nine wells each, followed by PCE and carbon tetrachloride at observed release concentrations 

in seven wells and six wells, respectively [Table 2]. Six wells (Bowling Green 1 and 2; and 

Hicksville Wells 4-2, 5-2, 5-3, and 8-3) showed observed release concentrations of all four of 

those contaminants [Table 2]. Other contaminants were detected at observed release 

concentrations in one or more wells [Table 2]. In comparison, the same contaminants were either 

not detected or are present at significantly lower concentrations (i.e., background levels) in 20 

public supply wells outside the mapped area to the north, south, east, and west [Figure 1; Table 

1]. There are currently 16 NPL sites in Nassau County [Ref. 28, pp. 1-3]. The background levels 

in Hicksville Wells 9-1 and 9-2 east of the plume and Roosevelt Field Well 7 on the west indicate 

separation of the NCHGWC plume from the nearest NPL sites (Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer 

Corp to the east, Pasley Solvents & Chemicals, Inc. to the west-southwest, and Old Roosevelt 

Field Contaminated GW Area to the west) [Ref. 28, pp. 4-7].

The observed release analytical results, which the EPA notes that Arkwin Industries and IMC Eastern Corporation 

do not contest in their comments on the listing, are shown on Tables 1 and 2 of the HRS documentation record at 

proposal on pages 20-27. This information is sufficient to characterize the plume as a source at the Site.
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

8

Arkwin Industries’ specific comments regarding the extent of the Site are addressed in the following subsections:

• Adequacy of Data to Delineate Multiple Plumes (section 3.3.1)

• Different Chemicals in the Multiple Plumes (section 3.3.2)

• Different PRPs and Separate Remediation Activities (section 3.3.3)

• NCIA as a Separate Site (section 3.3.4) 

3.3.1 Adequacy of Data to Delineate Multiple Plumes

Comment: Arkwin Industries commented that the proposed listing of the NCHGWC site as comprising a single, 

unitary area of contamination from a single plume should be rejected because it ignores the enormous amount of 

previously collected data and analyses. It explained that the listing is overly simplistic in its approach and asserts, 

contrary to the available scientific evidence, that the proposed Site is impacted by a single, massive plume. This, 

according to Arkwin Industries, undermines the applicability and integrity of the HRS and threatens the purpose 

of an NPL listing.

Arkwin Industries specifically stated the following:

• The listing fails to consider data showing multiple plumes. 

• The EPA’s overly simplistic approach in asserting the Site is a single massive plume is contrary to 

available scientific evidence and undermines the applicability and integrity of the HRS. 

• There are three separate, distinct and divisible plumes within the vast area of the proposed Site. The 

NCIA has been studied extensively for more than 25 years and the studies show there are three separate 

plumes emanating, at least in part, from beneath the NCIA, none of which have any reported impact on 

the western-most and eastern-most public supply wells sampled and utilized as the basis for the EPA’s 

HRS score for the NCHGWC site. There is no need for the EPA to commission new studies to determine 

what is already known. 

• No private water supply wells have been identified in the vicinity of the NCHGWC site. 

Response: The EPA agrees that there are most likely multiple plumes resulting from multiple releases that have 

caused the contamination that composes the Site, and does not disagree that there are three subareas of multiple 

plumes (i.e., the three plume areas identified by Arkwin Industries) that make up at least part of the Site. 

However, the contamination throughout the Site cannot be identified as coming from any single source.

As presented on page 27 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, the EPA conducted a database search 

centered on Hicksville Water District Plant 5 (Wells 5-2 and 5-3). The findings indicated that there are 20 

facilities associated with F001 to F005 wastes (i.e., spent halogenated solvents that might contain PCE or TCE) 

located within approximately 1 mile of the wells [Ref. 19, pp. 161-1018]. The environmental database search 

indicated that there are 3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action sites, 8 RCRA 

Generators, 29 State-listed hazardous waste sites, 3 landfills, 175 leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites 

and 4 registered drycleaners located within 1.5 miles of Plant 5 [Ref. 19, pp. 32-38, 1001-1018]. Although there is 

this multitude of facilities in the region that are or could be associated with the Site contaminants, there is not 

sufficient evidence to attribute the ground water contamination in the public supply wells to any specific 

facility(ies); therefore, there is no identified source(s) of contamination (see page 27 of the HRS documentation 

record at proposal).
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

9

The NY State RI/FS report, included as Reference 7 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, refers to three 

areas of contaminated ground water at the NCIA. However, there is no documentation that three separate nonoverlapping plumes exist at the Site. The NY State RI/FS, Reference 7 of the HRS documentation record at 

proposal, addressed only contamination under the NCIA and the immediate area in the NCIA vicinity. The 

historical area of ground water contamination, referred to as three plumes at the NCIA, was determined by 

extracting the highest total VOC result for each of the available ground water sampling points including 

monitoring wells, geoprobes and hydropunch sampling locations. These results were then contoured to provide an 

indication of the extent and maximum VOC concentrations that have historically been found within the impacted 

area between the late 1970s and 2000 (see pages 22-23 and Figures 5-5 through 5-8 of Reference 7 of the HRS 

documentation record at proposal). Further sampling to determine the extent of contamination at the NCIA 

included field sampling activities of existing and new monitoring wells in the NCIA area; the Bowling Green 

early warning wells; monitoring wells in off-site locations; and hydropunch ground water sampling locations in 

the NCIA area (see pages 20, 22-23, 32, 40 and 44 of Reference 7 of the HRS documentation record at proposal). 

Figures 3-1, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7 of Reference 7 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, show the well 

locations as being at NCIA and the immediate surrounding area. 

However, the data are not adequate to establish that the three plume areas are sufficiently delineated to identify 

what the sources are for each of the three plume areas or to identify within the three plume areas the probably 

multiple releases that have caused the plumes in each subarea. Nor is there sufficient information to establish the 

boundaries of each individual plume associated with each possible release from a single facility in the vicinity of 

the Site (a fact not disputed by the commenter). Without this level of information, it is consistent with the HRS to 

identify a single plume at the Site (see section 3.3, Extent of Site, of this support document). As stated above, the 

HRS expressly directs in section 1.1, Definitions, to consider the source at a site to be a ground water plume 

source when there is no identified source for the contamination.

Thus, since there is no identified source of all or even discrete parts of the contamination in the plumes making up 

either the NCHGWC site plume or for the three sub plumes identified by Arkwin Industries, a single plume has 

correctly been identified as the source at the Site consistent with the HRS. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS site score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.3.2 Different Chemicals in the Multiple Plumes

Comment: Arkwin Industries stated that the operational history and consequent waste contamination generated by 

the upgradient parties (Sylvania, General Instruments, Sulzer Metco and others) include constituents which are 

distinguishable from the VOCs originating in the NCIA, and the remediation selection will differ and will be 

more costly as well.

Response: The claim that the suggested three different plumes making up the Site can be separated by 

contaminants is not supported and, in fact, appears to be contradicted by the results of the samples used to 

delineate the Site plume. The NCHGWC site plume for HRS purposes is defined based on the location of the 11 

contaminated water supply wells and, as shown in the table below, the contaminants, carbon tetrachloride, 1,1-

dichloroethane (1,1-DCA), 1,1-dichloroethene (1,1-DCE), cis-1,2-DCE; 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), PCE; 

1,1,1-trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA), TCE; 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane, chloroethane,

trichlorofluoromethane and vinyl chloride, in these wells significantly overlap. Therefore, the NCHGWC site 

plume cannot be subdivided into separate plumes based on the contamination in these wells, nor can it be said the 

remedy selection or costs will be different until further Site investigation has occurred. See also section 3.3.3, 

Different PRPs and Separate Remediation Activities, of this support document. 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

10

Table 1: Analytes Detected in NCHGWC Site Wells1

Analyte

Bowling 

Green 

Well# Hicksville Well#

Roosevelt 

Field 

Well#

TOHLevittown 

Well#

Westbury 

Well#

1 2 4-2 5-2 5-3 8-1 8-3 9-3 10 2A 11

Carbon tetrachloride      

1,1-DCA      

1,1-DCE       

cis-1,2-DCE         

1,2-DCA   

PCE          

1,1,1-TCA       

TCE           

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-

Trifluoroethane

     

Chloroethane 

Trichlorofluoromethane 

Vinyl chloride  1 See HRS documentation record at proposal pages 24-26

This comment results in no change to the HRS site score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.3.3 Different PRPs and Separate Remediation Activities

Comment: Arkwin Industries stated the following:

• The cleanup at the “Sylvania site” falls under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 

(FUSRAP), which is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Instead of effecting a 

more global cleanup as the EPA said it hoped to achieve, the amalgamation of the broad NCHGWC area 

will hinder remediation. 

• The General Instruments Corporation site (the “GIC Site”) and former “Sylvania site” are both listed on 

the State Registry. These “sites,” per Arkwin Industries, are located upgradient from the NCIA. The 

NYSDEC recently listed Sulzer Metco as a NYS Superfund Site and continues to identify other PRPs as 

upgradient sources of contaminants migrating toward the NCIA.

Response: The HRS does not consider the number of PRPs in evaluating a site for placement on the NPL. Neither 

CERCLA nor the HRS requires consideration of PRPs when performing a site evaluation or for placing a site on 

the NPL. CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(A) identifies the factors required to be included in an HRS evaluation: 

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases [of hazardous substances] 

throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent 

practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking 

removal action. Criteria and priorities . . . shall be based upon relative risk or danger to public 

health or welfare or the environment, . . . taking into account to the extent possible the population 

at risk, the hazard potential of the hazardous substances at such facilities, the potential for 

contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential for direct human contact, [and] the 

potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems . . .

Nothing in these directions requires consideration of the PRPs in placing a site on the NPL.
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

11

The current HRS was promulgated in 1990 (55 FR 51532, December 14, 1990). As explained in the preamble to 

that final rule, the HRS is a numerically based screening tool that the Agency uses to assess the relative risk of a 

site compared to other sites. It contains no instructions to identify or name the PRPs liable for the contamination. 

For example, when characterizing a source, the HRS source definition (cited above) does not require the scorer to 

affiliate the source with a PRP. The basic purpose of the HRS evaluation is to determine an HRS site score. The 

PRPs who may have liability for the contamination will be determined at a later stage of the Superfund process. 

Regarding the selection of separate remediation activities, the need for remediation activities is considered at a 

separate stage of the Superfund process. However, as explained above, the EPA, based on the inability to 

delineate the individual extent of the multiple plumes making up the Site plume and the high likelihood that they 

are overlapping, considers that at this site it is unlikely that separate remediation of subplumes within the overall 

plume will efficiently or effectively reduce the risk to the populations using the contaminated ground water unless 

the remedial actions are coordinated. For example, the remedial actions need to be timed so that contamination 

simply does not spread from an unremediated area to a remediated area, and thus require re-remediation of the 

previously remediated area. See also section 3.10, Liability, of this support document

This comment results in no change to the HRS site score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.3.4 NCIA as a Separate Site

Comment: Arkwin Industries claimed that had the EPA properly evaluated the situation, the NCIA would not be 

eligible for the NPL. Arkwin Industries stated that “[i]t was only through EPA’s improper ‘boot-strapping’ of the 

smaller, less contaminated NCIA groundwater plumes with the broader contamination emanating from other 

larger, more environmentally complex sites that it was able to manipulate the HRS.”

Arkwin Industries commented that the site investigation and remediation process at NCHGWC, particularly in the 

NCIA, is far beyond the preliminary assessment/site inspection stage as is evident by the “countless volumes” of 

data characterizing the extent of the contamination and risks posed by ground water contamination. It added that 

source removal and remediation have been predominantly completed at sources located in the NCIA, and 

“[a]lthough the extent of the ground water contamination flowing from the NCIA may not be fully defined, it is 

unlikely that it will ever be fully defined as the ground water continues to migrate laterally and with depth. The 

bottom line is that such delineation is unnecessary as a complete remedy is in place.”

Response: The portion of the NCHGWC site plume emanating from the NCIA is included as part of the 

NCHGWC site, as explained above, because it was comingled with the NCHGWC site plume and because no 

specific single facility or source within the NCIA could be identified as the source of a single non-comingled 

plume. (See pages 11 and 27 and Table 2 of the HRS documentation record at proposal for further information 

regarding this issue.)

However, given the number of people served by each of the wells that compose the Site plume, any single release 

(or plume in this case) causing the contamination in any one of the wells used to delineate the plume, would 

qualify the Site for listing on the NPL. That is, the HRS scoring of the NCHGWC site evaluated 11 public 

drinking water wells as actually contaminated wells. Ten of these wells were subject to Level I contamination, 

and one of these wells was subject to Level II contamination. The population associated with each of these wells 

ranged from 2,059 to 4,021. If the HRS scoring were to evaluate the sources and releases associated with NCIA as 

a separate site, NCIA would still score sufficiently for placement on the NPL. That is, only scoring the release to 

the Bowling Green wells as partially attributable to NCIA sources, the ground water pathway score would still be 

maximized and a possible NCIA site score would be 50.00 (See pages 1, Table 6, and Figures 1 and 3-11 of 

Reference 8 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, which is the Record of Decision, New Cassel 

Industrial Area Sites, Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County, New York, Off-Site Groundwater South of New 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

12

Cassel Industrial Area, Operable Unit No. 3, October 2003. See also pages 11, 29, 30, and 32, and Figure 1 and 

Tables 1-2 of the HRS documentation record at proposal.) The HRS scoring components using the hypothetical 

scenario of scoring the NCIA as a separate site, would be as follows: 

(1) Likelihood of release would be 550 based on an observed release to the Magothy aquifer as documented by 

an observed release by chemical analysis. The public wells sampled by the EPA in August 2010 all withdraw 

from the Magothy aquifer. 

(2) Waste characteristics factor would be assigned a value of 32 in HRS Table 2-7. The waste characteristics 

score components are based on the ground water pathway hazardous waste quantity and the toxicity/mobility 

component of the hazardous substances. First, because targets are subject to Level I contamination, the 

minimum pathway hazardous waste quantity of 100 would be assigned (see HRS section 2.4.2.2, Calculation 

of hazardous waste quantity factor value). Second, the TCE toxicity/mobility factor value would be 10,000 

because TCE has been identified in the Bowling Green Wells 1 and 2 in the August 2010 ground water 

sampling event documenting an observed release. A mobility factor value of 1 would be assigned to TCE 

because all hazardous substances meeting an observed release are assigned a mobility value of 1 (see HRS 

section 3.2.1.2, Mobility). The product of the pathway hazardous waste quantity and the toxicity/mobility 

would be 1,000,000, which according to HRS Table 2-7 yields a waste characteristics factor value of 32.

(3) The Targets evaluation would be assigned a value of 80,470. TCE concentrations in the Bowling Green 

Wells 1 and 2 in the August 2010 ground water sampling event were above the cancer risk screening 

concentration and the maximum contaminant level (MCL), either of which would qualify these wells as 

being subject to Level I contamination. The target population associated with Bowling Green Wells 1 and 2 

is 4,021 for each well, providing a Level I population of 8,042 which when multiplied by a factor of 10 (as 

required for Level I contamination and specified in HRS section 3.3.2.2, Level I concentrations) yields a sum 

of 80,420. Also, because targets are subject to Level I population, a nearest well factor value of 50, (see HRS 

Section 3.3.1, Nearest well) would be assigned. In sum, the total target population score would be 80,470.

(3a) While there are numerous other wells that are within 4 miles of the sources at NCIA, this approach to show 

that NCIA would still score sufficient for listing does not include their evaluation. Addition of potentially 

contaminated wells would only increase the total targets value under this scenario. 

Thus, the HRS ground water pathway score and resulting HRS site score for NCIA can be calculated using the 

assigned values for likelihood of release, waste characteristics, and total targets: (500 x 32 x 80,470) ÷ 82.500 = 

17,166.933, subject to a maximum of 100 for the ground water pathway which would yield a HRS site score of 

50.00. This is the same ground water pathway score (100.00) and HRS site score (50.00) calculated for the 

NCHGWC site at proposal. Hence, even if the release from NCIA were contained to only the Bowling Green 

Wells 1 and 2, NCIA would still be eligible for placement on the NPL. However, as explained above, the releases 

evaluated in the HRS scoring of NCHGWC are commingled so that NCIA is not exempt from inclusion in the 

Site plume.

This comment results in no change to the HRS site score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.4 Rationale for Listing

Comment: Arkwin Industries stated that the “Court’s dismissal of the [NY] State’s cost recovery action should 

not be a factor considered in a determination to list a site on the NPL.” Arkwin Industries provided a procedural 

history of litigation commenced by NYSDEC and others related to remediation at NCIA. It concluded that the

State began to petition the EPA to list the Site only after the State realized that its CERCLA claim faced dismissal 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

13

on timeliness grounds, and asserted that the State’s failure to commence its litigation in a timely manner is 

insufficient justification for the EPA to list the Site on the NPL.

Response: The dismissal of the New York State’s cost recovery action is not the basis for placing the NCHGWC 

site on the NPL. The Site qualifies for listing based on the HRS score and, pursuant to the Agency’s authority is 

being placed on the NPL. The HRS is a numerically based screening tool that the Agency uses to assess the 

relative risk of a site compared to other sites, and does not take litigation into consideration. The EPA is 

appropriately applying its CERCLA authority by listing this site. This rulemaking is a separate action, unrelated 

to the litigation. Prior litigation under taken by the State of New York and others was not a factor considered in 

listing the NCHGWC site on the NPL. 

The EPA is not a party to any litigation concerning the NCIA and nothing precludes the EPA from engaging in 

the CERCLA listing process, which is independent of the NYSDEC actions related to NCIA. However, prior 

remediation performed under the direction of NYSDEC and the State may be considered when the EPA 

determines what remedies, if any, are necessary. (See section 3.8, Consideration of Response Action, of this 

support document.) Regarding risk at the Site, as explained in sections 3.3 (Extent of Site) and 3.7 (No Risk) of 

this support document, the HRS evaluation itself and the HRS site score above 28.50 represents the EPA’s 

determination that the Site may pose a threat to human health and the environment and warrants further 

investigation under CERCLA; this determination is sufficient reason to list the Site on the NPL. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS site score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.5 Other Listing Considerations

3.5.1 Site Deletion

Comment: Arkwin Industries commented that according to the November 12, 2002, OSWER memo, Guidelines 

for Withdrawing a Proposal to List a Site on the NPL (De-Proposal), a site being de-proposed generally should 

meet criteria similar to site deletion. It added that the deletion provisions of 40 CFR 300.425 (e) state that sites 

may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Arkwin Industries commented that in 

determining whether a site should be deleted, the EPA considers several factors including whether the remedial 

investigation has shown that the release posses no significant threat to public health or the environment. Arkwin 

Industries stated that NYSDEC’s determination that the wellhead treatment system precludes risk of exposure to 

the Site shows that the existing conditions at the Site meet one of the EPA’s criteria for deleting a site from the 

NPL. 

Response: This site does not meet the criteria for delisting in the memo because there are current risks which have 

not been addressed. The November 12, 2002 OSWER memo, Guidelines for Withdrawing a Proposal to List a 

Site on the NPL (De-Proposal), states that a site being de-proposed should meet criteria similar to deletion and 

when determining if a release should be deleted, the EPA considers whether the following criteria have been met:

• Responsible or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required; 

• All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no further response 

action by responsible parties is appropriate; or 

• The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to public health or the 

environment, and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.

At this site, as explained in section 3.7 (No Risk) of this support document, the risk posed by the site has not been 

fully assessed nor has the long term threat posed by the contamination been addressed. Suggesting that a site, 

based on information at the time of listing, might qualify for de-listing is not sufficient rationale for not placing a 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

14

site on the NPL. The criteria for each decision (i.e., listing and de-listing) are separate and the decisions are made 

during different stages of the Superfund process. The decision to place the NCHGWC site on the NPL is based on 

the HRS. As discussed in this support document, no commenter has shown that the EPA has improperly applied 

the HRS to this site or that the HRS site score for the Site is incorrect.

Furthermore, de-listing is a separate stage in the Superfund process and logically must follow listing. Listing 

makes a site eligible for remedial action funding under CERCLA. The EPA will examine a site during the RI/FS 

phase of the Superfund process to determine what response action, if any, is appropriate. If it is found that a 

response action is not necessary after the RI/FS then the site may be de-listed from the NPL.

Additionally, the commenter appears to think that the HRS is a site-specific risk assessment. The HRS is not a 

site-specific risk assessment; rather, it is a screening tool for identifying sites that pose sufficient actual or 

potential risk to warrant further investigation based on relative risk among sites. In the preamble to the HRS, the 

EPA stated: 

The Agency stresses that the limited data generated at the SI stage are designed to support site 

screening, and are not intended to provide support for a quantitative risk assessment. (55 FR 

51532, December 14, 1990).

Additionally, CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(A), as modified by SARA, states:

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases [of hazardous substances] 

throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent 

practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking 

removal action. Criteria and priorities under this paragraph shall be based upon relative risk or 

danger to public health or welfare or the environment...

The Preamble of the HRS rule also states that “[t]he HRS is a scoring system used to assess the relative threat 

associated with actual or potential releases of hazardous substances at sites.” (55 FR 51532, December 14, 1990).

A site-specific risk assessment will be performed as part of the Superfund response process that occurs after the 

listing process is completed. The results of the risk assessment will be considered when remedial options at a site 

are selected. A site may be de-listed from the NPL when the Agency determines that no further response is 

appropriate.

This comment results in no change to the HRS site score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.5.2 Scope of HRS Evaluation

Comment: Arkwin Industries stated that the HRS has no value as a “screening tool” if facts already known about 

a site are ignored by the EPA. It requested that a full evaluation of the risk to public health in the NCHGWC site 

should be made by the EPA when determining priority sites.

Additionally, Arkwin Industries emphasized that the statutory mandate of the HRS is to assess to the maximum 

extent feasible the relative degree of real risk to human health and the environment posed by sites under “HRS 

system review,” not abstract or theoretical risk that ignores facts. 

Response: Arkwin Industries provided no evidence that the EPA has ignored facts. On the contrary, the EPA 

reviewed all available information about this site. The EPA has properly used the HRS as a screening tool for 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

15

identifying sites that pose sufficient actual or potential risk to warrant further investigation and used all data 

required for this evaluation. In the preamble to the HRS, the EPA stated: 

The Agency stresses that the limited data generated at the SI stage are designed to support site 

screening, and are not intended to provide support for a quantitative risk assessment. (55 FR 

51541, December 14, 1990) 

A site-specific risk assessment will be performed as part of the Superfund response process that occurs after the 

listing process is completed. The results of the risk assessment will be considered during a later stage of the 

Superfund process when remedial options at a site are selected.

A full evaluation of the risk to public health is not required during the listing process to determine priority sites. 

Part of Arkwin Industries’ comment objects to the HRS. That part of the comment is outside the scope of this 

rulemaking, which does not address the merits of the HRS.

This comment results in no change to the HRS site score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.5.3 Consideration of Limited EPA Budget and Resources

Comment: Two anonymous commenters questioned whether the EPA has more resources than DEP and how the 

current administrative budget cut of 13 percent will affect their capacity. These commenters stated that the 2012 

proposed budget calls for cutting aid to states for water quality by 27 percent to 2.54 billion dollars and this is not 

reassuring. 

Arkwin Industries claimed that the expenditure of scarce federal Superfund dollars on a site where there is no 

public risk is contrary to the stated purposes of CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan. Per Arkwin

Industries, the New York State Department of Health has advised that there is no known exposure or threat to 

human health and safety; the EPA has a duty to consider economic factors and should direct federal funds to other 

sites that have greater priority based upon the threat they pose to the public health; and the EPA should refrain 

from spending scarce Superfund dollars and resources on this site that may be better spent on a site with actual 

human health and safety risks.

Further commenting on the intent of CERCLA, Arkwin Industries stated that fundamental to CERCLA and the 

NCP is the concept that scarce Superfund dollars and resources should be spent on sites where there is a priority 

need to protect health and safety and this general concept has been incorporated into the HRS system. Arkwin

Industries asserted that any large expenditure of Superfund dollars at the NCIA where no public health risk exists, 

and potentially the rest of the NCHGWC site, is not an informed use of scare Superfund dollars and is 

inconsistent with NCP and the “spirit of the HRS system.” 

Arkwin Industries stated that NYSDEC held a public meeting on May16, 1995, at which time it assured officials 

that it would pursue recovery of cost of the GAC treatment system and would fund supplementary remedial 

systems for the contamination.

Response: CERCLA and the HRS do not consider the budgets of the EPA or the State of New York as factors in 

the placement of sites on the NPL. This action proposes to list the NCHGWC site on the NPL for further 

investigation. The evaluation of this site using the HRS and the listing of the site are consistent with the statutory 

purpose of the NPL and the requirements of CERCLA and SARA. 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

16

CERCLA Section 105(8)(A)[now Section 105(a)(8)(A)] required the EPA to establish:

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases [of hazardous substances] 

throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent 

practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking 

removal action. Criteria and priorities . . . shall be based upon relative risk or danger to public 

health or welfare or the environment . . . taking into account to the extent possible the population 

at risk, the hazard potential of the hazardous substances at such facilities, the potential for 

contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential for direct human contact, [and] the 

potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems . . .

Listing simply identifies a site as posing sufficient risk to human health and the environment to warrant further 

investigation and, if needed, response action. Costs associated with ongoing remediation and future cleanup 

actions will be decided in a later stage of the Superfund process.

Regarding the public meeting held by the NYSDEC, the EPA’s remediation decision is determined in a separate 

stage of the Superfund process; the EPA will review and consider the NYSDEC findings at that time.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the site on the NPL.

3.6 Delay of Remediation

Comment: Arkwin Industries commented that listing the NCHGWC as a single site will “undoubtedly engender 

delay in the cleanup of the site-related contamination.” It stated that listing the NCHGWC site as a single site 

would engender delay of remediating the already decades old contamination, which would result in anticipated 

challenges from parties or groups of parties contending that there is divisibility of harm. Arkwin Industries 

asserted that challenges to study costs incurred by the EPA will be raised by parties who can allege that they are 

not responsible for areas already studied and on which it has been established they have no impact. Arkwin 

Industries also asserted that remediation will more than likely lag as reviews and approvals by multiple agencies 

will be required “before even the slightest step forward can be taken.” 

Arkwin Industries stated that according to the EPA, the purposes of listing a site on the NPL are to: determine 

“which sites warrant further investigation to assess the nature and extent of human health and environmental risks 

associated with the site”; identify “what CERCLA-financed remedial actions may be appropriate”; notify “the 

public of sites EPA believes warrant further investigation”; and serve “notice to potentially responsible parties 

that EPA may initiate CERCLA-financial remedial action.” It asserted that the proposed listing of the single

massive plume threatens to defeat the very purpose of the NPL. Arkwin Industries stated that if the ultimate goal 

of CERCLA is to promote prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites, the proposed listing will frustrate that goal, 

since it will engender nothing but delay, and excessive and unnecessary study costs. 

Two anonymous commenters stated that the average time for the EPA to clean up a site placed on the NPL is 30 

years and questioned how placing a “residential community” on the NPL benefits from listing considering this 

delay.

Response: Arkwin Industries provided no support for the claim that the EPA manipulated or ignored data. In fact, 

the EPA considered all available information, and used data as required by the HRS. The length of time that 

remediation takes at a particular site is not a factor in determining to place a site on the NPL. The EPA's actions to 

evaluate the Site using the HRS and list the Site are consistent with the statutory purpose of the NPL and the 

requirements of CERCLA and SARA. 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

17

CERCLA Section 105(8)(A)[now Section 105(a)(8)(A)] required the EPA to establish:

criteria for determining priorities among releases or threatened releases [of hazardous substances] 

throughout the United States for the purpose of taking remedial action and, to the extent 

practicable taking into account the potential urgency of such action, for the purpose of taking 

removal action. Criteria and priorities . . . shall be based upon relative risk or danger to public 

health or welfare or the environment . . . taking into account to the extent possible the population 

at risk, the hazard potential of the hazardous substances at such facilities, the potential for 

contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential for direct human contact, [and] the 

potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems . . .

Additionally, if any designated PRP wishes to expedite cleanup efforts, it may undertake the RI/FS and/or 

remedial design/remedial action stages under the EPA’s supervision and pursuant to appropriate agreements with 

governmental authorities (under enforcement authorities of CERCLA or those of other statutes). Placing a site on 

the NPL does not encumber or preclude PRPs from entering into these agreements. The EPA has entered into 

many such agreements before and after a site’s promulgation to the NPL, and such an alternative is available to 

others. All site investigation work, as well as any remediation undertaken by the NCIA or performed by the State 

of New York to date and that which is currently proceeding, will be considered in other steps of the Superfund 

process, such as when performing an RI/FS, including a Superfund risk assessment for the site. Then, based on 

the findings of the RI/FS and a site-specific risk assessment, a determination of what further remedial actions, if 

any, are necessary will be made.

Furthermore, residential communities will see benefits with the listing of the Site regardless of “delay.” Property 

values and other economic attributes of the area are already likely affected by the current public knowledge of 

contamination. While NPL listing certainly provides additional public information on the New Cassel/Hicksville 

Ground Water Contamination, it also provides opportunity for residents and business owners to gain detailed 

knowledge and express their concerns and ideas for final solutions in the public forums offered during other 

phases of the Superfund process. Additionally, benefits associated with listing a site on the NPL include increased 

health and environmental protection as a result of increased public awareness of potential hazards.

The length of time that it takes for remediation at a site is not considered in the listing decision; residential 

communities will experience benefits from the proposed listing to the NPL as described above.

This comment results in no change to the HRS site score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the 

NPL.

3.7 No Risk

Comment: Arkwin Industries commented on the applicability of the HRS, stating that the proposed listing is 

flawed in that it relies upon an abstract HRS that is not informed by the facts relating to actual environmental risk. 

Arkwin Industries asserted that there are no current or future public health risks and the Site does not qualify for 

the NPL.

Arkwin Industries also commented that the NPL and HRS are designed with equally beneficial public goals, the 

preservation of scarce Superfund dollars for use at sites where there is risk to the public and the quick and 

efficient elimination of that risk. It concluded, the “proposed listing of the NCHGWC site simply does not meet 

these goals. Simply put, the only way the EPA demonstrated any environmental harm was by manipulating or 

ignoring the data. Had it properly evaluated the data, the EPA would have concluded that there is no justification 

for the NPL listing.” Arkwin Industries requested the EPA withdraw the Site from consideration for the NPL. 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

18

Arkwin Industries stated that the HRS has no value as a “screening tool” if facts already known about a site are 

ignored by the EPA. Arkwin Industries claimed that the “remedial actions already in place reveals that NCIA, and 

potentially the remainder of the proposed NCHGWC site, do not qualify for the NPL as there is no current or 

future risk to public health.”

Arkwin Industries stated that the HRS system numerically screens sites using information typically obtained 

during the limited investigations conducted at a site, and the available site information enables the assessor to 

screen the relative risk of a site based on this limited data. It added that a practical, objective use of the “HRS 

system” demands full information on ‘target’ exposure. Arkwin Industries then stated that the relative degree of 

real risk at the NCHGWC site is zero. To support its claim, Arkwin Industries stated that numerous RI/FS and risk 

assessment studies completed under NYSDEC supervision do not support the HRS scoring, particularly with 

respect to the NCIA where existing site conditions match those where the EPA and or NYSDEC have accepted 

wellhead treatment as a final remedy; therefore, the EPA should refrain from listing the Site as currently defined. 

Response: Arkwin Industries provided no support for the claim that the EPA manipulated or ignored data. In fact, 

the EPA considered all available information and used data as required by the HRS. An HRS evaluation does not 

represent a final determination of the risk posed by a site. The HRS evaluation assesses the relative risk of a site

compared to other sites; it is not a site-specific risk assessment. The actual risks posed to humans and the 

environment by the Site is not determined until site characterization including risk assessment is completed, 

which is a separate stage of the Superfund process. As part of these stages, various risk management options will 

be considered in selecting any appropriate remedy to clean up the contaminated plume and control for future 

contamination. Information collected in prior investigations will be considered at these later stages in the 

Superfund process, when an up-to-date risk assessment is performed and a risk management decision is made.

The basic purpose of the HRS as a screening tool (“rough list” of prioritized hazardous sites; a “first step in a 

process, nothing more, nothing less”) has been consistently upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (See 

Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. EPA, 372 F.3d 441, 443 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Washington State DOT v. EPA, 917 F.2d 1309, 

1310 (D.C. Cir. 1990); Eagle Picher Indus. v. EPA, 759 F.2d 922, 932 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Eagle Picher II)). The 

EPA would like to investigate each possible site completely and thoroughly prior to evaluating a site for proposal 

for NPL, but it must reconcile the need for certainty before action with the need for inexpensive, expeditious 

procedures to identify potentially hazardous sites. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has found the EPA’s 

approach to solving this conundrum to be “reasonable and fully in accord with Congressional intent. “Eagle 

Picher Industries, Inc.” v. EPA, (759 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Eagle Picher I)).

Furthermore, based on existing information on this site, page 7 of the HRS documentation record at proposal 

states the NCHGWC site is located in a heavily developed area consisting of industrial, commercial, and 

residential land; page 32 of the HRS documentation record at proposal states that the aquifer tapped by 10 public 

drinking water wells is evaluated as being above health-based criteria and one public drinking water well is 

evaluated as being subject to elevated concentrations of multiple contaminants. The actions currently being taken 

only address the risk by treating the water after it has been pumped to the surface, which does not address the 

contamination in the aquifer. Thus, these remedies, while being protective of the population using the drinking 

water, are considered temporary in nature and may not address the long-term threat posed by the contamination to 

these populations. 

It is the intent of CERCLA that remedial actions are those actions consistent with permanent remedy taken 

instead of, or in addition to, removal actions in the event of a release or threatened release of hazardous 

substances into the environment. These actions should prevent or minimize the release of hazardous substances so 

that they do not migrate to cause substantial danger to present or future public health or welfare or the 

environment.
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

19

Furthermore, as explained on page 32 of the HRS documentation record at proposal, there are numerous public 

supply wells in the vicinity of the Site that are not currently subject to high levels of contamination. While 

treatment of the water prior to its distribution to the public is part of the ongoing remediation efforts being taken 

to address present contamination at this site, full delineation of the contamination as it migrates laterally and with 

depth has not been performed. Thus, the installation of well head treatments cannot be deemed fully protective of 

human health given that the extent of the contamination is not yet fully delineated, migration is not contained and 

wells are not protected from contamination. 

3.8 Consideration of Response Actions

Comment: Arkwin Industries stated that the NCIA [portion of the Site] does not need to be placed on the NPL 

since remedial actions are already in place, and does not require any further investigation, which would result 

from an NPL listing, as it has been studied for years. 

Arkwin Industries asserted that remedial activities, such as early warning monitoring wells installed upgradient of 

the Bowling Green Water District (BGWD) at the NCIA have “[e]liminated [t]he [t]hreat [o]f [p]ublic [e]xposure 

[a]nd [p]otential [r]isk [t]o the [p]ublic” at any individual source. Arkwin Industries does not contest that ground 

water beneath the NCIA contains VOCs, however it pointed out that the only nearby source of drinking water, at 

the BGWD well heads, has a fully operational redundant treatment system that has been in place for several 

decades and eliminates any risk of public exposure. Arkwin Industries also contended that remedial activities at 

sources upgradient of the NCIA have also eliminated the risk of harm to the public from contaminated ground 

water flowing onto the NCIA from upgradient sources. 

Arkwin Industries stated that NYSDEC has spent more than 20 years investigating and engaging in remediation 

activities at the Site, and NYSDEC has advised there is no known exposure to the public or threat to human health 

and safety. It stated that although the Upper Glacial and Magothy aquifers at the Site are interconnected and 

contaminated, the well heads in the area are remediated with carbon filtration and/or air stripping, therefore the 

“use of the groundwater in the area is not currently considered to be an exposure pathway of concern”, since it has 

“been successfully broken with sound remedial systems.” It asserted that an honest scoring of the Site should 

acknowledge that there is no exposure scenario; that the HRS Guidance Manual (page 31) states that “the scorer 

must realize that the HRS is a screening tool, not a detailed risk assessment;” and repeated that the NCIA poses no 

risk to human health and the environment. 

Arkwin Industries also stated that virtually all aquifers in New York have some contamination, and very few are 

on the NPL because the public is protected, and although the HRS is an initial screening tool, it certainly requires 

that fundamental risk determinations and established risk controls be considered. Arkwin Industries questioned 

whether placing the Site on the NPL is actually necessary to protect human health and the environment. It 

concluded that since the relative degree of real risk to human health is zero, the Site does not qualify for the NPL. 

Response: The Agency has considered the response actions taken to date to address the risk posed to the 

populations relying on the contaminated aquifer as a drinking water supply and concluded that these actions do 

not remove all the substances in the release that was evaluated, nor eliminate the risk posed by aquifer 

contamination. 

HRS Preamble section III part Q. Consideration of Removal Actions (Current Versus Initial Conditions) 

(55FR51567, 51568, December 14, 1990) states:

EPA will evaluate a site based on current conditions provided that response actions actually have 

removed wastes from the site for proper disposal or destruction in a facility permitted under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), or 

by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. HRS scoring will not consider the effects of responses 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

20

that do not reduce waste quantities such as providing alternate drinking water supplies to 

populations with drinking water supplies contaminated by the site. In such cases EPA believes 

that the initial targets factor should be used to reflect the adverse impacts caused by 

contamination of drinking water supplies; otherwise, a contaminated aquifer could be artificially 

shielded from further remediation.... 

Regarding Arkwin Industries’ claim that “well heads in the area are remediated with carbon filtration and/or air 

stripping” causing no known exposure to the public or threat to human health and safety, these response actions 

do not eliminate the threat posed by the ground water contamination. The use of water treatment at the well heads 

does not treat the contamination in the underlying aquifer (Arkwin Industries acknowledges the aquifer to be 

contaminated with VOCs), and does not eliminate the threat to human health and the environment as explained in 

section 3.7 (No Risk)of this support documents. Since the threat posed by a contaminated aquifer still exists, the 

HRS site evaluation correctly considered the populations as threatened. NPL listing will ensure that the aquifer 

contamination is further investigated and, if needed, response action taken.

As discussed in section 3.7 (No Risk) of this support document, the site-specific risk to human health is 

determined at a different stage of the listing process. 

Furthermore, and as set out below, even if remedial actions were considered and the waste quantity was reduced 

to >0 to reflect these actions, the HRS site score would remain unchanged. If waste quantity were reduced to >0

and the targets were not considered to be actually contaminated, the Site would still qualify for placement on the 

NPL with an HRS site score above 28.50. In this scenario, the source hazardous waste quantity factor value would 

be reduced to 1 and the resulting waste characteristics factor category value would drop to 10 (currently scored as 

100). Additionally, the nearest well value would drop from 50 as currently scored to 20, and all of the Level I and 

Level II populations would be evaluated as potential targets. 

HRS Section 2.4.2.2, Calculation of hazardous waste quantity factor value, states: 

Sum the source hazardous waste quantity values assigned to all sources (including the unallocated 

source) or areas of observed contamination for the pathway being evaluated and round this sum to 

the nearest integer, except: if the sum is greater than 0, but less than 1, round it to 1. Based on this 

value, select a hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway from table 2–6.

Table 2–6—Hazardous Waste Quantity Factor Values

Hazardous waste quantity value Assigned 

value

0 0

1a to 100 1b

Greater than 100 to 10,000 100

Greater than 10,000 to 1,000,000 10,000

Greater than 1,000,000 1,000,000 a If the hazardous waste quantity value is greater than 0, but less than 1, round it to 1 as specified 

in text.

b For the pathway, if hazardous constituent quantity is not adequately determined, assign a value 

as specified in the text; do not assign the value of 1.
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

21

HRS Section 2.4.3.1, Factor category value, states:

For the pathway (or threat) being evaluated, multiply the toxicity or combined factor value, as 

appropriate, from section 2.4.1.2 and the hazardous waste quantity factor value from section 

2.4.2.2, subject to a maximum product of 1×108

. Based on this waste characteristics product, 

assign a waste characteristics factor category value to the pathway (or threat) from table 2–7.

Table 2–7—Waste Characteristics Factor Category Values

Waste characteristics product Assigned value

0 0

Greater than 0 to less than 10 1

10 to less than 1×102 2

1×102 to less than 1×103 3

1×103 to less than 1×104 6

1×104 to less than 1×105 10

1×105 to less than 1×106 18

1×106 to less than 1×107 32

1×107 to less than 1×108 56

1×108 to less than 1×109 100

1×109 to less than 1×1010 180

1×1010 to less than 1×1011 320

1×1011 to less than 1×1012 560

1×1012 1,000

HRS Section 3.3.1, Nearest well, states:

In evaluating the nearest well factor, include both the drinking water wells drawing from the 

aquifer being evaluated and those drawing from overlying aquifers as specified in section 3.0. 

Include standby wells in evaluating this factor only if they are used for drinking water supply at 

least once every year....

...

• If none of the drinking water wells is subject to Level I or Level II concentrations, assign 

a value as follows:

o If one of the target aquifers is a karst aquifer that underlies any portion of the 

sources at the site and any well draws drinking water from this karst aquifer 

within the target distance limit, assign a value of 20.

o If not, determine the shortest distance to any drinking water well, as measured 

from any source at the site with a ground water containment factor value greater 

than 0. Select a value from table 3–11 based on this distance. Assign it as the 

value for the nearest well factor.
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

22

Table 3–11—Nearest Well Factor Values

Distance from source (miles) Assigned value

Level I concentrationsa 50

Level II concentrationsa 45

0 to 1⁄4 20

Greater than 1/4 to 1⁄2 18

Greater than 1/2 to 1 9

Greater than 1 to 2 5

Greater than 2 to 3 3

Greater than 3 to 4 2

Greater than 4 0 a Distance does not apply

HRS Section 3.3.2.4, Potential contamination, states:

Determine the number of people served by drinking water from points of withdrawal subject to 

potential contamination. Do not include those people already counted under the Level I and Level 

II concentrations factors. 

Assign distance-weighted population values from table 3–12...

The HRS documentation record at proposal on page 29 states:

...[E]ach Town of Hempstead well [4 wells] is apportioned a population of 4,021 people, each 

Hicksville well [6 wells] is apportioned a population of 3,415 people, and each Westbury well [1 

well] is apportioned a population of 2,050 people [Ref. 18, pp. 1-2].

Using table 3-12 of the HRS, the resulting target population factor value would be 5,377 potentially contaminated 

targets because the underlying ground water plume requires the distance category of 0 – 1⁄4 miles to be used for 

each well. The pathway score in this scenario would remain unchanged at 100.00.

Site investigation work, as well as any remediation undertaken by the NCIA or the State of New York performed 

to date and that which is currently proceeding, will be considered in other stages of the Superfund process, such as 

when performing an RI/FS, including a Superfund risk assessment for the Site. Then, based on the findings of the 

RI/FS, a determination of what further remedial actions, if any, are necessary will be made.

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.9 Concentrations below State Cleanup Criteria

Comment: IMC Eastern Corporation stated that remedial investigations at each individual source and the natural 

flushing of the aquifer have substantially reduced the extent of the western plume and the western plume 

attenuates to concentrations that are below New York States ground water cleanup goals before reaching the 

proposed NCHGWC site. The total detected VOC concentration was 3 micrograms/liter (μg/l), the maximum 

detected PCE concentration was 1 μg/l, and TCE was not detected. 

Response: That releases to the ground water from the western plume, as defined by the State of New York on the 

NCIA, may be below New York States ground water cleanup goals does not eliminate those hazardous substances 

or their releases from consideration when evaluating a site using the HRS. 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

23

CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(B) directs the EPA to list on the NPL “releases” of hazardous substances, pollutants 

and contaminants according to specific criteria set out in CERCLA Section 105(a)(8)(A). The definition of 

“release” in CERCLA Section 101(22) exempts certain releases from its scope, but it does not exempt releases 

below regulatory limits.

As the Agency explained regarding observed releases specifically, on July 16, 1982, when responding to public 

comments on the proposed (original) HRS (47 FR 31188), and again on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40665), the 

idea that releases within regulatory limits should not be considered “observed releases” specifically, and not used 

in general in scoring a site, was rejected. As the Agency noted in 1982:

[e]mission or effluent limits do not necessarily represent levels which cause no harm to public 

health or the environment. These limitations are frequently established on the basis of economic 

impacts or achievability.

The relative hazard of the site is approximated by the total HRS score, which incorporates the observed release 

factors with other factors such as waste characteristics (including waste quantity, toxicity, and persistence) and 

targets. This total HRS site score reflects the hazard of the site relative only to the other sites that have been 

scored. The actual degree of contamination and its effects are more fully determined during the Remedial 

Investigation. 

This comment results in no change to the HRS score and no change in the decision to place the Site on the NPL.

3.10 Liability

Comment: Arkwin Industries raised an issue on how the liability for the remediation of the Site would be 

apportioned to the PRPs. Arkwin Industries stated that the simplified approach to listing this site will give rise to 

numerous challenges by parties or groups of parties on the grounds that there is divisibility of harm. It stated that, 

pursuant to Burlington Northern v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1870 (2009), which states that the “Supreme Court 

recognized that one of the bases for apportionment is the percentage surface area of the site,” therefore the 

“existence of separate plumes clearly falls within the bases for apportionment accepted by the Supreme Court.” 

Arkwin Industries then alleged that PRPs for areas that have been thoroughly studied cannot be responsible for 

additional studies in the area since it has already been established that they have no impact. 

IMC Eastern Corporation stated that 2632 Realty is the former owner of the property located at 299 Main Street, 

but that 2632 Realty never conducted any operations at 299 Main Street. IMC Eastern Corporation concluded that 

PRPs located in the western plume “should not be considered as potentially responsible parties to the proposed 

site and should not participate in the study costs or remediation contemplated for the proposed site.” 

An anonymous commenter stated that some of the contaminants are from Sylvania’s past experiments with 

radioactive research for the US government and the government has a responsibility to fix the problem. 

Response: Liability is not considered when evaluating a site under the HRS, nor is liability established or 

apportioned based on the decision to place a site on the NPL. The NPL serves primarily as an informational tool 

for use by the Agency in identifying those sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health or the 

environment. It does not reflect a judgment on the activities of the owner(s) or operator(s) of a site. It does not 

require those persons to undertake any action, nor does it assign any liability to any person. This position, stated 

in the legislative history of CERCLA, has been explained more fully in the Federal Register (48 FR 40759, 

September 8, 1983 and 53 FR 23988, June 24, 1988). See Kent County v. EPA, 963 F.2d 391 (D.C. Cir. 1992).

This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the Site on the NPL. 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

24

3.11 Economic Impact of Listing

Comment: Arkwin Industries stated that the “EPA should also give due consideration to the negative economic 

impacts and chilling effect to positive development that may result from an ill-advised designation of the area as a 

federal Superfund site.” It stated that in March 2006 the State of New York designated the NCIA as an Empire 

Zone, specifically to encourage much needed investment and job growth in the area, and the proposed listing will 

discourage economic development of the NCIA. Arkwin Industries also stated that listing the NCHGWC site will 

undoubtedly stifle the new economic development goals without providing any countervailing benefit to the 

public health or the environment. Arkwin Industries continued that the U.S Department of Housing and Urban 

Development Community Development Block Grant funds, North Hempstead’s Community Development 

Agency, has been working for years with New Cassel community groups, as well as talking to private developers 

to encourage residential development and commercial development to upgrade and uplift the area. 

Two anonymous commenters noted that the Agency has never conducted surveys regarding the impact of NPL 

communities, but there are independent studies which indicate that adding a community to the NPL negatively 

impacts the values and sales of the real estate market in the immediate area. 

Response: Potential negative impacts such as those raised by the commenter are not considered in the assessment 

of whether a site belongs on the NPL. While they may be unavoidable, these impacts are not the result of NPL 

listing. Inclusion of a site or facility on the list does not in itself reflect a judgment on the activities of the 

owner(s) or operator(s), but rather reflects the Agency’s judgment that a significant release or threat of release has 

occurred and that the site is a priority for further investigation under CERCLA. 

The Agency notes that there can be both indirect, contingent costs and benefits that can be associated with listing 

a site in that the costs or benefits may only possibly occur contingent on the listing decision. Among the benefits 

associated with listing a site on the NPL are increased health and environmental protection as a result of increased 

public awareness of potential hazards. In addition to the potential for federally financed remedial actions, the 

addition of a site to the NPL could accelerate privately financed, voluntary cleanup efforts. Listing sites as 

national priority sites also may lead to States increased support for funding responses at particular sites. As a 

result of the additional CERCLA remedies, there will be lower human exposure to high-risk chemicals and higher 

quality surface water, ground water, soil, and air. 

Therefore, it is possible that any perceived or actual negative fluctuations in property values or development 

opportunities that may result from the official public notice of the presence of contamination may be countered by 

positive fluctuations when a CERCLA investigation and any necessary cleanup are completed. 

While the economic impact is not part of the listing criteria, the Agency is aware of the economic impacts 

associated with the contamination and the cleanup of a site that may be contingent on placing a site on the NPL.

However, these costs are not directly due to the decision to list the site. Listing a site on the NPL does not create 

the contamination; nor does listing necessarily result in the remediation of the contamination

This comment has no effect on the HRS site score or the decision to place the Site on the NPL. 
New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

25

4. Conclusion

The original HRS score for this site was 50.00. Based on the above response to comments, the score remains 

unchanged. The final scores for the NCHGWC site are:

Ground Water 100.00

Surface Water Not Scored

Soil Exposure Not Scored

Air Not Scored

HRS Site Score 50.00