United States
Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W

. Washington, D.C. 20460 September 20 11

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 20460New 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 Ran king 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 R isk

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 17

3.8 Consideration of Response Actions

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 19

3.9 Concentrations below State Cleanup Criteria

................................ ................................ ........................... 22

3.10 Liability

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

ii 3.11 Economic Impact of Listing

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 24

4. Conclusion

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 25New 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 hazar dous 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 re sponses 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 p ublished 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 20 11

.



### 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 Sep tember 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 nation al 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 Septembe r 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 Marc h 10, 2011 (7 6 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 (7 6 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 f acilities 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 mana gement 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 de termine what CERCLA

financed 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

identi fiable 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 substan ces, 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 sit es 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 envi ronment

. 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 hazardo us 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 (S gw )

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

vi **•** Surface Water Migration (S

sw ) 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 (S

s )

- resident population

- nearby population

- sensitive environments

**•** Air Migration (S

a )

- 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 w ater 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

me chanisms, 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 signif icant 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 t o 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

gwNew 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 commen ts, 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

- dic hloroethene

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 Departm ent 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 calculate d using the Hazard Ranking System; ranges from 0 to 100

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

MCL Maximu m c ontaminant l evel

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 partyNew 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 compoun dNew 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

- SFU ND

- 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

- 00 10 Comment and attachment, dated May 9, 2011, from Robert R. Lucic, et al. IMC Eastern Corporation f/k/a IMC Magne tics Corp (IMC), 2632 Realty Development Corp. and Barouh Eaton Allen Corporation (BEAC)

EPA

- HQ

- SFUND

- 2011

- 0074

- 00 11 Comment and attachment, dated May 9, 2011, from Suzanne M. Avena, et al., Garfunkel Wild, P.C. on behalf of Arkwin
Industries



## 2

. S ite Description

The New Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination (NCHGWC) site (hereinafter referred to as the Site or the NCHGWC site) comprise s a widespread area of ground water contamination in the Town s 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 th e S ite 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 f orming 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 p ublic supply wells throughout the NCHGW C site area show ed 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 are a. 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 sa me aquifer showed no

- detect ion or comparativelyNew 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 Envi ronmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the EPA have made significant efforts to identify the specific source(s) of ground water contamina n t releases , identifying many facilities in the region that are or could be associated with the Site contaminants, but the re is insufficient evidence to attribute the ground water contamination plume in the aquifer to any specific facility(ies) release s

. 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 contamin ated 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 hav e resulted in VOC

cont amination. 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 def inition

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 . Release s 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 multitud e of other sources; it encompasses numerous wells in Westbury, Hemps tead, Bowling Green and Hicksville (see Figure 1).



## 3

. Summary of Comments

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

NCH GWC 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 co mmenters supported the listing. The se 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 contamina ted 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 Ar kwin Industries and other s (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 Corporat ion (BEAC) (local property lessors/owners) (herein referred to as IMC Eastern Corporation).FIGURE #: DATE: CLIENT NAME: 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

August 2011 1 EPA 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 0 4,000 2,000

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 no t 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 “boots trapping” 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.

Ark w i n Industries also commented that remedial activities at the NCIA portio n 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 c oncentrations 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 a nalysis 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 ad ded that according to NYSDEC the western pl ume 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 buil d 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 th e 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 n ot 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

- s ite 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 N PL 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 I M C facility located at 570 Main Street is not located within the proposed NCHGWC s ite, but

r ather it is north of the proposed Site. IMC Eastern Corporation state d the data and analysis conducted by NYSDEC regarding the NCIA identifie s thre e ground water plumes (Eastern, Central and Western) migrating to
the southwest consistent with ground water flow direction and added that a ccording to NYSDEC the western plume is separate from and flows parallel to the central and eastern plumes . IMC East ern 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 W estern
P lume runs parallel to th e Central and Eastern Plumes;” that the western plume does not impact the Bowling

Gree n Estates Water District; and that t he 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 I M C facility . For HRS purposes, site is defined in HRS Section 1.1, Definitions , 1 as:

[a] rea(s) where a hazardous substance has been deposit ed, 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) identifie d 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 Nas sau 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) sele cted, 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 Sit e

Comment : Arkwin Industrie s 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: T h e NCHGWC sit e is identified as composed of a single conta minated ground water plume with no identified source because the releases and the resulting possible plumes that compose the Site a re 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 release s from

NCIA that appear to be contributi ng 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 ha s come to be
located. Consistent with the Federal Register N otice 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 exten t 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, Definition s, defines a source as:

[a]ny area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stor ed, 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 c ontamination 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, determine d if there is an observed
release a s 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 consid ered 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 conc entrations 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 signific antly 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 H icksville 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 Ta bles 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)

**•** D ifferent C hemicals in the Multiple Plumes (section 3.3.2)

**•** D ifferent PRPs and Separate Remediation Activities (section 3.3.3)

**•** NCIA as a Separate Site (section 3.3.4)

3.3.1 Adequacy of D ata to D elineate 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 amo unt 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 simp listic 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 pr oposed Site

. T he 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 p ublic supply wells sampled and utilized as the basis for the EPA’s
HRS score for the NCHGWC site

. T here 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 vicinit y 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 th e 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 was tes (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) correc tive 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 i s no identi fied 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 non

overlapping plumes exist at the S ite. 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 N CIA 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 Figu res 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 Gre en 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 ar eas are sufficiently delineated to identif y 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 individ ual 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, sinc e 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 th e S ite 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 t he 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 samp les 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

- t rifluoroethane

, chloroethane

, trichlorofluoromethane and vinyl chloride, in these wells significantly overlap. Ther efore, 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 Wells 1

Analyte Bowling
Green
Well# Hicksville Well# Roosevelt
Field
Well# TOH

Levittown

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 hope d 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 evalu ating a site for placement on the NPL. Neither CERCLA nor the HRS requires consideration of PRP s 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 evalua tion:

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 s uch 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 haz ard 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 re quires 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, t he 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 s corer 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 selecti on 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 ma king 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 th e 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 Indust ries claimed that had the EPA properly evaluated the situation, the NCIA would not be eligible for the NPL. Arkwin Industries s tated 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 NCHGW C , particularly in the

N CIA, 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 p redominantly 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 l aterally and with depth. The bottom line is that such delineation is unnecessary as a complete remedy is in place.”

Response : The po r tion 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 f or 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 eval u a ted 11 public drinking water well s 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 associate d 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 an d 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 N ewNew 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 hypoth etical 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 an d 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 quant ity 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 yield s 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, t his 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 scor e 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 whi ch 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 dismissalNew Cassel/Hicksville Ground Water Contamination NPL Listing Support Document September 2011

13 on timeliness grounds , and asserted that t he State’s failure to commence its litigation in a timely manner is insufficient justification f or 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 autho rity 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, p rior remediation performed under the direction of NYSDEC and the State m ay 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 warrant s further investigation under CERCLA; this determinat ion is sufficient reason to list the Site on the N PL.

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 de letion 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 whe ther 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 show s 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 consider s 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 responsib le 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 s ection 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

- li sting is not sufficient rationale for not placing aNew 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 si te 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 appro priate. 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 l imited 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 t he HRS has no value as a “screening tool” if facts already known a bout

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 forNew 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 a ssessment 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 Si te 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 co mmenters 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 t he 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 du ty 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 S uperfund dollars and resources on this site that may be better spent on a site with actual

hu man 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 incorporate d 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 NCH G WC site, i s not an informed use o f 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 trea tment system and would fund supplementary remedial

sys tems 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 th e 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 1 05(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 in to 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 poss ible 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 ecosystem s . . .

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 i n 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 r emediation 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 publ ic 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 si ngle 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 unneces sary study costs

.

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

yea rs and questioned how placing a “ residential community” o n the NPL benefits f r o m 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 po ssible 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 ecosyst ems . . .

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 (un der 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 necessa ry 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

contaminat ion. 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 pr oposed listing is flawed in that it relies upon an abstract HR S that is not informed by the facts relating to ac tual 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 lis ting.” Arkwin Industries requested the EPA withdraw the Site from con sideration 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 th at 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 numeri cally 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, obj ective use of the “ HRS
system ” demands full informa tion 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 n umerous RI/FS a nd risk

assessment studies completed under NYSDEC supervision do not support th e 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 ; t herefore, 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 re quired by the HRS. An HRS evaluation does not represent a final determination of the risk posed by a site. The HRS evaluation assess es 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,

w hich 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 i s 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

proc ess, nothing more, nothing less” ) has be e n 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

E PA 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 identif y potentia lly hazardous sites. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has found the EPA’ s approach t o solving this conundrum to be “ reasonable and fully in acco rd with Congressional intent. “ Eagle Picher Industries, Inc.” v. EPA , (759 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ( Eagle Pic her 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 mu ltiple 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 populat ion 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 cu rrently 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 contaminatio n as it migrate s 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 cont ained 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 n ot 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 Di strict (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 point ed 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 re medial 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 invest igating 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 br oken 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 det ailed 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 protect ed, 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 t o 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 sect ion III part Q. Consideration of Removal Actions (Current Versus Initial Conditions) (55FR51567, 5156 8

, December 14, 1990) states:

EPA will evaluate a site based on current conditions provided that response actions actually have
removed wastes from the si te 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 responsesNew 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 i mpacts 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 a nd/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 c ontamination 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 th e 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 HR S 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

1 00 ) . Additionally, the nearest wel l 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 w aste 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

1 a to 100 1 b

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, mult iply 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 1×10 8 . Based on this waste characteristics product, assign a waste characte ristics 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 1×10 2 2

1×10 2 to less than 1×10 3 3

1×10 3 to less than 1×10 4 6

1×10 4 to less than 1×10 5 10

1×10 5 to less than 1×10 6 18

1×10 6 to less than 1×10 7 32

1×10 7 to less than 1×10 8 56

1×10 8 to less than 1×10 9 100

1×10 9 to less than 1×10 10 180

1×10 10 to less than 1×10 11 320

1×10 11 to less than 1×10 12 560

1×10 12 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 shor test 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 concentrations a 50

Level II concentrations a 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 v alues 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 requ ires 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 st ages 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 fur ther 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 stat ed 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 clea nup 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 eva luating 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, o n July 16, 1982, when responding to public comments on the pro posed (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 Age ncy 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 sco re 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 ap proach 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 Indu stries 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 form er 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 parti es 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 U S 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 ser ves 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 a nd 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 Bloc k 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 a rea.

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 re al 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 t hat 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 m ay 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 f inanced 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

r esult 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 C ERCLA 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 ; n or does listing necessarily result in the remediation of the contamination

This comment h as 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