This decision document presents the selected remedial action for Operable Unit (OU) VI soils and groundwater at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) site in Upton, New York. Operable Unit VI includes the Experimental Agricultural Fields and the Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Groundwater Plume Area.
This remedial action was selected in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) (hereinafter jointly referred to as CERCLA), and is consistent, to the extent practicable, with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the BNL site.
The State of New York concurs with the selected remedial action.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present a potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
This operable unit is one of six operable units at the BNL site for which remedies have been or will be selected. The purpose of this remedy is to address EDB contamination in groundwater in Operable Unit VI (also known as Area of Concern (AOC) 28) and soils in the Experimental Agricultural Fields (AOC 8). Cleanup levels have been established that meet regulatory standards. The cleanup objectives for Operable Unit III were also adopted for Operable Unit VI. These are to meet the drinking water standards in groundwater for EDB; complete the groundwater cleanup in a timely manner, which is 30 years or less for the Upper Glacial Aquifer; and prevent or minimize the further migration of EDB in groundwater.
The selected remedy for AOC 28 consists of a combination of Alternatives 3 and 4 described in the OU VI Focused Feasibility Study and includes the following major components:
Soils in the Experimental Agricultural Fields (AOC 8) do not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment and remedial action is not required. Remediation of sediments in the Upland Recharge/Meadow Marsh area of AOC 8 is documented in the Operable Unit I Record of Decision.
The components of the selected remedy are final response actions.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is cost effective. The components of the selected remedy utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable, and satisfy the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining in groundwater above health-based levels for a period of time, a review will be conducted within five years after commencement of remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
Michael D. Holland
Manager, Brookhaven Area Office
U.S. Department of Energy
Robert P. Gordon
Contracting Officer, Brookhaven Group
U.S. Department of Energy
William J. Muszynski, P.E.
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
I. Declaration of the Record of Decision
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
1. Site Name, Location, and Description
2. Site History and Enforcement Activities
3. Highlights of Community Participation
4. Scope and Role of Operable Unit Response Action
5. Summary of Site Characteristics
7. Objectives for Remedial Actions
8. Description of Alternatives
9. Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Table 1 - Description of Operable Units at BNL
Table 2 - Summary of Site History
Table 3 - Summary of Estimated Costs for Alternatives
Figures
Figure 1 - Operable Units at BNL
Figure 2 - EDB Plume Distribution - November 1999
Figure 3 - Operable Unit VI Areas of Concern (AOCs)
Figure 4 - Public Water Hookup Areas
I. Responsiveness Summary Overview
II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
III. Comprehensive Summary of Major Questions, Comments, Concerns and Responses
IV. Community Relations Activities
APPENDIX I - Comment Letters
AGS - Alternating Gradient Synchrotron
AOC - Area of Concern
ARAR - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
BNL - Brookhaven National Laboratory
BSA - Brookhaven Science Associates
BTEX - Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability
Act
CSF - Central Steam Facility
DCA - 1,2-Dichloroethane
DOE - United States Department of Energy
DOT - United States Department of Transportation
DWS - Drinking Water Standard
EDB - Ethylene dibromide
EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERD - BNL Environmental Restoration Division
FS - Feasibility Study
HEAST - Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables
HFBR - High Flux Beam Reactor
IAG - Interagency Agreement
IRIS - Integrated Risk Information System
LLW - Low Level Radioactive Waste
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
MSL - Mean Sea Level
MTBE - Methyl-tert-butyl-ether
NCP - National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
NPL - National Priorities List
NYSDEC - New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OU - Operable Unit
PAH - Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB - Polychlorinated biphenyls
pCi/gram - PicoCuries per gram
ppb - Parts per billion
ppm - Parts per million
PRAP - Proposed Remedial Action Plan
PVC - Polyvinyl Chloride
RA - Risk Assessment
RAGS - Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RESRAD - Residual Radioactive Material Guideline Computer Code
RfD - Reference Dose
RI - Remedial Investigation
RI/FS - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
RI/RA - Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment
ROD - Record of Decision
RSD - Response Strategy Document
SARA - Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SCDHS - Suffolk County Department of Health Services
SEL - Severe Effects Levels
SPDES - State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
STP - Sewage Treatment Plant
SVE - Soil Vapor Extraction
SVOC - SemiVolatile Organic Compound
TAGM - NYSDEC Technical Assistance Guidance Memorandum
TBC - To Be Considered
TCA - 1,1,1-trichloroethane
TCE - Trichloroethene
TIC - Tentatively Identified Compound
USGS - United States Geological Survey
UST - Underground Storage Tank
VOC - Volatile Organic Compound
WCF - Waste Concentration Facility
1. SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is a federal facility owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). BNL conducts research in physical, biomedical and environmental sciences and energy technologies.
BNL is located in Upton, Suffolk County, New York, about 60 miles east of New York City, near the geographic center of Long Island. The following are the distances to neighboring communities from BNL: Patchogue 10 miles west-southwest, Bellport 8 miles southwest, Center Moriches 7 miles southeast, Riverhead 13 miles east, Wading River 7 miles north-northeast, and Port Jefferson 11 miles northwest.
The BNL property is an irregular polygon that is roughly square, and each side is approximately 2.5 miles long. The site consists of 5,321 acres. The developed portion includes the principal facilities located near the center of the site. These facilities are contained in an area of approximately 900 acres, 500 acres of which were originally developed for U. S. Army use. The remaining 400 acres are occupied for the most part by various large research machine facilities. Outlying facilities occupy approximately 550 acres and include an apartment area, biology fields, former Hazardous Waste Management Area, Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), firebreaks, and the Landfill Area. The remainder is undeveloped. The site terrain is gently rolling, with elevations varying between 40 to 120 feet above sea level. The land lies on the western rim of the shallow Peconic River watershed, with a tributary of the river rising in marshy areas in the northern section of the tract.
The sole source aquifer beneath BNL has three water-bearing units: the moraine and outwash deposits known as the Glacial Aquifer, the Magothy Formation, and the Lloyd Sand Member of the Raritan Formation. These units are hydraulically connected and make up a single zone of saturation with varying physical properties extending from a depth of 45 to 1,500 feet below the land surface. These three water bearing units are designated as a "sole source aquifer" by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and serve as the primary source of drinking water for Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
2. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The BNL site, formerly Camp Upton, was occupied by the U.S. Army during World Wars I and II. Between the wars, the site was operated by the Civilian Conservation Corps. It was transferred to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1947, to the Energy Research and Development Administration in 1975 and to DOE in 1977.
In 1980, the BNL site was placed on New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) list of Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites. On December 21, 1989, the BNL site was included on the EPA's National Priorities List (NPL) because of soil and groundwater contamination that resulted from past BNL operations. Subsequently, the EPA, NYSDEC, and DOE entered into a Federal Facilities Agreement (herein referred to as the Interagency Agreement, IAG) that became effective in May 1992 (Administrative Docket Number: II-CERCLA-FFA-00201). The IAG identified Areas of Concern (AOCs) that were grouped into Operable Units (OUs) to be evaluated for response actions. The IAG requires the conduct of a Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for Operable Unit VI (OU VI), to meet CERCLA requirements. Cleanup actions at the BNL site will be conducted pursuant to CERCLA, 40 CFR Part 300.
BNL's Final Response Strategy Document (SAIC, 1992) grouped the identified areas of concern into seven operable units. Several operable units were subsequently combined. Remedial investigations and risk assessments were conducted to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination, and potential risks associated with the Areas of Concern addressed in this Record of Decision. A description of the Operable Units is contained in Table 1 and they are shown in Figure 1.
Operable Unit VI, comprised of approximately 340 acres, is located along BNL's southeastern boundary (Figure 1), immediately northeast of Operable Unit I (OU I). Operable Unit VI is a relatively undeveloped section of the BNL facility, containing large wooded tracts and few structures. In addition to pine forests, OU VI contains cultivated field and forest plots that have been and continue to be used for agricultural research. OU VI contains two areas of concern: Experimental Agricultural Fields (AOC 8) and the Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Groundwater Plume Area (AOC 28).
A brief history of each AOC within OU VI is provided in Table 2.
3. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
A Community Relations Plan was finalized for the BNL site in September 1991. In accordance with this plan and CERCLA Section 113 (k) (2)(B)(I-v) and 117, the community relations program focused on public information and involvement. A variety of activities were used to provide information and to seek public participation. The activities included: compilation of a stakeholders mailing list, community meetings, availability sessions, site tours and the development of fact sheets. An Administrative Record, documenting the basis for the selection of removal and remedial actions at the BNL site, has been established and is maintained at the local libraries listed below. The libraries are:
Longwood Public Library
800 Middle Country Road
Middle Island, NY 11953
Mastics-Moriches-Shirley Library
301 William Floyd Parkway
Shirley, NY 11967
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Research Library
Bldg. 477A
Upton, NY 11973
The Administrative Record is also maintained at the EPA's Region II Administrative Records Room at 290 Broadway, New York, New York, 10001-1866.
The OU I/VI Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment (RI/RA) report, the Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) report and the Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) were released to the public for comment on July 29, 1996 (RI) and October 3, 1996 (FFS, PRAP), respectively. The public comment period for the FFS and PRAP documents was held from October 3, 1996 to November 15, 1996.
On November 13, 1996, BNL and DOE conducted a public meeting at the Dayton Avenue school in Manorville to inform interested citizens about the Superfund process, to review current and planned remedial activities for OU VI, and to respond to any questions.
Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in writing during the public comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary (Section III).
In 2000, the proposed cleanup remedy was changed to active treatment by carbon adsorption. A fact sheet PRAP, giving the details of this changed proposal, was mailed to 2,550 homes on the Community Involvement mailing list. This fact sheet and newspaper ads published in Suffolk Life and Newsday announced an information session that was held on August 8, 2000 in the Manorville Fire House. This session was also announced on the Environmental Restoration Division (ERD) web site. A public comment period was held from July 24 to August 24, 2000.
Level of Community Support for the Proposed Alternative
Based on comments received during the 1996 public comment period, DOE and BNL believed that the public and local elected officials were in general agreement with the originally proposed remedial alternative (number 3), which provides public water and continues to monitor the natural attenuation of the EDB in the potentially impacted area. There were no comments indicating a preference for additional active remediation of the EDB contaminants such as pump and treat or enhanced biodegradation. The projected dilution of the EDB by natural attenuation seemed to be acceptable to the public and elected officials. However, at that time, EDB concentrations were lower than those found after the publication of the PRAP. There were also no comments regarding additional remediation to be performed at the Biology Fields source area.
Significant comments were received on the proposed extent of DOE's public water hookup area. Most members of the public who commented expressed the desire to extend the hookup area to the south and to the east of its proposed location due to the perception that drinking water supplies were at risk in these areas from the EDB Plume.
Based on comments received during the 2000 public comment period, DOE and BNL believe that the public and local elected officials support the proposed remedial alternatives, including active treatment of the EDB Plume by groundwater extraction and treatment with carbon filters.
Changes in the Remedy Presented in the FS and the PRAP
The following modifications were made to the preferred remedial alternative based on the concerns and input of the public, elected officials, and regulators, as well as on data collected after the remedial investigation and publication of the 1996 PRAP.
Summary of Community Participation Activities for Operable Unit VI
The OU I/VI RI/RA Report was made available to the public and submitted to the Administrative Record on June 27, 1996. The public comment period began on July 29, 1996 and ended on September 30, 1996. This period reflects a 30-day extension, which was requested by the Environmental Advocates of Long Island office.
In mid-August 1996, the community relations activities for OU VI began. These activities included extensive door-to-door canvassing to approximately 90 residences, briefings to 16 elected officials, and mailings. Follow-up visits and phone contacts continued throughout the summer and into the fall.
DOE issued several press releases in August announcing the off-site EDB contamination and the public water hookups. Also, application packages were mailed to residents in the hookup area. Additionally, two summary sheets, "EDB In Groundwater, Operable Unit VI" and "Operable Unit VI Focused Feasibility Study and Proposed Remedial Action Plan" were produced and distributed to the BNL Community Involvement mailing list on August 12, 1996 and November 4, 1996, respectively.
On September 24, 1996, the Action Memorandum for OU VI Public Water Hookups was submitted to the Administrative Record. Following this document, two additional OU VI documents, the FFS and PRAP, were made available to the public and submitted to the Administrative Record on October 3, 1996. The public comment period for these two documents was October 3, 1996 through December 6, 1996.
Poster sessions played an important part in the community participation activities. These allowed the community and other interested people to meet informally with project managers and representatives from the regulatory agencies and express their concerns about Operable Unit VI. Two poster sessions were held at the Manorville Fire House on September 25, 1996 and October 5, 1996. A poster session was also held prior to the November 13, 1996 public meeting.
Another avenue for community relations was the sharing of information at local civic meetings. In particular, a presentation regarding OU VI was given to the Manorville Taxpayers Association on October 3, 1996.
These activities preceded the November 13, 1996 public meeting, which was another opportunity for the community and general public to comment on and ask questions about the above documents and the public water hookups. In response to public requests, the meeting was held in the community at the Dayton Avenue School in Manorville. Approximately 120 people were in attendance and many shared their concerns and asked questions of the eight member panel which included representatives from BNL, DOE, EPA, NYSDEC, New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). A transcript was made of the meeting, which is included in the Administrative Record.
In 2000, the proposed cleanup remedy was changed to active treatment by groundwater extraction and carbon adsorption, followed by re-injection at concentrations less than the MCL. A fact sheet PRAP giving the details of this changed proposal, titled "Operable Unit VI Groundwater Cleanup," was produced and distributed. This fact sheet was mailed to 2,550 homes on the Community Involvement mailing list.
Both the fact sheet PRAP and newspaper ads published in Suffolk Life and Newsday announced an information session that was held on August 8, 2000 in the Manorville Fire House. This session was also announced on the ERD web site. A public comment period was held from July 24 to August 24, 2000. A presentation on OU VI was provided to the Community Advisory Council (CAC) on August 10, 2000.
A chronological summary of the significant community participation activities to date for OU VI is included in the Responsiveness Summary.
4. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT RESPONSE ACTION
This Record of Decision selects remedial actions for Operable Unit VI including soil in AOC 8 and AOC 28. Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) contaminated groundwater in AOC 28 is the principal threat addressed. EDB contaminated groundwater poses a risk to human health and the environment from potential exposure to contaminated drinking water and through continued migration of contaminants in the sole source aquifer. The remedial action for contaminated sediments in AOC 8 is addressed in the Operable Unit I Record of Decision.
Conducting this remedial action under OU VI is part of BNL's overall response strategy and is expected to be consistent with any planned future actions at the other Operable Units, which are in different phases of the CERCLA process.
5. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The following sections summarize the site characteristics of the Areas of Concern addressed by this Record of Decision. Various investigations were undertaken to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination. A combination of investigation approaches was used including radiation surveys, soil vapor surveys, soil borings/soil sampling, monitoring well installation and groundwater sampling, groundwater modeling and geophysical investigations.
5.1 Area of Concern 28 - EDB Contaminated Groundwater
The Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment (CDM Federal 1996) confirmed that the only significant contaminant of concern in OU VI groundwater is EDB. EDB has been detected in on-site and off-site groundwater at concentrations exceeding the NYS drinking water standard during a series of investigations and routine monitoring conducted from 1992 through 2000. The maximum concentration detected is 6 ug/l in an off-site permanent monitoring well 000-173 (BNL 1999e). Based on a review of historical data and contaminant transport modeling, the most probable source of EDB contamination detected within OU VI, at the site boundary, and south of North Street is the Biology Fields area. The current configuration of the plume is shown in Figure 2.
The OU VI groundwater flow and transport model described in the Long-term Monitoring Work Plan was calibrated for both flow and contaminant transport with the current data, ending November 1999. When natural attenuation only is assumed, the model suggests that the EDB plume will migrate beyond Sunrise Highway and into the Magothy aquifer and will persist for approximately 40 years (BNL, 2000a).
5.2 Area of Concern 8 - Experimental Agricultural Fields
AOC 8 consists of the Upland Recharge/Meadow Marsh area, the Biology Fields, and the Gamma Field as shown in Figure 3. These areas were used to conduct a variety of research including the ability of various ecosystems to treat sewage and the effects of acid precipitation and radiation on agricultural crops. These uses have resulted in the application of pesticides (e.g. EDB at the Biology Fields to sterilize soil) and sewage reported to contain contaminants. Additional information on these areas is contained in Table 2.
As part of the Remedial Investigation conducted in 1994, surface and subsurface soil samples were collected and analyzed for volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, pesticides/PCBs, herbicides, ethylene dibromide (EDB), metals and radionuclides. Based on employee interviews, EDB was applied to the soils in the Biology Fields in the 1970s. The contaminant of concern in groundwater, EDB, was not detected in any soil samples, indicating that the soils are no longer a source of contamination. This is expected since EDB is highly soluble and mobile and would not remain long in soils.
The Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment (CDM Federal 1996a) concluded that contaminants in soils in this AOC did not pose an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment and that no remedial action was required. Sediments in the Upland Recharge/Meadow Marsh area were found to contain elevated levels of metals that posed a potential ecological risk to the Tiger Salamander, a New York State endangered species. Additional sampling and evaluations were performed. Contaminated sediments will be removed and the wetland reconstructed as documented in the Operable Unit I Record of Decision (DOE 1999).
A baseline risk assessment was done to estimate the human health and ecological risks that could result from exposure to contaminants in OU VI if no additional remediation is performed. Present and future potential exposures to chemical and radiological contaminants in soil and groundwater were evaluated. Findings of the risk assessment are documented in the OU I/VI RI/RA Report (CDM Federal, 1996a).
6.1 Human Health Risks
A four-step process was used for assessing OU VI-related human health risks for a reasonable maximum-exposure scenario: Hazard Identification - identifies the contaminants of concern at the site based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration. Exposure Assessment - estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., contaminated well water) by which humans potentially are exposed. Toxicity Assessment - determines the types of adverse health effects associated with chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects (response). Risk Characterization - combines the outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative (e.g., one-in-one-million excess cancer risk) assessment of OU VI-related risks.
Human Health risks were evaluated for exposures to radiological and chemical contaminants of concern. The chemical Risk Assessment addressed the risk of cancer and non-carcinogenic toxicity. The health risk of concern from radionuclides is cancer.
Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures are 1) an individual lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in the range of a one-in-ten-thousand (1x10-4) to one-in-a-million (1x10-6), and 2) a maximum Hazard Index equal to 1.0 for non-carcinogenic effects. A Hazard Index greater than 1.0 indicates a potential for non-carcinogenic effects.
6.1.1 Identification of Contaminants of Concern
Chemicals of potential concern were selected based on EPA guidance. Contaminants evaluated in the risk assessment exceed screening levels based on their degree of toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection, chemical properties important to potential release, transport and exposure, and significant exposure routes. Table 2 includes the primary contaminants of concern.
6.1.2 Exposure Assessment
Present and potential future-use scenarios were quantitatively evaluated for the following receptor populations:
Present-Use Scenarios
Under present site conditions, risks to area residents (trespassers) in OU VI (Upland Recharge/Meadow Marsh, Biology Fields, and Gamma Field) were quantitatively evaluated for exposure to surface soil and sediment via ingestion and dermal contact.
Future-Use Scenarios
Under potential future site conditions, risks to area residents (trespassers), residents, site workers, and construction workers in OU VI were quantitatively evaluated for surface and subsurface soil. Exposures to subsurface soil were assumed to occur under a short-term (1 year) period of excavation. The exposure routes selected for evaluation included ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation of suspended particulates. Risks to area residents (trespassers) for exposure to sediments via ingestion and dermal contact were also quantitatively evaluated.
The groundwater scenarios quantitatively evaluated included ingestion and inhalation of VOCs during future on-site residential use of groundwater and ingestion of groundwater from on-site commercial wells by site workers and construction workers.
The environmental matrices evaluated in the risk assessment included:
6.1.3 Toxicity Assessment
The toxicity assessment consisted of presenting toxicological properties of the selected chemicals of potential concern using the most current toxicological human health effects data. Many carcinogenic slope factors and reference doses used in this assessment were obtained from EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database. Slope factors and reference doses/concentrations not available on IRIS were obtained from EPA's second most current source of toxicity information, Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). The determination of the potential health hazards associated with exposure to non-carcinogens was made by comparing the estimated chronic or subchronic daily intake of a chemical with the RfD. Several contaminants could not be quantitatively evaluated in this risk assessment due to the lack of established toxicity values. These were qualitatively evaluated. The toxicity values used in the risk assessment are presented in the RI/RA Report for OU I/VI (CDM 1996a).
6.1.4 Risk Characterization
Using data collected in the Remedial Investigation, no media in OU VI except groundwater present unacceptable carcinogenic risks from present or future chemical exposure. For OU VI groundwater, future residential carcinogenic risks were 2.7 x 10-4 for adults (2.7 in 10,000) and 1.6x10-4 (1.6 in 10,000) for children for the ingestion of on-site groundwater and were largely due to EDB. A quantitative risk assessment was not performed for off-site groundwater because most of the available data is of screening level quality. The maximum reported concentration off-site was 6 µ g/L. Based on this concentration (which is 21.4 times that used in the Risk Assessment), the maximum risks for adults and children ingesting off-site groundwater are 5.8x10-3 (5.8 in one thousand) and 3.4x10-3 (3.4 in one thousand), respectively.
No media in any OU VI AOC except groundwater presented noncarcinogenic hazards. For groundwater, the target level of one was exceeded for most residential future use scenarios when combined concentrations of metals (e.g. aluminum, manganese, etc.) were considered. However, the hazard quotients for all individual compounds were less than one.
6.2 Ecological Risk Assessment
A preliminary screening of ecological risk was performed for the OU VI AOCs. (CDM, 1996a). This screening indicated the need for additional assessment in the ponded areas of the Upland Recharge/Meadow Marsh area which are a breeding habitat for the Tiger Salamander, a New York State endangered species. This was conducted separate from the activities in this ROD and the remediation of sediments for AOC 8 is addressed in the OU I ROD.
The Gamma Field and Biology Fields were not considered as valuable habitat to wildlife due to its fence, lack of water, the amount of human disturbance, and the presence of more desirable habitat adjacent to it.
7. OBJECTIVES FOR REMEDIAL ACTIONS
The following sections identify the basis for taking remedial actions, the objectives of the remedial actions and the cleanup goals selected.
7.1 Basis for Response
The actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from OU VI may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare or the environment if they are not addressed by implementing the remedial actions selected in this Record of Decision. The principal threat in this operable unit is EDB contaminated groundwater.
7.2 Objectives of the Remedial Actions
The following remedial action objectives were established in the FFS for the EDB contaminated groundwater:
To ensure the protection of public health, public water service was provided as a removal action in 1996 to all developed properties in the vicinity of the EDB groundwater plume as shown in Figure 4.
The following remedial objectives were also adopted in the Contingency Remedy Evaluation Report based on the updated data collected, evaluations performed and regulatory feedback:
7.3 Cleanup Goals
The cleanup goals selected for EDB is the state drinking water standard, i.e. the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), of 0.05 µg/l.
8. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 121 of CERCLA requires that each selected site remedy protect human health and the environment, is cost effective, complies with other statutory laws, and use permanent solutions, alternative treatment technologies, and resource recovery alternatives as fully as practicable. In addition, the statute includes a preference for treatment as a principal element for reducing the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.
The OU VI FFS Report evaluates, in detail, four remedial alternatives for addressing the EDB contamination in groundwater. The numbering of alternatives in this ROD corresponds to the numbering in the FFS Report. An updated evaluation of Alternatives 2 and 4 was performed after the FFS was finalized to incorporate more recent data and the results are presented in the Contingency Remedy Evaluation Report (BNL, February 2000) as well as in Quarterly Monitoring Reports (BNL 1999b-e).
The remedial alternatives are described below:
ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 - NO ACTION
| Capital Cost: | $37,700 |
| Total O&M Cost (present worth): | $71,900 |
| Total Present Worth Cost: | $109,600 |
Under this alternative, there would be no further action beyond monitoring of existing wells on-site and off site, including private wells. EDB contaminated groundwater would be allowed to naturally attenuate as it migrates off site. Monitoring of existing wells would be performed once in five years.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 - NATURAL ATTENUATION WITH ADDITIONAL MONITORING
| FFS: | Updated Costs: | |
| Capital Cost: | $539,200 | $720,000 |
| Total O&M Cost (present worth): | $1,278,400 | $2,230,000 |
| Total Present Worth Cost: | $1,817,600 | $2,950,000 |
This alternative includes natural attenuation with on-site institutional controls and additional groundwater monitoring within and downgradient of OU VI. EDB contaminated groundwater would be allowed to naturally attenuate. Groundwater monitoring would be implemented to monitor the migration and attenuation of EDB with time, and additional groundwater characterization will be performed. On-site institutional controls would be implemented to prevent on-site use of contaminated groundwater. The Updated Costs for this alternative reflect the more recent analyses contained in the Contingency Remedy Evaluation Report that included groundwater data collected and modeling performed after the FFS was prepared.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 - RESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY
| Capital Cost: | $1,340,600 |
| Total O&M Cost (present worth): | $159,000 |
| Total Present Worth Cost: | $1,500,100 |
The connection of downgradient residential homes to the public water eliminates the potential human exposure to EDB contaminated groundwater. The public water hookup portion of this alternative was completed in 1996 as an accelerated removal action and involved the installation of force mains, meters, valves, and supply lines to homes. Force mains were installed from Rosewood Drive along South Street, Weeks Avenue to Victoria Lane, North Weeks Avenue, Calendar Road, Douglas Lane, Victoria Lane, and North Street. The hookup area was substantially expanded in 1997 (see Figure 4). In addition, Suffolk County private water system requirements require connection to public water supply wherever water mains are available. Also, EDB-contaminated groundwater would be allowed to naturally attenuate as it continues to migrate off site. A groundwater monitoring program would be initiated to evaluate the migration and progress of natural attenuation of EDB.
ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 - REMEDIATE OU VI EDB PLUME TO CLEANUP GOALS VIA EXTRACTION AND CARBON ADSORPTION
| FFS: | Updated Costs: | |
| Capital Cost: | $5,110,000 - 5,287,300 | $1,260,000 |
| Total O&M Cost (present worth): | $3,647,500 - 5,177,100 | $980,000 |
| Total Present Worth Cost: | $8,757,500 - 10,464,400 | $2,240,000 |
In 1996, alternative 4 stated that EDB contaminated groundwater would be extracted from the aquifer, treated, and discharged to a new recharge basin upgradient of OU VI on the BNL site. Extraction would occur off site near the leading edge of the EDB plume. Since the 1996 position of the leading edge of EDB contamination was not precisely known, three extraction scenarios were evaluated.
Extracted groundwater would be treated by carbon adsorption for removal of VOCs prior to being pumped back to the BNL site for discharge to a recharge basin. Estimated levels of iron and manganese at depth within the capture zone may be sufficiently high to require metals removal to prevent fouling of the carbon adsorption unit. Additional on-site and off-site monitoring would be implemented to determine the effectiveness of the groundwater remedial action and address the need for additional characterization of EDB contamination. Spent carbon would be regenerated and reused and dewatered sludge/solids would be disposed off site.
The Updated Costs for this alternative reflect the more recent analyses contained in the Contingency Remedy Evaluation Report that included groundwater data collected and modeling performed after the FFS was prepared. These analyses evaluated modified extraction and treatment systems that involve discharge of the treated water into injection wells just south of the plume as opposed to pumping the treated water back to the BNL site. This re-analysis resulted in a substantially lower cost for active remediation than was previously estimated.
9. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
The CERCLA guidance requires that each remedial alternative be compared according to nine criteria. Those criteria are subdivided into three categories:
Threshold criteria that relate directly to statutory findings and must be satisfied by each chosen alternative (overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements); Primary balancing criteria that include long- and short-term effectiveness, implementability, reduction of toxicity, mobility and volume, and cost; and Modifying criteria that measure the acceptability of the alternatives to state agencies and the community.
The following sections summarize the detailed comparative analyses of the alternatives contained in Chapter 5 of the FFS Report and the OU VI Contingency Remedy Evaluation Report (BNL February 2000). A summary of comparative analysis of alternatives, based upon the evaluation criteria noted above, is given below.
9.1 Threshold Criteria
The remedial alternatives were evaluated in relation to the threshold criteria: overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance with ARARs. The threshold criteria must be met by the remedial alternatives for further consideration as potential remedies for the ROD.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment:
Alternatives 1 and 2 do not reduce the risk of human health exposure to the EDB contaminated groundwater and allows the EDB plume to migrate significant distances, thus contaminating clean groundwater. Alternative 3 eliminates the potential risk of human exposure to off-site contamination by preventing human consumption of the groundwater, but the EDB contaminated groundwater is still allowed to migrate significant distances. Alternative 4 reduces the potential future risk of human exposure by reducing EDB contamination in groundwater and significantly shortening the time period to reach health based standards in the groundwater (i.e. the drinking water standards). Alternative 4 also prevents or minimizes further migration of EDB contaminated groundwater.
Compliance with Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs):
All four alternatives will ultimately meet ARARs, i.e. the drinking water standard in the groundwater. Alternatives 1,2 and 3 will meet ARARs within 30 years for the Upper Glacial aquifer and about 40 years for the Upper Magothy aquifer. Compliance with ARARs is estimated to take up to 10 years for Alternative 4 since this alternative actively remediates the groundwater.
9.2 Balancing Criteria
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence:
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 provide long-term protection of public health as natural attenuation reduces off-site groundwater contamination to below the drinking water standard. Further long-term effectiveness and permanence is provided with Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 3 prevents human exposure to contaminated groundwater through public water hookup. Alternative 4 reduces further migration of groundwater contamination by actively remediating contaminated groundwater.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume:
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 do not actively remediate the groundwater contamination though the toxicity of the groundwater will be reduced as EDB concentrations decrease through natural attenuation. While the volume of contaminated groundwater may increase, concentrations in the aquifer will decrease with time. Alternative 4 reduces toxicity, mobility and volume of groundwater contamination through active remediation of the aquifer. The plume will also not migrate as far and mobility will be reduced.
Short-Term Effectiveness and Environmental Impacts:
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 can be implemented rather rapidly. Due to the permitting and coordination required for the construction of a groundwater treatment system on non-BNL property, Alternative 4 may be difficult to implement in the short-term.
At present, there are no known private wells directly within the contaminated plume with the exception of the well at the LILCO substation; therefore, in the short term, all alternatives are protective of the public in the neighboring communities. The workers performing the installation of new monitoring wells and vertical profile wells, the periodic groundwater sampling events, and extraction/recharge pipe installation would have health and safety training and use appropriate health and safety protocols to minimize any unacceptable exposure to contaminants by inhalation, direct contact or ingestion.
Implementability:
Alternative 1 and 2 can be implemented easily. Alternative 3 has already been implemented. Alternative 4 includes access and implementation issues associated with building a treatment plant on non-BNL owned property.
Cost:
Cost information for all alternatives is contained in Section 8 and summarized in Table 3.
9.3 Modifying Criteria
State Acceptance:
State acceptance addresses whether the State agrees with, opposes, or has no comment on the preferred alternative. The State of New York concurs with the selection of remedial actions described in this Record of Decision.
Community Acceptance:
Written and verbal comments received from the community during the 1996 public comment period and at the public meeting held on November 13, 1996, as well as the 2000 public comment period and at the information session held on August 8, 2000, have been evaluated. The Responsiveness Summary Section of the ROD contains the comments from the community and the appropriate responses. Most concerns expressed involved expansion of the public water hookup area. In response to concerns expressed by the Town of Brookhaven, elected officials and concerned citizens, DOE expanded the public water hookup area to include the area bounded on the north by North Street, on the east by Wading River Road, on the south by Sunrise Highway, and on the west by Sleepy Hollow Drive to Moriches-Middle Island Road to Cranford Boulevard. This action was taken in the interest of being a good neighbor and to give residents additional confidence in the quality of their drinking water.
The remedy has been selected based on consideration of CERCLA requirements, the analysis of alternatives, public comments and feedback from the regulatory agencies. The selected remedies are believed to provide the best balance of tradeoffs among alternatives with respect to the nine CERCLA evaluation criteria used to evaluate the alternatives in Section 9.
The selected remedy for Operable Unit VI groundwater (AOC 28) is a combination of Alternatives 3 "Residential Connections to Public Water Supply" and 4 "Remediate OU VI EDB Plume to Cleanup Goals Via Extraction and Carbon Adsorption". The selected remedy consists of the following major components:
The components of the selected remedy are final response actions. Soils in AOC 8 do not represent an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment and do not require remedial action to ensure protection of human health and the environment. The remediation of sediments in AOC 8 is addressed in the Operable Unit I Record of Decision.
This remedy is a modification of the proposed remedy in the FFS. Based on new monitoring data, an active remediation system has been added that will be implemented because additional data and groundwater modeling demonstrate that natural attenuation alone will not meet the cleanup objectives. The area connected to the public water system has been expanded in response to public concerns.
Remedy selection is based on CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and the regulations contained in the NCP. All remedies must meet the threshold criteria established in the NCP: protection of human health and the environment, and compliance with ARARs. CERCLA also requires that the remedy use permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable and that the implemented action must be cost effective. Finally, the statute includes a preference for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of hazardous wastes as their principal element. The following sections discuss how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
11.1 Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy satisfies the criterion of overall protection of human health and the environment by eliminating the potential risk of human exposure to off-site contamination by preventing human consumption of the groundwater and by remediating and limiting the spread of EDB contaminated groundwater.
11.2 Compliance with ARARs
The NCP Section 300.430 (P) (5) (ii) (B) requires that the selected remedy attain the federal and state ARARs or obtain a waiver of an ARAR.
The following Chemical-Specific ARARs that the remedies will meet are listed below.
No Location-specific or Action-specific ARARs were identified.
11.3 Cost Effectiveness
Based on the expected performance standards, the selected remedies were determined to be cost-effective because they provide overall protection of human health and the environment, long- and short-term effectiveness, and eventual compliance with ARARs, at an acceptable cost. Table 3 provides a comparison of present worth costs for all remedial alternatives.
11.4 Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The NCP prefers a permanent solution whenever possible. The preferred alternative is a final action, which utilizes permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable for OU VI.
11.5 Preference of Treatment as a Principal Element
The remedy involves the extraction and treatment of EDB contaminated groundwater thus satisfying the statutory preference for treatment.
11.6 Documentation of Significant Changes
In response to concerns expressed by the Town of Brookhaven, elected officials and concerned citizens, DOE also provided public water to the area bounded on the north by North Street, on the east by Wading River Road, on the south by Sunrise Highway, and on the west by Sleepy Hollow Drive to Moriches-Middle Island Road to Cranford Boulevard. This action has been taken to give residents additional confidence in the quality of their drinking water. In addition, active treatment has been selected based on more recent groundwater data and modeling predictions performed after the PRAP was issued for public review and comment.
11.7 Five Year Review
Five-year reviews will be needed to document the effectiveness of the groundwater treatment system and the effectiveness of the institutional controls.
BNL 1996. Brookhaven National Laboratory, Operable Unit VI, Proposed Remedial Action Plan.
BNL 1999a. Work Plan for Operable Unit VI Long-Term Monitoring Plan, February 22, 1999.
BNL 1999b. Quarterly Report Operable Unit VI Long-Term Monitoring, September 1998 - December 1998. April 1999.
BNL 1999c. Quarterly Report Operable Unit VI Long-Term Monitoring, January 1999 - April 1999. July 2, 1999.
BNL. 1999d. Quarterly Report Operable Unit VI Long-Term Monitoring, May 1999 - July 1999. November 12, 1999.
BNL. 1999e. Quarterly Report Operable Unit VI Long-Term Monitoring, August 1999 - September 1999. December 29, 1999.
BNL. 2000a. Operable Unit VI Contingency Remedy Evaluation. February 1, 2000.
BNL. 2000b. Operable Unit VI Groundwater Cleanup. July 21, 2000.
CDM Federal Programs Corporation (CDM Federal). 1996a. Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment Report, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Operable Unit I/VI.
CDM Federal. 1996b. Final Focused Feasibility Study, Operable Unit VI, Brookhaven National Laboratory.
Divirka and Bartilucci. 1987. Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Management Plan. Volumes I and II.
DOE, 1999. Record of Decision Operable Unit I and Radiologically Contaminated Soils. August 25, 1999.
NYSDEC. 1992. Division Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum: Determination of Soil Cleanup Objectives and Cleanup Levels at hazardous Waste Sites.
NYSDEC. 1993. Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum: Cleanup Guidelines for Soil Contaminated with Radioactive Materials.
U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1991. Open File Report 91-80.
|
Operable Unit I is a relatively undeveloped 950-acre area in the southeastern part of the site. It includes historical waste handling areas, such as the Former and Current Landfills (AOCs 2 and 3), and the Former Hazardous Waste Management Facility (AOC 1). It also includes the Ash Pit (AOC 2F) and two recharge basins (AOCs 24E & 24F). Operable Unit I contains six areas covered by accelerated removal actions: the Current and Former Landfills, Chemical/Animal Pits and Glass Holes, the Interim Landfill, the Slit Trench and Groundwater. A Record of Decision has been issued for this operable unit. |
| Operable Unit II/VII consists of several AOCs located in the developed central portion of the site. It includes contaminated soils and out-of-service underground storage tanks and pipelines proposed for removal at the Waste Concentration Facility (AOC 10), along with various isolated areas of contaminated surface soils (AOC 16,17,18). It also includes the BLIP facility (AOC 16K). | |
| Operable Unit III contains the south central and developed portions of the site. This operable unit contains most of the site's contaminated groundwater. A Record of Decision has been issued for this operable unit. | |
| Operable Unit IV is located on the east-central edge of the developed portion of the site. It includes the 1977 Oil/Solvent Spill (AOC 5) as well as the Reclamation Facility Building 650 and Sump Outfall Area (AOC 6), where radiologically contaminated soils have been found. A Record of Decision has been issued for this Operable Unit and an Interim Remedy of access restrictions and monitoring has been implemented for AOC 6. | |
| Operable Unit V is located in the northeast portion of the site and includes the Sewage Treatment Plant (AOC 4) and releases to the Peconic River. | |
| Operable Unit VI is located on the southeastern edge of the site. It is a largely wooded area that contains various agricultural research fields (AOC 8). Contaminated sediments and surface water in two of the man made basins in AOC 8 pose an ecological risk to the Tiger Salamander and they are addressed in the Operable Unit I ROD. Ethylene dibromide, a pesticide, has been found in groundwater south of BNL's southern boundary (AOC 28). |
|
||||||
| EDB Contaminated Groundwater | Consists of contaminated groundwater in the southeast portion of BNL and off site. The most probable source of the EDB contamination is the Biology Fields. | Groundwater | Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) | BNL, 1999e. | ||
| Biology Fields | Used for experiments on agricultural crops (e.g. evaluating the effects of acid precipitation and ozone). Employee interviews indicated that EDB was likely used to sterilize the soil prior to certain experiments. Groundwater quality data and modeling also suggests that these fields are the source of the EDB groundwater contamination. EDB was not detected in the soil. Human health risk criteria were not exceeded in the Risk Assessment. |
Groundwater Soil |
See AOC 28. No contaminants of concern were identified.
|
|
CDM, 1996a. | |
| Gamma Field | Used to assess the effects of radiation on crops. Fields were irradiated using Co-60 and Cs-137 sources which have been removed. No evidence of leakage from the sources was found during the Remedial Investigation. Human health risk criteria were not exceeded in the Risk Assessment. | Soil | No contaminants of concern were identified | CDM, 1996a. | ||
| Upland Recharge/Meadow Marsh Area | Used for experiments in the 1960s and 1970s on use of natural ecosystems for treatment of sewage and recharge to groundwater. The sewage reportedly contained metal and radionuclide contaminants. Human health risk criteria were not exceeded in the Risk Assessment. The area contains several abandoned artificial basins and ponds. Metal contaminated sediments and surface water pose a potential risk for the New York State endangered Tiger Salamander. Remedial actions for these basins and ponds are contained in the OU I ROD. |
Surface Water
Sediment |
Aluminum Cadmium Copper Zinc Cadmium Copper Mercury Silver |
CDM, 1996a. DOE, 1999. |
(x$1000) |
(x$1000) | ||
| No Further Action | |||
| Natural Attenuation with Additional Monitoring | |||
| Residential Connections to Public Water Supply | |||
| Groundwater Extraction and Treatment by Carbon Absorption |
I. Responsiveness Summary Overview
II. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns
III. Comprehensive Summary of Major Questions, Comments, Concerns, and DOE Responses
IV. Community Relations Activities
Appendix I - Comment Letters
This Responsiveness Summary (RS) of the Operable Unit (OU) VI Record of Decision (ROD) summarizes public comments and concerns and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) responses to those comments on the OU VI cleanup proposals and preferred remedial alternative at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL).
The RS serves two functions:
The DOE's selected alternatives for this remedial action are:
A public comment period for the review of the "OU VI FFS" and "OU VI Proposed Remedial Action Plan" (PRAP) began on October 3, 1996, and ended on December 6, 1996. A public meeting was held on November 13, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. at the Dayton Avenue School in Manorville, New York. This meeting was attended by approximately 120 members of the community. DOE and BNL distributed copies of the PRAP and other related information at this meeting. Copies of the FFS and PRAP were provided at the following locations for public review during the 1996 public comment period:
A second cleanup proposal was issued in July 2000, with a second public comment period that began on July 24, 2000 and ended on August 24, 2000. An information session was held on August 8, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. at the Manorville Fire House in Manorville, New York. Eighteen community members attended this information session. The BNL Community Advisory Council was briefed on the cleanup proposal on August 10, 2000.
This document summarizes written and oral comments on the FFS, 1996 PRAP, 2000 fact sheet PRAP, and the preferred remedial alternatives, DOE's responses, and changes made to the proposed remedial action.
Modifications to the preferred remedial alternative based on public concern and input include:
The RS is divided into the following sections:
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW: This section briefly describes the site background and DOE's preferred alternatives.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS: This section provides the history of community concerns and describes community involvement in the process of selecting a remedy for Operable Unit VI. A detailed chronology of community relations activities is presented in Section IV.
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND CONCERNS AND DOE RESPONSES: This section summarizes the written comments DOE received during the 1996 and 2000 public comment periods and the oral and written comments received during the 1996 public meeting and 2000 information session, and DOE's responses. Specific written responses to the significant comment letters are included in Section IV. Comments from these letters have been reflected in the summaries presented in Section III of this document.
IV. COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES: This section gives a chronology of the significant Community Relations activities regarding OU VI.
I. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY OVERVIEW
Site History
Brookhaven National Laboratory is a multi-disciplinary scientific research center owned by DOE and operated by Brookhaven Science Associates. The Laboratory conducts basic and applied research in the fields of high-energy nuclear and solid state physics, fundamental material and structural properties and the interactions of matter, nuclear medicine, biomedical and environmental sciences, and selected energy technologies.
Brookhaven National Laboratory is located about 60 miles east of New York City, in Upton, Suffolk County, New York, near the geographic center of Long Island. The BNL site, formerly Camp Upton, was occupied by the U. S. Army during World Wars I and II. The site was transferred to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1947, to the Energy Research and Development Administration in 1975, and to DOE in 1977.
The BNL property is an irregular polygon that is roughly square, and each side is approximately 2.5 miles long. The site consists of 5,321 acres. The site terrain is gently rolling, with elevations varying between 40 to 120 feet above sea level. The land lies on the western rim of the shallow Peconic River watershed, with a tributary of the river rising in marshy areas in the northern section of the tract.
The aquifer beneath BNL is comprised of three water-bearing units: the moraine and outwash deposits (known as the Glacial Aquifer); the Magothy Formation; and the Lloyd Sand Member of the Raritan Formation. These units are hydraulically connected and make up a single zone of saturation with varying physical properties from a depth of 45 feet to 1,500 feet below the land surface. These three water-bearing units are designated as a "sole-source" aquifer by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and serve as the primary drinking water source for Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
As a result of historical operations at the site, BNL was placed on the EPA National Priorities List in December, 1989. In May, 1992, DOE entered into an Interagency Agreement for the BNL site with EPA and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and corresponding state regulations. This Agreement established the framework and schedule for characterizing, assessing and remediating the site in accordance with CERCLA.
The BNL property has been divided into six Operable Units for the purposes of the site remediation. The Operable Units are areas for which independent removal or remedial actions may be performed as part of the overall BNL site remediation.
Operable Unit VI
Operable Unit VI, comprised of approximately 340 acres, is located along BNL's southeastern boundary. Operable Unit VI is a relatively undeveloped section of the BNL facility, containing large wooded tracts and few structures. In addition to pine forests, OU VI contains cultivated field and forest plots that have been and continue to be used for agricultural experiments. OU VI contains two Areas of Concern (AOCs), which were investigated in the Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment (RI/RA) for OU I/VI. AOC 8 consists of various experimental agricultural fields; AOC 28 consists of a groundwater contaminant plume containing EDB above drinking water standards. Groundwater flowing beneath OU VI moves off site towards agricultural and residential areas along the BNL southern boundary.
Based on the RI/RAs, DOE, BNL, EPA, and NYSDEC have determined that the only environmental medium in OU VI that may require an action for protection of human health is groundwater. The only chemical in groundwater presenting a human health risk is EDB.
Groundwater Remedial Action for OU VI
EDB-contaminated groundwater will be actively remediated by extracting the contaminated groundwater and treating it with activated carbon. Groundwater data collected since publication of the Focused Feasibility Study and the Proposed Remedial Action Plan, updated information on cost effectiveness, and regulatory feedback have indicated the need for an active remediation system. This remedy will be implemented because additional monitoring data found that the Remedial Action Objectives (or "cleanup objectives") may not be met by natural attenuation alone. These objectives are to meet the drinking water standards for EDB in the Upper Glacial Aquifer within 30 years, protect human health and the environment, and prevent or minimize further migration of EDB in groundwater vertically as well as horizontally. Details of the active remediation system will be developed during the design phase. The remedy also includes implementation of a groundwater monitoring program to monitor and verify the cleanup of EDB with time. To address the risk to public health from EDB in the groundwater and public concern, public water has been provided to homes in the vicinity of the EDB plume. County private water systems standards will limit the installation of new water supply wells at new homes where a water main exists in the area. On-site institutional controls will prevent the installation of water supply wells on the BNL site.
Level of Community Support for Proposed Alternative
Based on comments received during the 1996 public comment period, DOE and BNL believe that the public and local elected officials were in general agreement with the originally proposed remedial alternative (number 3), which provides public water and continues to monitor the natural attenuation of the EDB in the potentially impacted area. There were no comments indicating a preference for additional active remediation of the EDB contaminants such as pump and treat or enhanced biodegradation. The projected dilution of the EDB by natural attenuation seemed to be acceptable to the public and elected officials. However, at that time, EDB concentrations were lower than those found after the publication of the PRAP. There were also no comments regarding additional remediation to be performed at the Biology Fields source area.
Based on comments received during the 2000 public comment period, DOE and BNL believe that the public and local elected officials support the selected remedial alternatives, including active treatment of the EDB plume by groundwater extraction and treatment with activated carbon.
Significant disagreement was evident with the proposed extent of DOE's public water hookup area in 1996. Most members of the public who commented expressed the desire to extend the hookup area to the south and to the east of its proposed location due to the perception that drinking water supplies were at risk in these areas from the EDB in the aquifer. The comments presented the argument that the public water hookup area should be extended about twice as far as the projected 20-year future EDB migration distance to compensate for the hydrogeologic uncertainties and modeling assumptions described in the FFS. Two citizen petitions and a letter from the Town of Brookhaven Supervisor to former U.S. Senator Alfonse D'Amato were presented at the public meeting to underscore this opinion. The petitions and the letter are attached as an appendix to this document.
After consideration of these comments, DOE and BNL have concluded that the original hookup area is protective of the public health because it is based on worst-case assumptions and includes several safety factors. In combination with the proposed long-term monitoring activities, the overall proposed remedial action is still considered appropriate by DOE and BNL. However, to give residents additional confidence in the quality of their drinking water, DOE has extended the public water hookup area to the area bounded on the north by North Street, on the east by Wading River Road, on the south by Sunrise Highway, and on the west by Sleepy Hollow Drive to Moriches-Middle Island Road to Cranford Boulevard. The action was taken in response to a request made by the Town of Brookhaven and concerns expressed by elected officials and concerned citizens.
NYSDEC and EPA, based on their review of the Administrative Record and supporting information, have concurred with the selected remedial action.
Changes to the Proposed Alternative
The preferred remedial alternative was modified based on public concern and input as follows:
To give residents additional confidence in the quality of their drinking water, DOE has extended the public water hookup to the area bounded on the north by North Street, on the east by Wading River Road, on the south by Sunrise Highway, and on the west by Sleepy Hollow Drive to Moriches-Middle Island Road to Cranford Boulevard. The action was taken in response to a request made by the Town of Brookhaven and concerns expressed by elected officials and concerned citizens.
The selected remedy now includes active remediation involving the extraction of EDB contaminated groundwater and subsequent treatment with activated carbon. Groundwater data, updated information on cost effectiveness and regulatory feedback obtained since publication of the Focused Feasibility Study and Proposed Remedial Action Plan in 1996 have indicated the need for an active remediation system. This remedy will be implemented because additional monitoring data found that the Remedial Action Objectives (or "cleanup objectives") may not be met by natural attenuation alone. These objectives are to meet the drinking water standards for EDB in the Upper Glacial Aquifer within 30 years, protect human health and the environment, and prevent or minimize further migration of EDB in groundwater vertically as well as horizontally. Details of the system, such as the exact number and location of extraction wells, will be developed during the design phase.
II. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Community Profile
Brookhaven National Laboratory is located in Brookhaven Town in Suffolk County, which encompasses the central and eastern part of Long Island. Brookhaven Town accounts for almost a third of Long Island's 1.3 million residents with a population of 421,000.
Suffolk County is governed by a County Executive and an 18-member legislature, while the town of Brookhaven employs a Town Council (six at-large Councilors) and a Supervisor. Both County and Town governments maintain professional planning, development, and environment departments as well as a planning board.
Many hamlets, villages, and unincorporated communities dot Brookhaven Town's 940 square kilometers (368 square miles). Located within a five-mile radius of BNL are the unincorporated communities of Yaphank, Middle Island, Ridge, East Shoreham, Wading River, Calverton, Manorville, Center Moriches, Moriches, Mastic, and Shirley. Most of these communities have citizen-run civic or taxpayers organizations with large and active memberships. Their goal is to benefit their communities. Most organizations are affiliated with one or both of the area's two umbrella civic groups, Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organizations and/or the Longwood Alliance. These same communities support Rotary and other service clubs, which represent businesses and other aligned interests within the community.
The Town of Riverhead is another town in Suffolk County where BNL activities generate interest. The Town of Riverhead, located to the east of BNL and the Town of Brookhaven, has a population of about 23,800 and an area of about 200 square kilometers (78 square miles), about 40 percent of which is farmed. Riverhead employs a supervisor-town council government which maintains professional planning, development, and environment departments, as well as a planning board.
History of Community Involvement
Historically, public involvement in BNL's environmental restoration activities has been low, but after the establishment of a Community Relations Program in 1991, public interest and contact with BNL has steadily increased. Evidence of the growth of community involvement can be measured by the steady increase in the size of the Environmental Restoration Division's (ERD) stakeholder mailing list, which currently numbers about 2,550. BNL has made concerted efforts to inform and involve the community in its remediation efforts since the formation of ERD.
On March 1, 1998 Brookhaven Science Associates became the management group responsible for BNL. Since then, interaction with the community has been a major focus of BNL's administration and employees.
The focus of the BNL Community Relations Program has been:
Two established mechanisms for community involvement meet monthly at BNL. The Brookhaven Executive Roundtable (BER) (established in August 1997) is composed of elected officials (or their representatives), regulators, and the Suffolk County Water Authority. Community members routinely attend the meetings and an opportunity for public comment is routinely on the agenda. The BER was created to facilitate and expedite the flow of information from BNL to some of its key stakeholders on significant environmental, operational and/or regulatory/oversight issues. An independent Community Advisory Council has been meeting since September 1998. Composed of representatives of established stakeholder groups on Long Island, BNL employees and several individuals, the council meets to learn about and discuss issues relating to the laboratory and to offer recommendations to BNL's director.
Regular communication with stakeholders about BNL cleanup activities is maintained through the production and distribution of the cleanupdate newsletter. Publication of this quarterly newsletter began in early 1996. It is currently distributed to more than 5,000 BNL employees and retirees, as well as more than 2,550 households on the ERD mailing list.
A variety of additional activities are used to provide information and to seek public participation, including the following:
Summary of Community Participation Activities
An OU VI-EDB community relations plan was produced and used as the primary guide for the following activities. Its goal was to maximize the potentially-affected community's involvement in, and understanding of, the OU VI remedial alternative selection process, so as to facilitate implementation of an Operable Unit VI remedial alternative.
The OU I/VI Remedial Investigation/Risk Assessment (RI/RA) Report was made available to the public and submitted to the Administrative Record on June 27, 1996. The public comment period began on July 29, 1996 and ended on September 30, 1996. This period reflects a 30-day extension, which was requested by the Environmental Advocates of Long Island office. A summary sheet titled, "Remedial Investigation and Risk Assessment of the Southeast Area of the Laboratory" was sent to the BNL OER mailing list (approximately 1,100 people at that time).
In mid-August 1996, the community relations activities for OU VI began. These activities included extensive door-to-door canvassing to approximately 90 residences, briefings to 16 elected officials, and mailings. Follow-up visits and phone contacts continued throughout the summer and into the fall.
DOE issued several press releases in August 1996 announcing the off-site EDB contamination and the public water hookups. Also, application packages were mailed to residents in the hookup area.
Additionally, two summary sheets, "EDB In Groundwater, Operable Unit VI" and "Focused Feasibility Study and Proposed Remedial Action Plan, Operable Unit VI" were produced and distributed to the BNL Community Involvement mailing list on August 12, 1996 and November 4, 1996, respectively.
On September 24, 1996, the Action Memorandum for OU VI Public Water Hookups was submitted to the Administrative Record. Following this document, two additional OU VI documents, the Operable Unit VI Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) and Proposed Remedial Action Plan (PRAP) were made available to the public and submitted to the Administrative Record on October 3, 1996. The public comment period for these two documents was October 3, 1996 through December 6, 1996.
Poster sessions played an important part in the community participation activities. These allowed the community and other interested people to meet informally with project managers and representatives from the regulatory agencies and express their concerns about Operable Unit VI. Two poster sessions were held at the Manorville Fire House on September 25, 1996 and October 5, 1996. A poster session was also held prior to the November 13, 1996 public meeting.
Another avenue for community relations was the sharing of information at local civic meetings. In particular, a presentation regarding OU VI was given to the Manorville Taxpayers Association on October 3, 1996.
These activities preceded the November 13, 1996 public meeting, which was another opportunity for the community and general public to comment on and ask questions about the above documents and the public water hookups. In response to public requests, the meeting was held in the community at the Dayton Avenue School in Manorville. Approximately 120 people were in attendance and many shared their concerns and asked questions of the eight member panel, which included representatives from BNL, DOE, EPA, NYSDEC, New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). A transcript was made of the meeting, which is included in the Administrative Record.
In 2000, the proposed cleanup remedy was changed to active treatment by groundwater extraction and carbon adsorption, followed by re-injection of water at concentrations less than the MCL. A fact sheet PRAP giving the details of this changed proposal, titled "Operable Unit VI Groundwater Cleanup," was produced and distributed. On July 21, 2000 this fact sheet was mailed to 2,550 homes on the Community Involvement mailing list and was placed on the ERD web site.
Both the fact sheet PRAP and newspaper ads published in Suffolk Life and Newsday announced an information session that was held on August 8, 2000 in the Manorville Fire House. This session was also announced on the ERD web site. A public comment period was held from July 24 to August 24, 2000. A presentation on the cleanup proposal was provided to the Community Advisory Council on August 10, 2000.
A chronological summary of the significant community participation activities to date for OU VI is provided in Section IV of this Responsiveness Summary.
The Administrative Record documents can be found at the following repositories:
III. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, AND CONCERNS AND DOE RESPONSES
Overview
A number of questions and comments were made during the 1996 public meeting that did not relate to the proposed remedial action that is the subject of the ROD accompanying this RS. These comments were addressed by the panel at the public meeting and were followed up through community meetings, a community forum and cleanupdate articles. Only questions and comments directly related to the proposed remedial action alternatives are addressed in this RS.
Written public comments and questions received during the 1996 and 2000 public comment periods and oral and written comments received during the November 1996 public meeting and August 2000 information session are summarized and addressed below. The format of this RS is that similar questions or comments from different sources have been combined and summarized for a common response. Written comment letters are reproduced in Appendix I.
General Topics
Questions and Comments
1. Predicted path and boundaries of hookup area based on modeling.
1a. The majority of concerns were expressed by those residents living in areas that were not scheduled for hookup to public water - primarily, the southern end of Weeks Avenue, Woodland and Dayton Avenues, and any adjoining side streets. The residents were concerned that their wells could become contaminated with EDB and that the proposed hookup area was based, to a great extent, on modeling or projections.
The proposed hookup area was based on both monitoring well data and modeling projections, and there are uncertainties in the information, as was discussed in the FFS and at the 1996 public meeting. In order to compensate for the uncertainties, the hookup area delineation included safety factors such as the 20-year EDB future travel distance, and a high EDB migration rate. Using available data and conservative assumptions, DOE and BNL concluded that the homes south of Victoria Drive and on Dayton and Woodland Avenues were in no danger of well contamination from BNL for at least 20 years, if at all. Nevertheless, in response to concerns expressed by the Town of Brookhaven, elected officials and concerned citizens, the hookup area was expanded to include these streets. This action was undertaken to give residents additional confidence about the quality of their water.
In addition to the monitoring well data, approximately 125 residential wells in the hookup area and outside the hookup area along south Weeks Avenue were sampled by the SCDHS in October 1996. The October information indicated that no EDB was detected in any of the sampled wells.
1b. There were concerns about the path of the EDB and that if it should begin to migrate in a southeasterly manner, the residential wells along Weeks, Woodland, and Dayton Avenues could be affected by the EDB. There were two SCDHS temporary wells on South Street that showed elevated levels of EDB. What is the potential for that contamination to migrate south into residential wells?
The proposed hookup area was based on both monitoring well data and modeling projections, and there are uncertainties in the information, as was discussed in the FFS and at the 1996 public meeting. In order to compensate for the uncertainties, the hookup area delineation included safety factors such as the 20-year EDB future travel distance, and a high EDB migration rate. Using available data and conservative assumptions, DOE and BNL concluded that the homes south of Victoria Drive and on Dayton and Woodland Avenues were in no danger of well contamination from BNL for at least 20 years, if at all. Nevertheless, in response to concerns expressed by the Town of Brookhaven, elected officials and concerned citizens, the hookup area was expanded to include these streets. This action was undertaken to give residents additional confidence about the quality of their water.
All current information indicates that the EDB will continue to move south and not cross to the east of Weeks Avenue. In 1998 and 1999, BNL installed 15 temporary and 14 additional permanent wells in the general area south of North Street on both sides of Weeks Avenue. These wells were measured for water levels as well as organic and radiological contaminants. This monitoring will continue until the plume achieves drinking water standards.
1c. Sometimes there is no apparent rhyme or reason to a hookup area. DOE is hooking up very far east of the EDB contamination and in another project hooked up communities as far south as Sunrise Highway.
Initially, the OU VI hookup area was based on groundwater modeling projections of the furthest extent of the plume. These areas were then expanded further at the request of elected officials and community members. This is the reason that homes on South Street, north Woodland Avenue, and the eastern part of Victoria Lane were hooked up.
The other hookup project that extended mains to Sunrise Highway was in response to requests from elected officials. The two hookup projects are not related.
1d. The modeling was uncalibrated and not based on sufficient data to make accurate predictions.
For the FFS, the groundwater model was applied in three ways:
First, to identify a source area and an approximate release time which can explain the observed pattern of EDB contamination. This was achieved by running a particle back-track analysis from all monitoring well locations and depths where EDB has been detected historically.
Second, to estimate the worst case vertical and horizontal extent of contamination since 1970 from that source area by simulating a continuous source particle cloud. Simulations do not imply concentrations and represent conservative estimates of the areal and vertical extent of contamination. Based on available data, model results were in agreement with the observed pattern of EDB contamination. However, DOE and BNL did not rely entirely on modeling results to determine the original hookup area. The model was used to understand the migration of EDB and, as explained in the FFS, modeling results were to be confirmed with additional monitoring well data. At the time of the FFS (1996), more data were needed to define the downgradient and lateral extent of contamination, and confirm the absence or presence of contamination in the area between the OU VI property boundary and the Biology Fields. Since the FFS, 15 temporary wells and 14 permanent monitoring wells have been installed and the leading edge of the EDB plume has been defined.
Third, based on the observed pattern of contamination (represented by a slug of contamination detected by monitoring well data), the attenuation of EDB was simulated forward in time (from the present day and not from 1970) to estimate the duration and extent to which EDB will migrate at concentrations that exceed the drinking water standard.
The modeling (calibration, sensitivity analysis, and application) was performed in accordance with American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) guides for Groundwater Modeling and is calibrated sufficiently to meet the objectives of the FFS. Uncertainties in the analysis have been objectively identified in the FFS and discussed relative to their significance. The objective of the modeling analysis was to provide guidance in selecting appropriate remedial alternatives and focusing future data collection efforts. The groundwater model was calibrated to approximately 100 monitoring well data points (four off-site) for three separate annual events and the model strongly agrees with the regional groundwater flow patterns as developed independently by the U.S. Geological Survey and the SCDHS for the same years.
Groundwater sampling data and modeling performed during the Remedial Investigation indicated that natural attenuation would reduce the concentrations of EDB in the plume below drinking water standards within 30 years. Additional modeling based on more recent field data suggested the need for an active remediation system to meet Remedial Action Objectives.
The OU VI groundwater flow and transport model described in the Long-term Monitoring Work Plan (February 22, 1999) was calibrated for both flow and contaminant transport with the current data, ending November 1999. When natural attenuation only is assumed, the model predicts that the EDB plume will migrate beyond Sunrise Highway and into the Magothy aquifer and will persist for approximately 40 years. When active remediation is assumed, the model predicts that the plume will decline to less than the drinking water standard of 0.05 µg/L in eight to nine years.
1e. Since there is no monitoring well data at the southern end of the plume how do you know that the EDB does not extend further to the south or southeast?
Please see the response to 1d, above.
2. Tritium and other radionuclides in groundwater
2a. The South Street School in Manorville was hooked up to public water in 1985. Wasn't this due to BNL?
The school was hooked up to public water because of high levels of agricultural contaminants including nitrates and the pesticide aldicarb. Tritium was present at 5 percent of the drinking water standard. This tritium did come from BNL. Based on the evaluation of groundwater flow rates and direction presented in the FFS and on numerous other sources of information such as SCDHS maps, the pesticide contamination at the school was not related to the migration of the EDB from the BNL Biology fields.
2b. Some residents are curious about the type of analysis that BNL does during their groundwater monitoring. Does it include analysis for tritium and other radiological compounds?
Tritium is analyzed from all temporary and permanent well samples associated with OU VI, along with a list of approximately 60 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including EDB. Only permanent monitoring wells can yield a sufficient volume of water for the analysis of strontium-90, gross alpha, gross beta, and gamma radiological parameters. In the October 1996 sampling round, 125 residential wells were analyzed for VOCs, metals and standard water quality parameters (e.g., coliform), as well as tritium and the other radiological parameters mentioned above. Since then, these analyses have been performed annually in samples from BNL's permanent monitoring wells.
3. Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) wells
3a. Several concerns directly related to the supply wells owned by the SCWA have been expressed: Will the supply wells be affected by the EDB migration? What part did the wells play in the modeling? What will be the depth of the EDB as it attenuates, and will the EDB contamination ever have the potential to enter our drinking water supply?
The SCWA water supply wells located on Country Club Drive, about a mile and a half southeast of the EDB plume, were included in the modeling of the EDB migration. The pumpage from these wells had no effect on the EDB movement and it is predicted that the contaminants will never reach the water supply wells. The monitoring wells installed in the area will verify this prediction. BNL is also adding an active remediation system to treat and control the movement of the EDB plume.
In addition, the SCDHS has already installed and sampled new permanent monitoring wells on Dayton Avenue between the water supply wells and the current EDB location. Water samples from these wells were analyzed for EDB and more than 60 VOCs and five radiological parameters. None of these analytes were detected. These wells are to be monitored quarterly, along with the water supply wells, for the complete list of analytes so that if the predictions of plume migration are inaccurate, there is adequate time to protect the water supply.
The OU VI groundwater flow and transport model described in the Long-term Monitoring Work Plan was calibrated for both flow and contaminant transport with the current data, ending November 1999. When natural attenuation only is assumed, the model suggests that the EDB plume will migrate beyond Sunrise Highway and into the Magothy aquifer and will persist for approximately 40 years. When active remediation is assumed, the model suggests that the plume will decline to less than the drinking water standard of 0.05 µg/L in eight to nine years.
3b. Many people have shallow wells and may not be affected by contamination that is found at much deeper depths. There is a common misbelief that the deeper a well, the cleaner the water.
All residences near the current and future predicted location of the EDB have been hooked up to public water and will not need to rely on private wells for drinking water.
4. Drinking water standards and potential health effects.
4a. Many concerns were expressed about the possible health effects from drinking water with any level of EDB, a suspected carcinogen, and the potential pathways of exposure to EDB, other than drinking. Some people were interested in knowing how the drinking water standards are set and why the drinking water standard for EDB is so low.
Drinking water quality standards are established in consideration of health effects and other factors such as analytical capability. Standards are reviewed regularly by the EPA and NYSDOH, and are updated as new information becomes available. Revised standards can either be raised or lowered, depending on the new information. The drinking water standard of 0.05 parts per billion (ppb), or micrograms per liter (µg/L) is so low for EDB because of its possible carcinogenic effects. EPA has determined that this is the lowest level that laboratories can measure accurately and consistently with the available analytical methods. This corresponds to an increased lifetime cancer risk of 1 x 10-4 or one in ten thousand.
DOE and BNL understand the deep concern that people have for the health of themselves and their children. This is the reason that DOE has taken the precaution of connecting residents in the designated area to public water even though there is currently no evidence that residents are being exposed to contaminants from the Laboratory in their drinking water.
Government and private-sector scientific/medical organizations have generated substantial amounts of information and many studies on the scientific characteristics and health/environmental effects of the chemicals of concern in the BNL Environmental Restoration program.
Following is information to assist community members in learning more about the possible health and environmental effects of the chemicals of concern in BNL's cleanup. Five of the contacts are County, State, and Federal government agencies involved in public health administration. Three of the contacts are databases (two governmental, one private).
Resources for scientific and health information regarding chemicals and radionuclides:
1. ATSDR Public Health Statements
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road, NE, Mail Stop E-29,
Atlanta, GA 30333,
Phone: 1-888-422-8737, Fax: (404) 639-6359
Internet Web page: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov
2. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Road, NE
Atlanta, GA 30333
Phone: 1-800-311-3435 or (404) 639-3534
Internet address: http://www.cdc.gov
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Center, 3404
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-5922
E-mail address: Public-Access@epamail.epa.gov
or
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/pic.htm
4. Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Water Resources Division
225 Rabro Drive
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Phone: (631) 853-2250
5. New York State Department of Health/Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment
Flanigan Square
547 River Street, Room 330
Troy, NY 12180
Phone: (518) 402-7800
Internet: http://www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/environ/btsa.htm
6. There are several databases available for extensive summaries and data. You can access the information by calling the source directly. Many local libraries and/or universities have the databases available for the general public.
a. IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System)
U.S. EPA, Environmental Health and Safety Series, 1995
Public Information Center, 3404
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-5922
E-mail address: Public-Access@epamail.epa.gov
or RIH.IRIS@epamail.epa.gov
Internet: http://www.epa.gov/ngispgm3/iris/index.html
Produced by Micromedex, Inc.
6200 South Syracuse Way, Suite 300
Englewood, CO 80111
Phone: (303) 486-6400
b. HSDB Hazardous Substance Databank
Produced by National Library of Medicine
8600 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20894
Phone: 800-272-4787 or (301) 496-4000
Internet address: http://www.nlm.nih.gov
or http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov
c. CHRIS Chemical Hazard Response Information System
produced by the U.S. Coast Guard (Hazardous Materials Branch, Office of
Marine Safety):
Commandant (MOS-3)
U.S. Coast Guard
2100 Second St. SW
Washington, DC 20593
Attention: Dr. Alan Schneider
Phone: (202) 267-1577
Despite the quality, breadth, and depth of information available, this information does not provide conclusive answers about all of the possible health and environmental effects of the chemicals of concern at BNL.
In 1997, the ATSDR, a federal agency independent of DOE and BNL, performed a short-term groundwater public health consultation on BNL contamination at the request of DOE and local citizens. This consultation included an examination of residential well monitoring results and a determination of potential impacts on local residents if they were to use private well water for potable (drinking) and non-potable purposes.
In 1997, the ATSDR issued a draft Groundwater Consultation Report for public review and comment. The draft report determined that the levels of contamination found in residential wells (including those in Operable Unit VI) were not expected to cause noncancerous effects. Due to a lack of data, ATSDR was unable to determine the excess risk of developing cancer. This draft report has not been finalized. ATSDR intends to include a groundwater section, which will follow up on the draft Consultation, in its final Public Health Assessment on BNL.
5. Safety of well water outside the hookup area.
5a. Some residents who live outside the hookup area were concerned about the safety of their well water and whether it might have been impacted by the EDB plume or other groundwater contamination.
The extent of the BNL EDB plume is well defined, and it has not impacted any residential wells. As a precautionary measure due to this and other areas of groundwater contamination from BNL, approximately 1,500 homes south of the Laboratory have been provided public water hookups.
It is a good practice for residents outside of the hookup area who use a private well for drinking water to have their well tested periodically. The group to contact for well water testing is the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Water Resources Division. Their number is (631) 853-2250. The cost is normally $65, but if a resident's income is less than $25,000 per year, testing is free.
6. Use of well water for non-drinking purposes.
6a. Two participants of the August 2000 information session who live within the public water hookup area asked whether it was safe to use their well water to irrigate vegetation, such as a garden.
The BNL EDB plume has not impacted any private residential wells. Using these wells for irrigation should be safe. However, it is recommended that individuals using well water for any purpose have their water tested periodically. See question 5, above, for contact information.
7. Other sources of contamination (non-BNL).
7a. Several participants of the 1996 public meeting expressed concerns about groundwater contamination from other non-BNL sources, and wondered why aren't all potentially affected communities connected to public water.
There may be other funds at the state and local level which are geared to the types of hookups in question and concerned citizens may contact the Town of Brookhaven or SCWA for more information.
7b. Several questions concerned the off-site detections of EDB on South Street and Weeks Avenue and the reasoning behind BNL not taking responsibility for these detections.
The proposed hookup area was based on both monitoring well data and modeling projections, and there are uncertainties in the information, as was discussed in the FFS and at the 1996 public meeting. In order to compensate for the
