Five-Year Review Report .
for the
Li Tungsten Superfund Site .
Glen Cove
Nassau County, New York
July 2010
PREPARED BY:
U .S.Environmental Protection Agency Region II .
New York, New York
. - ... -'-. - - . ---- ----.~
SDMS Document
. IIIlIl\ IIIII11111IIIIIl\IIl IIIII IIII1111 i"-. . __ .__.~_085~~ ____ _
Five-Year Review Report \
Table of Contents \
List ·of Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary ..................................................... ~ ............................................... :., .......... vii
Five-Year Review Summary Form .......................... , .......... ~ .......................................................... viii
'.I. Introduction............................................................................ : ....... ; ................................. 1
II. Site Chronology ...........• : ......................... : ............................................................ : ........... 1
III. Background ....... , ............................................................................................................. 1, Site Location and Description ............................................ ~ ............................................. 1 Geology/Hydrogeology ........................... ; ....................... ' .................. : ................ , ............ 2 Land and Resource Use ................................ ~ ........... ' ...................... , ............................ , .... 2 History ofContamination ~ ............ , .................................................................................. 3 Initial Responses ................................................................................... : .......................... 3 Basis for Taking Action ...................•. ; ....................... · .. , ... ' ................................................ 4'
IV. Site-wide Remedial Actions .................•.......................................................................... 6 OU 1/0U 2 Remedy Selection .............. , .......................•.................. ;.-.............. ~ .................. 6 OU 4 Remedy Selection ......................................................... ; ........................................ 7 Remedy Implementation ................. ; ............................... ;: ..... : ........................................ 8
, . 'Institutional Controls ..................................... : ......................... ; ............................... · ... ~ .. 1 0
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review .................................................................... 14
VI. Five-Year: Review Process .......... : .................................................................................. 15 Administrative Components .................................................... , ............................ ; ........ 15 Community Invo lvement ...... , ..... ~......................................................................................15 Document Review ......... , ................................................................................................ 15 Data Review ..·.... ; ................................................................................................. ,·......... 15 Site Inspection .. : .................................................................. ~ .................... ; .................... 16
VII. Technical Assessment ............................................. ' .............. ; ............................... .-...... 16 Question A: Is the' remedy functionmg as intended by the decision documents? ............ 16 Question B: Are the (a) exposure assumptions, (b) toxicity data, (c) cleanup levels, and (d) remedial action objectives (RAOs) used at the time of theremedy selection still valid? .................. .-........................................................................................................... 18 Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question " the protectiveness ofthe remedy? .,.......... ~ ....................... , ....................... : ............ : .......... 19 Technical Assessment Summary ........................................ : .............. ~ ........................... 19
VIII. Issues, Recommendations and Follow-up Actions .......................................................... 19
IX. Protectiveness Statement ..................................... .'......................................................... 20
X. Next-Review ............................................ , ........ : ........................ :.: ....... ' ..... , ................... 21 \
XI. Bibliography for Li Tungsten Superfund Site ................................................................ 22 ,
11
j
Tables . . Table 1 - First-year Groundwater Monito~g Results (witp. historical Rl comparison} Table 2 - Chronology ofEvents Table 3 - Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
.Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Operable Unit Site Map Figure 3 :- Groundwater and Creek Sampling Locations
Appendices Appendix 1 - EPA letter to City of Glen Cove regarding Parcel A Appendix 2 - Glen Cove Record Pilot public notice ofsecond five-year review Appendix 3 - Five-year review Site inspection report Appendix 4 - Glen Cove letter to EPA regarding residential zoning change
/
iii i .
List of Acronyms
APT / Ammonium Paratungstate
BTEX I
Benzenet(oluene/Xylenes J
BUD Beneficial Use Detednination
·CY cubic yards
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESD Explanation of Significant Differences
FFS Focused Feasibility Study
Ie. Institutional Control
IDA Glen Cove Industrial Development Agency
. MCLs- Maximum Contaminant Levels
mglkg milligram per kilogram
MSL Mean Sea Level
NPL National.Priorities List
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OU Qperable Unit
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
. pCi/g picocurie per gram
PCOR 'Pr~liminaryClose-out Report
PPA Prospective Purchaser Agreement
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RA Remedial Action
RAB Removal Action Branch
RAO ( Remedial Action Objective
RAR Remedial Action Report
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD Remedial Design
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
ROPC Radionuclide of Potential Concern
RPM Remedial Project Manager
IV
SMP
SVOCs
TCLP
UAO
USACE
VOC
, ,
Site/Soil Management Plan
Semi volatile Organic Compounds
Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure
Unilateral Administrative Order
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Volatile Organic Compound
'.
v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A five-year review was completed for au i, au 2, and au 4·ofthe Li Tungsten Superfund site,_ located in the City ofGlen Cove, Nassau County, N~w York. This is the second five-year review for this Site, triggered by the passage of five years' from the first five-year review. During the first five-year,review, the remedial work for OUs I and 2 was still ongoing,and au 4 was in the remedial design phase. Based upon a reviewofthel999 R~cord ofDecision (ROD), 2005 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), Remedial Action Reports (RARs) for OUs 1,2 and 4, the Preliminary Close-out Report (PCOR), and other documentation in the Site file; EP A has concluded that there are sufficient institutional controls and health and safety . protections presently in place to prevent potential human exposures prior to development ofthe Site, that the development of Site Management Plans (SMPs) will address additional controlsand materials-handling strategies to be employed during and after Site development, and that ultimately the remedies at the Site will function as intended by the decision documents and be_ protective ofhuman health and the environment.
au 3; anticipated to be a conta~inated building survey and potential remediation, was cancelled. and all work subsumed in a subsequent EPA removal action performed from October·1996 through October 1998. - .. , ' . .
(
VI
Five-Year ReviewSummary Form
. Sri'" IDENTIFICATION' , c , .: , ,
Site name (from WasteLAN): Li Tungsten site
EPA ID (from WasteLAN): NYD986882660
(
NPL status: • Final D Deleted D Other (specifY)
Remediation status (choose all that apply): D Under Construction. Constructed D Operating
Multiple operable units (OU)?* • YES DNO
Construction completion date: September 25,2008 (DATE OF PCOR)
Has site been put into reuse? D YES • NO D N/ A
REVIEW STATUS
Lead agency: • EPA D State D Tribe D Other Federal Agency
Author name: Edward Als
Author title: Remedial Project Manager
Author affiliation: EPAiERRDINYRB/ENYRS
Review period: 09/2005 to 0912010
Date(s) of site inspection: Site inspection performed February 24,2010
Type of review: • Post-SARA D Pre-SARA D NPL-Removal only D Non-NPL Remedial Action Site D NPL State/Tribe-lead • Policy. D 'Re~ional Discretion • This 5-Year Review is Site-wide
Review number: D I (first). 2 (second) D 3 (third) D Other. (specifY)
Triggering action: D Actual RA Onsite Construction at OU # D Actual RA Start at OU# D Construction Completion -. Previous Five-Year Review Report DOther (specifY)
Triggering action date (from WasteLAN): September 2, 2005
Does the report include recommendation{s) and follow-upaction(s)? Is human exposure under control? • yes D no . Is contaminated groundwater under control? • yes D no Is the remedy protective of th'e environment? • yes D no
• yes D no
Vll
Five-Year Review Summary Form (continued)
Issues, Recommendations, and Follow-Up Actions-
EPA recommends the continuation of the groundwater monitoring program and the implementation of appropriate institutional controls and strategies through the SMPs, as explained earlier.
-Although remedial construction is completed andlong tenn,monitoring ofgroundwater is required, restricted access should still be maintained prior to -redevelopment on the former facility property, primarily because of the physical hazards still posed at that location e.g.,
-abandoned buildings. Present perimeter fencing lacks integrity in certain locations. This issue should be addressed in the future SMP for the former facility property.
-Additional institutional controls and strategies should also be included in the SMPs to address the considerations listed under Section IV. Site-wide Remedial Actions; specifically, under -Institutional CQntrols.
-The presence ofdredged materials that remain stockpiled by theCity~ofGlen Cove on the Parcel A concrete slab is a continuing concern. Failure to remove these materials in a timely fashion has resulted in an accumulation ofponded water that must be addressed. 'EPA will mak:~ these concerns and recommendations known to the City.
Protectiveness Statement
OUI
The remedy at OUI currently protects human health and the environment because all contaminated surface soils have been excavated and disposed off-site. In order to be protective in the long-term, ICs need to be implemented for a few instances where subsurface soil contamination was-left in place above residential standards, due to logistical issues regarding removal. ICs presently exist to re~trict contaminated water withdrawals from the underlying Aquifer. .
OU2
The remedy at OU2 currently protects' human health and the environment because all contaminated surface and vadose zone soils have been excavated and disposed off-site. ICs presently exist to restrict contaminated water withdrawals from the underlying Aquifer.
OU4
The remedy at OU4 currently protects human health and the environment because radioactive contaminated slag has been dredged from Glen Cove Creek, segregated froin dredged sediments on Parcel A, and disposed off-site. In order to be protective in the long-term, ICs need to be implemented for an instance along the Parcel A bulkhead where radioactive slag was left in place due to logistical issues regarding removal. - -
Other Comments
OU 3, anticipated to be a contaminated building survey and potential remediation, was cancelled in 1998 and all work subsumed in a supsequent EPA removal action. OU 3 is not covered by this review.
)
Vlll
/
Li Tungsten Superfund Site Glen Cove, New York
Five-Year Revi~w Report '
I. Introduction
This second five-year review was conducted pursuant to Section 121 (c) of the Comprehensive Enviroinnental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ofl980 as amended (CERCLA), Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii) ofthe National Oil and Hazardous Substances ,Pollution Contingency Plail (NCP) and in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, OSWER . Directive 9355~ 7-03B-P (June 2001). The purpose ofa five-year review is to' assure that implemented remedies protect public health and the environment and function as intended by the decision documents. This document will become part ofthe Site file. ' ,
This five-year review ofthe remedy for theLi Tungsten Superfund site in Glen Cove, New York was performed by the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) for the Site. This is the s,econd five-y~ar review for the Site, triggered by the first five-year review dated September 2, 2005. .
Site rerriediation was divided into four operable units (OUs); OU 1 involves the excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soils for the former Li Tungsten facility,OU 2 involves the excavation and off-site disposal ofcontaminated soils for the Captain's Cove property where Li Tungsten ore residuals were disposed of, and OU 4 involves the dredging ofGlen Cove Creek in order to remediate radioactive slag contamination. OU 3, anticipated to be a contaminated building survey and remediation, was cancelled and all work subsumed in the subsequent US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) removal action peiformedfrom October 1996 through October 1998 and discussed under III. Background, below.
II. Site Chronology /
Table l.summarizes the events from EPA's first response actions at the Site to this second fiveyear reVIew.
III. Background,
Site Location and Description
The Li Tungsten Superfund site is located in the City ofGlen Cove, Nassau County, New York (Figure 1). The Site includes the former Li Tungsten facility, the portions of the Captain's Cove property and adjacent areas where.Jradiologically- and/or metals-Contaminated ore residuals associated with the former facility were disposed of, and Glen Cove Creek. 'T~e former facility is located at 63 Herbhill Road, while the Captain's Cove property is located one-half mile farther west on Garvies Point Road. ' These two properties lie along the northern edge of Glen Cove Creek.
The 26-acre former facility (OU 1) consists of four parcels that were designated by EPA as A, B, C; and c. Parcel A is a seven-acre paved area abutting Glen Cove Creek which served as the main operations center when the facility was active. Historically, Parcel A contained the majority ofbuildings, including the Dice complex, as well as storage and processing tanks. Parcel B, a sixacre tract north ofParcel A, is undeveloped land that was used for parking during facility
operations and includes a small pond, an intermittent stream and a small wetland. Parcel C, approximately ten aGfes in size, is north ofParcel A and west of Parcel B. The Dickson Warehouse and the Benbow ~uilding are located on Parcel C. Parcel C', an undeveloped fouracre tract adjacent to Parcel C, was not utiliz~d as part of the facility and was not contaminated by facility operations. . . . . I
The 23-acre Captain's Cove property (OU 2) is generally bounded by Hempstead Harbor to the west, Garvies Point Preserve to the north, the Glen Cove Anglers' Club to the east, and Glen Cove Creek to the south.,. A five-acre wetland makes upa portion of the property's southern
. boundary with the Creek. The portions ofCaptain's Cove which are part of the Li T~gsten Sllperfund site ~onsist ofthe areas designated as Areas A and G (additionally, Areas A' and 0' are smaller adjacent areas), where radioactive ore residuals and related contaminants from the former facility were periodically disposed of during the time that the facility operated.
Glen Cove Creek (OU 4) is a mile~long tidal creek stretching from the Charles Street bridge at its eastern end t6 its confluence with Hempstead Harbor to t~e west. The,Creek was channelized in th~ early 20th century by the US Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE), which continues to maintain it as a federal navigation channel. The Creek is buIkheaded along its entire length.
Geology/Hydrogeology
There are two discrete aquifers in the Glen Cove region - the Upper Glacial and the Lloyd . Aquifers. In 1978, the aquifer system underlying Nassau anq Suffolk Counties was designated a sole source aquifer by EPA in order to safeguard the capability of these aquifers to provide
,potable water. . \
The Upper Glacial Aquifer, which is not a source ofpot able water in the vicinity ofthe Site, . consists ofpermeable deposits that occur below the water table. The water table at the Site occurs from mean sea level (MSL) to approximately 60 feet above MSL. Recharge is entirely from precipitation occurring mostly during the late fall and winter when plant growth is dormant. Regionally, shallow groundwater discharges to streams, springs, and Long Island Sound arid its harbors. No connection or discharge from the Upper Glacial Aquifer to the deeper Lloyd Aquifer exists in the Site area. Groundwater movement in the Upper Glacial Aquifer is generally to the· south, with shallow discharge to Glen Cove Creek.
The claymember of the Raritan Formation is a confining, or relatively impermeable, unit that overlies the Lloyd Aquifer. The Port Washington unit occurs above; and is configuous with, the clay member in many places.· Together, these units forin an effective confining unit separating the Lloyd Aquifer from the Upper Glacial Aquifer in the Glen Cove region. Glen Cove's municipal water supply system taps the deeper Lloyd Aquifer in excess of250 feet below MSL.
Land and Resource Use
The Glen Cove Creek area has been industrialized since the mid-1800's. The immediate area now includes light industry, commercial businesses, a sewage treatment plant, a County public works' facility, and State and Federally-designated hazardous waste sites and Brownfields properties. Other land uses in the vicinity include marinas, yacht clubs, beaches, and the Garvies Point Preserve. There are residences within 100 feet of the former facility, along Janet Lane and The Place, and within 1,000 feet oftheCaptain's Cove property on McLoughlin Street. The Site . resides on approximately 50 acres ofwaterfront property along the Creek, an area which is part of
2 .
Long Island's "Gold Coast", so-called because of the' wealth of those who have historically settled along that part ofLong Island's north shore. The Site is split into two roughly equal areas ' border-ing Glen Cove Creek, i.e., Captain's Cove at the western end ofthe Creek and the former facility property about a half mile east of Captain's Cove near the head of the Creek. The former facility property has been used for various industrial purposes over the years,but in recent times developers became interested in redeveloping land around the Creek into a "showcase" usage to take advantage ofthe scenic waterfront. Both "Seaport-style" commercial as well as residential usages have been envisioned for the Li Tungsten site since the 1980's, but the many years of industrial use have created several Brownfields and Superfund sites along the one-mile stretch of the Creek. The City ofGlen Cove, the State ofNew York, and EPA have been addressing the cleanups ofthese properties for years. The two Li Tungsten properties playa major role in the City's present redevelopment plan to revitalize the Creek area with improved infrastructure, condominiums, a hotel, a theater and arts center, and a ferry terminal as part ofwater transportation among Glen Cove, Connecticut, and lower Manhattan. EPA's cleanup ofthe Li Tungsten site is generally intended to support residential future use, with the present exception of Parcel A which, in the absence ofadditional sampling/assessment and/or remediation, remains acceptable only for commercial future use (see Appendix 1; letter from EPA to Glen Cove Mayor j
Ralph Suozzi). In addition to the EPA's letter in Appendix 1, future use of the Site is generally discussed in the 1999 Record ofDecision (ROD), the 2005 Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD), and the Site's remedial action reports (RARs). (
History of Contamination
The processingoftungsten and other metals began~at the Li Tungsten facility in 1942 and ended in 1985. Operations consisted mainly ofprocessing tungsten ore concentrates and scrap metal containing tungsten into ammonium paratungstate(APT) and formulating APT into tungsten. powder and tungsten carbide powder. These operations over the years resulted in contamination of the facility property with heavy metals and radionu9lides, as well as contamination ofGlen Cove Creek with slag and ore residuals containing elevated radio nuclide concentrations.
The Captain's Cove property was used as a dump site for the disposal of incinerator a,sh, sewage sludge, rubbish, household debris, dredged sediments from Glen Cove Creek, and industrial wastes, including ore residuals from the Li Tungsten facility, from the 1950's to the late 1970's. ' The ore residuals were deposited-at the western (Area A) and eastern (Area G) ends ofthe property. .
Initial Responses
EPA added the Site to the National Priorities List (NPL) on October 14, 1992. In 1993, EPA initiated a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) to define the nature and extentoJ, cont~ation on the former facility property (OU I). In 1995, EPA expanded the Site ,definition to include two waste areas, designated "A" and "G", at the Captain's Cove property (OU 2), where ore residuals containing elevated heaVy metal and radio nuclide concentrations were . disposed of The NY State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NYSDEC) designated the remaining portion ofthe'Captain's Cove dumping area as a State Superfund site.
(
EP A has performed or provided oversight for three time-critical removal actions at the Site:
1989 - EPA directed the then-owner of the facility property,Glen Cove Development , Corporation, to perform various removal activities including disposal oflaboratory reagents,
3
I I
drummed chemicals, containment and disposal of a mercury spill, and sampling, analyzing and inventorying work.
1996 -:- EPA performed a secon~ major removal action from October 1996 to October 1998, primarily to address the hazards associated with the remaining Li Tungsten tank waStes. This removal~ction resulted in the disposal oflarge volumes ofwaste liquid and sludge from271
. process and storage tanks, primarily on Parcel A; as well as removal and disposal of asbestos and > other hazardous chemicals found at the former facility. EPA also, demolished two structures on
Parcel A, i.e., the Dice Complex and the East Building, because of the physical dangers posed by their structural instability and in order to facilitate access to tanks.
, 2001 - EPA directed potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to segregate Creek sediments
dredged by the USACE which were found to be contaminated with radionuclide slag from the former facility. These sediments had been placed on Parcel A fOI: dewatering prior to eventual re- ' use in accordance with the City'S beneficial use determination (BUD), issued by the NYSDEC.' The radioactive slag was discovered while dredging was underway, forcing suspension of all dredging activity. TDY Industries, Inc., a performing PRP at the Site, segregated radioactive slag from the sediments on Parcel A in the Summer 2002. The segregation was performed under EPA oversight by methodically spreading and instrument-screening six-inch lifts ofdewatered sediffients, followed by manual I',emoval of any materials exhibiting radiation greater than specified criteria. Afterwards, the' City disposed of the non-radioactive sediment at the North Hempstead Landfill for use as gradfug material, and the segregated radioactive materials were ultimately disposed of at the US Ecology facility in Idaho.
Basis for Taking Action
I
EPA's remedial investigation (Rr) of the Li Tungsten and Captain's Cove properties, performed in the mid-1990's, revealed that many contaminants were left behind as a result of prior Site practices. These contaminants posed a risk to human health and the environment above the risk range established }lnder the NCP. Th¢ primary contaminant categories of concern at the 'Site are
. radionuclides and heavy metals associated with spent ore residuals and slag.. \
At the former facility, the Rr determined that surface and subsurface soils contained elevated . levels ofmany metals, e.g., antimony, arsenic, barium, copper, cobalt, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, radium, thorium, uranium, vanadium, and zinc. The radionuclides of
. potential concern (ROPC) included uranium-238, radium-226, radium-228, thorium-230 and thorium':232. These are constituents of the ores that were processed at the Li Tungsten facility or otherwise waste products'ofthe manufacturing processes.
Investigation of the Captain's Cove property confirmed thatthe ROPCs were present but limited to two separate areas of the property, denoted as Area A(West end) and Area G (east end), where ore residuals from the former facility operations had been dumped. '
Groundwater
Groundwater sampling at the former facility showed contamination by volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The most concentrated area ofVOCs was detected in four wells along the border of the Mattiace Superfund Site and Parcel C'. This plume contained high concentrations
4
, ,
ofa variety ofVOCs, including' trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE), as well as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (collectively, BTEX) and wits attributed to the leaking underground storage tanks that were removed from the Mattiace site by EPA in 1996/1997. EPA subsequently constructed a groundwater and soil vapor treatment facility at Mattiace to remediate on-site sources as well as to capture and treat the groundwater plume. The treatment facility has been operational since 1999, although the PRPs are presently req"llesting that EPA amend the remedy by replacing the existing treatment with a combination ofair sparging and phytoremediation and have submitted a draft Focused Feasibility Study (FFS) in 2010 that evaluates this alternative remedy. EPA is also presently performing a five-year review for the Mattiace site which will be completed in 201 O. ,
Another less concentrated plume ofVOCs, primarily TCE and PCE, was also detected in the middle portion ofParcel Allower Parcel B, downgradient of the Crown Dykman State Superfund site and attributable to previous dry cleaning operations at that site. The NYSDEC issued a ROD in March 2010 selecting a remedy which includes in-situ chemical oxidation of the more concentrated areas of the groundwater plume, operation ofa recovery system forlight nonaqueous phase liquids (LNAPL), continued operation ofan existing soil vapor extraction and subslab depressurization system, and monitored natural attenuation ofthe off-site plume. '
Inorganic contaminants ofconcern were detected in groundwater samples above EPA and State , maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in several locations, but in no clearly defined areal pattern. Most ofthe elevated levels were not significantly above MCLs. Radionuclides, although found to be above background in a few wells on-site, generally met or only slightly exceeded drinking water standards. '
Groundwater sampling at Captain's Cove found radio nuclides in a few wells at low but detectable concentrations. Several wells on the property also were contaminated with generally low levels of a variety ofVOCs, such as chlorobenzene, vinyl chloride, and 1,2-dichloroethane, and may be part of the plume related to the Mattiace site (although there are other potential source candidates in the immediate area). Inorganic compounds such as arsenic, antimony, selenium, iron, and manganese were also detected ,in significant amounts in several wells.
The preference for no action is based on the sporadic and generally low-level nature ofthe inorganic contamination; as well as the impacts ofsaltwater intrusion on the Aquifer arid the availability ofthe City's potable water supply to the affected area, which significantly contribute to the non-use of the contaminated aquifer as a potable water source.
Ponds, Wetlands and Sediment
Samples collected from the ponds and wetland areas on Parcels A, B, and Con the former facility showed that a significant number of inorganics in the ponded water and sediments were present at levels exceeding regulatory criteria. Radionuclides were generally found to be within water
, quality and sediment standards.
Samples collected from each ofthe two retention ponds and from a topographic depression in the southwest portion ofthe Captain's Cove property similarly found that inorganics typically exceeded surface water and sediment criteria, while radio nuclides did not.
)
5
G len Cove Creek
No samples ofsediments or surface water were collected from'Glen Cove Creek as part of the Li Tungsten field work, since there is a Creek monitoring program performed pursuant to the June 1991 ROD for the Mattiace site. Given the industrial nature ofthis area, there are many potential sources of contamination in the Creek. The Mattiace monitoring program consists offour locations along the length of the Creek, at which both the water column and sediments are analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, inorganic contaminants, pesticides and PCBs (see-Figure 3);-- The sediment data from this monitoring program indicate that there are elevated levels ofmetals which exceed ecological values. -
TheUSACE initiated navigational dredging for the inner half of the Creek in September 2000 and used Parcel A ofthe Li Tungsten property as a temporary dewatering area. A survey performed by EPA determined that the dredged sediments were contaminated with chunks c:>f radioactive slag from earlier facility operations~ which resulted in a stoppage ofdredging activities at that time. EPA then directed TDY Industries, Inc. to segregate the radioactive,slag from thedewatered sediment on Parcel A and dispose of it off-site, while the City disposed of the dried sediment pursuant to the BUD, from the State. In order to address the potential for remaining radioactive slag in the Creek, EPA performed a FfS using existing data to determine that remedial action was needed to address the radioactively contaminated slag in the Creek.
IV. Site-wide Remedial Actions
OU 1/0U 2 Remedy Selection
The 1999 ROD included the following remedial action objectives (RAOs):
Building Materials
.Prevent exposure to building materials contaminated with,radion~clides or chemicals of concern; • Eliminate hazards to future Site workers posed by unstable structures; and • Remove any structural impediments that rpight interfere with pre-design sampling and implementation of soil and groundwater remediation. (
Soil/Sediment
·Prevent or minimize exposure to contaminants ofconcern through inhalation, direct conta~t or ingestion; and • Prevent or miniririze cross-media impacts from contaminants of concern in soil/sediments migrating into underlying groundwater.
Groundwater/Ponded Water
• Prevent or niinimize ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation of inorganic-contaminated groundwater "hot spot" areas on lower ParcelC and on Parcel A that are above State and
6
Federal MCLs(Note: organic groundwater contamination from the Crown Dykman State Superfund Site is being addressed by the NYSDEC); • Restore groundwater quality to levels which meet State and Federal standards; and • Remediate contaminated surface water in on-Site ponds to reduce risks to public health and the environment.
In order to achieve these RAOs, EPA selected the following remedial actions as described in the 1999 ROD: .
• Excavation ofsoils and sediments contaminated above cleanup levels; • Separation ofradionuclide-contaminated soil from nonradionuclide soil contaminated with
heavy metals'; • Off.;.site disposal ofboth radio nuclide and metals-contaminated soil at appropriately
, licensed facilities; • Off-site disposal ofradioactivewaste located in the Dickson Warehouse·at an
appropriately licensed facility; • Building demolition at the Li Tungsten facility; • Storm sewer and sump cleanouts at the Li Tungsten facility; • Institutional controls governing the future use ofthe Site; • Decommissioning ofIndu~trial Well N1917 on Parcel A; and • Collection and off-site disposal ofcontaminated surface water from Parcels B and C
(EPA's RI determined that Parcel C' was uncontaminated); and • Long-term groundwater monitoring program to assess the recovery of the Upper Glacial
, Aquifer after the soil remedy is implemented.
OU4 Remedy Selection
The 2005 ROD included the following RAOs:
• ReduC?e or eliminate any direct contact, ingestion, or external radiation threat to public health and the environment associated with (ROPC)-contaminated slag in the Creek project . area; 'and , • Red~ce or eliminate any direct contact, ingestion, inhalation or-external radiation threat to public health and the environment assocIated with ROPC-contaminated slag placed in upland disposal areas.
In order to achieve these RAOs, EPA selected the following remedial actions as described in the 2005 ROD: .
• Construction of a dewatering facility on the Li Tungsten property; • Two phases of Creek dredging to remove radioactive slag materials; • Dewatering of the dredged sediment followed by segregation of slag from the dewatered
sediment; and . • Off-site transportation and disposal ofthe radioactive slag at an appropriately licensed facility.
All the above remedial actions for OUs 1,2, and 4 have been completed, except for the ongoing long-temi groundwater monitoring program and the implementation of all necessary institutional
7
"
controls., The remedial work at the Site is summarized below. , \
"Remedy Implementation
'After the issuance ofa ROD in 1999 for OU 1 and OU 2, EPA attempted but:failed to negotiate a settlement with the PRPs. EPA then issued aseries ofunilatera1 administrative orders (UAOs) to the PRPs, first in May 2000 to perform the remedial design (RD) for the northern halfofthe former ,facility and a second in September 2000 to complete the remedial action (RA) for certain portions of the remedy (i.e., excavation and off-site disposal work on the northern half of the former facility, and off-site disposal ofw~stes staged by EPA on the Captain's Cove property). Negotiations with the City ofGlen Cove, also a PRP, resulted in an agreement by which the City agreed to finance some of EP A's RA ,activities at the Captain's' Cove property. '
OU-1 - Former Facility
At the former facility (OU I), soil above clean-up criteria was excavated on Parcels A and lower Pru:cel C by EPA's Removal Action Branch (RAB). 528 cubic yards (cy) ofsoil exceeding . radiation criteria were excavated and staged in the Dickson Warehouse for future off-site disposal. 2,295 tons ofnonradioactive soils exceeding heavy metals criteria were excavated and disposed ofoff-site at a licensed subtitle D facility. In Spring 2004, TDY emptied the Dickson Warehouse by disposing of5,180 tons of radioactive waste materials staged inside. TDY ~lso excavated and disposed of3,530 tons ofradioactiv~soils, some ofwhich failed the Toxicity
, ' Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) for lead, from upper Parcel C. The disposal facility' for all radioactive wastes was U.S. Ecology, a licensed radioactive waste disposalfacility located in Idaho. In addition, all buildings on Parcel A were razed and disposed ofby the R.f\B, with the exception of the Loung building, which EPA determined to be structurally stable and uncontaminated. The RAB also performed storm sewer and sump clean-out, ,as well as decommissioning the industrial well on Parcel A.
TDY Industries, Inc. re-mobilized to the Site in June 2006 to complete the remedial work for OU 1. Excavated non-radioactive, heavy-metals contaminated soils were directly loaded on trucks for disposal at the GROWS/Tullytown faCility in Pennsylvania. Other contaminated waste streams, i.e., radioactive soil, RCRA-hazardous waste soil, and I>CBs-contaminated soil, were staged, in the Dickson Warehouse for specialiZed handling and disposal. TDY completed all excavation work in July 2007 and demobilized from the Site. TDY then re-mobilized to the Site in November 2007 pursuant to a global Consent Judgment which had been entered in Federal Court on October 29, 2007 (TDYhad performed earlier remedial actions under Administrative Orders). The scope of work now included disposal of the stockpiled radioactive, RCRA-hazardous, and PCBcontaminated soils staged in the Warehouse, as well as decontamination of the Warehouse itself. Radiologically contaminated soil was shipped to US Ecology in Idaho for disposal, while PCBscontaminated soil was shipped to Wayne Disposal in Belleville, Michigan. The RCRA-hazardous soils, which were contaminated with lead, were first stabilized with Calcirnent inside the Dickson
, Warehouse prior to disposal at the GROWS/Tullytown facility in Pennsylvania. The Ir
: . decontamination of the Warehouse was then completed in July 2008. Radiologically or otherwise contaminated areas of the Wareho~se were identified and remediated through employment of various techniques,. including removal of sections of the roof that proved too difficult to decontaminate..
OU-2 - Captains Cove' 8
At the Captain's Cove property (OU 2), an estimated 112,000 tons ofsoil above cleanup criteria were excavated, segregated and staged by the RAB between 2001 and 2003. RAB segregated these waste soils on-site into five stockpiles ofradioactive wastes, three stockpiles ofnonradioactive, heavy-metals contaminated wastes, as well as a concrete stockpile and a wood debris stockpile. On behalf of the EPA, the USACE then mobilized to Captain's Cove to commence stockpile load-out, transportation and disposal activit~es in February 2005. The scope ofwork generaUyincluded characterization sampling of the stockpiled waste materials, loading of . stockpiled wastes and debris for off-site disposal, and final site grading. Wastes were disposed of at a variety ofoff-site disposal locations, as described more fully in the EPA's RAR for OU 2.
2002 ESD
After excavation work was underway, it became apparent that the ROD's estimates ofvo'lumes . requiring excavation were too low. The EPA issued an ESD for the Site in November 2002 which provided estimated increases in proje~ted volumes ofwastes requiring excavation pursuant to the 1999 ROD, from 69,350 cubic yards to 132,100 cubic yards.
Actual volumes reported in the RARfor OUI and OU2 show that approximately 158,000 cubic yards ofcontaminated soils were ultimately excavated and disposed off-site. The greater discrepancy between estimated and actual soil excavation volumes occurred at Captain's Cove, partly because the stockpiling ofcontaminated soils for an eXtended period of time resulted in additional soils beneath the stockpile being contaminated as a·result.
2005 ESD
The 1999 ROD stated that the OU 1 and OU 2 remedy would.meet commercial cleanup levels, . based on the City ofGlen Cove's 1998 Glen Cove Creek Revitalization Plan. However, the City
subsequently revised the Plan for the properties along the Creek to allow for a significant residential component. As a result, EPA prepared and issued an ESD in May 2005 that reevaluated' the 1999 ROD remedy, and presented the following major determinations:
1) Based on a re-evaluation of the ROD's cleanup levels, EPA determined that .. . radio nuclides needed to be further restricted in soil to allow for residential future use of the Site;
2) The lead cleanup level that EPA selected in 1999, i.e., 400 mg/kg, was and' still isthe residential cleanup level for Superfund sites and is protective ofpublic health under a residential scenario as proposed for this Site; .
3) The arsenic cleanup level of24 mg/kg was considered sufficiently protective of a residential scenario using current toxicity values; and
. ".
4) EPA determined through areview of the post-excavation data that the areas of the Site that had already been excavated prior "to the 2005 ESD generally met the residential standards for arseruc, lead, andradionuclides. However, EPA reserved judgment on Parcel A suitability for residential development, due to the presence ofcertain organic contaminants in the soil and mthe shallow groundwater beneath it. .
The remedial actions for OU 1 started'in February 2000 and a final inspectiqn was performed in 9
\
, \
\ .'
August 2008) while the remedial actions for OU 2 started in January 2001 with a final inspection performed in July 2006. '
OU 4 - Glen Cove Creek
EPA.desigriated Glen Cove Creek as OU 4 oftheLi Tungsten site. EPA signed a ROD on March 30,2005, selecting a remedy involving remedial dredging and removal of radioactive hot spots in the Creek. On behalf of the EPA, USACEf initiated on-site construction activities in October 2006. First, two large sediment dewatering cells were constructed on Parcel A. To organize dredging operations, the Creek was then divided into four lengths, called acceptance areas. Acceptance Area 4, which was the innermost portion of the Creek petween Li Tungsten and the Charles Street bridge, was determined to be outside the scope of Superfund response authority because that area exhibited no evidence ofradioactive contamiliation. Nevertheless, Apceptance Area 4 was dredged as part of OU 4 using funds secur~d by the USACE for navigational dredging. Dredging was accomplished mechanically by means ofa crane equipped with a clarnshellbucket. Initially, ~ach acceptance ~ea was dredged to the navigational depth ofbetween eight and ten feet below mean low water (elevation -3.0 feet [NGVD 1929]), tollowed by a ' gamma survey of the Creek bottom to determine whether any gamma signal was coming from the dredged channel. Any so-called ''hot spots" were subsequently dredged and placed with the rest of the dredged material into the dewatering cells on Parcel A. .
TDYlndustries, Inc. mobilized to 'the Site in August 2007 to segregate radio nuclide slag from the dewatered sediments. The segregation work typically involved spreading and radiologically scanning a "lift" ofmaterial spread out in a layer approximately 6 inches thick. ' After scanning a
-. lift, any radioactive materials that were detected would be removed from the sediment·and stockpiled for off-site disposal. The final volume ofscanned sediments was 31,374 cy. The slag was disposed of at US Ecology in Idaho, while the disposal of the dewatered sediment was the responsibility of the City.
The RAB re-mobilized to the Site in October 2007 to complete dredging two isolated "hot spots" against the bulkhead on Parcel A, using a long-reach excavator ,from land to try to minimize the possibilityof extensive bulkhead collapse. EPA also rebuilt part ofthe bulkhead along Parcel A that had collapsed earlier in a storm. EPA completed this work in July 2008.
Institutional Controls ! '
)
A discussion of the 1999 ROD's institutional controls language that was modified by the 2005 ESD' as 'a result ofthe City's decision to re-zone the Site to' allow for residential use is included in the ESD.
In July 1999; EPA signed a Prospective Purchaser's Agreement (PPA) with the Site owner, i.e., the Glen Cove Industrial Development Agency (IDA), which made provision for the EPA to . require institutidnalcontrols (ICs)it deems necessary on the property, upon the IDA's sale ofthe . property. .
The 1999 ROD stated that ICs should be used at the Site to ensure the protection ofhuman health through restrictions on groundwater withdrawals for any purpose that could lead to human exposure e.g., drinking water, irrigation, fountains, etc. until the groundwater beneath the Site reached cleanup levels, as well as requiring that any new construction on the Site adhere to . relevant building codes for radonlthoron gases.. "
10
The 2005 ESD explored the remedial consequences of the City's re-zoning ofthe Site to allow residential development. Because ofthe potential for migration ofradon, as well as soil vapor from off-site volatile chemical 'groundwater plumes in the study area, EPA believed that any Sitecontrols should. include an assessment of the migration potentiaJ ofradon gas and chemical vapor through soil for any new construction proposed on the Site, including an assessment of the need
- to incorporate appropriate ~afeguards.
New York State law already restricts to a large degree the future use ofgroundwater at this Site. New York Environmental Conservation Law Section 15-527 provides that on Long Island (which includes Nassau County), "No person or public corporation shall hereafter install or operate any new or additional wells ... to withdraw water from underground sources for any purpose or purposes whatsoever where the installed pumping capacity ofany such new well or wells singly or in the aggregate, or the total installed pumping capacity ofold and new wells on or for use on one property is in excess offorty-five gallons a minute without a permit pursuant to this title." Furthermore, the New York Sanitary Code (Title 10 of the New York Code ofRules and Regulations Section 5-2.4) states that "No person shall construct or abandon any water well unless a permit has first been secu~ed frorp the permit issuing officiat" '
Lastly, the Remedial Action Reports (RARs) for OUs 1 and 4 identifY additional instances where ICs may need to be used because contaminants ofconcern were left on the Site above RODIESD cleanup criteria. The RARs also contain additional details as to the nature and location ofthesy , conditions:
• Groundwater Beneath the Site (OU 1 and OU 2) - All excavation work during OU 1 and OU 2 by EPA, or by TDY under EPA direction, occurred primarily in the vadose (unsaturated) zone above the water table. Any radio nuclide contamination found above cleanup criteria below the water table was also excavated; however, non-radioactive, heavy metals contaminat'ed soils were not. Therefore, there are sporadic occurrences of heavy metals contamination below the water table 'on the Site (as well as contamination from VOCs in the groundwater under Parcel A and under certain portions of Captain's Cove), which must preclude the use ofuntreated groundwater from under the Site. As required by the 1999 ROD, a groundwater monitoring program is being performed by TDY for 5 years at the Site to monitor the progress ofgroundwater improvement now that the overlying contaminated soils have been removed.
• Parcel A - Parcel A was remediated to the ROD cleanup criteria for commercial future use. The 2005 ESDreeogniied that while other portions ofthe Li Tungsten site could be used for residential future use ifthey were excavated to the modified cleanup criteria, Parcel A may-have levels ofpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ("PAHs") or possibly other contaminants e.g., cobalt, that could preclude unrestricted residential use. A small area in
- )
the southwest comer ofParcel A may still have concentrations ofarsenic above the water table that marginally exceed cleanup criteria, based on post-excavation data. Future intrusive activities in this area should take this into accourit. Post-excavation confirmatory sampling has demonstrated that the overall cleanup performed during OUs 1 and 2 will permit residential use on these properties, with the continued exception ofParcel A, which
11
is still deemed suitable only for commercial or industrial future use, as per the 1999 ROD . .EPA's November 23,2009 letter to the City ofGlen Cove outlines the Agency's position on Parcel A (Appendix 1).
\
• PCB Area on Parcel B - The area denoted as the PCB dumping area in the middle of Parcel B was excavated and PCB-contaminated soils were rem~}Ved. Samples were then collected which indicated that the northern part of the PCB area marginally exc.eeded PCB surface soil standards. Therefo~e, two feet of clean fill were placed over the northern part of the PCB remedial area to eliminate the applicability of surface standards; moreover, the residual PCBconcentrations were in compliance with subsurface soil standards. The'need for mainteriance of the clean cover or, should a new (lower) grade be desired, additional sampling and remediation ofPCBs in subsurface ,soil, must be communicated to future users of this area ofParcel B. '
!
• Side Wall Along, Western Edge ofParcel C - As part of the upper'Parcel C 'excavation, TDY surveyed the side wall area of the excavation west of the Dickson Warehouse at 10meter grid nodes. These survey results, as confirmed by subsequent sampling/laboratory analysis, showed 12 locations with readings above arsenic criteria and 2 locations above lead criteria. This line of arsenic and lead contamination.is an extension of a similar line of arsenic and lead contamination running along the western edge of lower Parcel C that was
, encountered by the RAB during its earlier excavations.
EPA determined that further excavation along this line ofheavy metals contamination is presently infeasible because of the existing utility and infrastructure present within the
. immefliate area beyond the fence line, i.e., primarily two storm drain systems as well as . underground electric services. In the area west ofthe Dickson Warehouse, TDY Industries, Inc. 's contractor physidllly separated the contaminated area by covering it . along its length with I5-mil puncture resistant poly sheeting. After the poly sheeting was' installed, it was covered with clean fill. ' ,
• Northeast Comer of Lower Parcel C - Arsenic contaminatiori was left above cleanup criteria in the vicinity of a gas line along a short stretch of Garvies Point Road, abutting the east side oflower Parcel C.
• Radionuclides in North Sideslope of Creek - One of the two "hot spot" locations in the north sideslope adjacent to Parcel A that was dredged by EPA in October 2007 still showed elevated gamma radiation at 11 feet below mean low water at the point where dredging ceased, due to the potential for bulkhead collapse. The sideslope excavation, was then backfilled to the approximate grade of the slope.
• Radionuclides below Navigational Depth in the Creek Channel- Although radionuclides' in the Creek's navigational channel have been effectively remediated to below navigational depth (8+2 feet below mean low water), it is still possible (though
\
12
unlikely) that radioactive slag could be found at greater depths in the Creek.
In addition, as the Site is developed, further evaluation ofradon migration as well as soil vapor from off-site VOC groundwater plumes in the area has been recommended by EPA in its 2005 ' ESD for bothOUs 1 and 2, and is also addressed in the City's Site Management Plahs (SMPs) for the Captain's Cove property and the proposed Ferry terminal. EPA's "Draft Guidance for ' Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (EPA, 2002)" arid updates should be used. Based onthe results of this analysis, mitigation procedures to reduce potential soil vapor or radon intrusion may be appropriate.
Future construction work associated with development of the Site will be performed in, conformance with the City's SMPs for the Site'properties. Such work has to consider the above issues that remain at the Site arid address them as necessary, e.g., 'institutional or engineering constraints or strategies that will effectively minimize' human ~xposures to these residual contaminants. The City is presently working with Glen Isle Developers to develop the SMPs for the Federal and State Superfund properties that are presently owned by the Glen Cove IDA. These SMPs contain descriptions of the properties and the general methodologies that will be used during Site development that will ensure protectiotl ofhuman health, including that of construction personnel, as well as future employees and residential population. An SMP has already been' developed for the proposed ferry terminal location at the eastern end ofCaptain's Cove. A second SMP for Captain's Cove is presently under development by the IDA. An SMP for the Li Tungsten former facility property has not yet been developed.
EPA will also recommend to the Operations Division ofthe USACE that the parameters and scope ofthe OU 4 remedial action should be reviewed prior to any future navigational maintenance dredging of the Creek.
Presently, 'there is fencing, posted signs, planned remote security, etc. to limit site ~ccess, particularly on the former 'facility property, while the City completes its SMPs.' The SMPs will provide direction for future Site mainteJ;lance and development,and must address the remaining Superfund issues at the Site described above. These issues have beenprovided by EPA to the City as part of the RARs for the Site.
Operation and Maintenance (Monitoring)
, The following excerpt from the 1999 ROD is relevant to the ongoing monitoring ofgroundwater on the Li Tungsten properties as well as in Glen Cove Creek (pursuant'to the Mattiace remedy):
"...A groundwater monitoring program will be initiated as part ofthe sele9tedremedy to monitor the quality ofthe aquifer beneath the Site. Additional monitoring wells wilI.be added to the existing monitoring well network to increase the network's coverage in areas ofknown .contamination. Monitoring of the sediments and water column of Glen Cove Creek will also
, continue on an annual basis as part of the Mattiace Superfund long-term response action. The results ofboth monitoring programs will be integrated to provide acomprehensive analysis ofthe contaminant profile in groundwater and in the Creek, an? to identify any discernible
13'
interrelationships or trends. As noted in the discussion on Glen Cove Creek under the Summary of Site Characteristics section, approximately 12,000 cy of sediment were dredged from the mouth of the Creek in 1996; sampling results from monitormg location GC-03, located in this dredged area, indicate significantly lower contammant levels than previous results for this area. In addition, the planned dredging ofthe remainder of the Creek this FalVWinter, which will include. dredging of the entire width of the Creek fronting virtually all ofParcel A to a depth of8 feet; will result in the removal of approximately 35,000 cy of sediment. This sediment removal coupled with EPA and DEC remedial actions planned for the Li Tungsten facility and Captain's Cove, as well as other actions' planned or unde,rway for other Federal or State sites, ishould result in ' significant improvement in the water quality and sediment quality in the Creek." [N.B.: The. planned dredging of approximately 35,000 cy of sediment was eventually carried out as part of. OU 4, after the discovery of the radioilUclide slag in sediments made the Creek part of the Li Tungsten Superfund site]. . ,
Figure 3- showsthe present groundwater and· sediment sampling locations on the Li Tungsten properties and in Glen Cove Creek, respectively. In addition, Table 1 of this report provides the results of the first year ofdata for the groundwater monitoring program. To examine sediment data from Glen Cove C~eek, see the Mattiace second Fiv~Year Review Report (2010).
V. Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review I .
The first Five-Year Review Report wa~ issued on September 2,2005. The report determined that the remedies at the Li Tungsten Superfund Site will protect human J:1ealth and the environment when all work is completed and final institutional controls are in place. Therefore, no issues and . recommendations were included in the first review other than completion of the OUI and OU 2 . '>
remedies.
The following work was completed at the Site after the first Five-Year Review Report was issued in 2005:
- In July 2006, the USACE/EP A completed the off-site disposal of contaminated wastes that had' beenpreviously staged by the RAE at Captain's Cove (OU 2).
- In February 2007, the USACE/EPA completed the remedial dredging of the Creek (OU 4) and the navigational dredging ofAcceptance Area 4. . .,
- In November 2007, TDY completed the segregation of radio nuclide slag fromdewatered dredged materials staged by the USACE/EP A on Parcel A.
- In August 2008, TDY completed remedial actions on Parcel Band upper Parcel C, including loadout of all "specialty" waste streams from the Dickson Warehouse, as well as Warehouse decontamination. At the same time, the RAB completed hot spot dredging against the Parcel A bulkhead usIng a long-reach excavator as well as some limited bulkhead restoration to ensure Site stability. '- -.
- In September 2008, EPA issued a~PreliminarY Close.:.out Report (PCOR), marking the ,- \
14
" , \
completion ofall remedial "construction" .at the Li Tungsten Superfund site. The five-year groundwater monitoring program also got underway ,with its first sampling event.
- In November 2009, EPA sent a letter,(included as Appendix 1) to the City ofGlen Cove which addressed the City's request to re-classify Parcel A as acceptable for residential future use. EPA's letter described what needed to be done. in order to accomplis.h that goal.
VI. Five-Year Review Process
Administrative Components \.
The EPA five-year review team consisted of:
Edward Als - R~medial Project Manager . Sal Badalamenti - Chief, Eastern NY Remediation Section James Doyle - Office ofRegional Counsel
)Cecilia E,chols - Community Involvement Coordinator Marian Olsen - Human Health Chemical RiskAssessor Nidal AzzamlOleg Povenko - Radiological RiskAssessors Rob Alvey -. Groundwater Hydrologist ( , Michael Clemetson - Environmental Review and EcologicaJ Risk Assessor Kate Garufi - EPA Headquarters Five-Year Review Coordinator . Michael Sivak - Region 2 Five-Year Review Coordinator
Community Involvement
EPA published a public notice. ofthe performance ofthe second five-year review for the Li Tungsten Superfund site in the FebruarY 11, 2010 edition of the Glen Cove Record Pilot (Appendix 2). EPA indicated that it would be reviewing information from the current groundwater monitoring program, as well as the status of Site management and land use. EPA also welcomed any public comment, including concerns about the implemented remedy. "
EPA believes that the local community is informed of the current status ofthe Site. The second Five-Year Review Report will be made available in the local site repository, i.e., the Glen Cove Public Library, upon completion. " ,
Document Review
This five-year review consisted ofa review ofrelevant documents, including various RARs and groundwatetlCreek monitoring data (see Section XI).
Data Review
Excavation work and post-excavation sampling have been completed for the Site, as described above. EPA issued a PCOR in September 2008 describing the conipletion ofSite remediation. A five-year groundwater monitoring.plan was initiated in September 2008 by TDY as part of its obligations under the Global Consent Judgment. Samples for the 1999 ROD's cleanup criteria for tadionuclides and heavy metals were taken quarterly at five monitoring well locations 'during the first year (September 2008-September 2009) to establish a post-remediation baseline. Samples
15
y. , . are now collected annually every June. While no discernible trends are notable in the first year of the post:"remedial groundwater monitoring program, comparison of the present groundwater concentrations to historical data co llected during the investigatory work in 1996 through 1998 shows that the levels of all contaminants and radio nuclides of concern in wells MW-1, EMW-4, and MP-'6 have significantly decreased over that period of time (wellsPRA-6 and PRA-7 are not inc~uded in the historical analysis since they were constructed specifically for the post-remedial monitoring program). These five well locations were chosen because they are directly , , downgradienthydraulically from Site areas that were considered hi!W1y contaminated priorto being excavated. Therefore, it is logical to hypothesize that these decreases'iri contaminated gr()undwater concentrations from 1998 to the present would be primarily as a result of the OU 1/0U 2 excavation work performed over the period of2000-2007,: which essentially removed the sourcyof groundwater contaminati()n. ' .
See Table 1 for the 200812009 results of the groundwater monito~ing program, including the historical results for wells MW-1, EMW-4, and MP-6;\'
--',
Site Inspection' I
A Site inspection was performed on February 24, 2010 by the following EPA personnel: . .
Ed Als,EPA, Remedial Project Manager Rob Alvey, Hydrogeologist . Marian Olsen, Human Health Chemidal Risk Assessor Oleg Povetko, Radiation Health Physicist . Cecilia Echols, COmInUIlity Involvement Coordinator
During the Site insp~ction, Mr. Als interviewed the Director of the City's Community .Development Agency, Ms. Kelly Morris, regarding the status of future revitalization plans for the area, which includes the Li Tungsten site, the Mattiace site andthe State Sup~rfund sites. Also briefly discussed was the City's d.evelopment of the SMPs for the revitalization area, as well as the schedule for completion of the State's Environmental Impact Statement for the revitalization plannirig (expected late Summer/early Fall 2010)
" .
While inspecting the Site, some ininor issues with the. completed remedial activities were noted. The presence ofdredged materials that remain stockpiled by the City ofGlen Cove on the Parcel A concrete slab is a continuiilg concern. Failure to remove these materials in a timely fashion has' resulted.in an accumulation ofponded water that must be addressed and it is recommended that the materials be properly and promptly disposed o£ Also, iriadequate controls on trespassing on the former facility propet;1:y are documented in the Site·inspection report prepared for this fiveyear review (Appendix 3).
Technical Assessment
VII. Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
The 1999 ROD, as modified, by the 2005ESD called for, among other actions, excavation of soils .' and sediments contaminated above cleanup levels as well as separation ofradionuclide-, contaminated soil from~non-radionuclide soil contaminated with heavy metals. See Table 1 for a ,timetable of remedial action completion.
16
The remedy is currently functioning as intended by the decision documents. All drinking water in the Glen Cove area is provided by public supply wells which are outside any possible'impact from the Li Tungsten site (including Captain's Cove). There are sporadic occurrences ofheavy metals in the groundwater under Parcel A and under areas of the Captain's Cove property, and a groundwater sampling program is in phice to monitor the progress ofgroundwater improvement following excavation ofthe overlying contaminated soils. Review ofsediment data in Glen Cove Creek does not indicate a growing concern with re-contamination provided the bulkhead is not compromised. Review of the monitoring well results indicates no signific~t trends are
, ,determinable due to the short term of the dataset i.e., 1 year .. The groundwat~r monitoring ,program is scheduled to continue for an additional four years.
As discussed above, at the time ofthe 1999 ROD, the, cleanup goals were based on the City of Glen Cove's Creek Revitalization Plan which called for commercial development ofthe property. , Since that time, the City revised the Plan for the properties along the Creek (induding the Li
tungsten Superfund Site), and changed the zoning ofthe property to allow for residential , development. This change in zoning occurred on November 23,2004 (see Appendix 4).
Since the 1999 ROD selected excavation ofcontaminated soil followed by replacement with clean backfill, the achievement of soil cleanup levels is generally only an issue at and beyond the boundaries of the excavations. EPA's post-excavation sampling of the excavation boundaries
) indicates that the areas of the Site that were excavated meet the residential standards for arsenic, lead and radionuclides.
The Upper Glacial Aquifer, which is not a source ofpotable water in the vicinity ofthe Site, consists ofpermeable deposits that OCCllr below the water table. The water level at the Site occurs from mean sea level (MSL) to approximately. 60 feet above MSL. An evaluation of the direct contact pathway with on-site gr()undwater showed that currently this is not a completed pathway since all nearby residents are currently connected to public water and the residents are therefore not exposed through this pathway. At the current time, the Upper Glacial Aquifer is not designated as a drinking water source and residents rely on the City's potable water supply. New York Environmental Conservation Law Section 15-527, New York Sanitary Code (Title 10 ofthe New York Code ofRules and Regulations Section 5-24), and Public Health Ordinance Article 4
. all restrict any future potable water well installations in this portion ofthe aquifer. .
Implementation ofthe institutionai controls to restrict the use ofthe aquifer immediately underlying the Site for drinking water, irrigation, fountains,etc. will provide additional protections from exposure. The City is presently working with Glen Isle Developers to develop the SMPs forthe Federal and State Superfund properties that are presently owned by the Glen Cove IDA. These SMPs will contain descriptions ofthe properties and the general methodologies that will be used during Site development that will ensure protection ofhuman health, including
\ that ofconstruction personnel, as well as future employees and residential population. Controls on groundwater usage must be a part ofthe SMPs, as appropriate.
17
An SMP has already been developed for the proposed ferry terminal location at the eastern end of Captain's Cove. A secondSMP for Captain's Cove is presently in draft'form. An SMP for the Li Tungsten former facility property ha~ not yet been developed.
The 2005 ESD evaluated the 1999 ROD's remedial goals for arsenic, lead and radio nuclides and confirmed that the lead and arsenic concentrations of400 mg/kg and 24 mg/kg, respectively, were compatible ,with the ~ity's plans for residential use of the property, particuhrrly in the context of the Li Tungsten remedy that included excavation followed by clean backfill. The ESD also documented that the ROD's clean up levels ofradium-226 and thorium-232 should be effectively' halved in order to be sufficiently protective for residential future use.
Question B: Are the (a) exposure assumptions, (b) toxicity data, (c) cleanup levels and (d) remedial action objectives used at tHe time ~fthe remedy selection still valid? '
Yes, the values used in the risk assessment ,are valid. The remedy was modified by the 2005 ESD. As explained above, exposure assumptions have changed,so that future exposure pathways will now involve residential receptors. As a result, some of the cleanup levels have changed. Final
. . \
confirmatory sampling results have generally met the\residential standards. In the previously discussed instances where theidon't, appropriate institutional controls will be implemented. Other toxicity data and the RAOs, have not changed; however, EPA's Integrated Risk Information System program is re-evaluating the toxicity of arsenic, and this infonhation will need to be evaluated in the future.
The 2005 ESD explains the modifications to the institutional controls discussed in the 1999 ROD, based on the changes iIi anticipated future use, as well as recognizing and addressing the potential for chemical vapor migration through soil as a result of groundwater contamination.
I
At the time of the 1999 ROD, a cleanup goal of400 mg/kg for lead in soil was selected. It was assumed that, under. commercial exposures, young children may be exposed at the property. The 400 ppm cleanup goal for lead is consistent with EPA's policy for acceptable residential levels of le~d. The cleanup goal for arsenic 6f24 mg/kg in soil was also selected in the ROD. E~aluation of . residential expo~ure assumptions found that the 24 mg/kg is within the risk range of 10-6 to 10-4 and consistent with a noncancer haZard index of 1. The toxicity. values for these chemicals and site-related radio nuclides have not changed.
At the current time, residential development at the Site has not occurred. In the future, as the property is developed, further evaluation ofradon migration as well as soil vapor from off-site VOC groundwater plumes in the area has been reconimended by EPA in its 2005 ESD for both OUs 1 and 2, and is also addressed in the City'S SMP for the Captain's Cove property and the proposed Ferry terminal. EPA's "Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils (EPA, 2002)" and updates should be used. Based on the results of this analysis, mitigation procedures to reduce potential soil vapor or radon intrusion may be appropriate. .
18
Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the . \ protectiveness ofthe remedy?
There is no other information that calls, into question the protectiveness ofEPA's,remedies selected for this Site.
Technical Assessment Summary
The remedies for OU 1, OU 2 and OU 4 were performed in accordance with the 1999 ROD (as modifi~d by the May 2005 ESD) and the 2005 ROD. A groundwater monitoring program is the ' only active remedial component remaining at the Site.
• OU 1/0U 2 contaminated soils have been excavated and disposed off-site;
• In a few limited instances where OU 1/002 contamination has not been removed because oflogistical or other issues, the contamination is presently in subsurface areas. These areas will be further controlled through the development ofadditional controls and/or future materials-handling strategies as part ofthe City's Site-development SMPs.
• Noone is presently using contaminated groundwater. In the future, no installation of potable welIs is expected nor use ofgroundwater in any manner that could cause an unacceptable exposure to groundwater contamination, as a result of either existing controls or the development of future controls/strategies in the SMPs to be developed by the City.
VIII. Issues, RecolllIIl:endatipns and Follow-up Actions
EPA recommends the continuation ofthe groundwater monitoring program and the implementation of appropriate institutional controls and strategies through the SMPs, as explained earlier. '
-Although remedial construction is completed and long term monitoring ofgroundwater is required, restricted access should still be maintained prior to redevelopment on the former facility property, primarily because of the physical hazards still posed at that location e.g., abandoned buildings. Present perimeter fencing lacks'integrity in certain locations. This issue should be addressed in the future SMP for the former facility property.
-Additional institutional controls and strategies should also be included in the SMPs to address the considerations listed under Section IV. Site-wide Remedial Actions; specifically, under Institutional Controls. .
-The presence ofdredged materials that, remain stockpiled by the City ofGlen Cove on the Parcel A concrete slab is a continuing concern. Failure to remove these materials in a timely fashion has resulted in an accumulation ofponded water that must be addressed. EPA will make these concerns and recommendations known to the City.
IX. Protectiveness Statement
19
I.
I _
aUi
The remedy at OUI currently protects human health and the environment because all contaminated surface soils have been excavated and disposed off-site. In order to be protective in the lorig-term, ICs need t9 be implemented for a few instances where subsurface soil contamination was left in place above residential standards, due to logistical issues regarding removal. An SMP is being developed which will address, arrlong other things, these types of . issues during development of the properties. In a case where a 10ng-tenn restriction needs to be implemented to prevent exposure, the City's IDA is required by the existmg PPA with EPA to
I _ develop an appropriate IC, e.g., withdrawal of contaminated groundwater for irrigation, fountains, etc. ICs presently exist to restrict contaminated water withdrawals from the underlying Aquifer for potable water purposes ..
aU2
The remedy at ,OU2' currently protects human health' and the environment because all contaminated sUrface aIi.d vadose zone soils have been excavatedaIi.d disposed off-site. In a case where a long-term restriction needs to be implemented to prevent exposure, the City's IDA is. required by the existing PPA with EPA to develop an appropriate IC, e.g., withdrawal of contaminated groundwater for irrigation, fountains, etc. ICspresently exist to restrict ( contaminated water withdrawals 'from the underlying Aquifer for potable water purposes.
aU4
. The remedy at OU4 currently protects human health and the environment because radioactive contaminated slag has been dredged from Glen Cove Creek, segregated from dredged sediments .
, on Parcel A, and disposed off-site. In order to be protective !n the long-term, an IC needsto be implemented by the USACE for the instance along the Parcel A bulkhead where radioactive slag . was left in place due to logistical issues regarding removal. .
Site-wide Protectiveness Statement
The remedies at OU1, OU2, and OU4 currently are protective in the short:..term because there is no humanlor environmental exposure to, or ingestion of, contaminated groundwater and soil, and no exposures are expected during the next five years. The community is serviced by public water that meets appropriate Federal and State standards. Remedial actions taken in accordance with,the 1999 ROD, as modified by the 2005 ESD, and the 2005 ROD, are currently protecting public health and the environment. However, in order to be protective in the long terni, final institutional controls for contamination left at OUI and OU4 should be implemented,
20
x. N ext Review
EPA will conduct another Site-wide five-year review within five years of this report·
Approved by: Date:
21
XI.. Bibliography for Li Tungsten Superfund Site . . ),
1) Record ,of Decision for the Li TUngste~\SUperfundSite, Operable Units 1 and 2 September
30, 1999 , . . . J" . /. ,.'. 2) Record ofDecision for the Li Tungsten Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4 ¥arch30, 2005
3) Explanation ofSi~ificaht'Differences for the Li Tungsten Superfund Site May 2005 •
4) Remedial Action Report for OU 1 of the Li Tungsten Superfund Site October 22, 2008 ,
5) Remedial Action Report for OU 2 ofthe Li Tungsten Superfund Site September 29, 2006
6) Remedial Actio~ Report for OU 4 of the Li Tungsten Superfund Site September 30, 2008
7) . Preliminary Close-out Report for the Li Tungsten Superfund Site September 25, 2008
8) Li Tungsten Site Quarterly Groundwater Monitoring Reports December 23, 2008; March 20, {lugust 4, and August 31, 2009 ) '
9) Glen Cove Creek Data Summary (Excel Spreadsheet)
10) Captain's Cove Draft Site Management Plan April 201 0
, }
22
Table 1: First Y ear Groundwater Monitoring Results
Monitoring Well ID
/
Date Lab Reporting Limit
MW-1 EMW-4 MP PRA,6\
PRA-7
Radium 226 6/09 6/09
Thorium 232 6/09
10.8 J .ND ND ND 0.229 0.495· 0.242 0.623 O. 76 0.027 012 0.017 -0.016 0.011
Grey shading indicates 1996-1998 sampling results
23
DATE
October 1992 September 1999 July 2000 August 2001 August 2002
October 2003
Apfil2004
March 2005 May2005
August 2005 ~
July 2006
February 2007
November 2007
August 2008
September 2008
\.
Table 2: Chronology ofEvents
. EVENT
Listing(ofLi Tungsten Site on NPL . ROD for OU 1 and OU 2 RAB completion of Parcel A RA RAB completion oflower Parcel C RA PRP completion of dredged dewatered sediment remediation RAB completion ofall Captain's Cove excavation ~& . PRP'completion ofoff-site disposal ofwastes staged in Dickson Warehouse ROD forOU 4' ESD regarding effect of City's zoningchanges.on the 1999 ROD I
First Five-Year Review for OU 1 and OU 2 EP AlUSACE completion of transportation' and disposal of all wastes staged at Captain's Cove EPAIUSACE completion ofremedial dredging of the Creek and the navigational dredging of . , Acceptance Area4 PRP completion of segregation ofradio nuclide .
. slag from dewatered Creek sediments on Parcel A PRP completion ofexcavation and off-site . disposal activities for Parcel B and upper Parcel C, including off-site disposal of all "specialty" wastes . staged in the Dickson Warehouse Issuance ofPCOR
24
Table 3: Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Affects Protectiveness
Issue Recommendations and
Follow-up Actions Party
Responsible Oversight
Agency Milestone
Date
(Y/N)
Current Future
Physical hazards associated with fonner Recommend Site owner (City) maintain City EPA N/A N* N* facility access i.e., dilapidated buildings perimeter integrity i.e., repair/improve on Parcels A and C fencing
Continued presence of dredged materials on Parcel A
Recommend Site owner (City) arrange for removal of dredged material
City DEC (BUD) N/A N \
N
Institutional controls and strategies to Recommend Site owner (City) address City EPAIDEC Fall N Y address issues in Section IV appropriate controls and strategies for 2010
, these issues in the SMP for the fonner facility property (not yet developed)·
* protectiveness from chemical exposure is not affected; however, physical hazards still exist and protectiveness through maintenance ofperimeter integrity is recommended
'25
··x.
nn..:::
'. , , '"
\\;
SITE LOCATION· MAP MAY 1998 FIGURE 1
LI TUNGSTEN REMEDIAL' INVESTIGATION GLEN COVE, NEW YORK
·USEPA REGIO'N !I ARCS CONTRACT NO. 68-W9-0051;' W.A .. NO. 025- 2L4L
/
--~- .. -.----.~---
Hempstead .~ Hamor Garvie-s Point Preserve au 1 ~ GClub
( .
~~
Area A '.
Tidal Wetlands
. Glen CoveOU4 Creek
FIGURE 2
Operable Unit Site Map
LI TUNGSTEN CORP. EST. POP. WITHIN A 1 MILE SITE BUFFER: 20779 SITE AREA IN ACRES 51.17
(\'q Li Tungsten ~ Superfund Site
Figure 3 Groundwater and Creek S ing Locations
CITY: GLEN COVE STATE: NY ZIP: 12801
SITE 10: NYD986882660 t 0.05 SITE NAME: U TUNGSTEN CORP. r==:J
MilesDATE OF MAP: Feb 26, 2007 CONGo DIST.: NY03 RPM: ALS, ED
Contamination Polygon Source Document: ROD 09-1999,Capts Cove ROD 09-1999,GlenCove CreekROD 03-2005
APPENDIX 1
(
I
U~ITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 2 '
290 BROADWAY NEW YORK, NY 10007-1866
hl JV 2 3 200~1
Ralph Suozzi, Mayor City of Glen Cove City Hall 9 Glen Street Glen Cove; NY 11542'
Re: Request for Pa~cel 'A Future Use Re-evaluation, Li Tungsten Superfund site, Glen Cove, NY ,
Dear Mayor Suozzi:
,This is in response to your letter of October 21, 2008,inwhich the City of Glen Cove 'requested that EPA evaluate its remedy as it pertains to Parcel A of the above-referenced site, to determine whether the original remedy, as implemented, supports a resi~ential future use.
As you know, EPA selected a remedy in its 1999 Record ofDecision (ROD) that was designed to be protective of a commercial, "seaport-style" future use at the Site. At the request of the City, EPA re~evaluated the remedyfor portions of the Site, and we determined that the remedy for Parcels B, C, and C' ofthe formerLi Tungsten {acility property would be remediatedsufficiently to support a residential future use if the radionuclid~s of potential concern, i.e., those of the uranium and thorium chains, wer~
, remediated t6 a'more stringent cleanup level than that set forth in the ROD. This finding was documented in 2005 in' EPA's ExplJnation of Significant Differences (ESD) , document. ' .
Specifically, EPA's ESDmade the finding that the ROD's clean-up levels for arsenic and lead, i.e. 24 parts per million (ppm) and 400 ppm, respectively, were sufficiently protective of a residential use wi$n the context of the Li Tungsten cleanup. EPA did find in the ESD, however, that the cleanup levels for th~ radionuclides of concern, i.e. the radionuclides associated with the uranium and thorium decay chains, required
, modification to a cleanup'level approximately one half of that contained in the original ROD,to be sufficiently protective for future residents. In the ESD, EPA did not make a determination regarding a future residential use scenario ofParcel A, but EPA believes
.' ,I ,
Intemet Address (URL). http://www.epa.gov RecycledlRecyclable • Prtnted with vegetable 011 Baed Inks on Recycled Peper (Minimum 50% Postconaumer content)
1
"
\ '
"',,' .
that its cleanup of Parcel A with regard to the par~meters mentioned above would meet residential cleanup requirements .
. However, in response to your request, EPA has performed an evaluation which has determined that the pre-remediation concentrations of other potential contaminants on· Parcel A, such as benzo(a)pyrene and other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), result in calculations of cumulative ris'k (rorri all sources that are outside of EPA's cancer risk range. ·PAHs were not originally targeted by EPA for remediation because P AHs did ' not present an unacceptable risk for the anticipated commercial future use of the Site. Additionally, based upon new information, EPA has determined that another heavy metal associate9 withLi Tungsten operations, i.e., 'cobalt, could result in unacceptable noncancer health hazards in residential children: .
These findings require a note of explanation. This most recent evaluation used available data from Malcolm Pirnie's 1998 Remedial Investigation (RT) report to develop exposure
. point concentrations for chemicals that were not originally targeted in the ROD for cleanup i.e., it was assumed that these contaminant concentrations had·notbeen reduced
,asa result of the Site remediation. For contaminants of concern, targeted clean-up values were used as the 'assumed concentration actually remaimng at the Site .. For example, the evaluation's exposure point concentration for arsenic was 24 ppm. Furthermore, at least one ofthese chemicals' toxicity values i.e., cobalt, has changed since the time of the ROD, and EPA believes that the revised toxicity information is appropriate to be used in
" ,
its present re-evaluation of risk for Parcel A. . . I
\ . '
Therefore, in order to utilize Parcel A for future resigential use, two possible options are: .
, "
• Performance ofadditional sampling to ascertain current conditions and risks on Parcel A. As a result of the 1999 ROD, EPA excavated many areas contaminated by lead, arsenic, and the radionuclides of concern which may . have been,co-Iocated with cobalt, P AHs, etc. Additional: sampling may reveal that levels ofthese "I}on ROD" contaminants may also h~ve decreased, '
-because of subsequent remediation. Sample results and ~isk evaluation could be used to determine whether residential future use would be acceptable on Parc~l Aand, if not, the additional sampling could be used to target areasJor ' additional excavation'such that risks would be reduced to acceptable levels. Any additional sampling, risk assessment and/or remed,ial excavation on Parcel. A would need to be undertaken by the City and would require EPA and State review lmd approval.
• Presumptive remediation to address risk by eliminating exposure pathways. ' Because the exposurepathways present~y driving the risk are associated with the potential for extended human contact, the placement and maintenance of an acceptable barrier, e.g., two feet of clean cover between exposure points and final grade, m'aybe an acceptable approach to address it. . However, such remediation would naturally require additional restrictions on future 'development, e.g., maintenance 'of the two feet of cover and its effectiveness,
2
i
The above Parcel A discussion can be viewed in the context of the City's ongoing development ofa Site Management Plan! for the former facility property, which should address both the proper performance ofconstruction activities as well as the necessary institutional controls that requ~re implementation, e.g., no water withdrawals from the underlying Upper Glacial Aquifer, buildinglinfrastructure designs consistent with . eliminating the potential lor soil vapor intrus\on, etc. Also, depending on how the City
. plans to proceed with respect to Parcel A, EPA may determine that another Explanation
. ofSignificant Differences (ESD) or amendment to the remedy set forth in the 1999 ROD is necessary.
Please be advisec;lthatthe New York State Departments ofEnvironmentill Conservation and Health would also have to review and concur on any actions taken with respect to -your Parcel A request. Any institutional controls would also need to be implemented prior to development of the parcel. . .
In summary, should the City wish to proceed with either of these options or would like to discuss this matter further, please call Edward Als of my staff at (212) 637-4272.
Sincerely,
~//~~ Doug Garbarini, Chief .. NY Remediation Branch
cc:) K. Morris, GC IDA H. Dudek, DEC J. Yavonditte, DEC
\ ,
I •
3
APPENDIX 2.
\.
,
(
11
~ ~
"
'i
~
FEBRUARY 11, 201!!~?~!?_~!~?!.:.~~.~y.~~.~I~n.~~~e.:. ~~~~~rated y!!la~: ~:~.~.c.a ~lifT - Glen Head - Glenw('od;Landing.:.!-~?,c'!}~YlllJ'<.i___
------....~-----'-.-~"'"
detect and treat before anythingseri-I ous develops. This is the 1st part of a,I good plan: Wellness Exams. The 2nd i
part is Disease Prevention. Do a "Risk; AsseSSment" of your pet Its lifestyle I
. . '. 1 det~rmlnes what d,~ease~ to protect it I
.1 against. A dog that IS outside a lot run- 1 ning free on the owner's property i
'requires more protection than a I household. pet that rarely ventures I outside. A dog that goes to the groom- ! jng shop frequently requires' more pro- ~ tection than one that doesn't (See my l
. "A'lsk' i previous article on , AssessmenF.) The 3rd part 0' the plan; is .Pet Health Insurance.. There are i many very good comprehensive and! reasonable plans available now,' byf. . I major companies, such as the.ASPCA 1 and Purina: In the long run, insurance ~ will save you money and give you I piece of mind. Veterinary medicine I has advanced so significantly in the i last several decades, thatvery sophis- i ticated treatments and proCedures are ~
. . now being done routinely. on our pets I to improve their quality of lives. Not t only surgery, but chemotherapy, radia- J lion, physical therapy and advancedf diagnostics are now available.; Owners opt for many of these proce-t dures and those with pel insurance I are very grateful, especially in this cur~ ~ rent economy. . . !
~ ~
1280 Forest Avenue I
Locust Valle:;> NY 11560 ~ f
.~. 506$7~
of 90 or better. Don Lang, director of alhleties, said, "We are very proud of all of our hardworking athletes at the North". Sho:c ~cho~lS." ?ongraWlalions to the athletes and .coaches.
Women's Cross Country: Coach -NeaJ Levy ".'.
Courtney. Morris Gabriella VeZLa Gillian McGovern Brianna Welch: Ava Koch Brianna Nerud . Amanda Treeo Charlotte Manogue Sam(lnlha' Nadel Elizaheth Caldwell
Men's Cross Country: Coach -Corona
jonarhanGalati ;.
Adam Gilbert Luke Kuna Jonathan' Mattner Kyle Essex
Ed .
Eric Freiberg
Women's Tennis: CoaCh - Brian-Kline Sunaina VollI1l Kathryn Kaufmann Marissa Moshell Carolindvlaramam Abigail Schubach Carla Sabbatini Anna Berger Rachel Weisman Jennifer Cistcnius
,Wornen's Soccer: Coach -Schultz
Tara Feehan lennifer Melgar Cara Dellavecchia Christina Convey' Erin Breen Christine Castigli~ne Boanna Ruane Jacqueline Gioia . Amanda Johansen
Clifton
. Elenl Efsiathiadis Dominique Troy Tracey v:asak
~e~an Stika LIly ~ansfield ImamTroy Eli7.abeth Sbeerin Alexandra Grande
Football:Cnaches - Dan Agovino, Frank Rossi, Craig DeNicola and Bill l\'ladigsn
Pierce Janssen Brandlln (lampel William Johansen ]llomas McCarthy Alec Volpe . Ryan Ciampi Stefan Schwartz Anthony Croce Joseph ~1anzione Jonathan Khani Daniel Broker Jed Zeins .
Notice: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Conducting Second Five" Year Review of lil1plentellled Actions at dIe Li Tungsten Superfund Site, Glen Cove, Nassau County, New York
The U.S. Em'ironmental i'rotection Ag~ncy (EP A) is currenlly conductiog the ~cond fllle-Yearrevl.'W of the implemented actions at the Li Tung:sten Superfund site, located in Glen Cove, Nassau County. New York.. The purpose I)f this five-year re\w"; is to ensure thal dIe remedy is functioning as intended and cominues 10 beprotectivc of public beallh and the environment. To conduct the fiveyear review, EP,\ will review information from the currell! groundwater lIloniioring program. as weD .as the stalus of she management arid land use.
EPA 'welcomes public comment concerning this .itt. especially ally concerns about the implemented remedy.
Once this five·)<eat review is completed (anticipated in March 2(10). the'results willbe made avaitti: in the.1ocal site repositoty;_Glen Cove Public 1..ibTiiry. 4 Glw Cove Avenue, Glen Cove, NY 11542.
If you wish to submit comments or if you have any 9uestions about the U TungSten site or the five· . year review pnx:ess, please contact: Edward Als. Remedial Project Manager. at U.S. Environmental f'rot~'C(ion AjlI:f1'Cy, Region 2. 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York. NY 10007-1866, (212) 6374112, or [email protected], or Cecili.. Echols. Communhy Involvement Coordinator, ai (212)637·3678 or [email protected]. . .
56700
r'
APPENDIX 3
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
Please note that "O&M" is referred to throughout this checklist. At sites where Long-Term . ; ,
Response Actions are in progress, O&M activities may be referred to as "system operations" since these sites are not' corisidered to be in the O&M phase while being remediated under the Superfund program.
Five-Year Review Site Inspection 'Checklist (Template)
(Working document for site in~pection. Information may be completed by hand and,attached to the Five-Year Review r~portas supporting docUmentation ofsite status. ''NIA" refers to ~'not applicable.")
1. SITE INFORMATION
Site name: Li Tungsten
. Glen Cove, NYLocation and Region:
Agency, office', or company leading the five-year
review: USEPA-Region 2- ERRD/NYRB
Remedy Inc!udes: (Check all that apply)
Date of inspection: Febr';lary 24, 2010
EPAID: NYD 986882660
Weather/temperature:
Overcast, tool arid di:5zZ'1V
Landfill cover/containment Monitor~d natural attenuation X Access controls Groundwater containment X Institutional controls Vertical barrier walls
Groundwater pump and treatment Surface water collection and treatment
"
Other excavation and off-site disposal
.. Attachments: Inspection team roster attached . Site map attached
'-..
-:n. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
l. O&M site manager Name Title Date
Interviewed at site at office· by phone Phone no. Problems, suggestions; Report attached
\
: 2. O&M staff
Name Title Date Interviywed . at site .at office ·by phone Phone no. Problems, suggestions; Report attached
\
D-7
"
OSWERNo. 9355.7-03B-P
3.. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e., State and Tribal offices, emergency response office, p'olice department, office of public health or environmental health; zoning office, recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.) Fill in all that apply. . .
Agency Glen Cove Community Development Agency Contact Kelly Morris Director 2/24/2010 516-676-1p 25
Name Title Date Phone no. Problems; suggestio~s; Report attached ·Site securit:;l. fencing
, . Agency Contact
Name Problems; suggestions;
/'
I
Report attached ritle Date Phone no.
Agency Contact
Name Problems; suggestions; Report attached
'Title Date Phone no.
Agency Contact
Name Problems; suggestions; Report attached
Title Date Phone no.
4. Other interviews (optional) Report attached.
/
(
/
\ I
; ,
,.
: .
\
D-8
· OSWERNo. 9355.7-D3B-P
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIfIED (Check all that appl~)
l.
2.
~.
4.
5.
6.
.7.
8.
9~
10.
O&M Documents- O&Mmanual Readily available Up to date .X NlA As-built di-awings Readily available Upto date XN/A Maintenance logs Readily available Up to date X N/A
Remarks' .
Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan . Readily available Up to date X N/A Contirigency plan/emergency response plan Readily available Up to.date X N/A
Remarks ~ ,
O&M and OSHA Training Records .' Readily available Up to date' XN/A Remarks "-
Permits and Service Agreements Air discharge permit ) Readilyavailable Upto date X N/A EfflLient discharge Readily available Up to date X N/A ,Waste disposal, POTW Readily available Up to date XN/A ) Other permits Readdyavailable Up.to date X N/A
Remarks ,
Gas Generation Records Readily available Up to date XN/A Remarks
Settlement Monument Records Readily available. Upto date X N/A Remarks
Groundwater Monitoring Records X Readily available X Up to date. .~- NfA Remarks' Post-remediation groundwater monitoring re:Qorts are
submitted tQ aDd kept QD fne b;.: the Agem:;:l.
Leachate Extraction Records I
Readily available ,Up to date X N/A Remarks
Discharg~ Compliance Records ,
Air Readily available Up to date X NfA Water (effluent) Readily available Up to date X N/A
Remarks
Daily Access/Security Logs )
f-eadily available Up to date X NIA.;-Remarks
D-9 , .
"
,I
OSWER No, 9355.7-03B-P
rv, O&M COSTS N/A
1.' O&M Organization State in-house Contractor for State
"
PRP in-house Contractor for PRP Federal Facihty in-house Contractor for Federal Facility I
Otner
2. O&M Cost Records, Readily available Up to date Funding mechanism/agreement in place
Original O&M cost estimate Breakdown attached
Total annual cost by year for review period if available
., From To Br,eakdown attached Date Date Total cost
, From To Breakdown attached Date Date Total CPS!
- From To Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
From To Breakdown attached Date Date Total cbst
From To Breakdown attached Date Date Total cost
3. Unanticipated o~ Unusually Higb O&M Costs During Review Period Describe costs and reasons: I
, "
V, ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS X Applicable' . N/A
A, Fencing
1. Fencing damaged Remarks " Fencing
Lodltionshown on site map around site perimeter
Gates secured does not have
N/A high integrity
"
-B. Other Access Restrictions "
1. Signs and other security measures Location shown on site map' N/A Remarks' General "no tres~assing" signs; ,Su~erfund constructiori' sign
still in 121ace on Ca 12t's CQye and Lj Tllngsten fonner: fad] j t:;c.
,D-l0
" /
, I
\ . ,--'
OSWER No, 9355,7-03B-P
C. Institutional Controls (lCs)
Implementation and enforcement Site conditions imply ICs no! properly implemented Yes No,' N/A Site conditions imply ICs not being fully enforced Yes No N/A
rcs not yet in place X Yes
Type of monitoring (e,g" self-reporting, drive by) \
L
Frequency Responsible party/agency , Contact
Name Title Date Phone no:: /
Reporting is up~to-date Yes No X N/A ,Reports are verified by the lead agency Yes No X N/h
-,
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met I Yes, No X N/A Violations have been reported Yes No X N/A Other problems or suggestions: Report attached
rcs are 2T02osed in the City's Site Management Plan (SMP) , which is a ~ost-remediation document addressing the remediation of the SHe llDti) de}leJopmerit takes :p] ace. Tbe SMP is pI:e:metJ~ in'draf
.' form. The rcs in the draft SMP will include those recommended in
2. Ale~~a€i.~~, KUlJ and t8sU~e iJ'e~uate ' ICs are inadequate N/A Remarks
D. Genenil
l.
2,
3,
Vandalism/trespassing Location shown on site map No vandalism evident Remarks Some vandalism (i.e. , tresEassing, [graffiti, an'd a 'limited
- oil s:Qill on Parcel C outside the 'Benbow Building} •
Land use changes on site N/A Remarks
(
' Land use changes off site N/A "
Remarks, I
, \ VI. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS
A. ,Roads Applicable NiA I
'1. Roads damaged" Location shown on site map, ' Roads adequate NIA ,Remarks
D-11
OSWER No 9355 7-03B-P
B. Other Site Conditions \ 1
Remarks Drainage on Parcel A and Capt' 5 Cove continue to be an iSSUE that the . City has not resolved. Adjacent roads also tend to flooc L e. ,. Garvies PO.int Road and Herbhill Road. Benching and seedi~glvegetation ~n tipper Parcel C and Parcel B are controlling stormwater runoff in thiq area of the s~te satisfactorily. It should only get better as vegetation becomes more mature, or until permanent' development occurs.
VII. LANDFILL COVERS Applicable X N/A
A. Landfill Surface
l. Settlement (Low spots) Location shown on site map Settlement not evident Areal extent.______ Depth_____
Remarks_________________________---~-----------~-------~--
2. Cracks ~ Location shown on site map' Cracking not evident Lengths__--'__ Widths,________ Depths______
Remarks --~---~-----~--------------------------~--------
i3. Erosion ,,'
Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Areal extent Depth______ Remarks ,
,
4. Holes Areal extent Remarks I
Location shown on.site map Depth_-'- ___
Holes not evident
r
5. Vegetative Cover I Grass Cover properly established No signs of stress Trees/Shrubs (indicate si"Ze and locations on a diagram) ,
~marks I
6. Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) N/A Remarks_.____________-----~----~---~--------~
.. 7. Bulges, Location shown on site map Bulges not evident
Areal extent.___________ Height________
Remarks___~__~-------~---~--------------'---~-------
D-12
( ,
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
8. Wet AreasrWater Damage Wet areas/water damage not evident Wet areas Location shown on site map Areal extent Ponding Location shown on site map Areal extent Seeps Location shown on site map Areal extent Soft subgrade Location shown.on site map Areal extent
Remarks
9. Slope Instability Slides Location shown on site map No. evidence of slope instability . Areal extent Remarks
B. Benches Applicable N/A (Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to s.\ow down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the Tunoff to a lined channel:) ,
. l. Flows Bypass Bench Location shown on site map
~
N/Aor okay Remarks
2. Bench Breached Location shown on site map N/A or. okay Remarks
..
3. Bench Overtopped . Location shown on site map , N/A or okay Remarks
)
IC. Letdown Channels Applicable N/A (Channel lined with erosion control mats, riprap,grollt bags, or gabions that descend dow~the steep side slope of the cover and will allow the runoff waten:ollected by tne benches to move off of the landfill cover without creating erosion gullies.) - ,
1. Settl.ement Location shown on site map No evidence of settlement Areal extent . Depth
Remarks (
2. Material Degradation . Location shown on site map No evidence of degradation Material type Areal extent Remarks
3. Erosion Location shown on site map No evidence of erosion Areal extent Depth ) Remarks
D-13
)
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
,
4. Undercutting .Locatio~ shown on site map No evidence ofundercutting Areal extent Depth Remarks I
I ,
5. . Obstructions Type No obstructions Location shown on site map Areal extent
Size Remarks
J
6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type No evidence of excessive growth .
. Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow Location shown on site map Areal extent
. Remarks
D. Cover Penetrations Applicable N/A
1.. - Gas Vents Active Passive Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A
I . Remarks: .
, 2. Gas Monitoring Probes \
Properly securedllocked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area oflan dfill ) I
Propeflysecuredllocked Functioning Routineiy sampled , Good condition Evidence of leakage at penetration. Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
I i
4. Leachate Extraction Wells , I
Properly securedllocked Functioning Routinely ~ampled Good condition ,
Evidence of leakage at penetration Needs Maintenance N/A Remarks I
\ I
5. Settlement Monuments Located RoUtinely surveyed N/A Remarks
0-14\
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
I I
J
(
E. Gas Collection and Treatment Applicable NiA
l. Gas Treatment Facilities Flaring Thermal destruction . Collection for reuse Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2. .Gas Collection Wells, Ma~ifolds and Piping I. Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildirigs) Good condition . , Needs Maintenance N/A
,. Remarks
F. Cover Drainage Layer Applicabl~ N/A '
1. Outlet Pipes Inspected Functioning N/A Remarks
, .• 1
2. Outlet Rock Inspected Functioning N/A Remarks
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds Applicable N/A ,
l. SiitationAreal extent Depth N/A ,Siltation not evident.
Remarks )
2. Erosion Areal extent Depth Erosion not evident
Remarks I
, 3. Outlet Works Functioning N/A·
Remarks 1
I
4. Dam Fun,ctioning NIA \
Remarks r
D-15 .
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
H. Retaining Walls Applicable NIA .,
L Deformations Location shown on site map Deformation not evident ;-
Horizontal displacement Vertical displacement , Rotational displacement
Remarks
2. Degradation Location shown on site map Degradation not evident Remarks
, \
1. Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge Applicable N/A
l. Siltation Location shown on site map Siltation not evident Areal extent Depth
; . \ .
Remarks
2. Vegetative Growth Locati on shown on si te ,map N/A Vegetation does not impede. flow
Areal extent Type Remarks
3. Erosion Location shown on site map Erosion not evident Areal. extent Depth Remarks
I
4. Discharge Structure . Functioning N/A Remarks
,
VIII. VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS Applicable X N/A
1. Settlement Location shown on site map Settl ement not evident Areal extent Depth r- .
. Remarks
2. Performance MonitoringType of monitoring Performance not monitored
Frequency Evidence of breaching Head differential Remarks
.D·16
I
)
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P'
,
.~\
IX. GROUNDWATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES Applicable X N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pum·ps, and Pipelines Applicable N/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical Good condition All required wells properly operating Needs Maintenance N/A
Remarks
2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances Goodcondition . Needs Maintenance )
, -
Remarks
- .
3. Spare Parts and Equipment Readily available Good condition . ,Requires upgrade Needs to be provided
Remarks
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines .Applicable N/A -
1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical Good condition I Needs Maintenance
Remarks
2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances Good condition Needs Maintenance
Remarks
\
(3. (Spare Parts and Equipment \
Readily available Good condition Requires upgrade' Needs to be provided Remarks)
D-17
\ .
\
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P.
-C. Treatment System Applicable .N/A
~l. Treatment'Train (Check components that apply) Metals removal Oil/water separation Bioremediation Air stripping Carbon adsorbers I
.' -Filters' Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) ,
Others Good condition Needs·Maintenance· . -Sampling ports properly marked and functional Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date Equipment properly identified
,. I Quantity of groundwater treated annually Quantity of surface water treated annually
Remarks
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (properly rated and functional) I
N/A Good condition Needs Maintenance Remarks
3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels. N/A Good condition Proper secondary cont~inment Needs Maintenance
Remarks
4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenance~ N/A Good condition Needs Maintenance
\Remarks.
,. -5. T<reatmerit Building(s)
N/A Good condition (esp: roof and doorways) Needs repair Chemicals and equipment properly stored.
Remarks ;
6. Monitoring Wells (pump and treatment remedy) Properly' secured/l ocked Functioning Routinely sampled Good condition All required wells located Needs Maintenance , N/A
. Remarks I
D. Monitoring Data
,1- Monitoring Data .' . ,
Is routinely submitted on time Is of acceptable quality -
2, Mqnitoring data suggests: Groundwater plume is effectively contained Contaminant concentrations are declining
j D-18
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
.
D. Monitored Natural Attenuation ,
1: Monitoring Wells (natural attenuation remedy) Properly secured/locked Functioning Routinely sampled' Good conditiori All required well~ located Needs Maintenance
\ N/A
Remarks
X. OTHER REMEDIES
If there are remedies applied at the site which are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil vapor extraction.
,XI. OVERALL OBSERYATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy ,
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as _ designed. Begin with a brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize'infiltration and gas emission, etc.).
- remedy for OU.l and OU 2 reQuied excavation and off-s'ite disEosal of 'contaminated materials, and ofi-site '~Dst-remediati( groundwater monitoring' of isolated groundwater hot spots.
,
- Qll ~ remedJ[ inc] lIded dredging GJ en Cp~le Creek. fo]]oIoIed b~ j so disEosing of radioactive slag :Qresent in dredged material.
.Some remediated dredged material, which is the resEonsiblity 0
the City to dispose of , remains on PArcel A. ,
,
B. Adequacy of O&M i ,.
Describe issues and observations related to the implementation and scope of O&M procedures. In particular, discuss their r.elationship to the current and long-term protectiveness of the remedy.
N,Ll! ,
,.
I
.,
I /'
n
ating and
(
(
D-19
OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
C. Early Indicators 'of Potential ,Remedy Problems
Describe issues and observations such as unexpected changes in the cost or.scope ofO&M or a high frequency of unscheduled repairs, that suggest that the pr?tectivi;:ness ofthe remedy may.be comyromised in the future.
N A .
,
, )
..
D. Opportunities for Optimization
Describe possible opportunities for optimization in monitoring tasks or the operation of the remedy. N/A I
\
(
D-20
j '-
APPENDIX 4
Phone: (516) 676-1625 Mary Ann Holzkamp Fax: (516)759-8389Chairman
Cara Longworth, Esq. Executive Director GLEN COVE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY City Hall, 9 Glen ~treet, Room 311, Gleh Cove; NY 11542
November 24, 2004
Angela Carpenter U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region II 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007-18'66
Re: Glen Cove, New York
Dear Angela:
As you qre aware, the City of Glen Cove has been working on amending it zoning for the waterfront property that encompasses the Captain's Cove and Li Tungsten sites. The last time we spoke you asked that we keep you updated on the status of that zoning change.' Yesterday, the City Council adopted the enclosed amended "MW-3 Waterfront ~3 District" zoning.
, ( . .
We are exCited and eager to start developing on this site as soon as possible and are ' thankful for the EPA' s assis~ance in this regard .
.--_ ....
Ene.
/
·-"-,' '".
Ordinance 6 D , \, '
Ordinance, offered by Mayor Holzkamp and, seconded by Councilman Granger
§ 280-73.2. MW~3 Marine Waterfront-3 District.
A. Purpose and applicability.
Purposes and objectives.
(1) The Marine Waterfront-3 District (MW-3) is designed to apply to waterfrontareas and adjacent areas on the north side of Glen Cove Creek.
, ,
,,' (2) The purpose of this district is to permit and encourage a range of water-dependent and water-enhanced uses and other related uses within the Glen Cove Creek corridor so that the City's valuable waterfront resources are utilized properly and in a manner that will ensure an attractive waterfront setting for a variety of appropriate uses that are beneficial to the City's residents" waterfront property owners and business community. ,A, further purpose is to establish a zoning framework conducive to the, creation of an' attractive mix e d - u, sec 0 In m u n i ty 'w i t h res id e n t i a 11 r eta i 11 com mer cia 1 business/recreationltouristlentertainment and cultural ,components. The intent is to create . a marketable and sustainable development that will benefit the City and the surro1illding environment.
(3) In addition, since portions of the Glen Cove Creek area contain structures considered to be substandard and uses that are considered obsolete and inappropriate for this location, the objectives of the district also include the elimination of blight and blighting influences,incotnpatible uses,theassemblage of sites and redevelopment of areas with uses more appropriate to this strategic location within the community.
, (4) It is further the intent of this district to assure that development optimizes the waterfront location and encourages water-dependent or water-enhanced uses, public access and use of the waterfront for residents andlor employees ofl and visitors to, the area and the entire Glen Cove community.
Applicability. These purposes and objectives will be considered in the mapping of this zone and in the review of any site plan or Special Permit Use within the district.
,B. Permitted principal uses on south side of Garvies Point Road and Herb Hill Road:
(1) Restaurant, excluding catering facilities, provided that they are located on the land and .provide tables.ervice, and boat access and/or. pedestrian access to the waterfront. No ,structure on flotation will be permitted .. For purposes of this section, no moored barge or houseboat can be considered to be located· on the land.
November 23,2004 / .
(2) Yacht broker or marine insurance broker.'
(3) Retail uses limited to: Sail loft or ship's chandlery, retail'sale andlor rental of boating, fishing, diving and bathing supplies and equipment, provided that no single store shall exce~d 10,000 square feet. Such retail lises in a larger space may be pennitted at the discretion of the Planning Board. All retail uses shall occur in structures or spaces limited in size as noted to ensure visual access from public walkways' and esplanades. 'The Planning Board shall have the right to determine the final size and configuration of such buildings to' achieve the objectives of this zoning district. Multiple structures, with shared parking and interconnected: by pedestrian ways are encouraged. If the property, in retail 'use abuts the water, continuous public pedestri~n access to tl;1e waterfron't must' be provided.
C. Special Permit Uses at the discretion of the Planning Board on southside of Garvies Point Road and Herb Hill Road:
\ (1) Yacht clubs and marinas. No boat may be qccupied overnight that does not have a holding tank for sewage waste with deck fittings permitting mechanical pumpout at dockside.
(2) Marina slips for transient boaters accessory to a principal use provided that no boat may . be occupied overnight that does not have a, holding tank for sewage waste with deck , fittings permitting mechamcal pump-out at dockside that can be mechanically pumpedout.
(3) Planned Unit Development CPUD) -On sites with a minimum area of 25 contiguous acres, a planned unit development subject to the following use and design : criteria provided that atleast four ofthe uses indicated in sub..paragraph 3(a) below are included and achieve the purposes and objectives of this District in the opinion of the Planning Board. Each applicant for a PUD shall comply with the requirements of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and shall ,prepare a Draft Environmental Impact' ' Statement (EIS) and a'Pinal EIS for consideration by the Lead Agency, which'contains a cumulative assessment of the build out of the MW-3 Zone. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, any PUD approved by the Planning Board pursuant to these provisions may ,include additional contiguous and non-contiguous property on the south side of Garvies Point Road or Herb Hill Road and may include additional acreage on the nqrth side of Garvies Point Road Qr Herb Hill Road. ' "
(a) 'Uses
1. All uses permitted in B (1) - (3) above and Special t>ermit uses included in C (1) - (2) above 'and accessory uses as provided in Section P (Accessory Uses);
11. ,Educational, cultural, or entertainment uses, which may include uses such as museums, galleries, exhibit facilities, aquariums, theaters or other similar uses
November 23,2004
whose primary focus is on waterfront, marine or Long Island'·s north shore culture and history and! or will contribute to the City's objective to create the CGlen Cove waterfront as a destination. Such uses may include offices and retail use as part ofthe principal use, and accessory thereto.
111. H~tel, spa, conference center, catering and restaurant uses, provided that for sites with water frontage the use is designed with public access to the water via one or more of the following: boat slips for transient or seasonal use, manna use, esplanade, boardwalk, park, plaza or open space.
IV. Business and professional offices and retail uses. Such retail uses shall fulfill the purposes and objectives of this district. In particular, such retail uses and services shall be of a type and quantity that will appeal to both residents and visitors as well as attract people to the waterfront and complement' the Central Business District._ '
v. Boat docks, pump-out stations, slips, piers, terminals and wharves for yachts, pleasure boats, dinner cruises,ferries, water taxis or'Doats for hire anyand/or all of which are intended to carry passengers on excursion, commuting, pleasure or fishing trips, or for vessels engaged in fishery or shell fishery.
'\
VI. Multiple dwellings, residences and townhouses. Where such residences are in mixed-use structures, they shall be designed in an approved mariner.
, '\
Vll. Food Kiosks provided tqey are located on land.
viii. Retail sale of fish, shellfish andlor produce.
(b) PUDCriteria - The provisions of subsection G.:.. Lot area and ,building requirements of the MW-3 District shall hot apply to a PUD within this zone including accessory' uses in said PUD, provided that the following criteria are satisfied, .
1. Maximum ~esldential Density - 20 units per acre of the site devoted to the Planned Unit Development proviped that a minimum of 10 percent of the dwelling units shall be work force housing as defined by the City of Glen Cove. The gross residential density is an aggregate number to be distributed by thePUD
. massmg.
11. 'Height and Open Space. Maximum height shall be established by the Planning Board during site plan review. The Planning Board shall'to the maximum practical extent consider maximum height in light of the following .objectives for development within the PUD site area: a. The balancing of building scale and density with the maximization of
publicly accessible open space within the PUD' she are~,and .the use of
November 23, 2004
landscaping to mItIgate and balance the :yisual impact of building SIze (including landscaped roof terraces to the extent practicable).
\
b. The creation of view corridors, from public streets and open spaces on the site and/or surrounding streets, to Glen Cove Creek and Hempstead Harbor, and to the Garvies Point Preserve." .
- , '
c. The creation of varied and interesting vistas when viewed from the south side of Glen Cove Creek and from various points within and around the PUD site ar~a. This will include an appropriate variety and range of building scales 1ind heights and careful transitions between scales.
, '
d. The height of buildings' and structures shall not exceed the treetop elevation of the ridgeline of the Garvies Point Preserve. The creation of appropriate transition of building size between the waterfront of Glen Cove Creek and the ridgeline shall be considered.
,e. The architectural treatment of buildings, such that when viewed frbm a 'distance, building masses are broken up visually through the use of techniques such as, but not limited to; stepping bays and recesses, balconies and terraces, changes of material, to create a sense of scale and visual relief. '
f. The architectural treatment of those portions, of buildings, in particular the facades of first and second floors, that face or adjoin pedestrian oriented streets, sidewalks, open spaces and esplanades, such that the quality of the pedestrian experience is maximized through the use of techniques such as but not limited to; quality. and variety of fayade materials, architectural detail, variety in massing such as bays and.recesses, location and scale of windows and doors, inclusion of features such as porches, steps, planters, awnings, etc.
/ g. The' balancing of building scale and density with the maximization of , concealed parking facilities within the PUD area, and tp.e use of landscaping, I architectural treatments, roof ,gardens and courtyards, to conceal or mitigate the visual and environmental impacts of'parking structures or surface lots on the s~te and the surrounding are~s.
/
J
111. Minimum Dista~ce between principal structures to be determined by the Planning Board to maximize the creatioI). of view corridors and open space.
iv.' Minimum Off-Street Parking - Off-street parking shall be as determined by the Planning Board taking into consideration criteria established 'in 1(1) herein and the objectives of C(3)(b)ii g above. All required parking for residential uses and at least one half of parking required for all other uses shall be provided witi}in structures or 'covered. Tandem spaces may be permitted if both of the spaces are
, assigned to one dwelling unit or commercial or other permitted user or if valet or
November 23,2004
I '
I' ,
attendant parking is provided. On street parking may be permitted at the discretion of the Planning Board. Shared parking may be permitted by the
) Planfling Board in accordance with 1(3) below. /
The treatment of parking shall include the integration of parking facilities into landscape designs arid building structures to minimize visual impacts of parking garages and parking lots on public streets, open spaces, esplanades and. view corridors.
v. No structure or parking area may be loc~ted within 30 feet of the mean high waterline or bulkhead line unless the project involves a walkway or esplanade along the water accessible t6 the public or some other means of public access acceptable to the Planning Board, in which case said setback requirement maybe
. reduced or eliminated..
VI. The PUD shall contain an ample amount of public open space, (but not less than 25% of the overall PUD site) includingbut not limited to; squares, greens, parks, new or enhanced wetlands 'and esplanades whose use by residents and the public is encouraged through promiJtent P!acement land design.
. J '. . .
vii.The PUD shall have a connected network of pedestrian and bicycle access. Automobile traffic and parking shall be accommodated in ways that respect the safe and comfortable movement of pedestrians throughout the development. The PUD shall contain well-designed pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, including sidewalks, street trees, lighting, aild shall have appropriate relationship of buildi~lg fac;ade and entrances to pede'strian areas~ I
Vlll. Inclusion of an intermodal transportation system whIch may in,elude,' but not be limited to trolleys, jitneys, people movers, streetcars, in order to connect the waterfront with downtown, and reduce automobile dependency.
IX. The use ofan interconnected street system where possible, avoiding cul-de-sacs and utilizing street design which encourages "traffic calming."
x. The submission of a plan by the applicant for the provision of off-site public ,amenities and/or infrastructure required as ~ result of the proposed PUD, whether by transfer, gift, lease, easement or otherwise, to the extent that the same maybe acceptable to the Planning Board, and is feasible and adequate. Th,e public amenities andlor infrastructure items may inelude, but are not limited to, the construction and maintenance of sidewalks, roadways, sewer systems, water systems, other types of off-site infrastructure, transportation systems and facilities, waste disposal systems and facilities, police and fire protection facilities, cultural faCilities, recreationalfaciliti~s: or a cash payment to the City in lieu thereof. The determination whether any such plan is acceptable, in form and
) . substance, feasible and adequate, shall Test in the sole and unfettered discretion of
November 23,2004
the, Planning Board. The Planning Board may impose any additional re~sonable terms and conditions which it finds necessary and appropriate to effectively secure for the City the .benefit of one or more. community amenities, or cash in lieu thereof, in order to ensure that the purpose ,and intent of this paragraph is . fulfilled:
./
D. Permitted principal uses on northside of Garvies Point Road· and Herb Hill Road:
(1) Any non-water-dependent uses permitted in 'B' on the south side of Garvies Point Road or Herb,Hill Road as indicatecr above,
(2) Business and professional offices and research, design and development laboratories ..
(3) Uses related .to the production of cinema and other e~tertainment mediums.
E. Special ~ermit Uses on north side ofGarvies Point Road and Herb Hill Road: . \
(1) Light industry, as defined herein, limited.to assembly, prototype 'development and processing that does not utilize chemicals in the process.
(2) Expansion of existing industry not covered i~ Subsection E (1) above, provided that such expansion is. within the permitted bulk requirements of this district and that such expansiori does not hinder the achievement of the objectives oftheMW-3Zone.
(3) A portion of a PUD approved by the Planning Board in accordance with C (3) above, including any conditions applicable thereto .
.F. Acc~ssoryuses:
(1) Uses customarily incidental or accessory to the principal uses subject to. review and approval· by the Planning Board, including but not limited to swimming pools, tennis' courts, rest rooms, showers,' maintenance, service and utility buildings and laundry facilities.
(2) Signs'in accordance with City ofGlen Cove sign regulations .. All signs shall be approv~d by the City of Glen Cove Planning Board or Sign Review Committee (SRC).
(3) Off-street parking.
G. Lot area and building requirements for principal uses, except for properties covered by the provisions of section C (3) and E (3). '
(1) Minimum lot area:, 40,000 square feet.
(2) Minimum width: 100 feet.
November 23,2004
\ \
(3) Minimum fronta'ge along street: 100 feet.
(4) Minimum setback from street: 20 feet (no parking permitted in this setback).
(5) Minimum rear yard: 20 feet to property line. When a use abuts the water, no structure may b.e closer than 30 feet to the mean high water line or l;mlkhead unless the project includes a walkway or esplanade along the water accessible to the public or some other means of public access acceptable to the Planning Board, in which case said setback requirement may be redu,ced or eliminated.
(6) Minimum side yard: not required: ifprovided, such yard shall' be IS, feet.
(7) Minimum corner side yard: 25 feet. ' ..
(8) Maximum height: two usable stories and in no event to exceed 35 feet. Where a building is at least 300 feet from a one or two family zone, the height may be four (4) stories, but not more than 52 feet. Such increase in height shall be subject to a special permit.
(9) No single building or group of attached: buildings shall exceed 100 feet in length without a break in. the. plane of the facade. Distance between buildIngs if any shall be at least 15 feet. Buildings located within 100 feet of the bulkhead or high water line along the Glen Cove Creek shall not exceed 50 feet in dimension facing such waterfront.
(10) Maximumdevelopment~overage (all impermeable ,surfaces) shall be 65% except as otherwise provided herein. '
H. Lot area and building requirements for accessory ,uses, except for properties covered by the ' provisions of C(3) and E(3).
(1) Minimum distance to front (street) property line: 60 feet, except. parking which may be 20 feet from the front street line. , . \
(2) Minimum distance to ariy other,property line: same as for principa~ use.
-(3) Maximum height: one story and in no event to exceed 20 feet.
1. Parking and loading requi~ements except for properties covered by the provisions of C(3) and E(3).
(1) Off-street parking,
USE SPACES REQUIRED "
Yacht club 1 for each 2 slips plus 1 for each 2 total employees
November 23, 2004
\Restaurant/catedng 1 per 3 seat~ plus 1 space per 2 employees on the largest shift
Retail 1· per 250 square feet of gross floor area
Professional or Business Office ,1 per 200 square feet of space - (exclusive of bulk storage, common atea or utility areas
I, Medical, Dental Office 1 per 150 square feet of office space (exclusive of
bulk storage, common area or utility area)
Hotel 1 per hotel room or suite, plus 1 per 2 employees on the largest shift" plus 1 space for each 4 total seats in a meeting or conference facility
Light industry or laboratory Same as r-1 District §280-69G
Residences . Two spaces per dwelling unit with one (1) or more bedrooms; one space per efficiency or studio dwelling unit
Other uses As deemed necessary by the Planning Board
,:. (2) Loading,
USE SPACES REQUIRED
Retail and industry 1 per 25,000 square feet of building area or fraction . thereof '
Office in excess of 50,000 1 per 50,000 square feet of building square feet ard or. fraction thereof
Yacht club and related services As deemed necessary by the and other uses Planning Board
(3) Shared Parking - Where two or more' uses are on the same lot; or part of a Planned Unit Development, the total amount of parking spaces to be provided shall be the sum of the requirements, if any, for each individual use on the lot; the Planning Board may vary t{lis . requirement if the Board finds that the sharing of parking during the probable time of maximum use of such establishments is such as to permit a variation; however, once one or more of the uses terminates, the property owner shall be responsible for assuring adequate parking in conformance with the standards set herein. .
The Planning Board may also approve the joint use of a parking area for uses of contiguous parcels as long as the Board is satisfied that the total number of spaces is adequate as computed above.
J. Other provisions and requirements/guidelines, except for properties co'vered by the provisions of Section C(3) and E(3), .
November 23,2004
(1) Except as may be otherwise required, wherever an off-street parking area of three or more . spaces face's a street, a planting area with a minimum width of six feet shall be provided between the parking area and the sidewalk. . The' planting plan for this strip shall be approved by the Planning Board as part of the site plan ,review. Plantings shall be a minimum of three feet in height planted three feet on center-: The remaining portion of the required setback may be grass or other acceptable ground cover. (
(2) Any use that abuts the Glen Cove Creek must provide a walkway/esplanade at least 16 feet wide, which will include a surface wide enough and stable enough to accommodate walking, jogging, roller-blading, biking and similar activities in' a safe and attractive manner. The esplanade may also include benches and trees or shT~bs within the 16 feet. The walkway must extend the entire width of the property along Glen Cove Creek and must be consistent with design guidelInes established by the City. In addition, access to the ';Vater or waterfront may include, to the maximum practical. extent, some type of public access such as, but not limited to, a parl): or plaza area. Where such. access includes a plaza or open space in addition to an esplahade along the entire width ofthe property, the Planning Board rimy permit an increase in development coverage up to a total of 70%.
i
(3) Public pedestrian or boat access plans shall be approved by the Planning Board and, the access·shall be available for public use Ulider a mutually acceptable arrangement between the City and the property owner. Where public access is provided, for security and safety reasons the tiqles that access shall be available to the public shall conform to reasonable business or recreation hours.
. " .
(4) Non-navigable vessels shall not be permitted to be permanently or temporarily docked and occupied in waters within the Marine Waterfront District. Transient houseboats must
. have a permanent motor and holding- tanle for sewage waste with dock fittings permitting mechanical pump-out at dockside. Non-navigable houseboats shall not be(permitted.
/ . .
.' . . (
(5) Structures in this district shall be sited so as to preserve views of Glen Cove. Creek and . fiempstead Harbor.
(6) Structures shall adhere to guidelines to be established by the Planning Board as part of site plan rules and regulations. Guidelines shall include use of materials and designs consistent with the objectives of the MW-3 Zone ..
(7) Runoff from. parking lots, maintenance, and washdown facilities must be treated in a manner that prevents oils, grease and detergents from reaching adjacentwater.
(8) Landscaping shall, to the maximum practical extent, include plants that require minimal . water and use of pesticides. .
Add to 280-6 Definitions, the following: .)
November 23,2004
Planned Unit Development - An areaof·aminimum contiguous size,' as specified by this ordinance, to be planned, developed, operated, and maintained according to a plan containing one . or more structures and/or uses with appurtenant public or private common areas. , . .
Navigable Vessels - Navigable Vessels shall meet _all'of the following criteria:
o Be built on a boat hull or on two or more pontoons
o Be equipped w~th an operable motor )
o Be equipped with operableiudder controls located at a point on the vessel from which there is forward visibility over a 1800 range.
o Be compliant with all applicable state and federal requirements relating to v~ssels (
o Be registered as a vessel in the state of principal use
o Have ~egistration numbers clearly displayed
o Carry liability and hull insurance
o Be ina state of good repair
'0 Be seaworthy and capable of being used for active navigation )
APPROVED OFFICE OF TTY CLERK
DATE '(1 2'3)OLJ ~bb 1J,k:llsc
November 23, 2004
)
