• Home
• About ATSDR
• Press Room
• A-Z Index
• Glossary
• Employment
• Contact Us
• CDC

ATSDR en Español

Search:

Skip directly to: content | left navigation | search

---

Find a Publication

1. ATSDR > Public Health Assessments & Consultations

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT

PREFERRED PLATING CORPORATION
EAST FARMINGDALE, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK

APPENDIX A

Figure 1. Preferred Plating Site location map

Figure 2. Preferred Plating site map

APPENDIX B

Table 1. Preferred Plating Site - On-Site Shallow Soil
Sampling Data from the 1989 and 1992 Remedial Investigation Reports and Comparison Values.
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)

	1988 Samples		1991 Samples		Typical Background Range**	Comparison Value for Soil***	Source****
	Frequency of Detection	Range of Detection	Frequency of Detection	Range of Detection
Metals
*cadmium	5/5	1.6-50	6/7	0.91-25.5	<0.5-1	10	ATSDR EMEG
*chromium	5/5	9.1-323	7/7	3.1-48.6	10-40	250	EPA RfD
lead	5/5	29-83	7/7	2.1-23.8	10-300	--	--
Organic Compounds*****
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate	5/5	0.063-0.98	0/7	ND	NDT	2.3	NYS CREG
butylbenzyl phthalate	5/5	0.11-3.6	0/7	ND	NDT	3,220	NYS RfG

ND - not detected
NDT - not determined

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.

**References: Clarke et al., 1985; Conner et al., 1957; Frank et al., 1976; McGovern, 1988; Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984

***Comparison values for organic compounds are based on ingestion of soil and homegrown vegetables; comparison values for metals (inorganics) are based on ingestion of soil.

****NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline
EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose

*****Only those organic compounds which were detected in at least one sample are listed.

Table 2. Preferred Plating Site - Subsurface Soil Sampling Data from the 1989 and 1992 Remedial Investigation Reports and Comparison Values.
(All values in milligrams per kilogram)

1988 Samples

1991 Samples

Typical Back- ground Range**

Comparison Value for Soil***

Source****

Angle Borings

Monitoring Wells

Waste Storage Tanks

Sanitary Leaching Pits

Non-source

Freq.

Range

Freq.

Range

Freq.

Range

Freq.

Range

Freq.

Range

Metals

*cadmium

36/50

0.66-45.4

2/17

0.68-2.0

27/29

1.1-468

9/9

1.4-45.6

8/16

0.63-37.6

<0.5-1

10

ATSDR EMEG

*chromium

49/50

2.9-200

13/17

1.5-94.1

29/29

14.1-1890

9/9

24.5-252

16/16

2.3-86.1

10-40

250

EPA RfD

lead

33/50

0.46-43.9

15/17

0.45-27.5

28/28

1.4-158

9/9

1.6-82.6

16/16

0.8-7.6

10-300

--

--

Organic Compounds

acetone

16/26

0.019-0.197

2/17

0.020-0.050

1/24

0.270

0/9

ND

1/23

0.160

NDT

2

NYS RfG

benzene

8/26

0.001-0.028

0/17

ND

1/24

0.011

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

0.05

NYS CREG

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

2/26

0.084-0.70

5/17

0.038-0.860

0/24

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

2.3

NYS CREG

butylbenzyl phthalate

0/26

ND

1/17

0.091

0/24

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

3220

NYS RfG

2-butanone

0/26

ND

0/17

ND

1/24

0.022

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

2.2

NYS RfG

chloroethane

0/26

ND

0/17

ND

3/24

0.83-5.9

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

--

--

1,1-dichloroethane

0/26

ND

0/17

ND

3/24

0.46-20.0

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

33

NYS RfG

*trans-1,2-di- chloroethene

0/26

ND

0/17

ND

4/24

0.094-15.0

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

1

NYS RfG

ethylbenzene

2/26

0.002-0.006

0/17

ND

5/24

0.077-0.60

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

200

NYS RfG

4-methyl-2- pentanone

0/26

ND

1/17

0.020

0/24

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

19.6

NYS RfG

*tetrachloroethene

0/26

ND

0/17

ND

4/24

0.008-5.4

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

0.06

NYS CREG

toluene

0/26

ND

1/17

0.001

7/24

0.002-3.6

3/9

0.002-0.006

0/23

ND

NDT

230

NYS RfG

*1,1,1-trichloro- ethane

2/26

0.003-0.004

0/17

ND

3/24

0.099-270.0

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

76

NYS RfG

*trichloroethene

0/26

ND

0/17

ND

5/24

0.003-5.0

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

0.2

NYS CREG

xylene

0/26

ND

0/17

ND

7/24

0.006-2.5

0/9

ND

0/23

ND

NDT

4620

NYS RfG

ND - not detected
NDT - not determined

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.

**References: Clarke et al., 1985; Conner et al., 1957; Frank et al., 1976; McGovern, 1988; Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984.

***Comparison values for organic compounds are based on ingestion of soil and homegrown vegetables; comparison values for metals (inorganics) are based on ingestion of soil.

****NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline
EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose

Table 3. Preferred Plating Site - On-Site Groundwater Sampling Data from the 1989 and 1992 Remedial Investigation Reports
and the 1992 Remedial Design Report and Comparison Values.
(All values in micrograms per liter)

									Standards/Guidelines			Comparison Value****	Source*****
	EBASCO - July 1989		EBASCO - May 1989**		Malcolm Pirnie - 1990**		US EPA Aug. & Nov. 1990		New York State		U.S. EPA
	Not Filtered Upgradient	Downgradient	Not Filtered	Filtered	Not Filtered	Filtered	Not Filtered	Filtered	Ground- water	Drinking Water	Drinking Water
Metals
*cadmium	8.4-78.7	ND-399	178	105	190-250	150-180	194-268	181-211	10	5	5	5	EPA LTHA
*chromium	43.2-363	56.3-5850	417	3.7	<50-230	<50	20-307	10-15	50	50	100	100	EPA LTHA
*lead	18.9-326	4.6-437	24	-	<7-30	<7	20-55	15-20	25	50	15***	-
Organic Compounds
*benzene	1	12	NA	NA	8.4-23.9	NA	4.4-5.6	NA	0.7	5	5	0.7	NYS CREG
*1,1-dichloroethane	ND	ND	NA	NA	4.6-8	NA	1.7-4.7	NA	5	5	-	700	EPA RfD
*1,2-dichloroethane	2	5	NA	NA	2.8	NA	1.7-2.8	NA	5	5	5	0.38	ATSDR CREG
*ethylbenzene	ND	ND	NA	NA	6.1-7	NA	ND	NA	5	5	700;30ps	700	EPA LTHA
*tetrachloroethene	ND	11	NA	NA	ND	NA	1.0-4.1	NA	5	5	5	0.7	NYS CREG
*toluene	ND	ND	NA	NA	7.0	NA	5.9-6.0	NA	5	5	1,000;40ps	1,000	EPA LTHA
*1,1,1-trichloroethane	10	13	NA	NA	5.3-16.7	NA	3.8-8.4	NA	5	5	200	200	EPA LTHA
*trichloroethene	6	8	NA	NA	2-4.8	NA	1.9-2.8	NA	5	5	5	3	NYS CREG
*xylene	ND	ND	NA	NA	31	NA	ND	NA	5	5	10,000;20ps	10,000	EPA LTHA

ND - not detected
NA - not analyzed
ps - proposed secondary MCL

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.

**Samples are from downgradient monitoring wells.

***There is a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for lead and an action level of 15 mcg/L at the tap.

****Comparison value determined for a 70 kilogram adult who ingests 2 liters of water per day.

*****ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline
ATSDR CREG = ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
EPA LTHA = EPA Lifetime Health Advisory
NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose

Table 4. Preferred Plating Site - On-Site Deep Groundwater Data from the 1989
Remedial Investigation Report and Comparison Values (two samples each well).
No organic compounds were detected in the deep
groundwater monitoring wells.
(All values in micrograms per liter)

	Monitoring Wells		Standards/Guidelines			Comparison Value***	Source****
			New York State		U.S. EPA
	Upgradient	Downgradient	Groundwater	Drinking Water	Drinking Water
*cadmium	8.4, 11.4	ND, 23.1	10	5	5	5	EPA LTHA
*chromium	43.2, 70.4	56.3, 479	50	100	100	100	EPA LTHA
*lead	18.9, 23.5	4.6, 26.5	25	50	15**	--	--

ND - not detected

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.

**There is a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for lead and an action level of 15 mcg/L at the tap.

***Comparison value determined for a 70 kilogram adult who ingests 2 liters of water per day.

****EPA LTHA = EPA Lifetime Health Advisory

ND - not detected
NDT - not determined
p - proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL)
ps - proposed secondary MCL

⁺There is a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for lead and an action level of 15 mcg/L at the tap.

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.

**References: Clarke et al., 1985; Conner et al., 1957; Frank et al., 1976; McGovern, 1988; Shacklette and Boerngen, 1984

***Comparison values for organic compounds are based on ingestion of soil and homegrown vegetables; comparison values for metals (inorganics) are based on ingestion of soil.

****NYS EMEG = New York State Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline
NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
NYS RfG = New York State Risk Reference Guideline
ATSDR EMEG = ATSDR Environmental Media Evaluation Guideline
EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose

Table 6. Preferred Plating Site - Off-Site Monitoring Well
Sampling Data from the 1989 Remedial Investigation Report and Comparison Values (two samples each well).
(All concentrations in micrograms per liter)

	Monitoring Wells		Standards/Guidelines			Comparison Value***	Source****
	Off-site 1,500 Feet South	Off-site 2,250 Feet South	New York State		U.S. EPA
			Ground- water	Drinking Water	Drinking Water
Metals
cadmium	ND	ND	10	5	5	5	EPA LTHA
chromium	7.3, 9.6	ND, 15.1	50	100	100	100	EPA LTHA
*lead	ND, 30.3	ND, 9.1	25	50	15**	-
Organic Compounds
acetone	ND	ND, 32	50	50	-	700	EPA RfD
butylbenzyl pthalate	ND, 1	ND	50g	50	100p	1,400	EPA RfD
*1,1-dichloroethane	-	2, 3	5	5	-	700	EPA RfD
*1,2-dichloroethane	ND	5, 5	5	5	5	0.38	ATSDR CREG
*tetrachloroethene	ND, 1	15, 17	5	5	5	0.7	NYS CREG
*trichloroethene	ND, 1	5, 5	5	5	5	3	NYS CREG
*1,1,1-trichloro- ethane	ND	9, 9	5	5	200	200	EPA LTHA

ND - not detected
g - guidance value
p - proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL)

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.

**There is a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for lead and an action level of 15 mcg/L at the tap.

***Comparison value determined for a 70 kilogram adult who ingests 2 liters of water per day.

****ATSDR CREG = ATSDR Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline
EPA RfD = EPA Reference Dose
EPA LTHA = EPA Lifetime Health Advisory
NYS CREG = New York State Cancer Risk Evaluation Guideline

Preferred Plating Site - Off-Site Residential, Commercial and Industrial Private Well Sampling Data
from the 1989 Remedial Investigation Report and NYS DOH Files and Comparison Value
[All values in micrograms per liter (mcg/L)]

Contaminant	Residential	Commercial	Industrial	Comparison Values
				Water Quality Standards/Guidelines				Cancer**	Source***	Noncancer**	Source***
				New York State			U.S. EPA
				Ground- water	Surface Water	Drinking Water	Drinking Water
*chlorobenzene	7	1	-	5	20	5	100	-	-	140	EPA RfD
dichlorobenzene	-	1	-	4.7****	30	5	75;5ps	1.5	EPA CPF	75	EPA LTHA
1,1-dichloroethane	0.8	0.7	-	5	5g	5	-	-	-	700	EPA RfD
cis-1,2-dichloroethene	-	2	-	5	-	5	70	-	-	70	EPA LTHA
*tetrachloroethene	1	4	-	5	0.7	5	5	0.7	EPA CPF	70	EPA RfD
trichloroethene	-	2	-	5	3g	5	5	3	EPA CPF	52	EPA RfD
*chromium	-	58.5	50-8000	50	50	100	100	-	-	100	EPA LTHA
lead	-	10.6	-	25	50	15*****	15	-	-	-	-

g = guidance value
p = proposed MCL
s = secondary MCL

*Contaminant selected for further evaluation.
**Comparison value determined for a 70 kg adult who drinks 2 liters of water per day.
***EPA LTHA = US EPA Drinking Water Lifetime Health Advisory
EPA RfD = US EPA Reference Dose
EPA CPF = US EPA Cancer Potency Factor
****Applies to toal of 1,2- and 1,4-isomers.
*****The maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for lead is zero and the action level is 15 mcg/L at the tap.

Response to Public Questions and Concerns
Preferred Plating

This summary was prepared to answer questions and concerns from the public on the Preferred Plating draft Public Health Assessment. The public was invited to review the draft Public Health Assessment through a mailing to the site's contact list. The public review period was from March 31 to May 3, 1993 and responses were received by the New York State Department of Health. Similar comments may have been grouped together, and some comments may have been consolidated to incorporate several similar concerns raised by more than one person. We thank the staff of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SC DHS) for comments on the draft Public Health Assessment. The document has been revised based on their comments. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Nina Knapp of the Health Liaison Program at the toll-free number 1-800-458-1158, extension 402.

COMMENT #1

Was an investigation conducted to determine if those individuals with Hodgkin's Disease had an increased exposure of benzene in the workplace or at home?

RESPONSE #1

The study of 1992 Hodgkin's disease in ZIP codes 11701, 11735 and 11758 did not look at individual exposures to chemicals; it only compared incidence of cancer in the study area to the incidence rates in New York.

COMMENT #2

Since concern was raised about increased Hodgkins, it should be obvious that the ATSDR should follow statistics in the area for a rise in cancer, non-carcinogenic health disease, and Hodgkins.

RESPONSE #2

The study showed a similar incidence of Hodgkin's disease for areas of the state with similar population density. In addition, Hodgkin's cases were plotted on a map and there did not appear to be any clustering of the cases in the area. Finally, the number of people exposed to water which was contaminated from the site is small. It would be difficult to relate differences in disease incidence to the site since the exposed population is so small.

COMMENT #3

Since the VOC's were produced in 1951-1976, can't it be assumed that Suffolk County's wells and private wells were contaminated even before sampling occurred and the population was therefore exposed? If so, why is ATSDR HARP not recommending follow-up?

RESPONSE #3

The public health assessment has been revised to reflect new information regarding private wells. The public water supply wells which are downgradient of the Preferred Plating site have not been contaminated from the time sampling began. Because the wells tap the deep Magothy aquifer, it is unlikely that they were contaminated in the past.

COMMENT #4

Is there a time limit on investigation of private wells?

RESPONSE #4

Although the survey of private wells was conducted in 1993 and is believed to be accurate, neither NYS DOH nor SC DHS have placed a time limit on how long we will follow-up on newly identified wells or on information that wells may be present in a particular area. Any wells that are found will be sampled and the results will be evaluated for further action.

COMMENT #5

Should a warning be placed in the deed to the property which warns about contaminated soils and groundwater?

RESPONSE #5

We do not believe a deed notation is necessary because remedial measures, when complete, will adequately address contamination which is a concern for human health.

COMMENT #6

What can be done about stopping the release of 7,000 lbs. per year of Freon 113 from Napco Security Systems?

RESPONSE #6

For more information regarding permitted air releases, contact:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Region I
SUNY Campus
Loop Road, Building 40
Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
(516) 751-7900

COMMENT #7

Are the printed figures on Table 3, page 30, U.S. EPA Drinking Water Standards correct for organic compounds ethylbenzene, toluene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, and xylene.

RESPONSE #7

The information for these chemicals is correct in Table 3.

COMMENT #8

The method of communication announcing public meetings is inadequate for the target population involved.

RESPONSE #8

The NYS DOH is cooperating with US EPA to improve the dissemination of meeting notices to the public.

Table of Contents

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1825 Century Blvd, Atlanta, GA 30345
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348 

Department of Health and Human Services