FINAL RECORD OF DECISION COAL YARD STORAGE AREA · 2021. 1. 24. · final record of decision coal...
Transcript of FINAL RECORD OF DECISION COAL YARD STORAGE AREA · 2021. 1. 24. · final record of decision coal...
-
FINAL
RECORD OF DECISION
COAL YARD STORAGE AREA
OPERABLE UNIT
FORMER GRIFFISS AIR FORCE BASE
ROME, NEW YORK
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
AIR FORCE REAL PROPERTY AGENCY
DECEMBER 2011
-
-ii-
This page is intentionally left blank.
-
-iii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 DECLARATION .................................................................................................................1
1.1 Site Name and Location ...........................................................................................1
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose ...............................................................................1
1.3 Description of the Selected Remedy ........................................................................1
1.4 Statutory Determinations .........................................................................................3
1.5 Authorizing Signatures ............................................................................................4
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY .....................................................................................................5
2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description .....................................................................5
2.1.1 CYSA AOC .................................................................................................5
2.1.2 DRMO..........................................................................................................8
2.1.3 Pumphouse 5 ................................................................................................8
2.2 History and Enforcement Activities .........................................................................9
2.3 Community Participation for CSYA OU ...............................................................10
2.4 Scope and Role of Area of Concern ......................................................................11
2.5 Site Characteristics .................................................................................................11
2.5.1 CYSA AOC ...............................................................................................12
2.5.2 DRMO........................................................................................................26
2.5.3 Pumphouse 5 ..............................................................................................30
2.6 Current and Potential and Future Land and Resource Use ....................................36
2.7 Summary of Site Risks...........................................................................................37
2.8 Selected Remedies .................................................................................................41
2.9 Documentation of Significant Changes .................................................................42
3.0 RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY ....................................................................................43
4.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................47
5.0 GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................49
-
-iv-
FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 1 Land Use Controls – Coal Storage Yard Area Operable Unit ..........................................2
Figure 2 Location of Coal Storage Yard Operable Unit .................................................................6 Figure 3 Coal Storage Yard Operable Unit .....................................................................................7
Figure 4 CSYA Pre-Excavation Sample Locations ......................................................................13
Figure 5 AOI 66 Investigative and Confirmatory Sample Locations ...........................................21 Figure 6 CSYA Confirmatory Sample Locations .........................................................................22
Figure 7 AOI 66 Remedial Action ................................................................................................25
Figure 8 DRMO Pre-Closure and Screening Sample Locations ...................................................27 Figure 9 DRMO Exploratory Borings and Excavation Confirmatory Sample Locations ............29 Figure 10 Pumphouse 5 Sample Locations .....................................................................................32
Figure 11 Pumphouse 5 Excavation Confirmatory Sample Locations ...........................................33
TABLES
Page No.
Table 1 Coal Storage Yard Remedial Investigation Groundwater Sampling, Compounds Exceeding Standards and Guidance Values (August 1994) .............................................14
Table 2 Coal Storage Yard Remedial Investigation Drainage Swale Sediment Sampling, Compounds Exceeding Standards and Guidance Values .................................................15
Table 3 Coal Storage Yard Remedial Investigation Rainbow Creek Sediment Sampling, Compounds Exceeding Standards and Guidance Values .................................................17
Table 4 Coal Storage Yard Remedial Investigation Surface Soil Sampling, Compounds Exceeding Standards and Guidance Values (May 1994) .................................................18
Table 5 Coal Storage Yard Remedial Investigation Subsurface Soil Sampling, Compounds Exceeding Standards and Guidance Values (June 1994) .................................................19
Table 6 Coal Storage Yard Remedial Investigation Surface Water Sampling, Compounds Exceeding Standards and Guidance Values .....................................................................20
Table 7 Coal Storage Yard Area AOC Risk Assessment Scenarios and Exposures Pathways ......38
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 CSYA OU Excavation Layout, Confirmatory Sampling Locations, and
Sampling Result Figures
Attachment 2 Pumphouse 5 Source Removal AOC Long Term Monitoring Report (July
2004)
-
-v-
ACRONYMS
AFB Air Force Base
AOC Area of Concern
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
bgs below ground surface
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COPC Chemical of Potential Concern
CYSA Coal Yard Storage Area
DRMO Defense Reutilization Marketing Office
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FFA Federal Facility Agreement
ft feet
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
IRA Interim Remedial Action
IRP Installation Restoration Program
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
µg/kg micrograms per kilogram
µg/L micrograms per liter
MIP membrane interface probe
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NEADS Northeast Air Defense Sector
NYANG New York Air National Guard
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OWS oil/water separator
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls
PID photoionization detector
ppm parts per million
-
-vi-
ACRONYMS (continued)
RBCs Risk-Based Concentrations
RI Remedial Investigation
ROD Records of Decision
SAC Strategic Air Command
SCGs Standards, Criteria, and Guidance Values
SD Surface Drainage
SI Supplemental Investigation
STARS Spill Technology and Remediation Series
SVI Soil Vapor Intrusion
SVOC semi-volatile organic compound
TAGM Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum
TAL target analyte list
TAPP Technical Assistance for Public Participation
TBC to be considered
TCLP Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
UST underground storage tank
UXO Unexploded Ordnance
VOC volatile organic compound
VMPs vapor monitoring points
-
-1-
1.0 DECLARATION
1.1 Site Name and Location
The Coal Yard Storage Area (CYSA) Operable Unit (OU) is located at the former Griffiss Air
Force Base (AFB), Rome, Oneida County, New York. The OU includes the CSYA Area of
Concern (AOC) [site designation Spill Site (SS)-33], the Defense Reutilization Marketing Office
(DRMO) area, and the Pumphouse 5 Source Removal AOC [site designation Storage Tanks
(ST)-37].
1.2 Statement of Basis and Purpose
This Record of Decision (ROD) presents the selected remedial alternative for the CYSA OU at
the former Griffiss AFB in Rome, New York. It has been developed in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, as amended, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 C.F.R. Part 300. This decision is
based on the Administrative Record for this site, a copy is available on-line at
https://afrpaar.lackland.af.mil/ar.
The remedy for Land-use Controls/Institutional Controls (LUC/ICs) for the CYSA AOC and
DRMO and No Further Action for Pumphouse 5 has been selected by the United States Air
Force (Air Force) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with
concurrence from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
pursuant to the former Griffiss AFB Federal Facility Agreement (FFA).
1.3 Description of the Selected Remedy
CYSA AOC and DRMO West
The Selected Remedy of LUC/ICs for the CYSA AOC and DRMO West is protective of human
health and the environment and complies with the federal and state applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). The Interim Remedial Action (IRA) conducted in 1997 at
the CSYA AOC, Area of Interest (AOI) 66, and DRMO removed all soil contamination to soil
cleanup objectives. PCB contamination remained in Rainbow Creek sediments following the
1997 IRA; however, the entire length of the creek was culverted in 2008 and 2009. The
LUC/ICs, as illustrated in Figure 1, include:
Development and use of the areas (within site boundaries) for residential housing, elementary and secondary schools, and childcare facilities and playgrounds will be
prohibited unless prior approval is received from the Air Force, EPA, and NYSDEC.
The owner or occupant of the property shall not extract, utilize, consume, or permit to be extracted, any water from the subsurface aquifer within the boundary of the site unless
https://afrpaar.lackland.af.mil/ar
-
DRMO
CoalStorageArea
AOI 66
Rainbow
Creek
Culvert
Former Bu
ilding 771
Pumphou
se 5
Figure 1Land Use Controls - Coal Storage Yard AreaOperable Unit
- 2 -
LegendAirfield/RoadRainbow Creek (Culvertedin 2008 and 2009)
Demolished FacilitiesExisting Facilities
LUC/IC Boundary - Subsurface Soil Relocation RestrictionLand-Use Restriction - Industrial/Commercial/Non-ResidentialGroundwater Consumption - Prior ApprovalAdverse Aquifer Use Prohibited
No LUC/IC (NFA)LUC/IC Boundary - Rainbow Creek Restriction
³0 80 160 24040 Feet
-
-3-
such owner or occupant obtains prior written approval from the New York State
Department of Health.
The owner or operator will restrict the relocation of contaminated soils greater than 1 foot bgs within the subsurface soil relocation restricted area from being placed outside the
restricted area boundaries. If the contaminated soil greater than 1 foot bgs is to be
excavated, it must remain on site, stay covered if stockpiled, and covered by a minimum
of 1 foot of clean fill once it is returned to the ground. Prior to any digging within the soil
restricted area boundary, the owner/operator will notify all workers performing such work
of these restrictions. The owner/operator will notify the Air Force of any digging
activities that take place within the restricted area.
The owner or operator will restrict the relocation of contaminated soil below the geotexile fabric located in the subsurface of the former ―Rainbow Creek‖. If soil is disturbed below
the fabric, it will remain on site covered while stockpiled and will return to the ground
with a geotexile fabric cover and covered with a minimum of 12-inches of clean soil.1
The LUC/ICs will be implemented, monitored and enforced by the Air Force.
Pumphouse 5 and DRMO East
The Selected Remedy for No Further Action for DRMO East and Pumphouse 5 is protective of
human health and the environment and complies with the federal and state ARARs. A removal
action conducted in 1997 and the IRA conducted in 1999 removed all soil contamination at the
Pumphouse 5 site. LTM including groundwater and surface water sampling indicated that
contamination was absent at the site.
1.4 Statutory Determinations
The Air Force and EPA, with concurrence from the NYSDEC, have determined that the remedy
for LUC/ICs for CYSA AOC and DRMO and No Further Action for Pumphouse 5 is warranted
for this site.
1 In 2008 and 2009, the entire creek was culverted. Geotexile fabric was reinstalled above the relocated soils.
-
1.5 Authorizing Signatures : '
On the basis of the remedial investigations and successfully completed removal actions performed at the CSYA OU, there is no evidence that residual contamination at the OU poses a current or future potential threat to human health or the environment. The NYSDEC has concurred with the Selected Remedy presented in this Record of Decision.
ROBERT M. MOORE Date Director Air Forc&^eal Property Agency
& A '/i CD, ^ J 2 ^
WALTER E. MUGDAN Date Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
.4-
-
-5-
2.0 DECISION SUMMARY
2.1 Site Name, Location, and Description
The former Griffiss AFB covered approximately 3,552 contiguous acres in the lowlands of the
Mohawk River Valley in Rome, Oneida County, New York. Topography within the valley is
relatively flat, with elevations on the former Griffiss AFB ranging from 435 to 595 feet above
mean sea level. Three Mile Creek, Six Mile Creek (both of which drain into the New York State
Barge Canal, located to the south of the base), and several state-designated wetlands are located
on the former Griffiss AFB, which is bordered by the Mohawk River on the west. Due to its
high average precipitation and predominantly silty sands, the former Griffiss AFB is considered
a groundwater recharge zone.
2.1.1 CYSA AOC
The CSYA AOC is an approximately 3-acre area located in the central portion of the former
AFB (see Figures 2 and 3). The AOC consists of the CSYA, Rainbow Creek, and AOI 66. The
CSYA was originally proposed as the location of a new coal storage facility.
This site was a DRMO salvage yard/landfill from the 1940s into the 1980s. Incidents of
chemical releases directly onto the soil surface have been reported. Unknown quantities of scrap
drums and transformers may have been disposed of at this site and several hundred drums of
pesticides were reportedly stored at this site in the 1970s. The primary contaminants of concern
are PCBs. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and
metals were also present.
Surface water drainage from this AOC enters a drainage swale that leads to the drainage ditch
informally referred to as "Rainbow Creek" and ultimately flows into Six Mile Creek
approximately 6,000 feet east of the site. Rainbow Creek was culverted in 2008 and 2009.
AOI 66 was identified during the AOI screening process. Based on aerial photography, it was
determined that the DRMO area extended south of the CSYA. As a result, the southern part of
the DRMO area was investigated as AOI 66 in order to address the entire former DRMO area.
Much of the area is covered with a concrete coal storage pad and the remaining area is grass-
covered with a relatively flat topography. The northern portion of the site included a 375-foot
railroad spur.
Groundwater in this area flows in a northeasterly direction toward a storm water drain, which
drains eastward into the Rainbow Creek culvert. The depth to groundwater ranges from 5 to 15
feet below ground surface (bgs). The soils are generally silty fine sand, with gravel at the
western and eastern ends of the area, and sandy gravel in the center of the area. The deeper soils
are generally gravelly silt.
-
Site Detail
³
1,800 0 1,800900Feet
Coal Storage Yard AreaOperable Unit
Figure 2Location of Coal Storage Yard Area Operable Unit- 6 -
-
1
- 7 -
Figure 3 Coal Storage Yard Operable Unit
-
-8-
2.1.2 DRMO The DRMO area is located in the southeast industrial portion of the former Griffiss AFB, northeast of the CSYA (see Figure 3). From the late 1950s until 1997, the DMRO area was used as a salvage/storage yard. Contaminated soil containing SVOCs, metals, and PCBs was known to be present at the site. Historical documents also revealed the possibility that Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) may have been stored at the site. The topography at the DRMO area is generally flat with approximately 3 to 4 feet of relief over the site. The soil consists of mainly coarse sandy gravel to a depth of one foot. The surface water drainage from this area enters the Rainbow Creek culvert, which borders the DRMO site on the north, west and south sides. Pre-closure sampling and delineation activities were reported to EPA and NYSDEC in the RI for the DRMO area in 1998. The Final Closeout Report describing the interim remedial actions was submitted in May 1999. 2.1.3 Pumphouse 5 The Pumphouse 5 Source Removal AOC is located in the southeast portion of the former Griffiss AFB, approximately 100 feet northwest of aircraft parking Apron 1 (see Figure 3). The Pumphouse 5 Source Removal AOC (ST-37) included Pumphouse 5, also known as Building 771, and the fueling/defueling system components and associated appurtenances. This AOC is situated in a primarily flat, grassy area on the southeast side of Rainbow Creek. From the late 1950s until 1997, Pumphouse 5 received and distributed fuel from buried lines that entered the AOC on the southeast side and extended toward parking Apron 1. This AOC contained four 50,000-gallon underground storage tanks (USTs), one 2,000-gallon collection UST connected to the pump room on the northwestern side of Pumphouse 5, two valve pits, and underground piping. The four 50,000-gallon USTs were used to store and distribute JP-4 jet fuel. The 2,000-gallon UST was used to store waste jet fuel, separator waste, and liquid collected from the pumphouse floor drain. The two valve pits, one shallow and one deep, were also located on the northwestern side of Pumphouse 5. Each pit contained one valve and a 2-foot crushed stone bottom over soil. Three large spills have occurred in the vicinity of Pumphouse 5 since 1977. On March 4, 1977, a Class III JP-4 spill (fuel spill over 50 sq. ft. in area) occurred when fuel was released due to a KC-135 aircraft fire at aircraft parking Apron 1. Griffiss AFB personnel indicated that the fuel release was discharged off site and that the spilled fuel did not reach Pumphouse 5. On June 26, 1989, free product was observed during sampling of monitoring wells, which was assigned NYSDEC Spill #8903144. As a result of this spill report, the four 50,000-gallon USTs were subjected to tightness testing, but no leaks were detected. On February 18, 1991, a Class III JP-4 spill (Spill #9012023) occurred south of Pumphouse 5 near the paved access road. The spill was cleaned up with absorbent material and closed on February 19, 1991. The former
-
-9-
2,000-gallon UST was connected to Pumphouse 5 by a pipe from the pumphouse fuel filter drain
and floor drain. Fuel was pumped from the tank on a regular basis. Incidents of overfilling,
including undocumented spills to the surface as well as leaks to the subsurface, were reported by
Griffiss AFB. This UST was reported to be in use until July 1993, when the pumphouse was
deactivated and each of the USTs was drained.
Undocumented spills associated with the drain and valve pits, formerly located northwest of the
pumphouse, were also reported during the deactivation activities. The pits were used for
isolation of diversion valves for UST operation. The fuels management staff at Griffiss AFB
periodically recovered product in the pits using absorbent cloths. Six 55-gallon drums of fuel
and groundwater were removed from the deep valve pit in early 1994.
In July 1994, a leak was discovered in the pipe that ran from the pumphouse floor drain and fuel
filter drain to the 2,000-gallon UST. This spill was assigned NYSDEC Spill #9404435. As a
result, the piping was removed and the soils surrounding the piping were noticeably
contaminated with fuel. The drainpipe was subsequently disconnected from the building, and
pumphouse floor drains were filled with concrete. NYSDEC Spill #9404435 was closed on
October 23, 1998.
The site-specific geology in the vicinity of Pumphouse 5 is characterized by soils consisting of
mainly silty, fine- to medium-grained sand near the water table with intermittent areas of clay
and gravel. The groundwater is presumably under compacted silts and a shallow clay layer
ranging from several inches to up to 7 feet thick. Groundwater flows northwest toward Rainbow
Creek. The depth to groundwater ranges from 14 and 19 feet bgs. Surface water discharges into
Rainbow Creek.
2.2 History and Enforcement Activities
The Former Griffiss AFB Operational History
The mission of the former Griffiss AFB varied over the years. The base was activated on
February 1, 1942, as Rome Air Depot, with the mission of storage, maintenance, and shipment of
material for the U.S. Army Air Corps. Upon creation of the U.S. Air Force in 1947, the depot
was renamed Griffiss Air Force Base. The base became an electronics center in 1950, with the
transfer of Watson Laboratory Complex (later Rome Air Development Center [1951], Rome
Laboratory [1990], and then the Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate [1997],
established with the mission of accomplishing applied research, development, and testing of
electronic air-ground systems). The 49th Fighter Interceptor Squadron was also added. The
headquarters of the Ground Electronics Engineering Installations Agency was established in June
1958 to engineer and install ground communications equipment throughout the world.
On July 1, 1970, the 416th Bombardment Wing of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was
activated with the mission of maintenance and implementation of both effective air refueling
operations and long-range bombardment capability.
-
-10-
Griffiss AFB was designated for closure and realignment under the Base Realignment and
Closure Act in 1993 and 1995, resulting in deactivation of the 416th Bombardment Wing in
September 1995. The Information Directorate at Rome Research Site and the Northeast Air
Defense Sector (NEADS) will continue to operate at their current locations; the New York Air
National Guard (NYANG) operated the runway for the 10th Mountain Division deployments
until October 1998, when they were relocated to Fort Drum; and the Defense Finance and
Accounting Services has established an operating location at the former Griffiss AFB.
Environmental Background
As a result of the various national defense missions carried out at the former Griffiss AFB since
1942, hazardous and toxic substances were used and hazardous wastes were generated, stored, or
disposed at various sites on the installation. The defense missions involved, among others,
procurement, storage, maintenance, and shipping of war material; research and development; and
aircraft operations and maintenance.
Numerous studies and investigations under the U.S. Department of Defense Installation
Restoration Program have been carried out to locate, assess, and quantify the past toxic and
hazardous waste storage, disposal, and spill sites.
These investigations included a records search in 1981, interviews with base personnel, a field
inspection, compilation of an inventory of wastes, evaluation of disposal practices, and an
assessment to determine the nature and extent of site contamination; Problem Confirmation and
Quantification studies (similar to what is now designated a Site Investigation) in 1982 and 1985;
soil and groundwater analyses in 1986; a base-wide health assessment in 1988 by the U.S. Public
Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR); base-specific
hydrology investigations in 1989 and 1990; a groundwater investigation in 1991; and site-
specific studies and investigations between 1989 and 1995. The ATSDR issued a Public Health
Assessment for Griffiss AFB, dated October 23, 1995, and an addendum, dated September 9,
1996.
Pursuant to Section 105(a)(8)(B) of CERCLA, Griffiss AFB was included on the National
Priorities List on July 15, 1987. On August 21, 1990, the agencies entered into a FFA under
Section 120 of CERCLA.
2.3 Community Participation for CSYA OU
A proposed plan for the CYSA OU (AFRPA, February 2011), proposing LUC/ICs, was released
to the public on February 17, 2011. The document was made available to the public in the
Information Repository available on-line at https://afrpaar.lackland.af.mil/ar.
The notice of the availability of these documents was published in the Rome Daily Sentinel
Newspaper on February 16, 2011. A 30-day public comment period was held from February 17,
2011 to March 19, 2011 to solicit public input on the final Proposed Plan for the CYSA OU.
During this period, the public was invited to review the Administrative Record and comment on
the preferred alternative being considered.
https://afrpaar.lackland.af.mil/ar
-
-11-
In addition, Griffiss AFB hosted a public meeting on March 10, 2011 at the Griffiss Institute
located at 725 Daedalian Drive, Rome, New York 13441. The date and time of the meeting was
published in the Rome Daily Sentinel Newspaper. At the meeting, the Air Force provided data
gathered at the AOC, the preferred alternative, and the decision-making process. The meeting
provided the opportunity for the community to comment officially on the plan. The public
meeting was recorded and transcribed, and a copy of the transcript was added to the
Administrative Record.
During the proposed plan public comment period, one comment was received by the Technical
Assistance for Public Participation Subcommittee. These comments are provided in the
Responsiveness Summary (Section 3.0). Once this ROD is signed, notice of availability will be
published in the Rome Daily Sentinel Newspaper; and it will be available for public inspection
and copying on-line at https://afrpaar.lackland.af.mil/ar pursuant to 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 300.430(f)(6).
2.4 Scope and Role of Area of Concern
The CYSA OU is one of several areas administered under the Griffiss AFB Installation
Restoration Program (IRP). The CYSA OU includes both previously contaminated soil in the
unsaturated zone (vadose zone) and contaminated groundwater. LUC/ICs are recommended for
the CYSA AOC, AOI 66, and western portion of the DRMO (See Section 1.3). The CSYA OU
will also be included in future former Griffiss AFB 5-Year Reviews for CERCLA sites. The 5-
Year Review will not include the eastern portion of the DRMO and Pumphouse 5 as no further
action is recommended.
The 1997 and 1999 IRAs for CYSA AOC, DRMO, and Pumphouse 5 removed the majority of
soil contamination found during the previous investigations. The remaining contaminants in the
unsaturated soil are below site-specific soil cleanup objectives and do not pose a risk for
continued groundwater contamination. The entire length of Rainbow Creek was culverted in
2008 and 2009 and additional PCB contamination monitoring is addressed under the Six Mile
Creek Long-term Monitoring (LTM) program. LTM at Pumphouse 5 confirmed the absence of
groundwater and surface water contamination at the site.
2.5 Site Characteristics
Site activities related to storage of hazardous/non-hazardous wastes within the vicinity of the
CYSA AOC, AOI 66, and DRMO have resulted in contaminated soil, surface water, and
sediments at the OU at levels above applicable SCGs. Additionally, site activities including
aircraft fueling operations at Pumphouse 5 have results in contaminated soils, surface water and
groundwater. Various actions undertaken at the OU have removed the sources of groundwater
and soil contamination. Past investigations, removal actions, and the IRA at the CYSA AOC are
presented in Section 2.5.1. Past investigations, removal actions, and the IRA at the DRMO are
presented in Section 2.5.2. Past investigations, 1997 removal action, the 1999 IRA, groundwater
https://afrpaar.lackland.af.mil/ar
-
-12-
and surface water monitoring, and the Soil Vapor Intrusion (SVI) Evaluation at Pumphouse 5 are
presented in Section 2.5.3.
2.5.1 CYSA AOC
2.5.1.1 Previous Investigations
In the 1980s, the CSYA was proposed as the location of a new coal storage yard. In 1988, prior
to establishing this lot as a new location for coal storage, PCBs were detected in soil at one part
of the AOC during routine soil testing. A preliminary soil investigation, which included 12 soil
borings, was performed in 1989. At one soil boring location, the soil/fill material collected at
approximately 2 feet bgs exhibited an odor similar to petroleum solvents. Three composite soil
samples were collected from depths of 0-6 inches bgs and 18-24 inches bgs. The analytical
results indicated the presence of PCBs, metals, and VOCs. During the advancement of
geotechnical borings, a buried container was penetrated, causing an unknown green gas to
emanate from the borehole, which overwhelmed a worker at the site.
In 1994, an RI was performed to investigate the nature and extent of environmental
contamination from historical releases at the AOC and determine whether any remedial action
was necessary to prevent potential threats to human health and the environment. As part of the
RI, a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey was performed to evaluate disposal areas and to
identify potential drilling hazards. Several strong point sources, indicative of buried metallic
objects, were detected in the survey area. In addition, a passive soil gas survey was performed at
37 sampling points. This survey indicated the presence of VOCs at 26 points. Field sampling
for the RI included the collection and analysis of five groundwater samples, six sediment
samples from two locations in the drainage swale to the north of the site, four surface water
samples from Rainbow Creek, eight sediment samples from five locations in Rainbow Creek,
and 16 surface soil samples (see Figure 4). In addition, five groundwater monitoring wells were
drilled, installed, and developed. Fifteen soil samples were collected from the monitoring well
borings. The samples collected during the RI field sampling were analyzed for a comprehensive
list of analytical parameters. In the discussion below, "most stringent criteria" and ―site-specific
clean-up goals‖ refer to the lowest values among all identified federal and state standards that
have been identified as ARARs at the site or in other federal and state advisories, guidance and
standards referred to as To-Be-Considereds (TBCs).
Analysis of the groundwater samples indicated the presence of eight VOCs, four SVOCs, 13
pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, glycols, and 19 metals. The concentrations of one SVOC,
one pesticide, and nine metals exceeded the most stringent criteria (see Table 1).
Analysis of the drainage swale sediment samples indicated the presence of five VOCs, 21
SVOCs, 17 pesticides/PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, and 24 metals. The concentrations of 14
SVOCs, seven pesticides, two PCBs, and 10 metals exceeded the most stringent criteria (see
Table 2).
Analysis of the Rainbow Creek sediment samples indicated the presence of five VOCs, 25
SVOCs, 22 pesticides/PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, and 23 metals. The concentrations of one
-
- 13 -
Figure 4 CSYA Pre-Excavation Sample Locations
-
CompoundRange of Detected
Concentrations
NYSDEC Class GA Groundwater
Standard (Frequency of Detection Above
Standard)
NYSDEC Class GA Groundwater Guidance Value (Frequency of
Detection above Guidance Values)
EPA Federal Secondary Maximum Contaminant
Level (Frequency of Detection above Level)
EPA Region III risk-based concentration for tap water (Frequency of
Detection above risk-based concentration)
SVOCs (µg/L)0.002 a NA NA NA(1/5)
0.004 a NA NA NA(1/5)
Metals (mg/L)NA NA 0.05 c NA
(2/5)0.025 a NA NA NA(1/5)
1 a NA NA NA(1/5)
0.3 a NA NA NA(3/5)
NA 35 b NA NA(1/5)
0.3 a NA NA NA(5/5)
20 a NA NA NA(1/5)
NA NA NA 22 d
(1/5)0.0005 b 0.0005 b NA NA
(2/5) (2/5)
GROUNDWATER SAMPLES, AUGUST 1994
J = Estimated concentration.D = Diluted sample.
Table 1COMPOUNDS EXCEEDING STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE VALUESCOAL STORAGE YARD REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SAMPLING
d EPA Region III risk-based concentration for tap water, April 1996.
Key:
a NYSDEC Class GA groundwater standard, June 1998.b NYSDEC Class GA groundwater guidance value; June 1998.c EPA federal secondary maximum contaminant level.
Benzo(b)fluoranthene 0.03 J
Dieldrin 0.01 J
Pesticides/PCBs (µg/kg)
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Sodium
Aluminum 0.57 - 1.5 J
Arsenic
Barium
Strontium
Thallium
0.0013 J - 0.088
0.027 - 23.4
0.083 J - 3.1 J
8.05 - 143
0.349 J - 3.56
1.43 - 2,350
0.146 - 90.2
0.0007 J - 0.0033 J
- 14 -
-
Compound Range of Detected Concentrations
NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediments, Human Health
Bioaccumulation (Frequency of Detection of Above Guidance Values)
NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediments, Lowest Level, Sediment
Criteria for Metals (Frequency of Detection of Above Guidance Values)
Effect Range, Low (Frequency of Detection of Above Effect Range)
SVOCs (µg/kg)NA NA 70 d
(3/6)NA NA 16 d
(2/6)NA NA 85 d
(3/6)13 a,b NA NA(5/6)13 a,b NA NA(5/6)13 a,b NA NA(5/6)13 a,b NA NA(5/6)NA NA 63.4 d
(1/6)NA NA 600 d
(4/6)NA NA 19 d
(2/6)13 a,b NA NA(5/6)NA NA 160 d
(1/6)NA NA 240 d
(5/6)NA NA 665 d
(5/6)Pesticides/PCBs (µg/kg)
0.1 a,b NA NA(3/6)0.1 a,b NA NA(4/6)0.1 a,b NA NA(3/6)1 a,b NA NA(2/6)
0.01 a,b NA NA(3/6)1 a,b NA NA(3/6)
0.01 a,b NA NA(1/6)
0.008 a,b NA NA(1/6)
0.008 a,b NA NA(5/6)
NA 2.0 a,c NA(1/6)
NA 6.0 a,c NA(2/6)
NA 0.6 a,c NA(6/6)
NA 26 a,c NA(2/6)
NA 16 a,c NA(6/6)
NA 31 a,c NA(5/6)
NA 460 a,c NA(1/6)
NA 0.15 a,c NA(4/6)
NA 16 a,c NA(3/6)
NA 120 a,c NA(5/6)
J = Estimated concentration.
Metals (mg/kg)
a NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments, November 1993.b Human Health Bioaccumulation (assuming 1% organic carbon in sediment).c Lowest Effect Level, Sediment Criteria for Metals.d Effects Range - Low (Long, MacDonald, Smith, and Calder, 1995).
Arsenic
11.7 J
Table 2COMPOUNDS EXCEEDING STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE VALUES
COAL STORAGE YARD REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SAMPLESDRAINAGE SWALE SEDIMENT SAMPLES
* = 6 NYCRR Part 375 Environmental Remediation Programs Subparts 375-1 to 375-4 and 375-6Key:
Anthracene
Acenaphthene
2-Methylnaphthalen
300 J - 3,000 J
320 J - 2,200 J
310 J - 2,600
45 J - 1,500 J
150 J - 990
78 J - 510 J
Benzo(b)fluoranthen
Fluoranthene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthrac
Chrysene
Pyrene
Phenanthrene
Naphthalene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyr
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
200 J - 6,600
51 J - 1,100
250 J - 1,500 J
180 J - 1,100
350 J - 4,800
140 J
440 - 2,700
Fluorene
14.6 J - 50
10.2 J
570
101 J - 259
14.1 J - 72
151 - 540 J
1.5 J - 3.8 J
2.5 - 15
Dieldrin
alpha-Chlordane
Aldrin
4,4'- DDT
1,130 - 18,300PCB 1260
PCB 1254
gamma-Chlordane
22 - 56.6 J
Lead
4,4'- DDE
4,4'- DDD
350 J - 6,800
23.2 - 382Copper
Chromium 7 - 80.6 J
1.05 J - 17.4 JCadmium
25.9 J - 300
57 - 687
8.9 - 41.7
0.094 J - 1.17
136 - 898
Antimony
Zinc
Nickel
Mercury
Manganese
- 15 -
-
-16-
VOC, 20 SVOCs, two pesticides, two PCBs, and 9 metals exceeded the most stringent criteria
(see Table 3).
Analysis of the surface soil samples indicated the presence of four VOCs, 22 SVOCs, 11
pesticides/PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, and 23 metals. The concentrations of five SVOCs,
one pesticide, one PCB, and 12 metals exceeded the most stringent criteria (see Table 4).
Analysis of the subsurface soil samples indicated the presence of four VOCs, 21 SVOCs, eight
pesticides/PCBs, petroleum hydrocarbons, and 21 metals. The concentrations of six SVOCs, one
pesticide, one PCB, and 10 metals exceeded the most stringent criteria (see Table 5).
Analysis of the surface water samples indicated the presence of 16 VOCs, 18 SVOCs, 20
pesticides/PCBs, glycols, petroleum hydrocarbons, and 13 metals. The concentrations of two
VOCs, 10 SVOCs, seven pesticides, one PCB, and six metals exceeded the most stringent
criteria (see Table 6).
In 1997, soil samples were collected at AOI 66 at 15 boring locations at three depth intervals (see
Figure 5) and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and metals. Concentrations of
PCBs in shallow soils exceeded the most stringent criteria of 1,000 µg/Kg in five locations
(SB03 through SB07). These concentrations ranged from 1,100 to 20,000 µg/Kg.
2.5.1.2 Interim Remedial Action
Coal Storage Yard Area
In 1997, surface and subsurface PCB-contaminated soil exceeding the federal standards was
removed from the CSYA AOC along with all non-native fill material, including debris consisting
of concrete, wood, metal, and rubber. This Interim Remedial Action was performed assuming
industrial reuse. The contaminated soil was excavated and stockpiled pending characterization,
transportation, and disposal. Soils were initially excavated to a depth of 2 feet bgs. Following
the initial excavation event, confirmation samples were collected on 50-foot grid centers (see
Figure 6). Confirmation sample results at 17 grid locations (Grids 1 through 16 and 30, Figure
6) indicated the presence of PCB contamination above site-specific cleanup goals and state
recommended cleanup levels (1 ppm in the first 10 inches and 10 ppm below 10 inches). Round
2 of soil excavation was performed at these locations to 4 ft bgs and confirmation samples were
collected and analyzed. Confirmation sampling results showed two grids (Grid 15 and 30,
Figure 6) still contained PCB concentrations above site-specific cleanup goals and state
recommended cleanup levels. Two additional rounds of soil excavation and confirmatory
sampling were performed until site-specific cleanup goals and state recommended cleanup levels
for PCBs were achieved. The final depth of Grid 15 and 30 was 8 ft bgs.
A total of 25,922 tons of soil and debris were removed from the CSYA, with 3,046 tons
characterized as hazardous waste and 22,876 tons characterized as nonhazardous waste. The
hazardous waste was disposed of at the Chemical Waste Management, Inc., landfill in Model
City, New York. The nonhazardous waste was disposed of at the Seneca Meadows Landfill in
Waterloo, New York.
-
CompoundRange of Detected
Concentrations
NYSDEC Technical Guidance for
Screening Contaminated
Sediments (Frequency of Detection of Above
Guidance Values)
NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediments, Human Health
Bioaccumulation (Frequency of Detection
of Above Guidance Values)
NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediments, Benthic Aquatic Life
Chronic Toxicity (Frequency of Detection
of Above Guidance Values)
NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediments, Lowest
Level, Sediment Criteria for Metals (Frequency of
Detection of Above Guidance Values)
Lowest Effect Level (Frequency of
Detection of Above Effect Level)
Effect Range, Low (Frequency of
Detection of Above Effect Range)
0.06 a NA NA NA NA NA(1/8)
NA NA 5 a,c NA NA NA(1/8)
NA NA NA NA NA 70 e
NA (7/8)NA NA 5 a,c NA NA NA
(1/8)NA NA 6 a,c NA NA NA
(1/8)NA NA NA NA NA 16 e
(9/9)NA NA NA NA NA 44 e
(7/8)NA NA NA NA NA 85 e
(8/8)NA 13 a,b NA NA NA NA
(8/8)NA 13 a,b NA NA NA NA
(8/8)NA 13 a,b NA NA NA NA
(8/8)NA 13 a,b NA NA NA NA
8/8)NA NA 1,995 a,c NA NA NA
(2/8)NA 13 a,b NA NA NA NA
(8/8)NA NA NA NA NA 600 e
(8/8)NA NA NA NA NA 19 e
(8/8)NA 13 a,b NA NA NA NA
(8/8)NA NA NA NA NA 160 e
(8/8)NA NA NA NA NA 240 e
(8/8)NA NA 5 a.c NA NA NA
(1/8)NA NA NA NA NA 665 e
(8/8)
NA 0.1 a,b NA NA NA NA(2/8)
NA 0.008 a,b NA NA NA NA(4/8)
NA 0.008 a,b NA NA NA NA(8/8)
NA NA 0.01 a,c NA NA NA(8/8)
NA NA NA 6.0 a,d NA NA(2/8)
NA NA NA 0.6 a,d NA NA(4/8)
NA NA NA 26 a,d NA NA(4/8)
NA NA NA 16 a,d NA NA(8/8)
NA NA NA NA 31 d NA(8/8)
NA NA NA NA 460 d NA(1/8)
NA NA NA NA 0.15 d NA(3/8)
NA NA NA NA 16 d NA(4/8)
NA NA NA 120 a,d NA NA(7/8) NA
a NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments, November 1993.b Human Health Bioaccumulation (assuming 1% organic carbon in sediment).c Benthic Aquatic Life Chronic Toxicity (assuming 1% carbon in sediment).d Lowest Effect Level, Sediment Criteria for Metals.e Effects Range - Low (Long, MacDonald, Smith, and Calder, 1995).* = 6 NYCRR Part 375 Environmental Remediation Programs Subparts 375-1 to 375-4 and 375-6Key:J = Estimated concentration.
Arsenic
93.1 - 439
6.8 - 27.9
0.33 - 0.69
103 - 528
100 - 416
19.1 - 150
7.8 - 55.3
2.1 - 6.2
1.7 J - 8.8
Lead
Copper
Chromium
Cadmium
Zinc
Nickel
Mercury
Manganese
550 - 22,000Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Guthion (Azinphos-methyl)
PCB 1260
PCB 1254
4,4'- DDD 240 - 3,800 J
320 - 5,300
38 J - 8,200
140 J - 1,200
2600 - 130,000Phenanthrene
1400 J - 43,000Naphthalene
3100 - 87,000Pyrene
730 JPhenol
110 J
2100 - 46,000
260 J - 3,000 J
2800 J - 28,000
Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
1900 - 53,000
390 J - 25,000
160 J - 820 J
280 J - 22,000
Fluorene
Fluoranthene
320 J - 26,000
3900 - 92,000
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
3 JBenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
550 J
76 J - 15,000
340 J
1400 - 41,000
1600 - 34,000
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylphenol
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Anthracene
VOCs (µg/kg)
Table 3COMPOUNDS EXCEEDING STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE VALUES
COAL STORAGE YARD REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SAMPLESRAINBOW CREEK SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Metals (mg/kg)
Pesticides/PCBs (µg/kg)
SVOCs (µg/kg)
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
- 17 -
-
CompoundRange of Detected
Concentrations
NYSDEC TAGM 4046
Recommended Soil Cleanup
Objective (Frequency of Detection of
Above TAGMs)
Proposed RCRA Correction Action Levels (Frequency
of Detection of Above Action
Levels)
Proposed Site background screening
concentration (Frequency of Detection of
Above screening concentration)
EPA Region III Risk-based
concentraion for industrial soil (Frequency of Detection of
Above risk-based concentration)
6-NYCRR Part 375 Unrestricted Use Soil Cleanup
Objective* (Frequency of Detection of
Above Objectives)
SVOCs (µg/kg)200 a NA NA NA NA(3/10)224 a NA NA NA 1000(2/10) (1/10)61 a NA NA NA 1000
(8/10) (0/10)400 a NA NA NA 1000(5/10) (2/10)14 a NA NA NA 330
(2/10) (0/10)Pesticides/PCBs (µg/kg)
44 a NA NA NA 5(2/10) (2/10)
NA 90 b NA NA 100(9/10) (8/10)
NA NA 3.4 c NA NA(3/10)
NA NA NA 1.9 d 350(3/10) (0/10)
1.1 a NA NA NA 2.5(5/10) (3/10)
NA NA 23,821 c NA NA(4/10)
NA NA 43.8 c NA 50(4/10) (4/10)
NA NA 36.2 c NA 63(5/10) (4/10)
NA NA 7,175 c NA NA(1/10)
0.1 a NA NA NA 0.18(2/10) (1/10)
NA NA 1.1 c NA 2(2/10) (2/10)
NA NA 259 c NA NA(1/10)
NA NA 55 c NA NA(4/10)
NA NA 120 c NA 109(4/10) (4/10)
Table 4COMPOUNDS EXCEEDING STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE VALUES
COAL STORAGE YARD REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SAMPLESSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES, MAY 1994
Key:J = Estimated concentration.
Metals (mg/kg)
b Proposed RCRA Correction Action Levels (7/27/1990).c Site background screening concentration.d EPA Region III Risk-based concentration for industrial soil, 4/14/04.
a NYSDEC Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) 4046 Recommended Soil Cleanup Objective.
0.16 - 1
Zinc
Strontium
Sodium
Silver 3.4 - 4.7
161 - 260
4.8 - 232
40.2 - 12,900
Mercury
Cadmium 1.4 - 21.4
1680 - 289,000Calcium
Copper 9.1 - 763
10.2 - 143Lead
1810 - 11,600
42 J - 87
23 J - 330,000PCB 1260
Dieldrin
Magnesium
1.8 - 3.6
3.2 - 8.7
Arsenic
Antimony
44 J - 180 JDibenzo(a,h)anthracene
210 J - 900
86 J - 1,100
88 J - 1,000
100 J - 1,600Chrysene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
- 18 -
-
CompoundRange of Detected
Concentrations
NYSDEC TAGM 4046 Recommended Soil Cleanup Objective
(Frequency of Detection of Above TAGMs)
Proposed RCRA Correction Action
Levels (Frequency of Detection of Above
Action Levels)
Proposed Site background screening concentration
(Frequency of Detection of Above screening concentration)
EPA Region III Risk-based concentraion for
industrial soil (Frequency of Detection of Above
risk-based concentration)
6-NYCRR Part 375 Unrestricted Use Soil Cleanup Objective*
(Frequency of Detection of Above
Objectives)
224 a NA NA NA 1,000(8/15) (2/15)61 a NA NA NA 1,000
(6/15) (3/15)1,100 a NA NA NA 1,000(4/15) (4/15)1,100 a NA NA NA 800(2/15) (2/15)400 a NA NA NA 1,000(6/15) (4/15)14 a NA NA NA 330
(3/15) (0/15)
44 a NA NA NA 5(2/15) (3/15)NA 90 b NA NA 100
(8/15) (8/15)
NA NA 3.4 c NA NA(3/15)
NA NA NA 1.9 d 13(1/15) (0/15)
NA NA 23,821 c NA NA(8/15)
NA NA 43.8 c NA 50(4/15) (2/15)
NA NA 36.2 c NA 63(1/15) (0/15)
NA NA 7,175 c NA NA(1/15)
NA NA 259 c NA NA(1/15)
NA NA 55 c NA NA(5/15)
NA NA 0.5 c NA NA(1/15)
NA NA 120 c NA 109(1/15) (1/15)
SVOCs (µg/kg)
Table 5COMPOUNDS EXCEEDING STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE VALUES
COAL STORAGE YARD REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SAMPLESSUBSURFACE SOIL SAMPLES, JUNE 1994
J = Estimated concentration.
Metals (mg/kg)
Pesticides/PCBs (µg/kg)
b Proposed RCRA Correction Action Levels (7/27/1990).c Site background screening concentration.d EPA Region III Risk-based concentration for industrial soil, 4/14/04.
a NYSDEC TAGM 4046 Recommended Soil Cleanup Objective.
48 - 4,600
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
37 J - 270 JDibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Chrysene 69 J - 2,400 J
Key:
Arsenic 0.72 - 3.4
5 - 5.3
61 J - 2,200 JBenzo(a)pyrene
66 J - 2,300 JBenzo(a)anthracene
28 J - 2,100 JBenzo(k)fluoranthene
100 J - 3,100 J
149 - 294
2.2 J - 135
1.2 J
19 - 280
PCB 1260
Dieldrin
6 J - 39.6 J
8.2 J - 139 J
749 J - 104,000Calcium
Antimony
Sodium
Magnesium
Lead
Copper
5.9 J - 187Zinc
Thallium
Strontium
80.9 - 14,500
- 19 -
-
CompoundRange of Detected
Concentrations
Federal Aquatic Water Quality Criterion, for protection of
human health (Frequency of Detection of Above Quality
Criterion)
Federal Aquatic Water Quality Criterion, for protection of
aquatic organisms (Frequency of Detection of Above Quality
Criterion)
NYSDEC Surface Water Standard for protection of
aquatic organisms (Frequency of Detection of Above
Standard for protection)
0.66 a,b NA NA(2/4)
0.033 a,b NA NA(3/4)
NA NA 0.002 d
(1/4)0.003 a,b NA NA
(2/4)0.0028 a,b NA NA
(1/4)0.0028 a,b NA NA
(2/2)0.0028 a,b NA NA
(2/2)0.0028 a,b NA NA
(2/2)0.0028 a,b NA NA
(2/2)NA NA 0.002 d
(1/4)0.002 a,b NA NA
(1/4)NA NA 0.03 d
(0/1)
NA NA 0.0000006 d
(1/4)NA NA 0.005 d
(1/5)NA NA 0.001 d
(4/4)NA NA 0.001 d
(1/4)NA NA 0.001 d
(1/4)NA NA 0.001 d
(1/4)
NA 0.00072 a,c NA
(3/4)NA NA 1.0 d
(1/3)
NA NA 0.1 d
(2/4)NA 0.006 a,c NA
(1/4)NA NA 0.3 d
(2/4)NA NA 0.001 d
(2/4)0.05 a,b NA NA(4/4)NA NA 0.045 d
(2/4)
Table 6COMPOUNDS EXCEEDING STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE VALUES
COAL STORAGE YARD REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION SAMPLESSURFACE WATER SAMPLES
Key:J = Estimated concentration.
VOCs (µg/L)
SVOCs (µg/L)
Pesticides/PCBs (µg/L)
Metals (mg/L)
a Federal Aquatic Water Quality Criterion (AWQC), EPA 440/5-86-001, May 1, 1987.b AWQC for protection of human health.c AWQC for protection of aquatic organisms.d NYSDEC Surface Water Standard for protection of aquatic organisms (Class C).
Zinc 0.025 J - 0.051
3.5 - 6.8
1.1 - 3.6cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Benzene
Methoxychlor
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
gamma-Chlordane
Chrysene
0.077 J - 0.12 J
0.16 J
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
0.063Azinphos, Methyl (guthion)
Anthracene
alpha-Chlordane
0.024 J
0.1 J
0.0096
0.091 J - 0.17 J
0.055 J - 0.1 J
0.18 J - 0.22 J
0.002 J - 0.004 J
0.002 J
0.023 J - 0.025 J
0.011 J
4,4'- DDE
4,4'- DDT 0.014 J
0.002
0.003 J - 0.017 J4,4'- DDD
2.1PCB 1260
0.19 J - 0.24 J
0.02 JCopper
Aluminum
Heptachlor epoxide
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB)
Carbofuran 1.3
0.16 - 1.2 J
0.005 J - 0.008 J
0.26 - 0.71 JManganese
Lead
Iron
- 20 -
-
36
24
30 35
Concrete Pad
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
# # #
#
#
#
SB09
SB01
SB15
SB14
SB13
SB12
SB02
SB03
SB04
SB11 SB10
SB08
SB05
SB07
SB06
³
0 12060
Feet
Legend
Railroad
Airfield
Existing Roads
Demolished Facilities
# Soil Boring Sample (1997)FenceD
Existing Facilities
Figure 5 AOI 66 Investigative and Confirmatory Sample Locations
- 21 -
-
36
30 35
Drainag
e Swale
!!!
!!1
57
26082
!!!
46183
!!!
76284
!!!
106385
!!!
136486
!!!
166687
!!!
206788
!!!
246889
!!!
266990
! 56 ! 58!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
! ! ! ! ! !!
!!!
!
!
! ! ! !!! ! !
!! !!! !!
! !!!
!
!
! 65
9
812
11
8114
80
6515
19
18
17
79
23
22
27
26
32
31
21
78
33
7030
7725
37
36
38
43
42
44
40
74
4135
76
29
34
75 39
45
46
47
48
49
71
51
52
53
72
50
54
56
7355
AOI 66
DRMO
Rainbow Creek
FPM Group Ltd.This map (Y:\GIS_Projects\Griffiss\Projects\Misc\LUC-LUCIC\Coal_StorageYardArea_Culvert.mxd)
was produced on 10/20/2008
LegendRailroad
D D Fence LineRemoved RoadAirfield/Road
Rainbow Creek
Sidewall of Excavation SampleBottom of Excavation Sample
!
!
Demolished FacilitiesExcavation GridExcavation AreaExcavation Area - Round 2
Existing Facilities
0 12060
Feet
³
Figure 6 CSYA Confirmatory Sample Locations
- 22 -
-
-23-
The analytical results from the confirmation samples were compared with applicable state and
federal guidelines. Following review and approval of the results by EPA and NYSDEC, the Air
Force authorized backfilling of the excavated site with clean fill.
Pre- and post-excavation topographic surveys were conducted to record the extent of excavation
at the AOC. The AOC was restored to approximate pre-construction grades and appearance.
During the remedial action, nine exploratory trenches were excavated in the CSYA AOC to
locate suspected buried debris or drums. The locations were selected based on the anomalies
identified during the RI GPR survey. Trenches were excavated to the soil-groundwater interface
(5 feet bgs). The trenching operations did not reveal any additional metallic debris, and no
drums were found.
Rainbow Creek
Sediment excavation activities were conducted at Rainbow Creek based on a site-specific PCB
sediment cleanup goal of 0.036 mg/kg (NYSDEC Technical Guidance for Screening
Contaminated Sediments, November 1993) in 1997. The creek was temporarily diverted and the
upper 1-foot of sediment was excavated over a 1,900-foot length. The excavated sediment was
stockpiled adjacent to the creek, dewatered, and characterized prior to transportation and
disposal. A total of 4,144 tons of sediment were disposed of as nonhazardous waste at the
Seneca Meadows Landfill in Waterloo, New York.
Following sediment excavation, confirmation samples were collected and analyzed, and the
results were compared to the site-specific cleanup goal. PCB concentrations in remaining
sediments exceeded the cleanup goal in 30 of 39 locations. In 1998, as part of the Supplemental
Investigation of AOCs, two surface water samples were collected from the outfalls of two storm
sewers at the headwaters of Rainbow Creek and one surface water sample was collected from
Rainbow Creek using the passive in-situ chemical extraction sampler (PISCES) method. All
samples were analyzed for pesticides and PCBs. No pesticides or PCBs were detected in the
samples from the storm sewers. Several pesticides were detected in the surface water sample
from Rainbow Creek; however, no PCBs were detected.
Rainbow Creek was restored by lining the entire creek bed with a geotextile fabric and
placement of 1 foot of crushed stone bedding to provide a barrier between contaminated
sediments and surface water. Riprap material was placed 50 feet upstream and downstream of
culverts to provide erosion control during periods of high water velocity. Regrading and seeding
were performed where necessary.
All of the water that was generated during the soil and sediment excavations, dewatering of
sediments, and decontamination activities, was collected, treated, and discharged to the City of
Rome Publicly-Owned Treatment Works.
Sampling results from the Six Mile Creek Long Term Monitoring program confirmed PCB
contamination in the sediments of Rainbow Creek. However, the entire length of Rainbow
Creek was culverted in 2008 and 2009 and geotextile fabric was reinstalled above the relocated
-
-24-
soils. The culvert eliminates the source of discharge by preventing surface water contact with
residual contaminated soils and sediments; reducing the potential for additional contamination
migration to downstream receptors in Six Mile Creek. Monitoring of PCB contamination is
being conducted in accordance with the Six Mile Creek Record of Decision. Any trends of
concern attributed to any of the contributing environmental sites are being evaluated as part of
the Six Mile Creek Long Term Monitoring Program. EPA, NYSDEC, NYSDOH and the Air
Force will review the data generated during the Long Term Monitoring program to determine
whether any additional actions are necessary. If the results of the long-term monitoring indicate
that fish tissue levels are not declining or the ecological community is not recovering, additional
investigation or remediation may be necessary.
AOI 66
Data collected in 1997 from soil boring sample locations throughout AOI 66 and post-excavation
confirmatory soil sidewall samples from the south sidewall of the CSYA excavation were used
as the basis for the 1998-1999 remedial activities at AOI 66. The remedial action objective was
to reduce the exposure to contaminants to acceptable levels through excavation and removal of
contaminated soil and debris.
Initial work involved removal of the railroad spur and 4-inch thick concrete skid pad located
adjacent to the railroad tracks (see Figure 7). The concrete was stockpiled on the alert apron to
be disposed of with the soil samples.
During the initial round (Round 1) of excavation, surface soil was excavated to a depth of 1-foot
bgs with the exception of the railway and the areas of buried debris (Figure 7). Along the
railway, the total depth of excavation was 3.5 feet bgs due to 2.5 feet of ballast and sub-ballast
that was removed. Buried debris found in the northeast portion of the site between the coal
storage pad and the railroad was excavated to a depth of 3 feet bgs. Confirmatory soil samples
were collected from the bottom and sidewalls of the excavation as illustrated on Figure 7. The
results were compared to TAGMs 4046 Recommended Soil Cleanup Objectives and Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 761.125 [c][4] requirements. Results from three confirmatory
sample locations (2-EB1, 1-SWA, and 12-SWA) showed PCB concentrations above the site-
specific cleanup goals and state recommended cleanup levels (1 ppm in the first 10 inches and 10
ppm below 10 inches). Round 2 of excavation was performed at the three locations. A second
round of confirmatory samples was conducted and results from one original sampling location
(12-SWA) still showed PCB levels above the site-specific cleanup goals and state recommended
cleanup levels. A third round of excavation was conducted at this location to 4 ft bgs.
Confirmatory samples were collected following the excavation and results showed PCB
concentrations below site-specific cleanup goals and state recommended cleanup levels and no
further excavation was performed.
A total of 2,925 tons of soil was removed from AOI 66, with 281 tons characterized as hazardous
waste and 2,644 tons characterized as nonhazardous waste. The hazardous waste was disposed
of at the Chemical Waste Management, Inc., landfill in Model City, New York. The
nonhazardous waste was disposed of at the Seneca Meadows Landfill in Waterloo, New York.
-
36
30 35
Concrete Pad
! !
!
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! ! !
!
!
!2 EB1/2
9-EB1
1-EB2 3-EB14-EB1
5-EB1
18-EB1
15-EB1
1-SWA
8-SWA
1-SWB
10-SWA 11-SWA
12-SWA/B/C
13-SWA
17-SWA
16-SWA
14-SWA
6-SWA
7-SWA
EB-16 EB-17
EB-18
³
0 12060
Feet
Legend
Railroad
Airfield
Existing Roads
Demolished Facilities
! Sidewall of Excavation Sample
FenceD
Existing Facilities
AOI 66 Excavation
! Exploratory Boring Sample
! Bottom of Excavation Sample
Figure 7 AOI 66 Remedial Action
- 25 -
-
-26-
Suspected unexploded ordnance (50 mm and 105 mm shell casings) found in the northeastern
portion of the site was later determined to be empty casings. They were placed in a 55-gallon
drum and transported to the Fort Drum UXO detachment for disposal.
As a result of metallic and ceramic debris identified during excavation (near original
confirmatory sample location 12-SWA), three exploratory borings (EB-16, EB-17, and EB-18)
were completed. No debris was encountered at the three locations and it was determined that the
debris was isolated to the area around 12-SWA.
The excavated areas were restored to pre-construction conditions with the placement of clean
backfill and topsoil, and revegetation. The railroad and concrete skid were reconstructed.
2.5.2 DRMO
2.5.2.1 Previous Investigation
In August 1996, nine pre-closure samples were collected from soil at the southwest corner of the
DRMO area (see Figure 8). Five of these samples were analyzed for PCBs, and all nine were
analyzed for metals and extractable organic halides (EOX). PCBs were detected at
concentrations above the most stringent criteria (1 mg/Kg) in two of the five samples. The PCB
exceedances were 1.7 mg/Kg and 11 mg/Kg. Metals and EOX were not detected above most
stringent criteria in any of the samples. Based on the percentage of samples with PCB
concentrations above the action levels of 1 ppm to a depth of 10 inches and 10 ppm at depths
greater than 10 inches, delineation of the PCB contamination at the DRMO area was
recommended.
From January to March 1997, a soil-screening sample boring investigation was conducted on the
western portion of the DRMO. Soil samples were initially collected at a depth of 1 foot and any
soil sample collected from previous investigations that exceeded the surface soil action level of 1
ppm was resampled at a depth of 2 feet. Additional samples were taken at a distance of 25 feet
in each direction from the original sample if it exceeded action levels. Samples were analyzed
on site and based on these results, additional samples were collected using the above approach
until on-site analytical results were below the most stringent criteria. A total of 80 soil borings
were installed (see Figure 8) and the greatest depth of contamination was at sample location
DRMO-DS11 where 10.1 ppm was measured at a depth of six to seven feet. Concentrations in
the soil ranged from non-detect to 584 ppm. The highest concentration was at sample location
DRMO-DS51A (depth 1 foot).
Exploratory borings were installed on the eastern portion of the DRMO site in October 1997 (see
Figure 9). A total of 27 borings were installed and samples were collected at 1-foot depth
intervals from 0 to 7 feet bgs and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and metals.
Analytical results indicated that the soil samples did not exceed the site-specific cleanup goals,
with the exception of four metals (arsenic, barium, calcium, and selenium) that exceeded site
background levels. The site background level for arsenic is 4.9 mg/Kg, 27 exceedances were
reported in this event ranging from 5 to 9.6 mg/Kg. The site background level for barium is 71
mg/Kg, one exceedance (110 mg/Kg) was reported in this event. The site background level for
-
1
Figure 8 DRMO Pre-Closure and Screening Sample Locations
- 27 -
-
-28-
calcium is 23,821 mg/Kg, exceedances reported in this event ranged from 26,000 to 77,000 mg/Kg. The site background level for selenium is 0.34 mg/Kg, one exceedance (0.35 mg/Kg) was reported in this event. Based on the exploratory sampling results, no further action was recommended at the eastern portion of the DRMO. 2.5.2.2 Interim Remedial Action In October 1997, an IRA was initiated on the western portion of the DRMO area. The initial round of excavation (see Figure 9) was based on previous sampling results. Soil was removed to a maximum depth of 7 feet bgs across the area. The contaminated soil was stockpiled pending characterization, transportation, and disposal. Confirmatory samples were collected on 50-foot grid centers and analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, and metals. Sampling results showed PCB concentrations exceeded the site-specific cleanup goals and state recommended cleanup levels in 2 out of 18 grid locations. Both exceedances were reported in samples collected in the western excavation. Aroclor 1260 was reported in the Grid 28 sample at 24,000 µg/Kg (site-specific cleanup goal and state recommended cleanup level was 1,000 µg/Kg). This grid is located in the northern portion of the excavation (Figure 9). Aroclor 1254 was reported in the Grid 2 sample at 3,100 µg/Kg site-specific cleanup goal and state recommended cleanup level was 1,000 µg/Kg). This grid is located in the southern portion of the excavation. In addition to the PCB exceedances, two metals were reported at concentrations above the site-specific cleanup goals. Barium was reported in three samples with concentrations ranging from 72 to 99 mg/Kg (the site-specific cleanup goal was 71 mg/Kg). Arsenic was reported in eight samples with concentrations ranging from 6.1 to 7.6 mg/Kg (site-specific cleanup goal was 4.9 mg/Kg). The metals exceedances were not reported in the same grids as the PCB exceedances. There were no VOC and SVOC concentrations reported above the site-specific clean-up goals during the confirmatory sampling event. As a result of the PCB concentrations detected during the initial confirmatory sampling round, additional soil excavation was conducted at both grid locations as illustrated in Figure 8. Following the excavation, two confirmatory soil samples were collected. Results showed that all PCB concentrations were below the site-specific cleanup goals and state recommended cleanup levels. A total of 5,318 tons of soil was excavated and removed from the DRMO area. All of the soil was characterized as nonhazardous and was transferred to the Seneca Meadows Landfill in Waterloo, New York. No armed UXO was discovered during the excavation activities. However, empty casing and cartridges were recovered, placed in a 55-gallon drum, and transported to the Fort Drum UXO detachment for disposal. Restoration of the DRMO area included placement of clean backfill and topsoil and re-vegetation. Backfill was spread and compacted to a depth four inches below final grade. Disturbed areas were covered with topsoil to a depth of four inches, seeded, fertilized and mulched.
-
1
Figure 9 DRMO Exploratory Boring and Excavation Confirmatory Sample Locations
- 29 -
-
-30-
2.5.3 Pumphouse 5
2.5.3.1 Previous Investigation
In March 1989, a soil gas survey was conducted at the Pumphouse 5 AOC. During the soil gas
survey, 90 soil gas samples were collected from a depth of approximately 4 feet bgs and
analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX), and total volatile organic
hydrocarbons. Analytical results indicated the presence of significant petroleum contamination.
The detected BTEX concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 1,123 µg/L and the maximum
concentration for total petroleum hydrocarbons was 307 µg/L.
In July 1989, three monitoring wells were installed to the north and northwest of Building 771,
downgradient of USTs 771-1 and -3 (771MW-1, -2, and -3). Free product was observed in two
wells.
In the fall of 1991, a leak detection survey was conducted to analyze for leaks in the vicinity of
the four 50,000-gal USTs and the 21,000-foot long main hydrant system piping along parking
Apron 1. No leaks associated with these underground utilities were found.
In late November 1991, Tracer Corporation (TRC) performed additional soil gas surveys at the
AOC. A total of 85 soil gas survey points were installed to approximately 6 feet bgs. The soil
gas survey confirmed the suspected areas of contamination identified earlier by UNC Geotech.
The detected BTEX concentrations ranged from 0.1 to 15 µg/L. Free product, a light non-
aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL), was also measured in monitoring wells 771MW-1 and 771MW-
3 with thickness of respective 2.04 feet and 4.85 feet.
In December 1991, six additional monitoring wells (771MW-4 through 771MW-9) were
installed at the site. Free product was observed in monitoring wells 771MW-4 and 771MW-7
with a respective thickness of 0.01 foot and 5.80 feet.
In conjunction with the Base-wide Quarterly Sampling Program conducted from 1992 to 1993,
monitoring wells were sampled on a quarterly basis for one year. Samples were analyzed for
VOCs and SVOCs, pesticides/PCBs, total glycols, total metals, and cyanide. BTEX compounds
were the primary contaminants of concern, and were reported at concentrations above the
NYSDEC Class GA Groundwater Standards.
In February 1993, a flexible axial peristaltic (FAP) pump petroleum-skimming system was
installed to recover free product from four of the wells; the system was in operation for six
months and removed a total of 25 to 50 gallons of free product. During FAP monitoring in April
1993, a layer of fuel was discovered in a 4-foot by 4-foot valve pit. Approximately 300 gallons
of groundwater and fuel were pumped from the valve pit, located southwest of monitoring well
771MW-7. By October 1993, the product thickness in 771MW-7 was reduced to 0.82 feet using
the FAP pump.
-
-31-
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
An EE/CA was prepared in 1995 in support of the proposed removal actions at the Pumphouse 5
AOC, which included the following:
■ Demolition of the pumphouse;
■ Removal of each of the USTs and associated piping;
■ Recovery of free product from the groundwater surface via a free product recovery system, and
excavation and disposal of contaminated soil around Pumphouse 5.
Also in the spring of 1995, 15 soil borings were installed at the Pumphouse 5 site as part of the
EE/CA addendum. Soil samples were collected at 2-foot intervals and subjected to headspace
screening using a flame ionization detector. The results were used for additional delineation of
the contaminated plume area, and were incorporated into the remedial design for the
recommended removal area around Pumphouse 5. An addendum to the final EE/CA Report was
issued to EPA and NYSDEC on September 22, 1995, incorporating EPA and NYSDEC
comments. The boring locations were within the removal action boundaries performed in 1997
(Removal Action) and 1999 (Interim Remedial Action). These actions are further described
below.
Treatability Study and Pilot Test
In 1995, a treatability study was conducted at Pumphouse 5 to evaluate the use of natural
attenuation with LTM as a remedial option for dissolved BTEX contamination in the shallow
groundwater and the impact of free product and dissolved BTEX in the shallow groundwater and
in Rainbow Creek. BTEX was detected in water and sediment samples collected from the creek.
Modeling was used to estimate the rate and direction of dissolved BTEX movement through the
shallow groundwater. Results indicated that dissolved BTEX contamination present in the
groundwater posed no significant threat to human health or the environment in its present or
predicted future concentration and distribution. However, the migration of the contaminated
groundwater into Rainbow Creek could potentially exceed NYSDEC's Surface Water Quality
Standards in the Creek.
In 1996, a free product recovery pilot test to evaluate bioslurping technology was performed.
The test eliminated bioslurping as a cleanup option, but the results suggested that bioventing
might be feasible.
2.5.3.2 1997 Removal Action
In May 1997, a removal action was performed during which Pumphouse 5 was demolished and
the USTs were removed, along with their respective appurtenances and contaminated soil. An
estimated 18,619 tons of soil were removed and six of the nine existing monitoring wells were
removed. Three new monitoring wells (771MW-1A, -2A, and -3A) were installed within the
excavated area after the site was backfilled in July 1997 (see Figure 10). The extent of the
excavation is illustrated on Figure 11.
-
Figure 10 Pumphouse 5 Sample Locations
- 32 -
-
1
Figure 11 Pumphouse 5 Excavation Confirmatory Sample Locations
- 33 -
-
-34-
Prior to the excavation, an apparent thickness of up to 11 feet of free product was observed in
monitoring well 771MW-7; however, during the excavation, no free product was encountered or
removed. Based on the confirmation sampling results, residual soil contamination existed in the
subsurface soils. The excavation was discontinued, however, because the source of the
contaminants had been removed and the contract quantities had been exhausted. The excavated
pit was backfilled with clean fill.
2.5.3.3 1997 through 1998 AOC Investigations
An additional AOC investigation was performed in August and September 1997 to further
delineate the extent of the residual soil contamination in the vicinity of Pumphouse 5.
For this effort, 69 Geoprobe®
soil borings were installed and 129 soil samples were collected
from discrete intervals of 2 to 4 feet bgs, 6 to 8 feet bgs, and 14 to 16 feet bgs. When insufficient
soil was recovered, consecutive intervals were combined for analysis. Samples were analyzed
for VOCs and SVOCs, and compared to the STARS Memo No. 1 guidance values.
Thirty-three soil borings showed no exceedances of STARS guidance values for VOCs or
SVOCs, while 36 soil borings, generally found in the north and central areas of the AOC, had
one or more exceedance (generally for VOCs). The detected benzene concentrations were
reported up to 35 parts per million (ppm). In general, when benzene concentrations exceeded the
STARS guidance value, other VOCs were also found at concentrations exceeding their
respective STARS guidance values. The Geoprobe®
soil borings that showed soil contamination
were within the Interim Remedial Action excavation boundaries. The Interim Remedial Action
is further discussed below.
The areal distribution of soil contamination at the site was consistent with contaminant migration
toward the presumed groundwater discharge to Rainbow Creek. Soil contamination found below
the clean fill in the UST excavation area indicated that the removal action had been incomplete.
Downgradient soil contamination was found above and below the existing saturated zone; this
was likely the result of migrating groundwater contaminants and/or residual free product.
In April 1998, groundwater samples were collected from nine on-site monitoring wells (771MW-
1B, -2B, -3B, -4B, -5B, -6B, -1A, -2A, and -3A) and analyzed for VOCs and SVOCs. Results
indicated that four wells (771MW-3B, -4B, -1A, and -3A) contained at least nine VOCs at levels
above NYS Groundwater Standards. Free product was also encountered at 771MW-4B with an
apparent thickness of 0.6 feet. Additionally, naphthalene was found at levels the above NYS
Groundwater Standard at two wells (771MW-1A and -4B; see Figure 10).
Also in April 1998, surface water samples were collected from three locations in Rainbow Creek,
including five seep samples upgradient, adjacent to, and/or downgradient of the site, and one
surface water sample collected from the middle of the creek downstream of the site. Samples
were submitted for analysis of VOCs, SVOCs, and at two locations, PCBs. Benzene was found
at levels at or exceeding ARARs at the three seep sample locations collected in the vicinity of the
site and the downstream mid-creek sample. No SVOCs or PCBs were reported above NYS
-
-35-
Groundwater Standards. The results indicated that the contaminant plume from the site appeared
to be migrating toward and discharging to Rainbow Creek.
2.5.3.4 1999 Interim Remedial Action
In August 1999, an interim remedial action was performed to excavate contaminated soil
identified during the AOC characterization. Surface and subsurface petroleum-impacted soil was
excavated, stockpiled, and transported to the Apron 1 landfarming operation. Confirmatory
samples were collected to ensure cleanup goals were met and the excavated areas were backfilled
with clean material. This interim remedial action is briefly described below.
Stockpiles found to be contaminated above STARS guidance values were transported to the
biotreatment cells on the Apron 1 Landfarm; approximately 36,300 cubic yards of contaminated
soil were excavated and transported to the landfarm. Stockpiles found with contaminant levels
below STARS guidance values remained in place on the edge of Apron 1 for use as backfill;
approximately 14,750 cubic yards of clean soil were stockpiled.
The remedial activities were temporarily suspended through 2000 for contract modifications and
the excavation remained open until July 2001 when remedial activities continued. An additional
4,200 cubic yards of contaminated soil were excavated and transported to the Apron 1 Landfarm.
A combined total of 40,475 cubic yards of petroleum-impacted soil were removed from the
Pumphouse 5 site.
Forty-six confirmatory samples were collected from the excavation sidewall and bottom and
analyzed for total VOCs and SVOCs (see Figure 11). The Air Force, EPA, and NYSDEC
compared the results of the confirmatory soil samples to the STARS guidance values. SVOCs
exceeded the guidance values at four sample locations. The four sample locations (B7, B8, B11,
and S3) were overexcavated and resampled, with results confirming that the remaining soil
contaminant levels were below STARS guidance values.
The excavated area was first backfilled with 110 tons of clean concrete rubble and 732 tons of
cobble to ensure proper compaction of backfilled soil. A total of approximately 25,360 cubic
yards of bioremediated soil and clean stockpiled soil was used to backfill the excavation.
Topsoil was spread, compacted, graded, and then seeded, and the site restoration was completed
in November 2001. The Interim Remedial Action Report was delivered in October 2003.
2.5.3.5 Groundwater and Surface Water Monitoring
Surface Water Sampling 1999-2003
Surface water samples (seep samples) were collected from Rainbow Creek during the removal
action to ensure that contamination was not released to the creek during soil removal. The
samples were collected from three to seven different locations and analyzed for VOCs and
SVOCs. Prior to the removal action in April 1999, surface water samples were analyzed for
PCBs and metals. After completion of site restoration, surface water samples were collected and
-
-36-
analyzed for PCBs. During 12 sampling rounds in 1999, eight VOCs and one SVOC
(naphthalene) exceeded the NYS Surface Water Standards. During two sampling rounds in
2001, one VOC (toluene) and PCB-1260 exceeded the NYS Surface Water Standards. During
additional rounds of sampling in 2002 and 2003, no VOCs, SVOCs, or lead were measured at
levels above the standards and there was one exceedance at one location for PCB-1260 (0.49
µg/L).
Groundwater Monitoring 2001-2003
During the removal action, nine of the ten existing monitoring wells associated with the
Pumphouse 5 site were destroyed. Upgradient well 771MW-5B, located west of Rainbow Creek,
remained. As part of site restoration, six replacement monitoring wells (771MW-7, -8, -9, -10, -
11, and -12) were installed in November 2001 (see Figure 10). The wells were installed to total
depths ranging from 13 to 24 feet bgs.
Samples from the six replacement wells were collected in November 2001 and analyzed for
VOCs and SVOCs. One VOC (benzene) exceeded the NYS Groundwater Standard (1 µg/L) in
one well (771MW-11) at a concentration of 3.4 µg/L. Six consecutive sampling rounds (ending
in March 2004) were then performed which yielded results for VOCs, SVOCs, and PCBs below
the NYS Groundwater SCGs.
The groundwater has been addressed under the project entitled, Long Term Monitoring Source
Removal AOCs, and six consecutive groundwater sampling rounds confirmed the absence of
contaminants of concern. Site closure was approved by the NYSDEC on October 20, 2004. Full
closure of NYSDEC Spill #8903144 was pending approval following successful remediation of
excavation soils (FPM/CAPE, September 2011).
2.5.3.6 SVI Evaluation
The Pumphouse 5 AOC was included in the Soil Vapor Intrusion (SVI) Evaluation conducted in
March 2007. No sampling was performed at this site. As described in the NYSDEC letter dated
October 20, 2004, which addressed NYSDEC Spill #8903144, no further action is required at the
Pumphouse 5 AOC. During the IRA of 1999, confirmatory soil samples showed that all
contaminated soils were removed. In addition, groundwater and surface water sampling
conducted from 1999 to 2003 showed no VOC, SVOC or PCBs above NYS SCGs for six
consecutive sampling rounds. Therefore, since no soil or groundwater contamination is
remaining on the site, no SVI potential is present. These conclusions were reported to EPA and
NYSDEC in the March 2007 Draft Soil Vapor Intrusion Evaluation.
2.6 Current and Potential and Future Land and Resource Use
Oneida County Industrial Development Corporation is responsible for maintaining property and
developing facilities. The planned future land use designation for the CYSA OU is
industrial/commercial use.
-
-37-
2.7 Summary of Site Risks
Summary of AOC Risks
As part of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was conducted to evaluate current and future
potential risks to human health and the environment associated with contaminants found in the
soil and groundwater at the AOC. The results of the risk assessment were considered when
planning the remediation and formulating this ROD.
Human Health Risk Assessment Background Information
A baseline human health risk assessment was conducted in conjunction with the RI to determine
whether chemicals detected at the CSYA could pose health risks to individuals under current and
proposed future land use. As part of the baseline risk assessment, the following four-step
process was used to assess site-related human health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario: Hazard identification—identifies the contaminants of concern at the site based on
several factors such as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and concentration; Exposure
Assessment—estimates the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency
and duration of these exposures, and the pathway (e.g., ingestion of contaminated soils) by which
humans are potentially exposed; Toxicity Assessment—determines the types of adverse health
effects associated with chemical exposures and the relationship between magnitude of exposure