Third Five-Year Review Report 

Fulton Terminals Superfund Site 

City of Fulton 

Oswego County, New York 

Prepared by 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agenq 

Region 2 

New York, New York 

May 2014 

Date: 

267624 

ft~l ~m Ui II~ tilm m Ell I 

;11~ Zo <. CIV ---------------- _______ LC ______ _ 

Walter E. Mugdan, Director 

Emergency and Remedial Response Division 
Table of Contents 

Executive Sllliimary ..............•.................................... : ................................................................... iii 

Five-Year Review SUIIlillary Form ..................... · ........................................................................... iv 

Introduction ........... , .......... , ...... , ........................................................................................................ 1 

Site Chronology .................... ~ ............................... .-...................... , ......................................................... 1 

Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1 

Physical Characteristics . ................................................................................. , ............ : ................ 1 

Site Geology/Hydrogeolo,zy ........................................................................................... : ............ 1 

Land and Resource Use ............................................................................................................... 2 

History of Contamination ............................................................................................................. 2 

Initial Response ...... ~ ........ ........................................................................................................... 2 

Basis for Taking Action .................................. , .............................................................................. 2 

Remedial Actions ................................................................................................................................... 3 

Remedy Selection ............ ................................................................... :·•·· ...... , .............................. 3 

Remedy Implementation .............................................................. : .................. , ............................. 3 

System Operations/Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................ 5 

Progress Since Last Five-Y c::ar Review ........................................................................................ : .... 5 

Five-Year Review Process .................. , .............. ~ ............................................................... ~ ............ _ ..6 

Administrative Componel!ts .......................................................................................................... 6 

Community Involvement . .............................. ·······:•·· ........................................................ ~ .......... 6 

Document Review ........................................................................... , .................................... · ....... 6 

Data Review.: ................................................................................................................................ 7 

Site Inspection .............................................................................................................................. 7 

Interviews ......................................................................................................... , ...... : •. : ................... 7 

Institutional Controls Verification .............................................................................................. 7 

Technical Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? ....................... 7 

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action 

objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? ................................................................. 8 

Question C: Has any othl:r information come to light that could call into question the 

protectiveness of the remedy? ..................... · .............................................................................. 10 

Technical Assessment Surrzmary ............................................................................................... 10 

Issues, Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions ...................................................................... 10 

Protectiveness Statement .............................................................................................................. 11 

Next Review ................................... ~ .............................................................................................. 11 
Tables 

Table 1: Chronology of Site Events ...................................................................... : .................. 12 

Table 2a: Remediation Goals for Soil from the ROD ...................... , ........................................ 13 

Table 2b: Remediation Goals for Groundwater from the ROD ................................................ 13 

Table 3: Annual Costs ............................................................................................................. 15 

Table 4: Documents, Data and Information Reviewed in Completing the Five-Year Review 15 

Figures 

Figure 1: Site Map 

Figure 2: Monitoring Well RX-4 Trends 

ii 
Executive Summary 

This is the third five-year review for the Fulton Terminals Superfund site, located in the City of 

Fulton, Oswego County, New York. The purpose of this five-year review is to review siterelated data and information to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of 

human health and the environment. The triggering action for this policy five-year review was the 

completion of the previous five-year review. 

The assessment of this five-year review is that the soils have been remediated and allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted exposure and, although one volatile organic compound (VOC) is 

marginally above its groundwater standard and another VOC is slightly above its groundwater 

standard in one monitoring well located at the downgradient boundary of the site, the remedy is 

currently protecting human health and the environment. Sampling of this monitoring well should 

continue in three-year intervals until the groundwater standards for the two VOCs have been 

met. Once the groundwater standards for the two VOCs have been inet, attainment monitoring 

and data evaluation will be performed to ascertain that the groundwater in the monitoring well i~ 

expected to continue to meet the cleanup levels in the future. 

The City of Fulton has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site property, contingent upon 

the deletion of the site from the National Priorities List (NPL). The VOC exceedances in th~ 

noted monitoring well prevent the deletion of the site from the NPL at this time. To facilitate the 

redevelopment of the property, a partial site deletion encompassing the site soils and the 

groundwater upgradient of the monitoring well will be pursued. 

lll 
. t.:' .. 

 . . . . .' .,. ~ '~. \ .. ',, ' 

. "''.' 

F' Y R · S ma Form 

SITE IDENTIFICATION 

Site .Name:· Fulton Terminals 

EPAID: NYD980593099 

NPL Status: Final 

Multiple OUs? 

No 

Has the site achieved construction completion? 

Yes 

REVIFW ST,\ TlJS 

Lead agency: EPA 

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Christos Tsiamis 

Author affiliation: EPA 

Review period: 6/291200'9- 6/29/2014 

Date of site inspection: N/A 

Type of review: Policy 

Review number: 3 

Triggering action date: 6129/2009 

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 6/29/2014 

OU(s): Click here .Issue Category: No Issue 

to enter text. Issue: Click here to enter text. 

;Recommendation: Click here to enter text. 

Affect Current Affect Future Party Oversight Party Milestone Date 

Protectiveness Protectiveness Responsible 

Choose an item. Choose an item. Choose an item. 

IV 

Choose an item. Click here to enter 

a date. 
Protcdi\ em·ss Statenu.·nt(s) 

Operable Unit: 

OUI . 

Protectiveness Statement: 

Prot(!ctiveness .()etermination: 

Protective 

Addendum Due Date 

(if applicable): 

Click here to enter a date. 

The implemented remedy is protective of human health and the environment. 

1 Site\\ idt• Protcdi\ c1wss Statement 

Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date (if applicable}: 

Protective Click here to enter a date. 

Protectiveness Statement: 

The site-wide remedial actions are protective of human health and the environment. 

v 
· Introduction 

The purpose of a five-year review is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a 

remedy in order to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health 

and the envi:roilinent and is functioning as intended by the decision documents. The methods, 

findings and conclusions of reviews are documented in the five-year review. In addition, fiveyear review reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and docurhent 

recommendations to address them. 

This is the third five-year review for the Fulton Terminals site, located in the City of Fulton, 

Oswego County, New York. This five-yeat review was conducted by the United States 

. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Remedial Project Manager (RPM) Christos Tsiamis. 

The review was conducted in accordance with the Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance, 

OSWER Directive 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). This report will become part of the site file. 

Although the remedial action at this site will not leave hazardous substances, pollutants or 

contaminants above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a policy fiveyear review is required due to the fact that the remedial action requires five or more years to 

complete. The triggering action for the first policy five-year review was the signature date of the 

Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR) .. 

the site consists of one operable unit, which is being addressed in this five-year review. 

Site Chronology 

See Table 1 for the site chronology. 

Background 

Physical Characteristics 

The site consists of an approximately 1.5-acre parcel of land situated approximately 10 ·miles 

southeast of the City of Oswego and 22 rpiles north-northwest of the City of Syracuse. The site 

is bounded on the west by First Street, on the south by Shaw Street, on the east by New York 

State Route 481, and on the north by a warehouse. The Oswego River lies iinmediately west of 

First Street, which is approximately fifty feet from the site. See Figure 1. 

Site Geology/Hydrogeology 

The site is underlain by a relatively thick section of unconsolidated deposits, primarily of glacial 

meltwater and alluvial origins that overlie bedrock. A layer of sand and gravel appears to be 

continuous over bedrock and it ranges in thickness from 25 to 58 feet. A silt and clay unit occurs 

above the sand and gravel throughout most of the site with a thickness of up to 25 feet. Artificial 

fill, consisting predominantly of sand and gravel, covers the surface of the site in thickness 

varying from four to 12 feet. 
There are four groundwater units underneath· the site. The artificial fill is the uppermost 

hydrologic unit and is mostly unsaturated. The water table generally coincides with the elevation 

of the bottom of the fill. The underlying silt and clay unit has very low hydraulic conductivity. 

The next lower sand and gravel unit constitutes the main discharge toward the river. The 

bedrock unit has relatively low conductivity. 

Land and Resource Use 

The site is located in an industrial section of the City of Fulton within 50 feet of the Oswego 

River, which is used for recreation. Residences, city and county offices and several businesses 

are located within a 1,500-foot radius of the site. Approximately 13,000 people live within three 

miles of the site. 

History of Contamination 

From 1936 to 1960, the primary activity at the site was the manufacturing of roofing materials, 

which involved the storage of asphalt in aboveground tanks and fuel oil storage in underground 

tanks. From 1972 to 1977, the site was used by Fulton Terminals, Inc. as a staging and storage· 

area for solvents and other materials that were scheduled for incineration at the Pollution 

Abatement Services facility located in Oswego, New York. Operations at the site resulted in the 

contamination of the groundwater, soil, and sediments with volatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

Initial Response 

From 1981 to 1983, Fulton Terminals, Inc. removed several tanks as part of a voluntary cleanup 

program. These activities ceased in 1983, after the facility was fined by the New York State 

Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) for the improper disposal of 

polychlorinated biphenyls. The site was listed on the National Priorities List in 1983. 

Removal actions were conducted in 1986 by EPA and the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), 

consisting of constructing a seven-foot perimeter fence around the site, posting warning signs, 

removing two aboveground tanks and two underground tanks, removing approximately 300 

cubic yards of visibly-contaminated soil and tar-like wastes, and excavating storm drains that 

were acting as a conduit for contaminated runoff entering the Oswego River during storm events. 

An additional removal action in 1990 involved the construction of earthen barriers for the 

prevention of surface runoff from the contaminated portion of the site. 

. . 

Basis for Taking Action 

In 1983, NYSDEC commenced a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) at the site. The 

RI/FS activities were conducted by NYSDEC's contractor, URS Company, hie., from 1985 to 

1987. The RI/FS report that was generated from these efforts was declared invalid by NYSDEC 

due to problems associated with the laboratory a.nalyses. A revised RI/FS report, based on 

additional sampling, was prepared byNYSDEC's contractor in 1988.· EPA concluded, however, 

that the revised RI/FS report did not fully characterize the site. Accordingly, EPA initiated a 

Supplemental RI/FS. The Supplemental RIIFS, completed by EPA's contractor, Ebasco 

Services, Inc., in 1989, indicated that various VOCs were present in the unsaturated soil and in 

the groundwater at the site. An Endangerment Assessment for the site, which was also 

2 
completed in 1989, concluded that, based on the Supplemental RI data, minimal human health 

risks were associated with the existing site conditions. However, the Supplemental RifFS 

determined that the leaching of VOCs from the contaminated on•site soil into the groundwater 

posed a risk to the environment. The contaminants of concern (COCs) in the soils and 

groundwater included trichloroethylene (TCE), cis-1 ,2 dichloroethylene (DCE), benzene, vinyl 

chloride, benzene and chlorobenzene. 

Remedial Actions 

Remedy Selection 

The remedial action objectives (RAOs) selected for the site include: 

• prevent contact with contaminated soil; 

• prevent migration of contaminated soil via surface water runoff and erosion; 

• ensure protection of groundwater and surface water from the continued release of 

contaminants from soils; and 

• restore groundwater to levels consistent with state and federal water quality standards 

On September 29, 1989, a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed, selecting excavation and lowtemperature thermal desorption (L TID) to treat approximately 4;000 cubic yards (CY) of 

contaminated soils located above the water table, and pumping, ait stripping, carbon adsorption, 

and reinjection for treating the contaminated groundwater. The ROD also included the 

implementation of institutional controls to prevent the utilization of the groundwater. at the site. 

The remediation goal of the soil remedy was to reduce concentrations of VOCs1 in the soils to 

levels which would not cause the groundwater quality to exceed groundwater standards due to 

percolation of precipitation through the unsaturated soils. 

Remedy Implementation 

A Consent Decree was signed by the PRPs in 1990, in which they agreed to design and 

implement the remedy called for in the ROD. The Consent Decree became effective (was 

entered as a final judgment by the Court) in December 1991. 

Soil Remediation 

The soil excavation and treatment remedial design (RD) was initiated by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, 

·Inc., (BBL), the contractor for the PRPs, in late 1991. 

Pre-RD sampling revealed the presence of a significant amount of contamination in the deep soil 

(from the water table down to bedrock).2 Since· the contaminated soil below the water table 

would continue to leach contaminants to the groundwater, EPA concluded that remediating this 

soil would be beneficial to the long-term groundwater cleanup. 

1 The COCs in the soil and their remediation goals are summarized in Table 2a. 

2 Including the saturated soils increased the estiinated volume of contaminated soil from 4,000 CY to 

13,000CY. . 

3 
Remedial alternatives to address the contaminated soils below the water table were evaluated in a 

focused feasibility study (FFS) completed by BBL in October 1993 (addended in January 1994). 

The FFS determined that specialized methods for stabilizing the deep excavation area would be 

required for removal of the contaminated soils because of the excavation depth, the need for . 

control of groundwater infiltration into the excavation area, ~d the close proximity of the site to 

the Oswego River. 

Based on the results of the pre-RD sampling effort and the findings of the FFS, EPA modified 

the soil remedy in an Explanation of Signific~t Differences (ESD) dated June 1994. The ESD 

called for the excavation of the VOC-contaminated soils below the water table, followed by 

treatment by L TID. 

The plans and specifications related to the soil remedy were completed in March 1995. 

BBL initiated construction of the soil remedy in April1995. 

Because of the proximity of the site to the Oswego River, a "freeze wall," a construction process 

whereby the ground is frozen at depth to allow the dry excavation of contaminated soils below 

the water table, was used. The excavation, treatment, and backfilling were completed by April 

1996. The total amount of contaminated source material that was remediated was 10,200 CY. 

Groundwater Remediation 

The groundwater remedy called for in the September 1989 ROD required the reduction of VOC 

concentrations to those defined in Table 2b by pumping groundwater from the saturated sand and 

gravel zone. l}nderlying the site, treating the groundwater by air stripping and carbon adsorption 

and reinjecting the water into the saturated sand and gravel zone. 

The groundwater remediation RD was initiated in late 1991. The pla.ns and specifications related 

to the groundwater extraction and treatment were completed in September 1994. Initiation of the 

groundwater remedial action (RA) was, however, postponed until all soil RA activities at the site 

were completed. At that time, a horizontal extraction well system consisting of a gallery of 

perforated piping and a collection manhole was installed at the base of the excavation. 

Given the overall effectiveness of the soil remedy, it was determined that groundwater standards 

could be achieved within a relatively short time frame if the groundwater extraction could be 

. effected iiilmediately. Utilizing a mobile treatment system, an expedited pumping of the 

contaminated groundwater took place between February and May 1997. The· operation of the 

groundwater extraction and treatment system (including groundwater reinjection/surface water 

discharge), as well as the weekly influent/effluent monitoring, was performed by Clean Harbors. 

During the 12-week operation period, 8.8 million gallons of groundwater were extracted and 

treated. Subsequently, a groundwater monitoring program was implemented by Roux Associates 

to assess the effectiveness of the soil remediation in combination with the expedited groundwater 

remedy. Residual subsurface ice from the freeze wall precluded an accurate evaluation of the 

groundwater remedy performance (two downgradient monitoring wells were frozen). Following 

the forced thaw of the freeze ·wall (via steam injection) by the PRPs in May 1998, the 

4 
· r .. , ., .• '":, •1',~ .·.' ! -.). / , ; · · ., .. ,, 

temperature of the groundwater and th~ _ concentrations of contaminants were monitored. 

Groundwater samples collected in March 1999 indicated that the freeze wall was no longer intact 

(i.e., the two monitoring wells were free of ice) and that the contaminant concentrations in these 

. wells were shoWing a decreasing trend. 

Following· the collection of groundwater quality samples in September 1999, EPA determined 

that the ROD requirements for the groundwater remedy had been substantially met and no 

further response, other than long-term groundwater monitoring, was anticipated. 

Construction. Completion 

A PCOR was approved on September 27, 1999. 

System Operations/Operation and Maitztenanc.e 

A sampling and ·analysis plan to assess the effectiveness of the groundwater remedy included 

three years of post-remedy grou,ndwater monitoring (March 2000 through September 2002) to 

verify successful performance of the groundwater remedy. The plan also included provisions for 

performing periodic site inspections to confirm the integrity of the groundwater monitoring wells 

and other site controls and to assess the general condition of the property. In addition, provisions 

to perform necessary site maintenance (i.e., vegetation control, fence repairs, etc.) based on the 

results of the periodic inspections were included in the plan. Since contaminants were not 

detected in the source area wells located in the center of the site, these wells were abandoned in 

April2004. There are five monitoring wells located on the western (downgradient) border of the 

site. Sampling of monitoring wells RX-5, RX-6, RX-7 and FBW-3 was tertninated in 2006, since 

the groundwater standards defined in Table 2b were reached at that time. Since cis-1,2-DCE and 

vinyl chloride were detected sporadically above their respective standards in monitoring well 

RX-4 (see Figure 1),3 which is located at the downgradient boundary of the site, approximately 

50 feet from the Oswego Rivet, samples Wete collected biannually through 2009. The 

monitoring Well was sampled again in September 2013. 

Institutional Controls 

The ROD included the implementation of institutional controls to prevent the utilization of the 

groundwater at the site. A deed restriction prohibiting the installation of wells at the site was 

filed with the Oswego County Clerk;s office on July 31, 2009. 

The annual monitoring and inspection costs are approximately $2,000; these costs are broken 

down in Table 3. · 

Progress Since Last Five-Year Review 

Groundwater samples collected from monitoring well RX-4 during the previous review period 

showed sporadic increases in the concentrations of cis-1,2-DCE (a maximum concentration of70 

3 Concentrations .ofTCE, another VOC found in monitoring well RX-4, have been below the groundwater 

remediation goa-l of SJ!g/L since June 1999. 

5 
micrograms per liter [J.lg/L] was detected in April 2009; the groundwater standard is 5 J.lg/L). 

After peaking at 191J.1g/L in July 2007, vinyl chloride concentrations in monitoring well RX-4 

during the previous review period were slightly above its groundwater standard of 2 J.lg/L in 

April 2008, November 2008 and April 2009. Based upon the collective sample results, the 

assessment of the previous five-year review was that the soils have been remediated and allow 

for unlimited use and the groundwater has been remediated to groundwater standards with the 

exception of monitoring well RX-4. Since monitoring well RX-4 is located in a narrow strip of 

land between the site and the Oswego River, which is unlikely to be used as a source of drinking 

water, the si~~wide remedy was determined to be protective. 

While there were no recommendations or follow up actions that affected the protectiveness of the 

remedy presented in the previous five-year review, that five-year review recommended that 

groundwater samples continue to be cOllected until at least two consecutive rounds of samples 

show that groundwater ARARs have been achieved. During the current review period, 

monitoririg well RX-4 was sampled once (September 2013). The sample results showed the 

presence of cis-1,2-DCE at 12.9 J.lg/L, which is marginally above its groundwater standard of 5 

J.lg/L, and vinyl chloride ~ 2.18 · J.lg/1, which is slightly above its groundwater standard of 2 J.lg/L. 

Five-Year Rev~ew Process 

Administrative Components 

The five-year review team included Christos Tsiamis (EPA-RPM), Diana Cutt (EPAHydrologist), Rebecca Ofrane (EPA-Human Health Risk Assessor), Mindy Pensak (EPAEcological Risk Assessor) and Michael Basile (EPA-Community Involvement Coordinator 

[CIC]). . 

This is a PRP-lead site. 

Community Involvement 

The CIC for the site, Michael Basile, provided the clerk for the City of Fulton with a flyer for 

- posting in the Town Hall. The flyer notified the public that the EPA would be conducting a fiveyear review of the site to assess whether the site is protective of public he~th and the 

enviromnent and whether the implemented components of the remedy are functioning as 

designed. The flyer also indicated that once the five-year review is completed, the results will be 

made available in the local site repository. In addition, the flyer includeci the RPM's address and 

telephone number for questions related to the five-year review process or the site. The flyer was 

also displayed on the EPA webpage for the site. Following the completion of the five-year 

review, efforts will be made to reach out to local public officials to inform them of the results. 

Document Review 

The documents, data and information which were reviewed in completing this five-year review 

are summarized in Table 4. 

6 
Data Review 

During the review period, monitoring well RX-4 wassampled in September 2013. Cis-1,2-DCE 

was detected at 12.9 J.lg/L (down from 70 J.lg/L in April2009) and vinyl chloride was detected at 

2.18 J.lg/1. Based upon sample results from the later portion of the prior review period (April 

2008, November 2008 and April 2009) and September 2013, it appears that vinyl chloride 

production has stabilized (no rebound) at slightly above 2 J.lg/L. Figure 2 shows VOC 

contaminant trends in monitoring well RX -4 from· 1997 through 2013. there are no other 

monitoring wells at the site that ate contaminated. -, 

Site Inspection 

The need for ongoing five-years reviews stems from the presence of cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl 

chloride above their respective groundwater standards in one monitoring well (the soil 

remediation goals have been met). Therefore, a site inSpection was not conducted as part of this 

five-year review. 

Interviews 

No interviews were conducted for this review. 

Institutional Controls Veri.fict;ltion 

The ROD required the implementation of institutional controls to ·prohibit the drinking of 

groundwater. A deed restriction prohibiting the installation of wells Was filed with the County 

Clerk's office on July 31, 2009. 

Technical Assessment 

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents? 

The soils have been remediated and allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Prior to 

and after the remediation of the soil, the site was fenced and posted. The City of Fulton acquired 

the property and after obtaining permission from EPA, in 2009, removed the fence around the 

property and landscaped it as part of its redevelopment of the river bank under a New York State 

grant. Extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater took place between February 

and May 1997. Since that time, groundwater monitoring has been conducted. the residual 

groundwater contamination remains in a small area downgradient of the property. It is 

anticipated that this contamination, as defined by monitoring well RX-4, will reach. cleanup 

levels in the near term. · 

Soutce Control 

The 1989 ROD, as modified by the 1994 ESD, called for the cleanup of the contaminated. soils at 

the site in order to reduce concentrations of VOCs to levels which would not cause the 

groundwater quality to exceed standards. The analytical. results from post-excavation soil 

samples collected from the excavation limits indicated that the residual levels ofVOCs were well 

7 
below the target levels (more than 99 percent of the pre-remedial VOC mass in the silt and clay 

soil layer was removed and treated during the soil remedy). The remediation has reduced the 

contamination of site soils in both the unsaturated and saturated zones to levels which would not 

cause groundwater quality standards to be exceeded du~ to leaching from both the unsaturated 

and saturated soils. Furthermore, by removing the contaminated soil, the risk of contaminants 

migrating from surface runoff into the Oswego River and posing a potential risk to aquatic 

receptors has been mitigated. 

Groundwater 

The 1989 ROD called for the extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater so as to 

reduce the VOC concentrations to established federal and state groundwater stand~ds in the 

shallow groundwater aquifer. Extraction of the contaminated groundwater took place between 

February and May 1997. 

Removing the source of the contamination in combination with the short-term groundwater 

extraction resulted in achieving the groundwater standards in the central portion of the site. 

During the review period, downgradient monitoring well R.X-4 was sampled in September 2013. 

Cis-1,2-DCE was detected at 12.9 J.lg/L (down from 70 J!g/L in April 2009) and vinyl chloride 

was detected at 2.18 J.tg/1. Based upon sample results from the later portion of the prior review 

period (April 2008, November 2008 and April 2009) and September 2013, it appears that vinyl 

chloride production has stabilized (no rebound) at slightly above 2 J.lg/L. 

Groundwater monitoring will continue until it has been determined that cleanup levels have been 

met. Once the groundwater standards for the two VOCs have been met, attainment monitoring 

and data evaluation will be performed to ascertain that the groundwater in the monitoring well is 

expected to continue to meet the cleanup levels in the future. 

Institutional Controls 

The ROD required the implementation of institutional controls to prohibit the drinking of 

groundwater. A deed restriction prohibiting the installation of wells WaS filed with the County 

Clerk's office on July 31, 2009. The deed restriction is still in place aild effective. 

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action 

objectives used at the time of the remedy still valid? 

No changes in human health risk assessment methodology, exposure pathways or toxicity data 

for the COCs for the site have occurred during the review period that would affect the 

protectiveness of the remedy. 

Although the ecological risk assessment screening and toxicity values used to support the ROD 

may not necessarily reflect the current values, remedial activities, specifically the soil 

excavation, treatment and backfilling, have eliminated exposure to ecological receptors. · 

Therefore the remedy is protective of ecological receptors. 

Source Control: The ROD, as modified by the ESD, called for the cleanup of the contaminated 

8 
soils at the site in order to reduce concentrations of VOCS to levels which would not cause the 

groundwater quality to exceed standards.· Post-excavation soil sampling results indicated that 

residual levels of VOCs were well below the target levels. The remediation· reduced the 

contamination of site soils in both the unsaturated and saturated zon~s to levels which would not 

cause groundwater quality standards to be exceeded due to leaching from soils. The source 

control remedy in soils remains protective. · 

Groundwater. The ROD called for the extraction and treatment of contaminated. groundwater so 

as to reduce the VOC concentrations to established federal and state groundwater standards in 

the shallow groundwater aquifer. Extraction of the contaminated groundwater occurred during 

1997. The ARARs for the groundwater 'include MCLs and New York State's groundwater 

quality standards. The action level established for the COCs cis-1,2-DCE, TCE and vinyl 

chloride are 5 jlg/L, 5 jlg/L and 2 jlg/L, respectively. Source removal and the short-term 

groundwater extraction resulted in achieving the groundwater standards in the central portion of 

the site. Six source area wells were abandoned in April 2004 since contaminants were not 

detected for multiple sampling periods. Monitoring well RX-4 is the only well that continues to 

be sampled. The most recent sampling results (September 2013) show the concentration of cis1,2-DCE (12.9 jlg/L) to be marginally above its standard of 5 jlg/L and the concentration of 

vinyl chloride (2.18 JJg/L) to be slightly above its standard of 2 jlg/L. Since there is only one 

sampling event from the review period, a groundwater trend ca,nnot be identified, but cis-1 ,2-

DCE has decreased from the previous review period. Since groundwater is not currently utilized 

for potable purposes, the ingestion of groundwater pathway is incomplete aild the remedy is 

protective. 

It is recommended that groundwl,'lter samples be collected from groundwater monitoring well 

RX-4 in three-year intervals until the groundwater standards for cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride 

are met. Once the groundwater standards for the two VOCs have been met, attainment 

monitoring and data evaluation will be performed to ascertain that the groundwater in the 

monitoring well is expected to continue to meet the cleanup levels in the future. 

The evaluation of the potential for vapor intrusion was based on the health-protective assWilption 

that structures are located above the maximum detected groundwater concentrations and 

compared these concentrations to the health-based screening criteria available in EPA's Vapor 

Intrusion Screening Level Calculator. This guidance provides concentrations of chemicals in 

groundwater associated with indoor air concentrations at acceptable levels of cancer risk and 

noncancer hazard using residential exposure assumptions. The groundwater data from the period 

of time covered by this five-year review show that while the concentration of cis-1,2-DCE does 

not exceed its vapor intrusion screening value of 38 jlg/I,4 the concentration of vinyl chloride 

exceeds its vapor intrusion screening value of 0.14 jlg/1. The detection of vinyl chloride was 

from: monitoring well RX-4, which is located approximately 50 feet from the Oswego River. No 

buildings currently exist in this area and, due to the size of the area, its location relative to the 

Oswego River and the City of Fulton's landscaping of the property as part of its river bank 

development, it is unlikely that any buildings would be constructed in the future. However, if 

this were to change; there may be future potential for vapor intrusion. · 

4 The·screening value for cis-1,2-DCE is based on surrogate· contaminant trans-1,2-DCE, since there is 1;10 

inhalation toxicity information for cis-1 ,2-DCE. 

9 
The RAOs established for the site, to prevent contact with contaminated soil; prevent migration 

of contaminated soil via smface water runoff and erosion, ensure protection of groundwater and 

surf~ce water from the continued release of contaminants from soils, and restore groundwater to 

.. levels consistent with state and federal water quality standards, are still valid. 

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the 

protectiveness of the remedy? 

There is no information that calls into question the protectiveness of the remedy. 

Technica_l Assessment Summary 

Based upon the results of the five-year review, it has been concluded that: 

• site soils have been cleaned to protective levels; 

• human health, ecological and environmental risks estimated for the site are within or 

below acceptable levels; 

• groundwater monitoring well RX-4 is functional; 

• sample results from monitoring well RX-4 show cis-1,2-DCE at 12.9 J.lg/L which is 

marginally above its groundwater standard of 5 J.lg/L, and vinyl chloride ~t 2.18 J.lg/1, 

which is slightly above its groundWater standard of 2 J.lg/L. 

• there is no evidence of trespassing, vandalism or damage to monitoring well RX-4; 

• there are no drinking water wells in the vicinity of monitoring well RX-4 and none are 

expected to be drilled (drinking water in the area is supplied by a public water supply 

system). 

Issues, Recommendations and Follow-Up Actions 

There are no recommendations or follow-up actions that affect the protectiveness of the remedy 

associated with this review. 

To accelerate site closeout, it is recommended that groundwater samples be collected from 

groundwater monitoring well RX-4 in three-year intervals until the groundwater standards for 

cis-1,2-DCE and vinyl chloride are met. Once the groundwater standards for the two VOCs have 

been met, attainment monitoring and data evaluation will be performed to ascertain that the 

groundwater in the monitoring well is expected to continue to- meet the cleanup levels in the 

future. 

The City of Fl,llton has expressed an interest in redeveloping- the site property, contingent upon 

the deletion of the site from the National Priorities List (NPL). The- VOC exceedances in 

groundwater monitoring well RX-4 prevent the deletion of the site from the NPL at this time. 

Since it is not known when groundwater standards will be met in this well, to facilitate the 

redevelopment of the property, _a partial site deletion encompassing the site soils and the 

groundwater upgradient of monitoring well RX-4 will be pursued. 

10 
Protectiveness Statement 

The implemented remedy is protective o( human health and the environment. The site-wide 

remedial actions are protective of human health and the environment. 

Next Review 

The next five-year review report fot the Fulton Terminals Superfund site is required five years 

from the completion date of this review. 

11 
-· ·-

T~bl~ 1: Chronology of Site Events 

Event Date(s) -

NYSDEC cites owner of property for not meeting standards for storage of hazardous wastes 1981 

Owner initiates site cleanup including removal of four tanks 1981 --

Site is placed on National Priorities List 1983 . -

NYSDEC fines_owner for improper cleanup practices and cleanup is terminated 1983 -· ---

NYSDEC remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) 1985-1986 ·- - -- ··-

EPA undertakes removal of remaining tanks and visibly-contaminated soil 1986-1987 

EPA Supplemental RifFS 1988-1989 ·-. 

Record of Decision 1989 . -

Consent Decree with Settling Defendants for the site 1991 

-· ; 

Initiation of remedial design 1991 

-

Focused feasibility study for silt and clay remediation 1993 

Explanation of Significant Differences for soil remediation 1994 

Completion of remedial design for groundwater remedy 1994 

- -- ---- - --- -

Completion of remedial design for soil remediation 1995 

- --

Initiation of soil remediation 1995 

Completion of soil remediation 1996 

-· 

Initiation of groundwater remedy 1997 

- . 

Completion of groundwater remedy 1997 

--

Restoration of site, including complete thawing of "freeze wall" 1997-1999 - ·-. . --

Preliminary Site Close-Out Report 1999 

-- -- --

Initiation of groundwater monitoring 2000 

First Five-Year Review 2004 

Second Five-Year Review 2009. 

- . -------- -

12 
-- --- ------ - ------

Table 2a: Remediation Goals for Soil from the Record of Decision5 

Contaminants of Concern Remediation Goal 

(mglkg) -- -----· ------ --- --

Benzene 1.4 --

Chlorobenzene 5.5 

cis-1 ,2-Dichlotoethylelie ··-1 

Methyl Isobutyl_Ketqne 2.5 

Trichloroethylene 2 

Vinyl chloride 0.4 

Xylene (total) ------- - - - -. 8 --

---- ----- -·- -------

Table 2b: Remediation Goals for Groundwater from the Record of Decision 

-- ---

Contaminants of Concern Remediation Goals 

(p.g/L) 

Acetone- 50 --. 

Benzene 5 

Chlorobenzene 5 

1,1 ':'Dic.hloroethane 5 

1, 1-Dichloroethene 5 

cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethene 5 

Ethylbenzene 5 

Methylene chloride 5 

4-Methyl-2-Pentanone -- 5 

N-Propylbenzene 5 -- -- -

Tettachloroethene 5 

Toluene 5 -- --- --

1,1, 1-:-Trichloroethane ---- 5 

Trichloroethene 5 -. 

Vinyl chloride 2 

Xylenes 5 --

5 Soil remediation goals to achieve groundwater standards were calculated using partition coefficients 

and assuming that eight inches per year of rainwater percolates through the contaminated zone and 

mixes with the groundwater. 

13 
. ·-

[fable 3: Annual Costs 

~- -- --

Estimated Costs for Contract Performance Cost per Year 

Sampling-and analysis $2,000 

IT otal estimated cost $2,000 

14 
--- -·-. -

Table 4: Documents, Data and Information Reviewed in Completing the Five-Year 

Review 

Document Title, Author Submittal Date ---- ·-- ·- --·- ---··-----· ---

Revised Endangerment Assessment, Fulton Terminals, Versar Inc. June 1989 - - . 

Record of Decision, EPA September 1989 . -· -

Explanation of Significant Differences, EPA June 1994 

- - ------··- --

Project Closeout Report, Fulton Terminals site, Soil Remedy (Volumes 1 October 1996 

and 2), BBL Environmental Services - - ----- -·· ··----· -- --·- ····-··· 

Re!fl~ial_Action Report (soil remedy), de maximi_s, inc. September 1996 

Post-Soil Remedy Groundwater Investigation Work Plan, Roux Associates April1997 

-- -- ... --· . ----

Remedial Action Report (groundwater remedy), de maximis, inc. September 1999 

Preliminary Site Close-Out Report, EPA September 1999 

-- --- ----· -- -- -

Long-Term Groundwater Monitoring Plan, Roux Associates February 2000 

-- ---·-···- --- ···- . ------- - -- -- -

Interim Closeout Report/Final Construction Completion Report- December 2000 

Groundwater Remedy, Roux Associates, Inc. - --· -- - - - - --

First Five-Year Review Report, EPA September 2004 

·---- .. ··-· 

Second Five .. Year Review Report, EPA .June2009 -- -- --

2013 Groundwater Monitoring Event Report, Roux Associates, Inc. September 2013 - -·-- --·- ... ·-

EPA guidance for conducting five-year reviews and other guidance and 

regulations to determine if any new applicable or relevant and appropriate 

requirements relating to the protectiveness of the remedy have been 

developed since EPA issued the ROD -- -

15 
N ---• 

t 

- IDGNI - LONG C:O. (MI') II< 701/PC.fU _, * SON INC. (1110)" 

--+--- I'IIOP(IriY UN£ 

----- _, _ _ ..._...._....__ ~..-rna 

0 se-t SOl. IIORIMC LOCAllOH 

0rww-1D -'"OMOC; W£U 

$1101 - 5001 

A 

058- 27 

FULTON T£RMINALS 

SrTE LAYOlJT MAP 

N'PIIOJOWol[ scou: !10 0 !10 rt[T 

,..._._,.., I 

rtsun 1 
Historical Concentrations at Monitoring Well RX-4 

100,000 

10,000 

... 

~ ... 

CD 

c. 

1/) 1,000 E 

nl 

c, 

0 

... 

..., 

I 

c: 

g 

nl 

... 

c 100 CD 

..., 

c: 

0 

u 

10 

r 

-

---- cis-1 ,2-DCE 

----+-- TCE 

--- Vinyl Chloride 

--- cis-1,2-DCE Std . 

--TCEStd. 

--- Vinyl Chloride 

Std. 

1- - MCL for cis-1 ,2-

DCE 

-

Note: All "NOs" have been assigned a value of 1 microgram per liter (ug/L), since laboratory reporting limits have generally ranged 

between 0.5 and 2 ug/L; detected concentrations less than 1 ug/L have been raised to 1 ug/L for charting purposes. 

ROUX ASSOCIATES, INC. Figure 2