### Third Five

-Year Review Report Fulton Terminals Superfund Site City ofFulton Oswego County, New York

Prepared by U
.S
. Environmental Protection Agenq Region 2 New York, New York May 2014

Date: 267624**ft~l ~m** 

### U i**II~**

### tilm

## m Ell

### I

# ;11~ Zo 

# <. CIV**---------- ------**  

### _______LC
_______ Walter E. Mugdan, Director Emergency and Remedial Response DivisionTable ofContents 

### Executive Sllliimary..............•....................................: ...................................................................iii Five-Year Review SUIIlillary Form
.....................· ........................................................................... iv Introduction
...........,..........,......,........................................................................................................ 1 Site Chronology
....................**~**

### ................................-......................,......................................................... 1 Background
........................................................................................................................................ 1 Physical Characteristics
. .................................................................................,............: ................ 1 Site Geology/Hydrogeolo,zy
...........................................................................................: ............ 1 LandandResource 

### Use
............................................................................................................... 2 History of Contamination
............................................................................................................. 2 InitialResponse
......**~**........ ........................................................................................................... 2 Basis for TakingAction
..................................,.............................................................................. 

### 2 

### Remedial Actions
................................................................................................................................... 3 Remedy Selection
............ ...................................................................:·•··......,.............................. 3 RemedyImplementation
..............................................................: ..................,............................. 3 System Operations/OperationandMaintenance
........................................................................ 5 

### Progress Since Last Five-Y c::ar Review
........................................................................................: .... 5 Five-Year Review Process
..................,..............**~**

### ...............................................................**~**

### ............ _ .. 6 Administrative Componel!ts
.......................................................................................................... 6 CommunityInvolvement
. ..............................·······:•··........................................................**~**.......... 

### 6 DocumentReview
...........................................................................,....................................· ....... 

### 6 Data

### Review.:
................................................................................................................................ 7 Site Inspection
.............................................................................................................................. 7 Interviews
.........................................................................................................,......: •.:

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

### Technical Assessment
...................................................................................................................... 7 QuestionA: Is the remedy functioning as intendedby the decision documents?
....................... 

### 7 QuestionB:Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, andremedialaction objectives usedat the time of the remedy stillvalid?
................................................................. 8 Question C: Has any othl:rinformation come to light that couldcall into question the protectiveness of the remedy?
.....................· .............................................................................. 

### 10 TechnicalAssessmentSurrzmary
............................................................................................... 

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

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

### Next Review
...................................**~**

### .............................................................................................. 11

### Tables Table 1: Chronology ofSite 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 ifthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe site, the remedy is currently protecting humanhealth and the environment. Sampling ofthis 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 inthe monitoring well**i~** expected to continue to meet the cleanup levels inthe future. The City ofFulton 

### has expressed an interest in redeveloping the site property, contingent upon the deletion ofthe site from the National Priorities List (NPL). The VOC exceedances 

### in**th~** noted monitoring well preventthe deletion ofthe site from the NPL atthis time. To facilitate the redevelopment of the property, a partial site deletion encompassing the site soils and the groundwater upgradient ofthe 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 orStateProjectManager): Christos Tsiamis Authoraffiliation: EPA Review period: 6/291200'9- 6/29/2014 Date ofsiteinspection: N/A Typeofreview: Policy Review number: 3 Triggering action date: 6129/2009 Due date 

### (fiveyears aftertriggering action date): 6/29/2014

OU(s): Click here .Issue Category: No Issue to enter text. Issue: Click here to entertext. ;Recommendation: Click here to enter text. Affect Current Affect Future Party OversightParty 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 ifthe remedy is and will continue to be protective ofhuman health and the envi:roilinent and is functioning as intended by the decision documents. The methods, findings and conclusions ofreviews 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, OSWERDirective 9355.7-03B-P (June 2001). This report will become part ofthe 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 ofthe Preliminary Close-Out Report (PCOR)
.. the site consists ofone operable unit, which isbeing 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 ofthe City ofOswego and 22 rpiles north-northwest ofthe City ofSyracuse. 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 ofunconsolidated deposits, primarily ofglacial meltwater and alluvial origins that overlie bedrock. A layer of sand and gravel appears to be continuous overbedrock and itranges inthickness from 25 to 58 feet. A silt and clay unit occurs above the sand and gravel throughout most ofthe 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 watertable generally coincides withthe elevation ofthe bottom ofthe 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 bedrockunit has relatively low conductivity. 

### LandandResource Use The site is located in 

### an industrial section ofthe City of Fulton within 50 feet ofthe Oswego River, which is used for recreation. Residences, city and county offices and several businesses are located within 

## a 1,500-foot radius ofthe site. Approximately 13,000 people live within three miles ofthe site. 

### History of Contamination From 1936 to 1960, the primary activity at the site was the manufacturing ofroofing materials, which involved the storage ofasphalt 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, NewYork. Operations atthe site resulted inthe contamination ofthe groundwater, soil, and sediments withvolatile organic compounds (VOCs). 

### Initial Response From 1981 to 1983, Fulton Terminals, Inc. removed several tanks as part ofa 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 onthe NationalPriorities List in 1983. Removal actions were conducted in 1986 by EPA and the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), consisting ofconstructing 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 runoffentering the Oswego River during storm events. An additional removal action in 1990 involved the construction of earthen barriers for the prevention ofsurface runofffrom the contaminatedportion ofthe site.

. . 

### Basis for TakingAction In 1983, NYSDEC commenced a remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) atthe 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 byNYSDEC 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 thatvarious VOCs were present in the unsaturated soil and 

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

### 2completed 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 ofVOCs 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.
RemedialActions 

### RemedySelection The remedial action objectives (RAOs) selected for the site include:
• prevent contact with contaminated soil; • prevent migration ofcontaminated soil via surface water runoffand erosion; • ensure protection of groundwater and surface water from the continued release of contaminants from soils; and • restore groundwaterto levels consistentwith state and federal water quality standards On September 29, 1989, a Record ofDecision (ROD) was signed, selecting excavation and lowtemperature thermal desorption (LTID) 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 ofinstitutional controls to prevent the utilization ofthe groundwater. at the site. The remediation goal ofthe soil remedy was to reduce concentrations ofVOCs 1 in the soils to levels which would not cause the groundwater quality to exceed groundwater standards due to percolation ofprecipitationthrough the unsaturated soils. 

### RemedyImplementation 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 

### finaljudgmentby the Court) inDecember 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 ofa significant amount ofcontamination 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.

1The COCs in the soil and theirremediation 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 watertable 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 ofthe contaminated soils because of the excavation depth, the need for
. control ofgroundwater infiltration into the excavation area,**~d** 

### the close proximity ofthe site to 

### the Oswego River. Based on 

### the results ofthe pre-RD sampling effort and the findings ofthe 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 ofthe soil remedy in April1995. Because ofthe proximity ofthe site to the Oswego River, a "freeze wall," a construction process whereby the ground is frozen at depth to allow the dry 

### excavation ofcontaminated soils below the water table, was used. The excavation, treatment, and backfilling were completed by April 1996. The total amount ofcontaminated source material that was remediated was 10,200 CY. Groundwater Remediation The groundwater remedy called for in the September 1989 ROD required the reduction ofVOC 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 ofthe 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 ofthe excavation. Given the overall effectiveness ofthe soil remedy, it was determined that groundwater standards could be achieved within 

### a relatively short time frame ifthe 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 ofthe 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 groundwatermonitoring program was implemented by Roux Associates to assess the effectiveness ofthe soil remediation in combination with the expedited groundwater remedy. Residual subsurface ice from the freeze wall precluded an accurate evaluation ofthe 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 thatthe freeze wall was no longer intact (i.e., the two monitoring wells were free ofice) 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, otherthan long-term groundwater monitoring, was anticipated. Construction.Completion A PCOR was approved on September 27, 1999. System Operations/Operation andMaitztenanc.e A sampling and ·analysis plan to assess the effectiveness ofthe groundwater remedy included three years ofpost-remedy grou,ndwater monitoring (March 2000 through September 2002) to verify successful performance ofthe groundwaterremedy. The plan also included provisions for performing periodic site inspections to confirm the integrity ofthe groundwater monitoring wells and other site controls and to assess the general condition ofthe 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 ofthe site, these wells were abandoned in April2004. There are five monitoring wells located on the western (downgradient) border ofthe site. Sampling ofmonitoring wells RX-5, RX-6, RX-7 and 

### FBW-3 was tertninated in 2006, since the groundwater standards defined in Table 2b were reached atthat 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 ofthe 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 ofinstitutional controls to prevent the utilization ofthe groundwater at the site. A deed restriction prohibiting the installation ofwells 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 LastFive-YearReview Groundwater samples collected from monitoring well RX-4 during the previous review period showed sporadic increases in the concentrations ofcis-1,2-DCE (a

## maximum concentration of70
3 Concentrations .ofTCE, anotherVOC found in monitoring well RX-4, have been below the groundwater

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

### 5micrograms 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 ofthe 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 ofmonitoring 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 ofdrinking water, the**si~~wide** remedy was determined to be protective. While there were no recommendations orfollow up actions that affectedtheprotectiveness ofthe 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 ofcis-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 of2 

### 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. 

### CommunityInvolvement The CIC for the site, Michael Basile, provided the clerk for the City ofFulton with a flyer for

- posting inthe TownHall. The flyer notified the public thatthe 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 orthe 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 outto local public officials to inform them ofthe results. 

### DocumentReview The documents, data and information which were reviewed in completing this five-year review are summarized inTable 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 inApril2009) and vinyl chloride was detected at 2.18 J.lg/1. Based upon sample results from the later portion ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ofwells 

### Was filed with the County Clerk's office onJuly 31, 2009.
TechnicalAssessment 

### QuestionA: Is the remedy functioning as intendedby

### the decision documents? The soils have been remediated and allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Prior to and after the remediation ofthe soil, the site was fenced and posted. The City ofFulton acquired the property and after obtaining permission from EPA, in 2009, removed the fence around the property and landscaped it as part ofits redevelopment 

### of the river bank under a New York State grant. Extraction and treatment ofthe 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 inthe near term. · Soutce Control The 1989 ROD, as modified by the 1994 ESD, called for the cleanup ofthe 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 thatthe residual levels ofVOCs were well 7

### below the target levels (more than 99 percent ofthe 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 ofsite 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 ofcontaminants migrating from surface runoff into the Oswego River and posing a potential risk to aquatic receptors has 

### beenmitigated. Groundwater The 1989 ROD called for the extraction and treatment ofthe contaminated groundwater so as to reduce the VOC concentrations to established federal and state groundwater**stand~ds** 

### in the shallow groundwater aquifer. Extraction ofthe contaminated groundwater took place between February and May 1997. Removing the source of the contamination in combination with the short-term groundwater extractionresulted 

### in achieving the groundwater standards inthe central portion ofthe site. During the reviewperiod, 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 ofthe 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 ofwells WaS 

### filed with the County Clerk's office onJuly 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 usedatthe 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 ofthe 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 ofecological receptors. Source Control: The ROD, as modified by the ESD, called for the cleanup ofthe contaminated 

### 8soils at the site in order to reduce concentrations ofVOCS 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 ofsite 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 ofcontaminated. groundwater so as to reduce the VOC concentrations to established federal and state groundwater standards in the shallow groundwater aquifer. Extraction ofthe 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 mostrecent sampling results (September 2013) showthe concentration ofcis1,2-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 of2 

### 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 reviewperiod. 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 inthe future. The evaluation ofthe potential for vapor intrusion was based onthe 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 oftime covered by this five-year review show that while the concentration ofcis-1,2-DCE does not exceed its vapor intrusion screening value of 38 

### jlg/I,4 the concentration ofvinyl chloride exceeds its vapor intrusion screening value of 0.14 

### jlg/1. The detection ofvinyl 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 ofthe 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 vaporintrusion. ·

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

inhalationtoxicity information for cis-1,2-DCE. 

### 9The RAOs established for the site, to prevent contact with contaminated soil; prevent migration ofcontaminated soil via smface water runoffand erosion, ensure protection ofgroundwater and**surf~ce** water from the continued release ofcontaminants 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 questionthe protectiveness ofthe remedy. 

### Technica_lAssessmentSummary Basedupon the results ofthe five-year review, it has been concludedthat:

• site soils have been cleanedto 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 of2 

### J.lg/L. • there is no evidence oftrespassing, vandalism or damage to monitoring well RX-4; • there are no drinking water wells in the vicinity ofmonitoring 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 ofthe remedy associatedwiththis 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 ofFl,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 ofthe 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 groundwaterupgradient ofmonitoring well RX-4 will bepursued.

10Protectiveness Statement The implemented remedy is protective o( human health and the environment. The site-wide remedial actions are protective ofhuman 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 ofthis review.



### 11-· ·-**T~bl~** 1: Chronology ofSite Events Event Date(s)

- NYSDEC cites owner ofproperty for not meeting standards for storage ofhazardous wastes 

### 1981 Ownerinitiates site cleanup including removal offour 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 ofremaining tanks and visibly-contaminated soil 

### 1986-1987 EPA Supplemental RifFS 

### 1988-1989

·-. Record ofDecision 

### 1989

. - Consent Decree with Settling Defendantsfor the site 

### 1991

-· ; Initiation ofremedial design 

### 1991

- Focused feasibility study for silt and clay remediation 

### 1993 Explanation ofSignificantDifferences for soil remediation 

### 1994 Completion ofremedial design for groundwaterremedy 

### 1994

- -- ---- - --- - Completion ofremedial design for soil remediation 

### 1995

- -- Initiation ofsoil remediation 

### 1995 Completion ofsoil remediation 

### 1996

-· Initiation ofgroundwaterremedy 

### 1997

- . Completion ofgroundwaterremedy 

### 1997

-- Restoration ofsite, including complete thawing of"freeze wall" 

### 1997-1999

- ·-. . -- Preliminary Site Close-Out Report 

### 1999

-- -- -- Initiation ofgroundwatermonitoring 

### 2000 FirstFive-YearReview 

### 2004 Second Five-Year Review 

### 2009.

- . -------- - 

### 12-- --- ------ - ------ Table

### 2a: Remediation Goals for Soil from the Record ofDecision5
Contaminants ofConcern 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

--

---- ----- -·- ------- Table2b: Remediation Goals for Groundwaterfrom the Record ofDecision

-- --- Contaminants ofConcern 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 ofrainwater percolates through the contaminated zone and mixes with the groundwater. 13. ·- 

### [fable 3: Annual Costs**~-** -- -- 

### Estimated Costs for ContractPerformance Cost perYear 

### Sampling-and analysis $2,000 

## ITotal 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 ofDecision, EPA September 1989

. -· - 

### Explanation ofSignificantDifferences, 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 (groundwaterremedy), 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 CompletionReport- December2000 Groundwater Remedy, Roux Associates, Inc.

- --· -- - - - - -- 

### FirstFive-Year Review Report, EPA September 2004

·---- .. ··-· 

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

-- -- -- 

### 2013 Groundwater Monitoring Event Report, Roux Associates, Inc. September2013

- -·-- --·- ... ·- 

### EPA guidance for conducting five-year reviews and other guidance and regulations to determine ifany 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 1Historical Concentrations at Monitoring Well RX-4

1 00,000

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 Ch loride Std
. 

# 1

- - MCL for cis-1 ,2- DCE



# -

Note: All "N Os" 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