I. INTRODUCTION 

Final Site Close Out Report 

Consolidated Iron and Metal Site 

City of Newburgh, Orange County, New Y~rk 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that all appropriate response 

actions for the Consolidated Iron and Metal site have been successfully implemented in accordance 

with Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-22, May 

2011). 

All appropriate response actions at the Consolidated Iron and Metal Superfund site have been 

successfully implemented. Specifically, based upon field observations associated with EPA 

oversight and the results of a final inspection of the site on August 18, 2010, it has been determined 

that the remedy has been constructed in accordance with the 2006 Record of Decision (ROD). 

The 2006 R9P required the implementation of an institutional control to restrict excavation 

activities below the demarcation layer, restrict new cons1:ruqtion unless vapor intrusion is 

evaluated, and restrict groundwater use as a source of potable or process water unless groundwater 

quality standards are met. The institutional control is in place. It has been determined that no 

further response, other than long-.tenn monitoring and five-year reviews, is anticipated. Human 

exposures and contaminated groundwater releases are under control. 

II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS 

Background 

The Consolidated Iron and Metal site is an inactive car and scrap metal junk yard located at the 

foot of Washington Street in the City of Newburgh, Orange County, New York. The facility 

operated from the 1950s until1999. The site occupies about 8 acres efland bordering the Hudson 

River in a mixed industrial, commercial, and residential area 

. Scrap metal processing and storage operations took place at the site during its period of operation. 

Various types of scrap metal were received, including whole automobiles, automobile engines, 

transmissions, batteries, keypunch machines, computer parts, white goods (appliances), and 

transformers. A smelter was used primarily to melt aluminum transmissions to produce a reusable 

aluminum product. Other materials were also smelted, resulting in a lead-contaminated ash/slag 

1 
by-product Other operations included sorting ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal for recycling, 

baling and shearing large pieces of metal, including whole cars, into smaller pieces for transport, 

and flattening of cars. From 1997 to 1999, the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC) conducted several inspections at the facility and cited the owner for a 

number of violations. Subsequent inspections by NYSDEC noted that the owner had failed to 

adequately correct the violations and in the fall of 1999, the New York State Attorney General 

shut down operations at the site for various violations, including illegal discharges to surface water 

without a permit. 

In August 1998, EPA sampled an ash/slag pile ·at the site that was generated by the aluminum 

smelting operation and found it to be contaminated with lead and polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs). The scrap metal in the pile was segregated out and-the resulting fines pile, estimated at 

6,600 tons, was removed from the site in 1999 and placed in an approved treatnient, $rage, and 

disposal facility (TSDF) for stabilization and land:filling. Also in 1999, EPA sampled other 

processed soil pil~s at the site w~ch were ~o fo~d to be contaminated with lead and PCBs; these 

soil piles were similarly transferred to an approved TSDF. Additionally in 1999, EPA constructed 

a berm from site soils to prevent storm water fro~ carrying site contaminants into the Hudson 

River. 

In September 1999, EPA conducted a preliminary study at the site to determine the horizontal and 

vertical extent of contamination. Surface and subsurface sojl and groundwater samples were 

collected and analyzed, indicating the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), 

sem.ivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs), pesticides, PCBs, and metals at concentrations greater 

than background in the surface and subsurface soils. Further, elevated concentrations ofPCBs ancl 

metals were detected in Hudson River sediments, which is a fiShery and ecologically sensitive 

environment. Accordingly, the site was proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL) on 

December 1, 2000 (65 FR 75215) and placed on the NPL on June 14,2001 (66 FR 32235). 

In August 2Q02, EPA responded to local concerns about trespassing and scavenging taking place 

at the site and constructed a security fence. Concurrently, EPA developed a work plan for the 

performance of a remedial investigation and feasibility stud.y {RIIFS) to more thoroughly 

determine the extent of contamination at the site and to devise alternatives to mitigate the 

_ contamination. Prior to conducting the RI, it was necessary to clear the site of the debris and some 

·---··---··-·-------_gf,_!!J.~ S!f!:!~s located on-site. Accordingly, from June to September 2003, EPA conducted site 

. clearing operation8-whicii-iiicfwiecHiie.removafoftires:-scrap iiietiil~ concrete,iea.CI-impacted soil, 

and hydraulic oil from the site and the demolition and clearing of the office building and three 

process-area buildings. The RI was initiated in June 2004 and the results were summarized in the 

Record of Decision (ROD) issued by EPA in 2006. 

Remedy Selection 

A FS was developed in 2005 to evaluate potential alternatives to address the widespread soil 

contamination at the site. A preferred alternative was presented to the public for review and 

2 

' 
comment in July 2006 and the site remedy was selected and memorialized in the site ROD which 

was issued on October 4, 2006. The elements of the selected remedy were as follows: 

• a remedial design program to provide the details necessary for the construction and 

monitoring of the remedial program.; 

• removal and off-site disposal of surface debris and demolition, removal, and off-site 

disposal of the foundations/basements of the former process area buildings and of the 

former garage in its entirety; 

• excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil exceeding the residential preliminary 

remediation goal (PRO) for lead (400 parts .per million (ppm)) down to six feet below 

ground surface (bgs); 

• excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated soil exceeding the PRO for VOCs and 

PCBs in subsurface soils ( 10 ppm total for each) to the water table; 

• placement of a readily-visible demarcation material at the interface between the 

excavations and backfill; 

• backfilling the excavated soil with clean :fill, meeting the PRO values, to grade; 

• imposition of institutional controls in the form of an environmental easement and/or 

restrictive covenant that will at a minimum require: (a) restricting any excavation below 

the soil cover's demarcation layer of six feet unless the excavation activities are in 

compliance with an EPA-approved site management plan (SMP); (b) restricting new 

construction at the site unless an evaluation of the potential for vapor intrusion is conducted 

and mitigation, if necessary, is performed in compliance with an EPA-approved SMP; and 

(c) ·restricting the use of groundwater as a source of potable or process water unless 

groundwater quality standards are met; · 

• development of a SMP that provides for the proper management of all site remedy 

components post-construction, such as institutional controls, and that shall also include: (a) 

- monitoring ef -site groundwater to ensure that, following the soil excavation, the 

contamination is attenuating and groundwater quality continues to improve; (b) an 

inventory of any use restrictions on the site; (c) necessary provisions for ensuring the 

easement/covenant remains in place and is effective; (d) provision for any operation and 

maintenance required of the components of the remedy, and (e) the requirement that the 

owner or person implementing the remedy submit periodic certifications that the 

institutional and engineering controls are in place; and 

• periodic reviews by EPA to ensure that the remedy continues to be protective of public 

health and the environment. 

3 
Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs) · 

The MOs established in the ROD. for each medium at the site are as follows: 

• Prevent or minimize exposure to human .and ecological receptors through ingestion and 

inhalation of or dermal contact with contaminated soils; and 

• minimize or eliminate contaminant migration from site soils to groundwater and surface 

water. 

Groundwater 

Due to the limited risks and exposure to the groundwater at this site, institutional controls are 

deemed adequate to address any potential future exposure. Specifically, deed restrictions will be 

imposed to prevent the use of groundwater as a source of potable or process water unless 

groundwater quality standards are met. Long-term monitoring will be conducted to ensure that 

the selected site remedy is protective of human health and· the environment. The groundwater will 

be monitored as part of the response action to ensure that, following the soil excavation, the 

contamination is attenuating and groundwater quality continues to improve. As a result, no RAO 

is established for groundwater. · 

Surface Water 

Results from the RI indicate that contamination at the site has not significantly impacted the 

surface water of the adjacent Hudson River. The site-specific human health and ecological risk 

assessments indicate the surface water do~s not contribute to the site-specific risks or hazards. As 

a result, no RAO is established for surface water. 

Sediment 

Results from the RI indicate that contamination at the site has not sigin.ficantly impacted the 

sediment aboy_e bac.kgrotmd leyels. The site.:specific human health and ecological risk assessments 

indicate that sediment poses very low risks to human health and ecological receptors. As a result, 

no RAO is established for sediment. 

Rc:medial Construction Activities 

In early 2007, EPA provided notice to the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) identified for the 

site, offering them the opportunity to undertake the work. Negotiations concluded in 2008 with a 

Consent Decree cashout settlement entered into by certain of the PRPs and EPA, with EPA 

4 
performing the work with a combination of PRP and federal funding. The Consent Decree was 

entered by the Court in January 2009. 

In spring 2008, EPA conducted a topographic survey, geophysical survey, geoprobe sampling 

program, and test pit excavations to develop a design document for the remedial construction. The 

RD report was completed in October 2009. 

From September through November 2008, EPA conducted certain preparatory activities at the site 

to facilitate the remedial construction. These activities included the demolition and removal of the 

garage, the demolition and removal of the remaining building foundations, the removal of scrap 

metal and debris, and the dismantling and removal of a truck frame and metal barges from the 

shoreline of the site. The former building foundation areas were backfilled with clean material 

and the truck frame and barge areas of the site were replaced with boulders to restore the shoreline. 

The contaminated soil associated with the building foundation removal was sampled for disposal 

purposes and shipped to an appropriate facility in December 2008. 

Following the preparatory activities, construction of the remedial action commenced on July 6, 

2009. The work was done by EPA under the Emergency Rapid Response Services (ERRS) 

contract; the prime contractor was WRS Infrastructure & Environment Inc. The work was divided 

into two phases: Phase One involved the excavation and off-site disposal of 60,000 tons of site 

soils across the southern half of the site to a deptQ. of s.qc feet and backfiJJing with clean fill. Phase 

Two involved the excavatio~ and off-site disposal of approximately 30,000 tons of PCB and VOC 

impacted soils to the water table and the excavation and off-site disposal of remaining site soils, 

approximately 27,000 tons, covering the northern third of the site to a depth of six feet and 

backfilling with clean fill. Phase One was completed in October 2009 and Phase Two was 

completed in August 2010. 

Soil excavation and transport was carried out using clean-diesel equipment in accordance with the 

Region 2 Clean and Green policy. Excavated soil was transported under Phase One to a nearby 

rail depot in Newburgh, while excavated soil was transported under Phase Two to a rail depot in 

Middletown, New York. Soil was tested before leavir)g the site to ensure its disposal in an 

appropriate facility. Approximately 85% of the soil was classified as Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste for lead and Cadmium and was transported to a RCRA 

Subtitle C disposal facilicy~ The remainder of the soil was transported to a RCRA Subtitle D 

facility. Trucks and railcars were lined and sealed to prevent spillage of material during transport 

and transfer. 

Backfilling was performed concurrently with the excavation, maintaining an adequate buffer zone 

to avoid cross contamination. Backfill material was tested for suitability before placement, 

meeting the guidelines set by NYSDEC for restricted residential use and the PRG values required 

by the ROD to be met for backfill. Prior to placement of the backfill, the base of the excavation 

was sampled on a 50-foot grid to characterize and document the soil remaining on site; samples 

were analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and metals. The documentational sampling database is 

included in the Remedial Action Report. Geotextile fabric was then placed to demarcate the 

5 
interface between potentially contaminated soil and clean backfill material. For approximately 

80% of the site, select structural fill suitable for redevelopment of the site was placed in one-foot 

lifts and compacted to specification using a vibratory roller, and graded to design specification. 

The remaining 20% of the site, essentially a 1 00-foot buffer along the river edge, required 

additional allowances for subsurface drainage and the backfill consisted of select structural fill, 

clean stone, geotextile, and silty loam or bank run. The eastern site boundary adjacent to the 

Hudson River was graded to match the grade of the backfilled material and the bank fortified with 

rip rap along the entire river front. To allow for drainage along the north end of the site, a shallow 

surface swale was constructed just inside the north fence line using the backfilled material. 

Following reaching final grade with backfill soil, the entire site was covered with a minimum of 

six inches of topsoil and hydroseeded to provide a vegetative cover to ensure dust and erosion 

control. 

Excavation, transport and backfilling were conducted from July 2009 through August 2010 with 

little work stoppage for weather. Surveying was performed during the entire operation by a New 

York State licensed surveyor for documentation purposes and to ensure that lift layer depths were 

ac~urate. Dust suppression and air monitoring were routinely performed in accordance with design 

specifications. 

In addition to the work performed on the site, at the request of the New York State Department of 

Health (NYSDO H), EPA removed soils just beyond the north and south property bo\llldaries to a 

depth of approximately two feet (where not hindered by utilities) and backfilled with clean fill. 

This was done to ensure that any contaminated soil that may have migrated beyond the site 

property was also mitigated. 

Inspections and Post-Remediation 

EPA conducted a pre-final inspection with NYSDEC at the site on June 9, 2010, and a punch list 

was compiled. All of the punch list items were determined to be completed since the pre-final 

inspection, confirmed at a final inspection of the site on August 18, 2010. EPA completed its 

Remedial Action Report (RAR) for the site on March 16, 2012. The RAR documented all the 

remedial activities conducted at the site and included as-built drawings to document site conditions 

at completion. The City of Newburgh, as current property owner, is responsible for management 

_ __9f the site in accordance with the SMP developed for post-remediation uses of the site. Site 

management responsibilities will be transferred to any future site owner. 

Institutional Controls 

The ROD called for the following with respect to institutional controls: imposition of institutional 

controls in the form of an environmental easement and/or restrictive covenant that will at a 

minimum require: (a) restricting any excavation below the soil cover's demarcation layer of 

generally six feet (deeper in some areas of the site and shallower in others) unless the excavation 

activities are in compliance with an EPA-approved SMP; (b) restricting new construction at the 

site unless an evaluation of the potential for vapor intrusion is conducted and mitigation, if 

6 
necessary, is performed in compliance with an EPA-approved SMP; and (c) restricting the use of 

groundwater as a source of potable or process water unless groundwater quality standards are met. 

The restrictions are memoriali~ed in an enVironmental easement filed with the Orange County 

Clerk on September 11, 2012. 

Site Management Plan 

The ROD called for the development of an SMP to provide for the proper management of all postconstruction remedy components. The SMP was approved in June 2014. 

lli. MONITORING RESULTS 

An inspection of the site conducted during a groundwater san:i.pling event on May 28-30, 2013, 

indicated no adverse conditions at the site since the completion of the remedial action. lt was 

observed that the fence securing the site property is in good repair. Monitoring wells were found 

to be in good condition and groundwater samples were secured from the ten on-site wells and 

analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, and metals. These samples were collected to support the ROD 

objective that the SMP, as the vehicle for the proper management of all site remedy components 

post-construction, includes monitoring of site groundwater to ensure that, following the soil 

excavation, the contamination attenuates ~ groundwater quality improves over time. 

2004 Groundwater Data 

Two rounds of groundwater samples were collected from nine on-site monitoring wells (the most 

upgradient well, MW-9, was designated a background well) in August and November 2004 to 

support the remedial investigation. Results showed the groundwater to be minimally impl;lC!ed by 

site activities, with VOCs and inorganic indicator contaminants exceeding screening criteria in 

certain wells at the site. (Screening criteria for groundwater are the most stringent of State or 

federal drinking water standards.) The risk assessment, in particular, indicated that the 

contaminants of concern found above federal and state drinking water standards were benzene and 

lead. In addition to these contaminants of concern, other VOCs commonly found in gasoline 

(MTBE, benzene, ethylbenzene, and m,p-xylene) were detected in some groundwater samples 

during these two rounds. Other inorganics, namely iron and zinc, were detected in some 

groundYlater sampling events above groundwater .quality standar-ds. These standards are 

secondary MCLs and will continue to be monitored. 

A summary of the results for the two sampling events appear below. Table 5 from the ROD, 

summarizing the 2004 sampling results, is also provided as an attachment to this report. 

Round 1: VOCs were detected above screening criteria in five of the Round 1 groundwater 

samples. MTBE exceeded the screening criterion in MW-04 (14 micrograms per liter (ug/L)), 

MW-05 (14 ug/L), MW-07 (19 ug/L), and MW-08 (15 ug/L). Other VOCs that exceeded screening 

criteria were benzene in background well MW-09 (9.6 ug/L), MW-04 (3.8 ug/L) and MW-05 (18 

7 
ug/L); toluene (9.8 ug/L) and ethylbenzene (62 ug/L) in MW-05; and m,p-xylenes in MW-04 (6.6 

ug!L) and MW-05 (260 ug!L). 

With respect to inorganics, iron exceeded its screening criterion in all nine monitoring wells, 

including the background well (MW-09). Iron levels in downgradient wells ranged from 4,500 

ug/L to 70,000 ug/L. Lead exceeded its screening criterion in two wells, MW-03 (38 ug/L) and 

MW-05 (91 and 89 ug/L). Zinc exceeded its screening criterion in MW-05 (150 and 140 ug/L). 

Round 2: VOCs were detected above screening criteria in six of the Round 2 groundwater samples. 

MTBE exceeded the screening criterion in MW-03 (16 ug/L), MW-04 (47J ug/L), MW-07 (26 

ug/L), and MW-08 (14 ug/L). Other VOCs that exceeded screening criteria were benzene in 

background well MW-09 (13 ug/L), MW-04 (1.9J ug/L), and MW-05 (4.9 ug!L); ethylbenzene in 

MW-05 (19 ug/L); and m,p-xy1enes in MW-05 (61 ug!L). 

Regarding inorganics, iron and zinc exceeded screening criteria, but lead did not. Iron levels were 

similar to Round 1, but were higher; levels in downgradient wells ranged from 5,550 ug/L to 

87,200 ug/L. Zinc exceeded its screening criterion in seven wells during Round 2 (compared to 

two welis during Round 1); results ranged from 25.6J ug/L to 105 ug/L. 

In summary, the remedial investigation sampling found limited benzene contamination in both the 

background well and a few wells downgradient of the former process area slightly above the State 

drinking water standard. Other VOCs, consistent with gasoline, were also found in groundwater 

. samples. This contamination may be a result of former underground storage tanks on the property. 

Lead, was found in two wells during Round 1 and was not detected above federal drinking water 

standards in Round 2. Other metals were found in both the background wells ;:,md site wells above 

groundwater quality standards. 

2013 Groundwater Data 

In May 2013, groundwater samples were collected from the ten monitoring wells re-developed at 

the site following construction. Monitoring wells one through nine replaced the nine wells 

discussed above; a tenth well was included at the request of NYSDEC to provide additional 

coverage in the area downgradient of the former compactor/bailer and shear buildings. Samples 

were analyzed for VOCs, ~VOCs, PCBs, and inorganics. Results illustrating the same indicator 

contaminants reported on Table 5 of the ROD are provided in table format attached to this report. 

VOCs were detected above screening criteria in two samples. Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, 

and m,p-xylene exceeded screening criteria in the sample collected from MW-1, with values of22 

ug/L, 9.9 ug/L, 720 ug/L, and 73 ug/L respectively. The sample collected from Upgradient 

monitoring well MW -9 contained benzene at 5 ug/L. 

The inorganic elements iron, magnesium, manganese, sodium, and zinc exceeded the screening 

criteria in most wells. However, these metals occur in high concentrations naturally in New York 

State and the levels measured are comparable to levels measured in 2004. In addition, these 

8 
screening criteria are secondary MCLs. They will continue to be monitored. The contamjnant of 

concern, lead, was detected above the screening criterion in a single sample collected from MW6, at 70 ug/L. 

Conclusion 

Results indicate that the low levels of contamination in site groundwater are attenuating and 

groundwater quality has improved compared to baseline levels measured prior to remedial 

activities. The main contaminants of concern identified in the ROD were benzene and lead. In the 

2013 sampling event, benzene was detected in both the background well and one on-site well. This 

data supports the ROD assumption that the groundwater contamination is localized and the 

decrease in frequency indicates that Jimjted residual groundwater contamination has attenuated. 

Lead was detected in only one well above federal drinking water standards. These data support 

the ROD assumption that groundwater contamination is sporadic and remediation is not required. 

Groundwater quality will continue to be monitored annually in accordance with the SMP. 

IV. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIRED 

The SMP includes operation and maintenance (O&M) activities required for the site. Because 

thero are no mechanical systems installed at the site, O&M activities consist of periodic inspections 

of the site property (minimally once per year and additionally following severe weather events) to 

note general site conditions and to ensure that the security fence and monitoring wells are in good 

repair. Groundwater sampling of the ten on-site monitoring wells is conducted annually to 

establish that the 'low levels of contamination in site groundwater is attenuating and that 

groundwater quality improves following site remediation, in accordance with the 2006 ROD. 

In addition to media monitoring, O&M activities include periodic certification that the institutional 

controls established in the environmental easement attached to the site property are unchanged and 

that nothing has occurred that would impair the ability to protect public health and the environment 

or otherwise constitute a violation or failure to comply with site controls. This certification is . 

provided in the Periodic Review Report, to be submitted annually by the site owner. 

V. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QA/QC 

Cleanup activities at the site, consisting of the excavation and off-site disposal of contaminated 

soil exceeding the cleanup goal for lead to a depth of six feet from the surface and the excavation 

and off-site disposal of contaminated soil exceeding the cleanup goals for VOCs and PCBs in the 

subsurface soils to the water table and backfilling of the excavated areas with clean fill to grade, 

were consistent with the ROD, RD, and all work plans prepared for design and construction of the 

remedial action. A Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) program was used throughout 

the remedial aqtion. The QA/QC program was in conformance with EPA and NYSDEC standards 

9 
and, accordingly, EPA and NYSDEC have determined that all aruil~cal results are accm:ate to the 

degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the remedial action consistent with the ROO and 

the RD plans and specifications.· 

VI. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW 

Hazardous substances will remain at the site above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c) and 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

300.430(f)(4)(ii), EPA must conduct a statutory five-year review of the remedy at this site. The 

first ·Five-Year Review Report will be completed by summer 2014 (five years after initiation of 

on-site construction). 

~STIECO~LETION~ 

· The site meets all the site-completion requirementS · as specified in Close Out Procedures for 

·National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.4-22, May 2011). Spec~cally, the 

implemented remedy achieved the degree of cleanup specified in the ROD for all pathways of 

exposure. The remedy, remedial action objectives, and ass~ciated cleanup goals are consistent 

with agency policy and guidance. No further Superfund response action is needed to protect 

human health and the enviromp.ent 

Walter E. Mugclan; Director 

Emergency & Remedial Response Division 

10 
Vlll. Bffi.LIOGRAPHY 

Remedial Investigation Report, Consolidated Irr;m and Meta~ Site, Camp, Dresser & McKee 

(CDM), July 2006 

Feasibility Study Report, Consolidated Iron and Metal Site, CDM, July 2006 

Record of Decision, Consolidated Iron and Metal Site, EPA, October 4, 2006 

Cons~nt Decree, Docket No.: 08 Civ. 7378 (SCR), filed January 29, 2009 

. Remedial Design Report, Consolidated Iron and Metal Site, EPA, October 2009 

Preliminary Close Out Report, Consolidated Iron and Metal Site, EPA, September 2010 

Remedial Action Report, Consolidated Iron and Metal Site, EPA, March 2012 

Site Management Plan, Consolidated Iron and Metal Site, June 2014 

H 
TableS 

Groundwater Monitoring Well Screening CrHeria Exceedances - Round 1 and Round 2 

' Consolidated Iron and Metal Superfund Site 

.Newburgh, New York 

ROUND 1 

MW-09-R1 

Chemical Name SSGWSC {background) MW-01·R1 MW-02-R1 MW-03-R1 MW-o4-R1 

VOCs I 

Methyl tert-butyl ether 10 ---- u - u - - 14 

Benzene 1 9.6 - u - u - J 3.8 

Toluene 5 - J - J - J - - Ethylbenzene 5 ' u - - u - J - m.P-Xvlenes 5 - u - - u · ~ 6.6 

INORGANICS I 

Iron 300 590 4500 42b00 26000 30000 

Lead 15 I __, u - u - u 38 - u 

Magnesium 35000 ----l - - 47000 47000 I 

Manganese 300 890 3100 2200 1400 1200 

Sodium 20000 8oooq 84000 93000 45000 110000 

Zinc 5 ~ u - u - u - u - u 

ROUND2 I 

MW-09~ 

Chemical Name SSGWSC _(background). MW-01-RZ MW-02-RZ MW-03-RZ MW-04-RZ 

VOCs 

Methyl tert-butyl ether 10 - J - u - J 16 47 J 

Benzene 1 13 - J - u - J 1.9 J 

Ethylbenzene 5 - u - - u - u - m,P-Xvlenes 5 - u - J - u - J - IN ORGANICS 

Antimony 3 - u - u - u 33.4 J - u 

Iron 300 773 5550 50200 37600 29000 

Magnesium 35000 - - 46200 54800 55500 

Manganese 300 954 2730 2430 1700 1250 

Sodium 20000 83900 J 78300 J 105000 J 43700 J 114999 J 

Thallium 0.5 7.1 J 5.9 J 6.3 J 4.6 J 6.2 J 

Zinc 5 - R 26.4 J 25.6 J - R 33.1 J 

Notes: 

Indicator contaminants are balded R1 = round 1 groundwater aampDng event 

AU values are in micrograms per nter (ug/1..) R2 = round 2 groundwater sampUng event 

Dashed cells indicate that the value does not exceed the SSGWSC - VOC& = volaUie organic compounds 

SSGWSC = site-specific groundwater screening criteria U = non-detected value. 

MW-05-R1 MW-05-R1-Dup MW-OB·R1 MW-07-R1 MW-OB·R1 

14 11 - 19 15 

18 15 - u - u - J 

9.8 9.7 - u - u - J 

62 61 - u - u - J 

260 250 - u - u -

70000 69000 14000 19000 5900 

~1 89 - u - u - 67000 . 67000 - 37000 - 1500 1500 1100 670 380 

150000 150000 50000 70000 30000 

150 140 - u - u - u 

MW-05-R2 MW-05-RZ-Dup MW-08-RZ MW-07-RZ MW-08-RZ 

- J - - 26 14 

4.9 4.4 - u - u - J 

19 17 - u - u - J 

61 65 - u - u -

- u - u - u - u - u 

87200 84400 19600 20800 10900 

89800 87300 - 39000 - 1890 1840 1640 668 488 

200001 J 192000 J 47400 J 69200 J 29200 J 

a:9 J 5.9 J - u 5.1 J 6.2 J . 98.8 97.8 26.2 J 46.7 J 105 

J = value I& estimated due to exceeded quality control criteria 

R = data was rejected 

Page 1 of1 
, . ~ ' 

Consolidated Iron and Metal Site, Newburgh, New York 

Groundwater Sample Analysis May 2013 

Chemical Screeni MW MW MW MW· MW MW MW 

Name ng -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 

Criteri 

a 

VOCs 

MTBE 10 u 0.74 10 2.6 5.3 0.97 9.9 

Benzene 1 22 u u u u u u 

Toluene 5 9.9 u u u u u u 

Ethy1benze 5 720 u u u u u u 

ne 

m,p- 5 73 u u u u u u 

Xylenes 

IN ORGAN 

ICS 

Antimony 3 u u u u u u u 

Iron 300 290 230 230 100 100 120 120 

0 00 00 00 00 00 0 

Lead 15 1.6 u 4.6 5.1 1.2 70 3.2 

Magnesium 35000 110 340 510 430 .300 390 680 

00 00 00 00 00 00 0 

Manganese 300 150 150 340 320 130 110 110 

0 0 0 0 

Sodium 20000 630 800 490 560 750 680 360 

.00 00 00 00 00 00 00 

Thallium 0.5 u u u u u u u 

Zinc 5 6.7 4.3 9.1 5.3 3.1 24 4.9 

Notes: 

All values are in micrograms per liter (ug!L) 

MW 

-8 

u 

u 

u 

u 

u 

"U 

140 

0 

12 

160 

00 

84 

550 

0 

u 

50 

Screening Criteria are most stringent of State or federal drinking water standards 

MW MW 

-9 -10 

u 3 

5 u 

u u 

u u 

u u 

u u 

170 180 

0 00 

u 9.2 

ISO 310 

00 00 

590 110 

0 

740 890 

00 00 

u u 

3.8 10 

Analytes reported on this table correspond to those reported on Table 5 of the 2006 Record of 

Decision 

U = non-detected value