### I. INTRODUCTION Final Site Close OutReport Consolidated Iron and Metal Site City ofNewburgh, Orange County,New**Y~rk**

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

### all appropriate response actions for theConsolidatedIron andMetal sitehavebeensuccessfullyimplemented

### in accordance with 

### Close Out 

### Proceduresfor National Priorities ListSites (OSWERDirective 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 oversightandtheresults ofa final inspectionofthe siteonAugust 18,2010, it

### has beendetermined thattheremedy

### has been constructed 

### in accordance withthe 2006 Record ofDecision (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, andrestrict groundwateruse as a source ofpotable orprocess waterunless 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 groundwaterreleases are under control.



### II. 

### SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Background The Consolidated Iron and Metal site is an inactive car and scrap metaljunk yard located at the foot of Washington Street in the City of Newburgh, Orange County, New York. The facility operatedfrom the 1950s until1999. The site occupies about 8 acres eflandborderingthe Hudson River in a mixed industrial, commercial, and residential area

. Scrap metal processing and storage operations took place at the site during its period ofoperation. Various types of scrap metal were received, including whole automobiles, automobile engines, transmissions, batteries, keypunch machines, computer parts, white goods (appliances), and transformers. A smelterwasusedprimarilyto melt aluminum transmissions to produce a reusable aluminum product. Other materials were also smelted, resulting in a lead-contaminated ash/slag 1by-product Other operations included sorting ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal for recycling, baling 

### and shearing large pieces ofmetal, including whole cars, into smallerpieces for transport, and flattening ofcars. From 1997 to 1999, the New York State Department ofEnvironmental Conservation (NYSDEC) conducted several inspections at the facility and cited the owner for a number ofviolations. 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 

### shutdown operations atthe siteforvariousviolations, includingillegal 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 processedsoil**pil~s** atthe site**w~ch**were**~o fo~d** tobecontaminatedwithlead andPCBs;these soilpiles were similarly transferredto 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 atthe site 

### to determine thehorizontal 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 thanbackground inthe 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 FR75215) and placed on the NPL on June 14,2001 (66 FR32235). 

### In August 2Q02, EPAresponded 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. Priorto conductingtheRI, itwas necessary to clear the site ofthe 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 ofthe office building and three process-areabuildings. The RI was initiated inJune 2004 and the results were summarized 

### in the Record ofDecision (ROD) issuedby 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 inJuly 2006 andthe site remedy was selected and memorialized inthe site ROD which was issued on October4, 2006. The elements ofthe selected remedy were as follows:

• a remedial design program to provide 

### the details necessary for the construction and monitoring oftheremedial program.;

• removal and off-site disposal of surface debris and demolition, removal, and off-site disposal ofthe foundations/basements of the former process area buildings and ofthe former garage inits entirety;

• excavation and off-site disposal ofcontaminated 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 ofcontaminated soil exceeding the PRO for VOCs and PCBs in subsurface soils (10 ppmtotal for each) to the watertable;

• placement of a readily-visible demarcation material at the interface between the excavations and backfill;

• backfillingthe 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 constructionatthe siteunless anevaluationofthepotential for vaporintrusionisconducted and mitigation, ifnecessary, is performedin 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 componentspost-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 ofthe components ofthe remedy, and (e) the requirement that the owner or person implementing the remedy submit periodic certifications that the institutional and engineering controls are inplace; and

• periodic reviews by EPA to ensure that the remedy continues to be protective ofpublic health and the environment. 

### 3

### RemedialAction 

### Objectives (RAOs) · The MOs established inthe ROD

.for eachmedium atthe site are as follows:

• Prevent or minimize exposure to human

. and ecological receptors through ingestion and inhalation ofor dermal contactwith 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 siteremedy isprotective ofhumanhealthand· the environment. The groundwater will be monitored as part ofthe 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 establishedfor groundwater. · Surface Water Results from the RI indicate that contamination at the site 

### has not significantly impacted the surface water ofthe adjacent Hudson River. The site-specific human health and ecological risk assessments indicate the surface water**do~s** not contributeto the site-specific 

### risks orhazards. 

### 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 sedimentaboy_ebac.kgrotmdleyels. Thesite.: specifichumanhealthandecologicalrisk assessments indicate that sedimentposes very lowrisks to humanhealth and ecological receptors. As a result, no RAO is established for sediment.



### Rc:medial Construction Activities In early 2007, EPAprovided 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 ofPRP 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, andtest

### pitexcavationsto 

### develop adesign documentfor the remedial construction. The RD report was completed in

### October2009. From Septemberthrough November 2008, EPA conducted certainpreparatory activities at the site to facilitate the remedial construction. These activities includedthe demolition and removal ofthe garage, the demolition and 

### removal ofthe remaining building foundations, the removal ofscrap metal and debris, and the dismantling and removal ofa truck frame and metal barges from the shoreline ofthe site. The former building foundation areas were backfilled with clean material andthe truck frame and barge areas ofthe site were replaced withboulders to restorethe shoreline. The contaminated soil associated with the building foundation removal was sampled for disposal purposes and shipped to 

### an appropriate facility in December2008. Following the preparatory activities, construction ofthe remedial action commenced on July 6, 2009. The work was done by EPA under the Emergency Rapid Response Services (ERRS) contract; theprime contractorwas WRS Infrastructure & 

### EnvironmentInc. The workwas divided into two phases: Phase One involved the excavation and off-site disposal of60,000 tons ofsite soils across the southernhalfofthe site to a deptQ. ofs.qc feet andbackfiJJing with clean fill. 

### Phase Two involvedthe**excavatio~** 

### and off-site disposal ofapproximately 30,000 tons ofPCB and 

### VOC impacted soils to the water table and the excavation and off-site disposal ofremaining site soils, approximately 27,000 tons, covering the northern third ofthe 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 andtransportwas carried outusing 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% ofthe 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 ofthe soil was 

### transported to 

### a RCRA Subtitle D facility. Trucks and railcars were lined and sealed to prevent spillage ofmaterial 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 setby NYSDEC for restricted residential use and the PRG values required by the ROD to be met for backfill. Prior to placement ofthe backfill, the base ofthe 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 5interface between potentially contaminated soil and clean backfill material. For approximately 

### 80% ofthe site, select structural fill suitable for redevelopment ofthe 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 ofthe backfilled material and the bank fortified with rip rap along the entire river front. To allow for drainage along the north end ofthe 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 airmonitoringwereroutinelyperformed in accordance withdesign specifications. In addition to the work performed onthe site, at the request ofthe New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), EPA removed soilsjustbeyond 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 ofthe punch list items were determined to be completed since the pre-final inspection, confirmed at a final inspection ofthe 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 atthe site and included as-built drawings to document site conditions at completion. The City ofNewburgh, 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 withrespect to institutional controls: imposition ofinstitutional 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 ofthe 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 ofpotable 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 ManagementPlan 

### The ROD calledfor the development ofan SMP to provide for the propermanagement ofallpostconstructionremedy components. The SMP was approved inJune 2014. lli. MONITORING RESULTS An 

### inspection ofthe site conducted during a groundwater san:i.pling event on May 28-30, 2013, indicated no adverse conditions at the 

### site since the completion ofthe 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 analyzedfor VOCs, SVOCs, PCBs, andmetals. These samples were collectedto supportthe 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 GroundwaterData 

### Two rounds ofgroundwater 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 supportthe 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 

### ofState or federal drinking water standards.) The risk assessment, in particular, indicated 

### that the contaminants ofconcern 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 ofthe 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), andMW-08 (15 ug/L). OtherVOCs thatexceeded screening criteria were benzene in background well MW-09 (9.6 ug/L), MW-04 (3.8 ug/L) and MW-05 (18
7ug/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). Round2: VOCs were detected above screeningcriteriain six ofthe 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). Regardinginorganics, 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 

### inboth the background well and a few wells downgradient ofthe former process area slightly above the State drinking water standard. Other VOCs, consistent with gasoline, were also found in groundwater

. samples. This contamination maybe a result offormer underground storage tanks on theproperty.

Lead, was found 

### in two wells during Round 1 and was not detected above federal drinking water standards inRound 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofconcernidentified in the ROD were benzene and lead. Inthe 2013 sampling event, benzene was detected inboththe backgroundwell and one on-sitewell. 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 withthe SMP.

IV. SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAND MAINTENANCE REQUIRED 

### The SMP includes operation and 

### maintenance (O&M) activities required for the site. Because thero are no mechanical systems installed atthe site, O&M activities consistof periodicinspections ofthe site property (minimally once per year and additionally following severe weather events) to note general site conditions and to ensure thatthe security fence 

### and monitoring wells are ingood 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, inaccordance with the 2006 ROD. In additionto mediamonitoring, O&M activities include periodic certificationthatthe institutional controls established inthe environmental easement attachedto the siteproperty are unchanged and thatnothing 

### has occurred thatwould impairthe ability to protectpublichealth andthe 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 ofthe excavation and off-site disposal ofcontaminated soil exceeding the cleanup goal for lead to a depth ofsix feet from the surface and the excavation and off-site disposal ofcontaminated soil exceeding the cleanup goals for VOCs and PCBs in the subsurface soils to the water table and backfilling ofthe excavated areas with clean fill to grade, were consistent with 

### the ROD, RD, and all work plans prepared for design and construction ofthe 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

### andNYSDEChave determinedthat all**aruil~cal**results are accm:ate

### tothe degreeneeded

### to assure satisfactory execution oftheremedial actionconsistentwiththeROO and the 

### RDplans and specifications.·


### VI. FIVE-YEARREVIEW Hazardous substanceswillremainatthe site above levelsthat allowunlimiteduse andunrestricted 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 ofthe 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 

### Proceduresfor

·National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.4-22, May 2011).**Spec~cally,** the implemented remedy achieved the degree ofcleanup 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 humanhealth and the enviromp.ent

WalterE. 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, ConsolidatedIron andMetal Site, CDM, July 2006 

### Recordof Decision, ConsolidatedIron andMetal Site, EPA, October4, 2006**Cons~nt**

### Decree, DocketNo.: 08 Civ. 7378 (SCR), filed January 29, 2009



### . RemedialDesign Report, ConsolidatedIron and

### Metal Site, EPA, October 2009



### Preliminary Close OutReport, ConsolidatedIron andMetal Site, EPA, September 2010 

### RemedialAction Report, ConsolidatedIron andMetal Site, EPA, March 2012 

### Site ManagementPlan, ConsolidatedIron andMetal Site, June 2014



### HTableS Groundwater Monitoring Well Screening CrHeria Exceedances
- Round 1 and Round 2 ' Consolidated Iron and Metal Superfund Site

.Newburgh, NewYork 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 _(backg round). 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 

# - INORGANICS 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 groundwateraampDng event AU values are in micrograms per nter (ug/1..) R2 =round 2 groundwatersampUng 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 INORGAN 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 ofState 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 ofthe 2006 Record of Decision U 

## =non-detected value