Superfund Record of Decision York Oil Co OU 2 Moira NY


                                     EPA/ROD/R02-98/140
                                     1998
EPA Superfund
     Record of Decision:
     YORK OIL CO.
     EPA ID: NYD000511733
     OU02
     MOIRA, NY
     09/29/1998

-------
EPA 541-R98-140

                           RECORD OF DECISION

                             York Oil Site
                            Moira,  New York
                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                               Region II
                          New York,  New York
                            September 1998

-------
                   DECLARATION FOR RECORD OF DECISION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION

York Oil Site, Moira, New York

STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

This Record of Decision  (ROD) documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's  (EPA's) selection of a
remedy for the second operable unit or Contamination Pathways portion of the York Oil Superfund site (the
"Site") in accordance with the requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA) , 42 U.S.C. °9601-9675, and to the extent practicable, the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300. This decision document explains the
factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for the Contamination Pathways portion of the Site.

The attached index  (Appendix III) identifies the items that comprise the Administrative Record upon which the
selection of the remedial action is based.

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) was consulted on the proposed remedial
action in accordance with CERCLA °121(f), 42 U.S.C. °9621(f),  and it concurs with the selected remedy (see
Appendix IV).

ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE

Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, if not addressed by implementing the
response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED-REMEDY

The major components of the selected remedy include the following:

•      Excavation and/or dredging the lead- and PCB-contaminated sediments from the Western Wetland located
       immediately to the west and northwest of the Site Proper Western Drainage Area and in the drainage
       channel leading to North Lawrence Road,  followed by solidification/stabilization and on-Site disposal.
       Excavation and/or dredging of sediments in the "remaining areas" of the Western Wetland will be
       contingent upon the results of design-phase sediment sampling to more accurately define the extent of
       contamination and the existence of any "channelized" contaminants, and design-phase studies to
       determine whether lead and/or PCBs in these sediments  pose an ecological threat;

•      Excavation and/or dredging the contaminated sediments  from the Northwestern Wetland,  followed by
       solidification/stabilization and on-Site disposal,  contingent upon the results of design-phase
       studies to determine whether these sediments pose an ecological threat;

•      Natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination;

•      Implementation of institutional controls to prevent the installation and use of groundwater wells in
       the Southern Wetland; and

•      Long-term groundwater monitoring.

The selected alternative will provide the best balance of trade offs among alternatives with respect to the
evaluating criteria. EPA and NYSDEC believe that the selected alternative will be protective of human health
and the environment, will comply with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements, will be
cost-effective, and will utilize permanent solutions to the maximum extent practicable.

DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

-------
The selected remedy meets the requirements for remedial actions set forth in CERCLA °121, 42 U.S.C. °9621 in
that it:  (1) is protective of human health and the environment; (2) attains a level or standard of
control of the hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants,  which at least attains the legally
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements under federal and state laws;  (3) is cost effective;  (4)
utilizes alternative treatment  (or resource recovery) technoloqies to the maximum extent practicable; and  (5)
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of the hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants at a Site.

-------
                            DECISION SUMMARY

                             York  Oil Site
                            Moira,  New York

                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                               Region II
                          New York,  New York

                           TABIiE OF CONTENTS
                                                                    page

SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION  	   1

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 	   2

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 	   5

SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION 	   5

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS  	   6

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS  	   9

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES  	  14

SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES  	  15

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 	  20

DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 	  30

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS  	  34

DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 	  41


ATTACHMENTS

APPENDIX I    FIGURES
APPENDIX II   TABLES
APPENDIX III  ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV   STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V    RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

-------
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The former York Oil facility, located approximately one mile northwest of the Hamlet of Moira in Franklin
County, New York, is situated to the southwest of North Lawrence Road. (See Figure 1.)

For investigation and remediation purposes, the Site has been divided into two areas—the "Site Proper" and
the "Contamination Pathways."

The 17-acre Site Proper includes a fenced-in portion of land previously owned and used by the York Oil
Company and a 1,000-foot by 200-foot strip of land west of the fenced area and north of an abandoned railroad
grade, known as the "Western Drainage Area."

The Contamination Pathways, which is the subject of this second operable unit Record of Decision (ROD),
includes areas impacted by the migration of contaminants from the Site Proper—uplands, wetlands, streams,
and part of Lawrence Brook. The Contamination Pathways study area is divided into several areas—the "Western
Wetland" and the "Southern Wetland," located immediately to the west and south of the Site Proper,
respectively, and the "Northwestern Wetland," located to the northwest of the Western Wetland, along the
drainage paths from the Site Proper.

The Western Wetland, bounded by the abandoned railroad grade to the south and North Lawrence Road to the
north, consists of 17.2 acres of intermittent ponds, cattails, shrubs, seedlings, and a variety of larger
trees connected by a west-northwesterly flowing, poorly-defined drainage channel.

The 82.4-acre Southern Wetland, located south of the abandoned railroad grade, consists of mixed forest and
ponded surface water resulting from beaver dams. The Southern Wetland drains both to the east toward Lawrence
Brook and to the northwest through a culvert below the abandoned railroad bed, which allows water to flow
from the Southern Wetlands to the Western Wetlands.

The 50-acre Northwestern Wetland includes the entire length of the drainage channel between North Lawrence
and Savage Roads. The hydraulic regime Of this area is controlled by a well-established beaver dam that has
caused the formation of a 5-6 acre pond. An emergent marsh community with seasonally saturated soil extends
from this large, standing water area. The eastern edge of the Northwestern Wetland consists of a mixed-forest
upland of evergreen and deciduous hardwoods.

The York Oil site (the "Site") is located within the Lawrence Brook watershed, which drains portions of
northwestern Franklin County and northeastern St. Lawrence County. Two major tributaries, Alburg Brook
and Joy Brook, flow north and merge to form Lawrence Brook. Lawrence Brook flows north, turning northwest
near the Site Proper and then flows into the Deer River approximately 6.0 miles downstream. The Deer
River flows into the St. Regis River, which then enters the St. Lawrence waterway at a total distance of
approximately 20.5 miles from the Site.

Wetlands and woodlands comprise much of the area in the vicinity of the Site. Residences are present along
the main roads interspersed with active/inactive agriculture and pasture land.

SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

The York Oil facility was constructed in the 1950s by the York Oil Company, which processed used oils
collected from service stations, car dealers, and industrial facilities. The oils, some of which contained
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), were processed to remove impurities and resold to other businesses. The oil
recycling operation was discontinued in the mid-1960s; the property was then used by Pierce Brothers Oil
Services, Inc. for used oil storage. The collected oils were stored or processed in eight aboveground storage
tanks, three earthen-dammed settling lagoons, and at least one underground storage tank. The recycled oil
either was sold as No. 2 fuel oil or was used in dust control for the unpaved roads in the vicinity of the
Site.

During heavy rains and spring thaws, the oil-water mixture from the lagoons would often overflow onto
surrounding lands and into adjacent wetlands, which Pierce Brothers Oil Services, Inc. purchased in 1964.

-------
Contamination at the Site first was reported by a state road crew in 1979. In 1982, the County assumed title
because of unpaid property taxes.

In 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began emergency cleanup activities at the Site. It secured
the property to limit access and to reduce the threat of direct contact with hazardous substances,
and it removed oil and contaminated water from the lagoons, which then were filled with a concrete by-product
and sand. The top 3 feet of the oil-soaked soil were excavated from the neighboring wetlands.
Contaminated oil was transferred to aboveground storage tanks, and contaminated soil was contained on-Site.
Contaminated water from one of the lagoons was treated and discharged into the wetlands. An
interceptor trench was dug to alter the flow of surface water and groundwater. In 1983, EPA conducted
additional emergency actions including the collection of oil seeping into drainage ditches, the installation
of a new filter fence system, and the posting of warning signs. EPA developed a schedule for collecting oily
leachate and replacing sorbent pads and began monitoring the Site.

A remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) associated with the Site Proper was completed in
November 1987 by Erdman, Anthony, Associates on behalf of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC). In February 1988, EPA signed a first operable unit ROD, selecting a remedy for
controlling the source of the contamination at the Site Proper. The source control remedy includes the
following components: (1) excavating approximately 30,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils and sediments and
solidifying this material on-Site; (2) installing deep groundwater extraction wells at the downgradient
boundary of the Site Proper to collect contaminated groundwater; (3) installing shallow dewatering wells to
collect contaminated groundwater and oil that is encountered during the excavation of the, contaminated
soils; (4) treating these liquids and discharging the clean groundwater in accordance with state
environmental requirements; (5) removing about 25,000 gallons of contaminated tank oil, as well as other oils
collected at the Site, to an EPA-approved facility to be incinerated; (6) cleaning and demolishing the empty
storage tanks; (7) backfilling the solidified soil and sediments into the excavated areas; (8) constructing a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cover over the solidified soils and sediments; and (9)
inspecting the Site every five years to assure that human health and the environment continue to be
protected. In addition, the 1988 ROD called for the performance of treatability studies to determine the
effectiveness of the solidification process for the Site's contaminated soils and sediments. Should the
treatability study determine that solidification would not provide the desired degree of treatment, a
treatability study would be performed to determine the effectiveness of thermally treating the soils at the
Site 1.

1 The treatability study, which was completed in April 1997, determined that solidification
would provide the desired degree of treatment.

Due to protracted negotiations with the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPS) 2, there was a delay in
initiating the first operable unit remedial design and remedial action. As such, in September 1994, EPA
issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO) to one of the PRPs, the Aluminum Corporation of America
(ALCOA), to perform several components of the selected remedy, including removing the contaminated tank oils
and incinerating them at an EPA-approved facility and cleaning and demolishing the empty storage tanks. Under
the UAO, 9,654 gallons of PCB-contaminated oil and 230 drums of PCB-contaminated debris were
removed from the Site.

In December 1995, EPA issued a second UAO to ALCOA, requiring them to install another interceptor trench to
collect oil seeping into the wetlands.

A settlement with a number of PRPs in the form of a Consent Decree was entered in August 1996, which provided
for, among other things, the design and implementation of the remedy selected in the 1988 ROD. It
is anticipated that the design will be completed by December 1998 and that construction will start in the
summer of 1999.

The first stage of the long-term cleanup, as set forth in the 1988 ROD, deals with source control. The second
phase, which is the subject of this ROD, involves the Contamination Pathways, particularly the

-------
contaminated sediments in downgradient wetlands and aquatic areas and the contaminated downgradient
groundwater. New York State began an intensive investigation of the Contaminated Pathways in 1986, which
was continued by the PRPs pursuant to a 1992 Administrative Order on Consent with EPA. The studies culminated
in the completion of the Contamination Pathways RI/FS in the summer of 1998.

2   A Consent Decree was signed by EPA and several PRPs in 1990, in which they agreed
    to perform the design and the implementation of the source control remedy. The Consent
    Decree was lodged in federal district court in June 1991. In response to substantive
    comments that were received from non-settling PRPs during the public comment period,
    a revised Consent Decree was lodged on May 15, 1992. In 1993, it was decided to
    withdraw this Consent Decree and attempt a global settlement with all of the PRPs. In
    December 1994, a revised Consent Decree was signed by EPA and an expanded group
    of PRPs. This Consent Decree was entered by the court on August 10, 1996.

RI and pre-remedial design study field work, conducted by the PRPs from 1993 to 1996, included the
characterization of groundwater, subsurface soil, surface soil, sediment, and surface water in the
Contamination Pathways. An ecological investigation, consisting of wetlands identification and delineation,
detailed flora and fauna surveys, and collection and analysis of biota samples, was performed
in the Western Wetland and the Southern Wetland. Based upon the results from surface water, sediment, surface
soil, and biota sampling in these areas, it was concluded that additional ecological investigations were not
required beyond these areas.

HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The March 1998 Contamination Pathways RI/FS report  (which describes the nature and extent of the
contamination emanating from the Site, evaluates the associated risks, and identifies and evaluates various
remedial alternatives) and the June 1998 Proposed Plan, were made available to the public in both the
Administrative Record and information repositories maintained at the EPA Docket Room in the Region II New
York City office and at the Moira Town Hall located at North Lawrence Road, Moira, New York. The notice of
availability for these documents was published in the Malone Telegraph on June 24, 1998. A public comment
period was held from June 24, through July 23, 1998. A public meeting was held on July 13, 1998 at the Moira
Town Hall in Moira, New York. At this meeting, representatives from EPA presented the findings of the
Contamination Pathways RI/FS and answered questions from the public about the Site and the remedial
alternatives under consideration.

Responses to the comments received at the public meeting and in writing during the public comment period are
included in the Responsiveness Summary attached hereto as Appendix V.

SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION

The first operable unit for the Site addressed the source of contamination and the bedrock aquifer in the
Site Proper. The action described in this ROD represents the second and final operable unit for the Site. The
primary objectives of this action are to prevent human exposure to contaminated groundwater and to minimize
potential ecological impacts related to exposure to contaminated sediments in the wetlands and aquatic areas
located in the vicinity of the Site Proper.

SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS

During the RI, groundwater, surface water, sediments, surface and subsurface soils, and biota were sampled.
The results from these samples are summarized below.

Groundwater

A 400-foot wide and 500-foot long contaminant plume in the overburden  (located above the bedrock) and bedrock
aquifers emanates from the Site Proper, extending southward to the Southern Wetland.  (Figure 2
illustrates the horizontal and vertical extent of the contaminant plume.) The concentrations of volatile
organic compounds  (VOCs) in the plume--benzene, trichloroethene  (TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene  (cis-1,2-

-------
DCE), and toluene—decrease with increasing distance from the Site Proper. The maximum concentration of TCE
in the plume was 9 micrograms per liter (Ig/1) in a well located on the Site Proper. Cis-l,2-DCE, a breakdown
product of TCE (which indicates that degradation is occurring), toluene, and PCBs were found at maximum
concentrations of 1,400 Ig/1, 340 Ig/1, and 770 Ig/1, respectively, in a well screened in the overburden in a
mounded area on the Site Proper. A sample from a well screened within the overburden on the railroad bed (the
southern boundary of the Site Proper), about 200 feet south of the mounded area,
revealed 350 Ig/1 of cis-l,2-DCE, 10 Ig/1 of benzene, and 2 Ig/1 of toluene. A groundwater sample from a
bedrock monitoring well located 200 feet further south in the Southern Wetland contained 210 pg/1 cis-l,2-DCE
and 5 Ig/1 benzene. Figures 3 and 4 summarize the volatile organic contamination present in the overburden
and bedrock aguifers, respectively. PCBs were not detected in the groundwater in the
Contamination Pathways study area.

Surface Water

In comparison to background samples, elevated concentrations of inorganic constituents (154 Ig/1 of barium,
111,000 Ig/1 of calcium, 854 Ig/1 of iron, 26,500 Ig/1 of magnesium, 183 Ig/1 of manganese, 5,720
Ig/1 of potassium, 973,000 pi/1 of sodium, and 346 Ig/1 of zinc) were detected in surface water samples
collected from the drainage ditch in the Western Drainage Area of the Site Proper. PCBs/pesticides, VOCs,
and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were not detected in any surface water samples. Elevated levels
of mercury and total phenols were detected in samples collected in Lawrence Brook at 0.22 Ig/1
(collected approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the Site Proper) and 21 Ig/1 (collected approximately 2.7
miles downstream of the Site Proper), respectively 3. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the surface water sample
results. Figure 5 shows the sample locations.

Sediments

PCBs were detected at concentrations up to 212 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) in sediment samples collected
in the Western Wetland near the Site Proper Western Drainage Area. With the exception of one
detection of 4.0 mg/kg PCBs in a sample collected at the southern edge of the Northwestern Wetland, all PCB
detections that were above 1.0 mg/kg were in samples collected from the Western Wetland near the Site
Proper.

Inorganics were detected in sediment samples above background levels across the Contamination Pathways study
area. Lead was found well above background at concentrations up to 2,430 mg/kg in samples from
the Western Wetland and 423 mg/kg in the Northwestern Wetland (lead concentrations in a reference
(background) wetland were 20-40 mg/kg).Arsenic, copper, nickel, and zinc were found approximately 2,000 feet
east of the Site Proper at concentrations up to 16.8 mg/kg, 104 mg/kg, 24.6 mg/kg, and 393 mg/kg,
respectively. The highest concentration of chromium was detected at 100 mg/kg in the Southern Wetland and the
highest concentration of mercury, 2.5 mg/kg, was detected in the Western Wetland.

Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 summarize the results of lead and PCBs in Western and Northwestern Wetland sediments.
Tables 3 and 4 summarize the results of the sediment inorganics sampling.

Several pesticide compounds were detected at low levels in sediment samples collected from the Western
Wetland and the Northwestern Wetland. A limited number of VOCs were detected, with the highest concentration
of 13 mg/kg (toluene) being found in the Western Wetland near the Site Proper. Table 5 summarizes the VOC
concentrations that were detected.

3 NYSDEC's guidance value for mercury in surface water is 0.2 Ig/1 NYSDEC's ambient
water guality standard for total phenols is 1 Ig/1 (6 NYCRR Parts 700-705). Since elevated
levels of mercury and phenols were not detected in upstream surface water samples, and
although mercury was detected in sediment samples collected from upstream locations,
on-Site disposal activities are a possible source of these two constituents in the
downstream surface water samples, because elevated concentrations were observed in
Site Proper and Contamination Pathways sediments.

-------
The highest concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHS) were found at the railroad bed, with
concentrations ranging from 5.7 mg/kg for benzo(a)pyrene to 15 mg/kg for pyrene. Lower concentrations
were detected in samples from the Western Wetland near North Lawrence Road (concentrations ranged from 1
mg/kg for chrysene to 2.1 mg/kg for pyrene). Phenolic compounds were detected in sediments throughout the
Site, with the highest concentration being found in the Northwestern Wetland at 83.4 mg/kg. (See Table 6.)

Surface and Subsurface Soil

PCBs were detected in only one surface soil sample at 0.38 mg/kg, Southern Wetland (see Figure 9). Other
constituents detected in surface soil samples were generally found at or lower than background
concentrations. Phenolic compounds and PAHs were detected in subsurface soil samples collected near the
former railroad bed at maximum concentrations of 7.8 mg/kg and 18 mg/kg (benzo(b)fluoranthene), respectively.
PCBs, pesticides, and VOCs were detected in subsurface soils in areas near the drainage area in the Site
Proper at maximum concentrations of 4.8 mg/kg, 0.55 mglkg, and 0.037 mg/kg, respectively. Tables 7, 8, and 9
summarize the results of the subsurface soil sampling. Figure 5 shows the sample locations.

Biota

Biota samples were collected in areas which exhibited the highest levels of soil/sediment contamination
(i.e., near the former railroad bed, drainage ditch, within or adjacent to the Site Proper), representing the
maximum potential for exposure and bioaccumulation. The results indicate low concentrations (0.039 - 1.19
mg/kg) of PCBs. Pesticide concentrations were nondetectable to very low.

Elevated levels of lead and arsenic were detected in frog and earthworm samples collected from the Southern
and Western Wetlands. The results of flora and fauna surveys in these areas indicate that these
contaminants do not currently appear to be causing any acute ecological effects.

PCBs, alpha-chlordane, 4,4'-DDD, alpha and gamma-BHC, arsenic, lead, and mercury were all detected in
terrestrial biota samples. PCBs, 4,4'-DDD, gamma-BHC, arsenic, lead, and mercury were detected in darter
samples.

Tables 10, 11, 12, and 13 summarize the results of the biota tissue samples.

SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS

Based upon the results of the supplemental RI, a baseline risk assessment was conducted to estimate the risks
associated with current and future site conditions. The baseline risk assessment estimates the
human health and ecological risk which could result from the contamination at the Site, if no remedial action
were taken.

Human Health Risk Assessment

A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable maximum
exposure scenario: Hazard Identification—identifies the contaminants of concern at the Site based on
several factors such as toxicity, freguency of occurrence, and concentration. Exposure Assessment --estimates
the magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the freguency and duration of these exposures, and
the pathways (e.g., ingesting contaminated well-water) by which humans are potentially exposed. Toxicity
Assessment—determines the types of adverse health effects associated with chemical exposures, and the
relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse effects (response). Risk
Characterization—summarizes and combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a
guantitative assessment of site risks.

The baseline risk assessment began with selecting chemicals of concern. The evaluation identified numerous
chemicals of concern in the various media (sediment, surface soil, groundwater, surface soil) (see Table 14).
For example, chemicals of concern selected for groundwater included four VOCs (1,1-dichloroethane,
cis-l,2-DCE, benzene, and ethylbenzene) and four inorganics (antimony, arsenic, cadmium, and zinc).

-------
In the exposure assessment, the potential for human exposure to the chemicals of concern, in terms of the
type, magnitude, frequency, and duration of exposure, is estimated. This assessment is made for potentially
exposed populations at or near the Site considering both the current situation and potential future
conditions. Since the wetlands in the Contamination Pathways study area are federal- and New York
State-regulated wetlands, it was assumed that development would be unlikely and that these areas would remain
wetlands in the future. However, exposure to groundwater during potable use was considered as a potential
future scenario. Other potential receptors included recreational users of the wetland and upland areas and
utility/maintenance workers that might access the areas north and east of the Site Proper. Adults and
children are included in residential and recreational populations. Depending on the potentially exposed
population, chemical intakes (doses) were estimated. Various exposure pathways were identified, including
ingestion of sediment, dermal contact with sediment, ingestion of surface soil, dermal contact with soil,
dermal contact with surface water, ingestion of groundwater, dermal contact with groundwater, and inhalation
of volatile chemicals released from groundwater. Tables 15 and 16 show the potential
exposure pathways.

Current federal guidelines for acceptable exposures are an individual lifetime excess carcinogenic risk in
the range of 10 -4 to 10 -6 (corresponding to a one-in-ten-thousand to a one-in-a-million excess cancer risk)
and a maximum health Hazard Index (which reflects non-carcinogenic effects for a human receptor) egual to
1.0. (A Hazard Index greater than 1.0 indicates a potential of noncarcinogenic health effects.)

Although there are some exceedences of groundwater standards (i.e., Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)), the
carcinogenic risks associated with the current exposure scenario (4 x 10 -6) are within the acceptable cancer
risk range. The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate that the ingestion of drinking water in the
future use scenario is also within the acceptable cancer risk range (total cancer risk of 8 x 10 -5 for
adults and 3 x 10 -5 for children).

Concerning the noncarcinogenic risks, the risk characterization showed that there were no current risks to
human health from dermal contact or ingestion of groundwater, surface water, sediment, or surface soil. The
only scenario resulting in unacceptable human health risks would be for the future use of groundwater in the
vicinity of the Southern Wetland.

The results of the baseline risk assessment indicate a Hazard Index greater than 1.0 for resident adult and
resident child exposure to the chemicals of concern in groundwater from ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation of volatilized chemicals under the future-use scenario (a Hazard Index of 3.0 and 6.0 for adults
and children, respectively). Ingestion of cis-l,2-DCE (at the maximum detected concentration) and
antimony are the predominant contributors to the total Hazard Index.

A summary of the carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks are provided in Table 17.

Ecological Risk Assessment

A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related ecological risks for a reasonable maximum exposure
scenario: Problem Formulation--a qualitative evaluation of contaminant release, migration, and fate;
identification of contaminants of concern, receptors, exposure pathways, and known ecological effects of the
contaminants; and selection of endpoints for further study. Exposure Assessment—a quantitative evaluation of
contaminant release, migration, and fate; characterization of exposure pathways and receptors; and
measurement or estimation of exposure point concentrations. Ecological Effects
Assessment—literature reviews, field studies, and toxicity tests, linking contaminant concentrations to
effects on ecological receptors. Risk Characterization—measurement or estimation of both current and future
adverse effects.

The Contamination Pathways study area, which provides a variety of upland and wetland habitats, is located in
a rural area and has a high potential for utilization by wildlife. Habitats which presently exist in the
vicinity of the Site include palustrine forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, emergent marsh, open water,
and forested uplands. Surface soils may provide a source of exposure to wildlife through direct contact and
ingestion of vegetation. Surface water runoff may transport contamination into the drainage ditch bordering
the southern edge of the Site Proper and then into the various streams and wetlands, potentially

-------
contaminating surface water and sediment in these areas. If contaminants are discharged into the wetland
areas, direct contact and ingestion of water and sediments can occur. Terrestrial wildlife may
also be exposed through ingestion of water, sediment, or other organisms.

The risk assessment evaluated the potential risks to several indicator species through exposure to the
contaminants of concern. For assessment of direct exposure to surface water, fish were chosen as indicators.
For assessment of direct exposure to sediments, benthic organisms, muskrat, and mallards were chosen. For
assessment of direct exposure to surface soils, the short-tailed shrew and the American woodcock were
selected as indicator species. Several higher level bird and mammal consumers were utilized in assessing
potential food chain exposure to contaminants in the biota. The red-tailed hawk and red fox represent
consumers of small mammals (shrews and voles) and the great blue heron and mink represent consumers of
aguatic species (green frogs and darters). Ingestion of surface water was also considered for bird and mammal
receptors.

Based on exposure calculations for sediment and vegetation ingestion, it appears that semi-aguatic species
which have small home ranges (such as the muskrat) and spend most or all of their lives within the areas of
concern are potentially at risk from ingestion of 4,4'-DDD, PCBs, aluminum, antimony, arsenic, barium,
cadmium, lead, manganese, selenium, and vanadium. Semi-aguatic species with large home ranges (such as
mallards), which spend only a portion of their lives in the areas of concern, may be affected by the presence
of aluminum, lead, and mercury in sediment and vegetation.

Plant toxicity values suggested that aluminum, chromium, copper, vanadium, and zinc are present in various
locations at levels that may be toxic to vegetation in the Western Wetland. Shrews and woodcock exposed to
PAHs, 4,4'-DDD, dieldrin, PCBs, aluminum, arsenic, barium, copper, lead, selenium, vanadium, and zinc through
ingestion of surface soil and earthworms may be at risk. Potential risk from 4,4'-DDD, PCBs, aluminum,
barium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and zinc exist for earthworm-consuming birds in the areas of
concern.

Arsenic, alpha and gamma-BHC, alpha-chlordane, 4,4'-DDD, lead, mercury, and PCBs were detected in terrestrial
biota samples in the Southern and Western Wetlands. Arsenic, 4,4'-DDD, gamma-BHC, lead, mercury, and PCBs
were detected in darter samples in these areas. Based on an exposure assessment for the red fox and
red-tailed hawk through consumption of small mammals and soil, it appears that there is a potential risk to
wildlife consumers of small mammals through exposure to PCBs in the Southern and Western Wetlands. Bird
species are at potential risk through indirect consumption of mercury by ingesting contaminated vertebrates
and invertebrates. Mammals which consume aguatic organisms in the Western Wetland are at potential risk from
the indirect ingestion of PCBs by consuming contaminated vertebrates and invertebrates.

Although phenols are present in surface water, sediments, and soil throughout the Site, the concentrations do
not appear to pose an ecological risk.

While floral and faunal surveys in the Southern and Western Wetlands indicate that there are functioning
communities in these wetlands, elevated levels of arsenic and lead were detected in frog and earthworm
samples, indicating some ecological impact is potentially occurring in these areas. Although a contaminant
source area has been identified in the Western Wetland, such a source area could not be located in the
Southern Wetland.

Uncertainties

The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to
a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty include:

• environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
• environmental parameter measurement
• fate and transport modeling
• exposure parameter estimation
• toxicological data

-------
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in
the media sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the actual levels present.
Environmental chemistry analysis uncertainty can stem from several sources including the errors inherent in
the analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.

Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates of how often an individual will actually
come in contact with the chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such exposure will occur, and
in the models used to estimate the concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.

Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both from animals to humans and from high to low
doses of exposure, as well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a mixture of chemicals.
These uncertainties are addressed by making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters
throughout the assessment. As a result, the risk assessment provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks related to the Site.

Summary of Human Health and Ecological Risks

It has been concluded that:  (1)  the levels of lead and PCBs in the Western Wetland sediments pose the
greatest ecological threat in that wetland; (2)  the levels of lead present in Northwestern Wetland
sediments exceed NYSDECs sediment screening values 4 and, therefore, may pose an ecological risk; (3) the
groundwater in the vicinity of the Southern Wetland presents an unacceptable human health risk under
the future-use scenario;  (4) the levels of contaminants present in sediments in the depositional areas of the
Southern Wetland do not pose a significant human health or ecological risk; (5) the levels of contaminants
that are present in the sediments in the Western Wetland and the Northwestern Wetland do not pose a
significant human health risk; and (6) the levels of contaminants that are present in the surface
waters do not pose a significant human health or ecological risk.

Based upon the human health and ecological risk assessments, EPA has determined that actual or threatened
releases of hazardous substances from the Site,  if not addressed by the selected alternative or one of the
other active measures considered, may present a current or potential threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment.

REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the environment. These objectives
are based on available information and standards such as applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements  (ARARs) and risk-based levels established in the risk assessment.


4   Division of Fish and Wildlife, Division of Marine Resources, Technical Guidance for
    Screening Contaminated Sediments, November 1993.

The following remedial action objectives have been established:

•      mitigate the migration of contaminated groundwater;

•      restore groundwater quality underlying the Southern Wetland to levels which meet state and federal
       standards (See Tables 18  and 19);

•      prevent future human contact with contaminated groundwater underlying the outhern Wetland; and

•      minimize exposure of fish and wildlife to contaminated sediments in the Western and Northwestern
       Wetlands.

SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. °9601 et

-------
seq.  (CERCLA) requires that each selected site remedy be protective of human health and the environment, be
cost-effective, comply with other statutory laws, and utilize permanent sollutions and alternative treatment
technoloqies and resource recovery alternatives to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, the statute
includes a preference for the use of treatment as a principal element for the reduction of toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances.

This ROD evaluates, in detail, three remedial alternatives for addressinq the contaminated sediments and
three remedial alternatives for addressinq the contaminated qroundwater associated with the York Oil site.
(Since the levels of contaminants that are present in the surface waters do not pose a siqnificant human
health or ecoloqical risk, surface water remedial alternatives were not evaluated.)

The remedy set forth in the ROD for the Site Proper, which is presently beinq desiqned, involves, amonq other
thinqs, the excavation and on Site solidification/stabilization of contaminated soils and sediments,
followed by backfillinq of the treated soils and sediments and construction of a RCRA cover over the
solidified soils and sediments. While EPA considered various other treatment and disposal options for the
Contamination Pathways contaminated sediments, these alternatives were eliminated from further consideration
since solidification/stabilization can meet the remedial action objectives set forth above at substantially
less cost.

The present-worth costs for the alternatives discussed below are calculated usinq a discount rate of 7
percent and a 30-year time interval. The construction time reflects only the time required to construct or
implement the remedy and does not include the time required to desiqn the remedy, neqotiate the performance
of the remedy with the responsible parties, or procure contracts for desiqn and construction.

The alternatives are:

Sediment Alternatives

Alternative SED-1: No Action with Lonq-Term Monitorinq

             Capital Cost:             $0

             Annual Monitorinq Cost:   $18,000

             Present-Worth Cost:       $220,000

             Construction Time:        0 months

The Superfund proqram requires that the "no-action" alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison
with the other alternatives. The no-action remedial alternative does not include any physical remedial
measures that address the contaminated sediments. This alternative would, however, include annual, lonq-term
monitorinq of contaminant levels in the surface water, sediments, and biota.

Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaininq in Western and Northwestern Wetland
sediments, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review,
remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat the sediments.


Alternative SED-2: Excavation and/or Dredqinq of Western Wetland Contaminated Sediments,
Stabilization/Solidification, and Disposal on the Site Proper; Lonq-Term Monitorinq of Northwestern Wetland
Sediments

             Capital Cost:          $3,140,000

             Annual Monitorinq Cost:   $12,000

             Present-Worth Cost:    $3,290,000

-------
             Construction Time:       9 months

This alternative includes excavating and/or dredging approximately 11,000 cubic yards of lead- and
PCB-contaminated sediments across approximately 8 acres in the Western Wetland. The exact volume of sediments
that would be removed would be determined during the design stage. Restoration with clean fill and
revegetation would follow the removal of the contaminated sediments. All of the sediments that are
removed would be dewatered, treated as part of the Site Proper solidification/stabilization remedy, and
disposed of at the Site Proper with the solidified and stabilized wastes from the first operable unit
remedial action under a cap meeting the reguirements of New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360.

Implementation of this alternative would reguire clearing and grubbing activities, construction of temporary
access roads and staging areas, and implementation of soil erosion and sediment controls.

All remedial work in the wetlands would comply with New York State Environmental Conservation Law Article 24
and 6 NYCRR Part 663. Any wetlands impacted by remedial activities would be fully restored. The restored
wetlands would reguire routine inspection for several years to ensure adeguate survival of the planted
vegetation. Replanting would be performed, if necessary.

Under this alternative, post-remediation monitoring of Western Wetland surface water, sediments, and biota
would be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the remedy.

Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining in Northwestern Wetland sediments, CERCLA
reguires that the Site be reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be
implemented to remove or treat the sediments.


Alternative SED-3: Excavation and/or Dredging of Western Wetland and Northwestern Wetland Contaminated
Sediments, Stabilization/Solidification, and Disposal on the Site Proper

             Capital Cost:          $3,850,000

             Annual Monitoring Cost:   $12,000

             Present-Worth Cost:    $4,000,000

             Construction Time:      10 months

This alternative is identical to Alternative SED-2, except that it would also include excavating and/or
dredging approximately 1,100 cubic yards of lead- and PCB-contaminated sediments across approximately
5 acres in the Northwestern Wetland.

Under this alternative, post-remediation monitoring of Western Wetland and Northwestern Wetland surface
water, sediments, and biota would be conducted to assess the effectiveness of the remedy.

Groundwater Remedial Alternatives

Alternative GW-1:  No Action with Long-Term Monitoring

             Capital Cost:                  $0

             Annual Monitoring Cost:   $12,000

             Present-Worth Cost:      $150,000

             Construction Time:       0 months

The Superfund program reguires that the "no-action" alternative be considered as a baseline for comparison

-------
with the other alternatives. The no-action remedial alternative does not include any physical remedial
measures that address the problem of groundwater contamination at the Site. This alternative would, however,
include a long-term groundwater monitoring program. Under this monitoring program, groundwater samples would
be collected and analyzed annually.

Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-Site, CERCLA reguires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be implemented to remove or treat
the wastes.

Alternative GW-2:  Natural Attenuation, Institutional Controls, and Long-Term Monitoring

             Capital Cost:             $30,000

             Annual Monitoring Cost:   $45,600

             Present-Worth Cost:      $600,000

             Construction Time:       0 months

Under this alternative, the groundwater contamination would be addressed through natural attenuation. As part
of a long-term groundwater monitoring program, groundwater samples would be collected and analyzed
semiannually in order to verify that the level and extent of groundwater contaminants (e.g., VOCs) are
declining. In addition, biodegradation parameters  (e.g., oxygen, nitrate, sulfate, methane, ethane, ethene,
alkalinity, redox potential, pH, temperature, conductivity, chloride, and total organic carbon)  would be used
to assess the progress of the degradation process.

This alternative would also include the implementation of institutional controls, such as deed restrictions,
contractual agreements, or local law or ordinances, or other governmental action, for the purpose of
restricting the installation and use of groundwater wells in the vicinity of the Southern Wetland until clean
up standards are met in the groundwater.

Through preliminary groundwater modeling, it has been estimated that the contaminated groundwater in the
overburden and bedrock aguifers underlying the Southern Wetland would naturally attenuate to groundwater
standards in 10 years, once the source of groundwater contamination is addressed through excavating and
treating the contaminated soils on the Site Proper, in combination with the installation of extraction wells
at the downgradient boundary of the Site Proper  (as called for in the 1988 ROD).

Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-Site, CERCLA reguires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial actions may be implemented, in the future, to
remove or treat the wastes.

Alternative GW-3:  Groundwater Extraction and Treatment

             Capital Cost:             $440,000

             Annual Operation and      $105,000
             Maintenance Cost:

             Present-Worth Cost:     $1,740,000

             Construction Time:        6 months

Under this alternative, extraction wells would be installed in the plume in the Southern Wetland.
Contaminated groundwater would be pumped to a treatment plant located on the Site Proper and discharged to
surface water. Much of the cost associated with the implementation of this alternative would be shared with
the treatment system currently under design for the Site Proper remedy.

-------
Implementation of this alternative would require clearing and grubbing activities, construction of access
roads and staging areas, and implementation of soil erosion and sediment controls.

As part of a long-term groundwater monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the groundwater
extraction and treatment remedy, groundwater samples would be collected and analyzed semiannually

Any wetlands impacted by remedial activities would be fully restored. The restored wetlands would require
routine inspection for several years to ensure adequate survival of the planted vegetation.

This alternative would also include taking steps to secure institutional controls, such as the placement of
restrictions on the installation and use of groundwater wells in the vicinity of the Southern Wetland until
clean up standards are met in the groundwater.

It has been estimated that the extraction and treatment of the contaminated groundwater in the overburden and
bedrock aquifers underlying the Southern Wetland would achieve groundwater standards in 7 years, once the
source of groundwater contamination is addressed by the remedy called for in the 1988 ROD.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES

During the detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives, each alternative is assessed against nine evaluation
criteria, namely short-term effectiveness, long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction of
toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, implementability, cost, compliance with applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements, overall protection of human health and the environment, and state and
community acceptance. The evaluation criteria are described below.

•      Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy provides
       adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway (based on a
       reasonable maximum exposure scenario)  are eliminated,  reduced, or controlled through treatment,
       engineering controls,  or institutional controls.

•      Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of the applicable or relevant
       and appropriate requirements of other federal and state environmental statutes and requirements
       or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.

•      Long-term effectiveness and permanence refer to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
       protection of human health and the environment over time,  once cleanup goals have been met. It also
       addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that may be required to manage the risk
       posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.

•      Reduction of toxicity,  mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated performance of the
       treatment technologies, with respect to these parameters,  a remedy may employ.

•      Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any adverse
       impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
       implementation period until cleanup goals are achieved.

•      Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,  including the
       availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.

•      Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs,  and net present-worth costs.

•      State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the Contamination Pathways RI/FS and
       Proposed Plan, the State concurs with,  opposes,  or has no comment on the selected remedy at the
       present time.

•      Community acceptance will be assessed in the ROD, and refers to the public's general response to the
       alternatives described in the Contamination Pathways RI/FS report and Proposed Plan.

-------
A comparative analysis of these alternatives based upon the evaluation criteria noted above, follows.

Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment

Alternative SED-1  (no action and long-term monitoring) would not actively address the potential ecological
risks posed by the contaminated sediments. Although Alternatives SED-2 (remediation of Western Wetland
sediments) and SED-3  (remediation of Western Wetland and Northwestern Wetland sediments) would provide lower
residual risks to the environment relative to the no-action alternative,  they would, however, involve
disturbance of approximately 8 and 13 acres, respectively, of wetland habitats. Moreover, additional areas of
upland habitats for staging areas, access roads, and other support facilities would be disturbed. While the
levels of lead and PCBs in the Western Wetland sediments pose an ecological threat, the levels of PCBs in the
Northwestern Wetland sediments are significantly lower. Elevated levels of lead are present in Northwestern
Wetland sediments, but it has not been conclusively determined whether these
concentrations pose an ecological threat.

Since the majority of the areas of the Western Wetland that reguire remediation are open water, its
restoration should be readily achievable. While Alternative SED-3 would result in a slight increase in
contaminant removal relative to Alternative SED-2, the magnitude of the physical impacts associated with
remediating the contaminated sediments in the Northwestern Wetland, which is a forested wetland, would be
substantial and its restoration would be difficult (it has been estimated that it would take 50-60 years for
the forested habitats in the Northwestern Wetland to be restored).

Sample and preliminary modeling results indicate that Alternative GW-1 (no action and long-term monitoring)
and Alternative GW-2  (natural attenuation, institutional controls,  and long-term monitoring) would meet state
and federal groundwater standards through natural attenuation in reasonable time frames  (estimated to be 10
years following implementation of the source control remedy at the Site Proper). While
no current risk is associated with the groundwater underlying the Southern Wetland and, for the foreseeable
future, residential or commercial/industrial development of groundwater within this regulated
wetland is unlikely, Alternative GW-2 is more protective of human health than Alternative GW-1, since
institutional controls would be implemented to prevent the installation and use of groundwater wells in
the event that development occurs in this area. Alternative GW-3 (groundwater extraction and treatment) would
actively collect and treat groundwater until concentrations of contaminants are reduced to federal
and state groundwater standards (estimated to be seven years following implementation of the source control
remedy at the Site Proper).  Although Alternative GW-3 would be the most protective of human
health and would minimize the migration of contaminated groundwater, there is no current risk associated with
the groundwater underlying the Southern Wetland and implementation of this alternative would adversely affect
the Southern Wetland through construction and maintenance of access roads, and possibly change the wetland's
hydrology.

Compliance with ARARs

There are currently no promulgated standards for contaminant levels in sediments. EPA is, instead, using the
PCB sediment screening values developed by NYSDEC as a "To-Be-Considered" cleanup objective. NYSDEC's
sediment cleanup objectives for PCBs is specified in its Division of Fish and Wildlife, Division of Marine
Resources, Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments, November 1993.

Since Alternatives SED-2  (remediation of Western Wetland sediments) and SED-3  (remediation of Western Wetland
and Northwestern Wetland sediments) would involve the excavation of PCB-contaminated sediments, their
disposition would be governed by the reguirements of Toxic Substances Control Act  (TSCA) . Specifically, under
TSCA's PCB disposal reguirements,  soils and sediments contaminated with PCBs in excess of 50 mg/kg may be
disposed of in a chemical waste landfill meeting the reguirements of 40 CFR 761.75(b)  or destroyed in an
incinerator, or by an alternate method which achieves an eguivalent level of performance to incineration (40
CFR 761.60(a)(4) and  (e))  or the reguirements may be waived in accordance with 40 CFR 761.75(c)(4). Since
Alternatives SED-2 and SED-3 involve the disposal of soils and sediments contaminated with PCBs in excess of
50 mg/kg on the Site Proper, these disposal reguirements are applicable.  The PCB-contaminated soils and
sediments on the Site Proper are also subject to these same reguirements. However, on September 13, 1989, EPA

-------
issued a waiver of these TSCA requirements because the remedy called for in the 1988 ROD
(solidification/stabilization of soils and sediments and redeposition of these soils and sediments within a
final cover meeting the requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360 and RCRA 40 CFR 264.310 in the same area from whence
they oriqinated) satisfied the prerequisites for qrantinq a waiver under 40 CFR 761.75 (c) (4). Since the
contaminated sediments that would be excavated under Alternatives SED-2 and SED-3 oriqinated from the Site
Proper and would be disposed of at the Site Proper alonq with the Site Proper contaminated soils and
sediments, and since the PCB concentrations in the
contaminated sediments that would be excavated under Alternatives SED-2 and SED-3 are lower than the PCB
levels in the soils and sediments which were the subject of the 1989 waiver, their treatment and disposal at
the Site Proper with the Site Proper materials would be consistent with the 1989 waiver. Therefore, an
additional waiver would not be required.

Alternatives SED-2 and SED-3 would result in siqnificant short- and lonq-term impacts to existinq wetland
habitats. Therefore, adverse impacts to the wetlands and aquatic resources would need to be avoided and any
unavoidable impacts would be mitiqated in conformance with Executive Order 11990.

Althouqh Alternative SED-1 (no action and lonq-term monitorinq) would not impact the wetlands,  it would not
comply with the sediment cleanup objectives developed by NYSDEC.

Since the qroundwater in the Southern Wetland is a future potential source of drinkinq water, federal and New
York State drinkinq water standards and New York State qroundwater quality standards are ARARs (See Tables 18
and 19).  Alternatives GW-1 (no action and lonq-term monitorinq) and GW-2 (natural attenuation,  institutional
controls, and lonq-term monitorinq) do not include any active qroundwater remediation; qroundwater ARARs
would be achieved throuqh natural attenuation. Preliminary qroundwater modelinq indicates that ARARs will be
achieved by natural attenuation within 10 years after the source control/qroundwater extraction and treatment
remedy selected in the 1988 ROD is implemented. For Alternative GW-3 (qroundwater extraction and treatment),
ARARs would be achieved throuqh the removal and treatment of contaminants in the qroundwater underlyinq the
Southern Wetland in an estimated 7 years followinq implementation of the source control remedy at the Site
Proper.  Under Alternative GW-3, the treated qroundwater would have to comply with surface water discharqe
requirements and the disposition of treatment residuals would have to be consistent with RCRA.  Any air
emissions associated with the treatment system would have to comply with air emission standards.

Lonq-Term Effectiveness and Permanence

Since the contaminated sediments do not pose a siqnificant human health risk, Alternative SED-1 (no action
and lonq-term monitorinq)  would provide reliable protection of human health over time. This alternative would
not, however, include any measures for addressinq the ecoloqical risk posed by the contaminated sediments.
While the downstream transport of contaminated sediments miqht lessen the exposure of ecoloqical receptors at
currently impacted locations over time, it would likely result in increased exposure downstream.  Therefore,
Alternative SED-1 would not be protective of ecoloqical receptors over time.

Althouqh Alternatives SED-2 (remediation of Western Wetland sediments)  and SED-3 (remediation of Western
Wetland and Northwestern Wetland sediments) would provide lower residual risks to the environment relative to
the no-action alternative, the implementation of these activities would result in adverse impacts to the
wetlands' habitats and biota.  Further, it would take a considerable time before a diverse and fully
functioninq plant community would be reestablished. Alternative SED-2 would address the areas which present
the hiqhest level of potential ecoloqical risk, while resultinq in less wetland disturbance than Alternative
SED-3. Removal of the additional contaminated sediments under Alternative SED-3 would provide the qreatest
protection from potential risk, but with an increased temporary loss of wetland value.

Since there is no treatment involved, Alternative SED-1 would not qenerate treatment residues.  Althouqh
Alternatives SED-2 and SED-3 involve the treatment of contaminated sediments, the solidification/
stabilization process would not qenerate treatment residues.

Once the source control remedy at the Site Proper is implemented, it is anticipated that all three
qroundwater alternatives—Alternative GW-1 (no action and lonq-term monitorinq), Alternative GW-2  (natural
attenuation, institutional controls, and lonq-term monitorinq) , and Alternative GW-3  (qroundwater extraction

-------
and treatment)-- would achieve groundwater ARARs within a reasonable time frame. Without a continuous source
of groundwater contamination, it is anticipated that all three alternatives would maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time, once the source control remedy's cleanup goals have
been met.

Alternative GW-3 would generate treatment residues which would have to be appropriately handled; Alternatives
GW-1 and GW-2 would not.

Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment

Alternative SED-1(no action and long-term monitoring) would not actively reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of contaminants through treatment. This alternative would rely on the downstream migration of
contaminated sediments to reduce the levels of contaminants. Alternatives SED-2 (remediation of Western
Wetland sediments) and SED-3  (remediation of Western Wetland and Northwestern Wetland sediments) would reduce
the toxicity of the contaminated sediments and prevent further migration of and potential exposure to them
through excavation and treatment.

Alternatives GW-1  (no action and long-term monitoring) and GW-2 (natural attenuation, institutional controls,
and long-term monitoring) would not use active treatment to reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
groundwater contaminants. Alternative GW-3 (groundwater extraction and treatment)  would provide a reduction
of toxicity, mobility, and volume of the contaminated groundwater underlying the Southern
Wetland through the extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater.

Short-Term Effectiveness

Alternative SED-1  (no action and long-term monitoring) does not include any physical construction measures in
any areas of contamination. Therefore, the implementation of this alternative would not present any
short-term, adverse ecological or human health risks. While Alternatives SED-2  (remediation of Western
Wetland sediments) and SED-3  (remediation of Western Wetland and Northwestern Wetland sediments) would
present some risk to on-Site workers through dermal contact and inhalation, these exposures could be
minimized by utilizing proper protective eguipment. Excavation would also likely result in some releases of
contaminated sediments, which might increase ecological exposures in the short term. Disturbance of the land
during construction could affect surface water flow at the Site. In addition, there would be a potential for
increased storm water runoff and erosion during construction activities that must be properly managed.

Although Alternatives SED-2 and SED-3 would provide lower residual risks to the environment relative to the
no-action alternative, they would disturb wetland habitats. In addition, under these alternatives,
additional areas of upland habitats for staging areas, access roads, and other support facilities would be
disturbed.

Under Alternatives SED-2, the potential impacts of excavating approximately 8 acres of contaminated sediments
from the predominantly open water Western Wetland would not be significant and the ability to restore the
Western Wetland habitats would be readily achievable. However, excavating approximately 5 acres of
contaminated sediments from the Northwestern Wetland  (under Alternative SED-3) would damage the productive
and diverse ecological community that currently exists in this area, resulting in a temporary
loss of habitats. In addition, it is expected that it would be considerably more difficult to appropriately
restore the forested habitats in the Northwestern Wetland.

Alternatives GW-1  (no action and long-term monitoring) and GW-2 (natural attenuation, institutional controls,
and long-term monitoring) do not include any active remediation, therefore, they would not present an
additional risk to the community or workers resulting from activities at the Site. Alternatives GW-1 and GW-2
would present some risk to on Site workers through dermal contact and inhalation from groundwater sampling
activities, which could be minimized by utilizing proper protective eguipment. Alternative GW-3 (groundwater
extraction and treatment),  which would reguire the installation of extraction wells and piping, would present
some risk to on-Site workers through dermal contact and inhalation from construction and groundwater sampling
activities, which could be minimized with proper protective eguipment.

-------
Based upon preliminary groundwater modeling, it has been estimated that the contaminated groundwater in the
overburden and bedrock aguifers underlying the Southern Wetland would naturally attenuate to groundwater
standards in 10 years, once the source of groundwater contamination is addressed through excavating and
treating the contaminated soils on the Site Proper, in combination with the installation of extraction wells
at the downgradient boundary of the Site Proper (which will prevent further migration of contaminated
groundwater from the Site Proper).  By comparison,  extraction of the contaminated groundwater in the
overburden and bedrock aguifers, under Alternative GW-3, would achieve groundwater standards in an
estimated 7 years, following the implementation of the source control remedy at the Site Proper.

The precise time reguired for the groundwater to be remediated under all of the alternatives would have to be
determined based on the results of groundwater monitoring and more substantial groundwater modeling.

Implementability

Excavating contaminated sediments and transporting them to the Site Proper for treatment, although
implementable, would be more difficult to implement than the no-action alternative. Alternatives SED-2
(remediation of Western Wetland sediments)  and SED-3  (remediation of Western Wetland and Northwestern Wetland
sediments)  can be accomplished using technologies known to be reliable. The eguipment, services, and
materials for this work would be readily available. These actions would also be administratively feasible.

Alternative GW-1  (no action and long-term monitoring)  would be the easiest alternative to implement, since it
would reguire no activities other than long-term monitoring. With the implementation of Institutional
controls, Alternative GW-2  (natural attenuation, institutional controls, and long-term monitoring)  would be
slightly more difficult to implement than Alternative GW-1. Alternative GW-3 (groundwater extraction and
treatment)  would be the most difficult to implement in that it would reguire the construction of a
groundwater extraction system and pipelines. The services and materials that would be reguired for the
implementation of all of the groundwater remedial alternatives are readily available.

All treatment eguipment that would be used in Alternative GW-3 is proven and commercially available.
Transportation and disposal of treatment residues could be easily implemented using commercially available
eguipment.  Under this alternative,  sampling for treatment effectiveness and groundwater monitoring would be
necessary,  but could be easily implemented.

Cost

The estimated capital, annual (operation, maintenance, and monitoring), and present-worth costs for each of
the alternatives are presented below.

                                               Present Worth
                                                       $220,000
                                                     $3,290,000
                                                     $4,000,000
                                                      $150,000
                                                       $600,000
         GW-3           $440,000     $105,000         $1,740,000

Under the sediment no-action alternative, no remedial activities would be conducted; thus, no capital costs
would be expected to be incurred.  Annual monitoring of contaminant levels in sediments would be
conducted to ensure that concentrations are not increasing. The cost of the monitoring is expected to be
approximately $18,000 per year;  the present-worth cost of this alternative is estimated to be  approximately
$220,000, significantly below the $3,290,000 and $4,000,000 present-worth cost estimates for the excavation
alternatives, respectively.

Under the groundwater no-action alternative, annual monitoring of contaminant levels in groundwater would be
conducted.  The cost of the monitoring is expected to be approximately $12,000 per year; the present-worth
cost of this alternative is estimated to be approximately $150,000. Under the natural attenuation
alternative, semiannual monitoring of contaminant levels in groundwater would be conducted.
Alternative
SED-1
SED-2
SED-3
GW-1
GW-2
Capital
$0
$3,140,000
$3,850,000
$0
$30,000
Annual
$18,000
$12,000
$12,000
$12,000
$45, 600

-------
The cost of the monitoring is expected to be approximately $45,600 per year; the present-worth cost of this
alternative is estimated to be approximately $600,000, significantly below the $1,740,000 present-
worth cost estimate for the extraction and treatment alternative.

State Acceptance

NYSDEC concurs with the selected remedy.

Community Acceptance

Comments received during the public comment period indicate that the public generally supports the selected
remedy; however, concerns were expressed related to utilizing NYSDEC sediment guidance values to
establish sediment clean up objectives. Comments received during the public comment period are summarized and
addressed in the Responsiveness Summary, which is attached as Appendix V to this document.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SEIiECTED REMEDY

Based upon an evaluation of the various alternatives, EPA and NYSDEC select Alternative SED-2, excavation
and/or dredging of lead- and PCB-contaminated sediments from the Western Wetland, solidification/
stabilization, and disposal above the water table (with an adeguate safety factor)  and under a cap meeting
the reguirements of New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360 on the Site Proper, as the sediment alternative,  with
Alternative SED-3, excavation and/or dredging of lead-and PCB-contaminated sediments from the Western Wetland
and the Northwestern Wetland, solidification/stabilization, and disposal above the water table (with an
adeguate safety factor) and under a cap meeting the reguirements of New York State 6 NYCRR Part 360 on the
Site Proper, as a contingent sediment alternative.

In the Western Wetland, the most significant potential ecological risk is associated with the elevated lead
and PCB concentrations in the sediments located immediately to the west and northwest of the Site
Proper Western Drainage Area (approximately defined by the polygon in Figure 7)  and in the drainage channel
leading to North Lawrence Road. These sediments, which contain approximately 96% of the PCBs in the Western
Wetland, will be completely removed. Excavation and/or dredging of sediments in the "remaining areas" of the
Western Wetland will be contingent upon the results of design-phase sediment sampling to more accurately
define the extent of contamination and the existence of any "channelized" contaminants, and design-phase
studies to determine whether lead and/or PCBs in these sediments pose an ecological threat. Those sediments
which exceed 1 mg/kg PCBs would be removed; those sediments which are otherwise determined to pose a
significant ecological threat would also be removed.

While the levels of lead and PCBs in portions of the Western Wetland sediments clearly pose an ecological
threat, the levels of these contaminants in the Northwestern Wetland sediments are lower and it has not yet
been determined whether these contaminants pose an ecological threat in the Northwestern Wetland. In
addition, the impacts associated with excavating 5 or more acres of contaminated sediments from the
Northwestern Wetland would damage the wetlands and associated ecological community that currently exist in
this area, resulting in a loss of habitats for an undeterminable period of time. While the wetlands would be
restored, it is expected that the habitat loss would be relatively long term due to the time reguired to
recreate the forested habitats of the Northwestern Wetland.

In order to appropriately balance the minimization of remedial impacts with the reduction of ecological risk,
removal of contaminated sediments in the Northwestern Wetland will be contingent upon the results of
design-phase studies to determine whether these sediments pose an ecological threat.

The studies noted above would be designed to assess the ecological threat posed by lead and PCBs in the
Northwestern Wetland and in the "remaining areas" of the Western Wetland and, if appropriate, would
delineate the sediments reguiring remediation. These studies would include, but would not necessarily be
limited to, the following:

Measurement of lead toxicity would be based on laboratory sediment toxicity tests using sediments collected
in the field. It is anticipated that two test organisms would be run side-by-side for each sample location

-------
following standard EPA or ASTM sediment toxicity testing methods. The tests would be for survival and growth.
Analysis of the sediment would include full Target Compound List/Target Analyte List,
pesticides/PCB, total organic carbon, pH, grain size, and oil and grease. Sediments from a local reference
wetland unimpacted by the Site would be collected with Site sediments to assist in interpreting any potential
confounding regional sediment or water guality factors.

Measurement of lead and PCB bioaccumulation would be based on tissue residue analysis using biota collected
in the field. The tissue residue concentrations would be used as the assumed food source for
modeling risk to both aguatic foraging avian and mammalian receptors to address food chain threats.

Based on the modeling of the lead and PCB tissue residue concentrations, the prediction of a significant
reduction in survival or growth, or a significant impact to higher trophic level receptors would indicate the
need to remediate the sediments.

EPA and NYSDEC will review the results of the ecological studies. Based upon the results of these studies,
EPA, in consultation with NYSDEC, will determine whether there is a need to remove any sediments in the
Northwestern Wetland and/or in the "remaining areas" of the Western Wetland. If it is determined that
lead-contaminated sediments need to be remediated, based on the results of the modeling and the sediment
analyses, sediment cleanup values would be calculated. If it is determined that PCB-contaminated sediments
need to be remediated, those sediments which exceed 1 mg/kg PCBs would be removed.

All areas disturbed during the remediation of sediments will be restored and all remedial work in wetlands
will comply with New York State Environmental Conservation Law Article 24 and 6 NYCRR Part 663.

Short-term post-remediation monitoring of Western Wetland sediments, surface water, and biota will be
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy. If Alternative SED-3, the contingent alternative, is
implemented, short-term post-remediation monitoring of Northwestern Wetland sediments, surface water, and
biota would be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy in this area. If Alternative
SED-3, the contingent alternative, is not implemented, since contaminants would be left in place in the
Northwest Wetland, long-term monitoring in this area would be performed. This monitoring would include
sediment sampling to determine if the residual contaminant concentrations are decreasing and studies to
assess the risk to receptors.

The selected alternative to address the groundwater contamination is Alternative GW-2 (natural attenuation,
institutional controls, and monitoring).

While groundwater extraction and treatment would actively address the contaminated groundwater underlying the
Southern Wetland, no current risk is associated with this groundwater, and, for the foreseeable future,
residential or commercial/industrial development of groundwater within this regulated wetland is unlikely.
Further, the presence of TCE breakdown products in the groundwater indicates that degradation is
occurring. Based upon preliminary groundwater modeling, it has been estimated that the contaminated
groundwater in the overburden and bedrock aguifers underlying the Southern Wetland will naturally
attenuate to groundwater standards in 10 years, once the source of groundwater contamination is addressed
through excavating and treating the contaminated soils on the Site Proper, in combination with the
installation of extraction wells at the downgradient boundary of the Site Proper (which will prevent further
migration of contaminated groundwater from the Site Proper), as set forth in the 1988 ROD. By comparison,
extraction of the contaminated groundwater in the overburden and bedrock aguifers would achieve groundwater
standards in an estimated 7 years following the implementation of the source control remedy at the Site
Proper. The precise time reguired for the groundwater to be remediated under both scenarios will have to be
determined based on the results of groundwater monitoring and additional groundwater modeling.

EPA anticipates that natural attenuation will result in the remediation of the groundwater underlying the
Southern Wetland in a reasonable time frame and at a significantly lower cost than groundwater extraction and
treatment. Furthermore, the implementation of institutional controls to prevent the installation and use of
groundwater wells within the Southern Wetland will reduce the risk to human health which will occur
in the unlikely event that the wetland is developed.

-------
As part of a long-term groundwater monitoring program, groundwater samples will be collected and analyzed
semiannually in order to verify that the level and extent of contaminants are declining from baseline
conditions and that conditions are protective of human health and the environment. In addition,
biodegradation parameters will be used to assess the progress of the degradation process. Statistical
analysis of the groundwater sampling results will be employed to discern trends.

The specific details of the monitoring programs will be developed during the design phase. The results of the
monitoring and site conditions will be assessed at least once every five years to determine whether
additional remedial actions are necessary, whether the monitoring should continue, and/or whether the
parameters and/or freguency of the monitoring should be adjusted.

EPA and NYSDEC believe that the selected sediment and groundwater remedy for the Contamination Pathways will
provide the best balance of tradeoffs among alternatives with respect to the evaluating criteria, be
protective of human health and the environment, comply with ARARs, and be cost-effective.

STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS

As was previously noted, CERCLA °121(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. °9621(b)(1), mandates that a remedial action must be
protective of human health and the environment, cost-effective, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
Section 121(b)(1) also establishes a preference for remedial actions which employ treatment to permanently
and significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants at a site. CERCLA °121(d), 42 U.S.C. °9621(d), further specifies that a remedial action
must attain a degree of cleanup that satisfies ARARs under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be
justified pursuant to CERCLA °121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. °9621(d)(4).

For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the selected remedy meets the reguirements of CERCLA
°121, 42 U.S.C. °9621.

Protection of Human Health and the Environment

The selected remedy protects human health and the environment by reducing levels of contaminants in the
groundwater through natural attenuation and the implementation of institutional controls. The selected remedy
also protects human health and the environment by reducing the levels of contaminants in the sediments by
excavation and solidification/stabilization. The selected remedy will provide overall protection by reducing
the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contamination and by meeting federal and state MCLs.

Compliance with ARARs

Since the selected remedy will involve the excavation of PCB-contaminated sediments, their disposition will
be governed by the reguirements of TSCA. Specifically, under TSCA's PCB disposal reguirements, soils and
sediments contaminated with PCBs in excess of 50 mg/kg may be disposed of in a chemical waste landfill
meeting the reguirements of 40 CFR 761.75(b) or destroyed in an incinerator, or by an alternate method which
achieves an eguivalent level of performance to incineration (40 CFR 761.60(a)(4) and (e)) or the reguirements
may be waived in accordance with 40 CFR 761.75(c)(4). Since the selected remedy involves the disposal of
sediments contaminated with PCBs in excess of 50 mg/kg on the Site Proper, these disposal reguirements are
applicable. The PCB-contaminated soils and sediments on the Site Proper are also subject to these same
reguirements. However, since the contaminated sediments that will be excavated originated from the Site
Proper and will be disposed of at the Site Proper along with the Site Proper contaminated soils and
sediments, and since the PCB concentrations in the contaminated sediments that will be excavated are lower
than the PCB levels in the Site Proper soils and sediments, their treatment and disposal at the Site Proper
with the Site Proper materials is consistent with EPA's 1989 TSCA waiver. Therefore, an additional waiver
will not be reguired.

The selected remedy will be effective in reducing groundwater contaminant concentrations below MCLs
(chemical-specific ARARs) through natural attenuation.

-------
A summary of action-specific, chemical-specific, and location-specific ARARs which will be complied with
during implementation is presented below. A listing of the individual chemical-specific ARARs is presented
in Tables 11 and 12.

Action-Specific ARARs:

       Clean Water Act,  Discharge to Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (40 CFR 403)

       Clean Water Act,  NPDES Permitting Requirements for Discharge of Treatment System Effluent (40 CFR
       122-125)

       DOT Rules for Hazardous Materials Transport (49 CFR 107,  171.1-171.500)

       Effluent Guidelines for Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Resins (40 CFR 414)

       Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 CFR 658)

•      National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61)

       New York State Air Emission Requirements  (6 NYCRR 200-212)

       New York State Pollution Discharge Elimination System Requirements (6 NYCRR 750-757)

       New York State RCRA Closure and Post-Closure Standards (6 NYCRR 372)

•      New York State RCRA Standards for the Design and Operation of Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities
       Minimum Technology Requirements  (6 NYCRR 370-372)

•      New York State RCRA Generator and Transporter Requirements for Manifesting Waste for Off-Site Disposal
       (6 NYCRR 364 and 372)

•      New York State Solid Waste Management Requirements and Siting Restrictions (6 NYCRR 360-361)

•      Occupational Safety Health Standards for Hazardous Responses and General Construction Activities (29
       CFR 1904, 1910, 1926)

       RCRA Generator Requirements for Manifesting Waste for Off-Site Disposal (40 CFR 263)

       RCRA Ground Water Monitoring and Protection Standards (40 CFR 264, Subpart F)

       RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions  (40 CFR 268)

       RCRA Subtitle D Nonhazardous Waste Management Standards  (40 CFR 257)

•      RCRA Subtitle C,  Hazardous Waste Treatment Facility Design and Operating Standards for Treatment and
       Disposal Systems (40 CFR 264 and 265)

       RCRA Subtitle C,  Closure and Post-Closure Standards (40 CFR 264,  Subpart G)

       RCRA Transporter Requirements for Off-Site Disposal (40 CFR 257)

       Regulation Affecting the Disposal of PCB-Contaminated Materials (40 CFR 761)

       Research Development and Demonstration Permits (40 CFR 270.65,  50 FR 28728)

       Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2601 to 2692 (Regulations found at 40 CFR 700 to 799)

-------
Chemical-Specific ARARs:

       Clean Air Act,  National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50)

       Clean Air Act,  National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61)

       Clean Water Act, Water Quality Criteria (Section 304) (May 1,  1987 - Gold Book)

       New York State  Ambient Air Quality Standards (6 NYCRR 256 and 257)

       New York State  Classifications of Standards of Quality of Quality and Purity (6 NYCRR 701)

•      New York Safe Drinking Water Act,  Maximum Contaminant Levels (10 NYCRR 5)

       New York Groundwater Quality Standards (6 NYCRR 703)

       New York State  Raw Water Quality Standards (10 NYCRR 170.4)

       New York State  RCRA Groundwater Protection Standards (6 NYCRR 373-2.6(e))

       New York State  Regulations for the Identification of Hazardous Waste (6 NYCRR 371)

       New York State  Surface Water Quality Standards (6 NYCRR 703)

•      RCRA Groundwater Protection Standards and Maximum Concentrations Limits (40 CFR 264,  Subpart F)

       RCRA Regulations for the Identification of Hazardous Waste  (40 CFR 261)

•      Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels,  Maximum Contaminant Levels Goals  (40 CFR 141)

Location-Specific ARARs:

•      Army Corps of Engineers Regulations for Construction and Discharge of Dredged or Fill materials  in
       Navigable Waterways (33 CFR 320- 330)

       Clean Water Act Section 404 (40 CFR 230)

•      Endangered and  Threatened Species of Fish and Wildlife Reguirements (6 NYCRR 182)

       Endangered Species Act (16 USC 1531)

•      Executive Order #11988 on Flood Plain Management

•      Executive Order #11990 on Protection of Wetlands

•      Farmland Protection Policy Act

       Fish and Wildlife  Coordination Act (16 USC 661 et seg.)

       Freshwater Wetlands Act Law (ECL Article 24,  71 in Title 23)

       National Historic  Preservation Act (16 USC 470 )  Section 106,  et.  seg.  (36 CFR 800)

•      New York State  Flood Hazard Area Construction Standards

       New York State  Flood Plain Management Act and Regulations (ECL Article 36 and 6 NYCRR 500)

-------
       New York State Freshwater Wetlands Permit Requirements and Classification (6 NYCRR 663 and 664)

       New York State Water Pollution Control Regulations,  Use and Protection of Waters (6 NYCRR 608)

       RCRA Location Requirements for 100-Year Flood Plains (40 CFR 264.18 (b))

       USEPA Statement of Policy on Flood Plains and Wetlands Assessment for CERCLA Actions

•      Wetlands Construction and Management Procedures (40  CFR 6,  Appendix A)

Other Criteria, Advisories, or Guidance To Be Considered:

•      Cancer Assessment Group (National Academy of Science)  Guidance

•      Federal Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Site for Dredged or Fill Material

•      Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Advisories

•      Groundwater Classification Guidelines

•      Groundwater Protection Strategy

•      New York State Air Guidelines for the Control of Toxic Ambient Air Contaminants (Air Guide 1)

       New York State Ambient Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values (TOG 1.1.1)

       New York State Analytical Detectability for Toxic Pollutants (85 W-40 TOG)

•      New York State Proposed Safe Drinking Water Standards Maximum Contaminant Levels for VOCs
       (10 NYCRR 5)

•      New York State Regional Authorization for Temporary Discharges (TOG 1.6.1)

       New York State Toxicity Testing for the SPDES Permit Program (TOG 1.3.2)

•      New York State Underground Injection/Recirculation at Groundwater Remediation Sites (Technical
       Operating Guidance Series (TOGS) 7.1.2)

•      Policy for the Development of Water-Quality-Based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants (49 FR 9016)

•      Proposed Federal Air Emission Standards for Volatile Organic Control Equipment (52 FR 3748)

       Proposed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (50 FR 46936-47022, November 13, 1985)

       Proposed Maximum Contaminant Levels (50 FR 46936-47022, November 13,  1985)

•      Proposed Requirements for Hybrid Closures (52 FR 8711)

•      Safe Drinking Water Act National Primary Drinking Water Regulations,  Maximum Contaminant Level Goals

•      Selection of Remedial Actions at Inactive Hazardous  Waste Sites (Technical and Administrative Guidance
       (TAGM 4030)

•      Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments (November 1993,  NYSDEC, Division of Fish and
       Wildlife, Division of Marine Resources)

       Toxic Substances Control Act Health Data

-------
•      Toxicological Profiles,  Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,  U.S.  Public Health Service

•      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water Health Advisories

•      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Health Effects Assessment Summary Table

•      Waste Load Allocation Procedures

Cost-Effectiveness

The selected remedy provides for overall effectiveness in proportion to its cost and in mitigating the
principal risks posed by contaminated sediments and groundwater. The estimated cost for the selected remedy
has a capital cost of $3,170,000, annual operation and maintenance of $57,600, and a present-worth cost of
$3,890,000.

Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable

The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable by the excavation and solidification/stabilization of contaminated sediments.

Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element

The selected remedy's excavation and solidification/stabilization of contaminated sediments satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies employing treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances.

DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The Proposed Plan called for excavating and/or dredging sediments exceeding NYSDEC's sediment guidance values
for lead and PCBs  (31 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg, respectively) 5 in the Western Wetland,  and in the Northwestern
Wetland should design-phase studies determine that there is an ecological threat in the Northwestern Wetland.

In response to comments that were expressed by the PRPs related to utilizing sediment guidance values to
establish cleanup objectives, the remedy in the ROD has been modified as follows 6:

In the Western Wetland, the sediments located immediately to the west and northwest of the Site Proper
Western Drainage Area and in the drainage channel leading to North Lawrence Road will be completely
excavated and/or dredged. Excavation and/or dredging of sediments in the "remaining areas" of the Western
Wetland will be contingent upon the results of design-phase sediment sampling to more accurately define
the extent of contamination and the existence of any "channelized" contaminants,  and design-phase studies to
determine whether lead and/or PCBs in these sediments pose an ecological threat.


5    NYSDEC's sediment cleanup objectives for lead and PCBs that were called for in the
     Proposed Plan are specified in its Division of Fish and Wildlife, Division of Marine
     Resources, Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments, November 1993.
     (NYSDEC's lead sediment cleanup objective is adopted from the value presented in the
     Ontario Ministry of Environment and Energy Guidelines for the Protection and
     Management of Aquatic Sediment Quality in Ontario, August 1993.)

6      While EPA agrees that using a 31 mg/kg lead sediment screening value as a cleanup
       objective for the York Oil site is inappropriate,  EPA believes that the 1  mg/kg cleanup
       objective for PCBs is justified. At New York State Superfund sites,  EPA has consistently
       used 1 mg/kg PCBs as a cleanup objective for sediments.

-------
Excavation and/or dredging of contaminated sediments in the Northwestern Wetland will be contingent upon the
results of studies which will be conducted during the design phase to determine whether these sediments pose
an ecological threat.

In addition,  the Proposed Plan recommended long-term sediment,  surface water,  and biota monitoring in the
Southern Wetland and the wetlands to the northwest of the Northwest Wetland. However, since the levels of
contaminants present in these areas do not pose a significant human health or ecological risk,  this long-term
monitoring will not be conducted.

-------
                                      APPENDIX I

                                       FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Plan
Figure 2 - Geologic Cross-Section with Total VOC Isoconcentration Lines
Figure 3 - Summary of Organic Compound Data for Overburden Groundwater
Figure 4 - Summary of Organic Compound Data for Bedrock Groundwater
Figure 5 - Surface Water,  "Sediment,  and Surface Soil Sample Location Map
Figure 6 - Site Proper Western Drainage Area and Western Wetland PCB Data
Figure 7 - Western Wetland Sediment PCB and Lead Data
Figure 8 - Northwestern Wetland Sediment PCB and Lead Data
Figure 9 - Site Sediment and Surface Soil PCB Data

-------
                                APPENDIX II
                                  TABLES

                                          Table 1

                        York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                         Summary of Surface Water Inorganics Date  (ug/L)
Field Sample No.
Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Field Sample No.

Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Aluminum
Barium
Calcium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Potassium
Sodium
Zinc
Y2-SW01-01
17292
1729.2
201 U
22.2 J
13,700
4.0 U
375
1.0 U
4,310
32.4 J
0.20 U
1,440
2,910
20 U
Y2-SW07-01

17152
1715.2
259 U
16.3 J
14,700
5.0 J
690
1.0 U
4,810
173 J
0.20 U
1,060
27,200
24.8 U
Y2-SW02-01
17217
1721.7
314 U
23.2 J
15,000
4.0 U
509
1.0 U
4,510
39.3 J
0.20 U
1,510
3,070
20 U
Y2-SW08-01

17284
1728.4
400 U
154 J
111,000
8.0 U
854
1.0 J
26,500
183 J
0.20 U
5,720
973,000
346
Y2-SW03-01
16903
1690.3
321 U
18.1 J
11,900
4.0 U
494
1.0 U
3,690
33.0 J
0.20 U
1,250
2,370
20 U
Y2-SWD1-1+

17144
1714.4
35.5 J
1.0 U
5,000 U
4.0 U
28.7 J
1.0 U
5,000 U
1.0 U
0.20 U
88.0 U
5,000 U
20 U
Y2-SW04-01
16890
1689.0
268 U
17.9 J
12,000
4.0 U
456
1.0 U
3,750
33.8 J
0.20 U
1,240
2,320
20 U
Y2-SW01A-
02
32178
3217.8
200 U
25.0
20,100
5.1 J
252
1.0 U
6,140
33.4 J
0.10 UJ
1090 J
3,020
20.1
Y2-SW05-01
17241
1724.1
200 U
17.2 J
17,300
4.0 U
448
1.0 U
5,670
19.6 J
0.20 U
707
6,900
20 U
Y2-SW02-02

32119
3211.9
200 U
35.0
24,000
25 U
424
1.0 U
7,390
56.1 J
0.10 UJ
1,400 J
4,010
15.1
Y2-SWD1*
17209
1720.9
200 U
16.3 J
16, 600
4.0 U
436
1.0 U
5,440
19.4 J
0.20 U
648
6,450
20 U
Y2-SW03-02

32208
3220.8
200 U
33.1
25,900
3.0 J
339 J
1.0 U
7,980
36.2 J
0.22 J
1,250 J
4,010
21.3 J
Y2-SW06-01
17250
1725.0
200 U
14.8 J
9,300
4.0 U
505
1.0 U
2,940
14.7 J
0.20 U
816
2,710
20 U
Y2-SWD2*

32186
3218.6
200 U
35.1
24,900
6.7 J
2,450 J
1.0 U
7,660
41.1 J
0.10 UJ
1,360 J
3,980
14.0 J
7/24/98

-------
0196999C
                                  Table 1
                                  (Cont' d)

              York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways
              Summary of Surface Water Inorganics Data  (ug/L)
                 Field Sample No.           Y2-SW04-02
                     Form 1 ID                 32194
                 Laboratory ID                3219.4

               Aluminum                     200 U
               Barium                        31.6
               Calcium                     24,900
               Copper                       2.4 J
               Iron                          428
               Lead                         1.0 U
               Magnesium                    7,670
               Manganese                   75.3 J
               Mercury                    0.10 UJ
               Potassium                  1,400 J
               Sodium                       3,850
               Zinc                          15.2
Notes:
1.  Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. in April, 1993  (-01 field sample no. suffix) and
    August 1993 (-02  field sample suffix).
2.  Only detected analytes are listed.
3.  U = analyte was not detected.
4.  J = concentration of analyte is approximate.
5.  Concentrations are in ug/L.
6.  + = rinse blank.
7.  * = Field duplicates as follows:

    Y2-SWD1 is a field duplicate for Y2-SW05-01
    Y2-SWD2 is a field duplicate for Y2-SW03-02
8.  Detectable concentrations of analytes are highlighted.

7/24/98
0196999C

-------
TABIiE 2

York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

Chemicals of Concern in Surface Water
Lawrence Brook - Wagnum Road Site

Frequency of
Detection

Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(ug/L)
Maximum
Detected
Background
Concentration
(ug/L)

Detected
In OU1
Samples?
(Y/N/NA)
Chemical

Volatile Organic Compounds
Potential volatile orgamic compound chemicals of concern were not
detected in any of the samples.

Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Total Phenols 1/2 21 ND Y

Pesticides/PCBs
Potential pesticides/PCB chemicals of concern were not detected in
any of the samples.

Inorganics
* Barium 2/2 33.1 25 NA
Calcium 2/2 25900 20100 NA
Copper 1/2 3 5.1 Y
Iron 2/2 494 375 NA
Magnesium 2/2 7980 6140 NA
* Manganeses 2/2 36.2 33.4 NA
* Mercury 1/2 0.22 ND Y
Potassium 2/2 1250 1440 NA
Sodium 2/2 4010 3020 NA
* Zinc 1/2 21.3 20.1 Y

Notes:
* Potential OU1 site-related chemicals of concern.
1. Potential chemicals of concern are those chemicals (excluding essential nutrients
such as calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and sodium) previously identified in OU1
or not previously tested for in samples from OU1, where the maximum detected
concentration exceeds the maximum detected background concentration.
2. Wagnum Road Site analysis includes the results of samples SW03-01 & SW03-02.
3. Background analysis includes the results of samples SW01-01 & SW01-02.
4. Total phenols is not included as a potential OUl-related chemical of concern as total
phenols is an indicator parameter which is not appropriate for use in quantifying risks
(USEPA, 1989).
5. ND = Not detected.
6. Y = Yes.
N = No.
NA = Not Analyzed.

-------
                                      TABIiE 2 (con't)
                       York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways
                          Chemicals of Concern in Surface Water
                          Lawrence Brook - Wetland Boundary Site



Frequency of
Detection

Maximum
Detected
Concentration
(ug/L)
Maximum
Detected
Background
Concentration
(ug/L)

Detected
In OU1
Samples?
(Y/N/NA)
  Chemical
  Volatile Organic Compounds
  Potential volatile organic compound chemicals of concern were not
  detected in any of the samples.

  Semivolatile Organic Compounds
  Potential semivolatile organic compound chemicals of concern were
  not detected in any of the samples.

  Pesticides/PCBs
  Potential pesticides/PCB chemicals of concern were not detected in
  any of the samples.
  Inorganics
  Barium
  Calcium
  Copper
  Iron
  Magnesium
  Manganese
  Potassium
  Sodium
  Zinc
2/2
2/2
1/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
2/2
1/2
 31.6
24900
  2.4
  456
 7670
 75.3
 1400
 3850
 15.2
  25
20100
 5.1
 375
6140
33.4
1440
3020
20.1
NA
NA
Y
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Y
Notes:
*   Potential OU1 site-related chemicals of concern.
1.  Potential chemicals of concern are those chemicals (excluding essential nutrients
    such as calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and sodium) previously identified in OU1
    or not previously tested for in samples from OU1,  where the maximum detected
    concentration exceeds the maximum detected background concentration.
2.  Wetland Boundary Site analysis includes the results of samples SW04-01 & SW04-02.
3.  Background analysis includes the results of samples SW01-01 & SW01-02.
4.  ND = Not detected.
5.  Y = Yes.
    N = No.
    NA = Not Analyzed.

-------
TABIiE 2 (con't)

York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

Chemicals of Concern in Surface Water
Primary Wetland Areas - Western Wetland Site

Maximum
Maximum Detected Detected
Detected Background In OU1
Frequency of Concentration Concentration Samples?
Chemical Detection (ug/L) (ug/L) (Y/N/NA)

Volatile Organic Compounds

Potential volatile organic compound chemicals of concern were not
detected in any of the samples.

Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Potential semivolatile organic compound chemicals of concern were
not detected in any of the samples.

Pesticides/PCBs
Potential pesticides/PCB chemicals of concern were not detected in
any of the samples.

Inorganics
Barium 1/1 16.3 25 NA
Calcium 1/1 14700 20100 NA
Copper 1/1 5 5.1 Y
Iron 1/1 690 375 NA
Magnesium 1/1 4810 6140 NA
* Manganese 1/1 173 33.4 NA
Potassium 1/1 1060 1440 NA
Sodium 1/1 27200 3020 NA

Notes:
* Potential OU1 site-related chemicals of concern.
1. Potential chemicals of concern are those chemicals (excluding essential nutrients
such as calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and sodium) previously identified in OU1
or not previously tested for in samples from OU1, where the maximum detected
concentration exceeds the maximum detected background concentration.
2. Western Wetland Site analysis includes the results of sample SW07-01.
3. Background analysis includes the results of samples SW01-01 & SW01-02.
4. Y = Yes.
N = No.
NA = Not Analyzed.

-------
TABIiE 2 (con't)

York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

Chemicals of Concern in Surface Water
Primary Wetland Area - Southern Wetland Site

Maximum
Maximum Detected Detected
Detected Background In OU1
Frequency of Concentration Concentration Samples?
Chemical Detection (ug/L) (ug/L) (Y/N/NA)

Volatile Organic Compounds
Potential volatile organic compound chemicals of concern were not
detected in any of the samples.

Semivolatile Organic Compounds
Potential semivolatile organic compound chemicals of concern were
not detected in any of the samples.

Pesticides/PCBs
Potential pesticides/PCB chemicals of concern were not detected in
any of the samples.

Inorganics
Barium 2/2 17.2 25 NA
Calcium 2/2 17300 20100 NA
Iron 2/2 505 375 NA
Magnesium 2/2 5670 6140 NA
Manganese 2/2 19.6 33.4 NA
Potassium 2/2 816 1440 NA
Sodium 2/2 6900 3020 NA

Notes:
* Potential OU1 site-related chemicals of concern.
1. Potential chemicals of concern are those chemicals (excluding essential nutrients
such as calcium, iron, magnesium, potassium and sodium) previously identified in OU1
or not previously tested for in samples from OU1, where the maximum detected
concentration exceeds the maximum detected background concentration.
2. Southern Wetland Site analysis includes the results of samples SW05-01 & SW06-01.
3. Background analysis includes the results of samples SW01-01 & SW01-02.
4. Y = Yes.
N = No.
NA = Not Analyzed.

-------
                    TABIiE 3





York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




  Summary of Sediment Inorganics Data(mg/kg)
Field Sample Number
Form I ID
Lab ID
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Y2-SD01-01
19015
1901
2360
2.3
228
1.1
1.9
35400
6.5
3.3
16.3
6260
25.9
1930
168
0.57
4.4
105
1.0
3.3
1000
10.0
50.2
.5
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ*
Y2-SD01-02
19023
1902,
3310
1.8
211
0.86
2.4
36400
7.1
2.6
35.4
3770
1.5
2080
121
0.43
8.9
87.7
3.10
2.6
1000
17.4
33.1
.3
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ*
Y2-SD02-01
19007
1900,
6800
3.4
272
1.7
5.1
42900
9.9
5.2
38.9
9240.0
22.4
2450
240.0
0.90
15.9
233
1.7
5.2
1000
21.9
50.4
.7
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ*
Y2-SD03-01
18973
1897,
3430
1.9
83.9
0.94
1.7
2620
5.9
2.8
21.0
1370
37.1
225.0
24.6
0.47
4.7
339.0
0.95
2.8
1000
10
30.7
.3
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J*
Y2-SD04-01
17969
1796.
1300
0.47
40
0.36
0.36
786
1.9
1.1
1.5
656
6.2
1000
3.9
0.62
2.1
1000
0.33
1.1
1000
10
4
,9

J
U
U
U
J
J
U
U

U
U
U
J
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SD04-02
17977
1797,
355
0.23
40
0.23
0.23
205
1.2
0.70
0.94
370
0.89
1000.0
3
0.12
1.5
1000
0.23
0.70
1000
10
4
.7

UJ
U
U
U
J
U
U
U

U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SD05-01
18345
1834,
10400
2
73.2
0.40
1
1570
12.9
3.8
5.6
7570
15.0
1120
49.7
0.51
7.6
649
1
1.2
1000
15.2
28.4
.5
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
Y2-SDD2+
18353
1835
12600
2
81.9
0.38
1
1720
15.2
3.1
5.8
7950
29.3
1390
47.4
0.32
8.6
804
0.38
1.1
1000
17.5
31.9
.3
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ

-------
                TABIiE 3(Cont'd)





York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




  Summary of Sediment Inorganics Data(mg/kg)
Field Sample Number Y2-SD06-01
Form I ID
Lab ID
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
18337
1833
14700
2
168
0.61
1.2
11100
27.1
5.1
12.2
10100
11.4
2830
162
160
10.6
1000
0.6
1.8
1000
19.7
98.5
.7
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
Y2-SD07-01
18485
1848
13400
2.9
197
0.53
0.5
4880
20.0
7.7
8.1
19100
25.4
3020
373
0.27
11.7
729
0.53
1.6
1000
27.4
87
.5
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
Y2-SD08-01
18078
1807,
11500
3.5
222
0.9
0.9
44100
27.9
9.5
18.9
25200.0
94.0
24800
266.0
0.38
21.2
1560
1.0
2.6
1000
41.8
53.1
.8
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
Y2-SD09-01
18086
1808
1830
1.7
1340.0
0.30
1.7
2510
10.0
1.2
49.2
4180
3580.0
364.0
38.8
1.40
5.3
1000.0
1.00
0.9
1300
10
211
.6

J

U

J
J
J
UJ




J
J
U
UJ
U
J
U

Y2-SD09-02
18094
1809,
5160
2.40
297
1.00
0.30
3550
13.9
3.3
7.8
9440
367
2850
84.4
0.15
8.9
646
0.29
0.9
111
15
36.8
.4

J

U
U
J

J
U




U


UJ
U
J


Y2-SD10-01
18108
1810,
3910
7.40
933
1.10
1.10
16200
9.4
3.40
21.30
14200
1340
1250.0
627
1.70
9.8
1000
1.60
3.40
4280
10
112
.8
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD11-01
18116
1811
4660
5
138
1.40
1
12400
8.6
4.2
22.8
4230
138.0
1270
236
0.78
7.6
123
1
4.2
3230
11.2
82.8
.6
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD11-02
18124
1812
4150
2
58.8
0.5
1.3
6620
10.8
1.5
33.7
1800
5.8
805
63.7
2.50
5.6
1000
1
1.5
1190
10.0
29
.4
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ

-------
                TABIiE 3(Cont'd)





York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




  Summary of Sediment Inorganics Data(mg/kg)
Field Sample Number Y2-SD12-01
Form I ID
Lab ID
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
18582
1858
4390
4.8
164
1
2.4
8740
9.9
3.1
17.9
5310
149
1610
142
0.51
6.1
486
1.0
3.1
1000
11.1
110
.2
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
Y2-SD12-02
18590
1859,
6780
3.4
97
0.87
1.4
10200
13.1
2.6
21.3
6380
19.3
1930
148
0.45
7.7
383
0.85
2.6
1000
14.6
76.4
.0
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
Y2-SD12-03
18604
1860,
6030
2.0
73
0.8
1.9
10000
11.5
3.3
21.1
5960.0
10.3
1470
155.0
0.39
5.7
308
1.0
2.4
1000
10.0
64.2
.4
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
Y2-SD13-01
18515
1851
4960
3.4
330.0
0.54
1.6
12300
11.4
4.3
15.5
15200
295.0
1720.0
574
0.39
9.9
1000.0
0.55
1.6
1000
20
101
.5
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
Y2-SD13-02
18523
1852
3400
3.70
145
0.35
1.50
8050
6.7
2.5
9.2
4660
73.8
1070
335
0.19
5.3
1000
0.97
1.0
1000
13
70.7
.3

J

U
U

J
J






J
U
J
U
U


Y2-SD14-01
18310
1831
6120
2.10
92
0.89
0.89
17100
14.7
2.70
21.90
4000
15.2
2210.0
137
1.30
9.2
1000
1.10
2.70
1000
8
86.5
.0
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
Y2-SD14-02
18329
1832
9790
2
118
0.53
1
11600
17.0
1.9
23.5
3500
6.6
1920
64.4
1.10
6.3
1000
1
1.2
1000
6.5
26.6
.9
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
Y2-SD15-01
18035
1803,
2640
5
66.8
1.2
1.2
20600
5.8
3.5
8.7
3580
25.8
2140
383
1.10
4.7
1000
1.2
3.5
1000
10.0
56.3
.5
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ

-------
                TABIiE 3(Cont'd)





York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




  Summary of Sediment Inorganics Data(mg/kg)
Field Sample Number Y2-SD15-02
Form I ID
Lab ID
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
18043
1804
2430
1.8
39
0.49
0.49
9830
5.3
1.5
5
2540
6.2
1250
207
R
3.6
1000
0.5
1.5
1000
10.0
20
.3
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J

J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD16-01
18230
1823
4710
4.0
77
0.67
0.7
13300
11.6
10
11.2
7040
20.2
1780
384
0.36
9
1000
1.00
2
1000
14.7
42.8
.0
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD16-02
18264
1826,
5900
3.4
73
0.6
0.6
9620
11.6
1.6
11.2
6490.0
11.8
1450
314.0
0.51
6.5
1000
0.9
1.6
1000
15.4
48.5
.4
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD17-01
18299
1829,
4210
2.0
68.3
0.42
1.0
15100
7.2
1.6
5.3
4040
9.6
1680.0
282
0.36
3.7
1000.0
0.44
1.3
1000
7
25.4
.9
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
Y2-SD17-02
18302
1830,
4680
2.00
52
0.38
1.00
9960
7.6
2.0
10.4
4020
7.2
1370
101
0.20
3.9
1000
0.38
1.1
1000
9
27.5
.2

UJ

U
U

J
J
U




U
J
U
U
U
U

U
Y2-SD18-01
17985
1798
1450
0.49
63
0.28
0.28
1350
2.5
0.84
4.80
4280
94.3
431.0
31.9
0.13
3.2
1000
0.29
0.84
1000
10
17.1
.5

J

U
U
J
J
U
J




U
J
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
Y2-SD19-01
17993
1799,
1450
6
1160
0.63
1
5390
7.3
1.9
28.9
20900
2270.0
615
131
0.34
9.4
1000
1
1.9
2250
10.0
219
.3
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
J
Y2-SD19-02
18051
1805
1630
3
424
0.39
0.39
2660
4.9
1.2
9.3
3220
387
365
28
R
4.3
1000
1
1.2
1000
10.0
27.4
.1
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J

J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ

-------
                TABIiE 3(Cont'd)





York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




  Summary of Sediment Inorganics Data(mg/kg)
Field Sample Number Y2-SD19-03
Form I ID
Lab ID
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
18060
1806
1960
0.99
55
0.23
0.23
7890
4.4
1.5
5
4510
26.1
4210
58
0.10
3.7
1000
0.2
0.68
1000
10.0
10.3
.0

J

U
U
J
J
J
U




U
J
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
Y2-SD20-01
18930
1893
4750
2.2
106
0.73
1.8
28600
9.5
2.2
22.1
4650
21.4
3050
221
0.40
7.8
366
1.80
2.2
1000
10.0
58.6
.0
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J*
Y2-SD20-02
18949
1894
6840
0.9
105
0.42
1.0
14200
12.9
1.5
26.0
3740.0
7.8
2370
44.8
0.21
6.6
351
0.9
1.3
1000
10.0
12.6
.9
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J*
Y2-SD21-01
18000
1800,
1510
1.8
52.6
0.74
0.7
5070
6.0
2.2
6.1
1700
1800.0
595.0
142
0.47
4.6
1000.0
0.73
2.2
1000
10
28.6
.0
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD21-02
18272
1827,
6480
6.20
70
0.43
0.43
6690
14.1
4.0
5.7
24000
62.4
1260
277
0.22
4.5
1000
0.57
1.9
1000
42
36.9
.2
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
UJ
J
J
U
J
UJ
Y2-SD2
03
18280
1828
4780
2.00
49
0.39
1.00
4480
9.3
3.20
6.50
4400
9.5
2040.0
88.2
0.20
4.4
1000
0.36
1.20
1000
9
36.7
.0

UJ

U
U

J
J
U




U
J
U
U
U
U

U
Y2-SD22-01
18493
1849,
3490
3
319
0.44
2
9800
9.1
2.9
15.8
6720
2430.0
1320
581
0.23
4.9
1000
1
1.3
1000
11.5
90.3
.3
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
1
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
Y2-SD22-02
18507
1850,
4260
1
81.6
0.31
1
11300
9.2
3.1
11.9
5440
16.7
1640
403
0.18
6.2
1000
0.47
0.93
1000
18.5
75.1
.7

J

U
U

J
J






J
U
J
U
U

-------
               TABIiE 3(Cont'd)





York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




  Summary of Sediment Inorganics Data(mg/kg)
Field Sample Number Y2-SD23-01
Form I ID
Lab ID
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
18710
1871
3780
5.9
325
1.1
5.4
35000
11.3
7.7
55.4
11700
408
4040
1760
0.51
14.3
816
1.7
3.2
1190
21.0
233
.0
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
Y2-SD23-02
18728
1872
4250
2.0
234
0.98
3.7
48600
10.6
3.5
48.6
8750
30.1
4910
775
0.52
14.3
470
0.94
2.9
1300
18.7
139
.8
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
Y2-SD24-01
18680
1868
1950
11.9
449
1.9
2.0
27900
9.7
9.6
23.9
29500.0
142.0
2490
6950.0
1.00
7.8
423
1.9
5.8
1290
14.8
211
.0
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
Y2-SD25-01
18019
1801
2790
2.5
59.9
0.63
0.6
5140
5.7
1.9
4.1
11300
19.0
958.0
574
0.35
3.5
1000.0
0.65
1.9
1000
12
53.5
.9
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD26-01
18868
1886,
7240
3.30
118
0.45
1.10
6760
11.7
4.2
11.3
10200
18.7
1920
643
0.23
5.8
511
0.44
1.3
1000
16
83.6
.8
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
Y2-SD26-02
18876
1887.6
8330
3.40
118
0.28 U
1.00 U
6930
13.2
5.60
12.70
12600
15.2 J
2110.0
493
0.15 UJ
7.1
581
0.28 UJ
0.85 U
265
18
84.1 J
Y2-SD27-01
18957
1895
1680
3
103
1.40
1
27900
11.5
42
21.8
7800
11.5
2820
289
0.72
14.4
201
2
4.2
1000
13.7
279
.7
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J*
Y2-SDD4+
18965
1896,
1830
4
123
1.6
1.6
34800
8.0
4.8
23.9
8120
152
3600
340
0.75
8.4
153
1.7
4.8
1000
13.2
R
.5
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ

-------
                TABIiE 3(Cont'd)





York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




  Summary of Sediment Inorganics Data(mg/kg)
Field Sample Number Y2-SD28-01
Form I ID
Lab ID
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
18477
1847.
11000
2
144
0.5
0.5
5890
17.5
7.3
10.4
17000
16.9
2900
810
0.31
11.4
958
0.5
1.5
1000
21.6
83.7
Y2-SD29-01
18027
0
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
1802
3130
1.1
37
0.29
0.3
1380
6.4
1.8
2.9
5120
7.1
836
170
0.25
4.4
1000
0.30
0.86
1000
10.0
26
.7

J

U
U
J
J
J
J




J
J
J
UJ
U
U
U
U
Y2-SD30-01
18736
1873,
9850
0.3
123
0.3
1.0
6850
17.4
7.2
11.1
14700.0
9.8
4030
341.0
0.17
12.2
1140
0.3
1.0
1000
20.7
74.9
.6

U

U
U





J


UJ


UJ
U
U

J
Y2-SD31-01
18531
1853,
4860
0.4
64.1
0.26
1.0
4260
9.3
4.5
5.5
7630
4.9
2130.0
197
0.13
6.6
543.0
0.26
0.8
1000
11
41.1
.1

J

U
U

J






U


U
U
U


Y2-SD32-01
18850
1885
6800
2.00
76
0.33
1.00
8090
12.8
4.9
7.5
10700
11.2
5000
270
0.16
8.8
953
0.34
1.0
1000
16
49.3
.0

UJ

U
U

J
J


J


UJ


UJ
U
U

J
Y2-SD33-01
18841
1884
3050
2.00
37
0.28
1.00
5530
5.7
2.70
4.10
6540
4.3
2930.0
207
0.15
4.1
425
0.28
0.85
1000
8
54.5
.1

U

U
U

J
J
J

J


UJ
J

UJ
U
U

J
Y2-SD34-01
18744
1874
7600
2
91.5
0.37
1
3530
14.5
5.8
8.5
12200
6.8
2630
414
0.20
9.5
775
0
1.3
1000
18.5
54.5
.4
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
U
J
J
Y2-SD35-01
18752
1875
8090
2
112
0.37
1
5420
15.2
6.5
8.9
13300
4.7
3520
355
0.17
9.9
973
0.35
1
1000
18.0
69
.2

UJ

J
U





J


UJ

J
UJ
U
U

J

-------
               TABIiE 3(Cont'd)





York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




  Summary of Sediment Inorganics Data(mg/kg)
Field Sample Number Y2-SD36-01
Form I ID
Lab ID
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
18540
1854
6180
9.9
172
0.52
1.6
9950
11.1
16.6
51.6
29100
158
1080
4450
0.26
13.4
1000
1.1
2.1
1000
19.7
213
.0
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
UJ
J
J
UJ
J
J
Y2-SDD3+
18574
1857.
13300
16.8
336
1
2.4
19600
22.2
29.9
104
51800
268
2280
7840
0.34
24.6
1230
0.91
5.1
1000
38.9
393
Y2-SDDI-02
17942**
4
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
J
J
UJ
J
J
1794
200
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
5000
5.0
3.0
4.0
61.3
1.9
43.3
14.8
0.20
4.0
88
1.0
3.0
5000
1.0
23.9
.2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

J
J

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI-03
17950**
1795
200
1.0
1.0
1.00
2.1
5000
5.0
3.0
4.0
86.2
1.3
44.6
7.2
0.20
4.0
96.8
1.00
3.0
5000
1
26.5
.0
U
U
U
U

U
U
U
U

J
J

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI-04
18132**
1813,
200
1.00
200
1.00
1.00
5000
5.0
3.0
22.7
59.9
2.5
45.2
5.6
0.20
40.0
136
1.30
3.0
5000
1
25
.2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U


J

U
U
J
J
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI-05
18363**
1836,
200
1.00
1
1.00
1.00
5000
5.0
3.00
5.10
165
1
57.2
4.1
0.20
4.0
129
1.00
3.00
5000
1
30.3
.3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

J
J
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI-06
18612**
1861
200
1
1
1.00
1
5000
5.0
3.0
4
250
1.0
48
3.8
0.20
4
88
1
3
5000
1.0
22.3
.2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

U
J
J
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI-07
18760**
1876,
200
10
1
1
1
5000
5.0
3.0
4
43.1
1
44.4
3.3
0.20
4
88
1
3
5000
1.0
21.8
.0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U

-------
                TABLE 3(Cont'd)





York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




   Summary of Sediment Inorganics Data(mg/kg)
Field Sample Number Y2-SDDI-08
Form I ID 18884**
Lab ID
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
1888
200
10
200
1
1
5000
5.0
3
4
208
1
94.1
4.8
0.20
4
100
1.0
3
5000
1.0
29
.4
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI-09
19031**
1903.
14.2
2.0
1
1
1.0
112
5.0
3
4
44.9
1
21
1.7
0.20
4
88
1.00
3
179
1.0
20
1
J
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
J
UJ
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
Y2-SDDI-13
SDDI13**
38068-015
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
20 U*
Y2-SDDI-14
SDDI14**
38097-016
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.8 U*
Y2-SDDI-15
SDDI15**
38111-006
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1.8 U*

-------
                             TABLE 3(Cont'd)

            York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

               Summary of Sediment Inorganics Data(mg/kg)

Notes:

1. Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck, and Lee in April and October 1993
2. Only detected analytes are listed.
3. Detectable concentrations of analytes are highlighted.
4. U = analyte was undetected.
5. J = concentration of analyte is approximate.
6. R = data was rejected.
7. N = identification of analyte is tentative.
8. Concentrations reported in mg/kg except as otherwise noted.
9. ** = Rinse blank (concentration reported in ug/L).
10. * = Resample for zinc in October 1993 to address previous discrepancies.
11. += Field duplicates as follows :
          Y2-SDD2 is a field duplicate for Y2-SD05-01
          Y2-SDD3 is a field duplicate for Y2-SD36-01
          Y2-SDD4 is a field duplicate for Y2-SD27-01

-------
                                     Table 4
                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

              Summary Of Supplemental Sediment Inorganics Data (mg/kg)
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 I.D.
        Lab I.D.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Y2-SD24A-01
SD24A1
41402-023
6,080 J
16.2 J
14.6 UJ
275 J
0.27 J
1.3 UJ
14,600 J
11.7 J
5.6 J
3.7 J
0.53 J
13,700 J
168 J
1,660 J
3,250 J
0.26 UJ
10.3 UJ
796 J
2. 6 UJ
2.7 J
260 J
15.9 J
98.6 J
Y2-SD24A-02
SD24A2
41402-024
1,840
2.2 UJ
0.35 U
19.8
0.05 J
0.27 U
918
3.1
0.62 J
0.44 UJ
0.07 J
2,640
4.4
695
45.9
0.02 U
2.1 J
144 J
0.52 UJ
0.45 U
34.6 U
5.4
8.8 U
Y2-SD24A-03
SD24A3
41402-025
1,310
2.5 UJ
0.53 U
12.6
0.06 U
0.3 U
965
2.7
0.86 J
0.49 UJ
0.07 U
2,080
2.5 U
549
47.6
0.03 U
1.6 J
145 J
0.58 UJ
0.51 U
32.6 U
3.5 J
8.4 U
Y2-SD24B-01
SD24B1
41402-026
2,450 J
17.6 UJ
6.7 UJ
425 J
0.40 UJ
2.3 J
29,300 J
6.4 J
3.8 UJ
5.8 J
0.35 J
11,300
423 J
3,220 J
3,080 J
0.30 UJ
16.8 J
663 UJ
4.2 UJ
3.6 UJ
977 J
13.6 J
142 J

-------
                                     Table 4
                                     (Cont'd)

                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

              Summary Of Supplemental Sediment Inorganics Data (mg/kg)
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 I.D.
        Lab I.D.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Y2-SD24B-02
SD24B2
41402-027
2,880 J
14.4 UJ
5.3J
167 J
0.33 J
1.8 UJ
31,100 J
3.3 J
3.1 UJ
8.3 J
0.34 UJ
4,810 J
115 J
3,190 J
841 J
0.26 UJ
10.0 J
542 UJ
3.4 UJ
3.0 UJ
858 J
8.1 J
80.8 J
Y2-SD24B-03
SD24B3
41402-028
4,440 J
17.7 UJ
2.8 UJ
141 J
0.40 UJ
3.1 J
36,700 J
10.9 J
3.8 UJ
33.2 J
0.44 UJ
2,850 J
21.3 UJ
3,770 J
549 J
0.31 J
12.5 J
665 UJ
4.2 UJ
3.6 UJ
836 J
13.5 J
78.5 UJ
Y2-SD24C-01
SD24C1
41402-029
2,910 J
16. 6 UJ
3.9 J
203 J
0.38 UJ
2.8 J
28,200 J
4.2 J
3.5 UJ
15.3 J
0.38 UJ
3,920 J
176 J
3,100 J
1,440 J
0.20 J
8.9 J
624 UJ
3.9 UJ
3.4 UJ
815 J
11.1 J
107 J
Y2-SD24C-02
SD24C2
41402-030
2,730 J
12.5 UJ
2.0 UJ
109 J
0.29 UJ
1.5 UJ
24,600 J
2.4 J
2.7 UJ
10.7 J
0.37 UJ
2,070 J
30.0 J
2,600 J
620 J
0.18 J
9.2 J
472 UJ
3.0 UJ
2.6 UJ
681 J
9.6 J
83.6 J

-------
                                     Table 4
                                     (Cont'd)

                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

              Summary Of Supplemental Sediment Inorganics Data (mg/kg)
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 I.D.
        Lab I.D.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Y2-SD24D-01
SD24D1
41402-031
4,270 J
15.1 UJ
11.4 J
296 J
0.35 UJ
2.3 J
20,600 J
5.0 J
3.2 UJ
10.3 J
0.46 UJ
17,800 J
162 J
1,820 J
1,920 J
0.35 J
10.4 J
569 UJ
3. 6 UJ
3.1 UJ
547 J
22.3 J
146 J
Y2-SD24D-02
SD24D2
41402-032
2,820 J
14.2 UJ
8.2 UJ
158 J
0.33 UJ
1.7 UJ
19,700 J
4.3 J
3.0 UJ
6.1 J
0.40 UJ
8,890 J
53.7 J
1,830 J
1,170 J
0.18 J
7.5 UJ
535 UJ
3.4 UJ
2.9 UJ
297 UJ
15.3 J
105 J
Y2-SD24D-03
SD24D3
41402-033
1,740 J
3.3 UJ
1.3 UJ
40.2 J
0.08 UJ
0.41 UJ
4,150 J
5.0 J
1.4 J
5.1 J
0.11 UJ
3,150 J
4.2 UJ
900 J
148 J
0.04 UJ
4.7 J
125 UJ
0.79 UJ
0.69 UJ
56.8 U J
7.7 J
21.7 J
Y2-SD24E-01
SD24E1
42389-024
4,510
3.2 UJ
2.3
29.0
0.16 J
0.39 U
2,470
6.8 J
2.4 J
0.63 UJ
0.08 U
12,100
11.4
575
207
0.03 U
2.1 U
260 J
0.75 UJ
0.65 U
26.8 U
20.6
20.4 U

-------
                                     Table 4
                                     (Cont'd)

                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

              Summary Of Supplemental Sediment Inorganics Data (mg/kg)
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 I.D.
        Lab I.D.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Y2-SD24E-02
SD24E2
42389-025
2,140
2.5 UJ
1.3 U
13.4
0.14 J
0.31 U
840
4.8 J
1.2 J
0.50 UJ
0.07 U
6,800
3.7
516
181
0.02 U
2.5 U
155 J
0.60 UJ
0.52 U
19.3 U
10.0
60.0 U
Y2-SD24E-03
SD24E3
42389-026
3,880
2.8 UJ
1.9 U
20.4
0.16 J
0.35 U
1,600
5.7 J
2.5 J
0.56 UJ
0.06 U
10,500
6.8
438
172
0.03 J
2.0 U
106 U
0.67 UJ
0.58 U
27.3 U
16.5
13.4 U
Y2-SD24F-01
SD24F1
41389-021
1,300
2.2 UJ
3.0
560
0.17 J
0.27 U
1,730
3.1
6.5
0.44 UJ
0.12 J
31,400
8.7
312
3,840
0.02 U
1.2 J
84.1 U
0.16 UJ
0.46 U
36.0 U
27.4
52.9 J
Y2-SD24F-02
SD24F2
41389-022
5,100
2.9 UJ
4.3
117
0.29 J
0.35 U
2,150
8.5 J
634
0.57 UJ
0.06 U
32,400
6.5
1,930
780
0.03 U
8.0 U
772
0.68 UJ
0.59 U
58.4 U
32.0
54.5 J

-------
                                     Table 4
                                     (Cont'd)

                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

              Summary Of Supplemental Sediment Inorganics Data (mg/kg)
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 I.D.
        Lab I.D.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Y2-SDD11+
ZSDD11
41389-027
5380
2.0 UJ
4.4
100
0.31
024 U
2,190
8.9 J
5.9
5.0 UJ
0.05 U
38,300
6.5
1,920
589
0.02 U
6.1 U
721
0.16 UJ
0.41 U
1,000 U
45.0
66.9 J
Y2-SD24F-03
SD24F3
41389-023
7,140
2.4 UJ
2.2
94.4
0.33
0.30 U
6,330
11.3 J
6.0
3.6 J
0.06 U
15,200
5.1
5,260
269
0.02 U
10.5
1,260
0.57 UJ
0.50 U
89.2
20.6
31.0
Y2-SD37-01
SD3701
41375-043
3,060
3.6 UJ
1.1 J
29.2
0.12 J
0.44 U
1,030 U
5.7
1.5 J
0.71 UJ
0.08 U
8,310
11.9
464
115 J
0.04 U
4.5 J
159 J
0.85 U
0.74 U
23.1 U
19.3 J
19.1 U
Y2-SD37-02
SD3702
41375-044
5,460
2. 6 UJ
2.3
30.3
0.27 J
0.32 U
838 U
10.2
4.5
0.52 UJ
0.06 U
15,600
8.7
952
282 J
0.04 J
7.1
210 J
0.62 U
0.54 U
20.2 U
23.0 J
15.5 U

-------
                                     Table 4
                                     (Cont'd)

                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

              Summary Of Supplemental Sediment Inorganics Data (mg/kg)
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 I.D.
        Lab I.D.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Y2-SD37-03
SD3703
41375-045
4,760
1. 6 UJ
2.5
30.6
0.29 J
0.20 U
1,220
100
3.5
1.0 J
0.09 U
12,700
5.5
1,380
165 J
0.02 U
6.9 J
320 J
0.38 U
0.33 U
28.6 U
17.5 J
12.6 J
Y2-SD38-01
SD3801
41375-031
1,860
3.4 UJ
0.54 UJ
19.3
0.08 J
0.41 U
563 U
2.7
0.72 U
0 . 67 UJ
0.08 U
3,190
16.1
318
15.8 J
0.04 U
3.2 J
155 J
0.80 U
0.70 U
18.9 U
7.2 J
9.4 U
Y2-SD38-02
SD3802
41375-032
3,930
2.7 UJ
1.4 J
17.0
0.18 J
0.30 U
469 U
4.8
2.1 J
0.48 UJ
0.07 U
8,480
6.6
621
57.7 J
0.02 U
4.1 J
113 J
0.57 U
0.50 U
18.8 U
15.9 J
8.9 U
Y2-SD38-03
SD3803
41375-033
4,590
2.5 UJ
1.7 J
35.3
0.24 J
0.30 U
1,080 U
6.2
3.4
3.2 J
0.07 U
8,800
4.3
1,360
253 J
0.02 U
8.1
365 J
0.58 U
0.51 U
42.1 U
11.2 J
13.0 U

-------
Table 4
(Cont ' d)
York
Summary Of
Field Sample No.
Form 1 I . D .
Lab I.D.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Oil Superfund
Supplemental
Y2-SD39-01
SD3901
41375-037
5,300
2.8 UJ
1.3 J
34.0
0.28 J
0.34 U
1,960
8.8
6.7
0.55 UJ
0.08 J
11,300
12.4
987
829 J
0.03 U
3.2 J
265 J
0.66 U
0.57 U
21.3 U
21.4 J
42.4 J
Site Contamination Pathways
Sediment Inorganics Data
Y2-SDD10
ZSDD10
41375-040
4,890
3.0 UJ
0.88 J
31.1
0.19 J
0.33 U
1,860
8.4
5.7
0.53 UJ
0.16 J
10,200
11.1
958
727 J
0.03 U
19.8 J
244 J
0.64 U
0.55 U
25.5 U
20.2 J
39.1 J
Y2-SD39-02
SD3902
41375-038
4,030
1. 6 UJ
0.71 J
21.0
0.17 J
0.20 U
1,240
7.5
2.6 J
0.33 UJ
0.08 U
7,250
4.3
975
217 J
0.02 U
2.7 J
213 J
0.39 U
0.34 U
18.7 U
13.0 J
31.5 J
(mg/kg)
Y2-SD39-03
SD3903
41375-039
3,560
1. 6 UJ
0.69 J
18.5
0.15 J
0.19 U
1,300
6.4
2.4 J
0.31 UJ
0.06 U
7,180
3.7
956
175 J
0.02 U
3.6 J
256 J
0.37 U
0.33 U
16.2 U
11.8 J
27.1 J

-------
                                     Table 4
                                     (Cont'd)

                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

              Summary Of Supplemental Sediment Inorganics Data (mg/kg)
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 I.D.
        Lab I.D.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Y2-SD40-01
SD4001
41375-041
4, 600
3.7 UJ
2.0 J
40.7
0.18 J
0.46 U
3,140
6.7
2.9
0.74 UJ
0.10 U
8,900
11.0
717
556 J
0.04 U
2.9 J
189 J
0.88 U
0.77 U
22.9 U
14.2 J
50.8 J
Y2-SD40-02
SD4002
41375-042
1,410
3.0 UJ
0.48 J
11.6 U
0.09 J
0.37 U
1,020 U
2.8
0.87 J
0.59 UJ
0.08 U
3,060
1.6
427
50.1 J
0.03 U
2.2 J
212 J
0.71 U
0.62 U
17.2 U
5.2
10.7 U
Y2-SD41-01
SD4101
41389-028
14,100 J
8.0 UJ
5.4 UJ
156 J
0.81 J
2.0 J
11,800 J
10.7 J
1.7 UJ
10.2 J
0.24 UJ
4,540 J
30.7 J
1,670 J
129 J
0.71 J
6.5 UJ
341 J
1.9 UJ
27.9 J
120 UJ
13.7 J
29.1 UJ
Y2-SD41-02
SD4102
41389-029
3,080
2.9 J
1.6 U
32.0
0.13 J
0.31 U
1,680
4.8 J
1.0 J
0.50 UJ
0.06 U
2,690
4.2
795
20.2
0.09 J
2.5 U
185 J
0. 60 UJ
0.52 U
31.5 U
3.8
13.3 U

-------
                                           Table 4
                                           (Cont' d)

                         York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                    Summary Of Supplemental Sediment Inorganics Data (mg/kg)
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 I.D.
        Lab I.D.
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Y2-SD42-01
SD4201
41375-034
5,970 J
2.8 UJ
1.6 J
43.1 J
0.41 J
0.60 UJ
3,060 J
7.7 J
2.5 J
0.56 UJ
0.15 J
6,240 J
11.8 J
642 J
688 J
0.14 UJ
3.4 J
132 J
0.67 UJ
0.59 UJ
24.9 UJ
10.5 J
21.5 J
Y2-SD42-02
SD4202
41375-035
2,840
1.4 UJ
0.82 J
17.7
0.17 J
0.17 U
1,510
4.3
1.2 J
0.28 UJ
0.07 U
4,610
4.1
531
257 J
0.03 U
1.1 J
126 J
0.34 U
0.29 U
20.1 U
7.2 J
10.9 J
Y2-SD42-03
SD4203
41375-036
1,550
1.7 UJ
0.73 J
13.9
0.10 J
0.21 U
1,060
3.2
1.1 J
0.33 UJ
0.07 U
3,310
2.9
478
242 J
0.02 U
2.1 J
63.4 U
0.40 U
0.35 U
14.8 U
4.6
6.9 U
Y2-SDDI-16*
SDDI16
41375-049
65.4
17.8 J
2.1 UJ
1.4 U
0.30 U
1.6 U
577
2.4 U
2.8 U
2.6 UJ
0.75 U
33.7 U
0.90 U
27.8 J
1.2 U
0.10 U
6.9 U
493 U
3.1 J
2.7 U
1,100
3.5 U
5.9 U
Y2-SDDI-17
SDDI17
41389-033
15.1 U
13.1 I
2.1 U
0.90 U
0.30 U
1.6 U
158
2.4 U
2.8 U
2.6 UJ
0.75 U
40.2 U
0.90 UJ
24.2 U
0.60 U
0.10 U
6.9 U
493 U
3.1 U
2.7 U
201 U
3.5 U
10.3 U

-------
                                     Table 4
                                     (Cont'd)

                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

              Summary Of Supplemental Sediment Inorganics Data (mg/kg)

                                      Notes:

1.     Samples collected by Blasland,  Bouck & Lee,  Inc.  in August and September 1994.
2.     Only detected analytes are listed.  Concentrations above detection limits are shaded.
3.     U = Analyte was not detected.
4.     J = Concentration is approximate.
5.     Concentrations reported in mg/kg unless otherwise noted.
6.     * = Rinse blank (concentration reported in (Ig/1).
7.     + = Field duplicates as follows:

      Y2-SDD11 is a field duplicate for Y2-SD24F-02
      Y2-SDD10 is a field duplicate for Y2-SD39-01

-------
                                                        Table 5

                                     York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                                Summary of Sediment Volatile Organic Compound Data (mg/kg)
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 ID
     Laboratory ID
Acetone
2-Butanone
Toluene
        Field Sample No.
           Form 1 ID
         Laboratory ID
    Acetone
    2-Butanone
    Toluene
Y2-SD01-01
19015
1901.5
0.
0.
0.






,056 UJ
,056 UJ
,056 UJ
Y2-SDD2+
18353
1835.3
0.021 UJ
0.021 UJ
0.021 UJ
Y2-SD01-02
19023
1902.3
0.048 UJ
0.048 UJ
0.048 UJ
Y2-SD06-01
18337
1833.7
0.031 UJ
0.031 UJ
0.031 UJ
Y2-SD02-01
19007
1900.7
0.091 UJ
0.091 UJ
0.091 UJ
Y2-SD07-01
18485
1848.5
0.029 UJ
0.029 UJ
0.029 UJ
Y2-SD03-01
18973
1897.3
0.050 UJ
0.050 UJ
0.050 UJ
Y2-SD08-01
18078
1807.8
0.043 UJ
0.043 UJ
0.043 UJ
Y2-SD04-01
17969
1796.9
0.020 UJ
0.015 JN
0.020 UJ
Y2-SD09-01
18086DL
1808.6
0.082 UJ
0.082 UJ
0.082 UJ
V2-SD04-02
1797.7
1797.7
0.012 U
0.012 U
0.004 J
Y2-SD09-02
18094
1809.4
0.13 J
0.033 J
0.015 UJ
Y2-SD05-01
18345
1834.5
0.021 UJ
0.021 UJ
0.021 UJ






                                                                        OU1 SAMPLE
                                                                                        OU1 SAMPLE
                                                                                                      OU1 SAMPLE
                    Field Sample No.
                       Form 1 ID
                     Laboratory ID

                 Acetone
                 2-Butanone
                 Toluene
Y2-SD10-01
  18108
  1810.8

 0.51 UJ
  0.12 J
 0.059 UJ
Y2-SD11-01
  18116
  1811.6

 0.077 UJ
 0.056 JN
 0.077 UJ
Y2-SD11-02
  18124
  1812.4

  0.33 UJ
 0.026 UJ
 0.026 UJ

-------


Table 5
(Cont'd)


York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

Summary of Sediment
Field Sample No. Y2-SD12-01 Y2-SD12-02
Form 1 ID 18582 18590
Laboratory ID 1858.2 1859.0
Acetone 0
2-Butanone 0
Toluene 0
Field Sample
Form 1 ID
Laboratory
Acetone
2-Butanone
Toluene
Field Sample No.
Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Acetone
2-Butanone
Toluene
.053 UJ 0.048 UJ
.053 UJ 0.048 UJ
.053 UJ 0.048 UJ
No. Y2-SD15-01
18035
ID 1803.5
0.51 UJ
0.12 J
13.00 JD
Volatile Organic
Y2-SD12-03
18604
1860.4
0.042 UJ
0.042 UJ
0.042 UJ
Compound Data (mg/kg)
Y2-SD13-01 Y2-SD13-02
18515 18523
1851.5 1852.3
0.030 UJ 0.019 U
0.030 UJ 0.019 U
0.030 UJ 0.019 U

V2-SD14-01
18310
1831.0
0.15 UJ
0.043 JN
0.048 UJ
Y2-SD15-02 Y2-SD16-01 Y2-SD16-02
18043 18230 18264RE
1804.3 1823.0 1826.4
0.20 UJ 0
0.028 UJ 0
1.30 JD 0
.047 UJ 0.030 UJ
.037 UJ 0.030 UJ
.016 J 0.030 UJ

Y2-SD17-01 Y2-SD17-02 Y2-SD18-01 Y2-SD19-01 Y2-SD19-02
18299 18302 17985 17993RE 18051
1829.9 1830.2 1798.5 1799.3 1805.1
0.023 UJ 0.094
0.023 UJ 0.018
0.020 J 0.020
UJ 0.015 U
JN 0.015 U
UJ 0.015 U
0.25 J 0.19 J
0.074 JN 0.10 UJ
0.24 J 0.21 J

                                                        Y2-SD14-02
                                                          18329
                                                          1832.9

                                                         0.021 UJ
                                                         0.017 JN
                                                          0.038 J
OU1 SAMPLE
               OU1 SAMPLE
                              OU1 SAMPLE

-------
                                                        Table 5
                                                        (Cont'd)

                                     York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                                Summary of Sediment Volatile Organic Compound Data (mg/kg)
           Field Sample No.
              Form 1 ID
            Laboratory ID
       Acetone
       2-Butanone
       Toluene
       Y2-SD19-03
         18060
         1806.0

         0.012 U
         0.012 U
        0.012 UJ
       Y2-SD20-01
         18930
         1893.0

         0.12 J
        0.048 JN
         0.017 J
       Y2-SD20-02
         18949
         1894.9

        0.022 UJ
        0.022 UJ
        0.022 UJ
        Y2-SD21-01
          18000
          1800.0

          0.046 J
         0.038 UJ
         0.038 UJ
        Y2-SD21-02
          18272
          1827.2

         0.085 UJ
         0.023 UJ
         0.023 UJ
        Y2-SD21-03
          18280
          1828.0

         0.020 UJ
         0.020 UJ
         0.020 UJ
                                OU1 SAMPLE
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 ID
     Laboratory ID
Acetone
2-Butanone
Toluene
Y2-SD22-01
  18493
  1849.3

 0.024 UJ
 0.024 UJ
 0.024 UJ
Y2-SD22-02
  18507
  1850.7

 0.017 U
 0.017 U
 0.017 U
Y2-SD23-01
  18710
  1871.0

 0.045 UJ
 0.045 UJ
 0.045 UJ
 Y2-SD23-02
   18728
   1872.8

  0.053 UJ
  0.053 UJ
  0.053 UJ
 Y2-SD24-01
   18680
   1868.0

  0.010 UJ
  0.010 UJ
  0.010 UJ
 Y2-SD25-01
   18019
   1801.9

  0.036 UJ
  0.017 JN
  0.036 UJ
 Y2-SD26-01
   18868
   1886.8

  0.023 UJ
  0.023 UJ
  0.023 UJ
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 ID
     Laboratory ID
Acetone
2-Butanone
Toluene
Y2-SD26-02
  18876
  1887.6

 0.046 J
 0.015 U
 0.015 U
Y2-SD27-01
  18957
  1895.7

 0.077 UJ
 0.077 UJ
 0.077 UJ
Y2-SDD4+
  18965
  1896.5

 0.083 UJ
 0.083 UJ
 0.083 UJ
Y2-SD28-01
  18477
  1847.7

 0.027 UJ
 0.027 UJ
 0.027 UJ
Y2-SD29-01
  18027
  1802.7

  0.015 U
  0.015 U
  0.015 U
Y2-SD30-01
  18736
  1873.6

  0.018 U
  0.018 U
  0.018 U
Y2-SD31-01
  18531
  1853.1

  0.014 U
  0.014 U
  0.014 U

-------
  Field Sample No.
     Form 1 ID
   Laboratory ID

Acetone
2-Butanone
Toluene
                                                        Table 5
                                                        (Cont'd)

                                     York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                                Summary of Sediment Volatile Organic Compound Data  (mg/kg)
Y2-SD32-01
18850
1885.0
0.004 J
0.018 U
0.018 U
Y2-SD33-01
18841
1884.1
0.015 U
0.015 U
0.015 U
Y2-SD34-01
18744
1874.4
0.020 UJ
0.020 UJ
0.020 UJ
Y2-SD35-01
18752
1875.2
0.019 U
0.019 U
0.019 U
Y2-SD36-01
18540
1854.0
0.027 UJ
0.027 UJ
0.027 UJ
Y2-SDD3+
18574
1857.4
0.034 UJ
0.034 UJ
0.034 UJ
Y2-SDDI-02*
17942
1794.2
10 U
10 U
10 U
Field Sample No.

Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Acetone
2-Butanone
Toluene
Y2-SDDI-03*

17950
1795.0
10 U
10 U
10 U
Y2-SDDI-04*

18132
1813.2
10 U
10 U
10 U
Y2-SDDI-
05*
18361
1836.1
9 J
10 U
10 U
Y2-SDDI-
06*
18612
18612
10 U
10 U
10 U
Y2-SDDI-
07*
18760
1876.0
10 U
10 U
10 U
Y2-SDDI-
08*
18884
1888.4
10 U
4 J
10 U
Y2-SDDI-0

19031
1903.1
10 U
10 U
10 U
Notes:

1.   Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. during April and May 1993.
2.   Concentrations reported in mg/kg, unless otherwise noted.
3.   U = analyte was undetected.
4.   J = concentration of analyte is estimated.
5.   N = identification of analyte is tentative.
6.   R = data is rejected.
7.   * = rinse blank (concentration reported in Ig/1).
8.   Detectable concentrations of analytes are highlighted.
9.   + Field duplicates as follows:
         Y2-SDD2 is a field duplicate for Y2-SD05-01
         Y2-SDD3 is a field duplicate for Y2-SD36-01
         Y2-SDD4 is a field duplicate for Y2-SD27-01
10.  D = reported concentration is the result of a dilution.
11.  RE = sample was reanalyzed.

-------
                               Table 6
            York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

     Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound data (mg/kg)
    Field Sample No.
       Form 1 ID
     Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD01-01
  SD0101
 38097-2

   34.7 J
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
Y2-SD01-02
  SD0102
 38097-3
Y2-SD02-01
  SD0201
 38097-4
    00 UJ
    00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
   1.40 J
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
  2.00 UJ
25.1 J
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
32.5
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.80
2.80
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ

-------
                                     Table 6
                                     (Cont'd)
                  York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

          Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD03-01
  SD0301
 38097-1
Y2-SD04-01
  17969
  1796.9

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
42.3
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.720
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
7
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD04-02
  17977
  1797.7
Y2-SD05-01
 18345RE
  1834.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.62
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
.42
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.8
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.082
.69
.69
.69
.091
.097
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ

-------
                                      Table 6
                                      (Cont' d)
                  York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

          Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SDD2+
 18353
 1835.3
Y2-SD06-01
  18337
  1833.7

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.1
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.067
.69
.69
.69
.065
0.11
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
.69
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7.0
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD07-01
  18485
  1848.5
Y2-SD08-01
  18078
  1807.8

0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.5
.95
.95
0.15
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
.95
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8.5
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.330
.40
.40
0.31
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
                                                                            OU1 SAMPLE

-------
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Table 6
(Cont ' d)
York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways
Summary of Sediment Semi -Volatile Organic Compound data (mg/kg)
Y2-SD09-01 Y2-SDD8+ Y2-SD09-02 Y2-SD10-01
SD0901 SDD8 SD0902 18108
36068-6 38038-11 36068-7 1810.8
16
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
620
ate 620
620
620
620
620
620
620
.4
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ

640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
640
NR
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
15. i
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
3 J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
28.1 J
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD11-01
  18116
  1811.6
  21.1 J
  2.60 UJ
   . 60 UJ
   . 60 UJ
   .60 UJ
   .60 UJ
   .60 UJ
   .60 UJ
   . 60 UJ
   . 60 UJ
   . 60 UJ
   . 60 UJ
   0.17 J
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
    60 UJ
  2.60 UJ
Y2-SD11-02
  18124
  18124.4

  9.2 J
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
 0.88 UJ
                                OU1 SAMPLE
                                              OU1 SAMPLE
                                                             OU1SAMPLE

-------
                                                   Table 6
                                                   (Cont' d)

                               York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                       Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD12-01
18582DL
1858. 2DL
21.7 J
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
0.4!
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
3 J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD12-02
18590
1859.0
21.6 J
1. 60 UJ
1. 60 UJ
1. 60 UJ
1.60 UJ
1.60 UJ
1.60 UJ
1.60 UJ
1. 60 UJ
1. 60 UJ
1. 60 UJ
1. 60 UJ
1.60 UJ
0.70 J
1.60 UJ
1.60 UJ
0.20 J
1.10 J
2.10 J
1. 60 UJ
0.70 J
1.00 J
0.43 J
1.60 UJ
1.50 J
1. 60 UJ
0.89 J
1. 60 UJ
1.60 UJ
Y2-SD12-03
18604
1860.4
21.5 J
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
0.29 J
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
0.16 J
0.29 J
0.41 J
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
0.33 J
0.18 J
1.40 UJ
0.55 J
0.34 J
0.38 J
1.40 UJ
1.40 UJ
Y2-SD13-02
18523
1852.3
10.8
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
.42
63
63
63
63
63
63
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD13-01
SD1301
38068-3
12.9 J
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
.70
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD14-01
18310RE
1831.0
7
1.
1.
0
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
.2 J
60 UJ
60 UJ
.87 J
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ
60 UJ

-------
                                                   Table 6
                                                   (Cont' d)

                               York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                       Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2- Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD14-02
18329
1832,
3.2
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
.9
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD15-01
18035RE
1803.5
28
1.
0.
30.
2.
5.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
0.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
.8 J
10 J
18 J
00 JD
10 UJ
00 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
12 J
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
10 UJ
Y2-SD15-02
18043
1804.
8.9
3
J
0.16 J
0.92
3.50
0.92
1.90
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
UJ
J
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD16-01
18230
1823
8.5
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
.0
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD16-02
18264
1826.
3.6
1.00
1.00
0.070
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
4
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD17-01
18299
1829.9

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.5 J
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.071 J
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ
.52 UJ

-------
                               Table 6
                               (Cont'd)
            York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

    Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD17-02
18302
1830,
5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.6
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
65
.2
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SD18-01
17985RE
1798





0


0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


0





0
0
0
0
.
0
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
0
0
.
0
0
0
0
6.0
.50
.50
.50
.50
073
.50
.50
50
50
50
50
50
057
50
50
50
50
047
50
50
078
.50
.50
044
.50
.50
.50
.50
.5
J
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
J
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
Y2-SD19-01
SD1901
38068-8
42
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
.7
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
                                                OU1 SAMPLE
                                                               OU1 SAMPLE

-------
                                                   Table 6
                                                   (Cont' d)

                               York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                       Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2- Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD19-02
SD1902
38068
13.
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
-9
6 J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD19-03
SD1903
38068-10
4.4
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
9.60
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
120.0
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD20-01
SD2001
38068-4
16
2.
2.
4.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
.5
10
10
00
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD20-02
SD2002
38038-5
4
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.9
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD21-01
18000RE
1800.0
10.7
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
1.30
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD21-02
18272
1827.2

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.2 J
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.29 J
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
.76 UJ
                                OU1 SAMPLE
                                                OU1 SAMPLE

-------
                                      Table 6
                                      (Cont' d)
                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

           Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD21-03
18280
1828.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0
.67
.67
.090
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
0
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD22-01
18493
1849,
16
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.5
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
12
81
81
81
38
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
81
.3
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD22-02
18507



0















0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
1850
4.0
0.56
.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
.56
.56
.56
.56
0.56
.56
.56
.56
.56
.56
.56
.7
J
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD23-01
SD2301
38097-8
36
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
.9
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ

-------
                               Table 6
                               (Cont'd)
            York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

    Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD23-02
SD2302
38097-9
Y2-SD24-01
SD2401
38097-7
25.1 J
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.94
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
Y2-SD25-01
18019
1801.9
83.4 J
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.90
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4.5
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
.20
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ

-------
                                      Table 6
                                      (Cont' d)
                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

           Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD26-01
SD2601
38111-1
6.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
67
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD26-02
SD2602RE
38111-2RE
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.4
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
.54
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD27-01
SD2701
38111-3
38.8 J
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
Y2-SD28-01
18477
1847.
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
7
.2 J
.90
.90
.14
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
.90
0.12
.90
.90
.90
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ

-------
                                      Table 6
                                      (Cont' d)
                   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

           Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD29-01
18027RE
1802,

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.8
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.51
.7
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SD30-01
SD3001
38050-15

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.5
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
.80
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD31-01
18531
1853.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.9
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.46
.061
.46
.46
.46
1
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SD32-01
SD3201
38097-6

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.6
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
.63
.54
.48
.48
.48
.48
.48
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

U
U
U
U
U

-------
                                                   Table 6
                                                   (Cont' d)

                               York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                       Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2- Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SD33-01
SD3301
38097-5
1.9
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
580
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDD9+
SDD9
38097-10
Y2-SD34-01
SD3401
38068-1
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
.52
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.4
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
.50
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD35-02
SD3501
38068-2
2.4
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.54
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
Y2-SD36-01
18540
1854.0
18.6 J
0.90 UJ
0.90 UJ
0.90 UJ
0.90 UJ
0.90 UJ
0.26 J
0.34 J
0.90 UJ
0.084 J
0.17 J
0.90 UJ
0.11 J
0.90 UJ
0.27 J
0.16 J
0.90 UJ
3.40 J
5.50 J
0.90 UJ
3.10 J
3.70 J
0.90 UJ
0.90 UJ
4.50 J
2.80 J
2.90 J
0.74 J
2.40 J
Y2-SDD3+
18754RE
1875.4
1.10 J
1.10 UJ
1.10 UJ
1.10 UJ
1.10 UJ
1.10 UJ
0.31 J
0.46 J
0.082 J
0.14 J
0.28 J
1.10 UJ
0.19 J
2.40 J
1.20 J
0.50 J
0.35 J
7.10 J
15.00 J
1.10 UJ
6.80 J
9.10 J
0.92 J
1.10 UJ
13.00 J
5.70 J
5.10 J
1.20 J
3.80 J

-------
                                                   Table 6
                                                   (Cont' d)

                               York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                       Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.

        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2- Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SDDI
02*
17942
1794
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.60
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.2
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI
03*
17950
1795.0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI
04*
18132
1813.2
10 U
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
NP
Y2-SDDI
05*
18361
1836.1
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI
06*
18612
1861.2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI
07*
18760
1876
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Y2-SDDI-0
18884
1888
137
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.4

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U

-------
                                                  Table 6
                                                    (Cont' d)
                               York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                       Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Data  (mg/kg)
     Field Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
Phenol
2- Methylphnol
4-Methylphenol
Nitrobenzene
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Diethylphthalate
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzylphthalate
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Y2-SDDI-09-*
   19031
   1903.1
Y2-SDDI-13-*
  SDDI13
 38068-12
Y2-SDDI-12J
  SDDI12
 38050-14
Y2-SDDI-14J
  SDDI14
 38097-11
Y2-SDDI-15J
  SDDI15
 38111-14
16
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
J
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
NR
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
NR
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
NR
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
NR
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R

-------
                                                   Table 6
                                                   (Cont' d)

                               York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                       Summary of Sediment Semi-Volatile Organic Compound Data (mg/kg)

Notes:

1.     Samples collected by BlasLand, Bouck & Lee, Inc. in April and October 1993.
2.     Concentrations reported in mg/kg unless otherwise noted.
3.     U = analyte was undetected.
4.     J = concentration of analyte is approximate.
5.     R = data was rejected.
6.     RE = reanalysis.
7.     + = field duplicate as follows:
        Y2-SDD2 is a field duplicate of Y2-SD05-01
        Y2-SDD3RE is a field duplicate of Y2-SD36-01
        Y2-SDD8 is a field duplicate of Y2-SD09-01
        Y2-SDD9 is a field duplicate of Y2-SD33-01.
8.     * = rinse blank (concentration reported in ug/1).
9.     NP = analysis not performed because the sample bottle was broken at the laboratory before the
            extraction was performed.
10.    NR = analysis was not reguested.
11.    Detectable concentrations of analytes are highlighted.
12.    DL = dilution.
13.    D = reported concentration is the result of a dilution.

-------
                      Table 7




   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




Summary of Subsurface Soil Pesticide/PCB Data (mg/kg)
Field
Sample No.
Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Heptachlor
Dieldrin
4,4' -DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
Methyoxychlor
Endrin Ketone
Gamma Chlordane
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1260
Field
Sample No.
Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Heptachlor
Dieldrin
4,4' -DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
Methyoxychlor
Endrin Ketone
Gamma Chlordane
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1260
SBY0101R-01
(0-0.5)
1ROO,
1279,
0.0032
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.0062
0.55
0.0062
0.0032
0.062
0.062
.5
.7
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
SBY0103R-01
(0-0,
3ROO,
1281,
0.0025
0.0049
0.0049
0.0049
0.0049
0.037
0.0049
0.0025
0.049
0.049
.5)
.5
.9
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
NJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
SBY0101R-01
(2-4)
1R24
1280.0
0.0022 UJ
0.0042 UJ
0.0042 UJ
0.0042 UJ
0.0042 UJ
0.022 UJ
0.0042 UJ
0.0022 UJ
0.042 UJ
0.042 UJ
SBY0103R-01
(8-10)
3R810
1342.4
0.0019 U
0.0037 U
0.0037 U
0.0037 U
0.0037 U
0.019 U
0.0037 U
0.0019 U
0.037 U
0.037 U
SBY0101R-01
(35-36)
1R3536
1305.0
0.0019 UJ
0.0037 UJ
0.0037 UJ
0.0037 UJ
0.0037 UJ
0.019 UJ
0.0037 UJ
0.0019 UJ
0.037 UJ
0.037 UJ
SBY0103R-01
(50-52)
3R5052
1315.7
0.0020 U
0.0038 U
0.0038 U
0.0038 U
0.0038 U
0.020 U
0.0038 U
0.0020 U
0.033 U
0.038 U
SBY0102R-01
(0-0.5)
2ROO
1335
0.0024
0.0046
0.0046
0.0046
0.0046
0.024
0.0046
0.0024
0.046
0.046
.5
.1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0104S-01
(0-0.
4SOO
1316
0.0027
0.0052
0.0052
0.0052
0.0052
0.027
0.0052
0.0027
0.052
0.052
5)
.5
.5
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0102R-01
(2-4)


0
0
0
0
0

0
0


2R24
1334.
.0020
.0040
.0040
.0040
.0040
0.020
.0040
.0020
0.040
0.040

3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0104S-01



0
0
0
0
0

0
0


(2-4)
4S24
1318.
.0019
.0038
.0038
.0038
.0038
0.019
.0038
.0019
0.038
0.038


1
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0102R-01
(38-40)


0
0
0
0
0

0
0


2R3840
1333.5
.0019 U
.0038 U
.0038 U
.0038 U
.0038 U
0.019 U
.0038 U
.0019 U
0.038 U
0.038 U
SBY0104S-01



0
0
0
0
0

0
0


(12-14)
4S1214
1317.3
.0023 U
.0045 U
.0045 U
.0045 U
.0045 U
0.023 U
.0045 U
.0023 U
0.045 U
0.045 U

-------
                      Table 7
                      (Cont' d)

   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

Summary of Subsurface Soil Pesticide/PCB Data (mg/kg)
Field
Sample No.
Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Heptachlor
Dieldrin
4,4' -DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
Methyoxychlor
Endrin Ketone
Gamma Chlordane
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1260
Field
Sample No.
Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Heptachlor
Dieldrin
4,4' -DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
Methyoxychlor
Endrin Ketone
Gamma Chlordane
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1260
SBY0105S-01
(0-0.5)
5S00.5
1311.4
0.0028 U
0.0054 U
0.0054 U
0.0054 U
0.0054 U
0.028 U
0.0054 U
0.0028 U
0.054 U
0.054 U
SBY0106B-01
(4-6)
6B46
1341.6
0.0020 U
0.0039 U
0.0039 U
0.0039 U
0.0039 U
0.020 U
0.0039 U
0.0020 U
0.039 U
0.039 U
SBY0105S-01
(2-4)
5S24
1312.2
0.0021 U
0.0041 U
0.0041 U
0.0041 U
0.0041 U
0.021 U
0.0041 U
0.0021 U
0.041 U
0.041 U
SBY0107B-01
(0-0.5)
7B00.5
1343.2
0.0022 U
0.0043 U
0.0043 U
0.0043 U
0.0043 U
0.022 U
0.0043 U
0.0022 U
0.043 U
0.043 U
SBY0105S-01
(14-16)
5S1416
1313.0
0.0022
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.0042
0.022
0.0642
0.0022
0.042
0.042


U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0107B-01
(2-4)
7B24
1334.0
0.0021
0.0040
0.0040
0.0040
0.0040
0.021
0.0040
0.0021
0.040
0.040



U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0105S-01
(DUP) *
5SDUP
1314.9
0.0025 U
0.0048 U
0.0048 U
0.0048 U
0.0048 U
0.025 U
0.0048 U
0.0025 U
0.048 U
0.048 U
SBY0107B-01
(14-16)
7B1416
1345.9
0.0019 U
0.0037 U
0.0037 U
0.0037 U
0.0037 U
0.019 U
0.0037 U
0.0019 U
0.037 U
0.037 U
SBY0106B-01
(0-0.5)
6B00.5
1339.4
0.0022 U
0.0043 U
0.0043 U
0.0043 U
0.0043 U
0.022 U
0.0043 U
0.0022 U
0.043 U
0.043 U
SBY0107B-01
(DUP) *
7BDUP
1346.7
0.0019 U
0.0037 U
0.0037 U
0.0037 U
0.0037 U
0.019 U
0.0037 U
0.0019 U
0.037 U
0.037 U
SBY0106B-01
(2-4)
6B24DL
1340.8
0.020 U
0.043 NJ
0.038 U
0.038 U
0.067 NJ
0.025 NJ
0.038 U
0.17 NJ
4.80 NJ
4.60 NJ
SBY0108B-01
(0-0.5)
8B00.5
1347.5
0.00071 NJ
0.017 NJ
0.0047 U
0.0047 U
0.0047 U
0.024 U
0.28 NJ
0.0024 U
0.047 U
0.047 U

-------
      Field
    Sample No.
    Form 1 ID
  Laboratory ID

Heptachlor
Dieldrin
4,4' -DDE
Endrin
Endosulfan II
Methyoxychlor
Endrin Ketone
Gamma Chlordane
Aroclor 1248
Aroclor 1260
                                                   Table 7
                                                   (Cont' d)

                                York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                             Summary of Subsurface Soil Pesticide/PCB Data  (mg/kg)
SBY0108B-01
   (2-4)
   8B24
  1348.3
SBY0108B-01
  (14-16)
  8B1416
  1349.1
Rinse Blank*
  (3/3/93)
    RB33
   1282.7
0
0
0
0
0

0
0







0


0
0
0019
0038
0039
0038
0038
.019
0038
0019
.038
.038
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
0
0
0
0

0
0







0


0
0
0019
0036
0036
0036
0036
.018
0036
0018
.036
.036
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0


.05
.10
.10
.10
.10
.50
.10
.05
1.0
1.0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Rinse Blank*
  (3/4/93)
    RB34
   1306.8

   0.05 U
   0.10 U
   0.10 U
   0.10 U
   0.10 U
   0.50 U
   0.10 U
   0.05 U
    1.0 U
    1.0 U
Rinse Blank*
  (3/5/93)
    RB35
   1319.0

   0.05 U
   0.10 U
   0.10 U
   0.10 U
   0.10 U
   0.50 U
   0.10 U
   0.05 U
    1.0 U
    1.0 U
Rinse Blank*
  (3/6/93)
    RB36
   1320.3

   0.05 U
   0.10 U
   0.10 U
   0.10 U
   0.10 U
   0.50 U
   0.10 U
   0.05 U
    1.0 U
    1.0 U
                               Field
                             Sample No.
                             Form 1 ID
                           Laboratory ID

                         Heptachlor
                         Dieldrin
                         4,4'-DDE
                         Endrin
                         Endosulfan II
                         Methyoxychlor
                         Endrin Ketone
                         Gamma Chlordane
                         Aroclor 1248
                         Aroclor 1260
                         Rinse Blank*
                            (2-4)
                            8B24
                           1348.3

                           0.05 U
                           0.10 U
                           0.10 U
                           0.10 U
                           0.10 U
                           0.50 U
                           0.10 U
                           0.05 U
                            1.0 U
                            1.0 U
                          Rinse Blank*
                            (14-16)
                            8B1416
                            1349.1

                            0.051 U
                            0.099 U
                            0.099 U
                            0.099 U
                            0.099 U
                             0.51 U
                            0.099 U
                            0.051 U
                             0.99 U
                             0.99 U

-------
                                                   Table 7
                                                   (Cont' d)

                                York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                             Summary of Subsurface Soil Pesticide/PCB Data  (mg/kg)

Notes:

1.   Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. in March 1993.
2.   Concentrations reported in mg/kg except where otherwise noted.
3.   U = analyte was not detected.
4.   J = concentration of analyte is estimated.
5.   N = identification of analyte is tentative.
6.   * = rinse blank(concentration reported in Ig/1).
7.   Detectable concentrations of analytes are highlighted.
8.   + = field duplicates as follows:
         SBY0105S-01(DUP)is a field duplicate of SBY0105S-01(14-16)
         SBY0107B-01(DUP)is a field duplicate of SBY0107B-01(14-16)
9.   The subsurface soil sampling depth interval (feet below ground surface) is identified inside the parenthesis for each field sample
     number.

-------
                      Table 8




   York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways




Summary of Subsurface Soil Pesticide/PCB Data (mg/kg)
Field
Sample No.
Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Tetrachlorethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
SBY0101R-01
(0-0.5)
101R10.5
1279.7
0.19 UJ
0.19 UJ
0.19 UJ
0.19 UJ
0.19 UJ
0.19 UJ
SBY0101R-01
(2-4)
101R124
1280.0
0.13 UJ
0.13 UJ
0.13 UJ
0.13 UJ
0.13 UJ
0.13 UJ
SBY0101R-01
(35-36)
101R3536
1305.0
0.11 UJ
0.11 UJ
0.11 UJ
0.11 UJ
0.11 UJ
0.11 UJ
SBY0102R-01
(0-0.5)
102R10
1335.1
0.014 U
0.014 U
0.014 U
0.003 J
0.014 U
0.014 U
SBY0102R-01
(2-4)
102R12
1334.3
0.012 U
0.011 J
0.012 U
0.003 J
0.012 U
0.012 U
SBY0102R-01
(38-40)
1023840
1333.5
0.006 J
0.052
0.011 U
0.019
0.011 U
0.011 U
SBY0103R-01
(0-0.5)
103R10.5RE
1281.9
15 U
15 U
15 U
15 U
15 U
15 U
Field
Sample No.
Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Tetrachlorethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
SBY0103R-01
(8-10)
103R810
1342.4
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
SBY0103R-01
(50-52)
10550S2
1315.7
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.11 U
0.005 J
0.11 U
0.11 U
SBY0104S-01
(0-0.5)
104S10.5
1316.5
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
SBY0104S-01
(2-4)
104S12
1318.1
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.021
0.006 J
0.011 U
SBY0104S-01
(12-14)
1041224
1317.3
0.014 U
0.014 U
0.014 U
0.014 U
0.014 U
0.014 U
SBY0105S-01
(0-0.5)
105S10.5
1311.4
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
0.016 UJ
SBY105S-01
(2-4)
105S124
1312.2
0.012 UJ
0.012 UJ
0.012 UJ
0.012 UJ
0.012 UJ
0.012 UJ

-------
                                                   Table 8
                                                   (Cont' d)
                                York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways
                             Summary of Subsurface Soil Pesticide/PCB Data  (mg/kg)
Field
Sample No.
Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Tetrachlorethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
Field
Sample No.

Form 1 ID
Laboratory ID
Methylene Chloride
Acetone
Tetrachlorethene
Toluene
Ethylbenzene
Total Xylenes
SBY0105S-01
(14-16)
1041416RE
1313.0
0.013 UJ
0.013 UJ
0.013 UJ
0.013 UJ
0.013 UJ
0.013 UJ
SBY0107B-
01 (14-16)

310-103
1345.9
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.010 J
0.011 U
0.011 U
SBY0105S-01
(DUP) *
1041416DRE
1314.9
0.014 UJ
0.014 UJ
0.014 UJ
0.014 UJ
0.014 UJ
0.014 UJ
SBY0107B-
01
(DUP) *
310-203
1346.7
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.007 J
0.011 U
0.011 U
SBY0106B-01 SBY0106B-01
(0-0.5)
106B10.5
1339.4
0.013 U
0.013 U
0.013 U
0.013 U
0.013 U
0.013 U
SBY0108B-
01(0-0.5)

310-303
1347.5
0.014 U
0.014 U
0.014 U
0.009 J
0.014 U
0.014 U









SBY0108
B-01
(2-4)
310-403
1348.3
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
(2-4)
106B12
1340.8
0.019
0.014
0.020
0.036
0.008
0.004














U
J


J
J
SBY0108
B-01
(14-16)
310-503
1349.1
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
0.011 U
SBY0106B-01
(4-6)
106B1
1341.6
0.003 J
0.014 J
0.004 J
0.037
0.020 U
0.020 U
Rinse
Blank*
3/3/93
RB33
1282.7
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
SBY0107B-01 SBY0107B-01
(0-0.5)
107B10.5
1343.2
0.013 U
0.013 U
0.013 U
0.013 U
0.013 U
0.013 U
Rinse
Blank*
3/4/93
RB34
1306.8
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U









Rinse
Blank*
3/5/93
RB35
1319.0
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
(2-4)
310-003
1344.0
0.012 U
0.012 U
0.012 U
0.012 U
0.012 U
0.012 U
Rinse
Blank*
3/6/93
RB36
1320.3
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U









Rinse
Blank*
3/7/93
RB37
1321.0
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
10 U
Notes:
1.   Samples collected by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. in March 1993.
2.   Concentrations reported in mg/kg except where otherwise noted.
3.   Only detected compounds are listed.
4.   U = analyte was not detected.
5.   J = concentration of analyte is approximate.
6.   Detectable concentrations of analytes are highlighted.
7.   D = duplicate.
8.   RE = reanalysis.
9.   * = rinse blank(concentration reported in Ig/1).
10.  + = Field duplicates as follows:
         SBY0105S-01(DUP)is a field duplicate of SBY0105S-01(14-16)
         SBY0107B-01(DUP)is a field duplicate of SBY0107B-01(14-16)
11.  The subsurface soil sampling depth interval (feet below ground surface) is identified inside the parenthesis for each field sample number.

-------
                                                                   Table 9
                                                York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                                     Summary of Subsurface Soil Semi-Volatile Organic Compound data  (mg/kg)
          Field
        Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Dimethylphthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Diethylphthalate
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
SBY0101R-01
(0-0.5)
1R00.5
1279,
2.9
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
.7
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
SBY0101R-01
(2-4)
1R24
1280,
1.0
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
.0
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
SBY0101R-01
(35-36)
1R3536
1305,
0.55
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
.0
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
SBY0102R-01
(0-0.5)
2R00.5
1335.
10.4
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.057
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
1
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0102R-01
(2-4)
2R24
1334.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.61
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.031
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
3
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0102R-01
(38-40)
2R3840
1333,
0.57
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
.5
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0103R-01
(0-0.5)
3R00.5
1281.9
2.3 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
0.24 J
0.30 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
0.044 J
0.17 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
0.90 J
0.13 J
0.12 J
3.00 J
3.00 J
1.50 J
2.60 J
1.00 UJ
1.00 UJ
3.40 J
1.30 J
1.50 J
0.38 J
1.20 J

-------
          Field
        Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Dimethylphthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Diethylphthalate
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
                                                                   Table 9
                                                                    (Cont' d)

                                                York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                                     Summary of Subsurface Soil Semi-Volatile Organic Compound data  (mg/kg)
SBY0103R-01
(8-10)
3R810
1342,
0.56
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
.4
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
SBY0103R-01
(50-52)
3R5052
1315.7
0.57 UJ
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.025 J
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.058 J
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.036 J
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.054 J
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.10 J
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.38 U
0.38 U
SBY0104S-01
(0-0.5)
4S00.5
1316,
4.9
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.53
.5
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0104S-01
(2-4)
4S24
1318,
0.57
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
.1
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0104S-01
(12-14)
4S1214
1317.
0.68
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.082
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
3
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0105S-01
(0-0.5)
5S00.5
1311,
1.7
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
.4
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0105S-01
(2-4)
5S24
1312.2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
.3 J
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
0.46
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U

-------
          Field
        Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Dimethylphthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Diethylphthalate
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
                                                                   Table 9
                                                                    (Cont' d)

                                                York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                                     Summary of Subsurface Soil Semi-Volatile Organic Compound data  (mg/kg)
SBY0105S-01
(14-16)
5S1416
1313.0
0.64
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.059
0.43
0.43
0.43
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
SBY0105S-01
(DUP) *
5SDUP
1314.9
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72 UJ
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
.068 J
.48 U
.48 U
.48 U
SBY0106B-01
(0-0.5)
6B00.5RE
1339.4
4.1
0.88
0.88
0.26
0.32
0.88
0.88
0.040
0.18
0.88
0.88
0.65
0.88
0.88
1.50
2.50
1.50
2.10
0.88
0.88
3.30
1.30
1.00
0.36
0.83

U
U
J
J
U
U
J
J
U
U
J
U
U
J
J
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
J
J
J
J
SBY0106B-01
(2-4)
6B24
1340.8
2.8
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.083
1.30
0.38
0.38
0.58
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
J
UJ
UJ
J
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
SBY0106B-01
(4-6)
6B46
1341.6
0.7
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.025
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
0.39
390

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
J
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0107B-01
(0-0.5)
7B00.5
1343.2
3.7
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44

U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
UJ
UJ
UJ
UJ
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0107B-01
(2-4)
7B24
1334.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.0
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U
.41 U

-------
                                                Table 9
                                                (Cont'd)

                             York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                  Summary of Subsurface Soil Semi-Volatile Organic Compound data  (mg/kg)
          Field
        Sample No.
        Form 1 ID
      Laboratory ID

Total Phenols(mg/kg)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
4-Methylphenol
Naphthalene
2-Methylnapthalene
Dimethylphthalate
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Dibenzofuran
Fluorene
Diethylphthalate
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
SBY0107B-01
(14-16)
7B1416
1345,
0.56
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.37
.9
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0107B-01
(DUP) *
7BDUP
1346.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.55
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
.37
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0108B-01
(0-0.5)
8B00.5
1347.5

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2.
0.
0.
11
8.
8.
8.
0.
0.
18
6.
4.
1
3.
7.8
48 U
48 U
11 J
11 J
48 UJ
065 J
48 UJ
072 J
077 J
48 UJ
00 J
80 J
48 UJ
.00 D
50 D
10 D
60 D
48 U
48 U
.00 D
80 D
20 D
.40
90 JD
SBY0108B-01
(2-4)
8B24
1348,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.57
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.38
.3
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
SBY0108B-01
(14-16)
8B1416
1349.1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
.050 J
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U
.36 U

-------
                                                         TABLE 10
                                      York Oil superfund Site Contamination Pathways
                                       Summary of PCB/Pesticide Species Analysis ul
                                                    Terrestrial Species
         Sample Description u2

Reference Wetland
          Masked Shrew       Y2-BS053-MS
          Short-tail Shrew   Y2-BS033-SS
          Red-backed vole    Y2-BS032-RV
          Earthworm          Y2-BS020-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS040-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS042-EW
          Green Frog         Y2-BS017-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS018-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS019-GF
Western Wetland
          Masked Shrew       Y2-BS051-MS
          Short-tail Shrew   Y2-BS014-SS
          Red-backed vole    Y2-BS052-RV
          Earthworm          Y2-BS027-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS047-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS048-EW
          Green Frog         Y2-BS004-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS006-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS026-GF
Southern Wetland
          Masked Shrew       Y2-BS050-MS
          Short-tail Shrew   Y2-BS025-SS
          Red-backed vole    Y2-BS024-RV
          Earthworm          Y2-BS002-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS015-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS016-EW
          Green Frog         Y2-BS022-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS023-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS043-GF
Notes:
ul   Only detected chemicals are presented.
u2   Samples represent whole-body composite samples. Results reported on wet-weight basis
ND = Not detected  (Detection limits are 0.01 mg/kg to 0.03 mg/kg for PCB Aroclors, 0.0036
 Alpha-Chlordane, 0.0026 mg/kg for 4,4'-DDE, and 0.001 mg/kg for Alpha-BHC).

dpids
(%)
3.52
3.56
3.7
1.64
1.57
1.53
1.94
3.48
1.97
4.4
3.7
3.16
1.67
1.6
1.7
1.45
1.15
1.76
4.4
3.54
3.82
1.68
1.29
1.45
1.76
2.52
1.86
Total
PCBs
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.14
1.0
ND
1.19
ND
ND
0.228
0.039
0.12
0.23
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Alpha-
Chlorda
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.007
0.041
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.01
ND
0.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

4, 4 '-DD
(mg/kg)
ND
0.0052
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0045
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0077
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Alpha-
BHC
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.002
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Gamma-
BHC
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0017
ND
ND
0.0027
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
mg/kg for

-------
                                               TABIiE 11
                           York Oil superfund Site Contamination Pathways
                                      Summary of Inorganic Analysis
                                           Terrestrial Species
              Sample Description u2

Reference Wetland
          Masked Shrew       Y2-BS053-MS
          Short-tail Shrew   Y2-BS033-SS
          Red-backed vole    Y2-BS032-RV
          Earthworm          Y2-BS020-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS040-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS042-EW
          Green Frog         Y2-BS017-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS018-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS019-GF
Western Wetland
                                                             Lipids
 3.52
 3.56
  3.7
 1.64
 1.57
 1.53
 1.94
 3.48
 1.97
              Arsenic
              (mg/kg)
  ND
0.21 J
  ND
0.19 J
0.43
0.21 J
  ND
  ND
  ND
J
                Lead
               (mg/kg)
0.25 J
 ND
2.2 J
0.73 J
2.3 J
1.1
 ND
 ND
0.14 J
                         Mercury
                         (mg/kg)
0.16
0.13
0.03
0.15
0.07
0.1
0.03
0.03
0.03
          Masked Shrew       Y2-BS051-MS
          Short-tail Shrew   Y2-BS014-SS
          Red-backed vole    Y2-BS052-RV
          Earthworm          Y2-BS027-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS047-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS048-EW
          Green Frog         Y2-BS004-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS006-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS026-GF
Southern Wetland
          Masked Shrew       Y2-BS050-MS
          Short-tail Shrew   Y2-BS025-SS
          Red-backed vole    Y2-BS024-RV
          Earthworm          Y2-BS002-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS015-EW
          Earthworm          Y2-BS016-EW
          Green Frog         Y2-BS022-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS023-GF
          Green Frog         Y2-BS043-GF
Notes:
Results reported on wet-weight basis.
u Samples represent whole-body composite samples.
ND = Not detected  (Detection limits range from 0.09 mg/kg to
J = Estimated value.
4
3
3.
1.
1
1
1.
1.
1.
4
3.
3.
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
1.
.4
.7
16
67
.6
.7
45
15
76
.4
54
82
68
29
45
76
52
86
0,

0,
0,
0,
0,


0,
0,
0,

3,
0,
0,


0,
.17
ND
.11
.3
.89
.39
ND
ND
.12
.11
.11
ND
.1
.35
.41
ND
ND
.13
J

J
J
J
J
0
0


39
37
J
J
ND
13
0


1
10

J
J
J

0
0

0
0


1


11

J


J


0
0
3
2


.7
69
.9
.5
3
62
.5
29
27
.4
.3
.2
13
12

J

J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
J
ND
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
.15
.11
.02
.06
.15
.24
.02
.02
.04
.05
.12
.02
.11
.13
.09
.03
.02
.02


J



J
J



J




J
J
0.1 mg/kg)

-------
                                                       TABIiE 12
                                    York Oil superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                                          Summary of PCBs/Pesticide Analysis ul
                                                 Aquatic Species


          Sample Description u2

Reference Aquatic Site
          White Sucker        Y2-BS044-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS045-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS046-WS
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS010-FD
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS011-FD
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS012-FD

Adjacent Aquatic Site
          White Sucker        Y2-BS034-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS035-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS036-WS
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS037-FD
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS038-FD
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS039-FD

Wetland Boundary Aquatic Site
          White Sucker        Y2-BS104-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS105-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS106-WS
          Johnny Darter       Y2-BS010-TD
          Johnny Darter       Y2-BS102-TD
          Johnny Darter       Y2-BS103-TD

Notes:

ul   Only detected chemicals are presented. Results are reported on a wet-weiqht basis.
u2   Samples represent whole-body composite samples for darters, and individual skin-on fillets
     for white suckers.
ND = Not detected (Detection limits are 0.01 mq/kq to 0.03 mq/kq for PCB Aroclors, and 0.0026 mq/kq for
     4,4'DDE and qamma-BHC).

lids
)
1.34
1.49
1.0
4.11
4.47
5.43
1.03
0.77
0.78
4.26
3.97
3.54
0.98
1.25
1.12
3.69
2.89
2.81
Total
PCBs
(mq/kq)
ND
ND
ND
0.067
0.068
0.054
ND
ND
ND
0.062
ND
0.037
ND
ND
ND
0.086
0.074
0.066

4,4 '-DD
(mq/kq)
ND
ND
ND
0.007
0.0066
0.0046
ND
ND
ND
0.0065
0.0068
0.0056
ND
ND
ND
0.0049
0.0046
0.0041
Gamma -
BHC
(mq/kq)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0026
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                     TABIiE 13
                                  York Oil superfund Site Contamination Pathways

                                          Summary of Inorganic Analysis
                                                   Aquatic Species
           Sample Description ul

Reference Aquatic Site
          White Sucker        Y2-BS044-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS045-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS046-WS
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS010-FD
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS011-FD
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS012-FD

Adjacent Aquatic Site
          White Sucker        Y2-BS034-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS035-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS036-WS
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS037-FD
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS038-FD
          Fantail Darter      Y2-BS039-FD

Wetland Boundary Aquatic Site
          White Sucker        Y2-BS104-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS105-WS
          White Sucker        Y2-BS106-WS
          Johnny Darter       Y2-BS101-TD
          Johnny Darter       Y2-BS102-TD
          Johnny Darter       Y2-BS103-TD
dpids
f o \
\ "° /
1.34
1.49
1.0
4.11
4.47
5.43
1.03
0.77
0.78
4.26
3.97
3.54
0.98
1.25
1.12
3.69
2.89
2.81
Arsenic
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
0.19 J
ND
ND
ND
0.16 J
ND
ND
ND
0.1 J
ND
ND
0.11 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
Lead
(mg/kg)
ND
ND
ND
0.12 J
ND
ND
0.37 J
0.12 J
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.39
0.12 J
0.25 J
0.20 J
0.21 J
0.17 J
Mercury
(mg/kg)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
.15
.18
.19
.14
.12
.14
.29
.26
.17
.14
.16
.12
.24
.14
.19
0.2
.17
.18
Notes:
u  Samples represent whole-body composite samples for darters, and individual skin-on fille
   for white suckers. Results are reported on a wet-weight basis.
ND = Not detected  (Detection limits range from 0.09 mg/kg to 0.1 mg/kg).
J = Estimated value.

-------
    CHEMICAL
VOLATILE ORGANICS
                                             SURFACE
                                              WATER
                                                                                      TABIiE 14

                                                                            CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN
                                                                         YORK OIL SITE CONTAMINATION PATHWAY

                                                                                SHALLOW SEDIMENT
                                                                      Southern
                                                                      Wetland
                                    Western
                                    Wetland
                        Northwestern
                           Wetland
                            Southern
                            Wetland
                                                                                                                              SURFACE SOIL
                           Western
                           Wetland
                       North of
                         Site
                        Proper
                          East of
                            Site
                           Proper
                                                                                                                            GROUND
                                                                                                                            WATER
Acetone
Benzene
Bromomethane
2-Butanone
Chioromethane
1,1-Dichloroethane
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Toluene
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
X
X
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
X
X
X
ND
D
SEMI-VOLATILE
ORGANICS
bis (2-Ethylhexyl)
phthalate
Butyl benzylphthalate
Carbazole
Dibenzofuran
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Methylphenol
4-Methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Napthalene
Phenol
tPAHs
cPAHs
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
X
X
X
ND
ND
X
X
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
ND
X
X
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
ND
X
X
ND

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

-------
                                                             TABIiE 14

                                             CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN continued
                                                YORK OIL SITE CONTAMINATION PATHWAY
    CHEMICAL
PESTICIDES/PCBs

Aldrin
alpha-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC
4,4' -DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4' -DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Methoxychlor
PCBs
                                             SURFACE
                                              WATER
                                                                                SHALLOW SEDIMENT
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
                                                                      Southern
                                                                      Wetland
                                    Western
                                    Wetland
Northwestern
   Wetland
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
X
X
ND
ND
X
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
X
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
X
Southern
Wetland
                                                                                                                              SURFACE SOIL
Western
Wetland
                                                                                                                            GROUND
                                                                                                                            WATER
North of
  Site
 Proper
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
East of
  Site
 Proper
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
X
X
X
ND
ND
X
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND

-------
INORGANICS
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
ND
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
X
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
D
ND
D
D
X
X
D
X
D
X
D
X
X
D
ND
X
X
D
D
ND
D
D
ND
ND
D
X
D
ND
X
X
X
D
X
ND
X
X
D
X
D
D
X
X
D
X
D
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
X
ND
D
X
X
ND
X
X
D
ND
X
D
X
X
X
D
D
D
X
ND
D
X
ND
ND
X
X
D
ND
X
D
X
X
ND
D
D
D
X
ND
X
X
ND
ND
X
X
X
ND
X
X
ND
X
ND
D
X
X
X
ND
X
X
X
ND
X
X
X
ND
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
D
D
X
X
D
D
X
D
D
D
ND
D
D
D
D
ND
ND
D
X
ND     -Not Detected
D      -Detected but not chosen as a chemical of potential concern
X      -Selected as a chemical of potential concern

-------
                                                                    SUMMARY OF COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
                                                                     YORK OIL SITE CONTAMINATION PATHWAYS
                                                                                                                                                          Contaminated  surface  soil  in the wetland
                                                                                                                                                          areas south and west  of the  site may be
                                                                                                                                                          encountered by Recreationalists.

                                                                                                                                                          Recreationalists  may  encounter
                                                                                                                                                          contaminated  shallow  sediment in the
                                                                                                                                                          wetland areas south,  west  and northwest of
                                                                                                                                                          the site.
                                                                                                                                                          Recreationalists  may  encounter
                                                                                                                                                          contaminated  surface  water  in the wetland
                                                                                                                                                          area west  of  the  site.  Although surface water
                                                                                                                                                          in Lawrence Brook and the wetland area
                                                                                                                                                          south of the  site may be  encountered by
                                                                                                                                                          recreationalists,  limited,  low-level
                                                                                                                                                          contamination indistinguishable from the
                                                                                                                                                          reference  aguatic site  was  detected.

                                                                                                                                                          Although fish from Lawrence Brook may be
                                                                                                                                                          consumed by fisherman,  limited, low-level
                                                                                                                                                          contamination indistinguishable from that in
                                                                                                                                                          fish in the reference aguatic site was
                                                                                                                                                          detected.
Utility/Maintenance Workers

-------
                      SUMMARY OF COMPLETE EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
                       YORK OIL SITE CONTAMINATION PATHWAYS
                                                                                                             Limited  low-level VOC contamination,
                                                                                                             intermittent  release and low exposure
                                                                                                             potential  are such that inhalation of
                                                                                                             volatilized chemicals is unlikely.  Fugitive
                                                                                                             dust  is  unlikely to be generated in the wetland
                                                                                                             areas  throughout much of the year by either
                                                                                                             natural  or mechanical means.
Ingestion of and dermal contact with  chemicals  in  soil,
sediment and surface water.  Inhalation  of  chemicals
from volatilization or fugitive dust  generation.
Commercial/industrial or residential
development in federal and New York State
regulated wetlands is unlikely.

-------
                                                TABIiE 16

                                  MATRIX OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
                                   YORK OIL SITE CONTAMINATION PATHWAYS

       Exposure Medium/Exposure Route    Recreationalists    Utility/Maintenance    Residents
                                                                    Worker

Surface Soil

  Ingestion                                      T                    A                 --
  Dermal Contact                                 T                    A

Shallow Sediment

  Ingestion                                      T
  Dermal Contact                                 T

Surface Water

  Dermal Contact                                 T

Groundwater

  Ingestion                                     --                    --               L, C
  Dermal Contact                                --                    --               L, C
  Inhalation                                    --                    --               L, C

       Notes:
              L = Lifetime exposure for adults
              A = Exposure to adults in a non-residential scenario
              T = Teenaged Adolescents
              C = Children

-------
                               TABIiE 17
          SUMMARY OF NON-CARCINOGENIC AND CARCINOGENIC RISKS
                YORK OIL SITE CONTAMINATION PATHWAYS
                    EXPOSURE POPULATION AND PATHWAY
                                                                                  HAZARD  INDEX  1
                                                                                                      CANCER RISK 2
Current Use Scenario
                    ADOLESCENT RECREATIONALISTS
                    Ingestion of Sediment from the Southern Wetland
                    Dermal Contact with Sediment from the Southern Wetland
                    Ingestion of Surface Soil from the Southern Wetland
                    TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
3E-03
8E-04
4E-03
8E-03
4E-C

4E-C
8E-C
                    ADOLESCENT RECREATIONALISTS
                    Ingestion of Sediment from the Western Wetland
                    Dermal Contact with Sediment from the Western Wetland
                    Dermal Contact with Surface Water from the Western Wetland
                    Ingestion of Surface Soil from the Western Wetland
                    TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
1E-01
2E-01
6E-03
1E-03
3E-01
2E-06
2E-06

2E-10
4E-06
                    ADOLESCENT RECREATIONALISTS
                    Ingestion of Sediment from the Northwestern Wetland
                    Dermal Contact with Sediment from the Northwestern Wetland
                    TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:
7E-02
6E-02
1E-01
7E-07
7E-07
1E-06
                    ADOLESCENT RECREATIONALISTS
                    Ingestion of Sediment upgradient of the Northwestern Wetland       2E-03
                    TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:                            2E-03

                    UTILITY/MAINTENANCE WORKER
                    Ingestion of Surface Soil North of Site Proper                     2E-02
                    TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:                            2E-02

                    UTILITY/MAINTENANCE WORKER
                    Ingestion of Surface Soil East of Site Proper                      5E-02
                    TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:                            5E-02
                  8E-C
                  8E-C
                  8E-07
                  8E-07

-------
Future List Scenario

                    RESIDENT/ADULT
                    Ingestion of Groundwater                                          3E+00             8E-05 3
                    Dermal Contact with Groundwater                                   8E-02             3E-07 3
                    Inhalation of Chemicals Volatilized from Groundwater              1E-02             4E-07 3
                    TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:                           3E+00             8E-05

                    RESIDENT CHILD
                    Ingestion of Groundwater                                          6E+00             3E-05
                    Dermal Contact with Groundwater                                   IE-01             9E-08
                    Inhalation of Chemicals Volatilized from Groundwater              4E-02             2E-07
                    TOTAL PATHWAY HAZARD INDEX/CANCER RISK:                           6E+00             3E-05

1   Non-carcinogenic risks
2   Carcinogenic risks
3   Based on 30-year exposure, 6 years of child exposure plus 24 years of adult exposure.

-------

-------
Contaminants

    Asbestos
    Arsenic
    Barium
    Cadmium
    Chromium
    Mercury
    Selenium
    Silver
    Fluoride
    Chloride
                                                Table 19
                            New York State Maximum Contaminant Levels continued
                                               Inorganics
                                         (Milligrams per liter)
           MCL
         (mg/1)  4

7.0 Million fibers/liter (MFL)
  (Longer than 1.0 microns)
          0.05
          2.00
          0.005
          0.10
          0.002
          0.01
          0.05
          2.2
        250.0
  Determination of MCL violation

If the results of a monitoring sample
analysis exceed the MCL, the supplier of
water shall collect one more sample
from the same sampling point within
2 weeks or as soon as practical.
An MCL violation occurs when the average 1
of the two results exceeds the
MCL.
    Iron
    Manganese
    Sodium
    Sulfate
    Zinc
    Color
    Odor
          0.3 2
          0.3 2
   No designated limits 3
        250.0
          5.0
         15 Units
          3 Units
1  Rounded to the same number of significant figures as the MCL for the contaminant in guestion.

2  If iron and manganese are present,  the total concentration of both should not exceed 0.5 mg/1.  Higher
   levels may be allowed by the State when justified by the supplier of water.

-------
                               APPENDIX III
                              ADMINISTRATIVE
                               RECORD INDEX

                              YORK OIL SITE
                            OPERABLE UNIT TWO
                         ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
                            INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
3.0   REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

3.3   Work Plans
P.
      300001-
      300324
      300325-
      301067
      301068-
      301353
Report: Final Field Operations Plan,
Contamination Pathways Remedial
Investigation, York Oil Superfund Site,
Moira, New York, Volume 1 of 2, prepared by
Blasland & Bouck Engineers, P.C., March 1993.

Report: Final Field Operations Plan,
Contamination Pathways Remedial
Investigation, York Oil Superfund Site,
Moira, New York, Volume 2 of 2, prepared by
Blasland & Bouck Engineers, P.C., March 1993.

Report: Final Field Operations Plan for
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study,
York Oil Company Site, Town of Moira,
Franklin County, New York, prepared by Ebasco
Services Incorporated, ARCS Program II, October 1991.

Report: Final Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study Work Plan, York Oil Site,
Operable Unit Two, prepared by Ebasco,
Services Incorporated, ARCS II Program, October 1991.

Report: Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan
for ARCS II Hazardous Waste Site
activities. York Oil Sites prepared by Ebasco
Services Incorporated, April 11, 1991.
3.4   Remedial Investigation Reports

P.     301649 -      Report: Interim Ecological Investigation Report
      301969        Contamination-Pathways Remedial Investigation/
                    Feasibility Study,  York Oil Superfund Site,  Moira,
                    New York,  Volume I  of II, prepared by Blasland,
                    Bouck & Lee,  Inc.,  January 1994, Revised August 1994.

P.     301970-  Report:   Contamination Pathways Remedial
      302488   Investigation Report, Volume I of II, York Oil
               Superfund Site, Moira, New York, prepared for the
               Steering Committee of the York Oil Superfund Site,
               Contamination Pathways RI/FS Participation
               Agreement, prepared by Blasland, Bouck & Lee,
               Inc., April 1996 (Revision Dates: October 1996,
               June 1997, October 1997,  March 1998).
      301354-
      301549
      301550-
      301648

-------
      302489-  Report:   Contamination Pathways Remedial
      302819   Investigation Report, Volume II of II -
               Appendices,  York Oil Superfund Site,  Moira, New
               York,  prepared for the Steering Committee of the
               York Oil Superfund Site,  Contamination Pathways
               RI/FS Participation Agreement,  prepared by
               Blasland,  Bouck & Lee, Inc., April 1996.

      302820-  Report:   Candidate Technologies Memorandum,
      302850   Contamination Pathways RI/FS, York Oil Superfund
               Site,  Moira,  New York, prepared for the Steering
               Committee of the York Oil Superfund Site,
               Contamination Pathways RI/FS Participation
               Agreement,  prepared by Blasland, Bouck & Lee,
               Inc.,  April 1996.

      302851-  Report:   Risk Assessment Contamination Pathways
      303107   RI/FS (OU2),  York Oil Company,  Franklin County,
               New York,  prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.,
               December 1995.
P.     303108-  Report:   Contamination Pathways Characterization
      303394   Summary Report,  Contamination Pathways RI/FS,
               Volume I of II,  York Oil Superfund Site, Moira,
               New York,  prepared for the Steering Committee of
            the York oil Superfund Site,  Contamination
               Pathways RI/FS Participation Agreement, prepared
               by Blasland,  Bouck & Lee,  Inc., January 1995.

P.    303395-   Report:   Contamination Pathways Characterization
     303741    Summary Report,  Contamination Pathways RI/FS,
               Volume II of II,  York Oil Superfund Site,  Moira,
               New York,  prepared for the Steering Committee of
               the York Oil Superfund Site, Contamination
               Pathways RI/FS Participation Agreement, prepared
               by Blasland,  Bouck & Lee,  Inc., January 1995.

3.5  Correspondence

P.    303742-   LAN message to Mr. Joel Singerman, Chief,  U.S.
     303742    EPA, Region II,  from Mr. Arnold Bernas, U.S. EPA,
               Region II,  re: BB&L letter 2/19/98 on York Oil OU2
               Prediction of Groundwater Cleanup Time, February 20,

P.    303743-   Letter to Mr. Arnold R. Bernas, Project Manager,
     303744    Western New York Superfund Section I, U.S. EPA,
               Region II,  from Mr. Gary R. Cameron,  Vice
               President,  Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc., re: York
               Oil Site Operable Unit 2,  Prediction of Ground
               Water Cleanup Times, February 19, 1998.
1998.

-------
P.    303745-   Facsimile transmittal to Mr. Arnold Bernas,
     303745    Project Manager, Western New York Superfund
               Section I, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Victor
               Cardona, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action, New
               York State Department of Environmental
               Conservation (NYSDEC),  re: enclosed letter to Mr.
               Victor Cardona, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action,
               NYSDEC, from Mr. Robert E. Griffiths, Public
               Health Specialist II, State of New York Department
               of Health, re:  Contamination Pathways, Remedial
               Investigation Report, York Oil Superfund Site,
               Moira, Franklin County, May 22, 1996.

P.    303746-   Letter to Mr. Arnold Bernas, Project Manager,
     303747    Western New York Superfund Section 1, U.S. EPA,
               Region II, from Mr. Victor Cardona, Bureau of
               Eastern Remedial Action, NYSDEC, re: York Oil
               Company OU2 Draft Remedial Investigation, May 21, 1996.

P.   303748-    Memorandum to Mr. Joel Singerman, Chief, Western
    303749     New York Superfund Section I, U.S. EPA, Region II,
               from Ms. Galina Tsoukanova, Hydrogeologist,
               Technical and Pre-Remedial Support Section, U.S.
               EPA, Region II, re: Hydrogeological review of the
               Draft Contamination Pathway Remedial Investigation
               Report for the York Oil Superfund Site, Moira, New
               York, May 15, 1996.

P.   303750-    Letter to Mr. Bruce R.  Nelson, Site Manager,
    303765     Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., from Mr. Arnold R. Bernas,
               P.E., Project Manager,  Western New York Superfund
               Section I, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Comments on
               the Baseline Risk Assessment of the York Oil
               Contaminant Pathways RI/FS, May 16, 1995.

P.   303766-    Letter to Mr. Arnold Bernas, Western New York/
    303766     Caribbean Section I, U.S. EPA, Region II, re:
               Contamination Pathways Characterization Pathways,
               York Oil Company, February 24, 1995.  (Note:
               Missing page(s).)

P.   303767-    Memorandum to Mr. Victor Cardona, Division of
    303775     Hazardous Waste Remediation, NYSDEC, from Mr.
               Richard Koeppicus, Bureau of Environmental
               Protection, DFW, re: Review of "Contamination
               Pathways Characterization Summary Report
               Contamination Pathways", Vol. 1 & 2 and the
               "Candidate Technologies Memorandum Contamination
               Pathways RI/FS" all dated January 1995, February 21, 1995.

P.   303776-    Letter to Mr. Arnold Bernas, Western New York/
    303776     Caribbean Section I, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
               Victor Cardona, Bureau of Eastern Remedial Action,
               Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, NYSDEC,
               re: York Oil OU2, Interim Ecological
               Investigation,  June 24, 1994.

-------
P.   303777-    Memorandum to Mr. Victor Cardona, Bureau of
    303779     Eastern Remedial Action, DHWR, NYSDEC, from Mr.
               Richard Koeppicus, Hazardous Waste Site Evaluation
               Unit, Division of Fish and Wildlife, re: York Oil
               Site, review of Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc.,
               letter of May 25, 1994 to Arnold Bernas of the
               U.S. EPA, Region II, June 21, 1994.  (Attachment:
               Memorandum to Mr. Victor Cardona, Bureau of
               Eastern Remedial Action, DHWR, NYSDEC, from Mr.
            Richard Koeppicus, Hazardous Waste Site Evaluation
               Unit, DFW, re: York Oil Site, Review of "Interim
               Ecological Investigation Report Contamination
               Pathways RI/FS York Oil Superfund Site, Moira, New
               York, Volumes I and II" for the Steering Committee
               of the York Oil Superfund Site Contamination
               Pathways RI/FS Participation Agreement, dated
               January 1994 by Blasland, Bouck & Lee Inc., March 8, 1994.)

P.   303780-    Memorandum to Mr. Arnold Bernas, ERRD, U.S. EPA,
    303793     Region II, from Mr. Arthur Block, Senior Regional
               Representative, Agency for Toxic Substances and
               Disease Registry  (ATSDR), re: Site Review and
               Update (SRU) for York Oil Company, Moira, Franklin
               County, New York, October 13, 1993.  (Attachment:
               Report: Site Review and Update, York Oil
               Company,  Moira, Franklin County, New York,
               prepared by the New York State Department of
               Health under a cooperative agreement with the
               Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,
               September 20, 1993.)

P.   303794-    Memorandum to Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, Director,
    303798     ERRD, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. William J.
               Muszynski, Acting Regional Administrator, U.S.
               EPA, Region II, re: York Oil Site Source Control
               Remedy Compliance with the Toxic Substances
               Control Act PCB Disposal Reguirements, September
               13, 1989. (Attachment:  (1) Post-Decision
               Declaration for Toxic Substances Control Act
               Waiver, York Oil Site, Moira, Franklin County, New
               York, September 19, 1989, and  (2) Post-Decision
               Declaration Summary, York Oil Site, Moira, New York, undated.

-------
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY

P.   400001-    Report:  Contamination Pathways Feasibility
    400157     Study-York Oil Superfund Site, Moira, New York,
               prepared for the Steering Committee of the York
               Oil Superfund Site, Contamination Pathways RI/FS
               Participation Agreement, prepared by Blasland,
               Bouck & Lee, Inc., November 1996  (Revision Dates:
               December 1997, March 1998).

10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

10.1 Comments and Responses

P.   10.00001- Letter to Mr. Salvatore Ervolina, P.E., Director,
    10.00002  NYSDEC, from Mr. JohnE. LaPadula, P.E., Chief,
              New York Remediation Branch,  U.S. EPA, Region II,
              re: Comments on the NYSDEC's comments on the
              revised version of the Proposed Plan for the York
              Oil site, undated.

P.   10.00003- Letter to Mr. Victor A. Cardona, Bureau of Eastern
    10.00005  Remedial Action, NYSDEC, from Mr. Arnold Bernas,
              P.E.,  Project Manager, U.S.  EPA, Region II, re:
              Receipt of letter dated January 15, 1998
              transmitting New York State's comments on the York
              Oil site Proposed Plan, January 30, 1998.

P.   10.00006- Letter to Mr. Arnold Bernas,  U.S. EPA, Region II,
    10.00008  from Mr. Victor A. Cardona,  Bureau of Eastern
              Remedial Action, NYSDEC, re:  York Oil Site OU2,
              Proposed Plan November 1997,  January 15, 1998.
              (Attachment: Memorandum to Mr. Victor Cardona,
              DER, NYSDEC, from Mr. Richard Koeppicus, Division
              of Fish, Wildlife and Marine Resources, re: York
              Oil Operable Unit 2 Site, Addendum to my comments
              on the PRAP dated December 15, 1997, December 22,
              1997.)

P.   10.00009- Memorandum to Mr. Victor Cardona, DER, NYSDEC,
    10.00009  from Mr. Richard Koeppicus,  Division of Fish,
              Wildlife and Marine Resources, re: York Oil
              Operable Unit 2 Site, Review of Superfund Proposed
              Plan,  December 15, 1997.

-------
                                   YORK OIL CO. SITE
                                   OPERABLE UNIT TWO
                             ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE UPDATE
                                   INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports

P.   303799-   Report: Contamination Pathways Remedial
    303812    Investigtation, Field Operations-Plan Addendum
              No. 1,  York Oil Superfund Site, Moira, New York,
              prepared for U.S. EPA, Region II,  prepared by
              Blasland,  Bouck & Lee, Inc., August 1994.

P.   303813-   Report:  Contamination Pathways Remedial
    304136A   Investigation,  Field Operations Plan,  Volume 1 of
              2.  Site Management Plan,  Field Sampling Plan,
              Health & Safety Plan, Wetland
              Mitigation/Restoration Plan, York Oil Superfund
              Site,  Moira, New York, prepared for the Steering
              Committee of the York Oil Superfund Site
              Contamination Pathways RI/FS Participation
              Agreement,  prepared by Blasland, Bouck & Lee, March 1993.

P.   304137-   Report: Contamination Pathways Remedial
    304884    Investigation Field Operations Plan, Volume 2 of
              Quality Assurance-Project Plan. York Oil
              Superfund Site, Moria, New York, prepared for
              Steering Committee of the York Oil Superfund Site
              Contamination Pathways RI/FS Participation
              Agreement,  prepared by Blasland, Bouck & Lee,Inc., March 1993.

-------
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY

4.6 Correspondence

P.   400158-   Letter to Mr. Bruce Thompson, de maximus, inc,
    400185    from Mr. Arnold R. Bernas, P.E, Project Manager,
              Central New York Remediation Section, U.S. EPA,
              Region II, re: Review of the revised June 97
              Remedial Investigation Report and Feasibility
              Study Report for the York Oil Contamination
              Pathways OU2, August 11, 1997.  (Attachments:  (1)
              Letter to Mr. Arnold Bernas, U.S. EPA Region II,
              from Mr. Victor Cardona, Bureau of Eastern
              Remedial Action Division of Environmental
              Remediation, U.S. EPA Region II, re: York Oil
              Company, OU2, Revised Feasibility Study dated June
              1997, July 23, 1997; (2) Letter to Mr. Arnold
              Bernas, U.S. EPA Region II, from Mr. Richard
              Koeppicus, Biologist 1  (Ecology), re: York Oil,
              OU2, ID No. 517002, Revised Feasibility Study and
              Revised Remedial Investigation Report dated June
              1997, August 4, 1997; (3)  Letter to Mr. Arnold
              Bernas, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Bruce R.
              Nelson, Site Manager, C.P.G., Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
              re: Response to Comments on the Remedial
              Investigation and Feasibility Study Report, York
              Oil Superfund Site, Moira, New York, dated March
              10, 1997  (Operable Unit 2) July 22, 1997;  (4)
              Memorandum to Ms. Shari Stevens, BTAG Coordinator,
              U.S,. EPA Region II from Lisa Rosman, NOAA
              Associate CRC, re: Contamination Pathways
              Feasibility Study, York Oil Superfund Site, Moira,
              New York, November 1996, Revised June 1997,
              Blasland, Bouck and Lee, Inc., August 7, 1997;  (5)
              Memorandum to Mr. Arnold Bernas, Remedial Project
              Manager, New York Remediation Branch, U.S. EPA,
              Region II, from Ms. Shari Stevens, Coordinator
              Biological Technical Assistance Group, U.S. EPA,
              Region II, re: Biological Technical Assistance
              Group Review, RI and FS for York Oil, August 11,
              1997;  (6) Comments prepared by Mr. Arnold Bernas,
              U.S. EPA, Region II, undated.)

-------
7.0 ENFORCEMENT

7.3 Administrative Orders

P. 700001- Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial
700047 Investigation/Feasibility Study Operable Unit No.
2, In the Matter Of The York Oil Superfund Site,
Aluminum Company of America; Borg-Wagner
Corporation; Bristol Myers Sguibb Company, Inc.;
Chrysler Corporation; General Electric Company;
Crucible Materials Corporation; Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation; Reynolds Metals Company; USAir,
Inc.; United States Department of the Air Force;
United States Department of the Army, United
States Department of Transportation, Respondents,
Index No. II CERCLA-20210, May 20, 1992.

10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

10.3 Public Notices

P. 10.00010- Notice: "The United States Environmental
10.00010 Protection Agency Invites Public Comment on the
Proposed Remedy For The York Oil Site Superfund
Site", prepared by the U.S. EPA, Region II, July
13, 1998.

10.6 Fact Sheets and Press Releases

P. 10.00011- Fact Sheet: York Oil Company, Moria, New York, EPA
10.00013 Region II, March 1998.

10.9 Proposed Plan

P. 10.00014- Report: Superfund Proposed Plan, York Oil Site,
10.00029 Town of Moira, Franklin County, New York, prepared
by U.S EPA, Region II, June 1998.

P. 10.00030- Memorandum to Ms. Mindy Pensak, Acting BTAG
10.00035 Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms. Lisa
Rosman, NOAA CRC, re: York Oil Site, York Oil Site
Superfund Proposed Plan Town of Moira, Franklin
County, New York, April 1998, May 7, 1998.

P. 10.00036- Memorandum to Mr. Joel Singerman, Section Chief,

10.00041 New York Remediation Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II,
from Ms. Mindy J. Pensak, Acting Coordinator,
Biological Technical Assistance Group, U.S. EPA,
Region II, re: Biological Technical Assistance
Group Review Proposed Plan for York Oil, undated.

NOTE: The documents listed on the attached index for the York Oil Administrative Record file for Operable
Unit (OU1) are hereby incorporated by reference into this Administrative Record file for OU2.

-------
APPENDIX IV

STATE IiETTER OF
CONCURRENCE

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Environmental Remediation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-7010
Phone: (518) 457-5861 FAX: (618) 485-8404

SEP 29 1998

Mr. Richard L. Caspe, P.E.
Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway
New York, N.Y. 10007-1866

Dear Mr. Caspe:

RE: York Oil, Operable Unit 2
Site No. 517002

I am pleased to inform you that the Department of Environmental Conservation has reviewed your draft
Record Of Decision for the referenced site and finds it acceptable.

The selected remedy, Alternate SED-2, consists of excavation and/or dredging of lead and PCB
contaminated sediments from the Western Wetland, solidification/stabilization, and disposal under a cap
meeting the reguirements of 6NYCRR Part 360 on the site proper, with Alternative SED-3 as a contingent
sediment alternative for the Northwest Wetland. Additional sediment samples will be collected and ecological
studies will be designed and conducted to assess the ecological threat posed by lead and PCBs in the
Northwestern Wetland and in the "remaining areas" of the Western Wetland and, if appropriate, would delineate
the sediments reguiring remediation.

If you have any guestions, please have your staff contact Mr. Salvatore Ervolina at 518-457-4349.

-------
                               APPENDIX V

                             RESPONSIVENESS
                                SUMMARY

                         RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
                                 FOR THE
                         CONTAMINATION PATHWAYS
                          OPERABLE UNIT OF THE
                         YORK OIL SUPERFUND SITE
                     MOIRA, FRANKLIN COUNTY, NEW YORK
INTRODUCTION
This Responsiveness Summary provides a summary of citizens' comments and concerns received during the public
comment period related to the York Oil site Contamination Pathways remedial investigation and feasibility
study  (RI/FS) and Proposed Plan and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) and the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation's  (NYSDEC's) responses to those comments and concerns,
All comments summarized in this document have been considered in EPA and NYSDEC's final decision in the
selection of a remedial alternative to address the contamination that has emanated or is presently emanating
from the Site Proper  (the source of the contamination).

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES

The Contamination Pathways RI/FS report describes the nature and extent of the contamination at and emanating
from the site, evaluates the risks associated with the site, and identifies and evaluates various remedial
alternatives. This document and the Proposed Plan were made, available to the public in both the
Administrative Record and information repositories maintained at the EPA Docket Room in the Region II New
York City office and at the Moira Town Hall located at North Lawrence Road, Moira, New York. The notice of
availability for these documents was published in the Malone Telegraph on June 24, 1998. A public comment
period was held from June 24, through July 23, 1998. A public meeting was held on July 13, 1998 at the Moira
Town Hall in Moira, New York. At this meeting, representatives from EPA presented the findings of the
Contamination Pathways RI/FS, identified the preferred remedy and the basis for the preference, and answered
guestions from the public about the site and the remedial alternatives under consideration. Approximately 25
people, consisting of residents, representatives of the media, and state and local government officials,
attended the public meeting.

OVERVIEW

The public generally supports the preferred remedy, which includes excavation/dredging the contaminated
sediments from the Western Wetland, followed by solidification/stabilization and on-site disposal. In
addition, the contaminated sediments in the Northwestern Wetland would be similarly remediated if ecological
studies, which would be conducted during the design phase, indicate potential ecological impacts. EPA's
preferred groundwater alternative is natural attenuation, institutional controls to prevent
the installation and use of groundwater wells in the affected area, and long-term monitoring.

During the public comment period, concerns that were expressed by the public relate to historical contaminant
concentrations, project cost, and drinking water. The potentially responsible parties (PRPs) expressed
concerns related to utilizing NYSDEC sediment guidance values to establish sediment cleanup objectives,
analytical methods, long-term monitoring, surface water contamination, and the risk assessment, which are
summarized below.

Summary of Oral Comments and Responses Concerning the York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways Proposed
Plan

The following summarizes the oral comments received by EPA during the public comment period and EPA's
responses.

-------
Historical Contaminant Concentrations

Comment No. 1: A commentor asked whether historical data exist for contaminants in the groundwater and
whether these data indicate that natural attenuation of these contaminants is occurring.

Response No. 1: Groundwater quality data for the site exist back to the early 1980s. Current data show a
400-foot wide and 500-foot long groundwater contaminant plume emanating from the source area (the Site
Proper). The concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the plume--benzene, trichloroethene
(TCE), cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DCE), and toluene—decrease with increasing distance from the Site
Proper. The presence of cis-1,2-DCE, a breakdown product of TCE, suggests that degradation is occurring.

Based upon preliminary groundwater modeling, it has been estimated that the contaminated groundwater
migrating from the Site Proper will naturally attenuate to groundwater standards in 10 years, once the source
of groundwater contamination is addressed through excavating and treating the contaminated soils on the Site
Proper, in combination with the installation of extraction wells at the downgradient boundary of the Site
Proper. Once the source of the groundwater contamination is addressed and the extraction wells are operating,
a long-term groundwater monitoring program will be implemented in order to verify that the level and extent
of contaminants are declining.

Comment No.2: A commentor asked if the rate at which the groundwater contamination is migrating from the site
has changed since it was first identified. The commentor also asked if there was any indication as to the
rate at which the natural attenuation is occurring.

Response No. 2: To date, VOCs have migrated approximately 500 feet south of the Site Proper in the 34 years
since York Oil began operations, indicating a slow rate of migration.

The precise time required for the groundwater to naturally attenuate will have to be determined based on the
results of groundwater monitoring and additional groundwater modeling. Based upon preliminary groundwater
modeling, however, it has been estimated that the contaminated groundwater will naturally attenuate to
groundwater standards in about 10 years, once the source of the groundwater contamination is addressed
through the Site Proper remedy. It is anticipated that construction of the source control remedy
on the Site Proper will commence in the spring of 1999.

Project Cost

Comment No. 3: A commentor asked how much money has been spent on the York Oil site so far.

Response No. 3: To date, approximately $6 million dollars has been spent on various investigations and
studies at the site. It is estimated that the design, construction, and operation, maintenance, and
monitoring related to the Site Proper and Contamination Pathways remedies will be approximately $21 million.
The work at the York Oil site is being financed, predominantly, by the PRPs.

Drinking Water

Comment No. 4: A commentor asked if there are any plans to install a public drinking water system for the
residents of the Town of Moira as part of the remedy.

Response No. 4: Drinking water samples taken from wells in the vicinity of the site do not show any evidence
of contamination. In addition, local groundwater flow is towards the south into the southern wetland, away
from any residences. Since no private wells are threatened by contamination from the site, there are no plans
for the installation of a public water system.

Comment No. 5: A commentor asked if there are plans to continue monitoring the residential drinking water,
wells.

Response No. 5: Residential wells will be periodically monitored as part of the long-term monitoring program.

-------
Summary of Written Comments and Responses Concerning the York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways
Proposed Plan

The following correspondence (see Appendix V-a) was received during the public comment period:

•      Letter to Arnold Bernas,  dated July 22,  1998,  from Bruce Thompson,  de maximis,  inc.,  written on behalf
       of the private party signatories of the York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways Remedial
       Investigation/Feasibility Study Administrative Order on Consent.

The following summarizes the written comments received by EPA during the public comment period and EPA's
responses.

Sediment Screening Levels

Comment No. 6: The commentor expressed concern about the Proposed Plan's indication that NYSDEC's Technical
Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments  (Sediment Guidance) would be the basis for establishing cleanup
objectives for lead and PCBs (31 mg/kg lead and 1 mg/kg PCBs). According to the commentor,  the Sediment
Guidance was prepared as screening criteria with the objective of "establishing eguilibrium
partitioning-based sediment criteria for identifying areas of sediment contamination and providing an initial
assessment of potential adverse impacts." NYSDEC guidance specifically states that the Sediment Guidance does
not identify cleanup objectives.

The Commentor states that the Sediment Guidance recognizes that "risk assessment,  risk management, and the
results of further biological and chemical tests and analysis are vital tools for managing sediment
contamination. Moreover, EPA's National Contingency Plan recommends against using screening criteria as
cleanup standards under the circumstances present at the York Oil site. There are currently no promulgated
federal or state standards for contaminant levels in sediments. The Sediment Guidance is used on a
"To-Be-Considered" basis.

The Commentor states further that the Sediment Guidance establishes criteria for metals using the
"effects-based" approach of the Ontario Ministry of the Environment "because of the inability to predict
biological effects from metals concentrations in sediments." The guidance discusses limitations to the
effects-based approach, stating: "Once a site is found to be contaminated with metals, further studies are
necessary to guantify risk and determine if remediation actions are necessary. Remediation should not be
based solely on exceedences of these criteria."

The commentor suggests that the Record of Decision (ROD) direct the delineation of Western and Northwestern
Wetland sediments exceeding Sediment Guidance screening criteria, and further site-specific sediment testing
as outlined in the Sediment Guidance to determine appropriate cleanup levels for lead and PCBs. If sediment
biological toxicity testing is to be performed, that testing should also be performed on sediment samples
collected from background locations, so that non-site related impacts can be discerned.
This information can then be applied to York Oil Contamination Pathways sediments to support an appropriate
risk management decision that balances actual ecological risk with the unavoidable impacts of remediation.

Response No. 6: The Proposed Plan called for excavating and/or dredging sediments exceeding NYSDEC's Sediment
Guidance values for lead and PCBs of 31 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg, respectively. After considering the comment, while
EPA agrees that using a 31 mg/kg lead sediment screening value as a cleanup objective for the York Oil site
is inappropriate, EPA believes that the 1 mg/kg cleanup objective for PCBs is justified. At New York State
Superfund sites, EPA has consistently used 1 mg/kg PCBS as a cleanup objective for sediments. However, in
response to the concerns that were raised, the remedy in the ROD as it relates to both lead and PCBs has been
modified as is noted below.

In the Western Wetlands, the most significant potential ecological risk is associated with the elevated PCB
and lead concentrations in the sediments located to the immediate west and northwest of the Site Proper
Western Drainage Area and in the drainage channel leading to North Lawrence Road.  These sediments, which
contain approximately 96% of the PCBs in the Western Wetlands, will be removed. Excavation and/or dredging of
additional sediments in Ithe Western Wetlands will be contingent upon the results of design-phase sediment

-------
sampling to more accurately define the extent of contamination and the existence of any "channelized"
contaminants, and design-phase studies to determine whether lead and/or PCBs in these sediments pose an
ecological threat. Those sediments which exceed 1 mg/kg PCBs would be removed; those sediments which are
otherwise determined to pose a substantial ecological threat would also be removed.

Excavation and/or dredging of contaminated sediments in the Northwestern Wetland will be contingent upon the
results of studies which will be conducted during the design phase to determine whether these sediments pose
an ecological threat.

The studies that are contemplated will include the measurement of lead and PCB toxicity.

Measurement of lead toxicity would be based on laboratory sediment toxicity tests using sediments collected
in the field. It is anticipated that two test organisms (e.g., Hyalella and Limnodrilus or Chironomus) would
be run side-by-side for each sample location following standard EPA or ASTM sediment toxicity testing
methods. The tests would be for survival and growth, with a minimum 14-day duration. Sediment sampling in the
field would include collection and homogenization of an adeguate volume of sediment for both the toxicity
tests and the reguired accompanying analytical testing. Analysis of the
sediment would include full Target Compound List/Target Analyte List, pesticides/PCB, total organic carbon,
pH, grain size, and oil and grease. Sediments from a local reference wetland unimpacted by the Site would be
collected with Site sediments to assist in interpreting any potential confounding regional sediment or water
guality factors.

Measurement of lead and PCB bioaccumulation would be based on tissue residue analysis using biota collected
in the field (such as frogs, crayfish, large macroinvertebrates, or bottom dwelling or foraging fish). Tissue
analysis for lead, PCBs, and lipids would be conducted. The tissue residue concentrations would be used as
the assumed food source for modeling risk to both aguatic foraging avian and mammalian receptors (such as the
green-backed heron and mink, respectively) to address food chain threats.
Based on the modeling of the lead and PCB tissue residue concentrations, the prediction of a significant
reduction in survival or growth or a significant impact to higher trophic level receptors would indicate the
need to remediate the sediments.

Analytical Methods

Comment No. 7: The Simultaneously Extracted Metal (SEM)/Acid Volatile Sulfide (AVS) approach should be used
to assess the significance of metals in Northwestern and Western Wetlands sediments, as it has been
recognized as the best currently-available technigue to guantify the actual levels of metals that may be
biologically available in sediments. This approach is appropriate due to the recognized variability of
toxicity with respect to sediment contaminant concentrations and the impact of remediation on sensitive
wetland habitats.

Response No. 7: Since SEM/AVS can only guantify the levels of metals that may be biologically available in
the sediments, using this approach would reguire modeling (estimating) the toxicity of the contaminants in
the sediments. The studies that are described in Response No. 6 above, on the other hand, will not only
provide a measurement of the bioavailability of the contaminants in the sediments, but will guantify their
toxicity.

Long-Term Monitoring

Comment No. 8: The commentor suggested that long-term monitoring of surface water, sediment, and biota within
the Southern Wetland and the wetlands to the northwest of the Northwest Wetland are not necessary, since the
levels of contaminants present in these areas do not pose a significant human health or ecological risk. They
also guestioned why post-remediation monitoring of sediments and biota in the Western Wetlands is necessary,
proposed that semi-annual long-term monitoring of groundwater should only be for VOCs, suggested that
statistical analysis of the groundwater sampling results be employed to discern trends, and recommended that
the results of the monitoring and site conditions be assessed at least once every five years to determine
whether the long-term monitoring should continue.

-------
Response No. 8: Since the levels of contaminants present in the Southern Wetland and the wetlands to the
northwest of the Northwest Wetland do not pose a significant human health or ecological risk, long-term
monitoring will not be conducted in these areas, as was suggested.

Short-term post-remediation monitoring of Western Wetland sediments, surface water, and biota will be
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy. If Alternative SED-3, the contingent alternative, is
implemented, short-term post-remediation monitoring of Northwestern Wetland sediments, surface water, and
biota would be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedy in this area. If Alternative SED-3, the
contingent alternative, is not implemented, since contaminants would be left in place in the Northwest
Wetland, long-term monitoring in this area would be performed. This monitoring would include sediment
sampling to determine if the residual contaminant concentrations are decreasing and studies to assess the
risk to receptors.

The specific details of the groundwater monitoring program (such as the parameters and freguency) will be
developed during the design phase.

The results of the monitoring and site conditions will be assessed at least once every five years to
determine whether additional remedial actions are necessary, whether the monitoring should continue, and/or
whether the parameters and/or freguency of the monitoring should be adjusted.

Source of Mercury and Phenols

Comment No. 9: The Proposed Plan inappropriately characterizes the Site Proper and Contamination Pathways
sediments as the "likely source" of downstream detections of mercury and total phenols in Lawrence Brook
surface water. Mercury and total phenols were not detected in surface water samples collected from the
drainage ditch within the Site Proper or in surface water samples collected between the Site Proper and the
downgradient detections. Therefore, no relationship between the downgradient detections and the site has been
established. The Proposed Plan creates a speculative link based on Site Proper and Contamination Pathways
sediment data, yet fails to mention that mercury was also detected in sediment samples collected from
upstream background locations. The Proposed Plan also fails to discuss the inherent inadeguacy of the total
phenols analytical method. Total phenols colorimetric analysis does not discriminate between
naturally-occurring and anthropogenic phenolic compounds. Phenolic macromolecules are naturally formed in
wetlands as the main component of humus, the organic decay product of plant tissue and animal waste.

Response No. 9: Elevated levels of mercury and total phenols were detected in samples collected in Lawrence
Brook at 0.22 Ig/1 (collected approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the Site Proper) and 21 Ig/1 (collected
approximately 2.7 miles downstream of the Site Proper), respectively. On-site disposal activities are a
possible source of these two constituents in the downstream surface water samples, since elevated
concentrations were observed in Site Proper and Contamination Pathways sediments.

EPA acknowledges that phenolic compounds are produced naturally under certain conditions and that
colorimetric measurement of total phenolics would not differentiate between natural and anthropogenic
phenolics. Regardless of the source of the mercury and phenols, the levels of contaminants that are present
in the surface waters do not pose a significant human health or ecological risk.

Risk Assessment

Comment No. 10: The conservative approach taken in the risk assessment resulted in calculated potential
ecological risks to a wide variety of biota. It should be noted that the ecological risk assessment procedure
used by EPA is intentionally conservative and tends to overestimate risk rather than underestimate risk to
receptor species. Notwithstanding the fact that the risk assessment concluded that the levels of PCBs and
lead in the Western Wetland sediments pose an ecological threat in that wetland and that the levels of lead
present in Northwestern Wetland sediments exceed NYSDEC's screening values and, therefore, may pose an
ecological risk, the RI concluded that these two wetlands appear to be healthy, functioning ecosystems with
active wildlife populations.

-------
Response No. 10: The conclusion in the RI report that the wetlands appear to be healthy and functioning and
contain active wildlife populations is based on just that, their appearance. Outward appearances,  may,
however, be misleading. The flora and fauna may appear healthy,  but they or the animals that prey on them
could very likely be adversely impacted by the contamination. For example,  a fish would not necessarily
demonstrate any visible indications that it is accumulating PCBs, yet there could be a bioaccumulative impact
on a predator. This is why EPA intentionally uses conservative assumptions  in its risk assessments which tend
to overestimate the risk to the receptor species.

-------
                              APPENDIX V-a

                          RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

            LETTER SUBMITTED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD



July 22, 1998

Arnold Bernas, Remedial Project Manager
Western New York Superfund Section I
Emergency and Removal Response Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
390 Broadway
New York, NY 10007

Subject:   Comments on the Proposed Plan for the York Oil Site, Operable Unit 2

Dear Mr. Bernas:

The following comments on the Proposed Plan for the York Oil Site, Operable Unit 2  (OU2) are submitted on
behalf of the signatories of the York Oil Superfund Site Contamination Pathways Remedial Investigation
(RI)/Feasibility Study (FS) Participation Agreement (the Group). The Group generally supports the remedy
proposed for the Site by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) . However, the Group has several
concerns relative to the Proposed Plan. The Group's specific comments on the Proposed Plan are as follows:

1.   The Proposed Plan Inappropriately Uses Now York State Department of Environmental Conservation
     (NYSDEC) "Technical Guidance for Screening Contaminated Sediments"  (Sediment Guidance), November
     1993, to Establish Clean-Up Objectives.

The Proposed Plan inappropriately characterizes the Sediment Guidance "screening levels" as "NYSDEC's
sediment cleanup objectives." This error is compounded when the Proposed Plan selects those "screening
levels" as remediation standards. Footnote 4 (page 9)  and the Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Reguirements (ARARs) section (page 12) of the Proposed Plan incorrectly state that NYSDEC's
"sediment clean-up objectives" are specified in the Sediment Guidance. The Sediment Guidance was prepared
with the objective of, "establishing Eguilibrium Partitioning  (EP)-based sediment criteria for identifying
areas of sediment contamination, and providing an initial assessment of potential adverse impacts."

Allentown, PA D Clinton,  NJ D Danville, IN D Knoxville, TN D Livonia, MI D Palo Alto, CA D Riverside, CA
St. Charles, IL D Sarasota, FL D Seattle, WA D Simsbury, CT D Waltham, MA D Wayne, PA

-------


NYSDEC guidance specifically states that the Sediment Guidance does not identify cleanup objectives.

The Sediment Guidance recognizes that: "Risk assessment, risk management, and the results of further
biological and chemical tests and analysis are vital tools for managing sediment contamination. To view
sediment criteria in a one-dimensional, go/no go context is to miss potential opportunities for resource
utilization through appropriately identified and managed risk." NYSDEC's April 1997 "Supplemental Guidance
for Using Sediment Criteria at Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites" states: "The sediment criteria are not cleanup
standards." This guidance then directs "If sediment criteria are exceeded, additional site-specific
information may need to be gathered to determine the extent to which adverse impacts, if any, are occurring."

Moreover, EPA's National Contingency Plan (NCP)  recommends against using such screening criteria as cleanup
standards under the circumstances present at the York Oil Site. There are currently no promulgated Federal or
State standards for contaminant levels in sediments. The Sediment Guidance was therefore used in the FS on a
"To-Be-Considered" (TBC) basis. The preamble to the final NCP  (55 FR. 8744, March 8, 1990)  discusses EPA's
expectations regarding how TBCs will be used, and describes three types of TBCs: health effects information
with a high degree of credibility, technical information on how to perform or evaluate site investigations or
remedial actions, and policy. The Sediment Guidance incorporates both technical guidance and NYSDEC policy.
The NCP preamble states clearly that "TBCs should not be reguired as cleanup standards in the rule, because
they are, by definition, generally neither promulgated nor enforceable,  so they do not have the same status
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation and Liability Act as do ARARs." Accordingly, the
Group believes that both state and federal guidance oppose the use of the Sediment Guidance screening levels
as cleanup standards and that they should not be used as cleanup standards at the York Oil Site.

In any event, the approach used to establish screening criteria is inconsistent with site conditions. The
Sediment Guidance relies on the use of the EP approach to derive criteria for non-polar organic compounds
such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),  and outlines several limitations to the EP approach. Sediment
Guidance M IV.D.3 notes: "EP-based criteria should only be derived for sediments with organic carbon
fractions between approximately 0.2 - 12% (EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), 1992)." The RI  (Blasland,  Bouck
& Lee, Inc., April 1996, final revision March 1998), documented an average Total Organic Carbon (TOG)
fraction of 19.7% across twenty-eight sediment samples, which included four within OU1 and two duplicates.
Excluding the OU1 samples and duplicates,  the average TOG level in OU2 sediment samples
was 13.8%.



The Sediment Guidance establishes criteria for metals using the "effects-based" approach of the Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, "because of the inability to predict biological effects from metals
concentrations in sediments." It notes that "The toxicity of metals are dependent on many environmental
conditions and are difficult at best to predict consistently." The effects-based approach uses field and
laboratory data on the co-occurrence of benthic animals and contaminants to predict potential adverse
effects. The screening criteria are divided into two levels of protection, predicting the lowest and severe
effects levels, respectively, based on the total metals concentration in the sediment. The Sediment Guidance
recognizes that many of the lowest effects levels are "lower than mean background locations," and suggests
that remediation would likely be reguired "if severe effects levels are exceeded in significant portions of
the ecosystem of concern." Severe effects levels for lead of 110 mg/kg or 250 mg/kg are listed in the two
references cited in the Sediment Guidance. The Sediment Guidance discusses limitations to the effects-based
approach in M VI.C.I, which states:  "Once a site is found to be contaminated with metals, further studies are
necessary to guantify risk and determine if remediation actions are necessary. Remediation should not be
based solely on exceedences of these criteria." The Proposed Plan directs use of the screening criteria
lowest effects level of 31 mg/kg of total lead as a clean-up standard for Western Wetland sediment. This
approach neglects the inherent uncertainty recognized in the Sediment Guidance, and does not allow for a
site-specific determination of actual biologically available metals to set the clean-up level.

The Proposed Plan directs, without any of the additional investigation suggested in the Sediment Guidance,
excavation of Western Wetlands sediments exceeding screening criteria. On the other hand, the Proposed Plan

-------
acknowledges that Northwestern Wetlands sediment contamination exceeding screening criteria should be subject
to additional testing and the risk management process contemplated in the Sediment Guidance. The Group agrees
that additional site-specific data should be collected to support a risk management decision for OU2
sediment. Additional data needs are discussed below. The Group suggests that the Proposed Plan recognize and
consistently apply the approach directed when the Sediment Guidance states: "Comprehensive sediment testing
and risk management are necessary to establish when remediation is appropriate and what final contaminant
concentrations the sediment remediation efforts should achieve."



The Group suggests that the Record of Decision  (ROD) direct the delineation of Western and Northwestern
Wetland sediments exceeding Sediment Guidance screening criteria, and further site-specific sediment testing
as outlined in the Sediment Guidance to determine appropriate clean-up levels for lead and PCBs.  If sediment
biological toxicity testing is to be performed, that testing should also be performed on sediment samples
collected from background locations, so that non-site related impacts can be discerned. This information can
then be applied to York Oil OU2 sediments to support an appropriate risk management decision that balances
actual ecological risk with the unavoidable impacts of remediation.

2.   The Simultaneously Extracted Metal (SEM)/Acid Volatile Sulfide (AVS) Approach Should be Used to
     Assess the Significance of Metals In Northwestern and Western Wetlands Sediments

EPA's SAB stated in its September 1995 "Review of the Agency's Approach for Developing Sediment Criteria for
Five Metals" that the best technology identified to date for assessing the significance of five metals
(cadmium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc)  in sediments is the SEM procedure." The SEM approach uses the
difference between the SEM and AVS  (a binding factor for metals in sediments)  to guantify the amount of
metals that may be biologically available. The Group suggests that future sediment testing use the SEM/AVS
approach, as it has been recognized as the best currently available technigue to guantify the actual levels
of metals that may be biologically available in sediments. This approach is appropriate due to the recognized
variability of toxicity with respect to sediment contaminant concentrations, and the impact of remediation on
sensitive wetland habitats. Similar to the AVS effect for metals, higher TOG levels generally seguester more
non-polar contaminants, reducing bioavailability. The EPA SAB (1992),  identified a range of concentrations up
to five times an EP-derived sediment criterion as a "grey" area, where observable impacts may or may not
occur. This is a further indication of why the Sediment Guidance establishes "screening criteria" and not
cleanup levels, and supports the need for additional characterization prior to remediation to determine if
actual adverse impacts exist due to site-related contamination in OU2 sediments.



3.   Level of Detail and Scope of Future Monitoring

Predesign, remedial, and long-term monitoring work for York Oil OU2 will be directed in the ROD and detailed
in legal agreements between the EPA and the Potentially Responsible Parties. The work will then be specified
in predesign investigation work  plans, remedial design reports and long-term operations and maintenance
plans, which will be subject to Agency review and approval. The rationale behind some of the items discussed
in the Proposed Plan is not apparent, and the costs would be significant, particularly for long-term
monitoring over 30 years or more. These items include the following:

a.   Annual post-remediation long-term monitoring of surface water, sediment and biota within the Southern
     Wetland and the wetlands northwest of the Northwest Wetland should not be reguired, as the Proposed
     Plan notes: "the levels of contaminants present in sediments in the depositional areas of the
     Southern Wetland do not pose a significant human health or ecological risk." The distant northwest
     wetlands are not even discussed in the risk summary, as the levels of contaminants were, near or at
     background. Accordingly, no remediation is needed within the Southern Wetland or the wetlands
     northwest of the Northwest Wetland,  and long-term monitoring should also not be needed in these
     areas.

b.   No long-term monitoring of surface water should be specified, as the Proposed Plan notes that: "the

-------
levels of contaminants that are present in surface water do not pose a significant human health or
ecological risk."

C. The need for annual post-remediation monitoring of sediments and biota in the Western Wetlands is
unclear. The only monitoring in this area since the 1980 closure of York Oil occurred during the OU2
RI, and revealed no significant impacts to biota due to pre-remedy sediment contamination. The need
for annual post-remediation monitoring is unclear, as remediation will remove current sources of
contamination.

d. While the Group agrees that characterization of natural attenuation parameters in groundwater is
appropriate, semi-annual long-term monitoring of groundwater should only be for VOCs. The OU2 RI
reported a mean value of 3.2 x 10 4 cm/sec for overburden hydraulic conductivity and a high value of
0.018 (unitless) for hydraulic gradient. Using an effective porosity value of 25%, a representative
groundwater velocity would be 24 feet/year. This suggests that contaminant concentrations are
unlikely to change rapidly, even after remediation of the Site Proper (OU1) source areas. Future
review of groundwater data should incorporate statistical analysis to discern trends.

The Group recommends that the ROD outline the general scope of the predesign investigation and indicate such
procedures will be detailed following issuance of the ROD. Similarly, the ROD should indicate long-term
monitoring will be conducted periodically following remediation, based on a long-term monitoring plan to be
prepared as part of the remedial effort and that site conditions and the level of monitoring will be
reassessed no less freguently than every five years until a decision is made that no further monitoring or
other action is warranted.

4. Other issues

a. The Proposed Plan inappropriately characterizes the OU1 and Contamination Pathways (OU2) sediments as
the "likely source" of downstream detections of mercury and total phenols in Lawrence Brook surface
water. Mercury and total phenols were not detected in surface water samples collected from the
drainage ditch within OU1. Mercury and total phenols were also not detected in OU2 surface water
samples collected between OU1 and the downgradient detections, therefore no relationship between the
downgradient detections and the site was established in the RI. The Proposed Plan creates a
speculative link based on OU1 and OU2 sediment data, yet fails to mention that mercury was also
detected in sediment samples collected from upstream background locations. The Proposed Plan also
fails to discuss the inherent inadeguacy of the total phenols analytical method. As stated in the RI,
total phenols colorimetric analysis does not discriminate between naturally-occurring and
anthropogenic phenolic compounds. Phenolic compounds are defined as any compound possessing an
aromatic ring with an -OH functional group. Phenolic macromolecules are naturally formed in wetlands
as the main component of humus, the organic decay product of plant tissue and animal waste. Humic and
fulvic acids are the soluble forms of this organic matter. Total phenols were detected in Lawrence
Brook where wetlands drain into Lawrence Brook. The unsupported link to York Oil of the only
detections of mercury and total phenols in surface water should be removed from Footnote 3 (page 5)
of the Proposed Plan.

b. The Ecological Risk Assessment summary section of the Proposed Plan should incorporate a discussion
of the uncertainty analysis conducted as part of that assessment. The conservative approach taken in
the assessment resulted in calculated potential ecological risks to a wide variety of biota and
plants. The discussion in the Proposed Plan should mention that the ecological risk assessment
procedure used by EPA is intentionally conservative, and tends to overestimate risk rather than
underestimate risk to receptor species. This statement was made in the risk assessment, and is
supported by the RI conclusion the OU2 wetlands appear to be healthy, functioning ecosystems with
active wildlife populations.

-------






Please call me at (860)  651-1196 if you have any questions.

-------
  
 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6    YORK OIL SITE, Operable Unit # 2 Contamination Pathways
 9            TOWN OF MOIRA, FRANKLIN COUNTY, NEW YORK

10

11

12                         PUBLIC MEETING

13

14

15               PRESENTATION OF THE PROPOSED PLAN

16

17

18                         July 13, 1998

19

20
                                            ORIGINAL
21

22

23


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315) 379-0205

-------
            York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
            Public Meeting,  7/13/98
            Presentation

 1          MR.  SINGERMAN:  I guess we'll get started.

 2     First,  I  welcome you to the York Oil Site

 3     public meeting.

 4          First of all,  I'm Joel Singerman with EPA,

 5     the removal program.  This is Arnold Bernas.

 6     He's the  project manager for the site. And

 7     also from the EPA,  we have Lou DiGuardia and

 8     Curtis Clifford from the removal program. We

 9     also have John Sheehan from the Department of

10     health and Dan Steenberge from the DEC regional

11     office.

12          Before we start the meeting, first of all

13     let me call your attention to the handouts in

14     the back. If you haven't picked one up, they

15     are the blue things.  They look like this.

16     There's also a sign-in sheet. We would ask you

17     to sign it, this way you can make sure that

18     you're on our mailing list.

19          The  purpose of tonight's meeting is to

20     discuss the results of the contamination

21     pathways  remedial investigation and feasibility

22     study,  and our preferred remedy for the site.

23          The  remedial investigation and feasibility


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1     study,  proposed plan,  and other supporting

 2     documents,  are available in the repositories

 3     identified on page two of the proposed plan,

 4     this document here.  And I believe the

 5     repository is in this  building.

 6          If after tonight's meeting,  you think of

 7     some questions or have some comments that were

 8     not discussed tonight, you can either call

 9     Arnie.  His phone number is on here,  or you can

10     fax, write or e-mail the comments directly to

11     him. All his addresses and whatever are also

12     in here. But we ask that you submit comments

13     or contact him by July 23rd, the end of the

14     public comment period.

15          Tonight we intend to make several very

16     short presentations, and then we'll spend the

17     rest of the time answering any guestions you

18     might have. Therefore, we ask that you hold

19     your guestions to the  end of the presentations.

20          Several well-publicized toxic waste

21     disposal disasters in  the late 1970's, among

22     them Love Canal, shocked the nation and

23     highlighted the fact that past waste disposal


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     practices were not safe.

 2          In 1980,  congress responded with the

 3     creation of the comprehensive environmental

 4     Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, more

 5     commonly known as Superfund.

 6          The Superfund law provided a federal fund

 7     to be used in the cleanup of uncontrolled and

 8     abandoned hazardous waste sites,  and for

 9     responding to emergencies involving hazardous

10     substance.

11          In addition, EPA was empowered to compel

12     those parties that are responsible for these

13     sites to pay for or to conduct the necessary

14     response actions.

15          The work to remediate a site is very

16     complex and takes place in many stages.

17          Once a site is discovered,  an inspection

18     further identifies the hazards and

19     contaminants.

20          A determination is then made whether to

21     include the site on the Superfund national

22     priorities list,  a list of the nation's  worst

23     hazardous waste sites.


    Mary Beth Burnham,  Court Reporter (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1          Sites are placed on the national

 2     priorities list primarily on the basis of their

 3     scores obtained from the hazard ranking system,

 4     which evaluates the risk -- the relative risks

 5     posed by a site.

 6          Only sites on the national priorities list

 7     are eligible for remedial work financed by

 8     Superfund.

 9          The selection of a remedy for a Superfund

10     site is based on two studies: a remedial

11     investigation and a feasibility study.

12          The purpose of the remedial investigation

13     is to determine the nature and extent of the

14     contamination at and emanating from the site

15     and the associated risk to public health and

16     the environment.

17          The purpose of the feasibility study is to

18     identify and evaluate remedial alternatives to

19     address contamination problems.

20          Public participation is a key feature of

21     the Superfund process.

22          The public is invited to participate in

23     all of the decisions that will be made at a


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     site through the community relations program.

 2          Town meetings, such as this one,  are held,

 3     as necessary,  to keep the public informed about

 4     what has happened and what is planned for a

 5     site.

 6          The public is also given the opportunity

 7     to comment on the results of the investigations

 8     and the studies conducted at the site and the

 9     proposed remedy.

10          After considering public comments on the

11     proposed remedy, a Record of Decision is

12     signed.

13          A Record of Decision documents why a

14     particular remedy was chosen.

15          The site then enters the design phase,

16     where the plans and specifications associated

17     with the selected remedy are prepared.

18          The remedy action, which follow is the

19     actual hands-on work that cleans up the site.

20          Following the completion of the remedial

21     action, the site is monitored, if necessary.

22     Once the site no longer poses a threat to

23     public health or the environment, it may be


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     deleted from the Superfund national priorities

 2     list.

 3          Now Arnie will talk about some of the

 4     background about the site.

 5          MR. BERNAS: Okay,  York Oil Site is

 6     composed of a two parts. The site proper,

 7     which is the area just outside here

 8     (indicating) is also referred to O.U.  One,

 9     Operable Unit Number One.  And I'll speak a

10     little bit about that during this presentation.

11     The rest of this area surrounding the site is

12     really the main subject of tonight's meeting.

13     It's called the contamination pathway. And

14     it's also referred to as Operable Unit Number

15     Two.

16          A little bit about the background and

17     status of the whole site.  Now, just to review

18     the history of York Oil briefly from,  1964 to

19     1977 York Oil Company collected waste oil  from

20     surrounding areas and processed it to resell

21     it. Also during that period of time, when  that

22     operation stopped,  oil was just collected  and

23     sold as is for dusting the roads.


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1          Now,  during the time of operation

 2     unfortunately the contaminants in the oil got

 3     into the sediment,  soil,  ground and surface

 4     water on the site proper. The nature of the

 5     contaminants were P.C.B.s,  lead,  also organic

 6     compounds,  arsenic, and many others compounds,

 7     but the major ones are the ones that I just

 8     mentioned.

 9          Now,  when this problem was discovered by

10     the State in 1979 the EPA was called into

11     action and we started a series of removal

12     actions.

13          And as you may recall from Joel's

14     presentation, the Superfund works in two parts.

15     one part is removal, and that's short-term

16     action to protect the health and safety of the

17     public and the environment. And the other

18     activity is remediation,  which is more complex

19     because it involves coming up with the final

20     remedy and trying to get the responsible

21     parties to pay for the clean up.  So while this

22     second activity goes on,  the removal actions

23     guickly move in to take care of the problems.


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1          Now as you can see,  in 1980, the first

 2     major removal action took place and the

 3     contaminated soil was excavated and mixed with

 4     fly ash (phonetic spelling)  and that mountain

 5     is the result of that back there. Oil was

 6     collected and stored in tanks and trenches were

 7     put in to help prevent the oil from spilling

 8     into the surrounding area.

 9          In 1983, further actions -- further

10     removal actions took place,  more oil was

11     collected. A filter fence system was installed

12     and oil booms were put in to soak up the oil

13     that was seeping out of the ground.

14          In 1992, some of the tanks were found to

15     be leaking, so the oil was transferred into

16     other tanks and drums.

17          In 1994, the oil and P.C.B. was removed

18     from the tanks and taken off site for

19     treatment. There are special incinerators in

20     Texas that burn some of these P.C.B. oil

21     mixtures,  and that was done. And also many of

22     the drums containing contaminated material were

23     also removed from the site at that time.


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1          And in 1995,  an interceptor trench was

 2     installed near the southern wetland in hopes of

 3     intercepting any oil that might flow in that

 4     direction when the water table was high.

 5          A remedial investigation and feasibility

 6     study for the source area,  the O.U. One area,

 7     was completed by New York State and EPA in

 8     1987. A Record of Decision,  which outlines the

 9     remedy for the first operable unit, the source,

10     was completed in 1988.

11          Now the Record of Decision for the source

12     basically had the remedy being excavation of

13     all the contaminated soils and mixing it with

14     cement. That process is call solidification.

15     The solidified material was then to be reburied

16     under the site and on top of that we would put

17     a special kind of cap conforming to New York

18     State standards. So, the cementing of the

19     excavated soils would make it almost impossible

20      for the contaminants to migrate.  And as an

21      extra step,  putting this special cap would also

22      prevent water from having any effect on

23     leaching out the contaminants.


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1          Also in its Record of Decision some of the

 2     things that were done in the removal were also

 3     mentioned,  like taking away the oil and the

 4     tanks and the drums that were on the site.

 5     That part of the remedial effort action was

 6     done in the removal action.

 7          However, one of the objectives of the

 8     Superfund program is to identify responsible

 9     parties and get them to pay for the clean up.

10     Now when that's done the EPA, the Department of

11     Justice, and the responsible parties entered

12     into an agreement,  which is legally called a

13     consent decree.  When this consent decree

14     finished it's given to the federal judge, and

15     then it's sent out for comment, and then it's

16     entered into the Record. And that's when the

17     design and construction of the remedy can

18     start.

19          Now, I'm sure you can see that 1989 to

20     1996 is seven years. That's a long time. The

21     seven years resulted from the fact that in the

22     York Oil situation we had seventy-five

23     responsible parties, many of which agreed on


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     their responsibility and share,  but some did

 2     not agree,  as is their right.  They did not

 3     agree with the share or they did not feel they

 4     were — had any responsibility.

 5          So, in an effort to be fair,  we entered

 6     negotiations. On two occasions we came very

 7     close to completing the consent decree,  but at

 8     the last minute something happened and the

 9     consent decree had to be withdrawn. This is

10     the way the process works.

11          Finally, in August 1996,  we finally got it

12     done. The consent decree was completed.  All

13     the parties agreed on their share. And

14     incidentally, since we could not recover the

15     total cost. We agreed that the Superfund would

16     pay fifteen percent of the cost and that the

17     responsible parties would pay eighty-five

18     percent. So we gave a little to get this thing

19     done.

20          Now, at this time as soon as the consent

21     decree was entered, we began the remedial

22     design for the first operable unit. That's in

23     progress right now. And we expect it to be


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     completed at the end of this year.

 2          Now while we're discussing the first

 3     operable unit,  I would like to present David

 4     Babcock from Parsons Engineering, who was hired

 5     by the responsible parties to do the design and

 6     the construction for the first operable unit.

 7     And Dave has few illustrations of hopefully

 8     what the York Oil site will look like after we

 9     complete the remedy. Dave.

10          MR. BABCOCK: Thank you. I want to bring

11     these out here so you can see them a little

12     bit.

13          This is cross section -- how shall I

14     explain it easily? The site, this is like if

15     you're up in an airplane or a helicopter

16     looking down on the site. After the design is

17     complete and the remedial action is complete

18     there will be a larger mound, if you will, or  a

19     hill cut there where it is now. And this the

20     footprint of the area all within the existing

21     fence that's out there right now.

22          And this is a cross section cutting

23     through that hill or that mound. And feel free


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     to come up and look at it after the meeting if

 2     you'd like.  There are various parts of the

 3     cross-section.  And all of the contaminated

 4     materials will be up above the water table.

 5     So,  it won't be in contact with the groundwater

 6     at all.

 7          And then just to give you a sense for what

 8     the site will look like,  this is a rendition,

 9     and I know it looks like kind of pretty,  but we

10     wanted to try to give a sense for what the site

11     would look like. This is North Lawrence Road

12     here, if you're driving up,  okay toward Savage

13     Road, for example. And if you're just driving

14     by,  this is  pretty much what it would look

15     like. This is called the ground view rendition

16     into the site.  And, again, feel free to come

17     up after the meeting and have a look at these.

18          And this is the type of view, but it's a

19     little bit -- it's up at about a ten degree

20     angle, if you will, from the ground. So if

21     you're up in a low flying helicopter, this is

22     what you would see. It kind of gives you a

23     sense for the breadth of the site.


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1          One item that's not shown here that Arnold

 2     asked me to mention is there will be a small

 3     building for groundwater treatment, which is

 4     part of the remedy. That will be behind the

 5     capped area here.

 6          So again feel free to come look at these

 7     after the meeting, but this is just to give you

 8     a sense for what the site will look like after

 9     the construction.

10          MR. BERNAS: Okay, thank you, Dave.

11          Okay, now we start to move on to the main

12     subject of tonight, the contamination pathway.

13     Again, as Joel explained the procedure, on the

14     administrative order on consent to do the

15     remedial investigation and feasibility study

16     for the second unit contamination pathway was

17     agreed to in 1992. And from 1992 until now,

18     the process of the remedial investigation and

19     feasibility study for the second operable unit

20     has been in progress and it culminates in

21     tonight's meeting where we present the public

22     with the proposed plan.

23          Now at this time, I would like to


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     introduce Bruce Thompson who works for a

 2     consultant employed by the responsible parties.

 3     Bruce and his contractors performed the field

 4     work to do the remedial investigation and

 5     feasibility study.  And I've asked Bruce this

 6     evening to guickly review the major findings of

 7     the remedial investigation and the feasibility

 8     study.

 9          MR. THOMPSON:  Good evening.  My goal here

10     is to summarize in about fifteen or twenty

11     minutes six years of work and about one point

12     eight million dollars of investment in what

13     went on. And while the blue fact sheet

14     summarizes all the work and basically the

15     highlights, when we talk about what's in your

16     public record here's the -- these are the two

17     sides of reports with all the various figures

18     and text and everything else that one went in

19     to what we did.

20          MR. BERNAS: I might mention, those

21     reports are in the repository here.

22          MR. THOMPSON:  If you want to get in the

23     nitty-gritty details, the hydrogeology, and


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     everything else,  please do.  What my goal here

 2     is to just summarize and give you an overview.

 3     If you have guestions as we go through it,

 4     please go ahead and ask them.

 5          So the goal  that -- we started with as has

 6     been described Operable Unit One,  the site

 7     proper, which on  this scale is this little

 8     slice down here.  And the investigation

 9     objectives for us was to look at where

10     typically waste oil from this site could have

11     gone to, and to assess whether that that waste

12     oil or the contaminants that were contained

13     into it imposed any threat to human health and

14     the environment.

15          And just to  give you a view of how far out

16     we went, if this  is the site, this area is

17     called the southern wetland and we will talk

18     about it little bit more. There's a western

19     wetland. Then we  kept going right down the

20     drainage pathway  all the way until they hit

21     Lawrence Brook. And then as far as down as to

22     where Lawrence Brook goes into the Deer River.

23          The total area that we looked at is


     Mary Beth Burnham,  Court Reporter (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     somewhere around five hundred acres.  We

 2     started out by taking aerial photographs,

 3     making base maps,  picking out where we were

 4     going investigate. And this would be described

 5     here as surface feature survey,  basically

 6     trying to set up maps to figure out where we

 7     needed to go to look further.

 8          We looked at just basically how is the

 9     area used.  And we'll have to apologize. We

10     don't live here. We have to go in and look at

11     records and figure out what areas around here

12     are farming, where do people live,  where are

13     people using groundwater for drinking. And

14     that's what the population land we survey.

15          We do a cultural resources evaluation,

16     which at this site what we identified as,  you

17     know, it's basically looking for archeological

18     interest. At this site there is an old milk

19     production barn basically right next to

20     Operable Unit One, but -- that's a typical part

21     of your investigation to see if there is

22     anything that you might end up disturbing

23     through remedial efforts.


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1          Surface water, just by indication,  we

 2     looked at eight different locations,  came in in

 3     the spring and back again in the fall so we

 4     could see what kind of contaminants might be in

 5     surface water,  you know, right after snow melt

 6     and then again in the fall when it's at low

 7     water.

 8          We -- in the vast -- as I'm sure you

 9     understand living here, that most of the area

10     surrounding the site is wetland. So,  we took a

11     grand total of almost ninety-five different

12     samples of sediment. And then we looked at it

13     for basically every kind of chemical that we

14     can find in analysis, that's volatile

15     compounds; which are solvents, P.C.B.s,

16     pesticides, metals basically the hold gamut.

17     We also, in the same area, we looked at surface

18     soil, basically what somebody might come in to

19     contact with if they're walking out in the

20     area, if somebody is out hunting. Certainly

21     when we were up here doing our investigation we

22     saw a lot of people out on A.T.V.s,

23     snowmobiling. So, surface soil we looked at a


     Mary Beth Burnham,  Court Reporter  (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     total of twenty-nine different locations spread

 2     around this area.

 3          We did a groundwater investigation. And

 4     here's a closeup view.  Here is the site

 5     itself. There's a total of thirty-one

 6     different monitoring wells, which is basically

 7     just, you know,  think of it as a pipe that's

 8     stuck down in the ground. Sometimes it's going

 9     to be drilled in down -- all the way down into

10     the bedrock. Some of them are in the shallow

11     area. We went out into the southern wetlands.

12     This area here.  And there's groundwater from

13     here — from the site that flows down the

14     southern wetland.  We went out during the

15     winter, basically so we wouldn't disrupt the

16     wetland by having to put in roads. We

17     installed eight of our monitoring wells. And

18     then we came back in August of '93 we sampled a

19     grand total of thirty-one wells to try to

20     delineate what was happening to the

21     groundwater.

22          The final portion of our investigation was

23     an ecological investigation. For us that


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     started with doing wetland delineation using

 2     the New York State and the Corps of Engineers

 3     criteria.  We did what we call flora and fauna

 4     surveys. Basically we went out walking through

 5     the wetlands looking at both kind of trees,

 6     groundcover, what kind of habit essentially

 7     that are formed. We also did fauna surveys.

 8     We did those in the Lawrence Brook near the

 9     site. And basically,  trying to figure out what

10     kind of fish and other things live there. We

11     did it in the wetlands in the nearby area. And

12     then we came back in after we had basically

13     assessed what kind of creatures lived in the

14     environment and sampled some of them to see if

15     any of them were carrying contamination in

16     their body.

17          And we based where we sampled the critters

18     based on where we had done sediment sampling.

19     And we focused on the areas that had the

20     highest amount of contamination. For example,

21     from the site and along the draining pathway

22     here and then right out here in what's called

23     western wetlands, we sampled frogs. We sampled


     Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site, OU-2 Contamination Pathways
       Public Meeting, 7/13/98
       Presentation

 1     shrews. And we sampled earthworms looking for

 2     the levels of contamination that they would

 3     have in their body because it's a way that you

 4     can look at ecological risk. As other animals

 5     higher up the food chain eat those,  you want to

 6     make sure that they don't have a risk from

 7     consuming any kind of contaminated animal. So,

 8     that was the overall scope of the work we've

 9     done.

10          The results: In surface water,  we didn't

11     find anything. We found some elevated

12     concentrations in this drainage ditch

13     immediately within the site. Drainage pathways

14     out through here and out through Lawrence

15     Brook, we didn't have any constituents of

16     concern.

17          In sediment, we focused — back up. In

18     sediment, we sampled the southern wetland, the

19     western wetland, and all through the drainage

20     pathways. We ended up really initializing on

21     two areas. In the western wetland, we found

22     predominately P.C.B.s and lead in the highest

23     concentrations right at the end of the O.U. One


Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315) 379-0205

-------
     York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways  23
      Public Meeting,  7/13/98
      Presentation

 1      area right in  the western wetland,  and then

2       through the  drainage  pathway through the

3       western wetlands.  And then if you continue  up

4       north of Lawrence Road in an area that's  termed

5       in the document  here  as the northwestern

6       wetlands,  in diminishing levels.  However, we

7       still have concentrations up in here that

8       exceed New York  State screening criteria. So

9       there's a potential for ecological  risk there.

10             Surface soil,  as we said,  we  found some

11      low levels of  P.C.B.s in the areas  immediately

12      adjacent to  the  site.  Subsurface soil,  we did

13      some soil borings in  the areas immediately

14      adjacent to  the  site.  A couple of those we

15      also found P.C.B.s.

16             Groundwater, I'd like to talk about  a

17      little bit more  and drop back to my site. As  I

18      mentioned earlier, groundwater as we found  by

19      looking at how high the groundwater elevations

20      are and monitoring well and also by sampling

21      and — sampling  the groundwater for chemical

22      constituents.  We defined a plume of solvents

23      in the groundwater. It extends about three

      Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter   (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        24
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       hundred,  four hundred feet  out  into this  area

 2       called the  southern wetlands. There's

 3       currently --  it's  a New York State  regulated

 4       wetland.  It's not  -- to our knowledge,  it

 5       isn't really  able  to go and develop that.

 6       There's currently  no houses there.  So  there's

 7       no current  use of  groundwater.  However, the

 8       concentrations exceed both  New  York State and

 9       federal standards  and,  therefore, they would be

10       a potential human  health risk.  If somebody was

11       to go out here and put a well and pump on that

12       and use that  water,  that would  exceed  drinking

13       water criteria.

14            The last thing I want  to talk  about  is  the

15       biological  tissue  residues.  As  I said,  both

16       frogs,  earthworms,  and shrews that  we  sampled

17       in this area  and along the  edge of  the western

18       wetland,  we found  P.C.B.s and lead  in  those

19       that we can definitely say  are  associated with

20       the site. It  wasn't at levels that  would  cause

21       an acute -- meaning that the animals are  still

22       running around out there. They  have part  per

23       million of  P.C.B.  in their  tissue,  but nothing

       Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        25
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       that's  making them drop dead in their tracks.

 2       But that  derives  the ecological risk and,

 3       therefore,  says  that this  area needs to be

 4       looked  at for remediation.

 5              Any  questions so far?

 6              MR.  BERNAS:  We'll take  our  questions  at

 7        the end.

 8              MR.  THOMPSON:  Okay.

 9              So conclusions,  for  groundwater,  as I

10       mentioned,  we exceed both  federal  and state

11       standards and the objective then becomes to

12       prevent human contact with that groundwater

13       until such  a time that it's remediated.

14              The  other  media of  concern  is sediment.

15       We found  no current human  health risk from

16       contact with it.  However,  there's  an

17       ecological  risk  associated with the area of

18       highest contamination,  and that needs to be

19       remediated.

20              So our --  I  won't define all the  fine

21       terms that  come  out of Superfund.  R.A.O. is

22       the remedial action objective,  but the point is

23       that if you have  sediment  contamination that



       Mary Beth Burnham,  Court Reporter (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways    26
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       leaves  an ecological  risk  you need to  do

 2       something about  it.

 3              The next  piece  of the  process that we

 4       did —  and what  I  just went  through is

 5       basically looking  at  the remedial

 6       investigation. That's  trying to  define where

 7       the problem  and  the nature and extent  of  it.

 8              The second  piece is called  feasibility

 9       study.  The feasibility study is  used to assess

10       what we do about it,  how much will it  cost, and

11       how long will  it take,  and what  will its

12       effectiveness  be.

13              And for sediment we looked  at really three

14       different alternatives. The  law  that drives

15       this entire  process,  National Contingency Plan,

16       it  says we have  to look no action  as a point of

17       comparison.  So,  we looked  at no  action and we

18       said, you know,  that's not going to cost

19       anything.  It's going  to drive us to monitor

20       for the long term. And when  we talk about

21       monitoring for the long term,  we're talking

22       about going  out  and assessing this on  a

23       periodic basis for thirty  years. And that's

       Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        27
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       how you can come  up with two hundred and twenty

 2       thousand dollars  for long term monitoring.

 3              The  second alternative was  to go  in  to

 4       this area of the  western wetland,  and here  is

 5       North Lawrence  Road.  We're sitting over  here

 6       at  the site.  Go in to this area and up in the

 7       drainage channel  that goes up to the North

 8       Lawrence Road and dig that material out,  add it

 9       in  to what's about to be done for Operable  Unit

10       One and go  in and then revegetate and restore

11       the area after  we're done.

12              The  second component of that alternative

13       was then to go  -- actually you can put those on

14       top of each other.  That's the Northwest

15       wetlands.  It had  -- in this yellow area  had

16       much lower  levels of contamination,  however,

17       they're still sufficient that they exceeded

18       ecological  health screening criteria.  So, the

19       second piece is to go in and monitor that long

20     term.

21          Alternative  three is basically just to go

22     in and presumptively remediate that area right

23     off the bat as well.


       Mary Beth Burnham,  Court Reporter    (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        28
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1              The  groundwater, we  also  looked  at  three

 2       options.  One  is  no action,  which basically

 3       just  means  don't do anything further.

 4              Alternative two  is labeled as natural

 5       attenuation.  And in the last,  really since we

 6       started this  project the  science of being  able

 7       to figure out what happens  underground  has

 8       increased tremendously. And what we realize

 9       now is  that these solvents  that  are in  the

10       ground  are  degraded biologically over time.

11       We've come  up with a whole  bunch of new

12       laboratory  technigues to  be able to track

13       what's  going  on.  So,  alternative two says

14       natural attenuation,  institutional controls,

15       and long-term monitoring.

16            So,  with the natural attenuation it's a

17       matter  of going  out to  the  monitoring wells and

18       collecting  various kinds  of samples so  you can

19       track the natural attenuation process.

20              Institutional  controls  means basically

21       putting a deed restriction  on that property so

22       you can't go  into that  property  in the  future

23       and build on  it  or put  in a drinking water


       Mary Beth Burnham, Court  Reporter          (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        29
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       well.  That will protect people over the time

 2       period span for  that  to occur.

 3             And the last is to actually go and in put

 4       in extraction wells,  pump the water out, and

 5       put it through a treatment  system and put it

 6       back into the ground.

 7             Now I'll  just  overview the costs. For the

 8       natural  attenuation approach we're dealing with

 9       a -- when we  say present worth cost that's how

10       much dollars  we  need  in hand in the bank today

11       to fund  it for thirty years. And  that cost

12       would be six  hundred  thousand dollars.

13             For going out  and doing active pumping and

14       treatment --  treating that  water  it would be

15     about one  point seven million dollars.

16             One of the  things we looked at is how long

17       will it  take  under either scenario. We  did

18       some --  some  computer modeling or basically

19       trying to look at  it  and say how  long it will

20       take.  It's about ten  years  once the Operable

21       Unit One basically cuts off the source  of the

22       solvents, about  ten years for it  to remediate

23       under natural attenuation.  Because groundwater


       Mary Beth  Burnham, Court Reporter  (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways     30
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       flows  very slowly through this  area  and  you can

 2       only pump so much out  of  the  ground,  it  would

 3       take about seven years to do  it under active

 4       pumping and treatment.  So,  the  time  scale  is

 5       very similar.

 6              I  let me  back up.  I  know I  just skipped

 7       over the  cost for the  sediment.  On the

 8       sediment  the no  action alternative doing

 9       nothing except monitoring for the  next thirty

10       year is about two hundred and twenty thousand

11       dollars.

12              To go in,  as I  mentioned, and dig out this

13       western wetland  all of it and incorporate  it in

14       to the remedy is -- I  have to look at it

15       because I don't  have memorized,  three point two

16       nine million dollars.  And then  to  add in this

17       area up here up  in the northwestern  wetlands

18       you can add about another million  dollars  to

19       that total.  Give you a total  of about four

20       million dollars  to make that  happen.

21              Arnold is going to talk  about how EPA

22       makes  that selection.

23              When you  do a feasibility study you use

-------
       Mary Beth Burnham,  Court Reporter (315)  379-0205
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        31
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       nine  different  criteria  to  try to  evaluate  and

 2       come  up  with what  solution  makes sense  for  any

 3       particular problem.  Every remedy that we  look

 4       at  that  is potentially kept has to meet the

 5       first two.  They have to  comply or  they  have to

 6       protect  both human health and the  environment.

 7       They  also have  to  comply with what is called

 8       ARARs. ARARs are state and  federal laws.  And

 9       for example,  for groundwater it's  -- both state

10       and federal law say that we have to be  below a

11       certain  level of solvents for it to be  drinking

12       water guality.  So,  if a  remedy is  going to  be

13       selected,  it's  going to  have to meet state  and

14       federal  laws.

15             The next five are what we went through in

16       the feasibility study trying to balance.  And

17       that's looking  at  how does  this remedy  work in

18       the long term.  Is  it effective over the long

19       term?

20             The best example  of  that is looking  up at

21       the northwestern wetland. That's a forested

22       area.  If we go in and dig  it out,  we're  not

23       going to have fifty-year old trees in there any

       Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter          (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        32
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       more.  We're  going to have  an open area. And

 2       we're  going  to  have  to  plant saplings. And

 3       those  are  going to take a  long time  to recover.

 4              You look at how  does  this  approach  reduce

 5       the  toxicity or the  mobility or the  volume of

 6       contamination at any particular part of the

 7       site.

 8              Short term effectiveness looks primarily

 9       at things  like,  does this  remedy have a risk to

10       the  population.  If you're  digging or

11       disturbing something that's  contaminated how—

12       what impact  might that  have  on anybody that

13       lives  in the nearby  area.  That's  one of the

14       things we  weighed there. Implementability  is

15       simply are you  able  to  actually do something

16       effective  or make this  remedy work.

17              And cost is the  final factor.  You have to

18       assess,  the  ideas is you're  going to be cost

19       effective, but  it's  not going to be  at a risk

20       to human health and  the environment.  Cost  is a

21       secondary  factor after  protection.

22              The last two  factors  are basically  one of

23       the  reasons  we're here  tonight. Public

       Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter          (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        33
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       acceptance  is  very important.  And your

 2       comments  on the  approach that's  been proposed

 3       here for  this  site is  something  that EPA will

 4       weigh when  they  make their final decision.

 5             And  then  state  acceptance,  we have

 6       representatives  of New York State.  The State

 7       has  to concur  with where the remedy is going.

 8       So,  these nine factors are what  are weighed in

 9       trying to the  select the right decisions for

10       this site and  that's what Arnold is going to

11       present now.

12             MR.  BERNAS:  Okay,  thank you,  Bruce.

13             As you  can  tell from what Bruce had  to

14       say,  these  nine  factors take a lot of iteration

15       to come up  with  the final decision,  and that's

16       between the EPA  and the State. And after a  lot

17       of analysis on the pros and cons of each of the

18       three remedies that were suggested for

19       sediment, we decided to recommend as our

20       preferred alternative  two remedy,

21       which is  excavating the sediment in the western

22       wetland solidifying them.  Solidification,

23       again,  is the  process  of mixing  the sediment

       Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter     (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        34
         Public Meeting,  7/13/98
         Presentation
 1       with cement  so  the  contaminants  are  immobilized

 2       and disposing of  those  under  the cap that's

 3       going to be  placed  on the  site proper.  This

 4       way we would consolidate all  the contaminants

 5       under the O.U.  One  cap.

 6              Now to make  sure --  as Bruce  mentioned,

 7       there is some contamination in the northwestern

 8       wetland,  but it's on a  low level. However, it

 9       exceeds certain standards  for ecological

10       purposes.  And what  we are  going  to do there  is

11       we're going  to  do more  sampling  in that area

12       while we're  designing the  remedy for dredging

13       of the western  wetland. And when that later  is

14       evaluated by the  State  and the EPA,  we will

15       then decide  whether it  is  safe to bypass  the

16       remedy -- this  kind of  remedy for the

17       northwestern wetland. If we decide that the

18       data suggests there's too  much risk  to the

19       ecology,  then we  will excavate the contaminated

20       sediment in  the northwestern  wetland.  But the

21       decision now is to  do these studies  and see  if

22       it has to be done.

23              As  was mentioned, if we just  go ahead and


       Mary Beth Burnham,  Court  Reporter  (315) 379-0205

-------
      York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways  35
      Public Meeting,  7/13/98
      Presentation
 1       do it,  we're going to be  tearing up that

 2       wetland.  And it's  hard to restore a wetland to

 3       its natural  source.  So, we think that it's  not

 4       that -- the  levels are in a gray area and we

 5       want to study it  some more in that northwestern

 6       wetland.

 7              The remedy  that we selected for the

 8       groundwater  was the natural attenuation,

 9       institutional control,  and monitoring.

10              Now natural attenuation is a fancy word

11       for breakdown.  In  other words,  the volatile

12       organic compounds  that are the contaminants in

13       the water nature breaks them down in to

14       harmless  materials over time.  However, it's

15       not a hundred percent guarantee.  We have  to

16       monitor to make sure that this process is

17       happening. And that's what we're going to do.

18       It is a real thing.  It does happen,  but unless

19       you monitor  you're never  sure that it is  going

20       to happen to an extent where after the ten

21       years or  so  that  the levels of contaminant  will

22       meet the  State --  New York State reguirement

23       for drinking water standards.  That will be


       Mary Beth Burnham,  Court Reporter          (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        36
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       monitored.

 2              Institutional  controls,  as previously

 3       mentioned,  involve  getting deed restrictions  to

 4       make  sure  nobody is going to  be putting  any

 5       drinking water  wells  in the southern wetland.

 6       And that's going to be  done also.

 7              Monitoring is  what we've just explained;

 8       that  a  schedule will  be made  to sample these

 9       wells periodically  and  evaluate the  data to

10       make  sure  that  this breakdown process of the

11       contaminants  is occurring.

12              Now finally  to review  the cost of our

13       preferred  remedy, basically sediment two and

14       groundwater two add up  to the three  point eight

15       nine  million  dollars. And that's really  the

16       final selection at  this time  subject to  any

17       input that we get from  you folks or  anything

18       else  that  comes up  during the comment period.

19              We're  hoping to  -- that  we could

20       coordinate the  effort with the  first operable

21       unit, but  that's going  to be  something we're

22       going to try. In either event,  this  pretty

23       much  closes out our formal presentation  on the

       Mary Beth Burnham, Court  Reporter (315)  379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        37
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Presentation
 1       York Oil  Proposed Plan.  And at this time --

 2       okay,  Joel  Singerman would like to make a few

 3       more   remarks.

 4              MR.  SINGERMAN:  Okay,  just as a  reminder

 5       the remedy  that  Arnie described as the

 6       preferred remedy EPA and the State won't make a

 7       decision  until we've heard all public

 8       comments. You know,  all  the documents  related

 9       in the proposed  plan,  the remedial

10       investigation and feasibility study, I believe,

11       are available for your view in this building.

12       And if you  have  any comments following this

13       meeting,  we will accept  them up until  July

14       23rd.  You can fax them.  You can e-mail them.

15       You can telephone them.  You can mail them,

16       however you prefer.

17              The  last  point, we have a court

18       stenographer here tonight to make a transcript

19       of the meeting.  That if  you do speak,  in order

20       for us to have a complete record,  we would ask

21       that you  identify yourself before asking a

22       guestion. So at  this point,  if there are any

23       guestions,  we'd  be happy to answer them.


       Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter    (315) 379-0205

-------
      New York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways     38
      Public Meeting,  7/13/98
      Public Comment
 1             MR.  BERNAS:          Yes.

 2             MS.  MARTIN:          Christine Martin, from the

 3       Courier-Observer.    Throughout the entire

 4       what  I've  read and the  presentation,  the  term

 5       current  levels was used and we  talked about

 6       natural  attenuation.  Do we  have any idea  what

 7       they  --  those  levels  were for those P.C.B.s,

 8       arsenic, mercury and  lead twenty or thirty

 9       years ago?

10             MR.  BERNAS:   We have  some data from the

11       '80S.  We  don't know  what they  were like  thirty

12       years ago,  but I would  say  the  most — the data

13       that  we  have that's worth anything  is mostly

14       not before the '80s.

15             And the P.C.B.s  and  the  lead don't

16       attenuate.  The only thing that  could possible

17       attenuate  is the V.O.C.s. And we have some

18       evidence that  the V.O.C. levels and the types

19       of V.O.C.s that existed ten years ago have

20       changed  enough to give  us hope  that natural

21       attenuation will work.

22             So  the  answer  is  yes,  we have  those

23       levels.  And I  think in  the  Proposed Plan  it


       Mary Beth Burnham, Court  Reporter  (315) 379-0205

-------
       York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        39
       Public Meeting,  7/13/98
       Public Comment
 1       mentions  some of the  levels  that  existed.  And

 2       the  current  levels  are  lower and  also have

 3       changed composition,  which is an  indication

 4       that this attenuation process is  occurring.

 5              MS. MARTIN:  But  do  we have  any idea of

 6       how  toxic the area  was  twenty years  ago?  I

 7       mean was  it  far beyond  the federal guidelines

 8       that —?

 9              MR. BERNAS:  Well, certainly the first

10       operable  unit was.  That's  why we  did all  those

11       removal actions to  stabilize the  area. The

12       path -- the  contamination  pathways were

13       possibly  a little higher,  but we  don't think  so

14       in terms  of  P.C.B.  and  lead,  because they don't

15       change  much  over time.  But in terms  of the

16       V.O.C.s,  they might have been a little higher

17       ten  years ago,  but  I  wouldn't say

18       significantly.

19              Yes,  ma'am.

20              MS. HUTCHINS:  Rita  Hutchins,  Moira

21       supervisor.  Since the first  well  --  the

22       monitoring wells were put  in and  the

23       contamination identified,  do you  have a rate


       Mary Beth Burnham, Court  Reporter (315) 379-0205

-------
        York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        40
        Public Meeting,  7/13/98
        Public Comment
 1        that  you can say what  the  rate  of mitigation

 2        has been of the  contaminants  or is that

 3        identifiable?

 4              MR.  BERNAS: Well, again,  the  only

 5        contaminants that might  decrease are the

 6        mainly the  volatile  compounds.  And there  is

 7        some  evidence of a change  in  the nature of

 8        these volatile compounds,  which indicates

 9        degradation.  But,  for  example,  in the southern

10        wetlands, we don't have  any data from --  when

11        we did the  O.U.  One  remedial  investigation we

12        do have  that data. We  did  --  that's  why we did

13        the contamination pathways, because  we knew

14        that  it  was a good probability  that  the

15        contaminants were moving off  site. And that

16        was really  the purpose of  doing this study to

17        get the  numbers,  and that's what we  got now.

18        So, I can only speculate that the V.O.C.

19        numbers  might have been  a  little higher ten  or

20        twenty years ago.

21              Does that  answer  your  guestions?

22              MS.  HUTCHINS: Yeah.  I  just wonder  if  it

23        was identifiable that  it was  moving  anymore  so


        Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315) 379-0205

-------
        York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        41
        Public Meeting,  7/13/98
        Public Comment
 1        then what  was  first

 2              MR.  BERNAS:  In  terms  of  the migration,

 3        the  groundwater is  moving very  slowly towards

 4        the  south.  And York Oil  has  been around for,  I

 5        guess, from '64,  that's  thirty-four  years,  and

 6        the  extent of  the V.O.C.  contaminants were  only

 7        about five hundred  feet  south of the O.U. One

 8        site.  So,  that they are  moving very slowly.

 9        But  they -- right now, whatever they were

10        before,  I  can't say for  sure, but they only

11        exist about five hundred feet out. Beyond that

12        there's  nothing.  There's  no  contamination in

13        the  groundwater beyond that  point.

14              And we  fully believe  that once we

15        remediate  the  source that's  like it's going to

16        cut  the  supply of contamination off. So,

17        what's ever left in the  southern wetland will,

18        you  might  say,  dry  up  over time or as we call

19        it,  attenuate  to drinking water standards.

20              But that's what we'll find out in the

21        monitoring program.

22              Anyone  else?

23              Well, again,  as Joel  said, sometimes


        Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter   (315) 379-0205

-------
        York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        42
        Public Meeting,  7/13/98
        Public Comment
 1        people  feel  a little  bashful  about  asking

 2        guestions  in a public meeting,  but  don't

 3        hesitate to  just  write to  me  a  little  note  or

 4        fax or  e-mail anything that might come to you

 5        later on.  Hopefully,  doing it before July

 6        23rd, because we  have certain legal obligations

 7        to  move on with our  selection process.  It's

 8        not that we're trying to rush anybody,  but  it's

 9        just a  legal reguirement that we have  to  move

10        on.  And we certainly  would like to  hear from

11        you if  you think  of  anything  more to ask  us.

12               MS. HUTCHINS:  How much money did you say

13        has been spent to this point?

14               MR. BERNAS: On York Oil?

15               MS. HITCHINS:  Uh-huh.

16               MR. BERNAS: Probably five or six million

17        dollars. When it's all done it  will be twenty

18        or  twenty-five million dollars.

19               MR. THOMPSON:  This  study to  date is  just

20        under two  million for potential work that we've

21        done for the P.R.P.

22               MR. BERNAS: Well, that's just the  study,

23        but,  you know,  we all spent —  had  money  spent


        Mary Beth Burnham,  Court Reporter (315)  379-0205

-------
        York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        43
        Public Meeting,  7/13/98
        Public Comment
 1        in other areas,  but that  has  to be done.

 2              MR.  SINGERMAN:  But this  is  all being

 3        financed by the  potential responsible parties.

 4        It's  not being --  the  federal government  is  not

 5        paying for  this.

 6              MS.  MARTIN:  Do  you happen to have  a list

 7        of the seventy-five responsible parties?

 8              MR.  BERNAS:  Yes, we do.  I don't  have  it

 9        with  me,  but we  do have a list.

10              UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  Is  Franklin  County

11        one of them? Is  Franklin  County one of  them?

12              MR.  BERNAS:  Is  Franklin  County?

13              MR.  DiGUARDIA:  No.

14              MR.  BERNAS:  I don't think so. The  major

15        responsible parties are ALCOA and  Uncle Sam.

16              UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:  The United States

17        Air Force,  isn't it? The  Department of

18        Defense?

19              MR.  BERNAS:  As  I said, Uncle Sam.  Those

20        three are like seventy-five percent —  have

21        agreed to pay about seventy-five percent. And

22        the other seventy-two  are going are going to

23        put up the  ten percent and the  Superfund  will


        Mary, Beth Burnham,  Court  Reporter         (315)  379-0205

-------
        York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        44
        Public Meeting,  7/13/98
        Public Comment
 1        pay fifteen percent. As  I  said,  it  took a long

 2        time to  get this  agreement,  but  we're  there.

 3        We're moving on now.

 4              Anyone  else?

 5              MS.  HUTCHINS: I have  one  silly

 6        guestion -

 7              MR.  BERNAS:  Sure. That's  okay.

 8              MS.  HUTCHINS: —  or comment. As  the

 9        money is being spent to  remediate and  over  the

10        years, what would be the chance  of  a water

11        system being put  in the  town of  Moira  for the

12        residents?

13              MR.  BERNAS:  I haven't heard  any  — I

14        haven't  heard that before. I don't  think the

15        situation of contamination at York  Oil,

16        frankly,  I  don't  think it  would  warrant -

17              MS.  HUTCHINS: Okay.

18              MR.  BERNAS:  — a  public water system,

19        because  we've taken — Lou,  am I right? We've

20        taken samples from the surrounding  homes and to

21        this date we have no evidence of contamination.

22        Fortunately because of the geography,  the

23        groundwater is moving south  in to the  southern


        Mary Beth Burnham,  Court  Reporter           (315) 379-0205

-------
        York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways        45
        Public Meeting,  7/13/98
        Public Comment
 1        wetland and away from any residential homes.

 2        So,  I  think that would be a tough one.

 3               UNIDENTIFIED  SPEAKER: Are  you still  going

 4        to monitor wells? I  mean--.

 5               MR.  BERNAS: Yeah,  what  do  have them

 6        scheduled,  every couple of years  -- every two

 7        or three years?

 8               MR.  DiGUARDIA:  I think  so.

 9               MR.  SINGERMAN:  Anymore  guestions?

10               MR.  BERNAS: Okay,  well  if  there  are  no

11        more guestions,  thank you all  very much for

12        coming and participating in this  democratic

13        process.  And hopefully, we'll  see some

14        progress next year in finalizing  the York Oil

15        site.   Thanks again.

16               (The public meeting concluded at 8:00

17        P.M.)

18

19

20

21

22

23


       Mary Beth Burnham,  Court Reporter (315) 379-0205

-------
      York Oil Site,  OU-2 Contamination Pathways  46
      Public Meeting,  7/13/98
      Public Comment
 1       STATE OF NEW YORK         )

 2       COUNTY OF ST.  LAWRENCE     )

 3              I,  Mary Elizabeth  Burnham,  a Notary  Public  in the

 4       state of New York,  do hereby certify  that the foregoing

 5       public meeting was  taken  before me, in the  cause,  at the

 6       time and place,  as  stated in the caption hereto,  at Page

 7       1  hereof;  that the  foregoing typewritten transcription,

 8       consisting of pages number 1 to 45, inclusive,  is  a true

 9       record of my stenographic notes of all proceedings had at

10       the public meeting.

11    

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


      Mary Beth Burnham, Court Reporter  (315)  379-0205

-------
                    RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
                             EPA REGION 11


Site

Site name:          York Oil

Site location:       Moira,  New York

HRS score:          47.70 (Listed on the NPL:  9/11/83)

EPA ID Number:       NYD000511733

Record of Decision

Date signed:      9/29/98

Selected remedy: Excavation and/or dredging the contaminated sediments, followed by solidification/
stabilization/and on-Site disposal. Natural attenuation of the groundwater contamination, institutional
controls to prevent the installation and use of groundwater wells in the affected area, and long-term
monitoring.

Operable Unit Number: OU-2

Capital cost:          $3,170,000

Monitoring cost:    $57,600

Present-worth cost: $3,890,000

Lead                 Project is PRP lead; EPA is the lead agency

Primary Contact:    Arnold Bernas, Remedial Project Manager,
                     (212) 637-3964

Secondary Contact:  Joel Singerman, Chief, Central New York Remediation Section,  (212)
                    637-4258
Main PRPs

Aluminum Co. of America, U.S. Dept. of the Air Force, U.S. Dept. of the Army, and U.S. Dept. of
Transportation

Waste

Waste type: Metals, phenolics, and PCBs

Waste origin:        Oil recycling

Contaminated medium: Groundwater and sediments

-------